Bill Nye the Science Guy, as he's known, gave a speech to the American Humanist Association. He's a smart guy and had a really good show back in the day. Unfortunately though, he has bought into the false dichotomy between science and religion.
In his speech, he basically says that the humanists have an obligation to teach religious people who do not know about science about it. He wants to spread humanism which is a philosophy that says that the buck stops at humanity, that there is no afterlife, and that ultimately the meaning of life is fulfilling our own desires.
But to propose that science and religion are opposed is complete absurdity, but a good fairy tale to tell people. It's very convenient for groups like this to pit science and religion against each other. But it's really just setting up a straw man, in order to make a point. In other words, they attribute false things to religious people and then argue against these false assumptions.
Religious people do believe in science. Many of the world's greatest scientists believe in God, and I wrote a blog posting about many of these individuals. Bill Nye attacks the book of Genesis, basically asserting that it is not a scientific book. Then he goes on to show how some of the things mentioned in the first book of the Bible do not fit with scientific data. Well, this is a very easy target which he has set up. But Christians do not believe the Bible is a scientific manual. They believe it contains truths which are much deeper than this.
Scientists, including Bill Nye must stop being so childish. It is childish to misrepresent a religion and then offer proofs against this false presentation. Not only that, but to then encourage everyone to fight against these belief systems.
He also mentions evolution. Scientists love the word "evolution", but they push it much farther than the theory allows. It does not explain the origin of life, or the universe. It simply gives a possible system for how certain species evolved the way they have. The Catholic Church at least has made statements that say a person can be Catholic and believe in evolution. Much of the reason is that the Church speaks on faith and morals, not on biology or any science.
I know many very religious people, but none of them are against science. They see the value of science. But they also recognize that science without morality can be very evil. I know many people with advanced degrees, doctors, and other professionals who believe in God. And they see no contradiction in their beliefs.
Another issue that Bill brought up was overpopulation. Of course, he decried it as a major problem in our world. This is the party line for atheism. But overpopulation is not the problem many people think it is. There are dozens of countries which have officially stated that their population growth is far too small and that they want people to have more children. I know of no country which says they have too many people. There is enough food on Earth to feed 14 billion people, currently, yet our population has not reached 7. In fact, many believe we will peak in population around 8 or 9 billion. Something that his not often mentioned is that there are not necessarily being more babies born, just more people are surviving due to good medicine and health. People are living longer with higher qualities of life than before. People generally group together in dense populations. Obviously this whole thing is a canard.
Bill ends his speech by saying that in the entire universe we are rather insignificant, that we amount to nothing. He turns this around at the end by saying we ARE something because of our brains and our ability to reason and so on. While this may sound affirming, I believe it is a very dangerous philosophy. Using this philosophy, we accept people with strong intellects as being valuable, but people with mental disabilities would be less highly regarded. They would simply be weighing down the system. They would then become insignificant like Bill Nye originally said because they would not have the redeeming quality of a good brain. People are then judged and valued based on their utility and not their inherent worth.
Many religions believe people are valuable because of their inherent value given to them by God, not because they are able to think at a certain level or are of value to the world. Using Bill's philosophy, unborn and young children are worthless, as are elderly people with mental issues or mentally disabled individuals at any age. It is a very dangerous philosophy.
I just want to end by saying the Humanist vision of the world offers nothing. It does not seek to give anything, but rather to remove something. It wants to remove God, hope, love, mercy, etc. and replace it with science. Science has its place, but it must be guided.
I believe the following quote sums it up perfectly:
Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
- Albert Einstein
Monday, June 14, 2010
Retreat weekend brought joy
This past Saturday, I attended a retreat from 1-9pm at St. Francis of Assisi Church in Outer Cove, Newfoundland. The day featured a variety of spiritual reflections and activities. The 25 or so attendees first gathered in the church for an opening prayer. We then proceeded to the lecture room to hear the conversion story of a very interesting Franciscan Friar who returned to his childhood home of Newfoundland to help out with the spiritual needs of the community. He talks about how he went from a lucrative career traveling the globe to giving it all up to gain something even greater - spiritual closeness to God.
After his testimony, we heard 3 heart-felt stories from young Catholics. They spoke of their return to the faith after years of mediocre participation. Conversion, they reminded us, is not an event, but a process. One particularly touching moment is when one of the young people was speaking about living faith in our every day lives, and during one story, he had to pause several times to fight back tears. He was speaking of a touching encounter he had with a man who was down on his luck. The speaker's simple act of almsgiving was such a special moment for this man of little means. I doubt there were many dry eyes as he recounted this moment.
Later, we heard the story of Fr. John Corapi, a dynamic speaker, who went from being a Ferrari-driving millionaire and friend of movie stars to someone who lost everything because of his drug addictions, and finally was touched by the grace of God through the intercession of his mother and became a priest, being ordained by Pope John Paul II himself. He is now one of the most sought after speakers in North American Christendom, and indeed the world.
Later, we shared a meal together, which was lovingly prepared by several of the guests. During the meal, I spoke to a young lady who was becoming more involved with her faith, however, she had not attended confession in her entire life except the first time when she was a child. She spoke of her fear of telling the priest her sins. She was quite nervous, but her heart pulled her in the right direction. She was very brave.
After confession and Mass, a priest came by to answer questions. People asked a few questions, and the priest gave some very good answers. For the closing, everyone gathered in the church once again for the Rosary. I lead the 4th decade, which is what I used to do when we said it as a family, because I was the fourth born.
The entire day was a phenomenal success, and many people expressed their desire to have another such event in the future. I can't wait!
After his testimony, we heard 3 heart-felt stories from young Catholics. They spoke of their return to the faith after years of mediocre participation. Conversion, they reminded us, is not an event, but a process. One particularly touching moment is when one of the young people was speaking about living faith in our every day lives, and during one story, he had to pause several times to fight back tears. He was speaking of a touching encounter he had with a man who was down on his luck. The speaker's simple act of almsgiving was such a special moment for this man of little means. I doubt there were many dry eyes as he recounted this moment.
Later, we heard the story of Fr. John Corapi, a dynamic speaker, who went from being a Ferrari-driving millionaire and friend of movie stars to someone who lost everything because of his drug addictions, and finally was touched by the grace of God through the intercession of his mother and became a priest, being ordained by Pope John Paul II himself. He is now one of the most sought after speakers in North American Christendom, and indeed the world.
Later, we shared a meal together, which was lovingly prepared by several of the guests. During the meal, I spoke to a young lady who was becoming more involved with her faith, however, she had not attended confession in her entire life except the first time when she was a child. She spoke of her fear of telling the priest her sins. She was quite nervous, but her heart pulled her in the right direction. She was very brave.
After confession and Mass, a priest came by to answer questions. People asked a few questions, and the priest gave some very good answers. For the closing, everyone gathered in the church once again for the Rosary. I lead the 4th decade, which is what I used to do when we said it as a family, because I was the fourth born.
The entire day was a phenomenal success, and many people expressed their desire to have another such event in the future. I can't wait!
Monday, May 31, 2010
The religion of Hard Rock Cafe
Don't get me wrong, I love Hard Rock Cafe. When visiting a new location of a particular size, my first mission is to locate the Hard Rock Cafe there. I have developed a collection of shirts from these establishments which double as markers to indicate the major cities to which I've traveled. I have shirts for Cologne, London, Rome, Amsterdam, Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver. However, yesterday during my latest visit, something sort of struck me - the religion of Hard Rock.
There were many things I saw during my meal which seemed religious. First, you see the unmistakable logo for the restaurant, the same as at all locations. Underneath is what may be seen as the great commandment of the chain: "Love all. Serve all." It has a very religious slant to it. It's not "We love hard rock music" or "Come play guitar and drums", in fact it's not related to music at all. It's more of a religious or philosophical commandment: Love All. Serve All. It sounds like the words of a holy person, and similar to the teachings of Jesus.
Once you enter, you hear music playing. It's a particular type of music - hard rock. It's not simple background music. It's meant to be all encompassing. Everyone is unified through the music. Similar to the organ which plays in a church. All around, I notice something very peculiar. Instruments, posters, even clothing worn by music stars. Perhaps this is a stretch, but these items seem like relics. If you go to a Catholic Church, you can find small pieces of fabric, tools or instruments, and other things used or worn by saints. These items are called relics. In a very similar way, these personal items are displayed for all those in this establishment. People look with amazement at these objects, perhaps even with veneration!
Then it's someone's birthday, but rather than celebrating alone or even with the server, the entire population of the restaurant is encouraged to join in a chant, repeating happy birthday. Something like the responses given by the congregation of a church. While I'm eating, I notice a book beside me named "icons". Of course, icons in Christianity are paintings of saints.
Finally, Hard Rock is not satisfied with being a local phenomenon, but rather is seeking to place a store in all major cities around the world. It has an almost missionary zeal to spread to every corner of the globe. Yet, like cathedrals, there are never two in the same city, and they only appear in major cities. They do not become like McDonald's, but rather like pilgrimage sites. Then comes the t-shirts, like the reward for a pilgrimage well done.
Of course, many would say I am exaggerating and that most people just view Hard Rock as a restaurant. And for the most part, they are correct. I would say though that many people have no particular religion, but that does not mean they are not religious. In a world where organized religion is sometimes frowned upon, many seek other outlets for their worship and spiritual fulfillment. Hard Rock Cafe may not be a religion, but it is certainly not just a place to eat, either.
There were many things I saw during my meal which seemed religious. First, you see the unmistakable logo for the restaurant, the same as at all locations. Underneath is what may be seen as the great commandment of the chain: "Love all. Serve all." It has a very religious slant to it. It's not "We love hard rock music" or "Come play guitar and drums", in fact it's not related to music at all. It's more of a religious or philosophical commandment: Love All. Serve All. It sounds like the words of a holy person, and similar to the teachings of Jesus.
Once you enter, you hear music playing. It's a particular type of music - hard rock. It's not simple background music. It's meant to be all encompassing. Everyone is unified through the music. Similar to the organ which plays in a church. All around, I notice something very peculiar. Instruments, posters, even clothing worn by music stars. Perhaps this is a stretch, but these items seem like relics. If you go to a Catholic Church, you can find small pieces of fabric, tools or instruments, and other things used or worn by saints. These items are called relics. In a very similar way, these personal items are displayed for all those in this establishment. People look with amazement at these objects, perhaps even with veneration!
Then it's someone's birthday, but rather than celebrating alone or even with the server, the entire population of the restaurant is encouraged to join in a chant, repeating happy birthday. Something like the responses given by the congregation of a church. While I'm eating, I notice a book beside me named "icons". Of course, icons in Christianity are paintings of saints.
Finally, Hard Rock is not satisfied with being a local phenomenon, but rather is seeking to place a store in all major cities around the world. It has an almost missionary zeal to spread to every corner of the globe. Yet, like cathedrals, there are never two in the same city, and they only appear in major cities. They do not become like McDonald's, but rather like pilgrimage sites. Then comes the t-shirts, like the reward for a pilgrimage well done.
Of course, many would say I am exaggerating and that most people just view Hard Rock as a restaurant. And for the most part, they are correct. I would say though that many people have no particular religion, but that does not mean they are not religious. In a world where organized religion is sometimes frowned upon, many seek other outlets for their worship and spiritual fulfillment. Hard Rock Cafe may not be a religion, but it is certainly not just a place to eat, either.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Are people Catholic only because of their parents?
Some hold the belief that others are only Catholic because that is how they were raised. Some commentators like Richard Dawkins have called handing on your religion to your children a form of abuse. But is this really the case? Are people simply Catholic by default? Let's examine this claim and test its veracity.
I believe there are many weaknesses in the opinion expressed above. First of all, people are free to choose whether or not to believe in the Catholic faith. If being Catholic was automatic, everyone whose parents are Catholic would also be Catholic, however, this is very far from the truth. The majority of people I know who were raised Catholic no longer adhere to any faith, at least in any practical sense.
The people who did maintain their faith are typically very strong in it. Far from just going through the motions, they live their lives according to the tenets of their faith and obey it fully. Often, they are more religious than their parents. This is not the characteristic of a "default" religion.
On top of this, there are many examples of people invesigating the claims of the Catholic Church and then becoming Catholic or Christian in general. C.S. Lewis, for example, decided to investigate all religions and beliefs, including atheism, and eventually became Christian and wrote several books on it.
GK Chesterton spent much time with ouija boards and other occult practices before eventually becoming an orthodox Catholic.
Mortimer Adler, a philosopher who co-founded Great Books of the Western World went from agnostic to Catholic.
Francis Collins, who was the head of the Human Genome Project went from atheist to Catholic.
Arnold Lunn, who actually wrote a book critical of the Catholic Church and would spend time debating converts, eventually himself converted.
Bernard Nathanson, who originally called himself a Jewish atheist and founded NARAL Pro-Choice America eventually became a pro-life Catholic.
A.N. Wilson went from writing books against religion to becoming a Catholic.
The point I'm making here by showing these examples is that many people, including high profile individuals, come to the faith through their own investigation, often times while in the process of attacking religion or Christianity. Obviously it is not because it was imposed on them by their parents.
There is another flaw with the argument that people are only Catholic because their parents "make" them Catholic by teaching them the faith. The problem is that most things people learn as children are taught to them by their parents, and many of the things they learn they continue to believe well into adulthood. The mere fact that parents teach their children certain things does not diminish the truth of those teachings. Why should we assume that what parents teach is false? In fact, the opposite would seem more true.
For example, parents teach their children many things about science, like "we breathe oxygen", "gravity makes things fall to the ground", "the Earth goes around the Sun", "that's the moon", "plants need water to grow", "eat your vegetables, they are good for you". We do not accuse parents of "indoctrination" when they teach their kids these things.
It would seem rather odd for a parent to say to a child, "I do not want to force you to believie something, therefore I will leave it up to you to decide why things fall to the ground when you release them. In fact, we will not teach you any science, math, or history, because it's best if you decide those things on your own. It would be a form of child abuse to teach you anything we believe." That would be absurd.
Some people object by saying the two are different. One is proven scientific fact, the other is made up fairy tales. But that is a biased opinion. Those who believe in Christianity believe it is true, perhaps more true than certain scientific theories. People have looked into their beliefs and have come to trust in their veracity.
In fact, the argument that we know science is true is based on a false assumption. It assumes everyone has investigated things on their own and have come to the conclusion using the scientific method that the facts being presented are indeed true. But this rarely, if ever, happens. Most people know oranges contain vitamin C because someone told them it does. They did not analyze this themselves. In fact, they would have no idea how to go about it. Yet, religious beliefs are held to a much higher standard for some reason. Many people believe scientific findings because a famous scientist or association has confirmed that it is true. A similar system exists to confirm religious statements. If a statement is made by a religious group that is seen as trustworthy and exemplifies the belief, then it is logical to believe.
On top of this, there are many more ways of confirming validity. We have many proofs for our belief in God, Jesus, the Bible, and the teachings of the church. They are not merely random teachings that we "choose" to believe, but verifiable truths. Because of this, people can come to have faith outside of the teachings of their parents.
Another problem with this assertion is a historical one. If faith can only be passed from parent to child, then the only Christians should be the twelve apostles and their children. Yet we have no evidence that they even had children, and we can see historically that there were hundreds and thousands of converts in their time. In fact, in a very short time, there were millions of Christians. Again, this would not be possible simply through passing down over the generations. Entire nations were converted, not by the sword, but by the changing of hearts. We know this because there were millions of Christians even before Christianity became legal and was in fact persecuted severely.
Also, if religion can only be passed down from parent to child, where did it come from to start with? Who was the first parent to pass down the faith to a child? We know Christianity had a definite start. To bring this to the absurd, we could say that Joseph taught Jesus, etc. (there is no etc in this case), but who taught Joseph? His father? Can we keep going back like this? If so, how does Christianity have a definite beginning? We cannot keep going back to infinity.
Because of the development, growth, and present situation of Christianity, we can know for certain that people of faith are not simply robots that believe only because their parents do. We know many, honest, truth-seeking people have come to believe in the Catholic Church by responding to faith and reason.
I believe there are many weaknesses in the opinion expressed above. First of all, people are free to choose whether or not to believe in the Catholic faith. If being Catholic was automatic, everyone whose parents are Catholic would also be Catholic, however, this is very far from the truth. The majority of people I know who were raised Catholic no longer adhere to any faith, at least in any practical sense.
The people who did maintain their faith are typically very strong in it. Far from just going through the motions, they live their lives according to the tenets of their faith and obey it fully. Often, they are more religious than their parents. This is not the characteristic of a "default" religion.
On top of this, there are many examples of people invesigating the claims of the Catholic Church and then becoming Catholic or Christian in general. C.S. Lewis, for example, decided to investigate all religions and beliefs, including atheism, and eventually became Christian and wrote several books on it.
GK Chesterton spent much time with ouija boards and other occult practices before eventually becoming an orthodox Catholic.
Mortimer Adler, a philosopher who co-founded Great Books of the Western World went from agnostic to Catholic.
Francis Collins, who was the head of the Human Genome Project went from atheist to Catholic.
Arnold Lunn, who actually wrote a book critical of the Catholic Church and would spend time debating converts, eventually himself converted.
Bernard Nathanson, who originally called himself a Jewish atheist and founded NARAL Pro-Choice America eventually became a pro-life Catholic.
A.N. Wilson went from writing books against religion to becoming a Catholic.
The point I'm making here by showing these examples is that many people, including high profile individuals, come to the faith through their own investigation, often times while in the process of attacking religion or Christianity. Obviously it is not because it was imposed on them by their parents.
There is another flaw with the argument that people are only Catholic because their parents "make" them Catholic by teaching them the faith. The problem is that most things people learn as children are taught to them by their parents, and many of the things they learn they continue to believe well into adulthood. The mere fact that parents teach their children certain things does not diminish the truth of those teachings. Why should we assume that what parents teach is false? In fact, the opposite would seem more true.
For example, parents teach their children many things about science, like "we breathe oxygen", "gravity makes things fall to the ground", "the Earth goes around the Sun", "that's the moon", "plants need water to grow", "eat your vegetables, they are good for you". We do not accuse parents of "indoctrination" when they teach their kids these things.
It would seem rather odd for a parent to say to a child, "I do not want to force you to believie something, therefore I will leave it up to you to decide why things fall to the ground when you release them. In fact, we will not teach you any science, math, or history, because it's best if you decide those things on your own. It would be a form of child abuse to teach you anything we believe." That would be absurd.
Some people object by saying the two are different. One is proven scientific fact, the other is made up fairy tales. But that is a biased opinion. Those who believe in Christianity believe it is true, perhaps more true than certain scientific theories. People have looked into their beliefs and have come to trust in their veracity.
In fact, the argument that we know science is true is based on a false assumption. It assumes everyone has investigated things on their own and have come to the conclusion using the scientific method that the facts being presented are indeed true. But this rarely, if ever, happens. Most people know oranges contain vitamin C because someone told them it does. They did not analyze this themselves. In fact, they would have no idea how to go about it. Yet, religious beliefs are held to a much higher standard for some reason. Many people believe scientific findings because a famous scientist or association has confirmed that it is true. A similar system exists to confirm religious statements. If a statement is made by a religious group that is seen as trustworthy and exemplifies the belief, then it is logical to believe.
On top of this, there are many more ways of confirming validity. We have many proofs for our belief in God, Jesus, the Bible, and the teachings of the church. They are not merely random teachings that we "choose" to believe, but verifiable truths. Because of this, people can come to have faith outside of the teachings of their parents.
Another problem with this assertion is a historical one. If faith can only be passed from parent to child, then the only Christians should be the twelve apostles and their children. Yet we have no evidence that they even had children, and we can see historically that there were hundreds and thousands of converts in their time. In fact, in a very short time, there were millions of Christians. Again, this would not be possible simply through passing down over the generations. Entire nations were converted, not by the sword, but by the changing of hearts. We know this because there were millions of Christians even before Christianity became legal and was in fact persecuted severely.
Also, if religion can only be passed down from parent to child, where did it come from to start with? Who was the first parent to pass down the faith to a child? We know Christianity had a definite start. To bring this to the absurd, we could say that Joseph taught Jesus, etc. (there is no etc in this case), but who taught Joseph? His father? Can we keep going back like this? If so, how does Christianity have a definite beginning? We cannot keep going back to infinity.
Because of the development, growth, and present situation of Christianity, we can know for certain that people of faith are not simply robots that believe only because their parents do. We know many, honest, truth-seeking people have come to believe in the Catholic Church by responding to faith and reason.
Friday, May 14, 2010
Deviancy amplification spiral and the sex abuse scandal
I just came across an article on wikipedia about a thing called "Deviancy amplification spiral". It seems to apply to the currect media coverage of the clergy sex abuse scandal. The only difference is that sex abuse from priests is now virtually eliminated, thanks to the efforts of the Pope and others.
Here is the text of the wikipedia article on deviancy amplification spiral:
According to the theory, the spiral starts with some "deviant" act. Usually the deviance is criminal but it can also involve lawful acts considered morally repugnant by most of society. The mass media report what they consider to be newsworthy, but the new focus on the issue uncovers hidden or borderline examples which themselves would not have been newsworthy except inasmuch as they confirm the "pattern".
Reported cases of such "deviance" are often presented as just "the ones we know about" or "the tip of the iceberg," an assertion that is nearly impossible to disprove immediately. For a variety of reasons, what is not frightening and would help the public keep a rational perspective (such as statistics showing that the behavior or event is actually less common or harmful than generally believed) tends to be ignored.
As a result, minor problems begin to look serious and rare events begin to seem common. Members of the public are motivated to keep informed on these events. The resulting publicity has potential to increase deviant behavior by glamorizing it or making it seem common or acceptable. In the next stage, public concern about crime typically forces the police and the law enforcement system to focus more resources on dealing with the specific deviancy than it warrants.
Judges and magistrates are under public pressure to deal out harsher sentences. Politicians pass new laws to increase their popularity by giving the impression that they are dealing with the perceived threat. All this tends to convince the public that any fear was justified while the media continue to profit by reporting police and other law enforcement activity, which further perpetuates the spiral.
The theory does not contend that moral panics always include the deviancy amplification spiral. In modern times, however, media involvement is usual in any moral panic, making the spiral fairly common.
Eileen Barker asserts that the controversy surrounding certain new religious movements can turn violent in a deviancy amplification spiral. [1] In his autobiography, Lincoln Steffens details how news reporting can be used to create the impression of a crime wave in the chapter "I Make a Crime Wave."
Here is the text of the wikipedia article on deviancy amplification spiral:
According to the theory, the spiral starts with some "deviant" act. Usually the deviance is criminal but it can also involve lawful acts considered morally repugnant by most of society. The mass media report what they consider to be newsworthy, but the new focus on the issue uncovers hidden or borderline examples which themselves would not have been newsworthy except inasmuch as they confirm the "pattern".
Reported cases of such "deviance" are often presented as just "the ones we know about" or "the tip of the iceberg," an assertion that is nearly impossible to disprove immediately. For a variety of reasons, what is not frightening and would help the public keep a rational perspective (such as statistics showing that the behavior or event is actually less common or harmful than generally believed) tends to be ignored.
As a result, minor problems begin to look serious and rare events begin to seem common. Members of the public are motivated to keep informed on these events. The resulting publicity has potential to increase deviant behavior by glamorizing it or making it seem common or acceptable. In the next stage, public concern about crime typically forces the police and the law enforcement system to focus more resources on dealing with the specific deviancy than it warrants.
Judges and magistrates are under public pressure to deal out harsher sentences. Politicians pass new laws to increase their popularity by giving the impression that they are dealing with the perceived threat. All this tends to convince the public that any fear was justified while the media continue to profit by reporting police and other law enforcement activity, which further perpetuates the spiral.
The theory does not contend that moral panics always include the deviancy amplification spiral. In modern times, however, media involvement is usual in any moral panic, making the spiral fairly common.
Eileen Barker asserts that the controversy surrounding certain new religious movements can turn violent in a deviancy amplification spiral. [1] In his autobiography, Lincoln Steffens details how news reporting can be used to create the impression of a crime wave in the chapter "I Make a Crime Wave."
Wednesday, May 05, 2010
One more reason why in vitro fertilization is wrong.
As almost seems inevitable, a Michigan couple's child whose conceived in a petri dish was accidentally implanted in the wrong woman. Then this stranger had to carry the baby to term. Not her baby, but the other woman's.
Shannon Morell, whose baby was implanted in the wrong person, felt like she missed out on a lot by not carrying her baby. Of course she did. This is totally against nature.
It's great that this baby is alive and healthy, but these mixups are the result of human tampering with God's intentions about conception and birth.
Imagine how this child will feel when she is old enough to be told she did not start out in her mother's womb. That she started out in the womb of a total stranger. Genetically the woman she lives with is her mother, but in some sense, the surrogate is also her mother. It can cause nothing but confusion. Almost as though she has two mothers.
Children are not possessions that we have a "right" to. They are gifts from God and we must live out his plan for marriage, conception, and birth.
For more on this story, please visit:
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/32980984/ns/today-today_health/
Shannon Morell, whose baby was implanted in the wrong person, felt like she missed out on a lot by not carrying her baby. Of course she did. This is totally against nature.
It's great that this baby is alive and healthy, but these mixups are the result of human tampering with God's intentions about conception and birth.
Imagine how this child will feel when she is old enough to be told she did not start out in her mother's womb. That she started out in the womb of a total stranger. Genetically the woman she lives with is her mother, but in some sense, the surrogate is also her mother. It can cause nothing but confusion. Almost as though she has two mothers.
Children are not possessions that we have a "right" to. They are gifts from God and we must live out his plan for marriage, conception, and birth.
For more on this story, please visit:
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/32980984/ns/today-today_health/
Sunday, May 02, 2010
Pope visits Turin
The Holy Father is in Turin today to meet with the faithful. This visit coincides with the display of the Shroud of Turin, which many believe is the burial cloth of Jesus which displays his likeness. Over the next couple of weeks, 2 million visitors are expected to pass through to view the shroud, including Pope Benedict.
Right now, he is doing a speech on making permanent decisions, those of the priesthood, religious life, and married life. He says God is eternal and we must focus on eternal things, rather than the fleeting feelings of joy which come and go. We must stay with God who is everlasting.
Right now, he is doing a speech on making permanent decisions, those of the priesthood, religious life, and married life. He says God is eternal and we must focus on eternal things, rather than the fleeting feelings of joy which come and go. We must stay with God who is everlasting.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Peter Gabriel wrong about abortion.
Peter Gabriel was in Canada recently and was interviewed. He's a singer, known for being in the band Genesis. He said abortion is a hot topic, that's correct. He believes women should be allowed to kill their pre-born children, but not only that, but Canada has an obligation to pay for this in other countries.
Then Gabriel goes on to say that the only pro-life people are religious, and that he believes in a separation of "state and religion". This is a poor argument. If I said I'm against slavery and it just so happens that my religion teaches that all men are equal, would you say I'm simply expression my particular religious belief and that the government shouldn't be forced to live according to my religion?
This is a very common argument. People will say "don't force your religion on me!", "don't force your morals on me!", etc. But every law is imposition of one group's morality on another. Being against slavery is a moral stance, being for equally is also a moral stance. Banning pornography for children is also a moral stance, etc. Everything in law reflects morality. Without morality, law would not be necessary.
It's insulting to insinuate that those who are pro-life take that position because of some arbitrary ruling, no different than announcing your favorite colour or flavour of ice cream.
Even most moral relativists would not say that murder is an arbitrary moral preference, so if people believe abortion is murder, then it is only logical that they would oppose it.
If being against abortion were just a religion's arbitrary decision, there would be no such thing as pro-life atheists, but there are. Also, one must ask why most religions forbid abortion in the first place. The reason is they believe it is killing another human being. It's based on natural law, not a peculiar religious teaching.
I'm sometimes surprised how clever people seem to think they are when they simply act as a mouth-piece to fallacious canards. In Peter Gabriel's interview, he starts off taking great efforts to show his level of expertise and knowledge in this area. He shows that he understands both sides intimately, and he understands their intentions. Then he proceeds to rehash old arguments that hold little water. While doing this, he interjects a hefty dose of condescension.
Of course, he is following the well-beaten celebrity path of liberalism which advocates the culture of death. Maybe some day soon we will see more celebrities championing the cause of life.
Then Gabriel goes on to say that the only pro-life people are religious, and that he believes in a separation of "state and religion". This is a poor argument. If I said I'm against slavery and it just so happens that my religion teaches that all men are equal, would you say I'm simply expression my particular religious belief and that the government shouldn't be forced to live according to my religion?
This is a very common argument. People will say "don't force your religion on me!", "don't force your morals on me!", etc. But every law is imposition of one group's morality on another. Being against slavery is a moral stance, being for equally is also a moral stance. Banning pornography for children is also a moral stance, etc. Everything in law reflects morality. Without morality, law would not be necessary.
It's insulting to insinuate that those who are pro-life take that position because of some arbitrary ruling, no different than announcing your favorite colour or flavour of ice cream.
Even most moral relativists would not say that murder is an arbitrary moral preference, so if people believe abortion is murder, then it is only logical that they would oppose it.
If being against abortion were just a religion's arbitrary decision, there would be no such thing as pro-life atheists, but there are. Also, one must ask why most religions forbid abortion in the first place. The reason is they believe it is killing another human being. It's based on natural law, not a peculiar religious teaching.
I'm sometimes surprised how clever people seem to think they are when they simply act as a mouth-piece to fallacious canards. In Peter Gabriel's interview, he starts off taking great efforts to show his level of expertise and knowledge in this area. He shows that he understands both sides intimately, and he understands their intentions. Then he proceeds to rehash old arguments that hold little water. While doing this, he interjects a hefty dose of condescension.
Of course, he is following the well-beaten celebrity path of liberalism which advocates the culture of death. Maybe some day soon we will see more celebrities championing the cause of life.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Catholic population grew faster than world population
From 2000 to 2008 the population of Catholics on Earth grew from 1.045 billion to 1.166 billion, an 11.58% increase, which was faster than the growth rate of overall human population. To read the entire article, please visit:
http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=6153
http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=6153
Canadian tax payers will not be forced to pay for abortions in developing world
I am happy about a decision made by the Canadian government to not pay for the killing of unwanted children in the developing world. The Canadian Government has decided, despite protests from opposition, that part of a healthy plan for developing countries it would not fund abortion.
Some have brought up the objection that some women die in unsafe abortions. But if we break this down a little, we get a different story. Women attempt to kill their unborn child, but this involves injuring themselves. This is a very sad situation and I feel bad for these women who are injured. But legalizing the murder of some individuals is not the solution. What if some fathers who were committing honour killings but in the process were injured or killed. Would we make honour killings legal to alleviate this issue? No.
We shouldn't have abortion, and we definitely should not be funding abortion in other countries. Everyone has a right to life, that includes our young brothers and sisters who live in their mothers wombs.
Some have brought up the objection that some women die in unsafe abortions. But if we break this down a little, we get a different story. Women attempt to kill their unborn child, but this involves injuring themselves. This is a very sad situation and I feel bad for these women who are injured. But legalizing the murder of some individuals is not the solution. What if some fathers who were committing honour killings but in the process were injured or killed. Would we make honour killings legal to alleviate this issue? No.
We shouldn't have abortion, and we definitely should not be funding abortion in other countries. Everyone has a right to life, that includes our young brothers and sisters who live in their mothers wombs.
Friday, April 23, 2010
Jennifer Knapp on Larry King: A Catholic Perspective
Jennifer Knapp, a famous Grammy-nominated Christian singer, came out as a lesbian and is being featured on Larry King Live tonight, Saturday, April 23, 2010. She says she is still a strong Christian, despite her sexuality. Joining her on the show were Pastor Bob Botsford and Ted Haggart (former pastor).
One of the main themes presented was that how can we say Jennifer is doing something wrong when we could potentially be doing something wrong ourselves. Or, since we are all sinners, how can we focus on the sin of homosexuality. That's a good point. All sins must be looked at and solutions must be sought. Everyone has an obligation to live holy lives and anything getting in the way must be avoided. The difference here is that Jennifer says there is nothing wrong with her behavior. She denies the sinfulness of homosexual activity, even though Christianity opposes it and says it is a sin. In Catholic teaching, homosexual behavior is grave matter and can potentially be a serious sin.
If an individual was on Larry King and that pastor was there again and he said "I am very greedy. I steal money and scam people. I don't think it's a sin though. Therefore you cannot tell me I'm wrong." The difference is that the individual is consenting to the sinful behavior and is not doing anything to stop it. If Jennifer pointed out a particular sin of the pastor, he could then say he will try to stop his behavior.
Also, the idea of not judging came up frequently. Are we really not to judge? What does this mean? The truth is we are not to judge an individual's heart or their standing with God. We cannot say if someone is in a state of mortal sin. But we can and must judge actions, mostly our own, but we can also look at actions around us to determine if they are right or wrong. Jesus told many people to go and sin no more. He didn't ignore the sin or pretend it didn't exist. We must love the sinner, but hate the sin. We must correct the sin, but always do so with love.
There were more issues brought up on Larry King, and I think they are being addressed to some extent by the guests, but incompletely.
First of all, Jennifer objects to the translation of the original Greek, saying perhaps we translated it wrong. Of course, homosexual behavior is forbidden in several places in both the Old and New Testaments. Jesus speaks about the commitment of one man to one woman. Paul says homosexual behaviour is a sin. It is very clear. To say perhaps we translated it wrong is a far-fetched tactic.
Related to this, the topic of Old Testament proscriptions against wearing two types of fibers, eat shellfish, etc. Of course, we know the old law was fulfilled in the New Testament in the person of Jesus Christ. He did not abolish the old law, but fulfilled it. Many things were pointing to the arrival of Jesus. However, like I said, he did not destroy the law when he established a new and everlasting covenent. There are Old Testament and New Testament laws against homosexual behavior.
Another very hot button topic that came up during the exchange, which was heated at times, was whether homosexuality was a choice and if not, how is it a sin. This topic, in my opinion, was addressed very poorly. Protestantism generally views homosexuality in and of itself to be a sin. Therefore a person with same-sex attraction would be committing a sin. So Larry asked if someone who did not choose to be homosexual would be committing a sin. The pastor did not a have a good explanation for this, but basically said they would be guilty. Larry King wondered aloud how something not learned could be a sin. The pastor had no good response. The Catholic Church views homosexual desire as a burden, which does not remove a person's need to remain chaste. Same-sex attraction would be seen as a temptation but not as a sin in itself. However, homosexual activity would be considered sinful.
The Church is not targetting homosexuals. In fact, the prohibition against homosexual sex comes more as a necessary consequence of a broader teacher than a particular proscription. The church believes sex is meant for marriage between a man and woman, because it is meant as both unitive (for the spouses) and procreative. Any type of sex outside this bond does not conform to this plan. This would include any number of sexual behaviors.
Another issues this brings up is Biblical interpretation. The two ministers on the show came from a Bible alone approach. There was no final authority on matters of faith and morals. This weakness was exploited by Jennifer Knapp who pitted her or another church's or pastor's interpretation of the Bible against his. That's one of the pitfalls of personal interpretation and one of the reasons why there are over 30,000 Protestant denominations in the world.
I'm not writing this article to say how bad Jennifer Knapp is. Surely many people, including me, have sins that we are ashamed of and perhaps feel burdened by. It's important for us to place our trust in God and to seek to do his will.
One of the main themes presented was that how can we say Jennifer is doing something wrong when we could potentially be doing something wrong ourselves. Or, since we are all sinners, how can we focus on the sin of homosexuality. That's a good point. All sins must be looked at and solutions must be sought. Everyone has an obligation to live holy lives and anything getting in the way must be avoided. The difference here is that Jennifer says there is nothing wrong with her behavior. She denies the sinfulness of homosexual activity, even though Christianity opposes it and says it is a sin. In Catholic teaching, homosexual behavior is grave matter and can potentially be a serious sin.
If an individual was on Larry King and that pastor was there again and he said "I am very greedy. I steal money and scam people. I don't think it's a sin though. Therefore you cannot tell me I'm wrong." The difference is that the individual is consenting to the sinful behavior and is not doing anything to stop it. If Jennifer pointed out a particular sin of the pastor, he could then say he will try to stop his behavior.
Also, the idea of not judging came up frequently. Are we really not to judge? What does this mean? The truth is we are not to judge an individual's heart or their standing with God. We cannot say if someone is in a state of mortal sin. But we can and must judge actions, mostly our own, but we can also look at actions around us to determine if they are right or wrong. Jesus told many people to go and sin no more. He didn't ignore the sin or pretend it didn't exist. We must love the sinner, but hate the sin. We must correct the sin, but always do so with love.
There were more issues brought up on Larry King, and I think they are being addressed to some extent by the guests, but incompletely.
First of all, Jennifer objects to the translation of the original Greek, saying perhaps we translated it wrong. Of course, homosexual behavior is forbidden in several places in both the Old and New Testaments. Jesus speaks about the commitment of one man to one woman. Paul says homosexual behaviour is a sin. It is very clear. To say perhaps we translated it wrong is a far-fetched tactic.
Related to this, the topic of Old Testament proscriptions against wearing two types of fibers, eat shellfish, etc. Of course, we know the old law was fulfilled in the New Testament in the person of Jesus Christ. He did not abolish the old law, but fulfilled it. Many things were pointing to the arrival of Jesus. However, like I said, he did not destroy the law when he established a new and everlasting covenent. There are Old Testament and New Testament laws against homosexual behavior.
Another very hot button topic that came up during the exchange, which was heated at times, was whether homosexuality was a choice and if not, how is it a sin. This topic, in my opinion, was addressed very poorly. Protestantism generally views homosexuality in and of itself to be a sin. Therefore a person with same-sex attraction would be committing a sin. So Larry asked if someone who did not choose to be homosexual would be committing a sin. The pastor did not a have a good explanation for this, but basically said they would be guilty. Larry King wondered aloud how something not learned could be a sin. The pastor had no good response. The Catholic Church views homosexual desire as a burden, which does not remove a person's need to remain chaste. Same-sex attraction would be seen as a temptation but not as a sin in itself. However, homosexual activity would be considered sinful.
The Church is not targetting homosexuals. In fact, the prohibition against homosexual sex comes more as a necessary consequence of a broader teacher than a particular proscription. The church believes sex is meant for marriage between a man and woman, because it is meant as both unitive (for the spouses) and procreative. Any type of sex outside this bond does not conform to this plan. This would include any number of sexual behaviors.
Another issues this brings up is Biblical interpretation. The two ministers on the show came from a Bible alone approach. There was no final authority on matters of faith and morals. This weakness was exploited by Jennifer Knapp who pitted her or another church's or pastor's interpretation of the Bible against his. That's one of the pitfalls of personal interpretation and one of the reasons why there are over 30,000 Protestant denominations in the world.
I'm not writing this article to say how bad Jennifer Knapp is. Surely many people, including me, have sins that we are ashamed of and perhaps feel burdened by. It's important for us to place our trust in God and to seek to do his will.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Organization covers up sexual abuse of minors
There is an organization where hundreds of children were sexually abused. Despite this, none of the abusers were reported to the authorities, and only 1% lost their license and position. Only 35% suffered negative consequences of any kind and 39% chose to leave their place of employment, most with positive recommendations.
Of course, I'm talking about the Catholic Church right? No. This is the case in schools around the world, but specifically this is from New York.
Teachers were passed around from school to school, in a process called "passing the trash". Only 1% of the time did superintendents notify the new school about the offending teacher.
The study found that up to 5% of teachers sexually abused children.
Here are the sources for this information:
Douglas Montero, “Secret Shame of Our Schools: Sexual Abuse of Students Runs Rampant,” New York Post, July 30, 2001, p. 1.
“Schools Chancellor: Four Teachers Barred from Classroom,” Associated Press, June 12, 2003.
Charol Shakeshaft and Audrey Cohan, In loco parentis: Sexual abuse of students in schools, (What administrators should know). Report to the U.S. Department of Education, Field Initiated Grants
Diana Jean Schemo, “Silently Shifting Teachers in Sex Abuse Cases,” New York Times, June 18, 2002, p. A19.
Elizabeth Cohen, “Sex Abuse of Students Common; Research Suggests 15% of All Children Harassed,” Press & Sun-Bulletin, February 10, 2002, p. 1A.
Why is that we never hear about sexual abuse in schools? Most teachers are married, yet we never hear that marriage leads to sexual abuse or pedophilia. We don't hear about a "crisis" in the education system. Why aren't the secretaries of Education called all sorts of names with people calling for them to be tried for crimes against humanity? Even though the problem is much more widespread and prevalent in schools than in churches, there is only public outrage for priests.
Also there have been many cases involving pastors, rabbis, swim teachers, boy scout leaders, etc. but no similar or equivalent outrage. Could it be that swim teachers do not make moral demands and therefore people are not made uncomfortable by pronouncements of the truth? Could it be that people already dislike the Church because of its stance against homosexual "marriage", abortion, and sexual impropriety, and use this simply as a scapegoat to lash out?
Often when someone is losing an argument, they will resort to name calling. People know the Church presents the Truth, and therefore they cannot contradict it, so they attack priests instead. This "scandal" is simply a convenient excuse.
Any sexual abuse is bad, but what about using this sexual abuse to advance other causes? That's what many are doing. If they were really concerned about the welfare of innocent children, they would campaign against all sexual abuse, but instead they focus exclusively on the pope. Their use of priestly sexual abuse victims as pawns to advance their ideology becomes disturbingly clear.
For those who are geniunely concerned about children's welfare, I thank you. You are doing an excellent thing by looking out for their welfare. But for those using these events to simply advance their ideology, shame on you. You simply exploit the suffering of children to push an agenda, and that's wrong.
We need to route out the "filth" of children sexual abuse, as Cardinal Ratzinger put it. We need to do this from all sources.
Of course, I'm talking about the Catholic Church right? No. This is the case in schools around the world, but specifically this is from New York.
Teachers were passed around from school to school, in a process called "passing the trash". Only 1% of the time did superintendents notify the new school about the offending teacher.
The study found that up to 5% of teachers sexually abused children.
Here are the sources for this information:
Douglas Montero, “Secret Shame of Our Schools: Sexual Abuse of Students Runs Rampant,” New York Post, July 30, 2001, p. 1.
“Schools Chancellor: Four Teachers Barred from Classroom,” Associated Press, June 12, 2003.
Charol Shakeshaft and Audrey Cohan, In loco parentis: Sexual abuse of students in schools, (What administrators should know). Report to the U.S. Department of Education, Field Initiated Grants
Diana Jean Schemo, “Silently Shifting Teachers in Sex Abuse Cases,” New York Times, June 18, 2002, p. A19.
Elizabeth Cohen, “Sex Abuse of Students Common; Research Suggests 15% of All Children Harassed,” Press & Sun-Bulletin, February 10, 2002, p. 1A.
Why is that we never hear about sexual abuse in schools? Most teachers are married, yet we never hear that marriage leads to sexual abuse or pedophilia. We don't hear about a "crisis" in the education system. Why aren't the secretaries of Education called all sorts of names with people calling for them to be tried for crimes against humanity? Even though the problem is much more widespread and prevalent in schools than in churches, there is only public outrage for priests.
Also there have been many cases involving pastors, rabbis, swim teachers, boy scout leaders, etc. but no similar or equivalent outrage. Could it be that swim teachers do not make moral demands and therefore people are not made uncomfortable by pronouncements of the truth? Could it be that people already dislike the Church because of its stance against homosexual "marriage", abortion, and sexual impropriety, and use this simply as a scapegoat to lash out?
Often when someone is losing an argument, they will resort to name calling. People know the Church presents the Truth, and therefore they cannot contradict it, so they attack priests instead. This "scandal" is simply a convenient excuse.
Any sexual abuse is bad, but what about using this sexual abuse to advance other causes? That's what many are doing. If they were really concerned about the welfare of innocent children, they would campaign against all sexual abuse, but instead they focus exclusively on the pope. Their use of priestly sexual abuse victims as pawns to advance their ideology becomes disturbingly clear.
For those who are geniunely concerned about children's welfare, I thank you. You are doing an excellent thing by looking out for their welfare. But for those using these events to simply advance their ideology, shame on you. You simply exploit the suffering of children to push an agenda, and that's wrong.
We need to route out the "filth" of children sexual abuse, as Cardinal Ratzinger put it. We need to do this from all sources.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Mockery, a dishonest tactic
I realized tonight that one of the main tactics used by adversaries of Christianity is mockery. I was reading some comments on a good Christian video about a wholesome family, yet there were so many comments that were mocking them. They would say stuff like, oh they think they're so good, but what about this...
I realized that sometimes even if you are right, the other side can always come up with more comments or arguments. A fallacy is to believe each comment must be disproven. You cannot think that just because someone brings up a retort they are being logical, sensible or even honest.
This was even used on Our Lord. When he was being crucified, his detractors were not having a philosophical argument with Jesus, they were mocking him, asking him why he didn't take himself down off the cross if he was so powerful, and various comments like this. They used mockery. This is also common today. It is often combined with accusations of hypocracy.
Speak the truth and pay no attention to those who seek only to mock.
I realized that sometimes even if you are right, the other side can always come up with more comments or arguments. A fallacy is to believe each comment must be disproven. You cannot think that just because someone brings up a retort they are being logical, sensible or even honest.
This was even used on Our Lord. When he was being crucified, his detractors were not having a philosophical argument with Jesus, they were mocking him, asking him why he didn't take himself down off the cross if he was so powerful, and various comments like this. They used mockery. This is also common today. It is often combined with accusations of hypocracy.
Speak the truth and pay no attention to those who seek only to mock.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
New movie for Dr. Death
A new movie starring Al Pacino is a biopic for Jack Kevorkian. The movie glamourises the actions of this man who helped kill about 120 patients. Many of these patients were not terminally ill and just wanted to end their lives. Many were divorced or never married. Of course, the movie portrays Kevorkian as a loving doctor.
The only proper reaction to someone who is suffering is to help that individual. Not help them die. It's like if a friend called and said he was about to jump out of his building to commit suicide, and instead of helping him in his distress, worry, fear, etc. you encouraged him. That's what Jack is doing when he helps people die.
Jack is an avowed atheist, yet feels it's a good thing to let people be killed even though he believes there is no afterlife. This is all part of the culture of death. A culture which rejects anyone who is not a very productive part of the economy. We are burning the candle on both ends, for the very young and the elderly. This is a terrible travesty which must end.
One thing that struck me is that when the actors who played various people in Jack Kevorkian's life were interviewed, they did not have a single negative thing to say. Perhaps they felt it would be unpopular to criticize someone like that. They said a lot of the standard "he's misunderstood", "he's helping people die with dignity", etc. but no one voiced any concern.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:
Euthanasia
2276 Those whose lives are diminished or weakened deserve special respect. Sick or handicapped persons should be helped to lead lives as normal as possible.
2277 Whatever its motives and means, direct euthanasia consists in putting an end to the lives of handicapped, sick, or dying persons. It is morally unacceptable.
Thus an act or omission which, of itself or by intention, causes death in order to eliminate suffering constitutes a murder gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person and to the respect due to the living God, his Creator. The error of judgment into which one can fall in good faith does not change the nature of this murderous act, which must always be forbidden and excluded.
2278 Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate; it is the refusal of "over-zealous" treatment. Here one does not will to cause death; one's inability to impede it is merely accepted. The decisions should be made by the patient if he is competent and able or, if not, by those legally entitled to act for the patient, whose reasonable will and legitimate interests must always be respected.
2279 Even if death is thought imminent, the ordinary care owed to a sick person cannot be legitimately interrupted. The use of painkillers to alleviate the sufferings of the dying, even at the risk of shortening their days, can be morally in conformity with human dignity if death is not willed as either an end or a means, but only foreseen and tolerated as inevitable Palliative care is a special form of disinterested charity. As such it should be encouraged.
The only proper reaction to someone who is suffering is to help that individual. Not help them die. It's like if a friend called and said he was about to jump out of his building to commit suicide, and instead of helping him in his distress, worry, fear, etc. you encouraged him. That's what Jack is doing when he helps people die.
Jack is an avowed atheist, yet feels it's a good thing to let people be killed even though he believes there is no afterlife. This is all part of the culture of death. A culture which rejects anyone who is not a very productive part of the economy. We are burning the candle on both ends, for the very young and the elderly. This is a terrible travesty which must end.
One thing that struck me is that when the actors who played various people in Jack Kevorkian's life were interviewed, they did not have a single negative thing to say. Perhaps they felt it would be unpopular to criticize someone like that. They said a lot of the standard "he's misunderstood", "he's helping people die with dignity", etc. but no one voiced any concern.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:
Euthanasia
2276 Those whose lives are diminished or weakened deserve special respect. Sick or handicapped persons should be helped to lead lives as normal as possible.
2277 Whatever its motives and means, direct euthanasia consists in putting an end to the lives of handicapped, sick, or dying persons. It is morally unacceptable.
Thus an act or omission which, of itself or by intention, causes death in order to eliminate suffering constitutes a murder gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person and to the respect due to the living God, his Creator. The error of judgment into which one can fall in good faith does not change the nature of this murderous act, which must always be forbidden and excluded.
2278 Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate; it is the refusal of "over-zealous" treatment. Here one does not will to cause death; one's inability to impede it is merely accepted. The decisions should be made by the patient if he is competent and able or, if not, by those legally entitled to act for the patient, whose reasonable will and legitimate interests must always be respected.
2279 Even if death is thought imminent, the ordinary care owed to a sick person cannot be legitimately interrupted. The use of painkillers to alleviate the sufferings of the dying, even at the risk of shortening their days, can be morally in conformity with human dignity if death is not willed as either an end or a means, but only foreseen and tolerated as inevitable Palliative care is a special form of disinterested charity. As such it should be encouraged.
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Popes weeps with victims
Pope Benedict was in Malta, a small island nation, Friday and Saturday (yesterday and the day before). It was to mark the 1950th anniversary of St. Paul's arrival there. He arrived when he was shipwrecked there. The country is 98% Catholic and Catholicism is the official state religion.
Some people were not sure if the pope would meet with sex abuse victims, but he did for quite some time. It was widely reported that he wept with the victims when hearing their tragic stories. One man who said he had lost his faith said it was restored after the meeting.
When the pope arrived, he was greeted by an enormous band and singing from a large choir. Many bishops from the Middle East visited the small country to join in the procession. You could see certain bishops were wearning non-Latin-rite vestments, this is why.
This trip is wedged between the Holy Father's Birthday (which was on Friday) and fifth anniversary as pope, which is tomorrow.
The visit was a great success!
Some people were not sure if the pope would meet with sex abuse victims, but he did for quite some time. It was widely reported that he wept with the victims when hearing their tragic stories. One man who said he had lost his faith said it was restored after the meeting.
When the pope arrived, he was greeted by an enormous band and singing from a large choir. Many bishops from the Middle East visited the small country to join in the procession. You could see certain bishops were wearning non-Latin-rite vestments, this is why.
This trip is wedged between the Holy Father's Birthday (which was on Friday) and fifth anniversary as pope, which is tomorrow.
The visit was a great success!
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Happy Birthday Pope Benedict
Today, well technically about an hour ago, is Pope Benedict's birthday. He is 83. Happy birthday, Holy Father. Just a few days after his birthday, Pope Benedict was elected Pope five years ago. Obviously this is a big time of the year for the Pontiff. My prayers are with you.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Why The View is wrong about the Catholic Church and the Pope
I just watched a clip from the View which aired earlier this month where the 5 women on the show talk about the Pope. It seems they thoroughly researched their topic, if by thorough you mean looked at a few headlines from the mainstream liberal media and filled in the rest.
I will go through the clip one bit at a time. It can be found here:
http://theview.abc.go.com/video/hot-topics-catholic-church
0:00 First, Sherri Shepherd says she doesn't know much about the Catholic religion. This is one part of the segment I can agree with. Then she says when it comes to children, the Church should speak up or do whatever "you could". Well, the Church has spoken up. The pope has written many letters condeming priest sexual abuse. But much before this, as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Ratzinger was put in charge of weeding out pedophile priests. He was determined to rid the church of what he called "filth".
Cardinal Ratzinger, in fact, decided that a more swift process for trying alleged abusers was preferred over a more thorough, church-sanctioned procedure, and 60% of cases were quickly brought through a trial. And none were dismissed sumarily.
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was very tough on these offenses. Many saw its zero tolerance policy as excessive, but Ratzinger would have it no other way.
In 2008, Cardinal Ratzinger met with sexual abuse victims. I saw a television report on the pope meeting with victims when he visited the US. They said he really tried to understand them. Some were clearly moved by his love for them.
No one can claim the pope doesn't care if they read his pastoral letter to Ireland.
0:20 Joy Behar brings up allegations against Pope Benedict. However, there is no evidence that Pope Benedict was even aware of these cases. She does not mention anything specific, because if one were to see the facts, they would realize there is no story. But just mentioning a few locations and then the name of Pope Benedict seems to be enough for the media these days.
0:35 Elizabeth Hasselbeck then says that if a person were in charge like this in the real world, wouldn't they be charged with a crime? That's kind of like saying if there is a sexual assault victim in the US somewhere, the President should be held accountable even if he is unaware of the case. As I mentioned earlier, the pope didn't "do nothing" as Elisabeth claims, but rather did a lot
Then Elisabeth reads a quote from a bishop that says the Church must tell the truth. She then says the pope has to "tell the truth". I'm not really sure what "lie" she's implying. He has admitted that there was sexual abuse in the church. And he has done a lot to stop it. So, where is the "lie"?
1:10 The Whoopi claims that the pope said something to effect that only Americans have a problem with sexual abuse. Could I see a quote about this? I have never heard this and frankly, it sounds absurd. Then she goes on a tirade while slapping her hands together and making fists. There is little content however. She just says he must be adament and clear. He has been very clear. She says he has not been. Is it possible that Whoopi has not read much about the Pope? She calls him "Mr. Pope". That should indicate her depth of knowledge on him.
1:55 Joy Behar now adds on to Whoopi's comments and says "he should admit he was negligent then". Not sure again what she's talking about. Why are they so desperate to lay all the blame on the pope? They are talking in riddles, in nuance. But their goal seems simply to implicate His Holiness somehow.
2:08 Joy Behar, who probably has a degree in theology, now gives us a lesson on Papal infallibility. She says according to the church, the pope is infallible which means he cannot make mistakes. Common misconception, but wrong. Papal infallibility is a very specific doctrine related to issues of faith and morals. It is rarely used. I doubt it has been used even once during Pope Benedict's pontificate. The pope goes to confession regularly. He would not if he could not make a mistake.
Whoopi then pipes up and says "Only God is infallible!" to which Joy Behar declared, "That's not the teaching of the Church". Please, someone get these women a Catechism!
2:34 The tone becomes a little more solemn as Barbara Walters has a "the more you know" moment with the audience. She brings up the fact that many believe homosexuality in the priesthood contributed to this issue. She flatly rejects this claim, of course unsupported by any evidence. Anything that is not politically correct can be dismissed without reason. But in fact, homosexual sin does have something to do with this scandal. Most of the victims of the abuse were post-adolescent boys. Priestly sexual abuse was generally not between the priest and a female. Priests were often teachers, catechists, and other professions which would put them in contact with boys and girls. So the fact that almost all cases involved post-adolescent boys tells us something.
Barbara Walters says there is no connection between homosexuality and pedophilia. Perhaps, perhaps not. That's not the point. It may have been homosexuality plus pedophilia. I've read that a common theme in homoerotic literature is a relationship between a man and a younger post-adolescent male. We can even see this relationship in Ancient Rome. It's not a stretch to link homosexual sin to these issues. The conversation sort of continues on this path for a little while then fizzles out.
The Church has made great strides in riding itself of sexual abuse. Virtually no cases have been reported since the 1980s. Cardinal Ratzinger and now Pope Benedict has done a significant amount to make the situation right. When people say the Church is not doing anything, they are either uninformed or lying.
Much of the information I used can be found in the following New York Times article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/28/opinion/28allen.html
I will go through the clip one bit at a time. It can be found here:
http://theview.abc.go.com/video/hot-topics-catholic-church
0:00 First, Sherri Shepherd says she doesn't know much about the Catholic religion. This is one part of the segment I can agree with. Then she says when it comes to children, the Church should speak up or do whatever "you could". Well, the Church has spoken up. The pope has written many letters condeming priest sexual abuse. But much before this, as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Ratzinger was put in charge of weeding out pedophile priests. He was determined to rid the church of what he called "filth".
Cardinal Ratzinger, in fact, decided that a more swift process for trying alleged abusers was preferred over a more thorough, church-sanctioned procedure, and 60% of cases were quickly brought through a trial. And none were dismissed sumarily.
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was very tough on these offenses. Many saw its zero tolerance policy as excessive, but Ratzinger would have it no other way.
In 2008, Cardinal Ratzinger met with sexual abuse victims. I saw a television report on the pope meeting with victims when he visited the US. They said he really tried to understand them. Some were clearly moved by his love for them.
No one can claim the pope doesn't care if they read his pastoral letter to Ireland.
0:20 Joy Behar brings up allegations against Pope Benedict. However, there is no evidence that Pope Benedict was even aware of these cases. She does not mention anything specific, because if one were to see the facts, they would realize there is no story. But just mentioning a few locations and then the name of Pope Benedict seems to be enough for the media these days.
0:35 Elizabeth Hasselbeck then says that if a person were in charge like this in the real world, wouldn't they be charged with a crime? That's kind of like saying if there is a sexual assault victim in the US somewhere, the President should be held accountable even if he is unaware of the case. As I mentioned earlier, the pope didn't "do nothing" as Elisabeth claims, but rather did a lot
Then Elisabeth reads a quote from a bishop that says the Church must tell the truth. She then says the pope has to "tell the truth". I'm not really sure what "lie" she's implying. He has admitted that there was sexual abuse in the church. And he has done a lot to stop it. So, where is the "lie"?
1:10 The Whoopi claims that the pope said something to effect that only Americans have a problem with sexual abuse. Could I see a quote about this? I have never heard this and frankly, it sounds absurd. Then she goes on a tirade while slapping her hands together and making fists. There is little content however. She just says he must be adament and clear. He has been very clear. She says he has not been. Is it possible that Whoopi has not read much about the Pope? She calls him "Mr. Pope". That should indicate her depth of knowledge on him.
1:55 Joy Behar now adds on to Whoopi's comments and says "he should admit he was negligent then". Not sure again what she's talking about. Why are they so desperate to lay all the blame on the pope? They are talking in riddles, in nuance. But their goal seems simply to implicate His Holiness somehow.
2:08 Joy Behar, who probably has a degree in theology, now gives us a lesson on Papal infallibility. She says according to the church, the pope is infallible which means he cannot make mistakes. Common misconception, but wrong. Papal infallibility is a very specific doctrine related to issues of faith and morals. It is rarely used. I doubt it has been used even once during Pope Benedict's pontificate. The pope goes to confession regularly. He would not if he could not make a mistake.
Whoopi then pipes up and says "Only God is infallible!" to which Joy Behar declared, "That's not the teaching of the Church". Please, someone get these women a Catechism!
2:34 The tone becomes a little more solemn as Barbara Walters has a "the more you know" moment with the audience. She brings up the fact that many believe homosexuality in the priesthood contributed to this issue. She flatly rejects this claim, of course unsupported by any evidence. Anything that is not politically correct can be dismissed without reason. But in fact, homosexual sin does have something to do with this scandal. Most of the victims of the abuse were post-adolescent boys. Priestly sexual abuse was generally not between the priest and a female. Priests were often teachers, catechists, and other professions which would put them in contact with boys and girls. So the fact that almost all cases involved post-adolescent boys tells us something.
Barbara Walters says there is no connection between homosexuality and pedophilia. Perhaps, perhaps not. That's not the point. It may have been homosexuality plus pedophilia. I've read that a common theme in homoerotic literature is a relationship between a man and a younger post-adolescent male. We can even see this relationship in Ancient Rome. It's not a stretch to link homosexual sin to these issues. The conversation sort of continues on this path for a little while then fizzles out.
The Church has made great strides in riding itself of sexual abuse. Virtually no cases have been reported since the 1980s. Cardinal Ratzinger and now Pope Benedict has done a significant amount to make the situation right. When people say the Church is not doing anything, they are either uninformed or lying.
Much of the information I used can be found in the following New York Times article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/28/opinion/28allen.html
Thursday, April 08, 2010
Cast the first stone at Tiger Woods?
As we all know and have heard for many months, Tiger Woods was found to have cheated on his wife with possibly over a dozen women. The public reacted very strongly with outrage. Many of Tiger's numerous sponsors, such as Gillette, Accenture, GM, and AT&T among others dropped their sponsorship of him over this.
Obviously what Tiger Woods has done is certainly immoral. A marriage bond should not be broken and a married man should not sleep with other women. There should be unity within a family and this is broken when a man commits adultery.
However, I believe there is also a strong double standard. If you remove Tiger's wife from the picture, then most people would see nothing wrong with what he did. In fact, he would be honored as a manly man that others ought to mimic. He would be put on a pedastal. Other people who have been successful with many women have been held up as examples. Having one partner after another is seen as perfectly acceptable and good.
In fact, many commercials, no doubt from some of Tiger's previous sponsors, show men involved in sexual relationships with women they've just met or multiple women. The implication is that if you use their product, you too can be awesome like them. Look at commercials for razors. There's always a guy who's about to shave with a random girl nearby, who he appears to have slept with overnight. And she doesn't seem to be his wife or even committed partner. Commercials imply you will "get more action" and more girls if you choose their product.
But then when a man does what the commercials promote, he's totally despicable. a subhuman. It seems like the only crime in our society is "cheating". Sure, have sex with a hundred random women, but the minute one of these "relationships" overlap, you are a immoral monster. I'm not saying what Tiger did was good, I'm just saying there's a double standard.
Immorality is not dependent on how people feel about something. It's as though people are upset because his wife feels bad. What if his wife said she didn't care if he had sex with dozens of women? I assume no one would criticize Tiger anymore. So the main thing, if not only thing, people are focusing on is how Tiger is making someone else feel. People are not saying what he did is objectively wrong, they are just saying he hurt someone emotionally. Perhaps we ought to strive for greater levels of purity in general.
I agree that this is a worse situation than a typical "player" who goes from girl to girl. This involves a family and children. My point is that we shouldn't be casting the first stone, simply because we arranged our sexual trysts in a slightly different order.
Obviously what Tiger Woods has done is certainly immoral. A marriage bond should not be broken and a married man should not sleep with other women. There should be unity within a family and this is broken when a man commits adultery.
However, I believe there is also a strong double standard. If you remove Tiger's wife from the picture, then most people would see nothing wrong with what he did. In fact, he would be honored as a manly man that others ought to mimic. He would be put on a pedastal. Other people who have been successful with many women have been held up as examples. Having one partner after another is seen as perfectly acceptable and good.
In fact, many commercials, no doubt from some of Tiger's previous sponsors, show men involved in sexual relationships with women they've just met or multiple women. The implication is that if you use their product, you too can be awesome like them. Look at commercials for razors. There's always a guy who's about to shave with a random girl nearby, who he appears to have slept with overnight. And she doesn't seem to be his wife or even committed partner. Commercials imply you will "get more action" and more girls if you choose their product.
But then when a man does what the commercials promote, he's totally despicable. a subhuman. It seems like the only crime in our society is "cheating". Sure, have sex with a hundred random women, but the minute one of these "relationships" overlap, you are a immoral monster. I'm not saying what Tiger did was good, I'm just saying there's a double standard.
Immorality is not dependent on how people feel about something. It's as though people are upset because his wife feels bad. What if his wife said she didn't care if he had sex with dozens of women? I assume no one would criticize Tiger anymore. So the main thing, if not only thing, people are focusing on is how Tiger is making someone else feel. People are not saying what he did is objectively wrong, they are just saying he hurt someone emotionally. Perhaps we ought to strive for greater levels of purity in general.
I agree that this is a worse situation than a typical "player" who goes from girl to girl. This involves a family and children. My point is that we shouldn't be casting the first stone, simply because we arranged our sexual trysts in a slightly different order.
Monday, April 05, 2010
Friend is baptized
My good friend Jonathan was baptized, confirmed and received his first Holy Eucharist on Easter Sunday at St. Pius X in St. John's. It was during a Tridentine Latin Mass, the first such Mass celebrated in recent times at St. Pius X church. Jon was very much looking forward to that day, and was very joyful to be baptized. Many of the events during the Latin Mass Baptism were new to me. For example, the priest put salt on the catechumen's tongue, saliva on his ears and nostrils. Oil is placed on the head and of course water is used on the head as well. The catecumen thrice rejects Satan. After the baptism, the new member of Christ's church is dressed in a white robe. Latin Mass baptism is very full of symbolism. This is a very exciting time for Jon. Let's keep him in our prayers.
Friday, April 02, 2010
Pro-life March in St. John's, NL
Today I attended a pro-life march at the Health Sciences Centre Hospital in St. John's, Newfoundland. There were around 300 people, many of whom make this pilgrimage every Good Friday. We were there to show our support to the pro-life cause and to walk peacefully against abortion.
I was selected to be interviewed for NTV. She asked me a couple of questions. I do not have a lot of experience giving interviews, so I hope I did well. It will air tonight at 6pm local time. I was interviewed along with a young couple. They are friends of mine and the girl is expecting her first child in June. Her husband spoke to NTV about the miracle of life and said they are very anxious to see their child. He said being an expectant father makes him truly realize why he is pro-life.
The event seems to get larger every year. The weather was beautiful for the event, which contrasts last year where there was rain and cold. Many young families came out with children and pets. It was a very peaceful protest. We said prayers, sang songs, and conversed with each other. It was not a time to condemn those who have had abortions, but rather a time to embrace life.
Let's hope the success of this event continues each year.
P.S. I will try to get a video of my interview for my blog.
I was selected to be interviewed for NTV. She asked me a couple of questions. I do not have a lot of experience giving interviews, so I hope I did well. It will air tonight at 6pm local time. I was interviewed along with a young couple. They are friends of mine and the girl is expecting her first child in June. Her husband spoke to NTV about the miracle of life and said they are very anxious to see their child. He said being an expectant father makes him truly realize why he is pro-life.
The event seems to get larger every year. The weather was beautiful for the event, which contrasts last year where there was rain and cold. Many young families came out with children and pets. It was a very peaceful protest. We said prayers, sang songs, and conversed with each other. It was not a time to condemn those who have had abortions, but rather a time to embrace life.
Let's hope the success of this event continues each year.
P.S. I will try to get a video of my interview for my blog.
Thursday, April 01, 2010
Hopefully enough men will get their feet cleaned
Today is Holy Thursday and tonight I will be going to Mass where we commemerate the Institution of the Eucharist (more emphasized than usual), and where the priest will wash the feet of a dozen people to commemerate Christ's actions. The 12 people who have their feet washed represent the 12 apostles. Therefore, the Church has officially said the 12 must be men.
Sadly, in my church, this practice has not been observed. Last year was a dismal display. Only about 7 people approached to have their feet washed, and there were a number of women. Of course there were hundreds of people at the church, but only 7 participated. There is no exception made for women to have their feet washed because they cannot represent the 12 apostles.
My suggestion is that if there are not enough men at first, make a general announcement asking for men to approach. I can guarantee you could easily get 12. People feel as though the people having their feet washed have been predetermined and no one else can be admitted.
According to the website http://www.catholicdoors.com/faq/qu71.htm:
The Vatican instruction regarding the washing of the feet on Holy Thursday that is found in the rubric of 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."
Sadly, in my church, this practice has not been observed. Last year was a dismal display. Only about 7 people approached to have their feet washed, and there were a number of women. Of course there were hundreds of people at the church, but only 7 participated. There is no exception made for women to have their feet washed because they cannot represent the 12 apostles.
My suggestion is that if there are not enough men at first, make a general announcement asking for men to approach. I can guarantee you could easily get 12. People feel as though the people having their feet washed have been predetermined and no one else can be admitted.
According to the website http://www.catholicdoors.com/faq/qu71.htm:
The Vatican instruction regarding the washing of the feet on Holy Thursday that is found in the rubric of 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."
Another note to media: Learn what "Vatican" means
In my past article, I explained what infallibility means when Catholics speak of it. This time I want to address the use of the word "Vatican". The media will use the word Vatican to describe a number of things, but only one can be really used.
Sometimes the media will interview a priest or bishop working at the Vatican or in a particular congregation and the headline will read "The Vatican says...". This is incorrect. This individual does not represent the entire Vatican. When people hear "Vatican" they hear "the Catholic Church". So if this one priest expresses his personal opinion, people are led to believe it's a pronouncement by the entire church.
"Vatican" should really only be used to describe a decision made by the universal church through the Pope. If someone working in the White House made a comment on immigration saying "We need to tighten legislation on immigration", it would be poor journalism to report "United States to get Tough on Immigration". Often the people interviewed are not heads of congregation, and many times may represent an opinion that is not sanctioned.
An example is when a cardinal made comments about Harry Potter books. Media broadly reported that the Vatican had made an official pronouncement on the book. It hadn't. People were misled.
The media needs to be aware of this.
Sometimes the media will interview a priest or bishop working at the Vatican or in a particular congregation and the headline will read "The Vatican says...". This is incorrect. This individual does not represent the entire Vatican. When people hear "Vatican" they hear "the Catholic Church". So if this one priest expresses his personal opinion, people are led to believe it's a pronouncement by the entire church.
"Vatican" should really only be used to describe a decision made by the universal church through the Pope. If someone working in the White House made a comment on immigration saying "We need to tighten legislation on immigration", it would be poor journalism to report "United States to get Tough on Immigration". Often the people interviewed are not heads of congregation, and many times may represent an opinion that is not sanctioned.
An example is when a cardinal made comments about Harry Potter books. Media broadly reported that the Vatican had made an official pronouncement on the book. It hadn't. People were misled.
The media needs to be aware of this.
Monday, March 29, 2010
To the Media: Learn what "infallibility" means.
Over the past several days as a media frenzy has blown up around the Pope, the word "infallibility" has been bandied around quite liberally. It's interjected into almost every news story done on the pope as if trying to show some sort of hypocracy or inconsistency. Unfortuantely, the media almost always uses the word in the wrong way, or uses it in such a way that it's implication is totally off. Perhaps some reporters are aware of the true defintion, but interject it into ambiguous places to give readers or listeners the wrong idea.
For example, I heard a CBC reporter talking about sex abuse, and he ended his commentary with a line something like "accusations are reaching all the way to the Vatican on the doorstep of the man Catholics believe is infallible." Or someone might make a comment like "How can the Pope be infallible if his apology left much to be desired!" and so on.
Infallible has a variety of meanings, but in Catholic theology, there is only one. Papal infallibility does not mean the pope is perfect or that he cannot sin. It does not mean he doesn't make mistakes or that he can't be wrong. It doesn't mean he is holy or righteous or even a good example to follow. Of course, personal goodness and holiness are desirable characteristics of the Pope, but they do not fall under the definition of infallibility.
According to its definition, Papal infallibility is the dogma in Roman Catholic theology that, by action of the Holy Spirit, the Pope is preserved from even the possibility of error when he solemnly declares or promulgates to the universal Church a dogmatic teaching on faith or morals as being contained in divine revelation, or at least being intimately connected to divine revelation.
So it's a pretty tight definitions. In July 2005, Pope Benedict even remarked "The Pope is not an oracle; he is infallible in very rare situations, as we know."
Theoretically the Pope could commit terrible sins and this would not destroy papal infallibility. It is also a necessary doctrine. Since Catholics believe that the Church is the "foundation and bulwark of the truth", there needs to be a final arbiter, and that final arbiter is the Pope. This was promised to the Church when Jesus said the gates of Hell would not prevail against her.
Popes are human, given a special office. Our current and past popes were known to frequent the confessional often, probably more frequently than most other Catholics. These would not be the actions of someone who couldn't make mistakes.
I hope the media start using the definition of infallibility correctly.
For example, I heard a CBC reporter talking about sex abuse, and he ended his commentary with a line something like "accusations are reaching all the way to the Vatican on the doorstep of the man Catholics believe is infallible." Or someone might make a comment like "How can the Pope be infallible if his apology left much to be desired!" and so on.
Infallible has a variety of meanings, but in Catholic theology, there is only one. Papal infallibility does not mean the pope is perfect or that he cannot sin. It does not mean he doesn't make mistakes or that he can't be wrong. It doesn't mean he is holy or righteous or even a good example to follow. Of course, personal goodness and holiness are desirable characteristics of the Pope, but they do not fall under the definition of infallibility.
According to its definition, Papal infallibility is the dogma in Roman Catholic theology that, by action of the Holy Spirit, the Pope is preserved from even the possibility of error when he solemnly declares or promulgates to the universal Church a dogmatic teaching on faith or morals as being contained in divine revelation, or at least being intimately connected to divine revelation.
So it's a pretty tight definitions. In July 2005, Pope Benedict even remarked "The Pope is not an oracle; he is infallible in very rare situations, as we know."
Theoretically the Pope could commit terrible sins and this would not destroy papal infallibility. It is also a necessary doctrine. Since Catholics believe that the Church is the "foundation and bulwark of the truth", there needs to be a final arbiter, and that final arbiter is the Pope. This was promised to the Church when Jesus said the gates of Hell would not prevail against her.
Popes are human, given a special office. Our current and past popes were known to frequent the confessional often, probably more frequently than most other Catholics. These would not be the actions of someone who couldn't make mistakes.
I hope the media start using the definition of infallibility correctly.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Free speech not widely observed in Canadian University
Once again, free speech has taken a back seat to liberal activism in Canada. Ann Coulter was going to speak to students at the University of Ottawa. She is a well-known conservative speaker and has written several books. But many students, some placing the number in the thousands protested her speaking at their campus. They violently yelled and harassed her until her group decided to leave. But it wasn't just students who were doing this. The President of the University sent her a warning her that she could go to prison if she wasn't politically correct enough. But his threat didn't need to be carried out. The open-minded students forced her out.
This is a major blow to democracy. Ann Coulter is a speaker, not a terrorist. Just because she is not Liberal, doesn't mean she has no right to speak. But this is just another step in a terrible policy making its way through the Canadian university system. Groups that support conservative values are being banned from even expressing their opinion. Several campuses across Canada have disallowed pro-life groups from operating, including at the University of Guelph, McGill University, and in my hometown, Memorial University of Newfoundland. It seems being conservative and supporting pro-family and pro-life policies is illegal in Canada.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Pope issues heart-felt letter to Ireland
The Pope issued a very understanding, concerned and loving letter to Catholics in Ireland after a great deal of pain and suffering caused by the clergy sex abuse scandal in that country.
With no stone left unturned, the Pope is showing his solidarity with victims and taking steps to ensure there are no more. He says, "You have suffered grievously and I am truly sorry. I know that nothing can undo the wrong you have endured."
The Pope notes that throughout the years, he has sat with victims, spoken to them, tried to understand them. I was watching CNN one day about the Pope's visit to America. There were 3 victims of sex abuse who met with him. They said he was truly on their side and that he showed great concern. One of the victims said the Pope is a truly good man.
The pope, in this letter, also addresses priests who have abused children by saying "You betrayed the trust that was placed in you by innocent young people and their parents, and you must answer for it before Almighty God and before properly constituted tribunals."
The pope also addresses parents, children, and priests and religious.
I suggest anyone read the Pope's letter.
For the official English translation, please go to: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2010/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20100319_church-ireland_en.html
With no stone left unturned, the Pope is showing his solidarity with victims and taking steps to ensure there are no more. He says, "You have suffered grievously and I am truly sorry. I know that nothing can undo the wrong you have endured."
The Pope notes that throughout the years, he has sat with victims, spoken to them, tried to understand them. I was watching CNN one day about the Pope's visit to America. There were 3 victims of sex abuse who met with him. They said he was truly on their side and that he showed great concern. One of the victims said the Pope is a truly good man.
The pope, in this letter, also addresses priests who have abused children by saying "You betrayed the trust that was placed in you by innocent young people and their parents, and you must answer for it before Almighty God and before properly constituted tribunals."
The pope also addresses parents, children, and priests and religious.
I suggest anyone read the Pope's letter.
For the official English translation, please go to: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2010/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20100319_church-ireland_en.html
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Food, water, shelter, and contraceptives
The Conservative government of Canada has announced that it will provide a large amount of support and help for people in less developed countries. This includes food, water, shelter, and other necessities for life. However, many MPs are angry because Harper's plan does not include condoms, sponges and spermaticide jellies. According to his opponents, these "safe" sex products are just as important as food and clean water.
It's important to note that the government has not specifically refused to include contraceptives, it just wasn't in the first plan. Of course, outrage ensued.
Canadians have been propagandized for so long that many believe contraception is essential for survival. Without contraception, the story goes, we would become mere beasts with no hope for peace. Contraception is what separates us from the animal kingdom.
Organizations have falsely believed that condoms can solve all the world's problems. If a country is war-torn and lives are desvastated, the best way to solve this is to make contraception very accessible. Of course! I would like to know who the condom companies hire to do marketing, they do a really amazing job.
When one of the most devastating earthquakes in history hit Haiti a few months ago, the first thing Planned Parenthood did was raise money to buy condoms, and oral contraception, not to mention material to promote abortion. Forget clean water, food, and medical help, all the people of this devastated land need are condoms. How could I not see that!
I always learned that the basic needs for survival are food, water, clothing, and shelter, but now it seems contraception has somehow made its way to the top of the list.
Many claim that more condoms can alleviate problems in poor countries. In fact, they cannot. More access to contraception actually increases the rates of STIs, abortion, etc. This has been seen in Africa. Uganda is the only country to promote abstinence and commitment. The others promoted greater condom use. Condoms are easier to find in Africa than clean drinking water. All provided by wealthy industrialized countries. So what happened? Uganda was one of the rare success stories in the fight against AIDS.
When the Pope made comments to this effect, many reacted with outrage. You mean to say contraception and abortion are not the solutions to all the world's problems? Did I hear that correctly? But this clearly goes against modern thinking! The pope's comments were also backed up by the head of Harvard's AIDS program.
Just imagine: a dying man approaches a Liberal or NPD MP. What is their first reaction? Water, shelther, food? No, contraception. This is ridiculous. Of all human needs, even for those advocating contraception, condoms and other such things should be at least #50 on the list of things people need to be healthy. It's pretty sad when your political platform is based around the culture of death. People who espouse that culture tend to view everything through their culture-of-death glasses and they will stop at nothing to further their ideology.
It's shocking that instead of backing up the Prime Minister with his support of the less-fortunate, many politicians have decided to focus on contraception. This is while people die from hunger, lack of clean water, war, and disease. Contraception doesn't reduce or eliminate disease, it makes it worse.
For once, these politicians ought to seek ways to help the needy, rather than try to push their culture of death policies.
Oh, and congratulations to Stephen Harper and his government: Way to go!
It's important to note that the government has not specifically refused to include contraceptives, it just wasn't in the first plan. Of course, outrage ensued.
Canadians have been propagandized for so long that many believe contraception is essential for survival. Without contraception, the story goes, we would become mere beasts with no hope for peace. Contraception is what separates us from the animal kingdom.
Organizations have falsely believed that condoms can solve all the world's problems. If a country is war-torn and lives are desvastated, the best way to solve this is to make contraception very accessible. Of course! I would like to know who the condom companies hire to do marketing, they do a really amazing job.
When one of the most devastating earthquakes in history hit Haiti a few months ago, the first thing Planned Parenthood did was raise money to buy condoms, and oral contraception, not to mention material to promote abortion. Forget clean water, food, and medical help, all the people of this devastated land need are condoms. How could I not see that!
I always learned that the basic needs for survival are food, water, clothing, and shelter, but now it seems contraception has somehow made its way to the top of the list.
Many claim that more condoms can alleviate problems in poor countries. In fact, they cannot. More access to contraception actually increases the rates of STIs, abortion, etc. This has been seen in Africa. Uganda is the only country to promote abstinence and commitment. The others promoted greater condom use. Condoms are easier to find in Africa than clean drinking water. All provided by wealthy industrialized countries. So what happened? Uganda was one of the rare success stories in the fight against AIDS.
When the Pope made comments to this effect, many reacted with outrage. You mean to say contraception and abortion are not the solutions to all the world's problems? Did I hear that correctly? But this clearly goes against modern thinking! The pope's comments were also backed up by the head of Harvard's AIDS program.
Just imagine: a dying man approaches a Liberal or NPD MP. What is their first reaction? Water, shelther, food? No, contraception. This is ridiculous. Of all human needs, even for those advocating contraception, condoms and other such things should be at least #50 on the list of things people need to be healthy. It's pretty sad when your political platform is based around the culture of death. People who espouse that culture tend to view everything through their culture-of-death glasses and they will stop at nothing to further their ideology.
It's shocking that instead of backing up the Prime Minister with his support of the less-fortunate, many politicians have decided to focus on contraception. This is while people die from hunger, lack of clean water, war, and disease. Contraception doesn't reduce or eliminate disease, it makes it worse.
For once, these politicians ought to seek ways to help the needy, rather than try to push their culture of death policies.
Oh, and congratulations to Stephen Harper and his government: Way to go!
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Reverse Racism on Little Mosque on the Prairie
Racism is an unspeakable crime in Canada. Anyone guilty of it is publically shunned and criticized. But apparantly this is only the case for white Christians. Other people can feel free to mock and criticize the majority with impunity. This is clearly shown on Little Mosque on the Prairie.
The other day I finally decided to watch an episode. Every time I watch Jeopardy, previews for the upcoming show are shown. I heard reviews, but decided to have a look for myself. I was pretty disappointed.
The episode started when the Anglican priest ordered a Jesus statue, ostensibly for his own church. A group of Muslims, including a white woman convert, opened the crate that it came in and saw the statue. One of the men accidentally knocked over the large statue (larger than life-sized) and it smashed to pieces. They were worried about being caught, and made several jokes in bad taste. First of all, it seems rather shocking to feature an episode where a statue of Jesus would be smashed to pieces. Would there ever be an episode where a koran was accidentally shredded in an industrial shredder? Don't count on it. Jesus is obviously the central figure of Christianity and a statue is a likeness of Jesus which we use as a point of reverence. To smash it is a great insult. Why it's part of a comedy is a little odd to me.
We then go to the Anglican priest in the episode. The priest is shown as extremely untrusting and suspicious of Muslims in general. He believes they are all "up to something". This is quickly contrasted with the Muslims' acceptance and tolerance. The bigotted priest accuses Amaar, the young imam, of doing things which are wrong. The only basis for his accusation is that they are Muslim and must be up to something. Amaar, however, is the voice of morality throughout the episodes. He continually petitions others to "do the right thing". This of course is much different from the priest who only jumps to unfounded conclusions and whose morality seems somewhat skewed.
The episode plays like a sort of "after-school special". It attempts to be comedic but falls short as it quickly become a politically correct lesson in Islam. Baber is a more traditional Muslim who seems to be in the episodes simply to provide a springboard for canned responses to popular opinions about Muslims. For example, in the episode Baber demands that his daughter wear a traditional Muslim veil. She refuses. This sets up a great "the more you know" opportunity. A Muslim woman informs the girl that: wearing the veil is a choice, one that must be made by all Muslim women. The entire episode was one contrived and humourless lesson opportunity after another.
The current Anglican priest replaced another who was less morally offensive. It seems they wanted to turn up the contrast of Muslim vs. Christian. Whereas the Muslims are seen as tolerant members of society who want to integrate themselves and help out the community, the Christians are viewed as backward and bigotted. In the episode, the original Jesus statue was (accidentally) replaced by a black Jesus. The priest had a good laugh at this "ridiculous" Jesus and went on a sort of racist rant. This was only to discover that the Catholic priest for whom he was storing the statue was himself black.
I have only watched one episode, and doubt I will watch more. However, I am not spared from the constant onslaught of commercials promoting the show on CBC. It seems the next episode will feature the same Anglican priest in a state of near ecstacy at the possibility of the Muslims leaving the community. I'm sure viewers can expect some comedic genius in that episode.
The other day I finally decided to watch an episode. Every time I watch Jeopardy, previews for the upcoming show are shown. I heard reviews, but decided to have a look for myself. I was pretty disappointed.
The episode started when the Anglican priest ordered a Jesus statue, ostensibly for his own church. A group of Muslims, including a white woman convert, opened the crate that it came in and saw the statue. One of the men accidentally knocked over the large statue (larger than life-sized) and it smashed to pieces. They were worried about being caught, and made several jokes in bad taste. First of all, it seems rather shocking to feature an episode where a statue of Jesus would be smashed to pieces. Would there ever be an episode where a koran was accidentally shredded in an industrial shredder? Don't count on it. Jesus is obviously the central figure of Christianity and a statue is a likeness of Jesus which we use as a point of reverence. To smash it is a great insult. Why it's part of a comedy is a little odd to me.
We then go to the Anglican priest in the episode. The priest is shown as extremely untrusting and suspicious of Muslims in general. He believes they are all "up to something". This is quickly contrasted with the Muslims' acceptance and tolerance. The bigotted priest accuses Amaar, the young imam, of doing things which are wrong. The only basis for his accusation is that they are Muslim and must be up to something. Amaar, however, is the voice of morality throughout the episodes. He continually petitions others to "do the right thing". This of course is much different from the priest who only jumps to unfounded conclusions and whose morality seems somewhat skewed.
The episode plays like a sort of "after-school special". It attempts to be comedic but falls short as it quickly become a politically correct lesson in Islam. Baber is a more traditional Muslim who seems to be in the episodes simply to provide a springboard for canned responses to popular opinions about Muslims. For example, in the episode Baber demands that his daughter wear a traditional Muslim veil. She refuses. This sets up a great "the more you know" opportunity. A Muslim woman informs the girl that: wearing the veil is a choice, one that must be made by all Muslim women. The entire episode was one contrived and humourless lesson opportunity after another.
The current Anglican priest replaced another who was less morally offensive. It seems they wanted to turn up the contrast of Muslim vs. Christian. Whereas the Muslims are seen as tolerant members of society who want to integrate themselves and help out the community, the Christians are viewed as backward and bigotted. In the episode, the original Jesus statue was (accidentally) replaced by a black Jesus. The priest had a good laugh at this "ridiculous" Jesus and went on a sort of racist rant. This was only to discover that the Catholic priest for whom he was storing the statue was himself black.
I have only watched one episode, and doubt I will watch more. However, I am not spared from the constant onslaught of commercials promoting the show on CBC. It seems the next episode will feature the same Anglican priest in a state of near ecstacy at the possibility of the Muslims leaving the community. I'm sure viewers can expect some comedic genius in that episode.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Canadian Government does something sensible - partakes in seal meat
On Wednesday in the parliamentary restaurant, MPs ate seal meat prepared in various ways. This was meant as another show of solidarity by the government with those in the seal industry, including many Newfoundlanders. The EU recently banned the sale of all seal products in Europe. This is also the case in the United States. But these bans are non-sensicle.
Please read my previous article for reasons why this ban is a bad idea: here
I am proud of the Canadian Government for making this move. Their support for the seal hunt is logical and moral, unlike the EU's position.
Please read my previous article for reasons why this ban is a bad idea: here
I am proud of the Canadian Government for making this move. Their support for the seal hunt is logical and moral, unlike the EU's position.
Tuesday, March 02, 2010
When Life is more opposed to than Death
The Duggars, a famous American family known for having 18 children and their own TV show, has just given birth to the 19th member and are not planning on stopping until God tells them to. But in this strange world in which we live, many people are not happy about this.
Birth and children are true gifts. Each one is unique and brings something wonderful to the world. But many people are calling the Duggars 19th child a bad decision. They say it is irresponsible to have that many children. In order to justify their objection, they make up things which may or may not be true, but fit with their narrative. They say this many children cannot be loved, they cannot be supported financially, the mother's health is at risk, etc. But there is no coherence, because these are all invented objections.
The baby, named Josie, was born prematurely, but is doing well. She is born into one of the most loving families out there. Also, the family is quite secure financially. The forces of darkness are very upset about this because it acts in accordance with God's command to "go forth and multiply". Having a large family is a blessing from God. These children are well raised, respectful, and loving. They add a lot to their communities and the world.
How can people object to such a beautiful situation? The culture of death detestes stories like this. They contradict the idea that a woman can only be happy if she has a career where she is making tons of money, is independent, and has a maximum of 2 children, preferably a boy and a girl. That's a maximum. Women who denounce their childbearing ability are commended as heroes. One woman I heard of recently felt she was helping the world by rendering herself sterile. Angry, vindictive people refuse to believe that anyone who chooses to be a mother and raise a family is anything but oppressed by a patriarchal society. When a woman does this and is very happy and joyful, it does not fit well into their vision for the world.
On the other hand, a woman who procures an abortion is seen as brave, standing up for the rights of women everywhere, a champion of femininity. The is seen as progressing the women's rights movement. But a woman who bares a beautiful child willingly and lovelingly is attacked and berated. Every article you read will approach this story from the angle of "isn't this too many kids?" Never will a positive point of view be presented.
Also, how can we look at these 19 beautiful children and say "She had too many children"? Which of the 19 would you like to see disappear? These are not numbers, these are living, breathing human beings who are loved by their family and by God. Who are we to say they don't belong?
Let's celebrate this beautiful family and show them our support.
Birth and children are true gifts. Each one is unique and brings something wonderful to the world. But many people are calling the Duggars 19th child a bad decision. They say it is irresponsible to have that many children. In order to justify their objection, they make up things which may or may not be true, but fit with their narrative. They say this many children cannot be loved, they cannot be supported financially, the mother's health is at risk, etc. But there is no coherence, because these are all invented objections.
The baby, named Josie, was born prematurely, but is doing well. She is born into one of the most loving families out there. Also, the family is quite secure financially. The forces of darkness are very upset about this because it acts in accordance with God's command to "go forth and multiply". Having a large family is a blessing from God. These children are well raised, respectful, and loving. They add a lot to their communities and the world.
How can people object to such a beautiful situation? The culture of death detestes stories like this. They contradict the idea that a woman can only be happy if she has a career where she is making tons of money, is independent, and has a maximum of 2 children, preferably a boy and a girl. That's a maximum. Women who denounce their childbearing ability are commended as heroes. One woman I heard of recently felt she was helping the world by rendering herself sterile. Angry, vindictive people refuse to believe that anyone who chooses to be a mother and raise a family is anything but oppressed by a patriarchal society. When a woman does this and is very happy and joyful, it does not fit well into their vision for the world.
On the other hand, a woman who procures an abortion is seen as brave, standing up for the rights of women everywhere, a champion of femininity. The is seen as progressing the women's rights movement. But a woman who bares a beautiful child willingly and lovelingly is attacked and berated. Every article you read will approach this story from the angle of "isn't this too many kids?" Never will a positive point of view be presented.
Also, how can we look at these 19 beautiful children and say "She had too many children"? Which of the 19 would you like to see disappear? These are not numbers, these are living, breathing human beings who are loved by their family and by God. Who are we to say they don't belong?
Let's celebrate this beautiful family and show them our support.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Sexual Abuse Reporting: a double standard?
Recently an article emerged of a famous Newfoundland hockey coach who has been charged with sexual assault of a boy. Many were shocked because he such a prominent figure in the community. Many have rightfully pointed out that although our justice system ensures that someone is considered innocent until proven guilty, the publication of his name has already led to disgrace.
There has been a vocal outcry from the public denouncing this practice and saying that if someone is innocent until proven guilty, their name should be withheld unless they are found guilty of an offense.
Strangely however, no such outcry was made when Catholic clergy were being accused left, right and center. In fact, the reaction was quite the contrary. People were quick to not only condemn all accused priests, but also those who were not accused. Popular opinion suggested that every single priest is a pedophile and none are innocent.
People's reaction to a priest accused of inappropriate sexual behavior was to lock him away and throw away the key or worse, and then to begin a diatribe about the evil Catholic Church. I read dozens of articles with reader responses and not once did anyone suggest hiding identities until charges were proven.
There have been accusations and arrests for pedophilia for all kinds of people, including teachers, coaches, scouts leaders, and yes, clergy. But have you ever heard a report of a teacher accused of sexual assault in another country? How about settlements between victims and school boards worth hundreds of millions of dollars? Never. The statistics however show that teachers are 4 times more likely to sexual abuse children than clergy.
To get an idea of the double standard, go to Google News and search for things like arrest pedophile, etc. You will find stories of people from all walks of life. There may be an odd priest here or there, but there are far more from other areas.
Clearly there is a major bias. A priest who commits sexual abuse in Germany is headline news, but 17 teachers who get arrested in a single country is not mentioned.
This is in no way excusing clergy sexual abuse. It must be stopped immediately and the Church is doing many things to eradicate this. But let's show some semblance of fairness. Let's end the double standards.
There has been a vocal outcry from the public denouncing this practice and saying that if someone is innocent until proven guilty, their name should be withheld unless they are found guilty of an offense.
Strangely however, no such outcry was made when Catholic clergy were being accused left, right and center. In fact, the reaction was quite the contrary. People were quick to not only condemn all accused priests, but also those who were not accused. Popular opinion suggested that every single priest is a pedophile and none are innocent.
People's reaction to a priest accused of inappropriate sexual behavior was to lock him away and throw away the key or worse, and then to begin a diatribe about the evil Catholic Church. I read dozens of articles with reader responses and not once did anyone suggest hiding identities until charges were proven.
There have been accusations and arrests for pedophilia for all kinds of people, including teachers, coaches, scouts leaders, and yes, clergy. But have you ever heard a report of a teacher accused of sexual assault in another country? How about settlements between victims and school boards worth hundreds of millions of dollars? Never. The statistics however show that teachers are 4 times more likely to sexual abuse children than clergy.
To get an idea of the double standard, go to Google News and search for things like arrest pedophile, etc. You will find stories of people from all walks of life. There may be an odd priest here or there, but there are far more from other areas.
Clearly there is a major bias. A priest who commits sexual abuse in Germany is headline news, but 17 teachers who get arrested in a single country is not mentioned.
This is in no way excusing clergy sexual abuse. It must be stopped immediately and the Church is doing many things to eradicate this. But let's show some semblance of fairness. Let's end the double standards.
Friday, February 19, 2010
Co-worker's anti-catholicism
At my workplace, I sit across from a man who spews his anti-Catholic rhetoric on a regular basis. He generally speaks to another anti-Catholic individual, but his conversation partner could be any number of co-workers, all of whom agree with him either implicitly or explicitly. I have yet to hear someone criticizing his viewpoint. I believe this is less the fact that they agree with him and more so the fact that they want to be "politically correct". In today's age, political correctness means agreeing with anti-Christian bigots, but not tolerating any form of religious observance.
The man identifies himself as a former Catholic so most of his venom is targeted in that direction. Of course, he beats the same dead horses, such as the clergy sex abuse scandal. But he also seems to have gone very deep in atheist teachings, and mocks the Eucharist, belief in God (especially the God of the Bible), Jesus, Mary, etc.
He doesn't simply disagree with these topics, he mocks them, laughs at them, and presents them in a very vulgar and distasteful way.
As an example, he was speaking to a co-worker about someone's wedding. Apparently a friend or family member of his called him about the wedding and said it will be at a Catholic Church. On the phone, he mocked the ceremony, including the format and the use of wine and unleaven bread. Later, when speaking to a co-worker and mocking Catholic marriage preparation. He claims the marriage prep course said a man cannot touch a woman in a sexual way and the only "acceptable" action is direct intercourse for the purpose of procreation.
After laughing about this thoroughly, he added: "you can tell this stuff was made up by guys who don't have sex" ... "well, except for with altar boys". To which the guy he was speaking with responded: "Yeh, they had that system down to a T!"
This is considered acceptable. In fact, someone would appear "odd" if they openly disagreed with the comments made.
The only conversation topic which this man prefers is that of fast food. He has at least one very in depth conversation per day on the topic of fast food. The topics get rather specific. Such as his favorite type of cheese on a pizza, how long he likes to microwave leftover fast food, etc.
I'm not attacking him personally. I'm just saying I find his two main conversation topics kind of strange.
I would implore anyone of faith to speak to these individuals when they have a chance. Tell them you disagree with what they are saying. Refrain from laughing. Speak the truth. You will probably be criticized and harrassed, but this is a small price to pay.
The man identifies himself as a former Catholic so most of his venom is targeted in that direction. Of course, he beats the same dead horses, such as the clergy sex abuse scandal. But he also seems to have gone very deep in atheist teachings, and mocks the Eucharist, belief in God (especially the God of the Bible), Jesus, Mary, etc.
He doesn't simply disagree with these topics, he mocks them, laughs at them, and presents them in a very vulgar and distasteful way.
As an example, he was speaking to a co-worker about someone's wedding. Apparently a friend or family member of his called him about the wedding and said it will be at a Catholic Church. On the phone, he mocked the ceremony, including the format and the use of wine and unleaven bread. Later, when speaking to a co-worker and mocking Catholic marriage preparation. He claims the marriage prep course said a man cannot touch a woman in a sexual way and the only "acceptable" action is direct intercourse for the purpose of procreation.
After laughing about this thoroughly, he added: "you can tell this stuff was made up by guys who don't have sex" ... "well, except for with altar boys". To which the guy he was speaking with responded: "Yeh, they had that system down to a T!"
This is considered acceptable. In fact, someone would appear "odd" if they openly disagreed with the comments made.
The only conversation topic which this man prefers is that of fast food. He has at least one very in depth conversation per day on the topic of fast food. The topics get rather specific. Such as his favorite type of cheese on a pizza, how long he likes to microwave leftover fast food, etc.
I'm not attacking him personally. I'm just saying I find his two main conversation topics kind of strange.
I would implore anyone of faith to speak to these individuals when they have a chance. Tell them you disagree with what they are saying. Refrain from laughing. Speak the truth. You will probably be criticized and harrassed, but this is a small price to pay.
Monday, February 08, 2010
Is the Catholic Church a protector of Muslim freedom of worship?
In France, the Catholic Church is speaking out against a ban on full veils for Muslim women. I'm not an expert in Islam, but I believe the correct term for this face covering is the Niqab. Another common piece of clothing is called burqa, which I believe refers to an entire set of clothing worn by Muslim women.
In any event, the Catholic Church in France is against plans to ban these face covering veils. The reason is they feel in order for full rights to be granted to Christians to practice their beliefs in Muslim countries, the opposite must be granted as well.
Right now in Saudi Arabia, North Korea, and several other countries, practice of Christianity and specifically Catholicism is banned completely and anyone caught worshipping is strictly dealt with. In other countries, such as China and some Middle Eastern countries, the practice of Catholicism is seriously curtailed. The Catholic Church is striving for religious freedom in all parts of the world. They do not want any hindrance on their faithful practice. Therefore, they believe religion must be free and thus oppose efforts to curtail this freedom.
Another example of the church's fight for freedom of worship is its stance against banning new minarets in Switzerland. The Swiss people, in a referendum, banned any new development of Islamic minarets in the country. The Church spoke out against this as well.
This is an appropriate and well thought-out move by the church. The Church realizes that with true freedom, Christianity will grow. Also, many Christians now live in oppresive states where they are not free to worship. But it would be ironic to only advocate freedom of religion for Catholics. Therefore, the Church stands up for religious freedom of all people.
The Church is not afraid of the Truth, because the Church proclaims the Truth which is Jesus Christ. Therefore, if there is worldwide freedom of religion, there is bound to be an increase of Catholic faithful, as people seek the truth.
For more on the situation in France, please view: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/02/world/europe/02briefs-France.html
In any event, the Catholic Church in France is against plans to ban these face covering veils. The reason is they feel in order for full rights to be granted to Christians to practice their beliefs in Muslim countries, the opposite must be granted as well.
Right now in Saudi Arabia, North Korea, and several other countries, practice of Christianity and specifically Catholicism is banned completely and anyone caught worshipping is strictly dealt with. In other countries, such as China and some Middle Eastern countries, the practice of Catholicism is seriously curtailed. The Catholic Church is striving for religious freedom in all parts of the world. They do not want any hindrance on their faithful practice. Therefore, they believe religion must be free and thus oppose efforts to curtail this freedom.
Another example of the church's fight for freedom of worship is its stance against banning new minarets in Switzerland. The Swiss people, in a referendum, banned any new development of Islamic minarets in the country. The Church spoke out against this as well.
This is an appropriate and well thought-out move by the church. The Church realizes that with true freedom, Christianity will grow. Also, many Christians now live in oppresive states where they are not free to worship. But it would be ironic to only advocate freedom of religion for Catholics. Therefore, the Church stands up for religious freedom of all people.
The Church is not afraid of the Truth, because the Church proclaims the Truth which is Jesus Christ. Therefore, if there is worldwide freedom of religion, there is bound to be an increase of Catholic faithful, as people seek the truth.
For more on the situation in France, please view: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/02/world/europe/02briefs-France.html
Wednesday, February 03, 2010
I now have EWTN!
Yesterday I had digital cable installed. About an hour later, I called in to have EWTN activated. I'm really glad I did. It costs $2.79 per month, but is worth much more than that. When it came on, they were at the Vatican, where Pope Benedict was celebrating the Feast of the Presentation of Our Lord in the Temple.
Tuesday, February 02, 2010
Non-Catholics
I was just watching a debate between a Christian and an atheist. They both made their respective points. So I decided to make a blog posting about non-Catholics. As everyone knows, I am Catholic. So what is my relationship with others, and my feelings about them? I want to spend some time speaking of the good aspects of non-Catholics.
Atheists:
They seek the truth and love science. Atheists are seekers like Christians. Many are good people and many make contributions in their own ways. Some atheists have made contributions to science and to other fields. They have logical minds. Sometimes it may seem I am angry with atheists, and often I will receive angry messages from people who seem to be atheist. In fact, according to the survey on my blog, I get more atheist viewers than Catholic. I am not angry with atheists. I only want for them what I believe is best, what I believe will bring most joy.
Muslims:
Believers in the one God. Muslims have strict morals and are known for praying five times a day and doing what they believe God asks of them. They also share a love of Jesus and Mary.
Jews:
The first to believe in the One True God. They were chosen by God to carry his message. Today, we receive much from them including their Scriptures. Jesus and the some Apostles were Jewish.
Hindu:
Hindus are also lovers of truth and wisdom. They place great value on family and community. Gandhi is a well known Hindu who advocated peace.
Buddhists:
They seek peace and meditation. I will admit I do not have much contact with Buddhists, but they adhere to principles of non-violence.
Protestants:
Great love for God and his Holy Scriptures. We see them as our brothers and sisters, though separate and pray for future unity.
Jesus called everyone into his fold, and so who am I to reject others? Jesus prayed for unity, and that's my prayer also. Everyone is a child of God, whether or not they are believers. We do not need to convert someone, we just need to make them aware of their calling. The calling comes from God and once they hear it, the process will take care of itself.
Atheists:
They seek the truth and love science. Atheists are seekers like Christians. Many are good people and many make contributions in their own ways. Some atheists have made contributions to science and to other fields. They have logical minds. Sometimes it may seem I am angry with atheists, and often I will receive angry messages from people who seem to be atheist. In fact, according to the survey on my blog, I get more atheist viewers than Catholic. I am not angry with atheists. I only want for them what I believe is best, what I believe will bring most joy.
Muslims:
Believers in the one God. Muslims have strict morals and are known for praying five times a day and doing what they believe God asks of them. They also share a love of Jesus and Mary.
Jews:
The first to believe in the One True God. They were chosen by God to carry his message. Today, we receive much from them including their Scriptures. Jesus and the some Apostles were Jewish.
Hindu:
Hindus are also lovers of truth and wisdom. They place great value on family and community. Gandhi is a well known Hindu who advocated peace.
Buddhists:
They seek peace and meditation. I will admit I do not have much contact with Buddhists, but they adhere to principles of non-violence.
Protestants:
Great love for God and his Holy Scriptures. We see them as our brothers and sisters, though separate and pray for future unity.
Jesus called everyone into his fold, and so who am I to reject others? Jesus prayed for unity, and that's my prayer also. Everyone is a child of God, whether or not they are believers. We do not need to convert someone, we just need to make them aware of their calling. The calling comes from God and once they hear it, the process will take care of itself.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
St. Thomas Aquinas
It's just after midnight where I am, and therefore officially January 28th, and the Feast Day of St. Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas is one of my favorite saints. He wrote a book on theology which is 3 times the size of the Bible called the Summa Theologica. He had such an amazing mind and loved God with all his heart. I may write more about him soon.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Fearless Pope during the Black Plague
Today is the 667th anniversary of the publication of Pope Clement VI's papal bull Unigenitus. In it, he explains indulgences and justifies their use. As I was reading Clement's biography, some things stood out as exemplary. He was the pope during the black plague in Europe, which killed between 1/3 and 2/3 of the population of Europe. The pope consulted with many people, including astronomers and doctors to see if they could find a cure. Many people blamed the Jews for the outbreak, and it was a very popular public opinion, but Clement condemned this belief and said those who blamed the Jews were being influenced by Satan.
Clement also tended to those with the illness, without fear that he would contract it himself. This is similar to the early Christians. In early times, some plagues swept through the Roman Empire. Pagan Romans tried to save their own lives and did not provide much care to family and friends. The Christians however, not fearing death, risked their lives to help their brethren. Ironically this helped the Christians live. The reason is that these diseases were not necessarily deadly if proper care was given. However, left alone a person had a much greater chance of dying. So, the Christians, by helping each other, survived. Also, the caretakers would develop an immunity to the diseases. After this had occurred several times, the proportion of Christians in the Roman Empire increased substantially.
Back to Clement. He also did not get the disease, even though he cared for those who were ill. There are many good things about Clement's life which are worth emulating.
Clement also tended to those with the illness, without fear that he would contract it himself. This is similar to the early Christians. In early times, some plagues swept through the Roman Empire. Pagan Romans tried to save their own lives and did not provide much care to family and friends. The Christians however, not fearing death, risked their lives to help their brethren. Ironically this helped the Christians live. The reason is that these diseases were not necessarily deadly if proper care was given. However, left alone a person had a much greater chance of dying. So, the Christians, by helping each other, survived. Also, the caretakers would develop an immunity to the diseases. After this had occurred several times, the proportion of Christians in the Roman Empire increased substantially.
Back to Clement. He also did not get the disease, even though he cared for those who were ill. There are many good things about Clement's life which are worth emulating.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Pope embraces technology
In a speech, Pope Benedict encouraged priests to use the internet to spread the Gospel. This harkens back to the time of the apostles when they traveled to far off lands to spread the good news. Although he was speaking to priests, the message is for all Catholics. I'm glad that my blog is able to reach a lot of people.
Check out more on this story at: http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/pope-wants-priests-to-become-web-savvy/?news=123
Check out more on this story at: http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/pope-wants-priests-to-become-web-savvy/?news=123
Friday, January 22, 2010
Women with Hairy Legs at MUN: Strange fundraiser
Memorial University is sponsoring a strange event where they are asking women (and men?) to not shave their legs for nearly a month. They are raising money for Planned Parenthood. Obviously there are several problems with this.
First and foremost this event, dubbed "Feb-U-Hairy", is sponsoring Planned Parenthood. Officially the money is going towards paying for pap smears to help prevent cervical cancer. There is nothing wrong with preventing cervical cancer, and it is in fact commendable. But giving money to Planned Parenthood is not. Planned Parenthood was founded by Margaret Sanger to assist with her eugenics plan. She wanted to eliminate "minorities" as much as possible, especially black people. Nowadays, Planned Parenthood is the world's largest provider of abortion, and they are trying to extend this to every corner of the Earth. True to their roots, black people are the main target of their activities, especially in the United States.
Secondly, this Febuhairy (Februhairy) event is encouraging women to not shave their legs. What is the purpose of this? They say they are encouraging men and women not to, but 99% of men don't shave their legs anyway, unless they are professional wrestlers or swimmers or something. What is the point of encouraging women to act like men? Maybe that's something Planned Parenthood encourages because it fits with their ideology. They want women and men to be the same, not equal. Then they can more easily promote their ideology that an unborn child is a parasite that inhibits a woman's progress, because women compare themselves to men who do not get pregnant.
People should give their money to more worthy causes.
First and foremost this event, dubbed "Feb-U-Hairy", is sponsoring Planned Parenthood. Officially the money is going towards paying for pap smears to help prevent cervical cancer. There is nothing wrong with preventing cervical cancer, and it is in fact commendable. But giving money to Planned Parenthood is not. Planned Parenthood was founded by Margaret Sanger to assist with her eugenics plan. She wanted to eliminate "minorities" as much as possible, especially black people. Nowadays, Planned Parenthood is the world's largest provider of abortion, and they are trying to extend this to every corner of the Earth. True to their roots, black people are the main target of their activities, especially in the United States.
Secondly, this Febuhairy (Februhairy) event is encouraging women to not shave their legs. What is the purpose of this? They say they are encouraging men and women not to, but 99% of men don't shave their legs anyway, unless they are professional wrestlers or swimmers or something. What is the point of encouraging women to act like men? Maybe that's something Planned Parenthood encourages because it fits with their ideology. They want women and men to be the same, not equal. Then they can more easily promote their ideology that an unborn child is a parasite that inhibits a woman's progress, because women compare themselves to men who do not get pregnant.
People should give their money to more worthy causes.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Scott Brown wins!
I was glad to hear Scott Brown got elected today in Massachusetts. I haven't been reading a huge lot about this issue, but I understand Massachusetts has always been a Democrat stronghold, but now it has fallen. This is good because Obama can't get away with a fillibuster-proof government. I hope the US government works for the most destitute who need medical services, just as Church groups have for centuries. They must do so in the spirit of do no harm and look out for the best interest of all patients.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
An Accidental Lenten Pun
I just received an email with I believe an unintentional pun. It said "Lent is Fast Approaching". It has a double meaning. First of all, Lent is nearby. But also, there is an approaching fast, where we refrain from food during Lent, so it's a fast approaching. I'm not sure if anyone else will appreciate this punny situation.
Will Massachusetts end Obamacare?
Tonight Massachusetts will vote for their senator: either Democrat Martha Coakley or Republican Scott Brown. This election is being watched across America, and perhaps much of the world, because if Brown is elected, then Obamacare will not be able to pass so easily. Right now, the Democrats have 59 senators, but will need 60 in order to be fillibuster-proof and allow the bill to pass.
Many people of faith would like to see Mr. Brown elected. First of all, Obama's health care plan could involve millions of dollars of donations to Planned Parenthood, which has doctors that performs abortions. Right now, abortions are not paid for by tax-payers, but if Obamacare is passed, it may start being funded, which is a bad thing.
Also, Mrs. Coakley made some disparaging comments to people of faith, suggesting they should perhaps not work in emergency rooms in hospitals because they may be against abortion and other things. This flies in the face of legislation which guarantees the right of people of faith to work in any environment and not be forced to violate their faith and morals. Anything less is tyranny. Also under this law, medical practitioners have the right to not give contraception and other things.
Let's hope that Scott Brown is elected and that he helps reduce abortion.
Many people of faith would like to see Mr. Brown elected. First of all, Obama's health care plan could involve millions of dollars of donations to Planned Parenthood, which has doctors that performs abortions. Right now, abortions are not paid for by tax-payers, but if Obamacare is passed, it may start being funded, which is a bad thing.
Also, Mrs. Coakley made some disparaging comments to people of faith, suggesting they should perhaps not work in emergency rooms in hospitals because they may be against abortion and other things. This flies in the face of legislation which guarantees the right of people of faith to work in any environment and not be forced to violate their faith and morals. Anything less is tyranny. Also under this law, medical practitioners have the right to not give contraception and other things.
Let's hope that Scott Brown is elected and that he helps reduce abortion.
Monday, January 18, 2010
Pope John Paul II's would-be assassin released from prison
Mehmet Ali Agra, who attempted to kill Pope John Paul II in 1981 by shooting him was released from prison in Turkey. Agra spent almost 20 years in prison in Italy and was then sent to Turkey where he served another 10 years for a murder he committed in 1979. Pope John Paul visited Agra in prison in Italy, in a very touching moment.
Now that Agra is released, rumours about his connection to communists are re-emerging. Did the KGB hire him, directly or indirectly, to assassinate John Paul, the great voice against communism? The Pope at the time believed there was more to the plot than Agra acting alone and believed it was the work of the Soviet Bloc. JPII was instrumental in defeating communism and so such a plot would make sense. By the way, the pope credited the Lady of Fatima with saving his life.
Agra was a trained gunman and member of the Grey Wolves. The injuries sustained by the pope were very substantial. He lost nearly three quarters of his blood as he was shot several times. He lost consciousness on the way to the hospital, but just before the operation, he regained consciousness and told the doctors not to remove his Brown Scapular of our Lady of Fatima.
A little over two years later, Pope John Paul II went to the prison to visit his would-be assassin, and spoke to him for 20 minutes. He completely forgave him. We will never know what was said during the meeting.
A commission was set up in 2006 by Silvio Berlusconi in Italy and it concluded that the Soviet Union was indeed behind the assassination attempt on John Paul II.
Pope Benedict was also attacked. A mentally disturbed 25-year old woman jumped at him during Midnight Mass at the Vatican. He was uninjured. Last week, he met with her privately and expressed his forgiveness.
Now that Agra is released, rumours about his connection to communists are re-emerging. Did the KGB hire him, directly or indirectly, to assassinate John Paul, the great voice against communism? The Pope at the time believed there was more to the plot than Agra acting alone and believed it was the work of the Soviet Bloc. JPII was instrumental in defeating communism and so such a plot would make sense. By the way, the pope credited the Lady of Fatima with saving his life.
Agra was a trained gunman and member of the Grey Wolves. The injuries sustained by the pope were very substantial. He lost nearly three quarters of his blood as he was shot several times. He lost consciousness on the way to the hospital, but just before the operation, he regained consciousness and told the doctors not to remove his Brown Scapular of our Lady of Fatima.
A little over two years later, Pope John Paul II went to the prison to visit his would-be assassin, and spoke to him for 20 minutes. He completely forgave him. We will never know what was said during the meeting.
A commission was set up in 2006 by Silvio Berlusconi in Italy and it concluded that the Soviet Union was indeed behind the assassination attempt on John Paul II.
Pope Benedict was also attacked. A mentally disturbed 25-year old woman jumped at him during Midnight Mass at the Vatican. He was uninjured. Last week, he met with her privately and expressed his forgiveness.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Chinese World Map from 1600s show Catholic involvement in Science
Yesterday an exhibit started at the Library of Congress which will showcase a rare World Map, the first in Chinese to show the Americas, which was created by Jesuit Priest Matteo Ricci. Ricci was a missionary in China, but was also heavily involved in science.
Ricci was one of the first Westerners to to master Chinese script and Classical Chinese. Ricci was invited to live in Zhaoqing when the governor there heard of his skills as a mathematician and cartographer. It was here that Ricci prepared several maps in Chinese that contained the Americas. Six survive to this day.
Ricci and his companion not only developed several Chinese maps, but also created the first European-Chinese dictionary, translating Portuguese into Chinese. Ricci's amazing breakthrough into China continued when he was the first Westerner ever to enter into the Forbidden City in Beijing.
Ricci converted many people when they heard about Our Lord. He combined his love of God with a love of science. His beatification is under review.
For more on this story, please visit: http://www.loc.gov/today/pr/2010/10-002.html
Here's a great video about Ricci:
Ricci was one of the first Westerners to to master Chinese script and Classical Chinese. Ricci was invited to live in Zhaoqing when the governor there heard of his skills as a mathematician and cartographer. It was here that Ricci prepared several maps in Chinese that contained the Americas. Six survive to this day.
Ricci and his companion not only developed several Chinese maps, but also created the first European-Chinese dictionary, translating Portuguese into Chinese. Ricci's amazing breakthrough into China continued when he was the first Westerner ever to enter into the Forbidden City in Beijing.
Ricci converted many people when they heard about Our Lord. He combined his love of God with a love of science. His beatification is under review.
For more on this story, please visit: http://www.loc.gov/today/pr/2010/10-002.html
Here's a great video about Ricci:
Archbishop of Port au Prince, Haiti killed in Earthquake
As churches and cathedrals are reduced to rubble in Haiti, the archbishop has been tragically killed. Joseph Serge Miot, the spiritual leader of over 10.5 million Catholics, died today and his body was found in the ruins. He was 63 years old. Let's pray for all the thousands of victims of this great tragedy!
Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/breaking-news/story/1422923.html
Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/breaking-news/story/1422923.html
Victims of Haitian Earthquake
Everyone should say a prayer for the relief effort now happening in Haiti after a huge earthquake hit the country. There are many poor people there. If you can support the Red Cross or another aid organization, I would recommend you do so. Let's keep them in prayer.
Monday, January 11, 2010
Malaysian Christians being oppressed by Muslim terrorists
In Malaysia, Muslim terrorists are attacking Christian (mostly Catholic) churches. Is it because Christians committed violence against Muslims? No, it's because Christians were using the word Allah to refer to God. You would think these groups would be happy. I've spoken to many Muslims and they insist God's name is Allah. So why are they so angry if Christians are using Allah as well?
In any event, 6 churches have so far been attacked. Many were fired bombed, others had paint thrown on them, etc. Although the constitution of Malaysia guarantees religious freedom, the minority Christians are being heavily persecuted.
Do these groups, who seem so offended by what they perceive as a faux-pas toward their religion, feel their religion also considers the use of violence, including fire-bombing churches, a proper response? Where are the protests by Muslim leaders in the country denouncing these acts?
Let's pray for the safety and religious freedom of Christians in Malaysia. Let's also pray for the terrorists that they will see the light and end their violent ways.
In any event, 6 churches have so far been attacked. Many were fired bombed, others had paint thrown on them, etc. Although the constitution of Malaysia guarantees religious freedom, the minority Christians are being heavily persecuted.
Do these groups, who seem so offended by what they perceive as a faux-pas toward their religion, feel their religion also considers the use of violence, including fire-bombing churches, a proper response? Where are the protests by Muslim leaders in the country denouncing these acts?
Let's pray for the safety and religious freedom of Christians in Malaysia. Let's also pray for the terrorists that they will see the light and end their violent ways.
Sunday, January 03, 2010
How we know Jesus is God
I was about to write an article on how we know Jesus is God. Then I found this video where Lee Strobel explains it very well.
I would add to this that Jesus forgave sins, something only God can do. He also changed people's names, again something only God was allowed to do.
Very good video.
I would add to this that Jesus forgave sins, something only God can do. He also changed people's names, again something only God was allowed to do.
Very good video.
Saturday, January 02, 2010
Another Attack on Religion, this time in Greece
In Greece, a predominantly Orthodox country, some people are trying to have religious symbols and practices removed. Greece has been a Christians country for millenia, and this is just another attack on its identity.
A schoolmaster wonders out loud if soon there will be challenges to the Greek flag, an issue I brought up several posts ago. The flag of course contains a cross, just like dozens of others around the world.
The Christian faith is an integral part of Greek culture. Any student who is not Orthodox is not or should not be required to participate in a prayer, but to ban them outright is wrong. Christianity is an integral part of Greek culture. Removing it would be like removing their food, language, or any other aspect. If some people do not like the language or food, then do not partake, but to ban it for everyone is an attack on religion and culture.
A culture is made up of various aspects, including language, religion, food, and way of life. To remove or ban any of these things is to commit a sort of cultural genocide.
To see a video of this, please go to: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5g0XI3wQ48QLUDJZZ8NlNOrEHnXIQ
A schoolmaster wonders out loud if soon there will be challenges to the Greek flag, an issue I brought up several posts ago. The flag of course contains a cross, just like dozens of others around the world.
The Christian faith is an integral part of Greek culture. Any student who is not Orthodox is not or should not be required to participate in a prayer, but to ban them outright is wrong. Christianity is an integral part of Greek culture. Removing it would be like removing their food, language, or any other aspect. If some people do not like the language or food, then do not partake, but to ban it for everyone is an attack on religion and culture.
A culture is made up of various aspects, including language, religion, food, and way of life. To remove or ban any of these things is to commit a sort of cultural genocide.
To see a video of this, please go to: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5g0XI3wQ48QLUDJZZ8NlNOrEHnXIQ
Friday, January 01, 2010
Happy New Year!
Happy New Year everyone. 2009 was a great year for my blog. I got many more followers, I wrote more articles, and had more comments and overall many more viewers. I hope this continues.
The results are in from the survey on this website asking people's religion. I am very surprised by some of the findings. This blog is obviously all about the Catholic faith and how it relates to the world, yet only 35% of my readers consider themselves Catholic. A whopping 42% of those completing the survey are atheists. Even 2% are considered "anti-theists". Nine percent are non-Catholic Christians, and 4% were Muslim. I did seem to receive a fair number of comments from Muslims.
I'm glad to have the opportunity to share my Catholic faith with many non-Catholics.
Thanks everyone for making this blog a success.
The results are in from the survey on this website asking people's religion. I am very surprised by some of the findings. This blog is obviously all about the Catholic faith and how it relates to the world, yet only 35% of my readers consider themselves Catholic. A whopping 42% of those completing the survey are atheists. Even 2% are considered "anti-theists". Nine percent are non-Catholic Christians, and 4% were Muslim. I did seem to receive a fair number of comments from Muslims.
I'm glad to have the opportunity to share my Catholic faith with many non-Catholics.
Thanks everyone for making this blog a success.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)