A program aired tonight called "Secret Access: The Vatican" on the History Channel from 9pm to 11pm EST. I'm not sure if it aired in Canada, because I did not see it in local listings. Looks like a great show that I'd love to watch.
Here's a couple of clips to whet your appetite:
Another great documentary on the Vatican was produced by National Geographic several years ago. That can be purchased on Amazon, on the link below:
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
CBC's The National addresses Bias in its "Voting Compass"
A few days ago, I wrote an article about my feeling that the CBC Voting Compass for the upcoming election is biased.
Tonight, on the CBC National News, they did a story on the voting compass addressing this very issue. They say so far 800,000 people have taken the test. Oddly, the creators of the site maintain that this tool is not meant to show them how to vote, but rather is simply to show them where the parties stand.
During the piece, Ioanna Roumeliotis interviewed some students to see if they were surprised. Many were. Some thought they were Conservative, others thought they were NDP. However, of all the people whose response was different than expected, none turned out to be Conservative. Most of the time, they were told they were Liberal.
After the main report, Peter Mansbridge said the CBC asked party strategists from each party to do the test and evaluate it. He said they will air their response sometime later this week. That should be something to look forward to.
As I mentioned before, the main reason this is concerning to Catholics is that we are obliged to vote for good moral decisions, by attempting to reduce or eliminate things like abortion, same-sex marriage, embryonic destruction of any kind, sexual morals, etc. We must also strive to keep a government which promotes the common human good and offers appropriate social services. However, the first category trumps the second.
Tonight, on the CBC National News, they did a story on the voting compass addressing this very issue. They say so far 800,000 people have taken the test. Oddly, the creators of the site maintain that this tool is not meant to show them how to vote, but rather is simply to show them where the parties stand.
During the piece, Ioanna Roumeliotis interviewed some students to see if they were surprised. Many were. Some thought they were Conservative, others thought they were NDP. However, of all the people whose response was different than expected, none turned out to be Conservative. Most of the time, they were told they were Liberal.
After the main report, Peter Mansbridge said the CBC asked party strategists from each party to do the test and evaluate it. He said they will air their response sometime later this week. That should be something to look forward to.
As I mentioned before, the main reason this is concerning to Catholics is that we are obliged to vote for good moral decisions, by attempting to reduce or eliminate things like abortion, same-sex marriage, embryonic destruction of any kind, sexual morals, etc. We must also strive to keep a government which promotes the common human good and offers appropriate social services. However, the first category trumps the second.
Another attack on a Christian Church in Pakistan
Catholic Christians in Pakistan are being persecuted because of the actions of American Terry Jones, a cult-like Protestant pastor, who threatened to burn a Qur'an. It's important to note that Terry Jones didn't actually go through with his plan. A group of 6 or 7 Muslim bandits came to St. Thomas's Church, about 45 km from Islamabad. They threw rocks to damage the church and tried to burn the door down to enter the church. They were also armed, but did not fire their weapons. Many believe this is because there is security nearby and they would have been alerted. Let's pray that this type of nonsensical violence ends.
Article here.
Article here.
Pope John Paul II's beatification will be a BIG event
Check out this link for more information:
300,000 expected for each public event at beatification of John Paul II : Catholic Culture
300,000 expected for each public event at beatification of John Paul II : Catholic Culture
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Canada Votes Compass is a SHAM!
The following post does not deal directly with a Catholic issue, but I think it is important nonetheless. Catholics are morally obliged to vote in a certain way and there are some issues which are more important than others. This is the reasoning behind Catholic Answers' Voting Guide for Serious Catholics, for example.
How to vote is especially important to Canadians as there will be a federal election on May 2 of this year. To help everyone decide which party best matches his or her belief system, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), Canada's national and largest broadcaster, has set up a handy site called Canada Votes 2011 Compass. This "compass" is a series of 30 questions to determine the user's best match. Each question has 5 possible responses, for example ranging between "strongly agree" and "strongly disagree", or between "never" and "always".
However, I have a major beef with the survey on the website. In my opinion, it is biased and non-representative. In one particular commercial, George Stroumboulopoulos says "you may be surprised" at the results. I think there is more to his statement than you might think.
Let's analyze the questions a little. First of all, you can give your riding and postal code, which makes me wonder who receives this information once it's completed.
Here are the questions plus my analysis:
1. All Canadian troops should be pulled out of Afghanistan immediately
I doubt anyone would say they want troops to stay IN Afghanistan... Everyone wants them to return home. There is no indication of any possible negative side effect to this action, such as creating an unstable country which breed more terrorists.
2. Canada should increase its military presence in the arctic
Again, I'm sure no one is really that interested in increases military presence anywhere. No downside is shown for this, such as threats to Canadian sovereignty, the possibility of attack from the North, etc. Obviously if you say you are against increase military, that is a strike against the Conservatives.
3. How much should the government spend on military?
Almost the same as 1 & 2. Again, obviously biased against Conservatives. In a perfect world, we wouldn't need military. The question should instead be "How much do you value being protected from terrorists and enemy threats from abroad"
4. When there is an economic problem, government spending usually makes it worse. - agree or disagree
Notice how this question is phrased in the negative? It makes the question more confusing. In order for someone to agree with this statement, they must think government spending does harm. However, anyone who thinks government spending has NO effect or a good effect, will disagree. If it were flipped around and said "When there is an economic problem, government spending usually makes it better." I would say a lot of people would disagree. The way this is phrased is clearly biased to make most people respond that government spending is a good thing. Plus, there is no context or alternatives. Instead it should ask if government spending is BETTER than business spending, because that's comparing it to something else. Anyway who says they disagree that government spending will make it worse would be put closer to Liberal or NDP, and it seems likely that people would vote for that given how it's phrased. In the very least, it should be phrased objectively, such as "What effect does government spending have on economic problems"
5. The federal budget deficit should be reduced, even if it leads to fewer public services
How interesting. All of a sudden, we have context and comparisons. Prior to this, no context was necessary. The question could have simply read "the federal budget deficit should be reduced", but this one actually says what effect that would have. But obviously the secondary clause is added to get people to disagree with the statement and make them lean toward the Liberal or NDP. Also, this could be seen as a direct attack on the Conservative Party. They released a budget which would eliminate the deficit in 5 years. This question is making the case that reducing the deficit will entail eliminating services. Who wrote this question, Jack Layton?
6. Canada should seek closer economic relations with the USA
I don't really have any issues with this question, but something tells me all parties would want this anyway, however it's generally the Conservatives who look for ties with the US. No comment on this one.
7. The environmental damage caused by the Alberta oil sands industry is exaggerated
There is no attempt to hide the bias in this question. Even from a grammatical stand-point, this sentence makes no sense. The damage is exaggerated? By whom? It doesn't say the reports of damage or studies of damage or anything like that, but simply the "damage" has been exaggerated?
But let's assume for a minute it means what we've been led to believe about the oil sands causing environmental damage is simply an exaggeration. Obviously saying you agree would make the system think you are a Conservative. However, I doubt many people would even say this, unless they are a conspiracy theorist. How am I competent to know how much environmental damage is being caused by the oil sands industry? Plus, this question is again biased. An unbiased question would say something like "Do the economic benefits of the Alberta oil sands (e.g. thousands of jobs) outweigh the environmental impact". As it is, there is once again no context. No one likes pollution, so most people would be inclined to say it is not exaggerated.
8. Canada should adopt a carbon tax
This question is more straight-forward. I think most people know where they stand on this issue. It is fairly unbiased because while it doesn't say a carbon tax would increase taxes and make like more expensive, it also doesn't say it will help the environment. So I give this question a pass.
9. Environmental regulation should be stricter even if it leads to consumers having to pay higher prices
This one is also good. On one hand, people want stricter regulations, but they also mention the downside so people can see the benefits and disadvantages
10. How much of a role should the private sector have in health care?
This question is a little misleading. It is phrased in such a way as to make it sound like health care would be run by corporations with maybe some government regulations, and of course corporations are always greedy multinational conglomerates. The private sector would not really have a role in public health care, but would instead be a separate system altogether, sort of like dental health is right now. The question makes it sound like should we get greedy, power-hungry executives to run our health care. What it should ask is if a private health care system should be allowed to run alongside the public one which will not receive public funding and can be used to alleviate strain on the public system.
11. The government should fund daycare instead of giving money directly to parents.
No comment
12. It should be easier to apply for employment insurance
I doubt anyone wants it to be hard to apply for EI. But if you agree, you are moving toward Liberal or NDP. Again, biased I think.
13. Speaking English or French should be a requirement for immigration to Canada.
No comment.
14. How many new immigrants should Canada admit?
I have a feeling those who say fewer will move closer to Conservative and those who say more will be more to the left. However, I'm not sure how this is relevant to this election...
15. How much should be done to accommodate religious minorities in Canada?
I'm sure most people would say the same or more for this question. Who would say we shouldn't accommodate them? But I also think if you say you should accommodate them you would be considered leftist...
16. Violent young offenders should be sentenced as adults
Not too sure about this one either. If you agree, I guess that gets your vote for Conservative. Not sure the effect of this...
17. The long gun registry should be scrapped
Fairly unbiased
18. Possession of marijuana should be a criminal offense
Again, fairly straightforward without bias or interpretation. That's my opinion anyway.
19. The government should make it easier for a woman to get an abortion.
This one, although controversial, will offer good guidelines. I think if you are pro-life you will strongly disagree and if you are pro-abortion, you will agree. So again, I don't see much bias here. One irony though is that although theoretically the Conservatives are usually pro-life, they have not moved much to enact measures to curtail or end abortion. But I'm sure this question will determine if you are more liberal or conservative. Hopefully if the Conservatives get a majority, they will try to curb abortion.
20. Marriage should only be between a man and a woman
Again, this is fairly unbiased and straight-forward. I think most people know where they stand on this issue.
21. If they so wish, terminally ill patients should be able to end their own lives with medical assistance.
I think this question is somewhat biased. It perpetuates the myth that people who end their own lives are competent to make such a decision. Would we ask a question "Should suicidal people be able to end their own lives with medical assistance". Most people of course would say no. Plus, they say "terminally ill patient". Of course, once enacted, this law could not be restricted to that group of people. It would eventually include people who are depressed, have some affliction, etc. Basically doctor-assisted suicide would be legal. None of this is represented in the question.
22. The Senate should be abolished
This seems fairly straight-forward. I have no idea where this would place someone politically.
23. Political parties should no longer receive government funding.
Again, seems unbiased, but I don't have much information on this.
24. Only those who speak both English and French should be appointed to the Supreme Court
Seem unbiased. I guess those who agree would probably be aligning themselves with the Bloc Quebecois (BQ) a bit more.
25. The federal government should have a say when it comes to decisions about culture in Quebec.
Again, looks like a BQ or non-BQ question.
26. Quebec should be formally recognized as a nation in the Constitution
Not sure how this would work out, but it seems like another BQ / non-BQ question.
27. Quebec should become an independent state
Another.
28. Workers should contribute more to their government pension plan (CPP/RRQ) so that it can offer bigger pensions.
This seems to offer pro and con - pro: more pension, con: more contribution. Most of the questions do not offer clarification, so it seems odd that this one does. It shows the benefits of contributing more to CPP, therefore increasing the chance that someone would select it, and be considered NDP or Liberal.
29. How much should wealthier people pay in taxes?
Compare this to the previous question and notice the bias. Seriously, who sits down and says "man, I really wish those wealthy millionaires didn't have to pay as much in taxes. If only their tax rates were lower!" No one ever says that, and the question offers no potential benefit to this, such as rich people actually staying in Canada, investing in Canada, helping Canada grow, hiring workers, etc. Without this context, most people will say "rich" people should pay more or much more in taxes, and thus make them seem more Liberal or NDP.
30. ow much tax should corporations pay?
The only thing more common than bashing rich people is bashing "corporations", you know those blood thirsty organizations which lack any form of morality and use people as slaves to benefit a few rich people who laugh at everyone's misfortune? This question ONCE AGAIN has absolutely no context. Most people, who are not business owners will say corporations should pay way more taxes. Stop taxing us, and tax companies more. Companies earn millions of dollars, but we only earn enough to survive. That's how people think. A more balanced question would look like "How much should corporations pay in taxes, recognizing that the lower their taxes are, the more likely they will remain in Canada, create jobs, and employ more people."
And that's all 30 questions. As you can see, they are all very biased. Unless you are a war-loving, corporate fat-cat, who cares nothing for the plight of innocent people, the system will indicate that you should vote for some leftist party, instead of the Conservatives. These questions are not at all unbiased, but worse is that this whole system is paid for by tax-payers dollars of which the CBC receives 1 billion each year. The only thing I can see this being used as is a tool to convert possible conservative voters into liberal or ndp voters.
How to vote is especially important to Canadians as there will be a federal election on May 2 of this year. To help everyone decide which party best matches his or her belief system, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), Canada's national and largest broadcaster, has set up a handy site called Canada Votes 2011 Compass. This "compass" is a series of 30 questions to determine the user's best match. Each question has 5 possible responses, for example ranging between "strongly agree" and "strongly disagree", or between "never" and "always".
However, I have a major beef with the survey on the website. In my opinion, it is biased and non-representative. In one particular commercial, George Stroumboulopoulos says "you may be surprised" at the results. I think there is more to his statement than you might think.
Let's analyze the questions a little. First of all, you can give your riding and postal code, which makes me wonder who receives this information once it's completed.
Here are the questions plus my analysis:
1. All Canadian troops should be pulled out of Afghanistan immediately
I doubt anyone would say they want troops to stay IN Afghanistan... Everyone wants them to return home. There is no indication of any possible negative side effect to this action, such as creating an unstable country which breed more terrorists.
2. Canada should increase its military presence in the arctic
Again, I'm sure no one is really that interested in increases military presence anywhere. No downside is shown for this, such as threats to Canadian sovereignty, the possibility of attack from the North, etc. Obviously if you say you are against increase military, that is a strike against the Conservatives.
3. How much should the government spend on military?
Almost the same as 1 & 2. Again, obviously biased against Conservatives. In a perfect world, we wouldn't need military. The question should instead be "How much do you value being protected from terrorists and enemy threats from abroad"
4. When there is an economic problem, government spending usually makes it worse. - agree or disagree
Notice how this question is phrased in the negative? It makes the question more confusing. In order for someone to agree with this statement, they must think government spending does harm. However, anyone who thinks government spending has NO effect or a good effect, will disagree. If it were flipped around and said "When there is an economic problem, government spending usually makes it better." I would say a lot of people would disagree. The way this is phrased is clearly biased to make most people respond that government spending is a good thing. Plus, there is no context or alternatives. Instead it should ask if government spending is BETTER than business spending, because that's comparing it to something else. Anyway who says they disagree that government spending will make it worse would be put closer to Liberal or NDP, and it seems likely that people would vote for that given how it's phrased. In the very least, it should be phrased objectively, such as "What effect does government spending have on economic problems"
5. The federal budget deficit should be reduced, even if it leads to fewer public services
How interesting. All of a sudden, we have context and comparisons. Prior to this, no context was necessary. The question could have simply read "the federal budget deficit should be reduced", but this one actually says what effect that would have. But obviously the secondary clause is added to get people to disagree with the statement and make them lean toward the Liberal or NDP. Also, this could be seen as a direct attack on the Conservative Party. They released a budget which would eliminate the deficit in 5 years. This question is making the case that reducing the deficit will entail eliminating services. Who wrote this question, Jack Layton?
6. Canada should seek closer economic relations with the USA
I don't really have any issues with this question, but something tells me all parties would want this anyway, however it's generally the Conservatives who look for ties with the US. No comment on this one.
7. The environmental damage caused by the Alberta oil sands industry is exaggerated
There is no attempt to hide the bias in this question. Even from a grammatical stand-point, this sentence makes no sense. The damage is exaggerated? By whom? It doesn't say the reports of damage or studies of damage or anything like that, but simply the "damage" has been exaggerated?
But let's assume for a minute it means what we've been led to believe about the oil sands causing environmental damage is simply an exaggeration. Obviously saying you agree would make the system think you are a Conservative. However, I doubt many people would even say this, unless they are a conspiracy theorist. How am I competent to know how much environmental damage is being caused by the oil sands industry? Plus, this question is again biased. An unbiased question would say something like "Do the economic benefits of the Alberta oil sands (e.g. thousands of jobs) outweigh the environmental impact". As it is, there is once again no context. No one likes pollution, so most people would be inclined to say it is not exaggerated.
8. Canada should adopt a carbon tax
This question is more straight-forward. I think most people know where they stand on this issue. It is fairly unbiased because while it doesn't say a carbon tax would increase taxes and make like more expensive, it also doesn't say it will help the environment. So I give this question a pass.
9. Environmental regulation should be stricter even if it leads to consumers having to pay higher prices
This one is also good. On one hand, people want stricter regulations, but they also mention the downside so people can see the benefits and disadvantages
10. How much of a role should the private sector have in health care?
This question is a little misleading. It is phrased in such a way as to make it sound like health care would be run by corporations with maybe some government regulations, and of course corporations are always greedy multinational conglomerates. The private sector would not really have a role in public health care, but would instead be a separate system altogether, sort of like dental health is right now. The question makes it sound like should we get greedy, power-hungry executives to run our health care. What it should ask is if a private health care system should be allowed to run alongside the public one which will not receive public funding and can be used to alleviate strain on the public system.
11. The government should fund daycare instead of giving money directly to parents.
No comment
12. It should be easier to apply for employment insurance
I doubt anyone wants it to be hard to apply for EI. But if you agree, you are moving toward Liberal or NDP. Again, biased I think.
13. Speaking English or French should be a requirement for immigration to Canada.
No comment.
14. How many new immigrants should Canada admit?
I have a feeling those who say fewer will move closer to Conservative and those who say more will be more to the left. However, I'm not sure how this is relevant to this election...
15. How much should be done to accommodate religious minorities in Canada?
I'm sure most people would say the same or more for this question. Who would say we shouldn't accommodate them? But I also think if you say you should accommodate them you would be considered leftist...
16. Violent young offenders should be sentenced as adults
Not too sure about this one either. If you agree, I guess that gets your vote for Conservative. Not sure the effect of this...
17. The long gun registry should be scrapped
Fairly unbiased
18. Possession of marijuana should be a criminal offense
Again, fairly straightforward without bias or interpretation. That's my opinion anyway.
19. The government should make it easier for a woman to get an abortion.
This one, although controversial, will offer good guidelines. I think if you are pro-life you will strongly disagree and if you are pro-abortion, you will agree. So again, I don't see much bias here. One irony though is that although theoretically the Conservatives are usually pro-life, they have not moved much to enact measures to curtail or end abortion. But I'm sure this question will determine if you are more liberal or conservative. Hopefully if the Conservatives get a majority, they will try to curb abortion.
20. Marriage should only be between a man and a woman
Again, this is fairly unbiased and straight-forward. I think most people know where they stand on this issue.
21. If they so wish, terminally ill patients should be able to end their own lives with medical assistance.
I think this question is somewhat biased. It perpetuates the myth that people who end their own lives are competent to make such a decision. Would we ask a question "Should suicidal people be able to end their own lives with medical assistance". Most people of course would say no. Plus, they say "terminally ill patient". Of course, once enacted, this law could not be restricted to that group of people. It would eventually include people who are depressed, have some affliction, etc. Basically doctor-assisted suicide would be legal. None of this is represented in the question.
22. The Senate should be abolished
This seems fairly straight-forward. I have no idea where this would place someone politically.
23. Political parties should no longer receive government funding.
Again, seems unbiased, but I don't have much information on this.
24. Only those who speak both English and French should be appointed to the Supreme Court
Seem unbiased. I guess those who agree would probably be aligning themselves with the Bloc Quebecois (BQ) a bit more.
25. The federal government should have a say when it comes to decisions about culture in Quebec.
Again, looks like a BQ or non-BQ question.
26. Quebec should be formally recognized as a nation in the Constitution
Not sure how this would work out, but it seems like another BQ / non-BQ question.
27. Quebec should become an independent state
Another.
28. Workers should contribute more to their government pension plan (CPP/RRQ) so that it can offer bigger pensions.
This seems to offer pro and con - pro: more pension, con: more contribution. Most of the questions do not offer clarification, so it seems odd that this one does. It shows the benefits of contributing more to CPP, therefore increasing the chance that someone would select it, and be considered NDP or Liberal.
29. How much should wealthier people pay in taxes?
Compare this to the previous question and notice the bias. Seriously, who sits down and says "man, I really wish those wealthy millionaires didn't have to pay as much in taxes. If only their tax rates were lower!" No one ever says that, and the question offers no potential benefit to this, such as rich people actually staying in Canada, investing in Canada, helping Canada grow, hiring workers, etc. Without this context, most people will say "rich" people should pay more or much more in taxes, and thus make them seem more Liberal or NDP.
30. ow much tax should corporations pay?
The only thing more common than bashing rich people is bashing "corporations", you know those blood thirsty organizations which lack any form of morality and use people as slaves to benefit a few rich people who laugh at everyone's misfortune? This question ONCE AGAIN has absolutely no context. Most people, who are not business owners will say corporations should pay way more taxes. Stop taxing us, and tax companies more. Companies earn millions of dollars, but we only earn enough to survive. That's how people think. A more balanced question would look like "How much should corporations pay in taxes, recognizing that the lower their taxes are, the more likely they will remain in Canada, create jobs, and employ more people."
And that's all 30 questions. As you can see, they are all very biased. Unless you are a war-loving, corporate fat-cat, who cares nothing for the plight of innocent people, the system will indicate that you should vote for some leftist party, instead of the Conservatives. These questions are not at all unbiased, but worse is that this whole system is paid for by tax-payers dollars of which the CBC receives 1 billion each year. The only thing I can see this being used as is a tool to convert possible conservative voters into liberal or ndp voters.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)