Yesterday, a famous spiritual guru, Sathya Sai Baba, typically known as simply Sai Baba (pronounced "Sa-E" Baba), died in Puttaparthi, India at the age of 84. He was quite well-known in India and abroad, especially by Hindus, and he had many devotees. I went to Wikipedia and saw him mentioned on the front page, so I took a look at his profile. They said he was listed as one of the 100 most influential spiritual leaders in the world on a list prepared by the Watkins Review.
I took a look at the list and noticed something strange. Out of the 100 people on the list, the pope was nowhere to be found. I searched it several different ways, and sure enough, he wasn't there. This strikes me as awfully odd and I would like to know the explanation. I imagined he would be number one. Look at the news. No other religious or spiritual leader is broadcast as much as the pope, not even close. If he says something deemed "controversial", it gets picked up by thousands of news outlets. I would venture to guess that most Westerners have not even heard of Sai Baba, yet he's listed as number 37. Others on the list include Oprah Winfrey and Eckhart Tolle.
A cursory look through the list seems to reveal that most of the names represent advocates of Eastern or New Age spirituality. Few, if any of the names, represent traditional Christian views. It seems this list is simply very biased and unreliable.
100 Spiritual Power List by Watkins | Esoteric News
Monday, April 25, 2011
Lesbian wins $22,500 over comedian's insults
The Human Rights Tribunal of BC (along with many tribunals in Canada) has become nothing more than a taxpayer-funded attack animal of the far left in Canada. Freedom of speech is now a distant memory as the most vilified group of society are Christians, especially Catholics and where abortion, homosexuality, and embryo destruction have attained the status of untouchable. Anyone who dares joke about any of these topics is swiftly dealt with in Canada's socialist-friendly kangaroo court of liberal bias.
The most recent case is one where a couple of lesbians go to a comedy show and begin to heckle the performer. He banters back with jabs at their lesbian-ness. This apparently is a crime in Canada. It's not that people disagree with it, find if offensive, or do not hire him for any more gigs. It is now a felony offense which carries a strict penalty to speak negatively about gays or lesbians, even if done with random insults at a comedy club. Have we lost all sense? Why is this group protected above and beyond anyone else?
Throughout the years, I have had to suffer through countless comedians who use the Catholic Church as their whipping boy. They relentlessly attack the Catholic Church characterizing every priest as a pedophile sodomite. This is deemed totally acceptable, even on prime time television. One particular comedian created an entire video in which he claims the Catholic Church was created with the sole purpose of sexually assaulting boys. He went into very graphic detail. Yet this is considered totally acceptable without the remotest possibility that he could be sued.
When it comes to freedom of expression, Canada should rank with war-torn third-world despotic nations run by autocrats. The only people with freedom of expression in Canada are those who advocate perversion. Anyone seen criticizing these perverse groups though can be charged with hate crimes and often have been. It's deplorable. The American system is far better. People are free to express their opinion regardless of what it may be. That is true freedom of expression. How free is the expression in Canada, if everything people say must be approved by a tiny fringe group of individuals with non-traditional morals? It's about as free as North Korea in that regard.
Once again, a Human Rights Tribunal in Canada has failed miserably to maintain anything which even slightly resembles a free society. Hopefully after the election, the government will strive to bring back freedom of expression in Canada.
Lesbian wins $22,500 over comedian's insults - CBC News
The most recent case is one where a couple of lesbians go to a comedy show and begin to heckle the performer. He banters back with jabs at their lesbian-ness. This apparently is a crime in Canada. It's not that people disagree with it, find if offensive, or do not hire him for any more gigs. It is now a felony offense which carries a strict penalty to speak negatively about gays or lesbians, even if done with random insults at a comedy club. Have we lost all sense? Why is this group protected above and beyond anyone else?
Throughout the years, I have had to suffer through countless comedians who use the Catholic Church as their whipping boy. They relentlessly attack the Catholic Church characterizing every priest as a pedophile sodomite. This is deemed totally acceptable, even on prime time television. One particular comedian created an entire video in which he claims the Catholic Church was created with the sole purpose of sexually assaulting boys. He went into very graphic detail. Yet this is considered totally acceptable without the remotest possibility that he could be sued.
When it comes to freedom of expression, Canada should rank with war-torn third-world despotic nations run by autocrats. The only people with freedom of expression in Canada are those who advocate perversion. Anyone seen criticizing these perverse groups though can be charged with hate crimes and often have been. It's deplorable. The American system is far better. People are free to express their opinion regardless of what it may be. That is true freedom of expression. How free is the expression in Canada, if everything people say must be approved by a tiny fringe group of individuals with non-traditional morals? It's about as free as North Korea in that regard.
Once again, a Human Rights Tribunal in Canada has failed miserably to maintain anything which even slightly resembles a free society. Hopefully after the election, the government will strive to bring back freedom of expression in Canada.
Lesbian wins $22,500 over comedian's insults - CBC News
Friday, April 22, 2011
What animals can be eaten on Good Friday, April 21, 2011
For Catholics, Good Friday is a day of fasting and abstinence from meat. But there is some confusion as to what is actually allowed. Before modern taxonomy, the term "fish" had a broader meaning to many people. We would now recognize a fish as a cold-blooded animal from the ocean or a pond that breathes under water. That may not be the exact definition, but its close enough. However, before this, fish would just be considered any animal that is predominantly a water-dweller. Because of this, certain regions have exceptions to the general rule of abstaining from meat, such as:
- Seal can be eaten in Newfoundland on Good Friday
- Muskrat can be eaten in some parts of the United States on Fridays during Lent
- Some places in Europe allowed and possibly still allow the consumption of beaver tails
Here is some further information from AmericanCatholic.org:
Abstinence forbids the use of meat, but not of eggs, milk products or condiments made of animal fat.
Abstinence does not include meat juices and liquid foods made from meat. Thus, such foods as chicken broth, consomme, soups cooked or flavored with meat, meat gravies or sauces, as well as seasonings or condiments made from animal fat are not forbidden. So it is permissible to use margarine and lard. Even bacon drippings which contain little bits of meat may be poured over lettuce as seasoning.
----
If you are aware of any other exceptions, feel free to post a comment about it.
- Seal can be eaten in Newfoundland on Good Friday
- Muskrat can be eaten in some parts of the United States on Fridays during Lent
- Some places in Europe allowed and possibly still allow the consumption of beaver tails
Here is some further information from AmericanCatholic.org:
Abstinence forbids the use of meat, but not of eggs, milk products or condiments made of animal fat.
Abstinence does not include meat juices and liquid foods made from meat. Thus, such foods as chicken broth, consomme, soups cooked or flavored with meat, meat gravies or sauces, as well as seasonings or condiments made from animal fat are not forbidden. So it is permissible to use margarine and lard. Even bacon drippings which contain little bits of meat may be poured over lettuce as seasoning.
----
If you are aware of any other exceptions, feel free to post a comment about it.
What if Good Friday and a Feast Day Coincide?
I was doing some research on Good Friday fasting and thought of an interesting question. What would happen if Good Friday (a moveable fast day) and the Feast of the Annunciation (celebrated on March 25) coincided? In other words, Good Friday was on March 25th. Would we feast or fast?
I couldn't seem to come across the answer, so I first went to a website which listed all the dates for Good Friday, Easter, etc. for about a hundred years. Then I searched on Google archives to see if anyone else addressed this issue. And sure enough someone did. Who was it? Well, none other than Jimmy Akin, a frequent guest on Catholic Answers Live and the writer of several books on Catholicism.
The short answer to the question is that in the event that both occur on the same day, interestingly, the Annunciation is pushed back. In the case of 2005 (the most recent time this occurred), it was pushed back to April 4th.
I'm not going to write a better article than Jimmy on this subject, so you can check it out here:
http://www.jimmyakin.org/2005/02/good_annunciati.html
I couldn't seem to come across the answer, so I first went to a website which listed all the dates for Good Friday, Easter, etc. for about a hundred years. Then I searched on Google archives to see if anyone else addressed this issue. And sure enough someone did. Who was it? Well, none other than Jimmy Akin, a frequent guest on Catholic Answers Live and the writer of several books on Catholicism.
The short answer to the question is that in the event that both occur on the same day, interestingly, the Annunciation is pushed back. In the case of 2005 (the most recent time this occurred), it was pushed back to April 4th.
I'm not going to write a better article than Jimmy on this subject, so you can check it out here:
http://www.jimmyakin.org/2005/02/good_annunciati.html
Ontario Human Rights Tribunal rules in favor of pro-life monument
More proof that reality is stranger than fiction. A PARISHIONER complained about a pro-life monument erected in from of a CATHOLIC church. She filed the complaint to the human rights commission of Ontario saying that the inscription referring to life as being from "conception to natural death" is a statement against abortion and that the monument is "offensive and discriminatory because it denounces, victimizes, and excludes women."
The entire inscription on the monument reads: "Let us pray that all life rests in the hands of God from conception until death."
The woman who complained apparently is very much against the Church's stance on abortion. It's important to note that the inscription cannot be read from the road, and one must enter the premises of the church in order to read it.
I checked the date and this article is not from April Fool's Day. I'm sorry, but this absolute lunacy. First of all, how can this woman even claim to be Catholic in the first place? Opposition to abortion is a major teaching of the Church and she clearly disagrees with it. There are other churches which would probably support her agreement with abortion. I never understand this in general. How can people regularly attend a religious institution where they clearly disagree with many of its major teachings? This makes as much sense to me as someone claiming to be Christian but not believing that Jesus existed.
I'm actually pleasantly surprised that the Human Rights Commission of Ontario ruled against this woman, given Canadian Human Rights Commissions' tendency to rule against churches and Christian groups. I guess there was no way for them to see this in a bad light. They were forced to concede the church did nothing wrong. However, the tribunal adjudicator made it quite clear that she is not giving a general pass to the church or to the Knights of Columbus or any such group and that if they cross the line, they could be prosecuted. Obviously this is true, but I wonder if this adjudicator or any adjudicator in general would ever make a statement like this to any other group. It seems these tribunals have become nothing more than a weapon used by secularists to stop the Church from teaching.
These human rights tribunals generally really annoy me. I don't know much about their inner workings, but it just seems like they are so geared toward secularists and against the religious community in general.
As I mentioned in a previous article, the usual people who complain about religious expression are not people from other religions, but rather former or current Christians. Look at this woman. She actually attends this church regularly, yet SHE filed the complaint. It didn't come from a Hindu or Buddhist, it came from a so-called Catholic.
I can't believe that there are people at church every Sunday, participating at Mass, seeming to be completely Catholic, yet so opposed to Catholic social teaching that they would actually complain to a human rights tribunal about a consistent teaching of the Church. It just stuns me. How does it make any logical sense? The only possible explanation is that the individual really knows nothing about the Church. Perhaps they view it as some sort of "club" where everyone is a member of some kind of democracy which must align itself with the prevailing morality of the time and place.
In order to reject the Church's teaching on abortion, you must reject much more. You must reject the idea that the Church has the authority to explain and defend moral truths. You must cease to believe that Jesus established a church with a structure of bishops and priests. So now you would have to believe that the Church has no real authority and that as a Catholic you are free to pick and choose what you believe. I'm sorry, but without recognizing the authority of the Church, you cannot be properly called a Catholic in union with the Church. You have actually become a Protestant. Therefore, if you already believe as a Protestant, why are you still attending a Catholic church?
Anyway, 3 cheers for the Ontario human rights commission. Finally a ruling that is not against the Church.
Ontario Human Rights Tribunal rules in favor of pro-life monument | LifeSiteNews.com
The entire inscription on the monument reads: "Let us pray that all life rests in the hands of God from conception until death."
The woman who complained apparently is very much against the Church's stance on abortion. It's important to note that the inscription cannot be read from the road, and one must enter the premises of the church in order to read it.
I checked the date and this article is not from April Fool's Day. I'm sorry, but this absolute lunacy. First of all, how can this woman even claim to be Catholic in the first place? Opposition to abortion is a major teaching of the Church and she clearly disagrees with it. There are other churches which would probably support her agreement with abortion. I never understand this in general. How can people regularly attend a religious institution where they clearly disagree with many of its major teachings? This makes as much sense to me as someone claiming to be Christian but not believing that Jesus existed.
I'm actually pleasantly surprised that the Human Rights Commission of Ontario ruled against this woman, given Canadian Human Rights Commissions' tendency to rule against churches and Christian groups. I guess there was no way for them to see this in a bad light. They were forced to concede the church did nothing wrong. However, the tribunal adjudicator made it quite clear that she is not giving a general pass to the church or to the Knights of Columbus or any such group and that if they cross the line, they could be prosecuted. Obviously this is true, but I wonder if this adjudicator or any adjudicator in general would ever make a statement like this to any other group. It seems these tribunals have become nothing more than a weapon used by secularists to stop the Church from teaching.
These human rights tribunals generally really annoy me. I don't know much about their inner workings, but it just seems like they are so geared toward secularists and against the religious community in general.
As I mentioned in a previous article, the usual people who complain about religious expression are not people from other religions, but rather former or current Christians. Look at this woman. She actually attends this church regularly, yet SHE filed the complaint. It didn't come from a Hindu or Buddhist, it came from a so-called Catholic.
I can't believe that there are people at church every Sunday, participating at Mass, seeming to be completely Catholic, yet so opposed to Catholic social teaching that they would actually complain to a human rights tribunal about a consistent teaching of the Church. It just stuns me. How does it make any logical sense? The only possible explanation is that the individual really knows nothing about the Church. Perhaps they view it as some sort of "club" where everyone is a member of some kind of democracy which must align itself with the prevailing morality of the time and place.
In order to reject the Church's teaching on abortion, you must reject much more. You must reject the idea that the Church has the authority to explain and defend moral truths. You must cease to believe that Jesus established a church with a structure of bishops and priests. So now you would have to believe that the Church has no real authority and that as a Catholic you are free to pick and choose what you believe. I'm sorry, but without recognizing the authority of the Church, you cannot be properly called a Catholic in union with the Church. You have actually become a Protestant. Therefore, if you already believe as a Protestant, why are you still attending a Catholic church?
Anyway, 3 cheers for the Ontario human rights commission. Finally a ruling that is not against the Church.
Ontario Human Rights Tribunal rules in favor of pro-life monument | LifeSiteNews.com
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Is Holy Thursday (April 21, 2011) a Day of Fast and/or Abstinence?
Holy Thursday, April 21, 2011, is NOT a day of fasting or abstinence. Church Law (Canon Law) spells out the following:
Can. 1251 Abstinence from meat, or from some other food as determined by the Episcopal Conference, is to be observed on all Fridays, unless a solemnity should fall on a Friday. Abstinence and fasting are to be observed on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday.
There is no mention of Holy Thursday (also known as Maundy Thursday) or Holy Saturday being days of fast or abstinence.
Of course, many people choose to go somewhat above and beyond the minimum requirements and will fast or abstain from meat on these days. That's a personal choice though.
Can. 1251 Abstinence from meat, or from some other food as determined by the Episcopal Conference, is to be observed on all Fridays, unless a solemnity should fall on a Friday. Abstinence and fasting are to be observed on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday.
There is no mention of Holy Thursday (also known as Maundy Thursday) or Holy Saturday being days of fast or abstinence.
Of course, many people choose to go somewhat above and beyond the minimum requirements and will fast or abstain from meat on these days. That's a personal choice though.
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Now I want Vancouver to win the Stanley Cup even more!
Vancouver has declared that May 1 will be Pope John Paul II Day in the city. This is after a request from the local archbishop. As I said, I want the Vancouver Canucks to win the Stanley Cup even more now. One of the reasons this is such a great news story is that Vancouver is extremely ethnically diverse. Only 19% of the population is Catholic, and 52% of people do not speak English as their first language. If you were to guess the least likely city to name a Pope John Paul II Day, you might guess Vancouver. But not so. Oftentimes, people are afraid to celebrate a specifically Catholic event fearing people from other religions or belief systems may be offended. However, I've come to realize that the main objectors to recognizing Christianity or Catholicism specifically are not people of other faiths, but former Catholics/Christians. It is not coming from Chinese people, or Hindus, or Buddhists, it's coming from traditionally Christian people. Take Newfoundland for example. A referendum was held on whether religious schools should stay or leave and a slight majority voted to have them leave. The irony is that over 95% of the population of the province is Christian. Anyway, I digress. I am very happy about Vancouver's decision. Check out the article below:
Vancouver declares May 1st "Pope John Paul II Day” - The Search
Vancouver declares May 1st "Pope John Paul II Day” - The Search
New Bishop Installed for Diocese of Grand Falls
This'll take some pressure off the Archbishop of St. John's, Martin Currie and his busy schedule.
Article here
Article here
Sunday, April 17, 2011
Pope Benedict is urged to declare martyrdom of Shahbaz Bhatti
I wrote an article on Shabaz Bhatti on March 3rd, here.
Here is the article about declaring Shabaz Bhatti a saint
Here is the article about declaring Shabaz Bhatti a saint
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)