Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Martyrdom in the Abrahamic Religions
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.
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.
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:
Feds: Nun pleads guilty to embezzling $850,000
 |
| hmm, why is she so happy? |
It's sad that a woman who devoted her life to the Church ended up stealing from a Catholic college.
Let's pray for everyone involved here.
Feds: Nun pleads guilty to embezzling $850,000 - CNN.com
10 Youngest Catholic Bishops
Here is a Top 10 List of the Youngest Catholic Bishops in the World
There are about 5100 Catholic bishops in the world if you count those from both the Western (Latin or Roman) Rite of the Church and the Eastern Rites of the Church.
In order to become a Bishop, a man is required to be at least 35 years old and be ordained for at least 5 years. The man must also be very well educated and possess a doctorate or at least a licentiate in philosophy, theology, or canon law. But most of all, a bishop must possess good qualities such as piety, zeal, and love of the faith.
Although those named below are the youngest current bishops serving, they are not the youngest ever. For more on that, go to the bottom of this article.
Of the 5100 bishops in the world, here are the youngest:
In the history of the Church there have been bishops who were under forty, by many years.
For example, in 1932, Raymond Augustine Kearney became the bishop of Brooklyn New York, at the age of 32. He possessed a doctorate in canon law, and had been a priest for about 7 years. He would not however meet the criteria for consecration to the episcopacy today.
There are about 5100 Catholic bishops in the world if you count those from both the Western (Latin or Roman) Rite of the Church and the Eastern Rites of the Church.
In order to become a Bishop, a man is required to be at least 35 years old and be ordained for at least 5 years. The man must also be very well educated and possess a doctorate or at least a licentiate in philosophy, theology, or canon law. But most of all, a bishop must possess good qualities such as piety, zeal, and love of the faith.
Although those named below are the youngest current bishops serving, they are not the youngest ever. For more on that, go to the bottom of this article.
Of the 5100 bishops in the world, here are the youngest:
| [Sorry. No photo available.] | 10. Charles Joseph Sampa Kasonde Bishop of Solwezi, Zambia Age 42.19 Born 14 Dec 1968 |
 | 9. Xavier Novell Gomá Bishop of Solsona, Spain Age 41.84 Born: 20 Apr 1969 |
 | 8. Bashar Matti Warda Archbishop of Arbil {Erbil} (Chaldean), Iraq Age 41.69 Born 15 Jun 1969 |
 | 7. Vasile Bizău Auxiliary Bishop of Făgăraş şi Alba Iulia (Romanian), Romania Born 14 Oct 1969 Age 41.36 |
 | 6. Stephen Dami Mamza Bishop of Yola, Nigeria Age 41.23 Born 30 Nov 1969 |
| [Sorry. No Photo Available.] | 5. Santo Loku Pio Doggale Auxiliary Bishop of Juba, Sudan Age 41.16 Born 28 Dec 1969 |
 | 4. Sviatoslav Shevchuk Auxiliary Bishop of Santa MarÃa del Patrocinio en Buenos Aires (Ukrainian), Argentina Age 40.80 Born 5 May 1970 |
 | 3. Olivier Michel Marie Schmitthaeusler, M.E.P. Bishop Vicar Apostolic of Phnom-Penh, Cambodia Age 40.66 Born 26 Jun 1970 |
 | 2. Anselm van der Linde, O. Cist. Abbot of Wettingen-Mehrerau, Austria Age 40.42 Born 24 Sep 1970 |
 | and the youngest Catholic bishop in the world is... Bishop Mihai Cătălin Frăţilă Auxiliary Bishop of Făgăraş şi Alba Iulia (Romanian), Romania Age 40.21 Born 10 Dec 1970 |
In the history of the Church there have been bishops who were under forty, by many years.
For example, in 1932, Raymond Augustine Kearney became the bishop of Brooklyn New York, at the age of 32. He possessed a doctorate in canon law, and had been a priest for about 7 years. He would not however meet the criteria for consecration to the episcopacy today.
Death Penalty for Miscarriage?
That's the absurd title of several articles about Georgia Lawmaker Bobby Franklin who has introduced a new anti-abortion bill. But the title is a little misleading. Don't get me wrong, I think Mr. Franklin is a pretty extreme guy, especially considering some of the bills he has tried to pass.
Anyway, what he is really saying is that abortion should carry the same penalty as murder. He goes on to say that women who have a miscarriage should be investigated to ensure they did not procure an abortion. What this investigation involves and when it is carried out is not specified.
Obviously Mr. Franklin is very pro-life. He is not however saying that all miscarriages should be penalized with the death penalty. He's just saying abortion should be prosecuted as such and he wants to make sure women are not getting abortions and then claiming they just had a miscarriage.
The problem I have with all this is that pro-abortion activists are trying to make Franklin look like a total nut and any time they mention him they say he's trying to make miscarriage a punishable offense, along with abortion. They want us to categorize miscarriages and abortion in the same way. So a legislator who opposes abortion is just as crazy as one that opposes miscarriages.
It seems like in several states, there are bills on the table which would render abortion an illegal activity. The pro-life community is certainly not unianimous when it comes to how cases should be treated. The most common proposal is that the abortion providers would be prosecuted, not the women having an abortion.
You can read more about this representative's proposal by clicking the link below. But also take a look at some of the ridiculous bills he has introduced.
Georgia Lawmaker's Anti-Abortion Proposal Could Punish Women for Miscarriages - FoxNews.com
Anyway, what he is really saying is that abortion should carry the same penalty as murder. He goes on to say that women who have a miscarriage should be investigated to ensure they did not procure an abortion. What this investigation involves and when it is carried out is not specified.
Obviously Mr. Franklin is very pro-life. He is not however saying that all miscarriages should be penalized with the death penalty. He's just saying abortion should be prosecuted as such and he wants to make sure women are not getting abortions and then claiming they just had a miscarriage.
The problem I have with all this is that pro-abortion activists are trying to make Franklin look like a total nut and any time they mention him they say he's trying to make miscarriage a punishable offense, along with abortion. They want us to categorize miscarriages and abortion in the same way. So a legislator who opposes abortion is just as crazy as one that opposes miscarriages.
It seems like in several states, there are bills on the table which would render abortion an illegal activity. The pro-life community is certainly not unianimous when it comes to how cases should be treated. The most common proposal is that the abortion providers would be prosecuted, not the women having an abortion.
You can read more about this representative's proposal by clicking the link below. But also take a look at some of the ridiculous bills he has introduced.
Georgia Lawmaker's Anti-Abortion Proposal Could Punish Women for Miscarriages - FoxNews.com
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Coptic Christians being attacked again in Egypt
In a conflict between Muslims and Coptic Christians in Egypt left 13 dead and 40 injured. The Copts claim that all the dead are Christian, but Muslims say they lost 5 people.
This comes after a church was burned down by Muslim extremists last week. In Egypt, it is extraordinarily difficult to build or repair a church and it takes a presidential decree to do so. This is common in many Muslim countries, however often it's much stricter. In many places, Christians are completely forbidden from building or repairing any existing churches, so people are forced to overfill delapedated churches. In some countries, such as Saudi Arabia, churches are banned outright and public Christian worship is forbidden. Ironically the situation in Egypt may not be as bad as it may become. Hosni Mubarak, when he was in power, maintained a secular government. The Copts fear a Muslim government will take over the reigns once hostilities have subsided and make being Christian, which represents 12% of the population, in that country even more difficult.
The protests are occurring in a part of Cairo known as Garbage City, where the mostly Christian residents eek out an existence by sorting through garbage and converting it to money by finding valuables.
Persecution of Christians in Egypt must end. A secular government is the only way to ensure their rights are not completely destroyed. Keep them in your prayers.
For more, go here.
This comes after a church was burned down by Muslim extremists last week. In Egypt, it is extraordinarily difficult to build or repair a church and it takes a presidential decree to do so. This is common in many Muslim countries, however often it's much stricter. In many places, Christians are completely forbidden from building or repairing any existing churches, so people are forced to overfill delapedated churches. In some countries, such as Saudi Arabia, churches are banned outright and public Christian worship is forbidden. Ironically the situation in Egypt may not be as bad as it may become. Hosni Mubarak, when he was in power, maintained a secular government. The Copts fear a Muslim government will take over the reigns once hostilities have subsided and make being Christian, which represents 12% of the population, in that country even more difficult.
The protests are occurring in a part of Cairo known as Garbage City, where the mostly Christian residents eek out an existence by sorting through garbage and converting it to money by finding valuables.
Persecution of Christians in Egypt must end. A secular government is the only way to ensure their rights are not completely destroyed. Keep them in your prayers.
For more, go here.
Pope continues to be a trailblazer in using media
Pope Benedict XVI will answer questions on television from the public for a special program by RAI, an Italian station. The three questions will be on Jesus, and the answers will be pre-recorded. It will air on Good Friday at 3pm. This is a papal first. This coincides with Benedict's release of the second volume on his book on the life of Jesus called Jesus of Nazareth. The book recently captured headlines when the pope reiterated the Church's teaching that Jews as a whole are not responsible for deicide.
It's really wonderful that the pope is continuing to embrace new media. The Vatican has a Youtube channel and the Vatican.va website is a giant portal to all things Catholic, which is updated daily in many languages. The pope has continuously pledged for people to use new media to spread evangelization. I think though the pope must be careful to not try too hard to adapt to all media. Quotes, clips, and other forms of media can be distorted or taken out of context. An air of reverence must be maintained.
I think this is a great step overall.
For more on the story, see below:
Pope Benedict to answer Italian TV viewers' questions in papal first | World news | The Guardian
To purchase Benedict's new volume of his book Jesus of Nazareth, click the link below:
It's really wonderful that the pope is continuing to embrace new media. The Vatican has a Youtube channel and the Vatican.va website is a giant portal to all things Catholic, which is updated daily in many languages. The pope has continuously pledged for people to use new media to spread evangelization. I think though the pope must be careful to not try too hard to adapt to all media. Quotes, clips, and other forms of media can be distorted or taken out of context. An air of reverence must be maintained.
I think this is a great step overall.
For more on the story, see below:
Pope Benedict to answer Italian TV viewers' questions in papal first | World news | The Guardian
To purchase Benedict's new volume of his book Jesus of Nazareth, click the link below:
UK Court: Christian Households UNFIT for Children
A shjocking story has come out of the UK, where a Christian couple has been denied the ability to adopt a chidl because they are good Christians and opposed homosexual actions. The judge said that gay rights are more important than religious freedom in that country. In fact, the judge said, gay rights trump all others.
This story is not about whether or not these foster parents are correct. It is about the state intervening and declaring it to be illegal to teach your own adoptive children the morals and values of your faith. This is a complete outrage.
How long will it be before it becomes illegal for ANY parent to teach their children about proper sexual behavior? Soon enough, if parents teach Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, or Buddhist values concerning sexual matters, their household will be classified as a dangerous area for children and they will be removed by child services.
This is a complete infringement of rights. These good Christians have already raised 15 adoptive children and everyone who knows this couple say they are the best parents a child could ask for.
This case is primarily about destroying a parent's God-given right to teach their children proper morals and ethics.
It seems all too possible that soon enough there will be guidelines distributed by the government telling parents what they ought and ought not teach their children. These will not just be guidelines or suggestions, but rather they will be enforceable by law, with strict penalties attached to disobeying them.
Our rights are being trampled on more and more each day. We deride totalitarian regimes which force their citizens to behave and act a certain way. How is it any different in the UK or Canada where freedom of religion is at an all-time low?
For those who agree with homosexual actions and believe it should take precedence over all over human rights, how would you react if the government said rape was now legal and encouraged and that anyone who taught against it would not be allowed to adopt children? Rape and homosexuality both fall under the category of sexual morals. Homosexuality, as believed by all major religions, is sinful. It should not be illegal for a parent to teach his or her children their belief on the subject.
Goodbye freedom, welcome 1984.
Read more here.
Also, check out the book below for a good discussion of Catholic morals concerning homosexuality:
This story is not about whether or not these foster parents are correct. It is about the state intervening and declaring it to be illegal to teach your own adoptive children the morals and values of your faith. This is a complete outrage.
How long will it be before it becomes illegal for ANY parent to teach their children about proper sexual behavior? Soon enough, if parents teach Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, or Buddhist values concerning sexual matters, their household will be classified as a dangerous area for children and they will be removed by child services.
This is a complete infringement of rights. These good Christians have already raised 15 adoptive children and everyone who knows this couple say they are the best parents a child could ask for.
This case is primarily about destroying a parent's God-given right to teach their children proper morals and ethics.
It seems all too possible that soon enough there will be guidelines distributed by the government telling parents what they ought and ought not teach their children. These will not just be guidelines or suggestions, but rather they will be enforceable by law, with strict penalties attached to disobeying them.
Our rights are being trampled on more and more each day. We deride totalitarian regimes which force their citizens to behave and act a certain way. How is it any different in the UK or Canada where freedom of religion is at an all-time low?
For those who agree with homosexual actions and believe it should take precedence over all over human rights, how would you react if the government said rape was now legal and encouraged and that anyone who taught against it would not be allowed to adopt children? Rape and homosexuality both fall under the category of sexual morals. Homosexuality, as believed by all major religions, is sinful. It should not be illegal for a parent to teach his or her children their belief on the subject.
Goodbye freedom, welcome 1984.
Read more here.
Also, check out the book below for a good discussion of Catholic morals concerning homosexuality:
Oklahoma House passes bill banning abortion after 20 weeks | Reuters
This is a good first step, but there are many more to go. Let's hope many states, provinces, and countries take this lead.
Oklahoma House passes bill banning abortion after 20 weeks | Reuters
Oklahoma House passes bill banning abortion after 20 weeks | Reuters
Wednesday, March 09, 2011
Coming up tomorrow...
Is Freedom of Religion a thing of the past in the UK and possibly elsewhere? Check out this blog tomorrow morning at 8:00 EST to find out what I have to say about it.
What are you giving up for Lent?
Like most Catholics, I'm going to Mass today to have ashes put on my forehead as a sign of repentance from sin, and a reminder of mortality and reliance on God. Ash Wednesday also marks the beginning of Lent, a 40 day fast in anticipation of Easter.
So, what are you giving up for Lent this year? Let me know in the comments!
So, what are you giving up for Lent this year? Let me know in the comments!
First Photograph Ever was of Pope Pius VII in 1822
A little known fact is that the first photograph ever taken was of an engraving of Pope Pius VII. It was taken in 1822 by Nicéphore Niépce, a French inventor who also created one of the first internal combustion engines.
The photo was destroyed in 1825 when Nicéphore tried to duplicate it.
I've linked a book about this French inventor below:
The photo was destroyed in 1825 when Nicéphore tried to duplicate it.
I've linked a book about this French inventor below:
Tuesday, March 08, 2011
Congratulations to Celine Dion's Twins on their Baptism, but...
Celine Dion's four and a half month old twin boys Nelson and Eddy Angelil were baptized in Las Vegas this past Saturday. The occasion is, of course, cause for great celebration. However, there are certain issues in this situation.
1) Babies conceived via IVF
I have written extensively in the past on why in-vitro fertilization is unacceptable in Catholic moral teaching.
2) Irregular number of Godparents
Strangely, Celion Dion decided to violate Church Law, by having 3 Godfathers and 2 Godmothers who all stood for each of the two twins. This is clearly forbidden. In Church Law, a child can only have two Godparents, one from each sex. Technically they must both be Catholic. If one is not Catholic, that one is technically not a Godparent, but rather a witness. It seems odd that the two monsignors shown at the baptism did not say anything about this. My only guess is that only one man and one woman are the actual godparents of each of these babies and that the other one or ones are witnesses.
Underage Godparent
One Godparent is the brother of the twins being baptized. Problem is he is only 10 years old and Canon Law states the godparent must be at least 16 years old. Rare exceptions can be made for extenuating circumstances. But those are not specified in the code. Something tells me, this wasn't a matter of necessity, but of desire of the parents.
A Family Affair
To round out the five Godparents were Celine Dion's husband's two sons Patrick and Jean-Pierre, his daughter Anne-Marie, and Celine's sister, Linda.
On a separate note, I'm not sure what is up with our society in general these days where we cannot seem to make a decision. So often I've seen people getting married and having 2 or 3 best men, and 2 or 3 bridesmaids. Now this tradition seems to be spreading to selection of Godparents.
Celine Dion's sons baptized in Vegas - News - ReviewJournal.com
1) Babies conceived via IVF
I have written extensively in the past on why in-vitro fertilization is unacceptable in Catholic moral teaching.
2) Irregular number of Godparents
Strangely, Celion Dion decided to violate Church Law, by having 3 Godfathers and 2 Godmothers who all stood for each of the two twins. This is clearly forbidden. In Church Law, a child can only have two Godparents, one from each sex. Technically they must both be Catholic. If one is not Catholic, that one is technically not a Godparent, but rather a witness. It seems odd that the two monsignors shown at the baptism did not say anything about this. My only guess is that only one man and one woman are the actual godparents of each of these babies and that the other one or ones are witnesses.
Underage Godparent
One Godparent is the brother of the twins being baptized. Problem is he is only 10 years old and Canon Law states the godparent must be at least 16 years old. Rare exceptions can be made for extenuating circumstances. But those are not specified in the code. Something tells me, this wasn't a matter of necessity, but of desire of the parents.
A Family Affair
To round out the five Godparents were Celine Dion's husband's two sons Patrick and Jean-Pierre, his daughter Anne-Marie, and Celine's sister, Linda.
On a separate note, I'm not sure what is up with our society in general these days where we cannot seem to make a decision. So often I've seen people getting married and having 2 or 3 best men, and 2 or 3 bridesmaids. Now this tradition seems to be spreading to selection of Godparents.
Celine Dion's sons baptized in Vegas - News - ReviewJournal.com
Church Hierarchy vs. Church Membership
A popular idea that has been advanced by the media and others is that within the Church there are two groups, the hierarchy and the lay membership, and that these two groups are frequently at odds with one another.
Usually in the media, the lay membership is viewed as the "down-to-earth" crowd who are in with the times, and understand the real world better than the hierarchy. This is the story the media wants you to believe anyway.
However, this idea is not only false, but dangerous. The hierarchy of the church is the ordained members of it. It includes deacons, priests, and bishops. Their task is the teach and preserve the truth of the Catholic Church which was established by Jesus Christ. The teachings they proclaim are not their opinions on various matters, but represent the Church's doctrines, dogmas, and disciplines.
A Catholic who disobeys legitimate hierarchy is not "down-to-earth" or "modern", they are heretics and schismatics. The hierarchy is obliged to obey all the laws of the Church, just as non-ordained members must. Many religious live in poverty, owning no personal possessions. These are the very people who enforce the rules. Obviously they are not doing it for reasons of wealth and power, as news stories would have you believe. Rather, they have given their lives to Christ to serve him.
One of the most important characteristics of a good Catholic is obedience. Unfortunately, obedience is often ridiculed in the general public. Rather than a virtue, obedience is seen as a defect in character, indicating a person who is unable to make their own decisions. On the other hand, a person who justifies disobedience in the Church is lionized. They are seen as the little guy standing up the big bullies.
But nothing could be further from the truth. Catholics believe the Church was established by Jesus Christ and that it will remain always free from error. Faithful Catholics obey the Church even if it means they will need to make sacrifices at times. These are the true Church Militant. Disobedient Catholics on the other hand care far more for their own will than for the will of God. They do whatever they want, then justify it using their own flawed logic. Then they have the audacity to criticize the Church for disagreeing with THEM! Could someone please show me the Bible verse where Jesus established "your opinion" as the standard of truth?
I cannot understand how making up rules as one goes along is considered virtuous. I can understand however, how obedience, fortitude, and good morals are virtuous.
There is no room in the Church to disagree on fundamental moral issues such as abortion, euthanasia, contraception, embryonic stem cells, gay marriage, etc. Anyone who has supported one of these must end their support and align themselves with the Church.
There is no dogmatic distinction between true Catholics. Contrary to what the media would like us to believe, one cannot be Catholic and believe and act as they wish, any more than someone who plays baseball all day long can call himself a golfer.
There is also no distinction between faithful hierarchy and faithful laity. All must be obedient to the teachings of Holy Mother Church.
Usually in the media, the lay membership is viewed as the "down-to-earth" crowd who are in with the times, and understand the real world better than the hierarchy. This is the story the media wants you to believe anyway.
However, this idea is not only false, but dangerous. The hierarchy of the church is the ordained members of it. It includes deacons, priests, and bishops. Their task is the teach and preserve the truth of the Catholic Church which was established by Jesus Christ. The teachings they proclaim are not their opinions on various matters, but represent the Church's doctrines, dogmas, and disciplines.
A Catholic who disobeys legitimate hierarchy is not "down-to-earth" or "modern", they are heretics and schismatics. The hierarchy is obliged to obey all the laws of the Church, just as non-ordained members must. Many religious live in poverty, owning no personal possessions. These are the very people who enforce the rules. Obviously they are not doing it for reasons of wealth and power, as news stories would have you believe. Rather, they have given their lives to Christ to serve him.
One of the most important characteristics of a good Catholic is obedience. Unfortunately, obedience is often ridiculed in the general public. Rather than a virtue, obedience is seen as a defect in character, indicating a person who is unable to make their own decisions. On the other hand, a person who justifies disobedience in the Church is lionized. They are seen as the little guy standing up the big bullies.
But nothing could be further from the truth. Catholics believe the Church was established by Jesus Christ and that it will remain always free from error. Faithful Catholics obey the Church even if it means they will need to make sacrifices at times. These are the true Church Militant. Disobedient Catholics on the other hand care far more for their own will than for the will of God. They do whatever they want, then justify it using their own flawed logic. Then they have the audacity to criticize the Church for disagreeing with THEM! Could someone please show me the Bible verse where Jesus established "your opinion" as the standard of truth?
I cannot understand how making up rules as one goes along is considered virtuous. I can understand however, how obedience, fortitude, and good morals are virtuous.
There is no room in the Church to disagree on fundamental moral issues such as abortion, euthanasia, contraception, embryonic stem cells, gay marriage, etc. Anyone who has supported one of these must end their support and align themselves with the Church.
There is no dogmatic distinction between true Catholics. Contrary to what the media would like us to believe, one cannot be Catholic and believe and act as they wish, any more than someone who plays baseball all day long can call himself a golfer.
There is also no distinction between faithful hierarchy and faithful laity. All must be obedient to the teachings of Holy Mother Church.
Monday, March 07, 2011
Coming up tomorrow...
Come to this blog tomorrow morning at 8:00AM Eastern to read my article on the difference between the Church Hierarchy and the Church Membership.
Canadian Pro-Abortion Priest suing Life Site News
This is a story I wouldn't believe until I saw. A Canadian Catholic priest is now suing Life Site News for $500,000 for "defamation" and punitive damages. That is actually an entire year's revenue for the tiny paper.
The priest, Father Raymond Gravel, is in hot water with the Vatican after they found out about his positions on important issues such as gay marriage and abortion.
Ironically nothing that LifeSite has said about Fr. Gravel is incorrect. According to Canadian law, an organization or person can be sued for defamation if they present false information as truth concerning a person. In this case, that has not happened.
Fr. Gravel not only supports the legalization and access to abortion, he has voted to honor Dr. Mortgentaler, the infamous Canadian abortionist who was responsible for making abortion so commonplace in Canada. He is the antithesis of the pro-life movement. Yet, Fr. Gravel, a Catholic priest supports him.
Fortunately the priest is not using diocesan money for his stupid lawsuit and is footing the bill himself. This renegade priest claims he has a lot of support. Well, that's no surprise. Lots of people support immorality.
I hope this case is dismissed as without merit and then LifeSite countersues Fr. Gravel for defaming ITS character by saying it does not represent true journalism. It would be great to see this priest paying LifeSiteNews for his derogatory and unjust comments.
Having said that, I don't have much confidence in the Canadian legal system. Seems like it has no footing in true morality or goodness, but is rather a mouthpiece for the most extreme depravity. Let's pray it's not the same here.
For more on this story, please visit:
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/lifesitenews-defamation/
The priest, Father Raymond Gravel, is in hot water with the Vatican after they found out about his positions on important issues such as gay marriage and abortion.
Ironically nothing that LifeSite has said about Fr. Gravel is incorrect. According to Canadian law, an organization or person can be sued for defamation if they present false information as truth concerning a person. In this case, that has not happened.
Fr. Gravel not only supports the legalization and access to abortion, he has voted to honor Dr. Mortgentaler, the infamous Canadian abortionist who was responsible for making abortion so commonplace in Canada. He is the antithesis of the pro-life movement. Yet, Fr. Gravel, a Catholic priest supports him.
Fortunately the priest is not using diocesan money for his stupid lawsuit and is footing the bill himself. This renegade priest claims he has a lot of support. Well, that's no surprise. Lots of people support immorality.
I hope this case is dismissed as without merit and then LifeSite countersues Fr. Gravel for defaming ITS character by saying it does not represent true journalism. It would be great to see this priest paying LifeSiteNews for his derogatory and unjust comments.
Having said that, I don't have much confidence in the Canadian legal system. Seems like it has no footing in true morality or goodness, but is rather a mouthpiece for the most extreme depravity. Let's pray it's not the same here.
For more on this story, please visit:
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/lifesitenews-defamation/
Ratzinger on the meaning of the Word of God
Usually when we hear someone speak of the Word of God, we consider only the Bible. However, Cardinal Ratzinger points out that the Word of God is Jesus Christ himself who is present in the Eucharist.
Dr. Scott Hahn explores this topic in a short essay. In it, he goes even further to explain the original meaning of "New Testament" was the Eucharist:
To read the entire document by Scott Hahn, please click here.
Dr. Scott Hahn explores this topic in a short essay. In it, he goes even further to explain the original meaning of "New Testament" was the Eucharist:
But those books were not yet known as “the New Testament.” No, what the first Christians knew as the New Testament was the Eucharist, which Jesus himself called the “new testament” (or “covenant”) in his blood (see Luke 22:20). Jesus established the New Testament when he instituted the Eucharist and said “do this in remembrance of me” – not “read this” or “write this.” And the apostles went forth and celebrated the New Testament everywhere they went. Not half of them wrote books; but all of them went forth and celebrated the Eucharist. The Eucharist was celebrated as a sacrament for many years before the books we know as the New Testament were written.
To read the entire document by Scott Hahn, please click here.
Ireland’s Catholic priests unhappy with new translation of missal
Apparently not everyone is happy with the upcoming translation of the Catholic Mass. Although hailed by most observant and faithful Catholics as a great achievement which will render a more faithful translation from the original Latin, some are concerned it may be too much like the "old way". This particular article is in reference to Irish priests.
Of course, these objections are always going to surface. The main complaint is that the newer translation will dare use gender-specific words like "he" and "man" instead of "they" and "people". As we all know, accuracy should take a back seat to political correctness. Another odd objection is that people in nursing homes may not be able to easily adapt to the new translation. Using that logic, the Mass could never be updated so long as there were elderly people who may potentially have issues with the new wording.
Of course, these are all smokescreens. Those objecting to the new translation are only interested in liberalizing the Mass to be all-inclusive. They want to remove reference to "The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" and replace with "The Creator, the Redeemer, and the Sustainer". They want to wipe out references to Jesus Christ as a man, and instead not make mention of his maleness at all. Of course, calling God "he" is very unpleasing to this crowd.
Despite these pockets of objections, the majority of faithful Catholics are very pleased with the update. They in fact are less confusing and more enriching.
For more on the controversy, click the link below.
Ireland’s Catholic priests unhappy with new translation of missal | Irish News | IrishCentral
Of course, these objections are always going to surface. The main complaint is that the newer translation will dare use gender-specific words like "he" and "man" instead of "they" and "people". As we all know, accuracy should take a back seat to political correctness. Another odd objection is that people in nursing homes may not be able to easily adapt to the new translation. Using that logic, the Mass could never be updated so long as there were elderly people who may potentially have issues with the new wording.
Of course, these are all smokescreens. Those objecting to the new translation are only interested in liberalizing the Mass to be all-inclusive. They want to remove reference to "The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" and replace with "The Creator, the Redeemer, and the Sustainer". They want to wipe out references to Jesus Christ as a man, and instead not make mention of his maleness at all. Of course, calling God "he" is very unpleasing to this crowd.
Despite these pockets of objections, the majority of faithful Catholics are very pleased with the update. They in fact are less confusing and more enriching.
For more on the controversy, click the link below.
Ireland’s Catholic priests unhappy with new translation of missal | Irish News | IrishCentral
Governor Cuomo and the Church
Catholics back Cuomo in church tiff despite his 'living in sin' with girlfriend Sandra Lee
That's the headline from New York Daily News. It's no surprise. Take any issue of the day, and even though it violates Catholic teaching, you'll find many Catholics agreeing with it. Whether it's contraception, abortion, in-vitro fertilization, gay marriage, pre-marital sex, etc, you'll find those who continue to say they are Catholic and probably even going to Mass on Sunday, agreeing with these things.
If Cuomo is living with his girlfriend and not married, then he is committing a sin according to the Church. He is choosing to be a follower of the Church and go to Mass. The bishop is withholding communion while Cuomo is in this situation, and once it has been regularlized, I'm sure the bishop will re-permit the governor to take communion. When a person is a member of a church, or any organization, they agree to follow the rules of the church.
The Church is not forbidding Cuomo from entering a church in general or from receiving communion. It is simply saying Cuomo should refrain from communion while he is in public sin.
That's the headline from New York Daily News. It's no surprise. Take any issue of the day, and even though it violates Catholic teaching, you'll find many Catholics agreeing with it. Whether it's contraception, abortion, in-vitro fertilization, gay marriage, pre-marital sex, etc, you'll find those who continue to say they are Catholic and probably even going to Mass on Sunday, agreeing with these things.
If Cuomo is living with his girlfriend and not married, then he is committing a sin according to the Church. He is choosing to be a follower of the Church and go to Mass. The bishop is withholding communion while Cuomo is in this situation, and once it has been regularlized, I'm sure the bishop will re-permit the governor to take communion. When a person is a member of a church, or any organization, they agree to follow the rules of the church.
The Church is not forbidding Cuomo from entering a church in general or from receiving communion. It is simply saying Cuomo should refrain from communion while he is in public sin.
Sunday, March 06, 2011
Latest Episode of Catholic Answers Live
'I never thought there would be leftovers'
'I never thought there would be leftovers'
This article represents everything that's wrong with IVF.
1) Usually many embryos (young people) are killed in the process
2) Sometimes there are "leftover" embryos, and a difficult moral decision must be made.
3) The woman seems most concerned about if something happens to one of the baby's she is carrying. She wonders if she should keep some embryos just in case one of her children in the womb dies. The embryos have become nothing but a means to an end.
4) She wants to donate them to science. In other words, she wants 4 of her babies to be killed for research.
This article represents everything that's wrong with IVF.
1) Usually many embryos (young people) are killed in the process
2) Sometimes there are "leftover" embryos, and a difficult moral decision must be made.
3) The woman seems most concerned about if something happens to one of the baby's she is carrying. She wonders if she should keep some embryos just in case one of her children in the womb dies. The embryos have become nothing but a means to an end.
4) She wants to donate them to science. In other words, she wants 4 of her babies to be killed for research.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)