Another defeat was made today for the lives of countless thousands. Canada, a bastion of pre-born murder, has made access to the early-stages abortion pill even easier. The pill I am referring to is Levonorgestrel, marketed as Plan B, and colloquially known as the "morning-after pill". This pill causes the woman's body to produce a high level of hormones which prevents implantation of a fertilized egg.
It is important to remember that the egg is already fertilized, a person has been conceived. A living person will be murdered with this pill, yet people call it the morning-after pill. First of all, what does this mean, the morning after what exactly? Obviously, this refers to the morning after "unprotected" sex. Perhaps it refers to a morning after a one-night stand, or a fling, or possibly a "committed" relationship. But the only thing this relationship is committed to is the image of the two partners, and nothing, not even the life of another human being, trumps that commitment.
The decision by Canadian "courts" is devastating. The holocaust of innocent children will continue to expand. Thousands will die. One of the sadest things is that this "product" is being marketed as a form of birth control. It should be considered abortion at least. People who are not aware of what they are doing could be unknowingly killing their very own child, and for what? Convenience?
People may not care about unborn children, but how we treat them indicates how we feel about everyone else. We should care for them the most because they are innocent. If we do not care for the most vulnerable in our society, who will we care for? Every day, that question is being asked, because every day, our culture of death finds new victims. First it is the unborn, then it is the unable, then it is the undesired. We are living in a society where your value as a human person is determined by how everyone else feels about you. This is truly a sad situation.
Let us pray for Canada that it may protect its most vulnerable, that it stands on guard for its citizens. Young and old, weak and strong, rich or poor.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Why are Christians (specifically Catholics) the only ones held responsible?
Last night I flicked on The Hour with George Stromboulopoulos. He had Sue Johanson as one of his guests last night and of course they were talking about sex. Sue's show runs in the United States now, where people call in for all their questions about sex, contraception, and everything along those lines. She doesn't care if they're gay, straight, bisexual; married, not married, extra-marital, etc. To her, sex is sex, and nothing else matters.
At one point, George asked how it's different in the U.S. compared to here, and Sue mentioned that she quivers at the thought. She derided the sex education system of the United States saying they only teach abstinence-only programming and that that's the fault of George W. Bush. They seem to easily be able to laugh about these "conservatives" who are afraid of sex and ask themselves rhetorically why they don't just accept it.
Sue at one point posited that "well, it's going to happen anyway, you might as well teach them about it", and that she's helping people to avoid pregnancy, which according to her is such a terrible thing. But let's look at what's really going on.
In 1968, when Humanae Vitae was published by Pope Paul VI, he said that the widespread use of contraception would cheapen sex, turn people into sex objects, increase promiscuity and infidelity, break up marriages and relationships, and have major negative impacts on the world in general. He was completely correct in these things. He didn't even mention however the increased incidents of STIs. The dire consequences of the increased use of contraception has been felt.
It also paved the way to abortion. Pregnancies were now something people had control over. We stopped asking God his plan, and started asking ourselves. We were in control. So when people became pregnant, dispite the availability of contraception, it didn't fit into their view of how things should go. They demanded FULL control, not partial control. Women, and their male partners, demanded the ability to end whatever was happening inside her womb. Since contraception, people tried to separate sex from childbirth, intimacy from procreation. Contraception doesn't decrease unwanted pregnancies, it increases them. It increases abortion also. In fact, it legitimized it. Once people demanded full and utter control over anything happening in their bodies, they realized there was an unintended side-effect of guilt, and horror at the realization of what they've done. No one ever questioned if what was in their womb was a child, but that denial was necessary to perform this act. Just as the Nazis declared Jews to be nonhuman, so too did the abortionists declare the unborn.
This brings my point full circle. As a Catholic, I am forced to offer an explanation for how I could kill so many innocent people during the Crusades, yet proponents of contraception and abortion would not even be asked to justify their own act. The Crusades ended over 500 years ago, was a defensive war to protect innocent civilians, was far less brutal than most people imagine. As well, the cowardly acts perpetrated by a few for their own bloodlust and greed were not authorized by the Catholic Church, and in fact were condemned by it. Yet, somehow I have to justify these people. I even have to justify outlaws, people who broke the commands of my religion, to whom I have no relation, no shared heritage.
Does Sue Johanson get blamed for reducing sex to an action between any two people with no consequences no different than a pat on the back. Do we blame her for the increase in infidelity, sexual addiction, lust, marriage breakups, infidelity, and abortion? No. If everyone practiced abstinence before marriage, which Sue and George laugh at, there would not be many of the things I mentioned above. Although people like Sue have a direct impact on the degredation of society and values, we do not blame her or anyone like her.
Why the double standard? In fact, it is not even a double standard, for this implies equality. I would argue that the Crusades were mostly a positive thing, which have little impact on our current lives, besides allowing us to be as free as we are today, especially to be Christians. However, the sexual "revolution", or sexual degredation as I call it, is having a devastating and unquestionably negative impact on our society.
At one point, George asked how it's different in the U.S. compared to here, and Sue mentioned that she quivers at the thought. She derided the sex education system of the United States saying they only teach abstinence-only programming and that that's the fault of George W. Bush. They seem to easily be able to laugh about these "conservatives" who are afraid of sex and ask themselves rhetorically why they don't just accept it.
Sue at one point posited that "well, it's going to happen anyway, you might as well teach them about it", and that she's helping people to avoid pregnancy, which according to her is such a terrible thing. But let's look at what's really going on.
In 1968, when Humanae Vitae was published by Pope Paul VI, he said that the widespread use of contraception would cheapen sex, turn people into sex objects, increase promiscuity and infidelity, break up marriages and relationships, and have major negative impacts on the world in general. He was completely correct in these things. He didn't even mention however the increased incidents of STIs. The dire consequences of the increased use of contraception has been felt.
It also paved the way to abortion. Pregnancies were now something people had control over. We stopped asking God his plan, and started asking ourselves. We were in control. So when people became pregnant, dispite the availability of contraception, it didn't fit into their view of how things should go. They demanded FULL control, not partial control. Women, and their male partners, demanded the ability to end whatever was happening inside her womb. Since contraception, people tried to separate sex from childbirth, intimacy from procreation. Contraception doesn't decrease unwanted pregnancies, it increases them. It increases abortion also. In fact, it legitimized it. Once people demanded full and utter control over anything happening in their bodies, they realized there was an unintended side-effect of guilt, and horror at the realization of what they've done. No one ever questioned if what was in their womb was a child, but that denial was necessary to perform this act. Just as the Nazis declared Jews to be nonhuman, so too did the abortionists declare the unborn.
This brings my point full circle. As a Catholic, I am forced to offer an explanation for how I could kill so many innocent people during the Crusades, yet proponents of contraception and abortion would not even be asked to justify their own act. The Crusades ended over 500 years ago, was a defensive war to protect innocent civilians, was far less brutal than most people imagine. As well, the cowardly acts perpetrated by a few for their own bloodlust and greed were not authorized by the Catholic Church, and in fact were condemned by it. Yet, somehow I have to justify these people. I even have to justify outlaws, people who broke the commands of my religion, to whom I have no relation, no shared heritage.
Does Sue Johanson get blamed for reducing sex to an action between any two people with no consequences no different than a pat on the back. Do we blame her for the increase in infidelity, sexual addiction, lust, marriage breakups, infidelity, and abortion? No. If everyone practiced abstinence before marriage, which Sue and George laugh at, there would not be many of the things I mentioned above. Although people like Sue have a direct impact on the degredation of society and values, we do not blame her or anyone like her.
Why the double standard? In fact, it is not even a double standard, for this implies equality. I would argue that the Crusades were mostly a positive thing, which have little impact on our current lives, besides allowing us to be as free as we are today, especially to be Christians. However, the sexual "revolution", or sexual degredation as I call it, is having a devastating and unquestionably negative impact on our society.
Thursday, July 03, 2008
Hippocratic Oath Not Alone in Condeming Abortion
The Hippocratic Oath, written in the 4th century BC by the Father of Medicine Hippocrates, is an oath that all Western doctors took until very recently. It tells how doctors should care for their patients. It says a physician should not abuse his patient, physically or sexually, he should not take too much money, he should keep his patients' information private, etc. For years this was practiced by doctors. One of the imperatives of the Oath was to not commit abortion.
But the Hippocratic Oath is one of several world-wide medical oaths taken by doctors and physicians. What was their stance on abortion?
The Seventeen Rules of Enjuin, a Japanese Oath from the 16th century states: "you should not give abortives to the people."
The Oath of Asaph, the oldest known Hebrew medical oath, dating to the 6th century, states: "Do not make a woman [who is] pregnant [as a result of] of whoring take a drink with a view to causing abortion"
After the world realized the atrocities of Nazism, the Declaration of Geneva was drafted in 1948. Part of this document stated: "I WILL MAINTAIN the utmost respect for human life, from the time of conception; even under threat, I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity."
The International Code of Medical Ethics was put together the following year in 1949, and read: "A doctor must always bear in mind the obligation of preserving human life from conception."
As you can see, Hippocrates was not unique in his statements against abortion.
But the Hippocratic Oath is one of several world-wide medical oaths taken by doctors and physicians. What was their stance on abortion?
The Seventeen Rules of Enjuin, a Japanese Oath from the 16th century states: "you should not give abortives to the people."
The Oath of Asaph, the oldest known Hebrew medical oath, dating to the 6th century, states: "Do not make a woman [who is] pregnant [as a result of] of whoring take a drink with a view to causing abortion"
After the world realized the atrocities of Nazism, the Declaration of Geneva was drafted in 1948. Part of this document stated: "I WILL MAINTAIN the utmost respect for human life, from the time of conception; even under threat, I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity."
The International Code of Medical Ethics was put together the following year in 1949, and read: "A doctor must always bear in mind the obligation of preserving human life from conception."
As you can see, Hippocrates was not unique in his statements against abortion.
"I'm personally against abortion, but I wouldn't enforce my beliefs on anyone else."
Have you ever heard this sentence? It is all too common. But its commonality does not give it veracity. If you ever hear someone say this, be thankful, because as a person of God, you can easily convert this person to the pro-life side. Here's why.
People who make this statement have often not considered its logical impossibility. Abortion is the only case where someone would make such a statement. For example, people do not say, I am against rape, but I would not enforce my belief on others. This is illogical.
The reason the assertion that someone is against abortion but will not tell others what to do is impossible is because there is a reason why someone is against abortion, namely because it is murder, and if you are against murder, you oppose it as a concept, the application of which you believe is universal.
People are not personally opposed to murder. Rather, they are opposed to anybody murdering anyone else. No one says, I wouldn't kill my grandmother, but if a thief broke into my home and murdered her, I would be ok with that. No one would even say they support a stranger's right to kill another stranger. When someone opposes murder, they oppose it in absolute and objective terms, not just for themselves personally.
If someone does not consider abortion murder, the question arises - why do they oppose it then? The only possibility is that they personally do not enjoy partaking in abortions themselves, in the same way as certain people dislike sushi. They do not like sushi, but they do not make a universal declaration that everyone must dislike it as well.
The question remains as to why they do not like partaking in abortions. Maybe they feel it's messy or they are afraid of blood. Perhaps they disagree with surgery in general. But if these were the case, these people would be against all surgery or operations. Rest assured, you could speak to a million people and not one person would be opposed to abortion for this reason.
The best way to get someone with this point of view to convert to a pro-life person is to ask them questions. Ask them what they specifically oppose. If they say they believe it's murder, tell them they must oppose it in general if they believe that. If they disagree, ask if it would be ok for someone to kill their neighbor without consequence. If they are being honest they would say no and they will realize their error.
Finally, they may say that abortionists do not consider abortion murder, even though they themselves do, and therefore, it is a matter of opinion. At this point suggest to them that Hitler did not consider the Jews to be human, therefore he was not committing murder in his opinion, therefore you would not consider what Hitler did to be wrong. In the same sense, if a psychopath considered all humans to be inferior to him and killing them to not be murder, then he should have the right to do this unabated.
No honest person would agree to this logic. Suggest they are using the same fallacy to justify their position, which hopefully they will see is completely untenable.
People who make this statement have often not considered its logical impossibility. Abortion is the only case where someone would make such a statement. For example, people do not say, I am against rape, but I would not enforce my belief on others. This is illogical.
The reason the assertion that someone is against abortion but will not tell others what to do is impossible is because there is a reason why someone is against abortion, namely because it is murder, and if you are against murder, you oppose it as a concept, the application of which you believe is universal.
People are not personally opposed to murder. Rather, they are opposed to anybody murdering anyone else. No one says, I wouldn't kill my grandmother, but if a thief broke into my home and murdered her, I would be ok with that. No one would even say they support a stranger's right to kill another stranger. When someone opposes murder, they oppose it in absolute and objective terms, not just for themselves personally.
If someone does not consider abortion murder, the question arises - why do they oppose it then? The only possibility is that they personally do not enjoy partaking in abortions themselves, in the same way as certain people dislike sushi. They do not like sushi, but they do not make a universal declaration that everyone must dislike it as well.
The question remains as to why they do not like partaking in abortions. Maybe they feel it's messy or they are afraid of blood. Perhaps they disagree with surgery in general. But if these were the case, these people would be against all surgery or operations. Rest assured, you could speak to a million people and not one person would be opposed to abortion for this reason.
The best way to get someone with this point of view to convert to a pro-life person is to ask them questions. Ask them what they specifically oppose. If they say they believe it's murder, tell them they must oppose it in general if they believe that. If they disagree, ask if it would be ok for someone to kill their neighbor without consequence. If they are being honest they would say no and they will realize their error.
Finally, they may say that abortionists do not consider abortion murder, even though they themselves do, and therefore, it is a matter of opinion. At this point suggest to them that Hitler did not consider the Jews to be human, therefore he was not committing murder in his opinion, therefore you would not consider what Hitler did to be wrong. In the same sense, if a psychopath considered all humans to be inferior to him and killing them to not be murder, then he should have the right to do this unabated.
No honest person would agree to this logic. Suggest they are using the same fallacy to justify their position, which hopefully they will see is completely untenable.
Wednesday, July 02, 2008
One of Canada's worst days
Today is probably one of the worst days in Canadian history. For me, it will go down in infamy. Morgentaler, Canada's premier abortionist was given the Order of Canada. This was a unilateral decision by the Governor of Canada, and went against the wishes of the vast majority of Canadians. It is a truly sad day.
Today Canada is honoring a man whose hands are drenched in the blood of innocent children. He wasn't satisfied to perform abortions on his own, he recruiter others and started "clinics" to do his grim deed.
I will go to Mass today to grieve this event and ask God to forgive Canada. I will pray for this Nazi victim turned Nazi war criminal. This will truly be a sad day for the whole world.
Today Canada is honoring a man whose hands are drenched in the blood of innocent children. He wasn't satisfied to perform abortions on his own, he recruiter others and started "clinics" to do his grim deed.
I will go to Mass today to grieve this event and ask God to forgive Canada. I will pray for this Nazi victim turned Nazi war criminal. This will truly be a sad day for the whole world.
Tuesday, July 01, 2008
Eucharistic Congress 2008 in Quebec
I had an awesome time at the Eucharistic Congress. In attendance were over 1,000 priests, hundreds of bishops, and over 20 cardinals. This was truly an event of huge proportions.
During the congress, we attended the largest mass in the world every day. These were beautiful ceremonies. The procession itself took over 10 minutes, by the time all the bishops had been seated.
The event was attended by over 20,000 people. This was truly awe-inspiring. No extraordinary ministers were needed for Eucharist. There were plenty of priests on hand. I've been to mass when there's less than 50 people there, and extraordinary ministers will be employed. This is simply unnecessary and possibly wrong.
I met my cousin Fr. Roy Farrell. I actually ran into him several times during the Congress. That was a good surprise.
I met a lot of great people as well. Many people my age who have devotions to the Blessed Sacrament, to Christ, and to the Blessed Virgin Mary.
One of the emphases of the congress was Eucharistic Adoration. Spending an hour with our Lord Jesus Christ in the Blessed Sacrament. This can be a very powerful devotion.
All in all, this was a very powerful experience. We will look forward to the next event in 2012 in Dublin, Ireland!
During the congress, we attended the largest mass in the world every day. These were beautiful ceremonies. The procession itself took over 10 minutes, by the time all the bishops had been seated.
The event was attended by over 20,000 people. This was truly awe-inspiring. No extraordinary ministers were needed for Eucharist. There were plenty of priests on hand. I've been to mass when there's less than 50 people there, and extraordinary ministers will be employed. This is simply unnecessary and possibly wrong.
I met my cousin Fr. Roy Farrell. I actually ran into him several times during the Congress. That was a good surprise.
I met a lot of great people as well. Many people my age who have devotions to the Blessed Sacrament, to Christ, and to the Blessed Virgin Mary.
One of the emphases of the congress was Eucharistic Adoration. Spending an hour with our Lord Jesus Christ in the Blessed Sacrament. This can be a very powerful devotion.
All in all, this was a very powerful experience. We will look forward to the next event in 2012 in Dublin, Ireland!
Monday, May 19, 2008
Don't get your religion from scientists
Some letters from Einstein were sold recently at an auction. In these letters, Einstein criticizes Jewish and Christian religion, peppering his letter with comments about superstition, etc. This was publicized in the news.
We shouldn't listen to scientists when it comes to religion. It doesn't make sense. Scientists think in terms of science. They use physical evidence to prove something. Each scientist has a particular field, some are chemists, some are biologists, some computer scientists. They have a particular area in which they feel comfortable.
A computer scientist could not be a biologist because their way of thinking is too different. A computer scientist thinks in terms of wires and electrons and commands, whereas a biologist thinks about animals, cells, organs, behavior, and things of that sort. A biologist might be able to understand medicine better than electricity.
In the same way, scientists in general behave a certain way and shouldn't be trusted to understand religion or theology or God very deeply. It is simply a different skill set. You can't pull out your calculator and calculate how large God is. But for certain scientists, especially ones like Albert Einstein, who really excelled in certain areas, they are good at certain things and not as good at others.
Einstein was good with a calculator, but he may not have been too good at sports. Therefore, he would end up on the basketball court trying to calculate trajectory, while the other players were scoring baskets. The same goes for religion. Einstein was not predisposed to understand religion and God. However, it is important to note that Einstein was certainly a theist, which is important to remember.
I think the confusion of this comes from the fact that some people think that religion is something anyone is entitled to just invent as they see fit. This is simply not true. Originally theology was considered the highest form of education, and things like literature, science, and law were considered inferior. The most advanced degrees, which took the longest to acquire, were religious ones. Philosophers of a bygone era were much more revered than any other field. That's because there is a right and there is a wrong. The job of theologians is to find out the truth, and there's nothing more important!
We shouldn't listen to scientists when it comes to religion. It doesn't make sense. Scientists think in terms of science. They use physical evidence to prove something. Each scientist has a particular field, some are chemists, some are biologists, some computer scientists. They have a particular area in which they feel comfortable.
A computer scientist could not be a biologist because their way of thinking is too different. A computer scientist thinks in terms of wires and electrons and commands, whereas a biologist thinks about animals, cells, organs, behavior, and things of that sort. A biologist might be able to understand medicine better than electricity.
In the same way, scientists in general behave a certain way and shouldn't be trusted to understand religion or theology or God very deeply. It is simply a different skill set. You can't pull out your calculator and calculate how large God is. But for certain scientists, especially ones like Albert Einstein, who really excelled in certain areas, they are good at certain things and not as good at others.
Einstein was good with a calculator, but he may not have been too good at sports. Therefore, he would end up on the basketball court trying to calculate trajectory, while the other players were scoring baskets. The same goes for religion. Einstein was not predisposed to understand religion and God. However, it is important to note that Einstein was certainly a theist, which is important to remember.
I think the confusion of this comes from the fact that some people think that religion is something anyone is entitled to just invent as they see fit. This is simply not true. Originally theology was considered the highest form of education, and things like literature, science, and law were considered inferior. The most advanced degrees, which took the longest to acquire, were religious ones. Philosophers of a bygone era were much more revered than any other field. That's because there is a right and there is a wrong. The job of theologians is to find out the truth, and there's nothing more important!
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Army of Mary excommunicated - Catholic Church reiterates that Mary is not divine.
The members of the Army of Mary have been excommunicated by the Pope because of their heretical beliefs. The following is a brief overview of what happened:
Calling it a "very grave situation," the Vatican has excommunicated members of a controversial Quebec Catholic movement, the Army of Mary, for their heretical beliefs that derive from the writings of Marie-Paule Giguère, an 86-year-old mystic who claims to be a reincarnation of the Virgin Mary.
That information came from the National Post in Canada.
The group should not be confused with the Army of the Immaculate founded by Maximilian Kolbe, who died in a concentration camp, which has a legitimate following of the Virgin Mary.
The teachings of the Quebec-based group went too far by proclaiming that Mary is divine, and that the foundress of the group is the reincarnation of Mary. This would be impossible according to Catholic theology, because Mary was assumed bodily into heaven where she continues to live. In order for Mary to appear, she would not come in the form of another person, because she is still alive.
Another obvious issue with this is to claim that Mary is divine. Neither Catholics or any other Christian group claims that Mary is divine. Although the greatest of creatures, she is still a creature, who owes all of her existence to God Almighty.
My suspicious is that they also have a misunderstanding of Mary's role as Co-Redemptrix. This theology which is not officially sanctioned by the Church does not mean that Christ and Mary work together for salvation, we believe that only Christ is responsible for salvation. Co-redemptrix is understood as Mary's obedience to God which allowed our Savior to come into the world. Her "yes" allowed Christ to come into the world so that we may attain salvation.
This story is sad in many ways because many of the ladies involved are quite aged, and reconciliation is something which must be sought for them. On the other hand, this story is good to show that the Church continues to exercise her authority over her people and to guide them into all truth, as is her mission with the help of God.
This group is also accused of ordaining priests, but these ordinations were done by other priests which is against Church, or Canon, Law. Therefore these ordinations are deemed invalid as are marriages which were attended by these priests, in other words they are null.
We must all pray for these people that they will rejoin Christ's True Church, Holy Mother Church, the Catholic Church.
Calling it a "very grave situation," the Vatican has excommunicated members of a controversial Quebec Catholic movement, the Army of Mary, for their heretical beliefs that derive from the writings of Marie-Paule Giguère, an 86-year-old mystic who claims to be a reincarnation of the Virgin Mary.
That information came from the National Post in Canada.
The group should not be confused with the Army of the Immaculate founded by Maximilian Kolbe, who died in a concentration camp, which has a legitimate following of the Virgin Mary.
The teachings of the Quebec-based group went too far by proclaiming that Mary is divine, and that the foundress of the group is the reincarnation of Mary. This would be impossible according to Catholic theology, because Mary was assumed bodily into heaven where she continues to live. In order for Mary to appear, she would not come in the form of another person, because she is still alive.
Another obvious issue with this is to claim that Mary is divine. Neither Catholics or any other Christian group claims that Mary is divine. Although the greatest of creatures, she is still a creature, who owes all of her existence to God Almighty.
My suspicious is that they also have a misunderstanding of Mary's role as Co-Redemptrix. This theology which is not officially sanctioned by the Church does not mean that Christ and Mary work together for salvation, we believe that only Christ is responsible for salvation. Co-redemptrix is understood as Mary's obedience to God which allowed our Savior to come into the world. Her "yes" allowed Christ to come into the world so that we may attain salvation.
This story is sad in many ways because many of the ladies involved are quite aged, and reconciliation is something which must be sought for them. On the other hand, this story is good to show that the Church continues to exercise her authority over her people and to guide them into all truth, as is her mission with the help of God.
This group is also accused of ordaining priests, but these ordinations were done by other priests which is against Church, or Canon, Law. Therefore these ordinations are deemed invalid as are marriages which were attended by these priests, in other words they are null.
We must all pray for these people that they will rejoin Christ's True Church, Holy Mother Church, the Catholic Church.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Waiting for a new Archbishop
A couple of months ago in St. John's, Newfoundland, Canada, Archbishop Brendan O'Brien was sent to Kingston Ontario to be their new Archbishop. So, St. John's is waiting patiently for the arrival of a new Archbishop.
The following is information from the official archdiocesan website concerning this situation:
Father Francis Puddister Elected Archdiocesan Administrator (St. John's) The priests of the Archdiocese of St. John's of the Presbyteral Council which is also the Archdiocesan College of Consultors have elected Father Francis Puddister, Chancellor of the Archdiocese of St.John's and Parish Priest of Mary Queen of Peace Parish, Torbay Road, St.John's as the Archdiocesan Administrator for the Archdiocese of St.John's.
After Archbishop Brendan O'Brien took possession of the Archdiocese of Kingston on July 25, 2007 the College of Consultors was required by Canon Law to assume the administration of the Archdiocese and to elect a priest as Archdiocesan Administrator. Following a secret ballot, Father Francis Puddister was elected according to Canons 419 and 421.
Father Frank Puddister is originally from Bay Bulls. He received his elementary education at Sts. Peter and Paul Parish School, Bay Bulls. He later moved to St.John's where he attended St. Patrick's and later St. Bonaventure's College. He completed his high school studies at Brother Rice High School, St.John's.
He holds academic degrees from Memorial University of Newfoundland (B.A.,1971) and St. Paul's University of Ottawa (Bachelor of Theology, 1976; Licence and Master's in Canon Law, 1986).
He was ordained to the priesthood in 1977 by Archbishop Patrick James Skinner.
Since ordination he has served in a number of parishes throughout the Archdiocese of St.John's. In addition to being responsible for the pastoral administration of a number of parishes he has also been responsible for the Archdiocesan Marriage Tribunal (1982-1994, 2007 to the present) and has served as the Chancellor of the Archdiocese of St.John's since 2001.
Upon his election, as the Archdiocesan Administrator, Father Puddister assumes the administration of the diocese until a new archbishop is installed or takes possession of the diocese (Canon 430).
Until his installation in the Archdiocese of Kingston, Archbsihop O'Brien was mentioned in the usual way during the Eucharistic Prayer of the Mass. The name of the archbishop is now omitted until a new one is named by the Holy See. The Archdiocesan Liturgy Office suggests that prayers be offered from time to time for the Archdiocesan Administrator (Father Francis Puddister), and for all who work with him in Archdiocesan offices, in the Prayers of the Faithful of the Mass, of the Liturgy of the Hours and of the Liturgy of the Word.
May the Holy Spirit be active in the process of selecting our new archbishop. May he be a man of deep faith, integrity, fidelity and compassion. Let's pray daily!
Prayer for the election of our new bishop
Almighty God, giver of every good gift: Look graciously on your Church, and so guide the minds of those who shall choose the new Archbishop for the Archdiocese of St. John's, that we may receive a faithful pastor, who will care for your people and equip us for our ministries. We ask this through Jesus Christ Our Lord. Amen.
The following is information from the official archdiocesan website concerning this situation:
Father Francis Puddister Elected Archdiocesan Administrator (St. John's) The priests of the Archdiocese of St. John's of the Presbyteral Council which is also the Archdiocesan College of Consultors have elected Father Francis Puddister, Chancellor of the Archdiocese of St.John's and Parish Priest of Mary Queen of Peace Parish, Torbay Road, St.John's as the Archdiocesan Administrator for the Archdiocese of St.John's.
After Archbishop Brendan O'Brien took possession of the Archdiocese of Kingston on July 25, 2007 the College of Consultors was required by Canon Law to assume the administration of the Archdiocese and to elect a priest as Archdiocesan Administrator. Following a secret ballot, Father Francis Puddister was elected according to Canons 419 and 421.
Father Frank Puddister is originally from Bay Bulls. He received his elementary education at Sts. Peter and Paul Parish School, Bay Bulls. He later moved to St.John's where he attended St. Patrick's and later St. Bonaventure's College. He completed his high school studies at Brother Rice High School, St.John's.
He holds academic degrees from Memorial University of Newfoundland (B.A.,1971) and St. Paul's University of Ottawa (Bachelor of Theology, 1976; Licence and Master's in Canon Law, 1986).
He was ordained to the priesthood in 1977 by Archbishop Patrick James Skinner.
Since ordination he has served in a number of parishes throughout the Archdiocese of St.John's. In addition to being responsible for the pastoral administration of a number of parishes he has also been responsible for the Archdiocesan Marriage Tribunal (1982-1994, 2007 to the present) and has served as the Chancellor of the Archdiocese of St.John's since 2001.
Upon his election, as the Archdiocesan Administrator, Father Puddister assumes the administration of the diocese until a new archbishop is installed or takes possession of the diocese (Canon 430).
Until his installation in the Archdiocese of Kingston, Archbsihop O'Brien was mentioned in the usual way during the Eucharistic Prayer of the Mass. The name of the archbishop is now omitted until a new one is named by the Holy See. The Archdiocesan Liturgy Office suggests that prayers be offered from time to time for the Archdiocesan Administrator (Father Francis Puddister), and for all who work with him in Archdiocesan offices, in the Prayers of the Faithful of the Mass, of the Liturgy of the Hours and of the Liturgy of the Word.
May the Holy Spirit be active in the process of selecting our new archbishop. May he be a man of deep faith, integrity, fidelity and compassion. Let's pray daily!
Prayer for the election of our new bishop
Almighty God, giver of every good gift: Look graciously on your Church, and so guide the minds of those who shall choose the new Archbishop for the Archdiocese of St. John's, that we may receive a faithful pastor, who will care for your people and equip us for our ministries. We ask this through Jesus Christ Our Lord. Amen.
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Kathy Griffin and George Carlin
Kathy Griffin has joined the likes of George Carlin in her renunciation of religion, specifically her renunciation of Catholicism, the religion into which she was born. Her comments, which I will not post here, were revoked from the Emmy's because they were considered offensive.
We must pray for these two actors and all those who were born to Catholic families, that instead of blaspheming against their religion and God, they will praise and worship God in everything they do.
We, of course, must also pray for all actors and all people.
Maybe one day they will all be very proud of their Catholic heritage, just as Martin Sheen is. He actually took the name Sheen after Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen, a great event in our history, and Martin Sheen continues to be very involved with his faith and represents it well in Hollywood, he being one of the most respected actors of all time.
We must pray for these two actors and all those who were born to Catholic families, that instead of blaspheming against their religion and God, they will praise and worship God in everything they do.
We, of course, must also pray for all actors and all people.
Maybe one day they will all be very proud of their Catholic heritage, just as Martin Sheen is. He actually took the name Sheen after Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen, a great event in our history, and Martin Sheen continues to be very involved with his faith and represents it well in Hollywood, he being one of the most respected actors of all time.
Wednesday, August 01, 2007
360 Vision on Vision TV in Canada
This is an appeal to all Catholics out there to boycott Vision TV, which has, over the years become more and more anti-Catholic. I obviously find this trend very disturbing. I was watching a review show they had for their 100th episode which shows some of the programs they had on there. One was on a gay priest, another was on 2 women who were sexually assaulted by a priest like 30 years ago, another was on evangelicals going to the Dominican Republic or something spreading the Gospel even though most of them are Catholic already. Another show was about Islamic terrorism and a threat issued by the Canadian government warning of this threat. Basically, the show was about how this was false or something or not totally true, and that it was very negative towards Muslims. Oh no, you wouldn't want to offend anyone now would you.
It seems like Vision television supports every religion except Catholicism, while at the same time making the Catholic Church look as bad as it possibly can. Any issue, be it gay "marriage", or priestly sexual abuse, that makes the Church look bad to some people is shown all the time.
Customarily Vision runs shows which condemn the Church from every angle. Care is taken to avoid offending any group, but when it comes to Catholics, they take information from the seediest sources, just to make their contrarian viewpoints. I would suggest that any Catholic does not watch Vision Television. The Catholic Church is the One True Church founded by Jesus Christ, and it IS THE TRUTH, that's why it's so viciously attacked by the likes of Vision.
It seems like Vision television supports every religion except Catholicism, while at the same time making the Catholic Church look as bad as it possibly can. Any issue, be it gay "marriage", or priestly sexual abuse, that makes the Church look bad to some people is shown all the time.
Customarily Vision runs shows which condemn the Church from every angle. Care is taken to avoid offending any group, but when it comes to Catholics, they take information from the seediest sources, just to make their contrarian viewpoints. I would suggest that any Catholic does not watch Vision Television. The Catholic Church is the One True Church founded by Jesus Christ, and it IS THE TRUTH, that's why it's so viciously attacked by the likes of Vision.
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
Open Letter to the fifth estate
I am writing a letter to the fifth estate, a Canadian investigative journalism program. Here it is:
Philip Lynch
Tuesday, May 1st, 2007
Hana Gartner
Dear Ms. Gartner,
Please let me congratulate the Fifth Estate on producing some fine documentaries in the legacy of investigative journalism. Over the years, journalists of the Fifth Estate have taken it upon themselves to expose some of the most unpalatable behavior occurring in Canada and elsewhere. Many of your programs are head and shoulders above anything else I have seen from other networks, including from American and British television. Shows like the Fifth Estate are valuable for keeping the public informed and public figures in check.
Having said this, however, I am very disappointed at your recent report on the Catholic Church and sexual abuse. Although you are a dedicated and tireless journalist, it seems on this one you were lazy, and instead of uncovering something truly worthwhile, you decided to beat a dead horse. The story of Roman Catholic clergy sexual abuse is so overdone on Canadian and American television, you would think it is the only thing happening in the world. Instead of being a real trailblazer and reporting that not all priests are pedophiles, you took the low road, perhaps a road with more ratings, but certainly not more honorable.
To go the road of television sensationalism is something one might expect from American tabloid-style news broadcasts, but not from the CBC. The fact is your story portrayed a few individual priests. If you did a story on 5 rabbis who were murderers, some people could become very suspicious of the Jewish people. Instead of emphasizing that only a tiny percentage of priests ever committed such crimes, you tried to implicate the whole church. You profiled people leaving the church and never returning. Why, all of a sudden, does the minority represent the whole? The vast majority of priests would never hurt a fly, but no one would have that impression after watching your show.
As an investigative journalist, you have an obligation to remain unbiased, and to present all the evidence. You chose not to do this however. Take for example, the following information. Christianity Today noted that there were "70 child abuse allegations reported against American Protestant churches each week during the last ten years," a quarter of which were against pastors ("Go Figure," May 21, 2002).
When the American federal government shut down the "Candyman" pedophile web site last March, it was reported that the site’s more than 7,000 visitors included members of the military, police and fire departments, teachers, Little League coaches, and eight members of the clergy, including two Catholic priests—two out of 7,000.
Another statistic I read said teachers were charged with sexual abuse at a rate 4 times higher than Catholic clergy. I do not know the source, but it is the job of a journalist to find out.
The Fifth Estate is ultimately paid for by Canadian citizens in the form of taxes, as well as advertising from sponsors. Forty three percent of these Canadians are Roman Catholic, and I think it would be high time for your program to earn its reputation again by doing a real investigative report that shows the hypocrisy of singling out the Roman Catholic Church when it comes to sexual abuse.
Sincerely,
Philip Lynch
Philip Lynch
Tuesday, May 1st, 2007
Hana Gartner
Dear Ms. Gartner,
Please let me congratulate the Fifth Estate on producing some fine documentaries in the legacy of investigative journalism. Over the years, journalists of the Fifth Estate have taken it upon themselves to expose some of the most unpalatable behavior occurring in Canada and elsewhere. Many of your programs are head and shoulders above anything else I have seen from other networks, including from American and British television. Shows like the Fifth Estate are valuable for keeping the public informed and public figures in check.
Having said this, however, I am very disappointed at your recent report on the Catholic Church and sexual abuse. Although you are a dedicated and tireless journalist, it seems on this one you were lazy, and instead of uncovering something truly worthwhile, you decided to beat a dead horse. The story of Roman Catholic clergy sexual abuse is so overdone on Canadian and American television, you would think it is the only thing happening in the world. Instead of being a real trailblazer and reporting that not all priests are pedophiles, you took the low road, perhaps a road with more ratings, but certainly not more honorable.
To go the road of television sensationalism is something one might expect from American tabloid-style news broadcasts, but not from the CBC. The fact is your story portrayed a few individual priests. If you did a story on 5 rabbis who were murderers, some people could become very suspicious of the Jewish people. Instead of emphasizing that only a tiny percentage of priests ever committed such crimes, you tried to implicate the whole church. You profiled people leaving the church and never returning. Why, all of a sudden, does the minority represent the whole? The vast majority of priests would never hurt a fly, but no one would have that impression after watching your show.
As an investigative journalist, you have an obligation to remain unbiased, and to present all the evidence. You chose not to do this however. Take for example, the following information. Christianity Today noted that there were "70 child abuse allegations reported against American Protestant churches each week during the last ten years," a quarter of which were against pastors ("Go Figure," May 21, 2002).
When the American federal government shut down the "Candyman" pedophile web site last March, it was reported that the site’s more than 7,000 visitors included members of the military, police and fire departments, teachers, Little League coaches, and eight members of the clergy, including two Catholic priests—two out of 7,000.
Another statistic I read said teachers were charged with sexual abuse at a rate 4 times higher than Catholic clergy. I do not know the source, but it is the job of a journalist to find out.
The Fifth Estate is ultimately paid for by Canadian citizens in the form of taxes, as well as advertising from sponsors. Forty three percent of these Canadians are Roman Catholic, and I think it would be high time for your program to earn its reputation again by doing a real investigative report that shows the hypocrisy of singling out the Roman Catholic Church when it comes to sexual abuse.
Sincerely,
Philip Lynch
Saturday, April 14, 2007
Papal Pallium
The following article had a great beginning, but some parts throughout may be offensive to devout Catholics. The first part is quite nice, however, please read. This is an article I found at the following address:
http://www.nytimes.com/books/01/06/03/reviews/010603.03warnert.html
Some Roman Catholic liturgical customs aestheticize human relations to the divine with exquisite sensibility: the pope's slippers, for example, were made in a shell-like shade of pink, and his pallium, a long white band worn over the pope's shoulders, is woven from the first shearings of lambs that have been blessed on Jan. 21, the feast day of St. Agnes, in Rome's Sant'Agnese Fuori le Mura (St. Agnes Outside the Walls), where the saint is buried; the lambs are then raised in the papal summer palace of Castel Gandolfo until their wool is ready, at which point Benedictine nuns in a convent in Trastevere work it into the papal vestment. I chanced upon the ceremony several years ago, and saw two of the new year's lambs, garlanded with white and red roses, trot up a scarlet carpet (symbolizing martyrdom) to the altar where the priest, in full fig, awaited them. I almost expected the little creatures to kneel down.
http://www.nytimes.com/books/01/06/03/reviews/010603.03warnert.html
Some Roman Catholic liturgical customs aestheticize human relations to the divine with exquisite sensibility: the pope's slippers, for example, were made in a shell-like shade of pink, and his pallium, a long white band worn over the pope's shoulders, is woven from the first shearings of lambs that have been blessed on Jan. 21, the feast day of St. Agnes, in Rome's Sant'Agnese Fuori le Mura (St. Agnes Outside the Walls), where the saint is buried; the lambs are then raised in the papal summer palace of Castel Gandolfo until their wool is ready, at which point Benedictine nuns in a convent in Trastevere work it into the papal vestment. I chanced upon the ceremony several years ago, and saw two of the new year's lambs, garlanded with white and red roses, trot up a scarlet carpet (symbolizing martyrdom) to the altar where the priest, in full fig, awaited them. I almost expected the little creatures to kneel down.
Friday, March 16, 2007
Priest is attacked verbally on the air by so-called "Catholic"
Recently the president of Human Life International, Fr. Thomas Euteneuer, appeared on Fox television on the Colmes-Hannity show to speak with Hannity who openly expressed his beliefs about contraception which are contrary to Catholic belief. Fr. Euteneur was invited onto the show to speak with Hannity. Hannity showed absolutely no respect to this priest, and went on a tirade against him. Euteneur, however, remained calm. This article, taken from the Human Life International (the largest pro-life organization in the world), explains the situation, in the words of Fr. Euteneur himself:
“For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth.” (2 Tim 4:3-4)
Many Spirit and Life readers may know that after last Friday’s column (“Sean Hannity’s Gospel”) I was invited to defend my position on the Hannity and Colmes show that very night. It’s nice to know that my emails are being read in the hallowed halls of Fox News! I suspected, however, that Hannity wanted to defend his “devout Catholic” credentials, and I was not disabused of this notion when I went on the show. What the show did, above all, was to show not that the Church was wrong or incoherent, but that Hannity, like so many other cultural Catholics, is really a liberal when it comes to certain aspects of sexual morality.
The first point I have to straighten out is for those who were concerned that this was not handled first in private. Well, in fact, I did attempt to handle this matter in private with Mr. Hannity in 2004, but I never received a response to my letter asking him for a meeting. [See side bar item, “Fr. Euteneuer asks to meet with Hannity about birth control.”] As far as I am concerned, I did my due diligence before I went public with my complaint about his hypocrisy; but even if I had not, it was Mr. Hannity’s schedulers who called me to make an issue of it, not I who demanded to appear on his show! In this age of culpable clerical silence on many serious issues affecting people’s souls, do we now want a priest to keep silent about something so important? We can’t have it both ways.
Second, concerning the actual debate, what some are calling Sean’s “disrespect” for me as a member of the clergy was not of concern to me. In that sense, Sean is typical of his generation that has been taught that nobody has any special consecration (even if they technically do) and that everyone has to prove his mettle in the realm of public debate. No problem. I am a holder of this office, and I did not feel that his callous disregard for the priesthood did anything to diminish the sanctity of it, but I can see how it was an extra element of scandal for those who value the priestly office highly. Nor did I really care that he cut me off time and time again in the debate; he’s a known quantity—did you expect anything else from Hannity?
Just for the record, Sean Hannity really is a dissenting Catholic and a public scandal to the Faith. He should be rebuked by his pastor or bishop, not by me, but since that has not been forthcoming in his decade or so of public dissent on radio and TV, somebody in authority had to say something. Hannity, as we know, is shameless on birth control, and judging from the interview, he hasn’t even the vocabulary to rationally defend his position in the face of his Church’s clear teaching. Hannity is also clearly pro-choice on abortion in cases of rape, incest and life of the mother, and he is really cozy with the likes of Rudy Giuliani whose love for abortion and everything gay is hardly a secret. It has even been revealed that Hannity’s website, Hannity.com has a gay dating service that Sean knows about and apparently “has no problem with;” no different from his attitude in regard to birth control. So much for the “devout Catholic” Hannity. If that is devout, then Hugh Heffner is reverent.
The interview on Friday night was enlightening in many senses but mostly because it showed Hannity’s true liberal side. The “Judge not lest ye be judged” comment I have heard only and exclusively in debates with liberals and others with guilty consciences. It is the whine of the person who is doing something that he knows in his heart is wrong but can’t stand anyone pointing out. Hannity’s “judge not” rant can be summarized in one phrase which, if it were put this way, would have been much more identifiable as liberal claptrap: “How dare you question my choice!” Face it: Hannity is a liberal when it comes to sex. In his position next to Colmes, Hannity wears the conservative mantle, but when he comes face to face with the truth of his Church, which I as a priest am obliged to uphold faithfully, he is no more than a liberal relativist.
And in that matter, how different is his position on birth control from that of Planned Parenthood? They have “no problem” with birth control either. In fact it’s much more than a personal matter for them. It fuels their business. Yes, about 60% of women going into abortion clinics are doing it because of failed birth control and no amount of feigned pragmatism about stopping abortions with birth control is going to change the fact that birth control teaches people to be selfish and leads them down the garden path to the killing centers of this nation—or any nation for that matter. And by the way, for those who wanted me to object to both abortion and birth control as a solution to any problem, please go back and listen carefully to the clip—I did object to both! The Catholic Church’s teaching on sexual morality is the only coherent dissenting viewpoint from PP’s gospel of free sex and baby killing, and sadly, Hannity, the “devout Catholic,” just aids and abets those criminals.
Most surprising of all, however, was Hannity’s use of what I call the “argument from pedophilia;” namely, the tendency to fall back on the Church sex abuse scandal when you’re losing an argument with a priest and have to grab for something. I have had people do this to me in front of abortion clinics, at Da Vinci Code protests and in private conversations about Catholicism for the past several years. Let’s just say I didn’t expect it from Hannity! Was it me or did Sean just disconnect from reality at that moment? Where in the world did that come from? Well, it’s because Hannity’s really a closet liberal when pushed to the wall. True colors come out in the wash, and the birth control issue just has a greater tendency to touch the sensitive areas of people’s philosophies of life.
Hannity’s worldview is full of holes. He may have gone to seminary but, if that is the case, his seminary background and knowledge of Latin (!) gives him a greater responsibility to get it right when he wants to spout off about Church teaching in the public forum.
For your reading interest you can click on the side bar items to see some of the incredible feedback that we got on both sides of the debate. Of particular interest is the recent statement of Cardinal Bertone, Vatican Secretary of State, who has said that “dissident Catholics are more worrying than atheists.” Whew—words of warning for Hannity and O’Reilly and company. In the end, we all have to undergo our own “Judgment Day,” and it is the Church’s job to let people know ahead of time that God is not a moral relativist on the issue of birth control.
Sincerely Yours in Christ,
Rev. Thomas J. Euteneuer
President, Human Life International
“For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth.” (2 Tim 4:3-4)
Many Spirit and Life readers may know that after last Friday’s column (“Sean Hannity’s Gospel”) I was invited to defend my position on the Hannity and Colmes show that very night. It’s nice to know that my emails are being read in the hallowed halls of Fox News! I suspected, however, that Hannity wanted to defend his “devout Catholic” credentials, and I was not disabused of this notion when I went on the show. What the show did, above all, was to show not that the Church was wrong or incoherent, but that Hannity, like so many other cultural Catholics, is really a liberal when it comes to certain aspects of sexual morality.
The first point I have to straighten out is for those who were concerned that this was not handled first in private. Well, in fact, I did attempt to handle this matter in private with Mr. Hannity in 2004, but I never received a response to my letter asking him for a meeting. [See side bar item, “Fr. Euteneuer asks to meet with Hannity about birth control.”] As far as I am concerned, I did my due diligence before I went public with my complaint about his hypocrisy; but even if I had not, it was Mr. Hannity’s schedulers who called me to make an issue of it, not I who demanded to appear on his show! In this age of culpable clerical silence on many serious issues affecting people’s souls, do we now want a priest to keep silent about something so important? We can’t have it both ways.
Second, concerning the actual debate, what some are calling Sean’s “disrespect” for me as a member of the clergy was not of concern to me. In that sense, Sean is typical of his generation that has been taught that nobody has any special consecration (even if they technically do) and that everyone has to prove his mettle in the realm of public debate. No problem. I am a holder of this office, and I did not feel that his callous disregard for the priesthood did anything to diminish the sanctity of it, but I can see how it was an extra element of scandal for those who value the priestly office highly. Nor did I really care that he cut me off time and time again in the debate; he’s a known quantity—did you expect anything else from Hannity?
Just for the record, Sean Hannity really is a dissenting Catholic and a public scandal to the Faith. He should be rebuked by his pastor or bishop, not by me, but since that has not been forthcoming in his decade or so of public dissent on radio and TV, somebody in authority had to say something. Hannity, as we know, is shameless on birth control, and judging from the interview, he hasn’t even the vocabulary to rationally defend his position in the face of his Church’s clear teaching. Hannity is also clearly pro-choice on abortion in cases of rape, incest and life of the mother, and he is really cozy with the likes of Rudy Giuliani whose love for abortion and everything gay is hardly a secret. It has even been revealed that Hannity’s website, Hannity.com has a gay dating service that Sean knows about and apparently “has no problem with;” no different from his attitude in regard to birth control. So much for the “devout Catholic” Hannity. If that is devout, then Hugh Heffner is reverent.
The interview on Friday night was enlightening in many senses but mostly because it showed Hannity’s true liberal side. The “Judge not lest ye be judged” comment I have heard only and exclusively in debates with liberals and others with guilty consciences. It is the whine of the person who is doing something that he knows in his heart is wrong but can’t stand anyone pointing out. Hannity’s “judge not” rant can be summarized in one phrase which, if it were put this way, would have been much more identifiable as liberal claptrap: “How dare you question my choice!” Face it: Hannity is a liberal when it comes to sex. In his position next to Colmes, Hannity wears the conservative mantle, but when he comes face to face with the truth of his Church, which I as a priest am obliged to uphold faithfully, he is no more than a liberal relativist.
And in that matter, how different is his position on birth control from that of Planned Parenthood? They have “no problem” with birth control either. In fact it’s much more than a personal matter for them. It fuels their business. Yes, about 60% of women going into abortion clinics are doing it because of failed birth control and no amount of feigned pragmatism about stopping abortions with birth control is going to change the fact that birth control teaches people to be selfish and leads them down the garden path to the killing centers of this nation—or any nation for that matter. And by the way, for those who wanted me to object to both abortion and birth control as a solution to any problem, please go back and listen carefully to the clip—I did object to both! The Catholic Church’s teaching on sexual morality is the only coherent dissenting viewpoint from PP’s gospel of free sex and baby killing, and sadly, Hannity, the “devout Catholic,” just aids and abets those criminals.
Most surprising of all, however, was Hannity’s use of what I call the “argument from pedophilia;” namely, the tendency to fall back on the Church sex abuse scandal when you’re losing an argument with a priest and have to grab for something. I have had people do this to me in front of abortion clinics, at Da Vinci Code protests and in private conversations about Catholicism for the past several years. Let’s just say I didn’t expect it from Hannity! Was it me or did Sean just disconnect from reality at that moment? Where in the world did that come from? Well, it’s because Hannity’s really a closet liberal when pushed to the wall. True colors come out in the wash, and the birth control issue just has a greater tendency to touch the sensitive areas of people’s philosophies of life.
Hannity’s worldview is full of holes. He may have gone to seminary but, if that is the case, his seminary background and knowledge of Latin (!) gives him a greater responsibility to get it right when he wants to spout off about Church teaching in the public forum.
For your reading interest you can click on the side bar items to see some of the incredible feedback that we got on both sides of the debate. Of particular interest is the recent statement of Cardinal Bertone, Vatican Secretary of State, who has said that “dissident Catholics are more worrying than atheists.” Whew—words of warning for Hannity and O’Reilly and company. In the end, we all have to undergo our own “Judgment Day,” and it is the Church’s job to let people know ahead of time that God is not a moral relativist on the issue of birth control.
Sincerely Yours in Christ,
Rev. Thomas J. Euteneuer
President, Human Life International
Angry Encounter with Believed Friend
I would like to write about an incident, involving me and another person, which shows how misinformation can lead to anti-catholicism. In order to protect the identity of those involved, I will leave out names and identifying details.
I was speaking with a girl I know and whom I considered a friend. We weren't very close, but close enough that we could talk about many issues and had a good laugh every now and then. For the most part, she was a very fine individual who I felt was caring and sensitive. I continue to believe she is caring and sensitive, however there is a side of her, which I had until that point not noticed.
We were speaking about various topics as we usually did through email. We would send a sentence or two of discussion on light topics. It was never a big deal, and just casual chat. Knowing that she's been with her significant other for quite some time, the topic of marriage and children came up. Then I asked her if she would marry in a church. She said she would like to because it is the traditional way of getting married, however she felt she may be somewhat hypocritical in doing so, since neither she nor her family attend church.
Then she said she honestly didn't believe a lot of things about the Catholic faith. This was fine, and I emailed her back and said I honestly do. This is when she completely lost it. She went on a tirade about the bad things the Catholic Church has done. The following is a quote from what she said:
"Most of the priests are a bunch of homosexual child molesters. I believe some of the rules should be changed and altered as the times progress. They are very backwards in their thinking."
Remember, we were used to having light topics on things like the weather, friends, music, etc. We had never engaged in heated discussion, yet she felt the need at that point to go berserk and verbally ransack the Catholic Church. I was literally shocked from what she wrote. Even the most fervent anti-Catholics do not believe that "most priest are a bunch of child molesters". I was sad to hear she had such a poor opinion of the Catholic Church.
She went on to lambaste what she felt were "backward" practices of the Catholic church, such as not allowing homosexuals to marry each other, etc. She continuously called the practices of the church backward and old-fashioned, and said the Church should focus on more important issues than homosexual marriage, such as war, poverty, AIDS, etc. She even attacked beliefs held by all Christians, such as the Virgin Birth. However, her beef against the Catholic church had really nothing to do with how much the Church did in these areas. I know this because I sent her a response email outlining the things the Church has done. For example, I said the Catholic Church helps more people in Africa living with AIDS than all other relief organizations (including the Red Cross, the UN, etc) combined. I told her how Pope Pius XII and the Catholic Church helped more Jews during the holocaust than anyone else, and that this is attested to by the then Prime Minister of Israel, the Chief Rabbi of Rome (who converted to Catholicism), and Albert Einstein. But she was not interested in this information.
I also responded to her comments about "Most of the priests are a bunch of homosexual child molesters". Obviously this comment is not only offensive, but also false. As I've wrote about in previous articles, the idea that "most" or even "a lot" of priests are child molesters is outright false. A study done by non-Catholic Philip Jenkins from Penn State University shows that celibate priests are no more likely to commit sexual abuse than any other religious person, or non-religious person. Other studies have shown that teacher sexual abuse is 4 times higher than priestly abuse. One of the reasons why it seems there is a lot of priestly abuse is because the information that the media has presented recently has been accumulated from a 40 or 50 year period. Think about it. Whenever you hear on the news a story about a priest who sexually assaulted children, etc. it's always happened in the 60s, 70s, or 80s. In fact, studies show that there is a large decline in sexual abuse by priests recently. It's also important to realize that what the media is reporting is not completely accurate. For example, most of the 1-2% of priests involved were charged with one incident, not serial incidences. This includes the vast majority (about 80%). Also, 80% of cases did not involve pedophilia (sexual abuse of pre-pubescent children), but in fact involved post-pubescent people, aged from 13 to 18. Although sexual abuse is sexual abuse regardless of age, it is worse to abuse a pre- rather than a post-pubescent child. The media of course, does not report on this difference. The media is well-known for going with the most taboo stories they can find. There are never studies done on, for example, the incidence of sexual abuse among truck drivers, or cooks, for example. Sexual abuse among priests is a popular story for the media because priests are seen as holy and pure, and to discredit them enters into a rather taboo area. Rarely does 1 to 2% of a group come to represent the entire group, like this has for many people.
In dealing with anti-Catholic sentiment, it is important to realize that while many people will viciously attack the Church for having sexual abuse, or for various other historical events, which they misrepresent, their true purpose is something else. Most of the time, people have certain opinions which are contrary to Natural Law and the Catholic Church, and in order to lash out against them, instead of talking about the issue, they seek to discredit the Church. In doing so, they seek to make everything the Church teaches seem absurd. Basically, they try to say, "How can you believe what this organization says if it does this, this, and this." This is the same case with this friend of mine. She lashed out at the Catholic Church in order to make it easy for her points to be accepted, even though they had nothing to do with her points. It's akin to saying, I don't believe what that person is saying about art because he failed a math test in grade 9. It's using the information about this person failing his grade 9 test to show how stupid, immature, and unreliable this person is. Once you have discredited this person, you feel it is easier to make the point that he knows nothing about art. If this person is an art critic and he is critiquing your art, you then proceed to say, My art is perfect, and I don't need to believe you, because you are stupid, immature, and unreliable. This approach is very popular among anti-Catholics. The best approach for dealing with this is to make sure they stay on topic, and one topic at a time. Catholic doctrine is easily defended because it reflects logic, reason, and natural law, because it is from God.
I will pray for this person and for all anti-catholics in general that they may see the Truth of the Catholic faith and realize that by living a life prescribed by Holy Mother Church, they may come to have joy and happiness.
I was speaking with a girl I know and whom I considered a friend. We weren't very close, but close enough that we could talk about many issues and had a good laugh every now and then. For the most part, she was a very fine individual who I felt was caring and sensitive. I continue to believe she is caring and sensitive, however there is a side of her, which I had until that point not noticed.
We were speaking about various topics as we usually did through email. We would send a sentence or two of discussion on light topics. It was never a big deal, and just casual chat. Knowing that she's been with her significant other for quite some time, the topic of marriage and children came up. Then I asked her if she would marry in a church. She said she would like to because it is the traditional way of getting married, however she felt she may be somewhat hypocritical in doing so, since neither she nor her family attend church.
Then she said she honestly didn't believe a lot of things about the Catholic faith. This was fine, and I emailed her back and said I honestly do. This is when she completely lost it. She went on a tirade about the bad things the Catholic Church has done. The following is a quote from what she said:
"Most of the priests are a bunch of homosexual child molesters. I believe some of the rules should be changed and altered as the times progress. They are very backwards in their thinking."
Remember, we were used to having light topics on things like the weather, friends, music, etc. We had never engaged in heated discussion, yet she felt the need at that point to go berserk and verbally ransack the Catholic Church. I was literally shocked from what she wrote. Even the most fervent anti-Catholics do not believe that "most priest are a bunch of child molesters". I was sad to hear she had such a poor opinion of the Catholic Church.
She went on to lambaste what she felt were "backward" practices of the Catholic church, such as not allowing homosexuals to marry each other, etc. She continuously called the practices of the church backward and old-fashioned, and said the Church should focus on more important issues than homosexual marriage, such as war, poverty, AIDS, etc. She even attacked beliefs held by all Christians, such as the Virgin Birth. However, her beef against the Catholic church had really nothing to do with how much the Church did in these areas. I know this because I sent her a response email outlining the things the Church has done. For example, I said the Catholic Church helps more people in Africa living with AIDS than all other relief organizations (including the Red Cross, the UN, etc) combined. I told her how Pope Pius XII and the Catholic Church helped more Jews during the holocaust than anyone else, and that this is attested to by the then Prime Minister of Israel, the Chief Rabbi of Rome (who converted to Catholicism), and Albert Einstein. But she was not interested in this information.
I also responded to her comments about "Most of the priests are a bunch of homosexual child molesters". Obviously this comment is not only offensive, but also false. As I've wrote about in previous articles, the idea that "most" or even "a lot" of priests are child molesters is outright false. A study done by non-Catholic Philip Jenkins from Penn State University shows that celibate priests are no more likely to commit sexual abuse than any other religious person, or non-religious person. Other studies have shown that teacher sexual abuse is 4 times higher than priestly abuse. One of the reasons why it seems there is a lot of priestly abuse is because the information that the media has presented recently has been accumulated from a 40 or 50 year period. Think about it. Whenever you hear on the news a story about a priest who sexually assaulted children, etc. it's always happened in the 60s, 70s, or 80s. In fact, studies show that there is a large decline in sexual abuse by priests recently. It's also important to realize that what the media is reporting is not completely accurate. For example, most of the 1-2% of priests involved were charged with one incident, not serial incidences. This includes the vast majority (about 80%). Also, 80% of cases did not involve pedophilia (sexual abuse of pre-pubescent children), but in fact involved post-pubescent people, aged from 13 to 18. Although sexual abuse is sexual abuse regardless of age, it is worse to abuse a pre- rather than a post-pubescent child. The media of course, does not report on this difference. The media is well-known for going with the most taboo stories they can find. There are never studies done on, for example, the incidence of sexual abuse among truck drivers, or cooks, for example. Sexual abuse among priests is a popular story for the media because priests are seen as holy and pure, and to discredit them enters into a rather taboo area. Rarely does 1 to 2% of a group come to represent the entire group, like this has for many people.
In dealing with anti-Catholic sentiment, it is important to realize that while many people will viciously attack the Church for having sexual abuse, or for various other historical events, which they misrepresent, their true purpose is something else. Most of the time, people have certain opinions which are contrary to Natural Law and the Catholic Church, and in order to lash out against them, instead of talking about the issue, they seek to discredit the Church. In doing so, they seek to make everything the Church teaches seem absurd. Basically, they try to say, "How can you believe what this organization says if it does this, this, and this." This is the same case with this friend of mine. She lashed out at the Catholic Church in order to make it easy for her points to be accepted, even though they had nothing to do with her points. It's akin to saying, I don't believe what that person is saying about art because he failed a math test in grade 9. It's using the information about this person failing his grade 9 test to show how stupid, immature, and unreliable this person is. Once you have discredited this person, you feel it is easier to make the point that he knows nothing about art. If this person is an art critic and he is critiquing your art, you then proceed to say, My art is perfect, and I don't need to believe you, because you are stupid, immature, and unreliable. This approach is very popular among anti-Catholics. The best approach for dealing with this is to make sure they stay on topic, and one topic at a time. Catholic doctrine is easily defended because it reflects logic, reason, and natural law, because it is from God.
I will pray for this person and for all anti-catholics in general that they may see the Truth of the Catholic faith and realize that by living a life prescribed by Holy Mother Church, they may come to have joy and happiness.
Monday, March 12, 2007
Pope opposed Bob Dylan singing to John Paul in 1997
This article is from Reuters
By Philip Pullella
VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - Pope Benedict was opposed to Bob Dylan appearing at a youth event with the late Pope John Paul in 1997 because he considered the pop star the wrong kind of "prophet," Benedict writes in a new book issued on Thursday.
Benedict, who was Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger at the time of the concert in Bologna, Italy, makes the disclosure in a new book of memoirs about his predecessor, who died in 2005.
"There was reason to be skeptical, -- I was, and in a certain sense I still am, -- to doubt if it was really right to let these types of prophets intervene," Benedict writes, only mentioning Dylan among the stars who appeared.
At the 1997 concert, Dylan, the anti-conformist troubadour of the 1960s and one of the 20th century's greatest influences on popular music, sang three songs before the Pope as part of a concert that included a number of other, mostly Italian artists.
Dylan sang "Knockin' on Heaven's Door," his 1960s anti-war classic "A Hard Rain's A-Gonna Fall," and "Forever Young," a song of hope and courage.
In his new book, Pope Benedict does not explain why he does not like Bob Dylan or why he considers him a false "prophet."
Benedict is a lover of classical and sacred music, and an accomplished classical pianist. Last year, he canceled the Vatican's traditional fund-raising Christmas concert, which was a magnet for pop stars.
Dylan, born Robert Zimmerman into a middle-class Jewish family in Minnesota, has been at times agnostic, Jewish and a born-again Christian during his musical career.
At the 1997 concert, John Paul referred to what is perhaps Dylan's most famous song, "Blowing in the Wind," which became an anthem for young people seeking meaning in life in the 1960s.
John Paul told the crowd of some 300,000 young Italian Catholics that the answer was indeed "in the wind" -- but not in the wind that blew things away, rather "in the wind of the spirit" that would lead them to Christ.
After Dylan sang, he took off his beige cowboy hat and went up to a podium to greet John Paul.
Benedict's new book, called "John Paul II, My Beloved Predecessor," is mostly a reflection on John Paul's personality and his religious writings.
By Philip Pullella
VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - Pope Benedict was opposed to Bob Dylan appearing at a youth event with the late Pope John Paul in 1997 because he considered the pop star the wrong kind of "prophet," Benedict writes in a new book issued on Thursday.
Benedict, who was Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger at the time of the concert in Bologna, Italy, makes the disclosure in a new book of memoirs about his predecessor, who died in 2005.
"There was reason to be skeptical, -- I was, and in a certain sense I still am, -- to doubt if it was really right to let these types of prophets intervene," Benedict writes, only mentioning Dylan among the stars who appeared.
At the 1997 concert, Dylan, the anti-conformist troubadour of the 1960s and one of the 20th century's greatest influences on popular music, sang three songs before the Pope as part of a concert that included a number of other, mostly Italian artists.
Dylan sang "Knockin' on Heaven's Door," his 1960s anti-war classic "A Hard Rain's A-Gonna Fall," and "Forever Young," a song of hope and courage.
In his new book, Pope Benedict does not explain why he does not like Bob Dylan or why he considers him a false "prophet."
Benedict is a lover of classical and sacred music, and an accomplished classical pianist. Last year, he canceled the Vatican's traditional fund-raising Christmas concert, which was a magnet for pop stars.
Dylan, born Robert Zimmerman into a middle-class Jewish family in Minnesota, has been at times agnostic, Jewish and a born-again Christian during his musical career.
At the 1997 concert, John Paul referred to what is perhaps Dylan's most famous song, "Blowing in the Wind," which became an anthem for young people seeking meaning in life in the 1960s.
John Paul told the crowd of some 300,000 young Italian Catholics that the answer was indeed "in the wind" -- but not in the wind that blew things away, rather "in the wind of the spirit" that would lead them to Christ.
After Dylan sang, he took off his beige cowboy hat and went up to a podium to greet John Paul.
Benedict's new book, called "John Paul II, My Beloved Predecessor," is mostly a reflection on John Paul's personality and his religious writings.
Pope to restore mass in Latin
This article is from The Times Online
John Follain, Milan
POPE BENEDICT XVI plans to bring back the celebration of mass in Latin, overriding a rare show of protest from senior cardinals.
With a papal decree said to be imminent, Catholic publishers in Rome are preparing new editions of the Latin missal. They have sent proofs to Vatican authorities for approval, the Rome newspaper La Repubblica reported yesterday.
Vatican sources said Benedict, who is fluent in Latin, is considering publication of a papal “motu proprio” (literally, on his own initiative), which does not require the approval of church bodies. This would enable Benedict to ignore opposition from several cardinals.
The decree would officially declare the Latin, or Tridentine, mass an “extraordinary universal rite”, and the vernacular mass, with which most Catholics are familiar, an “ordinary universal rite”.
The late French archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was excommunicated for opposing changes in the church agreed by the Second Vatican Council in the early 1960s, including the replacement of the Tridentine mass with updated liturgy in local languages. The pope’s proposal will be cheered by Lefebvre’s traditionalist followers, said to number about 1m. A special Vatican commission, appointed to examine the demands of traditionalists, met in December to help draft the decree.
Today celebration of the Tridentine rite is limited. Bishops can allow it, but only on the condition that the celebration is deemed a sign of “affection for the ancient tradition” and not a criticism of the reforms.
Benedict wrote in his memoirs, My Life: Memories 1927-1977, published when he was still a cardinal: “I was stunned by the ban on the ancient missal.”
John Follain, Milan
POPE BENEDICT XVI plans to bring back the celebration of mass in Latin, overriding a rare show of protest from senior cardinals.
With a papal decree said to be imminent, Catholic publishers in Rome are preparing new editions of the Latin missal. They have sent proofs to Vatican authorities for approval, the Rome newspaper La Repubblica reported yesterday.
Vatican sources said Benedict, who is fluent in Latin, is considering publication of a papal “motu proprio” (literally, on his own initiative), which does not require the approval of church bodies. This would enable Benedict to ignore opposition from several cardinals.
The decree would officially declare the Latin, or Tridentine, mass an “extraordinary universal rite”, and the vernacular mass, with which most Catholics are familiar, an “ordinary universal rite”.
The late French archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was excommunicated for opposing changes in the church agreed by the Second Vatican Council in the early 1960s, including the replacement of the Tridentine mass with updated liturgy in local languages. The pope’s proposal will be cheered by Lefebvre’s traditionalist followers, said to number about 1m. A special Vatican commission, appointed to examine the demands of traditionalists, met in December to help draft the decree.
Today celebration of the Tridentine rite is limited. Bishops can allow it, but only on the condition that the celebration is deemed a sign of “affection for the ancient tradition” and not a criticism of the reforms.
Benedict wrote in his memoirs, My Life: Memories 1927-1977, published when he was still a cardinal: “I was stunned by the ban on the ancient missal.”
Friday, March 09, 2007
The possible enslavement of gambling
There are many things which can potentially enslave people, including alcohol, sex, drugs, and gambling. Many who gamble lose their cars, homes, and even livelihoods, and in the worst case scenarios lead to suicide by those who cannot cope with this. So, what does the Catholic Church have to say about all this? Don't Catholic Churches hold bingos and garden parties where gambling occurs? Yes. So, is this contradictory to its teaching, even hypocritical? The answer is no.
The Catholic Church does not ban all games of chance, only ones which can be harmful to those playing, or affect others in a negative way. Here's what the catechism officially states:
Games of chance (card games, etc.) or wagers are not in themselves contrary to justice. They become morally unacceptable when they deprive someone of what is necessary to provide for his needs and those of others. The passion for gambling risks becoming an enslavement. Unfair wagers and cheating at games constitute grave matter, unless the damage inflicted is so slight that the one who suffers it cannot reasonably consider it significant.
So, go ahead and have a little bit of fun, but be very cautious. Make sure you pre-set a limit of how much you plan on spending on these games before you start.
The Catholic Church does not ban all games of chance, only ones which can be harmful to those playing, or affect others in a negative way. Here's what the catechism officially states:
Games of chance (card games, etc.) or wagers are not in themselves contrary to justice. They become morally unacceptable when they deprive someone of what is necessary to provide for his needs and those of others. The passion for gambling risks becoming an enslavement. Unfair wagers and cheating at games constitute grave matter, unless the damage inflicted is so slight that the one who suffers it cannot reasonably consider it significant.
So, go ahead and have a little bit of fun, but be very cautious. Make sure you pre-set a limit of how much you plan on spending on these games before you start.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)