David Little of Atlantic Canada has refused to pay taxes since the year 2000 in protest of the Canadian Government's abortion laws. Finally today, after a long battle with the Canada Revenue Agency, charges against Mr. Little were dropped and they believe he would be unable to pay taxes anyway.
He was fined $3000 in 2007, but did not pay it.
David Little believes it is his moral right to refuse to pay taxes because some of the money he provides pays for abortion.
Apparently the man is living off the hand-outs of others and spends his time between PEI and New Brunswick.
Is there a moral basis for this man's actions? What are the impacts of this?
I have heard many times people who believed it was within their rights to refuse to pay taxes because they fund abortion. In the US, virtually all abortions are paid for privately. This makes a lot of sense since abortion is always optional. In the event that the life of the mother is threatened, civil and moral law would allow the mother's life to be saved, even if the child were to die as an unintended consequence.
Therefore, the government should not pay for an optional procedure which causes the death of at least half of those who enter the abortionist's room (the child).
But can we refuse to pay taxes because of this? When I first read the article, I wondered how he could justify not paying ANY taxes whatsoever. Obviously, not all tax money goes toward abortion. In fact, only a percentage does. By refusing to pay taxes, Mr. Little also refuses to pay for heart surgery, roads, and care for the elderly. But then I thought about it further. If he pays taxes at all, he cannot dictate where the money goes. If he owes $1000, and only pays $900, then he cannot specify that his $900 pay for non-abortion costs. Therefore, even if he pays one cent, it could potentially go to abortion.
But if this man wanted to subtract the percentage of tax dollars that go to abortion, what perecentage would it be?
According to Life Canada, a low estimate for the cost of abortion is around $80 million per year in Canada (estimated around 2001). Total tax expenditure in Canada for 2008-2009 was $238.8 billion. However, in order to compare apples to apples, let's use Canada's 2001 expenditure which was $196.5 billion. Therefore, the government spends about 0.04% of its budget killing children. If a man filed a tax return for $10,000 for the year, he would have to subtract $4.
We are not required morally to refuse to pay taxes for abortion. However, we cannot support it in any direct way. I think it's good that this man is bringing attention to this travesty. More people need to stand up for their values.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Sorry about my long absence
I have not posted any new articles since last Monday. Don't worry, however. I will be posting several articles over the next few days. There should be one shortly. Thanks for continuing to read my blog. I am now up to 20 followers.
Monday, August 09, 2010
Atheist does something surprising
Today I read an article about a rich atheist Robert Wilson. He gave an enormous financial contribution to the Archdiocese of New York. He gave a whopping $5.6 million! This is a very awesome gift from Mr. Wilson.
He believes the Catholic schools do more good than union-run state schools in the inner-city. He says they do a better job with the 3 Rs - reading, writing and arithmetic.
Robert Wilson has a lot of money. He turned an initial investment of $15,000 into $225 million. He now wants to give away about 70% of it before his death.
At age 84, Mr. Wilson is good friends with the archbishop Edward Cardinal Egan. They sometimes sit down for a meal and conversation. The archbishop applauded this donation. According to Business Week, Wilson is the 23rd largest giver in America.
Of course the archbishop says he is looking forward to the day that Robert WIlson believes in God.
Friday, August 06, 2010
Thursday, August 05, 2010
Nun killed by drunk illegal alien
A man from Bolivia illegally came to the United States, was convicted twice of DUI charges and released both times back into the public. This third time he got drunk, got behind the wheel of his car, and ended up hitting and killing a Benedictine Sister from Virginia.
The nun's name is Denise Mosier. Two other nuns were injured in this incident: Charlotte Lange and Connie Ruth Lupton. This is a very sad story. The convent where these nuns were from say we must follow Christ's example and forgive. This is a very powerful statement.
Let's pray for everyone involved.
Full article here.
The nun's name is Denise Mosier. Two other nuns were injured in this incident: Charlotte Lange and Connie Ruth Lupton. This is a very sad story. The convent where these nuns were from say we must follow Christ's example and forgive. This is a very powerful statement.
Let's pray for everyone involved.
Full article here.
Prop 8 Overturned Against the Will of the People
A judge has overturned California's Prop 8 ruling. Of course, when it went to referendum, the people of California upheld the definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman. But a judge claims this is unconstitutional and it has been overturned.
Of course, we also know that in Argentina, the government is allowing same sex marriage, the first South American country to do so. How is this happening? Who is to blame? Should anyone be allowed to get married?
I think it all comes back to the definition and purpose of marriage. Heterosexual couples are as much to blame for this situation as anyone else because everyday people have lost the true meaning of marriage.
Our modern day view of marriage is quite different than it has been historically. Nowadays people view marriage as an arrangement indicating that two people have loving feelings for each other and decide they want to be together. That's it. That's marriage.
With this definition, how can you deny any two people the possibility of marrying? I believe that's why heterosexual couples are to blame for this current state of affairs.
Historically, marriage was viewed as a covenant between a man and a woman to form the building block of society which is the family. Children naturally sprang forth from the love of spouses. Childlessness was seen as a very sad thing. Also, love was not a fleeting feeling, but rather a decision of the will. Divorce also was not an option because it was believed that God joined this couple together.
But from that original definition, we have dramatically strayed. Marriage has become about fuzzy feelings of a couple. Children are no longer a natural offshoot of a marriage but are carefully planned through contraception and possibly abortion. Parents will "design" a perfect family - them and one boy and one girl. The children are almost ego-boosts.
Once the fuzzy feelings end, many couples decide to divorce, caring nothing about the develpoment of their children. They are falsely told it's much better for the children if they split up. Plus, why just stay for these kids. They have needs which aren't being met. It's completely selfish.
Many couples even choose to not have any children at all. Not that they are unable to have children, they simply choose that path. Children are completely optional to a marriage. In fact, the permanence of marriage is something fewer and fewer people believe in.
So if marriage is nothing more than a mere feeling between two people, how can we justify it being only between a man and a woman.
Homosexual marriage is not valid as it is opposed to what marriage actually is. Marriage IS something. It has a definition. What exactly IS marriage? Well, nowadays there would be many different answers. However, historically the answer has always been the union of a man and woman for life for unity and the procreation of children. Therefore, I find it odd when people say marriage is a "right" for gay people. Obviously if the definition of marriage precludes relationships other than man-woman, then it is not a right.
Where do rights come from in the first place? Rights have limitations by definition, so to claim that everyone has the same rights is not true. Would it be correct for a 14 year old to claim he has the right to drive a vehicle? How about a drunk person, or someone with poor eyesight? The right to drive is given to people who are capable of fitting the definition of what constitutes a legal driver.
So what is marriage? If we include two people of the same sex as a possible combination for marriage, then we radically change the definition. It now comes down to a fleeting feeling. It's not about children, or procreativity, or sexual complementarity, or complementarity in general, or permanence. Obviously it loses its religious basis, since virtually no religion endorses same sex marriage. It becomes a legal agreement between two individuals.
What then would prevent a father and daughter from marrying, or two buddies, or any other combination of people? Why not three, four, five, or more people in a single marriage?
Obviously the government recognizes marriage for some reason. It does not recognize mere relationships. You do not have to apply to the government to date someone or to fall in love with them. So the government recognizes something more than an intimate relationship in marriage that makes it worth official government status. They recognize its benefit to society. Marriage is the building block of society because as the family goes, so goes the country, and ultimately the world.
Once the government recognizes any grouping of people as "marriage", it will lose all benefit. There will be no need for the government to even recognize marriage at all.
Prop 8 is probably going to go to the Supreme Court of the United States. Hopefully there they will do the right thing.
Of course, we also know that in Argentina, the government is allowing same sex marriage, the first South American country to do so. How is this happening? Who is to blame? Should anyone be allowed to get married?
I think it all comes back to the definition and purpose of marriage. Heterosexual couples are as much to blame for this situation as anyone else because everyday people have lost the true meaning of marriage.
Our modern day view of marriage is quite different than it has been historically. Nowadays people view marriage as an arrangement indicating that two people have loving feelings for each other and decide they want to be together. That's it. That's marriage.
With this definition, how can you deny any two people the possibility of marrying? I believe that's why heterosexual couples are to blame for this current state of affairs.
Historically, marriage was viewed as a covenant between a man and a woman to form the building block of society which is the family. Children naturally sprang forth from the love of spouses. Childlessness was seen as a very sad thing. Also, love was not a fleeting feeling, but rather a decision of the will. Divorce also was not an option because it was believed that God joined this couple together.
But from that original definition, we have dramatically strayed. Marriage has become about fuzzy feelings of a couple. Children are no longer a natural offshoot of a marriage but are carefully planned through contraception and possibly abortion. Parents will "design" a perfect family - them and one boy and one girl. The children are almost ego-boosts.
Once the fuzzy feelings end, many couples decide to divorce, caring nothing about the develpoment of their children. They are falsely told it's much better for the children if they split up. Plus, why just stay for these kids. They have needs which aren't being met. It's completely selfish.
Many couples even choose to not have any children at all. Not that they are unable to have children, they simply choose that path. Children are completely optional to a marriage. In fact, the permanence of marriage is something fewer and fewer people believe in.
So if marriage is nothing more than a mere feeling between two people, how can we justify it being only between a man and a woman.
Homosexual marriage is not valid as it is opposed to what marriage actually is. Marriage IS something. It has a definition. What exactly IS marriage? Well, nowadays there would be many different answers. However, historically the answer has always been the union of a man and woman for life for unity and the procreation of children. Therefore, I find it odd when people say marriage is a "right" for gay people. Obviously if the definition of marriage precludes relationships other than man-woman, then it is not a right.
Where do rights come from in the first place? Rights have limitations by definition, so to claim that everyone has the same rights is not true. Would it be correct for a 14 year old to claim he has the right to drive a vehicle? How about a drunk person, or someone with poor eyesight? The right to drive is given to people who are capable of fitting the definition of what constitutes a legal driver.
So what is marriage? If we include two people of the same sex as a possible combination for marriage, then we radically change the definition. It now comes down to a fleeting feeling. It's not about children, or procreativity, or sexual complementarity, or complementarity in general, or permanence. Obviously it loses its religious basis, since virtually no religion endorses same sex marriage. It becomes a legal agreement between two individuals.
What then would prevent a father and daughter from marrying, or two buddies, or any other combination of people? Why not three, four, five, or more people in a single marriage?
Obviously the government recognizes marriage for some reason. It does not recognize mere relationships. You do not have to apply to the government to date someone or to fall in love with them. So the government recognizes something more than an intimate relationship in marriage that makes it worth official government status. They recognize its benefit to society. Marriage is the building block of society because as the family goes, so goes the country, and ultimately the world.
Once the government recognizes any grouping of people as "marriage", it will lose all benefit. There will be no need for the government to even recognize marriage at all.
Prop 8 is probably going to go to the Supreme Court of the United States. Hopefully there they will do the right thing.
Wednesday, August 04, 2010
Larry King is taken over by adultery advocates
Tonight on the Larry King Live Show, there are three women talking about adultery. Out of the three, only one is against it, and the other two claim that adultery can be a good or beneficial thing. It's almost hard to believe that people have such opinions. The basic premise is that men are natural cheaters because they are naturally polygamous. Therefore it is better to negotiate an arragement with the husband than to be emotionally affected when he cheats.
One of the ladies, Holly Hill, who seemed unable to stop speaking the entire time, continuously compared men to dogs and said it's better to give them a leash and control them somewhat than to force them to stay completely committed cause them to eventually dig a whole under the fence and escape.
The way she was speaking about this was the same way proponents of abortion speak when they say it's better to keep abortion legal and safe rather than illegal and unsafe. But this presupposes that it will happen regardless. But by making something acceptable only increases that behavior.
Bethenny Frankel is the only one on the show who disagrees with this belief and she is rightfully flabbergasted that these two other women can so easily accept and condone infidelity.
But what about the claim that men are by nature polygamous? I believe this is a total fabrication. As people, we are called to a higher standard than farm animals, because we have a rational mind and can make moral decisions. We do not need to indulge our every urge no matter how fleeting.
Saying a man is naturally inclined to have sex with lots of women is like saying a man is naturally inclined to empty his bowels wherever he happens to be at the time or to kill anyone he gets angry with, or to constantly eat junk food and nothing else, or to lie on the couch all day and do no work. These things all represent giving into our concupiscence and base desires. They do not represent commendable traits.
Our society is built on the idea of proper order. Those who refuse to follow this order create chaos and discord. Marriage is a natural union that has developed in all cultures around the globe. The reason is that it is the best building block of society. If cheating were "natural", then divorce would be easy, as would breakups. Children would easily get over their father leaving them. Yet none of these are true.
On top of this, many studies show that married men are the healthiest and happiest overall of all men, as opposed to men who just always sleep around.
Finally, look at divorce. I believe people who go from partner to partner before marriage are more likely to divorce than people who seek commitment and fidelity. Most marriages in India are arranged and their divorce rate is around 1%. Compare this to the American model where divorce rates are as high as 50%. It is common for people to have 5, 6, 7, even 10 or more sex partners before they decide to marry. This only paves the way for future infidelity.
This idea may sound outrageous to many people, the concept of incorporating infidelity into marriage as a normal thing. Keep in mind though that many even more immoral things were initially met with ridicule but now only those who speak up against them are the victims of ridicule!
One of the ladies, Holly Hill, who seemed unable to stop speaking the entire time, continuously compared men to dogs and said it's better to give them a leash and control them somewhat than to force them to stay completely committed cause them to eventually dig a whole under the fence and escape.
The way she was speaking about this was the same way proponents of abortion speak when they say it's better to keep abortion legal and safe rather than illegal and unsafe. But this presupposes that it will happen regardless. But by making something acceptable only increases that behavior.
Bethenny Frankel is the only one on the show who disagrees with this belief and she is rightfully flabbergasted that these two other women can so easily accept and condone infidelity.
But what about the claim that men are by nature polygamous? I believe this is a total fabrication. As people, we are called to a higher standard than farm animals, because we have a rational mind and can make moral decisions. We do not need to indulge our every urge no matter how fleeting.
Saying a man is naturally inclined to have sex with lots of women is like saying a man is naturally inclined to empty his bowels wherever he happens to be at the time or to kill anyone he gets angry with, or to constantly eat junk food and nothing else, or to lie on the couch all day and do no work. These things all represent giving into our concupiscence and base desires. They do not represent commendable traits.
Our society is built on the idea of proper order. Those who refuse to follow this order create chaos and discord. Marriage is a natural union that has developed in all cultures around the globe. The reason is that it is the best building block of society. If cheating were "natural", then divorce would be easy, as would breakups. Children would easily get over their father leaving them. Yet none of these are true.
On top of this, many studies show that married men are the healthiest and happiest overall of all men, as opposed to men who just always sleep around.
Finally, look at divorce. I believe people who go from partner to partner before marriage are more likely to divorce than people who seek commitment and fidelity. Most marriages in India are arranged and their divorce rate is around 1%. Compare this to the American model where divorce rates are as high as 50%. It is common for people to have 5, 6, 7, even 10 or more sex partners before they decide to marry. This only paves the way for future infidelity.
This idea may sound outrageous to many people, the concept of incorporating infidelity into marriage as a normal thing. Keep in mind though that many even more immoral things were initially met with ridicule but now only those who speak up against them are the victims of ridicule!
Tuesday, August 03, 2010
Fr. Tom Kelly - You will be missed
Father Tom Kelly passed away on Friday, July 30th at the Leonard A. Miller Centre in St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada. He will be missed. I attended his funeral today at St. Teresa's at 9:30am. The entire church was packed with people. You could tell many of them were touched in their lives by Fr. Tom. He was a very down to Earth man and had a very simple message of God's love. He also had a really good sense of humour. I discovered today that Fr. Tom spent many years teaching at a seminary.
Fr. Tom preached in a very simple manner, as St. Alphonsus Liguori had envisioned when he founded the order. St. Alphonsus brought the gospel to the poor and working class using simple language, which contrasted the often theologically-heavy homilies of many priests of the day.
Fr. Tom was kind of like an old buddy. He always had a witty comment to make or a joke to share. He didn't concern himself with the details and was unconcerned or against what he viewed as superfluous or unnecessary things in the Church.
From many illnesses and hospital visits, Fr. Tom always seemed to bounce back. He was definitely a fighter. At the same time, he often wondered aloud what his first encounter with the Lord in Heaven would be like. He had an answer prepared for this time, and I can imagine him saying it now as he meets Jesus: "Here I am Lord".
===
Here is Fr. Tom's obituary:
Kelly, Fr. Thomas Irving, C.Ss.R. - Fr. Tom Kelly C.Ss.R., born May 10, 1928 at Amherstburg, Ontario passed away peacefully at the Leonard A. Miller Centre Palliative Care Unit on July 30, 2010 at the age of 82 years. He was predeceased by his parents Irving T. Kelly and Monica Scott Kelly; sister Eleanor (Frabotta) in 1993 and his brother Fr. James Scott Kelly, C.S.B. in 1996. Leaving to mourn his passing his sister Eileen (Norm) Purdie; his brother Fr. Abbott Timothy Kelly OCSO, Rome; five nieces and one nephew and their families; and close personal friends Clyde, Carol and Nadine Hodder. He will be lovingly remembered by his Religious Community, his brothers of the Edmonton-Toronto Province of the Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer (Redemptorists). His passing will be mourned by his parish family at St. Teresa's in Mundy Pond as well as his dialysis family at the Waterford/HSC. Resting at home - St. Teresa's Church, 120 Mundy Pond Road on Sunday from 7:30 p.m. - 10 p.m. and Monday from 12:00 noon - 5 p.m. and 7 p.m. - 10 p.m. Vigil of prayer to take place on Monday at 8 p.m. Mass of Christian Burial will be celebrated at St. Teresa's Church on Tuesday, August 3, 2010 at 9:30 a.m. Mass as well on Thursday, August 5, 2010 at St. Patrick's Church, McCaul Street, Toronto. Burial will take place in Toronto at the Redemptorist Plot, Mount Hope Cemetery. In lieu of flowers, donations may be made to St. Vincent de Paul - St. Teresa's, Kidney Foundation of Canada or a charity of one's choice. Mother of Perpetual Help, St. Teresa, St. Alphonsus, pray for him.
Fr. Tom preached in a very simple manner, as St. Alphonsus Liguori had envisioned when he founded the order. St. Alphonsus brought the gospel to the poor and working class using simple language, which contrasted the often theologically-heavy homilies of many priests of the day.
Fr. Tom was kind of like an old buddy. He always had a witty comment to make or a joke to share. He didn't concern himself with the details and was unconcerned or against what he viewed as superfluous or unnecessary things in the Church.
From many illnesses and hospital visits, Fr. Tom always seemed to bounce back. He was definitely a fighter. At the same time, he often wondered aloud what his first encounter with the Lord in Heaven would be like. He had an answer prepared for this time, and I can imagine him saying it now as he meets Jesus: "Here I am Lord".
===
Here is Fr. Tom's obituary:
Kelly, Fr. Thomas Irving, C.Ss.R. - Fr. Tom Kelly C.Ss.R., born May 10, 1928 at Amherstburg, Ontario passed away peacefully at the Leonard A. Miller Centre Palliative Care Unit on July 30, 2010 at the age of 82 years. He was predeceased by his parents Irving T. Kelly and Monica Scott Kelly; sister Eleanor (Frabotta) in 1993 and his brother Fr. James Scott Kelly, C.S.B. in 1996. Leaving to mourn his passing his sister Eileen (Norm) Purdie; his brother Fr. Abbott Timothy Kelly OCSO, Rome; five nieces and one nephew and their families; and close personal friends Clyde, Carol and Nadine Hodder. He will be lovingly remembered by his Religious Community, his brothers of the Edmonton-Toronto Province of the Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer (Redemptorists). His passing will be mourned by his parish family at St. Teresa's in Mundy Pond as well as his dialysis family at the Waterford/HSC. Resting at home - St. Teresa's Church, 120 Mundy Pond Road on Sunday from 7:30 p.m. - 10 p.m. and Monday from 12:00 noon - 5 p.m. and 7 p.m. - 10 p.m. Vigil of prayer to take place on Monday at 8 p.m. Mass of Christian Burial will be celebrated at St. Teresa's Church on Tuesday, August 3, 2010 at 9:30 a.m. Mass as well on Thursday, August 5, 2010 at St. Patrick's Church, McCaul Street, Toronto. Burial will take place in Toronto at the Redemptorist Plot, Mount Hope Cemetery. In lieu of flowers, donations may be made to St. Vincent de Paul - St. Teresa's, Kidney Foundation of Canada or a charity of one's choice. Mother of Perpetual Help, St. Teresa, St. Alphonsus, pray for him.
Latin vs. Vernacular Mass
A big debate among strong Catholics is whether to attend the Tridentine Mass, which is celebrated in Latin or to attend the vernacular Mass which was made a possibility following the Second Vatican Council.
There are two extremes in this debate. One side is strong proponents of the traditional Latin Mass. They believe it continues a liturgical tradition dating back many centuries and is preserved to this day. They believe the new form of Mass, in the vernacular, represents an unnecessary novelty in Catholic worship. Some even go so far as to say the vernacular form of Mass is invalid.
On the other extreme are those who are strongly opposed to the Latin Mass. They see it as going back to the past and refusing to modernize. They believe the Mass hasn't gone far enough, and that even more changes need to be made, including the removal of priestly vestments, the inclusion of women in the priesthood, married clergy, and much greater lay participation. This is only talking about the liturgy. They also want the church to change on many moral issues.
Again, these are the two extremes. There are those in the middle as well, from both sides. Some people really enjoy the Latin Mass and believe it is the best form of liturgy or at least their preference, but they are also not against the vernacular service. As well, there are those who prefer the vernacular Mass, but think it's fine to have the Latin Mass as well.
I believe what has actually happened is that many have gone beyond what was promulgated in Vatican II.
For example:
- It is common for lay people to be present in the sanctuary during Mass, however this was not mentioned during Vatican II
- Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion have become "ordinary". In some churches, they are present at every Mass as a matter of course. In fact, these ministers are only supposed to be used as their name implies, in "extraordinary" circumstances. For example, the priest is injured and cannot give communion to all people.
- Everyone goes to communion. It is now common practice for every person at church to go to communion regardless. However, only those in the state of grace should go, and only Catholics.
- Latin was never forbidden in the vernacular masses. Many Latin and even Greek phrases can and often should be used in vernacular Masses.
- The Latin Mass was never replaced by the vernacular Mass. Many are under the false assumption that with the advent of Vatican II, the Latin Mass was relegated to history. This is not the case and the current pope is reintroducing the Latin Mass as a more common form of the Mass.
- Some of the language used in the vernacular does not properly reflect the Latin. This will be corrected very soon.
My personal opinion is that I generally enjoy going to the vernacular or common Mass. I can understand it better and take a lot from it. I believe they need to incorporate Latin elements because they can be easily learned and can add some history to the experience as well as reverence.
I also attend Latin Mass occasionally. I find it offers a different perspective and reflects the fact that we are offering a sacrifice to God which is eternal and it's not about the priest's homily or the good music or "having fun", it's about celebrating God as well as Jesus in the Eucharist.
I think our best approach is to come to an appreciation for both forms of the Mass.
There are two extremes in this debate. One side is strong proponents of the traditional Latin Mass. They believe it continues a liturgical tradition dating back many centuries and is preserved to this day. They believe the new form of Mass, in the vernacular, represents an unnecessary novelty in Catholic worship. Some even go so far as to say the vernacular form of Mass is invalid.
On the other extreme are those who are strongly opposed to the Latin Mass. They see it as going back to the past and refusing to modernize. They believe the Mass hasn't gone far enough, and that even more changes need to be made, including the removal of priestly vestments, the inclusion of women in the priesthood, married clergy, and much greater lay participation. This is only talking about the liturgy. They also want the church to change on many moral issues.
Again, these are the two extremes. There are those in the middle as well, from both sides. Some people really enjoy the Latin Mass and believe it is the best form of liturgy or at least their preference, but they are also not against the vernacular service. As well, there are those who prefer the vernacular Mass, but think it's fine to have the Latin Mass as well.
I believe what has actually happened is that many have gone beyond what was promulgated in Vatican II.
For example:
- It is common for lay people to be present in the sanctuary during Mass, however this was not mentioned during Vatican II
- Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion have become "ordinary". In some churches, they are present at every Mass as a matter of course. In fact, these ministers are only supposed to be used as their name implies, in "extraordinary" circumstances. For example, the priest is injured and cannot give communion to all people.
- Everyone goes to communion. It is now common practice for every person at church to go to communion regardless. However, only those in the state of grace should go, and only Catholics.
- Latin was never forbidden in the vernacular masses. Many Latin and even Greek phrases can and often should be used in vernacular Masses.
- The Latin Mass was never replaced by the vernacular Mass. Many are under the false assumption that with the advent of Vatican II, the Latin Mass was relegated to history. This is not the case and the current pope is reintroducing the Latin Mass as a more common form of the Mass.
- Some of the language used in the vernacular does not properly reflect the Latin. This will be corrected very soon.
My personal opinion is that I generally enjoy going to the vernacular or common Mass. I can understand it better and take a lot from it. I believe they need to incorporate Latin elements because they can be easily learned and can add some history to the experience as well as reverence.
I also attend Latin Mass occasionally. I find it offers a different perspective and reflects the fact that we are offering a sacrifice to God which is eternal and it's not about the priest's homily or the good music or "having fun", it's about celebrating God as well as Jesus in the Eucharist.
I think our best approach is to come to an appreciation for both forms of the Mass.
Monday, August 02, 2010
Safe, legal, and COMMON?
A common saying in the pro-choice movement is that abortion should be "safe, legal, and rare". But why not "safe, legal, and common"? Why does it have to be rare? In fact, the pro-choice side should advocate abortion as a form of contraception, if they are to be logically consistent.
Why should abortion be rare? If abortion is the killing of a child, it shouldn't be rare, it should be outlawed completely. It should be non-existent. Is it possible that the pro-choice side is admitting that abortion kills a child but still say that it should be rare? This would represent a barbaric viewpoint. "Killing children should be rare". What person with any morals would advocate this?
So let's assume the pro-choice side believes a fetus is not a child and is only a "blob of cells". Then why would they say abortion should be "rare". Eliminating unwanted blobs of cells should be rare? Why? I don't hear them protesting liposuction or tumour-removal. Again, this does not make sense.
Is abortion safe? According to the abortion industry, it is extremely safe. So then why would a safe procedure need to be rare, if it involves no moral dilemma?
Obviously, this saying, which makes absolutely no sense and is logically self-refuting simply uses keywords and contradictions to appeal to all groups. Pro-life people will see this message and say "well, looks like the abortion industry is with us. they want to make abortion rare." while at the same time they appease the pro-choice side.
Is it possible that the Pro-choice side by using this slogan is actually logically consistent. Yes! Here are some possible ways:
1) Abortion should be rare because driving all the way to the abortion facility and getting the procedure takes a few hours, which I could be using for the spa.
2) Abortion should be rare because it costs too much. Who has that kind of money to spend on something?
3) Abortion should be rare because I hate having unnecessary blobs of cells removed from my body.
These possibilities may sound flippant, but there are not many. The only moral question is whether what is growing inside the mother is a baby or not. If it is, then nothing can justify its murder. If, however, it is not a living person, no justification is necessary. The commonality of a non-moral issue is not important.
In order to justify an evil, logical inconsistencies must be used. Good morals are logically consistent.
Why should abortion be rare? If abortion is the killing of a child, it shouldn't be rare, it should be outlawed completely. It should be non-existent. Is it possible that the pro-choice side is admitting that abortion kills a child but still say that it should be rare? This would represent a barbaric viewpoint. "Killing children should be rare". What person with any morals would advocate this?
So let's assume the pro-choice side believes a fetus is not a child and is only a "blob of cells". Then why would they say abortion should be "rare". Eliminating unwanted blobs of cells should be rare? Why? I don't hear them protesting liposuction or tumour-removal. Again, this does not make sense.
Is abortion safe? According to the abortion industry, it is extremely safe. So then why would a safe procedure need to be rare, if it involves no moral dilemma?
Obviously, this saying, which makes absolutely no sense and is logically self-refuting simply uses keywords and contradictions to appeal to all groups. Pro-life people will see this message and say "well, looks like the abortion industry is with us. they want to make abortion rare." while at the same time they appease the pro-choice side.
Is it possible that the Pro-choice side by using this slogan is actually logically consistent. Yes! Here are some possible ways:
1) Abortion should be rare because driving all the way to the abortion facility and getting the procedure takes a few hours, which I could be using for the spa.
2) Abortion should be rare because it costs too much. Who has that kind of money to spend on something?
3) Abortion should be rare because I hate having unnecessary blobs of cells removed from my body.
These possibilities may sound flippant, but there are not many. The only moral question is whether what is growing inside the mother is a baby or not. If it is, then nothing can justify its murder. If, however, it is not a living person, no justification is necessary. The commonality of a non-moral issue is not important.
In order to justify an evil, logical inconsistencies must be used. Good morals are logically consistent.
Sunday, August 01, 2010
Saint Lucifer?
Strange though it may sound, there was a bishop in the fourth century named Lucifer. For those not too familiar with the Bible, before Satan was sent to Hell, he was known as Lucifer, or bearer of light. However, nowadays, when people hear Lucifer, they think of Satan.
Well, this bishop lived in Cagliari, on the island of Sardinia in Italy. He was around during the Arian controversy and fought vehemently against it. He stood with the true church in defending the Nicene Creed.
It is hinted by Ambrose of Milan and his student Augustine of Hippo that Lucifer was excommunicated, and his followers became known as Luciferians. It's unclear why he was excommunicated and some believe the excommunicated individual was actually another Lucifer.
His veneration as a saint is controversial and he is generally only venerated in Cagliari.
Well, this bishop lived in Cagliari, on the island of Sardinia in Italy. He was around during the Arian controversy and fought vehemently against it. He stood with the true church in defending the Nicene Creed.
It is hinted by Ambrose of Milan and his student Augustine of Hippo that Lucifer was excommunicated, and his followers became known as Luciferians. It's unclear why he was excommunicated and some believe the excommunicated individual was actually another Lucifer.
His veneration as a saint is controversial and he is generally only venerated in Cagliari.
Saturday, July 31, 2010
Nancy Pelosi gets abortion award
Nancy Pelosi who somehow styles herself a Catholic has received an award from the largest provider of abortions in the United States, Planned Parenthood. There was cheering and fanfare over this when she received it. It was for being a "Champion of Women's Health". Somehow killing babies falls under that category.
Pelosi even had the nerve to defend her position as compatible with Catholicism. That's kind of like saying you're a Nazi who loves Jewish people! I hope Pelosi goes back to her original Catholicism.
For more, please go here.
Pelosi even had the nerve to defend her position as compatible with Catholicism. That's kind of like saying you're a Nazi who loves Jewish people! I hope Pelosi goes back to her original Catholicism.
For more, please go here.
Friday, July 30, 2010
Discrimination is not always bad
Communicating ideas effectively and accurately can be a difficult task. We have been trained, in our sound-bite culture, to have an automatic reaction to certain words. Words like "rights", "equality", and "tolerance" are considered good in all circumstances. Whereas words like "discrimination", and "intolerance" have wholly negative connotations regardless of context.
I believe by treating language this way, we do ourselves a great disservice. Intellectual inquiry is stifled as we become obsessed with simplistic tests of morality. We fail to dig deeper to find the real answer and instead rely on keywords to help us make decisions.
The word I will focus on today is "discrimination". This word is almost universally considered bad. However, the word itself is neutral. In fact, discrimination is often a very good thing.
A hospital will discriminate against bad doctors when it is hiring. I will discriminate between various people to determine who will be my friend and who will not. We all discriminate when it comes to a restaurant that gives good service and one that does not. These are all cases of discrimination.
Discrimination becomes a bad thing when it is done completely arbitrarily. If I refuse to speak to black people simply because they are black, that is bad discrimination.
A big topic these days is gay marriage. Wherever gays cannot marry, they claim it is discrimination. However, as shown above, discrimination simply means making a decision on a particular topic. Marriage has a definition, that is the union of one man and one woman. Therefore to claim that anyone outside that category is being discriminated against by not being allowed to marry is technically correct, but it is not a matter of unjust discrimination.
The decision is based on the fact that the defintion does not include possibilities other than a man and a woman marrying. This law, by its very nature, discriminates against all non-heterosexual marriages. It discriminates against a brother and sister marrying. It discriminates against mother and son marrying. It discriminates against a sober person and a drunk person marrying.
People like to toss around the word "discrimination", and it has such a negative connotation that people automatically declare that it must be wrong. However, discrimination is a very important part of a good society.
I believe by treating language this way, we do ourselves a great disservice. Intellectual inquiry is stifled as we become obsessed with simplistic tests of morality. We fail to dig deeper to find the real answer and instead rely on keywords to help us make decisions.
The word I will focus on today is "discrimination". This word is almost universally considered bad. However, the word itself is neutral. In fact, discrimination is often a very good thing.
A hospital will discriminate against bad doctors when it is hiring. I will discriminate between various people to determine who will be my friend and who will not. We all discriminate when it comes to a restaurant that gives good service and one that does not. These are all cases of discrimination.
Discrimination becomes a bad thing when it is done completely arbitrarily. If I refuse to speak to black people simply because they are black, that is bad discrimination.
A big topic these days is gay marriage. Wherever gays cannot marry, they claim it is discrimination. However, as shown above, discrimination simply means making a decision on a particular topic. Marriage has a definition, that is the union of one man and one woman. Therefore to claim that anyone outside that category is being discriminated against by not being allowed to marry is technically correct, but it is not a matter of unjust discrimination.
The decision is based on the fact that the defintion does not include possibilities other than a man and a woman marrying. This law, by its very nature, discriminates against all non-heterosexual marriages. It discriminates against a brother and sister marrying. It discriminates against mother and son marrying. It discriminates against a sober person and a drunk person marrying.
People like to toss around the word "discrimination", and it has such a negative connotation that people automatically declare that it must be wrong. However, discrimination is a very important part of a good society.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Pope Pius X's Catechism
I came across a gem - Pope Pius X's Catechism. It's very well written because it gives questions and answers to thousands of questions. It's well worth a read.
It's available free in pdf format here.
It's available free in pdf format here.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Bad Argument Type #2: Slippery Slope Argument
Slippery slope is another argument type that doesn't always work. Of course sometimes it can but only in certain circumstances. It can work if it proposed like this: "X is wrong because of Y. And if X continues it will lead to more Y and possibly Z."
The slippery slope argument can also be easily misused. Often, the statement will imply that the current state of affairs is neutral, but if it continues, it will become immoral. Doing this avoids facing the problems of the current situation. The argument is rendered ineffective because the other side simply has to claim it will not progress that far. Since neither side has a crystal ball, the arguments turns to predictions. A safer model would be to show why what is currently happening is not good.
Take for example, the debate about homosexual marriage. Some have used the argument that if we allow same sex marriage, soon fathers and daughters will be marrying, or three people will marry, or people will marry their pets. While a case could possibly be made for these predictions, using such an argument actually ignores the current problems with same-sex marriage.
Implicitly, the person using the slippery slope argument is saying "gay marriage is ok, but when it starts becoming three people, then it will be wrong" even if that's not what they believe. An easy refutation to this argument is for the contrary side to claim that marriage among three individuals will not happen. Now a stalemate has occurred.
A better way to go about it is to argue for the negative effects of gay marriage on people and society. We are then arguing about actual things and not predictions.
Another area is euthanasia. People will say, they are killing babies in the womb, now they want to kill the elderly, soon we will be killing almost anyone we deem inferior. This argument can be effective in that it scares people into at least thinking about the issue of euthanasia. Perhaps it highlights logical consistency and where it would lead.
However, I believe ultimately it fails. It fails because again it is implied that killing the elderly is alright, but eventually it might lead to killing disabled people or any number of others, and at that point it becomes wrong. Again, the person using the slippery slope argument is not trying to imply this, but that's what comes across.
Ultimately it is better to argue for the current evil that is occurring (i.e. euthanasia). This is not a future prediction, but a current reality we must face.
Another general downfall to the slippery slope argument is that it constantly seeks a new starting point. It's almost a form of relativism. Those using it will concede a certain point and argue that the future might be worse. We use our current society and its values as a starting point and work our way from there. The problem with this is that there may be societal flaws which need to be addressed now. I think that's what has happened in a lot of people's moral reasoning.
For example, I was reading a newspaper article from the early 1960s which predicted that as more men gained access to pornography, there would be an increase in violence, especially sexual violence. Instead of focusing on the inherent evil of pornography, they focused on future effects that may arise with increasing use.
Another example is sexual morality. In the past, people would wait until marriage to engage in sexual actions. Eventually morality started to decline and the standards were lowered. Now it was considered appropriate to have sex with someone but only if the two were engaged or in a very serious relationship. Eventually the standard was lowered again to where people should engage in sexual activity but only if they have "protection". People now worry that children who are too young will be having sex in an "unsafe" way. The worry is not that they will have sex before marriage, or even that they will have sex outside a committed relationship, but only that they will not use "protection". We start talking about how bad things will get if this continues.
Instead of this, we should focus on what is morally acceptable in absolute terms, not in terms of prevailing opinion or in future worst case scenarios.
To conclude, while slippery slope arguments can serve as a wake-up call, good moral reasoning needs to be understood for what is currently happening.
The slippery slope argument can also be easily misused. Often, the statement will imply that the current state of affairs is neutral, but if it continues, it will become immoral. Doing this avoids facing the problems of the current situation. The argument is rendered ineffective because the other side simply has to claim it will not progress that far. Since neither side has a crystal ball, the arguments turns to predictions. A safer model would be to show why what is currently happening is not good.
Take for example, the debate about homosexual marriage. Some have used the argument that if we allow same sex marriage, soon fathers and daughters will be marrying, or three people will marry, or people will marry their pets. While a case could possibly be made for these predictions, using such an argument actually ignores the current problems with same-sex marriage.
Implicitly, the person using the slippery slope argument is saying "gay marriage is ok, but when it starts becoming three people, then it will be wrong" even if that's not what they believe. An easy refutation to this argument is for the contrary side to claim that marriage among three individuals will not happen. Now a stalemate has occurred.
A better way to go about it is to argue for the negative effects of gay marriage on people and society. We are then arguing about actual things and not predictions.
Another area is euthanasia. People will say, they are killing babies in the womb, now they want to kill the elderly, soon we will be killing almost anyone we deem inferior. This argument can be effective in that it scares people into at least thinking about the issue of euthanasia. Perhaps it highlights logical consistency and where it would lead.
However, I believe ultimately it fails. It fails because again it is implied that killing the elderly is alright, but eventually it might lead to killing disabled people or any number of others, and at that point it becomes wrong. Again, the person using the slippery slope argument is not trying to imply this, but that's what comes across.
Ultimately it is better to argue for the current evil that is occurring (i.e. euthanasia). This is not a future prediction, but a current reality we must face.
Another general downfall to the slippery slope argument is that it constantly seeks a new starting point. It's almost a form of relativism. Those using it will concede a certain point and argue that the future might be worse. We use our current society and its values as a starting point and work our way from there. The problem with this is that there may be societal flaws which need to be addressed now. I think that's what has happened in a lot of people's moral reasoning.
For example, I was reading a newspaper article from the early 1960s which predicted that as more men gained access to pornography, there would be an increase in violence, especially sexual violence. Instead of focusing on the inherent evil of pornography, they focused on future effects that may arise with increasing use.
Another example is sexual morality. In the past, people would wait until marriage to engage in sexual actions. Eventually morality started to decline and the standards were lowered. Now it was considered appropriate to have sex with someone but only if the two were engaged or in a very serious relationship. Eventually the standard was lowered again to where people should engage in sexual activity but only if they have "protection". People now worry that children who are too young will be having sex in an "unsafe" way. The worry is not that they will have sex before marriage, or even that they will have sex outside a committed relationship, but only that they will not use "protection". We start talking about how bad things will get if this continues.
Instead of this, we should focus on what is morally acceptable in absolute terms, not in terms of prevailing opinion or in future worst case scenarios.
To conclude, while slippery slope arguments can serve as a wake-up call, good moral reasoning needs to be understood for what is currently happening.
Monday, July 26, 2010
Gay Pride Parade in St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada
Yesterday on my way home from Mass, I saw a large gathering of people waving rainbow-coloured flags in front of the Colonial Building on Military Road. I decided to park and walk over to see what it was all about. It was apparent right away that it was a gay pride parade. There were about 200 people, mostly teenagers, gathered wearing brightly coloured clothing. There was a bullhorn that was occassionally used to chant slogans. I could not fully make out one of the chants, but it was something along the lines of
Black, white, queer, straight
No need to discriminate
I'm actually not sure what the second line is, but it was something like that. Also present at the event were the media, including NTV, VOCM, and the Telegram. There were road blocks set up in several places, which I noticed on my way to Mass in the morning, as I had to divert my path a couple of times.
After a while, the group started a parade of sorts through the streets. Again, the bullhorn was occassionally used. I'm not sure how far they went, but there was a police cruiser in front of them.
I question the purpose of such a demonstration. In Canada, Newfoundland included, two men or two women can marry. They share the same benefits as everyone else. They can even adopt children and so on. Yet, the gay community continuously harps on the idea of equality and acceptance.
I believe the gay community does not want only equal rights under the law, they also want everyone to accept their lifestyle and to agree with them. They claim intolerance, but they are more intolerant than anyone else. They want to quell any opposition to their lifestyle. If someone expresses their belief that children do best with their own mother and father in the household and that gay adoption violates this, that individual is seen as a hatemonger.
Could there be something deeper? Perhaps the gay community does not accept itself but instead of confronting this, they project these thoughts onto society at large. In order to mask their self-doubt about their lifestyle, they contend that it is society that is holding them back or making them feel this way. It is much easier to lash out at an external force than to do personal soul-searching.
I believe gay people have equal dignity as the rest of the population. They deserve love and compassion. However, we must consider the rights of everyone, including children. It is also necessary to evaluate activities in the light of science, sociology and human wisdom when creating laws and this should not be summarily dismissed as "homophobia".
I noticed at the gathering there was not an opposing group of people demonstrating against homosexuality and I am unaware of any such group that ever organizes in our province. Is it possible that what the LGBT community is fighting it not external but is rather internal turmoil?
Black, white, queer, straight
No need to discriminate
I'm actually not sure what the second line is, but it was something like that. Also present at the event were the media, including NTV, VOCM, and the Telegram. There were road blocks set up in several places, which I noticed on my way to Mass in the morning, as I had to divert my path a couple of times.
After a while, the group started a parade of sorts through the streets. Again, the bullhorn was occassionally used. I'm not sure how far they went, but there was a police cruiser in front of them.
I question the purpose of such a demonstration. In Canada, Newfoundland included, two men or two women can marry. They share the same benefits as everyone else. They can even adopt children and so on. Yet, the gay community continuously harps on the idea of equality and acceptance.
I believe the gay community does not want only equal rights under the law, they also want everyone to accept their lifestyle and to agree with them. They claim intolerance, but they are more intolerant than anyone else. They want to quell any opposition to their lifestyle. If someone expresses their belief that children do best with their own mother and father in the household and that gay adoption violates this, that individual is seen as a hatemonger.
Could there be something deeper? Perhaps the gay community does not accept itself but instead of confronting this, they project these thoughts onto society at large. In order to mask their self-doubt about their lifestyle, they contend that it is society that is holding them back or making them feel this way. It is much easier to lash out at an external force than to do personal soul-searching.
I believe gay people have equal dignity as the rest of the population. They deserve love and compassion. However, we must consider the rights of everyone, including children. It is also necessary to evaluate activities in the light of science, sociology and human wisdom when creating laws and this should not be summarily dismissed as "homophobia".
I noticed at the gathering there was not an opposing group of people demonstrating against homosexuality and I am unaware of any such group that ever organizes in our province. Is it possible that what the LGBT community is fighting it not external but is rather internal turmoil?
Professor banned for teaching Catholic dogma
There's a lot of bias in universities nowadays, especially against people who believe in God, especially Catholics. This prof was banned because he dared teach the Catholic Church's belief about homosexuality.
Check out his facebook page.
Check out his facebook page.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)