New Mosque Planned for St. John's, NL

According to this article, Muslims in St. John's want a new mosque, which also includes prayer rooms, classrooms, and a gym. They ran into a snag because the land they bought is zoned rural and apparently they can't build there. They're hoping to have it built by 2013.

 Some people see this as a problem because they are not Christian and some of their beliefs conflict with ours. Obviously on a personal level, as I mentioned before, I would like for everyone to be Catholic, but I acknowledge that not everyone is. Anyway, from a religious perspective, I think people should have the right to worship as they choose. Freedom of religion is a very important value.

In the history of Catholicism, our Church has been persecuted a lot. In England for a long time it was illegal to be Catholic. Many Catholics were murdered by the state. In many Middle Eastern countries today it is difficult or impossible to be openly Christian. These are injustices.

The Catechism addresses the issue of freedom of religion in the following sections:

2107 "If because of the circumstances of a particular people special civil recognition is given to one religious community in the constitutional organization of a state, the right of all citizens and religious communities to religious freedom must be recognized and respected as well."36 

2108 The right to religious liberty is neither a moral license to adhere to error, nor a supposed right to error,37 but rather a natural right of the human person to civil liberty, i.e., immunity, within just limits, from external constraint in religious matters by political authorities. This natural right ought to be acknowledged in the juridical order of society in such a way that it constitutes a civil right.38 

2109 The right to religious liberty can of itself be neither unlimited nor limited only by a "public order" conceived in a positivist or naturalist manner.39 The "due limits" which are inherent in it must be determined for each social situation by political prudence, according to the requirements of the common good, and ratified by the civil authority in accordance with "legal principles which are in conformity with the objective moral order."40

Allowing people to worship in whatever way they choose, even if they are in error, does not constitute any form of participation in that error.

Also, having respect for other religious communities can open the door to evangelism. Taking a disrespectful attitude can close that door.

Having said all that, any religious belief should be allowed as long as it does not violate the law. Violence in the name of religion cannot be tolerated and people from all religions must act according to the law of the land, without attempting to create a separate law unto themselves. Child abuse, abuse of women, and any other form of intimidation or violence cannot be tolerated even if they are legitimate aspects of a particular religious system. It goes without saying that violence to the population at large can also not be tolerated.

But any of these issues can be dealt with using existing laws and will be applicable to all religious communities.

Religious tolerance is an important political idea as is all freedom of expression. It guarantees the rights of not only small or new religious communities, but of all of them.

Freedom is the right of all sentient beings

So said Optimus Prime in the Transformers movie. I'm an advocate for personal and economic freedom. At the same time I am also an advocate for Catholic morality and believe ultimately our goal is that everyone belong to the Catholic Church. So these two points of view are contradictory, right? Wrong. I think the best chance for Catholics to live as they choose is to advoacte for freedom in our society. Of course, the knee-jerk reaction is to advocate for moral positions which agree with us. We want a government which will work on our behalf to make individuals behave the way we see fit through the use of coercion. But this approach is very short-sighted and doesn't seem to work. What you are really doing with this approach is giving the government more power. And it seems in the last few decades this power has been exclusively used against our interests. Virtually every decision about morality has opposed Catholic teaching on it. I don't see much change in the future. What's worse is that when the government has the power to enforce its perverted version of morality on the entire populous, Catholics are forced to comply or they could end up in prison. We played a game of tug of war and lost and now we find ourselves in the mud. It's better to simply say we want the freedom to do as we please, and every citizen should have that right. Just look in the newspaper to see what Catholics are being forced to do because of lack of freedom. Catholic adoption agencies are being shut down because they won't adopt to gay couples and unwed couples. Catholic schools are being forced to teach kids about contraception, abortion, and homosexual activities. Catholic Church Halls are being forced to rent their services to gay marriages, private apartments are forced to rent to homosexuals. The list goes on and on. If we had freedom, none of this would happen. Yes, it might happen in the rest of society, but it wouldn't happen in bonafide Catholic institutions. To make matters still worse, we are forced to pay for all this immorality. We pay for abortion, we pay for gay marriages, we pay for human rights tribunals which prosecute the Church. The state is NOT our friend. In this regard, I think the Jews had it right in ancient times. When they were living under the Roman Empire, they didn't try to change the laws of Rome. Instead they constantly asked for the right to be left alone, to make their own laws, to live as they pleased. Of course, this wasn't fully granted, but they did have a good degree of autonomy. Christians have traditionally understood that they were meant to be in the world but not of the world. Over the past several decades, Canada has enacted anti-Catholic law after anti-Catholic law. In our fight to have laws reflect the Code of Canon Law, are we willing to have all our rights stripped away? The irony is that our own money has been used against us. And look at the prospects for the future. We have three main political parties: the NDP, the Liberals, and the so-called Conservatives. None of them have much interest in Catholic morality. One or more of the founding fathers of the United States, I forget who, said his vision was that government would be very small and that the Churches would rise up and become very powerful, of course on a voluntary basis. Advocating more government control is simply advocating Babylon. Let's instead advocate for a separate Israel.

Do you have a right to other people's money?

I personally think the answer is no from a Catholic point of view. Jesus always advocated charity. But he didn't say the government has to get involved to force people to pay money against their will. When saints of the Church decided to give up all possessions, they became beggars not thieves. In fact, one of the Ten Commandments refers to not coveting your neighbor's goods. There is another commandment against theft. Notice the commandment for theft does not specify under which circumstances it can be used. It just says don't do it. I think people are often very generous and we should not use force to get people to help others. Plus, there are often unintended side effects to policies which take one person's money to give to another.

How old was Mary when Jesus was born?

It seems most priests will say Mary was around 14 when Jesus was born, some will go even younger, declaring 12 or 13 even. But no one really knows for certain. It has never been infallibly taught and her age at the time of the first Christmas is not recorded in any canonical book. So it's open to debate.

Cool!

Watch "Pope receives giant Easter egg" on YouTube

Schools and religion

Right now our schools are controlled by anti-religion ideologues. They have a very specific agenda they want to push. The problem with our school system in Canada is that it is very conducive to this type of manipulation. The reason si simple. Schools are centrally controlled. A few bureaucrats decide what every school must look like in the province. Here's how it should be: Give the students the money and let them decide. If the funding for education in NL was divided equally amongst all students, they would all get $12,500. Then they could do whatever they want with it. If they want to attend a Catholic school, they can do so. If they want to attend a non-religious school, that's fine as well. There could be schools for various religions. The market would decide. As it is right now, kids are forced to be taught all kinds of immorality and they have no other choice. They could go to a private school but it's very expensive because it's not sponsored. There have been outrageous attempts to teach kids every imaginable type of immorality and deviancy and claim that it is normal and natural. They teach kids that any sexual expression, at any age, is not only allowed but is very healthy and will make them happy. If parents disagree with this TOO BAD. Two groups want to keep schools the way they are now and will fight tooth and nail to do so. One group is the union because no competition is always better for the people in an industry. The other are the thought-influencers, the activists. They don't want to have to do the hard work of convincing every school to teach their programs. They'd prefer to have easy access to policymakers who can enact their teachings at the flick of a switch. My opinion is if you want to teach kids all kinds of deviancy, I would say that as a parent that is your right, but you do not have the right to force everyone to do the same.

Only Men for Washing of the Feet

There are only supposed to be men who have their feet washed by the priest on Holy Thursday. Edward Peters, a renowned canon lawyer, wrote an article on this issue where he remains ambivalent. He says that permission has been granted to certain dioceses in the past, and that it is not a doctrine and is therefore changeable. He would like to see a definitive ruling on it by Rome though. His article can be found here:

http://www.canonlaw.info/a_footfight.htm

I think dioceses should just do what the rite prescribes, which currently says only men should be selected because they represent the 12 apostles. I think there is an unnecessary knee-jerk reaction that nothing should be exclusive.

Jimmy Akin apparently believes that only men should be selected and I tend to agree with him.

Beginning Holy Week

So today was Palm Sunday and marks the beginning of Holy Week. It will culminate at the resurrection on Easter Sunday.

It's been over a month

I apologize to all those who read my blog including the 40 followers. I haven't posted anything new here in over a month. Just a quick update. I went to the Chrism Mass yesterday at the Basilica. Lots of priests, but maybe not as many people as before. It was very nice. I'm sort of wondering why it was so early this year. Holy Week is next week. Usually they have this 2 days before Holy Week. Even that is an exception since Chrism Mass is technically supposed to happen the morning of Holy Thursday. But it was very nice.

Lenten bulletin more about Greenpeace than Catholic spirituality

The picture I've attached here on the blog is the latest bulletin that came out on the first sunday of lent. I think it's totally ridiculous and inappropriate. it looks more like a manifesto from greenpeace or wwf than it does about Catholic spirituality. instead of talking about the corporal works of mercy or the spiritual works of mercy this bulletin focuses on very modern environmental concerns. some people may be attracted to environmental issues like the ones presented in this bulletin but these are not issues of faith and morals. Catholicism is about faith and morals and whether or not we use styrofoam cups has nothing to do with it.

There is not a single suggestion on this 32 suggestion list that has anything to do with something a church father or saint wrote about. we have 20 centuries of catholic teaching and yet not a single thing on this list has anything to do with catholic teaching.

if you read the entire catechism, out of the hundreds of paragraphs you may find 1 that relates to the environment and how we have to treat the environment with respect but this represents only a very tiny and insignificant part of Catholic spirituality.

Catholic spirituality is about saving souls not about saving mother earth. If somebody wants to have a compost in their backyard or if somebody wants to recycle bottles that's their decision but that is not the focus of catholic theology and spirituality.

For an item which appears on the first sunday of lent this is absolutely ridiculous. there's nothing here about obeying the 10 commandments or avoiding the 7 deadly sins or going to mass more often during lent or giving up some sort of sinful behavior during these 40 days which are the true reasons for Lent. Jesus did not go into the desert for 40 days so that he could recycle a plastic bottle.

Somehow I do not recall saint paul speaking about the need to turn your thermostat down to 20 degrees or to bring your own bags to the grocery store. I don't remember saint alphonsus telling us to eat more meat substitutes like tofu. or maybe somebody could tell me where james in his letter tells people to use phosphate-free detergents.

The Catholic Church has over 2000 years of helping people overcome their temptations, their trials, and their sinful behaviors. tens of thousands of books have been written by canonized saints, church fathers and other holy people. why then do we ignore this invaluable tradition and instead focus on modern fads?

that this article appears on the first sunday of lent in a Catholic bulletin is disgraceful. when someone asked Jesus how to get to heaven Jesus never once said use phosphate-free detergents or recycle or have a compost heap. these things are very much secondary and they have nothing to do with Catholic spirituality.

the church is a place were people go for the salvation of their souls, not a place to hear the platform of green peace. by putting these articles front and center in a Catholic bulletin not only does injustice to the parishioners but it does an injustice to Jesus Christ who died for our sins.

the Church was established by Jesus Christ for the salvation of souls not to promote the new fangled environmental movement. let's hope from here on in St. Teresa's can focus on Lent and not on these fads.

Happy Ash Wednesday and beginning of Lent everyone.

Pope Benedict XVI on redistributing wealth

Much has been made about Pope Benedict's alleged call for wealth redistribution in the world. However, he clearly does not advocate such a policy. Here is a quote from the Holy Father:

"The illusion that a policy of mere redistribution of existing wealth can definitively resolve the problem must be set aside. In a modern economy, the value of assets is utterly dependent on the capacity to generate revenue in the present and the future. Wealth creation therefore becomes an inescapable duty, which must be kept in mind if the fight against material poverty is to be effective in the long term," Pope Benedict XVI said in his Jan. 1, 2009, message for the World Day of Peace.

22 men become cardinals in the catholic church

1 of the 22 is archbishop thomas collins from toronto. 

Watch "Benedict XVI welcomes 22 new cardinals" on YouTube

happy valentines day and remember next tuesday is the day before ash wednesday which of course is the first day of lent

I'm glad there has been a huge backlash against Barack Obama as he tried to override religious freedom by forcing religious groups to cover contraception as part of their "health plan" even if this violated their morality. No other president would think of doing something like this.

The Church is opposed to artificial contraception because it takes something healthy and turns it into something non-functioning. Contraception is the only "medical intervention" which does something like this. Everything else is meant to restore health, not destroy it.

People, on the other hand, can understand their bodies and decide to refrain from sexual relations in order to avoid pregnancy. This is no different than understanding that eating right before bed is a bad idea and refraining from doing so to avoid gaining weight. It would be immoral though to eat a pile of food, then cause yourself to vomit it all up. They both accomplish the same goal, but one does it in a morally licit way.

Anyway, Obama was trying to force Catholic organizations to do this, but they fought back hard. Now he has had to reverse his big-brother autocratic decision in favor of religious freedom. Obama also wants to remove conscience rights which people enjoy which allows them to refrain from performing immoral actions.

Obama needs to leave. He does not respect religious freedom.

Gay marriage

On my facebook, every second post seems to be about people advocating gay marriage or homosexuality in general. They say how dare society try to restrict the definition of marriage. They say people who oppose gay marriage are bigots. But here is my question. Obviously, every word has a definition, and every word includes and excludes certain things. Marriage MEANS something. So how would a gay-marriage advocate define marriage. They might say something like marriage is the union of two people who love each other. But that definition is also bigoted because you are excluding unions of more than two people. How dare you say that polygamists don't love each other! Maybe polygamists should make some slick internet photo / caption showing three unions of people, two of heterosexual couples and one of a polygamist group with the caption: "Love. There is no difference." or "Do you spot the difference? If yes, then you're a bigot!" Or something along those lines.

Are gay marriage advocates willing to admit that they too are bigots by restricting marriage to just two people? Perhaps some of these advocates would say sure, let polygamists marry, why not? Ok, so now our definition must change again. Now it must be any size group of people who love each other. Sounds pretty watered down right?

But now we must go still further. We must define "love". Is love an emotion, a fleeting feeling? What is it? That's how a lot of people view love. According to this view of love, what if there is a couple who may not have these "feelings" all the time? If there is a time when they do not have these feelings, are they considered no longer married?

What about close relatives? Why can't they marry? What if a father and daughter wanted to marry? Would you try to stop this? Would you restrict the definition of marriage to exclude such unions? If so, you are again being a bigot and intolerant, two big no-nos.

Hmm, does marriage even have a definition any more? If so, what is it?

How about: "The union of any number of people which may or may not be based on the feelings they have for each other".

As you can see, if marriage can be anything, then marriage is nothing.

Also, why would the state have any interest in protecting such a nebulous concept? There is no practical reason for the state to have any interest in this.

I don't blame gay rights activists exclusively for this issue. It's the fault of the general population in my opinion. We already redefined marriage when people started getting easy divorces, when people decided from the outset that they would have no children, etc. We need to reclaim a Catholic understanding of marriage.

Perhaps it would be best for the state to just get out of the whole marriage thing altogether. It sometimes seems like a losing battle anyway. Well, it was already lost in Canada unfortunately.

Religion causing war

Very few wars are caused by religion. In fact, some argue that religion has stopped war for a number of reasons. One is that it often unites a large group of people who would otherwise have nothing in common. These people are less likely to wage war on one another. There is however no statistics that I'm aware of showing how many wars have been stopped because of religion.

In any event, I realized just a few moments ago how silly the argument is that religion is bad because it causes war. The reason is war can be caused by anything. Think about the cause of wars. Many are fought over resources, some are race-based, others stem from xenophobia. However, we wouldn't say natural resources cause war, so we shouldn't have natural resources. Or that races cause war, therefore we should not have other races. And so on. In fact, these statements don't even make sense.

So, war can be caused by virtually any reason, and when it comes to religion it's usually people misusing religion as an excuse to take up arms. But just because we can identify a cause, this does not automatically lead to the conclusion that the cause must be eliminated.

These are really funny

Catholic Jokes