A story which is being underreported as of right now in the mainstream media is the death of Dr. Bernard Nathanson. Early in his career, he performed thousands of abortions. After seeing medical evidence that an embryo/fetus is an actual human life, he quit performing the procedure and became a pro-life activist. He said his decision was not based on religion. Later, however, he did become Catholic.
Dr. Nathanson was at first so in favor of abortion that he formed NARAL, the National Abortion Rights Action League, formerly known as the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws. Today, this is one of the largest advocacy organization for abortion advocates in the world.
The mainstream media won't touch this story with a ten-foot pole, for the most part. In Google, if a popular story breaks, it will display a headline in the news section, and indicate the number of articles on the subject available to date. For example, the story on the Earthquake in New Zealand has 9208 articles. On the other hand, there are no news clusters for the news of Nathanson's passing. Most of the places carrying this story are Christian sites.
Many people believe the media is biased in favor of abortion, and this just provides further proof.
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Who Am I?
I'm back with another Who Am I?
I was an Albino from Italy
I'm also associated with 33
I foretold the reign of my next
I most-likely died from an attack
(Post a comment with your guess on it. The answer will be posted tomorrow morning.)
I was an Albino from Italy
I'm also associated with 33
I foretold the reign of my next
I most-likely died from an attack
(Post a comment with your guess on it. The answer will be posted tomorrow morning.)
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Answer to Yesterday's Who Am I?
The answer to yesterday's Who Am I is St. Thomas Aquinas.
His philosophy, best represented in the Summa Theologica, has shaped our understanding of Christianity since the 13th century. He died when he was 49 years old, not having fully completed the Summa. OP refers to the Order of Preachers, also known as the Dominicans. He is one of 33 doctors of the Church.
Come back tomorrow, same time, for another Who Am I
His philosophy, best represented in the Summa Theologica, has shaped our understanding of Christianity since the 13th century. He died when he was 49 years old, not having fully completed the Summa. OP refers to the Order of Preachers, also known as the Dominicans. He is one of 33 doctors of the Church.
Come back tomorrow, same time, for another Who Am I
Monday, February 21, 2011
Who Am I?
This is a little game I am introducing to this blog. It's called Who Am I? The name basically says it all. I will give some clues on a saint, Biblical figure, bishop, priest, or someone otherwise famous within Catholicism, and you must guess who it is. The answer will appear the following day.
Post your response in the comments. Make this a real challenge and do not research the answer. If you get it wrong, that's ok, don't feel bad, and if you're not sure, make a guess anyway.
Post your response in the comments. Make this a real challenge and do not research the answer. If you get it wrong, that's ok, don't feel bad, and if you're not sure, make a guess anyway.
WHO AM I:
Not quite 50 at the time of my death
My philosophy has shaped the West
I was a member of the OP
and I'm in a group of thirty three
Saturday, February 19, 2011
26 Saints A to Z
I'm just giving myself a challenge right now, and you can try it yourself. Perhaps do it before you read my list. I'm going to try to name one saint for each letter of the alphabet. I will see how many I can get. The rule is that you must be 99% sure it is a saint, and not just type a name hoping you can find a saint later that matches. So here goes:
Saint:
Alphonsus Liguori
Benedict of Nursia
Charles Borromeo
Denis
Edward the Confessor
Francis of Assissi
Gerard Megella
Hilarius
Ignatius Loyola
John
Kateri Tekaweta
Leo the Great
Michael the Archangel
Nicholas
O
Peter
Quirinus
Robert Bellarmine
Stephen
Thomas Aquinas
U
Veronica
Wenceslaus
Xystus
Y
Zossimus
Ok, so I couldn't get O, U, or Y. Plus, some are questionable. I will look them up. I will post updates or additional information in a comment to this post.
Saint:
Alphonsus Liguori
Benedict of Nursia
Charles Borromeo
Denis
Edward the Confessor
Francis of Assissi
Gerard Megella
Hilarius
Ignatius Loyola
John
Kateri Tekaweta
Leo the Great
Michael the Archangel
Nicholas
O
Peter
Quirinus
Robert Bellarmine
Stephen
Thomas Aquinas
U
Veronica
Wenceslaus
Xystus
Y
Zossimus
Ok, so I couldn't get O, U, or Y. Plus, some are questionable. I will look them up. I will post updates or additional information in a comment to this post.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
What if an animal snatches a eucharistic host and runs off with it?
I recently found out about a document issued by Pope Pius V soon after the Council of Trent, sometime in the late 1560 and early 1570s called De Defectibus. In it, almost every imaginable scenario is presented with regards to the validity and laicity of the Mass if certain events. I will look at these from time to time on this blog.
Under the section Defective Materials, it explains what should happen if a gust of wind or an animal carries away a consecrated host, which Catholics believe to be the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus.
Here is what the document spells out:
III. 7. If the consecrated host should disappear, either from some chance cause such as wind, or by a miracle, or from being consumed by some animal, and cannot be recovered; then another must be consecrated, after first being offered, beginning at the passage: Qui pridie quam pateretur.
A simple solution to a very uncommon situation.
Under the section Defective Materials, it explains what should happen if a gust of wind or an animal carries away a consecrated host, which Catholics believe to be the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus.
Here is what the document spells out:
III. 7. If the consecrated host should disappear, either from some chance cause such as wind, or by a miracle, or from being consumed by some animal, and cannot be recovered; then another must be consecrated, after first being offered, beginning at the passage: Qui pridie quam pateretur.
A simple solution to a very uncommon situation.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Solar Panels for New Cathedral
A new cathedral is being built in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, the first in Western Canada in 50 years. One interesting thing about this new cathedral is that its stained glass windows will contain solar panels.
This is quite interesting. The Vatican is also a proponent of renewable energy resources such as solar energy, as I highlighted in this past article.
I'm really glad Saskatchewan is getting a new cathedral. It shows the faith is quite vibrant in that community.
This is quite interesting. The Vatican is also a proponent of renewable energy resources such as solar energy, as I highlighted in this past article.
I'm really glad Saskatchewan is getting a new cathedral. It shows the faith is quite vibrant in that community.
Wednesday, February 09, 2011
Choosing between two evils
A common idea when it comes to morality is choosing between two evils. Often times though, we just like to think there are only two choices when in fact there are more, and some do not involve evil at all.
I could be misquoting here, but I thought I heard somewhere that John Paul II said when choosing between two evils, choose neither. All too often, we incorrectly place a decision as being between two possible evils, but these circumstances are very rare.
I was just reading the biography of St. George who lived during the time of Diocletian. He belonged to a wealthy and noble Roman family.
Diocletian was one of the greatest opponents of Christianity and under his reign was the greatest persecution of Christians. He issued an edict saying that all soldiers must pay homage to the Roman gods. Of course, George, a Christian, refused.
Diocletian knew George and wanted him to worship these deities. The emperor did not want to punish George and offered him land, wealth, and power. All he needed from George was for him to worship these false gods. George refused and was subsequently tortured, and never abandoning his faith, was finally killed.
How many people in our modern day, perhaps sadly even including me, would see this as an option between two evils? One evil, being killed by the emperor and worshiping a false god. Then many would conclude that it's better to just worship this false god and live because then we can do other things like charitable work, etc.
But St. George chose not to participate in evil. That's the point. Evil may be done to him, but he will have nothing to do with it.
The amount of good St. George did because of his choice is incalculable. Many were converted at the time and today he is the patron saint of many countries. Legends have developed around him such as him slaying a dragon, which represents his triumph over evil.
Had he chose instead to do what the emperor wanted, he may have helped a couple of people a little here and there, but then he would have had a very tiny impact. It is doubtful anyone would know him today.
All too often, we put our own selfish desires above the truth. We justify our actions instead of choosing good.
Let's give everything to God.
I could be misquoting here, but I thought I heard somewhere that John Paul II said when choosing between two evils, choose neither. All too often, we incorrectly place a decision as being between two possible evils, but these circumstances are very rare.
I was just reading the biography of St. George who lived during the time of Diocletian. He belonged to a wealthy and noble Roman family.
Diocletian was one of the greatest opponents of Christianity and under his reign was the greatest persecution of Christians. He issued an edict saying that all soldiers must pay homage to the Roman gods. Of course, George, a Christian, refused.
Diocletian knew George and wanted him to worship these deities. The emperor did not want to punish George and offered him land, wealth, and power. All he needed from George was for him to worship these false gods. George refused and was subsequently tortured, and never abandoning his faith, was finally killed.
How many people in our modern day, perhaps sadly even including me, would see this as an option between two evils? One evil, being killed by the emperor and worshiping a false god. Then many would conclude that it's better to just worship this false god and live because then we can do other things like charitable work, etc.
But St. George chose not to participate in evil. That's the point. Evil may be done to him, but he will have nothing to do with it.
The amount of good St. George did because of his choice is incalculable. Many were converted at the time and today he is the patron saint of many countries. Legends have developed around him such as him slaying a dragon, which represents his triumph over evil.
Had he chose instead to do what the emperor wanted, he may have helped a couple of people a little here and there, but then he would have had a very tiny impact. It is doubtful anyone would know him today.
All too often, we put our own selfish desires above the truth. We justify our actions instead of choosing good.
Let's give everything to God.
Monday, February 07, 2011
Pumping Iron at God's Gym
Something I've noticed over the years is the number of people who demand that the Catholic Church conform to their ideas, rather than follow what the Church teaches. This not only represents disobedience, but also absurdity. The Church cannot conform to everyone's will. It can only, logically, conform to one will, and that is the will of God.
The Church is like a spiritual gym. Through prayer, fasting, almsgiving, reception of the sacraments, living a life of personal holiness by practicing humility, patience, and love, a person hopes to come closer to Jesus Christ. The Church offers the way to become spiritually fit, in a far more important way than a gym does for the physical body.
Imagine if someone went to a gym and said the following:
"Hi there. I want to work out, but I don't really think it matters if I can't make it every week. Maybe I will just come in once a month, or possibly twice a year at the most important gym dates. Also, I don't want to lift heavy weights, I mainly want to just stick with the 5 or 10 pounds, the light stuff. I don't want to change my diet at all, because that might involve some mortification, which went out with the dark ages. And, why is everyone always sweating, how is that necessary? I think if we all just sat in a circle and talked about feelings, that would feel better."
This person would obviously not lose any weight. They would remain fat. It would also be absurd for someone at the gym to believe they knew better than the trainer who had spent his entire life working out when they themselves know almost nothing about fitness.
Now, obviously spiritual growth is not the same as working out. But the parallels are there. Both involve consistently seeking improvement and using time-tested techniques.
Most of the time when someone criticizes a practice in the Church it is due to their own ignorance or their desire to make things the way THEY want them, instead of humbly accepting the teachings of the Church which Christ established.
Jesus never said "your own personal opinion will lead you into all truth", he said the Church would do that. He established a Church to teach and guide, he didn't give each person the ability to form their own church based on their opinions.
The Church is like a spiritual gym. Through prayer, fasting, almsgiving, reception of the sacraments, living a life of personal holiness by practicing humility, patience, and love, a person hopes to come closer to Jesus Christ. The Church offers the way to become spiritually fit, in a far more important way than a gym does for the physical body.
Imagine if someone went to a gym and said the following:
"Hi there. I want to work out, but I don't really think it matters if I can't make it every week. Maybe I will just come in once a month, or possibly twice a year at the most important gym dates. Also, I don't want to lift heavy weights, I mainly want to just stick with the 5 or 10 pounds, the light stuff. I don't want to change my diet at all, because that might involve some mortification, which went out with the dark ages. And, why is everyone always sweating, how is that necessary? I think if we all just sat in a circle and talked about feelings, that would feel better."
This person would obviously not lose any weight. They would remain fat. It would also be absurd for someone at the gym to believe they knew better than the trainer who had spent his entire life working out when they themselves know almost nothing about fitness.
Now, obviously spiritual growth is not the same as working out. But the parallels are there. Both involve consistently seeking improvement and using time-tested techniques.
Most of the time when someone criticizes a practice in the Church it is due to their own ignorance or their desire to make things the way THEY want them, instead of humbly accepting the teachings of the Church which Christ established.
Jesus never said "your own personal opinion will lead you into all truth", he said the Church would do that. He established a Church to teach and guide, he didn't give each person the ability to form their own church based on their opinions.
Friday, February 04, 2011
The Church from a business perspective
When I studied business, one of the main themes was competitive advantage. A company had to have a strength or seize on an opportunity or it would fail. There had to be some reason a consumer would choose your company or another one. If no such reason existed, your company would falter.
The Church right now is facing a dilemma in the Western world of how to attract people to Mass and to the faith in general. I think the best and really only way to accomplish this is by giving people pure Catholicism. When the Catholic Church tries to compete with other forms of worship or even forms of entertainment, it loses out because the church is not entertainment and it can only be Catholic.
Imagine the Church as a company for a moment, and let's compare it to Rolls-Royce. What would attract potential buyers of Rolls-Royce more:
A) Presenting Rolls-Royce as a "good" car company, but there are many others which are just as good. Telling people if they come to test drive a Rolls-Royce, you also offer donuts, sandwiches, and a rock band on the premises. Also, the company makes sure not to talk about any "hard" issues like how Rolls Royce cars only use the finest mahogany or lambs wool. Rather, they talk about unifying things like the fact that their cars have tires like other cars and can listen to FM radio. When a customer asks about details on the engine, warranty, workmanship, etc. the owner of the store refuses to tell anyone about those details, because it's better just to ignore them so that no one ever gets offended.
B) Presenting Rolls-Royce as the best car company with uncompromising level of quality. Instead of bothering with donuts and rock bands, the Rolls-Royce dealership focuses on maintaining a very beautiful building and creating an atmosphere where people can go to experience Rolls-Royce. They make sure to tell people what sets Rolls-Royce apart, and explain to people it's not just another car company, it is THE car company. Finally, it gives people all the details, especially on the areas where other dealerships compromise.
Obviously B works much better. So why do so many churches focus on being like A?
If a Catholic church presents itself as just another church, and its doctrines as nothing too special, people will not be inspired. It will not call them to action and they will lose interest. People need to be a part of something. The Church must be what it is. The Church does not offer rock bands and meeting halls, it offers the salvation of souls, it offers Jesus in the Eucharist. I believe if individual churches focus on what it truly means to be Catholic, the number of congregants will soar.
The Church right now is facing a dilemma in the Western world of how to attract people to Mass and to the faith in general. I think the best and really only way to accomplish this is by giving people pure Catholicism. When the Catholic Church tries to compete with other forms of worship or even forms of entertainment, it loses out because the church is not entertainment and it can only be Catholic.
Imagine the Church as a company for a moment, and let's compare it to Rolls-Royce. What would attract potential buyers of Rolls-Royce more:
A) Presenting Rolls-Royce as a "good" car company, but there are many others which are just as good. Telling people if they come to test drive a Rolls-Royce, you also offer donuts, sandwiches, and a rock band on the premises. Also, the company makes sure not to talk about any "hard" issues like how Rolls Royce cars only use the finest mahogany or lambs wool. Rather, they talk about unifying things like the fact that their cars have tires like other cars and can listen to FM radio. When a customer asks about details on the engine, warranty, workmanship, etc. the owner of the store refuses to tell anyone about those details, because it's better just to ignore them so that no one ever gets offended.
B) Presenting Rolls-Royce as the best car company with uncompromising level of quality. Instead of bothering with donuts and rock bands, the Rolls-Royce dealership focuses on maintaining a very beautiful building and creating an atmosphere where people can go to experience Rolls-Royce. They make sure to tell people what sets Rolls-Royce apart, and explain to people it's not just another car company, it is THE car company. Finally, it gives people all the details, especially on the areas where other dealerships compromise.
Obviously B works much better. So why do so many churches focus on being like A?
If a Catholic church presents itself as just another church, and its doctrines as nothing too special, people will not be inspired. It will not call them to action and they will lose interest. People need to be a part of something. The Church must be what it is. The Church does not offer rock bands and meeting halls, it offers the salvation of souls, it offers Jesus in the Eucharist. I believe if individual churches focus on what it truly means to be Catholic, the number of congregants will soar.
Wednesday, February 02, 2011
The Rite: Review [Contains Spoilers]
The Rite is about a young man who grows up in his family's funeral business and eventually attends seminary to discern his calling to the priesthood. He is a skeptical young man who eventually tries to quit seminary due to his lack of faith. Unhappy with his decision, his director arranges for the young man to go to Rome to experience exorcism firsthand.
He faithlessness is soon put to the test as many inexplicable events occur in his life which cannot be explained by science.
I felt this movie was quite good. It presented an issue which comes up frequently when dealing with the topic of demonic possession - is it evil influence or psychological issues. The movie did a good job of presenting the Church's real feeling on the issue. The Church says psychological means should be thoroughly explored before a spiritual explanation is given. This doesn't mean that a person must spend 25 years trying to cure an apparent mental illness before a priest is consulted, but people are advised to take this first step.
Once a natural, psychological explanation has been ruled out, an exorcism can take place. There are indicators, which the movie presents, which point to a demonic possession as opposed to a psychological disturbance. One example given in the movie is knowing the unknowable. For example, a patient will know the contents of a bag they've never seen before. Or the person will begin to fluently speak another language they have no knowledge of. Or the possessed will know information about the exorcist that no one else does except the exorcist himself.
These manifestations were quite apparent in the movie.
I liked seeing all the devotional objects in the movie. They were well done and looked quite real. Also, the movie featured many good prayers and seemed to go to some length to show an accurate representation of the Church.
I did however have some issues.
A small one was when the priest was making a cross on someone's head and first moved his thumb down, but then moved his thumb from right to left, which is the reverse of what is correct.
But that's quite minor. A major issue I had with the film was in some of the portrayal of exorcism which differs from reality, including:
1) The exorcist who seems to have a good prayer life and seems to be a holy man becomes possessed. According to the chief exorcist of Rome, this is almost unheard of. The usual victims of possession are people who venture into sorcery, fortune telling, ouija boards, etc.
2) One of the exorcism patients dies while being possessed. Again according to the chief exorcist, the devil cannot kill someone who is possessed, he does not have that much power.
I believe Hollywood needs to do a better job at presenting the risk factors for demon possession. In The Exorcism of Emily Rose, Emily is a very devout Catholic girl who is possessed. According to priests in the field, the majority of cases come from people who become involved in demonic activities, not practicing Catholics.
Also, not all exorcisms are head-spinning, nail-spitting, levitating events. Often they are much more subtle because the Devil is a deceiver. He would rather hide. In fact, The Rite made clear that the Devil prefers that people ignore him.
Overall, I would rate this movie 4/5. The Church is portrayed in a fairly accurate and reverent way, while some of the information is not fully accurate in order to advance the plot.
[The following was added February 26, 2011]
To purchase the book upon which this film is based from Amazon for just $9.57, click the link below:
He faithlessness is soon put to the test as many inexplicable events occur in his life which cannot be explained by science.
I felt this movie was quite good. It presented an issue which comes up frequently when dealing with the topic of demonic possession - is it evil influence or psychological issues. The movie did a good job of presenting the Church's real feeling on the issue. The Church says psychological means should be thoroughly explored before a spiritual explanation is given. This doesn't mean that a person must spend 25 years trying to cure an apparent mental illness before a priest is consulted, but people are advised to take this first step.
Once a natural, psychological explanation has been ruled out, an exorcism can take place. There are indicators, which the movie presents, which point to a demonic possession as opposed to a psychological disturbance. One example given in the movie is knowing the unknowable. For example, a patient will know the contents of a bag they've never seen before. Or the person will begin to fluently speak another language they have no knowledge of. Or the possessed will know information about the exorcist that no one else does except the exorcist himself.
These manifestations were quite apparent in the movie.
I liked seeing all the devotional objects in the movie. They were well done and looked quite real. Also, the movie featured many good prayers and seemed to go to some length to show an accurate representation of the Church.
I did however have some issues.
A small one was when the priest was making a cross on someone's head and first moved his thumb down, but then moved his thumb from right to left, which is the reverse of what is correct.
But that's quite minor. A major issue I had with the film was in some of the portrayal of exorcism which differs from reality, including:
1) The exorcist who seems to have a good prayer life and seems to be a holy man becomes possessed. According to the chief exorcist of Rome, this is almost unheard of. The usual victims of possession are people who venture into sorcery, fortune telling, ouija boards, etc.
2) One of the exorcism patients dies while being possessed. Again according to the chief exorcist, the devil cannot kill someone who is possessed, he does not have that much power.
I believe Hollywood needs to do a better job at presenting the risk factors for demon possession. In The Exorcism of Emily Rose, Emily is a very devout Catholic girl who is possessed. According to priests in the field, the majority of cases come from people who become involved in demonic activities, not practicing Catholics.
Also, not all exorcisms are head-spinning, nail-spitting, levitating events. Often they are much more subtle because the Devil is a deceiver. He would rather hide. In fact, The Rite made clear that the Devil prefers that people ignore him.
Overall, I would rate this movie 4/5. The Church is portrayed in a fairly accurate and reverent way, while some of the information is not fully accurate in order to advance the plot.
[The following was added February 26, 2011]
To purchase the book upon which this film is based from Amazon for just $9.57, click the link below:
Monday, January 31, 2011
$500,000 Church Theft: Response to Reaction
After an internal audit, it was discovered that over the past 38 years, $500,000 has been stolen from the Archdiocese of St. John's. The Archbishop gave the case over to the RNC immediately and said they will now deal with it.
The article was posted on cbc.ca, and as usual, there was plenty of Catholic bashing going on in the comments below the article. I am now responding to some of the accusations.
1) "Churches should be taxed"
Churches should not be taxed imo because they are not corporations seeking to earn profit. Many non-profit and humanitarian organizations are not taxed, because they provide social services. The government feels it makes sense that if someone is contributing money to a church to do social service, then it wouldn't make sense for the government to take a chunk of that money and use it for OTHER social services.
2) Sexual abuse cases
Of course, one of the mainstays of comments about the Catholic Church concerns sex abuse cases. People are not interested to know that cases are more prevalent in schools or in the home, or that it's just as bad in other religions. Sex abuse by clergy is always used to invalidate any point made by the Church. So people now say that it doesn't matter that money was stolen because of what the Church did.
3) How could the Church not know?
Many people commented that it was the fault of the Church that money was stolen because it would take pretty terrible management to not realize it. Well, this is a poor argument, because we've seen cases of money stolen from a variety of institutions, including banks, hospitals, and virtually any other institution. It's certainly not unheard of.
4) Why should the police help?
One rather strange argument that has been advanced is why should the RNC have to provide investigations for this situation. Why doesn't the Church foot the bill for the investigation. Well, this premise is absurd since theft is a criminal action in Canada and thus is publicly prosecuted. To say this would mean you could advance the same argument when a private citizen has money stolen or any organization. Law enforcement is the area of the government, not private organizations or persons.
Conclusion
Obviously most of the arguments advanced against the Church in this matter are simply manifestations of a larger hatred toward the Church. It has nothing to do with logic or a broader belief system. People who hate the Church simply see this as another opportunity to bash it.
The article was posted on cbc.ca, and as usual, there was plenty of Catholic bashing going on in the comments below the article. I am now responding to some of the accusations.
1) "Churches should be taxed"
Churches should not be taxed imo because they are not corporations seeking to earn profit. Many non-profit and humanitarian organizations are not taxed, because they provide social services. The government feels it makes sense that if someone is contributing money to a church to do social service, then it wouldn't make sense for the government to take a chunk of that money and use it for OTHER social services.
2) Sexual abuse cases
Of course, one of the mainstays of comments about the Catholic Church concerns sex abuse cases. People are not interested to know that cases are more prevalent in schools or in the home, or that it's just as bad in other religions. Sex abuse by clergy is always used to invalidate any point made by the Church. So people now say that it doesn't matter that money was stolen because of what the Church did.
3) How could the Church not know?
Many people commented that it was the fault of the Church that money was stolen because it would take pretty terrible management to not realize it. Well, this is a poor argument, because we've seen cases of money stolen from a variety of institutions, including banks, hospitals, and virtually any other institution. It's certainly not unheard of.
4) Why should the police help?
One rather strange argument that has been advanced is why should the RNC have to provide investigations for this situation. Why doesn't the Church foot the bill for the investigation. Well, this premise is absurd since theft is a criminal action in Canada and thus is publicly prosecuted. To say this would mean you could advance the same argument when a private citizen has money stolen or any organization. Law enforcement is the area of the government, not private organizations or persons.
Conclusion
Obviously most of the arguments advanced against the Church in this matter are simply manifestations of a larger hatred toward the Church. It has nothing to do with logic or a broader belief system. People who hate the Church simply see this as another opportunity to bash it.
Friday, January 28, 2011
Truth in the Problematic Dutch Catechism
After Vatican II, Dutch bishops published a book that is commonly referred to as the Dutch Catechism. It is rather non-dogmatic in its approach, and there are some issues to be found in it. After it was published, the Vatican had a team investigate the book and issued a 50 page document outlining the issues with it. One issue concerned birth control. The book was issued prior to Humanae Vitae, but basically offered a dissenting view on the issue of birth control, ultimately leaving it up to the conscience of the couple. Obviously this is not Church teaching, and this problem was addressed in the Vatican document.
Unfortunately, instead of actually fixing anything, the Dutch bishops simply published the Vatican document as an appendix to the Catechism they had produced.
But one thing I read from this catechism stood out to me. It says a lot about our faith.
It reads:
"The heart of the book is the message of Easter. If the news of Jesus’ resurrection were removed, not one page of the book would have any value."
This is very important when it comes to Christianity. St. Paul said that unless Christ rose from the dead, his faith is in vain. Many people think of Jesus as just a good moral teacher, on the same level as Buddha or Confucius. But our faith is not based on a series of principles, but on the person of Jesus Christ.
Jesus was not simply a moral teacher. He is the second person of the Trinity and the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the World. We achieve our salvation, not through following a life ethic, but through our response to God's grace, and being part of the Body of Christ. That's why the Eucharist is the "source and summit" of the Christian faith. If Jesus was a moral teacher only, then the Eucharist would be pointless. All the other moral teachers said they were mere men, such as Buddha for example. But only Jesus claimed to be the Son of God. A good moral teacher would not say he is the Son of God.
We are saved only through Christ's sacrifice on the cross, not simply because we're "good" people. Also, his grace comes through his Church, and that's why there is no salvation outside the Church. Jesus established a Church, and he said no one comes to the father except through him. As the Bible says, the Church is the Body of Christ. Jesus never once said "No one goes to the father except those that follow a moral teacher".
Christianity is not about following the advice of Jesus, but rather it is about being followers of Jesus himself.
Unfortunately, instead of actually fixing anything, the Dutch bishops simply published the Vatican document as an appendix to the Catechism they had produced.
But one thing I read from this catechism stood out to me. It says a lot about our faith.
It reads:
"The heart of the book is the message of Easter. If the news of Jesus’ resurrection were removed, not one page of the book would have any value."
This is very important when it comes to Christianity. St. Paul said that unless Christ rose from the dead, his faith is in vain. Many people think of Jesus as just a good moral teacher, on the same level as Buddha or Confucius. But our faith is not based on a series of principles, but on the person of Jesus Christ.
Jesus was not simply a moral teacher. He is the second person of the Trinity and the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the World. We achieve our salvation, not through following a life ethic, but through our response to God's grace, and being part of the Body of Christ. That's why the Eucharist is the "source and summit" of the Christian faith. If Jesus was a moral teacher only, then the Eucharist would be pointless. All the other moral teachers said they were mere men, such as Buddha for example. But only Jesus claimed to be the Son of God. A good moral teacher would not say he is the Son of God.
We are saved only through Christ's sacrifice on the cross, not simply because we're "good" people. Also, his grace comes through his Church, and that's why there is no salvation outside the Church. Jesus established a Church, and he said no one comes to the father except through him. As the Bible says, the Church is the Body of Christ. Jesus never once said "No one goes to the father except those that follow a moral teacher".
Christianity is not about following the advice of Jesus, but rather it is about being followers of Jesus himself.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Dire Straits Song Banned Due to Homosexual Reference
In a scary precedent, the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council (CBSC) has banned the 25 year old song Money for Nothing by Dire Straits from the radio because it contains the word "faggot". This amounts to censorship of the worst kind. I'm ashamed to say this all originated from a complaint received at OZFM, a local radio station here in St. John's.
I do not believe that we ought to persecute homosexuals or to treat them badly. This is also the position of the Church. However, no group of people should be afforded more privileges than any other group. Songs are written every day about any number of types of people, many of the lyrics are very insulting. Yet, no special protection is given for these groups. It comes down to freedom of speech.
The problem here is that homosexual activity has reached a status in Canada whereby any disagreement with them on any matter is considered hate speech, rather than legitimate debate or discussion.
This brings me back to Fr. Alphonse De Valk. He is a Canadian Catholic priest of the Basilian order who simply spoke on the Church's constant teaching concerning homosexual activities and gay marriage. He was fined for hate speech and had to spend thousands of dollars defending himself in court.
Does anyone think this would happen if someone spoke up against the Catholic Church? Of course not. It would probably air on prime time on CBC.
There is an enormous double standard when it comes to homosexual comments. People can blaspheme God all they want and make false and derogatory comments about the Church and no one bats an eye, but make one verbal misstep about an homosexual issue and you could land yourself in court.
The Catholic Church acknowledges that people who consider themselves gay have the same rights as everyone else when it comes to human rights, but there are legitimate reasons to take someone's homosexuality into consideration when making decisions.
A statement by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith states:
The banning of this song from the radio is indicative of a larger issue. The government is trying to squelch religious free speech and impose its own morality on the people. We must not let this happen.
I do not believe that we ought to persecute homosexuals or to treat them badly. This is also the position of the Church. However, no group of people should be afforded more privileges than any other group. Songs are written every day about any number of types of people, many of the lyrics are very insulting. Yet, no special protection is given for these groups. It comes down to freedom of speech.
The problem here is that homosexual activity has reached a status in Canada whereby any disagreement with them on any matter is considered hate speech, rather than legitimate debate or discussion.
This brings me back to Fr. Alphonse De Valk. He is a Canadian Catholic priest of the Basilian order who simply spoke on the Church's constant teaching concerning homosexual activities and gay marriage. He was fined for hate speech and had to spend thousands of dollars defending himself in court.
Does anyone think this would happen if someone spoke up against the Catholic Church? Of course not. It would probably air on prime time on CBC.
There is an enormous double standard when it comes to homosexual comments. People can blaspheme God all they want and make false and derogatory comments about the Church and no one bats an eye, but make one verbal misstep about an homosexual issue and you could land yourself in court.
The Catholic Church acknowledges that people who consider themselves gay have the same rights as everyone else when it comes to human rights, but there are legitimate reasons to take someone's homosexuality into consideration when making decisions.
A statement by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith states:
10. “Sexual orientation” does not constitute a quality comparable to race, ethnic background, etc. in respect to non-discrimination. Unlike these, homosexual orientation is an objective disorder (cf. Letter, no. 3) and evokes moral concern.
11. There are areas in which it is not unjust discrimination to take sexual orientation into account, for example, in the placement of children for adoption or foster care, in employment of teachers or athletic coaches, and in military recruitment.
The banning of this song from the radio is indicative of a larger issue. The government is trying to squelch religious free speech and impose its own morality on the people. We must not let this happen.
Monday, January 24, 2011
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Offensive Super Bowl Ad will not air
Pepsico had a contest where a person or organization could win $5 million by submitting an advertisement to be used during the Super Bowl. It, of course, received hundreds of entries. One entry though was extremely offensive. It shows a priest who is struggling to bring more money into the church, until he finally has the bright idea to switch the bread and wine at Eucharist for Doritos and Pepsi. Then he receives loads of congregants.
Needless to say, this is extremely offensive to Catholics and others who believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Pepsi disqualified the ad from consideration and said it will not air. This is great news. Thanks Pepsi!
For more on this story, please visit: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/Religion/post/2011/01/super-bowl-doritos-ad-catholic-offensive/1?csp=34
Needless to say, this is extremely offensive to Catholics and others who believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Pepsi disqualified the ad from consideration and said it will not air. This is great news. Thanks Pepsi!
For more on this story, please visit: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/Religion/post/2011/01/super-bowl-doritos-ad-catholic-offensive/1?csp=34
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Blood of John Paul II to Become Relic
Some blood of John Paul II, which was taken during many medical procedures and eventually given to Cardinal Stanislaw Dziwisz, will be a relic in a centre dedicated to the late pope in Poland. The relic is encased in a crystal case and will be placed in an altar in the centre.
Relics have been a part of Christian tradition since ancient times. They are not used as amulets or idols and are not said to contain magical properties. Rather, God's grace and love is present where these relics are. Examples can be found in the Bible such as when people touch the robe of Jesus and are healed. Although they do not touch Jesus himself, they touch an object close to him through which he works his grace.
Relics have been a part of Christian tradition since ancient times. They are not used as amulets or idols and are not said to contain magical properties. Rather, God's grace and love is present where these relics are. Examples can be found in the Bible such as when people touch the robe of Jesus and are healed. Although they do not touch Jesus himself, they touch an object close to him through which he works his grace.
Longest time without a pope since AD33
The longest period of time during which the Catholic Church did not have a pope was from November 1268 to September 1, 1271, almost 3 years. This period is known as the interregnum (between reigns). The reasons were mostly political. It would have taken even longer, but the cardinals were locked in the Palazzo dei Papi di Viterbo to vote. They were given only bread and water and even the roof was removed making conditions very uncomfortable.
Eventually, Pope Gregory X was elected.
Eventually, Pope Gregory X was elected.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)