Like most Catholics, I'm going to Mass today to have ashes put on my forehead as a sign of repentance from sin, and a reminder of mortality and reliance on God. Ash Wednesday also marks the beginning of Lent, a 40 day fast in anticipation of Easter.
So, what are you giving up for Lent this year? Let me know in the comments!
Wednesday, March 09, 2011
First Photograph Ever was of Pope Pius VII in 1822
A little known fact is that the first photograph ever taken was of an engraving of Pope Pius VII. It was taken in 1822 by Nicéphore Niépce, a French inventor who also created one of the first internal combustion engines.
The photo was destroyed in 1825 when Nicéphore tried to duplicate it.
I've linked a book about this French inventor below:
The photo was destroyed in 1825 when Nicéphore tried to duplicate it.
I've linked a book about this French inventor below:
Tuesday, March 08, 2011
Congratulations to Celine Dion's Twins on their Baptism, but...
Celine Dion's four and a half month old twin boys Nelson and Eddy Angelil were baptized in Las Vegas this past Saturday. The occasion is, of course, cause for great celebration. However, there are certain issues in this situation.
1) Babies conceived via IVF
I have written extensively in the past on why in-vitro fertilization is unacceptable in Catholic moral teaching.
2) Irregular number of Godparents
Strangely, Celion Dion decided to violate Church Law, by having 3 Godfathers and 2 Godmothers who all stood for each of the two twins. This is clearly forbidden. In Church Law, a child can only have two Godparents, one from each sex. Technically they must both be Catholic. If one is not Catholic, that one is technically not a Godparent, but rather a witness. It seems odd that the two monsignors shown at the baptism did not say anything about this. My only guess is that only one man and one woman are the actual godparents of each of these babies and that the other one or ones are witnesses.
Underage Godparent
One Godparent is the brother of the twins being baptized. Problem is he is only 10 years old and Canon Law states the godparent must be at least 16 years old. Rare exceptions can be made for extenuating circumstances. But those are not specified in the code. Something tells me, this wasn't a matter of necessity, but of desire of the parents.
A Family Affair
To round out the five Godparents were Celine Dion's husband's two sons Patrick and Jean-Pierre, his daughter Anne-Marie, and Celine's sister, Linda.
On a separate note, I'm not sure what is up with our society in general these days where we cannot seem to make a decision. So often I've seen people getting married and having 2 or 3 best men, and 2 or 3 bridesmaids. Now this tradition seems to be spreading to selection of Godparents.
Celine Dion's sons baptized in Vegas - News - ReviewJournal.com
1) Babies conceived via IVF
I have written extensively in the past on why in-vitro fertilization is unacceptable in Catholic moral teaching.
2) Irregular number of Godparents
Strangely, Celion Dion decided to violate Church Law, by having 3 Godfathers and 2 Godmothers who all stood for each of the two twins. This is clearly forbidden. In Church Law, a child can only have two Godparents, one from each sex. Technically they must both be Catholic. If one is not Catholic, that one is technically not a Godparent, but rather a witness. It seems odd that the two monsignors shown at the baptism did not say anything about this. My only guess is that only one man and one woman are the actual godparents of each of these babies and that the other one or ones are witnesses.
Underage Godparent
One Godparent is the brother of the twins being baptized. Problem is he is only 10 years old and Canon Law states the godparent must be at least 16 years old. Rare exceptions can be made for extenuating circumstances. But those are not specified in the code. Something tells me, this wasn't a matter of necessity, but of desire of the parents.
A Family Affair
To round out the five Godparents were Celine Dion's husband's two sons Patrick and Jean-Pierre, his daughter Anne-Marie, and Celine's sister, Linda.
On a separate note, I'm not sure what is up with our society in general these days where we cannot seem to make a decision. So often I've seen people getting married and having 2 or 3 best men, and 2 or 3 bridesmaids. Now this tradition seems to be spreading to selection of Godparents.
Celine Dion's sons baptized in Vegas - News - ReviewJournal.com
Church Hierarchy vs. Church Membership
A popular idea that has been advanced by the media and others is that within the Church there are two groups, the hierarchy and the lay membership, and that these two groups are frequently at odds with one another.
Usually in the media, the lay membership is viewed as the "down-to-earth" crowd who are in with the times, and understand the real world better than the hierarchy. This is the story the media wants you to believe anyway.
However, this idea is not only false, but dangerous. The hierarchy of the church is the ordained members of it. It includes deacons, priests, and bishops. Their task is the teach and preserve the truth of the Catholic Church which was established by Jesus Christ. The teachings they proclaim are not their opinions on various matters, but represent the Church's doctrines, dogmas, and disciplines.
A Catholic who disobeys legitimate hierarchy is not "down-to-earth" or "modern", they are heretics and schismatics. The hierarchy is obliged to obey all the laws of the Church, just as non-ordained members must. Many religious live in poverty, owning no personal possessions. These are the very people who enforce the rules. Obviously they are not doing it for reasons of wealth and power, as news stories would have you believe. Rather, they have given their lives to Christ to serve him.
One of the most important characteristics of a good Catholic is obedience. Unfortunately, obedience is often ridiculed in the general public. Rather than a virtue, obedience is seen as a defect in character, indicating a person who is unable to make their own decisions. On the other hand, a person who justifies disobedience in the Church is lionized. They are seen as the little guy standing up the big bullies.
But nothing could be further from the truth. Catholics believe the Church was established by Jesus Christ and that it will remain always free from error. Faithful Catholics obey the Church even if it means they will need to make sacrifices at times. These are the true Church Militant. Disobedient Catholics on the other hand care far more for their own will than for the will of God. They do whatever they want, then justify it using their own flawed logic. Then they have the audacity to criticize the Church for disagreeing with THEM! Could someone please show me the Bible verse where Jesus established "your opinion" as the standard of truth?
I cannot understand how making up rules as one goes along is considered virtuous. I can understand however, how obedience, fortitude, and good morals are virtuous.
There is no room in the Church to disagree on fundamental moral issues such as abortion, euthanasia, contraception, embryonic stem cells, gay marriage, etc. Anyone who has supported one of these must end their support and align themselves with the Church.
There is no dogmatic distinction between true Catholics. Contrary to what the media would like us to believe, one cannot be Catholic and believe and act as they wish, any more than someone who plays baseball all day long can call himself a golfer.
There is also no distinction between faithful hierarchy and faithful laity. All must be obedient to the teachings of Holy Mother Church.
Usually in the media, the lay membership is viewed as the "down-to-earth" crowd who are in with the times, and understand the real world better than the hierarchy. This is the story the media wants you to believe anyway.
However, this idea is not only false, but dangerous. The hierarchy of the church is the ordained members of it. It includes deacons, priests, and bishops. Their task is the teach and preserve the truth of the Catholic Church which was established by Jesus Christ. The teachings they proclaim are not their opinions on various matters, but represent the Church's doctrines, dogmas, and disciplines.
A Catholic who disobeys legitimate hierarchy is not "down-to-earth" or "modern", they are heretics and schismatics. The hierarchy is obliged to obey all the laws of the Church, just as non-ordained members must. Many religious live in poverty, owning no personal possessions. These are the very people who enforce the rules. Obviously they are not doing it for reasons of wealth and power, as news stories would have you believe. Rather, they have given their lives to Christ to serve him.
One of the most important characteristics of a good Catholic is obedience. Unfortunately, obedience is often ridiculed in the general public. Rather than a virtue, obedience is seen as a defect in character, indicating a person who is unable to make their own decisions. On the other hand, a person who justifies disobedience in the Church is lionized. They are seen as the little guy standing up the big bullies.
But nothing could be further from the truth. Catholics believe the Church was established by Jesus Christ and that it will remain always free from error. Faithful Catholics obey the Church even if it means they will need to make sacrifices at times. These are the true Church Militant. Disobedient Catholics on the other hand care far more for their own will than for the will of God. They do whatever they want, then justify it using their own flawed logic. Then they have the audacity to criticize the Church for disagreeing with THEM! Could someone please show me the Bible verse where Jesus established "your opinion" as the standard of truth?
I cannot understand how making up rules as one goes along is considered virtuous. I can understand however, how obedience, fortitude, and good morals are virtuous.
There is no room in the Church to disagree on fundamental moral issues such as abortion, euthanasia, contraception, embryonic stem cells, gay marriage, etc. Anyone who has supported one of these must end their support and align themselves with the Church.
There is no dogmatic distinction between true Catholics. Contrary to what the media would like us to believe, one cannot be Catholic and believe and act as they wish, any more than someone who plays baseball all day long can call himself a golfer.
There is also no distinction between faithful hierarchy and faithful laity. All must be obedient to the teachings of Holy Mother Church.
Monday, March 07, 2011
Coming up tomorrow...
Come to this blog tomorrow morning at 8:00AM Eastern to read my article on the difference between the Church Hierarchy and the Church Membership.
Canadian Pro-Abortion Priest suing Life Site News
This is a story I wouldn't believe until I saw. A Canadian Catholic priest is now suing Life Site News for $500,000 for "defamation" and punitive damages. That is actually an entire year's revenue for the tiny paper.
The priest, Father Raymond Gravel, is in hot water with the Vatican after they found out about his positions on important issues such as gay marriage and abortion.
Ironically nothing that LifeSite has said about Fr. Gravel is incorrect. According to Canadian law, an organization or person can be sued for defamation if they present false information as truth concerning a person. In this case, that has not happened.
Fr. Gravel not only supports the legalization and access to abortion, he has voted to honor Dr. Mortgentaler, the infamous Canadian abortionist who was responsible for making abortion so commonplace in Canada. He is the antithesis of the pro-life movement. Yet, Fr. Gravel, a Catholic priest supports him.
Fortunately the priest is not using diocesan money for his stupid lawsuit and is footing the bill himself. This renegade priest claims he has a lot of support. Well, that's no surprise. Lots of people support immorality.
I hope this case is dismissed as without merit and then LifeSite countersues Fr. Gravel for defaming ITS character by saying it does not represent true journalism. It would be great to see this priest paying LifeSiteNews for his derogatory and unjust comments.
Having said that, I don't have much confidence in the Canadian legal system. Seems like it has no footing in true morality or goodness, but is rather a mouthpiece for the most extreme depravity. Let's pray it's not the same here.
For more on this story, please visit:
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/lifesitenews-defamation/
The priest, Father Raymond Gravel, is in hot water with the Vatican after they found out about his positions on important issues such as gay marriage and abortion.
Ironically nothing that LifeSite has said about Fr. Gravel is incorrect. According to Canadian law, an organization or person can be sued for defamation if they present false information as truth concerning a person. In this case, that has not happened.
Fr. Gravel not only supports the legalization and access to abortion, he has voted to honor Dr. Mortgentaler, the infamous Canadian abortionist who was responsible for making abortion so commonplace in Canada. He is the antithesis of the pro-life movement. Yet, Fr. Gravel, a Catholic priest supports him.
Fortunately the priest is not using diocesan money for his stupid lawsuit and is footing the bill himself. This renegade priest claims he has a lot of support. Well, that's no surprise. Lots of people support immorality.
I hope this case is dismissed as without merit and then LifeSite countersues Fr. Gravel for defaming ITS character by saying it does not represent true journalism. It would be great to see this priest paying LifeSiteNews for his derogatory and unjust comments.
Having said that, I don't have much confidence in the Canadian legal system. Seems like it has no footing in true morality or goodness, but is rather a mouthpiece for the most extreme depravity. Let's pray it's not the same here.
For more on this story, please visit:
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/lifesitenews-defamation/
Ratzinger on the meaning of the Word of God
Usually when we hear someone speak of the Word of God, we consider only the Bible. However, Cardinal Ratzinger points out that the Word of God is Jesus Christ himself who is present in the Eucharist.
Dr. Scott Hahn explores this topic in a short essay. In it, he goes even further to explain the original meaning of "New Testament" was the Eucharist:
To read the entire document by Scott Hahn, please click here.
Dr. Scott Hahn explores this topic in a short essay. In it, he goes even further to explain the original meaning of "New Testament" was the Eucharist:
But those books were not yet known as “the New Testament.” No, what the first Christians knew as the New Testament was the Eucharist, which Jesus himself called the “new testament” (or “covenant”) in his blood (see Luke 22:20). Jesus established the New Testament when he instituted the Eucharist and said “do this in remembrance of me” – not “read this” or “write this.” And the apostles went forth and celebrated the New Testament everywhere they went. Not half of them wrote books; but all of them went forth and celebrated the Eucharist. The Eucharist was celebrated as a sacrament for many years before the books we know as the New Testament were written.
To read the entire document by Scott Hahn, please click here.
Ireland’s Catholic priests unhappy with new translation of missal
Apparently not everyone is happy with the upcoming translation of the Catholic Mass. Although hailed by most observant and faithful Catholics as a great achievement which will render a more faithful translation from the original Latin, some are concerned it may be too much like the "old way". This particular article is in reference to Irish priests.
Of course, these objections are always going to surface. The main complaint is that the newer translation will dare use gender-specific words like "he" and "man" instead of "they" and "people". As we all know, accuracy should take a back seat to political correctness. Another odd objection is that people in nursing homes may not be able to easily adapt to the new translation. Using that logic, the Mass could never be updated so long as there were elderly people who may potentially have issues with the new wording.
Of course, these are all smokescreens. Those objecting to the new translation are only interested in liberalizing the Mass to be all-inclusive. They want to remove reference to "The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" and replace with "The Creator, the Redeemer, and the Sustainer". They want to wipe out references to Jesus Christ as a man, and instead not make mention of his maleness at all. Of course, calling God "he" is very unpleasing to this crowd.
Despite these pockets of objections, the majority of faithful Catholics are very pleased with the update. They in fact are less confusing and more enriching.
For more on the controversy, click the link below.
Ireland’s Catholic priests unhappy with new translation of missal | Irish News | IrishCentral
Of course, these objections are always going to surface. The main complaint is that the newer translation will dare use gender-specific words like "he" and "man" instead of "they" and "people". As we all know, accuracy should take a back seat to political correctness. Another odd objection is that people in nursing homes may not be able to easily adapt to the new translation. Using that logic, the Mass could never be updated so long as there were elderly people who may potentially have issues with the new wording.
Of course, these are all smokescreens. Those objecting to the new translation are only interested in liberalizing the Mass to be all-inclusive. They want to remove reference to "The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" and replace with "The Creator, the Redeemer, and the Sustainer". They want to wipe out references to Jesus Christ as a man, and instead not make mention of his maleness at all. Of course, calling God "he" is very unpleasing to this crowd.
Despite these pockets of objections, the majority of faithful Catholics are very pleased with the update. They in fact are less confusing and more enriching.
For more on the controversy, click the link below.
Ireland’s Catholic priests unhappy with new translation of missal | Irish News | IrishCentral
Governor Cuomo and the Church
Catholics back Cuomo in church tiff despite his 'living in sin' with girlfriend Sandra Lee
That's the headline from New York Daily News. It's no surprise. Take any issue of the day, and even though it violates Catholic teaching, you'll find many Catholics agreeing with it. Whether it's contraception, abortion, in-vitro fertilization, gay marriage, pre-marital sex, etc, you'll find those who continue to say they are Catholic and probably even going to Mass on Sunday, agreeing with these things.
If Cuomo is living with his girlfriend and not married, then he is committing a sin according to the Church. He is choosing to be a follower of the Church and go to Mass. The bishop is withholding communion while Cuomo is in this situation, and once it has been regularlized, I'm sure the bishop will re-permit the governor to take communion. When a person is a member of a church, or any organization, they agree to follow the rules of the church.
The Church is not forbidding Cuomo from entering a church in general or from receiving communion. It is simply saying Cuomo should refrain from communion while he is in public sin.
That's the headline from New York Daily News. It's no surprise. Take any issue of the day, and even though it violates Catholic teaching, you'll find many Catholics agreeing with it. Whether it's contraception, abortion, in-vitro fertilization, gay marriage, pre-marital sex, etc, you'll find those who continue to say they are Catholic and probably even going to Mass on Sunday, agreeing with these things.
If Cuomo is living with his girlfriend and not married, then he is committing a sin according to the Church. He is choosing to be a follower of the Church and go to Mass. The bishop is withholding communion while Cuomo is in this situation, and once it has been regularlized, I'm sure the bishop will re-permit the governor to take communion. When a person is a member of a church, or any organization, they agree to follow the rules of the church.
The Church is not forbidding Cuomo from entering a church in general or from receiving communion. It is simply saying Cuomo should refrain from communion while he is in public sin.
Sunday, March 06, 2011
Latest Episode of Catholic Answers Live
'I never thought there would be leftovers'
'I never thought there would be leftovers'
This article represents everything that's wrong with IVF.
1) Usually many embryos (young people) are killed in the process
2) Sometimes there are "leftover" embryos, and a difficult moral decision must be made.
3) The woman seems most concerned about if something happens to one of the baby's she is carrying. She wonders if she should keep some embryos just in case one of her children in the womb dies. The embryos have become nothing but a means to an end.
4) She wants to donate them to science. In other words, she wants 4 of her babies to be killed for research.
This article represents everything that's wrong with IVF.
1) Usually many embryos (young people) are killed in the process
2) Sometimes there are "leftover" embryos, and a difficult moral decision must be made.
3) The woman seems most concerned about if something happens to one of the baby's she is carrying. She wonders if she should keep some embryos just in case one of her children in the womb dies. The embryos have become nothing but a means to an end.
4) She wants to donate them to science. In other words, she wants 4 of her babies to be killed for research.
Mark Shea is a Catholic Blogging Maniac
Mark Shea has a VERY popular Catholic Blog with about 550 subscribers. One thing that makes his blog so amazing is the frequency at which he posts. Just today, he has posted 19 blog articles. Sure, some are quite short, or just link somewhere else, but this level of blogging is rather spectacular.
You can find his blog at markshea.blogspot.com
You can find his blog at markshea.blogspot.com
Saturday, March 05, 2011
Taxpayers funding anti-family studies
Two psychologists at the University of Waterloo, Richard Eibach and Steven Mock, have produced a study which they claim shows parents are deluding themselves when they say there is joy in raising a family.
The researchers set up an experiment where they put parents in two groups. In one group, the researchers only presented financial information and showed it cost around $190,000 to raise a child up to age 18. They focused on the financial burden of raising children.
In the other group, they counteracted the cost of raising children with the financial rewards, such as children taking care of them when they are older.
Apparently the parents in the first group felt more uncomfortable. So we draw the conclusion that parents are just deluding themselves when they believe raising children has benefits.
The taxpayer has to fund this total bunk, and here's why it's completely useless at best and morally wrong at worst:
1) Not enough babies anyway
We don't need to have research to "prove" that having children won't make people happy. The total fertility rate in Canada is already dismally low, as it is in most of the Western World. It's only 1.6, but the replacement rate is 2.11. We have a long ways to go yet to achieve that.
2) Only measures financial information
This is one of the worst problems with this study and this attitude in general. The implication of this study is that money brings happiness, so any choice in life which reduces one's income is a bad decision. It is implied that people without children have more money and can therefore afford things like luxury cars, big screen TVs, and are thus happier. If someone decides not to have children because they would rather a larger television set, they were probably not fit to have kids anyway.
3) Me generation
Related to the last concept is the idea of the Me generation. When people make decisions nowadays, it usually revolves around how it will directly benefit themselves. Kids are no longer seen as gifts from God, but rather as accessories to one's lifestyle. I'll often hear women say they want one boy and one girl because that will represent the "perfect" family. It's not about accepting God's gift of life in our lives, but rather engineering a good family photo. This has also led to the increase in the use of IVF, because people are just demanding to have certain things, even if it involves getting them immorally.
4) Contraceptive mentality
A major problem in our society has been the widespread use of contraception and the subsequent mental separation of the ideas of sex and conception. The only reason we are having this discussion of whether or not a couple should have children is because the sexual union is no longer intrinsically linked to procreation. I'm sure if every sexually active couple were automatically consenting to the possibility of bringing new life into the world, the question of whether or not to choose to have children would not come up.
Conclusion
Raising children involves sacrifice, even though I myself do not have kids. A selfish attitude is incompatible with openness to life and children and the decision to have kids should not be a financial one. Taxpayer-funded universities should spend money to tackle real issues, not help Canada sink further into moral depravity.
The researchers set up an experiment where they put parents in two groups. In one group, the researchers only presented financial information and showed it cost around $190,000 to raise a child up to age 18. They focused on the financial burden of raising children.
In the other group, they counteracted the cost of raising children with the financial rewards, such as children taking care of them when they are older.
Apparently the parents in the first group felt more uncomfortable. So we draw the conclusion that parents are just deluding themselves when they believe raising children has benefits.
The taxpayer has to fund this total bunk, and here's why it's completely useless at best and morally wrong at worst:
1) Not enough babies anyway
We don't need to have research to "prove" that having children won't make people happy. The total fertility rate in Canada is already dismally low, as it is in most of the Western World. It's only 1.6, but the replacement rate is 2.11. We have a long ways to go yet to achieve that.
2) Only measures financial information
This is one of the worst problems with this study and this attitude in general. The implication of this study is that money brings happiness, so any choice in life which reduces one's income is a bad decision. It is implied that people without children have more money and can therefore afford things like luxury cars, big screen TVs, and are thus happier. If someone decides not to have children because they would rather a larger television set, they were probably not fit to have kids anyway.
3) Me generation
Related to the last concept is the idea of the Me generation. When people make decisions nowadays, it usually revolves around how it will directly benefit themselves. Kids are no longer seen as gifts from God, but rather as accessories to one's lifestyle. I'll often hear women say they want one boy and one girl because that will represent the "perfect" family. It's not about accepting God's gift of life in our lives, but rather engineering a good family photo. This has also led to the increase in the use of IVF, because people are just demanding to have certain things, even if it involves getting them immorally.
4) Contraceptive mentality
A major problem in our society has been the widespread use of contraception and the subsequent mental separation of the ideas of sex and conception. The only reason we are having this discussion of whether or not a couple should have children is because the sexual union is no longer intrinsically linked to procreation. I'm sure if every sexually active couple were automatically consenting to the possibility of bringing new life into the world, the question of whether or not to choose to have children would not come up.
Conclusion
Raising children involves sacrifice, even though I myself do not have kids. A selfish attitude is incompatible with openness to life and children and the decision to have kids should not be a financial one. Taxpayer-funded universities should spend money to tackle real issues, not help Canada sink further into moral depravity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)