The word "martyr" is often bandied around in common parlance. In the more casual sense, it means someone who makes a sacrifice or is seen as a victim. So if a person is arrested, it may be feared that he will become a "martyr for the cause". Traditionally though, martyrdom means someone who dies for their beliefs.
Over the past few decades, we've heard the term applied to suicide bombers. These people often consider themselves martyrs. These people would not however be considered as such in Christianity. SO how do the three Abrahamic religions differ?
Jews have a similar understanding to martyrdom as Christians do. To Jews, it's a form of Kiddush Hashem or "sanctification of God's name". One of the most well known examples of Jewish martyrdom is found in the books of first and second Maccabees, which is found only in Catholic and Orthodox Bibles. In it, Jews were killed for traditional practices such as not eating pork or circumcising their young males.
Martyrdom took a place of even greater importance within Christianity. Martyrdom was so common in the early days of the Church that Tertullian famously noted that "the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church". The first individual martyr is said to be St. Stephen who was killed on the orders of St. Paul. Over the centuries there have been hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of martyrs in Christianity.
It is important to note the definition of a martyr. In the Christian tradition it is very restricted. A martyr is one who is killed for his Christian belief after he refused to renounce it, even upon threat of death. Therefore, it automatically excludes:
- those killed during conquest or battle
- those who are killed while performing an evil action
- those who are trying to escape or conceal their identity
- those who renounce their faith
- those who kill others and are then killed
- those who commit suicide
- those killed by accident
There are probably more, but that's all I can think of right now.
In Islam, the meaning of martyrdom (or shahid) has a much broader definition, although not all Muslims agree on it. Muslims can do the following and still be considered martyrs:
- be killed in battle
- be killed in the process of killing others (i.e. infidels)
- be in an accident, such as fire or drowning
- die by disease
- die during childbirth
- die defending property
- die while in a building that collapses
- dies after being attacked by a beast
- dies while being a stranger in a new land
Obviously, the range of possibility for martyrdom in Islam is much greater than it is in Christianity.
Let's take some time today to remember the sacrifice of these great Christian people over the centuries and which continues to this day.
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Monday, March 14, 2011
Vatican bishop document raises questions - CathNews
The Vatican is sending questionnaires to Australia to determine if the bishops and priests are orthodox and true followers of the faith. However, a lot of people are up in arms about this. Most of the people who are objecting are saying the local bishop should have more power and the pope shouldn't be allowed to "intrude". Are these people even Catholic? Why such animosity toward the pope? I really find this point of view confusing, where people somehow separate the pope and other bishops, the priests from their bishop, and the laity from the "hierarchy". The Church is supposed to be united!
Vatican bishop document raises questions - CathNews
Vatican bishop document raises questions - CathNews
"Leftover" embryos
In another disturbing story from Canada, clinics don't know what to do with frozen embryos that the parents don't want. Keep in mind, these are children. Frozen children. Which the parents have left and abandoned. They are hoping someone else will come and take them and have them implanted in another woman's uterus to allow them to grow. Good luck. Imagine how the child who was conceived will feel if they find out their sibling was left to either die, be used in research, or implanted in another woman they'll never meet. We must get out of this Frankensteinian industry immediately. This is not God's will!
Should couples who've had success with IVF donate 'leftover' embryos? - The Globe and Mail
Should couples who've had success with IVF donate 'leftover' embryos? - The Globe and Mail
Exposing LEAF (Women's Legal Education and Action Fund)
The Women's Legal Education and Action Fund, or LEAF, is a blight on the name of Canada and should be shut down permanently. Rather than fight for human rights, this organization promotes pure evil. It's role is to influence court decisions in Canada to best reflect the culture of death. This may all sound rather extreme, but you may change your mind once you hear some of the things LEAF has been involved with, which are proudly published on their website.
1) Murdering Infants is Okay
In its most recent case, LEAF helped push a law which views infanticide as a far less serious crime than murder. If convicted of first-degree murder, a person faces 25 years in prison with the possibility of parole after that time. However, with infanticide, the jail term is a mere 5 years. LEAF defends this law saying that some women are just under a lot of stress after having a child, and therefore it is understandable if they decide to kill this child. Click here to read my more detailed treatment of this case.
2) Destroying Rights of Peaceful Pro-Life Supporters
In multiple court cases, some reaching the Supreme Court, (including R. v. Lewis, R. v. Demers, and Watson v. R; Spratt v. R) LEAF has attempted to ban peaceful demonstrators from being anywhere near abortion death mills. Contrary to popular media portrayal, most demonstrators at abortion mills are peaceful and loving. Usually they stand around praying and never touch anyone entering or leaving the facility. To these protesters, the women are entering a building in which they will kill their baby. The activists not only want the baby to live, but for the mother to avoid years of depression. LEAF wants to squelch any protest of this evil, and destroy freedom of speech.
3) Preventing Help for Gas-Sniffing Woman
This is a very disgusting case (Winnipeg Child and Family Services v. G (D.F.)). An aboriginal woman who was pregnant was getting high with gasoline fumes, thus endangering the life of her child. A judge said she must be involuntarily placed in a facility to prevent her from doing this. LEAF interjected and said that by trying to save the unborn baby's life, it could threaten abortion laws because this child would have to be considered a person. Since paying any attention to the health of this unborn child could affect the "sacrosanct" status of abortion in Canada, LEAF vehemently sought to allow the woman to continue to put her and her baby's health at risk with gasoline sniffing.
4) Ensuring two women were not charged with killing another woman's baby
In this case, Sullivan and Lemay v. The Queen, LEAF once again jumped in to make sure an unborn child was not protected under law. Two midwives were being charged with injuring a mother and killing her unborn children. Once again, LEAF was afraid that charging the midwives with killing an unborn child could give that child rights. In their twisted logic, LEAF felt it was helping the victim by only considering her a victim of these midwives. I doubt the woman feels the same way.
5) Denying Father his rights
In Daigle v. Tremblay (1989), LEAF interceded with the Supreme Court to make sure the father of the Daigle baby had no rights to determine the fate of his child. The father wanted the child to be born, but LEAF made sure he had no voice in the matter. Ironically, the law LEAF cited to further this case was the sex equality provisions of both the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. Somehow "sex equality" in Canada means the father has absolutely no say in what happens to his child.
6) Denying personhood of unborn child
In Borowski v. The Attorney General for Canada (1989), in which LEAF refers to Mr. Borowski as "anti-choice", LEAF was involved to say that the child in the mother's womb is not a separate person, nor a separate entity, but rather is simply a part of the woman's body. Of course, this completely defies logic. Where an individual is located does not determine his personhood. If put my finger in someone's mouth, that finger does not automatically become part of that person's body. Calling the individual in this case "anti-choice" says a lot about LEAF.
7) Mandated ignoring of babies in trouble
In 1987, LEAF was instrumental in forcing Child Services to not help a child. A mother, who was refusing to have a c-section, was carrying a child which Child Services deemed to be at risk. LEAF interceded to prevent Child Services from helping and insisted that the baby, about to born in mere hours, was not a person and thus not protected.
8) Irony
In 2000, LEAF was involved in defending a gay and lesbian store who were importing obscene material (Little Sisters Book & Art Emporium et al. v Minister of Justice et al.). They said the store should be allowed to continue. Ironically, 18 years prior, LEAF was involved in prosecuting a man for selling pornography in a store (Butler v. Her Majesty the Queen (1992)). They said selling pornography is obscene and therefore should be illegal. I guess according to LEAF, porn stores are bad for society unless they are gay and lesbian porn stores.
Another irony is found with the recent ruling. LEAF said women who kill their babies should only receive 20% the normal sentence (5 years vs. 25 years) because women are under a lot of stress, etc. However, in the La Maison des Femmes (1990) court case, LEAF investigated a sentence of a man which was reduced from second-degree murder to manslaughter. LEAF successfully campaigned to have this man put away for 14 years. So let's get this straight. If a woman kills her baby, that's ok. But if a man kills a woman, he deserves a very stiff sentence.
9) Other
I could go on with more and more examples, but this should be enough. LEAF represents the worst of Canada. They promote death to innocent babies and children, and believe that women have far more rights than men. This evil organization needs to be stopped.
----
Check out the book below on real feminism:
1) Murdering Infants is Okay
In its most recent case, LEAF helped push a law which views infanticide as a far less serious crime than murder. If convicted of first-degree murder, a person faces 25 years in prison with the possibility of parole after that time. However, with infanticide, the jail term is a mere 5 years. LEAF defends this law saying that some women are just under a lot of stress after having a child, and therefore it is understandable if they decide to kill this child. Click here to read my more detailed treatment of this case.
2) Destroying Rights of Peaceful Pro-Life Supporters
In multiple court cases, some reaching the Supreme Court, (including R. v. Lewis, R. v. Demers, and Watson v. R; Spratt v. R) LEAF has attempted to ban peaceful demonstrators from being anywhere near abortion death mills. Contrary to popular media portrayal, most demonstrators at abortion mills are peaceful and loving. Usually they stand around praying and never touch anyone entering or leaving the facility. To these protesters, the women are entering a building in which they will kill their baby. The activists not only want the baby to live, but for the mother to avoid years of depression. LEAF wants to squelch any protest of this evil, and destroy freedom of speech.
3) Preventing Help for Gas-Sniffing Woman
This is a very disgusting case (Winnipeg Child and Family Services v. G (D.F.)). An aboriginal woman who was pregnant was getting high with gasoline fumes, thus endangering the life of her child. A judge said she must be involuntarily placed in a facility to prevent her from doing this. LEAF interjected and said that by trying to save the unborn baby's life, it could threaten abortion laws because this child would have to be considered a person. Since paying any attention to the health of this unborn child could affect the "sacrosanct" status of abortion in Canada, LEAF vehemently sought to allow the woman to continue to put her and her baby's health at risk with gasoline sniffing.
4) Ensuring two women were not charged with killing another woman's baby
In this case, Sullivan and Lemay v. The Queen, LEAF once again jumped in to make sure an unborn child was not protected under law. Two midwives were being charged with injuring a mother and killing her unborn children. Once again, LEAF was afraid that charging the midwives with killing an unborn child could give that child rights. In their twisted logic, LEAF felt it was helping the victim by only considering her a victim of these midwives. I doubt the woman feels the same way.
5) Denying Father his rights
In Daigle v. Tremblay (1989), LEAF interceded with the Supreme Court to make sure the father of the Daigle baby had no rights to determine the fate of his child. The father wanted the child to be born, but LEAF made sure he had no voice in the matter. Ironically, the law LEAF cited to further this case was the sex equality provisions of both the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. Somehow "sex equality" in Canada means the father has absolutely no say in what happens to his child.
6) Denying personhood of unborn child
In Borowski v. The Attorney General for Canada (1989), in which LEAF refers to Mr. Borowski as "anti-choice", LEAF was involved to say that the child in the mother's womb is not a separate person, nor a separate entity, but rather is simply a part of the woman's body. Of course, this completely defies logic. Where an individual is located does not determine his personhood. If put my finger in someone's mouth, that finger does not automatically become part of that person's body. Calling the individual in this case "anti-choice" says a lot about LEAF.
7) Mandated ignoring of babies in trouble
In 1987, LEAF was instrumental in forcing Child Services to not help a child. A mother, who was refusing to have a c-section, was carrying a child which Child Services deemed to be at risk. LEAF interceded to prevent Child Services from helping and insisted that the baby, about to born in mere hours, was not a person and thus not protected.
8) Irony
In 2000, LEAF was involved in defending a gay and lesbian store who were importing obscene material (Little Sisters Book & Art Emporium et al. v Minister of Justice et al.). They said the store should be allowed to continue. Ironically, 18 years prior, LEAF was involved in prosecuting a man for selling pornography in a store (Butler v. Her Majesty the Queen (1992)). They said selling pornography is obscene and therefore should be illegal. I guess according to LEAF, porn stores are bad for society unless they are gay and lesbian porn stores.
Another irony is found with the recent ruling. LEAF said women who kill their babies should only receive 20% the normal sentence (5 years vs. 25 years) because women are under a lot of stress, etc. However, in the La Maison des Femmes (1990) court case, LEAF investigated a sentence of a man which was reduced from second-degree murder to manslaughter. LEAF successfully campaigned to have this man put away for 14 years. So let's get this straight. If a woman kills her baby, that's ok. But if a man kills a woman, he deserves a very stiff sentence.
9) Other
I could go on with more and more examples, but this should be enough. LEAF represents the worst of Canada. They promote death to innocent babies and children, and believe that women have far more rights than men. This evil organization needs to be stopped.
----
Check out the book below on real feminism:
Sunday, March 13, 2011
Imagine this Headline in a National Newspaper: Sexual Assault Case in Dallas!
It's all too common to check out the latest news and hear something about sexual abuse in the Catholic Church among the clergy. Out of curiosity, I wanted to see how the coverage compares to a city of a comparable size as the number of priests.
The latest estimate is there are about 408,000 priests in the world.
To find a comparable American city, I must find one with about 408,000 men.
I will be extra generous though. Statistics do not usually break down the population by each age, but over 18 and below 18. I will only include 18+, even though few priests are younger than 25. Also, only half the population will be men. So what city matches this?
A good American city that matches the number of men in the Catholic priesthood is Dallas, Texas, the 8th largest city in the states, with a population of 1.2 million. 73.6% of the population is over 18 and 51.4% are male, bringing the total to about 453,000 men.
Now, can you imagine hearing a story across the country of sexual assault in Dallas? How about in another country in the globe? Of course not. Would you possibly hear about cases that occurred 30, 40, even 50 years ago? Again, no.
In the United States each year there are approximately 234,000 cases of sexual assault against people 12 years or older. Over the decades, this could be in the millions. Yet, no one would paint the entire country with the same brush. Not even a city such as Dallas.
Nearly every new case of sexual assault allegedly committed by a priest anywhere in the world is headline news. Maybe it's time for more balance.
The latest estimate is there are about 408,000 priests in the world.
To find a comparable American city, I must find one with about 408,000 men.
I will be extra generous though. Statistics do not usually break down the population by each age, but over 18 and below 18. I will only include 18+, even though few priests are younger than 25. Also, only half the population will be men. So what city matches this?
A good American city that matches the number of men in the Catholic priesthood is Dallas, Texas, the 8th largest city in the states, with a population of 1.2 million. 73.6% of the population is over 18 and 51.4% are male, bringing the total to about 453,000 men.
Now, can you imagine hearing a story across the country of sexual assault in Dallas? How about in another country in the globe? Of course not. Would you possibly hear about cases that occurred 30, 40, even 50 years ago? Again, no.
In the United States each year there are approximately 234,000 cases of sexual assault against people 12 years or older. Over the decades, this could be in the millions. Yet, no one would paint the entire country with the same brush. Not even a city such as Dallas.
Nearly every new case of sexual assault allegedly committed by a priest anywhere in the world is headline news. Maybe it's time for more balance.
Saturday, March 12, 2011
Japan
Everyone should keep Japan in their prayers. This is the fifth biggest earthquake in recorded history and has been quite devastating. Many dead. It's a good thing Japan was so well prepared for this type of thing.
The Huffington Post, Catholicism, and Angry Comments
The Huffington Post is a well known as a liberal news and blogging site. It was recently purchased by AOL for $315 million, which many analysts felt was far too much. In any event, whenever this popular news source publishes articles on the Catholic Church, they are almost always negative.
So I was surprised to see an article quoted Pope Benedict where he said violence in religion or done in the name of God is the work of the antichrist. The article was straight-forward and did not add any twists or bring up any negatives about the Church. This was indeed a rare event.
I was interested to see how people would react to such an article in the comments. I glanced over some on the first page, and was shocked at the sheer negativity in them. To give you an unbiased sampling, I just randomly thought of some numbers and pages and from there I will take comments. I will also respond to them.
Here are the pre-selected numbers (from 23 pages):
Page 2: comments 3, 8
Page 4: comments 2, 7
Page 9: comments 1, 3
Page 15: comments 2, 5
So here they are (not including responses):
Comments 1, 2, 5, 8 were clearly negative comments toward the Catholic Church.
#1 simply seems to take a mocking tone of the Pope, without specifying any beefs the user has with it.
#2 says the pope was in the Nazi youth and that he covered for pedophile priests. These two comments are irrelevant to the comments made by the pope at this time and represent the false logic of an "ad hominem" attack, meaning attacking the person rather than the idea. The pope was conscripted into the Nazi youth like all youth in Germany at the time. However, despite a possible penalty of death, the future pope risked his life to abandon his post. He was not directly involved in killing anyone. He and his family hated the Nazis and everything they stood for. As for pedophile priests, the pope has called them filth that must be removed from the Church. He has done a lot to make sure these priests are eliminated from ministry and that children are protected. But no matter what he does, people will continue to use this as an argument against the Church.
#3 seems to somewhat support the church. well at least the user is supporting the pope's comments, but he sees it as a change in policy of the church, implying that waging war used to be a legitimate part of Catholic teaching. this is probably the best of the random comments.
#4 discusses the idea of the anti-christ and basically tries to show that it is a contradiction. however, you could replace his comments about the anti-christ with comments about evil in general and he could use the same argument. he finishes his comments by saying the pope wants people to believe in a "myth", so I'm assuming he is atheist, and then says the idea of the antichrist is a "crock". I prepared an essay a while back about how everything God created was good, but he did not create evil, yet evil does exist. For that essay, click here.
#5 This user says the Church is refusing to take responsibility for unspecified "actions". He says the Church says the Devil made them do it, but no Church official has said that, so I'm not sure what he's referring to. He then claims the Church's teachings are contrary to reason and that it teaches superstition and stuff. Obviously this has nothing to do with the article and as happens many times, this user is just venting his frustration with religion in general under the guise of criticizing the Catholic Church.
#6 This is more of a comical statement.
#7 This is a general comment about the user's view of the antichrist.
#8 This one comments on the crusades. The implication is how could the pope be talking about not using violence if the Catholic Church went to Jerusalem and other places to fight the crusades. Although this may seem like a good point, if you think about it, is has the opposite effect. There were several crusades, the earliest was about a thousand years ago. There must not be many examples of Catholicism being associated with war, if the only example that comes to mind is from a millenium ago. Secondly, most people have a deficient view of the crusades, seeing it as a wholly offensive war, when in fact it was primarily defensive. Europe was being threatened by an Islamic conquest and the Byzantine Emperor requested the assistance of Western Europe to expel them. I agree that some people involved in the crusades were acting contrary to Catholic teaching by killing innocent people or looting areas, but it was not a directive of the Church to do this. You will not find a papal encyclical or pronouncement stating "Kill innocent people and steal their goods".
-------------------------------------
These comments were completely randomly chosen, and certainly not cherry-picked. There were dozens more, some probably much more vitriolic. To see for yourself what I am talking about, go to any news article on the Catholic Church from a main stream news or opinion outlet which allows comments and look at some of them. Often they will express very mean-spirited and nasty opinions which have absolutely nothing to do with the article at hand. Usually they will simply repeat old canards and well-worn ad hominem attacks. If you are Catholic, always try to post a comment presenting the Church in a true light.
So I was surprised to see an article quoted Pope Benedict where he said violence in religion or done in the name of God is the work of the antichrist. The article was straight-forward and did not add any twists or bring up any negatives about the Church. This was indeed a rare event.
I was interested to see how people would react to such an article in the comments. I glanced over some on the first page, and was shocked at the sheer negativity in them. To give you an unbiased sampling, I just randomly thought of some numbers and pages and from there I will take comments. I will also respond to them.
Here are the pre-selected numbers (from 23 pages):
Page 2: comments 3, 8
Page 4: comments 2, 7
Page 9: comments 1, 3
Page 15: comments 2, 5
So here they are (not including responses):
1. (2,3) Swell. Thanks for clearing that one up, Mr. Pope. I'm sure everything will be all peachy-keen now that you've figured it all out for us...
2. (2,8) This coming from a Pope who covered for pedophile priests for years? Was a member of the Nazi Youth program. Hmm. I pick door #2, CHENEY. Makes the Koch bros, Karl and Rupert, look like just spoiled brats.
3. (4,2) obviously this is turning a page in the history of the catholic church, but if you read between the lines he is not only condeming the use of religion in promoting violence, but also its past uses. many posts seem to sugest that you dont appreciate the gravity of this, and that perhaps the pope doesnt know the history of his own religion, and if this is so, perhaps you'd prefer if we continualy use religion to wage meaningless wars. I prefer to embrace this change in stance, and hope that other religious authorities will support this move. when you look solely to the past than thats where you will live, in the mistakes of yesterday. however, if you embrace past and present as a means to the future, it begins to open up- and this is definately opening up a new future.
4. (4,7) Let's see...there is only one God. You can't count the trinity because all three are only one. I think that's semantics, but I'll let them define their own words.
But, the Antichrist? Is that another God? No, that would make two gods. You can't put the Antichrist into the Trinity because that would make God good and evil - - but if God were evil, why would I follow him.
I could go around a few more circles, but still won't be able to answer why evil is an equal force in our world, but there is only one God. Maybe the Pope could try to make some sense of that. But, why bother, most Catholice and many others, just accept the story without even trying to think about it.
The Pope desperately wants us to believe this myth, but doesn't bother to make it logical.
Antichrist, what a crock.
5. (9,1) ...And they're STILL refusing to take responsibilities for their actions or own up to their own autonomous behavior. Claiming the Devil did it or the Devil "made me do it" is an affront to reason, and more telling about their moral delusions and ethical ineptitude than anything else these superstitious/supernaturalist headcases might ever say.
6. (9,3) So the antichrist is here? Isn't that supposed to be big news?
7. (15, 2) My understanding the anti christ, wants to be worshiped as a God himself, bowed to, have a Kingdom, to become like God, but the opposite of all that God is. All told this world is not Kingdom, God's world will dwell on earth. We right now are to become light in darkness, till God comes, and the world of ungodly ones, unrighteous ones lawless ones, their world will end. Remember the evil one, was cast down here, with 1/3 of his angels. And know God has a family, his children are the image of God, what God's spiritual character is, they are one with God, their father. There also is many anti christ he has many children also. Told do not worry about the anit christ, rather worry more the anti christ does not enter you. I love all pray for all. I love all and pray for all, yes even my enemies I love and pray for.
8. (15, 5) Apparently he missed the chapter in his history book about the crusades. However, I love his ability to improvise. Like Jimi Hendrix, except for wackos.
Comments 1, 2, 5, 8 were clearly negative comments toward the Catholic Church.
#1 simply seems to take a mocking tone of the Pope, without specifying any beefs the user has with it.
#2 says the pope was in the Nazi youth and that he covered for pedophile priests. These two comments are irrelevant to the comments made by the pope at this time and represent the false logic of an "ad hominem" attack, meaning attacking the person rather than the idea. The pope was conscripted into the Nazi youth like all youth in Germany at the time. However, despite a possible penalty of death, the future pope risked his life to abandon his post. He was not directly involved in killing anyone. He and his family hated the Nazis and everything they stood for. As for pedophile priests, the pope has called them filth that must be removed from the Church. He has done a lot to make sure these priests are eliminated from ministry and that children are protected. But no matter what he does, people will continue to use this as an argument against the Church.
#3 seems to somewhat support the church. well at least the user is supporting the pope's comments, but he sees it as a change in policy of the church, implying that waging war used to be a legitimate part of Catholic teaching. this is probably the best of the random comments.
#4 discusses the idea of the anti-christ and basically tries to show that it is a contradiction. however, you could replace his comments about the anti-christ with comments about evil in general and he could use the same argument. he finishes his comments by saying the pope wants people to believe in a "myth", so I'm assuming he is atheist, and then says the idea of the antichrist is a "crock". I prepared an essay a while back about how everything God created was good, but he did not create evil, yet evil does exist. For that essay, click here.
#5 This user says the Church is refusing to take responsibility for unspecified "actions". He says the Church says the Devil made them do it, but no Church official has said that, so I'm not sure what he's referring to. He then claims the Church's teachings are contrary to reason and that it teaches superstition and stuff. Obviously this has nothing to do with the article and as happens many times, this user is just venting his frustration with religion in general under the guise of criticizing the Catholic Church.
#6 This is more of a comical statement.
#7 This is a general comment about the user's view of the antichrist.
#8 This one comments on the crusades. The implication is how could the pope be talking about not using violence if the Catholic Church went to Jerusalem and other places to fight the crusades. Although this may seem like a good point, if you think about it, is has the opposite effect. There were several crusades, the earliest was about a thousand years ago. There must not be many examples of Catholicism being associated with war, if the only example that comes to mind is from a millenium ago. Secondly, most people have a deficient view of the crusades, seeing it as a wholly offensive war, when in fact it was primarily defensive. Europe was being threatened by an Islamic conquest and the Byzantine Emperor requested the assistance of Western Europe to expel them. I agree that some people involved in the crusades were acting contrary to Catholic teaching by killing innocent people or looting areas, but it was not a directive of the Church to do this. You will not find a papal encyclical or pronouncement stating "Kill innocent people and steal their goods".
-------------------------------------
These comments were completely randomly chosen, and certainly not cherry-picked. There were dozens more, some probably much more vitriolic. To see for yourself what I am talking about, go to any news article on the Catholic Church from a main stream news or opinion outlet which allows comments and look at some of them. Often they will express very mean-spirited and nasty opinions which have absolutely nothing to do with the article at hand. Usually they will simply repeat old canards and well-worn ad hominem attacks. If you are Catholic, always try to post a comment presenting the Church in a true light.
3 Parents - 1 Child
Determined to destroy any semblance of ethical behavior, British doctors have pioneered a Frankensteinish procedure which creates embryos with genetic material from three parents. Not exactly like nature intended. The basic premise is that some couples' babies are at risk of having certain genetic illnesses. The scientists remove the risky genes and replace them with the genes from another donor egg. This presents medical, ethical, and moral concerns which cannot be overlooked.
1) Children with no background
What impact will it have on children who are born with genetic material from three parents? What will it be - mom, dad, and genetic mom? Children have a right (a real right, not some politically correct one) to know their parents and to be loved by them. This scenario creates mutant children with no 2 parents, but three parents. Who knows, maybe soon they will pioneer a technique for more than three parents. There is perfect complementarity with male and female, mother and father. Introducing another "parent" into this mix will have unknown and possibly devastating consequences.
Some may object by saying a couple can simply raise a child as their own, but this would be living a lie. This is not the child of two parents, but of three. The psychological issues experienced due to this knowledge is incalculable.
2) Child product of scientist's lab equipment, and not conjugal act of parents
A child has the right to be born in the loving embrace of his parents, not at the hands of a lab technician in a brightly lit room in a petri-dish. Children are not science experiments involving combining multiple eggs and sperm. Does anyone consider the rights of the child in these circumstances, or is it only the rights of the romantic couple that matters.
3) Genes from other animals?
What happens if this technique becomes more common? Will scientists then attempt to push the boundaries even further by introducing animal genes to human genetic makeup? With these crazy experiments, anything is possible. Rarely though does the pride of these "researchers" allow them to consider the possible negative impact of these activities.
4) Other ethical concerns
There are other ethical concerns which must be addressed. The male parent must masturbate to attain sperm. Oftentimes, especially in these types of new reproductive technologies, more embryos than are needed are created. This is of particular concern here because it is likely that more embryos than usual will be created given the uncertainty involved. It also raises issues of who the parents are of the children. Plus, potential long terms impacts of this technology, given that IVF is already very risky and those children are usually born with more issues than usual.
Children have no right to be treated like this. They are human beings and deserve respect!
To read more, please visit the following link:
BBC News - New fertility treatment to be assessed by regulator
1) Children with no background
What impact will it have on children who are born with genetic material from three parents? What will it be - mom, dad, and genetic mom? Children have a right (a real right, not some politically correct one) to know their parents and to be loved by them. This scenario creates mutant children with no 2 parents, but three parents. Who knows, maybe soon they will pioneer a technique for more than three parents. There is perfect complementarity with male and female, mother and father. Introducing another "parent" into this mix will have unknown and possibly devastating consequences.
Some may object by saying a couple can simply raise a child as their own, but this would be living a lie. This is not the child of two parents, but of three. The psychological issues experienced due to this knowledge is incalculable.
2) Child product of scientist's lab equipment, and not conjugal act of parents
A child has the right to be born in the loving embrace of his parents, not at the hands of a lab technician in a brightly lit room in a petri-dish. Children are not science experiments involving combining multiple eggs and sperm. Does anyone consider the rights of the child in these circumstances, or is it only the rights of the romantic couple that matters.
3) Genes from other animals?
What happens if this technique becomes more common? Will scientists then attempt to push the boundaries even further by introducing animal genes to human genetic makeup? With these crazy experiments, anything is possible. Rarely though does the pride of these "researchers" allow them to consider the possible negative impact of these activities.
4) Other ethical concerns
There are other ethical concerns which must be addressed. The male parent must masturbate to attain sperm. Oftentimes, especially in these types of new reproductive technologies, more embryos than are needed are created. This is of particular concern here because it is likely that more embryos than usual will be created given the uncertainty involved. It also raises issues of who the parents are of the children. Plus, potential long terms impacts of this technology, given that IVF is already very risky and those children are usually born with more issues than usual.
Children have no right to be treated like this. They are human beings and deserve respect!
To read more, please visit the following link:
BBC News - New fertility treatment to be assessed by regulator
Second Volume of Pope Benedict's Book Out Now
Yesterday, Pope Benedict's book has been officially published and is ready to purchase. The book it titled "Jesus of Nazareth" and is the second volume in the series. This second volume specifically concerns "Holy Week: From the Entrance Into Jerusalem To The Resurrection" Definitely should be a great read.
Click below to purchase your copy on Amazon.com
Click below to purchase your copy on Amazon.com
Small errors in Se7en
I just watched the movie Se7en. It's about two investigators (played by Brad Pitt and Morgan Freeman) who are on the trail of a killer who murders people according to the seven deadly sins. One small error I noticed was Morgan Freeman contrasted the seven deadly sins with the cardinal virtues. However, the cardinal virtues make up only 4 of the 7 heavenly virtues (prudence, justice, temperance, fortitude), the other three are called theological virtues and include faith, hope, and charity.
Another small issue was when the detective described a type of contrition whereby the penitent is sorry for fear of hell. The detective called this "forced attrition". However, I've never come across this term. The term attrition is used however for this meaning, but adding "forced" is not usual. Attrition is also called "Imperfect contrition", which is contrasted with perfect contrition which is being sorry for ones sins out of love of God.
Another small issue was when the detective described a type of contrition whereby the penitent is sorry for fear of hell. The detective called this "forced attrition". However, I've never come across this term. The term attrition is used however for this meaning, but adding "forced" is not usual. Attrition is also called "Imperfect contrition", which is contrasted with perfect contrition which is being sorry for ones sins out of love of God.
Friday, March 11, 2011
Please support this blog
Help me to keep bringing you great Catholic content by donating $5 or $10 (Give $20+ and I'll send you a thank-you card in the mail), or click the link to the Catholic Store and buy something. If you can't right now, I understand :) Thanks for being loyal readers!! (Both links at the top of the page)
Founders of Jesuits Canonized This Day in 1622
The founders of the Jesuits, Ignatius of Loyola and Francis Xavier, were canonized on this day in 1622 by Pope Gregory XV. Ignatius died in Rome of Roman Fever in 1556. Francis died in China, also from a fever, at the age of just 46, in 1552. Francis had traveled to India, Japan, China, and the Philippines.
Meat on Fridays During Lent in Canada
In the US, abstinence from meat is mandatory on Fridays of Lent and Ash Wednesday.In Canada, the rule for meat on Friday is the same for the rest of the year. However, many people believe abstinence from meat was thrown out with Vatican II. Not so. After the Second Vatican Counctil, abstaining from meat could be substituted for another act of penance.
The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops puts it nicely:
Abstinence. This form of penance needs to be seen as a near cousin of fasting. We may give up meat or other desirable foods on one or two days a week during Lent, especially on Friday, the day of Christ’s saving death on the cross. Our abstinence is another way of sharing in Christ’s work of saving the world.
Throughout the year, every Friday is
day of abstinence from meat, obliging all Catholics who are 14 years or older.
We may also substitute other good actions for abstinence from meat. These could include special acts of charity (visiting the sick or aged, helping those in any need, contributing time or money to a work of charity) or other acts of piety (taking part in a service of worship with others, praying with our family, spending some extra time in personal prayer, especially with God’s holy word in the scriptures).
This is found in section 6 of "Living Lent", which can be found here.
Become a Follower!
If you haven't already done so, click "Follow" on the right. Then you will be notified when I update this blog, which is quite frequent. You won't regret it! Opt-out any time!
How the liturgy should look
I agree with Michael Voris in this video. An ongoing issue in the Church is the specifics of the liturgy, such as the singing, the homilies, the atmosphere, etc. I think Michael has made some great points in this video. The center of attention must be on Jesus Christ and his sacrifice. Not on the people or the choir or anything else. Michael's message gets quite strongly worded in the second half, perhaps more than I would have been, but overall I think the message is a good one.
Check out Cardinal Ratzinger's great book on the liturgy below:
Check out Cardinal Ratzinger's great book on the liturgy below:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)