Sunday, May 15, 2011
Thursday, May 12, 2011
Capitalize "Catholic Church"?
When people say the "Catholic Church", should the two words be capitalized? Yes. Very often in the media, I see people write "The Catholic church", but I would argue this is incorrect. "Catholic Church" is a single entity and it is a proper name. Catholic is not an adjective describing one particular church. Rather, the whole term signifies one entity.
The only time "Catholic church" could be legitimately used is in reference to a solitary church building. For example, "The Catholic church down the street". I think sometimes this error is made out of ignorance, but other times I think it is a subtle jab at the Church, a way of diminishing it somehow. You'll notice I wrote "the Church", because again, it is referring to a specific entity, a proper noun.
If you know a lot about grammar, and would like to challenge what I've written here, feel free. This is not iron-clad, but I think I am correct.
The only time "Catholic church" could be legitimately used is in reference to a solitary church building. For example, "The Catholic church down the street". I think sometimes this error is made out of ignorance, but other times I think it is a subtle jab at the Church, a way of diminishing it somehow. You'll notice I wrote "the Church", because again, it is referring to a specific entity, a proper noun.
If you know a lot about grammar, and would like to challenge what I've written here, feel free. This is not iron-clad, but I think I am correct.
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
George Stroumboulopoulos is WRONG about gay marriage
Tonight, May 10, 2011, for a second night in a row, George Stroumboulopoulos began his eponymous show by promoting gay marriage. He could hardly contain his enthusiasm for Sean Avery`s public service announcement in favour of homosexual marriage.
Well tonight, an NHL players agent Todd Reynolds, vice-president of Uptown Sports, rebuked Avery by saying:
George was furious. He went on a tirade about equality and how Reynolds in fact is a bigot. He said he is fine with freedom of speech but some people are just plain wrong! George wondered aloud where this players agent got his moral code. "The Bible?", asked George. He then went on about how the Church is not in charge of marriage, the legal system is, and who, asks George, is the legal system? Well, we are of course!
First of all, George is absolutely an unequivocally wrong about gay marriage. Secondly, his show is becoming a real drag when every episode he's either promoting gay marriage or bashing religion. He has very little class.
So let's get into it. Kids have a natural right to be raised by their parents. The state believes this right to be so strong that it creates unions which are strong and long-lasting. The main purpose of marriage is for any potential children. It's not because the state is somehow recognizing that two people love each other.
Gay marriage has nothing to do with gay rights or treating gays fairly or equally because the state really doesn't give a darn how anyone feels about anyone else. Two people who don't even love each other are legally allowed to marry.
Nowadays everyone is so concerned about their own personal rights that it must trump any other rights, even those of children. Children are mere accessories to fit people's lifestyles.
Marriage has a definition. People need to stop and think about that. Well, if it has a definition, what is it? My definition is the union of a man and a woman which is inherently procreative.
So, what would the new defintion change to? Perhaps two people who want to get married. Any two people. Well, this would have to include father-daughter marriages if they are consenting adults, or sibling marriages. We have to keep religion and morals out of the equation of course, so no one would be allowed to object to either of these scenarios.
But why limit it to two individuals. Why not polygamy? Maybe 5 people, 10? The sky's the limit. Once morality is gone from the equation, as well as rights of children, as well as any form of basic definition, polygamy is not only possibly legal, it MUST become legal.
So then every type of union would have to be recognized as valid. By doing so, marriage would lose all meaning. The state would have no need to recognize such unions since anything goes. It would be of absolutely no benefit to the state to recognize any and every relationship.
As I said, the state recognizes certain unions are marriages because it is best for the children. Of course, that's far from anyone's mind, especially George Stroumboulopoulos. To them it's all about gay rights. No one ever says it is a matter of children's rights.
Any children in a gay family don't have either a maternal or paternal influence as the case may be. That puts children at risk. If gay marriage is equal to heterosexual marriage then it is equally legitimate for a child to be raised by a parent and a same-sex partner as it is for a child to be raised by his biological parents.
There are other reasons too. Gay marriages are inherently infertile. They can never produce a child. Therefore immoral activities like IVF, embryo destruction, and other such methods must be used satisfy the desires of these couples.
Once again, people are terrible at distinction. Gay marriage proponents would have us believe that gay marriage is somehow about human rights. It isn't. It's about destroying traditional marriage.
It also has other negative effects. For example, EVERYONE is forced to not only allow but accept gay marriage. Dissent is not tolerated. Adoption agencies, run by religious groups, are FORCED to shut down because they will not adopt to gay couples. Therefore thousands of children do not go to good homes. OH WELL. At least the gay agenda is being catered to.
Or how about religious organizations being FORCED to rent out their halls and venues for gay couples and gay marriages, even though it violates their morals.
The list goes on.
Don't be fooled. The issue of gay marriage affects everyone. People are not allowed to even have a differing point of view on the matter. They must conform to a new morality which emerged less than 20 years ago. Those who don't are punished.
George Stroumboulopoulos STOP using your show as a platform to spew your hatred of morality and religious institutions. You advocate freedom, yet you cannot bare to have anyone express an opinion which differs from your own. Imagine if there was a show bashing non-religious people or opposing gay marriage. It would be hauled before the stupidly-named human rights tribunal before someone could pronounce your last name.
Well tonight, an NHL players agent Todd Reynolds, vice-president of Uptown Sports, rebuked Avery by saying:
"Very sad to read Sean Avery's misguided support of same-gender 'marriage.' Legal or not, it will always be wrong,"
He tweeted again saying: "To clarify. This is not hatred or bigotry towards gays. It is not intolerance in any way shape or form. I believe we are all equal."
George was furious. He went on a tirade about equality and how Reynolds in fact is a bigot. He said he is fine with freedom of speech but some people are just plain wrong! George wondered aloud where this players agent got his moral code. "The Bible?", asked George. He then went on about how the Church is not in charge of marriage, the legal system is, and who, asks George, is the legal system? Well, we are of course!
First of all, George is absolutely an unequivocally wrong about gay marriage. Secondly, his show is becoming a real drag when every episode he's either promoting gay marriage or bashing religion. He has very little class.
So let's get into it. Kids have a natural right to be raised by their parents. The state believes this right to be so strong that it creates unions which are strong and long-lasting. The main purpose of marriage is for any potential children. It's not because the state is somehow recognizing that two people love each other.
Gay marriage has nothing to do with gay rights or treating gays fairly or equally because the state really doesn't give a darn how anyone feels about anyone else. Two people who don't even love each other are legally allowed to marry.
Nowadays everyone is so concerned about their own personal rights that it must trump any other rights, even those of children. Children are mere accessories to fit people's lifestyles.
Marriage has a definition. People need to stop and think about that. Well, if it has a definition, what is it? My definition is the union of a man and a woman which is inherently procreative.
So, what would the new defintion change to? Perhaps two people who want to get married. Any two people. Well, this would have to include father-daughter marriages if they are consenting adults, or sibling marriages. We have to keep religion and morals out of the equation of course, so no one would be allowed to object to either of these scenarios.
But why limit it to two individuals. Why not polygamy? Maybe 5 people, 10? The sky's the limit. Once morality is gone from the equation, as well as rights of children, as well as any form of basic definition, polygamy is not only possibly legal, it MUST become legal.
So then every type of union would have to be recognized as valid. By doing so, marriage would lose all meaning. The state would have no need to recognize such unions since anything goes. It would be of absolutely no benefit to the state to recognize any and every relationship.
As I said, the state recognizes certain unions are marriages because it is best for the children. Of course, that's far from anyone's mind, especially George Stroumboulopoulos. To them it's all about gay rights. No one ever says it is a matter of children's rights.
Any children in a gay family don't have either a maternal or paternal influence as the case may be. That puts children at risk. If gay marriage is equal to heterosexual marriage then it is equally legitimate for a child to be raised by a parent and a same-sex partner as it is for a child to be raised by his biological parents.
There are other reasons too. Gay marriages are inherently infertile. They can never produce a child. Therefore immoral activities like IVF, embryo destruction, and other such methods must be used satisfy the desires of these couples.
Once again, people are terrible at distinction. Gay marriage proponents would have us believe that gay marriage is somehow about human rights. It isn't. It's about destroying traditional marriage.
It also has other negative effects. For example, EVERYONE is forced to not only allow but accept gay marriage. Dissent is not tolerated. Adoption agencies, run by religious groups, are FORCED to shut down because they will not adopt to gay couples. Therefore thousands of children do not go to good homes. OH WELL. At least the gay agenda is being catered to.
Or how about religious organizations being FORCED to rent out their halls and venues for gay couples and gay marriages, even though it violates their morals.
The list goes on.
Don't be fooled. The issue of gay marriage affects everyone. People are not allowed to even have a differing point of view on the matter. They must conform to a new morality which emerged less than 20 years ago. Those who don't are punished.
George Stroumboulopoulos STOP using your show as a platform to spew your hatred of morality and religious institutions. You advocate freedom, yet you cannot bare to have anyone express an opinion which differs from your own. Imagine if there was a show bashing non-religious people or opposing gay marriage. It would be hauled before the stupidly-named human rights tribunal before someone could pronounce your last name.
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
No appeal over anti-Catholic, pro-gay adoption San Francisco resolution: U.S. Supreme Court
Everyone keeps saying that gay marriage won't affect anyone else, so why care? Well, once again here is another example of gay marriage affects lots of people. Not only are Catholic organizations forbidden from adopting to only heterosexual couples, the city can pass an official resolution condemning the Church for not doing so, and get away with it with impunity. Don't try to say gay marriage doesn't affect others.
Article here
Article here
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)