Tuesday, December 28, 2010
Conversion of A.N. Wilson
I suppose many have already heard about the conversion (or reconversion) of A.N. Wilson, the noted British author and literary critic. Conversion stories, and biographies in general, are always of interest to me but this one is well written, to boot. Simply stated it looks like he slowly came to the realization the atheist, materialist worldview is simply not comprehensive enough to be a worldview. As it turns out, the likes of Richard Dawkins are just too dogmatic to appreciate beauty. You can read the article here.
Friday, December 24, 2010
Pray for us, Saint Louis IX, King
Saint Louis gave this speech to his Crusaders who lost courage at the sight of Damietta before they stormed her beach with their vessels and barks:
"My friends and faithful soldiers," said he to them, "we shall be invincible if we are inseparable in our love of one another. It is not without the divine permission that we have been brought here so quickly. I am neither the king of France nor the holy church, you are both. I am only a man whose life will end like other men's when it shall please God. Everything is in our favor, whatever may happen to us. If we are conquered, we shall be martyrs; if we triumph, the glory of God will be exalted thereby * that of all France, yea, even of Christianity, will be exalted thereby. Certainly it would be foolish to believe that God, who foresees all, has incited me in vain. This is His cause, we shall conquer for Christ, He will triumph in us, He will give the glory, the honor and the blessing not unto us, but unto His name."
"My friends and faithful soldiers," said he to them, "we shall be invincible if we are inseparable in our love of one another. It is not without the divine permission that we have been brought here so quickly. I am neither the king of France nor the holy church, you are both. I am only a man whose life will end like other men's when it shall please God. Everything is in our favor, whatever may happen to us. If we are conquered, we shall be martyrs; if we triumph, the glory of God will be exalted thereby * that of all France, yea, even of Christianity, will be exalted thereby. Certainly it would be foolish to believe that God, who foresees all, has incited me in vain. This is His cause, we shall conquer for Christ, He will triumph in us, He will give the glory, the honor and the blessing not unto us, but unto His name."
Oh Saint Louis!
King of the Franks,
Confessor and right arm of Holy Mother the Church,
Blessed peacemaker of France and Christendom,
Bold and glorious crusader,
Generous patron of the poor, lepers, and downtrodden prostitutes,
Devotee to Christian art, learning and architecture,
Just administrator of Christian law,
Lietenant of God on earth,
Stark and penitential ascetic,
Restorer of the Crown of Thorns!
Who died in exile at the ninth hour,
Amongst the sprinkling of ashes and penitential psalms,
Whose last words were, "Into your hands I commend my spirit"
You are renown.
May the spirit of your life rise anew in the great catholic monarch.
Pray and intercede for us with,
Jesus Christ the Invisible King of the world,
Whose visible kingdom soon is coming,
Who is King of Mercy and of Justice,
Who is Meek, Mild, Bold, and Powerful . . .
Who is Renown and shall be Renown,
Son of God, even forever. Amen
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Virgin Birth of Buddha...?????
I recently heard a professor of art history suggest that the virgin birth of Christ was borrowed from Buddhism. This, immediately, struck as absurd; given the ahistorical development of Buddhism. The article is here. You be the judge.
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Holy Fire !!!
Accendat in nobis Dominus ignem sui amoris, et flammam aeternae caritatis. Amen.
May the Lord enkindle within us the fire of His love, and the flame of everlasting charity. Amen.
This prayer from the Tridentine Catholic Mass always catches my attention and reminds me of this song by the David Crowder Band and the Ecstasy of Saint Theresa sculpture.
Most of us in the modern world, since fire is not a prevalent in our lives now, are somewhat numb to the power of fire. It consumes and purifies, or, as in Moses' burning bush, it burns without consumption. The religious ecstasy of Saint Theresa is, seemingly, uncommon in our time. That, though, is due to our societies huddling in the shadows out of fear of the Light. We do this because we love darkness because our deeds are evil. May prayers, like the one above, art, and music kindle in us the fire of the Lord's love. May we see that the Light of God is the very medicine for our sickness.
May the Lord enkindle within us the fire of His love, and the flame of everlasting charity. Amen.
This prayer from the Tridentine Catholic Mass always catches my attention and reminds me of this song by the David Crowder Band and the Ecstasy of Saint Theresa sculpture.
Most of us in the modern world, since fire is not a prevalent in our lives now, are somewhat numb to the power of fire. It consumes and purifies, or, as in Moses' burning bush, it burns without consumption. The religious ecstasy of Saint Theresa is, seemingly, uncommon in our time. That, though, is due to our societies huddling in the shadows out of fear of the Light. We do this because we love darkness because our deeds are evil. May prayers, like the one above, art, and music kindle in us the fire of the Lord's love. May we see that the Light of God is the very medicine for our sickness.
Sunday, November 28, 2010
Hedonism, an ancient heresy...
As I was reading through Saint Augustine's 5th century masterpiece, "City of God" and came across wonderful picture of hedonism and was taken aback by its' timeliness.
"Those philosophers who regard virtue as the ultimate human good try to make those others feel ashamed of themselves who think highly enough of the virtues, but subordinate them to physical pleasure, making pleasure an end to itself and virtues merely a means to this end. They do this by picturing Pleasure enthroned like a high-born queen, surrounded by ministering virtues who watch her every nod, ready to do what ever she bids....
Thus the virtues with all the glory of their dignity are made to minister to Pleasure, like the servants of an imperious, but ill-famed mistress."
Ah ha, I thought! This is Hedonism and it is apropos, I think, to call it an ancient (and ever modern) heresy. In fact, the Supreme Court of the United States still makes laws based on the hedonist world view. By the way, I intend to use the word MAKES since, it is, De Facto, what the Supreme Court does. On a side note, I do share the concern of Hamilton's interlocutor in Federal Paper # 78. As evidence of judicial, hedonistic activism, witness this peculiar passage from the Supreme Court case "Casey v. Planned Parenthood".
"At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State."
To borrow a colloquialism from modern American parlance....WTF? ! Talk about defining the meaning out of meaning!!!
"Those philosophers who regard virtue as the ultimate human good try to make those others feel ashamed of themselves who think highly enough of the virtues, but subordinate them to physical pleasure, making pleasure an end to itself and virtues merely a means to this end. They do this by picturing Pleasure enthroned like a high-born queen, surrounded by ministering virtues who watch her every nod, ready to do what ever she bids....
Thus the virtues with all the glory of their dignity are made to minister to Pleasure, like the servants of an imperious, but ill-famed mistress."
Ah ha, I thought! This is Hedonism and it is apropos, I think, to call it an ancient (and ever modern) heresy. In fact, the Supreme Court of the United States still makes laws based on the hedonist world view. By the way, I intend to use the word MAKES since, it is, De Facto, what the Supreme Court does. On a side note, I do share the concern of Hamilton's interlocutor in Federal Paper # 78. As evidence of judicial, hedonistic activism, witness this peculiar passage from the Supreme Court case "Casey v. Planned Parenthood".
"At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State."
To borrow a colloquialism from modern American parlance....WTF? ! Talk about defining the meaning out of meaning!!!
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Merits & Demerits of Islam, a debate
Here is a video of Robert Spencer and Peter Kreeft, in discussion concerning various elements of Islam. I found the debate very thought provoking.
Monday, November 8, 2010
Kipling's timeless poem
Everyone must read this poem by Rudyard Kipling! The poem is brilliant and timeless. History is just, it seems, a continuing revenge of natural law or COMMON SENSE!
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Who is Barak Obama?
I know this is not news to most pro-life Americans but I think it bears regular repetition. The current Presidente of the United States, Barak Obama is adamantly pro-infanticide.
Source: Obama Nation, by Jerome Corsi, p.238 Aug 1, 2008
On March 30, 2001, Obama was the only Illinois senator who rose to speak against a bill that would have protected babies who survived late term labor-induced abortion. Obama rose to object that if the bill passed, and a nine-month-old fetus survived a late-term labor-induced abortion was deemed to be a person who had a right to live, then the law would "forbid abortions to take place." Obama further explained the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not allow somebody to kill a child, so if the law deemed a child who survived a late-term labor-induced abortion had a right to live, "then this would be an anti-abortion statute."
Thursday, October 21, 2010
"...endowed by their Creator..."
The President of the United States has recently quoted the Declaration of Independence, directly or indirectly, in three recent speeches. Or, perhaps, I should say MISQUOTES it. He suspiciously leaves out the phrase "endowed by their Creator". For those who do not follow either of the hyperlinks to the Declaration or Presidente Obama's speech should know that the text says,
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
This clearly is not accidental, as he has done it now three times. Anyone who knows anything about the history of religious liberty in the western world, upon reading the above statement, should be struck by the near meaninglessness of the statement without the words in question ("endowed by their Creator"). If the Creator (whether Yahweh, Allah, Zeus, the Great Spirit, or a higher consciousness) did not endow humans with rights then from whence do they come? For example, if the right to life does is not intrinsic, several questions are raised.
1) Where do these rights come from?
2) Are there limits to these rights?
3) Who determines whom gets these rights?
The bottom line is that if the right to life is not universal then it can be taken away by others. Hitler and Stalin did not appear to believe that Jews, "Homosexuals", and others had this intrinsic value. This may have been because they did not believe in a higher authority. In Stalin's case we are sure of this. It stands to reason that if Mr. Stalin could not believe that a higher power existed, he could not have believed that it had endowed his political enemies with rights. By the way, this does not mean that Theists do not commit human rights violation. They, in fact, do. However, this is in contradistinction to their stated beliefs.
I am not suggesting that one must be a Theist to believe in natural law. One, simply, need see two facts.
First, the political, religious, and social freedoms of the western world depend on this implicit acceptance of natural law, endowed by a higher authority. Second, as G.K. Chesterton wrote, that if God is removed from society then the government will attempt to become the god. Negligence of Natural Law is the canary in the coal mine. If a higher authority is removed, humans try to take its place and history tells us that consequences are often horrendous.
Please Mr. President, the USA has fought too long and too hard to reach this point of balance between individual rights and responsibilities. Besides, to misquote the Declaration of Independence, is simply irresponsible history.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
This clearly is not accidental, as he has done it now three times. Anyone who knows anything about the history of religious liberty in the western world, upon reading the above statement, should be struck by the near meaninglessness of the statement without the words in question ("endowed by their Creator"). If the Creator (whether Yahweh, Allah, Zeus, the Great Spirit, or a higher consciousness) did not endow humans with rights then from whence do they come? For example, if the right to life does is not intrinsic, several questions are raised.
1) Where do these rights come from?
2) Are there limits to these rights?
3) Who determines whom gets these rights?
The bottom line is that if the right to life is not universal then it can be taken away by others. Hitler and Stalin did not appear to believe that Jews, "Homosexuals", and others had this intrinsic value. This may have been because they did not believe in a higher authority. In Stalin's case we are sure of this. It stands to reason that if Mr. Stalin could not believe that a higher power existed, he could not have believed that it had endowed his political enemies with rights. By the way, this does not mean that Theists do not commit human rights violation. They, in fact, do. However, this is in contradistinction to their stated beliefs.
I am not suggesting that one must be a Theist to believe in natural law. One, simply, need see two facts.
First, the political, religious, and social freedoms of the western world depend on this implicit acceptance of natural law, endowed by a higher authority. Second, as G.K. Chesterton wrote, that if God is removed from society then the government will attempt to become the god. Negligence of Natural Law is the canary in the coal mine. If a higher authority is removed, humans try to take its place and history tells us that consequences are often horrendous.
Please Mr. President, the USA has fought too long and too hard to reach this point of balance between individual rights and responsibilities. Besides, to misquote the Declaration of Independence, is simply irresponsible history.
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Muslims using Good Cop/Bad Cop tool
There is a link that shows how Muslim Activists use the Good Cop/Bad Cop threat to advance their agenda. As a former Muslim, I truly empathize with Muslims who would like Islam to be more peaceful. I had hoped for the same thing. I suggest that Muslims who want Islam to be peaceful should work with the west and "out" the radicals, instead of subtly threatening western, non-Muslims.
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Again..."Gay Rights" crew is at...logically inconsistent as usual
Wow...I came across this story on Yahoo. Apparently, this Mega-church pastor allegedly was luring "three young men into sexual relationships". The young men were, according to the report, 17 to 18 years old. My first impression was disgust. But, after further contemplation, I see the story for the "gay rights" propaganda that it is. My disgust was based on the fact that I hold the belief that any genital relations outside that confines of a marriage between one man and one woman (that is open to life). I am including homogenital relationship, which are intrinsically evil, in the list of moral Thou Shalt Nots.However unfortunate that it may be, those who support marriage of the same sex, should not be appalled at this story. If they are, it is hypocritical and logically inconsistent. If they want to be consistent, they should say that the good bishop is bisexual and was exploring his sexuality. So, from whither comes the lawsuit and the outrage? I always find it amazing that those who seek to free themselves from the moral shackles of monotheism, base their pretend moral outrage upon the ethics of the same monotheism. After all, didn't Senor Dostoevsky speak the truth when he said,
"If there is no God, everything is permitted".
Think about it, in the ethical vacuum that is secularism, why should people with same-sex attraction be given equal rights? In the secular, hedonistic, and relativistic culture that we live, the is no compelling ethical standard that we should live up to. Secularists and moral relativists are like a man sitting on a tree limb and sawing it off. Only the monotheistic and, specifically, the Christian culture, says that man (all men) have infinite and intrinsic value. Let us think things through people!
Monday, September 20, 2010
Common Sense Thinking about the Delaware Election
Check out this article, concerning the Delaware Election on Nov.2. Who the extremist is becomes clear.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Well Said, Catholic League
The Catholic League strikes back at atheists critics with truth!
ATHEISTS MUST APOLOGIZE FOR HITLER
Catholic League president Bill Donohue reacts to the way British atheists are handling Pope Benedict XVI's trip to their homeland:
The pope cited Hitler today, asking everyone to "reflect on the sobering lessons of atheist extremism of the 20th century." Immediately, the British Humanist Association got its back up, accusing the pope of "a terrible libel against those who do not believe in God."
The pope did not go far enough. Radical atheists like the British Humanist Association should apologize for Hitler. But they should not stop there. They also need to issue an apology for the 67 million innocent men, women and children murdered under Stalin, and the 77 million innocent Chinese killed by Mao. Hitler, Stalin and Mao were all driven by a radical atheism, a militant and fundamentally dogmatic brand of secular extremism. It was this anti-religious impulse that allowed them to become mass murderers. By contrast, a grand total of 1,394 were killed during the 250 years of the Inquisition, most all of whom were murdered by secular authorities.
Why should atheists today apologize for the crimes of others? At onelevel, it makes no sense: apologies should only be given by the guilty. But on the other hand, since the fanatically anti-Catholic secularists in Britain, and elsewhere, demand that the pope—who is entirely innocent of any misconduct—apologize for the sins of others, let the atheists take some of their own medicine and start apologizing for all the crimes committed in their name. It might prove alembic.
ATHEISTS MUST APOLOGIZE FOR HITLER
Catholic League president Bill Donohue reacts to the way British atheists are handling Pope Benedict XVI's trip to their homeland:
The pope cited Hitler today, asking everyone to "reflect on the sobering lessons of atheist extremism of the 20th century." Immediately, the British Humanist Association got its back up, accusing the pope of "a terrible libel against those who do not believe in God."
The pope did not go far enough. Radical atheists like the British Humanist Association should apologize for Hitler. But they should not stop there. They also need to issue an apology for the 67 million innocent men, women and children murdered under Stalin, and the 77 million innocent Chinese killed by Mao. Hitler, Stalin and Mao were all driven by a radical atheism, a militant and fundamentally dogmatic brand of secular extremism. It was this anti-religious impulse that allowed them to become mass murderers. By contrast, a grand total of 1,394 were killed during the 250 years of the Inquisition, most all of whom were murdered by secular authorities.
Why should atheists today apologize for the crimes of others? At onelevel, it makes no sense: apologies should only be given by the guilty. But on the other hand, since the fanatically anti-Catholic secularists in Britain, and elsewhere, demand that the pope—who is entirely innocent of any misconduct—apologize for the sins of others, let the atheists take some of their own medicine and start apologizing for all the crimes committed in their name. It might prove alembic.
Oh, to be a fly on the wall.....!
I just finished reading The Jesuit Guide to (almost) Everything: A Spirituality for Real Life by James Martin, SJ. It was an enjoyable read. The author has a remarkable ability to communicate his thesis in a manner more akin to sharing a story with your uncle on the front porch, in the heat of a South Carolina summer (while drinking sweet tea of course). The book is popular Catholic spirituality that is accessible to all readers. I do recommend it.
As someone who is new to Catholicism, I have only the slightest degree of familiarity with the Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius of Loyola. The author describes these exercises and their application to everyday life. There was one specific part of the Exercises that caught my attention immediately, though. In fact, I put the book down to ponder this portion.
Towards the end of the Exercises, retreatants are invited to contemplate the Resurrection of Christ, generally. One specific example of this meditation, offered by St. Ignatius, really intrigued me. He suggests to ponders the meeting of Jesus and His Mother, after the Resurrection. Oh, to be a fly on the wall!
Of course, scripture is silent on this meeting. However, logically, it would eventually have taken place. Besides, the meetings' absence from Holy Writ should not trouble a Catholic, or any Christian for that matter, due to the fact that scripture NEVER states that it is the only source for Christian beliefs. As an aside, more that three centuries passed wherein Christians did not have an official, standardized canon. During this time, Christians worshipped, prayed, and held beliefs, without a Bible. But I digress.
Imagine the amazing meeting between Christ and His Holy Mother! What joy! What tears! I think it is quite certain that Mary knew something was afoot, from the visitation of the Angel Gabriel. But, even if she knew down to the very last detail, I doubt it would have stunted her reaction in any way. A mother's love is usually unbounded. The Blessed Mother's love for her Son would likely have surpassed all loves, since it was also a love for God (as Jesus was and is the Second Person of the Godhead). I don't think there would have been a dry eye in the house, at this meeting. This would be like Heaven. Any ambiguity of the crooked lines of God's planned of redemption were clarified in that meeting. It was Christ returning home to His Blessed Mother and, also, Her (and all possible bystanders) getting a glimpse of Heaven, where "He will wipe every tear from their eyes, and there shall be no more death or mourning, wailing or pain, (for) the old order has passed away."
Christ's appearance to His Blessed Mother and all others is a culmination of revelation and a preview of His statement, "Yes, I am coming soon."
Amen! Come, Lord Jesus!"
As someone who is new to Catholicism, I have only the slightest degree of familiarity with the Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius of Loyola. The author describes these exercises and their application to everyday life. There was one specific part of the Exercises that caught my attention immediately, though. In fact, I put the book down to ponder this portion.
Towards the end of the Exercises, retreatants are invited to contemplate the Resurrection of Christ, generally. One specific example of this meditation, offered by St. Ignatius, really intrigued me. He suggests to ponders the meeting of Jesus and His Mother, after the Resurrection. Oh, to be a fly on the wall!
Of course, scripture is silent on this meeting. However, logically, it would eventually have taken place. Besides, the meetings' absence from Holy Writ should not trouble a Catholic, or any Christian for that matter, due to the fact that scripture NEVER states that it is the only source for Christian beliefs. As an aside, more that three centuries passed wherein Christians did not have an official, standardized canon. During this time, Christians worshipped, prayed, and held beliefs, without a Bible. But I digress.
Imagine the amazing meeting between Christ and His Holy Mother! What joy! What tears! I think it is quite certain that Mary knew something was afoot, from the visitation of the Angel Gabriel. But, even if she knew down to the very last detail, I doubt it would have stunted her reaction in any way. A mother's love is usually unbounded. The Blessed Mother's love for her Son would likely have surpassed all loves, since it was also a love for God (as Jesus was and is the Second Person of the Godhead). I don't think there would have been a dry eye in the house, at this meeting. This would be like Heaven. Any ambiguity of the crooked lines of God's planned of redemption were clarified in that meeting. It was Christ returning home to His Blessed Mother and, also, Her (and all possible bystanders) getting a glimpse of Heaven, where "He will wipe every tear from their eyes, and there shall be no more death or mourning, wailing or pain, (for) the old order has passed away."
Christ's appearance to His Blessed Mother and all others is a culmination of revelation and a preview of His statement, "Yes, I am coming soon."
Amen! Come, Lord Jesus!"
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Burning the Quran ???
A church in Gainsville, FL is proposing International Burn A Quran Day. As a former Muslim, I have a some thoughts.
1) Politically, this is a bad move. It will just inflame the Muslim masses and let us be honest. It does not take much to get them going.
2) Aesthetically, it is not a good thing. Despite the doctrines and origin of the Quran, the calligraphy and the recitation of the Quran is noteworthy for it's artistic value.
3) As regards civil liberties, I believe this church is, absolutely, within its rights to burn the Quran or any book. I would support the legality of burning the Bible too (though not like it or do it myself).
4) From a religious perspective, I believe that the Quran is simply a book of Biblical stories (given a heretical spin) and Semitic folklore articulated as Arabic poetry. Whatever is good (morally, historically, or spiritually) is based in the Judea-Christian tradition. The other stuff (likes the gems of wife-beating, misogynism, jihad, violence and general intolerance towards non-muslims) rounds out the collection. I have a general aversion to burning books (any books). But f there was a book whose influence I would like to see eradicated, it is the Quran. In the final analyse, I would say it is a bad idea to burn it, but I do not hesitate to put it on the list of books that screwed up the word.
1) Politically, this is a bad move. It will just inflame the Muslim masses and let us be honest. It does not take much to get them going.
2) Aesthetically, it is not a good thing. Despite the doctrines and origin of the Quran, the calligraphy and the recitation of the Quran is noteworthy for it's artistic value.
3) As regards civil liberties, I believe this church is, absolutely, within its rights to burn the Quran or any book. I would support the legality of burning the Bible too (though not like it or do it myself).
4) From a religious perspective, I believe that the Quran is simply a book of Biblical stories (given a heretical spin) and Semitic folklore articulated as Arabic poetry. Whatever is good (morally, historically, or spiritually) is based in the Judea-Christian tradition. The other stuff (likes the gems of wife-beating, misogynism, jihad, violence and general intolerance towards non-muslims) rounds out the collection. I have a general aversion to burning books (any books). But f there was a book whose influence I would like to see eradicated, it is the Quran. In the final analyse, I would say it is a bad idea to burn it, but I do not hesitate to put it on the list of books that screwed up the word.
What does marriage mean?
This article from the National Review Online is wonderful. It would be great if those who adamantly push for so-called "gay marriage" would read it. That is, however, probably too much to ask, since I don't think they get the National Review Online on the planet Zircon. Be that as it may, I am recommending the article because it gets to the point of marriage. This is, basically, the crucial question. If we are entertaining ideas of changing the definition, we had better be sure we understand why the institution developed in the first place. As G.K. Chesterton said it (and I will paraphrase him, in true Chestertonian style, since I am unable to find the quotation....before walls are torn down, we should be sure why they were erected. For a hedonistic nihilist, these questions may be off the radar, but their corresponding answers are no less necessary.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Priceless Wisdom!
I have not posted to my blog very frequently, so I thought to post something that should be common knowledge, from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. "Gay Rights" activists have been repeating the lie that same-sex attraction is inborn and deserves that same legal and cultural protections as natural marriage. This allegation has NO BASIS in scientific fact. I guess their minds are made up. Perhaps we should not burden them with the TRUTH !
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,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 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.
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,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 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.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
"Never put a period where God has put a comma" and other NONSENSE
I was walking past another non-descript, non-denominational, and (like most who have willingly or unwillingly erred from the chair of the Fisherman) non-biblical churches the other day and saw a sign that said "Never put a period where God has put a comma" on the outside of the building. The statement seems benign (please disregard, for the sake of this discussion, the latin meaning) and, in fact, loving. However, upon further inspection, it is nonsensical. I make such a blunt judgement on it because the statement contains a logical fallacy; what is called BEGGING THE QUESTION (or petitio principii, "assuming the initial point").
I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but the questions that it begs are quite obvious.
1) What is a period, as regards revelation?
2) What is a comma, as regards, revelation?
3) Who has authority to decide which is which and where they should be placed?
4) Whom did Jesus say had the authority to make such judgments.
There are even more questions that can be asked, but these are enough to get anyone started. I am unsure what would be the intent of anyone utilizing this statement is. So, I will steer clear of indicting their intentions. It seems to me, though, that the statement is being made with an eye to "progressive revelation"; likely, in order to justify an moral view that is inconsistent with biblical revelation.
I could go into a long rebuttal of this statement, but there is really no need. The fourth question is the only one that is is relevant for professed Christians. Who was appointed to make judgements on Scripture and Tradition (don't forget 2 Tim. 2:2 & 2 Thess. 2:15)? Generally, the Catholic Church and, specifically, St. Peter and the Apostles were given this authority. This, in my mind, is the end of the discussion. Jesus makes it clear, "Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me." This was a statement made to the Apostles in the Gospel of Saint Luke. For anyone who is faithful to Christ, this should end the debate and pray for the grace to be obedient to the Church that Christ himself founded.
"But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth." 1 Tim 3:15
I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but the questions that it begs are quite obvious.
1) What is a period, as regards revelation?
2) What is a comma, as regards, revelation?
3) Who has authority to decide which is which and where they should be placed?
4) Whom did Jesus say had the authority to make such judgments.
There are even more questions that can be asked, but these are enough to get anyone started. I am unsure what would be the intent of anyone utilizing this statement is. So, I will steer clear of indicting their intentions. It seems to me, though, that the statement is being made with an eye to "progressive revelation"; likely, in order to justify an moral view that is inconsistent with biblical revelation.
I could go into a long rebuttal of this statement, but there is really no need. The fourth question is the only one that is is relevant for professed Christians. Who was appointed to make judgements on Scripture and Tradition (don't forget 2 Tim. 2:2 & 2 Thess. 2:15)? Generally, the Catholic Church and, specifically, St. Peter and the Apostles were given this authority. This, in my mind, is the end of the discussion. Jesus makes it clear, "Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me." This was a statement made to the Apostles in the Gospel of Saint Luke. For anyone who is faithful to Christ, this should end the debate and pray for the grace to be obedient to the Church that Christ himself founded.
"But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth." 1 Tim 3:15
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
"Principled Pedophilia" ???
Thanks to Leon Podles for this blog entry. It is a MUST READ! I must warn you that the article is not for the squeamish.
How "gay marriage" aids in the destruction of the family
I came across this interesting article about how "gay marriage" aids in the destruction of the family. However, "gay marriage" proponents make the bizarre claim that their (perverse)version of marriage would strength the institution of marriage. As always, the devil is in the details. This article exposes the fact that "gay marriage" mean something completely different than the Catechism of the Catholic Church when they use the term MARRIAGE. This is a MUST READ!
Saturday, July 3, 2010
Liberals and Science: Strange Relationship
Elena Kagan appears to be a hard-core liberal, social progressive and here is the reason why I feel this way. She seems, like most of her persuasion, to be very willing to be manipulate and distort scientific research to support her leftist, "kill the babies, save the trees" agenda. Please read the article.
Friday, June 25, 2010
Saturday, June 19, 2010
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Ethical Myopic Subjectivism
After some deliberation, this is the term that I think best describes the ethical stances of many, perhaps most, Americans. It seems to be the dominant ethical approach in, perhaps, the whole western world. I have coined this phrase because, of the following.
1) Ethical - My concern about this philosophical stance is, primarily, focused on its ethical implications
2) Myopic - The intent of my use of this term is best encapsulated by the following definition; lacking foresight or scope; "a short view of the problem"; "shortsighted policies"; "shortsighted critics derided the plan"; "myopic thinking". Briefly, it is is the tendency to overlook or simply ignore the ramifications and implications of a particular ethical stance. I suspect that the ultimate reason for this is the same that Eve had in eating the fruit.
3) Subjectivism - This is the tendency to see ONLY the consequences, as it relates to themselves. The problem with this theory is that the human being is a social animal.
This term Ethical Myopic Subjectivism came to mind after seeing an advertisement, in which some celebrities (like Montell Williams & Sting) were advocating what amounts to a surrender (well said Bill O'Reilly) in the "drug war" by decriminalization.
I heard a statistic that over 70% of child abuse and neglect cases in the USA were due to alcohol or drug addiction. I have not trouble believing this stat, after hearing some of my mother-in-laws' stories from her days working for the NYC child protection agency. It is children who get hurt most with substance abuse.
As regards the objection that the US prohibition of alcohol and its subsequent repeal is proof that decriminalization works, I would simply say that crack is not the same as alcohol, por ejemplo. If some does not recognize the difference, I would say their Ethical Myopic Subjectivism is obscuring their view.
1) Ethical - My concern about this philosophical stance is, primarily, focused on its ethical implications
2) Myopic - The intent of my use of this term is best encapsulated by the following definition; lacking foresight or scope; "a short view of the problem"; "shortsighted policies"; "shortsighted critics derided the plan"; "myopic thinking". Briefly, it is is the tendency to overlook or simply ignore the ramifications and implications of a particular ethical stance. I suspect that the ultimate reason for this is the same that Eve had in eating the fruit.
3) Subjectivism - This is the tendency to see ONLY the consequences, as it relates to themselves. The problem with this theory is that the human being is a social animal.
This term Ethical Myopic Subjectivism came to mind after seeing an advertisement, in which some celebrities (like Montell Williams & Sting) were advocating what amounts to a surrender (well said Bill O'Reilly) in the "drug war" by decriminalization.
I heard a statistic that over 70% of child abuse and neglect cases in the USA were due to alcohol or drug addiction. I have not trouble believing this stat, after hearing some of my mother-in-laws' stories from her days working for the NYC child protection agency. It is children who get hurt most with substance abuse.
As regards the objection that the US prohibition of alcohol and its subsequent repeal is proof that decriminalization works, I would simply say that crack is not the same as alcohol, por ejemplo. If some does not recognize the difference, I would say their Ethical Myopic Subjectivism is obscuring their view.
Saturday, June 5, 2010
Friday, May 28, 2010
Culture War: What is at Stake?
Please read this article by Robert R. Reilly about the "culture war" and learn what is at stake.
Monday, May 24, 2010
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Rogad por nuestros Sacerdotes!
Aqui es un video muy hermoso acerca de nuestros sacerdotes y sus sacrificios. Gracias a ellos y a este blog!
You can vote on what should be cut from the U.S. budget!
Check out this website! You are able to cast a vote for what you believe should be cut from the U.S. budget.
Sunday, May 9, 2010
Ruega por nosotros, Santa Madre de Dios!
Gracias a la autor del blog ENTRELOSPUCHEROS. Por favor, ved este video.
Friday, May 7, 2010
Tolerance...But Not If You Disagree
Al Kresta recently posted a story on his blog, concerning a street preacher who was arrested for saying that homosexuality is sinful. I am re posting the story here, so as to propagate it. In my opinion, it is very important that Americans (and others) see that the homosexual agenda is intrinsically opposed to religious liberty, if that liberty entails calling homosexual activity immoral. Remember there is a huge difference between calling the action sinful and harassing and/or harming persons with these tendencies.
The Catholic Church teaches that homosexual tendencies are not sinful. Similarly, tendencies to be hetero-sexually promiscuous are not sinful. However, when one acts on these tendencies, they become sinful, because they are disordered. Conversely, the Catholic Church does NOT advocate punishing persons for there homosexual tendencies.
Let us take heed and fight the kind of laws. Let us keep marriage between one man and one woman, for life, for the good of society and, of course, the children.
The Catholic Church teaches that homosexual tendencies are not sinful. Similarly, tendencies to be hetero-sexually promiscuous are not sinful. However, when one acts on these tendencies, they become sinful, because they are disordered. Conversely, the Catholic Church does NOT advocate punishing persons for there homosexual tendencies.
Let us take heed and fight the kind of laws. Let us keep marriage between one man and one woman, for life, for the good of society and, of course, the children.
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Feast Day of the Forty Martyrs of England and Wales
I would like to thank whomever operates this blog, for reminding me of this feast day. I have been interested in the English Catholic Marytrs since coming across Evelyn Waugh's book "Edmund Campion".
Ruega por nosotros, Santa Madre de Dios!
"It is finished in Beauty"
Please allow me to recommend this entry on Leon J. Podles blog. He relates a Navajo prayer that, almost, could be a Catholic prayer. The prayer is written in praise of Beauty. This ties in with the Catholic emphasis on Truth, Beauty, & Goodness. By the way, I should like to recommend the book, The Evidential Power of Beauty: Science and Theology Meet of Beauty by Thomas Dubay, which deals with the concept of Beauty, from a Catholic perspective.
The appreciation of Beauty, it seems, predates Christianity. In fact, I would argue, it is primordial. Perhaps, it is this appreciation that are bread crumbs on the path back to Truth and Goodness. G.K. Chesterton wrote (I cannot recall exactly where) that the most important thing about paganism is what followed it....Christianity. I think human beings strive for Truth, Goodness, and beauty, intrinsically. This probably is the best explanation of the pre-Christian myths. It is like man knew the story without the knowing the actors. Mythology, I think, was God reconciling the world to Himself, through Christ.
The old saying says that all roads lead to Rome. It seems, from my perspective, that philosophical roads lead to a man, who was God, dying on a cross. It, indeed, ALL "is finished" in Beauty!!!
The appreciation of Beauty, it seems, predates Christianity. In fact, I would argue, it is primordial. Perhaps, it is this appreciation that are bread crumbs on the path back to Truth and Goodness. G.K. Chesterton wrote (I cannot recall exactly where) that the most important thing about paganism is what followed it....Christianity. I think human beings strive for Truth, Goodness, and beauty, intrinsically. This probably is the best explanation of the pre-Christian myths. It is like man knew the story without the knowing the actors. Mythology, I think, was God reconciling the world to Himself, through Christ.
The old saying says that all roads lead to Rome. It seems, from my perspective, that philosophical roads lead to a man, who was God, dying on a cross. It, indeed, ALL "is finished" in Beauty!!!
Saturday, May 1, 2010
Pray for Los Mexicanos, especially the babies!
See this article concerning the latest diabolic, anti-life policy in Mexico.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Exposing the agenda of the New York Times
Law professor John Coverdale wrote this letter to the New York Times. It has not been published.
"Like many other people, I have felt in recent weeks that some news outlets have unfairly targeted Pope Benedict XVI in connection with sexual abuse by priests.
In part this is a question of emphasis, with daily coverage of what may or may not have been minor mistakes in judgment decades ago and almost no attention to the major efforts Pope Benedict has made to remedy what is undeniably a horrible situation.
With some frequency, however, I have observed what strikes me as deliberate distortion of the facts in order to put Pope Benedict in a bad light. I would like to call your attention to what seems to me a clear example of this sort of partisan journalism: Laurie Goodstein and Michael Luo’s article “Pope Put Off Move to Punish Abusive Priest” published on the front page of the New York Times on April 10, 2010. The story is so wrong that it is hard to believe it is not animated by the anti-Catholic animus that the New York Times and other media outlets deny harboring.
Canonical procedure punishes priests who have violated Church law in serious ways by “suspending” them from exercising their ministry. This is sometimes referred to as “defrocking.” (According to Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary to “defrock” is to deprive of the right to exercise the functions of an office. )
A priest who has been suspended may request that he be released from his vows of celibacy and other obligations as a priest. If granted, this petition to be “laicized” would leave the former priest free to marry. Laicization (which is altogether different from defrocking and which may apply to a priest who has committed no crime but simply wishes to leave the priesthood) is not further punishment. It is something a priest who has already been punished by being suspended might well desire, as do some priests who have committed no crime and who have not been suspended..
The priest who is the subject of the article had already been punished by being suspended long before his case reached Rome. He asked to be laicized. Cardinal Ratzinger delayed his laicization not his “defrocking” as the article incorrectly says. He had been defrocked years earlier when he was suspended from the ministry. All of this is clear without reference to outside sources to anyone who knows something about Church procedure and reads the article with sufficient care. It is anything but clear, however, to a normal reader.
My complaint here is not that the article misuses the word “defrock” but rather that by so doing it strongly suggests to readers that Cardinal Ratzinger delayed the priest’s removal from the ministry. Delaying laicization had nothing to do with allowing him to continue exercising the ministry, from which he had already been suspended.
Not only does the article fail to make these distinctions, it positively misstate the facts. Its title is “Pope Put off Move to Punish Abusive Priest.” [italics added] It describes Cardinal Ratzinger’s decision as involving whether the abusive priest “should be forced from the priesthood” [italics added]. Even a moderately careful journalist would have to notice that all of this is incompatible with the fact (reported in the second paragraph of the article) that the priest himself had asked for what Cardinal Ratziner delayed.
Had the facts been reported accurately, the article would have said that the priest was promptly punished by being removed from the ministry for his crimes, but that when he asked to be reduced to the lay state, which would have given him the right to marry within the Church, Cardinal Ratzinger delayed granting the petition. That, of course, would hardly have merited front page treatment, much less a headline accusing the Pope of “Putt[ing] off Move to Punish Abusive Priest.”
The second half of the article reports that the priest later worked as a volunteer in the youth ministry of his former parish. This is obviously regrettable and should not have happened, but he was not acting as a priest (youth ministers are laymen, not priests).
A careful reader who was not misled by the inaccuracies in the first part of the article would, of course, realize that his volunteering as a youth minister had no factual or legal connection with Cardinal Ratzinger’s delaying the grant of laicization. The article does not say in so many words that it did, but an average reader might well conclude that there was some connection when he is told that “while the bishop was pressing Cardinal Ratzinger to defrock Mr. Kiesle, the priest began volunteering in the youth ministry of one of his former parishes.”
Any one of these errors might be due to carelessness, but their cumulative effect, coupled with the decision to make this front page news accompanied by a two column photo of Cardinal Raztinger’s signature, strongly suggests to me that something worse than carelessness is involved. I urge you to look into whether some major news outlets have indeed been engaged in a campaign to vilify the Pope and into whether their desire to do so has caused them to slip below minimum standards of professional journalism"
John Coverdale is Professor of Law at Seton Hall University School of Law
"Like many other people, I have felt in recent weeks that some news outlets have unfairly targeted Pope Benedict XVI in connection with sexual abuse by priests.
In part this is a question of emphasis, with daily coverage of what may or may not have been minor mistakes in judgment decades ago and almost no attention to the major efforts Pope Benedict has made to remedy what is undeniably a horrible situation.
With some frequency, however, I have observed what strikes me as deliberate distortion of the facts in order to put Pope Benedict in a bad light. I would like to call your attention to what seems to me a clear example of this sort of partisan journalism: Laurie Goodstein and Michael Luo’s article “Pope Put Off Move to Punish Abusive Priest” published on the front page of the New York Times on April 10, 2010. The story is so wrong that it is hard to believe it is not animated by the anti-Catholic animus that the New York Times and other media outlets deny harboring.
Canonical procedure punishes priests who have violated Church law in serious ways by “suspending” them from exercising their ministry. This is sometimes referred to as “defrocking.” (According to Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary to “defrock” is to deprive of the right to exercise the functions of an office. )
A priest who has been suspended may request that he be released from his vows of celibacy and other obligations as a priest. If granted, this petition to be “laicized” would leave the former priest free to marry. Laicization (which is altogether different from defrocking and which may apply to a priest who has committed no crime but simply wishes to leave the priesthood) is not further punishment. It is something a priest who has already been punished by being suspended might well desire, as do some priests who have committed no crime and who have not been suspended..
The priest who is the subject of the article had already been punished by being suspended long before his case reached Rome. He asked to be laicized. Cardinal Ratzinger delayed his laicization not his “defrocking” as the article incorrectly says. He had been defrocked years earlier when he was suspended from the ministry. All of this is clear without reference to outside sources to anyone who knows something about Church procedure and reads the article with sufficient care. It is anything but clear, however, to a normal reader.
My complaint here is not that the article misuses the word “defrock” but rather that by so doing it strongly suggests to readers that Cardinal Ratzinger delayed the priest’s removal from the ministry. Delaying laicization had nothing to do with allowing him to continue exercising the ministry, from which he had already been suspended.
Not only does the article fail to make these distinctions, it positively misstate the facts. Its title is “Pope Put off Move to Punish Abusive Priest.” [italics added] It describes Cardinal Ratzinger’s decision as involving whether the abusive priest “should be forced from the priesthood” [italics added]. Even a moderately careful journalist would have to notice that all of this is incompatible with the fact (reported in the second paragraph of the article) that the priest himself had asked for what Cardinal Ratziner delayed.
Had the facts been reported accurately, the article would have said that the priest was promptly punished by being removed from the ministry for his crimes, but that when he asked to be reduced to the lay state, which would have given him the right to marry within the Church, Cardinal Ratzinger delayed granting the petition. That, of course, would hardly have merited front page treatment, much less a headline accusing the Pope of “Putt[ing] off Move to Punish Abusive Priest.”
The second half of the article reports that the priest later worked as a volunteer in the youth ministry of his former parish. This is obviously regrettable and should not have happened, but he was not acting as a priest (youth ministers are laymen, not priests).
A careful reader who was not misled by the inaccuracies in the first part of the article would, of course, realize that his volunteering as a youth minister had no factual or legal connection with Cardinal Ratzinger’s delaying the grant of laicization. The article does not say in so many words that it did, but an average reader might well conclude that there was some connection when he is told that “while the bishop was pressing Cardinal Ratzinger to defrock Mr. Kiesle, the priest began volunteering in the youth ministry of one of his former parishes.”
Any one of these errors might be due to carelessness, but their cumulative effect, coupled with the decision to make this front page news accompanied by a two column photo of Cardinal Raztinger’s signature, strongly suggests to me that something worse than carelessness is involved. I urge you to look into whether some major news outlets have indeed been engaged in a campaign to vilify the Pope and into whether their desire to do so has caused them to slip below minimum standards of professional journalism"
John Coverdale is Professor of Law at Seton Hall University School of Law
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Vamos a Cantar, Hoy !!!!
La Virgen María es nuestra protectora y nuestra defensora cuando hay que temer,
Vencerá a los demonios gritando "¡Viva Cristo Rey!",
Vencerá a los demonios gritando "¡Viva Cristo Rey!"
Soldados de Cristo: ¡Sigamos la bandera que la Cruz enseña el ejército de Dios!
Sigamos la bandera gritando, "¡Viva Cristo Rey!"
English translation
The Virgin Mary is our protector and defender when there is something to fear,
She will defeat the demons crying "Long live Christ the King!"
She will defeat the demons crying "Long live Christ the King!"
Soldiers of Christ let us follow the flag that the Cross shows the army of God!
Let us follow the flag crying, "Long live Christ the King!"
Vencerá a los demonios gritando "¡Viva Cristo Rey!",
Vencerá a los demonios gritando "¡Viva Cristo Rey!"
Soldados de Cristo: ¡Sigamos la bandera que la Cruz enseña el ejército de Dios!
Sigamos la bandera gritando, "¡Viva Cristo Rey!"
English translation
The Virgin Mary is our protector and defender when there is something to fear,
She will defeat the demons crying "Long live Christ the King!"
She will defeat the demons crying "Long live Christ the King!"
Soldiers of Christ let us follow the flag that the Cross shows the army of God!
Let us follow the flag crying, "Long live Christ the King!"
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Friday, April 9, 2010
Married Clergy may be part of the answer.
What's on my mind is the child abuse scandal in the Catholic Church. Leon J. Podles mentioned on Al Kresta's radio show that the cover up may have been a result of a lack of empathy for the victims. This is a claim that I am inclined to believe, based simply on my human experience. Mr. Podles went on to subtlety suggest that the involvement of more woman may be needed. I do not think that he was making a case for female ordination. It is more likely that he was suggesting that there be more administrative (and public) and, specifically, feminine light shone on the process . The implication is that woman would be more empathetic than clerical (and, incidentally, celibate) men. While, I think this may be somewhat more true than false, there is one particular aspect that is of specific interest to me.
What human institution has been primarily responsible for civilizing men and teaching them empathy; not to mention teach them that a diet should consist of more that Ramen noodles? These and many other societal benefits have been reaped from, you guessed it, MARRIAGE and the FAMILY. I believe that married men are much more empathetic that unmarried men. Perhaps, the Vatican should just drop the requirement of a celibate discipline and make it optional, for priests. I think there would be several benefits.
1) More men would become priests. If you doubt this, look at the high rate of increase of deacons, as compared with the decline in priests. Many of those who become deacons would choose to become priests, I believe.
2) There would need to be logistic changes that would allow priests to me more integral members of their parish. After all, their own wife and children would attend that parish. These changes would allow priests to stay at the same parish for a much longer time; perhaps their whole career.
3) The priesthood, generally, would get a substantial injection of testosterone. With this, the sodomite priest will be outnumbered and, perchance, it may be more likely that there will be less covering up as regards the child abuse. Remember, most accounts indicate that about 75% (there is some variance) of the child abuse cases are with post-pubescent boys.
Just a thought
What human institution has been primarily responsible for civilizing men and teaching them empathy; not to mention teach them that a diet should consist of more that Ramen noodles? These and many other societal benefits have been reaped from, you guessed it, MARRIAGE and the FAMILY. I believe that married men are much more empathetic that unmarried men. Perhaps, the Vatican should just drop the requirement of a celibate discipline and make it optional, for priests. I think there would be several benefits.
1) More men would become priests. If you doubt this, look at the high rate of increase of deacons, as compared with the decline in priests. Many of those who become deacons would choose to become priests, I believe.
2) There would need to be logistic changes that would allow priests to me more integral members of their parish. After all, their own wife and children would attend that parish. These changes would allow priests to stay at the same parish for a much longer time; perhaps their whole career.
3) The priesthood, generally, would get a substantial injection of testosterone. With this, the sodomite priest will be outnumbered and, perchance, it may be more likely that there will be less covering up as regards the child abuse. Remember, most accounts indicate that about 75% (there is some variance) of the child abuse cases are with post-pubescent boys.
Just a thought
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Thank God for Militant Atheists and Secularists!
The title of this post may seem strange to some. I really do mean it, though. The fact that militant atheists and secularists target the Catholic Church, specifically, and Christians, generally, is a great benefit to Christianity.
First, when atheists, specifically, and secularists, generally, attack the beliefs, traditions, and practices of the Christian faith, it does nothing but strengthen Christendom. After all the Christian worldview is solidly built on a reasonable, rational, historical, and internally consistent set of beliefs and values that are the under girding of the modern world. So, Christians have nothing to fear from secularism. A good read on this topic is the book by Thomas E. Woods Jr How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization. In that last 2,000 years, whenever a legitimate ideological threat has appeared to the Catholic Church, God has raised up a movement or person to respond to it. For example, God raised up St. Thomas Aquinas, the Angelic Doctor, to organize to cogent system of philosophy to respond the Avicennism, and its misrepresented Aristotelian philosophy, that threatened the philosophical foundations of Catholicism. But wait, I am giving entirely to much credit to the "new atheism". I say this, chiefly, for one reason.
There is nothing NEW about this atheism. The likes of Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett. Samuel Harris, and Christopher Hitchens have offered no new arguments against faith, Christianity, or Catholicism. There is no earth-shattering scientific discovery that they have presented. As for their arguments from philosophy or metaphysics, they are decidedly weak. At least, Jean-Paul Sartre and the old atheists like him were brave enough to draw out that the logical conclusion of their atheism and scientific naturalism was a complete collapse of any ethical system. All we are left with is the idea that might makes right; Friedrich Nietzsche's Übermensch (Superman). Remember the Holocaust? Ideas have consequences...or, does one easily forget the clear, ideological connection between Nietzsche and Hitler.
Second, I would like to express thanks to God Almighty for the bias of the secular media attack on the Catholic Church, in light of the child abuse issue. The secular media has done a worthy service in bringing this issue to the attention of the public. Truth be told, though, I would prefer that they give a more complete picture. The following points are good illustration of the manner in which the recent flurry is lacking.
1) Catholic Priests are, statistically, much less likely to be involved in sexual abuse of children that others.
2) Most of the reported cases involved priests and homosexual activity. Maybe a more fundamental problem has been turning a blind eye to priests with these tendencies.
3) Why the double standard? Why has the media and Hollywood types been so ambiguous about the heinous act of Roman Polanski and, conversely, led the charge to crucify priests? If Roman Polanski were a priest, would he have been given the same benefit of the doubt from the likes of MSNBC?
4) Much of the media coverage has been almost criminally inaccurate. See
From my point of view, all sexual activity, consensual or otherwise, between an adult and a child, is moral abhorrent and should be dealt with, legally. Also, I want to state clearly that my first concern is for those who have suffered such unjust abuse. My prayers are with them, and us all. Ruega por nosotros, Santa Madre de Dios!!!
If one is interested in the source of these points, please see "Pedophiles and Priests: Anatomy of a Contemporary Crisis" by Phillip Jenkins.
The bottom line, from where I sit, is that the gates of Hell with never stand against the Catholic Church, despite enemies internal and external. She, The Church, has taught consistently the same doctrines for the last 2,000 years, and several thousand more, if one considers the Jewish heritage of the Church. Therefore, I thank God for the recent attacks from atheists and secularist. On one hand, God will help Christians to answer the challenges; intellectually, spiritually, and more important, lovingly. Secondly, child abuse should be exposed and dealt with. As Saint Peter states in the Scriptures, "For it is time for the judgment to begin with the household of God; if it begins with us, how will it end for those who fail to obey the gospel of God?".
"Amados hermanos, ¿estáis afrontando muchas dificultades y pruebas?... Pues alegraos,
porque la prueba de vuestra fe da como fruto la paciencia, y el ejercitaros en la paciencia os hará perfectos y cabales, aptos para enfrentaros a cualquier circunstancia adversa que se os presente."
First, when atheists, specifically, and secularists, generally, attack the beliefs, traditions, and practices of the Christian faith, it does nothing but strengthen Christendom. After all the Christian worldview is solidly built on a reasonable, rational, historical, and internally consistent set of beliefs and values that are the under girding of the modern world. So, Christians have nothing to fear from secularism. A good read on this topic is the book by Thomas E. Woods Jr How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization. In that last 2,000 years, whenever a legitimate ideological threat has appeared to the Catholic Church, God has raised up a movement or person to respond to it. For example, God raised up St. Thomas Aquinas, the Angelic Doctor, to organize to cogent system of philosophy to respond the Avicennism, and its misrepresented Aristotelian philosophy, that threatened the philosophical foundations of Catholicism. But wait, I am giving entirely to much credit to the "new atheism". I say this, chiefly, for one reason.
There is nothing NEW about this atheism. The likes of Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett. Samuel Harris, and Christopher Hitchens have offered no new arguments against faith, Christianity, or Catholicism. There is no earth-shattering scientific discovery that they have presented. As for their arguments from philosophy or metaphysics, they are decidedly weak. At least, Jean-Paul Sartre and the old atheists like him were brave enough to draw out that the logical conclusion of their atheism and scientific naturalism was a complete collapse of any ethical system. All we are left with is the idea that might makes right; Friedrich Nietzsche's Übermensch (Superman). Remember the Holocaust? Ideas have consequences...or, does one easily forget the clear, ideological connection between Nietzsche and Hitler.
Second, I would like to express thanks to God Almighty for the bias of the secular media attack on the Catholic Church, in light of the child abuse issue. The secular media has done a worthy service in bringing this issue to the attention of the public. Truth be told, though, I would prefer that they give a more complete picture. The following points are good illustration of the manner in which the recent flurry is lacking.
1) Catholic Priests are, statistically, much less likely to be involved in sexual abuse of children that others.
2) Most of the reported cases involved priests and homosexual activity. Maybe a more fundamental problem has been turning a blind eye to priests with these tendencies.
3) Why the double standard? Why has the media and Hollywood types been so ambiguous about the heinous act of Roman Polanski and, conversely, led the charge to crucify priests? If Roman Polanski were a priest, would he have been given the same benefit of the doubt from the likes of MSNBC?
4) Much of the media coverage has been almost criminally inaccurate. See
From my point of view, all sexual activity, consensual or otherwise, between an adult and a child, is moral abhorrent and should be dealt with, legally. Also, I want to state clearly that my first concern is for those who have suffered such unjust abuse. My prayers are with them, and us all. Ruega por nosotros, Santa Madre de Dios!!!
If one is interested in the source of these points, please see "Pedophiles and Priests: Anatomy of a Contemporary Crisis" by Phillip Jenkins.
The bottom line, from where I sit, is that the gates of Hell with never stand against the Catholic Church, despite enemies internal and external. She, The Church, has taught consistently the same doctrines for the last 2,000 years, and several thousand more, if one considers the Jewish heritage of the Church. Therefore, I thank God for the recent attacks from atheists and secularist. On one hand, God will help Christians to answer the challenges; intellectually, spiritually, and more important, lovingly. Secondly, child abuse should be exposed and dealt with. As Saint Peter states in the Scriptures, "For it is time for the judgment to begin with the household of God; if it begins with us, how will it end for those who fail to obey the gospel of God?".
"Amados hermanos, ¿estáis afrontando muchas dificultades y pruebas?... Pues alegraos,
porque la prueba de vuestra fe da como fruto la paciencia, y el ejercitaros en la paciencia os hará perfectos y cabales, aptos para enfrentaros a cualquier circunstancia adversa que se os presente."
Monday, April 5, 2010
Beati qui ad cenam Agni vocati sunt!
This line from the Roman Rite of the Catholic Liturgy always seemed to resonate with me; sometimes for days. Happy are those who are called to the Feast of the Lamb! The phrase is normally translated this way. However, this translation does not do justice to the phrase; likely due to our modern usage of the word happy.
When most people use the word happy now, they usually me something else, like giddy, satiated, justified, content, glad, or pleased. In my opinion, Blessed is a better translation. After all, Beati is word that Christ uses in the Beatitudes and it is normally translated as Blessed.
What does it mean to be Blessed. The Merriam-Webster's Dictionary has a number of definitions, but all point to something more profound that happiness.
This leads me to an on-going discussion that I have been having with a co-worker. He says that happiness is, indeed, the object of human existence. I tend to agree. However, we disagree on this issue of what constitutes happiness. His contention is that it is a state of mind and one simply decides that they are happy and presto, they are.
On the contrary, I believe that all lesser forms of happiness, like satiety, sexual pleasure, aesthetic pleasure, etc. all lead to a an ultimate happiness that is found only in the highest good, which is the True God. In this regard, I agree with G.K. Chesterton when he said, ""A man knocking on the door of a brothel is knocking for God." Likewise, a recent song took a page out of St. Augustine's book and stated that "there's a God-shaped hole in all of us".
Temporary bits of happiness are breadcrumbs on the path to God, who left us a most visible piece of bread to lead us home to happiness. It is this "Bread and Wine" that nourishes us and leads to true, eternal happiness. I just amazes me that some (including my co-worker) see that those who seek only temporal pleasures and "happiness" usually end up with neither. Yet, the truly Happy and Blessed are called to a Feast that comes with it our own Crosses and, usually, pain and suffering. “Whoever wishes to come after Me, let Him deny Himself, take up His cross and follow me”, said Christ. It is only the truly happy who, like Saint Lawrence, said "Let my body be turned; one side is broiled enough."
"Whoever seeks to preserve his life will lose it, but whoever loses it will save it."
Indeed, are those HAPPY who are called to the Lamb's Feast!!!
Happy Easter to All!!!
Feliz Pascua de Resurrecion a Todos!!!
When most people use the word happy now, they usually me something else, like giddy, satiated, justified, content, glad, or pleased. In my opinion, Blessed is a better translation. After all, Beati is word that Christ uses in the Beatitudes and it is normally translated as Blessed.
What does it mean to be Blessed. The Merriam-Webster's Dictionary has a number of definitions, but all point to something more profound that happiness.
This leads me to an on-going discussion that I have been having with a co-worker. He says that happiness is, indeed, the object of human existence. I tend to agree. However, we disagree on this issue of what constitutes happiness. His contention is that it is a state of mind and one simply decides that they are happy and presto, they are.
On the contrary, I believe that all lesser forms of happiness, like satiety, sexual pleasure, aesthetic pleasure, etc. all lead to a an ultimate happiness that is found only in the highest good, which is the True God. In this regard, I agree with G.K. Chesterton when he said, ""A man knocking on the door of a brothel is knocking for God." Likewise, a recent song took a page out of St. Augustine's book and stated that "there's a God-shaped hole in all of us".
Temporary bits of happiness are breadcrumbs on the path to God, who left us a most visible piece of bread to lead us home to happiness. It is this "Bread and Wine" that nourishes us and leads to true, eternal happiness. I just amazes me that some (including my co-worker) see that those who seek only temporal pleasures and "happiness" usually end up with neither. Yet, the truly Happy and Blessed are called to a Feast that comes with it our own Crosses and, usually, pain and suffering. “Whoever wishes to come after Me, let Him deny Himself, take up His cross and follow me”, said Christ. It is only the truly happy who, like Saint Lawrence, said "Let my body be turned; one side is broiled enough."
"Whoever seeks to preserve his life will lose it, but whoever loses it will save it."
Indeed, are those HAPPY who are called to the Lamb's Feast!!!
Happy Easter to All!!!
Feliz Pascua de Resurrecion a Todos!!!
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Secular Media & Unjustly Bashing El Papa
Please Read! This is a wonderful article that exposes the secular media and the its unjustified attack on El Papa.
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Saints Thomas Aquinas & Bonaventure compared
I came across this wonderful transcript on Dominican Province of St. Joseph's website on the Pope's General Audience. In this particular address, the Vicar of Christ compared and contracted the philosophic approaches of St. Bonaventure and St. Thomas Aquinas. I must admit a recent increase in my interest in St. Bonaventure's writings. In fact, I am reading this book, now.
There is a refreshing directness to St. Bonaventure's thought. It is crystal clear from his writings that real goal of all things; including theology and philosophy ought to be sainthood. As he said, "Let us pray, therefore and say to our Lord God: 'Lead me, Lord, on your way and I will walk in your truth. My heart rejoices in fearing your name'"
There is a refreshing directness to St. Bonaventure's thought. It is crystal clear from his writings that real goal of all things; including theology and philosophy ought to be sainthood. As he said, "Let us pray, therefore and say to our Lord God: 'Lead me, Lord, on your way and I will walk in your truth. My heart rejoices in fearing your name'"
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Monday, March 15, 2010
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Peter Kreeft is a Genius!
"Europe is a spectacular example of a sophisticated, cultured, sensitive, advanced, compassionate continent that is dying because it has repudiated its “primitive” roots. It will soon be a Muslim continent—necessarily so, because it is uprooted while Islam is rooted, and only rooted plants grow."
Boston College philosophy professor, Peter Kreeft (whom I respect greatly), made the above statement on his website in commenting on one of his latest books, "Between Allah and Jesus: What Christians Can Learn from Muslims". As a former Muslim, I agree with him. Often, when discussing Islam with other Christians, I tried explain this point to them (although not nearly as articulate).
Dr. Kreeft mentioned in his commentary, that Christians have, largely, abandoned the primitive and primordial shock and awe of the Ancient Christianity. Specifically, the ideas that our actions count and Hell is real have been set aside as archaic and unloving. This is all despite the fact that God does more than little smiting in the Good Book. As an aside, I think this may have something to do with Dr. Martin Luther and his gutting of the Gospel message. In my opinion, most Christians have no sense of this "fear of the Lord", and this is apparent in most of contemporary Christian music which is, unfortunaely, little more that 'Jesus is my boyfriend' anthems. Conversely, another wonderful example is the classic pictures of Jesus from the middle ages that I like to call the Smackdown Jesus.
Christians of the middle ages, before the endarkenment, had an orthodox and healthy relationship with Jesus as Judge and Savior. One can see this in Saint Ambrose's prayer wherein he states "Therefore, O loving God, O fearful Majesty, wretchedly caught in the midst of my extremities do I turn to Thee, the fountain of mercy; to Thee do I hasten to be healed; to Thy protection do I fly. And for Thee, before whom as Judge I cannot stand, as Saviour do I yearn". Muslims similarly see a healthy relationship with God as a perfect balance between fear and love. Christians need to recapture this primordial dynamic relationship, if they desire a revitalization of Christendom; lest the Lord say to us, "Who is this that obscures divine plans with words of ignorance? Gird up your loins now, like a man; I will question you, and you tell me the answers!"
Boston College philosophy professor, Peter Kreeft (whom I respect greatly), made the above statement on his website in commenting on one of his latest books, "Between Allah and Jesus: What Christians Can Learn from Muslims". As a former Muslim, I agree with him. Often, when discussing Islam with other Christians, I tried explain this point to them (although not nearly as articulate).
Dr. Kreeft mentioned in his commentary, that Christians have, largely, abandoned the primitive and primordial shock and awe of the Ancient Christianity. Specifically, the ideas that our actions count and Hell is real have been set aside as archaic and unloving. This is all despite the fact that God does more than little smiting in the Good Book. As an aside, I think this may have something to do with Dr. Martin Luther and his gutting of the Gospel message. In my opinion, most Christians have no sense of this "fear of the Lord", and this is apparent in most of contemporary Christian music which is, unfortunaely, little more that 'Jesus is my boyfriend' anthems. Conversely, another wonderful example is the classic pictures of Jesus from the middle ages that I like to call the Smackdown Jesus.
Christians of the middle ages, before the endarkenment, had an orthodox and healthy relationship with Jesus as Judge and Savior. One can see this in Saint Ambrose's prayer wherein he states "Therefore, O loving God, O fearful Majesty, wretchedly caught in the midst of my extremities do I turn to Thee, the fountain of mercy; to Thee do I hasten to be healed; to Thy protection do I fly. And for Thee, before whom as Judge I cannot stand, as Saviour do I yearn". Muslims similarly see a healthy relationship with God as a perfect balance between fear and love. Christians need to recapture this primordial dynamic relationship, if they desire a revitalization of Christendom; lest the Lord say to us, "Who is this that obscures divine plans with words of ignorance? Gird up your loins now, like a man; I will question you, and you tell me the answers!"
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Archbishop Chaput defends the Catholic School System!
Archbishop Chaput of Denver, CO USA defends the recent decision of a Catholic school not to enroll a child of a woman who was living in a homosexually active relationship with another woman. Thank You, Archbishop!!!
Sunday, March 7, 2010
A Prayer for Use of the Internet
Here is prayer before logging on to the Internet.
Saint Isidore of Seville Sanctus Isidorus Hispalensis
Proposed Patron Saint of Internet Users
(c.560 - 636)
A Prayer before Logging onto the Internet and the Catholic Online Forum
Almighty and eternal God, who created us in Thy image and bade us to seek after all that is good, true and beautiful, especially in the divine person of Thy only-begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, grant we beseech Thee that, through the intercession of Saint Isidore, bishop and doctor, during our journeys through the internet we will direct our hands and eyes only to that which is pleasing to Thee and treat with charity and patience all those souls whom we encounter.
Through Christ our Lord.
Amen
Saint Isidore of Seville Sanctus Isidorus Hispalensis
Proposed Patron Saint of Internet Users
(c.560 - 636)
A Prayer before Logging onto the Internet and the Catholic Online Forum
Almighty and eternal God, who created us in Thy image and bade us to seek after all that is good, true and beautiful, especially in the divine person of Thy only-begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, grant we beseech Thee that, through the intercession of Saint Isidore, bishop and doctor, during our journeys through the internet we will direct our hands and eyes only to that which is pleasing to Thee and treat with charity and patience all those souls whom we encounter.
Through Christ our Lord.
Amen
Saturday, March 6, 2010
Bart Stupak is Defender of the Little Ones!
Bart Stupak should be knighted. Of course, given that he maintains his (and others) staunch defence of the unborn. Let us all pray that those who defend the rights of babies in the womb will stand firm and win the day. No one has the "right to choose" to kill another human being. Also, remember, abortion harms, first and foremost, women. Let pray for those women who are need to be healed (spiritually, morally, & physically).
Friday, March 5, 2010
Thursday, March 4, 2010
University of Notre Dame, What a Shame!!!
Contact NCAA about Focus on the Family
It looks like the NCAA bowed to pressure from far-left, pro-infanticide, & anti-family groups. See the article here.
Please contact NCAA to protest their removal of Focus on the Family advertisements.
ACTION: Contact the NCAA here. Or email pmr@ncaa.org, Call the NCAA Public Relations at 317-917-6762 or call the NCAA Main Number 317-917-6222.
Please contact NCAA to protest their removal of Focus on the Family advertisements.
ACTION: Contact the NCAA here. Or email pmr@ncaa.org, Call the NCAA Public Relations at 317-917-6762 or call the NCAA Main Number 317-917-6222.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Welcome to the Bizarro World...where we decide what words mean
This article is incredible. Two woman decided entered a "civil union" and one of the woman became pregnant (probably through Invitro). Apparently, some years later, the woman who have the baby decided that she did not, in fact, believe that homosexual activity was morality good and became a Christian. Later, there was a split between the two woman and the Christian (I will call her The Mother from here on out, because SHE IS) woman decided to not allow the other woman to visit the child. When the court odered the mother to allow visitation, she skipped out and now they have issued an arrest warrant. The other woman is reported to have said, in the article, "I hope the judge's order today gives law enforcement the tools they need to find my daughter". WHAT ???? It is NOT her daughter. She may have had a relationship with the daughter, but she IS NOT the girl's mother. Words do have meanings. This is just another example of the "gay rights" agenda shoving the moral repugnance that is homosexual activity down our throats.
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Evolution is a Threat to Human Reason
I, recently, came across a book in Barnes & Nobles. The book is titled "Philosophy in the Flesh : The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought". I have always suspected that the human mind in intrinsically tied up with the physical body and that "how we live" is (and ought to be) tied up with how we are hard-wired. In skimming this book and reading some reviews online, a contrasting thought occurred to me, though. If we conceive of the mind being too intrinsically based in the flesh, the consequences for society would be catastrophic. Stated more simply, if this biological morality paradigm is given free reign, then why should a woman not eat her mate after mating, like some spiders do? Human morality, again, is the trump card to the diabolical! This article says it better.
Friday, February 26, 2010
The Beauty of Modesty
It is time for Christians to return to modesty. This article is a must read!
“Modesty is reverence for mystery.” - Msgr. Charles Pope
“Modesty is reverence for mystery.” - Msgr. Charles Pope
Do You Promise to Tell the Truth...?
I just got finished viewing the 1961 epic movie "El Cid". What a movie! Given the predominance of the CGI and computer-based technologies, I doubt we will see anything like this in the near future. The sets, costumes, and overall pagentry were extremely vivid and grand. Overall, I do not feel it is a great movie. However, it is certainly remarkable in the epic genre. Perhaps, it is even one of the best of the genre.
One scene stood out to me, though. El Cid compels king Alfonso VI to take an oath that he had no direct or indirect hand in the death of Alfonso's brother (Sancho II), on the Holy Bible. Rodrigo Díaz de Vivar "El Cid" will not kneel to Alfonso VI until he this oath is taken. I was struck by the contrast of this scene with the modern value of integrity and honesty.
Before I begin, let me be clear that I do understand the poem of El Cid is substantially mythic. I am not laboring under the delusion that the poem is 100% factual. This is not my point. Myth does, though, sufficiently articulate what a culture believes OUGHT to be valued. In the case of the scene that I mentioning, truth and integrity are shown as integral to what it means to be a hero.
More specifically, though, I want to underline the placement of the hand on the Holy Bible for an oath. The modern liberal mind usually reels at the thought of an oath on a holy book. They even find it repulsive that one should be required to swear "By God". My question is related to this point. If one does not swear by a higher authority, what would one swear by? Given this, can our society reasonably assume that a "card carrying" atheist is under any compulsion or binding to tell the truth. If one does not believe that they will not be held to account (eternally) by the ontological, rational basis for all life (God), why should we not think that this atheist will simply lie when the circumstances are in his best interest? After all, he is only answerable to himself, if there is not TRUTH.
Just a thought....
One scene stood out to me, though. El Cid compels king Alfonso VI to take an oath that he had no direct or indirect hand in the death of Alfonso's brother (Sancho II), on the Holy Bible. Rodrigo Díaz de Vivar "El Cid" will not kneel to Alfonso VI until he this oath is taken. I was struck by the contrast of this scene with the modern value of integrity and honesty.
Before I begin, let me be clear that I do understand the poem of El Cid is substantially mythic. I am not laboring under the delusion that the poem is 100% factual. This is not my point. Myth does, though, sufficiently articulate what a culture believes OUGHT to be valued. In the case of the scene that I mentioning, truth and integrity are shown as integral to what it means to be a hero.
More specifically, though, I want to underline the placement of the hand on the Holy Bible for an oath. The modern liberal mind usually reels at the thought of an oath on a holy book. They even find it repulsive that one should be required to swear "By God". My question is related to this point. If one does not swear by a higher authority, what would one swear by? Given this, can our society reasonably assume that a "card carrying" atheist is under any compulsion or binding to tell the truth. If one does not believe that they will not be held to account (eternally) by the ontological, rational basis for all life (God), why should we not think that this atheist will simply lie when the circumstances are in his best interest? After all, he is only answerable to himself, if there is not TRUTH.
Just a thought....
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Monday, February 22, 2010
Common sense argument against same sex "marriage"
Here is a solid, commonsensical, rational, and reasonable arguement against the legalization of same sex unions.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
A Refreshingly, yet Tradicional Perspective on Ecology
This is way a true holistic ecology should look like.
Saints of the Day - Remember Fatima!
Remember the events at Fatima today! Also, check out the new movie.
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Don't They Test for Drugs at the Washington Post?
Wow! I was recently hipped to this recent article in the Washington Post on the "World Over" by Raymond Arroyo of EWTN. Upon reading the article, my jaw hit the floor. The implication is that since one woman's contract was not extended, then clearly the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom was a corrupt organization with an "anti-Muslim" bias that needs to be disbanded. What an absurd claim! Incidentally, this organization will be dissolved in 2011, if not extended. Please contact you congressmen and the President to have it renewed.
What this article seemed to conveniently not mention is that it is governments of predominantly Muslim countries and Jihad-minded fundamentalists who do much of the religious persecution in the world. It seems the Commission is, indeed, barking up the right tree. If Michelle Boorstein has not heard, Christians are the ones being persecuted. I am not suggesting that there is not occasional persecution of Muslims. However, militant Islam is the single biggest threat to religious freedom in the world.
What this article seemed to conveniently not mention is that it is governments of predominantly Muslim countries and Jihad-minded fundamentalists who do much of the religious persecution in the world. It seems the Commission is, indeed, barking up the right tree. If Michelle Boorstein has not heard, Christians are the ones being persecuted. I am not suggesting that there is not occasional persecution of Muslims. However, militant Islam is the single biggest threat to religious freedom in the world.
Friday, February 19, 2010
"rulers are not a cause of fear to good conduct, but to evil..."
I came across this article on the internet. I am sure that most westerners are aghast at the use of caning as a punishment. As a former Muslim, I am not. In fact, in light of medieval canonical punishments used by the Catholic Church, I don not even think it is extreme. Certainly, I am in the minority here, but if punishment (that is reasonable and respectful of the perpetrators' personhood) brings about repentence, it is good, in my opinion.
Monday, February 15, 2010
A Review better than the movie...???
www.decentfilms.com is a website that I frequent due to the reviewer's keen eye for a good story from a Catholic perspective. I came across a review on the site for a movie called "Things We Lost in the Fire", starring Benicio Del Toro and Halle Berry. While I did like the movie, it certainly did have its flaws. Generally, it was too much of a "chick flick" for me. Nevertheless, for whatever reason, I felt it was haunting in its portrayal of the grief of loss. The review, though, may be even better than the movie.
"Go, sell whatsoever thou hast..... And come, follow me."
Here is another example of the revitalization of the Catholic Church by the young. Look....He is making all things new! Those new tradicionalistos are at it again.
Friday, February 12, 2010
Feminism Unveiled!
Here is a wonderful collection of information that serves, sufficiently in my opinion, to show feminism for what it truly is; an ultra-radical, anti-family, and ungodly plot to destroy society as we know it.
Sunday, February 7, 2010
If Consent is truly the last vestige of morality, as regards marriage...
Ariel Katz makes a complling case for the legalization of polygamy here. It is possible that "gay marriage" could be legalized and, if so, polygamy could follow (in all its possible forms). I know, I know...some may say that the law can restrict marriage to two persons. The problem is that, based on the equality paradigm put in place during the legal arguments for "gay marriage", such a restriction would be ruled discriminatory. All that would be needed would be the political pressure. Besides, who are we (monogamists) to push our beliefs on polygamists ???!!! Read it here.
The Belittling of Manhood: Women Do Get It!
I came across another interesting blog post written by a woman. It can be read here. The "Sexual Revolution" and "Women's Rights" movements have steadily sought, consciously or unconsciously, to erode sexual roles; in the interest of "equality". It is a sham! I am not suggesting that misogyny or abuse does not exist. However, the baby must NOT be thrown out with the bath water. The modern confusion of roles for men as opposed to women, in my opinion, stems from an ignorance of category distinctions. The words SAME and EQUAL are NOT synonomous.
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Tim Tebow's Pro-Choice Commercial
I wanted to make sure I chimed in on the Tim Tebow commercial debate before the Super Bowl. This may sound shocking, but I think the NARALs and the NOWs of the world should be supporting this advertisement; if they are truly pushing for "choice". Tim Tebow's mother could have legally opted for an abortion. But, she CHOSE the heroic path of motherhood. The pro-infanticide crowd should be touting the benefit of having choice. A much more articulate perspective on this issue is stated here.
Friday, February 5, 2010
Politics - An Honest Dialog (And I thought dialog was dead)
Jon Stewart joined Bill O'Reilly on the "The Factor" recently and I was surprised to see a fair (and entertaining, too) dialoug between two personalities that, at least in the popular political American mind, represents the political left and right. I do think, in both Stewart and O'Reilly's case, the truth is more nuanced. Regardless, I thought it was refreshing to watch this discussion. I believe that this is the remedy for the current polemic gridlock that encumbers America politics. Instead of simply discrediting the other side, through linguistic gymnastics and marketing, the goal should be charitable engagement. Let us ask the difficult questions about the most contentious questions on the political landscape, like "homosexual marriage", abortion, and others. One has to love the sinner and hate the sin; no matter what side your on. Otherwise, we will continue to be mired in the swamp of "Don't ask, don't tell" and "A Woman's right to choose". It always strikes me as disturbing that the proponents of the later phrase never complete the sentence and say that they believe a woman should have the right to choose to KILL her baby.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Homosexual Agenda is a Threat to Free Speech!
The homosexual agenda is simply intended to stifle free speech of Christians, Jews, Muslims, and any still with enough common sense to see that homosexual ACTIVITY (not tendencies, inclinations, or feelings) is unnatural and immoral. This video is a fair discussion of the issue. Let me also add that I am NOT advocating any kind of harassment or punishment of persons who identify themselves as "homosexual".
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Pornography Addiction is a Great Evil!
I came across this blog entry, concerning pornography addiction, and totally agree. Thankfully, I have not been saddled with this addiction, but I believe pornography has indeed infected our world. Also, in this same vein, I would recommend this book.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Abortion is Murder!
If you want to see the result of abortion, check out this link. Beware, though, they are not for the faint of heart. It is unbelievable to me that some people support killing babies in the name of "sexual freedom".
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Dig It! I am a personalist!
I am coming out of the closet! I am a personalist! Wouldn't you like to be one too?
The Moral Descent of Man
Romans 1:16-32
For I am not ashamed of the gospel. It is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: for Jew first, and then Greek.
For in it is revealed the righteousness of God from faith to faith; as it is written, "The one who is righteous by faith will live."
The wrath of God is indeed being revealed from heaven against every impiety and wickedness of those who suppress the truth by their wickedness.
For what can be known about God is evident to them, because God made it evident to them.
Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made. As a result, they have no excuse; for although they knew God they did not accord him glory as God or give him thanks. Instead, they became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened.
While claiming to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for the likeness of an image of mortal man or of birds or of four-legged animals or of snakes.
Therefore, God handed them over to impurity through the lusts of their hearts for the mutual degradation of their bodies.
They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and revered and worshiped the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural,and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity.
And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God handed them over to their undiscerning mind to do what is improper.
They are filled with every form of wickedness, evil, greed, and malice; full of envy, murder, rivalry, treachery, and spite. They are gossips and scandalmongers and they hate God. They are insolent, haughty, boastful, ingenious in their wickedness, and rebellious toward their parents.
They are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.
Although they know the just decree of God that all who practice such things deserve death, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.
For I am not ashamed of the gospel. It is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: for Jew first, and then Greek.
For in it is revealed the righteousness of God from faith to faith; as it is written, "The one who is righteous by faith will live."
The wrath of God is indeed being revealed from heaven against every impiety and wickedness of those who suppress the truth by their wickedness.
For what can be known about God is evident to them, because God made it evident to them.
Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made. As a result, they have no excuse; for although they knew God they did not accord him glory as God or give him thanks. Instead, they became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened.
While claiming to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for the likeness of an image of mortal man or of birds or of four-legged animals or of snakes.
Therefore, God handed them over to impurity through the lusts of their hearts for the mutual degradation of their bodies.
They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and revered and worshiped the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural,and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity.
And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God handed them over to their undiscerning mind to do what is improper.
They are filled with every form of wickedness, evil, greed, and malice; full of envy, murder, rivalry, treachery, and spite. They are gossips and scandalmongers and they hate God. They are insolent, haughty, boastful, ingenious in their wickedness, and rebellious toward their parents.
They are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.
Although they know the just decree of God that all who practice such things deserve death, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
The Population Bomb is a Myth!
I saw an interesting documentary last night. It dealt with demographics and its intrinsic relation to the human race; economically, socially, politically, etc. The synopsis goes like this. Humans, for a variety of reasons are having less and less children and, despite the "Population Bomb" alarmist proponents' pleasure, is not a good thing. The documentary chronicled the likely impact of this "Demographic Winter" on human beings. The bottom line is that the numbers prove (scientifically) that the most efficient way for the human race to sustain itself, in all aspects, is the traditional patrimonial family and society. It is, in the words of one expert, "The Gold Standard". I am sure this science will be ignored by the socially, leftist radicals that populate our universities. After all, who am I to suggest that SURVIVAL is more important than "sexual freedom"? So....why is divorce, homosexuality, fornication, pornography, and all sorts of sexual deviance bad? Because it decreases our ability to survive as a species. Take Heed!
Friday, January 1, 2010
Atheists are Cowards!
I really believe this statement. Please allow me to elaborate by defining my terms. An Atheist is, generally, someone who rejects Theism (or at least one of its forms) or denies that any deities exist. I am, specifically, discussing the anti-supernatural materialists that are typified by Richard Dawkins and his ilk.
By use of the term Coward, I mean to indicates someone who "shows disgraceful fear or timidity". More specifically, they display this intellectual cowardice by refusing to utilize their God-given (or natural, if you prefer) intellectual capabilities to reason to atheism's logical conclusion; that is, fear, hopelessness, selfishness, and nihilism. I prefer to see it as the Willy Wonka does and say that "You should never doubt what no one is sure about".
The belief in deities is as old a mankind and shows no signs of abating. I am suggesting, as opposed to what the Daniel Dennett's of the world would say, that theism, in one form or another, is wired into our very being. It is as organic as the hair that grows in men's ears. If one person can be more intelligent than another, surely, it is likely that there be an ultimate higher being.
The type of Atheist that I am discussing here is the ones who proudly accept the label of "New Atheist". I am unsure how convinced people are of this novelty. The "New Atheists" are, largely, saying nothing more that the hardcore Atheists of the past. In fact, they are saying much less. Albert Camus and Jean-Paul Satre at least had the courage to reason our their atheism to its logical end. This end, by the way, is not happy. Unsurprisingly, it lacks Hope (as well as Faith and Charity). Satre basically came to the conclusion that all man could do is bravely shake an angry fist in the face of man's cruel, short, and (ultimately) purposeless life.
The modern Atheist, like Mr. Dawkins, fancies that he and his comrades have stumbled upon ideas that have never been espoused before. They apparently have never read L'Etranger by Camus, or studied much world history. They clearly are not versed in what the real result of card carrying atheism has historically been, for the individual, as well as society. There is a direct correlation between the beliefs and actions of the most notorious mass murderers (like Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot) and atheism. Incidentally, one of the most bizarre views that have is that atheism was not responsible for Stalin's action, for example. As G.K. Chesterton said, "Once abolish the God, and the government becomes the God".
As a side note I will acknowledge that faithful Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. have done horrific things. However, one simple glance at the numbers of persons killed due to atheistic ideologies and regimes should relieve one of the modern misunderstanding that religion causes all of the world problems. There is, also, the point that religions have a self-correcting collective moral conscience. Atheism, when it fully embraces relativistic morals, can permit no such conscience. For example, a hardcore Atheist can rightfully feel Pol Pot to have been an extremely efficient leader. This is rarely the case though, as Natural Law naturally manifests itself in the Atheist's conscience (despite his ignorance).
I am not, here, espousing one faith tradition or another. The Flying Spaghetti Monster may be offended at such audacity. My statement is intended to express that I wish people like Dawkins (who appears to be a gifted scientist) would not stop as studying merely mechanism and continue to ask questions about why. Metaphysics is alive and well for intelligent and reasonable people. As scientists study the "how" of the natural world, they need to be brave enough engage the cooresponding "why" questions. After all, It may turn out that atheism is a Darwinian misfire.
P.S. - I found another interesting perspective (and probably more interesting than mine) at this blog.
By use of the term Coward, I mean to indicates someone who "shows disgraceful fear or timidity". More specifically, they display this intellectual cowardice by refusing to utilize their God-given (or natural, if you prefer) intellectual capabilities to reason to atheism's logical conclusion; that is, fear, hopelessness, selfishness, and nihilism. I prefer to see it as the Willy Wonka does and say that "You should never doubt what no one is sure about".
The belief in deities is as old a mankind and shows no signs of abating. I am suggesting, as opposed to what the Daniel Dennett's of the world would say, that theism, in one form or another, is wired into our very being. It is as organic as the hair that grows in men's ears. If one person can be more intelligent than another, surely, it is likely that there be an ultimate higher being.
The type of Atheist that I am discussing here is the ones who proudly accept the label of "New Atheist". I am unsure how convinced people are of this novelty. The "New Atheists" are, largely, saying nothing more that the hardcore Atheists of the past. In fact, they are saying much less. Albert Camus and Jean-Paul Satre at least had the courage to reason our their atheism to its logical end. This end, by the way, is not happy. Unsurprisingly, it lacks Hope (as well as Faith and Charity). Satre basically came to the conclusion that all man could do is bravely shake an angry fist in the face of man's cruel, short, and (ultimately) purposeless life.
The modern Atheist, like Mr. Dawkins, fancies that he and his comrades have stumbled upon ideas that have never been espoused before. They apparently have never read L'Etranger by Camus, or studied much world history. They clearly are not versed in what the real result of card carrying atheism has historically been, for the individual, as well as society. There is a direct correlation between the beliefs and actions of the most notorious mass murderers (like Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot) and atheism. Incidentally, one of the most bizarre views that have is that atheism was not responsible for Stalin's action, for example. As G.K. Chesterton said, "Once abolish the God, and the government becomes the God".
As a side note I will acknowledge that faithful Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. have done horrific things. However, one simple glance at the numbers of persons killed due to atheistic ideologies and regimes should relieve one of the modern misunderstanding that religion causes all of the world problems. There is, also, the point that religions have a self-correcting collective moral conscience. Atheism, when it fully embraces relativistic morals, can permit no such conscience. For example, a hardcore Atheist can rightfully feel Pol Pot to have been an extremely efficient leader. This is rarely the case though, as Natural Law naturally manifests itself in the Atheist's conscience (despite his ignorance).
I am not, here, espousing one faith tradition or another. The Flying Spaghetti Monster may be offended at such audacity. My statement is intended to express that I wish people like Dawkins (who appears to be a gifted scientist) would not stop as studying merely mechanism and continue to ask questions about why. Metaphysics is alive and well for intelligent and reasonable people. As scientists study the "how" of the natural world, they need to be brave enough engage the cooresponding "why" questions. After all, It may turn out that atheism is a Darwinian misfire.
P.S. - I found another interesting perspective (and probably more interesting than mine) at this blog.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
