First off, don't get me wrong. I don't doubt that JPII is in heaven, but being in heaven is different than being canonized. I think this might be too soon to canonize this previous pope. John Paul died just 8 years ago. If you asked non-Catholics, they mightn't even know the names of his two successors. Pope Francis has now declared that John Paul's canonization can proceed and will probably take place before the end of the year.
My issue is how it will be perceived by many. I don't want the canonization process to become a sort of automatic post-death honor given by the current pope to his predecessor. If people perceive canonization as something easy and quick, it could lose some of its profundity in their minds. It becomes just another honor among many, like being on the cover of Time Magazine or winning a Nobel Prize. To some it may look like something akin to a Lifetime Achievement Award at the Oscars.
Now I know perception is not what matters, but the Catholic Church understands the value of symbols. Canonizing someone does not accelerate their entry into heaven and there is no necessary reason to speed up a particular cause. Ultimately canonization is for the edification and prayer life of Catholics. Therefore, it is important to maintain the gravitas of the whole process and proceed with not only caution, but an air of solemnity and seriousness.
Pope John Paul II was a great man. I encourage people to pray to him. My only concern is that his canonization may be proceeding a little too quickly.
Monday, July 08, 2013
Friday, June 28, 2013
What is marriage?
This seems like a very basic question, but it is at the heart of the current same-sex marriage debate. Yesterday, the American Supreme Court barely agreed to declare the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional. One of my favorite justices, Antonin Scalia, disagreed with the Supreme Court even hearing this case in the first place. He said the court really had nothing to do with this and should have rejected the whole thing.
In any event, 5 of the justices disagreed with this dissent and went ahead and removed DOMA. DOMA was put in place by Bill Clinton to define marriage, on a federal level, as only between a man and a woman. Now that this is no longer in force, the federal government can now start redefining marriage.
Of course, as expected, many people celebrated this ruling. From my own Facebook page, there were many people who seemed very happy about this. Ironically, Bill Clinton applauded this decision, even though DOMA was enacted during his presidency.
But the question that no one really talks about much is "What is marriage?" In all the debates, the only thing I hear is "equality". But in any debates, the terms must be defined.
In all of human history, cultures have recognized marriage and it has always been the union of a man and a woman. This is no coincidence. Marriage exists because of children. If there were no children, there would be no marriage. Because cultures saw that a child does best with his mother and father, marriage held a special status. It was honored and promoted. This is a special relationship that was recognized as the most important because it was the building block of a family, which is the building block of society.
But it is beneficial from a biological point of view also. A pregnant and new mother left alone in the wild is in great danger. She is very vulnerable. Having a man to protect and serve her gives her child the greatest chance at survival. It is also beneficial to a man who can help ensure his genes will be passed down.
Jesus Christ lifted marriage to an even greater place when he made it a sacrament and something holy. So what is marriage? According to the Catholic Church, marriage is "covenant by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring."
This may be the Catholic definition of marriage, but it really is the basic understanding of marriage that all cultures held for many millennia. An essential element of marriage is the sexual complementarity of spouses, because reproduction is an essential aspect of this union.
So if this is the definition of marriage, not allowing gay marriage is not about inequality or bigotry, it's about definitions. It's not discrimination to refuse to call a circle a square.
But what has happened? Basically society at large has changed its definition of marriage. Strangely, most people cannot even define it. They will say some platitude perhaps about marriage being a commitment two people make to one another. It's extremely vague and unspecific to the point where MANY things could be considered marriage that people would never consider marriage. Two good friends can make a commitment to one another, but that's not necessarily marriage.
I've even asked people how they define marriage. They struggle with it a lot. Many will say two people who love each other and want to commit to one another. But if this is the definition, are arranged marriages invalid? Plus, our society in general seems to have a distorted view of "love". Love, in modern terms, is more accurately described as "affection", it's just an emotion. But real love is action, it's putting your spouse's interests first and caring for them in good times and bad. Affection is great, but what marriage requires is true love. But back to the question. What if for a particular period of time, a couple does not feel affection? What if they are going through a hard time? Is their marriage automatically ended? I would say absolutely not.
And if marriage is just about love, however modern people define it, why is it restricted? Even with gay marriage, there are still restrictions. Siblings cannot marry, nor can a parent marry a child. Most gay marriage advocates would say incestuous marriages are wrong. But who are they to judge. Why should I listen to their moral code? What about polygamy? I've asked several gay marriage supporters why we can't have polygamous marriages. Their usual answer is they don't know anything about that and cannot comment. Others say it's just too different. But again, would they accept any of these same arguments used against gay marriage? They too are moralizing. They too are defining marriage based on their own personal belief systems. I've rarely come across anyone who both agrees with gay marriage and all those other types I've mentioned.
Marriage is something, it has a definition. Calling a circle a square doesn't make it one. If circles are forced to be called squares, we will always have to specify what type of "square" is being referred to. Language is pesky like that. It needs to be specific or new words will emerge.
If marriage can be anything, then marriage is nothing.
In any event, 5 of the justices disagreed with this dissent and went ahead and removed DOMA. DOMA was put in place by Bill Clinton to define marriage, on a federal level, as only between a man and a woman. Now that this is no longer in force, the federal government can now start redefining marriage.
Of course, as expected, many people celebrated this ruling. From my own Facebook page, there were many people who seemed very happy about this. Ironically, Bill Clinton applauded this decision, even though DOMA was enacted during his presidency.
But the question that no one really talks about much is "What is marriage?" In all the debates, the only thing I hear is "equality". But in any debates, the terms must be defined.
In all of human history, cultures have recognized marriage and it has always been the union of a man and a woman. This is no coincidence. Marriage exists because of children. If there were no children, there would be no marriage. Because cultures saw that a child does best with his mother and father, marriage held a special status. It was honored and promoted. This is a special relationship that was recognized as the most important because it was the building block of a family, which is the building block of society.
But it is beneficial from a biological point of view also. A pregnant and new mother left alone in the wild is in great danger. She is very vulnerable. Having a man to protect and serve her gives her child the greatest chance at survival. It is also beneficial to a man who can help ensure his genes will be passed down.
Jesus Christ lifted marriage to an even greater place when he made it a sacrament and something holy. So what is marriage? According to the Catholic Church, marriage is "covenant by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring."
This may be the Catholic definition of marriage, but it really is the basic understanding of marriage that all cultures held for many millennia. An essential element of marriage is the sexual complementarity of spouses, because reproduction is an essential aspect of this union.
So if this is the definition of marriage, not allowing gay marriage is not about inequality or bigotry, it's about definitions. It's not discrimination to refuse to call a circle a square.
But what has happened? Basically society at large has changed its definition of marriage. Strangely, most people cannot even define it. They will say some platitude perhaps about marriage being a commitment two people make to one another. It's extremely vague and unspecific to the point where MANY things could be considered marriage that people would never consider marriage. Two good friends can make a commitment to one another, but that's not necessarily marriage.
I've even asked people how they define marriage. They struggle with it a lot. Many will say two people who love each other and want to commit to one another. But if this is the definition, are arranged marriages invalid? Plus, our society in general seems to have a distorted view of "love". Love, in modern terms, is more accurately described as "affection", it's just an emotion. But real love is action, it's putting your spouse's interests first and caring for them in good times and bad. Affection is great, but what marriage requires is true love. But back to the question. What if for a particular period of time, a couple does not feel affection? What if they are going through a hard time? Is their marriage automatically ended? I would say absolutely not.
And if marriage is just about love, however modern people define it, why is it restricted? Even with gay marriage, there are still restrictions. Siblings cannot marry, nor can a parent marry a child. Most gay marriage advocates would say incestuous marriages are wrong. But who are they to judge. Why should I listen to their moral code? What about polygamy? I've asked several gay marriage supporters why we can't have polygamous marriages. Their usual answer is they don't know anything about that and cannot comment. Others say it's just too different. But again, would they accept any of these same arguments used against gay marriage? They too are moralizing. They too are defining marriage based on their own personal belief systems. I've rarely come across anyone who both agrees with gay marriage and all those other types I've mentioned.
Marriage is something, it has a definition. Calling a circle a square doesn't make it one. If circles are forced to be called squares, we will always have to specify what type of "square" is being referred to. Language is pesky like that. It needs to be specific or new words will emerge.
If marriage can be anything, then marriage is nothing.
Tuesday, June 18, 2013
Ignatian retreat
This past weekend, I attended an Ignatian young adult retreat at St. Bon's School in St. John's. It was facilitated by 3 Jesuit Scholastics (seminarians) from across Canada. Artur, Edmund, and Santiago gave around 35 young adults an introduction to Jesuit spirituality in 7 talks over 2 days.
I found the entire event very rewarding. On top of the informative talks, there was adoration, silent prayer, singing, confession, and finally the weekend culminated in a Mass.
The main thing I took from the retreat was my need for more prayer. I was introduced to silent prayer, which is distinct from adoration. I find this difficult. During the talks, the speakers said the devil often tempts us to leave the prayer, or to leave early. However, the greatest spiritual fruits are often found just after you were about to quit.
Another concept I learned more about was the idea that things in our lives either bring us closer to God or further from him. It's not always obvious which is which either. Sometimes things will make us happy for the time being but actually pulls us away from our Creator. Other things may seems difficult, but are actually better for us in the long run.
I found the three young seminarians to be full of hope. They were also easy to get along with and were very "normal" guys.
Edmund gave me a special gift of an origami giraffe. He said the giraffe represents Christ because the giraffe is able to see over the entire savanna, and has the largest heart of all land animals.
I recommend this weekend to any young person who may be considering it.
I found the entire event very rewarding. On top of the informative talks, there was adoration, silent prayer, singing, confession, and finally the weekend culminated in a Mass.
The main thing I took from the retreat was my need for more prayer. I was introduced to silent prayer, which is distinct from adoration. I find this difficult. During the talks, the speakers said the devil often tempts us to leave the prayer, or to leave early. However, the greatest spiritual fruits are often found just after you were about to quit.
Another concept I learned more about was the idea that things in our lives either bring us closer to God or further from him. It's not always obvious which is which either. Sometimes things will make us happy for the time being but actually pulls us away from our Creator. Other things may seems difficult, but are actually better for us in the long run.
I found the three young seminarians to be full of hope. They were also easy to get along with and were very "normal" guys.
Edmund gave me a special gift of an origami giraffe. He said the giraffe represents Christ because the giraffe is able to see over the entire savanna, and has the largest heart of all land animals.
I recommend this weekend to any young person who may be considering it.
Wednesday, May 29, 2013
Henry Morgentaler has died
I'm probably not going to give you any new information on Henry Morgentaler that hasn't been reported in the news, but I will add my two cents.
Morgentaler was synonymous with abortion in Canada. He was a physician who spent his life fighting legal battles in our country to have abortion legal and paid for by the government. He did not want any compromise, just 100% availability of abortion at all stages for any reason totally paid for by the government.
He largely succeeded in his goal. Legally speaking, abortion is allowed in Canada anytime before the baby is born. And in nearly all provinces, the price of abortion is paid by the government. Much of this is because of Morgentaler. Therefore, to some extent all taxpayers fund the killing of unborn children.
I find it ironic that Morgentaler would advocate the execution of innocent human beings since he himself was almost a victim of the same thing as a survivor of the Dachau concentration camp during World War II.
Because I subscribe to many pro-life channels and have many pro-life friends, I saw a lot of posts about Morgentaler. Generally they all said it's up to God now. It always is. I was surprised to see a young lady praising Morgentaler and thanking him. It's especially ironic since she has a new son whom she has been continuously posting pictures of since his birth. Is she happy that she had to option to abort him while she was pregnant? Is she happy other women have this option?
How can you see a newborn child and thinking "It's a good thing we have abortion in Canada because I may have wanted to kill this child."
Someone else responded to her comment saying Morgentaler did a lot for reproductive rights. You'll notice most pro-abortion people speak in euphemisms. They talk about "reproductive health", "women's rights", etc. Never do they say what they are really advocating: the ability to kill their unborn child in the womb.
I'm not going to sit here and judge Morgentaler for two reasons. First of all, perhaps he felt what he was doing was right. Many pro-abortion people surely feel the same way. They don't advocate legal abortion because they just want to spread evil throughout the world. Perhaps it is based in selfishness, perhaps their lack of beliefs in a soul, or just bad philosophy / theology. But in some strange way, abortion advocates think they are doing what is good. Perhaps Morgentaler felt the same way.
Another reason I will not just judge him is because we have all sinned, we all need forgiveness. As Jesus says no man can go to heaven on his own, he needs God. So I don't want to put myself on a pedestal and say I am so much better than Morgentaler.
But we can say that what Morgentaler did was objectively wrong. He performed abortions and fought to have it legalized in all of Canada. Worse yet, he forced taxpayers to fund it, thus increasing demand.
To its shame, Canada awarded Morgentaler with the Order of Canada. Strangely (or perhaps predictably), the blurb describing why Morgentaler received the Order does not mention the word abortion, or even terminating pregnancies. It doesn't mention unborn children. It once again speaks in euphemisms. It talks about increasing "health care options for women", and heightening "women's reproductive health issues". The truth must be glossed over in this case.
The decision to award Morgentaler with the Order of Canada was deeply divisive and should have been avoided in my opinion. The Order of Canada should be used to bring Canadians together, not separate them.
I hope the death of Dr. Morgentaler renews the abortion debate and people start to see the truth of what it really is. I do hope that Morgentaler is with God now. We all have to do our best to bring about a culture of life.
Morgentaler was synonymous with abortion in Canada. He was a physician who spent his life fighting legal battles in our country to have abortion legal and paid for by the government. He did not want any compromise, just 100% availability of abortion at all stages for any reason totally paid for by the government.
He largely succeeded in his goal. Legally speaking, abortion is allowed in Canada anytime before the baby is born. And in nearly all provinces, the price of abortion is paid by the government. Much of this is because of Morgentaler. Therefore, to some extent all taxpayers fund the killing of unborn children.
I find it ironic that Morgentaler would advocate the execution of innocent human beings since he himself was almost a victim of the same thing as a survivor of the Dachau concentration camp during World War II.
Because I subscribe to many pro-life channels and have many pro-life friends, I saw a lot of posts about Morgentaler. Generally they all said it's up to God now. It always is. I was surprised to see a young lady praising Morgentaler and thanking him. It's especially ironic since she has a new son whom she has been continuously posting pictures of since his birth. Is she happy that she had to option to abort him while she was pregnant? Is she happy other women have this option?
How can you see a newborn child and thinking "It's a good thing we have abortion in Canada because I may have wanted to kill this child."
Someone else responded to her comment saying Morgentaler did a lot for reproductive rights. You'll notice most pro-abortion people speak in euphemisms. They talk about "reproductive health", "women's rights", etc. Never do they say what they are really advocating: the ability to kill their unborn child in the womb.
I'm not going to sit here and judge Morgentaler for two reasons. First of all, perhaps he felt what he was doing was right. Many pro-abortion people surely feel the same way. They don't advocate legal abortion because they just want to spread evil throughout the world. Perhaps it is based in selfishness, perhaps their lack of beliefs in a soul, or just bad philosophy / theology. But in some strange way, abortion advocates think they are doing what is good. Perhaps Morgentaler felt the same way.
Another reason I will not just judge him is because we have all sinned, we all need forgiveness. As Jesus says no man can go to heaven on his own, he needs God. So I don't want to put myself on a pedestal and say I am so much better than Morgentaler.
But we can say that what Morgentaler did was objectively wrong. He performed abortions and fought to have it legalized in all of Canada. Worse yet, he forced taxpayers to fund it, thus increasing demand.
To its shame, Canada awarded Morgentaler with the Order of Canada. Strangely (or perhaps predictably), the blurb describing why Morgentaler received the Order does not mention the word abortion, or even terminating pregnancies. It doesn't mention unborn children. It once again speaks in euphemisms. It talks about increasing "health care options for women", and heightening "women's reproductive health issues". The truth must be glossed over in this case.
The decision to award Morgentaler with the Order of Canada was deeply divisive and should have been avoided in my opinion. The Order of Canada should be used to bring Canadians together, not separate them.
I hope the death of Dr. Morgentaler renews the abortion debate and people start to see the truth of what it really is. I do hope that Morgentaler is with God now. We all have to do our best to bring about a culture of life.
Tuesday, May 28, 2013
Is it hard for rich people to enter heaven?
It seems popular these days for Catholics to judge rich people and say it's really hard for them to enter heaven. Some say they hope to never be rich. I heard a heterodox priest once urging young people to not make too much money. Somehow wealth is now seen as objectively bad in and of itself.
One of the most popular verses people use to justify this hatred of the rich or riches is when Jesus says it is more difficult for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven. What you almost never hear though is what Jesus says right after. Here's what it says in Matthew chapter 19, verse 25:
When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and said, “Who then can be saved?”
Jesus looked at them and said, “For human beings this is impossible, but for God all things are possible.”
At the time, richness was seen as a sign that God was blessing you. Therefore, it was shocking to hear that it would be hard for EVEN rich people to enter heaven. Jesus goes on to say for all men it is impossible. It is only possible for God. Notice Jesus doesn't say for everyone else it's relatively simple, it's only hard for rich people?
I take it more to mean "even the most blessed people will have a hard time entering heaven". Really, it's not only hard, it's impossible. That's because we cannot save ourselves.
I think wealth can be an impediment to holiness, just as anything can. Anything one makes an idol can be an impediment. Your job, your hobbies, your favorite sport, your body, you diet, etc. can all become obsessions which divert our attention away from God. We must worship God alone. I think what Jesus mostly condemns is a person's attachment to money. But he also condemns people who are too attached to positions of power and prestige, too attached to family and friends, or too attached to comfort.
Jesus says we must put God first and nothing should be on par or above him.
A trend I am noticing more from members of the Church is to think the Church speaks infallibly on matter of faith, morals, and economics. I find many people thinking in socialist terms and believing the Church has to endorse their particular policy.
I will get into this more later, but what I personally believe is that the Church guides the behavior of people, not governments. Only a person is a moral being, only they can make good or sinful decisions. You cannot say a country made a sinful decision. When Jesus tells us how to live, he speaks in terms of the individual. He does not advocate government involvement. He tells individuals to feed the hungry and clothe the naked.
As I said, I will delve into that subject more later. The reason I bring it up is because more and more people within the Church seem to think the solution to our problems can all be found in government policies and to not support one of these policies is going against the Church. Many advocate redistribution of wealth and say we as Christians must support this. But I believe there are alternative viewpoints.
Wealth in itself is a good thing. It allows us to live longer, healthier, and happier lives. Instead of condemning wealth, we should find ways for everyone to produce it. There is no limit on wealth. One hundred years ago, there was far less wealth than there is today. Therefore, I would caution against condemning rich people. They have their temptations to overcome just like everyone else.
One of the most popular verses people use to justify this hatred of the rich or riches is when Jesus says it is more difficult for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven. What you almost never hear though is what Jesus says right after. Here's what it says in Matthew chapter 19, verse 25:
When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and said, “Who then can be saved?”
Jesus looked at them and said, “For human beings this is impossible, but for God all things are possible.”
At the time, richness was seen as a sign that God was blessing you. Therefore, it was shocking to hear that it would be hard for EVEN rich people to enter heaven. Jesus goes on to say for all men it is impossible. It is only possible for God. Notice Jesus doesn't say for everyone else it's relatively simple, it's only hard for rich people?
I take it more to mean "even the most blessed people will have a hard time entering heaven". Really, it's not only hard, it's impossible. That's because we cannot save ourselves.
I think wealth can be an impediment to holiness, just as anything can. Anything one makes an idol can be an impediment. Your job, your hobbies, your favorite sport, your body, you diet, etc. can all become obsessions which divert our attention away from God. We must worship God alone. I think what Jesus mostly condemns is a person's attachment to money. But he also condemns people who are too attached to positions of power and prestige, too attached to family and friends, or too attached to comfort.
Jesus says we must put God first and nothing should be on par or above him.
A trend I am noticing more from members of the Church is to think the Church speaks infallibly on matter of faith, morals, and economics. I find many people thinking in socialist terms and believing the Church has to endorse their particular policy.
I will get into this more later, but what I personally believe is that the Church guides the behavior of people, not governments. Only a person is a moral being, only they can make good or sinful decisions. You cannot say a country made a sinful decision. When Jesus tells us how to live, he speaks in terms of the individual. He does not advocate government involvement. He tells individuals to feed the hungry and clothe the naked.
As I said, I will delve into that subject more later. The reason I bring it up is because more and more people within the Church seem to think the solution to our problems can all be found in government policies and to not support one of these policies is going against the Church. Many advocate redistribution of wealth and say we as Christians must support this. But I believe there are alternative viewpoints.
Wealth in itself is a good thing. It allows us to live longer, healthier, and happier lives. Instead of condemning wealth, we should find ways for everyone to produce it. There is no limit on wealth. One hundred years ago, there was far less wealth than there is today. Therefore, I would caution against condemning rich people. They have their temptations to overcome just like everyone else.
Thursday, April 04, 2013
American-born Saints
After doing a little research, I could find only three American-born Catholic saints. These are Kateri Tekakwitha, Katharine Drexel
Elizabeth Ann Seton.
There have been no American-born male saints.
Others are considered "American saints" despite not being born in the United States. See the list here.
There have been no American-born male saints.
Others are considered "American saints" despite not being born in the United States. See the list here.
Saturday, March 30, 2013
Pope Francis washing women's feet
Pope Francis went to a juvenile prison to wash the feet of 12 individuals, some Christians, some Muslims, some women, some men. I think this sent a good message that he was willing to wash the feet of criminals, non-Christians, men, and women. As the Bible reminds us, we are all sinners who fall short of the glory of God and we are therefore no different than these criminals.
But Pope Francis violated a liturgical rule by washing the feet of women. The symbolism of the washing of the feet is that the priest, bishop, or in this case, pope, is ultimately a servant to all the faithful. But it also represents the washing of the feet of the 12 apostles. All of the apostles were men and therefore it is appropriate for the priest to wash only the feet of men. But this is not just me saying this. This is specified in the rubric of the Sacramentary, which is the book outlining the procedures to be followed by the priest during Mass. This includes Holy Thursday when the washing of the feet takes places.
The Sacramentary states:
It specifically lists men as receiving the washing of the feet. No exception is made for women.
The USCCB has made an exception to allow women, by emphasizing the symbolism of service and charity and placing less emphasis on the apostleship of the twelve men.
Charity is wonderful, one of the three holiest virtues. But charity cannot justify incorrect liturgical actions. If people are offended that women cannot participate in this event, it is possible that they do not know the meaning behind it. Are they also offended that Jesus selected only men as apostles?
The Sacramentary does not seem to specify that the participants must be Christian, and therefore it seems alright that some participants were non-Christian. Of course, this is not an infallible teaching held in the deposit of faith and does not amount to a doctrine or dogma. I think Pope Francis is a great pope and I want him to do a good job.
But Pope Francis violated a liturgical rule by washing the feet of women. The symbolism of the washing of the feet is that the priest, bishop, or in this case, pope, is ultimately a servant to all the faithful. But it also represents the washing of the feet of the 12 apostles. All of the apostles were men and therefore it is appropriate for the priest to wash only the feet of men. But this is not just me saying this. This is specified in the rubric of the Sacramentary, which is the book outlining the procedures to be followed by the priest during Mass. This includes Holy Thursday when the washing of the feet takes places.
The Sacramentary states:
Depending on pastoral circumstances, the washing of feet follows the homily. The men who have been chosen (viri selecti) are led by the ministers to chairs prepared at a suitable place. Then the priest (removing his chasuble if necessary) goes to each man. With the help of the ministers he pours water over each one's feet and dries them.
It specifically lists men as receiving the washing of the feet. No exception is made for women.
The USCCB has made an exception to allow women, by emphasizing the symbolism of service and charity and placing less emphasis on the apostleship of the twelve men.
Charity is wonderful, one of the three holiest virtues. But charity cannot justify incorrect liturgical actions. If people are offended that women cannot participate in this event, it is possible that they do not know the meaning behind it. Are they also offended that Jesus selected only men as apostles?
The Sacramentary does not seem to specify that the participants must be Christian, and therefore it seems alright that some participants were non-Christian. Of course, this is not an infallible teaching held in the deposit of faith and does not amount to a doctrine or dogma. I think Pope Francis is a great pope and I want him to do a good job.
Today is Holy Saturday, a time of waiting for the resurrection of Christ. We wait in anticipation for the coming of our Lord. This reminds us that the Lord shall return. Many Catholics will attend Easter Vigil, which combines the Saturday Mass with Easter Sunday Mass. The first half is very solemn and quiet, and the second half we celebrate the joyous resurrection of our Lord, the greatest day in the Christian calendar.
In most churches, the celebration begins later in the evening from about 7pm to 9pm and then ends around 2 hours later.
In most churches, the celebration begins later in the evening from about 7pm to 9pm and then ends around 2 hours later.
Saturday, March 23, 2013
Saturday, March 16, 2013
Thursday, March 14, 2013
FAKE Photo of Bergoglio (Pope Francis) with John Paul II and Ratzinger
This is NOT Pope Francis:
This is in fact not the case. It cannot be Bergoglio. The man in the picture is a Cardinal, as one can tell by his cassock. Bergoglio became a cardinal in 2001. As you can easily tell by comparing this photo of John Paul II with one from 2001, this photo is much earlier than that. To the best of my knowledge, the cardinal in the picture is Cardinal Edouard Gagnon. Gagnon, of Quebec, died on August 25, 2007 at the age of 89. I am not 100% certain of this however.
I am not sure when the photo was taken.
Here are some more photos of Cardinal Gagnon. Judge for yourself if he looks like the guy in the middle above:
Source: http://eccechristianus.wordpress.com/2011/09/03/cuando-la-historia-nos-alcanza/
I am not sure when the photo was taken.
Here are some more photos of Cardinal Gagnon. Judge for yourself if he looks like the guy in the middle above:
Source: http://eccechristianus.wordpress.com/2011/09/03/cuando-la-historia-nos-alcanza/
Wednesday, March 13, 2013
The New Pope is...
Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio from Argentina has been chosen as the 266th Pope! His Papal name is Pope Francis!
Monday, March 11, 2013
Times for Papal Election Voting
The 2013 Papal election to select the 266th pope will start tomorrow, Tuesday, March 12, 2013. Here is the schedule for the first nine votes will take place in the Vatican City to elect the successor of Pope Benedict XVI and ultimately the 265th Successor of Peter and Roman Pontiff:
(Thanks to CatholicPulse.com for the information)
1st Ballot - 2:00PM Eastern Standard Time on Tuesday, March 12, 2013
2nd Ballot - 5:30AM Eastern Standard Time on Wednesday, March 13, 2013
3rd Ballot - 7:00AM Eastern Standard Time on Wednesday, March 13, 2013
4th Ballot - 12:30PM Eastern Standard Time on Wednesday, March 13, 2013
5th Ballot - 2:00PM Eastern Standard Time on Wednesday, March 13, 2013
6th Ballot - 5:30AM Eastern Standard Time on Thursday, March 14, 2013
7th Ballot - 7:00AM Eastern Standard Time on Thursday, March 14, 2013
8th Ballot - 12:30PM Eastern Standard Time on Thursday, March 14, 2013
9th Ballot - 2:00PM Eastern Standard Time on Thursday, March 14, 2013
My prediction is that the pope will be chosen on Wednesday, March 13, 2013.
(Thanks to CatholicPulse.com for the information)
1st Ballot - 2:00PM Eastern Standard Time on Tuesday, March 12, 2013
2nd Ballot - 5:30AM Eastern Standard Time on Wednesday, March 13, 2013
3rd Ballot - 7:00AM Eastern Standard Time on Wednesday, March 13, 2013
4th Ballot - 12:30PM Eastern Standard Time on Wednesday, March 13, 2013
5th Ballot - 2:00PM Eastern Standard Time on Wednesday, March 13, 2013
6th Ballot - 5:30AM Eastern Standard Time on Thursday, March 14, 2013
7th Ballot - 7:00AM Eastern Standard Time on Thursday, March 14, 2013
8th Ballot - 12:30PM Eastern Standard Time on Thursday, March 14, 2013
9th Ballot - 2:00PM Eastern Standard Time on Thursday, March 14, 2013
My prediction is that the pope will be chosen on Wednesday, March 13, 2013.
Monday, March 04, 2013
WOMEN PRIESTS, CONTRACEPTION, GAY MARRIAGE????
MEMO TO JOURNALISTS:
The answer is no, no, and no. The Church will NOT, I repeat WILL NOT change its teachings on women priests, contraception, or gay marriage. Not now, not in 5 years, not depending on who is elected as pope, never. These teachings form part of the deposit of faith and are unchangeable. You can now stop asking these same old questions over and over and start asking substantive questions which actually matter.
If you don't like the Church's teachings on these issues, don't hold your breath for them to change. I would invite you to look into why the Church teaches what it does in these areas, but if you are steadfastly uninterested in that, then please either accept it, keep quiet about it, or move elsewhere. If you are looking for a Church that looks like the Catholic Church in many ways but has women priests, allows contraception, and gay marriage, you might want to try a Protestant denomination like the Anglican church.
Watching TV coverage of the upcoming papal election has become an exercise in tedium. Every interview is identical. Whether they have a Catholic layperson or a bishop, the interviewer only ever asks one of 4 questions:
1) Will the next pope allow women priests?
2) Will the next pope allow contraception?
3) Will the next pope change the Church's position on homosexual acts or allow gay marriage?
3) Will the next pope change the Church's position on homosexual acts or allow gay marriage?
4) Will the next pope change the Church's position on abortion (especially in cases of rape or incest)?
Once the interviewee answers the question, undeterred the interviewer will persist with follow-up questions, such as:
5) But isn't it time for the Church to modernize?
6) So many Catholics oppose the Church's position in this area. Isn't it time for a change?
7) But how will the Church attract young people?
The answer to all of the above 4 question is "No." Period. No if, ands, or buts. Questions 5, 6, and 7 are thus moot. Now that that has been established in the first couple of minutes of the interview, why not try coming up with some original and thoughtful questions?
I don't even have a TV, but from the YouTube videos I see of the mainstream media's coverage of the papal election, this guide I've prepared could come in handy for many reporters, anchors, and journalists.
Thursday, February 28, 2013
Why does the mainstream media care about the pope?
It seems the mainstream media is covering the pope's resignation and the upcoming papal election pretty closely. Many people in the general public are talking about it. Yet, most of the people and groups involved in this discussion are not practicing Catholics and probably know very little about the Church. So why the interest?
Perhaps they are interested because it is an event with major significance. About one sixth of the world is Catholic and therefore the pope has more followers than almost any leader. The pope has influence on a lot of people, especially practicing Catholics. But why would the secular be interested?
Ultimately I think a lot of the interest stems from the secular world's false hope. With news of a retiring pope or one who just passed away, the secular world is filled with hope that the next pope will implement their social agenda in one or several areas. They see the Church as an obstacle to the worldwide implementation of their plans and hold on to hope that perhaps the next pope will change all of that.
People truly and honestly believe that the next pope may reconsider the Church's opposition to gay marriage or abortion. Some believe the Church will do away with rules about contraception or women priests. Unfortunately for these people, these things will never change. Would the media continue to cover this story as much as they do now if people were convinced the Church's stance on all the "hot button" moral issues of the day are pretty much already settled? I doubt it.
To a typical secular person, the next pope will be ideologically identical to Pope Benedict XVI. If there are any differences, the secular person could probably not perceive them, even if they were to be explained. There may be changes where the Church has the authority to make them, but they will not reverse 2000 years of tradition.
Perhaps they are interested because it is an event with major significance. About one sixth of the world is Catholic and therefore the pope has more followers than almost any leader. The pope has influence on a lot of people, especially practicing Catholics. But why would the secular be interested?
Ultimately I think a lot of the interest stems from the secular world's false hope. With news of a retiring pope or one who just passed away, the secular world is filled with hope that the next pope will implement their social agenda in one or several areas. They see the Church as an obstacle to the worldwide implementation of their plans and hold on to hope that perhaps the next pope will change all of that.
People truly and honestly believe that the next pope may reconsider the Church's opposition to gay marriage or abortion. Some believe the Church will do away with rules about contraception or women priests. Unfortunately for these people, these things will never change. Would the media continue to cover this story as much as they do now if people were convinced the Church's stance on all the "hot button" moral issues of the day are pretty much already settled? I doubt it.
To a typical secular person, the next pope will be ideologically identical to Pope Benedict XVI. If there are any differences, the secular person could probably not perceive them, even if they were to be explained. There may be changes where the Church has the authority to make them, but they will not reverse 2000 years of tradition.
Pope's New Residence in a Monastery
A couple of months after retiring, Pope Benedict XVI will live in a monastery close to St. Peter's Basilica called Mater Ecclesiae. Housed here are nuns who pray for the pope. I haven't been able to confirm this, but this is an alleged picture of his future room (Source: Catholic Charismatic):
You can see this room is very simple and basic. He does not live in the lap of luxury. Probably the average person has a more luxurious bedroom than this. The reason I mention this is because so many people are critical of the Church's wealth and make it seem as though the pope, bishops, and priests, all use the riches of the Church for their own personal gain.
Here is a picture of the outside of the monastery (Source: National Geographic):
You can see this room is very simple and basic. He does not live in the lap of luxury. Probably the average person has a more luxurious bedroom than this. The reason I mention this is because so many people are critical of the Church's wealth and make it seem as though the pope, bishops, and priests, all use the riches of the Church for their own personal gain.
Here is a picture of the outside of the monastery (Source: National Geographic):
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)