Interesting article and photo:
dailygleaner.com - Manitoba chief discusses water needs with Pope
Saturday, March 26, 2011
The Irony of Confession Opponents
Most non-Catholics and even some Catholics believe that confession is at best a embarrassing event that Catholics must endure, and at worst a conspiracy set up by the Church to stick its nose in other peoples' business. However, faithful Catholics know the benefits.
Ironically though, not many people seem to have an issue about showing the faces of people who have been arrested for certain crimes. It doesn't even matter if they are convicted or not, they are paraded through the court with multiple cameras zoomed in on their face. At least during confession a person is admitting his guilt, which is more than someone who is simply under arrest.
Once the court case starts, we hear all the gory details of whatever the crime may have been. It's a forced public confession. Yet you will rarely hear anyone say this is outrageous or consider this a ploy by citizens to stick their noses where they don't belong.
Let's compare this to confession. Confession is done in private, there is no video or audio equipment to record the proceedings. A penitent may choose to conceal his identity from the priest or even visit a different church. The Seal of the Confessional ensures that the utmost secrecy is maintained at all times, even if the priest is threatened with death.
Imagine for a minute if a Catholic penitent was treated the same as an accused person in a criminal court. He would be forced to confess in public to everyone around. It would be broadcast on television and radio, etc. How would people react? This would be so much more embarrassing than confession ever could be.
Do we believe that public sins (i.e. crimes) are not as bad as private sins? If we are real Christians, our main objective is to obey the moral law, regardless of the civil law. Therefore, civil law is inferior to moral law. So what happens in a court of law cannot be more serious than what could happen in a confessional.
I believe that if the civil court was as private and anonymous as the confessional, there would in fact be protest in the opposite direction, i.e. people would say we are kept in the dark about what is happening and that the process needs to be made more public. However, on the other hand, confession is seen as a violation of privacy! Seems to me, privacy is only violated if the protester isn't there to see what they are speaking about.
I want to note that perhaps some circumstances, it is necessary to publish the identity of a convicted criminal, and in even rarer circumstances it might be important to broadcast the name of an accused, but generally speaking I do not believe the general public is on a need-to-know basis for these things.
However, the point of my article is not how people should be treated in civil court, but rather the irony of how people feel about it versus the confessional.
Ironically though, not many people seem to have an issue about showing the faces of people who have been arrested for certain crimes. It doesn't even matter if they are convicted or not, they are paraded through the court with multiple cameras zoomed in on their face. At least during confession a person is admitting his guilt, which is more than someone who is simply under arrest.
Once the court case starts, we hear all the gory details of whatever the crime may have been. It's a forced public confession. Yet you will rarely hear anyone say this is outrageous or consider this a ploy by citizens to stick their noses where they don't belong.
Let's compare this to confession. Confession is done in private, there is no video or audio equipment to record the proceedings. A penitent may choose to conceal his identity from the priest or even visit a different church. The Seal of the Confessional ensures that the utmost secrecy is maintained at all times, even if the priest is threatened with death.
Imagine for a minute if a Catholic penitent was treated the same as an accused person in a criminal court. He would be forced to confess in public to everyone around. It would be broadcast on television and radio, etc. How would people react? This would be so much more embarrassing than confession ever could be.
Do we believe that public sins (i.e. crimes) are not as bad as private sins? If we are real Christians, our main objective is to obey the moral law, regardless of the civil law. Therefore, civil law is inferior to moral law. So what happens in a court of law cannot be more serious than what could happen in a confessional.
I believe that if the civil court was as private and anonymous as the confessional, there would in fact be protest in the opposite direction, i.e. people would say we are kept in the dark about what is happening and that the process needs to be made more public. However, on the other hand, confession is seen as a violation of privacy! Seems to me, privacy is only violated if the protester isn't there to see what they are speaking about.
I want to note that perhaps some circumstances, it is necessary to publish the identity of a convicted criminal, and in even rarer circumstances it might be important to broadcast the name of an accused, but generally speaking I do not believe the general public is on a need-to-know basis for these things.
However, the point of my article is not how people should be treated in civil court, but rather the irony of how people feel about it versus the confessional.
Friday, March 25, 2011
"Corapi accuser promised to ‘destroy’ priest after being fired: claim"
That's the headline from Life Site News. They are reporting some new information on the Fr. John Corapi situation. Much of it is unspecific, but it offers some new insight. Read the article here.
Allowed to Eat Meat Today
In some places, eating meat is prohibited for Catholics on Fridays during Lent. In other countries, it is an act of penance that many participate in. However, today, though it is Friday, it is not required, because it is the Feast of the Annunciation (March 25, 2011):
While the USCCB mandates abstaining on Fridays during Lent, the CCCB makes it optional.
Canon 1251 Abstinence from eating meat or another food according to the prescriptions of the conference of bishops is to be observed on Fridays throughout the year unless (nisi) they are solemnities; abstinence and fast are to be observed on Ash Wednesday and on the Friday of the Passion and Death of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
While the USCCB mandates abstaining on Fridays during Lent, the CCCB makes it optional.
4th Youngest Bishop head of Eastern Catholic Church
For a little perspective, the Ukrainian Catholic Church has over 4 million members worldwide and is in full communion with Rome and the pope, yet maintains a particularly Eastern liturgy. This is the case for 22 Eastern Catholic Churches including this one, and 1 Western Catholic Church (i.e. the Roman Catholic Church or Latin-Rite Catholic Church which comprises about 98% of worldwide Catholics).
Looks like this guy is going places!
Photo Friday: One of the oldest skeletons of a known person
One of the oldest examples of a known skeleton is that of St. Ambrose, which dates to April 4, 397. He was one of the original four Doctors of the Catholic Church and instructed St. Augustine in many spiritual matters. An interesting fact about Ambrose is that he was elected to the position of bishop before he was even baptized. He was a catechumen on the path to baptism. When try to select the next bishop, there was much argument between the orthodox Catholics and Arians, however both groups like Ambrose and he was thus elected. Before officially taking his position, he was baptized and confirmed.This photo shows the actual skeleton of Ambrose, along with some of his followers. It is over 1600 years old!
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Probable election in Spring in Canada
Looks like Canada will be going to the polls sometime in the next several weeks. This happened after the Conservative Government published its budget about an hour ago. The Liberals and Bloc Quebecois said they would vote against it, but that was expected. Although the government tried to cater to some of the demands of the NDP, they ultimately failed, Jack Layton saying it wasn't enough. When the vote is taken, it is quite likely the budget will not pass and parliament will be dissolved and Canadians will head to the polls to elect a new government.
I do think that the NDP and the other parties are being unreasonable, which could work in favour of the Conservatives. The public will realize Jack Layton, Michael Ignatieff, and Gilles Duceppes are being too picky and will oppose them. On top of that, the Conservative budget will actually eliminate the deficit of the country in 4-5 years, and has demonstrated the lowest unemployment of all G7 nations.
Hopefully the Conservatives will non only win the next election, but will gain a majority. My hope is contingent on the Conservatives going back to their roots and being not only fiscally conservative, but also socially conservative. They have to restrict abortion at a minimum and eventually eliminate it altogether, they need to end homosexual "marriage", stop human cloning and in-vitro fertilization, and allow freedom of speech. Let's hope we get ever closer to these ideals.
I do think that the NDP and the other parties are being unreasonable, which could work in favour of the Conservatives. The public will realize Jack Layton, Michael Ignatieff, and Gilles Duceppes are being too picky and will oppose them. On top of that, the Conservative budget will actually eliminate the deficit of the country in 4-5 years, and has demonstrated the lowest unemployment of all G7 nations.
Hopefully the Conservatives will non only win the next election, but will gain a majority. My hope is contingent on the Conservatives going back to their roots and being not only fiscally conservative, but also socially conservative. They have to restrict abortion at a minimum and eventually eliminate it altogether, they need to end homosexual "marriage", stop human cloning and in-vitro fertilization, and allow freedom of speech. Let's hope we get ever closer to these ideals.
Massive Pro-Choice Rally
 |
| Pro-Choice rally in Alaska |
Now, let's compare that to the measly numbers achieved at a pro-life rally. In 2011, the number of people at the March for Life in Washington, D.C. numbered 400,000. However, this was not even covered in most of the mainstream media, and if it was, it was just a side note.
 |
| Pro-life rally in Washington, D.C. |
I want to note that this article is something of an exaggeration. I am not trying to imply that all pro-choice rallies get only 15 participants and that pro-life ones all get 400,000 people. I am just showing the hypocrisy of only reporting on pro-choice events or purposely showing them as equal when there are clearly more people at the pro-life rallies.
Monday, March 21, 2011
Father Corapi put on administrative leave
This seems rather shocking, but nothing has been proven in court yet. These are mere allegations, which should not be too surprising given Fr. Corapi's popularity. Let's just hope the media who has ignored this holy priest until now, doesn't turn this into something it's not.
Story here from The Catholic Review Online
Story here from The Catholic Review Online
Another fall on the reproductive slippery slope
Of course, as usual, this will not be treated as a problem with IVF in general, but rather the fact that there are not enough regulations in the industry or that particular hospital. That's always how our modern society addresses problems, never at the core, but at the application of an evil. Same with contraception and abortion. People use contraception to avoid pregnancy, so when they do get pregnant, they opt for abortion as a backup contraception. Instead of challenging the wisdom of advertising "safe sex", rather than fertile sex within marriage, people will simply say we need to promote safe sex more heavily.
Anyway, I digress. In this case, IVF should be banned because it is morally wrong. Stop arranging deck chairs on the Titanic and find a real solution.
The mother who had another woman's baby by mistake | Mail Online
Anyway, I digress. In this case, IVF should be banned because it is morally wrong. Stop arranging deck chairs on the Titanic and find a real solution.
The mother who had another woman's baby by mistake | Mail Online
The Phrase "When in Rome, Do as the Romans Do"`
Did you know that the phrase "When in Rome, do as the Romans do" was coined by St. Ambrose of Milan when dialoging with St. Augustine, his spiritual follower. St. Augustine was asking him about a particular liturgical norm that differed in Milan (as opposed to Rome). Augustine asked his friend Ambrose what he should do, to which Ambrose replied with the famous saying.
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Cool name, terrible dictator
On Wikipedia today, they said on March 20, 235, a new emperor began his reign over Rome. Unfortunately he was very cruel to Christians are martyred the pope, among others. However, his name struck me as kind of cool - Maximinus Thrax. It almost sounds made up. It's like the combination of a dinosaur and an autobot. Anyway, that's just my random thought for the day.
Saturday, March 19, 2011
What will the .xxx domain mean?
In June or July of this year, a new internet domain will emerge - .xxx There are many sides to this debates and its effect on the culture.
I think it might be a good step, but that remains to be seen.
Some of the benefits:
- xxx sites will be contained in a single area, which makes them easy to exclude or block. schools, and people who do not want to go to these sites can simply set their computers to not show xxx domain names
- the sites will be regulated to disallow some of the worst filth on the Internet, such as child pornography.
However, I think the most benefit could be achieved if xxx was the exclusive area for pornographic material. As it is right now, porn sites can set up shop as a .com, .net, .org, .ca, etc. There is really no limit, and thus there is no protection. However, if xxx sites limited themselves to ONLY .xxx, it would be much easier to navigate away from this societal ill.
Some people say that the xxx legitimizes lewd websites. The issue I have with this argument is that the Internet is already inundated with porn, and it lures in victims each day. I doubt the xxx will make it any more prevalent than if they did not create such a domain.
Some people in the porn industry are against this change, believing it will force them into a corner. Obviously a vital part of the porn industry's strategy is to appear mainstream and to be accessible from anywhere. That's what Hugh Hefner did when he invented Playboy. It wanted to make sure it didn't come across as sleaze, but he wanted it to seem respectable. Often, he pictured high-class individuals. He wanted people to believe that viewing pornographic was somehow chic.
If people in the porn industry are against this, it is probably a good thing.
Others are concerned this will amount to censorship. Again, I ask: So what? Society already practices censorship in many ways. Porn is not allowed in schools or public libraries. Consumers should be at least able to clearly know what they are getting involved with and this in no way characterizes censorship. One comment I read the man was scoffing at the idea of "obscenity". I've heard this before. Basically the argument is obscenity is just a matter of personal preference, therefore nothing can be considered obscene because it's just subjective.
This is just a convenient argument to allow filth to be targeted at anyone, anywhere.
If this whole thing is done in the right way, I think it can be beneficial. It can help people make better decisions by disallowing a bombardment of porn at every turn. The xxx domain will serve as a warning sign for no morally upright person to enter.
Only time will tell the effect.
I think it might be a good step, but that remains to be seen.
Some of the benefits:
- xxx sites will be contained in a single area, which makes them easy to exclude or block. schools, and people who do not want to go to these sites can simply set their computers to not show xxx domain names
- the sites will be regulated to disallow some of the worst filth on the Internet, such as child pornography.
However, I think the most benefit could be achieved if xxx was the exclusive area for pornographic material. As it is right now, porn sites can set up shop as a .com, .net, .org, .ca, etc. There is really no limit, and thus there is no protection. However, if xxx sites limited themselves to ONLY .xxx, it would be much easier to navigate away from this societal ill.
Some people say that the xxx legitimizes lewd websites. The issue I have with this argument is that the Internet is already inundated with porn, and it lures in victims each day. I doubt the xxx will make it any more prevalent than if they did not create such a domain.
Some people in the porn industry are against this change, believing it will force them into a corner. Obviously a vital part of the porn industry's strategy is to appear mainstream and to be accessible from anywhere. That's what Hugh Hefner did when he invented Playboy. It wanted to make sure it didn't come across as sleaze, but he wanted it to seem respectable. Often, he pictured high-class individuals. He wanted people to believe that viewing pornographic was somehow chic.
If people in the porn industry are against this, it is probably a good thing.
Others are concerned this will amount to censorship. Again, I ask: So what? Society already practices censorship in many ways. Porn is not allowed in schools or public libraries. Consumers should be at least able to clearly know what they are getting involved with and this in no way characterizes censorship. One comment I read the man was scoffing at the idea of "obscenity". I've heard this before. Basically the argument is obscenity is just a matter of personal preference, therefore nothing can be considered obscene because it's just subjective.
This is just a convenient argument to allow filth to be targeted at anyone, anywhere.
If this whole thing is done in the right way, I think it can be beneficial. It can help people make better decisions by disallowing a bombardment of porn at every turn. The xxx domain will serve as a warning sign for no morally upright person to enter.
Only time will tell the effect.
Update on Italian Crucifixes in Schools
Last year, I reported that a European Union judge ordered that Italy remove all crucifixes from school walls in the country after one woman complained about them on behalf of her children. She said they limited her freedom of religion. Anyway, a superior judge has deemed the crucifixes to be legal in the country, and thus they will continue. Keep in mind, this tradition is centuries old. Probably most, if not all, schools were originally established by the Church in Italy and the crucifix is the symbol of our faith. Removing it from classrooms is tantamount to banning national flags!
To read my full article from 2009, click here.
To get the new details, go here:
Vatican welcomes European court decision on classroom crucifixes | USCatholic.org
To read my full article from 2009, click here.
To get the new details, go here:
Vatican welcomes European court decision on classroom crucifixes | USCatholic.org
Friday, March 18, 2011
Canadian Movie Engenders Anti-Catholicism
A Canadian film (along with help from Hungary) is jumping on the familiar bandwagon of spreading anti-Catholicism through media. This time, CTV, Showtime, and other television networks are producing a television mini-series called "The Borgias", starring Jeremy Irons. The film focuses on Pope Alexander VI.
Of course, Alexander VI is generally considered the most immoral pope ever to take the office. Why is it that we have 265 popes to choose from, and you won't hear about any of them except someone like Alexander VI?
So steeped in controversy was Alexander that upon his election to the papacy, the future Pope Leo X, remarked:
Pope Alexander VI fathered many children, and arranged marriages for them. He also held orgies. He stole money from many people and was complicit in certain murders. Let's just say he wasn't a very good person.
It's also important to note that of the 265 popes we've had so far, only about 10 could be considered deficient in personal holiness. Why then does Hollywood spend millions of dollars portraying just this one bad apple?
Has the Church not suffered enough from generalizations and bad publicity? Why drag the Church through even more mud? It's hard to tell sometimes that there isn't a concerted effort to attack the Church.
This will only serve to give people more ammunition with which to attack the Church. Why resurrect such bad examples?
Can anyone truly imagine Hollywood, or the Canadian film industry doing something similar to another religion? How about a biopic of a greedy, blood-thirsty rabbi? Or maybe an unglamorous portrayal of one of the founders of Islam committing terrible and immoral acts? If someone did, they would probably be charged with a hate crime.
Trust me, you'll never see such films. Why is the Catholic Church society's whipping boy? Another Canadian miniseries was Pillars of the Earth about the building of a cathedral. The bishop was portrayed as a power-hungry opportunist willing to use any means to achieve his goal. Then we have Doubt, the beating-a-dead-horse movie about a priest who sexually abuses boys.
That's not to mention Angels and Demons or the Da Vinci Code. The list just goes on and on.
In fact, can anyone tell me the last time they saw a Catholic priest or member of the hierarchy portrayed in a positive way? In the rare event that an ordained minister is not shown to be absolutely corrupt, he is usually an outsider fighting the corrupt "higher-ups".
This is an all-out assault.
I have no evidence for this, but my suspicion is that the Government of Canada also has a hand in this. That's very typical for Canadian-made movies. I don't want my tax dollars paying for this!
I bet if you asked even Catholics about popes throughout history, most would say something like "well, there were MANY bad popes that did a lot of evil things!". It's almost taken as common knowledge. But like I said earlier, only about 10 popes could be considered personally unholy out of 265. It's important to note that Catholics do not consider popes to be impeccable, meaning unable to sin because of their office.
Note to movie producers: There is already enough anti-Catholicism in Canada. You don't need to promote it!
Of course, Alexander VI is generally considered the most immoral pope ever to take the office. Why is it that we have 265 popes to choose from, and you won't hear about any of them except someone like Alexander VI?
So steeped in controversy was Alexander that upon his election to the papacy, the future Pope Leo X, remarked:
Now we are in the power of a wolf, the most rapacious perhaps that this world has ever seen. And if we do not flee, he will inevitably devour us all.
Pope Alexander VI fathered many children, and arranged marriages for them. He also held orgies. He stole money from many people and was complicit in certain murders. Let's just say he wasn't a very good person.
It's also important to note that of the 265 popes we've had so far, only about 10 could be considered deficient in personal holiness. Why then does Hollywood spend millions of dollars portraying just this one bad apple?
Has the Church not suffered enough from generalizations and bad publicity? Why drag the Church through even more mud? It's hard to tell sometimes that there isn't a concerted effort to attack the Church.
This will only serve to give people more ammunition with which to attack the Church. Why resurrect such bad examples?
Can anyone truly imagine Hollywood, or the Canadian film industry doing something similar to another religion? How about a biopic of a greedy, blood-thirsty rabbi? Or maybe an unglamorous portrayal of one of the founders of Islam committing terrible and immoral acts? If someone did, they would probably be charged with a hate crime.
Trust me, you'll never see such films. Why is the Catholic Church society's whipping boy? Another Canadian miniseries was Pillars of the Earth about the building of a cathedral. The bishop was portrayed as a power-hungry opportunist willing to use any means to achieve his goal. Then we have Doubt, the beating-a-dead-horse movie about a priest who sexually abuses boys.
That's not to mention Angels and Demons or the Da Vinci Code. The list just goes on and on.
In fact, can anyone tell me the last time they saw a Catholic priest or member of the hierarchy portrayed in a positive way? In the rare event that an ordained minister is not shown to be absolutely corrupt, he is usually an outsider fighting the corrupt "higher-ups".
This is an all-out assault.
I have no evidence for this, but my suspicion is that the Government of Canada also has a hand in this. That's very typical for Canadian-made movies. I don't want my tax dollars paying for this!
I bet if you asked even Catholics about popes throughout history, most would say something like "well, there were MANY bad popes that did a lot of evil things!". It's almost taken as common knowledge. But like I said earlier, only about 10 popes could be considered personally unholy out of 265. It's important to note that Catholics do not consider popes to be impeccable, meaning unable to sin because of their office.
Note to movie producers: There is already enough anti-Catholicism in Canada. You don't need to promote it!
Dolan Doubts He'll Be Pope, Wants Sex Abuse To Haunt Church : Gothamist
This will be worth watch on CBS's 60 Minutes this Sunday.
Dolan Doubts He'll Be Pope, Wants Sex Abuse To Haunt Church : Gothamist
Dolan Doubts He'll Be Pope, Wants Sex Abuse To Haunt Church : Gothamist
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Happy St. Patrick's Day Everyone
In the comments, tell me what you do for St. Patrick's Day. You can post anonymously!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)