Lex Credendi
After the first few minutes of the 30-minute episode, much of the rest was devoted to speaking to a few people who had various criticisms of the Church and her leadership. Also, this portion dealt not so much with facts regarding the Papacy, but of opinions regarding specific teachings of the Church on homosexual behavior and society.
An Italian comedian/satirist (Sabina Guzzanti), who was apparently charged with religious slander by Italian authorities for insulting the Pope was interviewed. The gist was that she told a joke about the Pope, and was threatened with jail time because of it. The implication that she was simply exercising her free speech by telling a joke, and that she was punished by the power-crazed Vatican as a result. The reality is that she slandered the Pope by saying he was going to Hell to be sodomized for all eternity, ostensibly for being against the concept of “gay marriage”. Whether or not the Pope directly intervened in this is unknown, as it is against the law to offend the honor of the Pope in Italy; their free speech laws are not the same as those in the USA. Though there were legal grounds to continue, charges were dropped. This one isn’t so much a falsehood, as it is just silly attempt at making a point about the alleged influence of the Vatican, when it was actually known laws in Italy that were run afoul of. What I find interesting as what she said was cast as “a joke”, even though she was at an anti-government political rally, clearly lending political support to one side of this debate. The double standard here is that it’s okay to “joke” about such things when it offends Catholics and their beliefs, but if it were against just about any other group (think: Muslims or Jews), people the world over would be calling it not a “joke”, but a “hate crime”. I do not necessarily agree with the laws as they pertain to this case in Italy, but I think everyone must be held to the same standard, and it is apparent that anti-Catholicism is one of the last acceptable prejudices.
An Englishman from one of the prominent secularist (read: atheist) organizations in the UK was interviewed, and he talked about how they (“they” being the organization, I suppose) previously thought that Pope John Paul II was the worst Pope ever, until the wretched Benedict XVI was made Pope. Insert allusions to Benedict’s allegedly Nazi past. What I find interesting is that most groups who oppose the Papacy have adopted the idea that the last Pope, whomever he may be, was a “good” one — now that he is dead — but that whoever the current one is must change or leave. This was a slight twist on that tactic, in calling Pope John Paul II the second worst ever. I wonder, exactly, why he deserved such demonization? After all, Pope John Paul II did more than any previous Pontiff to reconcile groups that have had tension or animosity against the Church, such as Muslims, Jews, and Orthodox Christians. He included more diverse ethnic groups into the calendar of Saints than any previous Pope. He made no statements that were anywhere near as “inflammatory” as some Popes from the Middle Ages or Counter-Reformation. My guess is that hyperbole is the only tool that this man can use in an attempt to blacken the image of the Papacy and of he who sits in the Chair of Peter.
Another man, from the lay organization Dignity USA (an organization that does not have approval of the Church, as it does not support the notion that homosexual activity is sinful) was interviewed on his opinions regarding the stance of the Church on same-sex marraige. This was again essentially complaints against the doctrines regarding marraige being reserved only to one man and one woman, an idea as old as time, and established as a sacrament almost 2000 years ago by Christ Himself. This was merely a call for activism, to try to change the teachings of the Church. This would also be an affront to almost all other Christians, as relatively few Christian communities support the idea of same-sex marraige. Also, Muslims, most flavors of Judaism, and non-Abrahamic religions such as Hinduism have never approved the idea of same-sex marraige; virtually all of those recognize this effort to be an attempt to redefine what marraige means.
Next a story about how HIV/AIDS efforts in Africa are allegedly thwarted by the position of the Church on condom use. This is probably, thus far, the most understandable objection to Church teaching, as it would seem to the mindset of most people that condom use would be a good thing when used for disease prevention (as opposed to just contraception). The problem here relates to two principles, one of which is held by most religions, and the other which is most visible only in Catholic teaching these days. The first is the idea that the ends do not justify the means. What this means, more explicitly, is that a person may not commit an evil act even if a good may follow from it. The reason that this principle exists is this: If evil acts are permitted, contigent only upon the proportion of good that may come from them, then theoretically any act, no matter how atrocious, is justifiable if the perceived good that follows is “good enough”. It is that false reasoning that allowed Hitler’s gas chambers to operate, as the evil was the killing of Jews (and other “undesirables”), but the good that would supposedly follow was a much-improved and strengthened German society, rid of its problems. No evil must be permitted, no matter what good may follow from it. The second idea is that condom use, being a barrier between spouses, separates both the unitive and procreative functions from marital intercourse. Since the purpose of intercourse is, according to Catholic teaching and the natural law, the twofold unitive and procreative function, purposefully separating either one from the marital act directly is considered to be inherently evil. In the case of disease prevention, the purpose of condom use is not contraception, but is only separation of bodily fluids. As a result, in the case of disease prevention, the contraceptive action of the condoms is not necessarily sinful (as it is not intended and falls under the principle of double effect), but the direct intention to separate the spouses is sinful. Since condom use is therefore considered to be evil, it cannot be recommended under any circumstances, even if a perceived good (prevention of HIV transmission, in this case) might follow from it. An acceptable choice, which would not only not involve evil action, but would ensure that the disease would not be transmitted, is abstinence. Aside from the inherent evil in condom use, to knowingly threaten the life of your spouse by having intercourse when you are infected with HIV is essentially attempted murder. Using a condom does not eliminate, but might only lessen such a risk. This is not an issue of specifically Papal teaching, this is embedded in the philosophical underpinnings of Catholicism, dating at least back to St. Thomas Aquinas (13th century), as well as similar prohibitions from the Old Testament (the story of Onan). What is not mentioned, by the way, is that all Christian communities — not just the Catholic Church — believed that contraception was immoral prior to the 1930 Lambeth Conference that legitimized contraception in the Anglican church. What is not mentioned, or lauded, is that the Church is even doing work to help those who do have HIV in Africa. The Catholic Church acts as the largest such charity in that AIDS-ridden continent, sending people to minister (both religiously and medically) to those infected with the virus and their families.
Lastly, claims (some true and some spurious) regarding an alleged smoking gun in the sex abuse scandal is a 1962 document called Crimen sollicitationis (Latin for “the crime of soliciting”) are made. This document was published by the Holy Office (now the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith — the department which Cardinal Ratzinger headed before he became Pope Benedict XVI) just prior to the Second Vatican Council, and dealt with the use of the confessional to solicit sins against the sixth commandment (adultery). It also covered the sins of homosexual sex, pedophilia, and bestiality. Its purpose was to maintain the “seal of confession”, but Penn & Teller (and many others) would have you believe that its purpose was to “shut up” anyone victimized by clerics. Some links on this document follow: here (article about the document) and here (unofficial English translation of the document). While it is certain that there was a cover-up by some perverted priests and various bishops (for various reasons), this document is almost irrelevant, in that most people weren’t even aware of its existence outside of Rome. Also, far from trying to prevent any victims from contacting law enforcement, the document appears to be trying to prevent unwarranted scandal (i.e., due to false accusations), to keep the seal of the confessional, and also to ensure that pervert priests are outed, not protected (since victimized penitents are required to report the offending priest to the local ordinary, not to just keep it to themselves). Also, for those who don’t know, all excommunications, not just these, are for life UNLESS they are lifted. ALL excommunications can be lifted — there is no such thing as an irreversible excommunication. Another point that is not highlighted by Penn and Teller is that excommunication does not send you to Hell, but is a canonical penalty that bars you from receiving the sacraments. That does not directly affect whether or not one’s soul is in a state of grace. Only God, at the particular judgement, can decide whether or not you go to Hell — based on whether or not your soul is in a state of grace.
The USCCB (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops) published this statement in 2003:
<<WASHINGTON (August 7, 2003) — The Department for Communications of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has issued the following statement:
Crimen sollicitationis, a forty-year-old document of the former Holy Office (now, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith), issued March 16, 1962, is being portrayed by some in and outside the media as a “smoking gun” allegedly proving that there was a “ground plan” for “covering up” the crime of sexual abuse of minors by clerics.
The essential point in response to those making this claim is that they are taking the document entirely out of context and therefore distorting it completely.
This document deals primarily with the canonical procedures to be followed when a priest is accused of soliciting in the confessional. Towards the end there is reference also to other crimes which are to be given serious punishment: gravely sinful deeds committed by a cleric with another man and “with youths of either sex or with brute animals.”
The document clearly deals exclusively with ecclesiastical crimes and punishments found in church law. It outlines procedures for addressing ecclesiastical crimes which have already been designated publicly as such in the 1917 Code of Canon Law (see its canons 2359 and 2368). It treats these crimes very seriously and repeats the penalties for them. The penalties include dismissal from the clerical state.
The 1962 document has no bearing on civil law. It does not forbid the civil reporting of civil crimes.
Confidentiality, in the past and today, is often required in court procedures, including civil court procedures, for a variety of reasons–including not unnecessarily impugning a person’s good name, the protection of the young or victims of assault, etc. In addition, the special nature of the crime of solicitation in the confessional (the most confidential forum of all), to which the document is mainly dedicated, has to be taken into account. The allegation of committing this crime is most serious since the accused priest cannot break the “seal of confession” to defend himself. Investigation of confessional matters must be done most delicately to protect the confidentiality of the sacrament of penance and the rights and dignity of both the accused and the accuser.
Perhaps most cited by those claiming a “cover-up plan” is the secrecy imposed on the person alleging to have been solicited. The document is not addressing the civil rights and responsibilities of that person. Instead, it is considering the good order of the Church’s own internal life: the protection of the good names of the persons involved, the sacred nature of the sacrament of penance, the potential for scandalizing the faithful, etc.
To contend that the document is intended to create a “chilling effect” on reporting civil crimes is to attribute to it an intention it simply never had.
The document says nothing about the responsibility that the Church may have within the civil jurisdictions in which it lives and works. Then, as now, the Church is not intending to be exempt from reporting civil crimes to civil authorities.
As a document of the universal Church, it applied in 1962 to a world of quite diverse civil jurisdictions–to a free and democrat North America and Western Europe, a South America dominated by authoritarian dictatorships, an eastern Europe under totalitarian communist rule, etc. To suggest that it was intended as a “ground plan” for handling these matters in the United States (or in any particular jurisdiction) is ludicrous. Also, the applicable civil laws in the United States in 1962 were very different from what they later became.
The Second Vatican Council began later in 1962, and led to the eventual revision of the Code of Canon Law. The 1962 document seemingly had practical effect for only a short while. The process for dealing with ecclesiastical crimes was revised in the late 1960’s and 1970’s, and is found in the 1983 Code of Canon Law. This revised Code, which has been operative for the past two decades, treats the sexual abuse of a minor (and solicitation of a penitent by a confessor) as criminal behavior (see its canons 1395 and 1387), which may be punished by dismissal from the clerical state.
The 1983 Code’s procedure for dealing with the sexual abuse of a minor has been addressed (and made more specific) in 2001 by Pope John Paul II, when he underscored the serious nature of this crime and required that it be reported to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. In addition, the USCCB’s Essential Norms of 2002 require the establishment of a review board, composed primarily of lay persons, to be involved in handling allegations of sexual abuse of minors by clerics. The Essential Norms also address the reporting of sexual abuse to appropriate civil authorities.
The 1962 document is also being treated as evidence of the fact that the “Church knew there was a problem.” As already indicated, both the 1917 and the 1983 Codes of Canon Law publicly recognized the sexual abuse of minors by clerics as a serious crime which is to be punished with a serious penalty. The gravity of such sexual abuse is based on the Decalogue.
It should be pointed out that news reports are based on what is apparently a forty-year-old English translation whose origin and fidelity to the original have not been determined.>>
The last minute or so of the program is basically to paint the Church as an oppressive society that is intent on controlling every aspect of its members’ lives. I would guess that most people who voluntary choose to be Catholic do not agree with this assessment; if they did not, they would likely go elsewhere for guidance. This program was essentially about bashing not just the Vatican, but by maligning the beliefs of over a billion Catholics, and also other Christians as well, throughout the world. The closing thought was that if your God supported the ideas put forth by the Catholic Church, that perhaps you should consider finding another God (or presumably worshipping no god at all, since Penn “cuts the cord” that supposedly joined “Pope Teller” to God). That was likely the most truthful statement made in this diatribe, given the blatant disdain for religion that these two people show.
Whether you are Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, or non-denominational Christian, you should be offended by this show and by these two comedians, as they not only hold all of us in the greatest contempt for being Christian, but also because they don’t mind presenting lies as the truth in order to further their agenda. Anyone who believes that they got an unbiased account of Catholic belief and action has been fooled by these two people. If you are not Catholic, you certainly cannot be faulted for not immediately accepting the claims of the Church; otherwise, you would be Catholic. If you are Catholic, don’t let these two hateful people try to rob you of your faith. If this article isn’t enough to convince you of the falsehoods that those opposed to faith (not just the Catholic Faith) are willing to propogate, then I have not done my job. It should be clear, that those who seek to destroy faith will use any means they can to do so.
In closing, this show, while a supposed expose of the corruption within the Catholic Church, turns out to be a mishmash of historical and doctrinal inaccuracies combined with an activist desire to foist the hedonistic paradigm of homosexuality and militant atheism upon the Catholic Church; the Church which we Catholics believe was established by Christ Himself. No orthodox Catholic would likely be swayed by its claims; in my opinion, its primary purpose is to preach to the atheist choir the supposed evils of the Catholic Church.
I recently watched an episode of Penn and Teller’s show Bullshit (which can be found on YouTube) that was intended to show the fallacies of Catholicism in regard to belief in the Papacy. For those who have never watched their show before, it is intended to be a show in the same vein as Mythbusters, but with irreverent humor and R-rated language. To the uninformed viewer, their show is intended to be an expose of hypocrisy in “the Vatican” — that is to say, the person of the Pope and the Roman Curia, and by extension, all of the bishops and priests. However, the show ends up being an anti-Catholic screed of the worst sort, mixing half-truths with logical fallacies with actual truths taken out of context with downright fabrications — not unlike the sensationalistic The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown. The end result is a hodgepodge of anti-Catholicism that, to those who are not Catholic (and therefore probably don’t know or believe Church doctrine and know little about Church history), would appear to be rather indicting on the face of it. At least The Da Vinci Code was presented as fiction; this show is purported to be based on facts.
It is hard to begin answering the charges levelled in this show. Not because they are true, but because it is complicated to explain why they are either only partially true, or entirely false. Church history is not an easy subject, and Church doctrine even less so, as Catholicism is a fairly complicated religion when compared with “Bible-only” forms of Christianity.
This particular episode could be compared with many of the anti-Semitic falsehoods told by people over the ages. When someone throws a Molotov cocktail out there (like the lie about Jews using Christian children’s blood for Purim rituals during the Middle Ages), it is hard to simply answer, “No, that’s not true.” Most people then are still left with doubts. Also, such charges are difficult to answer because they are often put forth in the same fashion as the cliched cross-examination question, “Did you stop beating your wife?” (Any answer that is simply yes or no presupposes the idea that you were, in fact, beating your wife in the first place.)
In this post, I will refute the claims of Penn & Teller, and show that this episode of their show does not present facts, but a hateful bias that actually attempts to prevent the truth from being known.
Penn begins the episode by stating that anyone who believes that the Pope is an infallible man that has a direct pipeline to the Almighty is not going to be swayed by this show (as these people would fall into the category of “true believers”). What he does not say, is that no orthodox Catholic believes such a thing. Any Catholic who did would be guilty of, at the least, material heresy. Also, Penn implies that if you are religious (and therefore a fool), the show might not be for you, but that if you are guided by morality, ethics, reason, et cetera (as all irreligious atheists/agnostics undoubtedly are), that this show will throw open the door on the BS that is “the Vatican”. It should probably be said at this point that, for those who don’t know, Penn and Teller are both militant atheists who have a vested interest in debunking any and all religion, including Catholicism. This should be clear when Penn says, “See, we told you there’s no God.” Keep in mind also, that the first few misconceptions listed below are showcased in the first minutes of the show. This serves to remind you how evil the Catholic Church has allegedly been under the tyrannical rule of its 265 Popes.
First misconception: Catholics believe that the Pope is perfect and/or that he is infallible in all things.
Catholics believe a lot of things about the Pope, but that he can talk to God in the same way that Moses or Abraham did, or that he is infallible in all things are not among them. To believe such things would, according to Catholic doctrine, be heretical. The Catholic Church teaches that the Pope is the successor to St. Peter, that is to say, that he fills the office that was given to St. Peter by Jesus. All of the Popes — the Bishops of Rome — were successors to Peter, much in the way that all of the Presidents of the United States fill the same office to which George Washington was first elected. The Pope has the right to rule the Church, but he is a man who is stained with sin just as the rest of us are (withthe notable exceptions of Jesus and Mary). We Catholics who know history know that there have, in fact, been truly bad Popes who did unconscionable things in abuse of their office. Remember that Peter denied Christ three times; being Pope does not make you perfect. The much misunderstood doctrine of Papal Infallibility only rarely applies to Papal teaching. It basically says that, when the Pope is teaching on matters of faith and morals in a way that is clearly intended to apply to the whole Church (ex cathedra), that the Holy Spirit will not let him teach error. It is essentially to prevent the corruption of Catholic dogma and doctrine, not so that any novel teaching of the Papacy is to be mindlessly accepted by the faithful. There are actually only a few teachings of the Church which fall under this category, as most articles of faith (such as the Divinity of Christ) were declared by one or more of the twenty-one Ecumenical Councils (in this case, the First Council of Nicaea in A.D. 325). (Papal Infallibility Wikipedia article)
Second Misconception: the Church condoned slavery, denied the Holocaust, was responsible for “the Inquisition”, and general intolerance of anyone who did not toe the Church line.
While there have been Catholics who have owned slaves, there are also Catholics that are disobedient in other areas of Catholic morality as well; that does not indict the Church, it shows that all people, whether Catholic or not, are sinners. While the Popes were usually not successful in preventing the slave trade, they were not silent nor complicit (as far as I have found) on the issue. A good article on Christianity and slavery can be found here.
The issue of denying the Holocaust is very puzzling to me. This charge is usually not framed in this way; I have never heard, nor have ever seen the claim that the Church denied that the Holocaust happened. If it ever did, it would have had to have been early on (late 1930s – mid-1940s), as evidence for the Holocaust became quite clear following the liberation of concentration camps. The Pope during World War II, and until 1958, was Pope Pius XII. He has been, in recent years, castigated as an anti-Semitic Pope who was in league with Hitler and complicit in perpetrating the Holocaust against the Jews. There is only one problem with this charge — there is no evidence of it. In fact, there is a great deal of evidence that Pius XII, who was certainly aware of at least some of the persecution that Jews endured under the Nazis, did a great deal to protect them as much as he could. In the 1930s, he issued statements that were openly critical to the race theory upon which Nazi Germany based their plan of extermination. Later, directly following World War II, the chief rabbi of Rome, Eugenio Zolli, converted to Catholicism precisely because of Pius XII’s efforts to protect Jews during WWII. The charge of Pius XII’s anti-Semitism did not initially appear in any well-researched history textbook or other such venue. It first appeared in 1963 in the script of a play by Rolf Hochhuth, and was soon accepted by the anti-Catholic community as fact. (Pope Pius XII FAQs) Pope John Paul II and his successor (Pope Benedict XVI) have both done a great deal to highlight the evil of the Holocaust and have tried to mend Jewish-Christian relations as much as possible. Of course, due to Benedict XVI’s German heritage and his life in Nazi Germany as a youth, many have tried to slander him as a “Nazi Pope”. These allegations are simply not true. (Pope Benedict XVI and the Hitler Youth)
The Crusades are really too lengthy to go into much detail here. Essentially, they consisted of a series of wars, only some of which were officially called for by Church authority (i.e., the Pope). The purpose of these wars was to secure safe passage of Christian pilgrims from Europe to the Holy Land, which was then under the control of Muslim Turks (the Ottoman Empire). While the First Crusade was essentially successful, the others were not, and it is true that some atrocities were committed by Crusaders that should not have happened. The most notable of these are the sack of Constantinople, and the killing of some innocent Jews and Muslims. For a better understanding of the Crusades check out this article.
Ah, the Inquisition…an anti-Catholic’s dream. With this one, not only can you appeal to the non-Catholic Christians, but to all non-Christians in general. The story goes that the Church executed, by some accounts, up to twenty million people in Europe alone for offending Catholic sensibilities. (This claim, due to the “Black Legend“, is patently false, as evinced by the fact that such a killing spree would have annihilated the entire population of Europe. More accurate estimates put the real toll closer to between 2,000 and 4,000 over a 400 year period.) Once again, the claims are not accurate, and are often downright laughable. That is not to say that there were not bad (even atrocious) events that happened, but such events must be understood in context. First of all, the most famous Inquisition (yes, the Spanish one) was not even sanctioned by the Church, but was essentially an independent undertaking of the overzealous King and Queen of Spain during the latter 15th and early 16th centuries, Ferdinand and Isabella. The other Inquisitions, which were Church-sanctioned, were not as lengthy or as infamous. In all of the Inquisitorial trials where people were, in fact, executed, the executions were not done by the Church, but by the State. Obstinate heresy was, at this time, a crime that was equivalent to treason in the eyes of the State, and thus was a capital crime. For a more detailed, accurate, and less salacious account of “the Inquisition”, see here.
Images depicting these ideas, meant to prejudice a viewer against the Church, are shown within the first few minutes of the program with no offered explanation. It is done so in order to convey the idea that it is a given that, not only are these things all true as presented, but that the “knowledge” of these things is so common, that no explanation is even necessary. Also, Penn states that the Pope is going to talk to “them”. One could interpret that this means a private audience. Later, it is seen that what it actually means is that someone, presumably from their film crew, went to St. Peter’s Square in Vatican City during one of the Urbi et Orbi addresses that the Pope gives regularly. No official from the Catholic Church was presented as a counterpoint to their allegations. Supposedly, this was because no one responded to whatever letters they sent to various bishops, priests, etc. While it is possible that no cleric responded to them — if they indeed sought such contact — I must do my best to answer for my Church, as slander such as this should not go unanswered. To be continued…
It’s been eight months since I’ve written anything, as I’ve been particularly busy with work and family life. Also, these last couple of months, I’ve been reading quite a lot. After several years of owning a copy, I have been reading The Imitation of Christ, by Thomas a Kempis. This book seems to be an excellent introduction to the mystical (as opposed to the intellectual) side of Catholicism. I find that this book increases faith and fervor more than any catechism or purely philisophical work (like the Summa Theologica) ever could. I am also reading a few other books: Divine Mercy in My Soul – the diary of St. Maria Faustina Kowalska, The Way by St. Josemaria Escriva, and lastly, The Soul of the Apostolate by Jean-Baptiste Chautard, O.C.S.O.
It looks like I’ve got my plate pretty full for now!
As the Christmas season quickly approaches (no, we’re not there yet!) I pause to observe how Christmas has been commercialized to the point where a truly traditional Christmas celebration would seem archaic to most people in the USA today. Also, many stores have eliminated all references to Christ, Christmas, and in a few cases, even Santa Claus. Presumably this is done in an attempt to not offend those who are not Christian, yet this is wrong-headed. First of all, probably 80-90% of people in the USA are at least nominally Christian, and would certainly not be offended by religious imagery. Of those, half are offended that companies eliminate the reason why it is that we should be buying their products this time of year. Also, most people of other faiths (Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, etc.) are well aware that Christmas is about the birth of Jesus. Many of them, despite not being Christian, celebrate Christmas anyway and do not complain that we Christians would dare wish someone “Merry Christmas” rather than “Happy Holidays” or some other lukewarm greeting.
So why is the removal of Christ from Christmas so pervasive? The real reason, is because we have allowed Him to be removed. I’m not suggesting that we shouldn’t buy presents for each other, or anything like that. What I am saying, is that we have allowed Christmas to be watered down in all realms of life. At stores, we purchase things that say “Seasons Greeetings”. At schools, we allow “winter programs” instead of Christmas plays. What other season is celebrated? Most schools don’t have spring, summer, or autumn programs, so having a “winter program” is a clear veiled reference to Christmas without having to face the reality of the birth of Christ.
If a Jew or Muslim were to wish me a happy Yom Kippur or Eid al Fitr, I would not be angry with them. Also, they would be within their rights to do so. If an Asian person wishes me a happy Lunar New Year, there is no problem. To object to these acts would not only be wrong, they would not be politically correct, as these are minority religious or ethnic groups. Given that the majority of Americans are Christian, there should be no question that wishing someone a Merry Christmas or having a Nativity scene are allowed, even in the public square. To do less would be to deny the Christian heritage of most Americans. While there is some debate about how Christan the Founding Fathers were, and while the Puritans did not like Christmas due to its Catholic origins, Christians of virtually all stripes celebrate Christmas in 2008. Let’s make sure that we all have a Merry Christmas, and not just a Happy Holiday.
http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=31127
Given the usual news about radical Muslims in the news, this is quite an uplifting story! It’s also quite promising to see pro-life sentiments being propogated in Europe – a continent where abortion has been licit for quite some time longer than in the USA.
http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=30814
Every now and then, a story about PVS comes out and I am reminded of Terri Schiavo. Terri Schiavo suffered from PVS (Persistent Vegetative State) and was allowed to die from dehydration. Regardless of whether or not she was conscious, allowing her to die in such a manner has uneqivocally been denounced by the Holy See as incompatible with Catholic medical ethics and morals.
http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=30736
Sadly, there has been an upsurge in violence against Catholics and other Christians in India, a country often associated with religious tolerance, rather than religious persecution. Catholic Online has a petition for support of Catholics in India: http://www.catholic.org/catholicaction/india/.
Please pray for all Christians in India, that they may be free from persecution, and that they may spread the Gospel of Christ freely.
It is interesting to see how the pro-abortion / pro-licentiousness crowd often frames these discussions as tirades by irrational old men, when the arguments put forth by the Church are, in fact, quite rational and logical.
I am glad to see that our priests are beginning to speak out on these issues. In the last few years – especially since the 2004 election – bishops are priests alike are using the threat of excommunication for abortion and abortion-related acts.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D94EB4BO0&show_article=1
A 33-year old man in Jensen Beach, Florida attempted to steal consecrated Hosts from a parish church during Communion, assaulting a priest and several parishioners in the process.
It is assumed by some that he intended to use the Hosts for some diabolical purpose; perhaps a Black Mass or something like that. It should be noted that such a crime, if committed by a Catholic, incurs automatic excommunication that can only be lifted by the Pope himself (or presumably, a delegate). Deliberate desecration of the Eucharist is the most serious crime in canon law, as it is an attempted assault on Jesus Christ Himself.
http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=30514
Previous Entries
Categories
Tag Cloud
Blog RSS
Comments RSS
Last 50 Posts
Back
Void 
Life 
Earth 
Wind 
Water 
Fire