So I was at my men's group on Tuesday. We are currently reading and discussing Pope Benedict's Encylical, Spe Salvi. It has been very enriching to say the least. On this particular evening we read the following paragraphs (see below). I found it very interesting that our reading of these paragraphs happened to coincide with my blog discussion on Justice. The Pope's insight is something I would like to share as an addendum to my "Aribiter of Justice" post.
III. Judgement as a setting for learning and practising hope
41. At the conclusion of the central section of the Church's great Credo—the part that recounts the mystery of Christ, from his eternal birth of the Father and his temporal birth of the Virgin Mary, through his Cross and Resurrection to the second coming—we find the phrase: “he will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead”. From the earliest times, the prospect of the Judgement has influenced Christians in their daily living as a criterion by which to order their present life, as a summons to their conscience, and at the same time as hope in God's justice. Faith in Christ has never looked merely backwards or merely upwards, but always also forwards to the hour of justice that the Lord repeatedly proclaimed. This looking ahead has given Christianity its importance for the present moment. In the arrangement of Christian sacred buildings, which were intended to make visible the historic and cosmic breadth of faith in Christ, it became customary to depict the Lord returning as a king—the symbol of hope—at the east end; while the west wall normally portrayed the Last Judgement as a symbol of our responsibility for our lives—a scene which followed and accompanied the faithful as they went out to resume their daily routine. As the iconography of the Last Judgement developed, however, more and more prominence was given to its ominous and frightening aspects, which obviously held more fascination for artists than the splendour of hope, often all too well concealed beneath the horrors.
42. In the modern era, the idea of the Last Judgement has faded into the background: Christian faith has been individualized and primarily oriented towards the salvation of the believer's own soul, while reflection on world history is largely dominated by the idea of progress. The fundamental content of awaiting a final Judgement, however, has not disappeared: it has simply taken on a totally different form. The atheism of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries is—in its origins and aims—a type of moralism: a protest against the injustices of the world and of world history. A world marked by so much injustice, innocent suffering, and cynicism of power cannot be the work of a good God. A God with responsibility for such a world would not be a just God, much less a good God. It is for the sake of morality that this God has to be contested. Since there is no God to create justice, it seems man himself is now called to establish justice. If in the face of this world's suffering, protest against God is understandable, the claim that humanity can and must do what no God actually does or is able to do is both presumptuous and intrinsically false. It is no accident that this idea has led to the greatest forms of cruelty and violations of justice; rather, it is grounded in the intrinsic falsity of the claim. A world which has to create its own justice is a world without hope. No one and nothing can answer for centuries of suffering. No one and nothing can guarantee that the cynicism of power—whatever beguiling ideological mask it adopts—will cease to dominate the world. This is why the great thinkers of the Frankfurt School, Max Horkheimer and Theodor W. Adorno, were equally critical of atheism and theism. Horkheimer radically excluded the possibility of ever finding a this-worldly substitute for God, while at the same time he rejected the image of a good and just God. In an extreme radicalization of the Old Testament prohibition of images, he speaks of a “longing for the totally Other” that remains inaccessible—a cry of yearning directed at world history. Adorno also firmly upheld this total rejection of images, which naturally meant the exclusion of any “image” of a loving God. On the other hand, he also constantly emphasized this “negative” dialectic and asserted that justice —true justice—would require a world “where not only present suffering would be wiped out, but also that which is irrevocably past would be undone”[30]. This, would mean, however—to express it with positive and hence, for him, inadequate symbols—that there can be no justice without a resurrection of the dead. Yet this would have to involve “the resurrection of the flesh, something that is totally foreign to idealism and the realm of Absolute spirit”[31].
43. Christians likewise can and must constantly learn from the strict rejection of images that is contained in God's first commandment (cf. Ex 20:4). The truth of negative theology was highlighted by the Fourth Lateran Council, which explicitly stated that however great the similarity that may be established between Creator and creature, the dissimilarity between them is always greater[32]. In any case, for the believer the rejection of images cannot be carried so far that one ends up, as Horkheimer and Adorno would like, by saying “no” to both theses—theism and atheism. God has given himself an “image”: in Christ who was made man. In him who was crucified, the denial of false images of God is taken to an extreme. God now reveals his true face in the figure of the sufferer who shares man's God-forsaken condition by taking it upon himself. This innocent sufferer has attained the certitude of hope: there is a God, and God can create justice in a way that we cannot conceive, yet we can begin to grasp it through faith. Yes, there is a resurrection of the flesh[33]. There is justice[34]. There is an “undoing” of past suffering, a reparation that sets things aright. For this reason, faith in the Last Judgement is first and foremost hope—the need for which was made abundantly clear in the upheavals of recent centuries. I am convinced that the question of justice constitutes the essential argument, or in any case the strongest argument, in favour of faith in eternal life. The purely individual need for a fulfilment that is denied to us in this life, for an everlasting love that we await, is certainly an important motive for believing that man was made for eternity; but only in connection with the impossibility that the injustice of history should be the final word does the necessity for Christ's return and for new life become fully convincing.
44. To protest against God in the name of justice is not helpful. A world without God is a world without hope (cf. Eph 2:12). Only God can create justice. And faith gives us the certainty that he does so. The image of the Last Judgement is not primarily an image of terror, but an image of hope; for us it may even be the decisive image of hope. Is it not also a frightening image? I would say: it is an image that evokes responsibility, an image, therefore, of that fear of which Saint Hilary spoke when he said that all our fear has its place in love[35]. God is justice and creates justice. This is our consolation and our hope. And in his justice there is also grace. This we know by turning our gaze to the crucified and risen Christ. Both these things—justice and grace—must be seen in their correct inner relationship. Grace does not cancel out justice. It does not make wrong into right. It is not a sponge which wipes everything away, so that whatever someone has done on earth ends up being of equal value. Dostoevsky, for example, was right to protest against this kind of Heaven and this kind of grace in his novel The Brothers Karamazov. Evildoers, in the end, do not sit at table at the eternal banquet beside their victims without distinction, as though nothing had happened. Here I would like to quote a passage from Plato which expresses a premonition of just judgement that in many respects remains true and salutary for Christians too. Albeit using mythological images, he expresses the truth with an unambiguous clarity, saying that in the end souls will stand naked before the judge. It no longer matters what they once were in history, but only what they are in truth: “Often, when it is the king or some other monarch or potentate that he (the judge) has to deal with, he finds that there is no soundness in the soul whatever; he finds it scourged and scarred by the various acts of perjury and wrong-doing ...; it is twisted and warped by lies and vanity, and nothing is straight because truth has had no part in its development. Power, luxury, pride, and debauchery have left it so full of disproportion and ugliness that when he has inspected it (he) sends it straight to prison, where on its arrival it will undergo the appropriate punishment ... Sometimes, though, the eye of the judge lights on a different soul which has lived in purity and truth ... then he is struck with admiration and sends him to the isles of the blessed”[36]. In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus (cf. Lk 16:19-31), Jesus admonishes us through the image of a soul destroyed by arrogance and opulence, who has created an impassable chasm between himself and the poor man; the chasm of being trapped within material pleasures; the chasm of forgetting the other, of incapacity to love, which then becomes a burning and unquenchable thirst. We must note that in this parable Jesus is not referring to the final destiny after the Last Judgement, but is taking up a notion found, inter alia, in early Judaism, namely that of an intermediate state between death and resurrection, a state in which the final sentence is yet to be pronounced.
45. This early Jewish idea of an intermediate state includes the view that these souls are not simply in a sort of temporary custody but, as the parable of the rich man illustrates, are already being punished or are experiencing a provisional form of bliss. There is also the idea that this state can involve purification and healing which mature the soul for communion with God. The early Church took up these concepts, and in the Western Church they gradually developed into the doctrine of Purgatory. We do not need to examine here the complex historical paths of this development; it is enough to ask what it actually means. With death, our life-choice becomes definitive—our life stands before the judge. Our choice, which in the course of an entire life takes on a certain shape, can have a variety of forms. There can be people who have totally destroyed their desire for truth and readiness to love, people for whom everything has become a lie, people who have lived for hatred and have suppressed all love within themselves. This is a terrifying thought, but alarming profiles of this type can be seen in certain figures of our own history. In such people all would be beyond remedy and the destruction of good would be irrevocable: this is what we mean by the word Hell[37]. On the other hand there can be people who are utterly pure, completely permeated by God, and thus fully open to their neighbours—people for whom communion with God even now gives direction to their entire being and whose journey towards God only brings to fulfilment what they already are[38].
46. Yet we know from experience that neither case is normal in human life. For the great majority of people—we may suppose—there remains in the depths of their being an ultimate interior openness to truth, to love, to God. In the concrete choices of life, however, it is covered over by ever new compromises with evil—much filth covers purity, but the thirst for purity remains and it still constantly re-emerges from all that is base and remains present in the soul. What happens to such individuals when they appear before the Judge? Will all the impurity they have amassed through life suddenly cease to matter? What else might occur? Saint Paul, in his First Letter to the Corinthians, gives us an idea of the differing impact of God's judgement according to each person's particular circumstances. He does this using images which in some way try to express the invisible, without it being possible for us to conceptualize these images—simply because we can neither see into the world beyond death nor do we have any experience of it. Paul begins by saying that Christian life is built upon a common foundation: Jesus Christ. This foundation endures. If we have stood firm on this foundation and built our life upon it, we know that it cannot be taken away from us even in death. Then Paul continues: “Now if any one builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw—each man's work will become manifest; for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire” (1 Cor 3:12-15). In this text, it is in any case evident that our salvation can take different forms, that some of what is built may be burned down, that in order to be saved we personally have to pass through “fire” so as to become fully open to receiving God and able to take our place at the table of the eternal marriage-feast.
47. Some recent theologians are of the opinion that the fire which both burns and saves is Christ himself, the Judge and Saviour. The encounter with him is the decisive act of judgement. Before his gaze all falsehood melts away. This encounter with him, as it burns us, transforms and frees us, allowing us to become truly ourselves. All that we build during our lives can prove to be mere straw, pure bluster, and it collapses. Yet in the pain of this encounter, when the impurity and sickness of our lives become evident to us, there lies salvation. His gaze, the touch of his heart heals us through an undeniably painful transformation “as through fire”. But it is a blessed pain, in which the holy power of his love sears through us like a flame, enabling us to become totally ourselves and thus totally of God. In this way the inter-relation between justice and grace also becomes clear: the way we live our lives is not immaterial, but our defilement does not stain us for ever if we have at least continued to reach out towards Christ, towards truth and towards love. Indeed, it has already been burned away through Christ's Passion. At the moment of judgement we experience and we absorb the overwhelming power of his love over all the evil in the world and in ourselves. The pain of love becomes our salvation and our joy. It is clear that we cannot calculate the “duration” of this transforming burning in terms of the chronological measurements of this world. The transforming “moment” of this encounter eludes earthly time-reckoning—it is the heart's time, it is the time of “passage” to communion with God in the Body of Christ[39]. The judgement of God is hope, both because it is justice and because it is grace. If it were merely grace, making all earthly things cease to matter, God would still owe us an answer to the question about justice—the crucial question that we ask of history and of God. If it were merely justice, in the end it could bring only fear to us all. The incarnation of God in Christ has so closely linked the two together—judgement and grace—that justice is firmly established: we all work out our salvation “with fear and trembling” (Phil 2:12). Nevertheless grace allows us all to hope, and to go trustfully to meet the Judge whom we know as our “advocate”, or parakletos (cf. 1 Jn 2:1).
48. A further point must be mentioned here, because it is important for the practice of Christian hope. Early Jewish thought includes the idea that one can help the deceased in their intermediate state through prayer (see for example 2 Macc 12:38-45; first century BC). The equivalent practice was readily adopted by Christians and is common to the Eastern and Western Church. The East does not recognize the purifying and expiatory suffering of souls in the afterlife, but it does acknowledge various levels of beatitude and of suffering in the intermediate state. The souls of the departed can, however, receive “solace and refreshment” through the Eucharist, prayer and almsgiving. The belief that love can reach into the afterlife, that reciprocal giving and receiving is possible, in which our affection for one another continues beyond the limits of death—this has been a fundamental conviction of Christianity throughout the ages and it remains a source of comfort today. Who would not feel the need to convey to their departed loved ones a sign of kindness, a gesture of gratitude or even a request for pardon? Now a further question arises: if “Purgatory” is simply purification through fire in the encounter with the Lord, Judge and Saviour, how can a third person intervene, even if he or she is particularly close to the other? When we ask such a question, we should recall that no man is an island, entire of itself. Our lives are involved with one another, through innumerable interactions they are linked together. No one lives alone. No one sins alone. No one is saved alone. The lives of others continually spill over into mine: in what I think, say, do and achieve. And conversely, my life spills over into that of others: for better and for worse. So my prayer for another is not something extraneous to that person, something external, not even after death. In the interconnectedness of Being, my gratitude to the other—my prayer for him—can play a small part in his purification. And for that there is no need to convert earthly time into God's time: in the communion of souls simple terrestrial time is superseded. It is never too late to touch the heart of another, nor is it ever in vain. In this way we further clarify an important element of the Christian concept of hope. Our hope is always essentially also hope for others; only thus is it truly hope for me too[40]. As Christians we should never limit ourselves to asking: how can I save myself? We should also ask: what can I do in order that others may be saved and that for them too the star of hope may rise? Then I will have done my utmost for my own personal salvation as well.
[30] Negative Dialektik (1966), Third part, III, 11, in Gesammelte Schriften VI, Frankfurt am Main 1973, p.395.
[31] Ibid., Second part, p.207.
[32] DS 806.
[33] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 988-1004.
[34] Cf. ibid., 1040.
[35] Cf. Tractatus super Psalmos, Ps 127, 1-3: CSEL 22, 628-630.
[36] Gorgias 525a-526c.
[37] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1033-1037.
[38] Cf. ibid., 1023-1029.
[39] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1030-1032.
[40] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1032.
Showing posts with label Spirituality and Culture Collision. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Spirituality and Culture Collision. Show all posts
9/18/2008
8/29/2008
Christian Voter part 3: Embryonic Stem Cell Research
I now come to the seven issues to which there is only 1 legitimate position for a Christian voter. To take the opposite position (through activism, or by placing your vote), would be indicative of a corrupted conscience or a disingenuous spirit of compromising moral truth for the spirit of the age.
ISSUE #2 Embryonic Stem Cell Research:
What: embryonic stem cell research- the conducting of medical/scientific research on human embryos for the purpose of extracting stem cells which results in the destruction (death) of the embryo.
Other names: Human pluripotent stem cell research, stem cell research,
Sticking to the specifics of embryionic stem cell research, it is wrong simply because life begins at conception. Conception is that point in time when the human cells which mature into an adult human begin to grow (divide). That is life. The destruction or cessation of this process ends this life. It is a human life. Purposefully ending an innocent human life is a moral evil.
Pretty simple really.
Now, the discussion by proponents of embryonic stem cell research will follow along the lines of all sorts of great benefits that can result from this research. the problem with that is this... you can't do evil to bring about good. The ends don't justify the means. That is not a Christian philosophy, it is a 19th century humanistic philosophy from such secular and anti-christian thinkers as Bacon, Kant, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Bentham, John Stuart Mill... et al.
If you want to read good Christian philosophy and thinking look here, here, and here!
Some of these are long and pretty deep, but if you can't even make the sacrifice of time necessary to study the question of
1): when human life begins.
2): if you can do an "evil" to bring about a "good"...
then perhaps your lack of sincerity in action regarding your dedication to learn where the thoughts that are contrary to; abortion, human cloning, human stem cell research, etc... will be proof of what you sincerely believe in your heart and how you don't act in concert with your knowledge of right and wrong.
ISSUE #2 Embryonic Stem Cell Research:
What: embryonic stem cell research- the conducting of medical/scientific research on human embryos for the purpose of extracting stem cells which results in the destruction (death) of the embryo.
Other names: Human pluripotent stem cell research, stem cell research,
Sticking to the specifics of embryionic stem cell research, it is wrong simply because life begins at conception. Conception is that point in time when the human cells which mature into an adult human begin to grow (divide). That is life. The destruction or cessation of this process ends this life. It is a human life. Purposefully ending an innocent human life is a moral evil.
Pretty simple really.
Now, the discussion by proponents of embryonic stem cell research will follow along the lines of all sorts of great benefits that can result from this research. the problem with that is this... you can't do evil to bring about good. The ends don't justify the means. That is not a Christian philosophy, it is a 19th century humanistic philosophy from such secular and anti-christian thinkers as Bacon, Kant, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Bentham, John Stuart Mill... et al.
If you want to read good Christian philosophy and thinking look here, here, and here!
Some of these are long and pretty deep, but if you can't even make the sacrifice of time necessary to study the question of
1): when human life begins.
2): if you can do an "evil" to bring about a "good"...
then perhaps your lack of sincerity in action regarding your dedication to learn where the thoughts that are contrary to; abortion, human cloning, human stem cell research, etc... will be proof of what you sincerely believe in your heart and how you don't act in concert with your knowledge of right and wrong.
7/23/2008
Christian Voter part 2: Abortion
I now come to the seven issues to which there is only 1 legitimate position for a Christian voter. To take the opposite position (through activism, or by placing your vote), would be indicative of a corrupted conscience or a disingenuous spirit of compromising moral truth for the spirit of the age.
Issue #1 Abortion:
What: Abortion - The intentional termination of a pregnancy by direct mechanical means or medicinal means.
Other names: Choice, reproductive choice, womens sexual health, reduction (when there is a pregnancy with multiple babies), emergency contraception, infanticide.
What the Catholic Church officially teaches regarding Abortion:
2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.
Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.
My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth.
2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:
You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.
God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.
2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae," "by the very commission of the offense," and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law. The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.
2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:
"The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being's right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death."
"The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child's rights."
I used here the official teaching of the Catholic Church as defined in the official Catechism. The teaching contained there however is not such that Christians from other ecclesial communities would encounter doctrinal difficulty in embracing it. No Christian can in good conscience support legalized abortion or candidates who; facilitate, embrace, champion, safeguard, or enable legalized abortion.
Politicians who declare that, "I oppose abortion, personally, I don't like abortion. I believe life does begin at conception. But I can't take my religious belief, my article of faith, and legislate it on... [someone] who doesn't share it. We have separation of church and state in the United States of America." are dishonest with themselves and with everyone.
How about if you are an athiest or agnostic politician who opposes abortion?
How about if you are a Muslim politician but your stance against abortion is strictly scientific?
Why isn't a person allowed to use metaphysical philosophy to inform their consience?
Politicians who make statements about "not forcing their religious views..." aren't being truthful. What they really care about is keeping in the good graces of their party and keeping the money rolling in from their special interest groups.
Issue #1 Abortion:
What: Abortion - The intentional termination of a pregnancy by direct mechanical means or medicinal means.
Other names: Choice, reproductive choice, womens sexual health, reduction (when there is a pregnancy with multiple babies), emergency contraception, infanticide.
What the Catholic Church officially teaches regarding Abortion:
2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.
Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.
My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth.
2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:
You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.
God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.
2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae," "by the very commission of the offense," and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law. The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.
2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:
"The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being's right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death."
"The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child's rights."
I used here the official teaching of the Catholic Church as defined in the official Catechism. The teaching contained there however is not such that Christians from other ecclesial communities would encounter doctrinal difficulty in embracing it. No Christian can in good conscience support legalized abortion or candidates who; facilitate, embrace, champion, safeguard, or enable legalized abortion.
Politicians who declare that, "I oppose abortion, personally, I don't like abortion. I believe life does begin at conception. But I can't take my religious belief, my article of faith, and legislate it on... [someone] who doesn't share it. We have separation of church and state in the United States of America." are dishonest with themselves and with everyone.
How about if you are an athiest or agnostic politician who opposes abortion?
How about if you are a Muslim politician but your stance against abortion is strictly scientific?
Why isn't a person allowed to use metaphysical philosophy to inform their consience?
Politicians who make statements about "not forcing their religious views..." aren't being truthful. What they really care about is keeping in the good graces of their party and keeping the money rolling in from their special interest groups.
7/17/2008
MLS Soccer player to Catholic Priesthood
I came across this news story and thought I would share it.
You often hear that there is a shortage of vocations to the priesthood. I don't think so however. I think there is a lack of answering the call to a vocation as a priest. Why is there this lack of answering the call? I think there are several reasons, I will give one here.
Parents don't embrace or promote the priesthood for their sons. This is done both directly and indirectly. A subtle way that this lack of support for a vocation to the priesthood is exhibited is in the way parents talk with their children and others about their children's future. Here is an example of a typical conversation between parents and their son.
Mother: "Johnny, when you grow up and have a family of your own, then you'll have the same rules for you your kids"
or
Dad: "Andrew, you need to go to college so that you can have a good job to be able to support your wife and children"
I've heard it thousands of times. There is an underlying assumption that a sons vocation is to the married life. It pervades a persons speech. It generates assumptive language when discussing the future of their children. It isn't a direct hinderance to following a call to the priesthood. But it creates a manner of thinking about the future that excludes the priesthood for young men. This in turn causes young men to reject those thoughts about being a priest when they begin to appear in their conscience because, the only normal thing in all their discussions with family is being a husband and dad.
Whenever I talk with my son, I consciously make a point of including the priesthood as a possible part of his future. Here is an example of my coversation with my son.
ME: "When you grow up and have a parish of people who depend on you, or a wife and kids that depend on you, you'll be glad that I tought you that a person needs to do their chores everyday."
Me: "It's important to learn how to talk with people and to learn how to listen to people because if you have a wife and kids, you need to be able to do those things. And if you are a priest, you have to be able to give people really good advice during confessions or spiritual direction."
I think if people would just make that subtle contextual change in their speech, there would be a dramatic increase in young men following their call to a vocation to the priesthood.
You often hear that there is a shortage of vocations to the priesthood. I don't think so however. I think there is a lack of answering the call to a vocation as a priest. Why is there this lack of answering the call? I think there are several reasons, I will give one here.
Parents don't embrace or promote the priesthood for their sons. This is done both directly and indirectly. A subtle way that this lack of support for a vocation to the priesthood is exhibited is in the way parents talk with their children and others about their children's future. Here is an example of a typical conversation between parents and their son.
Mother: "Johnny, when you grow up and have a family of your own, then you'll have the same rules for you your kids"
or
Dad: "Andrew, you need to go to college so that you can have a good job to be able to support your wife and children"
I've heard it thousands of times. There is an underlying assumption that a sons vocation is to the married life. It pervades a persons speech. It generates assumptive language when discussing the future of their children. It isn't a direct hinderance to following a call to the priesthood. But it creates a manner of thinking about the future that excludes the priesthood for young men. This in turn causes young men to reject those thoughts about being a priest when they begin to appear in their conscience because, the only normal thing in all their discussions with family is being a husband and dad.
Whenever I talk with my son, I consciously make a point of including the priesthood as a possible part of his future. Here is an example of my coversation with my son.
ME: "When you grow up and have a parish of people who depend on you, or a wife and kids that depend on you, you'll be glad that I tought you that a person needs to do their chores everyday."
Me: "It's important to learn how to talk with people and to learn how to listen to people because if you have a wife and kids, you need to be able to do those things. And if you are a priest, you have to be able to give people really good advice during confessions or spiritual direction."
I think if people would just make that subtle contextual change in their speech, there would be a dramatic increase in young men following their call to a vocation to the priesthood.
10/19/2007
Holidays? Sea-Tac
I just read this story. I remember the big flap last year.
I only have one question. What holidays are the port of Seattle intending to honor with this display of birch trees? Kwanza? Channuka? Christmas? Winter Solstice? As far as I know none of those holidays use icey birch trees as a symbol of their holiday.
I only have one question. What holidays are the port of Seattle intending to honor with this display of birch trees? Kwanza? Channuka? Christmas? Winter Solstice? As far as I know none of those holidays use icey birch trees as a symbol of their holiday.
10/18/2007
Who's Kid's are they?
This story makes me sick.
Why is it that parents must give specific permission before their child is able to receive OTC cold, or pain medication? Why is it not necessary to receive specific parental permission before giving a minor child birth control medicine, some of which contains powerful hormones? How is it possible that this would be medically prudent?
This is simply a trampling of parental rights. It's all politics and not at all medical.
Those who favored the plan said it isn't about encouraging premature sex, but protecting kids who don't have strong support from their parents.
"Unfortunately, not every child is getting the kind of parental involvement that is going to help keep them safe," said Richard Verrier.
What a load of sophistry.
Why is it that parents must give specific permission before their child is able to receive OTC cold, or pain medication? Why is it not necessary to receive specific parental permission before giving a minor child birth control medicine, some of which contains powerful hormones? How is it possible that this would be medically prudent?
This is simply a trampling of parental rights. It's all politics and not at all medical.
Those who favored the plan said it isn't about encouraging premature sex, but protecting kids who don't have strong support from their parents.
"Unfortunately, not every child is getting the kind of parental involvement that is going to help keep them safe," said Richard Verrier.
What a load of sophistry.
10/14/2007
Applause for "The Vatican"
This story has so much possibility for discussion. I will focus on on one thing however.
Referring to homosexual activity as something that is "against Vatican teaching" shows a lack of understanding of what the Catholic Church is, and what the Vatican is in regards to the Church.
There aren't several different Catholic teachings regarding homosexuality. There is only one teaching, click here to see what that is. Any "Catholic teaching" that is presented or offered regarding homosexuality that differs from the one at the link, is simply a personal opinion that is in error.
Jesus Christ established a Church. A visible Church with an official organization and leader. The Catholic Church recognizes itself as that Church and teaches that the fullness of God's revelation subsists within the Catholic Church.
The Bishop of Rome is the successor of the Apostle Peter as the Earthly head of Christ's Church. The Bishop of Rome maintains his "government" at a place named Vatican City. The Bishop of Rome (the Pope) maintains sovereign leadership over the Church. The Holy Spirit protects the Church from the Pope teaching in error with regards to matters of faith and morals (Papal invalibility).
I have found that when the media reports that "The Vatican" has made some "declaration", "announcement", or "determination" it is insinuating that it is only the Vatican that is saying something, and that the rest of the Church or other teachers in the Church, have seperate yet equal opinions or positions. They prop up "The Vatican" or "The Pope" or "The Roman Curia" as being simply some type of ignorant tryanical government that doesn't really speak for the people.
As Jesus told the Apostles, "He who rejects you, rejects Me."
The Church is Apostolic, has been since before the Catholic Bishops canonized scripture in the 400's. The Apostolic Church has but one voice, the Pope and the Bishops in communion with the Pope.
Referring to homosexual activity as something that is "against Vatican teaching" shows a lack of understanding of what the Catholic Church is, and what the Vatican is in regards to the Church.
There aren't several different Catholic teachings regarding homosexuality. There is only one teaching, click here to see what that is. Any "Catholic teaching" that is presented or offered regarding homosexuality that differs from the one at the link, is simply a personal opinion that is in error.
Jesus Christ established a Church. A visible Church with an official organization and leader. The Catholic Church recognizes itself as that Church and teaches that the fullness of God's revelation subsists within the Catholic Church.
The Bishop of Rome is the successor of the Apostle Peter as the Earthly head of Christ's Church. The Bishop of Rome maintains his "government" at a place named Vatican City. The Bishop of Rome (the Pope) maintains sovereign leadership over the Church. The Holy Spirit protects the Church from the Pope teaching in error with regards to matters of faith and morals (Papal invalibility).
I have found that when the media reports that "The Vatican" has made some "declaration", "announcement", or "determination" it is insinuating that it is only the Vatican that is saying something, and that the rest of the Church or other teachers in the Church, have seperate yet equal opinions or positions. They prop up "The Vatican" or "The Pope" or "The Roman Curia" as being simply some type of ignorant tryanical government that doesn't really speak for the people.
As Jesus told the Apostles, "He who rejects you, rejects Me."
The Church is Apostolic, has been since before the Catholic Bishops canonized scripture in the 400's. The Apostolic Church has but one voice, the Pope and the Bishops in communion with the Pope.
10/11/2007
Where would you send the letter?
Muslim academics send out an open public letter addressed to Pope Benedict XVI, Bartholemew I - Patriarch of Constantinople, all other Orthodox Patriarchs, the Archbishop of Canterberry, and other leading Protestant's. I believe this to be an interesting development. I would rather it be a hopeful development, but due to the actions of many Muslim leaders I have a hard time trusting the sincerity of the stated intention (check out this site for examples).
That being said, I began to wonder what took so long for Muslim "leaders" to send out a communication such as this? Does it have anything to do with the Election cycle in the United States? Does it have anything to do with the beginning of the new U.N. session? And who would the letter have been sent to if it had been sent to the heads of all Christian Churches sometime in the past? On that note... let's step backwards in time using 100 year increments:
1907- Pope Pius X, Joachim III (Orthodox Patriarch Constantinople), Photius (Orthodox Patriarch Alexandria), Damianus I (Orthodox Patriarch Jerusalem) Ignatius Agdeb Aloho II (Syriac Coptic Patriarch Antioch), Randall Thomas Davidson (Church of England- Archbishop of Canterbury), Franz August Otto Pieper (Lutheran Church Missouri Synod) Mary Baker Eddy (Christian Scientist), General William Booth (Salvation Army), Henry Niehaus (New Apostolic Church), OK there are more leaders to list from the various churches around at that time (Methodist, Presbyterian, Baptist, Quacker, et. al.) but it's taking too long... there are probably 100 more names I could put here.
I'll start going in 200 year increments
1707- Pope Clement XI, Cyprianus I (Constantinople), Gerasimus II (Alexandria), Chrysanthus (Jerusalem), Ignatius George II (Antioch), Thomas Tenison (Archbishop Canterbury), Can't really find a definitive list... but letter would have been sent to Baptist, Lutheran, Presbyterian, (Methodism is 30 years from it's inception), Quackers, and various national/regional Orthodox Churches.
1507- Pope Julius II, Pachomius I (Constantinople), Joachim (Alexandria), Dorotheus II (Jerusalem), Ignatius Nuh of Lebanon (Antioch), Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Henry VIII were at least 10 years away from the inception of their churches. This is also very shortly after King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella drove the last of the Moors from the Iberian peninsula.
1307- Pope Clement V, Athanasuis (Constantinople), Athanasius III (Alexandria), VACANT (Jerusalem), Michael II (Antioch),
1107- Pope Paschal II, Nicholas III Gramaticus (Constantinople), Sabbas (Alexandria), John VIII (Jerusalem), Athanasius VI bar Khamoro (Antioch),
I'll continue listing seperately the 4 patriarchs of the East, though they recognized the unique Primacy of the Bishop of Rome as the successor of Peter before 1054.
907- Pope Sergius III, Nicholas I Mystikos (Constantinople), Christodoulus (Alexandria), Elias III (Jerusalem), Dionysius II (Antioch)
707- Pope John VII, Cyrus (Constantinople), Theophylactus (Alexandria), John V (Jerusalem), Julian II (Antioch)
Follwing the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon of 451 the Bishops of Constantinople and Jerusalem were added as Patriarchs, joining the Bishops of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch. Thus 507 A.D. is the first year they will be listed seperately. Here is the council of Chalcedon's Confession;
Following the holy Fathers, we unanimously teach and confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ: the same perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, the same truly God and truly man, composed of rational soul and body; consubstantial with the Father as to his divinity and consubstantial with us as to his humanity; "like us in all things but sin." He was begotten from the Father before all ages as to his divinity and in these last days, for us and for our salvation, was born as to his humanity of the virgin Mary, the Mother of God.
We confess that one and the same Christ, Lord, and only-begotten Son, is to be acknowledged in two natures without confusion, change, division, or separation. The distinction between natures was never abolished by their union, but rather the character proper to each of the two natures was preserved as they came together in one person (prosopon) and one hypostasis.
507- Pope Symmachus, Macedonius II (Constantinople), John III (Alexandria), Elias I (Jerusalem), Flavian II (Patriarch of Antioch)
307- Peter's chair vacant after the martyrdom of Pope Marcellinus by Diocletian in 304, Peter I (Alexandria), Tyrannus (Antioch)
107- Pope Alexander I (martryd by Trajan), Primus (Alexandria), Heron (Antioch)
Church in Rome established by Peter and Paul (the Apostles), Alexandria by Mark (the Apostle), Antioch by Peter (the Apostle).
Cardinal John Henry Newman, (prominant 18th century Anglican bishop and Catholic convert) had this to say after spending many years studying and wrestling with Christian history.
"And this one thing is certain... the Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If there ever were a safe truth, it is this. And Pretestantism has ever felt it so... This is shown in the determination... of dispensing with historical Christianity althoghter, and of forming a Christianity from the Bible alone: men never would have put it [historical Christianity] aside, unless they had despaired of it... To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant."
That being said, I began to wonder what took so long for Muslim "leaders" to send out a communication such as this? Does it have anything to do with the Election cycle in the United States? Does it have anything to do with the beginning of the new U.N. session? And who would the letter have been sent to if it had been sent to the heads of all Christian Churches sometime in the past? On that note... let's step backwards in time using 100 year increments:
1907- Pope Pius X, Joachim III (Orthodox Patriarch Constantinople), Photius (Orthodox Patriarch Alexandria), Damianus I (Orthodox Patriarch Jerusalem) Ignatius Agdeb Aloho II (Syriac Coptic Patriarch Antioch), Randall Thomas Davidson (Church of England- Archbishop of Canterbury), Franz August Otto Pieper (Lutheran Church Missouri Synod) Mary Baker Eddy (Christian Scientist), General William Booth (Salvation Army), Henry Niehaus (New Apostolic Church), OK there are more leaders to list from the various churches around at that time (Methodist, Presbyterian, Baptist, Quacker, et. al.) but it's taking too long... there are probably 100 more names I could put here.
I'll start going in 200 year increments
1707- Pope Clement XI, Cyprianus I (Constantinople), Gerasimus II (Alexandria), Chrysanthus (Jerusalem), Ignatius George II (Antioch), Thomas Tenison (Archbishop Canterbury), Can't really find a definitive list... but letter would have been sent to Baptist, Lutheran, Presbyterian, (Methodism is 30 years from it's inception), Quackers, and various national/regional Orthodox Churches.
1507- Pope Julius II, Pachomius I (Constantinople), Joachim (Alexandria), Dorotheus II (Jerusalem), Ignatius Nuh of Lebanon (Antioch), Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Henry VIII were at least 10 years away from the inception of their churches. This is also very shortly after King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella drove the last of the Moors from the Iberian peninsula.
1307- Pope Clement V, Athanasuis (Constantinople), Athanasius III (Alexandria), VACANT (Jerusalem), Michael II (Antioch),
1107- Pope Paschal II, Nicholas III Gramaticus (Constantinople), Sabbas (Alexandria), John VIII (Jerusalem), Athanasius VI bar Khamoro (Antioch),
I'll continue listing seperately the 4 patriarchs of the East, though they recognized the unique Primacy of the Bishop of Rome as the successor of Peter before 1054.
907- Pope Sergius III, Nicholas I Mystikos (Constantinople), Christodoulus (Alexandria), Elias III (Jerusalem), Dionysius II (Antioch)
707- Pope John VII, Cyrus (Constantinople), Theophylactus (Alexandria), John V (Jerusalem), Julian II (Antioch)
Follwing the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon of 451 the Bishops of Constantinople and Jerusalem were added as Patriarchs, joining the Bishops of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch. Thus 507 A.D. is the first year they will be listed seperately. Here is the council of Chalcedon's Confession;
Following the holy Fathers, we unanimously teach and confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ: the same perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, the same truly God and truly man, composed of rational soul and body; consubstantial with the Father as to his divinity and consubstantial with us as to his humanity; "like us in all things but sin." He was begotten from the Father before all ages as to his divinity and in these last days, for us and for our salvation, was born as to his humanity of the virgin Mary, the Mother of God.
We confess that one and the same Christ, Lord, and only-begotten Son, is to be acknowledged in two natures without confusion, change, division, or separation. The distinction between natures was never abolished by their union, but rather the character proper to each of the two natures was preserved as they came together in one person (prosopon) and one hypostasis.
507- Pope Symmachus, Macedonius II (Constantinople), John III (Alexandria), Elias I (Jerusalem), Flavian II (Patriarch of Antioch)
307- Peter's chair vacant after the martyrdom of Pope Marcellinus by Diocletian in 304, Peter I (Alexandria), Tyrannus (Antioch)
107- Pope Alexander I (martryd by Trajan), Primus (Alexandria), Heron (Antioch)
Church in Rome established by Peter and Paul (the Apostles), Alexandria by Mark (the Apostle), Antioch by Peter (the Apostle).
Cardinal John Henry Newman, (prominant 18th century Anglican bishop and Catholic convert) had this to say after spending many years studying and wrestling with Christian history.
"And this one thing is certain... the Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If there ever were a safe truth, it is this. And Pretestantism has ever felt it so... This is shown in the determination... of dispensing with historical Christianity althoghter, and of forming a Christianity from the Bible alone: men never would have put it [historical Christianity] aside, unless they had despaired of it... To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant."
10/08/2007
Keeping my brother off my back
Columbus Day,
I just read this news report regarding a protest at a Columbus Day parade. I marvel at the different ideas and manifestations of protest you see in this country. Just yesterday we had the Life Chain, a protest against the continuing brutality against human babies in their mothers womb. This protest is done by simply standing silently on the side of the road with signs that affirm the position of life. Political conservatives don't make the news by throwing paint on other people's property. They don't block other people's ability to freely move from one location to another. Political conservatives don't trespass. They don't cloak themselves in the 1st Ammendment and then interrupt and shout down others in the act exercising their 1st ammendment rights. Isn't it ironic that political liberals claim the titles; lovers of peace and tolerance, defenders of the oppressed and marginalized, champions of human rights?
Back to Christopher Columbus... In keeping with his tradition of discovery and exploration; let's investigate the politics and history of the European discovery of the Americas. Let's go back through history and review the facts. I know that doesn't necessarily suit certain people's agendas... however, it suits mine.
Christopher Columbus (Cristoval Colon Spanish, Cristoforo Columbo Italian) was born in Genoa, or at least in Genoese territory in 1451, he died at Valladolid Spain in 1506. He developed a remarkable knowledge in Cosmography (mapping of the universe) and was an accomplished seaman and navigator by the 1460's (some records support the age of 14 but definately by the age of 19). He arrived in Portugal in the early 1470's and began to petition the King for support of the novel idea of sailing West to reach the Far East and the lucrative spice trade located there. He then went to Spain with the same idea and pitched that idea through various circles through the 1480's. Columbus was rejected by the King Ferdinand of Spain. This rejection stemmed from an unfavorable report from the Junta (commission) made up of Church and University leaders assigned to investigate the proposal. Remember that at the time King Ferdinand was busy pushing the Moors out of the Iberian Penninsula and was reluctant to divert his attention and resources to a risky scheme.
Coulumbus approached Henry VII of England to no avail and Charles VIII of France, but neither showed any interest. He returned to Spain to begin again with the Spanish Court. The Spanish were involved in one of the final acts of returning Spain completely to Christian rule, the Seige of Granada. This was in 1491. He was again rejected. Disheartened he began traveling on foot to Cordova. He stopped at a convent/monestary for the night. While there he told his story to the Prior... who just happened to be the personal confessor (the priest who is hears the confessions of and provides spiritual direction/advice) of Queen Isabella.
Columbus gained an audience with the Royal Court after gaining Queen Isabella's support. Isabella fronted Columbus money from her personal treasury (which was derived from ecclesiastical sources) in order for Columbus to present himself respectfully before the King. With the Queen, (who was advised by certain people in the Church) championing his cause, Columbus was awarded a contract in April of 1492. After receiving the Sacraments of Penance and the Holy Eucharist, the expidition left the port city of Palos on Aug 3, 1492. They sighted land (the Bahamas) at 2:00 AM on October 12, 1492.
He returned to Barcelona in March of 1493 and was received as a national hero. Spain was poor and the riches found in the new world were of great interest to the King and Queen. He made at least two return trips to the New World, colonies were established and Columbus and his sons were essentially the governors of the colonies. Then greed, abuse of power, and politics (not just Columbus', but the settler's also) resulted in Columbus and his sons being stripped of their offices and returned to Spain.
Obviously, the next several centuries resulted in the complete colonization of the America's. Independence from the European powers followed. Now it's 515 years later. What's the beef?
Here's the way I see it.
1. The persecution and enslavement of native people was nothing new to them, they had been doing it to eachother for centuries. Just like all human persons and cultures have done to each other in all geographic locations.
2. When technology and learning pass you by, you will be at a disadvantage. The Europeans arrived in a land that was undeveloped and only sparcely populated (relative to Europe, North Africa, Middle East, Persia, Asia). The natives were initially peaceful and welcomed the settlers.
3. A knowledge, technology, and development disparity will not long exist between human cultures. The strong will take advantage of their superiority and exploit it for their benefit. This happens in todays world politically, economically, intellectually, culturally, and militarily. That's just the way it is.
4. The native people's of North and South America are actually fortunate that it was European Christians and not people from the Muslim, or Far Eastern civilizations who "Discovered" America, becuase the brutality and subjugation that they now claim occured would have many times worse.
5. The people of the America's today, with native blood and ancestery, are much better off than they would have been if Columbus hadn't made that voyage in 1492. Especially those in the United States and Canada. Where else do you find the defeated and conquered able to maintain a degree of soveriegnty (the indian reservations) and with special rights (e.g. tax, fishing-hunting) simply becuase of your race?
6. And the single greatest thing the native peoples received from the Europeans who gave them an instant advancement in technology (of 3,000 - 5,000 years!!) was the truth of the Christian faith. Unfortunately, some of todays current Native Americans are rejecting that truth, (along with many others in our Post-Christian West) and reverting back to animism, shamanism, and other forms of paganism in a misguided attempt to return to what they romantically and naively have convinced themselves was a better and more peaceful time. Perhaps they'll start kidnapping each other again and enslaving one another. Will the Aztec and Mayan human sacrifice rituals start up again??
7. Happy Columbus Day!! Give thanks that the Christian West was first to settle the New World for I fear the World would be a much more dreary place if not for the influence of a strong, Europeanized North and South America.
Christopher Columbus, Queen Isabella, and King Ferdinand... visionaries who have made a positive difference for the world.
I just read this news report regarding a protest at a Columbus Day parade. I marvel at the different ideas and manifestations of protest you see in this country. Just yesterday we had the Life Chain, a protest against the continuing brutality against human babies in their mothers womb. This protest is done by simply standing silently on the side of the road with signs that affirm the position of life. Political conservatives don't make the news by throwing paint on other people's property. They don't block other people's ability to freely move from one location to another. Political conservatives don't trespass. They don't cloak themselves in the 1st Ammendment and then interrupt and shout down others in the act exercising their 1st ammendment rights. Isn't it ironic that political liberals claim the titles; lovers of peace and tolerance, defenders of the oppressed and marginalized, champions of human rights?
Back to Christopher Columbus... In keeping with his tradition of discovery and exploration; let's investigate the politics and history of the European discovery of the Americas. Let's go back through history and review the facts. I know that doesn't necessarily suit certain people's agendas... however, it suits mine.
Christopher Columbus (Cristoval Colon Spanish, Cristoforo Columbo Italian) was born in Genoa, or at least in Genoese territory in 1451, he died at Valladolid Spain in 1506. He developed a remarkable knowledge in Cosmography (mapping of the universe) and was an accomplished seaman and navigator by the 1460's (some records support the age of 14 but definately by the age of 19). He arrived in Portugal in the early 1470's and began to petition the King for support of the novel idea of sailing West to reach the Far East and the lucrative spice trade located there. He then went to Spain with the same idea and pitched that idea through various circles through the 1480's. Columbus was rejected by the King Ferdinand of Spain. This rejection stemmed from an unfavorable report from the Junta (commission) made up of Church and University leaders assigned to investigate the proposal. Remember that at the time King Ferdinand was busy pushing the Moors out of the Iberian Penninsula and was reluctant to divert his attention and resources to a risky scheme.
Coulumbus approached Henry VII of England to no avail and Charles VIII of France, but neither showed any interest. He returned to Spain to begin again with the Spanish Court. The Spanish were involved in one of the final acts of returning Spain completely to Christian rule, the Seige of Granada. This was in 1491. He was again rejected. Disheartened he began traveling on foot to Cordova. He stopped at a convent/monestary for the night. While there he told his story to the Prior... who just happened to be the personal confessor (the priest who is hears the confessions of and provides spiritual direction/advice) of Queen Isabella.
Columbus gained an audience with the Royal Court after gaining Queen Isabella's support. Isabella fronted Columbus money from her personal treasury (which was derived from ecclesiastical sources) in order for Columbus to present himself respectfully before the King. With the Queen, (who was advised by certain people in the Church) championing his cause, Columbus was awarded a contract in April of 1492. After receiving the Sacraments of Penance and the Holy Eucharist, the expidition left the port city of Palos on Aug 3, 1492. They sighted land (the Bahamas) at 2:00 AM on October 12, 1492.
He returned to Barcelona in March of 1493 and was received as a national hero. Spain was poor and the riches found in the new world were of great interest to the King and Queen. He made at least two return trips to the New World, colonies were established and Columbus and his sons were essentially the governors of the colonies. Then greed, abuse of power, and politics (not just Columbus', but the settler's also) resulted in Columbus and his sons being stripped of their offices and returned to Spain.
Obviously, the next several centuries resulted in the complete colonization of the America's. Independence from the European powers followed. Now it's 515 years later. What's the beef?
Here's the way I see it.
1. The persecution and enslavement of native people was nothing new to them, they had been doing it to eachother for centuries. Just like all human persons and cultures have done to each other in all geographic locations.
2. When technology and learning pass you by, you will be at a disadvantage. The Europeans arrived in a land that was undeveloped and only sparcely populated (relative to Europe, North Africa, Middle East, Persia, Asia). The natives were initially peaceful and welcomed the settlers.
3. A knowledge, technology, and development disparity will not long exist between human cultures. The strong will take advantage of their superiority and exploit it for their benefit. This happens in todays world politically, economically, intellectually, culturally, and militarily. That's just the way it is.
4. The native people's of North and South America are actually fortunate that it was European Christians and not people from the Muslim, or Far Eastern civilizations who "Discovered" America, becuase the brutality and subjugation that they now claim occured would have many times worse.
5. The people of the America's today, with native blood and ancestery, are much better off than they would have been if Columbus hadn't made that voyage in 1492. Especially those in the United States and Canada. Where else do you find the defeated and conquered able to maintain a degree of soveriegnty (the indian reservations) and with special rights (e.g. tax, fishing-hunting) simply becuase of your race?
6. And the single greatest thing the native peoples received from the Europeans who gave them an instant advancement in technology (of 3,000 - 5,000 years!!) was the truth of the Christian faith. Unfortunately, some of todays current Native Americans are rejecting that truth, (along with many others in our Post-Christian West) and reverting back to animism, shamanism, and other forms of paganism in a misguided attempt to return to what they romantically and naively have convinced themselves was a better and more peaceful time. Perhaps they'll start kidnapping each other again and enslaving one another. Will the Aztec and Mayan human sacrifice rituals start up again??
7. Happy Columbus Day!! Give thanks that the Christian West was first to settle the New World for I fear the World would be a much more dreary place if not for the influence of a strong, Europeanized North and South America.
Christopher Columbus, Queen Isabella, and King Ferdinand... visionaries who have made a positive difference for the world.
10/05/2007
This time it's Giuliani
Making news recently was Archbishop Raymond Burke because he is reported as saying he would deny the Eucharist to a Catholic politician who persisted in the serious sin of supporting/promoting legalized abortion. His comments even became a hot topic on "The View" (here's a transcript). At least Rosy O. is gone so nothing stupid would be said about it...
r-i-g-h-t!!
It's funny to me how incensed people get when the Catholic Church exercises it's rights and sovereignty over it's own discipline and governance.
r-i-g-h-t!!
It's funny to me how incensed people get when the Catholic Church exercises it's rights and sovereignty over it's own discipline and governance.
8/21/2007
Breaking My Silence
Rejoice oh world Rejoice. I have something new to procrastinate about, so I will be doing more blogging (instead of preparing for a promotional exam!).
I originally set out to blog about the recent Democratic debate where the subject of prayer was discussed. After reading through the comments from the candidates I decided that my blog would actually be on something different. Not that the Dems didn't have something stupid to say about prayer, just that they had nothing surprising to say. Basically they were asked if prayer could affect/prevent tragedy (9-11, Katrina...). In general they responded in the negative. Then several of them commented on how faith is important but personal and that they wouldn't be public about their personal faith when holding public office.
In my opinion their comments are illuminating of the simplistic way they believe/disbelieve in God and the supernatural. On one hand they were asked if prayer could be a preventative action. They didn't believe so and then they cited examples of recent disasters that occured in spite of prayer asking for the prevention of the disaster (Hurrican Katrina, family illness...). It is a mistake to look at what HAS HAPPENED when deciding if something has been prevented FROM HAPPENING. To draw an anology, billions of dollars every year are poured into fire prevention programs (e.g smoke alarm campaigns, family exit drills, cooking safety, fire codes, burn bans, home and commercial fire inspections...) yet it can never be quantified exactly how many fires were prevented from happening or how many deaths were averted. When was the last time you saw a newspaper headline that stated that "No Fire At Sears Last Evening Around 11:00 PM Thanks To Adherance To Fire Code". Every day dozens of fires don't occur due to prevention programs and activities. Also, the severity of fires that do happen are lessened due to preventative actions, such as a family escaping a home fire in the middle of the night because of properly working smoke alarms.
My point is this, perhaps Katrina would have been 20 times as destructive if all those prayers hadn't been offered up. Perhaps the family member who died was brought to saving faith through God's abundant grace through the intercessory prayer of the loved ones. Their Earthly life not being preserved is not nearly as important as their eternal life being spent in Heaven.
Why will Democrats pour billions of dollars and hours into secular/social prevention programs (e.g. fire prevention, suicide prevention, crime prevention, poverty prevention, unemployment programs) without ever really being able to quantify the actual prevention of negative events, and yet refuse to invest prayer into the prevention of the same? Or to at least not acknowledge the efficacy of preventative prayer, also known as lamentations or prayers of deliverance.
Do they actually believe in God? Are they afraid they will alienate the Democratic constituancy of athiests, agnostics, and alternative religionists if they admit to believing in God's sovereign power?
Scripture and history are full of examples of God's intercession. Read these accounts about the Battle of Lepanto (another account) for example.
I originally set out to blog about the recent Democratic debate where the subject of prayer was discussed. After reading through the comments from the candidates I decided that my blog would actually be on something different. Not that the Dems didn't have something stupid to say about prayer, just that they had nothing surprising to say. Basically they were asked if prayer could affect/prevent tragedy (9-11, Katrina...). In general they responded in the negative. Then several of them commented on how faith is important but personal and that they wouldn't be public about their personal faith when holding public office.
In my opinion their comments are illuminating of the simplistic way they believe/disbelieve in God and the supernatural. On one hand they were asked if prayer could be a preventative action. They didn't believe so and then they cited examples of recent disasters that occured in spite of prayer asking for the prevention of the disaster (Hurrican Katrina, family illness...). It is a mistake to look at what HAS HAPPENED when deciding if something has been prevented FROM HAPPENING. To draw an anology, billions of dollars every year are poured into fire prevention programs (e.g smoke alarm campaigns, family exit drills, cooking safety, fire codes, burn bans, home and commercial fire inspections...) yet it can never be quantified exactly how many fires were prevented from happening or how many deaths were averted. When was the last time you saw a newspaper headline that stated that "No Fire At Sears Last Evening Around 11:00 PM Thanks To Adherance To Fire Code". Every day dozens of fires don't occur due to prevention programs and activities. Also, the severity of fires that do happen are lessened due to preventative actions, such as a family escaping a home fire in the middle of the night because of properly working smoke alarms.
My point is this, perhaps Katrina would have been 20 times as destructive if all those prayers hadn't been offered up. Perhaps the family member who died was brought to saving faith through God's abundant grace through the intercessory prayer of the loved ones. Their Earthly life not being preserved is not nearly as important as their eternal life being spent in Heaven.
Why will Democrats pour billions of dollars and hours into secular/social prevention programs (e.g. fire prevention, suicide prevention, crime prevention, poverty prevention, unemployment programs) without ever really being able to quantify the actual prevention of negative events, and yet refuse to invest prayer into the prevention of the same? Or to at least not acknowledge the efficacy of preventative prayer, also known as lamentations or prayers of deliverance.
Do they actually believe in God? Are they afraid they will alienate the Democratic constituancy of athiests, agnostics, and alternative religionists if they admit to believing in God's sovereign power?
Scripture and history are full of examples of God's intercession. Read these accounts about the Battle of Lepanto (another account) for example.
5/30/2007
The Battle
I just read this article and I think all good Christians (Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants) should read it also. If you are Episcopalian it may be a tough read. But I don't think the focus should be on the specific tradition (Episcopalian) that the article is about. All of Christendom has examples of fifth columnists making life Hell for sincere believers. That said, What are those people thinking? Why can't liberals (or conservatives for that matter) use their religion to inform their politics and not the other way around?
Pyro
Pyro
5/18/2007
A story that bears watching
I have been following a conversion story through alternative information media (AIM) on the internet for the past few weeks. Dr. Francis Beckwith, the president of the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS), converted and entered into full communion in the Catholic Church. There have been some understandable, yet unfortunate, uncharitable dissertations regarding Dr. Beckwith since his announcement. These were done by well intentioned Evangelicals who were probably offended and felt betrayed by Dr. Beckwith's conversion, which to them is incomprehensible. Some were also done by gloating Catholics who were uncharitably reveling in triumphalism. However, there have also been many charitable expressions regarding his conversion from evangelicals and Catholics alike.
There is a letter in the Wall Street Journal from a former collegue in the ETS that provides a fine example of charity. Also, the ETS released a statement regarding the situation that calmly expresses their thoughts without being uncharitable. The Wall Street Journal letter points to the fact that there have been a growing number of high profile conversions by people from the evangelical tradition to Catholicism since the mid 1960's. This is possibly due to the emphasis on ecumanism promulgated by the Second Vatican Council.
Converting from one Christian tradition to another is a two way street. The process of converting and the impetus behind them differ dramatically in my opinion. From what I have witnessed, Catholics who convert to newer traditions of Christian expression (e.g Calvanism, Lutheranism, Pentacostalism, Evangelicalism) do so out of ignorance born from an indifferentism towards their spiritual life prior to their conversion. Practicing the faith and living a committed spiritual life in Christ was not an important or consistent part of their family life. Because of this, they never learned the reasons, facts, and explanations for Catholic theological beliefs. They did however learn many basic core Christian beliefs; e.g. the existence of God as a Trinity, the death and resurrection of Jesus, the inspiration and truth of Sacred Scripture. When these Catholics then begin to desire to become serious in the spiritual life, they are very often susceptable to being influenced by co-workers, friends, and romantic interests who grew up practicing a Christian faith expression in a Protestant tradition. Many of the things they are told by these people sound very familiar to them because of their Catholic upbringing. The theological conclusions end up being different because of the Protestant tradition of personal infallibility in Biblical interpretation and exegesis. These fallen away Catholics end up embracing doctrines such as; Sola Fide, Sola Scriptura, symbolic Communion, symbolic Baptism, total depravity. They also end up learning erroneous "facts" regarding the Catholic faith.
The Protestant converts to the Catholic Church are very much the opposite. They come from a wide variety of Christian Traditions, (e.g. Lutheran, Prysbeterian, Assembly of God, Baptist.) And they convert though they were very knowledgable of what their tradition taught. Their impetus is usually that they honestly read Scripture with a desire to closely follow Scripture and understand the Christian faith as it was passed on by Jesus to the Apostles, and from the Apostles to the Church Fathers, and so on... and they discovered that the Catholic Church is indeed the Church that Christ founded.
Summary: Most Catholics who convert to Protestantism were very ignorant of what the Catholic Church actually professes. They then fill in this ignorance with erroneous beliefs regarding the Catholic Church and they embrace false theological beliefs born of the Protestant tradition. Most Protestants who convert to the Catholic Church were very knowledgable of what their church professed. They were however honest enough to look at all traditions of Christianity with a critical eye. And being docile to the Holy Spirit, they were able to embrace the Catholic Church with the knowledge that within it subsists the fullness of God's revelation.
I am an example of both; going from lax indifferent Catholicism, to becoming a committed Protestant; (jumping between several non-denominational/evangelical traditions, Methodistism, and Lutheranism), and finally returning to the Catholic Church after honestly and vigorously studying Scripture, theology, and Chistian history.
Pyro
There is a letter in the Wall Street Journal from a former collegue in the ETS that provides a fine example of charity. Also, the ETS released a statement regarding the situation that calmly expresses their thoughts without being uncharitable. The Wall Street Journal letter points to the fact that there have been a growing number of high profile conversions by people from the evangelical tradition to Catholicism since the mid 1960's. This is possibly due to the emphasis on ecumanism promulgated by the Second Vatican Council.
Converting from one Christian tradition to another is a two way street. The process of converting and the impetus behind them differ dramatically in my opinion. From what I have witnessed, Catholics who convert to newer traditions of Christian expression (e.g Calvanism, Lutheranism, Pentacostalism, Evangelicalism) do so out of ignorance born from an indifferentism towards their spiritual life prior to their conversion. Practicing the faith and living a committed spiritual life in Christ was not an important or consistent part of their family life. Because of this, they never learned the reasons, facts, and explanations for Catholic theological beliefs. They did however learn many basic core Christian beliefs; e.g. the existence of God as a Trinity, the death and resurrection of Jesus, the inspiration and truth of Sacred Scripture. When these Catholics then begin to desire to become serious in the spiritual life, they are very often susceptable to being influenced by co-workers, friends, and romantic interests who grew up practicing a Christian faith expression in a Protestant tradition. Many of the things they are told by these people sound very familiar to them because of their Catholic upbringing. The theological conclusions end up being different because of the Protestant tradition of personal infallibility in Biblical interpretation and exegesis. These fallen away Catholics end up embracing doctrines such as; Sola Fide, Sola Scriptura, symbolic Communion, symbolic Baptism, total depravity. They also end up learning erroneous "facts" regarding the Catholic faith.
The Protestant converts to the Catholic Church are very much the opposite. They come from a wide variety of Christian Traditions, (e.g. Lutheran, Prysbeterian, Assembly of God, Baptist.) And they convert though they were very knowledgable of what their tradition taught. Their impetus is usually that they honestly read Scripture with a desire to closely follow Scripture and understand the Christian faith as it was passed on by Jesus to the Apostles, and from the Apostles to the Church Fathers, and so on... and they discovered that the Catholic Church is indeed the Church that Christ founded.
Summary: Most Catholics who convert to Protestantism were very ignorant of what the Catholic Church actually professes. They then fill in this ignorance with erroneous beliefs regarding the Catholic Church and they embrace false theological beliefs born of the Protestant tradition. Most Protestants who convert to the Catholic Church were very knowledgable of what their church professed. They were however honest enough to look at all traditions of Christianity with a critical eye. And being docile to the Holy Spirit, they were able to embrace the Catholic Church with the knowledge that within it subsists the fullness of God's revelation.
I am an example of both; going from lax indifferent Catholicism, to becoming a committed Protestant; (jumping between several non-denominational/evangelical traditions, Methodistism, and Lutheranism), and finally returning to the Catholic Church after honestly and vigorously studying Scripture, theology, and Chistian history.
Pyro
5/17/2007
"Catholic" politicians
By now everyone has probably heard of the letter that Connecticut's 3rd Dist. Rep Rosa DeLauro and 17 other "Catholic" politicians published chastising Pope Benedict XVI for his statements/teaching regarding pro-abortion behavior of Catholic politicians.
What a crock!! Rep. deLaura didn't seem to mind trotting out the teachings of the Church when it concurs with her to pursuit of a social agenda such as workers rights.
Representative DeLauro suffers from a serious condition called sin. We all do. Her sin is public and heinous. Thankfully most of mine are private. Her letter is the epitome of irony however. I guess in her mind the seperation of church and state is like one of those turnstyles at the entrance to a stadium; a unidirectional impediment.
Here is what one priest had to say about this "statement".
Pyro
What a crock!! Rep. deLaura didn't seem to mind trotting out the teachings of the Church when it concurs with her to pursuit of a social agenda such as workers rights.
Representative DeLauro suffers from a serious condition called sin. We all do. Her sin is public and heinous. Thankfully most of mine are private. Her letter is the epitome of irony however. I guess in her mind the seperation of church and state is like one of those turnstyles at the entrance to a stadium; a unidirectional impediment.
Here is what one priest had to say about this "statement".
Pyro
5/08/2007
King Herod's Tomb
King Herod, that wonderful man who murdered thousands of innocent children in an attempt to get rid of a reported rival to his throne, has been found! At least his tomb has reportedly been found.
Here's my prediction; there will be some type of incredible revelation with this new archeological evidence that refutes Christ. This new information will be touted by Christianity's detractors as absolute fact. The media outlets will all run with this information and wonder for us what will happen to Christians now that their beliefs have been proved wrong.
My only question is if the media will wait until Christmas to bring all this up, or will they do it around one of the less known Holy Days such as Pentacost, the Feast of the Assumption, or the Feast of the Immaculate Conception.
Pyro
Here's my prediction; there will be some type of incredible revelation with this new archeological evidence that refutes Christ. This new information will be touted by Christianity's detractors as absolute fact. The media outlets will all run with this information and wonder for us what will happen to Christians now that their beliefs have been proved wrong.
My only question is if the media will wait until Christmas to bring all this up, or will they do it around one of the less known Holy Days such as Pentacost, the Feast of the Assumption, or the Feast of the Immaculate Conception.
Pyro
5/03/2007
Zero Tolerance
A conversation with a relative this morning got me thinking. Most schools have a zero tolerance for violence policy. What that means is that any violent act (fighting, wrestling, puching, kicking, assault) will get you expelled from school. No contingency exists which allows for defense of self or others. You strike someone, you're out!
Traditional Christian moral philosophy, best expressed by the Catholic Church in which subsists the fullness of God's revelation to man, says this about the legitimate use of force.
From the Catechism:
Legitimate defense
2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one's own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."65
2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:
If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's.66
2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.
2266 The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people's rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people's safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.67
2267 Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."68
I think zero tolerance policies are the cowards way out of using logic and reason when faced with the necessity of making a judgment of a situation. This cowards way out is probably the result of the litigation industry (attorneys) and their pursuit of money instead of justice. It is immoral and unjust to punish someone for excercising their right to defend themselves or another innocent party in the face of an assault.
I also wonder how much "zero tolerance policies" and the refusal to use corporal punishment in schools has contributed to the increase of violence in our society? If there were real and understandable reprecussions to misbehavior for students in K-8 (getting a spanking), would there be the amount of lethal violence in our schools? Why have things like Columbine and Virginia Tech started to happen?
Pyro
Traditional Christian moral philosophy, best expressed by the Catholic Church in which subsists the fullness of God's revelation to man, says this about the legitimate use of force.
From the Catechism:
Legitimate defense
2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one's own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."65
2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:
If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's.66
2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.
2266 The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people's rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people's safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.67
2267 Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."68
I think zero tolerance policies are the cowards way out of using logic and reason when faced with the necessity of making a judgment of a situation. This cowards way out is probably the result of the litigation industry (attorneys) and their pursuit of money instead of justice. It is immoral and unjust to punish someone for excercising their right to defend themselves or another innocent party in the face of an assault.
I also wonder how much "zero tolerance policies" and the refusal to use corporal punishment in schools has contributed to the increase of violence in our society? If there were real and understandable reprecussions to misbehavior for students in K-8 (getting a spanking), would there be the amount of lethal violence in our schools? Why have things like Columbine and Virginia Tech started to happen?
Pyro
5/01/2007
May Day?
Today is the feast of St. Joseph the Worker.
Pope Pius XII hoped that this feast (established 1955) would accentuate the dignity of labor and would bring a spiritual dimension to labor unions. May 1st had been designated by communists as the day to celebrate the international solidarity of workers. Communism, and Capitalism to a certain degree, both lack truly benevolent behavior towards workers. Not that there aren't scattered examples of workers being treated well. The Church has put much effort in to combatting this attitude towards laborers. in 1891 Pope Leo XIII wrote his ground breaking Encyclical Rerum Novarum (On Capital and Labor). This Encyclical was instrumental in providing the moral impetus in changing the way laborers and industrialists related and how governments in the West finally took action to protect the lives and wellbeing of the workers.With Quadragesimo Anno in 1931 Pope Pius XI built on Rerum Novarum in pointing a way for us to establish a more just society in light of the changing political and industrial landscape of the times. With Laborem Exercens John Paul II further developed the thoughts of the previous Encylicals and applied them to the present day in order to address technological advances and failures of society in practicing the behaviors encouraged in the previous documents. In Centesimus Annus (On the Hundredth Anniversary of Rerum Novarum) John Paul II honored the 100th anniversary of Rerum Novarum by pointing out successes over the last 100 years and advances in the development of a more just society in relation to human labor. He also synthesised the thoughts of all the previous documents in pointing out needs of the present day and the future.
It's a lot of reading to make it through all those documents. But it would be very rewarding. It's often said that Pope John Paul II, Ronald Reagan, and Margaret Thatcher were instrumental in the downfall of Communism in Eastern Europe. Most of you could probably say what Reagan and Thatcher did to bring down the Iron Curtain. But you'd be hard pressed to describe what John Paul the Great did. Read these documents, then imagine a man who embodied the virtues put to paper and emboldened others to do the same. Half a billion people were freed from Communism without armed conflict. That's a miracle.
Thanks and honor to St. Joseph, Patron of Workers, who through the love of God the Father, the grace of God the Son, and the power of the God the Spirit confers God's blessings upon us in the Communion of Saints.
Pyro
Pope Pius XII hoped that this feast (established 1955) would accentuate the dignity of labor and would bring a spiritual dimension to labor unions. May 1st had been designated by communists as the day to celebrate the international solidarity of workers. Communism, and Capitalism to a certain degree, both lack truly benevolent behavior towards workers. Not that there aren't scattered examples of workers being treated well. The Church has put much effort in to combatting this attitude towards laborers. in 1891 Pope Leo XIII wrote his ground breaking Encyclical Rerum Novarum (On Capital and Labor). This Encyclical was instrumental in providing the moral impetus in changing the way laborers and industrialists related and how governments in the West finally took action to protect the lives and wellbeing of the workers.With Quadragesimo Anno in 1931 Pope Pius XI built on Rerum Novarum in pointing a way for us to establish a more just society in light of the changing political and industrial landscape of the times. With Laborem Exercens John Paul II further developed the thoughts of the previous Encylicals and applied them to the present day in order to address technological advances and failures of society in practicing the behaviors encouraged in the previous documents. In Centesimus Annus (On the Hundredth Anniversary of Rerum Novarum) John Paul II honored the 100th anniversary of Rerum Novarum by pointing out successes over the last 100 years and advances in the development of a more just society in relation to human labor. He also synthesised the thoughts of all the previous documents in pointing out needs of the present day and the future.
It's a lot of reading to make it through all those documents. But it would be very rewarding. It's often said that Pope John Paul II, Ronald Reagan, and Margaret Thatcher were instrumental in the downfall of Communism in Eastern Europe. Most of you could probably say what Reagan and Thatcher did to bring down the Iron Curtain. But you'd be hard pressed to describe what John Paul the Great did. Read these documents, then imagine a man who embodied the virtues put to paper and emboldened others to do the same. Half a billion people were freed from Communism without armed conflict. That's a miracle.
Thanks and honor to St. Joseph, Patron of Workers, who through the love of God the Father, the grace of God the Son, and the power of the God the Spirit confers God's blessings upon us in the Communion of Saints.
Pyro
4/25/2007
Chuck Colson on the Tolerance Double Standard
I just read this column and found it disturbing. I'm not sure if I believe some of the "facts" however. Not that I think Chuck is being dishonest, I would suspect that his sources aren't accurate. I am specifically thinking here of the report that parents weren't allowed to pull their children from class when the topic was on a subject that is held by the parents, due to their religous beliefs, to be immoral. But hey, perhaps I'm naive.
Pyro
Pyro
Champions of Faith
I'm about 2 weeks "late" posting this.
If you love baseball, get this DVD. If you love sports, get this DVD. Or if you just love how God can work in everday peoples lives, (or in the case of millionare professional athletes; how God works in peoples lives everyday), buy this DVD.
You'll probably hear some cynical people postulate that the players featured in this DVD (and they are some BIG name players) are only chasing a buck. Some will be watching and waiting for them to do something bad (sin) and cry out, "see, they weren't sincere!" I don't feel that way. I think they are folks just like you and I who have the resources available to produce something big that people will watch because of their celebrity status. I think there intent is pure. If they do slip up and sin, as we all do, it only proves that they're fallen humans. They just have the added pressure of being in the public eye. Imagine if you had news cameras on you the entire time you worked.
Anyway... Watch the DVD's, it will be a blessing.
Pyro
If you love baseball, get this DVD. If you love sports, get this DVD. Or if you just love how God can work in everday peoples lives, (or in the case of millionare professional athletes; how God works in peoples lives everyday), buy this DVD.
You'll probably hear some cynical people postulate that the players featured in this DVD (and they are some BIG name players) are only chasing a buck. Some will be watching and waiting for them to do something bad (sin) and cry out, "see, they weren't sincere!" I don't feel that way. I think they are folks just like you and I who have the resources available to produce something big that people will watch because of their celebrity status. I think there intent is pure. If they do slip up and sin, as we all do, it only proves that they're fallen humans. They just have the added pressure of being in the public eye. Imagine if you had news cameras on you the entire time you worked.
Anyway... Watch the DVD's, it will be a blessing.
Pyro
4/23/2007
Pagan Rejoice
Followers of Wicca have won their case and will now be able to have their Wiccan Pentacle (pentagram) engraved on their tombstones in the national cemeteries. It seems kind of odd to me however because I thought Wiccan's (aren't they the new age druids/witches/nature worshipers) would burn their dead in a funeral pyre like in the old days of Viking and Celtic history.
Oh well... maybe they'll fight for the funeral pyres next.
Pyro
Oh well... maybe they'll fight for the funeral pyres next.
Pyro
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
