Mark Shea has a VERY popular Catholic Blog with about 550 subscribers. One thing that makes his blog so amazing is the frequency at which he posts. Just today, he has posted 19 blog articles. Sure, some are quite short, or just link somewhere else, but this level of blogging is rather spectacular.
You can find his blog at markshea.blogspot.com
Sunday, March 06, 2011
Saturday, March 05, 2011
Taxpayers funding anti-family studies
Two psychologists at the University of Waterloo, Richard Eibach and Steven Mock, have produced a study which they claim shows parents are deluding themselves when they say there is joy in raising a family.
The researchers set up an experiment where they put parents in two groups. In one group, the researchers only presented financial information and showed it cost around $190,000 to raise a child up to age 18. They focused on the financial burden of raising children.
In the other group, they counteracted the cost of raising children with the financial rewards, such as children taking care of them when they are older.
Apparently the parents in the first group felt more uncomfortable. So we draw the conclusion that parents are just deluding themselves when they believe raising children has benefits.
The taxpayer has to fund this total bunk, and here's why it's completely useless at best and morally wrong at worst:
1) Not enough babies anyway
We don't need to have research to "prove" that having children won't make people happy. The total fertility rate in Canada is already dismally low, as it is in most of the Western World. It's only 1.6, but the replacement rate is 2.11. We have a long ways to go yet to achieve that.
2) Only measures financial information
This is one of the worst problems with this study and this attitude in general. The implication of this study is that money brings happiness, so any choice in life which reduces one's income is a bad decision. It is implied that people without children have more money and can therefore afford things like luxury cars, big screen TVs, and are thus happier. If someone decides not to have children because they would rather a larger television set, they were probably not fit to have kids anyway.
3) Me generation
Related to the last concept is the idea of the Me generation. When people make decisions nowadays, it usually revolves around how it will directly benefit themselves. Kids are no longer seen as gifts from God, but rather as accessories to one's lifestyle. I'll often hear women say they want one boy and one girl because that will represent the "perfect" family. It's not about accepting God's gift of life in our lives, but rather engineering a good family photo. This has also led to the increase in the use of IVF, because people are just demanding to have certain things, even if it involves getting them immorally.
4) Contraceptive mentality
A major problem in our society has been the widespread use of contraception and the subsequent mental separation of the ideas of sex and conception. The only reason we are having this discussion of whether or not a couple should have children is because the sexual union is no longer intrinsically linked to procreation. I'm sure if every sexually active couple were automatically consenting to the possibility of bringing new life into the world, the question of whether or not to choose to have children would not come up.
Conclusion
Raising children involves sacrifice, even though I myself do not have kids. A selfish attitude is incompatible with openness to life and children and the decision to have kids should not be a financial one. Taxpayer-funded universities should spend money to tackle real issues, not help Canada sink further into moral depravity.
The researchers set up an experiment where they put parents in two groups. In one group, the researchers only presented financial information and showed it cost around $190,000 to raise a child up to age 18. They focused on the financial burden of raising children.
In the other group, they counteracted the cost of raising children with the financial rewards, such as children taking care of them when they are older.
Apparently the parents in the first group felt more uncomfortable. So we draw the conclusion that parents are just deluding themselves when they believe raising children has benefits.
The taxpayer has to fund this total bunk, and here's why it's completely useless at best and morally wrong at worst:
1) Not enough babies anyway
We don't need to have research to "prove" that having children won't make people happy. The total fertility rate in Canada is already dismally low, as it is in most of the Western World. It's only 1.6, but the replacement rate is 2.11. We have a long ways to go yet to achieve that.
2) Only measures financial information
This is one of the worst problems with this study and this attitude in general. The implication of this study is that money brings happiness, so any choice in life which reduces one's income is a bad decision. It is implied that people without children have more money and can therefore afford things like luxury cars, big screen TVs, and are thus happier. If someone decides not to have children because they would rather a larger television set, they were probably not fit to have kids anyway.
3) Me generation
Related to the last concept is the idea of the Me generation. When people make decisions nowadays, it usually revolves around how it will directly benefit themselves. Kids are no longer seen as gifts from God, but rather as accessories to one's lifestyle. I'll often hear women say they want one boy and one girl because that will represent the "perfect" family. It's not about accepting God's gift of life in our lives, but rather engineering a good family photo. This has also led to the increase in the use of IVF, because people are just demanding to have certain things, even if it involves getting them immorally.
4) Contraceptive mentality
A major problem in our society has been the widespread use of contraception and the subsequent mental separation of the ideas of sex and conception. The only reason we are having this discussion of whether or not a couple should have children is because the sexual union is no longer intrinsically linked to procreation. I'm sure if every sexually active couple were automatically consenting to the possibility of bringing new life into the world, the question of whether or not to choose to have children would not come up.
Conclusion
Raising children involves sacrifice, even though I myself do not have kids. A selfish attitude is incompatible with openness to life and children and the decision to have kids should not be a financial one. Taxpayer-funded universities should spend money to tackle real issues, not help Canada sink further into moral depravity.
Catholic Church in Germany ordains married man: So?
There have been a number of articles coming out recently about a priest in Germany who was ordained to the priesthood despite being the married father of two. It's as though this is big news or something. I find it hard to believe people have only just now heard of this. The problem I find with most articles is that they address non-existent issues or make this seem like some big change. Here's why it isn't.
1) Men from other religions
The only married men who are ever ordained are those from other religions, most commonly Anglican, Lutheran, and perhaps some others. It is never the case that Roman Catholic men who are married become priests. The exception is made because in non-Catholic religions, religious are not necessarily celibate.
2) Celibacy is not a necessary condition to ordination
Contrary to popular opinion, celibacy is not an inherent or necessary part of the priesthood. Rather, the Church only chooses for the priesthood men who have made a vow of celibacy. It is a discipline, not a doctrine or dogma.
Many cases can be shown in history or married priests and bishops. Peter, the first pope, was married, for example. This is also a discipline which did not appear from the very beginning. It was gradually made mandatory.
3) One can never marry after ordination
Once a man has been ordained to the priesthood validly, he cannot remain a priest and become married. This is also the case for deacons. A deacon can be married and then choose to become a deacon, however the reverse is not possible.
4) Some cradle Catholics are validly married and ordained
This occurs in the Eastern Churches in communion with Rome. This includes Greek Catholics, Maronite Catholics, Ruthenian Catholics, Chaldean Catholics, etc. However, bishops in these rites are only chosen from celibates.
5) The media get it wrong
Once again, the media sees this story as a novelty and wonders what it means for the "future of the Church". Always in these articles, it is suggested that the Church is changing, and that if we just wait long enough, the Catholic Church will allow priests to marry freely, divorce will be allowed, as well as gay marriage, contraception, and abortion. The slightest whiff of any change brings the media into a frenzy. However, they almost never get it right. Usually nothing has changed at all, despite what the article might suggest or state explicitly. Always take articles from the media with a grain of salt.
1) Men from other religions
The only married men who are ever ordained are those from other religions, most commonly Anglican, Lutheran, and perhaps some others. It is never the case that Roman Catholic men who are married become priests. The exception is made because in non-Catholic religions, religious are not necessarily celibate.
2) Celibacy is not a necessary condition to ordination
Contrary to popular opinion, celibacy is not an inherent or necessary part of the priesthood. Rather, the Church only chooses for the priesthood men who have made a vow of celibacy. It is a discipline, not a doctrine or dogma.
Many cases can be shown in history or married priests and bishops. Peter, the first pope, was married, for example. This is also a discipline which did not appear from the very beginning. It was gradually made mandatory.
3) One can never marry after ordination
Once a man has been ordained to the priesthood validly, he cannot remain a priest and become married. This is also the case for deacons. A deacon can be married and then choose to become a deacon, however the reverse is not possible.
4) Some cradle Catholics are validly married and ordained
This occurs in the Eastern Churches in communion with Rome. This includes Greek Catholics, Maronite Catholics, Ruthenian Catholics, Chaldean Catholics, etc. However, bishops in these rites are only chosen from celibates.
5) The media get it wrong
Once again, the media sees this story as a novelty and wonders what it means for the "future of the Church". Always in these articles, it is suggested that the Church is changing, and that if we just wait long enough, the Catholic Church will allow priests to marry freely, divorce will be allowed, as well as gay marriage, contraception, and abortion. The slightest whiff of any change brings the media into a frenzy. However, they almost never get it right. Usually nothing has changed at all, despite what the article might suggest or state explicitly. Always take articles from the media with a grain of salt.
New follower
Welcome #31!
I encourage anyone who reads this blog to become a follower. It's up to you if you want to receive an email update letting you know I have posted another great blog post.
Become a follower today - click the button in the right column.
I encourage anyone who reads this blog to become a follower. It's up to you if you want to receive an email update letting you know I have posted another great blog post.
Become a follower today - click the button in the right column.
Friday, March 04, 2011
"Booty" replaced in Catholic Bible
In a story which is getting a lot of media play, some Catholic Bibles are changing their wording from "booty" to "spoils". I heard one generally rather misinformed youtuber saying he wasn't aware that you could just change words in the Bible.
As usual with religion stories, there is much confusion. These types of changes are common when translating the Bible and are done to better reflect common usage of words. Booty has other connotations now so "spoils" is a better word to use.
The Bible wasn't written in English so any change like this will not affect the doctrine of inerrancy of Scripture.
For more on this story, visit here.
As usual with religion stories, there is much confusion. These types of changes are common when translating the Bible and are done to better reflect common usage of words. Booty has other connotations now so "spoils" is a better word to use.
The Bible wasn't written in English so any change like this will not affect the doctrine of inerrancy of Scripture.
For more on this story, visit here.
Thursday, March 03, 2011
Catholic Pakistani Politician Martyred
Bhatti supported the revision of blasphemy laws in Pakistan which carry the death penalty. He also did things like seeking to have non-Muslim prayer areas in prisons, promoted interfaith harmony, and just basically sought to give minorities some rights in this Muslim country.
Never did he say or do anything which anyone could consider blasphemous. But he was murdered by Tehrik-i-Taliban. This is no small group, with an estimated 35,000 members.
The murder happened near his mother's house. He was ambushed in his car, which was riddled with bullets. Those who murdered this innocent, defenseless man are cowards. They are spineless and evil. To think they did this to please God is truly astonishing. God is pleased, not by these savages, but by the witness of Shabaz Bhatti.
As some have said, Pakistani minorities are now left orphaned with the loss of this great man. These Muslim groups will continue to use intimidation to get their way. Let's keep Shabaz Bhatti and his family and friends in our prayers.
Here is a photo gallery of Shabaz Bhatti:
91% of Living Catholic Bishops can be traced back to...
Scipione Rebiba
I was looking through catholic-hierarchy.org and I started with my own archbishop and found out his episcopal consecrator was consecrated by Pope John Paul II. I kept going back through the episcopal lineage of Pope John Paul II until ultimately I hit upon Cardinal Scipione Rebiba, but there was no way to go any further. I then did a google/wikipedia search and found out that Pope Benedict XVI could trace his episcopal lineage back to this same Cardinal. I realized that JPII did not consecrate B16, so I got curious.
I searched for Scipione Rebiba, and apparently 91% of living Catholic Bishops can trace their episcopacy back to him. But my question is who consecrated Rebiba?
Many believe he was consecrated by Pope Paul IV, but supporting documentation does not exist. This is very unfortunate. I have not done much research on this, but it would be an interesting topic to look into more deeply.
I was looking through catholic-hierarchy.org and I started with my own archbishop and found out his episcopal consecrator was consecrated by Pope John Paul II. I kept going back through the episcopal lineage of Pope John Paul II until ultimately I hit upon Cardinal Scipione Rebiba, but there was no way to go any further. I then did a google/wikipedia search and found out that Pope Benedict XVI could trace his episcopal lineage back to this same Cardinal. I realized that JPII did not consecrate B16, so I got curious.
I searched for Scipione Rebiba, and apparently 91% of living Catholic Bishops can trace their episcopacy back to him. But my question is who consecrated Rebiba?
Many believe he was consecrated by Pope Paul IV, but supporting documentation does not exist. This is very unfortunate. I have not done much research on this, but it would be an interesting topic to look into more deeply.
Wednesday, March 02, 2011
Killing Newborns Is Not that Serious
This is something I did not know until now. Apparently in Ontario at least, and possibly elsewhere, there are specific Infanticide laws. Basically, if a person is charged with first-degree murder, the minimum sentence is 25 years in prison, after which they may possibly be paroled. However, there is a separate law for "Infanticide" which specifically applies to women who give birth and then soon after kill this baby. The sentence for this crime is a mere 5 years in prison.
Today in Ontario, this law was upheld. Controversy arose when a woman's defense team tried to use Infanticide as a defense in her murder trial of her not one but TWO children whom she killed on separate occasions. Basically if they could argue she didn't commit first degree murder, but rather "just" infanticide, her sentence would be reduced drastically.
There is actually an organization out there called LEAF, or the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund, which applauded the ruling. They say some women are under tremendous stress and therefore should not be charged with murder if they kill their babies.
This once again goes to show that Canada is not embarking on a slippery slope, it has already descended to the bottom of the moral cesspool. Newborns and little babies don't need LESS protection from the courts, but far more! How can the Canadian Court not only approve abortion, but also infanticide, by essentially valuing the life of a baby at 20% the life of an adult.
The Canadian Court has become a Kangaroo Court that no longer represents even a whiff of morality. It has just become the plaything of social engineers bent on destroying any semblance of Christian ethics.
The basis behind the ruling is that a lot of mothers are under stress after giving birth so if they kill their baby, well there was probably a good reason for it! Yes, of course, that makes total sense! My question is, what murders are ever committed by completely rational, logical, unemotional people? NONE! Murders are always committed by people who are not fully there. They are under stress or anger or fear, etc. To distinguish this murder is absurd.
Imagine a man kills his wife, and his defense is he was feeling depressed or upset or uneasy or anything like that? Do you think the court would invent a new criminal charge called uxoricide (the technical word for wife-killing) and then have a sentence of only 5 years in prison?
I do believe that in any murder case, the possibility of insanity must be analyzed. If a person is truly insane and completely incapable of understanding their actions in any way, then a more lenient or possibly no sentence may apply. However, this should be thoroughly proven, and the mere fact of a woman giving birth would not prove her insanity.
Peter Singer is one of the most despicable philosophers out there. He believes that women should have the option of killing their baby up to 6 months after birth. He sees this as a sort of "return policy" and an extension of abortion. I was always horrified when I heard about his philosophy and the thought that anyone would ever take him seriously. Well, it doesn't seem like such an impossibility anymore. The Government of Canada has already made inroads toward the legalization of killing newborns.
I really hope Canada makes at least a couple of attempts to pull itself out of its moral cesspool and starts to implement True and Good values rather than cater to the demands of the most extreme and misanthropic groups in the world.
Today in Ontario, this law was upheld. Controversy arose when a woman's defense team tried to use Infanticide as a defense in her murder trial of her not one but TWO children whom she killed on separate occasions. Basically if they could argue she didn't commit first degree murder, but rather "just" infanticide, her sentence would be reduced drastically.
There is actually an organization out there called LEAF, or the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund, which applauded the ruling. They say some women are under tremendous stress and therefore should not be charged with murder if they kill their babies.
This once again goes to show that Canada is not embarking on a slippery slope, it has already descended to the bottom of the moral cesspool. Newborns and little babies don't need LESS protection from the courts, but far more! How can the Canadian Court not only approve abortion, but also infanticide, by essentially valuing the life of a baby at 20% the life of an adult.
The Canadian Court has become a Kangaroo Court that no longer represents even a whiff of morality. It has just become the plaything of social engineers bent on destroying any semblance of Christian ethics.
The basis behind the ruling is that a lot of mothers are under stress after giving birth so if they kill their baby, well there was probably a good reason for it! Yes, of course, that makes total sense! My question is, what murders are ever committed by completely rational, logical, unemotional people? NONE! Murders are always committed by people who are not fully there. They are under stress or anger or fear, etc. To distinguish this murder is absurd.
Imagine a man kills his wife, and his defense is he was feeling depressed or upset or uneasy or anything like that? Do you think the court would invent a new criminal charge called uxoricide (the technical word for wife-killing) and then have a sentence of only 5 years in prison?
I do believe that in any murder case, the possibility of insanity must be analyzed. If a person is truly insane and completely incapable of understanding their actions in any way, then a more lenient or possibly no sentence may apply. However, this should be thoroughly proven, and the mere fact of a woman giving birth would not prove her insanity.
Peter Singer is one of the most despicable philosophers out there. He believes that women should have the option of killing their baby up to 6 months after birth. He sees this as a sort of "return policy" and an extension of abortion. I was always horrified when I heard about his philosophy and the thought that anyone would ever take him seriously. Well, it doesn't seem like such an impossibility anymore. The Government of Canada has already made inroads toward the legalization of killing newborns.
I really hope Canada makes at least a couple of attempts to pull itself out of its moral cesspool and starts to implement True and Good values rather than cater to the demands of the most extreme and misanthropic groups in the world.
Anniversary of Pope Pius XII's Papacy and Birthday
March 2 marks the date when Pope Pius XII was elected as Bishop of Rome in 1939, and also the day he was born in 1876.
There has been much controversy over this pope for his alleged involvement in supporting Hitler. However, this has been thoroughly debunked. Check out my lengthier article here for further information.
The same old canards have re-emerged since Pope Benedict assigned him the status of Venerable, a step before Beatification and finally Canonization in the process of being declared a Saint.
Pope Pius XII reigned over the Church for almost 20 years until his death on October 9, 1958, at the age of 82.
Another article that is well worth reading is by a Jewish author who grew up hating the name Pius XII but later came to realize he may have been wrong. It can be found here.
Photos of Pope Pius XII:
There has been much controversy over this pope for his alleged involvement in supporting Hitler. However, this has been thoroughly debunked. Check out my lengthier article here for further information.
The same old canards have re-emerged since Pope Benedict assigned him the status of Venerable, a step before Beatification and finally Canonization in the process of being declared a Saint.
Pope Pius XII reigned over the Church for almost 20 years until his death on October 9, 1958, at the age of 82.
Another article that is well worth reading is by a Jewish author who grew up hating the name Pius XII but later came to realize he may have been wrong. It can be found here.
Photos of Pope Pius XII:
Why Women Get Abortions
I wrote an article last week on why Planned Parenthood should not receive federal funding in the US. To read this article, click here. I received an interesting response to this article, part of which read:
Maybe if this commenter knew the facts, she would not make such a claim. The reason for getting an abortion is divided into two sections:
1) Woman becomes pregnant "accidentally" and did not want to or could not support a baby
2) A woman's life is in jeopardy unless she has an abortion.
I could not find very many statistics on the reasons for which women choose to abort their babies. The only resource I could find was from Planned Parenthood's own statistics division, known as the Guttmacher Institute (named after Margaret Sanger's successor as President of Planned Parenthood Alan Guttmacher). Obviously, if any data were reported in favor of abortion, it would come from here.
The research from this organization reports the following reasons for a 10 year period:
Remember the two categories first proposed? Here's how they would break down:
1) Woman becomes pregnant "accidentally" and did not want to or could not support a baby - 91.8%
2) A woman's life is in jeopardy unless she has an abortion. - 6.1%
3) Other - 2.1%
As we can clearly see, the vast majority of abortions have nothing to do with health considerations. Instead, innocent children are killed because their mothers want to further their education, would prefer not to have children, don't have enough money to raise them a certain way, etc.
Not to begrudge the tiny percentage that went to health reasons, but I think these statistics need to be sorted out as well. What does risk to fetal health mean? I'm assuming this would include mothers who abort their babies because the baby could have a birth defect or be hard to care for. It doesn't specify the severity of the health issue, so theoretically anything could be claimed as the reason.
In terms of the mother's health, it lists 2.8%, but again, what does this mean? Not all of this is for mothers whose lives are in imminent danger unless their child is killed. It could include smaller medical issues.
It's also worth noting that if there were a case where a mother's life was in danger, the life-threatening illness or disorder can be treated even if as an unintended side-effect, the child in the womb dies. This is permissible under Catholic morals.
It is also worth noting the case where the baby would be born dead. This one seems easy morally-speaking. If someone is going to die sometime in the future, that does not give us the right to terminate his or her life NOW. If the baby truly would die upon birth, why artificially speed up the process?
And on the last point of not telling a woman (or man) what to do with their body, I do not wish to do that. I am only advocating for another person, the unborn child.
Have you lost your damn mind???? A very, very small percentages of abortions are done because of a woman accidentally got pregnant and didn't want/couldn't support the baby. There are a lot done because of medical reasons too - because the mother will die, or because the baby has died or will die immediately after being born.
Maybe if this commenter knew the facts, she would not make such a claim. The reason for getting an abortion is divided into two sections:
1) Woman becomes pregnant "accidentally" and did not want to or could not support a baby
2) A woman's life is in jeopardy unless she has an abortion.
I could not find very many statistics on the reasons for which women choose to abort their babies. The only resource I could find was from Planned Parenthood's own statistics division, known as the Guttmacher Institute (named after Margaret Sanger's successor as President of Planned Parenthood Alan Guttmacher). Obviously, if any data were reported in favor of abortion, it would come from here.
The research from this organization reports the following reasons for a 10 year period:
- 25.5% Want to postpone childbearing
- 21.3% Cannot afford a baby
- 14.1% Has relationship problem or partner does not want pregnancy
- 12.2% Too young; parent(s) or other(s) object to pregnancy
- 10.8% Having a child will disrupt education or job
- 7.9% Want no (more) children
- 3.3% Risk to fetal health
- 2.8% Risk to maternal health
- 2.1% Other
Remember the two categories first proposed? Here's how they would break down:
1) Woman becomes pregnant "accidentally" and did not want to or could not support a baby - 91.8%
2) A woman's life is in jeopardy unless she has an abortion. - 6.1%
3) Other - 2.1%
As we can clearly see, the vast majority of abortions have nothing to do with health considerations. Instead, innocent children are killed because their mothers want to further their education, would prefer not to have children, don't have enough money to raise them a certain way, etc.
Not to begrudge the tiny percentage that went to health reasons, but I think these statistics need to be sorted out as well. What does risk to fetal health mean? I'm assuming this would include mothers who abort their babies because the baby could have a birth defect or be hard to care for. It doesn't specify the severity of the health issue, so theoretically anything could be claimed as the reason.
In terms of the mother's health, it lists 2.8%, but again, what does this mean? Not all of this is for mothers whose lives are in imminent danger unless their child is killed. It could include smaller medical issues.
It's also worth noting that if there were a case where a mother's life was in danger, the life-threatening illness or disorder can be treated even if as an unintended side-effect, the child in the womb dies. This is permissible under Catholic morals.
It is also worth noting the case where the baby would be born dead. This one seems easy morally-speaking. If someone is going to die sometime in the future, that does not give us the right to terminate his or her life NOW. If the baby truly would die upon birth, why artificially speed up the process?
And on the last point of not telling a woman (or man) what to do with their body, I do not wish to do that. I am only advocating for another person, the unborn child.
Tuesday, March 01, 2011
New bishops for Grand Falls and Corner Brook, Newfoundland
Interestingly, this morning my article concerning my bishop's connection to the late Holy Father was published, and now the same day is news that there will be a new bishop for the Grand Falls diocese. This is a welcome relief for Archbishop Martin Currie who has been serving both St. John's and Grand Falls himself for some time now. This has required extensive travel on his part, and thus divided his time a lot. Now the archbishop is free to focus on the St. John's Archdiocese exclusively.
The new bishop for Grand Falls will be Rev. Robert Anthony Daniels. A new bishop will also be appointed for Corner Brook: Rev. Peter Joseph Hundt, who is currently serving in Toronto.
Papal nuncio for Canada, Archbishop Pedro Lopez Quintana, will preside over the installation ceremony.
The new bishop for Grand Falls will be Rev. Robert Anthony Daniels. A new bishop will also be appointed for Corner Brook: Rev. Peter Joseph Hundt, who is currently serving in Toronto.
Papal nuncio for Canada, Archbishop Pedro Lopez Quintana, will preside over the installation ceremony.
 |
| Archbishop Martin Currie |
 |
| Bishop Robert Anthony Daniels |
 |
| Bishop Peter Joseph Hundt |
 |
| Archbishop Pedro Lopez Quintana |
My bishop's connection with Pope John Paul II
I was just doing some research on catholic-hierarchy.org, a great website. I located my local Archbishop, Martin Currie, to see who consecrated him. He was consecrated by an Italian cardinal named Paolo Cardinal Romeo. Cardinal Romeo in turn was consecrated in 1984 by Pope John Paul II. This kind of reminds me of the 6 degrees of Bacon where people try to connect two actors via other actors. In this case, it would look like this:
Pope John Paul II consecrated Cardinal Romeo
Cardinal Romeo consecrated Archbishop Martin Currie
Just thought it was interesting!
Pope John Paul II consecrated Cardinal Romeo
Cardinal Romeo consecrated Archbishop Martin Currie
Just thought it was interesting!
Answer to Who Am I
Yesterday's Who Am I was...
John the Baptist
His father, Zechariah lost the ability to speak when he questioned how his wife could bear a child at her age. John the Baptist is known as the Forerunner, because he foretold Jesus' coming. He was known for speaking out when necessary, and he couldn't get ahead is meant to be a play-on-words indicating he was beheaded.
John the Baptist
His father, Zechariah lost the ability to speak when he questioned how his wife could bear a child at her age. John the Baptist is known as the Forerunner, because he foretold Jesus' coming. He was known for speaking out when necessary, and he couldn't get ahead is meant to be a play-on-words indicating he was beheaded.
Monday, February 28, 2011
Man "euthanizes" wife
Stephan Bolton from Liverpool Nova Scotia gave his wife Barbara, 59, who was suffering with Stage 4 Breast Cancer, a lethal injection without her knowledge. Now, he has confessed his actions to the local RCMP.
The man, 56, says his motivation for going to the police is pure guilt, stemming from his actions. He said his wife only had a couple of months to live at most and that she was suffering from depression.
One of the more interesting things Stephan said was "It's been over a month. Over that month, I tried to live with it and I just can't — not without being told by (some) authority that what I did wasn't wrong," he said. "I am racked by guilt and have to somehow resolve it."
Does he believe that if someone tells him his actions were morally okay, then he will no longer feel guilty? Perhaps. I believe a lot of people seek guidance for the morality of their actions. If they are not religious, they may look to other people for information, such as the government. That's why I think it's important for immoral actions to be illegal. For example, abortion. Some say you cannot legislate morality, but I believe in the case of abortion, many people consider themselves "pro-choice" because they see it as a legitimate position since the government permits it.
The actions of this man were quite immoral. He took the life of another innocent human being. Although she was suffering from depression, she needed help and reassurance and love, not death. Instead of seeking someone to tell him he did the right thing, this man should seek forgiveness for his sins. I think this is also a natural tendency. People would rather be told they are doing the right thing than go to confession. In fact, because many do not believe in confession, the only option they have is to believe their actions are justified.
Having said this, I feel terrible for this man and his wife. He is suffering tremendously. In his own misguided way, he just wanted to end his wife's suffering. I will make a Pope Benedict-like comment here and say his intention to reduce the suffering of another could be the the first toward a sense of morality. I can say this without condoning his actions.
This man discovered the hard way that euthanasia is not the answer. All too often with moral decisions we make, many will try to persuade us to behave against our better judgment. Sadly, we often only realize our mistakes after they are irreversible. We are struck by guilt which cannot be explained away.
Keep this man and his wife who has passed away in your prayers. And pray for those facing difficult life situations.
The man, 56, says his motivation for going to the police is pure guilt, stemming from his actions. He said his wife only had a couple of months to live at most and that she was suffering from depression.
One of the more interesting things Stephan said was "It's been over a month. Over that month, I tried to live with it and I just can't — not without being told by (some) authority that what I did wasn't wrong," he said. "I am racked by guilt and have to somehow resolve it."
Does he believe that if someone tells him his actions were morally okay, then he will no longer feel guilty? Perhaps. I believe a lot of people seek guidance for the morality of their actions. If they are not religious, they may look to other people for information, such as the government. That's why I think it's important for immoral actions to be illegal. For example, abortion. Some say you cannot legislate morality, but I believe in the case of abortion, many people consider themselves "pro-choice" because they see it as a legitimate position since the government permits it.
The actions of this man were quite immoral. He took the life of another innocent human being. Although she was suffering from depression, she needed help and reassurance and love, not death. Instead of seeking someone to tell him he did the right thing, this man should seek forgiveness for his sins. I think this is also a natural tendency. People would rather be told they are doing the right thing than go to confession. In fact, because many do not believe in confession, the only option they have is to believe their actions are justified.
Having said this, I feel terrible for this man and his wife. He is suffering tremendously. In his own misguided way, he just wanted to end his wife's suffering. I will make a Pope Benedict-like comment here and say his intention to reduce the suffering of another could be the the first toward a sense of morality. I can say this without condoning his actions.
This man discovered the hard way that euthanasia is not the answer. All too often with moral decisions we make, many will try to persuade us to behave against our better judgment. Sadly, we often only realize our mistakes after they are irreversible. We are struck by guilt which cannot be explained away.
Keep this man and his wife who has passed away in your prayers. And pray for those facing difficult life situations.
Who Am I?
Dad was speechless when I was born
I'm called the Forerunner.
I told it like it was
but sometimes couldn't get ahead
Put your response for who you think this is as a comment.
I'm called the Forerunner.
I told it like it was
but sometimes couldn't get ahead
Put your response for who you think this is as a comment.
Saturday, February 26, 2011
The Rite becomes profitable
The Rite, starring most notably Anthony Hopkins, has finally went past breaking even and has now made a profit for its studios. The latest numbers show that the expenses for the film totaled approximately $37 million. The film has so far earned $42,287,000, for a net profit of $5,287,000
To read my review of the film, go here.
To purchase the book upon which the film is based, click below. It only costs $9.57 from Amazon right now.
To read my review of the film, go here.
To purchase the book upon which the film is based, click below. It only costs $9.57 from Amazon right now.
Friday, February 25, 2011
Anniversary of excommunication of Queen Elizabeth I
It happened 441 years ago in 1570. Pope Pius V excommunicated Elizabeth I. He wrote a papal bull in 1570 calling Elizabeth a heretic for acting against the Catholic faith, and allowed any Catholic to disobey her on these grounds.
This prompted great persecutions of Catholics in England, and eventually in 1580 to relieve pressure on them, Pope Gregory XIII said the English should obey the queen until she is overthrown.
One of the effects of this was that there was a rift between Ireland and England, since most of Ireland chose to remain Catholic. This rift lasted for centuries.
The popes during this time believed the true heir to the British throne was Mary, Queen of Scots. Eventually Elizabeth had her executed.
In 1588, Pope Sixtus V, the famous namesake of the Sistine Chapel, renewed the categorization of Queen Elizabeth I as a heretic.
--------------------------
A related movie to this era of Catholic persecution is a great one titled A Man for All Seasons, which profiles St. Thomas More and his interaction with King Henry VIII when he disagree with the monarch. It can be purchased for $7.49 on Amazon.com:
One of the effects of this was that there was a rift between Ireland and England, since most of Ireland chose to remain Catholic. This rift lasted for centuries.
The popes during this time believed the true heir to the British throne was Mary, Queen of Scots. Eventually Elizabeth had her executed.
In 1588, Pope Sixtus V, the famous namesake of the Sistine Chapel, renewed the categorization of Queen Elizabeth I as a heretic.
--------------------------
A related movie to this era of Catholic persecution is a great one titled A Man for All Seasons, which profiles St. Thomas More and his interaction with King Henry VIII when he disagree with the monarch. It can be purchased for $7.49 on Amazon.com:
Photo Friday: 10 Tallest Catholic Churches in the World
| (11. Honourable Mention): St. Joseph's Oratory Tallest Church in the Americas Height: 129 meters Montreal, Canada Completed 1967  |
| 10. St. Martin's Church 130.6 meters Landshut, Germany Completed in 1500  |
| 9. St. Peter's Church 132.2 meters Hamburg, Germany Completed in 1878  |
| 8. New Cathedral (AKA Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception) 134.8 meters Linz, Austria Completed in 1924  |
7. St. Stephen's Cathedral 136.4 meters Vienna, Austria Completed in 1433  |
| 6. St. Peter's Basilica 138 meters Vatican City Completed in 1626  |
| 5. Sanctuary of Our Lady of Lichen 141.5 meters Stary Lichen, Poland Completed in 2000  |
4. Strasbourg Cathedral 142 meters Strasbourg, France Completed in 1439  |
3. Rouen Cathedral 151 meters Rouen, France Completed in 1880  |
2. Cologne Cathedral Cologne, Germany Completed in 1880 157.4 meters  |
| 1. Basilica of Our Lady of Peace 158 meters Yamoussoukro, Cote d'Ivoire, Africa Completed in 1989  |
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Planned Parenthood Funding Must END
I was just reading some articles on Planned Parenthood in the mainstream media, and of course as you would suspect, nearly all of them are against defunding the organization with public money in the United States. No big surprise there. The logic behind this protestation is very flawed though. Let me explain why.
The main, and almost exclusively used, argument against defunding Planned Parenthood is that it provides many good services to women-in-need such as HIV tests and pap smears. Others cite birth control as a "good" service, but I would disagree. Opponents of the funding ban agree that Planned Parenthood performs abortions, but say instead of focusing on that, focus on all the "other" services provided by this organization.
The problem with this is quite evident, even to a 5-year old. You cannot fund an organization which is involved with serious evil, in this case abortion. It doesn't matter how much good this organization does, the good doesn't override the evil.
Under the Hyde Amendment, it is illegal for the US government to fund abortion. Planned Parenthood proponents say this is not happening. No US funds go toward abortion, they say. Even if this were the case, the government money is certainly having an impact on the availability of the procedure. With government money, Planed Parenthood can open dozens of new locations each year. They can build new rooms that can be used for many medical procedures, but can also be used for abortion. There is simply no possible way to parse the money.
Therefore, government funding sponsors an organization which commits an evil act. Morally speaking, such an organization should not be funded.
A good analogy would be the United States sending money to Nazi Germany. The argument could be made that the Nazis are doing a lot of good. The economy is recovering quite well. There is extremely low unemployment, technology is advancing, infrastructure is moving forward, etc. Of course, the Nazis are also killing millions of Jewish people as well. But that can be overlooked because the main thing we need to focus on, of course, is the building of roads and technology.
This is too absurd to even talk about. Planned Parenthood provides evil services which kill innocent children. It makes absolutely no difference how much "good" the organization does, it cannot compensate for the evil. The only way the United States Government could morally continue to support Planned Parenthood is if it ceased performing abortions and providing other immoral services. Otherwise, Planned Parenthood needs to be shut down completely.
The main, and almost exclusively used, argument against defunding Planned Parenthood is that it provides many good services to women-in-need such as HIV tests and pap smears. Others cite birth control as a "good" service, but I would disagree. Opponents of the funding ban agree that Planned Parenthood performs abortions, but say instead of focusing on that, focus on all the "other" services provided by this organization.
The problem with this is quite evident, even to a 5-year old. You cannot fund an organization which is involved with serious evil, in this case abortion. It doesn't matter how much good this organization does, the good doesn't override the evil.
Under the Hyde Amendment, it is illegal for the US government to fund abortion. Planned Parenthood proponents say this is not happening. No US funds go toward abortion, they say. Even if this were the case, the government money is certainly having an impact on the availability of the procedure. With government money, Planed Parenthood can open dozens of new locations each year. They can build new rooms that can be used for many medical procedures, but can also be used for abortion. There is simply no possible way to parse the money.
Therefore, government funding sponsors an organization which commits an evil act. Morally speaking, such an organization should not be funded.
A good analogy would be the United States sending money to Nazi Germany. The argument could be made that the Nazis are doing a lot of good. The economy is recovering quite well. There is extremely low unemployment, technology is advancing, infrastructure is moving forward, etc. Of course, the Nazis are also killing millions of Jewish people as well. But that can be overlooked because the main thing we need to focus on, of course, is the building of roads and technology.
This is too absurd to even talk about. Planned Parenthood provides evil services which kill innocent children. It makes absolutely no difference how much "good" the organization does, it cannot compensate for the evil. The only way the United States Government could morally continue to support Planned Parenthood is if it ceased performing abortions and providing other immoral services. Otherwise, Planned Parenthood needs to be shut down completely.
Answer to Who Am I?
The answer to Yesterday's Who Am I is:
Pope John Paul I
His name before being pope was Albino Luciani
He reigned as pope for only 33 days
He called himself "the first", which was rare and seemed to predict his successor
The Vatican declared that he died of a heart attack.
Pope John Paul I
His name before being pope was Albino Luciani
He reigned as pope for only 33 days
He called himself "the first", which was rare and seemed to predict his successor
The Vatican declared that he died of a heart attack.
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Bernard Nathanson dead at 84
A story which is being underreported as of right now in the mainstream media is the death of Dr. Bernard Nathanson. Early in his career, he performed thousands of abortions. After seeing medical evidence that an embryo/fetus is an actual human life, he quit performing the procedure and became a pro-life activist. He said his decision was not based on religion. Later, however, he did become Catholic.
Dr. Nathanson was at first so in favor of abortion that he formed NARAL, the National Abortion Rights Action League, formerly known as the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws. Today, this is one of the largest advocacy organization for abortion advocates in the world.
The mainstream media won't touch this story with a ten-foot pole, for the most part. In Google, if a popular story breaks, it will display a headline in the news section, and indicate the number of articles on the subject available to date. For example, the story on the Earthquake in New Zealand has 9208 articles. On the other hand, there are no news clusters for the news of Nathanson's passing. Most of the places carrying this story are Christian sites.
Many people believe the media is biased in favor of abortion, and this just provides further proof.
Dr. Nathanson was at first so in favor of abortion that he formed NARAL, the National Abortion Rights Action League, formerly known as the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws. Today, this is one of the largest advocacy organization for abortion advocates in the world.
The mainstream media won't touch this story with a ten-foot pole, for the most part. In Google, if a popular story breaks, it will display a headline in the news section, and indicate the number of articles on the subject available to date. For example, the story on the Earthquake in New Zealand has 9208 articles. On the other hand, there are no news clusters for the news of Nathanson's passing. Most of the places carrying this story are Christian sites.
Many people believe the media is biased in favor of abortion, and this just provides further proof.
Who Am I?
I'm back with another Who Am I?
I was an Albino from Italy
I'm also associated with 33
I foretold the reign of my next
I most-likely died from an attack
(Post a comment with your guess on it. The answer will be posted tomorrow morning.)
I was an Albino from Italy
I'm also associated with 33
I foretold the reign of my next
I most-likely died from an attack
(Post a comment with your guess on it. The answer will be posted tomorrow morning.)
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Answer to Yesterday's Who Am I?
The answer to yesterday's Who Am I is St. Thomas Aquinas.
His philosophy, best represented in the Summa Theologica, has shaped our understanding of Christianity since the 13th century. He died when he was 49 years old, not having fully completed the Summa. OP refers to the Order of Preachers, also known as the Dominicans. He is one of 33 doctors of the Church.
Come back tomorrow, same time, for another Who Am I
His philosophy, best represented in the Summa Theologica, has shaped our understanding of Christianity since the 13th century. He died when he was 49 years old, not having fully completed the Summa. OP refers to the Order of Preachers, also known as the Dominicans. He is one of 33 doctors of the Church.
Come back tomorrow, same time, for another Who Am I
Monday, February 21, 2011
Who Am I?
This is a little game I am introducing to this blog. It's called Who Am I? The name basically says it all. I will give some clues on a saint, Biblical figure, bishop, priest, or someone otherwise famous within Catholicism, and you must guess who it is. The answer will appear the following day.
Post your response in the comments. Make this a real challenge and do not research the answer. If you get it wrong, that's ok, don't feel bad, and if you're not sure, make a guess anyway.
Post your response in the comments. Make this a real challenge and do not research the answer. If you get it wrong, that's ok, don't feel bad, and if you're not sure, make a guess anyway.
WHO AM I:
Not quite 50 at the time of my death
My philosophy has shaped the West
I was a member of the OP
and I'm in a group of thirty three
Saturday, February 19, 2011
26 Saints A to Z
I'm just giving myself a challenge right now, and you can try it yourself. Perhaps do it before you read my list. I'm going to try to name one saint for each letter of the alphabet. I will see how many I can get. The rule is that you must be 99% sure it is a saint, and not just type a name hoping you can find a saint later that matches. So here goes:
Saint:
Alphonsus Liguori
Benedict of Nursia
Charles Borromeo
Denis
Edward the Confessor
Francis of Assissi
Gerard Megella
Hilarius
Ignatius Loyola
John
Kateri Tekaweta
Leo the Great
Michael the Archangel
Nicholas
O
Peter
Quirinus
Robert Bellarmine
Stephen
Thomas Aquinas
U
Veronica
Wenceslaus
Xystus
Y
Zossimus
Ok, so I couldn't get O, U, or Y. Plus, some are questionable. I will look them up. I will post updates or additional information in a comment to this post.
Saint:
Alphonsus Liguori
Benedict of Nursia
Charles Borromeo
Denis
Edward the Confessor
Francis of Assissi
Gerard Megella
Hilarius
Ignatius Loyola
John
Kateri Tekaweta
Leo the Great
Michael the Archangel
Nicholas
O
Peter
Quirinus
Robert Bellarmine
Stephen
Thomas Aquinas
U
Veronica
Wenceslaus
Xystus
Y
Zossimus
Ok, so I couldn't get O, U, or Y. Plus, some are questionable. I will look them up. I will post updates or additional information in a comment to this post.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
What if an animal snatches a eucharistic host and runs off with it?
I recently found out about a document issued by Pope Pius V soon after the Council of Trent, sometime in the late 1560 and early 1570s called De Defectibus. In it, almost every imaginable scenario is presented with regards to the validity and laicity of the Mass if certain events. I will look at these from time to time on this blog.
Under the section Defective Materials, it explains what should happen if a gust of wind or an animal carries away a consecrated host, which Catholics believe to be the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus.
Here is what the document spells out:
III. 7. If the consecrated host should disappear, either from some chance cause such as wind, or by a miracle, or from being consumed by some animal, and cannot be recovered; then another must be consecrated, after first being offered, beginning at the passage: Qui pridie quam pateretur.
A simple solution to a very uncommon situation.
Under the section Defective Materials, it explains what should happen if a gust of wind or an animal carries away a consecrated host, which Catholics believe to be the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus.
Here is what the document spells out:
III. 7. If the consecrated host should disappear, either from some chance cause such as wind, or by a miracle, or from being consumed by some animal, and cannot be recovered; then another must be consecrated, after first being offered, beginning at the passage: Qui pridie quam pateretur.
A simple solution to a very uncommon situation.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Solar Panels for New Cathedral
A new cathedral is being built in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, the first in Western Canada in 50 years. One interesting thing about this new cathedral is that its stained glass windows will contain solar panels.
This is quite interesting. The Vatican is also a proponent of renewable energy resources such as solar energy, as I highlighted in this past article.
I'm really glad Saskatchewan is getting a new cathedral. It shows the faith is quite vibrant in that community.
This is quite interesting. The Vatican is also a proponent of renewable energy resources such as solar energy, as I highlighted in this past article.
I'm really glad Saskatchewan is getting a new cathedral. It shows the faith is quite vibrant in that community.
Wednesday, February 09, 2011
Choosing between two evils
A common idea when it comes to morality is choosing between two evils. Often times though, we just like to think there are only two choices when in fact there are more, and some do not involve evil at all.
I could be misquoting here, but I thought I heard somewhere that John Paul II said when choosing between two evils, choose neither. All too often, we incorrectly place a decision as being between two possible evils, but these circumstances are very rare.
I was just reading the biography of St. George who lived during the time of Diocletian. He belonged to a wealthy and noble Roman family.
Diocletian was one of the greatest opponents of Christianity and under his reign was the greatest persecution of Christians. He issued an edict saying that all soldiers must pay homage to the Roman gods. Of course, George, a Christian, refused.
Diocletian knew George and wanted him to worship these deities. The emperor did not want to punish George and offered him land, wealth, and power. All he needed from George was for him to worship these false gods. George refused and was subsequently tortured, and never abandoning his faith, was finally killed.
How many people in our modern day, perhaps sadly even including me, would see this as an option between two evils? One evil, being killed by the emperor and worshiping a false god. Then many would conclude that it's better to just worship this false god and live because then we can do other things like charitable work, etc.
But St. George chose not to participate in evil. That's the point. Evil may be done to him, but he will have nothing to do with it.
The amount of good St. George did because of his choice is incalculable. Many were converted at the time and today he is the patron saint of many countries. Legends have developed around him such as him slaying a dragon, which represents his triumph over evil.
Had he chose instead to do what the emperor wanted, he may have helped a couple of people a little here and there, but then he would have had a very tiny impact. It is doubtful anyone would know him today.
All too often, we put our own selfish desires above the truth. We justify our actions instead of choosing good.
Let's give everything to God.
I could be misquoting here, but I thought I heard somewhere that John Paul II said when choosing between two evils, choose neither. All too often, we incorrectly place a decision as being between two possible evils, but these circumstances are very rare.
I was just reading the biography of St. George who lived during the time of Diocletian. He belonged to a wealthy and noble Roman family.
Diocletian was one of the greatest opponents of Christianity and under his reign was the greatest persecution of Christians. He issued an edict saying that all soldiers must pay homage to the Roman gods. Of course, George, a Christian, refused.
Diocletian knew George and wanted him to worship these deities. The emperor did not want to punish George and offered him land, wealth, and power. All he needed from George was for him to worship these false gods. George refused and was subsequently tortured, and never abandoning his faith, was finally killed.
How many people in our modern day, perhaps sadly even including me, would see this as an option between two evils? One evil, being killed by the emperor and worshiping a false god. Then many would conclude that it's better to just worship this false god and live because then we can do other things like charitable work, etc.
But St. George chose not to participate in evil. That's the point. Evil may be done to him, but he will have nothing to do with it.
The amount of good St. George did because of his choice is incalculable. Many were converted at the time and today he is the patron saint of many countries. Legends have developed around him such as him slaying a dragon, which represents his triumph over evil.
Had he chose instead to do what the emperor wanted, he may have helped a couple of people a little here and there, but then he would have had a very tiny impact. It is doubtful anyone would know him today.
All too often, we put our own selfish desires above the truth. We justify our actions instead of choosing good.
Let's give everything to God.
Monday, February 07, 2011
Pumping Iron at God's Gym
Something I've noticed over the years is the number of people who demand that the Catholic Church conform to their ideas, rather than follow what the Church teaches. This not only represents disobedience, but also absurdity. The Church cannot conform to everyone's will. It can only, logically, conform to one will, and that is the will of God.
The Church is like a spiritual gym. Through prayer, fasting, almsgiving, reception of the sacraments, living a life of personal holiness by practicing humility, patience, and love, a person hopes to come closer to Jesus Christ. The Church offers the way to become spiritually fit, in a far more important way than a gym does for the physical body.
Imagine if someone went to a gym and said the following:
"Hi there. I want to work out, but I don't really think it matters if I can't make it every week. Maybe I will just come in once a month, or possibly twice a year at the most important gym dates. Also, I don't want to lift heavy weights, I mainly want to just stick with the 5 or 10 pounds, the light stuff. I don't want to change my diet at all, because that might involve some mortification, which went out with the dark ages. And, why is everyone always sweating, how is that necessary? I think if we all just sat in a circle and talked about feelings, that would feel better."
This person would obviously not lose any weight. They would remain fat. It would also be absurd for someone at the gym to believe they knew better than the trainer who had spent his entire life working out when they themselves know almost nothing about fitness.
Now, obviously spiritual growth is not the same as working out. But the parallels are there. Both involve consistently seeking improvement and using time-tested techniques.
Most of the time when someone criticizes a practice in the Church it is due to their own ignorance or their desire to make things the way THEY want them, instead of humbly accepting the teachings of the Church which Christ established.
Jesus never said "your own personal opinion will lead you into all truth", he said the Church would do that. He established a Church to teach and guide, he didn't give each person the ability to form their own church based on their opinions.
The Church is like a spiritual gym. Through prayer, fasting, almsgiving, reception of the sacraments, living a life of personal holiness by practicing humility, patience, and love, a person hopes to come closer to Jesus Christ. The Church offers the way to become spiritually fit, in a far more important way than a gym does for the physical body.
Imagine if someone went to a gym and said the following:
"Hi there. I want to work out, but I don't really think it matters if I can't make it every week. Maybe I will just come in once a month, or possibly twice a year at the most important gym dates. Also, I don't want to lift heavy weights, I mainly want to just stick with the 5 or 10 pounds, the light stuff. I don't want to change my diet at all, because that might involve some mortification, which went out with the dark ages. And, why is everyone always sweating, how is that necessary? I think if we all just sat in a circle and talked about feelings, that would feel better."
This person would obviously not lose any weight. They would remain fat. It would also be absurd for someone at the gym to believe they knew better than the trainer who had spent his entire life working out when they themselves know almost nothing about fitness.
Now, obviously spiritual growth is not the same as working out. But the parallels are there. Both involve consistently seeking improvement and using time-tested techniques.
Most of the time when someone criticizes a practice in the Church it is due to their own ignorance or their desire to make things the way THEY want them, instead of humbly accepting the teachings of the Church which Christ established.
Jesus never said "your own personal opinion will lead you into all truth", he said the Church would do that. He established a Church to teach and guide, he didn't give each person the ability to form their own church based on their opinions.
Friday, February 04, 2011
The Church from a business perspective
When I studied business, one of the main themes was competitive advantage. A company had to have a strength or seize on an opportunity or it would fail. There had to be some reason a consumer would choose your company or another one. If no such reason existed, your company would falter.
The Church right now is facing a dilemma in the Western world of how to attract people to Mass and to the faith in general. I think the best and really only way to accomplish this is by giving people pure Catholicism. When the Catholic Church tries to compete with other forms of worship or even forms of entertainment, it loses out because the church is not entertainment and it can only be Catholic.
Imagine the Church as a company for a moment, and let's compare it to Rolls-Royce. What would attract potential buyers of Rolls-Royce more:
A) Presenting Rolls-Royce as a "good" car company, but there are many others which are just as good. Telling people if they come to test drive a Rolls-Royce, you also offer donuts, sandwiches, and a rock band on the premises. Also, the company makes sure not to talk about any "hard" issues like how Rolls Royce cars only use the finest mahogany or lambs wool. Rather, they talk about unifying things like the fact that their cars have tires like other cars and can listen to FM radio. When a customer asks about details on the engine, warranty, workmanship, etc. the owner of the store refuses to tell anyone about those details, because it's better just to ignore them so that no one ever gets offended.
B) Presenting Rolls-Royce as the best car company with uncompromising level of quality. Instead of bothering with donuts and rock bands, the Rolls-Royce dealership focuses on maintaining a very beautiful building and creating an atmosphere where people can go to experience Rolls-Royce. They make sure to tell people what sets Rolls-Royce apart, and explain to people it's not just another car company, it is THE car company. Finally, it gives people all the details, especially on the areas where other dealerships compromise.
Obviously B works much better. So why do so many churches focus on being like A?
If a Catholic church presents itself as just another church, and its doctrines as nothing too special, people will not be inspired. It will not call them to action and they will lose interest. People need to be a part of something. The Church must be what it is. The Church does not offer rock bands and meeting halls, it offers the salvation of souls, it offers Jesus in the Eucharist. I believe if individual churches focus on what it truly means to be Catholic, the number of congregants will soar.
The Church right now is facing a dilemma in the Western world of how to attract people to Mass and to the faith in general. I think the best and really only way to accomplish this is by giving people pure Catholicism. When the Catholic Church tries to compete with other forms of worship or even forms of entertainment, it loses out because the church is not entertainment and it can only be Catholic.
Imagine the Church as a company for a moment, and let's compare it to Rolls-Royce. What would attract potential buyers of Rolls-Royce more:
A) Presenting Rolls-Royce as a "good" car company, but there are many others which are just as good. Telling people if they come to test drive a Rolls-Royce, you also offer donuts, sandwiches, and a rock band on the premises. Also, the company makes sure not to talk about any "hard" issues like how Rolls Royce cars only use the finest mahogany or lambs wool. Rather, they talk about unifying things like the fact that their cars have tires like other cars and can listen to FM radio. When a customer asks about details on the engine, warranty, workmanship, etc. the owner of the store refuses to tell anyone about those details, because it's better just to ignore them so that no one ever gets offended.
B) Presenting Rolls-Royce as the best car company with uncompromising level of quality. Instead of bothering with donuts and rock bands, the Rolls-Royce dealership focuses on maintaining a very beautiful building and creating an atmosphere where people can go to experience Rolls-Royce. They make sure to tell people what sets Rolls-Royce apart, and explain to people it's not just another car company, it is THE car company. Finally, it gives people all the details, especially on the areas where other dealerships compromise.
Obviously B works much better. So why do so many churches focus on being like A?
If a Catholic church presents itself as just another church, and its doctrines as nothing too special, people will not be inspired. It will not call them to action and they will lose interest. People need to be a part of something. The Church must be what it is. The Church does not offer rock bands and meeting halls, it offers the salvation of souls, it offers Jesus in the Eucharist. I believe if individual churches focus on what it truly means to be Catholic, the number of congregants will soar.
Wednesday, February 02, 2011
The Rite: Review [Contains Spoilers]
The Rite is about a young man who grows up in his family's funeral business and eventually attends seminary to discern his calling to the priesthood. He is a skeptical young man who eventually tries to quit seminary due to his lack of faith. Unhappy with his decision, his director arranges for the young man to go to Rome to experience exorcism firsthand.
He faithlessness is soon put to the test as many inexplicable events occur in his life which cannot be explained by science.
I felt this movie was quite good. It presented an issue which comes up frequently when dealing with the topic of demonic possession - is it evil influence or psychological issues. The movie did a good job of presenting the Church's real feeling on the issue. The Church says psychological means should be thoroughly explored before a spiritual explanation is given. This doesn't mean that a person must spend 25 years trying to cure an apparent mental illness before a priest is consulted, but people are advised to take this first step.
Once a natural, psychological explanation has been ruled out, an exorcism can take place. There are indicators, which the movie presents, which point to a demonic possession as opposed to a psychological disturbance. One example given in the movie is knowing the unknowable. For example, a patient will know the contents of a bag they've never seen before. Or the person will begin to fluently speak another language they have no knowledge of. Or the possessed will know information about the exorcist that no one else does except the exorcist himself.
These manifestations were quite apparent in the movie.
I liked seeing all the devotional objects in the movie. They were well done and looked quite real. Also, the movie featured many good prayers and seemed to go to some length to show an accurate representation of the Church.
I did however have some issues.
A small one was when the priest was making a cross on someone's head and first moved his thumb down, but then moved his thumb from right to left, which is the reverse of what is correct.
But that's quite minor. A major issue I had with the film was in some of the portrayal of exorcism which differs from reality, including:
1) The exorcist who seems to have a good prayer life and seems to be a holy man becomes possessed. According to the chief exorcist of Rome, this is almost unheard of. The usual victims of possession are people who venture into sorcery, fortune telling, ouija boards, etc.
2) One of the exorcism patients dies while being possessed. Again according to the chief exorcist, the devil cannot kill someone who is possessed, he does not have that much power.
I believe Hollywood needs to do a better job at presenting the risk factors for demon possession. In The Exorcism of Emily Rose, Emily is a very devout Catholic girl who is possessed. According to priests in the field, the majority of cases come from people who become involved in demonic activities, not practicing Catholics.
Also, not all exorcisms are head-spinning, nail-spitting, levitating events. Often they are much more subtle because the Devil is a deceiver. He would rather hide. In fact, The Rite made clear that the Devil prefers that people ignore him.
Overall, I would rate this movie 4/5. The Church is portrayed in a fairly accurate and reverent way, while some of the information is not fully accurate in order to advance the plot.
[The following was added February 26, 2011]
To purchase the book upon which this film is based from Amazon for just $9.57, click the link below:
He faithlessness is soon put to the test as many inexplicable events occur in his life which cannot be explained by science.
I felt this movie was quite good. It presented an issue which comes up frequently when dealing with the topic of demonic possession - is it evil influence or psychological issues. The movie did a good job of presenting the Church's real feeling on the issue. The Church says psychological means should be thoroughly explored before a spiritual explanation is given. This doesn't mean that a person must spend 25 years trying to cure an apparent mental illness before a priest is consulted, but people are advised to take this first step.
Once a natural, psychological explanation has been ruled out, an exorcism can take place. There are indicators, which the movie presents, which point to a demonic possession as opposed to a psychological disturbance. One example given in the movie is knowing the unknowable. For example, a patient will know the contents of a bag they've never seen before. Or the person will begin to fluently speak another language they have no knowledge of. Or the possessed will know information about the exorcist that no one else does except the exorcist himself.
These manifestations were quite apparent in the movie.
I liked seeing all the devotional objects in the movie. They were well done and looked quite real. Also, the movie featured many good prayers and seemed to go to some length to show an accurate representation of the Church.
I did however have some issues.
A small one was when the priest was making a cross on someone's head and first moved his thumb down, but then moved his thumb from right to left, which is the reverse of what is correct.
But that's quite minor. A major issue I had with the film was in some of the portrayal of exorcism which differs from reality, including:
1) The exorcist who seems to have a good prayer life and seems to be a holy man becomes possessed. According to the chief exorcist of Rome, this is almost unheard of. The usual victims of possession are people who venture into sorcery, fortune telling, ouija boards, etc.
2) One of the exorcism patients dies while being possessed. Again according to the chief exorcist, the devil cannot kill someone who is possessed, he does not have that much power.
I believe Hollywood needs to do a better job at presenting the risk factors for demon possession. In The Exorcism of Emily Rose, Emily is a very devout Catholic girl who is possessed. According to priests in the field, the majority of cases come from people who become involved in demonic activities, not practicing Catholics.
Also, not all exorcisms are head-spinning, nail-spitting, levitating events. Often they are much more subtle because the Devil is a deceiver. He would rather hide. In fact, The Rite made clear that the Devil prefers that people ignore him.
Overall, I would rate this movie 4/5. The Church is portrayed in a fairly accurate and reverent way, while some of the information is not fully accurate in order to advance the plot.
[The following was added February 26, 2011]
To purchase the book upon which this film is based from Amazon for just $9.57, click the link below:
Monday, January 31, 2011
$500,000 Church Theft: Response to Reaction
After an internal audit, it was discovered that over the past 38 years, $500,000 has been stolen from the Archdiocese of St. John's. The Archbishop gave the case over to the RNC immediately and said they will now deal with it.
The article was posted on cbc.ca, and as usual, there was plenty of Catholic bashing going on in the comments below the article. I am now responding to some of the accusations.
1) "Churches should be taxed"
Churches should not be taxed imo because they are not corporations seeking to earn profit. Many non-profit and humanitarian organizations are not taxed, because they provide social services. The government feels it makes sense that if someone is contributing money to a church to do social service, then it wouldn't make sense for the government to take a chunk of that money and use it for OTHER social services.
2) Sexual abuse cases
Of course, one of the mainstays of comments about the Catholic Church concerns sex abuse cases. People are not interested to know that cases are more prevalent in schools or in the home, or that it's just as bad in other religions. Sex abuse by clergy is always used to invalidate any point made by the Church. So people now say that it doesn't matter that money was stolen because of what the Church did.
3) How could the Church not know?
Many people commented that it was the fault of the Church that money was stolen because it would take pretty terrible management to not realize it. Well, this is a poor argument, because we've seen cases of money stolen from a variety of institutions, including banks, hospitals, and virtually any other institution. It's certainly not unheard of.
4) Why should the police help?
One rather strange argument that has been advanced is why should the RNC have to provide investigations for this situation. Why doesn't the Church foot the bill for the investigation. Well, this premise is absurd since theft is a criminal action in Canada and thus is publicly prosecuted. To say this would mean you could advance the same argument when a private citizen has money stolen or any organization. Law enforcement is the area of the government, not private organizations or persons.
Conclusion
Obviously most of the arguments advanced against the Church in this matter are simply manifestations of a larger hatred toward the Church. It has nothing to do with logic or a broader belief system. People who hate the Church simply see this as another opportunity to bash it.
The article was posted on cbc.ca, and as usual, there was plenty of Catholic bashing going on in the comments below the article. I am now responding to some of the accusations.
1) "Churches should be taxed"
Churches should not be taxed imo because they are not corporations seeking to earn profit. Many non-profit and humanitarian organizations are not taxed, because they provide social services. The government feels it makes sense that if someone is contributing money to a church to do social service, then it wouldn't make sense for the government to take a chunk of that money and use it for OTHER social services.
2) Sexual abuse cases
Of course, one of the mainstays of comments about the Catholic Church concerns sex abuse cases. People are not interested to know that cases are more prevalent in schools or in the home, or that it's just as bad in other religions. Sex abuse by clergy is always used to invalidate any point made by the Church. So people now say that it doesn't matter that money was stolen because of what the Church did.
3) How could the Church not know?
Many people commented that it was the fault of the Church that money was stolen because it would take pretty terrible management to not realize it. Well, this is a poor argument, because we've seen cases of money stolen from a variety of institutions, including banks, hospitals, and virtually any other institution. It's certainly not unheard of.
4) Why should the police help?
One rather strange argument that has been advanced is why should the RNC have to provide investigations for this situation. Why doesn't the Church foot the bill for the investigation. Well, this premise is absurd since theft is a criminal action in Canada and thus is publicly prosecuted. To say this would mean you could advance the same argument when a private citizen has money stolen or any organization. Law enforcement is the area of the government, not private organizations or persons.
Conclusion
Obviously most of the arguments advanced against the Church in this matter are simply manifestations of a larger hatred toward the Church. It has nothing to do with logic or a broader belief system. People who hate the Church simply see this as another opportunity to bash it.
Friday, January 28, 2011
Truth in the Problematic Dutch Catechism
After Vatican II, Dutch bishops published a book that is commonly referred to as the Dutch Catechism. It is rather non-dogmatic in its approach, and there are some issues to be found in it. After it was published, the Vatican had a team investigate the book and issued a 50 page document outlining the issues with it. One issue concerned birth control. The book was issued prior to Humanae Vitae, but basically offered a dissenting view on the issue of birth control, ultimately leaving it up to the conscience of the couple. Obviously this is not Church teaching, and this problem was addressed in the Vatican document.
Unfortunately, instead of actually fixing anything, the Dutch bishops simply published the Vatican document as an appendix to the Catechism they had produced.
But one thing I read from this catechism stood out to me. It says a lot about our faith.
It reads:
"The heart of the book is the message of Easter. If the news of Jesus’ resurrection were removed, not one page of the book would have any value."
This is very important when it comes to Christianity. St. Paul said that unless Christ rose from the dead, his faith is in vain. Many people think of Jesus as just a good moral teacher, on the same level as Buddha or Confucius. But our faith is not based on a series of principles, but on the person of Jesus Christ.
Jesus was not simply a moral teacher. He is the second person of the Trinity and the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the World. We achieve our salvation, not through following a life ethic, but through our response to God's grace, and being part of the Body of Christ. That's why the Eucharist is the "source and summit" of the Christian faith. If Jesus was a moral teacher only, then the Eucharist would be pointless. All the other moral teachers said they were mere men, such as Buddha for example. But only Jesus claimed to be the Son of God. A good moral teacher would not say he is the Son of God.
We are saved only through Christ's sacrifice on the cross, not simply because we're "good" people. Also, his grace comes through his Church, and that's why there is no salvation outside the Church. Jesus established a Church, and he said no one comes to the father except through him. As the Bible says, the Church is the Body of Christ. Jesus never once said "No one goes to the father except those that follow a moral teacher".
Christianity is not about following the advice of Jesus, but rather it is about being followers of Jesus himself.
Unfortunately, instead of actually fixing anything, the Dutch bishops simply published the Vatican document as an appendix to the Catechism they had produced.
But one thing I read from this catechism stood out to me. It says a lot about our faith.
It reads:
"The heart of the book is the message of Easter. If the news of Jesus’ resurrection were removed, not one page of the book would have any value."
This is very important when it comes to Christianity. St. Paul said that unless Christ rose from the dead, his faith is in vain. Many people think of Jesus as just a good moral teacher, on the same level as Buddha or Confucius. But our faith is not based on a series of principles, but on the person of Jesus Christ.
Jesus was not simply a moral teacher. He is the second person of the Trinity and the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the World. We achieve our salvation, not through following a life ethic, but through our response to God's grace, and being part of the Body of Christ. That's why the Eucharist is the "source and summit" of the Christian faith. If Jesus was a moral teacher only, then the Eucharist would be pointless. All the other moral teachers said they were mere men, such as Buddha for example. But only Jesus claimed to be the Son of God. A good moral teacher would not say he is the Son of God.
We are saved only through Christ's sacrifice on the cross, not simply because we're "good" people. Also, his grace comes through his Church, and that's why there is no salvation outside the Church. Jesus established a Church, and he said no one comes to the father except through him. As the Bible says, the Church is the Body of Christ. Jesus never once said "No one goes to the father except those that follow a moral teacher".
Christianity is not about following the advice of Jesus, but rather it is about being followers of Jesus himself.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Dire Straits Song Banned Due to Homosexual Reference
In a scary precedent, the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council (CBSC) has banned the 25 year old song Money for Nothing by Dire Straits from the radio because it contains the word "faggot". This amounts to censorship of the worst kind. I'm ashamed to say this all originated from a complaint received at OZFM, a local radio station here in St. John's.
I do not believe that we ought to persecute homosexuals or to treat them badly. This is also the position of the Church. However, no group of people should be afforded more privileges than any other group. Songs are written every day about any number of types of people, many of the lyrics are very insulting. Yet, no special protection is given for these groups. It comes down to freedom of speech.
The problem here is that homosexual activity has reached a status in Canada whereby any disagreement with them on any matter is considered hate speech, rather than legitimate debate or discussion.
This brings me back to Fr. Alphonse De Valk. He is a Canadian Catholic priest of the Basilian order who simply spoke on the Church's constant teaching concerning homosexual activities and gay marriage. He was fined for hate speech and had to spend thousands of dollars defending himself in court.
Does anyone think this would happen if someone spoke up against the Catholic Church? Of course not. It would probably air on prime time on CBC.
There is an enormous double standard when it comes to homosexual comments. People can blaspheme God all they want and make false and derogatory comments about the Church and no one bats an eye, but make one verbal misstep about an homosexual issue and you could land yourself in court.
The Catholic Church acknowledges that people who consider themselves gay have the same rights as everyone else when it comes to human rights, but there are legitimate reasons to take someone's homosexuality into consideration when making decisions.
A statement by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith states:
The banning of this song from the radio is indicative of a larger issue. The government is trying to squelch religious free speech and impose its own morality on the people. We must not let this happen.
I do not believe that we ought to persecute homosexuals or to treat them badly. This is also the position of the Church. However, no group of people should be afforded more privileges than any other group. Songs are written every day about any number of types of people, many of the lyrics are very insulting. Yet, no special protection is given for these groups. It comes down to freedom of speech.
The problem here is that homosexual activity has reached a status in Canada whereby any disagreement with them on any matter is considered hate speech, rather than legitimate debate or discussion.
This brings me back to Fr. Alphonse De Valk. He is a Canadian Catholic priest of the Basilian order who simply spoke on the Church's constant teaching concerning homosexual activities and gay marriage. He was fined for hate speech and had to spend thousands of dollars defending himself in court.
Does anyone think this would happen if someone spoke up against the Catholic Church? Of course not. It would probably air on prime time on CBC.
There is an enormous double standard when it comes to homosexual comments. People can blaspheme God all they want and make false and derogatory comments about the Church and no one bats an eye, but make one verbal misstep about an homosexual issue and you could land yourself in court.
The Catholic Church acknowledges that people who consider themselves gay have the same rights as everyone else when it comes to human rights, but there are legitimate reasons to take someone's homosexuality into consideration when making decisions.
A statement by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith states:
10. “Sexual orientation” does not constitute a quality comparable to race, ethnic background, etc. in respect to non-discrimination. Unlike these, homosexual orientation is an objective disorder (cf. Letter, no. 3) and evokes moral concern.
11. There are areas in which it is not unjust discrimination to take sexual orientation into account, for example, in the placement of children for adoption or foster care, in employment of teachers or athletic coaches, and in military recruitment.
The banning of this song from the radio is indicative of a larger issue. The government is trying to squelch religious free speech and impose its own morality on the people. We must not let this happen.
Monday, January 24, 2011
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Offensive Super Bowl Ad will not air
Pepsico had a contest where a person or organization could win $5 million by submitting an advertisement to be used during the Super Bowl. It, of course, received hundreds of entries. One entry though was extremely offensive. It shows a priest who is struggling to bring more money into the church, until he finally has the bright idea to switch the bread and wine at Eucharist for Doritos and Pepsi. Then he receives loads of congregants.
Needless to say, this is extremely offensive to Catholics and others who believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Pepsi disqualified the ad from consideration and said it will not air. This is great news. Thanks Pepsi!
For more on this story, please visit: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/Religion/post/2011/01/super-bowl-doritos-ad-catholic-offensive/1?csp=34
Needless to say, this is extremely offensive to Catholics and others who believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Pepsi disqualified the ad from consideration and said it will not air. This is great news. Thanks Pepsi!
For more on this story, please visit: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/Religion/post/2011/01/super-bowl-doritos-ad-catholic-offensive/1?csp=34
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Blood of John Paul II to Become Relic
Some blood of John Paul II, which was taken during many medical procedures and eventually given to Cardinal Stanislaw Dziwisz, will be a relic in a centre dedicated to the late pope in Poland. The relic is encased in a crystal case and will be placed in an altar in the centre.
Relics have been a part of Christian tradition since ancient times. They are not used as amulets or idols and are not said to contain magical properties. Rather, God's grace and love is present where these relics are. Examples can be found in the Bible such as when people touch the robe of Jesus and are healed. Although they do not touch Jesus himself, they touch an object close to him through which he works his grace.
Relics have been a part of Christian tradition since ancient times. They are not used as amulets or idols and are not said to contain magical properties. Rather, God's grace and love is present where these relics are. Examples can be found in the Bible such as when people touch the robe of Jesus and are healed. Although they do not touch Jesus himself, they touch an object close to him through which he works his grace.
Longest time without a pope since AD33
The longest period of time during which the Catholic Church did not have a pope was from November 1268 to September 1, 1271, almost 3 years. This period is known as the interregnum (between reigns). The reasons were mostly political. It would have taken even longer, but the cardinals were locked in the Palazzo dei Papi di Viterbo to vote. They were given only bread and water and even the roof was removed making conditions very uncomfortable.
Eventually, Pope Gregory X was elected.
Eventually, Pope Gregory X was elected.
Monday, January 17, 2011
John Paul II First Pope to be Beatified by Successor
I've done some research and it seems Pope John Paul II will be the first pope beatified by his successor. In this case, Benedict XVI.
In total, there have been 78 canonized popes, and 9 currently considered Blessed. When JPII is beatified in May, 88 out of 264 (dead) popes will have been beatified or canonized, exactly one third.
This may seem like a lot, but we must keep in mind the fact that canonizations being done exclusively by the pope only started in 993. Since then, only 4 popes have been canonized and 10 have been beatified from a total of 128. In other words, 10.9%.
In total, there have been 78 canonized popes, and 9 currently considered Blessed. When JPII is beatified in May, 88 out of 264 (dead) popes will have been beatified or canonized, exactly one third.
This may seem like a lot, but we must keep in mind the fact that canonizations being done exclusively by the pope only started in 993. Since then, only 4 popes have been canonized and 10 have been beatified from a total of 128. In other words, 10.9%.
Friday, January 14, 2011
CTV, gay marriage, and Pope John Paul II
It's easy to see that CTV has its priorities straight...not. I was watching the news tonight on NTV (who use the CTV national news). My TV situation leaves a lot to be desired and channel 5 is the only channel I can get. Anyway, I was hoping to hear what they had to say about the beatification of Pope John Paul II. It took me a while to even get reception, but I finally did. There were several stories which aired. Eventually they started talking about a gay couple and a lesbian couple who were renewing their "wedding" vows. This hardly seemed like news. I assumed if they were going to mentioned the previous pontiff, they would have by now, but I was wrong.
After the gay "marriage" story and a few more, they did have a piece on the late great pope, but it was nearly 25 minutes into the show. TV channels these days, except for a few, definitely have their priorities out of place. It's pretty ridiculous when they place a renewal for a "marriage" that no mainstream religion recognizes as valid above the beatification of one of the most important and beloved world leaders of the past century.
Pope John Paul II was the leader of over one billion Catholics and is almost universally loved. He is just one step away from being declared a saint. How is this significantly less important than the renewal of vows of the invalid marriage of some unknown people?
The reason for this is simple. John Paul II represents religion, specifically Catholicism. Anything that has to do with religion is placed low on the totem pole of Canadian news reporting. Stories about abortion, IVF, contraception, gay "marriage", etc. get top spots. It seems any time a news item somehow undermines morality, the event is lauded by the mainstream media. Anything that brings disorder is congratulated. But when a man stands up for Good and Truth, it's seen as offensive.
The Church is presented as outdated, if it is presented at all. To further water down the message of the Church, equal air time is given to every other religion and belief system (including atheism), even if their numbers in Canada represent 0.02% of the population. On the news, the Church is seen the same way one might visit a museum. We see it from behind a glass shield. It may be interesting, but it's just one culture among many hundreds which obviously has no say in our lives. Most people know so little about the Catholic Church, even in predominantly Christian countries that when a news story comes on about the pope or the Vatican, it may as well be about the rites of passage of the natives of Borneo.
Any news stories about gay "marriage", in-vitro fertilization, legalization of prostitution, euthanasia, cloning, abortion, etc. gets front-page status because they represent a new religion. One where every inclination an individual has, no matter how disordered, receives the label of a "right".
The Church is like a gym. It says you can feel good about yourself because you are so important and valuable in the eyes of God. They have equipment to help you realize your great potential. If you are spiritually overweight, lazy, unmotivated, the Church has the solution. If you use what the Church has to offer, you can get in great spiritual shape. The media, on the other hand, creates a policy that says they cannot tell anyone they are overweight, lazy, or unmotivated. No negative words are allowed. There is no right or wrong. Everyone is simply "different". The five-foot eight guy who weighs 400 pounds is no different than the guy with low body fat and in good physical condition. They have simply chosen their own unique paths, both of which are equally valid. The problem is words do not change reality. The fat guy remains fat. The media may convince him that he is not fat, just different. But that doesn't change the reality. It doesn't change the fact that he gets winded by walking up stairs, or that he has trouble sleeping.
The media has created the idea that there is no right or wrong, just different. One person says IVF is wrong, another says it is right, but ultimately YOU decide. Moral questions have become personal whims. Therefore, it is no surprise that news stories about the Catholic Church are not the headliners. Opinions and editorials come AFTER the hard news. But don't be fooled. Morals are objective, universal and unchanging guiding principles set out by God. The Catholic Church infallibly speaks for God in matters of faith and morals. Instead of one moral voice among many, the Church was established by Christ to spread Truth throughout the world.
After the gay "marriage" story and a few more, they did have a piece on the late great pope, but it was nearly 25 minutes into the show. TV channels these days, except for a few, definitely have their priorities out of place. It's pretty ridiculous when they place a renewal for a "marriage" that no mainstream religion recognizes as valid above the beatification of one of the most important and beloved world leaders of the past century.
Pope John Paul II was the leader of over one billion Catholics and is almost universally loved. He is just one step away from being declared a saint. How is this significantly less important than the renewal of vows of the invalid marriage of some unknown people?
The reason for this is simple. John Paul II represents religion, specifically Catholicism. Anything that has to do with religion is placed low on the totem pole of Canadian news reporting. Stories about abortion, IVF, contraception, gay "marriage", etc. get top spots. It seems any time a news item somehow undermines morality, the event is lauded by the mainstream media. Anything that brings disorder is congratulated. But when a man stands up for Good and Truth, it's seen as offensive.
The Church is presented as outdated, if it is presented at all. To further water down the message of the Church, equal air time is given to every other religion and belief system (including atheism), even if their numbers in Canada represent 0.02% of the population. On the news, the Church is seen the same way one might visit a museum. We see it from behind a glass shield. It may be interesting, but it's just one culture among many hundreds which obviously has no say in our lives. Most people know so little about the Catholic Church, even in predominantly Christian countries that when a news story comes on about the pope or the Vatican, it may as well be about the rites of passage of the natives of Borneo.
Any news stories about gay "marriage", in-vitro fertilization, legalization of prostitution, euthanasia, cloning, abortion, etc. gets front-page status because they represent a new religion. One where every inclination an individual has, no matter how disordered, receives the label of a "right".
The Church is like a gym. It says you can feel good about yourself because you are so important and valuable in the eyes of God. They have equipment to help you realize your great potential. If you are spiritually overweight, lazy, unmotivated, the Church has the solution. If you use what the Church has to offer, you can get in great spiritual shape. The media, on the other hand, creates a policy that says they cannot tell anyone they are overweight, lazy, or unmotivated. No negative words are allowed. There is no right or wrong. Everyone is simply "different". The five-foot eight guy who weighs 400 pounds is no different than the guy with low body fat and in good physical condition. They have simply chosen their own unique paths, both of which are equally valid. The problem is words do not change reality. The fat guy remains fat. The media may convince him that he is not fat, just different. But that doesn't change the reality. It doesn't change the fact that he gets winded by walking up stairs, or that he has trouble sleeping.
The media has created the idea that there is no right or wrong, just different. One person says IVF is wrong, another says it is right, but ultimately YOU decide. Moral questions have become personal whims. Therefore, it is no surprise that news stories about the Catholic Church are not the headliners. Opinions and editorials come AFTER the hard news. But don't be fooled. Morals are objective, universal and unchanging guiding principles set out by God. The Catholic Church infallibly speaks for God in matters of faith and morals. Instead of one moral voice among many, the Church was established by Christ to spread Truth throughout the world.
John Paul II to be beatified on May 1, 2011
Great news emerged today that Pope John Paul II will be beatified on May 1, 2011. Although the process toward sainthood usually begins five years after a person's death, Pope Benedict XVI waived the waiting period and commenced the cause of the late pope immediately.
Already declared venerable, John Paul II will be beatified now that a nun's cure has been declared a miracle wrought by the intercession of the late Holy Father. Sister Marie Simon-Pierre, a French nun in her forties, was diagnosed with Parkinsons disease. She prayed for the intercession of John Paul the Great and is now free of the disease.
Doctors verified the condition of the lady and have determined that no medical explanation can be given. In order for a miracle to be approved, the Vatican has established stringent guidelines. Doctors, and anyone involved in the treatment of a patient, for example, must declare that a cure has no natural explanation. They are not required to call it a miracle because some people simply do not believe in them, but simply that no medical explanation can be given.
It was appropriate for this nun to pray for the intercession of the previous pontiff because he too had the disease.
Upon the death of the beloved Vicar of Christ, thousands gathered in St. Peter's Square shouting "Santo Subito!", roughly translating to "Sainthood Now!" The people are now one step closer to this reality.
Already declared venerable, John Paul II will be beatified now that a nun's cure has been declared a miracle wrought by the intercession of the late Holy Father. Sister Marie Simon-Pierre, a French nun in her forties, was diagnosed with Parkinsons disease. She prayed for the intercession of John Paul the Great and is now free of the disease.
Doctors verified the condition of the lady and have determined that no medical explanation can be given. In order for a miracle to be approved, the Vatican has established stringent guidelines. Doctors, and anyone involved in the treatment of a patient, for example, must declare that a cure has no natural explanation. They are not required to call it a miracle because some people simply do not believe in them, but simply that no medical explanation can be given.
It was appropriate for this nun to pray for the intercession of the previous pontiff because he too had the disease.
Upon the death of the beloved Vicar of Christ, thousands gathered in St. Peter's Square shouting "Santo Subito!", roughly translating to "Sainthood Now!" The people are now one step closer to this reality.
Fr. Benedict Groeschel 6 years after his Near Death Experience
A beloved priest who frequently appears on EWTN, Fr. Benedict Groeschel of New York, nearly died 6 years ago after he was hit by a car while crossing the street. After this pure accident, Groeschel was rushed to the nearest hospital in Orlando where the accident took place. His prognosis was so bad, he was left for dead by the medics who were trying to resuscitate him.
Fortunately, a priest by the name of Fr. John Lynch begged the doctors to keep trying to bring Fr. Benedict back. It seemed a hopeless case. He had no blood pressure, no heart beat, or pulse for twenty minutes. Those working on Fr. Benedict said that even if they revived him, the brain starts to die after no blood for 4 minutes.
Yet miraculously Fr. Benedict not only lived, but had no permanent damage. It is a true act of God. A few days later, Fr. Benedict was again threatened by toxins that had entered his body. But somehow, they left. Finally, two weeks later, he had heart failure, but was again brought back from the brink.
I mention this now because tonight I listened to a past episode of Catholic Answers Live where Fr. Benedict was talking about suffering and how we can use it for good. Many see him as a living saint, and I believe he was miraculously saved because he still has work to do for God.
Fortunately, a priest by the name of Fr. John Lynch begged the doctors to keep trying to bring Fr. Benedict back. It seemed a hopeless case. He had no blood pressure, no heart beat, or pulse for twenty minutes. Those working on Fr. Benedict said that even if they revived him, the brain starts to die after no blood for 4 minutes.
Yet miraculously Fr. Benedict not only lived, but had no permanent damage. It is a true act of God. A few days later, Fr. Benedict was again threatened by toxins that had entered his body. But somehow, they left. Finally, two weeks later, he had heart failure, but was again brought back from the brink.
I mention this now because tonight I listened to a past episode of Catholic Answers Live where Fr. Benedict was talking about suffering and how we can use it for good. Many see him as a living saint, and I believe he was miraculously saved because he still has work to do for God.
Saturday, January 08, 2011
How Pope Innocent VI stayed well
I was just looking through an article on Pope Innocent VI on Wikipedia and the following line caught my eye. I thought it was awesome:
He avoided the Black Death by sitting between two fires by himself so his air was not impure.
Thursday, January 06, 2011
Just watched Angels and Demons
While it was in theatre and still a new release, I didn't watch Angels and Demons, but I now have a monthly pass where I can rent an unlimited number of movies, so I decided to rent it and to evaluate it.
=== WARNING: Spoilers ahead ===
I must say it's not as bad as I thought it was. There are movies which are probably worse, and there was a little bit of counterbalance, although not much. Maybe 80% portrayed the Church in a negative light and 20% was positive.
I took down a few little notes of inaccuracies from the movie, and here they are:
1) Perceived conflict between religion and science
This was a big thing which I knew would be present in the movie. A couple of times they did say that science and faith are not in conflict, but the theme of the movie was that the Catholic Church is against science and actively trying to destroy it. This has been going on for centuries. One group, the illuminati were a peaceful group of people who wanted to explore science, but the Church ruthlessly destroyed and killed members of the group. The movie is about the attempts of the Illuminati to find vengeance for these injustices. Obviously, the Church is not against science. I have written extensively on this subject. Check out more on this on my blog here, and here.
2) Some clergy shown very "ordinary"
This is more of a pet peeve, and may actually reflect something of a truth, but a lot of the cardinals were portrayed as smoking, using their cell phones and camcorders, and often not as prayerful individuals. They are often shown are rude, and sometimes even power-hungry. I believe the portrayal of cardinals in this movie was somewhat lacking.
3) Preferiti
The term preferiti is used in the movie to indicate 4 cardinals they believed had the highest chances to be elected pope. The actual term is papabile, and often a pope is chosen from someone who is not a member of this group.
4) La Purga didn't happen
The movie is centered around the Illuminating seeking revenge for when 4 of its members were branded by the Church then killed. This was known as La Purga in 1668. Only problem is it never happened. It's funny because in the movie, Robert Langdon is surprised when he mentions La Purga and no one there knows what it was. Maybe those guys were from reality.
5) The Camerlengo was a priest
Ordinarily a camerlengo is a cardinal, but in this movie, a priest was the camerlengo
6) Worshipping the Sun?
Prof. Robert Langdon tells his assistant that the reason the tombs are facing East is that they are worshipping the Sun. When asked why they are doing this, he says they just took that tradition from the pagans. He goes on to say a similar thing happened with December 25th. Truth is, Christians do not worship the Sun and to do so is idolatrous. Christ rose gloriously to spread his light on the world on Easter. The Sun represents the rising Christ.
As for December 25th, it is held as almost common knowledge that Christians "took over" this holiday from the Romans, but I have not found convincing evidence of this. No matter what the case, Christians are worshipping the Jesus Christ at his birth, so that's the main point. It may be that Christians were celebrating on December 25th BEFORE the Romans, who were celebrating the feast of Sol Invictus. The first reference of the Roman celebration dates to the fourth century. Also, December 25th has a lot of symbolism anyway, such as being the shortest day of the year (or so the ancients thought). Therefore it represented Christ's light beginning and growing ever stronger.
7) Protests at St. Peter's Square
Maybe I'm a little naive, but any time I've seen coverage of a large papal event at the Vatican, I have never seen major protests in St. Peter's Square. However, in the movie, it seems there are protests going on all over the place during the papal election. It seems rather odd.
8) Papal autopsy prohibited
I have no real information on this issue and I'm not sure if the information is even available to the public, but I have not heard anywhere that papal autopsies are prohibited by law. I guess it is something I will have to research.
9) Vatican Archives
The Vatican Secret Archives are indeed highly restricted. There are about 52 miles of shelving and 35,000 unique documents. Access has been loosened somewhat from previous years and now about 1000 researchers enter the Archives annually. No "browsing" is permitted. Those with permission to enter must request a specific manuscript by title.
It is possible that a researcher could have made multiple requests for access to the archives and have been denied. However, I am very skeptical of the oxygen situation and the ability of the rooms to lock with people inside unable to escape. This seems like a pretty glaring engineering error.
10) Papal election errors
Many errors are made concerning papal elections. It is stated that two thirds of the vote will never be reached unless a new approach is taken. However, if the College of Cardinals is unable to attain two thirds of the vote, then half will suffice (after a certain number of voting rounds). Also, it is said that only a cardinal can be elected, which is false. Any Catholic male can become pope, theoretically. Finally, they say since there is no other choice, they can elect a non-cardinal via a process known as election by adoration, which doesn't actually exist. There is not provision in Church law for an election other than by ballot.
11) Great Elector
A Church position which is purely fictional is that of "Great Elector". No such role exists in the Church. Furthermore, the movie claims that the cardinal with this title is barred from being elected. In reality, no cardinal is barred from being elected.
12) Many Pope Marks?
This is small, but perhaps the most surprising error of the movie because it is so obvious. A cursory glance at the list of popes shows there has never been a Pope Mark, yet a character in the movie says there have been many Pope Johns and Pope Marks, so this new pope wanted to be Pope Luke. Seems like such a big oversight which was so easy to catch.
--
These are some of the observations I made of the movie. I think it's important for Catholics and others to realize this is a work of fiction. It's funny because a lot of people know so little about the Catholic Church that they would be susceptible to believing this film. Truth is, the facts are out there. You just have to look.
=== WARNING: Spoilers ahead ===
I must say it's not as bad as I thought it was. There are movies which are probably worse, and there was a little bit of counterbalance, although not much. Maybe 80% portrayed the Church in a negative light and 20% was positive.
I took down a few little notes of inaccuracies from the movie, and here they are:
1) Perceived conflict between religion and science
This was a big thing which I knew would be present in the movie. A couple of times they did say that science and faith are not in conflict, but the theme of the movie was that the Catholic Church is against science and actively trying to destroy it. This has been going on for centuries. One group, the illuminati were a peaceful group of people who wanted to explore science, but the Church ruthlessly destroyed and killed members of the group. The movie is about the attempts of the Illuminati to find vengeance for these injustices. Obviously, the Church is not against science. I have written extensively on this subject. Check out more on this on my blog here, and here.
2) Some clergy shown very "ordinary"
This is more of a pet peeve, and may actually reflect something of a truth, but a lot of the cardinals were portrayed as smoking, using their cell phones and camcorders, and often not as prayerful individuals. They are often shown are rude, and sometimes even power-hungry. I believe the portrayal of cardinals in this movie was somewhat lacking.
3) Preferiti
The term preferiti is used in the movie to indicate 4 cardinals they believed had the highest chances to be elected pope. The actual term is papabile, and often a pope is chosen from someone who is not a member of this group.
4) La Purga didn't happen
The movie is centered around the Illuminating seeking revenge for when 4 of its members were branded by the Church then killed. This was known as La Purga in 1668. Only problem is it never happened. It's funny because in the movie, Robert Langdon is surprised when he mentions La Purga and no one there knows what it was. Maybe those guys were from reality.
5) The Camerlengo was a priest
Ordinarily a camerlengo is a cardinal, but in this movie, a priest was the camerlengo
6) Worshipping the Sun?
Prof. Robert Langdon tells his assistant that the reason the tombs are facing East is that they are worshipping the Sun. When asked why they are doing this, he says they just took that tradition from the pagans. He goes on to say a similar thing happened with December 25th. Truth is, Christians do not worship the Sun and to do so is idolatrous. Christ rose gloriously to spread his light on the world on Easter. The Sun represents the rising Christ.
As for December 25th, it is held as almost common knowledge that Christians "took over" this holiday from the Romans, but I have not found convincing evidence of this. No matter what the case, Christians are worshipping the Jesus Christ at his birth, so that's the main point. It may be that Christians were celebrating on December 25th BEFORE the Romans, who were celebrating the feast of Sol Invictus. The first reference of the Roman celebration dates to the fourth century. Also, December 25th has a lot of symbolism anyway, such as being the shortest day of the year (or so the ancients thought). Therefore it represented Christ's light beginning and growing ever stronger.
7) Protests at St. Peter's Square
Maybe I'm a little naive, but any time I've seen coverage of a large papal event at the Vatican, I have never seen major protests in St. Peter's Square. However, in the movie, it seems there are protests going on all over the place during the papal election. It seems rather odd.
8) Papal autopsy prohibited
I have no real information on this issue and I'm not sure if the information is even available to the public, but I have not heard anywhere that papal autopsies are prohibited by law. I guess it is something I will have to research.
9) Vatican Archives
The Vatican Secret Archives are indeed highly restricted. There are about 52 miles of shelving and 35,000 unique documents. Access has been loosened somewhat from previous years and now about 1000 researchers enter the Archives annually. No "browsing" is permitted. Those with permission to enter must request a specific manuscript by title.
It is possible that a researcher could have made multiple requests for access to the archives and have been denied. However, I am very skeptical of the oxygen situation and the ability of the rooms to lock with people inside unable to escape. This seems like a pretty glaring engineering error.
10) Papal election errors
Many errors are made concerning papal elections. It is stated that two thirds of the vote will never be reached unless a new approach is taken. However, if the College of Cardinals is unable to attain two thirds of the vote, then half will suffice (after a certain number of voting rounds). Also, it is said that only a cardinal can be elected, which is false. Any Catholic male can become pope, theoretically. Finally, they say since there is no other choice, they can elect a non-cardinal via a process known as election by adoration, which doesn't actually exist. There is not provision in Church law for an election other than by ballot.
11) Great Elector
A Church position which is purely fictional is that of "Great Elector". No such role exists in the Church. Furthermore, the movie claims that the cardinal with this title is barred from being elected. In reality, no cardinal is barred from being elected.
12) Many Pope Marks?
This is small, but perhaps the most surprising error of the movie because it is so obvious. A cursory glance at the list of popes shows there has never been a Pope Mark, yet a character in the movie says there have been many Pope Johns and Pope Marks, so this new pope wanted to be Pope Luke. Seems like such a big oversight which was so easy to catch.
--
These are some of the observations I made of the movie. I think it's important for Catholics and others to realize this is a work of fiction. It's funny because a lot of people know so little about the Catholic Church that they would be susceptible to believing this film. Truth is, the facts are out there. You just have to look.
Saturday, January 01, 2011
Christians target of Muslim extremists
Christians around the world are facing a serious threat from Muslim extremists. On Saturday, members of al-Qaeda killed 21 Coptic Christian worshipers in Alexandria, Egypt. That's twenty one innocent civilians who were doing nothing but praying.
Just last week, on Christmas eve, Muslim extremists killed 31 innocent worshipers in the Nigerian city of Jos. Week after week, these extremists are targeting innocent Christians.
How can these spineless terrorists target peaceful churchgoers? How can they possibly view this as an act motivated by God? What warped view of God must they have? They will kill men, women, and children. In November, a group with ties to Al Qaeda declared that any Christian in the Middle East is a legitimate target of violence.
Pope Benedict has fearlessly spoken out against these attacks and said we must deplore this violence and that we must not be reduced to worry and fear. These people who are killed in these attacks are true martyrs. They gave their life to God while worshiping him when he makes himself most present.
These attacks are motivated by false religious teachers who tell their followers that it is God's will to kill Christians, even innocent ones. The only way to truly erase a poisonous ideology like this one is to present people with the Truth of the Gospel. Many people scoff at evangelization, but it is more important now than ever. If everyone came to love the Good News of Jesus, this violence would end. Jesus told us he is the way, the truth, and the life. Who are we to keep this to ourselves?
Just last week, on Christmas eve, Muslim extremists killed 31 innocent worshipers in the Nigerian city of Jos. Week after week, these extremists are targeting innocent Christians.
How can these spineless terrorists target peaceful churchgoers? How can they possibly view this as an act motivated by God? What warped view of God must they have? They will kill men, women, and children. In November, a group with ties to Al Qaeda declared that any Christian in the Middle East is a legitimate target of violence.
Pope Benedict has fearlessly spoken out against these attacks and said we must deplore this violence and that we must not be reduced to worry and fear. These people who are killed in these attacks are true martyrs. They gave their life to God while worshiping him when he makes himself most present.
These attacks are motivated by false religious teachers who tell their followers that it is God's will to kill Christians, even innocent ones. The only way to truly erase a poisonous ideology like this one is to present people with the Truth of the Gospel. Many people scoff at evangelization, but it is more important now than ever. If everyone came to love the Good News of Jesus, this violence would end. Jesus told us he is the way, the truth, and the life. Who are we to keep this to ourselves?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)