Let me explain, and I'm no expert, but basically the US Government has a proposed budget on the table. It can't get passed unless there is agreement between the Democrats and the Republicans. Basically the Republicans (or GOP) wants a lot of spending cuts, while the Democrats (which include Obama) are not so keen on it.
One of the cuts the Republicans want to make is funding to Planned Parenthood (PP). As it stands now, PP receives over $300 million in federal funding for its operation. Technically the organization cannot use federal funds to provide abortion because of the Hyde Amendment. However, many argue that giving $300 million to them allows them to take care of a lot of other costs and thus frees up resources for abortion. This makes a lot of sense. As an analogy, imagine a hit man. The government and people say they don't like the fact that he kills people. But the government wants to support the other work he does like walking his dog, selling lemonade during the summer, bringing his kids to soccer practice, mowing lawns, painting houses, etc. You get the idea. Anyway, the government says it will fund all of his good activities, but not his hitman activities like buying guns, bullets, and clean up crews. It's clear that if the government is paying for all his other costs, including housing and food, he will have loads of money to spend on his killing activities. This is grade one logic.
So back to the story. Obviously the Republicans and a lot of citizens don't want their hard-earned tax dollars paying for the killing of children. This is only one, but one very important, part of budget cuts desired by many politicians.
It's good to see abortion being a big issue in the US. In Canada, not only is it legal to kill a child in the womb, but every Canadian must pay for it or face the possibility of going to jail. How crazy is that?! In fact, most Canadians are against spending money on abortion. Hopefully if Stephen Harper get a majority, federal funding for abortion will go on the chopping block.
Friday, April 08, 2011
10 Facts about Pope John Paul II's Funeral (6 Years Ago Today)
Six years ago today, one of the most beloved popes of the past century was laid to rest, 6 days after his death at the age of 84. Here are the 10 most amazing facts about his funeral:
It was the largest funeral of all time with over 4 million people attending
Although not confirmed, some believe it was the most watched event in history (whether in person, live on television, or taped) with an estimated 2 billion people watching.
His funeral brought together the largest gathering of heads of state in history (outside the UN) with 70 prime ministers and presidents attending as well as four kings and five queens.
The pope was buried in 3 coffins, each inside the other. The first is cedar, which was lowered into a zinc coffin which was soldered shut and then lowered into a walnut casket.
The pope must be buried between 4 and 6 days after his death. JPII was buried at the latest time - 6 days.
The future pope, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, led the Requiem Mass.
The Requiem Mass was interrupted several times by applause, and at the end, the crowds shouted "Santo Subito", which translates from Italian to English as "Saint now!"
There was a very high level of security during the funeral, especially to address terrorism concerns. Measures included a no-fly zone with a 5-mile radius, deployment of anti-aircraft missiles, Italian warships armed with torpedoes, military jets, and an astounding one thousand snipers positioned in strategic locations.
It was the largest funeral of all time with over 4 million people attending
Although not confirmed, some believe it was the most watched event in history (whether in person, live on television, or taped) with an estimated 2 billion people watching.
His funeral brought together the largest gathering of heads of state in history (outside the UN) with 70 prime ministers and presidents attending as well as four kings and five queens.
The pope was buried in 3 coffins, each inside the other. The first is cedar, which was lowered into a zinc coffin which was soldered shut and then lowered into a walnut casket.
The pope must be buried between 4 and 6 days after his death. JPII was buried at the latest time - 6 days.
The future pope, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, led the Requiem Mass.
The Requiem Mass was interrupted several times by applause, and at the end, the crowds shouted "Santo Subito", which translates from Italian to English as "Saint now!"
There was a very high level of security during the funeral, especially to address terrorism concerns. Measures included a no-fly zone with a 5-mile radius, deployment of anti-aircraft missiles, Italian warships armed with torpedoes, military jets, and an astounding one thousand snipers positioned in strategic locations.
Thursday, April 07, 2011
Tuesday, April 05, 2011
Woman who claims to be Roman Catholic bishop to speak at Rutgers-Camden | NJ.com
Just saw this disturbing article. A woman is claiming to be a bishop. Not only is she a woman, she must have gone directly from being a layperson to bishop. She could have at least made it slightly believable by claiming to first being a priest, THEN a bishop. But anyway, that's pretty irrelevant. Any woman who claims to be a member of the clergy is simply showing a case of disobedience and nothing more. It's usually evident from the way they describe the priesthood. They see it in terms of power. Even if a man was discerning a call to the priesthood and saw being a priest as being in a position of "power", he would probably be deemed unfit for ministry. The priesthood is not about being in power, it's about being a servant. Does a man ever say he wants to be a father so he can be powerful? No. And if one ever did, he would not be a very good father.
These issues are always matters of obedience. Good Catholics submit themselves to the teachings of the Church and their superiors.
Woman who claims to be Roman Catholic bishop to speak at Rutgers-Camden | NJ.com
These issues are always matters of obedience. Good Catholics submit themselves to the teachings of the Church and their superiors.
Woman who claims to be Roman Catholic bishop to speak at Rutgers-Camden | NJ.com
Monday, April 04, 2011
Saturday, April 02, 2011
The Church will not be Silent
The sex abuse scandal in the Catholic Church is a terrible one. Many children and young people were victimized, which caused lasting effects in many cases. Even one case would be far too many. Many people are rightfully concerned about the safety and welfare of children in the context of the Church.
However, some people see this as an opportunity to silence the Church on moral issues. Just yesterday I wrote an article about April Fools Day, and I received a response which basically said I should not be writing anything about April Fools because of the sex abuse scandals which happened in the Church. This is actually very common on my blog. I write on a particular topic which has to do with morality, and I receive a comment which tells me to stop talking about morality because there was a sex abuse scandal.
Other times, there will be articles published on news websites, including editorials, which may address any number of issues and if it is related to the Church in any way, they will simply make reference to the sex abuse scandal to completely dismiss any relevant points. For example, an article was published on half a million dollars being stolen from the Archdiocese of St. John's and a large number of the comments simply made reference to the sex abuse scandal as if to say stealing money from them is irrelevant.
This approach is simply illogical. First of all, I am not a spokesperson for the Catholic Church. Secondly, the Church will not be silenced. Jesus Christ established the Church to speak in matters of faith and morals and to guide the world to do the right thing. Ignoring the Church is ignoring Jesus Christ, the Son of God. This is a fact which cannot be avoided. No matter how much people want to attack the Church, this does not diminish its unique role as revealer of Truth on matters of faith and morals.
But the approach being employed by many people is illogical for other reasons as well. There are some in the Church who have abused children, but this is something that happens in all sectors of society. Any study that has been done on the subject reveals that levels of abuse in other religions, organizations, etc. are as high or higher than that of the Catholic Church.
Would anyone ever say they will not listen to a school teacher on math, science, history, etc. because some teachers have abused children? In fact, at a much higher rate than priests? I've never heard anyone say this. How about if there was an article published showing a lack of funding for education, would people say who cares about education, some teachers have abused kids!
Some may respond by saying that the Catholic Church is different because it moved priests to other dioceses. Well, there is more than meets the eye here. Most abuse in the Catholic Church occurred at least 30 years ago or more. In those times, it was commonly held knowledge that an abuser could be reformed and brought back into society. This was the advice of psychologists, so that's what happened. Now we know the difference. It may shock many people to find out that teachers were also moved from one school to another if a case of sexual abuse was reported. You can read my article on this here.
But the point is, there has been sexual abuse in all sectors of society: other religious institutions, boy scouts, swim teams, hockey teams, and other sports teams, schools, hospitals, etc. The rates are the same or higher in these places than in the Catholic Church.
Some believe that the sex abuse situation in the Catholic Church remains the same and that no improvement has been made. In fact, a large number of people believe the Church has done absolutely nothing and continues to hide abuse. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The Church has always affirmed that sexually abusing minors is one of the gravest sins. But since the scandal broke, the Church has become a model of good behavior in this regard. In 2008, there were only 6 credible allegations of possible cases of sex abuse among 40,000 priests. In fact, the next time you read an article on sex abuse in the Church, find out the year it happened. It will probably be 30+ years ago. Cases are nearly non-existent now. But even more to the point, the Church in America has adopted a zero-tolerance policy. If there is even a rumour that a priest have committed an inappropriate sexual act, he is removed from ministry until the issue is settled. If convicted, he is removed from ministry. The pope has consistently spoken out against abuse and called it "filth" in the Church. He has met with victims and they felt he really understood them. I have not seen anything close to comparable to this from any other organization.
The Church has a mandate from Jesus Christ to continue teaching faith and morals in this world. No other organization speaks with the moral authority of the Church and that's why people are so intent on undermining it. People will continue to use the sex abuse scandal as an excuse to ignore good morals. Keep in mind, I'm not saying the abuse by priests was not a terrible thing. It was. But we cannot throw the baby out with the bathwater. The Church condemns these actions as much as anyone else. To imply that the Church somehow condones there actions is absurd. 1% bad priests should not tarnish the image of the other 99%.
I will end by saying what I commonly hear on Catholic Answer Live by Tim Staples. He says "Don't leave Peter because of Judas". Jesus himself chose Judas as one of the Twelve, and Judas betrayed our Lord in the most grievous way, yet Jesus didn't say now people can stop listening to him and his Church because of this. Jesus Christ gave his Church the authority to speak on matters of faith and morals and we are obliged to listen. Jesus warned us of wolves in sheep's clothing, but he didn't say at the first sign of sin, leave his Church. Christ's Church is a hospital for sinners, not a hotel for saints. If we expect the members of the Church to be flawless, we better reevaluate our assumptions.
However, some people see this as an opportunity to silence the Church on moral issues. Just yesterday I wrote an article about April Fools Day, and I received a response which basically said I should not be writing anything about April Fools because of the sex abuse scandals which happened in the Church. This is actually very common on my blog. I write on a particular topic which has to do with morality, and I receive a comment which tells me to stop talking about morality because there was a sex abuse scandal.
Other times, there will be articles published on news websites, including editorials, which may address any number of issues and if it is related to the Church in any way, they will simply make reference to the sex abuse scandal to completely dismiss any relevant points. For example, an article was published on half a million dollars being stolen from the Archdiocese of St. John's and a large number of the comments simply made reference to the sex abuse scandal as if to say stealing money from them is irrelevant.
This approach is simply illogical. First of all, I am not a spokesperson for the Catholic Church. Secondly, the Church will not be silenced. Jesus Christ established the Church to speak in matters of faith and morals and to guide the world to do the right thing. Ignoring the Church is ignoring Jesus Christ, the Son of God. This is a fact which cannot be avoided. No matter how much people want to attack the Church, this does not diminish its unique role as revealer of Truth on matters of faith and morals.
But the approach being employed by many people is illogical for other reasons as well. There are some in the Church who have abused children, but this is something that happens in all sectors of society. Any study that has been done on the subject reveals that levels of abuse in other religions, organizations, etc. are as high or higher than that of the Catholic Church.
Would anyone ever say they will not listen to a school teacher on math, science, history, etc. because some teachers have abused children? In fact, at a much higher rate than priests? I've never heard anyone say this. How about if there was an article published showing a lack of funding for education, would people say who cares about education, some teachers have abused kids!
Some may respond by saying that the Catholic Church is different because it moved priests to other dioceses. Well, there is more than meets the eye here. Most abuse in the Catholic Church occurred at least 30 years ago or more. In those times, it was commonly held knowledge that an abuser could be reformed and brought back into society. This was the advice of psychologists, so that's what happened. Now we know the difference. It may shock many people to find out that teachers were also moved from one school to another if a case of sexual abuse was reported. You can read my article on this here.
But the point is, there has been sexual abuse in all sectors of society: other religious institutions, boy scouts, swim teams, hockey teams, and other sports teams, schools, hospitals, etc. The rates are the same or higher in these places than in the Catholic Church.
Some believe that the sex abuse situation in the Catholic Church remains the same and that no improvement has been made. In fact, a large number of people believe the Church has done absolutely nothing and continues to hide abuse. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The Church has always affirmed that sexually abusing minors is one of the gravest sins. But since the scandal broke, the Church has become a model of good behavior in this regard. In 2008, there were only 6 credible allegations of possible cases of sex abuse among 40,000 priests. In fact, the next time you read an article on sex abuse in the Church, find out the year it happened. It will probably be 30+ years ago. Cases are nearly non-existent now. But even more to the point, the Church in America has adopted a zero-tolerance policy. If there is even a rumour that a priest have committed an inappropriate sexual act, he is removed from ministry until the issue is settled. If convicted, he is removed from ministry. The pope has consistently spoken out against abuse and called it "filth" in the Church. He has met with victims and they felt he really understood them. I have not seen anything close to comparable to this from any other organization.
The Church has a mandate from Jesus Christ to continue teaching faith and morals in this world. No other organization speaks with the moral authority of the Church and that's why people are so intent on undermining it. People will continue to use the sex abuse scandal as an excuse to ignore good morals. Keep in mind, I'm not saying the abuse by priests was not a terrible thing. It was. But we cannot throw the baby out with the bathwater. The Church condemns these actions as much as anyone else. To imply that the Church somehow condones there actions is absurd. 1% bad priests should not tarnish the image of the other 99%.
I will end by saying what I commonly hear on Catholic Answer Live by Tim Staples. He says "Don't leave Peter because of Judas". Jesus himself chose Judas as one of the Twelve, and Judas betrayed our Lord in the most grievous way, yet Jesus didn't say now people can stop listening to him and his Church because of this. Jesus Christ gave his Church the authority to speak on matters of faith and morals and we are obliged to listen. Jesus warned us of wolves in sheep's clothing, but he didn't say at the first sign of sin, leave his Church. Christ's Church is a hospital for sinners, not a hotel for saints. If we expect the members of the Church to be flawless, we better reevaluate our assumptions.
Friday, April 01, 2011
Can Catholics Participate in April Fools?
Today is April 1, 2011, and therefore April Fool's Day. The question is can Catholics legitimately participate in it without sinning? This is a question which deserves to be addressed because most Catholics do participate, but we must always follow our moral compass, no matter the time of year. The main moral issues brought up in April Fools include lying, and causing harm to others. "Harm" of course can be accomplished in a multitude of ways, and therefore most sins could come under this categorization.
First, let's address lying. Often, April Fools jokes involve convincing someone that something which is actually false is true. For example, we may tell someone something serious has occurred when in fact it hasn't. This will cause a reaction of panic. The panic is quelled when the victim is told the truth. This normally begets a reaction of annoyance, hopefully followed by laughter.
The reverse can be used as well. Rather than negative news, extremely positive (but false) news is given to the victim. For example, they are told they won the lottery, or that they will receive a bonus at work. But then it is revealed that there is in fact, no monetary gain to be had. The subsequent truth causes upset and a feeling of loss to the victim, who will hopefully get over it, and once again laugh.
To find out how serious lying is, let's look at Church sources such as the Bible, the Catechism, and Church documents.
This is what the Catechism states about lying:
Seems rather clear that we are not to lie. However, can exceptions be made?
Later, the Catechism states:
So, the criteria for the seriousness of a lie are 1) the truth it deforms 2) the circumstances 3) the intentions of the one who lies 4) the harm suffered by its victims
Therefore, it seems reasonable that if an April Fools Joke does not deform a major truth, and the intention is to simply cause some laughter, and the harm suffered by the victim is very minor, then it should be permissible. But most of all, I think the circumstances are important (2). People know it is April Fools Day and are expecting to be pranked. Therefore, the circumstances would usually make it okay.
Having said that, if any of the criteria for a serious lie are implemented, I think it could be considered wrong. For example, telling someone something extremely serious, or lying to cause harm or suffering. In those cases, an April Fools lie can go beyond proper Catholic teaching.
But what about other pranks? I think most other pranks must follow proper moral guidelines. If the prank will cause excessive damage, cost, or suffering, it should not be used. How this is determined will depend on the person and the action undertaken.
Here are some guidelines, which I think could be used:
1) The prank cannot cause permanent negative effects
2) The prank cannot involve extremely serious matter, so as to cause excessive panic
3) Once a prank has been performed, it should be revealed soon after the reaction of the victim.
4) The prank cannot be an immediate cause of an excessive reaction of the victim. This can usually be foreseen. For example, it would be imprudent to tell a victim that someone just jumped into the frigid water, thus causing the victim to risk their life attempting to save the fictional jumper by themselves jumping in. Another example would be to indicate to the April Fools victim that their spouse is cheating on them, and provide a false name of a person who is doing it. This may cause irrevocable damage.
5) An April Fools prank cannot place the perpetrator or victim in a situation where the possibility of a grave sin being committed is high.
First, let's address lying. Often, April Fools jokes involve convincing someone that something which is actually false is true. For example, we may tell someone something serious has occurred when in fact it hasn't. This will cause a reaction of panic. The panic is quelled when the victim is told the truth. This normally begets a reaction of annoyance, hopefully followed by laughter.
The reverse can be used as well. Rather than negative news, extremely positive (but false) news is given to the victim. For example, they are told they won the lottery, or that they will receive a bonus at work. But then it is revealed that there is in fact, no monetary gain to be had. The subsequent truth causes upset and a feeling of loss to the victim, who will hopefully get over it, and once again laugh.
To find out how serious lying is, let's look at Church sources such as the Bible, the Catechism, and Church documents.
This is what the Catechism states about lying:
2464 The eighth commandment forbids misrepresenting the truth in our relations with others. This moral prescription flows from the vocation of the holy people to bear witness to their God who is the truth and wills the truth. Offenses against the truth express by word or deed a refusal to commit oneself to moral uprightness: they are fundamental infidelities to God and, in this sense, they undermine the foundations of the covenant.
Seems rather clear that we are not to lie. However, can exceptions be made?
Later, the Catechism states:
2484 The gravity of a lie is measured against the nature of the truth it deforms, the circumstances, the intentions of the one who lies, and the harm suffered by its victims. If a lie in itself only constitutes a venial sin, it becomes mortal when it does grave injury to the virtues of justice and charity.
So, the criteria for the seriousness of a lie are 1) the truth it deforms 2) the circumstances 3) the intentions of the one who lies 4) the harm suffered by its victims
Therefore, it seems reasonable that if an April Fools Joke does not deform a major truth, and the intention is to simply cause some laughter, and the harm suffered by the victim is very minor, then it should be permissible. But most of all, I think the circumstances are important (2). People know it is April Fools Day and are expecting to be pranked. Therefore, the circumstances would usually make it okay.
Having said that, if any of the criteria for a serious lie are implemented, I think it could be considered wrong. For example, telling someone something extremely serious, or lying to cause harm or suffering. In those cases, an April Fools lie can go beyond proper Catholic teaching.
But what about other pranks? I think most other pranks must follow proper moral guidelines. If the prank will cause excessive damage, cost, or suffering, it should not be used. How this is determined will depend on the person and the action undertaken.
Here are some guidelines, which I think could be used:
1) The prank cannot cause permanent negative effects
2) The prank cannot involve extremely serious matter, so as to cause excessive panic
3) Once a prank has been performed, it should be revealed soon after the reaction of the victim.
4) The prank cannot be an immediate cause of an excessive reaction of the victim. This can usually be foreseen. For example, it would be imprudent to tell a victim that someone just jumped into the frigid water, thus causing the victim to risk their life attempting to save the fictional jumper by themselves jumping in. Another example would be to indicate to the April Fools victim that their spouse is cheating on them, and provide a false name of a person who is doing it. This may cause irrevocable damage.
5) An April Fools prank cannot place the perpetrator or victim in a situation where the possibility of a grave sin being committed is high.
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Pakistan thanks Pope, but is it enough?
According to this article, Pakistan is thanking the pope for his response to the Terry Jones incident where he was planning on burning a Qur'an in the US. The pope decried the action. Now Pakistan is thanking the pope and wants further action taken to prevent this type of thing from happening.
But my question is, is Pakistan doing enough? I think the best way they can thank the pope is to ensure the safety of Christian in their country. There have been many instances of violence against Christians in Pakistan and reports that the government sometimes turns a blind eye. A particularly infamous case was that of Shahbaz Bhatti, the only Christian in Pakistan's government who was assassinated. See my article on that incident here.
Here's the article I'm referring to above:
Pakistan will write to Pope Benedict XVI and the Interpol for taking appropriate action against controversial US pastor | MBPE Capital
But my question is, is Pakistan doing enough? I think the best way they can thank the pope is to ensure the safety of Christian in their country. There have been many instances of violence against Christians in Pakistan and reports that the government sometimes turns a blind eye. A particularly infamous case was that of Shahbaz Bhatti, the only Christian in Pakistan's government who was assassinated. See my article on that incident here.
Here's the article I'm referring to above:
Pakistan will write to Pope Benedict XVI and the Interpol for taking appropriate action against controversial US pastor | MBPE Capital
History Channel Presents the Vatican
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:
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:
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)