Earlier today I saw online a Catholic arguing that our Christian obligation to support those that cannot support themselves (the poor, sick, and elderly) is more important than the issue of abortion. Although I do not know the person, I chose to reply because of the nature of the audience that would see his position. What follows is my response to his opinion that care for those that cannot support themselves is more important than ending abortion.
Taking care of the poor and sick is certainly a good thing for us to do. However, supporting anyone that stands behind allowing the killing of innocent people is intrinsically evil (for those not familiar with the term intrinsically evil, please see this blog post; it means "evil no matter what the circumstances.") You could argue that one candidate allowing for an exception in limited cases is intrinsically evil in order to not support him, but if you do that you would have to not support the other candidate that supports abortion with no exception for the same reasons. In which case you would have to find another candidate to support. Support for abortion is morally wrong. As the bishop said,"One might argue for different methods in the platform to address the needs of the poor, to feed the hungry and to solve the challenges of immigration, but these are prudential judgments about the most effective means of achieving morally desirable ends, not intrinsic evils," and that is our first obligation as faithful Catholics.
If a President and Congress make changes that cut back drastically on support of the poor and sick, we can still provide for them through our own work. So long as there are laws that allow abortion (with no exceptions), we are allowing an intrinsic evil to occur. If laws were to come that would make it illegal for us to provide for the poor and sick, we might have an interesting discussion on whether caring for them or allowing abortion were the greater intrinsic evil, but they are both intrinsically evil and we could not support a candidate with either belief. The one intrinsic evil in play here is abortion. We might disagree on how to provide for the poor and sick, but how that is performed is not a moral issue, in which case we are called to support that candidate that does not support abortion (with no exceptions).
There are other moral issues as well, like support for gay marriage, that go against the teaching of the Catholic Church. One might argue that we have no right to force our morality onto others, but this is something that will have an impact on any religion that believes in marriage being between one man and one woman. Laws are being pushed to force churches to perform "same sex marriages." If this is not an issue of religious freedom, then I don't know how far the government would have to push to make people of faith realize that the government is intruding in religion. Secondly, there is a good amount of imagery in our faith that is rooted in marriage like the creation accounts and the marriage of Jesus to the Church. These images lose their meaning as "same sex marriages" become legal. Do you want the teachings of the Church to become watered down because of changes in the law?
"Same sex marriage" is a moral issue as are abortion and care for the poor and sick. The intrinsic evils are abortion and "same sex marriage," which means "evil no matter what the circumstances." I hope you understand how abortion and "same sex marriage" are "evil no matter what the circumstances." Go back and reflect on whether how one party plans to care for the poor and sick is "evil no matter what the circumstances." If you still feel that supporting a candidate that supports abortion and "same sex marriage" is acceptable, please explain your rational. The rationale should explain:
1) How one candidate's plans for caring for the poor and sick is an intrinsic evil.
2) Why abortion and "same sex marriage" are not intrinsic evils OR why it is acceptable to support a candidate that supports one intrinsic evil over a candidate that supports another intrinsic evil.
I challenge any Catholic to provide such rationale.
Friday, September 28, 2012
Monday, July 16, 2012
I "Unfriended" Someone Today - The Failure Of Logic And Reason
About a year ago I reconnected with a high school friend on Facebook. While we have some common interests, it became quickly apparent that we did not agree on religious, social, and political issues. The social and political issues which we tended not to agree stemmed from religious beliefs - he is an atheist and I am a Catholic. I entertained discussions with him because it gave me a chance to grower deeper in my faith.
The discussions would be on the role of religion in the government and moral issues. We would have a few good exchanges on a topic and then insults were thrown at me because he perceived a comment of mine to patronize him. He did not like it when I would remind him of something from history in response to his criticism of something the Catholic Church has done. His response would be something like "don't patronize me, I've studied history for the last 10 years and have a Masters Degree in History" or "I studied the Bible and Church Fathers and learned a lot." I do not doubt that those statements are true, but that does not excuse his comments or even suffice as a logical response. Rather than giving me a reasonable or logical argument, he chose to give me his credentials and expected me to give up. If one really has the credentials the cite, then they should be able to give an answer rather than shoving the credentials in another's face.
For a while I ignored this and tried to continue with the discussions. He would either drop out of the discussion or come back to the beginning of the discussion. Either way, the discussion basically came to an end. Then another topic would come up and we would go through the same discussion points. I really tired of this as he would continue with the same comments that I already refuted. Without fail he would bring up priest sex abuse and make that out to be a problem unique to the Catholic Church. Despite many refutations regarding the frequency of allegations compared to the general population, the time period from which most of the alleged abuse occurred, and the Church following the norms of society when dealing with abusers, he continued to use this as an argument against the Church (Note that I do not think any actual abuse by anyone is acceptable). He even went as far as claiming that the real reason the Church opposes abortion is because every abortion is one less child for a priest to molest.
Despite having to restate my arguments, that is not why I chose to "unfriend" him today. About six weeks ago I was in a political discussion with him and he reminded me that the President of the United States is elected by the people. I know that is code for some people that believe that Congress should approve anything the POTUS wants simply because he is elected by the people. I reminded him (and anyone else using that argument) that Congress is also elected by the people and they have a responsibility to their constituents, not the POTUS. He does not like it when I remind him of that and feels that I patronized him by doing so. If he really know how the different branches of government work, he would not think that the POTUS should get whatever he wants. Anyhow, during this particular discussion he chose to deactivate his account. This is a habit I had noticed of his when he would get upset about a discussion. Perhaps he has another reason to leave Facebook, but it always seemed to be in the middle of an especially heated discussion, one in which he felt it necessary to throw his credentials at me rather than continuing in discussion. If you are going to claim there is no God, make attacks against my religion, claim to use logic and reason instead of God, refuse to give logical arguments to defend your beliefs, and even runaway or hide instead of continuing a discussion, then I have no use for you. This happened too many times and I had decided to "unfriend" him when I realized he deactivated his account. I could not do this at the time because I cannot "unfriend" someone whose account is not active. Since I saw some posts from him today, I knew this was my chance to "unfriend" him as I intended.
This is part of what I have noticed with many atheists online, Facebook or elsewhere. They claim to be the group of people that use logic and reason when it comes to god and morals. Many of them focus their attacks on Christianity, especially the Catholic Church. They have canned responses to many issues and I have come across many of them. When it comes to morals, they will eventually bring up a Levitical law. They do not understand how certain laws no longer apply because of the new covenant given to us by Jesus Christ. Any claim to that will question why some laws still apply and they simply will not accept that moral laws from the Old Testament still apply. They just state that they do not interpret the New Testament that way and will not give a reason why. If these people are really the people who use logic and reason instead of god, they should be able to give an answer to this. They would rather point out where they think religious people are not following the teachings of their religion rather than understand the basis for such teachings. When it comes down to defending their interpretation of the Bible, they fail because their logic and reasoning is wrong.
The discussions would be on the role of religion in the government and moral issues. We would have a few good exchanges on a topic and then insults were thrown at me because he perceived a comment of mine to patronize him. He did not like it when I would remind him of something from history in response to his criticism of something the Catholic Church has done. His response would be something like "don't patronize me, I've studied history for the last 10 years and have a Masters Degree in History" or "I studied the Bible and Church Fathers and learned a lot." I do not doubt that those statements are true, but that does not excuse his comments or even suffice as a logical response. Rather than giving me a reasonable or logical argument, he chose to give me his credentials and expected me to give up. If one really has the credentials the cite, then they should be able to give an answer rather than shoving the credentials in another's face.
For a while I ignored this and tried to continue with the discussions. He would either drop out of the discussion or come back to the beginning of the discussion. Either way, the discussion basically came to an end. Then another topic would come up and we would go through the same discussion points. I really tired of this as he would continue with the same comments that I already refuted. Without fail he would bring up priest sex abuse and make that out to be a problem unique to the Catholic Church. Despite many refutations regarding the frequency of allegations compared to the general population, the time period from which most of the alleged abuse occurred, and the Church following the norms of society when dealing with abusers, he continued to use this as an argument against the Church (Note that I do not think any actual abuse by anyone is acceptable). He even went as far as claiming that the real reason the Church opposes abortion is because every abortion is one less child for a priest to molest.
Despite having to restate my arguments, that is not why I chose to "unfriend" him today. About six weeks ago I was in a political discussion with him and he reminded me that the President of the United States is elected by the people. I know that is code for some people that believe that Congress should approve anything the POTUS wants simply because he is elected by the people. I reminded him (and anyone else using that argument) that Congress is also elected by the people and they have a responsibility to their constituents, not the POTUS. He does not like it when I remind him of that and feels that I patronized him by doing so. If he really know how the different branches of government work, he would not think that the POTUS should get whatever he wants. Anyhow, during this particular discussion he chose to deactivate his account. This is a habit I had noticed of his when he would get upset about a discussion. Perhaps he has another reason to leave Facebook, but it always seemed to be in the middle of an especially heated discussion, one in which he felt it necessary to throw his credentials at me rather than continuing in discussion. If you are going to claim there is no God, make attacks against my religion, claim to use logic and reason instead of God, refuse to give logical arguments to defend your beliefs, and even runaway or hide instead of continuing a discussion, then I have no use for you. This happened too many times and I had decided to "unfriend" him when I realized he deactivated his account. I could not do this at the time because I cannot "unfriend" someone whose account is not active. Since I saw some posts from him today, I knew this was my chance to "unfriend" him as I intended.
This is part of what I have noticed with many atheists online, Facebook or elsewhere. They claim to be the group of people that use logic and reason when it comes to god and morals. Many of them focus their attacks on Christianity, especially the Catholic Church. They have canned responses to many issues and I have come across many of them. When it comes to morals, they will eventually bring up a Levitical law. They do not understand how certain laws no longer apply because of the new covenant given to us by Jesus Christ. Any claim to that will question why some laws still apply and they simply will not accept that moral laws from the Old Testament still apply. They just state that they do not interpret the New Testament that way and will not give a reason why. If these people are really the people who use logic and reason instead of god, they should be able to give an answer to this. They would rather point out where they think religious people are not following the teachings of their religion rather than understand the basis for such teachings. When it comes down to defending their interpretation of the Bible, they fail because their logic and reasoning is wrong.
Thursday, July 12, 2012
Is the Mississippi "Anti-Abortion" Law Unfair?
Yesterday we saw that a Federal
judge is blocking "a
state law that threatens to shut
down Mississippi'sonly abortion clinic and make it nearly impossible for
women to get the procedure in the state."
As we have heard for a while, the abortion business is about
women's health. If that is really the
case, then those supporting the abortion industry should be concerned about
what happens to the woman having an abortion and something goes wrong with the
procedure. If one reads the entire
article linked above, they will notice "(Clinic owner Diane) Derzis said that since she acquired Jackson Women's
Health Organization in 2010, no woman has had to be taken from the clinic by
ambulance." That may be true, but
that does not mean that no woman receiving treatment at the clinic needed to be
taken to a hospital.
In this
article from 2010, we see a variety of issues with clinics that perform
abortions. This includes botched
abortions in Columbus, OH, "illegal
abortions, unlicensed staff dispensing drugs and performing medical tasks for
which they were not qualified" in Nebraska, a doctor "violating the
terms of his probation by doing abortions without the required supervision of
another physician" in California, and two "forced abortions" in
Michigan. These could very well be
exceptions, but let's take a closer look at the issue in Columbus.
Looking deeper
into the story of two botched abortions, we see disregard for the woman's
health immediately following a botched abortion. In the first instance "a pro-life
sidewalk counselor saw a young woman leaving...an abortion clinic in Columbus,
Ohio, after an abortion...the patient swooned, dropped to her knees, and began
to vomit as she bled heavily through her clothing." She was at the clinic for a total of two
hours and felt "nauseated and lightheaded" during her visit and when
she was discharged." At the
emergency room, she was treated for heavy bleeding, and given medication for
her dizziness and nausea. It took emergency medical professionals six hours to
stabilize her." Where was the
concern for the woman's health at the clinic?
Were they just trying to get rid of her because they thought something
serious might happen to her? Perhaps
even death. If they clinic staff is
concerned about women's health, they would have kept her there or taken her to
one of the hospitals at which the doctors have admitting rights.
The second case is a woman being "admitted to a Columbus hospital after suffering excessive bleeding and
pelvic pain after her abortion...According to her transcripts, she
suffered from a hematoma, or internal bleeding inside the tissues, and
excessive clotting. Efforts by hospital staff to contact the clinic were
unsuccessful." Again we have a
woman having to go to the hospital due to complications from an abortion. The article is not clear on whether she was
discharged from the clinic before going to the hospital. Considering that the hospital was
unsuccessful in contacting the clinic, I think it is safe to assume that they
discharged her. Furthermore, the fact
that the clinic would not respond to the hospital regarding the treatment of
one of their patient's tells me that this is yet another clinic that is not
really concerned about the health of the woman.
It is possible that these are isolated cases in one city. Some would even say that it is likely that
these are isolated cases and I will give them that. However, if you dig around you will see that
problems like this are being uncovered across the country.
The fact of the matter with this law is that the State of
Mississippi needs assurances that the women receiving abortions in Mississippi
is given the proper and necessary care, especially in the events of
complications. While this law may have
been drafted with the intent of shutting down the abortion industry in
Mississippi, the law does bring abortion clinics to the same standard as all
ambulatory surgical centers. If this law
were drafted with any other type of clinic in mind, it would likely be a
non-issue. If this law were really
unfair, it would be holding abortion clinics to a higher standard, not bringing
them up to the standard of other surgical centers.
Wednesday, July 11, 2012
Objectifying Professional Athletes
Today, the day after the MLB All Star Game is the most boring day in professional sports in the United States. It is the one day* of the year where neither MLB, NBA, NFL, or NHL have an on field sporting event. I am going to take this opportunity to address an issue on professional athletes and their salaries.
A lot of people complain about teams spending a lot of money and having an unfair advantage in being able to sign whoever they want. This is the case in MLB where teams like the Yankees, Red Sox, and Angels spend money to get the best players to be in contention for the championship. The people complaining here don't like that the players go for the most money instead of sticking with their team. So I ask those complaining if they would stick with their employer if their competition offered them substantially more to do the same thing?
Secondly, these players want to have a chance to win. Isn't that what playing professional sports is about?
People who do not like the salary structures in MLB (although MLB has added a luxury tax to help curb this) call for salary caps. I am not a fan of this as it keeps teams from using all of their resources to field a competitive team. Also, if the sport is popular elsewhere in the world, you run the risk of having the salary cap keeping the best players in the world from coming to your league. Although the NBA is not quite at a hard salary cap, they are almost there. We see a few teams get more than their share of superstar players like the Celtics, Heat, Lakers, and soon the Nets (no the Knicks are not even close yet). Many of the people who complain about free spending in MLB don't like that these superstars have taken less than they could earn elsewhere in order to pay for a team that can contend for the championship. So I ask these people, which is it that you don't like free spending or salary caps? The fact is that most of best players want to play for championship winning teams.
It seems to me that the people who do not like what is happening with free spending in MLB and players signing for less to play for championship contenders in the NBA want players to stick with the teams that drafted them. I understand the sentiment they have in that they think the players should show some loyalty to the teams that gave them a chance. First of all, we know the draft system is designed to help teams that did not do well in the prior year. If the player were free to sign with whoever they wanted and had to play their way onto the team, instead of just entering a draft there might be something to be said about the team giving them a chance. That is not the case here. In many cases the best players go to bad teams and have to play out their original contract while the team does little to turn themselves into a contender. When the player becomes a free agent, he wants to move to a contender. Forcing a player to stay with the team that drafted him allows teams to underpay their players as there is no market for the talent. Think about what that would mean if it applied to people outside of professional sports. That is not what anyone wants for their own ability to work where they want and negotiate their salary, so why should we expect that with professional athletes?
Some people will argue that because these athletes work in the eye of the public that we should be able to demand certain things of them. For instance, people think it is appropriate to yell profanities at them for not doing well enough and want them to play for less salary. It is never appropriate to yell profanities at anyone. Although I might feel like someone has not done their job, I must remember that I would be yelling at a person and they need to be treated as a person. To do otherwise would be to objectify them into the service I expect them to do.
As for expecting athletes to play for less salary, we have to remember that economics comes into play here. So long as people are willing to pay the prices to attend the games and advertisers are willing to keep paying as much as they do to advertise, the players should receive a good chunk of the revenue. Their playing the games we enjoy watching is the product we are purchasing. If the athletes did not get a decent portion of the revenue, then we would be complaining about team owners raising prices just to make a larger profit and that is another issue when owners do this rather than trying to field a competitive team.
Players, as do most people, want to make more money. They also want to play for a champion. Setting up a system that forces a player to stay with their original team can keep their salaries artificially low. We would not stand for this if such a system were in place for ordinary people. Yet many sports fans expect players to stay with the team that gave them a chance for a lower salary. As previously mentioned, the draft systems are setup so that a player really does not have a choice on which team can sign him so no specific team really gave them a chance to break into the league (yes, there are some exceptions for undrafted players, but even they deserve to be paid appropriately for their work). When we demand someone to accept a lower salary simply because we want them to be forced to stay with a particular team, we have objectified them.
Just as we are capable of making a sports team into an idol god through the value we place on them, we must be careful not to do the same with professional athletes. We must respect that every professional athlete is a human being and treat them as such.
*There was recently a change in the scheduling of either the NBA or NHL that caused another such day in the winter, but I do not recall if that was done just once or if it is a permanent change.
A lot of people complain about teams spending a lot of money and having an unfair advantage in being able to sign whoever they want. This is the case in MLB where teams like the Yankees, Red Sox, and Angels spend money to get the best players to be in contention for the championship. The people complaining here don't like that the players go for the most money instead of sticking with their team. So I ask those complaining if they would stick with their employer if their competition offered them substantially more to do the same thing?
Secondly, these players want to have a chance to win. Isn't that what playing professional sports is about?
People who do not like the salary structures in MLB (although MLB has added a luxury tax to help curb this) call for salary caps. I am not a fan of this as it keeps teams from using all of their resources to field a competitive team. Also, if the sport is popular elsewhere in the world, you run the risk of having the salary cap keeping the best players in the world from coming to your league. Although the NBA is not quite at a hard salary cap, they are almost there. We see a few teams get more than their share of superstar players like the Celtics, Heat, Lakers, and soon the Nets (no the Knicks are not even close yet). Many of the people who complain about free spending in MLB don't like that these superstars have taken less than they could earn elsewhere in order to pay for a team that can contend for the championship. So I ask these people, which is it that you don't like free spending or salary caps? The fact is that most of best players want to play for championship winning teams.
It seems to me that the people who do not like what is happening with free spending in MLB and players signing for less to play for championship contenders in the NBA want players to stick with the teams that drafted them. I understand the sentiment they have in that they think the players should show some loyalty to the teams that gave them a chance. First of all, we know the draft system is designed to help teams that did not do well in the prior year. If the player were free to sign with whoever they wanted and had to play their way onto the team, instead of just entering a draft there might be something to be said about the team giving them a chance. That is not the case here. In many cases the best players go to bad teams and have to play out their original contract while the team does little to turn themselves into a contender. When the player becomes a free agent, he wants to move to a contender. Forcing a player to stay with the team that drafted him allows teams to underpay their players as there is no market for the talent. Think about what that would mean if it applied to people outside of professional sports. That is not what anyone wants for their own ability to work where they want and negotiate their salary, so why should we expect that with professional athletes?
Some people will argue that because these athletes work in the eye of the public that we should be able to demand certain things of them. For instance, people think it is appropriate to yell profanities at them for not doing well enough and want them to play for less salary. It is never appropriate to yell profanities at anyone. Although I might feel like someone has not done their job, I must remember that I would be yelling at a person and they need to be treated as a person. To do otherwise would be to objectify them into the service I expect them to do.
As for expecting athletes to play for less salary, we have to remember that economics comes into play here. So long as people are willing to pay the prices to attend the games and advertisers are willing to keep paying as much as they do to advertise, the players should receive a good chunk of the revenue. Their playing the games we enjoy watching is the product we are purchasing. If the athletes did not get a decent portion of the revenue, then we would be complaining about team owners raising prices just to make a larger profit and that is another issue when owners do this rather than trying to field a competitive team.
Players, as do most people, want to make more money. They also want to play for a champion. Setting up a system that forces a player to stay with their original team can keep their salaries artificially low. We would not stand for this if such a system were in place for ordinary people. Yet many sports fans expect players to stay with the team that gave them a chance for a lower salary. As previously mentioned, the draft systems are setup so that a player really does not have a choice on which team can sign him so no specific team really gave them a chance to break into the league (yes, there are some exceptions for undrafted players, but even they deserve to be paid appropriately for their work). When we demand someone to accept a lower salary simply because we want them to be forced to stay with a particular team, we have objectified them.
Just as we are capable of making a sports team into an idol god through the value we place on them, we must be careful not to do the same with professional athletes. We must respect that every professional athlete is a human being and treat them as such.
*There was recently a change in the scheduling of either the NBA or NHL that caused another such day in the winter, but I do not recall if that was done just once or if it is a permanent change.
Tuesday, June 5, 2012
Union Control At Stake In Wisconsin
Wisconsin governor Scott Walker faces a recall vote today. Some inside and outside of Wisconsin are afraid of how that will change people's right to unionize and that is a bad thing. First, let's look at the facts of what Governor Walker has done. He has balanced his budget, put into place reforms that will keep costs of public sector employees from being a long-term burden on the state, and passed laws that do not force people to join a union.
Indiana has a similar Right to Work laws as Wisconsin. "The union bosses (in Indiana) have filed a lawsuit claiming that right-to-work laws violate the U.S. Constitution's prohibition on slavery." Read that again, they think it is slavery if people are not forced to join a union. I agree that unions have a purpose, but no one should be forced to join one. It is not a violation of the Constitution's prohibition on slavery to keep one from being forced to join a union, rather it is a violation of one's freedom to force them to join a union. One could even argue that it is slavery to force someone to join a union as they would be subject to paying union dues and going along with whatever the union negotiated for their wages and benefits. Right to Work laws are not unconstitutional, but forcing people to join a union is. unconstitutional.
Governor Walker has reclaimed Wisconsin, but the union people will have you believe that this recall is about reclaiming Wisconsin. People have the right to recall their elected officials. They also have the right not to be ruled by unions, forced to join unions, or forced to drive themselves into debt because of excessive benefits given to union employees in the public sector when compared to benefits given for similar work in the private sector. If this so-called reclamation is going to be done by people that do not want to be fiscally sound, threaten high school students with physical harm for supporting something against their cause, and think it is slavery to keep people from being forced into a union, then go ahead and show your support for recalling Governor Scott Walker.
Union supporters are against this. Students from Sheboygan Lutheran High School were at the capital and decided to chant in support of Governor Walker. The unions did not care for this. "At the Capitol, they encountered the Solidarity Singers, who have been repeating Pete Seeger and Woody Guthrie songs of socialism every weekday for the past year. Although it is a regularly scheduled event, they have done so defiantly without permit." Because they spoke against the union, they received threats of physical violence. Yes, the students voiced their opinion without a permit to assemble. The action of the students was an impromptu activity and did not do any damage to the capital or surrounding area unlike the union supporters who camp there without a permit."
Indiana has a similar Right to Work laws as Wisconsin. "The union bosses (in Indiana) have filed a lawsuit claiming that right-to-work laws violate the U.S. Constitution's prohibition on slavery." Read that again, they think it is slavery if people are not forced to join a union. I agree that unions have a purpose, but no one should be forced to join one. It is not a violation of the Constitution's prohibition on slavery to keep one from being forced to join a union, rather it is a violation of one's freedom to force them to join a union. One could even argue that it is slavery to force someone to join a union as they would be subject to paying union dues and going along with whatever the union negotiated for their wages and benefits. Right to Work laws are not unconstitutional, but forcing people to join a union is. unconstitutional.
Governor Walker has reclaimed Wisconsin, but the union people will have you believe that this recall is about reclaiming Wisconsin. People have the right to recall their elected officials. They also have the right not to be ruled by unions, forced to join unions, or forced to drive themselves into debt because of excessive benefits given to union employees in the public sector when compared to benefits given for similar work in the private sector. If this so-called reclamation is going to be done by people that do not want to be fiscally sound, threaten high school students with physical harm for supporting something against their cause, and think it is slavery to keep people from being forced into a union, then go ahead and show your support for recalling Governor Scott Walker.
Thursday, May 10, 2012
The Golden Rule - Treading In Dangerous Water
Yesterday President Obama spoke about same-sex marriage and his change of mind about this. The linked article shows a brief history of Obama's view of this. "In 1996, as a state Senate candidate, he indicated support for gay marriage in a questionnaire, but Obama aides later disavowed it and said it did not reflect the candidate’s position." So he either marked the questionnaire incorrectly or he did not want others to know his position. Then "in 2004, as a candidate for the U.S. Senate, he cited his own religion in framing his views: 'I’m a Christian. I do believe that tradition and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman.'" Yes, it is good to see that his religious beliefs bring him to this conclusion. Those who cry for separation of church and state will not like this, but they should be up in arms about the dangerous water President Obama is treading with his comments about his recent change of mind. It is my opinion that the main reason why religion is included in information about candidates is so that people will know what morals the candidate has and will be using to form their decisions. Then "As president in 2010, Obama told ABC News’ Jake Tapper that his feelings about gay marriage were 'constantly evolving. I struggle with this.' A year later, the president told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, 'I’m still working on it.'" So we have a religious man stating that he is struggling with his beliefs while running the country and hardly anyone is questioning his wavering beliefs.
Then we get to his comments yesterday on his support for gay marriage:
There are two points to be made here about the bold part of the quote above. First, and the alarming most important to the country, we have a President who is preaching. Second, is the misinterpretation of the Golden Rule in the Bible.
With a preaching President comes many issues. First and foremost is the separation of church and state. Many people that remind us of this necessity often use it to keep religion out of the public sector. The text of the First Amendment in regards to this reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," and does not preclude religion from the public sector. The opposite is true in that government has no place in religion or keeping a person from practicing their religion. President Obama's preaching does not enact a law nor is he in Congress. However, he has stepped into dangerous water when he admitted that "obviously this position may be considered to put us at odds with the views of others" and citing a specific passage of the Bible for justifying his belief.
President Obama obviously knows that his position on gay marriage is at odds with other Christians and is becoming argumentative in stating his beliefs. If he wants to argue these points, then he should engage in such a debate with a qualified defender of the faith rather than letting his position as President allow him to preach. There are many people who may be lead astray if these comments go unchecked, especially with lack of media coverage on rebuttals of the President's comments.
Also, in regards to the issue of a preaching President, is that non-Christians are alienated. Not only is he at arms with Christians of other beliefs, but with atheists, Jews, Muslims, and other religions. Is the word of the President to be the Word of God? Atheists would certainly have an issue with this as they do not believe in God. Accepting the change of mind of the President is the easy way out of this discussion simply because it conveniently goes along with the majority viewpoint of atheists. If the President is going to preach on why he supports gay marriage, atheists should be afraid of whatever else he might do based on his changing interpretation of the Bible. People of other Christian beliefs will find themselves defending their beliefs against the public megaphone given to the President. People of other religions will be alienated along with atheists because his preaching comes from books that are not part of their sacred scripture.
The second issue is the misinterpretation of the Golden Rule. Elsewhere President Obama is cited as quoting the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew. Mt 7:12 is one place where we find the Golden Rule "Do to others whatever you would have them do to you." We also see this in the Sermon on the Plain (Luke 6:20-49). Specifically, Lk 6:31 reads "Do to others as you would have them do to you." The passages of Lk 6:27-36 and Mt 5:43-48 have to do with the love of enemies. All Christians should abhor things that go against the teaching of God. As such, they would not want to have someone commit a sin against them. So if one does not want to have sin done against them, they should not sin against anyone either and that is the point of the Golden Rule. President Obama is mislead on the purpose of the Golden Rule in forming his conscience about gay marriage. This is about not sinning as opposed to being a basis for letting people do whatever they please. While there are some questionable interpretations of scripture that could lead someone into thinking that homosexual relations are not condemned by God, the Golden Rule is not one of them.
These are difficult times for people of faith as our President seeks to remove religion from the public sector while using his office as a means to preach religion. President Obama is trading in dangerous water. We must not be afraid. Just like the disciples in the boat were struggling,"the boat, already a few miles offshore, was being tossed about by the waves, for the wind was against it" (Mt 14:24), we must remember that Jesus is with us and we should not lose faith.
"When the disciples saw him walking on the sea they were terrified. 'It is a ghost,' they said, and they cried out in fear. At once [Jesus] spoke to them, 'Take courage, it is I; do not be afraid.' Peter said to him in reply, 'Lord, if it is you, command me to come to you on the water.' He said, 'Come.' Peter got out of the boat and began to walk on the water toward Jesus. But when he saw how [strong] the wind was he became frightened; and, beginning to sink, he cried out, 'Lord, save me!' Immediately Jesus stretched out his hand and caught him, and said to him, 'O you of little faith, why did you doubt?' After they got into the boat, the wind died down." (Mt 14:26-32)
Then we get to his comments yesterday on his support for gay marriage:
'This is something that, you know, we’ve talked about over the years and she, you know, she feels the same way, she feels the same way that I do. And that is that, in the end the values that I care most deeply about and she cares most deeply about is how we treat other people and, you know, I, you know, we are both practicing Christians and obviously this position may be considered to put us at odds with the views of others but, you know, when we think about our faith, the thing at root that we think about is, not only Christ sacrificing himself on our behalf, but it’s also the Golden Rule, you know, treat others the way you would want to be treated. And I think that’s what we try to impart to our kids and that’s what motivates me as president and I figure the most consistent I can be in being true to those precepts, the better I’ll be as a as a dad and a husband and, hopefully, the better I’ll be as president.'
There are two points to be made here about the bold part of the quote above. First, and the alarming most important to the country, we have a President who is preaching. Second, is the misinterpretation of the Golden Rule in the Bible.
With a preaching President comes many issues. First and foremost is the separation of church and state. Many people that remind us of this necessity often use it to keep religion out of the public sector. The text of the First Amendment in regards to this reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," and does not preclude religion from the public sector. The opposite is true in that government has no place in religion or keeping a person from practicing their religion. President Obama's preaching does not enact a law nor is he in Congress. However, he has stepped into dangerous water when he admitted that "obviously this position may be considered to put us at odds with the views of others" and citing a specific passage of the Bible for justifying his belief.
President Obama obviously knows that his position on gay marriage is at odds with other Christians and is becoming argumentative in stating his beliefs. If he wants to argue these points, then he should engage in such a debate with a qualified defender of the faith rather than letting his position as President allow him to preach. There are many people who may be lead astray if these comments go unchecked, especially with lack of media coverage on rebuttals of the President's comments.
Also, in regards to the issue of a preaching President, is that non-Christians are alienated. Not only is he at arms with Christians of other beliefs, but with atheists, Jews, Muslims, and other religions. Is the word of the President to be the Word of God? Atheists would certainly have an issue with this as they do not believe in God. Accepting the change of mind of the President is the easy way out of this discussion simply because it conveniently goes along with the majority viewpoint of atheists. If the President is going to preach on why he supports gay marriage, atheists should be afraid of whatever else he might do based on his changing interpretation of the Bible. People of other Christian beliefs will find themselves defending their beliefs against the public megaphone given to the President. People of other religions will be alienated along with atheists because his preaching comes from books that are not part of their sacred scripture.
The second issue is the misinterpretation of the Golden Rule. Elsewhere President Obama is cited as quoting the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew. Mt 7:12 is one place where we find the Golden Rule "Do to others whatever you would have them do to you." We also see this in the Sermon on the Plain (Luke 6:20-49). Specifically, Lk 6:31 reads "Do to others as you would have them do to you." The passages of Lk 6:27-36 and Mt 5:43-48 have to do with the love of enemies. All Christians should abhor things that go against the teaching of God. As such, they would not want to have someone commit a sin against them. So if one does not want to have sin done against them, they should not sin against anyone either and that is the point of the Golden Rule. President Obama is mislead on the purpose of the Golden Rule in forming his conscience about gay marriage. This is about not sinning as opposed to being a basis for letting people do whatever they please. While there are some questionable interpretations of scripture that could lead someone into thinking that homosexual relations are not condemned by God, the Golden Rule is not one of them.
These are difficult times for people of faith as our President seeks to remove religion from the public sector while using his office as a means to preach religion. President Obama is trading in dangerous water. We must not be afraid. Just like the disciples in the boat were struggling,"the boat, already a few miles offshore, was being tossed about by the waves, for the wind was against it" (Mt 14:24), we must remember that Jesus is with us and we should not lose faith.
"When the disciples saw him walking on the sea they were terrified. 'It is a ghost,' they said, and they cried out in fear. At once [Jesus] spoke to them, 'Take courage, it is I; do not be afraid.' Peter said to him in reply, 'Lord, if it is you, command me to come to you on the water.' He said, 'Come.' Peter got out of the boat and began to walk on the water toward Jesus. But when he saw how [strong] the wind was he became frightened; and, beginning to sink, he cried out, 'Lord, save me!' Immediately Jesus stretched out his hand and caught him, and said to him, 'O you of little faith, why did you doubt?' After they got into the boat, the wind died down." (Mt 14:26-32)
Thursday, April 5, 2012
Why Do Catholics Believe in Transubstantiation?
Many people that object to the Catholic belief that they receive the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ forget about the Last Supper (See Luke 22:1-23) and the Bread of Life Discourse (See John 6:22-71).
At the Last Supper Jesus tells His disciples in reference to the bread "this is my body, which will be given for you" (Lk 22:19). Non-believers in transubstantiation claim that this is the only time in which Jesus' body was consumed as the sacrificial lamb. Yet Jesus was sitting right there with them as the bread that became His body was given to them. He did not pull some flesh off of His body and give it to those at the table, he turned the bread into His Body. In John 6:52, the Jews questioned this when he was teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum (Jn 6:59), "The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, 'How can this man give us [his] flesh to eat?" Jesus replies in John 6:53-58:
"Jesus said to them, 'Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever."
Continuing in John 6, some of the disciples questioned Jesus "Then many of his disciples who were listening said, 'This saying is hard; who can accept it?'" (Jn 6:60). Jesus rebukes them, but it was still difficult for some to understand. "As a result of this, many [of] his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him" (Jn 6:66). Then we are reminded of eternal life in the Kingdom of God (Jn 6:67-69):
"Jesus then said to the Twelve, 'Do you also want to leave?' Simon Peter answered him, 'Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God.'"
All believers in Jesus Christ are called to receive the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ to have eternal life. His Body and Blood could not simply be available once. Otherwise only those at the table of the Last Supper could have participated in the reception of the Body and Blood of Christ. So the end of Lk 22:19 "do this in memory of me" is not a command to offer bread and wine as a symbolic offering, it is in fact the offering of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, who was sacrificed for us at Calvary. This is difficult for some to comprehend. If one can see the offering of bread and wine at the Last Supper as being His Body and Blood even though He had not yet been crucified, they should be able to see that the priest is in fact offering the Body and Blood of Christ just as Jesus Christ Himself did at the Last Supper. Although He died only once for us, His Body and Blood are not limited to time.
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Your sexual promiscuity has cheapened your self-worth to less than a bottle of aspirin
My entry is one of the four finalists to the contest to fill in this caption:
My entry is:
"Your sexual promiscuity has cheapened your self-worth to less than a bottle of aspirin."
Please click here and vote for my entry.
Some people might think that I am making a judgement about people who are sexually promiscuous. The judgement is about the act of sexual promiscuity and the comment is in regard to what the sexually promiscuous person is doing to themselves.
The Catholic Church teaches that sex is to be between man and woman in marriage. You can read what the Church actually teaches in the Catechism of the Catholic Church at the Vatican Archives.
The following is a response I had to someone regarding Rick Santorum's comments about homosexuality. Contraception, sexual promiscuity, and self-worth are discussed and I eventually get back to self-worth, which is the point I made with my caption entry,"Your sexual promiscuity has cheapened your self-worth to less than a bottle of aspirin."
There is more to sex than just pleasure. If there was no pleasure in the act, a species might not procreate. The primary purpose of sex is procreation. This cannot happen with homosexual people. While Rick Santorum's example of equating that act to having sex with an animal is grotesque and strong, it should drive home the point that such sexual activity is done simply for pleasure.
Another purpose of sex is the unifying aspect. Some of this is the physical contact between the people and some is chemical. Physical aspect can be accomplished between homosexual people, but not the fluid interaction that actually makes the woman desire that man. This is also true for many forms of contraception between heterosexual partners.
Denying any of these aspects of sex is immoral.
A relationship should be based on common interests, love for each other, and enjoying being with the other person. When a person feels that the value they bring to a relationship needs to be sex, then they have reduced the value of the other things they bring to a relationship because sex is more important. As sexual promiscuity continues with a person, they continue to devalue the other things they bring to a relationship. Their self-worth is tied to their ability to bring sexual pleasure. Some might say otherwise, but if one chooses to end the relationship because sex is not part of the relationship, they have reduced the value of the other person to being an object for sex. When one feels that the only thing they bring to a relationship is sex, then that is the self-worth to which they have reduced themselves.
"Your sexual promiscuity has cheapened your self-worth to less than a bottle of aspirin."
Please click here and vote for my entry.
Some people might think that I am making a judgement about people who are sexually promiscuous. The judgement is about the act of sexual promiscuity and the comment is in regard to what the sexually promiscuous person is doing to themselves.
The Catholic Church teaches that sex is to be between man and woman in marriage. You can read what the Church actually teaches in the Catechism of the Catholic Church at the Vatican Archives.
The following is a response I had to someone regarding Rick Santorum's comments about homosexuality. Contraception, sexual promiscuity, and self-worth are discussed and I eventually get back to self-worth, which is the point I made with my caption entry,"Your sexual promiscuity has cheapened your self-worth to less than a bottle of aspirin."
There is more to sex than just pleasure. If there was no pleasure in the act, a species might not procreate. The primary purpose of sex is procreation. This cannot happen with homosexual people. While Rick Santorum's example of equating that act to having sex with an animal is grotesque and strong, it should drive home the point that such sexual activity is done simply for pleasure.
Another purpose of sex is the unifying aspect. Some of this is the physical contact between the people and some is chemical. Physical aspect can be accomplished between homosexual people, but not the fluid interaction that actually makes the woman desire that man. This is also true for many forms of contraception between heterosexual partners.
Denying any of these aspects of sex is immoral.
A relationship should be based on common interests, love for each other, and enjoying being with the other person. When a person feels that the value they bring to a relationship needs to be sex, then they have reduced the value of the other things they bring to a relationship because sex is more important. As sexual promiscuity continues with a person, they continue to devalue the other things they bring to a relationship. Their self-worth is tied to their ability to bring sexual pleasure. Some might say otherwise, but if one chooses to end the relationship because sex is not part of the relationship, they have reduced the value of the other person to being an object for sex. When one feels that the only thing they bring to a relationship is sex, then that is the self-worth to which they have reduced themselves.
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Too Busy For Lent
Lent is a season for preparation for Easter. Outside of the rigors of every day life, this is a time of year that we, as Catholics, need to set aside time for prayer and reflection to prepare for Easter. I started by looking at my calendar and remembering that there were things that I had not yet added to my calendar. So I went through my emails and added to my calendar the events to which I committed. Then I started thinking about when I was going to find time to set aside for myself to pray and reflect.
I paused for a few hours to think about when I would fit in extra time to prepare myself for Easter. When I returned I was about to write all of the activities that I have planned when I realized that I had already planned time for prayer, fasting, and almsgiving. I simply forgot that these activities were designed for just this purpose.
About three years ago I decided to purchase and start praying the Liturgy of the Hours. I pray Morning Prayer, Evening Prayer, and Night Prayer every day. I try to get the Office of Readings in every day as well. When I pray the Office of Readings, I reflect on the readings and write my reflections. The readings for Lent are designed to prepare the reader for Easter. So right there is one way I will be preparing for Easter.
I will be going to Mass on Ash Wednesday. The ashes remind us of our mortality and is a great way to begin our preparation for Easter.
In the evening on Ash Wednesday, our local chapter of the Lay Fraternities of St. Dominic will begin the Total Consecration To Mary. This will be done as a group for each of the Wednesday's during the 33 day consecration and for the consecration on the 33rd day. So there went most of my Wednesday's during Lent and I will be doing the other days of the consecration at home.
Thursday of this week I have Lenten Reflection and dinner through a Church organization with which I am a member. The speaker is Msgr. Eugene Morris apparently I need to hear what he has to say as our parish Knights of Columbus council just had him as a speaker for the speaker program.
Fridays during Lent at my parish means that there will be a Fish Fry dinner run by the Knights of Columbus. I will be doing my part in setting up, serving food, and, if needed, to clean up afterward. This is a community event and fund raiser in which the proceeds all benefit the parish in some way.
So that is my Wednesday's and Friday's during Lent along with my first Thursday. Tuesday is the night of the week that I try to keep clear all year so I can spend time at home. We will see how I do about that as I look at the rest of Lent. The rest of the days of the week do not have weekly recurring activities, but there are some monthly recurring events and one time events throughout my calendar.
The first Saturday of Lent has me helping serve beverages at the Irish Festival at the Pontifical College Josephinum. This is a fun event, but it is giving of my time for a worthy cause.
I could go through the events I have planned, but that is not the point of this post. The point is finding time during Lent to prepare for Easter.
Below is a day-by-day list for each week of Lent with the activities I have planned by listing the organization. One thing I need to mention is that I usually meet with people from a non-religious organization two or three times a week. The nights I normally do this are Wednesday and Friday. Since these nights are being taken by the Consecration and Fish Fry, I have to find another night to meet, which is possible every night since I can find such a meeting on every night of the week. I will try to do that on Monday's, but that is not possible every night.
The following key will be used:
3OP - Lay Faternities of St. Dominic
C - Other church organization or event
KC - Knights of Columbus
NRO - The previously mentioned non-religious organization.
PLM - Parish Lenten Mission
Beginning of Lent
Wed - 3OP
Thu - C
Fri - KC
Sat - KC
First Week of Lent
Sun - KC
Mon - C
Tue - NRO
Wed - 3OP
Thu - KC
Fri - KC
Sat - KC
Second Week of Lent
Sun - (open)
Mon - NRO
Tue - (open)
Wed - 3OP
Thu - KC
Fri - KC
Sat - (open)
Third Week of Lent
Sun - 3OP
Mon - KC
Tue - NRO
Wed - 3OP
Thu - KC
Fri - KC
Sat - (open)
Fourth Week of Lent
Sun - KC
Mon - NRO
Tue - (open)
Wed - 3OP
Thu - (open)
Fri - KC
Sat - (open)
Fifth Week of Lent
Sun - PLM
Mon - PLM
Tue - PLM
Wed - PLM
Thu - PLM
Fri - KC
Sat - (open)
Our Parish Lenten Mission will be given my Msgr. Morris. As I said earlier, I must really need to hear what he has to say. I know he is a powerful speaker and I look forward to hearing him.
Holy Week
Sun - (open)
Mon - NRO
Tue - KC (Chrism Mass)
Wed - NRO
Thu - KC (or C if KC is canceled as it should be)
Fri - C
Sat - C
So during Lent, I have nine nights free on my schedule to find time to prepare myself of Easter. Sometime in here I will need to find time to visit with family as well.
Even though there are only nine nights free on my schedule, many of these activities do help me prepare for Lent. I forgot that many of these activities are part of my Lenten preparation for Easter. The fact that I forgot most of these activities in some way were to help me prepare for Easter is a reminder that I need to remind myself of that and treat them as just that - activities to prepare myself for Lent. I need to take time before each activity and dedicate it to God as I should be doing anyway.
I paused for a few hours to think about when I would fit in extra time to prepare myself for Easter. When I returned I was about to write all of the activities that I have planned when I realized that I had already planned time for prayer, fasting, and almsgiving. I simply forgot that these activities were designed for just this purpose.
About three years ago I decided to purchase and start praying the Liturgy of the Hours. I pray Morning Prayer, Evening Prayer, and Night Prayer every day. I try to get the Office of Readings in every day as well. When I pray the Office of Readings, I reflect on the readings and write my reflections. The readings for Lent are designed to prepare the reader for Easter. So right there is one way I will be preparing for Easter.
I will be going to Mass on Ash Wednesday. The ashes remind us of our mortality and is a great way to begin our preparation for Easter.
In the evening on Ash Wednesday, our local chapter of the Lay Fraternities of St. Dominic will begin the Total Consecration To Mary. This will be done as a group for each of the Wednesday's during the 33 day consecration and for the consecration on the 33rd day. So there went most of my Wednesday's during Lent and I will be doing the other days of the consecration at home.
Thursday of this week I have Lenten Reflection and dinner through a Church organization with which I am a member. The speaker is Msgr. Eugene Morris apparently I need to hear what he has to say as our parish Knights of Columbus council just had him as a speaker for the speaker program.
Fridays during Lent at my parish means that there will be a Fish Fry dinner run by the Knights of Columbus. I will be doing my part in setting up, serving food, and, if needed, to clean up afterward. This is a community event and fund raiser in which the proceeds all benefit the parish in some way.
So that is my Wednesday's and Friday's during Lent along with my first Thursday. Tuesday is the night of the week that I try to keep clear all year so I can spend time at home. We will see how I do about that as I look at the rest of Lent. The rest of the days of the week do not have weekly recurring activities, but there are some monthly recurring events and one time events throughout my calendar.
The first Saturday of Lent has me helping serve beverages at the Irish Festival at the Pontifical College Josephinum. This is a fun event, but it is giving of my time for a worthy cause.
I could go through the events I have planned, but that is not the point of this post. The point is finding time during Lent to prepare for Easter.
Below is a day-by-day list for each week of Lent with the activities I have planned by listing the organization. One thing I need to mention is that I usually meet with people from a non-religious organization two or three times a week. The nights I normally do this are Wednesday and Friday. Since these nights are being taken by the Consecration and Fish Fry, I have to find another night to meet, which is possible every night since I can find such a meeting on every night of the week. I will try to do that on Monday's, but that is not possible every night.
The following key will be used:
3OP - Lay Faternities of St. Dominic
C - Other church organization or event
KC - Knights of Columbus
NRO - The previously mentioned non-religious organization.
PLM - Parish Lenten Mission
Beginning of Lent
Wed - 3OP
Thu - C
Fri - KC
Sat - KC
First Week of Lent
Sun - KC
Mon - C
Tue - NRO
Wed - 3OP
Thu - KC
Fri - KC
Sat - KC
Second Week of Lent
Sun - (open)
Mon - NRO
Tue - (open)
Wed - 3OP
Thu - KC
Fri - KC
Sat - (open)
Third Week of Lent
Sun - 3OP
Mon - KC
Tue - NRO
Wed - 3OP
Thu - KC
Fri - KC
Sat - (open)
Fourth Week of Lent
Sun - KC
Mon - NRO
Tue - (open)
Wed - 3OP
Thu - (open)
Fri - KC
Sat - (open)
Fifth Week of Lent
Sun - PLM
Mon - PLM
Tue - PLM
Wed - PLM
Thu - PLM
Fri - KC
Sat - (open)
Our Parish Lenten Mission will be given my Msgr. Morris. As I said earlier, I must really need to hear what he has to say. I know he is a powerful speaker and I look forward to hearing him.
Holy Week
Sun - (open)
Mon - NRO
Tue - KC (Chrism Mass)
Wed - NRO
Thu - KC (or C if KC is canceled as it should be)
Fri - C
Sat - C
So during Lent, I have nine nights free on my schedule to find time to prepare myself of Easter. Sometime in here I will need to find time to visit with family as well.
Even though there are only nine nights free on my schedule, many of these activities do help me prepare for Lent. I forgot that many of these activities are part of my Lenten preparation for Easter. The fact that I forgot most of these activities in some way were to help me prepare for Easter is a reminder that I need to remind myself of that and treat them as just that - activities to prepare myself for Lent. I need to take time before each activity and dedicate it to God as I should be doing anyway.
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Removing the CAPE
About two years ago I learned of a different kind of Catholic known by some as CAPE Catholics. I had never heard this phrase and the explanations that ran through my head were people who wore a cape to church and Catholics who live on the cape. The explanation I got started with the Christmas and Easter only attendees at Mass. The CAPE Catholics add Ash Wednesday and Palm Sunday to the Masses they attend.
One possible explanation as to why they attend these two additional Masses is that they get something for attending. This thing they get is not just the Mass receipt, also known as the parish bulletin. They get the ashes on their forehead and the palms to display in their house as visible signs of their being Catholic. Many regular attendees at Mass may find this behavior to be deplorable. I could list many reasons why their behavior is wrong, but deep inside there is a desire to have a Catholic identity. No matter what their reason to have a visible Catholic identity, there is hope.
When I went off to college and did not even think about going to church. For the next 16 years I attended Mass when I lived under my parent's roof, was visiting my parents, or my parents were visiting me. There was a period of time in between when I lived near Chicago and I started to attend Mass every week, but then I moved again and did not look for a church.
During those 16 years, I lived in 5 different cities. I have since settled in Columbus, OH. When I visited my parents for Easter in 2007, I went to Mass with them just like I would have any other year. I do not know exactly what happened to me, but I decided to attend Mass the following Sunday. Due to my association with a non-religious organization, I had already known where one Catholic church was nearby my home so that is where I went. Because my childhood parish did not, and still does not, have kneelers I knew I was going to be lost on when to kneel so I followed what the others did. I also followed the example of others to know where to go for reception of Holy Communion. Regardless of what was happening, I needed to follow the example of others.
I would like to say that I was warmly welcomed to the parish. That did not happen. The thing that kept me coming back was the accessibility of the parish priests after Mass as I asked them for guidance. They were more than happy to help me relearn the faith. They also directed me to a bible study and RCIA class. The RCIA class was the best thing for me as I was able to learn and relearn the Catholic faith. In the process I also got to know our deacon that runs the RCIA program at our parish and some of the other clergy. Without the accessibility of the parish priests after Mass, I do not think I would have continued to come back. Within a few months of my return to the church, they held their annual stewardship fair so people can see what organizations are at the parish and invite people to join them. At least that is the intent of the fair. What happened for me is that I signed up with two groups and never got contacted. I did not make that realization until a year later when I was attending the RCIA class. I could have easily been turned off from the Church because of the appearance of nobody wanting me.
Not every infrequent attendee of Mass has the desire to (re)learn and get active like I did. When the CAPE Catholics come to church, it is important to be a good example for them. This call is not just to be an example of what to do at Mass and when to do it, but an example after Mass as we are called to live our faith in every thing that we do. The example we provide to infrequent Mass attendees, like CAPE Catholics, may turn them into regular attendees. Some might just be going about their ritual to attend Mass on a day where they feel compelled to attend. Any one of them might see or hear something that makes them realize they need to be there every week. Rather than treating the CAPE Catholics as someone in the way at Mass four times a year, treat them with true Christian charity and be willing to help them if they ask. Perhaps they might remove the CAPE and become a practicing Catholic.
One possible explanation as to why they attend these two additional Masses is that they get something for attending. This thing they get is not just the Mass receipt, also known as the parish bulletin. They get the ashes on their forehead and the palms to display in their house as visible signs of their being Catholic. Many regular attendees at Mass may find this behavior to be deplorable. I could list many reasons why their behavior is wrong, but deep inside there is a desire to have a Catholic identity. No matter what their reason to have a visible Catholic identity, there is hope.
When I went off to college and did not even think about going to church. For the next 16 years I attended Mass when I lived under my parent's roof, was visiting my parents, or my parents were visiting me. There was a period of time in between when I lived near Chicago and I started to attend Mass every week, but then I moved again and did not look for a church.
During those 16 years, I lived in 5 different cities. I have since settled in Columbus, OH. When I visited my parents for Easter in 2007, I went to Mass with them just like I would have any other year. I do not know exactly what happened to me, but I decided to attend Mass the following Sunday. Due to my association with a non-religious organization, I had already known where one Catholic church was nearby my home so that is where I went. Because my childhood parish did not, and still does not, have kneelers I knew I was going to be lost on when to kneel so I followed what the others did. I also followed the example of others to know where to go for reception of Holy Communion. Regardless of what was happening, I needed to follow the example of others.
I would like to say that I was warmly welcomed to the parish. That did not happen. The thing that kept me coming back was the accessibility of the parish priests after Mass as I asked them for guidance. They were more than happy to help me relearn the faith. They also directed me to a bible study and RCIA class. The RCIA class was the best thing for me as I was able to learn and relearn the Catholic faith. In the process I also got to know our deacon that runs the RCIA program at our parish and some of the other clergy. Without the accessibility of the parish priests after Mass, I do not think I would have continued to come back. Within a few months of my return to the church, they held their annual stewardship fair so people can see what organizations are at the parish and invite people to join them. At least that is the intent of the fair. What happened for me is that I signed up with two groups and never got contacted. I did not make that realization until a year later when I was attending the RCIA class. I could have easily been turned off from the Church because of the appearance of nobody wanting me.
Not every infrequent attendee of Mass has the desire to (re)learn and get active like I did. When the CAPE Catholics come to church, it is important to be a good example for them. This call is not just to be an example of what to do at Mass and when to do it, but an example after Mass as we are called to live our faith in every thing that we do. The example we provide to infrequent Mass attendees, like CAPE Catholics, may turn them into regular attendees. Some might just be going about their ritual to attend Mass on a day where they feel compelled to attend. Any one of them might see or hear something that makes them realize they need to be there every week. Rather than treating the CAPE Catholics as someone in the way at Mass four times a year, treat them with true Christian charity and be willing to help them if they ask. Perhaps they might remove the CAPE and become a practicing Catholic.
Saturday, February 18, 2012
About that 98% Of Catholic Women That Use Contraception
I posted the following on my Facebook page on Monday, February 13. Even though there are many comments about the 98% statistic being thrown around by now, I figured it wouldn't hurt if I posted mine as well.
Here is the study that is used to make the claim that 98% of Catholic women use contraception >>> http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/Religion-and-Contraceptive-Use.pdf.
The Guttmacher Institute was founded in 1968 as the "Center for Family Planning Program Development", a semi-autonomous division of ThePlanned Parenthood Federation of America. Keep that in mind when reading their study and their motives for misleading people.
"This report was based on data from the 2006–2008 National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG). Designed and administered by the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), the NSFG produces national estimates of factors affecting pregnancy, including sexual activity and contraceptive use. Data were gathered using in-person interviews with 7,356 women aged 15–44 between June 2006 and December 2008. All data used for this analysis were weighted, and the findings are nationally representative." Let us assume that the CDC did not have political motivations in collecting or massaging the data. I have not found the exact data set used from www.cdc.gov/nchs/nsfg.htm, but I have found a variety of studies with a different number of women included. This ranges from near 7,356 (the amount in the Guttmacher study) to 61,561. This makes me question if Guttmacher excluded women from their dataset or if they based their study on the CDC study, but conducted it themselves. If the former is the case, an explanation on their part is needed as to why some were excluded (Please contact me if you have the actual data source Guttmacher used.) If it is the latter, then there is clearly a sample bias. How great the sample bias is depends on where and how (Planned Parenthood office, independent facility, over the phone, etc.) the interviews were conducted.
My understanding of polls is that many people do not like taking polls regarding sex. Those most likely to take a poll regarding sex are those that are more likely to be engaged in the activity. So there is a bias here too. Depending on if Guttmacher used only CDC data or if they did their own study based on CDC's study, the degree of bias can be quite significant.
"A Religious affiliation is based on an item that asked women for their current affiliation." One would hope that people would not lie on this question to skew the results. This includes women who are Catholic by name and do not attend Mass and women who had contracepted and later converted to Catholicism without contracepting after conversion.
The 98% figure of Catholic women using contraception is that they have had sex and that they contracepted at least once. First, this excludes those who have not had sex! That 98% number needs to come down. Secondly, just using contraception once in their lifetime includes a respondent into 98% group. The better question is whether they are currently using contraception when they have sex.
Some people have been errantly advised by a priest that contraception is not immoral. This may have been an honest mistake by the priest or just opinion of theirs on what the church teaches. Shame on the priest if it is the latter. Regardless of why the errant advise was given, through no fault of the woman she did the immoral thing of using contraception. Some even went as far as having a sterilization surgery, which is quite costly to reverse and might not even work. Through no fault of these women, they are still contracepting.
The study excludes women outside of 15-44 years of age. While this might be useful in studies regarding contraception, to use that to make a statement about all women in a religious group would be erroneous.
In regards to the part of the study involving choice of contraception, they first make an unsubstantiated claim,"Most sexually active women who do not want to become pregnant...practice contraception." The data is certainly available through the CDC to show this, but nothing is shown in this report (this is another reason I question how the data was collected). The preference of contraception method is among those not trying to get pregnant.
The 98% figure is made out to be representative of all Catholic women. It is representative of the lifelong sex choices that a specific age group of Catholic women that have had sex made at least once in their life have made rather than what all Catholic women are doing today.
In regard to the 98% being used to support forcing religious organization to go against their conscience, regardless of what the percentage of Catholic's who do not follow the teachings of the Church, there are some (probably a large majority) that follow the teachings of the Church in this regard. By forcing the Church or any related organization to provide this coverage forces someone to do something against their moral conscience. This applies with both religious and non-religious employers. No matter how great the numer is, the government has no right to force someone to do something against their moral conscience!
Friday, February 17, 2012
Reply from Senator Sherrod Brown and My Response (2/17/2012)
This is my first post in this blog. The name "Les Expos" comes from my long time love of the Montreal Expos. Most of my posts will have little to do with the Expos and I do not intend to claim that my views are those of the former team or their fans. It is a name I have used elsewhere and rather than coming up with a catchy name that may eventually lose its meaning, I went with a name that likely has no meaning to the content I post.
Anyway, I recently sent an email to our Senator, Sherrod Brown, regarding the mandate imposed on religious employers through the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) regarding health insurance. What follows is his form letter email response and the questions I sent to him in reply in red.
In light of the discrimination women face in the health insurance market, the ACA requires all health plans to cover comprehensive women’s preventive care [This comment is being added for the blog. From what are the women being prevented with this care? Women's preventive care keeps them from being women] and screenings at no additional cost to women. The preventive care covered by the ACA is based on recommendations from the Institute of Medicine (IOM), a panel of 15 medical experts, and includes domestic violence screening and counseling, gestational diabetes screening for at-risk women, postpartum counseling, lactation counseling, HIV- and sexually-transmitted infection testing and counseling, contraception coverage, and an annual well-women visit.
Anyway, I recently sent an email to our Senator, Sherrod Brown, regarding the mandate imposed on religious employers through the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) regarding health insurance. What follows is his form letter email response and the questions I sent to him in reply in red.
Dear Mr. Gissel:
Thank you for sharing your thoughts with me regarding health insurance and contraception coverage. Like most Ohioans, I believe we must respect both religious institutions and the interests of women in receiving affordable health care.
Through the Affordable Care Act (ACA), young adults under 26 can remain on their parents’ insurance plan while in college or looking for their first job. Seniors who reach the Medicare “donut hole” receive discounts on their prescription medication and have improved access to preventive care screenings. In Ohio, that meant that 185,000 seniors saved $95 million in prescription drug costs last year. And in 2014, small businesses and individuals will be able to purchase affordable insurance on the new health insurance exchanges.
Another goal of the act was to eliminate insurance coverage discrimination against women. Prior to the passage of the ACA, it was legal in nine states for insurance companies to deny coverage to women who were victims of domestic violence because it was considered a pre-existing condition. For the 14 million women who purchased health insurance in the individual market, pregnancy could have been considered a pre-existing condition, thus excluding maternity coverage. And in most states, women were charged higher premiums — sometimes 150 percent more than men — especially during their reproductive years.
In keeping with the IOM’s recommendations, the Department of Health and Human Services issued a regulation requiring most employers to provide these services in their health insurance plans. Under the department’s initial criteria, a church or other house of worship that is opposed to contraception on religious grounds would not have been required to provide contraception coverage under its insurance policy. Because they educate students, treat patients, and hire individuals regardless of their religious beliefs, universities and hospitals affiliated with a religious order would need to provide this coverage.
However, after hearing from interested stakeholders, President Obama announced an expansion of the religious exemption. Under the new rule, religiously affiliated institutions — such as universities, charities, and hospitals — will not be required to cover contraception services in their health plans. [Did the law actually change? If so how? Secondly, what about businesses that are not religious, but who are morally against providing such coverage? What about employees of non-religious companies being forced to pay for a coverage to which they are morally opposed?] Instead, women working for these institutions will be able to access contraception coverage directly from their insurance companies. The insurance company, not the employer or employee, will be responsible for the costs associated with this coverage. Insurance companies should not need to raise premiums due to this new rule. For example, insurance premiums did not increase after contraception was added to the Federal Employees Health Benefit system.
[Were any insurance companies contacted for input on this? How do they feel about providing coverage for free? If the cost of providing contraception coverage is that minimal, why not have the manufacturers of contraception provide this for free?
Secondly, insurance is regulated by the states. Is the Federal Government going to step into the regulatory process and insist that the State Departments of Insurance allow companies to provide a coverage for free?]
The Catholic Health Association supports the revised policy [Are you aware that the Catholic Health Association does not speak for the Catholic Church? The bishops of the Catholic Church speak for the Catholic Church and every one of the bishops of the United States has spoken out against the mandate from the HHS and the so-called compromise. Why have they been excluded from conversations?] — stating that a “resolution has been reached that protects the religious liberty and conscience rights of Catholic institutions.” By requiring insurance companies, rather than religiously affiliated employers, to provide contraception coverage, the exemption protects both the interests of religiously affiliated employers and the right to access to health care of employees. More than half of women between ages 18-34 struggle to afford contraception, which they often need for medical purposes not related to contraception. As such, all women — regardless of their place of employment — should enjoy full access to preventive health care.
Some Ohioans have told me that the IOM’s recommendations require that abortion services must be included in insurance policies and that Catholic hospitals must perform abortions. This is incorrect. The IOM recommendations do not require any health insurance plan to cover abortion services. Additionally, the IOM recommendations regarding contraception coverage only apply to insurance plans; they do not require hospitals or health care professionals to provide such services.
I appreciate your taking the time to voice your thoughts on this important matter. Thank you again for getting in touch with me.
Sincerely,
Sherrod Brown
United States Senator
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)