Dear Secular Media,
Stop covering the election of Pope Francis!
I will now present my reasons why.
1. If you're going to cover a religiously historical event, at least go for a little objectivity. I cannot count the times I have read the phrases "the scandalous Catholic Church," "an out-dated, dying religion," or "a time of strife and concern for the Catholic Church." (These quotes are not verbatim, but see an example in the first sentence here.) Using reason, I could make what I believe to be several solid arguments stating the same for the United States of America, what I and many consider to be a scandalous, dying nation in a time of strife and concern. However, I know better than to plaster my opinion all over an article without using any sources or facts to back up my claims.
2. Do not speak about things you don't understand. I don't need reasons to back up this claim, but I will provide them. Odds are that if you write for the media, you are not a Roman Catholic. Furthermore, your chances of being a practicing Catholic, let alone an orthodox one, are significantly decreased. Therefore, to write about whether or not the newly elected pope could move the Catholic Church "forward" on such topics as homosexual marriage, contraception, or women priests (to name just a few) is simply laughable.
Let this be the definitive statement on the Catholic Church's position on controversial statements: It is not possible for the Catholic Church to teach acceptance of the practices of homosexual marriage, contraception, or women priests, among many other controversial issues.
That's it. Bottom line. No exceptions, no distant or remote chances of change, nothing. It is more likely that a human being would walk to Mars wearing nothing but his skivvies, or a whale to survive for forty years in a desert while playing cards with an anthropomorphic representation of truth in the form of an animate Persian lantern. That is actual Church teaching (only maybe not in those exact words...the Latin word for skivvies is "interulus".) The Catholic Church is unchanging.
Now, this is not to say that it is impossible for the pope to promulgate contraception; it is unlikely, but entirely possible. He is still a man, a human with free-will. However, was this to be the case, that "church" would cease to be the Catholic Church. They would no longer be actual Catholics. This has, in fact, happened on several occasions (see Avignon Papacy or Sedevacantism.) But the actual Catholic Church, the one, true Church, remains with the same doctrines it has taught since its origin over two-thousand years ago (making it approximately 4.07 times older than all other Christian denominations, 8.44 times older than the United States of America, 153.85 times older than Crossroads community church in Cincinnati, and 222.23 times older than Facebook.)
I used the word skivvies. I invented a (really clever) fictional anthropomorphic character representing truth in the form of light (truth is light and all). I did math (math!) to compare the Church to other organizations.
That, Dear Media, is just how wrong you are.
3. Finally, nothing you ever say is true or even remotely accurate, thus disgracing the name of journalism worldwide.
That is all. Have a nice day.
Viva el papa!
Wednesday, March 13, 2013
Sunday, January 27, 2013
Life and Death
I recently read an article called "So what if abortion ends life?" I think it provides both a good example of the fact that we live in a culture of death and that this same culture has lost its grip on reason and logic. For a society that prides itself on reason over religion, it is sad to see that this false, distorted "reason" has become the religion of our society. The article as a whole is interesting to read, and I encourage you to read it for yourself before reading on.
In the article, the author says that, "a fetus can be a human life without having the same rights as the woman in whose body it resides." This is actually, absolutely true. There are extreme circumstances in which one's rights might be violated. For example, if a wealthy man continues to hoard massive quantities of food in spite of the starving population, then he loses his right to property. Or if a man attempts to commit treason against his government by assassinating the government leader, then he sacrifices his right to freedom. There are occasions where a man who commits murder might lose his human right to life, but this is rare and not for man to judge. In fact, we see this all the time as some one who commits a crime loses his right to freedom and is put in prison. There are instances where one can lose one's rights and thus still be alive and human without having the same rights as other humans. However, this is not the case in any possible way in this situation.
A fetus, as a human life, has done nothing wrong and cannot be blamed for the fact that the woman is pregnant. That is her choice. Sidebar: we pro-lifers are often called "anti-choice" for having stolen the rights of women to choose what to do with their bodies. This is also flawed logic; the woman has the free-will choice to choose whether or not to have intercourse. (Understandably, not all women choose to have intercourse, and this is a tragic situation that must be dealt with delicately. Rape is a terrible tragedy, and understand that for the remainder of this post, I will exclude victims of rape from my examples because it is a totally different circumstance. It does not make abortion right, but not for the reasons to be mentioned.) Yet it still does not mean that the fetus has lost its right for life. A fetus is the most innocent and pure human there is. If anything, I would agree with the author. An innocent unborn child does not have the same rights as the woman; it has more rights than the woman because it is completely innocent, while no other human being alive is.
The author also says, "(The woman is) the boss. Her life and what is right for her circumstances and her health should automatically trump the rights of the non-autonomous entity inside of her. Always." I don't even need to present a logical argument to counter this statement. It should just be common sense. It should just be fact. What a sad, sad world we live in where some one could make such a selfish statement and be supported by thousands.
For those who need an explanation, a mother is objectively called to sacrifice herself for the child in every way. It is the child's life before hers. Any mother would agree with me that they would rather sacrifice their own life over their child's. If some one is not ready to become a mother, they should not be having sexual intercourse. No one would give their child a gun if he was not ready to use it. (Gun rights reference intended.)
The author ends her article with this quote. "And I would put the life of a mother over the life of a fetus every single time — even if I still need to acknowledge my conviction that the fetus is indeed a life. A life worth sacrificing."
This is disgusting. This is the motto of the culture of death. This is what the culture of death is saying. No life is worth more than my own! No life is more important than mine! A child can die to make me happy, and I will decide whether the child lives or dies, stealing the choice from the child! I am pro-choice, after all.
The bottom line is this: to say who lives and dies is a right given to God alone. Yes, there are occasions where man is called on to make this decision. But it is only with great discretion, and never decided with complete certainty. No man can say with absolute certainty whether or not a man deserves to die. A man cannot even decide whether or not he deserves to live his own life.
Yet sacrifice...sacrifice as mentioned by the above author...is a great and worthy act. There is a special place in Heaven for those who sacrifice their lives for a greater good. But to take a life for your own good...that is not sacrifice. That is the opposite of sacrifice. That is not martyrdom, that is to kill the martyr.
Ultimately, the only life worth sacrificing is your own. And that is a life worth sacrificing.
In the article, the author says that, "a fetus can be a human life without having the same rights as the woman in whose body it resides." This is actually, absolutely true. There are extreme circumstances in which one's rights might be violated. For example, if a wealthy man continues to hoard massive quantities of food in spite of the starving population, then he loses his right to property. Or if a man attempts to commit treason against his government by assassinating the government leader, then he sacrifices his right to freedom. There are occasions where a man who commits murder might lose his human right to life, but this is rare and not for man to judge. In fact, we see this all the time as some one who commits a crime loses his right to freedom and is put in prison. There are instances where one can lose one's rights and thus still be alive and human without having the same rights as other humans. However, this is not the case in any possible way in this situation.
A fetus, as a human life, has done nothing wrong and cannot be blamed for the fact that the woman is pregnant. That is her choice. Sidebar: we pro-lifers are often called "anti-choice" for having stolen the rights of women to choose what to do with their bodies. This is also flawed logic; the woman has the free-will choice to choose whether or not to have intercourse. (Understandably, not all women choose to have intercourse, and this is a tragic situation that must be dealt with delicately. Rape is a terrible tragedy, and understand that for the remainder of this post, I will exclude victims of rape from my examples because it is a totally different circumstance. It does not make abortion right, but not for the reasons to be mentioned.) Yet it still does not mean that the fetus has lost its right for life. A fetus is the most innocent and pure human there is. If anything, I would agree with the author. An innocent unborn child does not have the same rights as the woman; it has more rights than the woman because it is completely innocent, while no other human being alive is.
The author also says, "(The woman is) the boss. Her life and what is right for her circumstances and her health should automatically trump the rights of the non-autonomous entity inside of her. Always." I don't even need to present a logical argument to counter this statement. It should just be common sense. It should just be fact. What a sad, sad world we live in where some one could make such a selfish statement and be supported by thousands.
For those who need an explanation, a mother is objectively called to sacrifice herself for the child in every way. It is the child's life before hers. Any mother would agree with me that they would rather sacrifice their own life over their child's. If some one is not ready to become a mother, they should not be having sexual intercourse. No one would give their child a gun if he was not ready to use it. (Gun rights reference intended.)
The author ends her article with this quote. "And I would put the life of a mother over the life of a fetus every single time — even if I still need to acknowledge my conviction that the fetus is indeed a life. A life worth sacrificing."
This is disgusting. This is the motto of the culture of death. This is what the culture of death is saying. No life is worth more than my own! No life is more important than mine! A child can die to make me happy, and I will decide whether the child lives or dies, stealing the choice from the child! I am pro-choice, after all.
The bottom line is this: to say who lives and dies is a right given to God alone. Yes, there are occasions where man is called on to make this decision. But it is only with great discretion, and never decided with complete certainty. No man can say with absolute certainty whether or not a man deserves to die. A man cannot even decide whether or not he deserves to live his own life.
Yet sacrifice...sacrifice as mentioned by the above author...is a great and worthy act. There is a special place in Heaven for those who sacrifice their lives for a greater good. But to take a life for your own good...that is not sacrifice. That is the opposite of sacrifice. That is not martyrdom, that is to kill the martyr.
Ultimately, the only life worth sacrificing is your own. And that is a life worth sacrificing.
Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Les Miserables
I recently took my girlfriend to see the highly-acclaimed film rendition of the popular Broadway musical, "Les Miserables," based on the excellent story by Victor Hugo. I enjoyed the music, as well as the cinematography and acting. But I must say that my favorite aspect of the entire movie was Hugh Jackman's portrayal of the hero, Jean Valjean. I noticed that I was not alone in my admiration of Valjean, as the social hemisphere appropriate for cinematographic discussion we know as Facebook has recently been littered with young mens' comments admiring Valjean and expressing their desire to become like him. I began to wonder why this was, and while praying about it, found some answers.
The character is very much so a father-figure throughout the story, as he tries to rescue Fantine from her life of misery on the streets of Paris, then later cares for Cosette, her child, after her death. But perhaps the most incredible example of Valjean's fatherly nature is when he rescues Marius, the young revolutionary who faces certain death at the battle of the barricades on the Rue Plumet as well as the man who holds Cosette's heart. Valjean prays for Marius to be brought safely home, and the song "Bring Him Home" perfectly exemplifies Valjean's greatest character strength. He is a valiant man who knows his strength lies in God, and it is through Him, with Him, and in Him that he finds the strength to do these deeds for His greater glory.
In this day and age, we can find a great role model in Valjean. The musical adaptation of "Les Miserables" deals with themes of faith, prostitution, and the dignity of life. Let us examine the prevalence of these themes in our own modern society and examine how Jean Valjean might have dealt with these issues.
One of Valjean's greatest tests comes when he is given shelter in a monastery after having been refused work or shelter anywhere else. Yet despite the kindness shown to him by the monsignor, Valjean steals his silver to provide for him. But when he is caught by the police and returned to the monastery, threatened with another nineteen years of slavery, the monsignor says that the silver was given to Valjean, and even gives him the last of the silver candlesticks, telling Valjean that the silver must be used for the greater glory of God. This act touches Valjean so much that he vows to live out the rest of his life fulfilling this goal. He becomes a changed man, prayerful and merciful, reflecting the charity shown him by the monsignor.
How much does this world need such kindness and mercy? And not just any kindness and mercy; but kindness and mercy based in charity. True charity founded in God's love.
When Valjean moves and becomes the mayor of a prominent city, as well as the owner of a textile industry, he fails to prevent the unemployment of Fantine, a young woman and a single mother who needs the job to support her daughter. Yet when her illegitimate child is discovered, she is fired by the foreman, and holds a grudge against Valjean for not coming to her aid. She then turns sells her body, both by selling her hair and two front teeth and becoming a prostitute. Yet when she is nearly arrested for striking a man who sought to use her, Valjean comes to her rescue, carrying her to a hospital as she is dying from malnutrition. Although Fantine does lose her life, it is only after having learned that Valjean has promised to care for her daughter and raise her well, giving Fantine a final joy in life before her death.
Mercedes-Benz recently announced a commercial to air during the Super Bowl. It will feature Kate Upton, a well-known supermodel. I have personally found myself very called to pray for Miss Upton, who is only 20 years old and, I believe, objectified as nothing more than a beautiful body. How many men know where she has been featured or how to find images or videos that allow them with the opportunity to objectify her? How many men know her favorite color, her favorite food, a movie that moves her, or a story she loves? How many men have looked at her body countless times but don't know her eye color? I believe this form of objectifying women to be very sad. Men are paying for her, buying her, her body, her sexuality, her soul, and using it for their own personal gain. To me, that is the definition of prostitution. Know that my words do not reflect my feelings for Miss Upton; I believe that she is a good woman who deserves love and respect, and I speak in defense of her. I wish her the best and I pray for her often. I believe Jean Valjean would do the same.
On numerous occasions, Jean Valjean is faced with the opportunity to take a life or allow a man to die. When no one goes to the aid of a man named Fauchelevent, who is trapped under a broken cart and left to die, Valjean rescues him even though he knows he is risking the discovery of his identity at the hands of Inspector Javert, the man who tortured him years ago as his guard while filling out his sentence. Again, Valjean rescues Fantine from her life of misery and attempts to heal her. Valjean rescues Marius when he is shot and wounded, risking his own life to save the life of this man for no other reason than that his adopted daughter loves him. Yet Valjean's truest act of mercy comes when Inspector Javert is kidnapped by rebels and held as prisoner. Valjean is given Javert to execute, but instead of killing him, Valjean spares his life. Valjean knows that there is dignity in all life, and he respects that life.
In English class today, students laughed with disbelief as our professor explained that it was common practice in 17th Century to kill misshapen babies by drowning them, this practice being based off the belief that the children were demonic changelings. Several of the students said that was ridiculous, and laughed at the ignorance of man four centuries ago. Yet today, we kill babies no matter the cause, which is, for some reason, is not considered as unspeakable an act as the practices of 17th Century Europe. We justify this violence on the "philosophy" of "choice," and state that it allows "reproductive freedom" for women, when it, in fact, enslaves them to men, giving man the freedom to have sex whenever he wants without having to be responsible for the repercussions that may follow. Women become nothing more than bodies that can be used for the pleasure of men and then ravaged as a living child is murdered within those very same bodies. As we approach the 40th Anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision, the Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion and has since been the cause of over 55,000,000 abortions, we should remember the honor and dignity that is due to all human life and take the model example of Jean Valjean to heart.
Stories are never simply stories. Movies are never simply movies. Men are never simply men. The actions of Jean Valjean in Victor Hugo's legendary, "Les Miserables," are not coincidental. Hugo is writing to men across the world, inspiring them to have mercy on "The Victims" (a common translation of the French term, les miserables) of mankind and to treat them with true charity, just as Jean Valjean would do.
Now I am going to attempt to imitate the aforementioned Mr. Jackman by singing, "Bring Him Home," at the top of my lungs/vocal range.
The character is very much so a father-figure throughout the story, as he tries to rescue Fantine from her life of misery on the streets of Paris, then later cares for Cosette, her child, after her death. But perhaps the most incredible example of Valjean's fatherly nature is when he rescues Marius, the young revolutionary who faces certain death at the battle of the barricades on the Rue Plumet as well as the man who holds Cosette's heart. Valjean prays for Marius to be brought safely home, and the song "Bring Him Home" perfectly exemplifies Valjean's greatest character strength. He is a valiant man who knows his strength lies in God, and it is through Him, with Him, and in Him that he finds the strength to do these deeds for His greater glory.
In this day and age, we can find a great role model in Valjean. The musical adaptation of "Les Miserables" deals with themes of faith, prostitution, and the dignity of life. Let us examine the prevalence of these themes in our own modern society and examine how Jean Valjean might have dealt with these issues.
One of Valjean's greatest tests comes when he is given shelter in a monastery after having been refused work or shelter anywhere else. Yet despite the kindness shown to him by the monsignor, Valjean steals his silver to provide for him. But when he is caught by the police and returned to the monastery, threatened with another nineteen years of slavery, the monsignor says that the silver was given to Valjean, and even gives him the last of the silver candlesticks, telling Valjean that the silver must be used for the greater glory of God. This act touches Valjean so much that he vows to live out the rest of his life fulfilling this goal. He becomes a changed man, prayerful and merciful, reflecting the charity shown him by the monsignor.
How much does this world need such kindness and mercy? And not just any kindness and mercy; but kindness and mercy based in charity. True charity founded in God's love.
When Valjean moves and becomes the mayor of a prominent city, as well as the owner of a textile industry, he fails to prevent the unemployment of Fantine, a young woman and a single mother who needs the job to support her daughter. Yet when her illegitimate child is discovered, she is fired by the foreman, and holds a grudge against Valjean for not coming to her aid. She then turns sells her body, both by selling her hair and two front teeth and becoming a prostitute. Yet when she is nearly arrested for striking a man who sought to use her, Valjean comes to her rescue, carrying her to a hospital as she is dying from malnutrition. Although Fantine does lose her life, it is only after having learned that Valjean has promised to care for her daughter and raise her well, giving Fantine a final joy in life before her death.
Mercedes-Benz recently announced a commercial to air during the Super Bowl. It will feature Kate Upton, a well-known supermodel. I have personally found myself very called to pray for Miss Upton, who is only 20 years old and, I believe, objectified as nothing more than a beautiful body. How many men know where she has been featured or how to find images or videos that allow them with the opportunity to objectify her? How many men know her favorite color, her favorite food, a movie that moves her, or a story she loves? How many men have looked at her body countless times but don't know her eye color? I believe this form of objectifying women to be very sad. Men are paying for her, buying her, her body, her sexuality, her soul, and using it for their own personal gain. To me, that is the definition of prostitution. Know that my words do not reflect my feelings for Miss Upton; I believe that she is a good woman who deserves love and respect, and I speak in defense of her. I wish her the best and I pray for her often. I believe Jean Valjean would do the same.
On numerous occasions, Jean Valjean is faced with the opportunity to take a life or allow a man to die. When no one goes to the aid of a man named Fauchelevent, who is trapped under a broken cart and left to die, Valjean rescues him even though he knows he is risking the discovery of his identity at the hands of Inspector Javert, the man who tortured him years ago as his guard while filling out his sentence. Again, Valjean rescues Fantine from her life of misery and attempts to heal her. Valjean rescues Marius when he is shot and wounded, risking his own life to save the life of this man for no other reason than that his adopted daughter loves him. Yet Valjean's truest act of mercy comes when Inspector Javert is kidnapped by rebels and held as prisoner. Valjean is given Javert to execute, but instead of killing him, Valjean spares his life. Valjean knows that there is dignity in all life, and he respects that life.
In English class today, students laughed with disbelief as our professor explained that it was common practice in 17th Century to kill misshapen babies by drowning them, this practice being based off the belief that the children were demonic changelings. Several of the students said that was ridiculous, and laughed at the ignorance of man four centuries ago. Yet today, we kill babies no matter the cause, which is, for some reason, is not considered as unspeakable an act as the practices of 17th Century Europe. We justify this violence on the "philosophy" of "choice," and state that it allows "reproductive freedom" for women, when it, in fact, enslaves them to men, giving man the freedom to have sex whenever he wants without having to be responsible for the repercussions that may follow. Women become nothing more than bodies that can be used for the pleasure of men and then ravaged as a living child is murdered within those very same bodies. As we approach the 40th Anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision, the Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion and has since been the cause of over 55,000,000 abortions, we should remember the honor and dignity that is due to all human life and take the model example of Jean Valjean to heart.
Stories are never simply stories. Movies are never simply movies. Men are never simply men. The actions of Jean Valjean in Victor Hugo's legendary, "Les Miserables," are not coincidental. Hugo is writing to men across the world, inspiring them to have mercy on "The Victims" (a common translation of the French term, les miserables) of mankind and to treat them with true charity, just as Jean Valjean would do.
Now I am going to attempt to imitate the aforementioned Mr. Jackman by singing, "Bring Him Home," at the top of my lungs/vocal range.
Tuesday, January 8, 2013
Presence(ts)
While my title might be misleading, that is only because it is. However, as we Catholics remain in the Christmas season, I would like to write a post especially geared towards perhaps one of the most misunderstood concept of the Catholic faith:
The presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
Here's a little shocker for all the die-hard Catholics out there who might be reading my blog. There's a good chance that what I'm about to say will fill you with shock and awe, and perhaps even evoke cries of heresy and blasphemy. But here it goes.
Jesus Christ is not physically present in the Eucharist.
Now, before everyone dials the Vatican City's Heresy Hotline, allow me to explain.
To say that Jesus Christ is physically present in the Eucharist is not only incorrect, but insulting. How dare we bring the Son of God down to our level anymore than He willingly descended Himself? See, the Catholic Church believes that Jesus is both God and Man (for further information, see "hypostatic union" at the Catholic Encyclopedia. Or I guess I'll just save you the time http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07610b.htm) He took on His physical nature through the Incarnation, recently celebrated among Catholics at Christmas, but this did not negate His divine nature. Christ is both human and divine. One being, two natures.
That being said, to say that Christ is physically present in the Eucharist is to deny Him His divine nature. Christ is, instead, substantially present in the Eucharist. It is His real presence, His entire being and entity, both divine and human. So, I was not speaking heresy after all; merely being theologically merciless. However, with the recent passing of the celebration of the Birth of Christ, and therefore the Incarnation of God made Man, I find this to be a very interesting and inspirational point upon which to reflect. I encourage you all to do the same. Reflect on the fact that the presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist is not only His physical presence, but His divine presence. His divine and human body that has overcome the grave through His resurrection, and is now made more perfectly human. Something I came upon in my own reflection struck me as both strange and fascinating. If Christ's presence in the Eucharist is substantial, and His substance is both divine and perfectly human, more perfectly than my own, then Christ in the Eucharist is actually more present than I am. The world believes only what it sees and, consequently, only sees what it believes. Therefore, what is not visible is not real. (Which means that love is not real either...trust me. It's coming.) But how much more wonderful is my life for the gift of knowing that God, who I cannot see, is in fact more "real" than me. I, for one, am grateful for this. Can you imagine a world where I am more present than God? It would be terrible!
This Christmas season, let us thank God for His gift to us: the gift of Christ's Incarnation and Birth, and the gift of Christ's continued presence in our lives through the Eucharist.
The presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
Here's a little shocker for all the die-hard Catholics out there who might be reading my blog. There's a good chance that what I'm about to say will fill you with shock and awe, and perhaps even evoke cries of heresy and blasphemy. But here it goes.
Jesus Christ is not physically present in the Eucharist.
Now, before everyone dials the Vatican City's Heresy Hotline, allow me to explain.
To say that Jesus Christ is physically present in the Eucharist is not only incorrect, but insulting. How dare we bring the Son of God down to our level anymore than He willingly descended Himself? See, the Catholic Church believes that Jesus is both God and Man (for further information, see "hypostatic union" at the Catholic Encyclopedia. Or I guess I'll just save you the time http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07610b.htm) He took on His physical nature through the Incarnation, recently celebrated among Catholics at Christmas, but this did not negate His divine nature. Christ is both human and divine. One being, two natures.
That being said, to say that Christ is physically present in the Eucharist is to deny Him His divine nature. Christ is, instead, substantially present in the Eucharist. It is His real presence, His entire being and entity, both divine and human. So, I was not speaking heresy after all; merely being theologically merciless. However, with the recent passing of the celebration of the Birth of Christ, and therefore the Incarnation of God made Man, I find this to be a very interesting and inspirational point upon which to reflect. I encourage you all to do the same. Reflect on the fact that the presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist is not only His physical presence, but His divine presence. His divine and human body that has overcome the grave through His resurrection, and is now made more perfectly human. Something I came upon in my own reflection struck me as both strange and fascinating. If Christ's presence in the Eucharist is substantial, and His substance is both divine and perfectly human, more perfectly than my own, then Christ in the Eucharist is actually more present than I am. The world believes only what it sees and, consequently, only sees what it believes. Therefore, what is not visible is not real. (Which means that love is not real either...trust me. It's coming.) But how much more wonderful is my life for the gift of knowing that God, who I cannot see, is in fact more "real" than me. I, for one, am grateful for this. Can you imagine a world where I am more present than God? It would be terrible!
This Christmas season, let us thank God for His gift to us: the gift of Christ's Incarnation and Birth, and the gift of Christ's continued presence in our lives through the Eucharist.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)