Pope Benedict thinks swimming is awesome

I just found this interesting video of Pope Benedict talking to world class swimmers about to participate in Swimming World Championships. Pope Benedict reminds us that everything we do in life can be for the greater glory of God. Therefore, as St. Francis said, we must pray often, and when necessary, use words. Check it out:

August, a great month for saints!

I was just looking at my calendar of feast days and August is a spectacular month for saints. Here are just some of the more popular saints from this month:

August 1) St. Alphonsus Liguori, founder of the Redemptorists
August 4) St. Jean-Marie Vianney, the patron saint of parish priests
August 8) St. Dominic, founder of the Dominicans
August 10) St. Lawrence, early Martyr
August 11) St. Clare, follower of St. Francis of Assisi
August 14) St. Maximilian Kolbe, gave his life for man in concentration camp
August 20) St. Bernard, Doctor of the Church
August 21) St. Pius X, a holy and humble man
August 24) St. Bartholomew, One of the 12 Apostles
August 28) St. Augustine, Doctor of the Church

Catholic nurse forced to participate in abortion, lawsuit filed

My girlfriend and I were discussing this topic yesterday. Basically we were saying in our workplaces we are sometimes asked to make moral decisions or to violate our morals, and the question is, what does one do? Of course, we could always be morally courageous and never violate our morals, but then other questions arise. What level of moral disobedience is legitimate to save our career and livelihood? It's not always easy to just refuse to do something the boss asks us to. What if, for example, the boss tells us to inform a client that we cannot pay them until next month because there is not enough money, when in fact we could possibly pay them, but it would be disadvantageous. Would we be required to flat out refuse to carry out this task and jeopardize our job? Perhaps not.

The story below tells of a nurse who was forced to participate in some level with an abortion. At what level can one participate in a moral evil and still be free from guilt? That's a good question. There is a question of materially participating in an action.

This kind of forced participation in abortion is not so far-fetched. Some abortion advocates are calling for the removal of conscience objections. In other words, people would no longer have the right to protest doing something on a moral basis such as abortion and could be fired for not helping. We must do what we can to stop this kind of injustice.

Check out the article below:

Catholic nurse forced to participate in abortion, lawsuit filed

Steve Kent is a Knight of Columbus

Congratulations on Steve Kent, MHA and former mayor of Mount Pearl on becoming an Knight of Columbus. Steve Kent, who is just 31 years old, was the mayor of Mt. Pearl, the second largest city in Newfoundland and Labrador, and later became a Member of the House of Assembly, a post which he currently has. May he experience success in all his endeavors!

Marriage Ends, Health Declines - ABC News

Science once again proves something which Christ said. Jesus often said a man should not divorce his wife. The Bible says what God has joined, let no man divide. So it's no surprise that competent science has once again proven that divorce is bad in many ways. What Christ teaches us to do is for our own health and benefit.

Of course, science is not necessary to prove what God says. In fact, science has little to do with faith and morals. Science can only observe, but it cannot make moral statements, or answer the question of why, it only answers the question of how. I've become more interested lately in the concept that some people have replaced their trust in God with trust in science, which is a very dangerous road to take. God's truths are eternal, science is only based on our interpretation set of data. I'm all for scientific study, with the realization that we are observing God's creation. God comes first, and science only comes from God. Therefore science is very much subordinate to God.

I will probably speak on this topic more later. But for now, please view the following article:

Marriage Ends, Health Declines - ABC News

Vatican Says Pope Fell Looking for Light Switch - ABC News

More news has been shed on the Pope's wrist fracturing incident. See below:

Vatican Says Pope Fell Looking for Light Switch - ABC News

Bishop of Macau dies

Sad news has emerged that the first Chinese bishop of Macau, Domingos Lam, has died at the age of 81. Macau, which is now a Chinese territory, once belonged to the Portuguese. They brought Christianity there. The country (or autonomous region of China) now has one of the highest life expectancies of any country.

The only source of information on this that I could find is in Chinese, probably Cantonese:

http://kkp.catholic.org.hk/Special_News/lo_2009_07_27.htm

Scientists Create Human Sperm from Stem Cells

A scary story has emerged that scentists in England are now using embryonic stem cells to produce sperm. This is so disgusting and disturbing in so many ways. Let's rephrase what is happening here. They are using human pre-born children to make sperm... Obviously this violates many Catholic morals, including the 4th commandment, Thou shall not kill. Of course, as with other "scientific discoveries", the scientists involved have only benevolent goals. They just want to help guys who can't have kids to have them! Wow, thanks guys, but no thanks. We can never kill someone so as to benefit someone else.

The same team who has orchestrated this Frankensteinian situation are also looking into another, less morally offensive, procedure that would turn adult male skin cells into sperm. Of course, this will also be illicit, because children have a right to be born naturally in the loving union of husband and wife, not at the hands of a scientist in a sterilized lab in a petri dish.

Now, none of this has been completed yet, and is still in a theoretical stage. I just wish people would realize that just because something is possible, doesn't mean we necessarily have to try it. Also, just because there is a conceivable benefit to something, doesn't mean it is completely legitimate. That's why I dislike when I hear scientists saying things like "This technology will help disabled people." but they ignore the potential harm. Both must be weighed.

Check out the Time Magazine article below:

Scientists Create Human Sperm from Stem Cells

Scorsese Planning Movie on Japanese Martyrs - Catholic Online

I just found this article on catholic.org Apparently Martin Scorsese is making a movie about the Japanese martyrs. This is great news. We need more movies like this. I've often thought that Catholic movies, based on the lives of saints, are some of the most inspirational and moving stories possible, and I think Hollywood should make more of them. The Passion of the Christ was a huge box office hit, and is the highest grossing religious movie of all time, and the highest grossing rated R movie in the United States. There are no more inspiring stories than those of people defending the Truth, and the Catholic Church contains the fullness of the Truth. Scorsese also made a movie many years ago called the last temptation of Christ. This was a terrible movie, partly because it is inaccurate in our understanding of Christology. According to theologians, while Jesus was tempted, he did not have concupicense, since he is the new Adam. Adam and Eve also did not have concupisense, but after the Fall, humanity acquired it. Concupiscence is the tendency to desire sin. Jesus did not have this tendency. Therefore, Jesus could only be tempted in another sense of the word. He could be tempted externally but not internally. For example, someone could come up to me and offer me drugs. They would try to tempt me to do drugs. But I would refuse. There would be no internal battle within me, and finally with the Grace of God, I would resist. Rather, I would have no internal compulsion toward these illicit substances. I have no attachment whatsoever to doing drugs. This is the same as Christ but with all sin. Therefore, Scorsese's movie is inaccurate because he depicts Jesus as being internally tempted to commit sin via fornication. Even if Jesus had concupiscence, he did not sin, and would therefore not entertain thoughts of a lustful act, which the movie depicts him as doing. Scorsese is a Catholic movie maker. I am hoping his depiction of the Japanese Martyrs is as inspirational as it should be. These stories are truly edifying, and these brave souls are now in Heaven with God. Please see the article to which I am linking for further information below:

Scorsese Planning Movie on Japanese Martyrs - Catholic Online

Farrah Fawcett Burial

I mentioned a few weeks ago that Farrah Fawcett had died and that she was a Catholic. I did not mention where she was buried. It was at the Westwood Village Memorial Park in Los Angeles, California. Thanks to Wikipedia for that information. May her eternal soul rest in peace.

Government funding in abortion: much worse in Canada than in the US

I was just reading the American Papist blog. Right now, Obama is looking at funding abortion federally. Currently in the US, abortion is legal, but it is not funded by the government. But in Canada, the situation is much more dismal. In Canada, abortions are all funded through the government medicare, if people choose to have one in a public hospital. That means all taxpayers have to pay for the slaughter of children.

Also, Canada is far behind Europe because Canada allows abortion at any time during 9 months of pregnancy. Other countries restrict access to abortion. Some for example only allow abortion up to 12 weeks, such as many European countries.

It's sad that we live in a country with some of the most liberal abortions laws in the world.

American Papist: Not Your Average Catholic!

Shared via AddThis

God's existence.

I came across a Christian philosopher named William Lane Craig. He's Protestant, but he has some very good proofs for the existence of God. Check out the first 2 videos of him in a debate in Australia.

Mary Magdalene is not so mysterious

With the Da Vinci Code, and other books like Holy Blood Holy Grail, etc. many have been led to believe the Catholic Church has been hiding the truth about Mary Magdalene. They claim she was Jesus' wife and that she bore him a child or children. They say she was given a bad reputation as a prostitute because the officials of the church wanted to keep her a secret and to vilify her in case anyone tried to reveal the truth. They wanted to do this, so the theory goes, so that the popes and cardinals and other churchmen could maintain their high status and power. This conspiracy theory makes perfect sense, until a pesky thing known as truth gets in the way.

The fact is, today is the Feast Day of St. Mary Magdalene - July 22. She is revered as a saint in Heaven who intercedes for us. Dozens, perhaps hundreds, of churches are named in her honor. She is one of the many examples of people who led sinful lives then repented and are now recognized as saints. These include St. Paul, St. Augustine, and more. Obviously if the church wanted to hide her, they are doing a very poor job of it!

St. Mary Magdalene, pray for us.

Courageous Bishop Promulgates Norms for Tabernacle Placement - Catholic Online

It is important to note that when we genuflect, it is toward the tabernacle, not the altar. This is a good article. I'm fortunate to be in a church (St. Teresa's) where the tabernacle is front and center. They even added a large painting around the tabernacle depicting angels on either side. Also, Eucharistic Adoration has been promoted and made much more available recently. Great job guys!

Courageous Bishop Promulgates Norms for Tabernacle Placement - Catholic Online

Shared via AddThis

General Electric to Use Embryonic Stem Cells for Deadly Tests - Catholic Online

This is a very disturbing story. GE will stop using rats to test the toxicity of its products, and rather opt to use humans. As I've mentioned before in my blog, people seem to think animals not only deserve equal rights to humans, but actually believe they deserve more!

The fact is, GE will be using humans to do experiments on. They will use the tiniest humans, embryos. Here's something to consider - embryos have all the genetic material they ever will, even as adults. Their eye color, hair color, height, skin complexion, personality characteristics, interests, etc. have all been determined. What GE is destroying is not a potential human, but a real human person, at the beginning of their development. They are destroying your best friend Fred, or your co-worker Amanda. For what? To test the toxicness of various chemicals?

Would GE go to an impoverished country and pay people to be human guinea pigs with a 100% chance of death? Maybe not now, but as this kind of thing becomes more common, who's to say they will not?

GE is one of the largest companies in the world. One of the craziest things about this article, as pointed out by American Papist, is that GE "claims" they will be doing this ethically. As I've mentioned in a previous blog posting, people and companies seem to judge an action based on soft principles, such as whether an action will cause pain. But there is a deeper issue always involved. In this case, we are talking about murder. We do not believe murder is only wrong if it involves immense suffering. The suffering may make it worse, but at its essential core, murder is murder, regardless of HOW it is done. The fact is, GE is murdering children. No matter what stage of development they are in, no matter how unwanted they are, no matter how little suffering there is, they are still killing people to improve their products, and that is completely wrong.

Please view the article below for more information:

General Electric to Use Embryonic Stem Cells for Deadly Tests - Catholic Online

Shared via AddThis

ALL can receive forgiveness, and Christ welcomes you back

I've been thinking about something lately, and that is the topic of forgiveness. Christ told all those who are heavy burdened to come to him and he will make their load light, that he will carry their burden because his yoke is light and his burden is easy. He took our sins to the cross with him and we must only accept his love and forgiveness to be with him always. But how well is this crucial message of Christianity being transmitted? In our zeal to condemn sin, do we make it abundantly clear that Christ welcomes all back to him no matter what? Jesus said there is one unforgivable sin, and that sin has been interpreted as our refusal to accept God's forgiveness. But everything else, ABSOLUTELY everything else can be forgiven, and even those with sins like scarlet can be turned like snow.

This message is downright shocking! This is not a message for goody two-shoes whose worst sin is accidently stepping on a bug. This message is for the hardened sinner. Those who society has rejected summarily, those who many believe are beyond redemption and are just scum of the earth. That's who this message is for. This is not just for the "nice sins". It's not just for those who cheated on a test, or who told a lie, or for those who gave into temptation before marriage. This is for killers, and child molesters, and rapists. I'm sure many people reading this are shocked at my comments. "How can we forgive these people?? We have no problem forgiving human weakness or small slip-ups, but these major sins, surely God does not expect us to forgive these!" Actually, he does. In fact, that's the whole message of Christianity! No one is beyond redemption. No one! I'm not sure if we emphasize this message enough.

All too often, people see Christians and accuse them of being hypocrites, because they know a Christian who does not "follow all the rules". The impression is that once you're perfect you can be a Christian. But the truth is the Church is not a hotel for saints, but rather a hospital for sinners! We are very zealous to condemn sinful behavior, to say how terrible abortion, euthanasia, pedophilia, murder, rape, etc. is, but how quick are we to forgive? The point is, we do not forgive people, God does, therefore we have an obligation to imitate God in his love and mercy. Does this mean we overlook sin? Of course not! One of the spiritual works of mercy is to admonish the sinner. We cannot out of pride refuse to correct our brother, afraid he might not "like" us much anymore. We must be fearless, but we must also be open to criticism if others point out our sinfulness.

Along with admonishing the sinner, two other spiritual works of mercy are to forgive all injuries and to bear wrongs patiently. We must be willing to accept back those who commit the most heinous crimes. We must love them with everything we can, pray for them, hope for their eternal salvation. We strong as we are at condemning sin, we must be all the stronger in welcoming back the lost sheep. A corporal work of mercy is to visit the imprisoned. Who goes to prison? Those who commit crimes. Does the work of mercy say, go to prison for those who are wrongfully convicted? Or to visit those whose crimes are not so bad? Of course not. We are to visit everyone, and to love them, and to comfort them. Jesus always condemned sin, but if the sinner was penitential, Jesus, more than anyone, would open his arms to embrace him back.

Hating the sin, but loving the sinner has a very deep meaning. If we can truly do this, then we can quickly welcome someone back who repents of wrongdoing. How shocked would some people be, perhaps even myself, if someone was in the news for a terrible crime, but showed up later at Church. How many people would welcome this person? Would they run away, would they chat amongst themselves, asking what business he has going in there? How many would wonder what he's up to? If we do this, we are attaching the sin to the person. We are no longer viewing the person as separate from their sins, but rather as the sins being inherent in the person, as if they are inherently sinful, not just someone who has sinned.

Let's make an effort to welcome back those who society has labeled scum bags, and those who we consider the worst of sinners. Let's show them Christ's love. Some of the greatest saints in history started out as what we might consider reprobates, but with the light of Christ and God's mercy, became the great people we know them as today!

Good Photo Gallery of the Pope after his hospital visit

To see a really good gallery of photos (and some information) of Pope Benedict after leaving hospital for his fractured wrist, please go here:

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Pope-Benedict-XVI-Slips-In-The-Bath-And-Breaks-Wrist-On-Holiday-In-Northern-Italy/Article/200907315339978?f=rss

Pope Benedict fractures wrist

While Pope Benedict was vacationing on Friday, he broke his wrist. The injury happened when he fell near the bathroom in the chalet where he was spending a 2-week summer retreat. Pope Benedict seems like a tough man, because right after the incident, he proceeded to say Mass before he went to the hospital to be examined by the doctor. He also had breakfast before going to the doctor. I always thought JPII was the tough sports lover who went hiking and skiing but apparently B16 is no wimp himself. I can imagine Pope Benedict in his German accent (sounding somewhat like Schwarzenegger) saying "Dis broken ahm is nahting. I vent through mach more than this wit som Cardinahls vhen I implemented my moto proprio!" But all joking aside, let us pray for the Pontiff. He is 82 years old now, but in excellent health.

Stephen Harper's actions were not a faux-pas, they were SACRILEGE

A report has emerged that while Stephen Harper was at a funeral service for Romeo LeBlanc, former governor general of Canada, in Memramcook, N.B., he was given the consecrated Eucharist at a Catholic Mass, but that he did not eat it! The video is somewhat ambiguous in that it is not completely clear what happens to the Host.

The mainstream media is reporting the incident with its usual Catholic ignorance. Somehow, even though 43% of Canadians are Catholic, by far the largest religion in the Country, the media acts like it's this rare religion that no one has any information about! They have no respect for the severity of this matter. They continually refer to the consecrated Eucharist, which is the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ, as a wafer! If all Stephen Harper had done was put a "wafer" in his pocket, no one would care. But it's much MUCH more than that. The Eucharist is the source and summit of the Christian life!

What's worse is that the media seems to be focusing more on another incident that happened with Stephen Harper. Apparently he was 1 minute and 40 seconds late for a photo op with the G8 leaders in Italy. This too was called a "faux pas". Apparently, committing blasphemy against Jesus Christ is the equivalent of being less than 2 minutes late for a photo.

Just how bad is blasphemy against the Eucharist? According to St. Thomas Aquinas:

In like manner the third species of sacrilege, which is committed against other sacred things, has various degrees, according to the differences of sacred things. Among these the highest place belongs to the sacraments whereby man is sanctified: chief of which is the sacrament of the Eucharist, for it contains Christ Himself. Wherefore the sacrilege that is committed against this sacrament is the gravest of all.

Therefore, sacrilege committed against the Eucharist is the gravest of all sacrilege. If Stephen Harper truly did put the host in his pocket, that would have been a worse sacrilege than spitting on a sacred statue or icon, or hitting the priest, or any other form of sacrilege. Of course, his personal culpability might be low or non-existant if he was unaware of his offense, assuming he committed one.

Another big problem with this whole scenario is that he should not have received the Eucharist in the first place, since he is not Catholic. Stephen Harper is the Prime Minister of Canada and as such has people around him constantly advising him on issues. They advise him on protocol, ways to behave, etiquette, rules of engagement. You would think that someone in his department would be Catholic, or that at least they would have researched Catholic beliefs about something so central. I remember a couple of years back, Stephen Harper was at the opening ceremony of a Sikh place of worship. He did everything "right", from wearing a temporary turban, to removing his shoes. Sikhs account for just 0.5% of the Canadian population. Compare this to Stephen Harper doing something that is not just an etiquette issue, but a violation of Catholic belief (i.e. receiving the Eucharist while not Catholic). It violates a Catholic belief at the center of our worship. According to Aquinas, this is the greatest sacrilege. And Catholics constitute 43% of the population! What Harper did would be the worse than going to a synagogue and feeding the guests pork!

The Senate Speaker Noël Kinsella didn't help matters with her comments which go against Catholic teaching. According to TheStar.com, Kinsella said the following:

"I would like to state that I personally witnessed Prime Minister Harper consume the host that was given to him by Archbishop André Richard," Kinsella said in a statement. "Sitting only a few seats behind him, I had a full view of the proceedings and clearly saw the Prime Minister accept the host after Archbishop Richard offered it. The Prime Minister consumed it.

"As a Catholic, I was therefore pleased to see the Prime Minister of Canada express his solidarity and communion with all those present in the sanctuary as we celebrated the life of the former governor general."

Stephen Harper would have shown more solidarity with Catholics by following the rules of the Catholic Church. How does violating the rules of the place you are visiting constitute "solidarity"? Secondly, Ms. Kinsella made an error in stating that they were celebrating the life of the former governor general in the sanctuary. Only the priest and altar servers are allowed in the sanctuary during the Mass. The congregation sits outside the sanctuary.

We are not 100% certain of what happened in this incident, and I think it's best to give Harper the benefit of the doubt and assume he consumed the Body and Blood of Christ. Obviously this is preferrable to desecrating the Eucharist. In any event, however, something wrong happened. That is disturbing enough, but what's also disturbing is how the media is reporting the incident. They are treating it very lightly, and sometimes even with comedy, as if it's funny. No one is treating it very seriously, perhaps except a few Catholic publications.

This just reconfirms the statement that anti-catholicism is the last acceptable prejudice. People feel free to lash out at the Catholic Church anytime they feel like it. People are extra careful not to offend Jews or Muslims, but when it comes to Catholics, you can say pretty well anything and no one will so much as cough. There is something very wrong with this. How is that when it comes to groups that constitute less than 5% of our population, people are very concerned not to offend them, but when it comes to Catholics, who make up 43% of the populace, people don't care at all.

Imagine if someone had done something to desecrate or injure the sensibilities of another religion. Would there be newspaper articles making light of it? Even if it was done inadvertantly, you would never seem a comedic treatment? Try to invision an article which says the following: "Prime Minister Harper did faux pas today when he accidentally wore a swatstika shirt into a Jewish Synagogue." or "Prime Minister Harper made a funny gaffe when he stepped on a Koran today in a Mosque", or how about "The Prime Minister made a couple of misteps today. The biggest one was missing a meeting by almost 2 minutes, the other, less important incident, was that he accidentally spit right on a Sikh holy place." The Prime Minister in these cases would probably be charged with a hate crime, or at least people would be very angry. Yet, when he does something against the Catholic population, it goes in the humour section of the newspaper.

At least one good thing might come out of this. Many people, including many Catholics, are unaware that only Catholics should receive Catholic communion. As people read about this incident, they may learn about this rule, and we may take a general step closer to living by the rules.

The Roe of Roe V. Wade has a video

Jane Roe, the pseudonymous name of the woman in the landmark court case which legalize abortion is indeed pro-life now. In fact, she has never had an abortion. She is now Catholic. Check out her video:

What a coincidence! The ABC program for HIV/AIDS works again

In 2003, George W. Bush began a program called the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief. It spent $15 billion on preventing AIDS in developing countries, as well as buying medicine and care for those who already have it. It's a really bizarre coincidence that the worst president in history was behind one of the greatest successes in the fight against AIDS. It is estimated that the fund, which amounted to around $15 billion has helped reduce AIDS by 10% in the areas where the money went. How could someone so horrible do something so good?

But an even greater coincidence is that the method it employed to reduce HIV/AIDS rates was largely based on the ABC program, which means first of all practice Abstinence, then Be faithful (to one partner), and finally if necessary use Condoms. Those are the ABCs: Abstinence, Be faithful, and Condoms (if necessary). We all know that abstinence programming doesn't work. The only thing that can ever work is more condoms right? Well, the strange coincidence is that Haiti has recently announced a dramatic drop in its AIDS rate after employing this program. But how could this program work the way George Bush implemented it? He didn't encourage more condom use... hmm... how bizarre.

Of course, despite the dramatic lowering of AIDS rates in Haiti, critics still contend that the A of the ABC program needs to be dropped. That's also interesting given the fact that the countries in Africa, for example, where condoms have been more available than clean water for 25 years have experienced only an increase in HIV/AIDS rates. That's with the exception of Uganda, which vigorously promoted ABC also, and which is one of the only countries in Africa to experience a decline in AIDS rates.

This must surely be a coincidence! And fortunately one person knows just how big a coincidence this really is. Even though to the average person a program which when implemented reduces AIDS by 10% would seem to be a success, as opposed to others which focus on condom use and see an increase in AIDS rates, we are fortunate to have a President in the United States who is so much more advanced and can tell that OBVIOUSLY the ABC program would be better if it were simply the C program! This visionary can see beyond the statistics and medical information, beyond the obvious, and see something that no one else can seem to understand. I don't expect the average person to comprehend this, but according to Obama, the best way to fix a situation for which a particular solution isn't working is not to abolish that solution, but rather to expand it!

If you don't see the logic in this, there's something that might help. Just listen to Obama as he strings together impressive sounding words, mixed in with a healthy dose of "change" and "believe" and "this is our time", etc. etc. etc. and eventually, or so he hopes, you will be chanting the name of Obama and not using your logic and reasoning anymore. Isn't that what they call an automaton?

Conversation about homosexuality

Last night, I was with friends. They accused a man I know of being gay. He wasn't there and there's no evidence that he is gay, so I defended him and said he's not. Eventually a girl who was with us asked "So what if he is? Why do you care? What difference does it make?" Later, she said "Oh, you're religious aren't you..." This particular person makes statements like this and every now and then will remind people that she is not at all religious and in fact she seems rather anti-Christian.

There are several problems with her statements anyway. Her implication was that I am against gay people because I am religious and that's the only reason. All I said to her in response was that I am religious but that's not the point. The point is I don't think he is gay, so we shouldn't accuse him of that. If someone said she's "lesbian", would the better thing to do is just accept that, even if it's false?

I am not against gay people. I think God loves gay people just like he loves everyone else. With regards to sex and so on, I believe sex is reserved for a man and a woman inside marriage. Anything outside of this is immoral. When it comes to immoral sexual behavior, anyone could potential fall into that category. If a self-identified "gay" person falls into that category, so be it, but others can just as easily.

I think God created marriage as the union of a man and a woman for love between spouses and a good environment for children. Sex ought to be inside this marriage because outside of it, it is not a good environment for the raising of children. I do not think sex and procreation can be completely divorced. God has linked them together. So therefore, sex has a natural consequence of conception. A conception should only happen within the loving bond of a couple who have made a lifelong commitment to each other. Isn't this so beautiful? Isn't a child most loved in this special place? I think so.

It is an unfair statement to say I am against gay people. What is more accurate is to say I am against anything which involves sex outside of marriage. This could be adultery, fornication, masturbation, rape, incest, and homosexual sex. That means I am not just sitting on my pedestal condemning people, because I too am vulnerable to many of these sins. I am not immune to them.

I think to say someone is against gay people because they are religious is avoiding the issue. My religion is against homosexual activity, not just because it decided this haphazardly. The Catholic Church is against this because it is not for the good of society. But the Catholic Church is against many types of illicit sexual behavior.

We all have a narrow path to walk. Let's follow the course set out by Christ.

First Saint Canonized this day in 993

In 993, Ulrich of Augsburg was the first person to be canonized in the process we use today, by the Pope. Prior to this time, we had many saints in the Church, but they were declared saints by local acclaim or by the bishop of that area. All people called saint nowadays are canonized by the Pope.

A good resource for information on this saint is Wikipedia. Check out his article here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulrich_of_Augsburg

Great Article about divorce on CNN

There is a great article on CNN now about divorce and why it is so bad. Fatherlessness causes so many tragedies in our society. As I thought about this article, I realized something. There is a big push now for recognition of gay marriage, but I realized perhaps we as a society are to blame for this just as much as anyone else. We may try to blame the gay lobby for this, but really heterosexual people are just as guilty. I am referring to the fact that marriage has traditionally been not just been between a man and a woman, but also it has been about commitment to one another and a protected area in which to raise children.

Starting mostly with the birth control pill and the sexual revolution, people began seeing marriage not as an unbreakable union between a man and a woman for the protection and raising of a family, but rather as simply a personal contract between two people to legitamize a sexual union. Love, viewed as a fuzzy feeling between two people, became the glue of the marriage. Once that glue lost its stick, the marriage was on thin ice and often failed. Love should rightfully be a decision of the will. A decision to remain together in the good times and the bad. Marriage was reduced to a fuzzy feeling. It was no longer about children, and divorce became increasingly common. Because of this attitude that a marriage is just strong feelings between two people, how could society logically forbid same sex marriage? That's why I think we are partly to blame for this mess. If we said marriage is about not only love (love informed by reason and will), but also about a family, and the raising of children, we would have a much stronger ability to deny same sex marriage or any union that was inherently fruitless.

The Catholic Church recognizes this, much more than any other church. I am not saying this to be triumphalistic, as someone on Catholic Answers Live once pointed out. The Catholic Church would forbid a couple from marrying if they had decided at the onset that they were against having children. The Church also forbids the use of contraception because it violates God's plan for sexuality and renders a marriage infertile against God's will, no different than using a wheelchair when you are perfectly capable of walking, or worse, mutilating your body. The Church also forbids divorce, because they view marriage as an unbreakable bond between a man and a woman. These beliefs fly in the face of the opinion that a marriage is a contract of feelings between two people. I believe if the world accepted the Church's view of marriage, gay marriage would never even be seen as possible, nor would divorce or contraception, and there would be a strengthening of marriage so that people would be raised in a household with a mother and a father.

Please take a look at the CNN article:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/07/02/sears.family.divorce/index.html

Fr. John Corapi comes down hard on Canadian bishops

And for good reason.

Over 40 years ago, just after the pope issued Humanae Vitae, an encyclical which represented the church's teaching on contraception, abortion, and other life issues, the Canadian Bishops issued the infamous Winnipeg Statement, which went against the Church's official teaching. We should strive for unity in the Church, and we now know that contraception leads to abortion. Click the link below to see what Fr. Corapi had to say about this:

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/jun/09063008.html

Happy Canada Day

I'm finding it a little harder these days to say Happy Canada Day. Canada is a great place to live. It has great health care for everyone (most of the time), we have good public services, it is generally clean, it is equitable, good human rights, etc. So all in all, it is a good country. But this good country is going the wrong way in some cases. Specifically in the areas of same sex marriage, embryonic stem cell research, abortion, contraception, and religious freedom. On all these counts, I give Canada a failing grade.

Same sex marriage, embryonic stem cell research, abortion, and contraception violate human dignity and should not be allowed. They are all part of the culture of death. Another issue which seems to be trying to make a breakthrough is euthanasia. Canada seems to be lightening its stance of assisted suicide and euthanasia. This will contribute further to the degrodation of human rights in our country. Another issue is free speech. A Canadian priest was brought to court for hate speech just because he proclaimed the Church's constant teaching on homosexuality and the purpose of marriage, etc. This is despicable. Other areas which we will need to keep an eye on are Canada's laxity when it comes to child pornography and its loosening of drug laws.

So all in all, Canada is a good place to live, but there are many areas where it is failing. Overall, I would give Canada a C.

Ironic man speaks about Madoff

I wrote an article about Bernard Madoff wondering if he should be sent to prison for 150 years with violent criminals. I found this clip of a man who spent 10 years in prison and now acts as a consultant for people like Madoff. He helps people understand what they will experience in prison. Everything in the interview was fine, until this man showed a complete lack of understanding or sensitivity. I was rather shocked actually. Take a look at this clip, especially the last 10 to 15 seconds.



I think we as Christians should set a good example when it comes to this stuff. He said he's Jewish, but even Jews must be compassionate. We must never as Christians wish that someone goes to Hell. Ultimately even if we do not have fuzzy feelings for someone, we can never hope for their eternal separation from God.

A new movie featuring Jim Caviezel

There is a new movie featuring Jim Caviezel coming out called The Stoning of Soraya M.

My question is, will Jim Caviezel, who played Jesus Christ in the Passion of the Christ movie say at any point in the film "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"?

A point this movie brings up, or should, is that just because something is cultural does not make it right. Catholicism is a morally objective or absolute religion. It does not believe murder is wrong only for certain cultures. Take abortion for example. We do not say abortion is wrong only when there's no good reason, but if the mother is in a bad financial situation or if she wants to have a career first, then it's ok. That's moral relativism, and it's something Cardinal Ratzinger warned us about before the Papal Conclave which elected him. Therefore, we must object to the stoning of people for it is barbaric and wrong. Check out the preview:

Obama likens gay movement to civil rights movement

Obama has betrayed his African-American heritage by comparing the civil rights movement, a legitimate movement, with the gay rights movement. If they were on par with each other, the majority of black people would not support legislation to ban same-sex marriage, which they do. The civil rights movement was completely necessary because black people were regarded as lower class citizens. They could not vote, they could not go into many shops, they were forced to the back of the bus, they were segregated and racism was prevalent. None of these things are true for homosexual people. The civil rights movement has taken place, and black people have as many rights as everyone else. Are there still racists and white supremacists? Of course there are. But that's not something you can legislate away. Gay people have all the rights of everyone else. There may still exist people who dislike gay people or treat them poorly, but that does not mean they have fewer rights. Many groups suffer at the hands of others. The difference in this case is that the goal of the gay rights movement is to force everyone to accept changes to society that they do not want.

The gay rights movement is not happy to recognize their own love for each other, they want everyone else to accept it as well, and they want to use the word marriage to describe their union. But it goes much further than this. They want to change school books to say that homosexual relationships are just as normal and morally acceptable as heterosexual partners. There have been cases of priests who speak about the Church's constant teaching on sexual morality who have been brought to court for hate crimes. Adoption agencies have been forced to adopt children to gay couples against their morals, or shut down. Many have unfortunately shut down.

I believe gay marriage can actually be bad for gay people, click here to find out why: http://holymotherchurch.blogspot.com/2009/04/why-legalizing-gay-marriage-hurts-gay_25.html

I've also discussed this topic at some length at: http://holymotherchurch.blogspot.com/2009/06/thanks-mr-obama-for-ruining-my-birthday.html

We must love people who have homosexual feelings, just like we must love everyone else, but we must also not be afraid to speak the truth.

Bernard Madoff gets 150 years in prison

Bernard Madoff was responsible for financial crimes in which he stole billions of dollars from people. He said he would help with their investments, but he did no such things. I do not know a lot of the details of the case. Theft is a serious crime, but is it as serious as murder? For the crimes he committed, Madoff was sentenced to 150 years in prison. He is already 71 years old, so the chances of him living that long are pretty well non-existent. But is this an appropriate sentence? His lawyers argued that he had a remaining life expectancy of 13 more years. They requested a sentence of 12 years so he could get out and have about a year left. I think this would have been more appropriate. I am always critical of sentencing people for long periods of time for financial crimes. They are not a physical threat to people, just financial. I believe a more appropriate punishment would be to cap his earnings or to take away his ability to have anything to do with investments. I believe the punishment should fit the crime. Being locked away for 150 years with violent criminals does not seem appropriate no matter how much money he stole.

I seem to be a little outnumbered in my opinion that Madoff's sentence was too harsh. On a CNN poll, 57% of respondents felt he had received a fair sentence, 34% said no penalty is harsh enough and just 9% felt his sentence was too harsh.

I want to clarify that I think what Madoff did was terrible and worthy of punishment. I am simply wondering if this particular punishment was appropriate given the crime.

In any event, let us pray for Madoff and his victims, that they may find true reward with God and his eternal promises.

My birthday and why I am grateful to God

Today is my 27th birthday. It shares a feast with St. Iraeneus, an early saint of the church who defended her against heresy. I have much to be thankful for. I will try to list some of the things I give thanks for now in my blog.

I give thanks to God - the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. God's love is why I am here. Without God, I would be nothing. Everything I have to be thankful for is only because God has created it. He even created my ability to love. Only by his love can I ever love.

I am thankful to the saints. I am thankful to Mother Teresa, and Padre Pio. I am thankful to St. Francis of Assisi and Thomas Aquinas and all the other saints. I am thankful to the Gospel writers. I am thankful to Mary, the Mother of God, Our Lady of Perpetual Help.

I am thankful for my girlfriend Manasi. She could not be here to celebrate my birthday with me but she will be back soon. She loves me a lot and I love her.

Praise God for all my friends, and my family. I am thankful to those who have taught me the faith.

I am thankful for:

- the sacraments
- beautiful days, as well as rainy days
- joy and suffering
- the high and the lowly
- prayers
- Christ's love for each of us

I thank God for giving me so much. God's love sometimes overwhelms me and I begin to weep. God, so far beyond our comprehension came to Earth to suffer and die for us. Now he is with us in the Eucharist. We receive him with joy and thanks. Words fail to appreciate the wonders God has done. He is Lord of All, Creator of the Universe, yet he loves us so profoundly, we can never imagine his love for us. Even when we disobey his commands and run away like children, God smiles upon us and invites us back. We do not deserve this love. We would not deserve one drop of Christ's blood, but he gave not one drop, but every drop. He poured himself out completely for our sake. He was scouraged at the pillar, then carried his own cross upon which he was crucified and died. For what? For us. We, who said crucify him, we who disobey him, we who sin against him. He died for each and everyone of us. Even if there was just one person on Earth, Jesus would have been whipped and scouged at the pillar almost till death, then carried the heavy cross on his broken body. Yes, even for one. But more painful than all of these tortures was the pain of our sins. He bore all our sins, so that we can have the hope of Heaven. For this I am eternally thankful.

The priest took 21 steps, but it was supposed to be 22!

I was reading a blog the other night and the commentator seemed very harsh and critical of Catholics. He was saying they are too liberal, they want a lot of changes in the church such as female ordination, they want to decrease the role of the priest, they want more lay participation, they want more ideas expressed at Mass, they want less dogma, etc. These are serious issues, surely, but we as Christians must also be careful not to automatically be critical of everything and to understand the essence of what's happening.

I believe it is important to notice liturgical abuses, but it is also possible to go overboard. While at Mass, we ought to be in a prayerful and contemplative state. We should listen attentively to the Word of God, and receive Christ's body, blood, soul, and divinity with the proper reverence. This should be our main focus. Since this is our focus, we should not necessarily notice every detail of the rubrics. By focusing too much on possible abuses, we can detract from our real purpose, which is the worship of God.

It is good to sometimes remember that God wants to make himself accessible to us. He realizes that we are human and fallible and that sometimes people will do things wrong. But he does not want to exclude us from his sacraments. I've often said that extraordinary ministers of holy communion are overused. But I should focus on the fact that I am receiving Jesus Christ into my body at the time of communion. If all I notice is that I am being served by a lay person, I will lose the significance of the act. Or if I go to confession, perhaps the priest will hurry me along and I won't be able to say every sin. God understands this and offers absolution anyway.

I believe by acting with a high level of reverence and by following the guidelines and spirit of the Mass and other church events, more people would seek the Truth, but I also believe it goes against how we should act if we spend all our time noticing "issues".

Finally, let us remember that one of the spiritual works of mercy is to "bear wrongs patiently". That means we sometimes do not become upset or angry when something happens, but rather we "offer it up" to God. We may notice things we do not like, but we try to smile anyway, and act as loving as possible. It's like a saying I once heard, that people will not care how much you know until they know how much you care. We must always have love in our hearts before we try to correct someone's behavior. I need to remember this as much as anyone.

Jon and Kate from a Catholic perspective

Jon and Kate, from the popular reality show called Jon and Kate Plus Eight are allegedly separating and eventually divorcing after 10 years of marriage and 8 children. They say they are arguing a lot and that it's not good for the children. But I think one thing that is surely worse is divorce. Divorce is never the answer and Jesus specifically forbade it. He said if a man divorces his wife, and she goes to be with another man, she is committing adultery.

God gave us the sacraments as a visible sign of invisible grace. I believe marriage represents God's love for us, like all sacraments do. But God wil never leave us, no matter what. Even when we disobey him, when we sin against him, no matter what we do, God welcomes us back. When people get married, they make a commitment to stay together for better or for worse, not until the other one does something I don't like. Because God would never leave his people, spouses should never separate.

But what about if a spouse is abusive or if one stops loving the other? Well, love is a choice of the will, or should be. It's not a fuzzy feeling. It's a decision. If a spouse abuses the other, then the abused spouse can leave, but they still made a lifelong commitment. If a brother hurts his sister, she cannot stop being his sister. She can stay away from him though. The abused spouse should leave and be safe, but the lifelong bond is not broken. Regardless, most couples do not divorce because they are being abused. They divorce because they are not having fun anymore.

I also acknowledge that the Church recognizes the possibility that a marriage was not valid to start with. If there is a pre-existing situation which rendered the couple incapable of entering into a valid marriage, then it can be said to be null. This is where the term annulment comes from. There are many reasons a marriage might not have been valid. Perhaps one of the partners was immature, was coerced into marriage, was under some kind of influence, etc. Other reasons are that one spouse has predetermined that he will be unfaithful or was not making a lifelong commitment. Also, if a spouse was closed to the possibility of children. There are many reasons for a possible annulment. These are sad cases as well, but they indicate the couple was not truly able to marry and therefore the marriage they believed they were involved with was not real.

If a marriage is valid and you make a commitment, what does that mean? If a man says he'll always stand by his wife's side, does this mean only when he has a fuzzy feeling about her? Like Jesus said, you have heard it said to love your friends and hate your enemies, well I say love your enemies. It is similar in this case. Jon and Kate ought to love each other beyond fuzzy feelings. They made a commitment, an oath. If this oath can be broken nilly-willy, then it wasn't an oath to start with.

But the people who will lose out the most in this case are the children. People should be married before they have children because a child grows up best with a mother and a father in a single household. A divorce causes enormous stress and instability to the life of a child. If mommy leaves daddy, maybe she's abandon me as well. It's a very sad situation. People sometimes mock those who "stay together for the kids". Well, why not? What is a better alternative? Let's finish this sentence. Instead of staying together for the kids, maybe they should split up to find a better sex partner. This puts things into perspective. Give me the other reasons why people divorce. Maybe they don't feel the attraction. Maybe they have grown apart. Well, are these reasons equal or more important than the emotional, mental and spiritual growth of their children? I don't think so.

Finally, divorcees have been shown to fair much worse than those who stay together. Couples who are contemplating divorce but stay together are almost always happier 5 years later than couples who decide to split up.

I do not know all the details behind Jon and Kate's marriage, and I am only going on what I do know. I understand there are many circumstances in which people feel there is no choice but divorce. We ought to pray for these people. I do not wish to condemn these people either. In fact, I want to recomment what is best for them. I do not believe allowing divorce is the most compassionate thing to do. A valid couple loved each other at some point and this love ought to be selfless, and therefore it can be rekindled. Again, it a very sad situation when a couple thinks about divorce. I hope they make the right decision.

I believe Jon and Kate ought to try to resolve things and stay together to raise their family like they committed to doing. Let's keep them in our prayers so that they will do not their will, but God's will in this matter.

Farrah Fawcett and David Carradine

One of my favorite actors died a couple of weeks ago, David Carradine, who played Kwai Chang Caine in Kung Fu and Kung Fu the Legend Continues. That was one of my favorite shows, and I even liked the reruns a lot.

And today, not only Michael Jackson, but also Farrah Fawcett died. She died of anal cancer. She will be buried in a Catholic cemetery and is Catholic herself. I am not sure the name of the cemetery.

May all these people go on to experience God's love in heaven.

Michael Jackson, Requiescat in pace

I just heard that Michael Jackson has died, or at least that's the news that is being reported by L.A. Times. I feel very sad for Michael. It's sad that he died at a young age. I also feel sad because a lot of the accusations against him were unproven and he won the court cases in which he appeared. I do not think we should judge Michael Jackson or say he was a bad person. He had a very great influence on the world and he had a lot of fans. I really do think he had a good heart. Many fans have gathered outside the hospital where he is resting right now. Michael Jackson is a world star and he will be missed.

May the soul of Michael Jackson and of all the departed, through the mercy of God, rest in peace. Amen.

Before you criticize Bush too much, listen to these words...

People have been very fond of criticizing President Bush, but before you do that, please listen to his words here. They are very powerful. Notice he also defends life, without saying doing so is above his pay-grade.

A New Priest in St. John's, Newfoundland

A great sign of hope has taken place in Newfoundland. Philip Melvin, a 30-year old Mobile, Newfoundland & Labrador native was ordained to the sacerdotal priesthood last night at the Basilica of St. John the Baptist, appropriately on that saint's feast day, June 24, 2009. The ceremony was very beautiful. Many signs and symbols of an invisible reality were present. First, Philip's intentions, desire, and suitability to be a ministerial priest were confirmed by questions from the bishop. He was then ordained in the ancient custom of laying on of hands. After Archbishop Martin Currie laid his hands on Philip Melvin, the other priests (which seemed to number around 30 or 40) laid their hands on his head also and gave him their blessing.

Later, the archbishop blessed the hands of this new priest with holy chrism. This is to symbolize that Philip's hands will now be used to perform sacred mysteries, or sacraments. These hands will hold the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist, they will be laid on the heads of penitents, these hands will touch a child's head as he is being baptized, they will give blessings to those who are ill. These hands are now holy hands, and holy oil is a most appropriate sign of this.

Philip Melvin promised to remain faithful to his vows of chastity, poverty, and obedience. Many do not understand how someone can do this, but Christ reassures those who do. He says those who can give up marriage for the kingdom of God should do so and are blessed. Paul also recommends celibacy for those who find it possible. We must remember that God's ways are not our ways.

After Philip was ordained, there was a reception at St. Bonaventure's College, located right next to the Basilica. There was a large crowd, including many priests and seminarians. I met up with a friend I met 2 years ago, Francis Zambon. I met him at the Youth Summit in Quebec City, which was a preparatory event for the Eucharistic Congress in the same city one year later. He and several other seminaries are staying at St. Teresa's church, my home church, in St. John's.

Let us all say a special prayer to strengthen Philip Melvin every day in his vocation to this most holy office. May his role as minister of God bring peace and joy to everyone he comes into contact with.

The double-standards of "pro-choice"

A one-day old baby was found in a shoebox with holes poked in it, in the lobby of an apartment building. The baby had to go to the hospital, but was in good condition. The mother is being sought out and will probably be charged with a felony if she is ever caught. If the day before she had gone to an abortion mill and had the baby killed, she would be let off scott free. Apparently, letting your baby live is a worse crime. In fact, the former is not a crime at all. This is very sad. In the news story it says the residents were outraged and there is a general sense of sadness. Do they not realize that their state and country murders millions of babies each year? These babies that are murdered are only a couple of days younger than this one. In fact, they may be older. I am not sure if this baby was full term. If he was born after 8 months of pregnancy, then many of the babies who are aborted would be older than him.

But where's the outrage for the unborn babies? Babies who are only different from the one in the news because they haven't come out from the birth canal yet. Many police officers will be dispatched to deal with this case, hundreds of hours will be spent, many concerned groups will seek out help for this child. Everyone thinks this is good, and it is! But if someone were to declare themselves pro-life or to say pre-born children deserve to live, they are sometimes ridiculed, insulted, and harrassed by the same people who are champions for the cause of this little one.

On top of that, while it is a tragedy that this baby was left in a shoebox, it appears the mother's intention was not for the baby to die. She did not kill the baby. She left him there with holes in the shoebox. Obviously this is very dangerous, but at least the intention wasn't murder. The intention of abortion IS murder. It is the deliberate killing of a child. How ironic that this woman would be sent to prison for months or years, yet those who murder their children with full awareness are not penalized and are even praised for making a good "choice".

Let's create a culture in which ALL children are respected and loved!

For the story, go here:
http://www.nbc-2.com/Articles/readarticle.asp?articleid=31231&z=69

Atheist Fallacy - "I just believe in one less God than you do"

Today I saw the quote that was something along the lines of an atheist is not so different from a theist, he just believes in one less God than the theist. It's been elaborated to say the theist has dismissed all other "gods" and has chosen to believe in one particular God, but the atheist has simply gone one step further and renounced all gods. At first it sounds like it makes sense, but upon further investigation, it is total nonsense. Let me explain why.

Every culture on the face of the planet has historically believed in God. Many are polytheistic, others are monotheistic, while still others are pantheistic. While they differ on the specifics of what God is like, there is no disagreement that there was some divine entity in the universe. The atheist presents a worldview devoid of God, as opposed to a worldview with God in it. That is the essential difference. Atheists will often try to show that there are thousands of different ideas about God, and they can't all be correct so how can you believe a theist? Well, that's not the point. If everyone has some idea of God, then our question should be what is God really like, not does God exist. An analogy to this would be a man has a wife. Various people have encountered her in different ways. For example, some have heard her on the phone, others have seen pictures of her, some have met her in person, some grew up with her, some met her in later life. Just say 100 people know this woman through one of these methods. If you had a meeting and invited all these 100 people and asked about this man's wife, no one would say she doesn't exist or that the man is single. They may have various ideas about her, some of which may be correct, others which may be false, but the question of whether she exists never comes up, nor should it.

Also, some people may say she has red hair, others might say blond, some may say black, and some may say brown. Now, just say 25% of people believe in each of these colours. If her hair is actually red, those who believe her hair is red would be correct. If the people who believe her hair is red could show why others are wrong, then they could show others their error. For example, those who think her hair is black may have seen a black and white photo. Those who thought it was brown, perhaps the film was tinted. May those who thought it was blond thought so because the picture they saw was too bright. But this does not mean that everyone is wrong because they have different opinions. It just means one knows the truth. And they all know some truth about her.

The statement tries to make a Christian's belief seem very precarious. It presents the Christian as picking oranges from a tree because he believes each one he comes across is spoiled, or has some error and needs to be removed. After removing dozens of oranges, just one remains. The theist looks at it and accepts it, but almost out of a sense that it's the last straw. If he picks this last orange, there are no oranges left. At first he went about picking all the oranges off the tree without even thinking about it much, but now that there's only one left, he defends it with everything he has. The atheist is then presented as being the brave one who sees one last orange and picks it off as quickly as he did the rest. The problem here is that atheism is also an orange. Atheism too is a worldview. In fact, if anything is precarious, it's the atheist point of view. Every orange on the tree has in common a belief in God, but atheist is the lone fruit that does not. Of all the possibilities, 99% are theist and 1% are atheist. This tree of humanity has produced a God-centered people, and the only abnormality is the atheistic point of view. It's the shriveled up fruit that's barely clinging to life.

A point which needs to be made is that the idea presented here is that a theist dismisses all theories about the universe except the Christian one, but how is this different from everything in the field which atheists love so much - science. Before something in the realm of science is shown conclusively, there are dozens or hundreds of theories. Take for instance heliocentrism and its causes. Various cultures believed different things about this issue. Some believed the Sun revolved around the Earth. Others believed the Sun was a divine being that went around the Earth. Some believed the Earth revolved around the sun. As to how it happened, there were many theories also. Some thought the planets had minds of their own. Some believed they were connected by invisible connectors. Some thought God just continually willed the planets to arrange themselves in a certain pattern. Copernicus and Gallelio later identified exactly what happened and how, and with the help of Isaac Newton and his laws of gravity, further insight was given. Out of the hundreds of theories which circulated about the Earth (excuse the pun), only one was correct. This is the case with everything in science. There are always many theories and one proves to be true. One theory which did not emerge however from the heliocentric debate was that the Earth and the Sun do not exist. It would be silly for me to say, "You as a scientist have dismissed all theories about the Earth and the Sun, except one. I have simply gone a step further and dismissed all possibilities."

An important point to emphasize is that my heritage as a Catholic leads me to say I accept all things from other religions which are true. I do not say I dismiss absolutely everything that comes from other religions and accept my own. If someone believes in God, I accept that. If someone believes in helping each other, I accept that. If someone believes in life after death I accept that as well. I do not say Muslims and Jews are completely false. I say they have much truth. So do Hindus and Buddhists. As any scientist will tell you, if something is true, then something which is opposed to this, is false.

As we do specifically during Easter, let us pray for those who do not yet believe in God. He believes in everyone, and wants them to love him like he loves them so much. Mary, Mother of God, lead all people to your son, Jesus Christ. Amen.

What's worse Angels and Demons or Gorefest the Movie?

We as Christians are asked to live in the world, but not be of the world. We should not revel in sinful activities and should instead seek Christ and his teachings which come from his Church. So, how are we to react to mainstream media, including movies? Are we to become proverbial Stylites and move away from society, by building emotional and spiritual towers, in order to avoid occasions of sin? How does this relate to movies?

In today's world, movies are inundated with drugs, sex, violence, foul language, and profanity. Sometimes it seems completely gratuitous, without rhyme or reason, added simply to titillate viewers. Sometimes films which lack creative power will resort to cheap tricks to mask its obvious shortfalls. Every second word is F* this or F* that. Romantic relationships are not implied but rather graphically displayed on screen. How should we react to this?

I believe we should avoid these films IF they have no creative or artistic raison-d'etre. Obvious examples are pornographic or extremely gory movies. Movies such as these are an assault to our sensibilities. They may even have the ability to dull our sense of justice. But I do not think we should avoid all movies simply because they contain objectionable material. We still live in the world, and as we know, often this world is not a pretty place. There is war, famine, sexual abuse, violence, foul language, and profanity. If a film's purpose is to portray something that's real, it would not make sense to distort reality. For example, to portray a drug dealers who is overly polite to his customers or for a war to involve people playing dodgeball and exclaming "shucks" whenever they are hit. This would not be realisitic.

Take a movie like Schindler's List. This movie shows graphic war scenes, it shows violence and despair, but it is based on reality. They are not simply adding these things to make money. These are realistic adaptations of truth. Similarly with the Pianist, which shows the sinfullness of Naziism. One of my favorite movies of all time is The Passion of the Christ. Many said it was far too violent. But my opinion was that the violence made the message all the more powerful. Had the director made Christ walk effortlessly with the Cross and then painlessly be crucified, many would be left wondering why anyone would have a devotion to the Cross of Christ. How would the imagery of the New Testament make any sense? When Christ said take up your cross and follow me, would he mean do something easy? As I've elaborated on in a previous article, my favorite part of the Passion of the Christ movie was when Mary rushes to assist her child who is suffering tremendously. He lifts himself from the ground, his face covered in blood, gasping for air, and he says "Behold, I make all things new." This is so powerful and it would not have been possible without the previous violence of the film.

I believe there are movies with no foul language, violence, or sex which are potentially far more problematic than ones that contain them all in spades. These movies may even be rated G. Movies like the Da Vinci Code, Angels and Demons, the Compass, and the Harry Potter series have much more potential for harm. The Da Vinci Code and Angels and Demons are problematic because they try to pass off falsehoods as truth. Sure, everyone knows the movies themselves are fictitious, but what people do not realize is that the background information is false. For example, when Tom Hank's character says the Vatican killed a famous scientist because he taught the heliocentric model, therefore Mr. Langdon has to investigate this, well people who know no history from that period will likely not believe Mr. Langdon is a real investigator, but they may very well take for granted that the Vatican really did kill the famous scientist. Similarly, if someone in a movie says "Let's go to the capital of Canada, Toronto", not many people will say well, this is a fictional movie, so I will not believe Toronto is the capital. Of course, the capital is Ottawa, but many would be led to believe otherwise.

Then you have a movie like the Compass, which blatantly promotes atheism to children. Sure, it's rated G or PG, but the content is absolutely unsuitable. Children cannot logically think about the claims made in the film. When the film attacks the Catholic Church or Christianity, the children may not even be aware of the issues they raise, but what happens when their parents tell them about the Church, but the children have heard many falsehoods already about her. They may believe the lie more than the truth. Harry Potter is along the same vein, because it promotes the illicit practice of witchcraft which is against Christianity, but it is targeted to youngsters. These films bring people to the near occassion of sin, and cause people who are not very familiar with the truth to potentially drift away from their faith. This is the sin of scandal and it is very serious.

In the final analysis, I believe movies with objectionable material can be viewed assuming they have some value. But I would advise people with children to be very careful what they watch. Even, for them to be careful what they themselves watch. If you are going to watch a religious-themed movie, make sure you know the truth first. And I would also advise those who make movies to be careful about leading the young ones into sin or deceit, Jesus said it would be better to have a millstone tied around your neck and be cast into the ocean.

The Human-Animal Fallacy

The Human-Animal Fallacy is a term I invented myself. I do not know if any research has ever been done on this topic or if this idea generally exists. I know the principles behind it certainly exist and it is well-founded in Christian and specifically Catholic teaching. The idea behind the Human-Animal Fallacy is a modern belief that if it's good enough for animals, it's good enough for humans, or that if we ought not do something with humans, the same applies to animals. Essentially this fallacy says that there are no distinctions between the dignity rightfully given to a person and that which is rightfully given to an animal. This philosophy may not sound too bad, but it is actually very dangerous. Accepting that human beings are special is very important.

In an article many years ago, author Farley Mowat called the annual seal hunt a holocaust. Of course, his intention was to show that the seal hunt was cruel and inhumane and ought to be stopped.  But what happened was people reacted angrily that he would compare killing seals to killing humans. This outrage is not common enough as far as I'm concerned. Anytime an animal is compared to a human person, we do injustice to humanity. We ought to love and respect animals, but not to the point that we respect humanity.

Whenever you turn on the TV nowadays, another celebrity is out campaigning to save the whales, or save the dolphins. Perhaps they are flying to Newfoundland in their private jets to put an end to the seal hunt. Maybe you've seen models in PETA commercials comparing wearing fur to committing murder. I spoke to a lady at work one time who said she feels bad when an animal is hurt, but is not bothered too much when a person is injured because "the person probably brought it on themselves" according to her.

Not only have people started to equate animal suffering to human suffering, they have begun to see animal suffering as far more problematic. In their way of thinking, animals are completely innocent beings who are being hurt by malevolent people who care nothing for nature. These poor innocent creatures do not deserve to be treated poorly at our hands. However, when it comes to people, well, they probably deserve it.

Although animal rights activists may have the goal of creating a better world for animals, this has not been the effect. Rather, we have only started to treat humans with less dignity. Our Catholic faith teaches us that we are stewards of the animal and plant kingdom and that they are here to serve us. We ought not abuse animals unnecessarily, but their primary purpose is to advance the cause of humanity. We have dominion over the earth and all her inhabitants. Then, we as humans are the pinnacle of creation on this Earth. A human life is more valuable than an animal life. Attempts to increase the worth of humans has had only a negative effect on humanity. People are now valued based on what they DO rather than who they ARE. This used to be the criterion used for animals. If a horse was productive, he was valuable. But if a horse broke his leg, he did not provide value and therefore it was most advantageous to put him down in a humane way. But now we are using this mentality for humans.

For example, we now ask what value a particular elderly person might have for us. We have decided that many elderly people cannot work, cannot support themselves, so many are trying to pass euthanasia laws. This would allow us to eliminate the humans who are not "adding" to the world. Same goes for unborn children. If a child has the promise to bring great joy and fulfillment to a mother's life, then she will value and love that child. But if a mother has not specifically desired a child, a question arises as to whether she should "keep" it. In other words, should she have an abortion. Unfortunately, most abortions happen because a child is not something a mother "wants" at a particular time. This stance would be unthinkable if a person's value came not from what they "do" but rather from who they are. This would cause euthanasia and abortion to be unconscionable.

Seeing human beings as means of production rather than as special creatures made in the image and likeness of God has allowed many genocides and mass murders to occur, including the holocaust. Lines are being continually blurred between humanity and animals. I once saw a cartoon that showed an egg being broken open and the yolk coming out with a faded superimposed picture of a baby over it with the words "abortion?" The image meant to convey that breaking an egg is tantamount to abortion.

How many people have been lured into donating all their time and money to helping animal shelters to the point of neglecting human suffering. I believe animals can experience pain, but the question remains whether they can experience true suffering. Suffering would seem to be a rational realization and comparison between what is and what ought to be. Suffering involves mental trauma and distress. Can animals be attributed these characteristics? Perhaps animals perceive pain and have instincts to guide them in their actions, but can they really contemplate the existential nature of the pain they are experiencing? Regardless, this is not the issue.

The point is we need to make the proper distinction between animals and humans. I believe we ought to treat animals with love and respect, but only to the point their natures and being would merit. We should save a child before we save any animal. Even if the choice is between a thousand rare rhinos and one child, I believe we are morally obligated to save that child, rather than any number of animals.

Let us contemplate this day on our Godly image and likeness, and remember that Christ died for us so that we can join him in Heaven.

Special night at St. Teresa's

Last night was a very special time. Redemptorists from all across Canada met at St. Teresa's for their provincial English-speaking meeting. I went to the Mass and reception afterward. There were 10 Redemptorist priests and the archbishop of St. John's, Martin Currie. It was especially touching at the end of Mass, when Archbishop Currie was speaking about his near-death experience. Earlier this year, his grace was at home when the area was filled with carbon monoxide. The bishop was asleep and would have died, only someone wondered why he was not yet at Mass. They rushed to his room and found him clinging to life. He was rushed to the emergency room of the hospital and later sent to intensive care.

The archbishop broke down, unable to control his tears, as he recalled how near death, Our Lady of Perpetual Help held out her hand and told him she would lead him. He said it was her intercession that saved his life. This reminds me of Pope John Paul II's assassination attempt. He also experienced a vision of the Virgin, this time as Our Lady of Fatima. He had a special devotion to her, and an M was on his emblem representing the Virgin. Martin Currie, bishop of St. John's and Grand Falls, is lucky to be alive and he believes it was due in part to Mary's intercession.

Another highlight of my night was the reception which followed Mass. We got to see many great priests who have been part of the St. Teresa's community for decades. Fr. Tom Kelly was celebrating his 55th year as a priest, and Fr. Jim Davis was celebrating his 65th year as a Redemptorist and 60th year as a priest.

At the reception, I had a great chat with Fr. Mark Miller, who is a bioethicist and moral theologian. We talked about everything from suicide, to euthanasia, to embryonic stem cell research, to Terry Shiavo, and more. It was very enlightening.

The priests who were there were as follows (from memory):

Fr. Mike Brehl
Fr. Tom Kelly
Fr. Steve Morrissey
Fr. Leo English
Fr. Tom O'Rourke
Fr. Charlie Goakery
Fr. Mark Miller
Fr. Remi Hebert
Fr. Jon Hansen
Fr. Jim Davis
and
Abp. Martin Currie

Last night also marked the first day for the Novena to Our Lady of Perpetual Help. It ends on her feast day on June 27th, the eve of my birthday. May Our Lady touch your life like she has touched the lives of Archbishop Currie and Pope John Paul II.

Anti-catholicism once again rears its ugly head

I just had to post this great article by Michael Coren. I saw it in The Interim, Canada's pro-life newspaper. I searched for it online and found it on The National Post website. I am posting it from there onto my blog. Here it is:

Michael Coren: Anti-papal hypocrisy spreads faster than AIDS
Posted: March 31, 2009, 7:30 AM by NP Editor

Michael Coren, Full Comment

The attacks upon the Roman Catholic Church in the last two weeks following the Pope’s comments about the dangers of condom use in Africa in the attempt to prevent AIDS have been an extraordinary lesson in applied ignorance and the survival of prejudice. Talk-radio hosts who have long callously and naively blamed Africans for all of Africa’s sufferings suddenly become champions of the continent. Doctors and academics who have shown no previous concern for the plight of Africa are instantly transformed into experts and partisans. It is enough to make one weep. The weeping, however, should be for Africa rather than a bunch of anti-Catholic hypocrites.

Some context first. AIDS had smashed its way through Africa for almost two generations before many people in Europe or North America had even heard of it. It was killing poor black people many miles away and nobody matters less to the wealthy whites than poor blacks many miles away. It was only when the disease was brought into the male homosexual community of the United States that the likes of Elizabeth Taylor became so emotional on television and numerous actors, politicians and public figures made AIDS one of the most fashionable causes in modern times.

Indeed, AIDS is a fascinating case-study in itself in that, while politicized statistics and agenda-driven activists try to tell us otherwise, AIDS in the West is still largely a concern for gay men and intravenous drug-users. Remember the dramatic announcement from Canadian health officials that the AIDS rate had doubled in the mainstream community in one particular area? It had. From one person to two. But it is the suffering itself rather than the nature of the sufferer that should motivate us. Problem is, this philosophy was not applied when it was Africans rather than Californians in need.

That, at least, was the attitude of the Western elites — the very people now condemning the Roman Catholic Church. Yet it was the Church that was in Africa caring for people with AIDS when Hollywood and the Western media were more concerned with puppies and kittens. Even today, almost half of all Africans with AIDS are nursed by people working for the Roman Catholic Church. A Church, by the way, that has also called for all African debt to be forgiven and for a radical redistribution of wealth from north to south.

None of this is mentioned when Pope Benedict is attacked for his condemnation of the condom fetish. If we read the man’s statements, however, what we see is a sophisticated deconstruction of Western double-standards and a thoughtful critique of the failed attempt to control AIDS.
First, it’s not working. In countries where condoms are state-distributed, free and ubiquitous AIDS has not been controlled and is often spreading. Second, even where AIDS is less of an issue, such as in North America, the increased availability and use of condoms has coincided with an annual increase in STDs and so-called unwanted pregnancies. Third, one failure of a condom to work — and the failure rate is significant if not overwhelming — is not a mere mistake but a death sentence. Fourth, condoms enable promiscuity rather than encourage abstinence. And sexual activity is about more than mere intercourse; a cut finger or a small body wound can allow infection to occur.

Fifth, how dare we treat black people as if they were children. They are capable of self-control and all over Africa, most successfully but not exclusively in Uganda, there are elaborate, empathetic and extraordinarily successful abstinence programs that emphasize humanity rather than lust — a philosophy that runs directly contrary to the sexual gratification cult so favoured by some of the people in the West now so apoplectic at Pope Benedict’s comments.

Of course, there is more to this anti-papal neurosis than television comedians making jokes about celibate clergy and commentators assuming that they know far more about reality than a priest who has worked in an African city slum for forty years. Conventional wisdom has it that Africa has a population problem and that Africans can become “more civilized” if they have fewer children. It’s an organized and sometimes quite sinister campaign. Africa is, if anything, underpopulated and the problems of the continent have far more to do with Western greed, colonization, resources exploitation and arms sales than with family size. The Church has spoken out on these issues for decades and was, for example, one of the leading voices at the United Nations that persuaded the multinational pharmaceutical companies to make their anti-AIDS drugs generic and thus affordable in the Third World.

Paradox and lack of understanding rules the day. We applaud an obscenely wealthy American actress when she takes a black baby from Africa, but forget that the Hollywood values she epitomizes encourage loveless sex and treating one another as sexual objects rather than distinct individuals — the precise phenomenon that encourages the spread of AIDS. More than this, the solution to children living in poverty in Africa is not to remove the children but to remove the poverty. But there is never a camera crew around for that sort of thing.

It appears these days to be open season on Pope Benedict XVI. In that he leads an organization that is supposed to be a mirror held up to the world to reflect society’s failures and absurdities, the man must be doing a great deal right.

National Post

Michael Coren is an author and broadcaster.

Cher's daughter needs help, not "transistion"

Sonny Bono and Cher's daughter Chastity Bono needs medical and psychological help and not a sex change operation. Recently, the famous daughter of Cher and Sonny Bono has said she wants to "transistion" from a female to a male. In today's society, it might seem out of place to criticize this, and we are obliged to see it as a personal "choice", rather than a mistake.

But unless we recognize something as a problem, the people involved will never get the help they need. God does not make mistakes and give a male soul to a female body. The Catholic Church believes homosexual desires can be a burden on some people, but that they must strive to be pure and holy and live a chaste life.

This is what the catechism says on the issue:

Chastity and homosexuality

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,140 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."141 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.


It's sort of ironic that this woman's name is Chastity, since that's exactly what she's called to in life unless she can overcome her same-sex attraction and live out a heterosexual lifestyle.

If a disease or psychological illness is not seen as such, those in a similar situation will never get the help they so desperately need. Many people have overcome their same sex attraction and went on to lead a happy normal life.

There are many psychological issues which make people believe things which are not true concerning their bodies. For example, Body Integrity Identity Disorder is a psychological illness which causes an individual to believe he must remove one of his limbs. It is listed in the DSM-V. It would not be good to advise this person to remove a limb to satisfy their perceived affliction. This would be horrific. Attempting to mutilate oneself in this way is against our nature, but this is just a different kind of mutilation, just as a sex change operation is.

Another psychological illness listed in the DSM-V is Body dymosphic disorder. This illness causes people to imagine there is something in particular wrong with their body when in fact there is no disorder. It causes the individual great distress and psychological trauma. It is distinct from issues such as perceived obesity.

Many people, such as Michael Jackson and Jocelyn Wildenstein have undergone countless plastic surgeries believing they needed to change their bodies. We know the results can be quite unattractive.

What all these things have in common is that just because an individual feels they must fundamentally change their appearance, we mustn't automatically accept this and simply call it a "choice". A sex change operation is no different. There have been people who have believed they were meant to be animals, so they put themselves through countless surgeries to achieve a look like an animal. This of course does not mean God "accidentally" put them in the wrong species. We as humans are rational creatures with a rational soul, and can never be an animal.

The point is, our minds, bodies, sex, and soul are all united and coherent. Any attempt to toy with our nature is immoral and violates our design. We must always strive to become more perfect in our nature, not to deviate from it completely.

Thanks Mr. Obama for ruining my birthday!

Mr. Obama, the most pro-abortion, anti-family president in the history of the United States has declared June, my birthmonth, as LGBT pride month. That's right, not just one day, or even a week, but an entire month.

He has issued a press release marking the "event". In it, he presents gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered people as hard working Americans with good values who want to improve the country, who have been harrassed endlessly by conservative zealots bent on destroying their lives. He recalls an event 40 years ago when members of the LGBT community were harrassed, an event which he says had become "all too common". He says members of the LGBT community have made and continue to make lasting contributions to the fabric of American society. The specific example he gives is their fight against AIDS and HIV. He also says he will continue to fight for gay civil unions, the ability of LGBT people to adopt children, and to support LGBT "families" and "seniors". Obama sees these words as politically advantageous, but at what cost? Let me analyze this move on Obama's part in light of Catholic teaching.

Catholic teaching proclaims that the intent of marriage is to express the love of Christ and to raise children in a healthy environment. The marriage between a man and a woman is the only way to ensure the proper complementarity necessary for a child's growth. There is no such complementarity when both "parents" are of the same sex. Children naturally have the right to be raised by their parents. A gay couple can never give this option. There are circumstances where a child cannot be raised by his own parents, but this is the exception which society should work to prevent, rather than the rule. Artificially creating a "family" unit which does not involve both parents may seem politically advantageous, but it is not fair to a child. Some children are raised in foster homes. Many peopel are aware of the terrible circumstances many children must suffer in these situations. Many children go to sleep at night asking "Where's my mommy and daddy?" but the assumption has always been that if both parents came through and took the child back, that would be a victory for everyone. By making gay marriage "acceptable" as just one of many options, we take away the impetus to move toward natural families. It's the same as if we are fighting a disease for which there is no known cure. We must make those with this disease feel comfortable but always with the idea that some day we may find a cure and they can live without it. The disease in this case represents a child without his parents. But the LGBT movement for gay marriage is basically like saying this is not a disease anymore and no cure is necessary. We must stop looking for a cure because we do not acknowledge this as a disease. But guess what? Admit it or not, the disease remains. On top of all of this, there are other moral issues involved. If a gay couple wants a child of their own, they must be artificially inseminated (in the case of a woman). If a gay male couple wants a child of their own, one must illicitly use his sperm to produce an embryo. Creating babies in a test-tube, or outside the bond of true marriage is immoral. Not only that, many embryos are often destroyed in these procedures. Gay "families" always involve at least one form of immoral behavior. They cannot exist outside this context.

On the surface, the words of Obama do not sound too bad. They just seem to be asking people not to be discriminatory to people who are in the LGBT community, and on this note, the Catholic Church would agree. She says we must treat all people with love and respect, regardless of their behaviors. We must love and respect people from the LGBT community, but we must also keep in mind that they are doing something sinful, and that loving someone does not entail approving of all of their actions. But Obama is not just asking us to respect all people, he is making people who disagree with LGBT activism look like bigots and ignorant harrassers, who are just afraid of people who are different from them. This is a popular tactic being used by gay activists. Anyone who speaks out against gay marriage, homosexual behavior, gay adoption, or any other issue are simply labeled as a bigot and dismissed. But this doesn't happen for any other group. If I campaign against child sex slavery, I am not labeled a bigot, even if I may not be involved in this whole scene. I would say 99% of people who disagree wtih gay marriage and gay adoption have no phobia of gay people whatsoever. If I meet a gay person, I do not run away in fear. I see them as a person and treat them with respect. But that doesn't mean I can't engage in a debate about whether gay marriage or gay adoption is right. I can also say a war is not justified even if I am not IN the war. I can say theft is immoral, even if I am not a thief or even if I have never had anything stolen by a thief. This is a fallacy that often crops up in the debate about gay marriage and abortion.

A popular slogan of the National Organization of Marriage is Gay and lesbian have the right to live as they choose, but they do not have the right to change marriage for everyone. And that's exactly what's at stake. The fight against gay marriage is not about not letting gay people live as they wish, it's about the impact it is having on our lives. I believe in the parents' natural law right to teach their own children. Therefore, if a gay person teaches his adopted child about gay marriage, then there's not much I can do about it (although in this case, since the child is not naturally his, you could argue he has less right to teach this child). But that's not what's at stake. What's at stake is what everyone else is allowed to do. The gay rights lobby is not satisfied with gay people living as they wish and straight people living as they wish. No, they want to change legislation so that people not only have to accept gay people, they should be forced to speak about gay marriage as though it is equal to marriage between a man and a woman. How?
Well, if gay marriage becomes legal, as well as gay adoption, as it is already in some places, a public school cannot legally say marriage is when a man and a woman fall in love and get married and have children. Now they must say marriage is when two individuals, be they a man and a woman, two women, or two men fall in love and are united by the state authority. Then when speaking about children, they can no longer just present a natural child birth, involving sex between a married couple which results in a child being conceived and eventually born. Now, they must present the act of having children as any number of possibilities. Anything from natural conception and birth to a process involving masturbation, in-vitro fertilization, surrogate motherhood, selective reduction (i.e. abortion), adoption, and possible payments at various stages of this process. This teaching will not be optional, but forced on the population.

People who have presented the constant teachings of the Church, the Church to whom Western civilization owes everything, have been persecuted. In Canada, a priest was charged for speaking against homosexuality. Never did he incite hatred or cause violence. Rather, he presented the constant teaching of the church on the issue and said it is incompatible with Christianity. In Massachuttsetts, the largest adoption agency in the state was the Catholic adoption service. A gay couple went there to adopt a child, but the organization refused because it felt that complying would be immoral. The Catholic agency which has helped thousands of families adopt needy children made a compromise and said they would refer gay and lesbian couples to other adoption agencies who actually provide adoption to gay couples. The gay lobby was not happy with this and pursued the Catholic organization in court. The actions of the Catholic organization were deemed discriminatory and they were shut down. Gay rights lobby 1, countless families and children 0. You see, the gay rights lobby is not satisfied with protection to believe what they want. They want to use the law to force everyone to accept their lifestyles.

Ultimately the only thing Obama's decision to make June the month for LGBT people will do is cause more and more harrassment against people who want to express their view that marriage is between a man and a woman. The persecution has already begun and will continue to get worse. Obama is a major catalyst in all of this. He wants people who defend traditional marriage to feel like bigots and LGBT people to feel justified in feeling like victims and people who need to fight for whatever they want.

The most ironic part of Obama's official White House letter is the last part where he marks the date as "the year of the Lord 2009". If Obama really believed Jesus is our Lord, he would never try to sabatoge the institution of marriage which Christ elevated to a sacrament.