skip to main |
skip to sidebar
In today's Gospel, we hear a familiar story about the curing of a blind man (Luke 18:35-43)
As he approached Jericho, a blind man was sitting by the roadside begging. When he heard a crowd going by, he asked what was happening. They told him, ‘Jesus of Nazareth is passing by.’ Then he shouted, ‘Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!’ Those who were in front sternly ordered him to be quiet; but he shouted even more loudly, ‘Son of David, have mercy on me!’
Jesus stood still and ordered the man to be brought to him; and when he came near, he asked him, ‘What do you want me to do for you?’ He said, ‘Lord, let me see again.’ Jesus said to him, ‘Receive your sight; your faith has saved you.’ Immediately he regained his sight and followed him, glorifying God; and all the people, when they saw it, praised God.
Rather than focus on the persevering faith of the blind man or on the power of Jesus in performing the cure, I would like to highlight another feature of this passage. Notice how the people who were traveling with Jesus felt disturbed by the cries of the blind man. They essentially told him to shut up. They were annoyed and bothered by his presence. He was a nuisance to them. Yet Jesus doesn't consider him to be an annoyance. He's very precious in Jesus' eyes.
The same is true for us. Too often, we experience rejection or a sense of inadequacy when dealing with other
As reported by Michael at Freedom Through Truth, Bishop Fred Henry of Calgary has sent a letter to Fr. Tim Moyle regarding bill C-484. It is a very good letter and I applaud Bishop Henry for this strong pro-life effort.
I am unaware if this letter has been distributed more widely through the media or throughout the Calgary diocese. It would certainly be worthwhile.
One paragraph of the letter caught my attention:
The legislation of aid-in-dying would pose a threat to the elderly, the infirm, handicapped newborns and to all members of society who are unable to look after their own best interests. This kind of legislation says to them: "you're not important; you're not needed; in fact, you are a burden to others.
That's an excellent point. We need to hear this more often.
It's funny he should mention "newborns", because one of his fellow bishops, Ronald Fabbro (London), oversees
A powerful yet simple message by Fr. Tim Moyle at Where the Rubber Hits the Road. A reader asked him why bishops cover up sex abuse scandals by priests. Read Fr. Tim's answer here. Well said!
The homosexual lifestyle has been gaining legitimacy in the Western world over the past 20-30 years. With the legalization of same-sex marriage and the amendment of the hate-crimes legislation, the previous Liberal government in Canada sent a powerful message that the homosexual lifestyle should be regarded as "main stream" and must be endorsed by everybody. Unfortunately, there isn't much political will in Canada to change the new status quo.
I think Canadians need to take a fresh look at this issue. Let's leave moral and religious considerations on the sidelines in order to focus on the medical evidence and research regarding the dangers of the homosexual lifestyle. I will be presenting the straight facts, as reported by world-class researchers and rigorous scientific journals.
I am not seeking to condemn homosexuals. However, I recognize the fact that everybody has the power to choose their lifestyle. As such, I want Canadians to realize the risks involved with the homosexual lifestyle and the monumental mistake of trying to legitimize this lifestyle. For the sake of the common good of our country, we should not be legitimizing behaviour that is very unhealthy.
For example, Canadian society is now aware of the health risks of smoking. We have many programs to help people quit and the government runs hard-hitting ads to convince people to kick the habit. As we will see, medical research has revealed that the homosexual lifestyle is even more dangerous to health than smoking. So why are we legitimizing this behaviour?
No doubt people will accuse me of being intolerant, hateful, homophobic and closed-minded. By doing so, they will in fact prove that they are the closed-minded ones, because they are unwilling to consider solid scientific evidence
