I just came across this blog post by a gay Catholic. It's a good read. He talks about his struggles and puts things in perspective. He's already received a massive number of comments and it was only posted earlier today (technically yesterday since it's after midnight):
http://www.stevegershom.com/2013/08/yoiks-and-away/
Saturday, August 10, 2013
Tuesday, July 23, 2013
Ender's Game Author's gay comments
I was just listening to CBC and they were talking to a gay group that is going to boycott Orson Scott Card's upcoming movie called Ender's Game. They're doing it because Orson is an outspoken critic of gay marriage and also thinks homosexuality is a disorder.
The ironic part is that this boycott will probably have the opposite of the intended effect as happened with Chick-fil-A.
How dare someone be opposed to gay marriage. The minute some people decided two people of the same sex could form a marriage, all of a sudden everyone in the world must accept and embrace it with open arms, otherwise you are a gay-hater. Nevermind that this is brand new definition, never before heard of in human history. You must accept it or else you are a bigot and must be hated.
So big deal, Orson Scott Card believes in the traditional definition of marriage. Slow news day?
Card also belongs or belonged to the National Organization for Marriage, a group that supports the several-thousand-year-old definition of marriage. Of course, because they do this, they are considered a hate group akin to the KKK.
Card also has allegedly called homosexuality a disorder. So? It obviously is a disorder. Think about it. Animals must do two things: survive and reproduce. Anything which makes these things either more difficult or impossible is suboptimal. If an animal cannot reproduce, his genes will die out. We are ordered to certain ends. We have feet so we can walk. We have hands to hold things, use tools, climb, etc. We have eyes to see. We also have reproductive organs for a reason. Gay people use these organs but not for their intended purposes. They frustrate the natural use of these parts of their bodies. It seems clear this is a disordered behavior. It would be like putting on a blindfold all day over healthy eyes.
Whatever is the case, Card has the right to say these things. It shouldn't be a hate crime to support something which has existed for millennia. I'm glad these advocates don't have the law behind them or it would be illegal to even have an unauthorized opinion on gay marriage.
The ironic part is that this boycott will probably have the opposite of the intended effect as happened with Chick-fil-A.
How dare someone be opposed to gay marriage. The minute some people decided two people of the same sex could form a marriage, all of a sudden everyone in the world must accept and embrace it with open arms, otherwise you are a gay-hater. Nevermind that this is brand new definition, never before heard of in human history. You must accept it or else you are a bigot and must be hated.
So big deal, Orson Scott Card believes in the traditional definition of marriage. Slow news day?
Card also belongs or belonged to the National Organization for Marriage, a group that supports the several-thousand-year-old definition of marriage. Of course, because they do this, they are considered a hate group akin to the KKK.
Card also has allegedly called homosexuality a disorder. So? It obviously is a disorder. Think about it. Animals must do two things: survive and reproduce. Anything which makes these things either more difficult or impossible is suboptimal. If an animal cannot reproduce, his genes will die out. We are ordered to certain ends. We have feet so we can walk. We have hands to hold things, use tools, climb, etc. We have eyes to see. We also have reproductive organs for a reason. Gay people use these organs but not for their intended purposes. They frustrate the natural use of these parts of their bodies. It seems clear this is a disordered behavior. It would be like putting on a blindfold all day over healthy eyes.
Whatever is the case, Card has the right to say these things. It shouldn't be a hate crime to support something which has existed for millennia. I'm glad these advocates don't have the law behind them or it would be illegal to even have an unauthorized opinion on gay marriage.
Monday, July 22, 2013
Non-denominationalism / Non-religious
A new trend these days is for Christians to call themselves non-denominational and another is for people to say they are spiritual but not religious. Today I will talk about the latter.
I was about to watch a YouTube video a few days ago when an ad by an Indian guru named Sadhguru appeared. In it he speaks in general terms about how humans must attain a new consciousness in order to live properly into the future. He makes odd claims in the commercial such as with more people on earth, we will have to eat and even breathe 40% less...
I started looking at some of his videos and a few things became clear. For one, he does not like religion. He doesn't like words like "sin" or even "morals". From what I can gather, he does not think anyone should acknowledge or even speak about sin.
He seems to have a very simple solution to all our spiritual needs. He basically advocates we "remember" who we are and then we wouldn't do anything wrong and the whole world would be perfect.
In a few places, he comes across as a moral relativist. For instance, someone asks him if there are any sins or any good or bad. He responds by asking for an example. The audience member for some reason chooses "killing an animal" as a sin. The guru then says that we kill millions of organisms when we inhale and exhale. He says we kill plants when we eat. So he says how can we stop killing things? We could stop breathing, but then we would kill ourselves and that would also be a sin. His moral relativism comes in when he asks how you can know what is morally right when different cultures and different religions have different morals.
So he seems to just throw in the towel on the whole question of right and wrong. In fact, he goes so far as to see sin as some sort of conspiracy set up by religion, which then allows them to step in and "fix" the problem which he believes never existed.
What I see from all of this is that he has set himself up as the final arbiter in issues of morality. He is the judge, jury, and executioner. I sense a certain level of pride in people like this. He sits on stage and simply answers one questions after another. He never says he doesn't know the answer, and when he says something it is very definitive. He constantly stops and asks the audience if they agree with what he just said, but it is only rhetorical. He expects a "yes".
I find it odd how moral relativists like this can speak with such absolute certainty.
Also, he is very belittling to religious people. The picture he paints of them is that all religious people are intolerant and constantly fighting with their opponents. He makes it seem like they are all hung up on technical rules.
But he is creating an unnecessary and false dichotomy. In actual fact, many religious people have deep faith and spirituality. The difference is that religious people believe God has revealed himself to humanity, not that they themselves are the revelation, like Sadhguru thinks. Most religious people are seeking answers, not claiming they know all the answers like this guru does.
In fact, in another irony, the guru claims that having morals means you "know" the answers, whereas simply being spiritual means you are open to answers and receiving information. The irony is that I've rarely spoken to a religious people who is any more "certain" than Sadhguru is. I doubt you would ever hear this guru say he doesn't know an answer. In fact, he comes across as rather cocky.
This is the problem when you place yourself above everyone else. He claims religion is a racket but he doesn't mind having tens of thousands of followers paying huge sums of money to visit him, who hang on every word that comes from his mouth. He doesn't act with humility, but rather with complete confidence and an air of superiority.
The bottom line is the new trend, which mostly springs from Eastern religions, is to claim you do not follow a religion, but rather are spiritual. But it reminds of the saying that there is a shortage of priests, but no shortage of popes. Everyone just wants to be the head of their own religion, to make it all up as they go along. Isn't it great to be in a position where you know it all and there is no person or authority above you? Throw in thousands of devotees and you can see the appeal of this new movement.
I started looking at some of his videos and a few things became clear. For one, he does not like religion. He doesn't like words like "sin" or even "morals". From what I can gather, he does not think anyone should acknowledge or even speak about sin.
He seems to have a very simple solution to all our spiritual needs. He basically advocates we "remember" who we are and then we wouldn't do anything wrong and the whole world would be perfect.
In a few places, he comes across as a moral relativist. For instance, someone asks him if there are any sins or any good or bad. He responds by asking for an example. The audience member for some reason chooses "killing an animal" as a sin. The guru then says that we kill millions of organisms when we inhale and exhale. He says we kill plants when we eat. So he says how can we stop killing things? We could stop breathing, but then we would kill ourselves and that would also be a sin. His moral relativism comes in when he asks how you can know what is morally right when different cultures and different religions have different morals.
So he seems to just throw in the towel on the whole question of right and wrong. In fact, he goes so far as to see sin as some sort of conspiracy set up by religion, which then allows them to step in and "fix" the problem which he believes never existed.
What I see from all of this is that he has set himself up as the final arbiter in issues of morality. He is the judge, jury, and executioner. I sense a certain level of pride in people like this. He sits on stage and simply answers one questions after another. He never says he doesn't know the answer, and when he says something it is very definitive. He constantly stops and asks the audience if they agree with what he just said, but it is only rhetorical. He expects a "yes".
I find it odd how moral relativists like this can speak with such absolute certainty.
Also, he is very belittling to religious people. The picture he paints of them is that all religious people are intolerant and constantly fighting with their opponents. He makes it seem like they are all hung up on technical rules.
But he is creating an unnecessary and false dichotomy. In actual fact, many religious people have deep faith and spirituality. The difference is that religious people believe God has revealed himself to humanity, not that they themselves are the revelation, like Sadhguru thinks. Most religious people are seeking answers, not claiming they know all the answers like this guru does.
In fact, in another irony, the guru claims that having morals means you "know" the answers, whereas simply being spiritual means you are open to answers and receiving information. The irony is that I've rarely spoken to a religious people who is any more "certain" than Sadhguru is. I doubt you would ever hear this guru say he doesn't know an answer. In fact, he comes across as rather cocky.
This is the problem when you place yourself above everyone else. He claims religion is a racket but he doesn't mind having tens of thousands of followers paying huge sums of money to visit him, who hang on every word that comes from his mouth. He doesn't act with humility, but rather with complete confidence and an air of superiority.
The bottom line is the new trend, which mostly springs from Eastern religions, is to claim you do not follow a religion, but rather are spiritual. But it reminds of the saying that there is a shortage of priests, but no shortage of popes. Everyone just wants to be the head of their own religion, to make it all up as they go along. Isn't it great to be in a position where you know it all and there is no person or authority above you? Throw in thousands of devotees and you can see the appeal of this new movement.
Sunday, July 21, 2013
Thomas Peters is recovering
Fellow Catholic blogger Thomas Peters who was involved in a serious accident about a week ago is now on the road to recovery, seemingly with no permanent injuries. This is great news. There is a website set up to track his progress: http://tpetersrecovery.blogspot.ca/
Wednesday, July 17, 2013
Famous young Catholic blogger in serious condition
Thomas Peters, who ran the very popular Catholic blog American Papist is in serious condition at the hospital in Baltimore Maryland after a swimming accident. He no longer runs the American Papist blog but became involved in CatholicVote and the National Organization on Marriage. I'm not sure his exact age, but he is around 30. His father is the well-known canon lawyer Edward Peters.
He and his family need your prayers right now.
More information can be found here: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/please-pray-for-thomas-peters-and-his-family.
He and his family need your prayers right now.
More information can be found here: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/please-pray-for-thomas-peters-and-his-family.
Friday, July 12, 2013
Ireland starts on the path to killing chidren.
According to LifeNews, Ireland has recently passed legislation which allows women to abort their unborn babies in some circumstances. Ireland is one of the few pro-life European countries and now this is starting to change. Not by popular demand though, but by the whims of those in power.
In the new law a woman can obtain an abortion if it is deemed she is likely to commit suicide unless she does. As LifeNews reports, suicide rates are much higher for women who have abortions, so this will probably backfire.
The question is how many women will claim to be suicidal in order to kill their baby? I would say a lot. And who is going to contradict them?
But what about women who would genuinely commit suicide? I would say this must be very rare. I don't really understand it. Why would a woman kill herself because she is going to have a baby? If she really didn't want her kid that bad, wouldn't she give him/her up for adoption? Plus, I think the depression should be dealt with separately.
You can't kill a person just because you might commit suicide unless you do. If you are suicidal, you should seek immediate medical attention and stop blaming an innocent baby.
If this is allowed, then why aren't all abortions allowed? If abortion is illegal, it means the people believe it is murder. Does the psychological state of the killer determine whether or not the victim has value and should not be killed? That's what is being implied.
Imagine if a woman said she wanted to kill her 2 year old son. She is told she can't because it's illegal. Then she says she is suicidal and must kill her two year old son and she is then given permission. That would be absurd. The correct course of action would be to treat the mental issue which makes her want to kill her son.
In any event, this is just one step toward total disregard for human life in yet another Europe country. Very sad news.
In the new law a woman can obtain an abortion if it is deemed she is likely to commit suicide unless she does. As LifeNews reports, suicide rates are much higher for women who have abortions, so this will probably backfire.
The question is how many women will claim to be suicidal in order to kill their baby? I would say a lot. And who is going to contradict them?
But what about women who would genuinely commit suicide? I would say this must be very rare. I don't really understand it. Why would a woman kill herself because she is going to have a baby? If she really didn't want her kid that bad, wouldn't she give him/her up for adoption? Plus, I think the depression should be dealt with separately.
You can't kill a person just because you might commit suicide unless you do. If you are suicidal, you should seek immediate medical attention and stop blaming an innocent baby.
If this is allowed, then why aren't all abortions allowed? If abortion is illegal, it means the people believe it is murder. Does the psychological state of the killer determine whether or not the victim has value and should not be killed? That's what is being implied.
Imagine if a woman said she wanted to kill her 2 year old son. She is told she can't because it's illegal. Then she says she is suicidal and must kill her two year old son and she is then given permission. That would be absurd. The correct course of action would be to treat the mental issue which makes her want to kill her son.
In any event, this is just one step toward total disregard for human life in yet another Europe country. Very sad news.
Monday, July 08, 2013
Not sure how I feel about Pope John Paul II being canonized
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.
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.
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/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)