Though I am still in shock over the fact that so many Catholics voted for Barama last week, I am feeling very proud of the way the US Bishops are re-acting to his radical abortion stand. I have a good vibe that in four years, things will be very different. I believe that if Barama attempts to press a hard-line pro-choice agenda, the war is on!
Here’s what a handful of bishops have said in the last 24 hours:
Bishop Bruskewitz (Omaha): "One cannot compromise between the fire and the fire department, the fly and the fly swatter. There are things that don't admit of compromise - and a vile … intrinsic evil such as abortion do not admit us any such compromise."
Bishop Martino (Scranton): "We are going to have to speak as firmly as possible to Catholic politicians who are not merely reluctant to vote pro-life, but are stridently anti-life… We have to [use] something like [excommunication]. I cannot have the vice president-elect coming to Scranton saying he learned his values there, when his values, at least in the area of abortion, are utterly against the teachings of the Catholic Church."
Bishop Conlon (Steubenville): "Some people may think it's time for a truce, but we're dealing with a moral absolute. There's nothing here that allows for common ground. We're talking about a human being whose life cannot be compromised."
Bishop Hermann (St. Louis): "Any bishop here would be willing, would consider it a privilege, to die tomorrow if it meant ending abortion… We should dedicate the rest of our lives to taking any kind of criticism, whatever it is, to stop this horrible genocide."
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
A Berkeley-Instructed Neurobiologist Defends Life via Sicentific Inquiry
Dr. Maureen Condic, an associate professor of neurobiology and anatomy who received her doctorate in neurobiology from the University of California (Berkeley), has just published a major paper on when human life begins.
She recently sat down with Zenit news for an interview about her scientific findings. The following blips are a few highlights from the interview:
Zenit: You define the moment of conception as the second it takes for the sperm and egg to fuse and form a zygote. What were the scientific principles you used to arrive at this conclusion?
Condic: The central question of "when does human life begin" can be stated in a somewhat different way: When do sperm and egg cease to be, and what kind of thing takes their place once they cease to be?To address this question scientifically, we need to rely on sound scientific argument and on the factual evidence. Scientists make distinctions between different cell types (for example, sperm, egg and the cell they produce at fertilization) based on two simple criteria: Cells are known to be different because they are made of different components and because they behave in distinct ways.These two criteria are used throughout the scientific enterprise to distinguish one cell type from another, and they are the basis of all scientific (as opposed to arbitrary, faith-based or political) distinctions. I have applied these two criteria to the scientific data concerning fertilization, and they are the basis for the conclusion that a new human organism comes into existence at the moment of sperm-egg fusion.
Zenit: Many in the scientific world would say that fertilization doesn't happen in a moment, but rather that it is a process that comes to an end at the end of the first cell cycle, which is 24 hours later. Why is it important to define a "moment of conception," as opposed to a "process of fertilization"?
Condic: It is not important to somehow define a "moment" or a "process" of fertilization in the abstract. It is important to base conclusions and judgments about human embryos on sound scientific reasoning and on the best available scientific evidence.Had this analysis led to a different conclusion -- for example, that fertilization is a "process" -- I would have accepted this conclusion as scientifically valid. However, a scientific analysis of the best available data does not support the conclusion that fertilization is a "process"; it supports the conclusion that fertilization is an event that takes less than a second to complete.The events of the first 24 hours following sperm-egg fusion are clearly unique, but they are also clearly acts of a human organism, not acts of a mere human cell.
Zenit: Do opinion, belief and politics have a place in defining the beginning of a new life? How is it that the topic has become an issue of debate?
Condic: …It is important to appreciate that the scientific facts are themselves entirely neutral; they are simply a reflection of the way the world is… While people are free to formulate their opinion on when human life begins in any manner they choose (including belief and politics), not all opinions are equally consistent with factual reality. Those who choose to ignore the facts cannot expect their opinions to garner as much respect or to be given as much credibility as those who base their opinions in sound scientific observation and analysis. [Comment: So people can say that life doesn’t begin until birth – but the scientific truth of the matter is that it begins at the moment, less than a second long, of conception]
For more, check out the full article.
You can also read her paper: When does human life begin?
She recently sat down with Zenit news for an interview about her scientific findings. The following blips are a few highlights from the interview:
Zenit: You define the moment of conception as the second it takes for the sperm and egg to fuse and form a zygote. What were the scientific principles you used to arrive at this conclusion?
Condic: The central question of "when does human life begin" can be stated in a somewhat different way: When do sperm and egg cease to be, and what kind of thing takes their place once they cease to be?To address this question scientifically, we need to rely on sound scientific argument and on the factual evidence. Scientists make distinctions between different cell types (for example, sperm, egg and the cell they produce at fertilization) based on two simple criteria: Cells are known to be different because they are made of different components and because they behave in distinct ways.These two criteria are used throughout the scientific enterprise to distinguish one cell type from another, and they are the basis of all scientific (as opposed to arbitrary, faith-based or political) distinctions. I have applied these two criteria to the scientific data concerning fertilization, and they are the basis for the conclusion that a new human organism comes into existence at the moment of sperm-egg fusion.
Zenit: Many in the scientific world would say that fertilization doesn't happen in a moment, but rather that it is a process that comes to an end at the end of the first cell cycle, which is 24 hours later. Why is it important to define a "moment of conception," as opposed to a "process of fertilization"?
Condic: It is not important to somehow define a "moment" or a "process" of fertilization in the abstract. It is important to base conclusions and judgments about human embryos on sound scientific reasoning and on the best available scientific evidence.Had this analysis led to a different conclusion -- for example, that fertilization is a "process" -- I would have accepted this conclusion as scientifically valid. However, a scientific analysis of the best available data does not support the conclusion that fertilization is a "process"; it supports the conclusion that fertilization is an event that takes less than a second to complete.The events of the first 24 hours following sperm-egg fusion are clearly unique, but they are also clearly acts of a human organism, not acts of a mere human cell.
Zenit: Do opinion, belief and politics have a place in defining the beginning of a new life? How is it that the topic has become an issue of debate?
Condic: …It is important to appreciate that the scientific facts are themselves entirely neutral; they are simply a reflection of the way the world is… While people are free to formulate their opinion on when human life begins in any manner they choose (including belief and politics), not all opinions are equally consistent with factual reality. Those who choose to ignore the facts cannot expect their opinions to garner as much respect or to be given as much credibility as those who base their opinions in sound scientific observation and analysis. [Comment: So people can say that life doesn’t begin until birth – but the scientific truth of the matter is that it begins at the moment, less than a second long, of conception]
For more, check out the full article.
You can also read her paper: When does human life begin?
Monday, November 10, 2008
Gay Marriage Supporters Get Violent
In case you are unaware, last week the citizens of California voted in a measure to overturn a California Supreme Court ruling which legalized gay marriage in the state. The measure, Proposition 8, was a success – but gay “rights” activists have taken to the streets, chanting hate and even beating those who opposed them.
Here are some excerpts from a recent article about the protests:
“Supporters of California’s Proposition 8 are reporting harassment and even violent assaults from opponents protesting the passage of the ballot proposal which rescinded a California Supreme Court decision that imposed same-sex marriage on the state.”
“Paul Bishop, a Los Angeles Police Department supervisor reported on the election aftermath…”
While both sides were opposed to each other, “‘…the way to tell the difference [between them] is the No On 8 supporters [pro-gay marriage] usually accompanied their horn honking with an obscene gesture or a string of obscenities. They also liked to swerve their cars toward the children on the curb.’”
Bishop, “… noted that several of his ward members had received hate mail after their names, religious affiliation, contribution amounts, and addresses were published on a web site inciting Proposition 8 opponents to target the individuals listed.”
“Los Angeles police were deployed to keep the peace at an anti-Proposition 8 protest held last Thursday at the city’s LDS temple, where protesters were rushing the gates… ‘The late local news showed scenes of several Hispanic females in tears outside the temple trying to remove the signs desecrating the walls and fences surrounding the temple. As these individuals – who according to a temple spokesperson were not church members – removed the hate-filled signs, the mob exploded and began beating the individuals to the ground,’ Bishop wrote in Meridian. ‘Police intervened and arrests were made, but the fact this was allowed to happen at all was appalling.’”
“‘The time has come to take it out there to the people who voted for this awful thing,’ said San Francisco Supervisor Bevan Dufty [a supporter of gay marriage].”
It’s ironic when peace-loving, anti-war liberals act like terrorists in their own lands.
Here are some excerpts from a recent article about the protests:
“Supporters of California’s Proposition 8 are reporting harassment and even violent assaults from opponents protesting the passage of the ballot proposal which rescinded a California Supreme Court decision that imposed same-sex marriage on the state.”
“Paul Bishop, a Los Angeles Police Department supervisor reported on the election aftermath…”
While both sides were opposed to each other, “‘…the way to tell the difference [between them] is the No On 8 supporters [pro-gay marriage] usually accompanied their horn honking with an obscene gesture or a string of obscenities. They also liked to swerve their cars toward the children on the curb.’”
Bishop, “… noted that several of his ward members had received hate mail after their names, religious affiliation, contribution amounts, and addresses were published on a web site inciting Proposition 8 opponents to target the individuals listed.”
“Los Angeles police were deployed to keep the peace at an anti-Proposition 8 protest held last Thursday at the city’s LDS temple, where protesters were rushing the gates… ‘The late local news showed scenes of several Hispanic females in tears outside the temple trying to remove the signs desecrating the walls and fences surrounding the temple. As these individuals – who according to a temple spokesperson were not church members – removed the hate-filled signs, the mob exploded and began beating the individuals to the ground,’ Bishop wrote in Meridian. ‘Police intervened and arrests were made, but the fact this was allowed to happen at all was appalling.’”
“‘The time has come to take it out there to the people who voted for this awful thing,’ said San Francisco Supervisor Bevan Dufty [a supporter of gay marriage].”
It’s ironic when peace-loving, anti-war liberals act like terrorists in their own lands.
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Secular Counterfeits to Eternal Joys
While this whole campaign season is over the fight for what is fundamentally moral against what is immoral continues. Over the last few years, the Republican Party has been undergoing a political shift away from pro-life issues. This is not to say that all republicans (particularly President Bush) have gone astray – but rather that there has been a push towards national security as the key to victory in elections. In 2004 President Bush won because of moral issues (he beat John Kerry, a lifelong Catholic, among Catholics!) but GOP strategists simply attributed more to national security voters over voters who emphasized moral issues. It is my hope that the GOP will realize that they can’t run a half pro-lifer like McCain (who supported embryonic stem cell research) and in 2012 we will get a true pro-life candidate. Indeed, the GOP has a lot of work ahead of them.
But I still have hope that the Democrats can see the light on this issue.
During the next four years, however, we have a great deal of work ahead of us as well. We need to be real pro-lifers. We need to help people see in their hearts and know with their minds what abortion really is. But more still, we need to show people the kind of love only God can give and the joy that comes with putting others ahead of ourselves, even sacrificing ourselves for the good of our neighbors.
Our society offers us a worldly counterfeit to the love and peace of God.
Ever ask yourself why so many people are depressed and even committing suicide in America? Or why since the sexual revolution in the 1960s has the crime rate spiked, education dropped, drug use skyrocketed, and divorces rampant? As Catholic theologian Christopher West put it, the argument over abortion is not about when life begins – it’s about the meaning of sex. The thing is, when a culture fails to understand what sex is, people and families get hurt. Now a chain is only as strong as its weakest link and when we destroy the family, the cell of the State and domestic church, we take a gun to the head of society and pull the trigger.
Our society tells us to do whatever “feels good” in regards to just about everything. Sin can seem great at the time but afterwards people feel alone, hurt, neglected, abused, and unwanted. More still, our culture tells us to avoid the confessional and simply go to a psychologist who will charge us a hundred dollars an hour to confess our sins to a person who is not bound to hold them secret. What’s worse is that instead of being forgiven of our sins we are told that “there’s nothing to forgive.” Society made you do it; your parents made you do it; your brain made you do it. We are taught to take no responsibility for our actions and are thus deprived of the great joy of mercy and forgiveness. [On a side note, I’m not against psychology as I am good friends with a psychologist and there are people who really, really need to see one. What I am saying is that the total rejection of Confession for the Almighty Scientific Psychoanalysis is simply another secular counterfeit for the eternal joy of mercy.]
Here’s a biblical counterfeit. Remember Barabbas and Jesus? When Jesus was arrested, Pilate offered the people a choice: the political rebel, Barabbas, or the spiritual messiah, Jesus. Barabbas wanted to forge a kingdom on Earth while Jesus sought to establish the kingdom of Heaven. The choice: the world or God. More still, Barabbas’ name literally means Son of the Father (bar-Abba). So here we have Christ, God the Father’s only Son, in competition with a man named Son of the Father. The people choose the later and confused worldly “freedom” to the freedom Jesus offered: “the glorious freedom of the children of God” (Romans 8:21).
The freedom of the world, symbolized by Barabbas, only leads to the slavery of sin. True freedom, which Christ offers, sets us free to do what is right and just. Sin makes us addicts, the grace of God enables us to truly be ourselves. If you don’t believe me, ask yourself how happy you are deep down. Is there something missing? If there is, you might give Christianity a try.
I think you’ll like it.
But I still have hope that the Democrats can see the light on this issue.
During the next four years, however, we have a great deal of work ahead of us as well. We need to be real pro-lifers. We need to help people see in their hearts and know with their minds what abortion really is. But more still, we need to show people the kind of love only God can give and the joy that comes with putting others ahead of ourselves, even sacrificing ourselves for the good of our neighbors.
Our society offers us a worldly counterfeit to the love and peace of God.
Ever ask yourself why so many people are depressed and even committing suicide in America? Or why since the sexual revolution in the 1960s has the crime rate spiked, education dropped, drug use skyrocketed, and divorces rampant? As Catholic theologian Christopher West put it, the argument over abortion is not about when life begins – it’s about the meaning of sex. The thing is, when a culture fails to understand what sex is, people and families get hurt. Now a chain is only as strong as its weakest link and when we destroy the family, the cell of the State and domestic church, we take a gun to the head of society and pull the trigger.
Our society tells us to do whatever “feels good” in regards to just about everything. Sin can seem great at the time but afterwards people feel alone, hurt, neglected, abused, and unwanted. More still, our culture tells us to avoid the confessional and simply go to a psychologist who will charge us a hundred dollars an hour to confess our sins to a person who is not bound to hold them secret. What’s worse is that instead of being forgiven of our sins we are told that “there’s nothing to forgive.” Society made you do it; your parents made you do it; your brain made you do it. We are taught to take no responsibility for our actions and are thus deprived of the great joy of mercy and forgiveness. [On a side note, I’m not against psychology as I am good friends with a psychologist and there are people who really, really need to see one. What I am saying is that the total rejection of Confession for the Almighty Scientific Psychoanalysis is simply another secular counterfeit for the eternal joy of mercy.]
Here’s a biblical counterfeit. Remember Barabbas and Jesus? When Jesus was arrested, Pilate offered the people a choice: the political rebel, Barabbas, or the spiritual messiah, Jesus. Barabbas wanted to forge a kingdom on Earth while Jesus sought to establish the kingdom of Heaven. The choice: the world or God. More still, Barabbas’ name literally means Son of the Father (bar-Abba). So here we have Christ, God the Father’s only Son, in competition with a man named Son of the Father. The people choose the later and confused worldly “freedom” to the freedom Jesus offered: “the glorious freedom of the children of God” (Romans 8:21).
The freedom of the world, symbolized by Barabbas, only leads to the slavery of sin. True freedom, which Christ offers, sets us free to do what is right and just. Sin makes us addicts, the grace of God enables us to truly be ourselves. If you don’t believe me, ask yourself how happy you are deep down. Is there something missing? If there is, you might give Christianity a try.
I think you’ll like it.
Saturday, November 8, 2008
A Psychological Argument against Abortion
Okay, this argument I developed isn’t general enough to convince all people of the immorality of abortion. It really takes some moral intuition to agree with it. But if one has a heart, it should make at least a crack in that person’s stance on abortion.
Many people today say that they are not pro-abortion but pro-choice. They even say that they would never get an abortion but that having the freedom to choose is what is important. Choice is really a middle ground between pro-abortion and pro-life. They even say that they really don’t support abortion and that they would like the number abortions to decrease.
These same people, however, say that abortion is just a medical procedure, that the baby is just a part of the woman’s body and that she has a right to do what she wants with her body. [Of course they never explain how this particular organ in the woman’s body has its own organs or how this organ can have a different genetic code from the rest of the woman’s organs.]
But their view is inconsistent.
If the baby is just a part of the woman’s body, then there is no reason not to be openly pro-abortion. My dad had heart bypass surgery a few years ago. Without that surgery he would be dead today. Thus I’m very much pro-heart bypass surgery. There’s nothing wrong with it. I don’t have to say I’m “pro-choice” about heart bypass surgery.
In conclusion, one only hides behind the name “pro-choice” when they know deep down that abortion is wrong.
[Note: This argument can lead one to realizing that abortion is wrong – but it can also lead one to “bite the bullet” and be openly pro-abortion, so use it with care!]
Many people today say that they are not pro-abortion but pro-choice. They even say that they would never get an abortion but that having the freedom to choose is what is important. Choice is really a middle ground between pro-abortion and pro-life. They even say that they really don’t support abortion and that they would like the number abortions to decrease.
These same people, however, say that abortion is just a medical procedure, that the baby is just a part of the woman’s body and that she has a right to do what she wants with her body. [Of course they never explain how this particular organ in the woman’s body has its own organs or how this organ can have a different genetic code from the rest of the woman’s organs.]
But their view is inconsistent.
If the baby is just a part of the woman’s body, then there is no reason not to be openly pro-abortion. My dad had heart bypass surgery a few years ago. Without that surgery he would be dead today. Thus I’m very much pro-heart bypass surgery. There’s nothing wrong with it. I don’t have to say I’m “pro-choice” about heart bypass surgery.
In conclusion, one only hides behind the name “pro-choice” when they know deep down that abortion is wrong.
[Note: This argument can lead one to realizing that abortion is wrong – but it can also lead one to “bite the bullet” and be openly pro-abortion, so use it with care!]
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Cardinal Martini has Lost his Crotchety Old Mind
Wow.
According to a news release from the Catholic News Service, Cardinal Martini has lost his crotchety old mind. Well, they didn’t say that exactly – but their quotes from him sure seem that way. What’s more, the article shows us the where Martini sits in regards to a big debate among Catholics.
What could that be? Contraception.
Apparently Cardinal Martini is opposed to the “strict teachings” in the encyclical “Humanae Vitae” (“Of Human Life”) in which artificial contraception was – for like the millionth time – rejected by the Church. More still, he is opposed to the Pope John Paul II’s adherence to the Church’s teaching.
So what does Cardinal Martini recommend?
“Today, he said, the church might be able to adopt ‘a new vision’ and indicate ‘a better way’ than it did in ‘Humanae Vitae.’” More still, he views the Church’s teaching as a mistake! “‘Knowing how to admit one's errors and the limitations of one's previous viewpoints is a sign of greatness of soul and confidence,’ he said.”
So why is contraception so bad anyway?
Contraception has helped bring about some of the greatest evils of our day: divorce, sex outside of marriage, gay marriage, and abortion. Abortion, by the way, has lead to embryonic stem cell research, euthanasia, and human cloning. Contraception has helped lead to divorce because it helps couples view sex as simply recreation instead of procreation. Contraception leads to lust instead of love and life. Contraception enables one to treat another as a disposable source of selfish pleasure and not a monogamous relationship of life-giving love.
The Church’s teaching against contraception is not because the Church wants everyone to have a million babies. Instead, the Church wants to help us see each other as a good to be loved, not a thing to be lusted for. Contraception leads one to lust. Lust for sex is like the lust for the Ring in the Lord of the Rings. [The classic Lord of the Rings episode of South Park (while not recommended) perfectly synthesizes the two in the character of Butters.] People talk about “free love” and how contraception can lead them to that. But by becoming slaves to lust (like Gollum became a slave to the Ring) they lose their freedom! They can’t say no – they have no self-control! This is why Pope John Paul II and the Church rejected contraception. Contraception enslaves us. The truth of Christ, however, frees us (John 8:32).
But back to Cardinal Martini. He also recommends simply not talking about contraception. Well, first of all, when’s the last time you heard a homily about contraception? Second of all, not talking about something because it’s not popular is ridiculous. In fact, looking back at the great saints we see that the saints of a particular era were great because they were the contradictions of their culture. The prophets were the same way. Telling the Church to stop preaching the truth is cowardly, unbiblical, and unchristian.
Oddly enough, the Cardinal also said: “Whatever the church affirms, it should be supported by many people, by responsible Christians who want to be conscientious in love.” Sorry Cardinal Martini, the Church has given its affirmation against contraception – it’s time for you to give your support to the Church instead of fighting it.
According to a news release from the Catholic News Service, Cardinal Martini has lost his crotchety old mind. Well, they didn’t say that exactly – but their quotes from him sure seem that way. What’s more, the article shows us the where Martini sits in regards to a big debate among Catholics.
What could that be? Contraception.
Apparently Cardinal Martini is opposed to the “strict teachings” in the encyclical “Humanae Vitae” (“Of Human Life”) in which artificial contraception was – for like the millionth time – rejected by the Church. More still, he is opposed to the Pope John Paul II’s adherence to the Church’s teaching.
So what does Cardinal Martini recommend?
“Today, he said, the church might be able to adopt ‘a new vision’ and indicate ‘a better way’ than it did in ‘Humanae Vitae.’” More still, he views the Church’s teaching as a mistake! “‘Knowing how to admit one's errors and the limitations of one's previous viewpoints is a sign of greatness of soul and confidence,’ he said.”
So why is contraception so bad anyway?
Contraception has helped bring about some of the greatest evils of our day: divorce, sex outside of marriage, gay marriage, and abortion. Abortion, by the way, has lead to embryonic stem cell research, euthanasia, and human cloning. Contraception has helped lead to divorce because it helps couples view sex as simply recreation instead of procreation. Contraception leads to lust instead of love and life. Contraception enables one to treat another as a disposable source of selfish pleasure and not a monogamous relationship of life-giving love.
The Church’s teaching against contraception is not because the Church wants everyone to have a million babies. Instead, the Church wants to help us see each other as a good to be loved, not a thing to be lusted for. Contraception leads one to lust. Lust for sex is like the lust for the Ring in the Lord of the Rings. [The classic Lord of the Rings episode of South Park (while not recommended) perfectly synthesizes the two in the character of Butters.] People talk about “free love” and how contraception can lead them to that. But by becoming slaves to lust (like Gollum became a slave to the Ring) they lose their freedom! They can’t say no – they have no self-control! This is why Pope John Paul II and the Church rejected contraception. Contraception enslaves us. The truth of Christ, however, frees us (John 8:32).
But back to Cardinal Martini. He also recommends simply not talking about contraception. Well, first of all, when’s the last time you heard a homily about contraception? Second of all, not talking about something because it’s not popular is ridiculous. In fact, looking back at the great saints we see that the saints of a particular era were great because they were the contradictions of their culture. The prophets were the same way. Telling the Church to stop preaching the truth is cowardly, unbiblical, and unchristian.
Oddly enough, the Cardinal also said: “Whatever the church affirms, it should be supported by many people, by responsible Christians who want to be conscientious in love.” Sorry Cardinal Martini, the Church has given its affirmation against contraception – it’s time for you to give your support to the Church instead of fighting it.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Baroma Wins - Time to Move?
I was talking to someone today about the unspeakable results of Tuesday's election. This particular person was talking about moving from Minnesota in hopes of finding a safer and better place to live. Canada came up - but in all honesty, it's much worse there! Not only are a great many of their politicians spineless, but so too are many of their bishops!
But truth be told, now is the time to rally behind the Pro-Life cause. It was the Pro-Life movement that brought Bush to his second term - and it was the rewarded with the apointments of Pro-Life Catholic justices on the Supreme Court (Roberts and Alito).
Some people rejoiced over the one silver-lining: gay marraige was again opposed across the country. I believe this is a hollow victory, however, for when Baroma gets his judical nominees in place, they will overturn the will of the people on such basic moral issues.
Hopefully people will understand this in four years.
So when someone tells me they want to leave, I say stay and fight. The war for Life is not lost - only one battle. It took America over 200 years to defeat slavery - and while we do not know how long this new war for freedom will last, all we can do is our duty and fight on.
The fact is: Minnesota is not the most dangerous place in America; the most dangerous place is the womb.
But truth be told, now is the time to rally behind the Pro-Life cause. It was the Pro-Life movement that brought Bush to his second term - and it was the rewarded with the apointments of Pro-Life Catholic justices on the Supreme Court (Roberts and Alito).
Some people rejoiced over the one silver-lining: gay marraige was again opposed across the country. I believe this is a hollow victory, however, for when Baroma gets his judical nominees in place, they will overturn the will of the people on such basic moral issues.
Hopefully people will understand this in four years.
So when someone tells me they want to leave, I say stay and fight. The war for Life is not lost - only one battle. It took America over 200 years to defeat slavery - and while we do not know how long this new war for freedom will last, all we can do is our duty and fight on.
The fact is: Minnesota is not the most dangerous place in America; the most dangerous place is the womb.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
A Note Concerning Abortion
While I tried to make this clear in my talk this week – and I do the same when talking to people one on one – the issue of abortion is not just a logical refutation. There a millions of women who have had an abortion and many of them are going through a lot of pain, remorse, and solitude afterwards.
Maybe some don’t feel anything – or maybe some are hostile to people who are opposed to abortion.
In any case, it is important to reach out to others who have had an abortion or who have thought about having or who are supporting abortion with Christian charity (love). The Pro-Life cause is not about winning debates or arguments but is rather about imaging the God we worship so that they can find the peace only God can give.
And don’t forget, the same is true on any issue – be it regarding the Eucharist, Confession, or Purgatory. St. Peter tells us to be ready to give a reason for our hope but to do so with gentleness and reverence.
Maybe some don’t feel anything – or maybe some are hostile to people who are opposed to abortion.
In any case, it is important to reach out to others who have had an abortion or who have thought about having or who are supporting abortion with Christian charity (love). The Pro-Life cause is not about winning debates or arguments but is rather about imaging the God we worship so that they can find the peace only God can give.
And don’t forget, the same is true on any issue – be it regarding the Eucharist, Confession, or Purgatory. St. Peter tells us to be ready to give a reason for our hope but to do so with gentleness and reverence.
My Final Word on the Elections (More or Less)
I find elections way too nerve wracking. I always have. And now it doesn’t help that the elections are covered for like two years in advance. But this year it’s even worse because the Pro-Life cause is a heartbeat away from their biggest victory ever… or their worst loss ever.
I say this because if Obama wins next Tuesday, he will more than likely get to nominate two or more justices to the Supreme Court. The justices he would nomination would not simply be Pro-Choice – they’d be fundamentally opposed to what it means to be human.
I gave a talk the other evening about the Catholic Church’s teaching on voting and I have reached the conclusion, based upon the Church’s reasoning, that I cannot vote for Obama.
Why is that?
Because he upholds more intrinsically evil acts then McCain. Obama supports the killing of unborn children by abortion and embryonic stem cell research. He also supported a bill that would allow the murders of children born alive due to botched abortions. He is also supporting of killing the disabled – in fact, his only decision he said he would have changed during his time in the Senate was the decision he made not to allow the killing of Terri Schiavo.
But perhaps you’re wondering about McCain as I mentioned that Obama upholds more intrinsically evil acts than McCain does. It’s true, McCain also supports embryonic stem cell research, an intrinsically evil act.
According to the U.S. Bishop’s document on voting called Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship: “When all candidates hold a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, the conscientious voter faces a dilemma. The voter may decide to take the extraordinary step of not voting for any candidate or, after careful deliberation, may decide to vote for the candidate deemed less likely to advance such a morally flawed position and more likely to pursue other authentic human goods” (FCFC 36).
In other words, a Catholic can choose the lesser of two evils (in this case McCain) or vote for another candidate altogether (this candidate, of course, has no chance of winning). So what can I say, I’m pragmatic. I’ll take the lesser of two evils.
But this is just one more reason why we need more genuinely Catholic people running for political office. So if you’re a genuine Catholic reading this and can run for office in the future, by all means please do!
I’m tired of voting for the lesser of two evils.
I say this because if Obama wins next Tuesday, he will more than likely get to nominate two or more justices to the Supreme Court. The justices he would nomination would not simply be Pro-Choice – they’d be fundamentally opposed to what it means to be human.
I gave a talk the other evening about the Catholic Church’s teaching on voting and I have reached the conclusion, based upon the Church’s reasoning, that I cannot vote for Obama.
Why is that?
Because he upholds more intrinsically evil acts then McCain. Obama supports the killing of unborn children by abortion and embryonic stem cell research. He also supported a bill that would allow the murders of children born alive due to botched abortions. He is also supporting of killing the disabled – in fact, his only decision he said he would have changed during his time in the Senate was the decision he made not to allow the killing of Terri Schiavo.
But perhaps you’re wondering about McCain as I mentioned that Obama upholds more intrinsically evil acts than McCain does. It’s true, McCain also supports embryonic stem cell research, an intrinsically evil act.
According to the U.S. Bishop’s document on voting called Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship: “When all candidates hold a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, the conscientious voter faces a dilemma. The voter may decide to take the extraordinary step of not voting for any candidate or, after careful deliberation, may decide to vote for the candidate deemed less likely to advance such a morally flawed position and more likely to pursue other authentic human goods” (FCFC 36).
In other words, a Catholic can choose the lesser of two evils (in this case McCain) or vote for another candidate altogether (this candidate, of course, has no chance of winning). So what can I say, I’m pragmatic. I’ll take the lesser of two evils.
But this is just one more reason why we need more genuinely Catholic people running for political office. So if you’re a genuine Catholic reading this and can run for office in the future, by all means please do!
I’m tired of voting for the lesser of two evils.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Defending the Church: In the Newspaper Twice!
It was so cool to get the opportunity to defend the Church in the newspaper twice in one week. As you may already know, I gave a talk on Monday night about the Church’s teaching on voting and the issue of abortion. The talk, which was written about in the paper, emphasized the fact that abortion (and other intrinsically evil acts which can never be tolerated) can be found to be evil by both faith and reason.
The only prerequisite to being fundamentally opposed to abortion is: being human.
This isn’t to say that every human being will be opposed to abortion, but it doesn’t take faith in a religion to be pro-life. In fact, there are many atheists that are pro-life. So below are a couple of excerpts from the article in the paper. Enjoy!
“Faith does have a role in the ballot box, according to the teaching of the Catholic church, a Catholic educator said Monday.
“‘As Catholics, our mission is to go out and change the world for the better,’ said Andrew Lynch… during a presentation Monday night on the church’s teaching regarding voting.
“An important role parishioners have in achieving that mission, he said, is voting for candidates based on their stance on moral issues such as abortion, embryonic stem cell research and social justice.
“‘It is not the role of the clergy nor the church to support a party or candidate,’ Lynch said, referring to the U.S. Bishop’s document titled, ‘Reflection on Catholic Teaching and Political Life.’ However, clergy can help churchgoers see what is morally right, he said. Intrinsically evil acts are never to be tolerated, according to Catholic teachings.
"'You don’t have to be Catholic or even a Christian to be pro-life,’ Lynch said.“He said a person — by reason and faith — ‘can reach the conclusion abortion is intrinsically evil because it’s killing a human life.
"'He said it is for that reason that abortion always ‘rises to the top’ as an issue for Catholics in regard to candidates and their stance on the issue.”
The only prerequisite to being fundamentally opposed to abortion is: being human.
This isn’t to say that every human being will be opposed to abortion, but it doesn’t take faith in a religion to be pro-life. In fact, there are many atheists that are pro-life. So below are a couple of excerpts from the article in the paper. Enjoy!
“Faith does have a role in the ballot box, according to the teaching of the Catholic church, a Catholic educator said Monday.
“‘As Catholics, our mission is to go out and change the world for the better,’ said Andrew Lynch… during a presentation Monday night on the church’s teaching regarding voting.
“An important role parishioners have in achieving that mission, he said, is voting for candidates based on their stance on moral issues such as abortion, embryonic stem cell research and social justice.
“‘It is not the role of the clergy nor the church to support a party or candidate,’ Lynch said, referring to the U.S. Bishop’s document titled, ‘Reflection on Catholic Teaching and Political Life.’ However, clergy can help churchgoers see what is morally right, he said. Intrinsically evil acts are never to be tolerated, according to Catholic teachings.
"'You don’t have to be Catholic or even a Christian to be pro-life,’ Lynch said.“He said a person — by reason and faith — ‘can reach the conclusion abortion is intrinsically evil because it’s killing a human life.
"'He said it is for that reason that abortion always ‘rises to the top’ as an issue for Catholics in regard to candidates and their stance on the issue.”
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Hey You! Read This!
I hope I caught you with that in-your-face title! I’ve been doing a lot of reading about G.K. Chesterton and I wanted to share some really cool quotes from him!
So keep reading!
“Christianity has not been tried and found wanting, it has been found difficult and left untried.”
“Religious liberty is supposed to mean a man is free to discuss his faith, in practice it means he is hardly allowed to mention it.”
On liberal Protestants: “I grew up in a world in which the Protestants, who had just proved that Rome [supposedly] did not believe in the Bible, were excitedly discovering that they did not believe in the Bible themselves.”
“There are no uneducated people. Everybody…is educated; only most are educated wrong.”
On housewives and feminism: “…when people begin to talk about [a woman’s] domestic duty as not merely difficult but trivial and dreary, I simply give up the question. …a woman’s function is [indeed] laborious, but because it is gigantic, not because it is minute. I will pity Mrs. Jones for the hugeness of her task; I will never pity her for its smallness.”
“Men invent new ideals because they dare not attempt old ideals. They look forward with enthusiasm, because they are afraid to look back.”
“Take away the supernatural, and what remains is the unnatural.”
“Catholic doctrine and discipline may be walls; but they are the walls of a playground.”
“Angels fly because they take themselves lightly.”
So keep reading!
“Christianity has not been tried and found wanting, it has been found difficult and left untried.”
“Religious liberty is supposed to mean a man is free to discuss his faith, in practice it means he is hardly allowed to mention it.”
On liberal Protestants: “I grew up in a world in which the Protestants, who had just proved that Rome [supposedly] did not believe in the Bible, were excitedly discovering that they did not believe in the Bible themselves.”
“There are no uneducated people. Everybody…is educated; only most are educated wrong.”
On housewives and feminism: “…when people begin to talk about [a woman’s] domestic duty as not merely difficult but trivial and dreary, I simply give up the question. …a woman’s function is [indeed] laborious, but because it is gigantic, not because it is minute. I will pity Mrs. Jones for the hugeness of her task; I will never pity her for its smallness.”
“Men invent new ideals because they dare not attempt old ideals. They look forward with enthusiasm, because they are afraid to look back.”
“Take away the supernatural, and what remains is the unnatural.”
“Catholic doctrine and discipline may be walls; but they are the walls of a playground.”
“Angels fly because they take themselves lightly.”
Sunday, October 19, 2008
No Apology For History
Some people have asked me why history is so important. The most pointed debate I had was with a Marxist. They of course lack so much common sense that they would even argue against the law of non-contradiction. Nevertheless, I believe that history is tremendously important. History is the memory of a very old and ancient people.
Ever see the movie 50 First Dates?
Imagine if we treated history like that. Every year or so we’ll just wipe our slate clean and forget anything happened before it. But no society can really work that way. It’d be a great tool if Obama gets elected… But seriously history is remembering our own past, helping us to look to the future.
What’s more important is that history is His Story. The Story of Christ,
Think about it. Anyone who is eternally saved is saved by being in Christ – by being incorporated into his body, the Church. And if those before Christ could be saved by the graces of the cross in advance (like Moses or Abraham), then the whole of human history is the history of Christ.
So just as ignorance of scripture is ignorance of Christ (St. Jerome), ignorance of history is ignorance of Christ.
Ever see the movie 50 First Dates?
Imagine if we treated history like that. Every year or so we’ll just wipe our slate clean and forget anything happened before it. But no society can really work that way. It’d be a great tool if Obama gets elected… But seriously history is remembering our own past, helping us to look to the future.
What’s more important is that history is His Story. The Story of Christ,
Think about it. Anyone who is eternally saved is saved by being in Christ – by being incorporated into his body, the Church. And if those before Christ could be saved by the graces of the cross in advance (like Moses or Abraham), then the whole of human history is the history of Christ.
So just as ignorance of scripture is ignorance of Christ (St. Jerome), ignorance of history is ignorance of Christ.
Friday, October 17, 2008
Taking Back America!
When the Founding Fathers created this great country we call America, they founded it on a key idea: human beings have rights that were given to them by God. As a result of this belief, human beings have a right to self-rule.
The problem today is that American self-government is a joke.
In 18th and 19th century America, families were the bedrock of our country. Communities took care of their own, making their own products, caring for their own buildings, and policing their own streets.
Today our country is ruled by big government and big business. The Far Left and the Far Right. Local schools have been told not to allow students to express their faith because someone a thousand miles away was offended by it. Churches cannot be allowed to enter the public sphere because their belief in a loving God is just too "radical" and "irrational" to be believed. Big businesses like Target and Wal-Mart enter our towns and suck up whatever local identity the community once had. Small businesses die away because of new laws imposed upon them from the federal government.
What's worse is that our own individuality is being wiped away as well. People talk about "being yourself" but what they really mean is that we are to be just like everyone else. Our TV shows teach us to be irresponsible while the commercials tell us to be self-indulgent.
G.K. Chesterton said that: "Self-denial is the test and definition of self-government."
If we are to really rule ourselves, we must band together as families and communities, reject the ill-notions of our secular culture, embrace the faith we have received, and fight for the things we love. This will not be easy! It will take passion! Think about that word: passion. It can be used to describe both pain and love! If we love our family, our country, and our God, we must have the passion to do what is necessary to uphold them.
And just remember one other good quote from Chesterton: "Anything worth doing is worth doing badly." If saving civilization and the souls of our neighbors was easy, it wouldn't be worth doing - so when you fail or make mistakes, keep going!
The problem today is that American self-government is a joke.
In 18th and 19th century America, families were the bedrock of our country. Communities took care of their own, making their own products, caring for their own buildings, and policing their own streets.
Today our country is ruled by big government and big business. The Far Left and the Far Right. Local schools have been told not to allow students to express their faith because someone a thousand miles away was offended by it. Churches cannot be allowed to enter the public sphere because their belief in a loving God is just too "radical" and "irrational" to be believed. Big businesses like Target and Wal-Mart enter our towns and suck up whatever local identity the community once had. Small businesses die away because of new laws imposed upon them from the federal government.
What's worse is that our own individuality is being wiped away as well. People talk about "being yourself" but what they really mean is that we are to be just like everyone else. Our TV shows teach us to be irresponsible while the commercials tell us to be self-indulgent.
G.K. Chesterton said that: "Self-denial is the test and definition of self-government."
If we are to really rule ourselves, we must band together as families and communities, reject the ill-notions of our secular culture, embrace the faith we have received, and fight for the things we love. This will not be easy! It will take passion! Think about that word: passion. It can be used to describe both pain and love! If we love our family, our country, and our God, we must have the passion to do what is necessary to uphold them.
And just remember one other good quote from Chesterton: "Anything worth doing is worth doing badly." If saving civilization and the souls of our neighbors was easy, it wouldn't be worth doing - so when you fail or make mistakes, keep going!
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Quote of the Day!
Dale Alquist, an internationally known scholar on G.K. Chesterton, had some interesting Chestertonian-style words (indeed, he drew his idea from the writtings of Chesterton) about jounalism and the application of words to things and concepts.
"We live in a world of journalese. The very language that we are forced to use attacks our traditions, our morals, our faith. Things that are degenerate and sinful are called 'progressive' and 'liberating'. Good words that were once pure and noble, like 'choice' and 'gay', now have reprehensible meanings. Everything done inside a house is called 'drudgery', while anything done inside an office is called 'enterprise'. Modern doubt, which has engulfed us in the fog of agnosticism, is called bold and broad. Traditional religion, which has given light to millions across the world and across the centuries, is called dull and narrow."
And if you're unaware, Chesterton was himself a journalist! Neither Alquist nor Chesterton think journalism to be bad - they both just think words ought to be used to express both high and mighty ideas as well as practical truths about our everyday world. Chesteron loved to point out the things we've seen a thousand times but never really noticed.
And even tough he was a journalist, Chesterton wouldn't hide from criticizing the problems in his own field. He said: "The higher critics are wholly dificient in the highest form of criticism, which is self-criticism." Someone once told Chesterton that he acted as if he knew everything. His response: "I know nothing, Madam. I am a journalist."
"We live in a world of journalese. The very language that we are forced to use attacks our traditions, our morals, our faith. Things that are degenerate and sinful are called 'progressive' and 'liberating'. Good words that were once pure and noble, like 'choice' and 'gay', now have reprehensible meanings. Everything done inside a house is called 'drudgery', while anything done inside an office is called 'enterprise'. Modern doubt, which has engulfed us in the fog of agnosticism, is called bold and broad. Traditional religion, which has given light to millions across the world and across the centuries, is called dull and narrow."
And if you're unaware, Chesterton was himself a journalist! Neither Alquist nor Chesterton think journalism to be bad - they both just think words ought to be used to express both high and mighty ideas as well as practical truths about our everyday world. Chesteron loved to point out the things we've seen a thousand times but never really noticed.
And even tough he was a journalist, Chesterton wouldn't hide from criticizing the problems in his own field. He said: "The higher critics are wholly dificient in the highest form of criticism, which is self-criticism." Someone once told Chesterton that he acted as if he knew everything. His response: "I know nothing, Madam. I am a journalist."
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Entering the Second Quarter
Well I’m not really having a quarter-life crisis – it’s just something I heard a few years ago that I thought sounded really cool – and I of course wanted to say it when I turned 25. And if I die tomorrow I’ll be really P.O.ed that I would have had my official quarter-life crises when I was in first grade…
In any case, since I’ve been too busy to blog much (and won’t have much more time in the near future), I thought I’d start putting up quotes from people much smarter and wiser then myself.
The first quote is from my favorite living author, Dr. Peter Kreeft. In this passage, he explains an important teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas on knowing versus loving:
“St. Thomas says that it is better to know a stone than to love a stone but better to love God than to know God, because love conforms the lover to the beloved, while knowledge conforms the known object to the way-of-knowing of the knower (S.T. I, 82, 3). When we love a dog, we become more doggy, but when we know a dog, we raise it up to our own level: thought. When we know God, we drag him down to our anthropomorphic level, we make God more humanoid than he really is; but when we love God, we are raised up more closely to his level, we become more God-like than we were…”
The second quote is from the Pensees of Pascal. To me, this passage is a good description of Socrates as well as of Pascal. In case you’re wondering, the quote points out the mystery of the human person – and the philosopher’s mission to make sure each person knows there is something different about himself and all other humans. Rocks are always rocks, angels are always angels – but humans can be inhuman! And we do this through every sin! When we recognize this with humility, we become wise. Okay, so here’s the passage:
“If [man] exalts himself, I humble him
If he humbles himself, I exalt him
And I go on contradicting him
Until he understands
That he is a monster that passes all understanding”
And while I’m talking about Dr. Kreeft and Pascal, I’ll link them with two final quotes. The first is from Pascal and the second is from Kreeft in regards to the quote of Pascal:
“To make a man a saint, grace is certainly needed, and anyone who doubts this does not know what a saint, or a man, really is.”
“The world thinks men are good and saints are better. Pascal knows that men are sinners and saints are miracles.”
So as I enter the second quarter of the game, I certainly hope that I’m more than a quarter of the way to sanctity!
In any case, since I’ve been too busy to blog much (and won’t have much more time in the near future), I thought I’d start putting up quotes from people much smarter and wiser then myself.
The first quote is from my favorite living author, Dr. Peter Kreeft. In this passage, he explains an important teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas on knowing versus loving:
“St. Thomas says that it is better to know a stone than to love a stone but better to love God than to know God, because love conforms the lover to the beloved, while knowledge conforms the known object to the way-of-knowing of the knower (S.T. I, 82, 3). When we love a dog, we become more doggy, but when we know a dog, we raise it up to our own level: thought. When we know God, we drag him down to our anthropomorphic level, we make God more humanoid than he really is; but when we love God, we are raised up more closely to his level, we become more God-like than we were…”
The second quote is from the Pensees of Pascal. To me, this passage is a good description of Socrates as well as of Pascal. In case you’re wondering, the quote points out the mystery of the human person – and the philosopher’s mission to make sure each person knows there is something different about himself and all other humans. Rocks are always rocks, angels are always angels – but humans can be inhuman! And we do this through every sin! When we recognize this with humility, we become wise. Okay, so here’s the passage:
“If [man] exalts himself, I humble him
If he humbles himself, I exalt him
And I go on contradicting him
Until he understands
That he is a monster that passes all understanding”
And while I’m talking about Dr. Kreeft and Pascal, I’ll link them with two final quotes. The first is from Pascal and the second is from Kreeft in regards to the quote of Pascal:
“To make a man a saint, grace is certainly needed, and anyone who doubts this does not know what a saint, or a man, really is.”
“The world thinks men are good and saints are better. Pascal knows that men are sinners and saints are miracles.”
So as I enter the second quarter of the game, I certainly hope that I’m more than a quarter of the way to sanctity!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
