Monday, May 09, 2011
Thursday, May 05, 2011
Kresta In The Afternoon: Just-war scholars: Killing of bin Laden justified
Kresta In The Afternoon: Just-war scholars: Killing of bin Laden justified: "by JOAN FRAWLEY DESMOND The term “just-war doctrine” never surfaced in President Obama’s announcement Sunday night that U.S. forces had k..."
Is It Morally Okay to Rejoice in Osama bin Laden's Death?
This is a video by Fr. Frank Pavone. He seems to come from a similar point of view as me. You can read my article on this issue here.
Quebec Cardinal could be next pope: analyst
This is very exciting news. I saw Cardinal Ouellet speaking at the Eucharistic Congress in 2008.
Article here.
Article here.
Osama Bin Laden's Death: A Catholic Perspective
As everyone knows, Bin Laden was killed a few days ago in his hideout in Abbottabad, Pakistan. My question is, as Catholics should we rejoice at this news or see it with sadness?
My first reaction to the death of Osama Bin Laden I guess was surprise. After 10 years, they had killed him. But I wasn't happy that he was dead. Not joyful. I am against the death penalty, and I always think it's best to capture someone rather than kill them.
Later, I heard that he was unarmed when killed, which seemed to make it even more morally problematic. This was countered by the reports that he in some way "resisted". The details of this are unclear. If he was unarmed, and the soldiers had deadly weaponry, it would seem unlikely that his "resistance" would merit a lethal shot. But I wasn't there so I cannot really comment.
In one article I read here, the author contrasts the opinion of the pope's spokesman with that of Mike Huckabee:
I certainly agree that as Christians, we do not rejoice over the killing of any human being.
My overall opinion is that if possible, we should have captured Osama Bin Laden, rather than kill him. Usually in moral philosophy, a non-threatening person cannot be killed for any reason. However, a threat can be legitamitely neutralized, even if that may involve lethal force.
The catechism has something on this:
I bolded a pertinent part of the quoted text. The Church affirms the right of the state to execute someone if no other means will suffice in containing their danger. So, the real question becomes, was the execution of Bin Laden strictly necessary in order to secure safety for people. This is a point which I believe can be legitimately argued either way.
But this caveat is very strict. Pope John Paul II was very much against the death penalty, stopping short of saying it is always immoral. His opinion was that we have a right to protect ourselves but our modern society provides the necessary infrastructure to do so without resorting to capital punishment.
But that's our "modern society". What about in a developing country like Afghanistan or Pakistan? Could Osama Bin Laden be effectively contained or was his execution necessary? I'm not sure the answer to this question.
Another complicating question is whether or not this extra-judicial execution was legitimate or moral. In the case of imminent danger, lethal force must sometimes be used, even in the absence of a judicial process, barring the possibility of other legitimate methods.
Obviously killing any person is a grave moral situation and can never be taken lightly. The end does not justify the means so strictly speaking, killing Bin Laden for some perceived benefit may not be sufficient reason.
I will refrain from making a final moral judgment on this situation. I will simply say that life is sacred and we must protect it.
Sources:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2011/05/05/rejoicing_over_death_of_bin_laden_debated/
My first reaction to the death of Osama Bin Laden I guess was surprise. After 10 years, they had killed him. But I wasn't happy that he was dead. Not joyful. I am against the death penalty, and I always think it's best to capture someone rather than kill them.
Later, I heard that he was unarmed when killed, which seemed to make it even more morally problematic. This was countered by the reports that he in some way "resisted". The details of this are unclear. If he was unarmed, and the soldiers had deadly weaponry, it would seem unlikely that his "resistance" would merit a lethal shot. But I wasn't there so I cannot really comment.
In one article I read here, the author contrasts the opinion of the pope's spokesman with that of Mike Huckabee:
A Presbyterian blogger this week highlighted the contrast between the words of Pope Benedict XVI’s spokesman on Monday and those of Mike Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas and a Southern Baptist minister.
“Faced with the death of a man, a Christian never rejoices, but reflects on the serious responsibility of each and every one of us before God and before man, and hopes and commits himself so that no event be an opportunity for further growth of hatred, but for peace,’’ said the Rev. Federico Lombardi, the Vatican spokesman.
Huckabee said in a statement: “Welcome to hell, bin Laden.’’
He added: “It is unusual to celebrate a death, but today Americans and decent people the world over cheer the news that madman, murderer, and terrorist Osama bin Laden is dead.’’
I certainly agree that as Christians, we do not rejoice over the killing of any human being.
My overall opinion is that if possible, we should have captured Osama Bin Laden, rather than kill him. Usually in moral philosophy, a non-threatening person cannot be killed for any reason. However, a threat can be legitamitely neutralized, even if that may involve lethal force.
The catechism has something on this:
2266 The State's effort to contain the spread of behaviors injurious to human rights and the fundamental rules of civil coexistence corresponds to the requirement of watching over the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime. The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. When his punishment is voluntarily accepted by the offender, it takes on the value of expiation. Moreover, punishment, in addition to preserving public order and the safety of persons, has a medicinal scope: as far as possible it should contribute to the correction of the offender.[67]
2267 The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.
"If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
"Today, in fact, given the means at the State's disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender 'today ... are very rare, if not practically non-existent.' [68]
I bolded a pertinent part of the quoted text. The Church affirms the right of the state to execute someone if no other means will suffice in containing their danger. So, the real question becomes, was the execution of Bin Laden strictly necessary in order to secure safety for people. This is a point which I believe can be legitimately argued either way.
But this caveat is very strict. Pope John Paul II was very much against the death penalty, stopping short of saying it is always immoral. His opinion was that we have a right to protect ourselves but our modern society provides the necessary infrastructure to do so without resorting to capital punishment.
But that's our "modern society". What about in a developing country like Afghanistan or Pakistan? Could Osama Bin Laden be effectively contained or was his execution necessary? I'm not sure the answer to this question.
Another complicating question is whether or not this extra-judicial execution was legitimate or moral. In the case of imminent danger, lethal force must sometimes be used, even in the absence of a judicial process, barring the possibility of other legitimate methods.
Obviously killing any person is a grave moral situation and can never be taken lightly. The end does not justify the means so strictly speaking, killing Bin Laden for some perceived benefit may not be sufficient reason.
I will refrain from making a final moral judgment on this situation. I will simply say that life is sacred and we must protect it.
Sources:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2011/05/05/rejoicing_over_death_of_bin_laden_debated/
Catholic Charities Might Stop Adoption and Foster Care Service
When someone asks how legalizing gay marriage will affect them, this is one example:
Catholic Charities Might Stop Adoption and Foster Care Service - KWQC-TV6 News and Weather For The Quad Cities
Catholic Charities Might Stop Adoption and Foster Care Service - KWQC-TV6 News and Weather For The Quad Cities
Wednesday, May 04, 2011
Quick Saying about Abortion
Not sure where I heard this before or if this is the exact quote, but I think it's a good thing to think about in relation to abortion:
Sometimes abortion advocates will use the so-called "difficult cases" to argue that abortion should be legal. But, if abortion is not killing a baby, and it is just a clump of cells that is being extracted, no explanation is necessary. People have warts removed all the time and do not feel the need to explain it to others. They certainly don't use rape or incest as an argument to keep wart removal legal.
On the other hand, admitting that the baby in the womb is a real person, then no explanation will suffice in the taking of an innocent life. This would be no different than killing a 3-year-old because the mother was raped.
I believe this is a quick and effective saying.
If abortion is not murder, no explanation is necessary.
If abortion is murder, no explanation is sufficient.
Sometimes abortion advocates will use the so-called "difficult cases" to argue that abortion should be legal. But, if abortion is not killing a baby, and it is just a clump of cells that is being extracted, no explanation is necessary. People have warts removed all the time and do not feel the need to explain it to others. They certainly don't use rape or incest as an argument to keep wart removal legal.
On the other hand, admitting that the baby in the womb is a real person, then no explanation will suffice in the taking of an innocent life. This would be no different than killing a 3-year-old because the mother was raped.
I believe this is a quick and effective saying.
Russia considering abortion restrictions to slow population collapse
A good story but somewhat motivated by the wrong reasons, at least the wrong primary reasons. Russia is getting worried about its plummeting birth rate, so the country is implementing measures to stop it's atrociously high level of abortions. More babies are aborted in the country than are born. Some of the measures being implemented is that women will be told the risks of having an abortion to their bodies and future fertility. Also, doctors can refuse to perform the procedure. This is all obviously good news, whatever the motivation. However, the primary reason to end abortion should not be to sustain the population or continue economic growth, but rather because it is the murder of innocent children.
Here is the article:
Russia considering abortion restrictions to slow population collapse | LifeSiteNews.com
Here is the article:
Russia considering abortion restrictions to slow population collapse | LifeSiteNews.com
Russia considering abortion restrictions to slow population collapse
A good story but somewhat motivated by the wrong reasons, at least the wrong primary reasons. Russia is getting worried about its plummeting birth rate, so the country is implementing measures to stop it's atrociously high level of abortions. More babies are aborted in the country than are born. Some of the measures being implemented is that women will be told the risks of having an abortion to their bodies and future fertility. Also, doctors can refuse to perform the procedure. This is all obviously good news, whatever the motivation. However, the primary reason to end abortion is not so sustain the population or continue economic growth, but rather because it is the murder of innocent children.
Here is the article:
Russia considering abortion restrictions to slow population collapse | LifeSiteNews.com
Here is the article:
Russia considering abortion restrictions to slow population collapse | LifeSiteNews.com
Uganda: What's Wrong With Otunnu Receiving Catholic Eucharist
This is a discussion you may not hear much around here. In Uganda, a political leader who is Anglican received communion at a Catholic Church. Of course, this is not permitted. Now, if this happened around here, some people would probably react, but the bishop would probably not react as strongly as the Ugandan one did. Check out his quote:
Expressing his disapproval, Lwanga said: "We were shocked to see an Anglican taking Holy Communion. We have seven sacraments and this one highly differentiates us from other Christians who have only one. We Catholics believe in the Holy Orders sacrament, which empowers the episcopate, the priesthood and the diaconate. That is why non-Catholics are not supposed to take Holy Communion."
Lwanga is the bishop of the area. His words are not mean or rude, he simply clarifies the Catholic position. I think this type of clarification is necessary from time to time. If it is explained properly, people are not offended. I have had non-Catholic friends attend Mass with me, and in some way or another I let them know that non-Catholics should not receive communion. Non-Christians usually accept without question. But non-Catholic Christians are sometimes a little harder to convince, but if done properly, no one needs to be embarrased or upset.
A lot of times, priests or bishops may turn a blind eye to a violation of the rules in the spirit of not offending anyone. But I think offense can be avoided if things are explained with love. So if you went to a non-Catholic and just said "Only Catholics can receive communion, so don't you dare go up!" that would probably be offensive. However, a better alternative may be to say something like "You probably already know this, but communion is for those in communion with the Catholic Church, however you can approach the priest for a blessing if you would like. How does that sound?" Asking the question at the end allows them to express their opinion on the matter, giving you a chance to explain further if necessary. Never phrase in terms of them not being worthy or "good enough". Also, don't be over-apologetic. Phrasing it as something normal and "not a big deal" will make them feel less out of place or strange.
As Peter says, we have to speak the truth, but do it with love and reverence. Don't forget the second part!
Here's the article:
allAfrica.com: Uganda: What's Wrong With Otunnu Receiving Catholic Eucharist
Expressing his disapproval, Lwanga said: "We were shocked to see an Anglican taking Holy Communion. We have seven sacraments and this one highly differentiates us from other Christians who have only one. We Catholics believe in the Holy Orders sacrament, which empowers the episcopate, the priesthood and the diaconate. That is why non-Catholics are not supposed to take Holy Communion."
Lwanga is the bishop of the area. His words are not mean or rude, he simply clarifies the Catholic position. I think this type of clarification is necessary from time to time. If it is explained properly, people are not offended. I have had non-Catholic friends attend Mass with me, and in some way or another I let them know that non-Catholics should not receive communion. Non-Christians usually accept without question. But non-Catholic Christians are sometimes a little harder to convince, but if done properly, no one needs to be embarrased or upset.
A lot of times, priests or bishops may turn a blind eye to a violation of the rules in the spirit of not offending anyone. But I think offense can be avoided if things are explained with love. So if you went to a non-Catholic and just said "Only Catholics can receive communion, so don't you dare go up!" that would probably be offensive. However, a better alternative may be to say something like "You probably already know this, but communion is for those in communion with the Catholic Church, however you can approach the priest for a blessing if you would like. How does that sound?" Asking the question at the end allows them to express their opinion on the matter, giving you a chance to explain further if necessary. Never phrase in terms of them not being worthy or "good enough". Also, don't be over-apologetic. Phrasing it as something normal and "not a big deal" will make them feel less out of place or strange.
As Peter says, we have to speak the truth, but do it with love and reverence. Don't forget the second part!
Here's the article:
allAfrica.com: Uganda: What's Wrong With Otunnu Receiving Catholic Eucharist
Fr. Ray Earle celebrates 25 years as priest
Fr. Ray Earle, who served as pastor at St. Teresa's for several years celebrated his 25th anniversary as a Catholic priest this past evening, May 3rd, 2011. I remember Fr. Ray when I was younger attending St. Teresa's parish. After leaving St. Teresa's, he spent several years in Marystown. Fr. Steve Courtney gave the homily, where he presented many funny stories about Fr. Ray, including a funny incident involving fire on a fishing trip.
Congratulations Fr. Ray Earle on your 25 years as a priest. I hope the next 25 are even better!
Congratulations Fr. Ray Earle on your 25 years as a priest. I hope the next 25 are even better!
Sunday, May 01, 2011
Friday, April 29, 2011
Obama's comments on the Pope
I just came across something a little funny. Oprah is having her 25th anniversary show soon, and recently she interviewed Barack Obama and his wife.
Asked about some of the first family’s best moments, Michelle recalled when her daughters met Pope Benedict XVI in 2009. The president joked that, as the girls got tired, every time someone wearing a frock passed by, they asked, "Is that the pope?" He said he told them they will know when it’s the pope.
Source: http://www.amny.com/urbanite-1.812039/as-oprah-s-show-draws-to-close-a-big-farewell-1.2845347
Asked about some of the first family’s best moments, Michelle recalled when her daughters met Pope Benedict XVI in 2009. The president joked that, as the girls got tired, every time someone wearing a frock passed by, they asked, "Is that the pope?" He said he told them they will know when it’s the pope.
Source: http://www.amny.com/urbanite-1.812039/as-oprah-s-show-draws-to-close-a-big-farewell-1.2845347
Thursday, April 28, 2011
A few in Venice will be pope's gondoliers - UPI.com
Me and my girlfriend were on a gondola in Venice and it was fun, so I am posting this :)
A few in Venice will be pope's gondoliers - UPI.com
A few in Venice will be pope's gondoliers - UPI.com
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Anti-Catholicism integral part of British Monarchy
The Act of Settlement of 1701 expressly forbids any monarch or anyone in the line of succession in Britain from being Catholic. This happened because of several factors at the time. Queen Anne had at least 18 pregnancies, but one child survived - her son William, Duke of Gloucester. Unfortunately he died at the age of 11. Britain enacted a law which would continue the line of succession, but disallow any Catholic from taking the title. Anne's father, King James II of Britain and his children were removed from the line of succession.
The relevant section of the Act reads:
Therefore anyone who is Catholic or marries a Catholic is prohibited from being the monarch of the United Kingdom. It's important to note that this law has not been repealed, although several attempts have been made to do this.
The relevant section of the Act reads:
That all and every Person and Persons that then were or afterwards should be reconciled to or shall hold Communion with the See or Church of Rome or should professe the Popish Religion or marry a Papist should be excluded and are by that Act made for ever to inherit possess or enjoy the Crown and Government of this Realm and Ireland and the Dominions
Therefore anyone who is Catholic or marries a Catholic is prohibited from being the monarch of the United Kingdom. It's important to note that this law has not been repealed, although several attempts have been made to do this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)