Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Monday, January 9, 2012
A response to a pro-choicer
I was reading an article on the National Catholic Reporter tonight-an activity not recommended for the faint of heart nor the weak of stomach-concerning a supposed disconnect between the bishops teachings on faith and morals and the the beliefs and practices of the faithful. It was the typical drivel we come to expect from progressive theologians, using statistics concerning disaffected and dissenting Catholics to de-legitimize the moral teaching authority of the Church. It always amazes me that for all their education, with all their degrees and the alphabet soup of letters after their names they cannot grasp the simple concept that good and evil are not determined by public opinion. When something is evil it will always be evil no matter how many try to ignore it and pretend that it is not.
As difficult as the article itself was to read without retching, the comments section was even worse. As always, whenever the subject of the moral teaching of the Church is challenged, someone trots out tired and insipid arguments in favor of abortion. Some posts on the subject were more long winded than others but they essentially tried to make the same point as the poster whose questions I responded to. I responded on NCR.com but it is still awaiting review and approval, which I have my doubts it will receive, so I am posting the response below. I invite any comments you might have.
As difficult as the article itself was to read without retching, the comments section was even worse. As always, whenever the subject of the moral teaching of the Church is challenged, someone trots out tired and insipid arguments in favor of abortion. Some posts on the subject were more long winded than others but they essentially tried to make the same point as the poster whose questions I responded to. I responded on NCR.com but it is still awaiting review and approval, which I have my doubts it will receive, so I am posting the response below. I invite any comments you might have.
"What is worse, having an abortion, or what [I assume the poster meant 'watching' in the sense of causing] a child die of starvation?"
They are both intrinsic evils and both to be equally condemned.
"So many children are dying like this and the bishops are only worried about abortion?"
I would ask the same question if it had any basis in fact. Have you never heard of Catholic Charities, St Vincent dePaul, Little Sisters of the Poor, The Knights of Columbus or any of the dozens of Catholic organizations who work diligently every day of the year in many different areas to alleviate the suffering of the poor everywhere. Perhaps the perceived difference in emphasis is because in the war on poverty and the fight against hunger the Church and the governments of most civilized countries are on the same side. Genocide, when it occurs, receives near universal condemnation by the international community.
However, that other intrinsic evil, abortion, is promoted and often even financed by otherwise civilized governments. Millions of lives ended in the sterile confines of abortion mills have acquired a degree of acceptance because to those who have never seen the actual destruction that takes place. We have, on a global scale, become like those who lived in close proximity to extermination camps in World War II, the difference being we don't even have
to curl our noses at the acrid smoke arising from the crematoria while convincing ourselves that what our brains told us, what our nostrils interpreted for us just could not be true.
At the end of the war many of those villages were forced to walk through those camps, they were forced to recognize what they so long refused to admit, that what was happening there was happening to living breathing human beings. Sooner or later that realization will catch up to our society concerning this modern, antiseptic version of the Holocaust, where the screams are silent and the brutality, pain and devastation are well hidden but no less real. I just pray that we reach that epiphany before, like those self deluded villagers, that reality is forced upon us.
Father Richard Kunst: Fast before Communion is an important practice
There are some things I have been doing for so long and so automatically it never really occurs to me that others are not doing the same thing. Such is the case with the Communion fast. As a rule we do not eat breakfast until after Mass so the one hour doesn't really come into play. Apparently though it is an issue for some.
Why fast? Well for the answer continue reading here.
Although it may seem small, one of the most important things pastors do on a weekly basis is greet their parishioners before and after Mass.
Father Richard Kunst
Apologetics
That brief handshake and greeting is the only interaction we get with more than 90 percent of our congregation. As little of an interaction as it is, it makes it easier for us to minister to our people when they are in time of need. For me personally, it is challenging to minister to people whom I never see darken the door of the church. I don’t know them. I am a stranger to them.
I try to be at the door of the church not only after Mass but also before Mass begins, and I have to confess this can also be a source of frustration. The frustration is from seeing people come in who have clearly just finished their last bites of breakfast in the car on their way to Mass. It is not uncommon to see people come in with food in their hands. I have heard from brother priests of people in their choirs eating and drinking right up to the start of Mass.
Why is this an issue? Because Catholics are expected to keep a eucharistic fast for one hour prior to receiving Communion (not one hour before Mass). The exceptions are water and medicine. Those who are sick or caring for the sick are not bound by this discipline.
The exact origins of the eucharistic fast are unknown, and practice of it has not always been consistent, but we have evidence dating back to the fourth century. Both in 393 and 397 there were North African Councils stating that the Eucharist was to be consumed before any other food of the day. St. Augustine states basically the same thing, writing in one of his letters, “. . . for from that time [of the earliest church] it pleased the Holy Spirit to appoint, for the honor of such a great sacrament, that the body of the Lord should take the precedence of all other food entering the mouth of a Christian; and it is for this reason that the custom referred to is universally observed” (Ep 54.6).
In the 20th century, the eucharistic fast changed in stages. In 1905, Pope St. Pius X articulated the strict midnight fast from food and drink, including medicine and water. You can still hear “old-timers” talk about how they could not eat anything after midnight if they were going to Communion the next morning. It’s a good thing they didn’t have evening Masses back then!
Later that was judged to be an obstacle to encouraging more frequent reception of Communion, so in 1957, Pope Pius XII cut the fast time to three hours. In 1964, Pope Paul VI reduced the fast to one hour before receiving Communion, giving us our current church discipline. (Again, the sick and those caring for the sick are exempted.)
Why fast? Well for the answer continue reading here.
Teens reject 'safe sex' education - poll | Voxy.co.nz
We can see a hopeful trend in some teens attitudes toward sex in this study. I don't think we are headed to a "Father Knows Best" world, which never really existed anyway. But it does indicate that maybe not all teens are the out of control, sex obsessed automatons who must be given contraceptives and access to abortion because they just can't control themselves, that the media and others would have us believe.
Read on:
Teens reject 'safe sex' education - poll | Voxy.co.nz:
'via Blog this'
Sunday, 8 January, 2012 - 07:26
A nationwide poll of 600 young people aged 15-21 poll has found that they hold conservative values on sex issues - which are significantly similar to the views of parents.
SEX EDUCATION
When asked "Do you think sex education in schools should teach values, abstinence and consequences such as pregnancy, or just teach safe sex?" only 19% supported just the 'safe sex' message currently being taught in schools, with one in three (34%) wanting 'values, abstinence, and consequences such as pregnancy' taught instead, and a further 42% asking for a combination of both - especially amongst older teens. The support for just the 'safe sex' message dropped even lower for the older teens.
"This is a direct rebuke from young people to the 'use a condom' and 'everyone's doing it' messages being pushed by groups like Family Planning, AIDS Foundation and Rainbow Youth," says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.
"Many parents were rightly horrified last year when details of what was being taught in schools under the guise of 'sex education' surfaced. Judging by the results of the current approach - which is a good place to start - sex education has been an utter failure. New Zealand has one of the highest teenage pregnancy rates in the OECD, our STD rates are out of control and the number of teenage girls having abortions continues to rise."
"For those youth who are sexually active, they are not being told the truth. Groups like the Family Planning Association and the AIDS Foundation are perpetuating the myth that as long as you use a condom, you can pretty well do what you like in terms of promiscuity, experimentation, and fringe behaviours - with little or no information on the physical or emotional ramifications or prevention of disease."
Read on:
Teens reject 'safe sex' education - poll | Voxy.co.nz:
'via Blog this'
Saturday, January 7, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)