Were the Doctors of the Church wealthy?

Were the Doctors of the Church wealthy? My answer is for the most part - yes.

I briefly read through the biographies of the 33 Doctors of the Church and found that most were explicitly stated to be from wealthy families. Only 3 were definitely from poor families. Doctors of the Church are largely known for their religious writings and for much of Christian history, only the wealthy could afford to learn to read and write. Therefore it makes sense that these saints came from these families.

However, this was not always the case. There could be more to it than that. Perhaps these saints had already experienced the benefits of material possessions so they were anxious to find deeper meaning in life. Wealth also provided a high level of security. People in poverty are constantly trying to make ends meet, wondering where their next meal is coming from. In this environment, a person does not have much time or energy to contemplate theological issues.

There may be many reasons, but the statistics clearly show that most Doctors of the Church were well off.


Here is a breakdown of my findings:

• Definitely wealthy or of noble birth: 19
• Unknown family socioeconomic status: 8
• Unclear but probably well-off: 3
• Definitely poor: 3

Doctors of the Church occupying the definitely poor group:

1. Peter Damian
2. John of the Cross
3. Robert Bellarmine

Doctors of the Church occupying the unknown group:

1. Bonaventure
2. Peter Chrysologus
3. Pope Leo I
4. Albertus Magnus
5. Cyril of Jerusalem
6. Ephrem the Syrian
7. Lawrence of Brindisi
8. Teresa of Avila

Doctors of the Church occupying the probably fairly well-off group:

• Cyril of Alexandria
• Catherine of Siena
• Therese of Lisieux

If anyone can shed more light on these, please post a comment. Thanks.

Prime Minister commemorates the Assumption of Mary with a Letter!

Check out this letter Prime Minister Stephen Harper wrote to Catholics:

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/61101837/Assumption%20Day.pdf

That's pretty awesome, especially in today's day and age!

Chick-Fil-A Controversy

So in the States Chick-Fil-A is facing some criticism over the president's endorsement of traditional marriage. The company also donated to traditional marriage groups.

Of course, this is an intolerable offense to liberals. How dare anyone oppose a definition of marriage that came about about a decade ago and has never existed in human history. What a hateful bigot you'd have to be not to change your opinion immediately when society does.

Give me a break. Two gay men or two gay women do not constitute a marriage by any real definition. First you would have to pretty much destroy any real definition of marriage for it to even fit in any way shape or form.

So anyway, someone expresses his opinion on the issue and practically the entire liberal establishment wants the restaurant abolished. Who cares anyway, they only make chicken sandwiches not laws.

If you don't like this place, don't eat there. It's a free world, well pretty free.

Restaurants should be allowed to say whatever they want. You can choose to eat there. I personally hope this increases their business.

Religious freedom must be absolute

Religious freedom should be absolute. In fact, this would extend beyond religion to any private individual or business. What I mean by this is religious groups should have the right to hire or fire whoever they want for whatever reason they want. We as Catholics should advocate this. I can imagine a time in the not-too-distant future where Catholics will be forced to do many things which violate our morals or canon law, such as allowed gay priests, womenpriests, etc. or forcing priests to divulge what they hear in the confessional.

It's very dangerous to put your freedom to a vote in a democratic system. However good it might feel to dictate with the force of law what someone can or cannot do, a much worse feeling is having your rights trampled upon because 51% of people thought it was okay.

So what does this mean? It means Catholics should support total freedom when it comes to religion. Do not fight for anti-discrimination laws or anything like that. Leave it up to individuals.

Melinda Gates trying to reduce the number of Africans

So Melinda Gates is intent on reducing the number of children born in Africa. She hopes to do this by pumping more contraception into the continent than they currently have. Keep in mind, most people who are actually in Africa complain they cannot find clean drinking water or they are getting malaria. But I guess those causes are a little too old fashioned and passé. The much more "in" thing to do is contraception, abortion, and things like that. Those are "cutting-edge". Clean water? boooring. Let's eliminate people by forcing contraception and sterilization: that's modern and "feminist"!

Plus, many countries are jumping on this bandwagon, maybe even my own, despite me not authorizing this. By the way, there is already too much contraception in Africa. It's more available than water. But the ideologues must prove that condoms can save the world.

The funniest part is Melinda says she is a devout Catholic. LOL!! Sometimes Catholics who attend Mass weekly and follow all the rules are not even called devout. So how on earth would a woman who willfully violates basic tenets of the faith a devout Catholic. That's like calling someone a devout Jew who eats pork every day.

These people are just modern-day eugenicists. They see Africans as undesirables and want to reduce their numbers. Plus, they like the feeling of being a savior to these people and it advances their ideology which they will continue to pursue despite evidence that it's false.

On behalf of all Western countries I would like to apologize to Africa for our arrogance.

I'm an atheist and I'm rational!

I just received a message from an apparent atheist whose username reflects that he is happy, thinking, and human, and an atheist. I then thought about how common this overt display of self-promotion is when it comes to the atheist community. Most atheist websites are rather overt in declaring how rational, intelligent, free-thinking, and science-loving they are.

You can see it in the titles of atheist websites, books, and usernames. It's rather curious. It reminded me of something Jason Evert from Catholic Answers once said about stores which sell pornography or strip clubs. They usually advertise themselves as "adult bookstores" or "gentlemen's club". But as Jason pointed out, there is nothing "adult" about these places, and no "gentleman" would find himself frequenting these shady dens of depravity. But they are too afraid to advertise what they truly are, so they use euphemisms.

I wonder if atheists refer to themselves so frequently as "rational" and "intelligent" because they are afraid people won't notice otherwise. Or maybe they are afraid that they are not quite as "rational" as they'd like to believe. They seem to be reassuring themselves that their belief system is rational and scientific and could not possibly be the result of any type of fear or other emotion.

Most of the time if someone is constantly telling everyone about a particular quality they have, they have some hidden fear about it. I think I'm intelligent but I don't go around telling everyone that I'm an intelligent, rational person. If I constantly reminded people of this, they would probably start to wonder if it was a preoccupation for me.

Religious people also believe they are rational, and many or most believe science is a valuable tool. But I never hear religious people reminding others that they are rational and intelligent. I rarely ever hear religious people talk about how religious they are either for that matter. If someone did always talk about how religious they are and offer proof as to their religiosity, it would seem strange and perhaps indicative of some insecurity.

I acknowledge that atheists often use these words not only to describe themselves, but also to distinguish themselves from others, i.e. religious people. It's a form of jab that tells as much about how atheists feel about others as about how they feel about themselves.

These are just some thoughts and if anyone would like to agree or disagree, please feel free to do so in the comments.

Who's destroying marriage?

Gay marriage is a big topic nowadays. Many states in the US are having constitutional challenges over whether to include gay unions under the term "marriage". Also, Barack Obama came out in support of gay marriage right after his theoretically Catholic VP Biden. In Canada of course, the baby is already gone with the bathwater and gay marriage is legal.

But I think if we focus too much on gay marriage, we miss the point. We have to ask ourselves, what is marriage anyway? This is a critical question. It must have a definition. Any word without a definition is pointless. A "fish" is a particular type of animal. According to the definition, whales are not fish, nor are beavers. But what if people demanded the term fish also include rodents, reptiles, and amphibians. Well, the word just lost most of its definition. Eventually it could be erased. So it is with marriage.

But what is the definition of marriage? According to Catholic teaching, marriage is a

"covenant by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring. [It] has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament between the baptised."

 The truth is, the definition of marriage has already been violated by the state and by many couples. Here are some things which are offenses against marriage in the eyes of the Church, and if agreed to before a marriage, could invalidate it:

1. Couple decides from the start that they will not have children.
2. Couple decides they will use contraception
3. Divorce
4. In-vitro fertilization

Gay marriage is not a real marriage, but nor is a permanently and voluntarily infertile marriage, nor is divorce an option for a true marriage. In-vitro fertilization is also an illicit act that violates marriage. Heterosexual couples have already been violating the sanctity of marriage, and that's a major problem. Heterosexual couples decided long ago that marriage is just about mutual love and if those feelings of affection wane, then divorce is an option. This is a major perversion of what marriage is.

We shouldn't act as though marriage was all fine and dandy until gay marriage came around. Ever since the 1930s when many churches accepted contraception, the sanctity and true nature of marriage has been attacked.

Hank and John Green on Gay Marriage

So Hank and John Green have a popular video blog, and are known collectively as vlogbrothers. Recently the two rode the trending train and each decided to publish a video giving their full support for gay marriage. Their arguments are all over the place and basically boil down to there are lots of religions and lots of people have lots of different ideas therefore we cannot say anything about morality. Actually this is the argument used by most nonbelievers on most subjects.

I'm mostly going to focus on John's video right now.

John says marriage has meant many things in history. He says the white dress and the priest at the wedding are all relatively new things, therefore gay marriage is okay. Lot of flaws in the argument here. Christian marriage has always been between a man and a woman. The same understanding has been attached to it also. I'm only speaking of Catholicism here. Marriage is a sacrament given to the spouses by the spouses. The priest simply acts as a witness. The concept though is the same.

But John also uses as evidence that Christian marriage has changed because Solomon had MANY wives. Newsflash: Soloman was not Christian, so this point is irrelevant.

John says that many religions have different ideas of marriage, BUT what he forgets like most people is the commonality all these ideas shared. It has ALWAYS been between a man and a woman. Now, some religions say a man could enter into another marriage contract with another woman. But that's also a marriage with a man and a woman. The man just does this many times. This is not a Christian concept though. But no culture has ever recognized two men or two women as married to each other.

Where does marriage come from? It has been noted that if it weren't for children proceeding from the union of a man and a woman, the whole idea of marriage would never have come about. What people like John want to do is to say that marriage is all about feelings of affection between two persons. Well if that's the definition, then anything would be allowed.

In Ancient Greece, gay relationships were common, but they were never recognized as marriage. The idea would seem totally absurd.

John goes on to say basically who are we to limit legal contracts between two individuals. Well, that's not the issue. Civil partnerships have given gays the ability to enact a legal contract, but that has never been enough. No gay rights group has ever said okay we have civil unions, we're done now. They demand to have their relationship labeled a marriage.

The next thing is if gay marriage is allowed, why isn't polygamy? How can we discriminate against three people who want to enter a union (or two women who decide to marry the same man). This is also discrimination. And if any grouping of people can be called a marriage then it completely loses any real meaning. What interest would the state have in protecting this??

The state is not recognizing love or a relationship or giving approval for a certain sexual union. The state recognizes marriage because they are good for society and children are best raised by their own parents.

If the state recognizes gay marriage, then it should probably just abandon the whole area and just let the churches and other religious institutions recognize who they want.

Rest in Peace Archbishop Carew

I just attended the funeral of Archbishop William A. Carew at the Basilica of St. John the Baptist on Military Road, St. John's, Newfoundland. He was only a few months away from his 90th birthday.

Archbishop Carew had a distinguished career as a papal nuncio. He spent several decades in Japan, but also lived and worked in many other countries around the world, including Burundi-Rwanda, Bangladesh, and more. He could speak several languages.

He was very gracious to attend the Flatrock Pilgrimage every year, the latest being September of last year.

Click here for a short biography of Archbishop Carew.

Benedict XVI officially declares Hildegard of Bingen a Saint

This is great. I remember learning about Hildegard at university during my music course.

Take that Jon Stewart!

As I reported a few weeks ago, Jon Stewart sunk to a new low when he displayed a disgusting picture of a woman's private parts being covered by a nativity scene. He has freedom of speech, but everyone else has the freedom to protest. That's what the Catholic League did and it has had good results. Delta Airlines stopped sponsoring Jon's show. But Jon is remaining steadfast in his attack on the Church. So be it. Soon enough more sponsors will leave your show. I'm sure you'll find it in your heart somewhere to issue an apology once the money stops coming.

Awesome!

Denver priest ‘pulls out the big guns’ on Planned Parenthood: says Mass on the street outside clinic | LifeSiteNews.com

Daily Show sinks to new low

So I was just watching a clip from Jon Stewart's Daily Show which aired yesterday and he has sunk to a new disgusting low. In one of his articles, he is discussing how conservatives allegedly call everything a war, such as the war on Christmas, but that they will not call what is happening to women a war. What Stewart thinks is happening is that women's rights are being trampled upon because they cannot kill their unborn babies. He is baffled as to why conservatives are not calling this a war.

Anyway, to explain his point, he used a graphic image which I should probably not even describe on this website. To describe it briefly there is a small nativity scene which is being used to cover a certain part of a woman's anatomy. I really have no idea what point Stewart was trying to make, but it seems he thought it would be some sort of twisted birth control method. Anyway, the actual picture that he uses is very inappropriate and features a naked woman sitting.

He then shows a picture of another nativity scene, this time placed in a birth control pill container.

It's alright to make a point, but you should maintain some semblance of decency.

New Mosque Planned for St. John's, NL

According to this article, Muslims in St. John's want a new mosque, which also includes prayer rooms, classrooms, and a gym. They ran into a snag because the land they bought is zoned rural and apparently they can't build there. They're hoping to have it built by 2013.

 Some people see this as a problem because they are not Christian and some of their beliefs conflict with ours. Obviously on a personal level, as I mentioned before, I would like for everyone to be Catholic, but I acknowledge that not everyone is. Anyway, from a religious perspective, I think people should have the right to worship as they choose. Freedom of religion is a very important value.

In the history of Catholicism, our Church has been persecuted a lot. In England for a long time it was illegal to be Catholic. Many Catholics were murdered by the state. In many Middle Eastern countries today it is difficult or impossible to be openly Christian. These are injustices.

The Catechism addresses the issue of freedom of religion in the following sections:

2107 "If because of the circumstances of a particular people special civil recognition is given to one religious community in the constitutional organization of a state, the right of all citizens and religious communities to religious freedom must be recognized and respected as well."36 

2108 The right to religious liberty is neither a moral license to adhere to error, nor a supposed right to error,37 but rather a natural right of the human person to civil liberty, i.e., immunity, within just limits, from external constraint in religious matters by political authorities. This natural right ought to be acknowledged in the juridical order of society in such a way that it constitutes a civil right.38 

2109 The right to religious liberty can of itself be neither unlimited nor limited only by a "public order" conceived in a positivist or naturalist manner.39 The "due limits" which are inherent in it must be determined for each social situation by political prudence, according to the requirements of the common good, and ratified by the civil authority in accordance with "legal principles which are in conformity with the objective moral order."40

Allowing people to worship in whatever way they choose, even if they are in error, does not constitute any form of participation in that error.

Also, having respect for other religious communities can open the door to evangelism. Taking a disrespectful attitude can close that door.

Having said all that, any religious belief should be allowed as long as it does not violate the law. Violence in the name of religion cannot be tolerated and people from all religions must act according to the law of the land, without attempting to create a separate law unto themselves. Child abuse, abuse of women, and any other form of intimidation or violence cannot be tolerated even if they are legitimate aspects of a particular religious system. It goes without saying that violence to the population at large can also not be tolerated.

But any of these issues can be dealt with using existing laws and will be applicable to all religious communities.

Religious tolerance is an important political idea as is all freedom of expression. It guarantees the rights of not only small or new religious communities, but of all of them.

Freedom is the right of all sentient beings

So said Optimus Prime in the Transformers movie. I'm an advocate for personal and economic freedom. At the same time I am also an advocate for Catholic morality and believe ultimately our goal is that everyone belong to the Catholic Church. So these two points of view are contradictory, right? Wrong. I think the best chance for Catholics to live as they choose is to advoacte for freedom in our society. Of course, the knee-jerk reaction is to advocate for moral positions which agree with us. We want a government which will work on our behalf to make individuals behave the way we see fit through the use of coercion. But this approach is very short-sighted and doesn't seem to work. What you are really doing with this approach is giving the government more power. And it seems in the last few decades this power has been exclusively used against our interests. Virtually every decision about morality has opposed Catholic teaching on it. I don't see much change in the future. What's worse is that when the government has the power to enforce its perverted version of morality on the entire populous, Catholics are forced to comply or they could end up in prison. We played a game of tug of war and lost and now we find ourselves in the mud. It's better to simply say we want the freedom to do as we please, and every citizen should have that right. Just look in the newspaper to see what Catholics are being forced to do because of lack of freedom. Catholic adoption agencies are being shut down because they won't adopt to gay couples and unwed couples. Catholic schools are being forced to teach kids about contraception, abortion, and homosexual activities. Catholic Church Halls are being forced to rent their services to gay marriages, private apartments are forced to rent to homosexuals. The list goes on and on. If we had freedom, none of this would happen. Yes, it might happen in the rest of society, but it wouldn't happen in bonafide Catholic institutions. To make matters still worse, we are forced to pay for all this immorality. We pay for abortion, we pay for gay marriages, we pay for human rights tribunals which prosecute the Church. The state is NOT our friend. In this regard, I think the Jews had it right in ancient times. When they were living under the Roman Empire, they didn't try to change the laws of Rome. Instead they constantly asked for the right to be left alone, to make their own laws, to live as they pleased. Of course, this wasn't fully granted, but they did have a good degree of autonomy. Christians have traditionally understood that they were meant to be in the world but not of the world. Over the past several decades, Canada has enacted anti-Catholic law after anti-Catholic law. In our fight to have laws reflect the Code of Canon Law, are we willing to have all our rights stripped away? The irony is that our own money has been used against us. And look at the prospects for the future. We have three main political parties: the NDP, the Liberals, and the so-called Conservatives. None of them have much interest in Catholic morality. One or more of the founding fathers of the United States, I forget who, said his vision was that government would be very small and that the Churches would rise up and become very powerful, of course on a voluntary basis. Advocating more government control is simply advocating Babylon. Let's instead advocate for a separate Israel.

Do you have a right to other people's money?

I personally think the answer is no from a Catholic point of view. Jesus always advocated charity. But he didn't say the government has to get involved to force people to pay money against their will. When saints of the Church decided to give up all possessions, they became beggars not thieves. In fact, one of the Ten Commandments refers to not coveting your neighbor's goods. There is another commandment against theft. Notice the commandment for theft does not specify under which circumstances it can be used. It just says don't do it. I think people are often very generous and we should not use force to get people to help others. Plus, there are often unintended side effects to policies which take one person's money to give to another.

How old was Mary when Jesus was born?

It seems most priests will say Mary was around 14 when Jesus was born, some will go even younger, declaring 12 or 13 even. But no one really knows for certain. It has never been infallibly taught and her age at the time of the first Christmas is not recorded in any canonical book. So it's open to debate.

Cool!

Watch "Pope receives giant Easter egg" on YouTube