Wednesday, June 08, 2011
What if Rep. Weiner were Fr. Weiner?
Kresta In The Afternoon: What if Rep. Weiner were Fr. Weiner?: "Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments as follows: Priests who engage in lewd conversations with teenagers are suspended from min..."
Gay rights once again trump human rights
To once again refute the argument that gay marriage and classifying gay rights above other rights will have no impact on anyone else, here is an argument showing how it does. Gay men will now be allowed to donate blood in the UK, despite the increased risk that someone will be infected with HIV because of it. The reason? Some believe not allowing gay men to donate blood is "discriminatory", you know, that catch-all term used when gay rights activists don't get their way?
Tests showed that allowing gay men, who have been engaged in homosexual activity in the last 5 years, to give blood would increase the risk of spreading HIV by a little under 5%. By increasing the wait time to 10 years, it would half the risk to a little under 2.5%.
Politicians apparently felt this increased risk was acceptable. The main reason they changed the ruling of no blood from gay men to this is they felt it could be discriminatory. So it seems health and safety concerns take a back seat to perceived gay "rights".
Of course, no one will have the ability to know whether they are receiving the more or less risky blood. That would also constitute discrimination. They should at least allow people to choose the blood supply they use.
This is just one more example of how the gay agenda is producing laws which place gay rights above any and all other rights, whether they be moral or religious or health rights.
We are talking about people's health and safety here. The government had a choice of whether to be more concerned about the health and safety of its citizens or possibly offending some gay activists who believe it is their "right" to give blood. They made their decision in favor of not offending anyone.
What will the government tell its citizens if somebody contracts HIV from this tainted blood? Will they say this innocent victim got HIV because of our stupid laws, but at least we didn't discriminate against gay people.
Some will say there is extensive testing done on all blood. This may be true, but even if accounting for that fact, the risk increases by almost 2.5%.
This is unacceptable.
Source: Homosexual men allowed to give blood but sex banned for decade - Telegraph
Tests showed that allowing gay men, who have been engaged in homosexual activity in the last 5 years, to give blood would increase the risk of spreading HIV by a little under 5%. By increasing the wait time to 10 years, it would half the risk to a little under 2.5%.
Politicians apparently felt this increased risk was acceptable. The main reason they changed the ruling of no blood from gay men to this is they felt it could be discriminatory. So it seems health and safety concerns take a back seat to perceived gay "rights".
Of course, no one will have the ability to know whether they are receiving the more or less risky blood. That would also constitute discrimination. They should at least allow people to choose the blood supply they use.
This is just one more example of how the gay agenda is producing laws which place gay rights above any and all other rights, whether they be moral or religious or health rights.
We are talking about people's health and safety here. The government had a choice of whether to be more concerned about the health and safety of its citizens or possibly offending some gay activists who believe it is their "right" to give blood. They made their decision in favor of not offending anyone.
What will the government tell its citizens if somebody contracts HIV from this tainted blood? Will they say this innocent victim got HIV because of our stupid laws, but at least we didn't discriminate against gay people.
Some will say there is extensive testing done on all blood. This may be true, but even if accounting for that fact, the risk increases by almost 2.5%.
This is unacceptable.
Source: Homosexual men allowed to give blood but sex banned for decade - Telegraph
Tuesday, June 07, 2011
Friday, June 03, 2011
Jack Kevorkian's death from a Catholic perspective
I wrote about Jack Kevorkian a little over a year ago after a biopic movie was released starring Al Pacino. Here is what I wrote.
Now Kevorkian is dead, not by suicide, but by natural causes. It is always sad when someone dies, no matter what that person chose to do during their lifetime.
Unfortunately, Jack Kevorkian chose to help people end their own lives, which is contrary to human dignity. It also goes against our instincts. If a friend called up and said they were suicidal, our first reaction would be to help that person get through their problem, not to encourage them to commit suicide.
Euthanasia is forbidden in Catholic teaching, for it contravenes the commandment of thou shall not murder. Here is the explanation from the catechism:
Many countries and areas are now pushing for the legal right of people to kill themselves or have doctors or others help them. Many frame this as a "right to die". It is imagined that some people, with full clarity and freedom decide that they would prefer not to live and so who are we to contravene their desires.
Well, the reality is usually much different. Many older people feel like a burden already because they are not contributing financially. Family members often speak about them in the third person even when they are in the room, especially if they are impaired in some way. Some people will make cruel comments, perhaps not realizing their impact. They will talk about how much work it is to care for this older person, where they will go when they cannot be cared for at home, etc. Some will even go so far as to discuss inheritance when that individual dies. They might even talk about funeral arrangements.
I have seen myself people become very frustrated as older people enter the last stage of their lives. They get annoyed by how the older person is acting or speaking and they do not attempt to hide their annoyance at all.
Now we want to introduce assisted suicide. Already feeling like a burden and worthless, many older people will readily accept assisted suicide when the option is presented. Many will probably be coerced into the situation.
It is easy to imagine suicide being presented as the loving option. "Hi grandma, we all know you're in a lot of pain, and the medical bills are really expensive. We are not going to tell you what to do, but we just want to let you know all your options. One of the options is to have a doctor help you pass on with dignity in the way you choose. We can have a living funeral, where you can say goodbye to all your family and friends, and everyone will be here with you when you make that decision. You've done so much over the years and this might be the right time for you. I don't think you want to drag this out any longer. You're already in pain and the medical bills are just piling up. I'm sure you don't want to burden anyone else with that. So grandma, like I said, no one is going to pressure you into anything. It's totally up to you. But we'll be here when you make that decision."
Of course, the scenario presented there is probably a lot nicer than many that are conceivable. Saying those things would certainly not be illegal, and even if someone is coerced into ending their life, who will vouch for that?
The pain argument is also sometimes presented, however this is not a good argument. The reason is that virtually any pain can be controlled with modern technology and medicine. In Catholic teaching, pain medication can be administered even if it is so strong that it could potentially kill the person. That's because the intended effect is to end suffering which is a good thing, but the unintended side effect is the death of the person, therefore because of the law of double-effect, it can be justified. This would of course mean that killing the person could not be the primary motivator or any motivator for that matter. The death must be an unintended secondary effect.
In order to build a Culture of Life, we must respect the sanctity of human life from the moment of conception until natural death, and we must never prematurely take an innocent life.
Now Kevorkian is dead, not by suicide, but by natural causes. It is always sad when someone dies, no matter what that person chose to do during their lifetime.
Unfortunately, Jack Kevorkian chose to help people end their own lives, which is contrary to human dignity. It also goes against our instincts. If a friend called up and said they were suicidal, our first reaction would be to help that person get through their problem, not to encourage them to commit suicide.
Euthanasia is forbidden in Catholic teaching, for it contravenes the commandment of thou shall not murder. Here is the explanation from the catechism:
Euthanasia
2276 Those whose lives are diminished or weakened deserve special respect. Sick or handicapped persons should be helped to lead lives as normal as possible.
2277 Whatever its motives and means, direct euthanasia consists in putting an end to the lives of handicapped, sick, or dying persons. It is morally unacceptable.
Thus an act or omission which, of itself or by intention, causes death in order to eliminate suffering constitutes a murder gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person and to the respect due to the living God, his Creator. The error of judgment into which one can fall in good faith does not change the nature of this murderous act, which must always be forbidden and excluded.
2278 Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate; it is the refusal of "over-zealous" treatment. Here one does not will to cause death; one's inability to impede it is merely accepted. The decisions should be made by the patient if he is competent and able or, if not, by those legally entitled to act for the patient, whose reasonable will and legitimate interests must always be respected.
2279 Even if death is thought imminent, the ordinary care owed to a sick person cannot be legitimately interrupted. The use of painkillers to alleviate the sufferings of the dying, even at the risk of shortening their days, can be morally in conformity with human dignity if death is not willed as either an end or a means, but only foreseen and tolerated as inevitable Palliative care is a special form of disinterested charity. As such it should be encouraged.
Many countries and areas are now pushing for the legal right of people to kill themselves or have doctors or others help them. Many frame this as a "right to die". It is imagined that some people, with full clarity and freedom decide that they would prefer not to live and so who are we to contravene their desires.
Well, the reality is usually much different. Many older people feel like a burden already because they are not contributing financially. Family members often speak about them in the third person even when they are in the room, especially if they are impaired in some way. Some people will make cruel comments, perhaps not realizing their impact. They will talk about how much work it is to care for this older person, where they will go when they cannot be cared for at home, etc. Some will even go so far as to discuss inheritance when that individual dies. They might even talk about funeral arrangements.
I have seen myself people become very frustrated as older people enter the last stage of their lives. They get annoyed by how the older person is acting or speaking and they do not attempt to hide their annoyance at all.
Now we want to introduce assisted suicide. Already feeling like a burden and worthless, many older people will readily accept assisted suicide when the option is presented. Many will probably be coerced into the situation.
It is easy to imagine suicide being presented as the loving option. "Hi grandma, we all know you're in a lot of pain, and the medical bills are really expensive. We are not going to tell you what to do, but we just want to let you know all your options. One of the options is to have a doctor help you pass on with dignity in the way you choose. We can have a living funeral, where you can say goodbye to all your family and friends, and everyone will be here with you when you make that decision. You've done so much over the years and this might be the right time for you. I don't think you want to drag this out any longer. You're already in pain and the medical bills are just piling up. I'm sure you don't want to burden anyone else with that. So grandma, like I said, no one is going to pressure you into anything. It's totally up to you. But we'll be here when you make that decision."
Of course, the scenario presented there is probably a lot nicer than many that are conceivable. Saying those things would certainly not be illegal, and even if someone is coerced into ending their life, who will vouch for that?
The pain argument is also sometimes presented, however this is not a good argument. The reason is that virtually any pain can be controlled with modern technology and medicine. In Catholic teaching, pain medication can be administered even if it is so strong that it could potentially kill the person. That's because the intended effect is to end suffering which is a good thing, but the unintended side effect is the death of the person, therefore because of the law of double-effect, it can be justified. This would of course mean that killing the person could not be the primary motivator or any motivator for that matter. The death must be an unintended secondary effect.
In order to build a Culture of Life, we must respect the sanctity of human life from the moment of conception until natural death, and we must never prematurely take an innocent life.
Professional Catholic Research
Are you looking for quality Catholic research with high quality sources?
Look no further. I have many years of experience in researching a wide range of Catholic topics, including the history of the Church, Mary and the Saints, Salvation history, Christology, popes, the Mass, morals, ethics, etc.
If you have a question about the Catholic Church, I can provide a standard response of one paragraph (up to 50 words) for $5. I provide detailed and authoritative references.
For longer treatments, the price is $10 per page.
I also provide FREE estimates. So if you want to get an idea of how much a particular answer will cost, I can give you an estimate beforehand.
I only accept PayPal because it is safer for both me and the buyer.
To get a free quote today, please post a comment to this blog entry or email me at philinaberdeen@gmail.com
Thank you.
Look no further. I have many years of experience in researching a wide range of Catholic topics, including the history of the Church, Mary and the Saints, Salvation history, Christology, popes, the Mass, morals, ethics, etc.
If you have a question about the Catholic Church, I can provide a standard response of one paragraph (up to 50 words) for $5. I provide detailed and authoritative references.
For longer treatments, the price is $10 per page.
I also provide FREE estimates. So if you want to get an idea of how much a particular answer will cost, I can give you an estimate beforehand.
I only accept PayPal because it is safer for both me and the buyer.
To get a free quote today, please post a comment to this blog entry or email me at philinaberdeen@gmail.com
Thank you.
Thursday, June 02, 2011
Wednesday, June 01, 2011
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Monday, May 30, 2011
Did God cause the Joplin Tornado?
Some people think the tornado in Joplin, the fire in Slave Lake, Alberta, the Earthquake in Japan, etc. are all caused by God to show his displeasure in humanity or that particular community. I would like to state my objection to such notions and my belief that they are contrary to our Catholic faith.
God IS the initial cause of all things on Earth, so in a sense he is responsible for hurricanes. But it is important to distinguish between God's permissive will, which are things God allows to happen but does not cause, and his ordained will, which are things God specifically wills and acts to create.
I think these natural disasters easily fall under the category of God's permissive will. He set into motion the laws of physics which govern how to world works. These include volcanoes, earthquakes, fires, hurricanes, floods, etc. They may seem to cause a lot of destruction, but they are necessary for the Earth to function properly. Without these natural occurrences, the Earth simply would not exist at all.
It may seem bad to us, but ultimately it's a good thing. For another example, let's look at nature. Sometimes things look messy or unpleasant, like when a lion kills an antelope. There's lots of blood and the antelope dies. But in the long run this is a good thing because it allows the food chain to continue.
Also, although these deaths are tragic, we must remember that no one lives forever on this Earth. We must always be prepared to meet God. So far in Joplin, there have been 142 confirmed deaths. These people died in an unexpected way. However, many people die in other ways each year in the United States. For example, in 2009, 33,808 people were killed in car crashes in the country. Obviously, it's crucial that people are always ready.
If God caused the Joplin tornado, did he also cause the deadly traffic accidents? Does he cause the deaths of people who die of old age? Unless one says God steps in to cause each of these deaths, I do not think it is reasonable to attribute to God only certain deaths which come in the form of natural disasters.
The Catholic understanding is that the fall of Adam and Eve is what brought death into the world. This is because of the stain of original sin. But there's good news! Jesus Christ came to pay the price for our sins so that we can enter into heaven.
People sometimes also try to look for signs for the end of the world. But this seems to me to be a pointless activity. First of all, the end of the world doesn't matter in one sense because when a person dies, that's the end of "their" world. Also, the Bible clearly states, in the words coming from Jesus himself, that no one knows the day or the hour of the end of time. So my suggestion is to stop guessing. :)
God IS the initial cause of all things on Earth, so in a sense he is responsible for hurricanes. But it is important to distinguish between God's permissive will, which are things God allows to happen but does not cause, and his ordained will, which are things God specifically wills and acts to create.
I think these natural disasters easily fall under the category of God's permissive will. He set into motion the laws of physics which govern how to world works. These include volcanoes, earthquakes, fires, hurricanes, floods, etc. They may seem to cause a lot of destruction, but they are necessary for the Earth to function properly. Without these natural occurrences, the Earth simply would not exist at all.
It may seem bad to us, but ultimately it's a good thing. For another example, let's look at nature. Sometimes things look messy or unpleasant, like when a lion kills an antelope. There's lots of blood and the antelope dies. But in the long run this is a good thing because it allows the food chain to continue.
Also, although these deaths are tragic, we must remember that no one lives forever on this Earth. We must always be prepared to meet God. So far in Joplin, there have been 142 confirmed deaths. These people died in an unexpected way. However, many people die in other ways each year in the United States. For example, in 2009, 33,808 people were killed in car crashes in the country. Obviously, it's crucial that people are always ready.
If God caused the Joplin tornado, did he also cause the deadly traffic accidents? Does he cause the deaths of people who die of old age? Unless one says God steps in to cause each of these deaths, I do not think it is reasonable to attribute to God only certain deaths which come in the form of natural disasters.
The Catholic understanding is that the fall of Adam and Eve is what brought death into the world. This is because of the stain of original sin. But there's good news! Jesus Christ came to pay the price for our sins so that we can enter into heaven.
People sometimes also try to look for signs for the end of the world. But this seems to me to be a pointless activity. First of all, the end of the world doesn't matter in one sense because when a person dies, that's the end of "their" world. Also, the Bible clearly states, in the words coming from Jesus himself, that no one knows the day or the hour of the end of time. So my suggestion is to stop guessing. :)
Thursday, May 26, 2011
Vatican shuts down monastery with dancing nun
So a nun was doing a form of dance in front of the altar. Although he intentions may be good, dancing is not appropriate in this location. As an example, playing cards is fine, but playing them on the altar is a no-no.
The Church is not condemning dancing. It is simply saying dancing as a correct time and place.
Article here
The Church is not condemning dancing. It is simply saying dancing as a correct time and place.
Article here
Infertility isn’t an illness to be cured
This is a great article about our "rights-based" society, where having children isn't a blessing but a right, one which people can demand from the government. Obvoiusly this is a violation of natural law. This concept I believe stems from our acceptance of contraception and abortion. People feel as though they have absolute power over their reproduction. Therefore, when they are unable to reproduce, they are being denied some sort of right they have attained. Click below to read the full article.
Article here
Article here
Sunday, May 22, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)