According to LifeNews, Ireland has recently passed legislation which allows women to abort their unborn babies in some circumstances. Ireland is one of the few pro-life European countries and now this is starting to change. Not by popular demand though, but by the whims of those in power.
In the new law a woman can obtain an abortion if it is deemed she is likely to commit suicide unless she does. As LifeNews reports, suicide rates are much higher for women who have abortions, so this will probably backfire.
The question is how many women will claim to be suicidal in order to kill their baby? I would say a lot. And who is going to contradict them?
But what about women who would genuinely commit suicide? I would say this must be very rare. I don't really understand it. Why would a woman kill herself because she is going to have a baby? If she really didn't want her kid that bad, wouldn't she give him/her up for adoption? Plus, I think the depression should be dealt with separately.
You can't kill a person just because you might commit suicide unless you do. If you are suicidal, you should seek immediate medical attention and stop blaming an innocent baby.
If this is allowed, then why aren't all abortions allowed? If abortion is illegal, it means the people believe it is murder. Does the psychological state of the killer determine whether or not the victim has value and should not be killed? That's what is being implied.
Imagine if a woman said she wanted to kill her 2 year old son. She is told she can't because it's illegal. Then she says she is suicidal and must kill her two year old son and she is then given permission. That would be absurd. The correct course of action would be to treat the mental issue which makes her want to kill her son.
In any event, this is just one step toward total disregard for human life in yet another Europe country. Very sad news.
Friday, July 12, 2013
Monday, July 08, 2013
Not sure how I feel about Pope John Paul II being canonized
First off, don't get me wrong. I don't doubt that JPII is in heaven, but being in heaven is different than being canonized. I think this might be too soon to canonize this previous pope. John Paul died just 8 years ago. If you asked non-Catholics, they mightn't even know the names of his two successors. Pope Francis has now declared that John Paul's canonization can proceed and will probably take place before the end of the year.
My issue is how it will be perceived by many. I don't want the canonization process to become a sort of automatic post-death honor given by the current pope to his predecessor. If people perceive canonization as something easy and quick, it could lose some of its profundity in their minds. It becomes just another honor among many, like being on the cover of Time Magazine or winning a Nobel Prize. To some it may look like something akin to a Lifetime Achievement Award at the Oscars.
Now I know perception is not what matters, but the Catholic Church understands the value of symbols. Canonizing someone does not accelerate their entry into heaven and there is no necessary reason to speed up a particular cause. Ultimately canonization is for the edification and prayer life of Catholics. Therefore, it is important to maintain the gravitas of the whole process and proceed with not only caution, but an air of solemnity and seriousness.
Pope John Paul II was a great man. I encourage people to pray to him. My only concern is that his canonization may be proceeding a little too quickly.
My issue is how it will be perceived by many. I don't want the canonization process to become a sort of automatic post-death honor given by the current pope to his predecessor. If people perceive canonization as something easy and quick, it could lose some of its profundity in their minds. It becomes just another honor among many, like being on the cover of Time Magazine or winning a Nobel Prize. To some it may look like something akin to a Lifetime Achievement Award at the Oscars.
Now I know perception is not what matters, but the Catholic Church understands the value of symbols. Canonizing someone does not accelerate their entry into heaven and there is no necessary reason to speed up a particular cause. Ultimately canonization is for the edification and prayer life of Catholics. Therefore, it is important to maintain the gravitas of the whole process and proceed with not only caution, but an air of solemnity and seriousness.
Pope John Paul II was a great man. I encourage people to pray to him. My only concern is that his canonization may be proceeding a little too quickly.
Friday, June 28, 2013
What is marriage?
This seems like a very basic question, but it is at the heart of the current same-sex marriage debate. Yesterday, the American Supreme Court barely agreed to declare the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional. One of my favorite justices, Antonin Scalia, disagreed with the Supreme Court even hearing this case in the first place. He said the court really had nothing to do with this and should have rejected the whole thing.
In any event, 5 of the justices disagreed with this dissent and went ahead and removed DOMA. DOMA was put in place by Bill Clinton to define marriage, on a federal level, as only between a man and a woman. Now that this is no longer in force, the federal government can now start redefining marriage.
Of course, as expected, many people celebrated this ruling. From my own Facebook page, there were many people who seemed very happy about this. Ironically, Bill Clinton applauded this decision, even though DOMA was enacted during his presidency.
But the question that no one really talks about much is "What is marriage?" In all the debates, the only thing I hear is "equality". But in any debates, the terms must be defined.
In all of human history, cultures have recognized marriage and it has always been the union of a man and a woman. This is no coincidence. Marriage exists because of children. If there were no children, there would be no marriage. Because cultures saw that a child does best with his mother and father, marriage held a special status. It was honored and promoted. This is a special relationship that was recognized as the most important because it was the building block of a family, which is the building block of society.
But it is beneficial from a biological point of view also. A pregnant and new mother left alone in the wild is in great danger. She is very vulnerable. Having a man to protect and serve her gives her child the greatest chance at survival. It is also beneficial to a man who can help ensure his genes will be passed down.
Jesus Christ lifted marriage to an even greater place when he made it a sacrament and something holy. So what is marriage? According to the Catholic Church, marriage is "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."
This may be the Catholic definition of marriage, but it really is the basic understanding of marriage that all cultures held for many millennia. An essential element of marriage is the sexual complementarity of spouses, because reproduction is an essential aspect of this union.
So if this is the definition of marriage, not allowing gay marriage is not about inequality or bigotry, it's about definitions. It's not discrimination to refuse to call a circle a square.
But what has happened? Basically society at large has changed its definition of marriage. Strangely, most people cannot even define it. They will say some platitude perhaps about marriage being a commitment two people make to one another. It's extremely vague and unspecific to the point where MANY things could be considered marriage that people would never consider marriage. Two good friends can make a commitment to one another, but that's not necessarily marriage.
I've even asked people how they define marriage. They struggle with it a lot. Many will say two people who love each other and want to commit to one another. But if this is the definition, are arranged marriages invalid? Plus, our society in general seems to have a distorted view of "love". Love, in modern terms, is more accurately described as "affection", it's just an emotion. But real love is action, it's putting your spouse's interests first and caring for them in good times and bad. Affection is great, but what marriage requires is true love. But back to the question. What if for a particular period of time, a couple does not feel affection? What if they are going through a hard time? Is their marriage automatically ended? I would say absolutely not.
And if marriage is just about love, however modern people define it, why is it restricted? Even with gay marriage, there are still restrictions. Siblings cannot marry, nor can a parent marry a child. Most gay marriage advocates would say incestuous marriages are wrong. But who are they to judge. Why should I listen to their moral code? What about polygamy? I've asked several gay marriage supporters why we can't have polygamous marriages. Their usual answer is they don't know anything about that and cannot comment. Others say it's just too different. But again, would they accept any of these same arguments used against gay marriage? They too are moralizing. They too are defining marriage based on their own personal belief systems. I've rarely come across anyone who both agrees with gay marriage and all those other types I've mentioned.
Marriage is something, it has a definition. Calling a circle a square doesn't make it one. If circles are forced to be called squares, we will always have to specify what type of "square" is being referred to. Language is pesky like that. It needs to be specific or new words will emerge.
If marriage can be anything, then marriage is nothing.
In any event, 5 of the justices disagreed with this dissent and went ahead and removed DOMA. DOMA was put in place by Bill Clinton to define marriage, on a federal level, as only between a man and a woman. Now that this is no longer in force, the federal government can now start redefining marriage.
Of course, as expected, many people celebrated this ruling. From my own Facebook page, there were many people who seemed very happy about this. Ironically, Bill Clinton applauded this decision, even though DOMA was enacted during his presidency.
But the question that no one really talks about much is "What is marriage?" In all the debates, the only thing I hear is "equality". But in any debates, the terms must be defined.
In all of human history, cultures have recognized marriage and it has always been the union of a man and a woman. This is no coincidence. Marriage exists because of children. If there were no children, there would be no marriage. Because cultures saw that a child does best with his mother and father, marriage held a special status. It was honored and promoted. This is a special relationship that was recognized as the most important because it was the building block of a family, which is the building block of society.
But it is beneficial from a biological point of view also. A pregnant and new mother left alone in the wild is in great danger. She is very vulnerable. Having a man to protect and serve her gives her child the greatest chance at survival. It is also beneficial to a man who can help ensure his genes will be passed down.
Jesus Christ lifted marriage to an even greater place when he made it a sacrament and something holy. So what is marriage? According to the Catholic Church, marriage is "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."
This may be the Catholic definition of marriage, but it really is the basic understanding of marriage that all cultures held for many millennia. An essential element of marriage is the sexual complementarity of spouses, because reproduction is an essential aspect of this union.
So if this is the definition of marriage, not allowing gay marriage is not about inequality or bigotry, it's about definitions. It's not discrimination to refuse to call a circle a square.
But what has happened? Basically society at large has changed its definition of marriage. Strangely, most people cannot even define it. They will say some platitude perhaps about marriage being a commitment two people make to one another. It's extremely vague and unspecific to the point where MANY things could be considered marriage that people would never consider marriage. Two good friends can make a commitment to one another, but that's not necessarily marriage.
I've even asked people how they define marriage. They struggle with it a lot. Many will say two people who love each other and want to commit to one another. But if this is the definition, are arranged marriages invalid? Plus, our society in general seems to have a distorted view of "love". Love, in modern terms, is more accurately described as "affection", it's just an emotion. But real love is action, it's putting your spouse's interests first and caring for them in good times and bad. Affection is great, but what marriage requires is true love. But back to the question. What if for a particular period of time, a couple does not feel affection? What if they are going through a hard time? Is their marriage automatically ended? I would say absolutely not.
And if marriage is just about love, however modern people define it, why is it restricted? Even with gay marriage, there are still restrictions. Siblings cannot marry, nor can a parent marry a child. Most gay marriage advocates would say incestuous marriages are wrong. But who are they to judge. Why should I listen to their moral code? What about polygamy? I've asked several gay marriage supporters why we can't have polygamous marriages. Their usual answer is they don't know anything about that and cannot comment. Others say it's just too different. But again, would they accept any of these same arguments used against gay marriage? They too are moralizing. They too are defining marriage based on their own personal belief systems. I've rarely come across anyone who both agrees with gay marriage and all those other types I've mentioned.
Marriage is something, it has a definition. Calling a circle a square doesn't make it one. If circles are forced to be called squares, we will always have to specify what type of "square" is being referred to. Language is pesky like that. It needs to be specific or new words will emerge.
If marriage can be anything, then marriage is nothing.
Tuesday, June 18, 2013
Ignatian retreat
This past weekend, I attended an Ignatian young adult retreat at St. Bon's School in St. John's. It was facilitated by 3 Jesuit Scholastics (seminarians) from across Canada. Artur, Edmund, and Santiago gave around 35 young adults an introduction to Jesuit spirituality in 7 talks over 2 days.
I found the entire event very rewarding. On top of the informative talks, there was adoration, silent prayer, singing, confession, and finally the weekend culminated in a Mass.
The main thing I took from the retreat was my need for more prayer. I was introduced to silent prayer, which is distinct from adoration. I find this difficult. During the talks, the speakers said the devil often tempts us to leave the prayer, or to leave early. However, the greatest spiritual fruits are often found just after you were about to quit.
Another concept I learned more about was the idea that things in our lives either bring us closer to God or further from him. It's not always obvious which is which either. Sometimes things will make us happy for the time being but actually pulls us away from our Creator. Other things may seems difficult, but are actually better for us in the long run.
I found the three young seminarians to be full of hope. They were also easy to get along with and were very "normal" guys.
Edmund gave me a special gift of an origami giraffe. He said the giraffe represents Christ because the giraffe is able to see over the entire savanna, and has the largest heart of all land animals.
I recommend this weekend to any young person who may be considering it.
I found the entire event very rewarding. On top of the informative talks, there was adoration, silent prayer, singing, confession, and finally the weekend culminated in a Mass.
The main thing I took from the retreat was my need for more prayer. I was introduced to silent prayer, which is distinct from adoration. I find this difficult. During the talks, the speakers said the devil often tempts us to leave the prayer, or to leave early. However, the greatest spiritual fruits are often found just after you were about to quit.
Another concept I learned more about was the idea that things in our lives either bring us closer to God or further from him. It's not always obvious which is which either. Sometimes things will make us happy for the time being but actually pulls us away from our Creator. Other things may seems difficult, but are actually better for us in the long run.
I found the three young seminarians to be full of hope. They were also easy to get along with and were very "normal" guys.
Edmund gave me a special gift of an origami giraffe. He said the giraffe represents Christ because the giraffe is able to see over the entire savanna, and has the largest heart of all land animals.
I recommend this weekend to any young person who may be considering it.
Wednesday, May 29, 2013
Henry Morgentaler has died
I'm probably not going to give you any new information on Henry Morgentaler that hasn't been reported in the news, but I will add my two cents.
Morgentaler was synonymous with abortion in Canada. He was a physician who spent his life fighting legal battles in our country to have abortion legal and paid for by the government. He did not want any compromise, just 100% availability of abortion at all stages for any reason totally paid for by the government.
He largely succeeded in his goal. Legally speaking, abortion is allowed in Canada anytime before the baby is born. And in nearly all provinces, the price of abortion is paid by the government. Much of this is because of Morgentaler. Therefore, to some extent all taxpayers fund the killing of unborn children.
I find it ironic that Morgentaler would advocate the execution of innocent human beings since he himself was almost a victim of the same thing as a survivor of the Dachau concentration camp during World War II.
Because I subscribe to many pro-life channels and have many pro-life friends, I saw a lot of posts about Morgentaler. Generally they all said it's up to God now. It always is. I was surprised to see a young lady praising Morgentaler and thanking him. It's especially ironic since she has a new son whom she has been continuously posting pictures of since his birth. Is she happy that she had to option to abort him while she was pregnant? Is she happy other women have this option?
How can you see a newborn child and thinking "It's a good thing we have abortion in Canada because I may have wanted to kill this child."
Someone else responded to her comment saying Morgentaler did a lot for reproductive rights. You'll notice most pro-abortion people speak in euphemisms. They talk about "reproductive health", "women's rights", etc. Never do they say what they are really advocating: the ability to kill their unborn child in the womb.
I'm not going to sit here and judge Morgentaler for two reasons. First of all, perhaps he felt what he was doing was right. Many pro-abortion people surely feel the same way. They don't advocate legal abortion because they just want to spread evil throughout the world. Perhaps it is based in selfishness, perhaps their lack of beliefs in a soul, or just bad philosophy / theology. But in some strange way, abortion advocates think they are doing what is good. Perhaps Morgentaler felt the same way.
Another reason I will not just judge him is because we have all sinned, we all need forgiveness. As Jesus says no man can go to heaven on his own, he needs God. So I don't want to put myself on a pedestal and say I am so much better than Morgentaler.
But we can say that what Morgentaler did was objectively wrong. He performed abortions and fought to have it legalized in all of Canada. Worse yet, he forced taxpayers to fund it, thus increasing demand.
To its shame, Canada awarded Morgentaler with the Order of Canada. Strangely (or perhaps predictably), the blurb describing why Morgentaler received the Order does not mention the word abortion, or even terminating pregnancies. It doesn't mention unborn children. It once again speaks in euphemisms. It talks about increasing "health care options for women", and heightening "women's reproductive health issues". The truth must be glossed over in this case.
The decision to award Morgentaler with the Order of Canada was deeply divisive and should have been avoided in my opinion. The Order of Canada should be used to bring Canadians together, not separate them.
I hope the death of Dr. Morgentaler renews the abortion debate and people start to see the truth of what it really is. I do hope that Morgentaler is with God now. We all have to do our best to bring about a culture of life.
Morgentaler was synonymous with abortion in Canada. He was a physician who spent his life fighting legal battles in our country to have abortion legal and paid for by the government. He did not want any compromise, just 100% availability of abortion at all stages for any reason totally paid for by the government.
He largely succeeded in his goal. Legally speaking, abortion is allowed in Canada anytime before the baby is born. And in nearly all provinces, the price of abortion is paid by the government. Much of this is because of Morgentaler. Therefore, to some extent all taxpayers fund the killing of unborn children.
I find it ironic that Morgentaler would advocate the execution of innocent human beings since he himself was almost a victim of the same thing as a survivor of the Dachau concentration camp during World War II.
Because I subscribe to many pro-life channels and have many pro-life friends, I saw a lot of posts about Morgentaler. Generally they all said it's up to God now. It always is. I was surprised to see a young lady praising Morgentaler and thanking him. It's especially ironic since she has a new son whom she has been continuously posting pictures of since his birth. Is she happy that she had to option to abort him while she was pregnant? Is she happy other women have this option?
How can you see a newborn child and thinking "It's a good thing we have abortion in Canada because I may have wanted to kill this child."
Someone else responded to her comment saying Morgentaler did a lot for reproductive rights. You'll notice most pro-abortion people speak in euphemisms. They talk about "reproductive health", "women's rights", etc. Never do they say what they are really advocating: the ability to kill their unborn child in the womb.
I'm not going to sit here and judge Morgentaler for two reasons. First of all, perhaps he felt what he was doing was right. Many pro-abortion people surely feel the same way. They don't advocate legal abortion because they just want to spread evil throughout the world. Perhaps it is based in selfishness, perhaps their lack of beliefs in a soul, or just bad philosophy / theology. But in some strange way, abortion advocates think they are doing what is good. Perhaps Morgentaler felt the same way.
Another reason I will not just judge him is because we have all sinned, we all need forgiveness. As Jesus says no man can go to heaven on his own, he needs God. So I don't want to put myself on a pedestal and say I am so much better than Morgentaler.
But we can say that what Morgentaler did was objectively wrong. He performed abortions and fought to have it legalized in all of Canada. Worse yet, he forced taxpayers to fund it, thus increasing demand.
To its shame, Canada awarded Morgentaler with the Order of Canada. Strangely (or perhaps predictably), the blurb describing why Morgentaler received the Order does not mention the word abortion, or even terminating pregnancies. It doesn't mention unborn children. It once again speaks in euphemisms. It talks about increasing "health care options for women", and heightening "women's reproductive health issues". The truth must be glossed over in this case.
The decision to award Morgentaler with the Order of Canada was deeply divisive and should have been avoided in my opinion. The Order of Canada should be used to bring Canadians together, not separate them.
I hope the death of Dr. Morgentaler renews the abortion debate and people start to see the truth of what it really is. I do hope that Morgentaler is with God now. We all have to do our best to bring about a culture of life.
Tuesday, May 28, 2013
Is it hard for rich people to enter heaven?
It seems popular these days for Catholics to judge rich people and say it's really hard for them to enter heaven. Some say they hope to never be rich. I heard a heterodox priest once urging young people to not make too much money. Somehow wealth is now seen as objectively bad in and of itself.
One of the most popular verses people use to justify this hatred of the rich or riches is when Jesus says it is more difficult for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven. What you almost never hear though is what Jesus says right after. Here's what it says in Matthew chapter 19, verse 25:
When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and said, “Who then can be saved?”
Jesus looked at them and said, “For human beings this is impossible, but for God all things are possible.”
At the time, richness was seen as a sign that God was blessing you. Therefore, it was shocking to hear that it would be hard for EVEN rich people to enter heaven. Jesus goes on to say for all men it is impossible. It is only possible for God. Notice Jesus doesn't say for everyone else it's relatively simple, it's only hard for rich people?
I take it more to mean "even the most blessed people will have a hard time entering heaven". Really, it's not only hard, it's impossible. That's because we cannot save ourselves.
I think wealth can be an impediment to holiness, just as anything can. Anything one makes an idol can be an impediment. Your job, your hobbies, your favorite sport, your body, you diet, etc. can all become obsessions which divert our attention away from God. We must worship God alone. I think what Jesus mostly condemns is a person's attachment to money. But he also condemns people who are too attached to positions of power and prestige, too attached to family and friends, or too attached to comfort.
Jesus says we must put God first and nothing should be on par or above him.
A trend I am noticing more from members of the Church is to think the Church speaks infallibly on matter of faith, morals, and economics. I find many people thinking in socialist terms and believing the Church has to endorse their particular policy.
I will get into this more later, but what I personally believe is that the Church guides the behavior of people, not governments. Only a person is a moral being, only they can make good or sinful decisions. You cannot say a country made a sinful decision. When Jesus tells us how to live, he speaks in terms of the individual. He does not advocate government involvement. He tells individuals to feed the hungry and clothe the naked.
As I said, I will delve into that subject more later. The reason I bring it up is because more and more people within the Church seem to think the solution to our problems can all be found in government policies and to not support one of these policies is going against the Church. Many advocate redistribution of wealth and say we as Christians must support this. But I believe there are alternative viewpoints.
Wealth in itself is a good thing. It allows us to live longer, healthier, and happier lives. Instead of condemning wealth, we should find ways for everyone to produce it. There is no limit on wealth. One hundred years ago, there was far less wealth than there is today. Therefore, I would caution against condemning rich people. They have their temptations to overcome just like everyone else.
One of the most popular verses people use to justify this hatred of the rich or riches is when Jesus says it is more difficult for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven. What you almost never hear though is what Jesus says right after. Here's what it says in Matthew chapter 19, verse 25:
When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and said, “Who then can be saved?”
Jesus looked at them and said, “For human beings this is impossible, but for God all things are possible.”
At the time, richness was seen as a sign that God was blessing you. Therefore, it was shocking to hear that it would be hard for EVEN rich people to enter heaven. Jesus goes on to say for all men it is impossible. It is only possible for God. Notice Jesus doesn't say for everyone else it's relatively simple, it's only hard for rich people?
I take it more to mean "even the most blessed people will have a hard time entering heaven". Really, it's not only hard, it's impossible. That's because we cannot save ourselves.
I think wealth can be an impediment to holiness, just as anything can. Anything one makes an idol can be an impediment. Your job, your hobbies, your favorite sport, your body, you diet, etc. can all become obsessions which divert our attention away from God. We must worship God alone. I think what Jesus mostly condemns is a person's attachment to money. But he also condemns people who are too attached to positions of power and prestige, too attached to family and friends, or too attached to comfort.
Jesus says we must put God first and nothing should be on par or above him.
A trend I am noticing more from members of the Church is to think the Church speaks infallibly on matter of faith, morals, and economics. I find many people thinking in socialist terms and believing the Church has to endorse their particular policy.
I will get into this more later, but what I personally believe is that the Church guides the behavior of people, not governments. Only a person is a moral being, only they can make good or sinful decisions. You cannot say a country made a sinful decision. When Jesus tells us how to live, he speaks in terms of the individual. He does not advocate government involvement. He tells individuals to feed the hungry and clothe the naked.
As I said, I will delve into that subject more later. The reason I bring it up is because more and more people within the Church seem to think the solution to our problems can all be found in government policies and to not support one of these policies is going against the Church. Many advocate redistribution of wealth and say we as Christians must support this. But I believe there are alternative viewpoints.
Wealth in itself is a good thing. It allows us to live longer, healthier, and happier lives. Instead of condemning wealth, we should find ways for everyone to produce it. There is no limit on wealth. One hundred years ago, there was far less wealth than there is today. Therefore, I would caution against condemning rich people. They have their temptations to overcome just like everyone else.
Thursday, April 04, 2013
American-born Saints
After doing a little research, I could find only three American-born Catholic saints. These are Kateri Tekakwitha, Katharine Drexel
Elizabeth Ann Seton.
There have been no American-born male saints.
Others are considered "American saints" despite not being born in the United States. See the list here.
There have been no American-born male saints.
Others are considered "American saints" despite not being born in the United States. See the list here.
Saturday, March 30, 2013
Pope Francis washing women's feet
Pope Francis went to a juvenile prison to wash the feet of 12 individuals, some Christians, some Muslims, some women, some men. I think this sent a good message that he was willing to wash the feet of criminals, non-Christians, men, and women. As the Bible reminds us, we are all sinners who fall short of the glory of God and we are therefore no different than these criminals.
But Pope Francis violated a liturgical rule by washing the feet of women. The symbolism of the washing of the feet is that the priest, bishop, or in this case, pope, is ultimately a servant to all the faithful. But it also represents the washing of the feet of the 12 apostles. All of the apostles were men and therefore it is appropriate for the priest to wash only the feet of men. But this is not just me saying this. This is specified in the rubric of the Sacramentary, which is the book outlining the procedures to be followed by the priest during Mass. This includes Holy Thursday when the washing of the feet takes places.
The Sacramentary states:
It specifically lists men as receiving the washing of the feet. No exception is made for women.
The USCCB has made an exception to allow women, by emphasizing the symbolism of service and charity and placing less emphasis on the apostleship of the twelve men.
Charity is wonderful, one of the three holiest virtues. But charity cannot justify incorrect liturgical actions. If people are offended that women cannot participate in this event, it is possible that they do not know the meaning behind it. Are they also offended that Jesus selected only men as apostles?
The Sacramentary does not seem to specify that the participants must be Christian, and therefore it seems alright that some participants were non-Christian. Of course, this is not an infallible teaching held in the deposit of faith and does not amount to a doctrine or dogma. I think Pope Francis is a great pope and I want him to do a good job.
But Pope Francis violated a liturgical rule by washing the feet of women. The symbolism of the washing of the feet is that the priest, bishop, or in this case, pope, is ultimately a servant to all the faithful. But it also represents the washing of the feet of the 12 apostles. All of the apostles were men and therefore it is appropriate for the priest to wash only the feet of men. But this is not just me saying this. This is specified in the rubric of the Sacramentary, which is the book outlining the procedures to be followed by the priest during Mass. This includes Holy Thursday when the washing of the feet takes places.
The Sacramentary states:
Depending on pastoral circumstances, the washing of feet follows the homily. The men who have been chosen (viri selecti) are led by the ministers to chairs prepared at a suitable place. Then the priest (removing his chasuble if necessary) goes to each man. With the help of the ministers he pours water over each one's feet and dries them.
It specifically lists men as receiving the washing of the feet. No exception is made for women.
The USCCB has made an exception to allow women, by emphasizing the symbolism of service and charity and placing less emphasis on the apostleship of the twelve men.
Charity is wonderful, one of the three holiest virtues. But charity cannot justify incorrect liturgical actions. If people are offended that women cannot participate in this event, it is possible that they do not know the meaning behind it. Are they also offended that Jesus selected only men as apostles?
The Sacramentary does not seem to specify that the participants must be Christian, and therefore it seems alright that some participants were non-Christian. Of course, this is not an infallible teaching held in the deposit of faith and does not amount to a doctrine or dogma. I think Pope Francis is a great pope and I want him to do a good job.
Today is Holy Saturday, a time of waiting for the resurrection of Christ. We wait in anticipation for the coming of our Lord. This reminds us that the Lord shall return. Many Catholics will attend Easter Vigil, which combines the Saturday Mass with Easter Sunday Mass. The first half is very solemn and quiet, and the second half we celebrate the joyous resurrection of our Lord, the greatest day in the Christian calendar.
In most churches, the celebration begins later in the evening from about 7pm to 9pm and then ends around 2 hours later.
In most churches, the celebration begins later in the evening from about 7pm to 9pm and then ends around 2 hours later.
Saturday, March 23, 2013
Saturday, March 16, 2013
Thursday, March 14, 2013
FAKE Photo of Bergoglio (Pope Francis) with John Paul II and Ratzinger
This is NOT Pope Francis:
This is in fact not the case. It cannot be Bergoglio. The man in the picture is a Cardinal, as one can tell by his cassock. Bergoglio became a cardinal in 2001. As you can easily tell by comparing this photo of John Paul II with one from 2001, this photo is much earlier than that. To the best of my knowledge, the cardinal in the picture is Cardinal Edouard Gagnon. Gagnon, of Quebec, died on August 25, 2007 at the age of 89. I am not 100% certain of this however.
I am not sure when the photo was taken.
Here are some more photos of Cardinal Gagnon. Judge for yourself if he looks like the guy in the middle above:
Source: http://eccechristianus.wordpress.com/2011/09/03/cuando-la-historia-nos-alcanza/
I am not sure when the photo was taken.
Here are some more photos of Cardinal Gagnon. Judge for yourself if he looks like the guy in the middle above:
Source: http://eccechristianus.wordpress.com/2011/09/03/cuando-la-historia-nos-alcanza/
Wednesday, March 13, 2013
The New Pope is...
Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio from Argentina has been chosen as the 266th Pope! His Papal name is Pope Francis!
Monday, March 11, 2013
Times for Papal Election Voting
The 2013 Papal election to select the 266th pope will start tomorrow, Tuesday, March 12, 2013. Here is the schedule for the first nine votes will take place in the Vatican City to elect the successor of Pope Benedict XVI and ultimately the 265th Successor of Peter and Roman Pontiff:
(Thanks to CatholicPulse.com for the information)
1st Ballot - 2:00PM Eastern Standard Time on Tuesday, March 12, 2013
2nd Ballot - 5:30AM Eastern Standard Time on Wednesday, March 13, 2013
3rd Ballot - 7:00AM Eastern Standard Time on Wednesday, March 13, 2013
4th Ballot - 12:30PM Eastern Standard Time on Wednesday, March 13, 2013
5th Ballot - 2:00PM Eastern Standard Time on Wednesday, March 13, 2013
6th Ballot - 5:30AM Eastern Standard Time on Thursday, March 14, 2013
7th Ballot - 7:00AM Eastern Standard Time on Thursday, March 14, 2013
8th Ballot - 12:30PM Eastern Standard Time on Thursday, March 14, 2013
9th Ballot - 2:00PM Eastern Standard Time on Thursday, March 14, 2013
My prediction is that the pope will be chosen on Wednesday, March 13, 2013.
(Thanks to CatholicPulse.com for the information)
1st Ballot - 2:00PM Eastern Standard Time on Tuesday, March 12, 2013
2nd Ballot - 5:30AM Eastern Standard Time on Wednesday, March 13, 2013
3rd Ballot - 7:00AM Eastern Standard Time on Wednesday, March 13, 2013
4th Ballot - 12:30PM Eastern Standard Time on Wednesday, March 13, 2013
5th Ballot - 2:00PM Eastern Standard Time on Wednesday, March 13, 2013
6th Ballot - 5:30AM Eastern Standard Time on Thursday, March 14, 2013
7th Ballot - 7:00AM Eastern Standard Time on Thursday, March 14, 2013
8th Ballot - 12:30PM Eastern Standard Time on Thursday, March 14, 2013
9th Ballot - 2:00PM Eastern Standard Time on Thursday, March 14, 2013
My prediction is that the pope will be chosen on Wednesday, March 13, 2013.
Monday, March 04, 2013
WOMEN PRIESTS, CONTRACEPTION, GAY MARRIAGE????
MEMO TO JOURNALISTS:
The answer is no, no, and no. The Church will NOT, I repeat WILL NOT change its teachings on women priests, contraception, or gay marriage. Not now, not in 5 years, not depending on who is elected as pope, never. These teachings form part of the deposit of faith and are unchangeable. You can now stop asking these same old questions over and over and start asking substantive questions which actually matter.
If you don't like the Church's teachings on these issues, don't hold your breath for them to change. I would invite you to look into why the Church teaches what it does in these areas, but if you are steadfastly uninterested in that, then please either accept it, keep quiet about it, or move elsewhere. If you are looking for a Church that looks like the Catholic Church in many ways but has women priests, allows contraception, and gay marriage, you might want to try a Protestant denomination like the Anglican church.
Watching TV coverage of the upcoming papal election has become an exercise in tedium. Every interview is identical. Whether they have a Catholic layperson or a bishop, the interviewer only ever asks one of 4 questions:
1) Will the next pope allow women priests?
2) Will the next pope allow contraception?
3) Will the next pope change the Church's position on homosexual acts or allow gay marriage?
3) Will the next pope change the Church's position on homosexual acts or allow gay marriage?
4) Will the next pope change the Church's position on abortion (especially in cases of rape or incest)?
Once the interviewee answers the question, undeterred the interviewer will persist with follow-up questions, such as:
5) But isn't it time for the Church to modernize?
6) So many Catholics oppose the Church's position in this area. Isn't it time for a change?
7) But how will the Church attract young people?
The answer to all of the above 4 question is "No." Period. No if, ands, or buts. Questions 5, 6, and 7 are thus moot. Now that that has been established in the first couple of minutes of the interview, why not try coming up with some original and thoughtful questions?
I don't even have a TV, but from the YouTube videos I see of the mainstream media's coverage of the papal election, this guide I've prepared could come in handy for many reporters, anchors, and journalists.
Thursday, February 28, 2013
Why does the mainstream media care about the pope?
It seems the mainstream media is covering the pope's resignation and the upcoming papal election pretty closely. Many people in the general public are talking about it. Yet, most of the people and groups involved in this discussion are not practicing Catholics and probably know very little about the Church. So why the interest?
Perhaps they are interested because it is an event with major significance. About one sixth of the world is Catholic and therefore the pope has more followers than almost any leader. The pope has influence on a lot of people, especially practicing Catholics. But why would the secular be interested?
Ultimately I think a lot of the interest stems from the secular world's false hope. With news of a retiring pope or one who just passed away, the secular world is filled with hope that the next pope will implement their social agenda in one or several areas. They see the Church as an obstacle to the worldwide implementation of their plans and hold on to hope that perhaps the next pope will change all of that.
People truly and honestly believe that the next pope may reconsider the Church's opposition to gay marriage or abortion. Some believe the Church will do away with rules about contraception or women priests. Unfortunately for these people, these things will never change. Would the media continue to cover this story as much as they do now if people were convinced the Church's stance on all the "hot button" moral issues of the day are pretty much already settled? I doubt it.
To a typical secular person, the next pope will be ideologically identical to Pope Benedict XVI. If there are any differences, the secular person could probably not perceive them, even if they were to be explained. There may be changes where the Church has the authority to make them, but they will not reverse 2000 years of tradition.
Perhaps they are interested because it is an event with major significance. About one sixth of the world is Catholic and therefore the pope has more followers than almost any leader. The pope has influence on a lot of people, especially practicing Catholics. But why would the secular be interested?
Ultimately I think a lot of the interest stems from the secular world's false hope. With news of a retiring pope or one who just passed away, the secular world is filled with hope that the next pope will implement their social agenda in one or several areas. They see the Church as an obstacle to the worldwide implementation of their plans and hold on to hope that perhaps the next pope will change all of that.
People truly and honestly believe that the next pope may reconsider the Church's opposition to gay marriage or abortion. Some believe the Church will do away with rules about contraception or women priests. Unfortunately for these people, these things will never change. Would the media continue to cover this story as much as they do now if people were convinced the Church's stance on all the "hot button" moral issues of the day are pretty much already settled? I doubt it.
To a typical secular person, the next pope will be ideologically identical to Pope Benedict XVI. If there are any differences, the secular person could probably not perceive them, even if they were to be explained. There may be changes where the Church has the authority to make them, but they will not reverse 2000 years of tradition.
Pope's New Residence in a Monastery
A couple of months after retiring, Pope Benedict XVI will live in a monastery close to St. Peter's Basilica called Mater Ecclesiae. Housed here are nuns who pray for the pope. I haven't been able to confirm this, but this is an alleged picture of his future room (Source: Catholic Charismatic):
You can see this room is very simple and basic. He does not live in the lap of luxury. Probably the average person has a more luxurious bedroom than this. The reason I mention this is because so many people are critical of the Church's wealth and make it seem as though the pope, bishops, and priests, all use the riches of the Church for their own personal gain.
Here is a picture of the outside of the monastery (Source: National Geographic):
You can see this room is very simple and basic. He does not live in the lap of luxury. Probably the average person has a more luxurious bedroom than this. The reason I mention this is because so many people are critical of the Church's wealth and make it seem as though the pope, bishops, and priests, all use the riches of the Church for their own personal gain.
Here is a picture of the outside of the monastery (Source: National Geographic):
What will Pope Benedict wear when he retires?
So Pope Benedict has officially retired. We are now between popes in a period known as the interregnum. So what will Pope Benedict wear now that he has retired?
For one thing, he will not wear his signature red shoes. Instead he will wear brown shoes he received as a gift from his visit to Léon, Mexico.
Also, the pope's fisherman's ring will be destroyed which normally happens upon the death of a pontiff.
The former pope will continue to wear his white cassock, but he will not wear the shoulder covering known as a mozzetta.
For one thing, he will not wear his signature red shoes. Instead he will wear brown shoes he received as a gift from his visit to Léon, Mexico.
Also, the pope's fisherman's ring will be destroyed which normally happens upon the death of a pontiff.
The former pope will continue to wear his white cassock, but he will not wear the shoulder covering known as a mozzetta.
INTERREGNUM BEGINS NOW
Pope Benedict has officially retired at the exact moment this article is published and the Interregnum has begun.
Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Confusion about Pope Benedicts post-resignation name
I am somewhat confused as to what Pope Benedict will be called when he retires in a few days. First, there was a video from Rome Reports claiming he would be still called Benedict XVI, and also referred to as Bishop Emeritus of Rome. That was all fine until now another report from the same organization says the pope will be referred to as "Pope Emeritus". Does this mean he will be referred to as either Bishop Emeritus of Rome OR Pope Emeritus? Is either one acceptable?
Check out this latest video:
Compare this to the following video:
Check out this latest video:
Compare this to the following video:
Happy Birthday Nan
Today would have been my maternal grandmother's 87th birthday. Unfortunately she died about 3.5 years ago. She was a really great person and I just wanted to mention her on my blog today. Rest in Peace Nan.
Monday, February 25, 2013
Wow! Found a newspaper article about the pope from 1752!
I was just going through an archive of really old newspapers. First I was specifically looking for articles about the pope, but then I started to simply look for the oldest newspapers available on the system. That's when I stumbled upon an article written in the Halifax Gazette dated March 23, 1752.
Here is what the article says (some was hard to make out, but this is my attempt):
That is very shocking! A man actually threw a rock at the pope's head! The pope did not seem to react too negatively though, only advising the hospital to take better care of its patients. It's so fascinating looking at an article from over 250 years ago! The pope in question would be Pope Benedict XIV. Since the paper came out in March 1752, the article much have been written the previous September, in 1751. At the time the pope would have been 76 years old.
To see the article as it appears on the Google News Archive, go here (second article from top).
Here is what the article says (some was hard to make out, but this is my attempt):
Foreign Advices
Rome, September 24.
A Few Days ago, as the Pope was going in his Coach to the Quirinal, an ordinary man kneeled in the Street upon his Knees as if he wanted to receive a Blessing from him, which as he was going to give, the Man threw a Stone at his Holiness's Head, which narrowly missed : He proved to be a Madman lately escaped from the Hospital for Lunaticks, to which Place he was remanded, with strict Orders to the Officers, to take more Care for the future of the unhappy People committed to their Charge.
That is very shocking! A man actually threw a rock at the pope's head! The pope did not seem to react too negatively though, only advising the hospital to take better care of its patients. It's so fascinating looking at an article from over 250 years ago! The pope in question would be Pope Benedict XIV. Since the paper came out in March 1752, the article much have been written the previous September, in 1751. At the time the pope would have been 76 years old.
To see the article as it appears on the Google News Archive, go here (second article from top).
Happy birthday bro
Just wanted to throw a quick "Happy Birthday" out to my brother Peter. Have a great year!
Looking back at some old articles on the pope
There is a great tool on Google called Archived News search where you can search through news articles found in newspapers around the world dating back many decades, even centuries. I searched for articles around 1958/59 on the keyword "pope" and found a very amusing one about Pope John XXIII.
Part of it says:
See the whole article here, written in the Milwaukee Journal, dated November 8, 1958, titled "New Pope Making Calls Unannounced and He Delights People of Vatican City"
Part of it says:
In a joking and paternal manner, the pope asked: "Am I right in thinking you all like a little wine?"
There was only silence until one man got courage enough to say "yes." With that, the pope sent an aide off to the papal cellar for some bottles of sparkling wine which he offered the workers.
See the whole article here, written in the Milwaukee Journal, dated November 8, 1958, titled "New Pope Making Calls Unannounced and He Delights People of Vatican City"
Friday, February 22, 2013
Pope's name after resignation
Last Saturday, I predicted the pope would be referred to as "Emeritus Bishop of Rome" upon his retirement. I was close, I just got the words in the wrong order. It was announced today that upon resignation the pope will be called "Bishop Emeritus of Rome". The video from which I received this information did not mention what proper name he would go by, whether it would be Benedict or Joseph Ratzinger. That's still a tough question for me, and I'm on the fence about it.
Upon their deaths, popes are obviously still referred to by their regnal name. Therefore if Benedict goes back to being called Joseph Ratzinger, I would assume his name would be once again changed back to Benedict upon his death. This would seem rather odd. The problem with keeping the name Benedict is that it implies he is still pope since he has a papal regnal name and is still alive. That's why I'm on the fence. Both names have logical reasons to be used. It does not appear as though this particular issue was addressed by the Vatican.
Actually, scrap that! I re-watched the video and they did indeed address that question. They said he would still be addressed as His Holiness Benedict XVI. This decision makes sense to me when I think about it. Legitimate opes have never reverted back to their original name. Also, I can speak about "Pope John Paul II" without implying that he is still in charge. We do not now call him Karol Wojtyła. It's sort of like when an American president retires and he is still called Mr. President.
I'm glad this has now been cleared up.
Here's a video about the announcement:
Upon their deaths, popes are obviously still referred to by their regnal name. Therefore if Benedict goes back to being called Joseph Ratzinger, I would assume his name would be once again changed back to Benedict upon his death. This would seem rather odd. The problem with keeping the name Benedict is that it implies he is still pope since he has a papal regnal name and is still alive. That's why I'm on the fence. Both names have logical reasons to be used. It does not appear as though this particular issue was addressed by the Vatican.
Actually, scrap that! I re-watched the video and they did indeed address that question. They said he would still be addressed as His Holiness Benedict XVI. This decision makes sense to me when I think about it. Legitimate opes have never reverted back to their original name. Also, I can speak about "Pope John Paul II" without implying that he is still in charge. We do not now call him Karol Wojtyła. It's sort of like when an American president retires and he is still called Mr. President.
I'm glad this has now been cleared up.
Here's a video about the announcement:
Comparing Pope Benedict to Other Popes
Here are several pieces of data comparing Pope Benedict to all other popes:
1. Pope Benedict was the fifth oldest pope ever at the time of his election at the age of 78 years, 3 days. (the oldest pope at his election was Clement X at age 79 years, 290 days)
2. Pope Benedict is currently the 4th oldest pope ever, at the age of 85 years, 311 days. (Leo XIII died at the oldest age of 93 years, 140 days)
3. The length of Pope Benedict's reign of 7.8 years is fairly standard in papal history, where the average is about 7.5 years.
4. Pope Benedict is the eighth German pope
5. Pope Benedict named two doctors of the Church: Hildegaard of Bingen and John of Avila.
6. Pope Benedict took 7 trips outside Italy during his pontificate.
7. Pope Benedict wrote 2 encyclicals, compared to Pope John Paul II's 14. Pope Pius XII wrote 41 encyclicals, which is higher than all his current successors combined (at 32).
That's all for now!
1. Pope Benedict was the fifth oldest pope ever at the time of his election at the age of 78 years, 3 days. (the oldest pope at his election was Clement X at age 79 years, 290 days)
2. Pope Benedict is currently the 4th oldest pope ever, at the age of 85 years, 311 days. (Leo XIII died at the oldest age of 93 years, 140 days)
3. The length of Pope Benedict's reign of 7.8 years is fairly standard in papal history, where the average is about 7.5 years.
4. Pope Benedict is the eighth German pope
5. Pope Benedict named two doctors of the Church: Hildegaard of Bingen and John of Avila.
6. Pope Benedict took 7 trips outside Italy during his pontificate.
7. Pope Benedict wrote 2 encyclicals, compared to Pope John Paul II's 14. Pope Pius XII wrote 41 encyclicals, which is higher than all his current successors combined (at 32).
That's all for now!
Thursday, February 21, 2013
Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Photos of Benedicts XVI and John Paul II together
As Pope Benedict's papacy comes to an end, I would like to present several photos of Pope Benedict XVI (Cardinal Ratzinger at the time) together with Pope John Paul II.
Monday, February 18, 2013
Is the media that ignorant?
It still strikes me as funny how ignorant the media seems. In some ways, I think it just reflects how everyday people are thinking. When discussing the papal resignation and upcoming election, many mainstream media outlets act as if laws against same-sex marriage, abortion and contraception are actually on the table for the Church.
I just read an article about Cardinal Marc Ouellet, the Canadian papabile and the online paper acted shocked that he opposed same-sex marriage and abortion. Is this the first time this paper has heard the Catholic Church's position on these issues? This are nowhere on the radar for the Church. I doubt even a single cardinal has an opinion on same sex marriage or abortion which is at odds with Catholic teaching.
Most non- and lapsed-Catholics have the mistaken impression that the Church is no different than a secular country. That it might just change centuries-old beliefs in favor of new morals which came about less than a generation ago. I guess people are just used to our modern day elections where everything is on the table and we just pick and choose our latest moral code.
Pope actually have very little power to "change" anything about the Church. Many things, such as the nature of marriage, the sanctity of life, and the male-only priesthood are essential characteristics of the Church which will never change. Ironically these are the issues the media talk about the most.
I think this ultimately comes from ignorance. To the secular public, it will make no difference which pope will be elected. On all the "hot button" issues, the cardinals are probably all on the same page, with possible differences which would be imperceptible to our secular sound-bite culture.
I just read an article about Cardinal Marc Ouellet, the Canadian papabile and the online paper acted shocked that he opposed same-sex marriage and abortion. Is this the first time this paper has heard the Catholic Church's position on these issues? This are nowhere on the radar for the Church. I doubt even a single cardinal has an opinion on same sex marriage or abortion which is at odds with Catholic teaching.
Most non- and lapsed-Catholics have the mistaken impression that the Church is no different than a secular country. That it might just change centuries-old beliefs in favor of new morals which came about less than a generation ago. I guess people are just used to our modern day elections where everything is on the table and we just pick and choose our latest moral code.
Pope actually have very little power to "change" anything about the Church. Many things, such as the nature of marriage, the sanctity of life, and the male-only priesthood are essential characteristics of the Church which will never change. Ironically these are the issues the media talk about the most.
I think this ultimately comes from ignorance. To the secular public, it will make no difference which pope will be elected. On all the "hot button" issues, the cardinals are probably all on the same page, with possible differences which would be imperceptible to our secular sound-bite culture.
Marc Ouellet said papacy would be nightmare
On June 30, 2011, La Presse published an article about Cardinal Marc Ouellet. When told many people see him as a potential pope, Ouellet reacted by laughing and saying, in French (my translation below):
Basically, this translates as:
See full article here.
«On ne peut pas empêcher le monde de rêver. Ça serait un cauchemar. Moi, je vois le travail que le pape a à faire. C'est peut-être pas très enviable. C'est une responsabilité écrasante. Enfin, à la grâce de Dieu! Il y a l'aide du Saint-Esprit, évidemment, mais c'est une très grosse responsabilité. Personne ne fait campagne pour ça.»
Basically, this translates as:
"We cannot prevent the world from dreaming. It [the papacy] would be a nightmare. I see the work the pope has to do. It is perhaps not very enviable. It is a crushing responsibility. Only by the grace of God! There is help from the Holy Spirit, obviously, but it's a very large responsibility. Nobody campaigns for this."
See full article here.
Human Sin Immune System
I thought today that a good concept for dealing with sin is to deal with sin in a way similar to our immune system. For many people, including me, I only deal with sin when I'm face to face with it in the middle of temptation. This would be like living without any regard to health whatsoever and then once you fall ill, doing a few things to feel better.
As an analogy, it would be like only eating junk food and not worrying if it's moldy or otherwise gone bad, not bathing, not exercising, not getting enough sleep, going outside in the cold without proper clothing, never cleaning your bathroom or kitchen, having garbage and insects all around, not practicing any hygiene, not brushing your teeth, etc. But then as you become ill, you attempt in vain to not get sick. By then it's too late and you fall ill.
Very few people would ever live like this. In order to stay healthy, people employ a multi-layered approach. First, they try to maintain their health through exercise and correct eating choices. Next, they are careful about food safety. Thirdly, they maintain correct hygiene by bathing, brushing their teeth, and taking care of themselves in general. They maintain a clean dwelling. If they do fall ill, people will generally spend time taking care of themselves. They may then reevaluate their lifestyle to see if their illness could have been prevented.
This approach makes sense, and it's probably one we should use in our spiritual life. I remember reading a book by Father Gabriel Amorth, the chief exorcist of Rome. He said people will come to him only after all other spiritual avenues, such as psychics, have been exhausted. An exorcism may be then be performed. Usually he said people will get into spiritual trouble after indulging in immoral activities. It doesn't just come out of the blue.
So how can we create a spiritual immune system? There are probably countless ways to do this, so I will just try to list some possibilities:
1) Get up early and go to bed early
I find a lot of sin and temptation can occur late at night. I think there's a reason good vs. evil is often depicted as light vs. darkness. The Bible often mentions nefarious activities that occur in the cover of night. Things in the night are hidden and secret and we feel like we can get away with more.
2) Work hard
They say boredom and not having anything to do can lead to sin. I believe this is true. If we are doing lots of work, we don't have as much time to sin.
3) Associate with good people
Associate with people who do not participate in evil activities. If you feel you are at risk of committing certain sins, avoid people who indulge in these. Make friends with people who have good habits. We are often influenced by those we associate with.
4) Read spiritual literature
Read the Bible, the Catechism, Life of Saints, etc. Not for any particular purpose, but just for knowledge and spiritual edification.
5) Routinize prayer
Prayer can often seem inconvenient. A way around this is to make it a routine part of your life. Pray at the same time every day. Maybe right after supper or before a particular show. Make it an automatic thing so you don't have to fight your laziness every time to do it. This also goes for Mass. You should try to go to Mass the same time every week. If you go to Mass every week, it will eventually get easier and easier.
6) Avoid sin as soon as possible
Ending temptation is always easiest at the beginning. For instance, it's easier not to eat a piece of chocolate cake before you have a piece. Don't say "Oh, I'll just have one bite and that's it." Giving in to temptation a little only makes it easier to go to the whole way. The easiest time to stop temptation is now. In the long run, if you avoid temptation, it will eventually get easier, not worse like popular culture tells us. The more we indulge in a sin, the more we will want to indulge in it.
Those are just a few ways to avoid sin and live a good life. The point is you should not wait until you are struggling in the middle of temptation to do something about the sin you are facing.
As an analogy, it would be like only eating junk food and not worrying if it's moldy or otherwise gone bad, not bathing, not exercising, not getting enough sleep, going outside in the cold without proper clothing, never cleaning your bathroom or kitchen, having garbage and insects all around, not practicing any hygiene, not brushing your teeth, etc. But then as you become ill, you attempt in vain to not get sick. By then it's too late and you fall ill.
Very few people would ever live like this. In order to stay healthy, people employ a multi-layered approach. First, they try to maintain their health through exercise and correct eating choices. Next, they are careful about food safety. Thirdly, they maintain correct hygiene by bathing, brushing their teeth, and taking care of themselves in general. They maintain a clean dwelling. If they do fall ill, people will generally spend time taking care of themselves. They may then reevaluate their lifestyle to see if their illness could have been prevented.
This approach makes sense, and it's probably one we should use in our spiritual life. I remember reading a book by Father Gabriel Amorth, the chief exorcist of Rome. He said people will come to him only after all other spiritual avenues, such as psychics, have been exhausted. An exorcism may be then be performed. Usually he said people will get into spiritual trouble after indulging in immoral activities. It doesn't just come out of the blue.
So how can we create a spiritual immune system? There are probably countless ways to do this, so I will just try to list some possibilities:
1) Get up early and go to bed early
I find a lot of sin and temptation can occur late at night. I think there's a reason good vs. evil is often depicted as light vs. darkness. The Bible often mentions nefarious activities that occur in the cover of night. Things in the night are hidden and secret and we feel like we can get away with more.
2) Work hard
They say boredom and not having anything to do can lead to sin. I believe this is true. If we are doing lots of work, we don't have as much time to sin.
3) Associate with good people
Associate with people who do not participate in evil activities. If you feel you are at risk of committing certain sins, avoid people who indulge in these. Make friends with people who have good habits. We are often influenced by those we associate with.
4) Read spiritual literature
Read the Bible, the Catechism, Life of Saints, etc. Not for any particular purpose, but just for knowledge and spiritual edification.
5) Routinize prayer
Prayer can often seem inconvenient. A way around this is to make it a routine part of your life. Pray at the same time every day. Maybe right after supper or before a particular show. Make it an automatic thing so you don't have to fight your laziness every time to do it. This also goes for Mass. You should try to go to Mass the same time every week. If you go to Mass every week, it will eventually get easier and easier.
6) Avoid sin as soon as possible
Ending temptation is always easiest at the beginning. For instance, it's easier not to eat a piece of chocolate cake before you have a piece. Don't say "Oh, I'll just have one bite and that's it." Giving in to temptation a little only makes it easier to go to the whole way. The easiest time to stop temptation is now. In the long run, if you avoid temptation, it will eventually get easier, not worse like popular culture tells us. The more we indulge in a sin, the more we will want to indulge in it.
Those are just a few ways to avoid sin and live a good life. The point is you should not wait until you are struggling in the middle of temptation to do something about the sin you are facing.
Saturday, February 16, 2013
Questions and Answers about Pope's Resignation
1. What will Pope Benedict XVI be called once he resigns?
This seems as yet uncertain. Some have suggested "Pope Emeritus". However, in 2010, it was revealed that Pope John Paul II said "there is no place in the Church for a Pope Emeritus." This is something he said to the doctor before an operation. Others have suggested "Emeritus Bishop of Rome". I think for the most part this would be non-controversial, since there are currently many retired bishops in the world who use this style.
As for his regnal name "Benedict XVI", some assume, including Fr. Z that he will keep it. I am less certain. This is his papal name and no longer being pope, it would be less fitting. Plus, how would he be introduced? "Emeritus Bishop of Rome Benedict XVI"? Perhaps. But it seems a little contradictory. Pope and Benedict XVI seem to go together, and pope is implied when one says "Benedict XVI". So it would be almost like saying "Emeritus Bishop of Rome Pope Benedict XVI". This seems really confusing. As I don't think a certain decision has yet been made, my guess is that he will go by Joseph Ratzinger, Emeritus Bishop of Rome. No matter how you slice it, it ends up seeming a little odd.
2. Where will Pope Benedict XVI live after his resignation?
Once Benedict resigns, he will first go to his Summer residence in Castel Gondolfo. After some time, he will move to the Mater Ecclesiae monastery within the Vatican, where he will live permanently.
3. What will Pope Benedict XVI do after his resignation?
The former pope will probably stay out of the limelight. There will not be two competing papacies or something. He will probably quietly spend his time in prayer, meditation, reading and other activities. He will possibly write. But I would say he will try to keep a low profile.
4. What will happen to Pope Benedict XVI fisherman's ring after his resignation?
The pope's fisherman's ring will be destroyed shortly after his resignation. Since the ring is a symbol of his papal authority, it is appropriate that it be destroyed once he abdicates the thrown.
5. What color will Pope Benedict XVI wear in retirement after his resignation?
As far as I can tell, this too is still in the air. I believe it seems unlikely he will wear his white robes. It is more likely that he would dress as a cardinal or perhaps bishop.
6. Will Pope Benedict XVI be a priest in a particular diocese after his resignation?
The pope will maintain his priestly faculties and will probably celebrate Mass, perhaps daily. Of course, his Masses will most likely be low-key. He will continue to live in the Archdiocese of Rome and will be under the spiritual leadership of the pope.
7. Why did Pope Benedict XVI decide to retire?
Pope Benedict said his reason for retiring is that due to his advanced age and health concerns, he does not feel up for the task of pope.
8. When exactly will Pope Benedict XVI retire?
Pope Benedict's resignation takes place at 8pm, February 28, 2013.
9. More questions
If you have further questions about Pope Benedict's retirement, please ask them in the comment section. Thanks.
Friday, February 15, 2013
Trevor Moore produces vile music video about the pope
Trevor Moore and his group called the Whitest Kids You Know have produced a disgusting music video mocking and criticizing the pope. They bring up all the typical anti-catholic slander, including the accusations that they have too much money and also the sex abuse scandal. The video is crude and vulgar. Here are a few of my reactions to this video:
1) Vatican has too much money.
This is the main theme and chorus of this music video - that the Vatican simply has more money than it knows what to do with. He depicts the Holy Father as throwing money around like it's going out of style because he simply has so much. Yes, there are some very magnificent pieces of artwork all around the Vatican. There are jewels and gold and all sorts of other wealth. But these are mostly for the people. The pope doesn't live in St. Peter's Basilica. He in fact has a very simple room basically just containing his books. My suspicion is that Trevor Moore himself probably has a more luxurious life than the pope. I never hear anyone accuse museums of having too much wealth. People don't demand that museums sell centuries-old artifacts to raise money. I could understand this argument if Vatican City was closed off to the public and the Church spend most of its money on luxury items, but it doesn't, not even close. I have been to the Vatican and it is truly amazing. It is awesome and wondrous. Anyone is welcome, rich or poor.
A woman once tried to use a jar of expensive perfume on Jesus. One man objected, saying that the perfume should be sold and money raised to give to the poor. This man's name is Judas and Jesus rebuked him for his comments. Jesus said it was proper to spend money and valuables worshiping him, and that is exactly what happens in the Basilicas and Cathedral in Rome.
2) Sex Abuse Scandal
This is of course the whipping boy that everyone goes to when criticizing the Church. Much of the criticism is valid. However, rarely is it contextualize. This is especially true in this case. In fact, the singer disgustingly tries to implicate Pope Benedict himself in child sex abuse, implying that he himself abused or continues to abuse children. This is nothing more than slander. Would he like a video accusing him of abusing children? Pope Benedict really did everything he could to end the abuse. This kind of criticism is never made in other spheres. No one blames the head of the School board for all the abuse cases that happen there. No one blames the president of the Boy Scouts for personally causes sex abuse in his organization. But when it comes to the Church, the gloves are off and there are no rules.
3) HIV / AIDS
I've addressed this before, but more condoms has not been a solution to the HIV / AIDS problem in Africa. On the other hand, Uganda, which has taken a more Catholic approach, has seen success. Here is the article I wrote on this topic.
4) Conclusion
I do not really feel the need to go over every detail of this discusting video. It is full of foul language and unfounded attacks on the Church. As Professor Phillip Jenkins has pointed out anti-catholicism is the last acceptable prejudice in our world. And in my opinion, there are no limits as to what is considered acceptable. Oh well, to paraphrase C.S. Lewis, we aren't Christians because it's easy.
1) Vatican has too much money.
This is the main theme and chorus of this music video - that the Vatican simply has more money than it knows what to do with. He depicts the Holy Father as throwing money around like it's going out of style because he simply has so much. Yes, there are some very magnificent pieces of artwork all around the Vatican. There are jewels and gold and all sorts of other wealth. But these are mostly for the people. The pope doesn't live in St. Peter's Basilica. He in fact has a very simple room basically just containing his books. My suspicion is that Trevor Moore himself probably has a more luxurious life than the pope. I never hear anyone accuse museums of having too much wealth. People don't demand that museums sell centuries-old artifacts to raise money. I could understand this argument if Vatican City was closed off to the public and the Church spend most of its money on luxury items, but it doesn't, not even close. I have been to the Vatican and it is truly amazing. It is awesome and wondrous. Anyone is welcome, rich or poor.
A woman once tried to use a jar of expensive perfume on Jesus. One man objected, saying that the perfume should be sold and money raised to give to the poor. This man's name is Judas and Jesus rebuked him for his comments. Jesus said it was proper to spend money and valuables worshiping him, and that is exactly what happens in the Basilicas and Cathedral in Rome.
2) Sex Abuse Scandal
This is of course the whipping boy that everyone goes to when criticizing the Church. Much of the criticism is valid. However, rarely is it contextualize. This is especially true in this case. In fact, the singer disgustingly tries to implicate Pope Benedict himself in child sex abuse, implying that he himself abused or continues to abuse children. This is nothing more than slander. Would he like a video accusing him of abusing children? Pope Benedict really did everything he could to end the abuse. This kind of criticism is never made in other spheres. No one blames the head of the School board for all the abuse cases that happen there. No one blames the president of the Boy Scouts for personally causes sex abuse in his organization. But when it comes to the Church, the gloves are off and there are no rules.
3) HIV / AIDS
I've addressed this before, but more condoms has not been a solution to the HIV / AIDS problem in Africa. On the other hand, Uganda, which has taken a more Catholic approach, has seen success. Here is the article I wrote on this topic.
4) Conclusion
I do not really feel the need to go over every detail of this discusting video. It is full of foul language and unfounded attacks on the Church. As Professor Phillip Jenkins has pointed out anti-catholicism is the last acceptable prejudice in our world. And in my opinion, there are no limits as to what is considered acceptable. Oh well, to paraphrase C.S. Lewis, we aren't Christians because it's easy.
Wednesday, February 13, 2013
Papal Conclave 2013 Numbers & Statistics
Pope Benedict shocked the world when he announced he will be stepping down as Supreme Pontiff at the end of the month. Except for the usual papal death, the conclave will proceed as usual. I wanted to explore some of the numbers and statistics important to this conclave.
- There will be 117 cardinal electors (cardinals eligible to vote in the conclave) next month.
- There are a total of 209 living cardinals, but 92 will have reached the age of 80 before the day the See of Peter will become vacant and can no longer be part of the election process.
- 67 of the current cardinal electors were chosen by Pope Benedict XVI, and 50 were picked by Pope John Paul II (This is more balanced than the electors at the 2005 Papal Election, wherein all but three (Joseph Ratzinger, Jaime Sin, and William Wakefield Baum) were chosen by Pope John Paul II)
- The youngest cardinal elector is Baselios Cleemis (Isaac) Cardinal Thottunkal from India, who is 53 years old. The oldest cardinal elector will be Walter Cardinal Kasper of Germany, who will turn 80 before the conclave begins, on March 5. The oldest living cardinal is 98 year old Ersilio Cardinal Tonini of Ravenna-Cervia, Italy.
- Paddy Power, a major betting organization, currently ranks Marc Cardinal Ouellette, former Archbishop of Quebec City and current Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops, as the best odds for being chosen as the next pope. I would be happy with this result!
- Pope Benedict will officially end his papacy at 8:00pm (1900 GMT), February 28, 2013. At this moment, there will begin a period called an interregnum, meaning between reigns, in which there is no pope.
- Article 37 of Universi Dominici Gregis requires that a papal conclave begin between 15 and 20 days after the end of a papacy, usually due to the death of the pope. The requirement does not note any exceptions to this time period. However, one part reads "the Cardinal electors who are present must wait fifteen full days for those who are absent". Notice is says "for those who are absent". If, however, all cardinals are present before the 15 days are up, can the conclave commence? On this point, I am uncertain. My guess is no. Given airlines and other technology, it seems as though the elections of 2005, two from 1978, and even 1963, and 1958, could have in theory occurred before a 15 day waiting period. Yet none did. Therefore it seems likely the election would commence on the 16th of March. That is, Pope Benedict ends his duties on February 28, there is no activity for 15 full days, then the following day, the 16th, the elections would commence.
- Pope Benedict is one of only a few popes to ever step down voluntarily. The most recent was Pope Gregory XII in 1415 who did so in order to settle the conflict arising from the Avignon Papacy. He saw this as the only solution and therefore it is arguable as to whether this was truly voluntary. The most notable case of a voluntary resignation is that of Celestine V in 1294. This pope explicitly gave permission to popes to resign and then did so himself soon afterward. Two other popes resigned. Benedict IX did so in 1045, but soon regretted his actions and reclaimed his papacy. Finally there is Pope John XVIII. Little is known of this pope's resignation beside the fact that it happened. Therefore, if you do not count papal abdications which were done to resolve an immediate conflict or in which the abdicating pope reconsidered his decision, we can conclude that Pope Benedict XVI will be only the third pope to voluntarily and permanently quit his post as pope while still alive.
This is a good start I think. I may have more facts and figures later.
Poor Lubomyr Cardinal Husar
I'm not sure how he feels about this, but Lubomyr Cardinal Husar missed being able to attend a papal conclave by 2 days. If Husar had been born on February 28th, 1933, instead of two days earlier on February 26th, 1933, he could have participated in the upcoming papal election, which will probably occur on March 16, 2013.
Cardinal Husar retired in February 2011 and received the title "emeritus". Despite this, he would still qualify to participate in a conclave. Husar belongs to the Ukrainian Catholic Church, an Eastern sui juris church in communion with Rome.
It's not all bad news though. Cardinal Husar did get to participate in a papal conclave in 2005, when Pope Benedict was elected. Interestingly, Husar was considered papabile despite the fact that he was one of only two Eastern Catholic cardinal electors.
I wonder if Lubomyr Cardinal Husar is upset that he was born two days too early to participate in another conclave.
EASTER AND LENT DATES 2013
Ash Wednesday: Wednesday, February 13, 2013
Palm Sunday: Sunday, March 24, 2013
Holy Thursday (Maundy Thursday): Thursday, March 28, 2013
Good Friday: Friday, March 29, 2013
Holy Saturday: Saturday, March 30, 2013
Easter Sunday: Sunday, March 31, 2013
Lent 2013 began on Wednesday, February 13, 2013 and will end on Thursday, March 28, 2013. Once the Vigil Mass begins on Thursday, March 28, 2013, this officially marks the beginning of a season called Triduum, and the end of Lent.
Triduum begins on Thursday, March 28, 2013 at the beginning of the Mass of the Lord's Supper and ends at the end of Easter Sunday, on March 31, 2013.
In total, the Lenten season contains 44 days. From Ash Wednesday to Palm Sunday is 40 days.
If you remove the Sundays, does Lent have 40 days? The answer is no. Every Lent contains 6 Sundays. Therefore, if they are removed from the equation, Lent would contain 38 days. However, if you include Good Friday and Holy Saturday as part of Lent, then removing those 6 Sundays would give a total of 40 days.
Much of the information provided here came from a Jimmy Akin article: http://jimmyakin.com/2004/03/the_length_of_l.html
Palm Sunday: Sunday, March 24, 2013
Holy Thursday (Maundy Thursday): Thursday, March 28, 2013
Good Friday: Friday, March 29, 2013
Holy Saturday: Saturday, March 30, 2013
Easter Sunday: Sunday, March 31, 2013
Lent 2013 began on Wednesday, February 13, 2013 and will end on Thursday, March 28, 2013. Once the Vigil Mass begins on Thursday, March 28, 2013, this officially marks the beginning of a season called Triduum, and the end of Lent.
Triduum begins on Thursday, March 28, 2013 at the beginning of the Mass of the Lord's Supper and ends at the end of Easter Sunday, on March 31, 2013.
In total, the Lenten season contains 44 days. From Ash Wednesday to Palm Sunday is 40 days.
If you remove the Sundays, does Lent have 40 days? The answer is no. Every Lent contains 6 Sundays. Therefore, if they are removed from the equation, Lent would contain 38 days. However, if you include Good Friday and Holy Saturday as part of Lent, then removing those 6 Sundays would give a total of 40 days.
Much of the information provided here came from a Jimmy Akin article: http://jimmyakin.com/2004/03/the_length_of_l.html
Tuesday, February 12, 2013
Goodbye Pope Benedict!
As you've probably already heard, Pope Benedict has made a rare decision to resign as pope, something which hasn't happened for some 600 years. He will officially quit on February 28, 2013 and then the conclave and election process will begin. I suspect we will see a new pontiff before Easter Sunday which is on March 31st, 2013.
I think this new reality is just sinking in for me. On the one hand, the pope is still alive so there isn't the mourning which came with the death of the last successor of Peter. In my mind I think okay he's still alive. But then it hits me there will be a conclave soon to elect a new pope. This is a huge event, one which has only occurred one other time in my lifetime in 2005. I will be following very closely.
People have already started guessing at who will be the next pope. Of particular interest to me is the possibility that Cardinal Marc Ouellet, former archbishop of the City of Quebec and current Prefect for the Congregation for Bishops, will be chosen as the 265th successor of Peter. Of course, he is but one of the papabile.
This is a very extraordinary event. As I mentioned previously, Pope Benedict will be the first pope in nearly 600 years to resign from the papacy while still living. The last time this happened was when Pope Gregory XII resigned his post in order to settle the conflict of the Avignon Papacy and disputes over the position. The last truly voluntary resignation of a pope happened with Celestine V in 1294 when he specifically allowed a pope to resign and then did so himself. Unfortunately, Celestine was captured from his tranquil life as a monk and imprisoned by his successor in a cell where he would die 10 months later.
It seems as though only 2 other popes in history have stepped down voluntarily: John XVIII in 1009 and Benedict IX in 1045 (he regretted his actions and later returned to the papacy). Basically this means only 1.1% of popes have voluntarily resigned (1.5% if you count Pope Gregory XII).
Many people are using this as an opportunity to voice their personal opinions when it comes to the Catholic Church. Often, these comments come from people outside the Church who have very little knowledge about it. Perhaps because people are very used to democracy, they believe in personally deciding what the Church should teach. I've heard many people proclaim that they Church must modernize and "get with the times". Funny thing is, it's doubtful they would join the Church even if this happened. I'm not sure why non-Catholics who do whatever they want are even concerned about what the Church teaches. If they disagree, why not just leave or ignore it?
Many people simply do not understand the Church. Many people think the pope, on a whim, could change constant moral teachings of the Church, such as laws concerning homosexual acts, abortion, female ordination, etc. As John Paul II and Benedict XVI have made clear, these issues form an important part of the Church's teaching and cannot be changed. Specifically, Pope John Paul II issued a controversial statement indicating the Church not only will not, but in fact cannot, change its stance on female ordination, because Jesus Christ himself did not do this, nor did the universal Church in her entire history.
Many people do not like the Catholic Church because of what it teaches. Instead of coming right out and saying this though, they attack Pope Benedict. They complain about how "conservative" he is. They try to blame him for the sex abuse scandal which he had nothing to do with and tried to stop and later rectify. Some even stoop so low as to criticize Benedict for his physical appearance. People who do this simply do not want to say they disagree with the Church and over a billion Catholics. Instead they vilify good people like our current pope.
The point is, people can choose to either obey or disobey the Church, and if they choose to disobey, the Church has no say in their life. So why do some people feel the need to react so strongly against the Church? I will leave that question to anyone who might want to answer in the comment section below.
Pope Benedict is an intellectual giant and a worthy shepherd. His successor will have bigPrada shoes to fill. One interesting thing I heard today (from Karl Keating quoting Jeffrey Tucker) is that by resigning, the pope may possibly have some say or influence on who the next pope will be. Whoever it is, I pray for the guidance of the Holy Spirit as our current pontiff leaves the limelight and a new one takes over.
I think this new reality is just sinking in for me. On the one hand, the pope is still alive so there isn't the mourning which came with the death of the last successor of Peter. In my mind I think okay he's still alive. But then it hits me there will be a conclave soon to elect a new pope. This is a huge event, one which has only occurred one other time in my lifetime in 2005. I will be following very closely.
People have already started guessing at who will be the next pope. Of particular interest to me is the possibility that Cardinal Marc Ouellet, former archbishop of the City of Quebec and current Prefect for the Congregation for Bishops, will be chosen as the 265th successor of Peter. Of course, he is but one of the papabile.
This is a very extraordinary event. As I mentioned previously, Pope Benedict will be the first pope in nearly 600 years to resign from the papacy while still living. The last time this happened was when Pope Gregory XII resigned his post in order to settle the conflict of the Avignon Papacy and disputes over the position. The last truly voluntary resignation of a pope happened with Celestine V in 1294 when he specifically allowed a pope to resign and then did so himself. Unfortunately, Celestine was captured from his tranquil life as a monk and imprisoned by his successor in a cell where he would die 10 months later.
It seems as though only 2 other popes in history have stepped down voluntarily: John XVIII in 1009 and Benedict IX in 1045 (he regretted his actions and later returned to the papacy). Basically this means only 1.1% of popes have voluntarily resigned (1.5% if you count Pope Gregory XII).
Many people are using this as an opportunity to voice their personal opinions when it comes to the Catholic Church. Often, these comments come from people outside the Church who have very little knowledge about it. Perhaps because people are very used to democracy, they believe in personally deciding what the Church should teach. I've heard many people proclaim that they Church must modernize and "get with the times". Funny thing is, it's doubtful they would join the Church even if this happened. I'm not sure why non-Catholics who do whatever they want are even concerned about what the Church teaches. If they disagree, why not just leave or ignore it?
Many people simply do not understand the Church. Many people think the pope, on a whim, could change constant moral teachings of the Church, such as laws concerning homosexual acts, abortion, female ordination, etc. As John Paul II and Benedict XVI have made clear, these issues form an important part of the Church's teaching and cannot be changed. Specifically, Pope John Paul II issued a controversial statement indicating the Church not only will not, but in fact cannot, change its stance on female ordination, because Jesus Christ himself did not do this, nor did the universal Church in her entire history.
Many people do not like the Catholic Church because of what it teaches. Instead of coming right out and saying this though, they attack Pope Benedict. They complain about how "conservative" he is. They try to blame him for the sex abuse scandal which he had nothing to do with and tried to stop and later rectify. Some even stoop so low as to criticize Benedict for his physical appearance. People who do this simply do not want to say they disagree with the Church and over a billion Catholics. Instead they vilify good people like our current pope.
The point is, people can choose to either obey or disobey the Church, and if they choose to disobey, the Church has no say in their life. So why do some people feel the need to react so strongly against the Church? I will leave that question to anyone who might want to answer in the comment section below.
Pope Benedict is an intellectual giant and a worthy shepherd. His successor will have big
Wednesday, February 06, 2013
Response to Bulls**t episode on the Vatican
Penn and Teller have a show called "Bulls**t". I added the asterisks. The show is designed to refute commonly held beliefs. They've done episodes on dozens of topics, including violent video games, PETA, and the income tax. They also did one on the Vatican. I will offer a rebuttal to their video.
No Opposing Positions Presented
First of all, they admit at the beginning that unlike every other episode, this one will feature no counter arguments whatsoever. In every other episode, they present a premise, and they always have several guests who disagree with the comedic duo. However, on this episode, they say they will do no such thing. It will be completely one sided. Now, they claim they requested input from some "authorities" within the Vatican. They don't specify who they actually asked. Maybe they sent a letter to the pope himself expecting a reply. They specifically said they asked authorities within the Church. Notice they did not ask someone from Catholic Answers or from a Catholic publishing company or just a pro-Vatican person. They don't seem to care that the episode will completely one-sided. They just brush it off by saying the Vatican has been making its point for 2000 years and they say now the other side needs a chance. As if there has never been someone who disagreed with the Church. Anyway, the episode was designed to be biased.
Italian Comedian Sabina Guzzanti
The first specific story present by narrator Penn Jillette is that of Sabina Guzzanti who said something offensive about Pope Benedicts XVI. You could pretty much add "allegedly" to everything Penn says about her story. She said something offensive about the pope. The pope "allegedly" was upset about this and "allegedly" contacted the prime minister who "allegedly" threatened to charge this comedian with slander for what she said. He then goes off on speculation about how upset the pope was, how he reacted to what she said, etc. All conjecture. Oh yeah, and according to Penn, the pope also wanted this woman to be imprisoned. Again, pure conjecture and not from an unbiased source. Recently a man was charged for exposing private documents of the pope and was sentenced to time in prison. The pope intervened so that the man would not go to jail. Doesn't exactly sound like a man who likes imprisoning people. By the way, we are left in suspense as to what this comedian says as Penn says he will "return" to this later. I guess he will come back after he has defamed the Church enough so that, like a good lawyer, he can say anything about the Church and everyone will believe him.
Vatican and homosexuality
After the first segment, Penn introduces the head of an atheist / agnostic organization in the UK where the representative says he thought John Paul II was bad, but Benedict is much worse. He offers no reason for thinking so himself. The narrator comes on to cite an example of how "bad" Benedict is by mentioning a 2008 resolution introduced in the UN by France. The legislation would seek to remove discrimination against gay people. The show even admits the reason the Vatican opposed this because it could lead to pressuring countries to accept gay marriage, something the Vatican is opposed to. Penn interviews a guy who says this would not happen so automatically more nefarious motives are assumed once again. Penn goes so far as to say the Vatican is okay with gay people being killed. Wow, goodbye any actual evidence. Hello hyperbole! The Vatican has specifically said unjust discrimination against gay people is wrong. But don't confuse Penn with the facts!
It's surprising how the atheist representative can be taken seriously. He goes from the amazingly inaccurate estimate that "20%-50%" of Catholic priests are gay to the conclusion that Benedict XVI must be a really bad person to speak about against homosexual acts. I'm surprised he can't see his own logical fallacy here.
Penn Jillette then makes the surprisingly accurate statement that the Church does not consider homosexuality itself to be a sin, but just acting upon it. He even does a good job of explaining it, by saying the Church is against sex outside of marriage and gay people cannot marry and therefore homosexual sex is sinful. He goes off the rails when he implies homosexual sex condemns someone to hell automatically. He makes it seem like it is that sin in particular which will do this.
Penn then criticizes the Church's position that gays cannot marry or participate in homosexual acts by asking the rhetorical question of whether it makes sense to tell a bird it cannot fly. But this comes from a faulty understanding of sexuality as being uncontrollable and inevitable. This makes no more sense than saying "How can we tell an adulterer he should not cheat? Isn't that cruel?" One can choose to refrain from inappropriate sexual relations.
Back to Comedian Sabina Guzzanti
Sabina is now reintroduced to the show where she talks about how terrible it is to hear in the news the pope's opinion on various matters. Oh the humanity. We are teased once again about some blasphemous things this comedian said. But that will have to wait till later! In this segment, Sabina and the narrator goes on about how people are not free to express themselves in Italy. Well, let's wait and see what happened and how she was ultimately punished. I'm expecting it to be really brutal!
Sex Abuse Scandal
Of course, everyone knew this would be part of the show. This is a major tragedy and deserves to be addressed. There is too much to re-mention here, but I've written other articles addressing this in the past. Once again, the only people being interviewed are victims groups and lawyers of victims. One document that they mention is called Crimen sollicitationis. Penn claims the purpose of the document is to silence the victim on pain of excommunication which he claims means condemnation to hell - an amateur mistake. In fact, the purpose of this document is to maintain the dignity of the accused and the accuser until the process has been carried out. It does not preclude presenting the case to public authorities prior to the Church trial. John Allen Jr. wrote about this document and said it must be understood in the proper context.
In a similar vein, the show mentions a Vatican document which notes the statute of limitation on secrecy for sex abuse is 10 years after a minor has reached the age of 18. This was designed to protect the victims of abuse. I haven't had time to research it thoroughly yet, but again it refers to a statute of limitations, which by definition are beneficial to the victims.
AIDS
Then Penn pulls out another old canard by claiming the Vatican is somehow responsible, either directly or indirectly, for the deaths of millions of people due to AIDS because of its stance on contraception. Penn also mentions overpopulation as an issue here. Many people see this as a black and white issue (i.e. more condoms = less AIDS). Scientifically this is not the case. For a variety of factors, in the real world, more condoms does not equal less AIDS in the real world. This can be seen in Africa. A couple of countries, including Uganda, implemented a policy of sexual gratification control and monogamy, which had much better results than the places which emphasized the use of contraception. Same thing with the Philippines, where contraception was or is prohibited. In many parts of Africa, condoms are more easily available than clean drinking water. If the theory that more contraception = less AIDS, then AIDS should have been eliminated from Africa by now. The fact of the matter is that promiscuity is what leads to infections. If people did what the Vatican said and waited until marriage to have sex and remain monogamous, this would in fact eliminate AIDS. Of course, people with AIDS would refrain from having sex out of love for their potential partner. But for some reason, people do not think that people can control their sex drive, especially in Africa. This is a very dim view of humanity, in my opinion.
The discussion of condoms as AIDS prevention switches to condoms are being morally permissible within marriage. Of course, they interview many dissident Catholics such as the president of Catholics For Choice. They make it seem like the Church being against contraception is just some silly rule that was just arbitrarily decided and that it can be easily reversed. One of the reasons for the opposition to contraception is that it purposely prevents an act from fulfilling its natural and healthy purpose. The purpose of sex is ultimately procreation. To purposely thwart the actual intention of the act is morally wrong. Plus, we can see all the negative consequences of contraception which were correctly predicted by Pope Paul VI when he published Humanae Vitae, such as promiscuity and the objectification of people.
Penn also claims the pope himself said contraception entering the water from women's urine is having negative effects on the environment. He makes another amateur mistake here, since this is a statement from the L'Osservatore Romano, the Vatican Newspaper, not by the pope, and it is not an official Church document.
Plus, Penn claims the Church was opposed to the small pox vaccine, a claim I can find no backing for anywhere.
Back to Comedian Sabina Guzzanti ONCE Again
Let's hope this time Penn spits out what this comedian said and the consequences. Already, so he finally gets to it, although I was quite disappointed. This "comedian" essentially says in a very vulgar way that she believes the pope will end up in hell. She adds other things concerning homosexuality which I do not want to repeat here. It was disgusting. Why did she say all of this? Because the pope dared offer his opinion that school children in Italy should not be forced to hear about homosexual acts. For this, Sabina believes Italy is no longer a democracy. By the way, poor oppressed Sabina was applauded by a large part of the crowd to whom she told her joke.
In the end, Sabina was not sentenced to any time in jail and did not receive any penalty. The Vatican issued a statement saying they forgive her for her comments. Amazingly, Penn and Teller are able to spin this into making it seem like the Vatican did something bad. Wow, they must really be desperate!
Ending
The conclusion of the video is a collage of the guests basically insulting the Church, calling it greedy, power-hungry, homophobic, etc. Fill in the blanks. You get the idea. Penn ends with a short monologue rehashing some of the grievances and canards presented in the video.
This video was a particularly lop-sided presentation of the Vatican. It has no value for honest truth-seekers. But to a large part of the public which only thinks the Catholic Church is bad, you will probably be cheering for this error-laded documentary.
No Opposing Positions Presented
First of all, they admit at the beginning that unlike every other episode, this one will feature no counter arguments whatsoever. In every other episode, they present a premise, and they always have several guests who disagree with the comedic duo. However, on this episode, they say they will do no such thing. It will be completely one sided. Now, they claim they requested input from some "authorities" within the Vatican. They don't specify who they actually asked. Maybe they sent a letter to the pope himself expecting a reply. They specifically said they asked authorities within the Church. Notice they did not ask someone from Catholic Answers or from a Catholic publishing company or just a pro-Vatican person. They don't seem to care that the episode will completely one-sided. They just brush it off by saying the Vatican has been making its point for 2000 years and they say now the other side needs a chance. As if there has never been someone who disagreed with the Church. Anyway, the episode was designed to be biased.
Italian Comedian Sabina Guzzanti
The first specific story present by narrator Penn Jillette is that of Sabina Guzzanti who said something offensive about Pope Benedicts XVI. You could pretty much add "allegedly" to everything Penn says about her story. She said something offensive about the pope. The pope "allegedly" was upset about this and "allegedly" contacted the prime minister who "allegedly" threatened to charge this comedian with slander for what she said. He then goes off on speculation about how upset the pope was, how he reacted to what she said, etc. All conjecture. Oh yeah, and according to Penn, the pope also wanted this woman to be imprisoned. Again, pure conjecture and not from an unbiased source. Recently a man was charged for exposing private documents of the pope and was sentenced to time in prison. The pope intervened so that the man would not go to jail. Doesn't exactly sound like a man who likes imprisoning people. By the way, we are left in suspense as to what this comedian says as Penn says he will "return" to this later. I guess he will come back after he has defamed the Church enough so that, like a good lawyer, he can say anything about the Church and everyone will believe him.
Vatican and homosexuality
After the first segment, Penn introduces the head of an atheist / agnostic organization in the UK where the representative says he thought John Paul II was bad, but Benedict is much worse. He offers no reason for thinking so himself. The narrator comes on to cite an example of how "bad" Benedict is by mentioning a 2008 resolution introduced in the UN by France. The legislation would seek to remove discrimination against gay people. The show even admits the reason the Vatican opposed this because it could lead to pressuring countries to accept gay marriage, something the Vatican is opposed to. Penn interviews a guy who says this would not happen so automatically more nefarious motives are assumed once again. Penn goes so far as to say the Vatican is okay with gay people being killed. Wow, goodbye any actual evidence. Hello hyperbole! The Vatican has specifically said unjust discrimination against gay people is wrong. But don't confuse Penn with the facts!
It's surprising how the atheist representative can be taken seriously. He goes from the amazingly inaccurate estimate that "20%-50%" of Catholic priests are gay to the conclusion that Benedict XVI must be a really bad person to speak about against homosexual acts. I'm surprised he can't see his own logical fallacy here.
Penn Jillette then makes the surprisingly accurate statement that the Church does not consider homosexuality itself to be a sin, but just acting upon it. He even does a good job of explaining it, by saying the Church is against sex outside of marriage and gay people cannot marry and therefore homosexual sex is sinful. He goes off the rails when he implies homosexual sex condemns someone to hell automatically. He makes it seem like it is that sin in particular which will do this.
Penn then criticizes the Church's position that gays cannot marry or participate in homosexual acts by asking the rhetorical question of whether it makes sense to tell a bird it cannot fly. But this comes from a faulty understanding of sexuality as being uncontrollable and inevitable. This makes no more sense than saying "How can we tell an adulterer he should not cheat? Isn't that cruel?" One can choose to refrain from inappropriate sexual relations.
Back to Comedian Sabina Guzzanti
Sabina is now reintroduced to the show where she talks about how terrible it is to hear in the news the pope's opinion on various matters. Oh the humanity. We are teased once again about some blasphemous things this comedian said. But that will have to wait till later! In this segment, Sabina and the narrator goes on about how people are not free to express themselves in Italy. Well, let's wait and see what happened and how she was ultimately punished. I'm expecting it to be really brutal!
Sex Abuse Scandal
Of course, everyone knew this would be part of the show. This is a major tragedy and deserves to be addressed. There is too much to re-mention here, but I've written other articles addressing this in the past. Once again, the only people being interviewed are victims groups and lawyers of victims. One document that they mention is called Crimen sollicitationis. Penn claims the purpose of the document is to silence the victim on pain of excommunication which he claims means condemnation to hell - an amateur mistake. In fact, the purpose of this document is to maintain the dignity of the accused and the accuser until the process has been carried out. It does not preclude presenting the case to public authorities prior to the Church trial. John Allen Jr. wrote about this document and said it must be understood in the proper context.
In a similar vein, the show mentions a Vatican document which notes the statute of limitation on secrecy for sex abuse is 10 years after a minor has reached the age of 18. This was designed to protect the victims of abuse. I haven't had time to research it thoroughly yet, but again it refers to a statute of limitations, which by definition are beneficial to the victims.
AIDS
Then Penn pulls out another old canard by claiming the Vatican is somehow responsible, either directly or indirectly, for the deaths of millions of people due to AIDS because of its stance on contraception. Penn also mentions overpopulation as an issue here. Many people see this as a black and white issue (i.e. more condoms = less AIDS). Scientifically this is not the case. For a variety of factors, in the real world, more condoms does not equal less AIDS in the real world. This can be seen in Africa. A couple of countries, including Uganda, implemented a policy of sexual gratification control and monogamy, which had much better results than the places which emphasized the use of contraception. Same thing with the Philippines, where contraception was or is prohibited. In many parts of Africa, condoms are more easily available than clean drinking water. If the theory that more contraception = less AIDS, then AIDS should have been eliminated from Africa by now. The fact of the matter is that promiscuity is what leads to infections. If people did what the Vatican said and waited until marriage to have sex and remain monogamous, this would in fact eliminate AIDS. Of course, people with AIDS would refrain from having sex out of love for their potential partner. But for some reason, people do not think that people can control their sex drive, especially in Africa. This is a very dim view of humanity, in my opinion.
The discussion of condoms as AIDS prevention switches to condoms are being morally permissible within marriage. Of course, they interview many dissident Catholics such as the president of Catholics For Choice. They make it seem like the Church being against contraception is just some silly rule that was just arbitrarily decided and that it can be easily reversed. One of the reasons for the opposition to contraception is that it purposely prevents an act from fulfilling its natural and healthy purpose. The purpose of sex is ultimately procreation. To purposely thwart the actual intention of the act is morally wrong. Plus, we can see all the negative consequences of contraception which were correctly predicted by Pope Paul VI when he published Humanae Vitae, such as promiscuity and the objectification of people.
Penn also claims the pope himself said contraception entering the water from women's urine is having negative effects on the environment. He makes another amateur mistake here, since this is a statement from the L'Osservatore Romano, the Vatican Newspaper, not by the pope, and it is not an official Church document.
Plus, Penn claims the Church was opposed to the small pox vaccine, a claim I can find no backing for anywhere.
Back to Comedian Sabina Guzzanti ONCE Again
Let's hope this time Penn spits out what this comedian said and the consequences. Already, so he finally gets to it, although I was quite disappointed. This "comedian" essentially says in a very vulgar way that she believes the pope will end up in hell. She adds other things concerning homosexuality which I do not want to repeat here. It was disgusting. Why did she say all of this? Because the pope dared offer his opinion that school children in Italy should not be forced to hear about homosexual acts. For this, Sabina believes Italy is no longer a democracy. By the way, poor oppressed Sabina was applauded by a large part of the crowd to whom she told her joke.
In the end, Sabina was not sentenced to any time in jail and did not receive any penalty. The Vatican issued a statement saying they forgive her for her comments. Amazingly, Penn and Teller are able to spin this into making it seem like the Vatican did something bad. Wow, they must really be desperate!
Ending
The conclusion of the video is a collage of the guests basically insulting the Church, calling it greedy, power-hungry, homophobic, etc. Fill in the blanks. You get the idea. Penn ends with a short monologue rehashing some of the grievances and canards presented in the video.
This video was a particularly lop-sided presentation of the Vatican. It has no value for honest truth-seekers. But to a large part of the public which only thinks the Catholic Church is bad, you will probably be cheering for this error-laded documentary.
Monday, February 04, 2013
Hard Lessons from Local Priest
So sometimes I hear complaints that priests are too soft on various tough subjects. They either ignore controversy or water it down so much the message becomes unclear. Today however, I witnessed the opposite. I was attending Mass at St. Teresa's and Fr. Roy began his homily with a joke. But later in his sermon, he started talking about abortion. He said children were being slaughtered, and he was very critical of the Roe v. Wade decision of the United States Supreme Court. He said we must do everything we can to end this.
These were very direct words that you do not hear often from the pulpit. Several weeks back, Fr. Brown from the Latin Mass addressed a similar topic with similar force. This goes to show that priests are not somehow "forbidden" from bringing up tough subjects.
Fr. Roy also addressed pornography and if I recall correctly, drug use. I believe he also mentioned something about inappropriate sexual relations outside of marriage.
Having said all that, there is another issue I have and that is people who want the priest to talk about sins committed by "others". They want sermons on sins they would never commit. Popular topics include homosexuality and abortion. Most of the people who demand such sermons would probably not find themselves involved with these things to begin with. I don't often hear people demanding the priest talk about sins which affect them personally.
I think hard-hitting messages are important. I would like to see priests be very direct and give solid advice which can be used. The primary purpose of this, though, is personal development. It is not an opportunity to condemn others. We should focus on our own spiritual journey and not on looking for specks in other people's eyes.
These were very direct words that you do not hear often from the pulpit. Several weeks back, Fr. Brown from the Latin Mass addressed a similar topic with similar force. This goes to show that priests are not somehow "forbidden" from bringing up tough subjects.
Fr. Roy also addressed pornography and if I recall correctly, drug use. I believe he also mentioned something about inappropriate sexual relations outside of marriage.
Having said all that, there is another issue I have and that is people who want the priest to talk about sins committed by "others". They want sermons on sins they would never commit. Popular topics include homosexuality and abortion. Most of the people who demand such sermons would probably not find themselves involved with these things to begin with. I don't often hear people demanding the priest talk about sins which affect them personally.
I think hard-hitting messages are important. I would like to see priests be very direct and give solid advice which can be used. The primary purpose of this, though, is personal development. It is not an opportunity to condemn others. We should focus on our own spiritual journey and not on looking for specks in other people's eyes.
Tuesday, January 29, 2013
Happy Feast Day of St. Thomas Aquinas
St. Thomas Aquinas is probably one of my favorite saints. He wrote the Summa Theologiae (aka Theologica). He lived in the 13th century. You can easily find out more about him by googling him. It's passed midnight so technically yesterday was his feast day. His feast is dedicated not on his death as is the usual custom, but on the date he officially completed his most famous work, which I mentioned above.
I like the fact that Thomas addressed questions and answered various objections. It's still relevant today and many of the same objections are present. This method of argumentation is vastly superior to simply stating a fact and then declaring it is true without further explaining it and then forbidding questions.
Almost every topic that usually comes up was addressed by Thomas in some way. His work was three times larger than the entire Bible, which is an amazing feat, especially since it was done in a time before computers.
So let's ask St. Thomas for an extra prayer tonight.
I like the fact that Thomas addressed questions and answered various objections. It's still relevant today and many of the same objections are present. This method of argumentation is vastly superior to simply stating a fact and then declaring it is true without further explaining it and then forbidding questions.
Almost every topic that usually comes up was addressed by Thomas in some way. His work was three times larger than the entire Bible, which is an amazing feat, especially since it was done in a time before computers.
So let's ask St. Thomas for an extra prayer tonight.
Sunday, January 20, 2013
Vatican has not sided with gun controllers
So as usual people are reporting that the "Vatican" has made a pronouncement about gun control and has lauded Obama's plans to increase these laws. This is false. Cardinal Federico Lombardi himself made statements in an editorial on Vatican Radio. The media always get this mixed up. When a Church official makes a statement somewhere in the Vatican and not even necessarily in their role as a bishop in the Church, the media reports that the Vatican released an official statement.
Even if somehow you could construe a statement by the Vatican as an "official statement", it wouldn't necessary hold any doctrinal power. In other words, it's not necessarily issued ex cathedra and all the other necessities to make it an infallible teaching.
The Catechism of the Church actually does speak about the use of firearms. It says:
Although it is a little ambiguous, the right to use arms to protect those under our care is granted in the Catechism. In fact, it says it can be grave duty, and not optional.
If a madman with a firearm threatens one's family, does it not seem just to repel this attacker with whatever means necessary? Allowing one's family to die because you will not protect them is not a Catholic value.
Even if somehow you could construe a statement by the Vatican as an "official statement", it wouldn't necessary hold any doctrinal power. In other words, it's not necessarily issued ex cathedra and all the other necessities to make it an infallible teaching.
The Catechism of the Church actually does speak about the use of firearms. It says:
Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility. (CCC 2265) Source: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm
Although it is a little ambiguous, the right to use arms to protect those under our care is granted in the Catechism. In fact, it says it can be grave duty, and not optional.
If a madman with a firearm threatens one's family, does it not seem just to repel this attacker with whatever means necessary? Allowing one's family to die because you will not protect them is not a Catholic value.
Sunday, January 13, 2013
Catholics and Libertarianism
Catholics hold many different political opinions, everything from communism to libertarianism. In our Young Catholic group here in St. John's, there is one lady in particular who is very orthodox, has a Ph.D. in theology, and says she believes in a Marxist-Leninist system. I, however, differ markedly from her position and endorse a laissez-faire economic model. Many Catholics would say both of these extremes are impermissible by the Church, however I would beg to differ. I believe a free market economy is fully in line with Church teaching.
What prompted me to write this blog tonight was the high number of well-known libertarians who are practicing Catholics. I just finished watching a video made by Professor James Otteson. He has won awards worth tens of thousands of dollars for his work in economics, such as the Templeton Enterprise Award. He is an expert on Adam Smith and supports a laissez-faire economy. It seems 99% certain that he is a Catholic given things he has written on his blog.
Tom Woods, a historian and Austrian economist whom I admire greatly, has written very extensively free-market economics. He started Ron Paul's SuperPAC during the presidential elections. He frequently hosts the Peter Schiff Show where free market topics are discussed. Not only is he a well-known historian and economist, he has also written very extensively on the Catholic Church. He wrote the famous book "How the Catholic Church Build Western Civilization". He believes his faith and economic beliefs mesh very well.
A little while back I was listening to Lew Rockwell's radio program. He is the proprietor of an eponymous website which has become one of the most well known resources for libertarian information, and is himself a Catholic. He is the CEO and Chairman of the Ludwig Von Mises Foundation, one of the largest libertarian institutions in the world. On his program, he featured Professor Gerard Casey, an Irish professor. On the program, Dr. Casey was asked how a Catholic can be a libertarian, and he responded by saying he didn't know how a Catholic "couldn't" be a libertarian.
One of the founders of the Austrian school of economics, Frederic Von Hayek, was probably Catholic since he was from Austria, but I don't think he spoke about his religion much.
One last guy I want to mention is Fr. Robert Sirico. He is the founder of the Acton Institute, an educational institution located in Grand Rapids Michigan with the goal of promoting free trade and defending it from an ethical perspective, especially Catholicism. Fr. Sirico takes his role as a Catholic priest very seriously and still defends the free market very vigorously.
My point is that very many well known libertarians are Catholic. I do not believe there is a conflict in these two positions and in very many instances I believe it is the most Catholic option. There is a popular trend nowadays to say that in order to be a good Catholic you have to be something of a socialist. Maybe not 100%, but to a large degree. Catholics often feel conflicted in elections when they are trying to decide between a candidate who is pro-abortion and anti-free trade versus a candidate who is pro-life and pro-free trade. They feel Catholics must vote for a politician who wants bigger government, higher taxes, more regulation, etc. which is normally the position of leftist groups who tend to support abortion as well.
In any event, a Catholic must first and foremost vote to defend life, economic issues come second. But when it comes to economic issues, I believe a freer market is a better market and many good Catholics agree with me.
What prompted me to write this blog tonight was the high number of well-known libertarians who are practicing Catholics. I just finished watching a video made by Professor James Otteson. He has won awards worth tens of thousands of dollars for his work in economics, such as the Templeton Enterprise Award. He is an expert on Adam Smith and supports a laissez-faire economy. It seems 99% certain that he is a Catholic given things he has written on his blog.
Tom Woods, a historian and Austrian economist whom I admire greatly, has written very extensively free-market economics. He started Ron Paul's SuperPAC during the presidential elections. He frequently hosts the Peter Schiff Show where free market topics are discussed. Not only is he a well-known historian and economist, he has also written very extensively on the Catholic Church. He wrote the famous book "How the Catholic Church Build Western Civilization". He believes his faith and economic beliefs mesh very well.
A little while back I was listening to Lew Rockwell's radio program. He is the proprietor of an eponymous website which has become one of the most well known resources for libertarian information, and is himself a Catholic. He is the CEO and Chairman of the Ludwig Von Mises Foundation, one of the largest libertarian institutions in the world. On his program, he featured Professor Gerard Casey, an Irish professor. On the program, Dr. Casey was asked how a Catholic can be a libertarian, and he responded by saying he didn't know how a Catholic "couldn't" be a libertarian.
One of the founders of the Austrian school of economics, Frederic Von Hayek, was probably Catholic since he was from Austria, but I don't think he spoke about his religion much.
One last guy I want to mention is Fr. Robert Sirico. He is the founder of the Acton Institute, an educational institution located in Grand Rapids Michigan with the goal of promoting free trade and defending it from an ethical perspective, especially Catholicism. Fr. Sirico takes his role as a Catholic priest very seriously and still defends the free market very vigorously.
My point is that very many well known libertarians are Catholic. I do not believe there is a conflict in these two positions and in very many instances I believe it is the most Catholic option. There is a popular trend nowadays to say that in order to be a good Catholic you have to be something of a socialist. Maybe not 100%, but to a large degree. Catholics often feel conflicted in elections when they are trying to decide between a candidate who is pro-abortion and anti-free trade versus a candidate who is pro-life and pro-free trade. They feel Catholics must vote for a politician who wants bigger government, higher taxes, more regulation, etc. which is normally the position of leftist groups who tend to support abortion as well.
In any event, a Catholic must first and foremost vote to defend life, economic issues come second. But when it comes to economic issues, I believe a freer market is a better market and many good Catholics agree with me.
Tuesday, January 01, 2013
Happy New Year to All My Readers
2012 was a big year for Catholicism. One of the biggest events was that Pope Benedict begin the year of faith. I personally experienced some great events including an Advent retreat.
I'm hoping this year I will be posting more on my blog. If there is a particular topic on which you would like me to write, please send me a comment and I will see what I can do.
I hope that this year you and I can grow closer to God.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)