That's the title of an article written by Jimmy Akin, aka RoboCatholic. He discusses evangelization and says parishioners don't do it enough, a situation he partly blames on priests who do not promote it. On the contrary, he notes that many Protestants are encouraged to evangelize in everyday life. Jimmy says he has never seen a priest tell parishioners to talk to other people their faith or encourage them to attend Mass. I, however, have seen this. A priest in my church regularly encourages people there to bring a friend, and to tell others about Mass, etc. He says we must be open about proclaiming our faith and that we mustn't be afraid. I'm glad to have a priest like this.
Click below to read Akin's article:
ATTENTION PRIESTS! How Well Are You Doing Your Job? | Blogs | NCRegister.com
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Banning face-coverings in France: a complex issue
The fine for wearing such a veil is up to 150 euros. However, the fine for forcing a woman to wear such an outfit can reach up to 30,000 euros.
The law passed with almost no opposition in the National Assembly - 335 to 1, and then the Senate passed the law with a margin of 246-1. A Pew Research Poll revealed that about 80% of French were in support of this law. However, it does present challenges.
Many see the law as a reaction against Islamic extremism. In fact, even the Grand Mufti of Paris said that this type of face-covering veil is not prescribed in Islam anywhere and that it is a cultural phenomenon, which he believes comes from radicalized sectors of Muslim society. On this basis, he supports the ban. However, he believes it should be addressed in a case-by-case basis.
Many other countries have either enacted similar legislation, are considering it, or have considered it in the past. These countries include Denmark, the Netherlands, Spain, Italy, Austria, Germany, the UK, and Switzerland.
Although this is a difficult issue for several reasons, ultimately I am against the ban, and I will explain why shortly. First, I was surprised to see certain sources which claim Pope Benedict XVI is against this ban. These sources are a little spurious, but they claim he said this in his book Light of the World.
I do not have any reason to doubt that he made these comments. During the controversy over minarets on mosques in Switzerland, the pope said he was against banning them.
The general idea behind all of this is that the Church advocates freedom of religion everywhere in the world. Religion cannot be forced on someone and it is a true human freedom to worship freely. The pope and the Church in general view the banning of religious expression as a bad thing. In the French case, they estimate in all of France only about 2,000 women wear a full face-covering and that these people are concentrated in specific regions of the country.
I believe that the backlash from this could be greater than the benefits achieved. You see, in many Muslim countries, Christians are persecuted and held as second-class citizens. With freedom of religion in "developed" countries, there is pressure placed on Islamic countries to allow more freedom also. However, once we curtail religious expression in Western countries, the Islamic ones have an excuse to do the same.
Propaganda is a very powerful tool. Much of the rhetoric which creates Muslim extremists is that their kinsmen are being oppressed by the "Great Satan", which is the United States and its allies. We only end up fueling the flames when we make laws like this.
A radical Muslim cleric could incite hatred and violence by proclaiming that in the West, we are banning minarets, and niqabs. We are limiting the rights of Muslims. This not only gives them the right to limit Christians' freedom in those countries, but also to lash out violently.
Having said all of that, I do not believe that our morals must change to suit the squeaky wheel. In other words, we should not change our way of life or bend over backwards because a gang of terrorists threatens to hurt us. Caving into these demands only makes things worse and worse. We must stand for what's right.
Ultimately, I think we must guarantee freedom of religion if we are to expect it ourselves. Freedom of religion does not mean we must give into every whim of any religion. Rather it allows people to make their own choices concerning dress, eating habits, etc. I believe if we extend generous freedoms to Muslims, they will be more inclined to do so in their countries for large Christian minorities.
Also, I think in a case like this, there is common ground. As I mentioned earlier, the Grand Mufti of Paris said he is opposed to the wearing of such veils also because they contradict his religion. Instead of the Government unilaterally enacting this law and appearing to curtail religious freedom, it could work with people like this mufti to present this idea in a coherent and convincing way which will gain support from the Muslim community. Also, legitimate concern could be expressed over forced wearing of such clothing by members of the minority community. These issues would be seen from the vantage point of human rights rather than religious freedom and thus cause less friction.
This is admittedly a difficult situation. There are legitimate concerns about people covering their faces in public. There is also the issue of national sovereignty. Countries cannot accommodate the desires of each person and form a different law for each one. This would result in absurdity of course. People should expect to live by the laws of the land. Freedom of religion is a basic human right and must be given to each person. Developed nations must lead this charge. We cannot create tit-for-tat laws. I heard someone say well in Saudi Arabia women are forced to wear face-coverings even if they are Christian, therefore we have the right to force them to take off their face-covering. This is illogical because morals are not based on doing the opposite of what someone else is doing. Morals are based on absolute right vs. absolute wrong. We must be the example that Muslim countries strive for, rather than seeking one-ups-manship.
In conclusion, I will just say that I believe religious freedom is a universal right. Also, although I do believe in a state's right to create laws, I believe this particular law may have more negative consequences than positive. It will simply be fodder to make lives worse for Christians in other countries. We, as Christians, must give example to the world.
Jesus said, "I have given you example". We now follow his example. We too must again give example to the world, and ultimately they may respond in kind.
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Good article about how the Church deals with gay couples...
First you have to get past the deceptive title of this news article. Bishop Tobin doesn't say the Church is ok with some benefits for gay couples. All he says is that he is ok with granting benefits to any two people to make decisions for each other. Whether that's a married couple, two buddies, an uncle and nephew, etc. It has nothing to do with sexual orientation. But I guess you gotta grab headlines somehow. The article actually has some good information. The bishop is clear that the Church does not support any officially-recognized gay unions of any kind.
GoLocalProv | News | EXCLUSIVE: Bishop Tobin—Church OK with Some Benefits for Gay Couples
GoLocalProv | News | EXCLUSIVE: Bishop Tobin—Church OK with Some Benefits for Gay Couples
Monday, April 11, 2011
Immorality of IVF and designer babies
Here's the scoop on this story. A couple wants to have a girl, not a boy. Their reason is that their daughter died and to help them in the grieving process, they want to have another girl. As is so typical in these cases, the child is not considered, only the parents desires. People are fond of "designing" their families. Some people believe the perfect family is parents, one girl, and one boy. Then they're done. It's no different than deciding what color to paint their house or what city to live in. They just see a family as an extension of their personal interests and desires. Of course, the reason all of this is possible is that we have separated the sexual act from procreation. Then we went even further by creating babies in test tubes. Now we're at the point where we not only create babies in test tubes, we design them. We look for certain genetic traits, sex, etc. The whole designer baby phenomenon has started. Dr. Frankenstein would be very proud.
One thing I liked in this article is that the government of Australia did not allow this kind of sex determination, and they also said the main decision is in favour of the child, not the parent. Children are gifts from God and we shouldn't be tampering with this. We definitely should not be "designing" babies as an extension of our own personalities. We don't "own" children, we are entrusted with them. They are not pets. We have to move away from this me-me-me attitude in families.
Here's the article:
Couple get no say in baby's sex | Herald Sun
One thing I liked in this article is that the government of Australia did not allow this kind of sex determination, and they also said the main decision is in favour of the child, not the parent. Children are gifts from God and we shouldn't be tampering with this. We definitely should not be "designing" babies as an extension of our own personalities. We don't "own" children, we are entrusted with them. They are not pets. We have to move away from this me-me-me attitude in families.
Here's the article:
Couple get no say in baby's sex | Herald Sun
Sunday, April 10, 2011
Saturday, April 09, 2011
Planned Parenthood avoids the word "abortion"
There's a big irony going on. The Republicans in the US want to cut a lot of spending in the budget, including all funds that are going to Planned Parenthood. Obviously lots of people are against this because they want abortion to be all over the place.
But the ironic thing I've noticed is that no one ever talks about abortion. The only argument used for continuing to fund Planned Parenthood is that it provides lots of "other" services like pap smears, contraception, etc. Some people even made up some of the stuff they provide to make them sound better.
But no one ever lists abortion as one of the good services that Planned Parenthood provides. They must be ashamed of this aspect of this organization. I've read lots of articles on this, and it's always the same old thing. Don't shut down Planned Parenthood because it does all this "other" stuff.
That's the stupidest argument I've ever heard. First of all, try to be logically consistent. If abortion is a good thing, then why try to hide it? Or why try to mask it by simply subsuming it into "maternal health", even though abortion has nothing to do with maternity or health. Instead, advocates should be proclaiming how happy they are about abortion and when debating this issue say they want Planned Parenthood to keep going strong so they can do more and more abortions. But they are not saying this. Maybe they realize how ridiculous it sounds.
Secondly, no amount of good can justify an evil. Who cares that the Nazis improved the economy greatly by building infrastructure or new cars or whatever? Who cares that they advocated new animal cruelty laws? Who cares that they united the country and increased patriotism? No one cares! I have never heard someone say we should support Nazis because of all the good stuff they did in Germany. It's a stupid defense. The fact is, they perpetrated great evil. That's the same thing with Planned Parenthood. Maybe they do provide SOME good services, but that cannot override the nefarious things they do, like aborting babies.
So much of this is a word game. Planned Parenthood is ashamed of what they do and they do not want people to hear about it, so they mask it with euphemisms like "maternal health" or "female health services" or "family planning", when in fact, they are providing abortion, killing pre-born children.
If the money is being spent, why not just give it to organizations that do not provide abortion or other immoral service. Then none of this debate would even have to happen.
But the ironic thing I've noticed is that no one ever talks about abortion. The only argument used for continuing to fund Planned Parenthood is that it provides lots of "other" services like pap smears, contraception, etc. Some people even made up some of the stuff they provide to make them sound better.
But no one ever lists abortion as one of the good services that Planned Parenthood provides. They must be ashamed of this aspect of this organization. I've read lots of articles on this, and it's always the same old thing. Don't shut down Planned Parenthood because it does all this "other" stuff.
That's the stupidest argument I've ever heard. First of all, try to be logically consistent. If abortion is a good thing, then why try to hide it? Or why try to mask it by simply subsuming it into "maternal health", even though abortion has nothing to do with maternity or health. Instead, advocates should be proclaiming how happy they are about abortion and when debating this issue say they want Planned Parenthood to keep going strong so they can do more and more abortions. But they are not saying this. Maybe they realize how ridiculous it sounds.
Secondly, no amount of good can justify an evil. Who cares that the Nazis improved the economy greatly by building infrastructure or new cars or whatever? Who cares that they advocated new animal cruelty laws? Who cares that they united the country and increased patriotism? No one cares! I have never heard someone say we should support Nazis because of all the good stuff they did in Germany. It's a stupid defense. The fact is, they perpetrated great evil. That's the same thing with Planned Parenthood. Maybe they do provide SOME good services, but that cannot override the nefarious things they do, like aborting babies.
So much of this is a word game. Planned Parenthood is ashamed of what they do and they do not want people to hear about it, so they mask it with euphemisms like "maternal health" or "female health services" or "family planning", when in fact, they are providing abortion, killing pre-born children.
If the money is being spent, why not just give it to organizations that do not provide abortion or other immoral service. Then none of this debate would even have to happen.
Friday, April 08, 2011
Abortion Could Shut Down US Government Tonight
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)