Catholic Dialogue

Ready to evacuate

2010-04-14T18:41:00.006-04:00

On April 13, the first reading at the Mass was from Acts 4:32-37. This is a familiar passage where we read how the growing community of Christians would sell their "lands and houses" and bring the proceeds to the Apostles. Money was distributed to each person in accordance with their needs.

"Now the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common. With great power the apostles gave their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all. There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. They laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need. There was a Levite, a native of Cyprus, Joseph, to whom the apostles gave the name Barnabas (which means ‘son of encouragement’). He sold a field that belonged to him, then brought the money, and laid it at the apostles’ feet."

Such a system strikes us as strange today, given that the Catholic Church is not asking anyone to sell their possessions and give them all to the Church (unless you become a consecrated religious and take a vow of poverty). But this behavior was also strange by the standards of the new Church. Indeed, as we read the New Testament and hear about the spreading of the Gospel throughout Israel and the Mediterranean, we notice that this pattern of putting all possessions in common was not reproduced anywhere else. It only happened in Jerusalem.

Ready to eject

A number of scholars have put forth explanations, but I recently heard a very down to earth and pragmatic angle that makes a lot of sense. Prior to his Passion, Jesus warned the disciples that Jerusalem would eventually be destroyed. When that happened, the disciples were to drop everything and flee the city.

By selling all their "lands and houses" they had no attachments to the land and were therefore well prepared to evacuate the city in a moment's notice. That's part of the reason why this behavior was only observed in Jerusalem and nowhere else in the new Church. And indeed we know that Jerusalem was destroyed at around 70 A.D.

Now nobody is claiming that this is the only reason we observed this behaviour in Jerusalem. For sure, the putting in common of possessions was also representative of the spiritual communion of the members of the new Church and of their preoccupation for the needs of the poor.

Yet, God knows how attached we can be to material goods. In order to preserve the new Church from destruction, His wisdom saw fit to ensure that the early Christians were "footloose". He's such a great strategist.

Are we ready to give up our possessions if need be? It might come sooner than we think if the uprising of the Left against the Church continues at this pace.

.

Putting abortion advocates in a box

2010-04-13T19:19:00.000-04:00

Very clever article in the National Post. I'd like to see what any pro-choice reader has to say in response.

.

Happy Easter!

2010-04-10T18:17:00.000-04:00

What's that you say? I'm a week late?

Not at all! In the Catholic Church, Easter lasts for eight days. It's called the Octave of Easter. It runs from Easter Sunday until the next Sunday. And every day during the Octave is celebrated as if it were still Easter Day.

Easter is such a big deal that Catholics want to celebrate it for eight days. And every one of those days is a solemnity, which is the highest type of feast in the Catholic Church. Talk about a party time!

If you pay attention, you'll notice that during every Mass of the Octave, the preface to the Eucharistic Prayer says "We praise you with greater joy than ever on this Easter day, when Christ became our paschal sacrifice."

So while stores are busy placing all their Easter chocolate on sale, because they've put Easter behind them, Catholics are still celebrating Easter and taking advantage of all those discounted chocolates :-)

Enjoy the remainder of Easter Day!

Christ is risen! Truly he is risen, as he said he would!

Bishop Lahey accused of sexually abusing boy

2010-04-09T21:16:00.001-04:00

Up to now, we had only heard of Bishop Lahey being charged with possession and importing child pornography. But now, a man has come forward claiming that Bishop Lahey sexually assaulted him many times in the early 1980s when he was between 9 and 13 years old. Read the story here.

I personally think that there is a link between child porn and pedophilia. I've read stories about convicted pedophiles who admit that child porn was a driver of their addiction.

Keep in mind that none of these accusations against Bishop Lahey have been proven in court. Of course, the accusations could be false, a clever scheme of an opportunist seeking to cash-in on the current scandals. But these days, I'm not inclined to put blind faith in any clergyman.

.

Wonderful action by the Bishop of Green Bay

2010-02-27T13:36:00.000-05:00

Here! Here! Thank you Bishop David Ricken for suspending your diocese's collection to the CCHD, which is funneling money to groups that support abortion and same-sex marriage!

We could use more of this from our Canadian bishops. So far, only three Canadian bishops have decided to withhold Lenten donations from Development and Peace, according to this useful website. There are more than 60 dioceses in the Latin rite in Canada.

Retraction and apology on Caritas Haiti

2010-02-26T14:02:00.001-05:00

It has just come to my attention that Caritas Haiti published a "clarification" on their activities. You can read the document in French here.

The author of the "clarification" is the Director General of Caritas Haiti. He explains that the language on their website does not imply any support for abortion or contraception. On the contrary, they affirm their adherence to Church teaching on these matters.

I deeply regret the error on my part and apologize to Caritas Haiti, Development and Peace, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops and to my readers. I had contacted Caritas Haiti to seek clarification before publishing my story, but they never replied. In the past, I've been ignored by other groups that subsequently proved to be financially supporting pro-abortion activities. As a result, the silence of Caritas Haiti was not reassuring. Nevertheless, I'm deeply sorry about my error.

I'm still surprised that they used language typically employed only by pro-abortion groups. I'm fluent in French, having actually been raised mostly in French, so I fully understand the subtleties of the French language. I hope that Caritas Haiti will be refining the wording on their website to avoid erroneous interpretations about their ministry.

Their clarification was released one week after the Holy See visited my blog (side note: the Holy See came back a second time on February 18). The two ambiguous sentences that Caritas Haiti felt the need to clarify in the document above were specifically the sentences I quoted in my blog post. It wouldn't surprise me that the Holy See contacted Caritas Haiti to request that they publicly clarify their stance. This is a testament to the growing influence of blogs. With influence also comes great responsibility. We need to be careful about what we write.

Once again, I apologize for this error. Yet, this does not call into question the Development and Peace scandal and the involvement of Canada's bishops. Many D&P partners openly advocate abortion and contraception directly on their websites or in their offices. There can be no misinterpretation in those cases. One error on my part doesn't erase the mountain of evidence collected over the past year by various sources.

.

Back from vacation

2010-02-26T13:29:00.000-05:00

I've just returned from a delicious vacation in a warm and sunny place. It did me good to escape from our winter for a while.

.

Danger: you will have no right to take your kids out of pro-gay indoctrination classes

2010-02-15T18:15:00.001-05:00

Please read this very disturbing story. The pro-homosexual dictatorship is moving into Ontario schools and you won't have the power to withdraw your kids from those indoctrination classes.

King McGuinty has decreed that he knows what's best for your children and he will teach them whatever he pleases, even against your will.

Ironically, in this misguided quest for "inclusiveness", Christian values are being excluded. Isn't that how it always plays out?

.

Confessions of a gay man

2010-02-15T18:00:00.000-05:00

When you hear Christians lamenting about the horror of the homosexual lifestyle, some people quickly pull out the "bigotry" and "discimination" cards.

This article offers a different take. It was written a few years ago by an actively gay man who is ashamed of the lifestyle he has led. This is not a conversion story, but it does offer insights into what the homosexual lifestyle is really like, straight from the horse's mouth.

It confirms everything that Christians have been saying for years.

.

Lahey child porn case to resume April 9

2010-02-13T12:20:00.000-05:00

When this case finally goes to trial, I hope we can learn more about what accomplices Archbishop Lahey may have had within the Church to keep his little secret under the radar. We should also find out more about revelations that Archbishop Penney of St. John's was warned about Lahey 20 years ago.

These are sad times for the Church in Canada. But the truth must be known.

.

Money plays such an important role in abortion

2010-02-13T12:06:00.001-05:00

Tragically, there are so many incentives in our society today that push for abortion. Whether it be pressures from family, a boyfriend or even financial constraints, everything seems rigged to encourage more abortions.

It turns out that even insurance companies in the U.S. prefer a woman to have an abortion rather than carry her baby to term because it's cheaper for them. Doesn't that sound really cheap?

The reality in Canada is no different. The cost to your provincial Medicare program is much smaller for abortions than for babies carried to term. As governments struggle to avoid deficits, it's little wonder that they don't want the status quo of abortion legislation to be changed.

Of course, there are longer term problems associated with abortion, not the least of which is the aging of the population that threatens the very existence of the Western world as we know it. If we don't produce enough babies, the West will gradually wither away. But politicians don't think long term.

So the next time you hear a pro-abort ranting about a "woman's right to choose", keep in mind that her "right" is being significantly influenced by the money driving the health care system.

.

Toronto Archdiocese Renews Funding Restrictions on Development and Peace

2010-02-11T21:34:00.001-05:00

Finally some good news on the D&P scandal, again from Archbishop Thomas Collins of Toronto. Last year, when the D&P scandal broke, he was the first to announce that no money from his Archdiocese would be sent to a D&P partner unless the partner was approved by the local bishop in the country where the operation was to take place.

He has just now reiterated this position. Read the coverage here.

This type of leadership is exactly what the Canadian Church needs. Here's a man who is rising up to receive the grace of courage being offered by God to His bishops. He refuses to be complicit in D&P's devious ruse and he's not afraid to announce it publicly, thus avoiding scandal among his flock. He will not be bullied by his brother bishops. He is clearly showing the Catholics of Toronto and of the whole country that he will not tolerate funding being send to anti-Church groups.

May God bless you, Archbishop Collins. Your Grace, we are at your disposal should you ever need us to help bring change to D&P. Just say the word and we'll come running.

May this good bishop inspire the other timid bishops in this country to rise up to the full measure of Christ.

.

Do we really need the CCCB?

2010-02-10T20:57:00.000-05:00

Everything said in this video about the lack of authority of the USCCB applies to the CCCB. So why bother with a national bishops conference? We certainly need bishops, but do we need national conferences that pretend to be their own magisterium that can oppose Rome?

.

Corruption at USCCB worse than anyone thought

2010-02-09T19:05:00.000-05:00

Right up there with the CCCB.

Toyota woes pushing people to pray in the morning?

2010-02-08T22:14:00.000-05:00

Last Thursday, the story broke that the Prius was also being investigated for possible brake problems. This came after 2 weeks of Toyota reeling from a gigantic recall on many models due to faulty gas pedals.

I took a quick peek on Google Trends to see if many people were searching about Toyotas. Google Trends provides statistics on which search terms are most popular. Sure enough, the search Prius Brakes was the most popular search that day. But interestingly, the search term in 2nd place was Prayer Breakfast. Could it be that people driving Toyotas are saying extra breakfast prayers to avoid accidents before they head out? :-)

IPCC "scientific" reports based on input from groups like Greenpeace

2010-02-07T15:33:00.000-05:00

The UN's International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been the main vehicle to spread the so-called "scientific" evidence in favour of the climate change ideology. Yet, the more we poke around, the less scientific the IPCC turns out to be.

Claims that thousands of scientists contribute to the report are hugely overblown and misleading. And now we learn that interest groups are sometimes cited as the only evidence for some of the damage that climate change is supposed to wreak on our planet. Case in point:

Considered the climate Bible by governments around the world, the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report is meant to be a scientific analysis of the most authoritative research.

Instead, it references literature generated by Greenpeace - an organization known more for headline-grabbing publicity stunts than sober-minded analysis. (Eight IPCC-cited Greenpeace publications are listed at the bottom of this post.) (Source)

The article that I quote goes on to cite many examples where the IPCC relies on interest groups like the World Wildlife Federation, Friends of the Earth or the David Suzuki Foundation for some of their "scientific" evidence. This is a dangerous route. (By the way, don't be deceived by the David Suzuki Foundation's charismatic leader. The group is extremely politicized and ideologically driven.)

You should browse the blog quoted above, authored by Donna Laframboise of Toronto. She does a good job of exposing the holes in the credibility of the climate-change-theorists. You won't find this valuable info in the main stream media.

.

Hasbro and Toys R Us selling Ouija board for kids

2010-02-06T21:24:00.000-05:00

This is very alarming. LifeSiteNews.com reports that Hasbro has produced a Ouija board for kids that is being sold at Toys R Us stores.

Ouija boards, like all forms of occult, expose the soul to demons. This is no laughing matter. This is dead serious and it must be stopped. Please join the boycott of Hasbro.

Watch the video below to learn how a Ouija board can destroy someone's life.

.

Why Jesus? Why Christianity? Part 1: His sincerity

2010-02-06T19:38:00.001-05:00

A lot of people are searching for answers and purpose amid a world that is confused, harsh and unforgiving. Over the centuries, so many people have come to Jesus for consolation and meaning. Have you ever wondered why? Perhaps you're also searching for answers because your life is unfulfilled? This is the first in a series of articles on why Jesus is so special and what joys he can bring to your life.

Jesus was so sincere and authentic

When you read the life of Jesus in the Gospels, you can't help but notice a man with a passion for life and a great love for people. He spoke such beautiful words and preached of a lifestyle that nobody could possibly take issue with: love, compassion, service, faithfulness, community, hope, forgiveness, tolerance, healing, consolation, joy. What a wonderful life he proposed to his listeners!

Yet, contrary to others who went before him or came after him, Jesus practiced every single word he preached. There was no duplicity in him, no hypocrisy, no showing off. He gave the perfect example of every virtue that he spoke about. For example, he would spend days and nights speaking to crowds, healing their infirmities, providing them with inspiration and hope. He rarely took rest for himself. Even when he was tired and hungry, he wouldn't turn away a sincere person that approached him. He never held back. He never took a vacation. He gave all his time in service of others. He broke down social barriers of discrimination against non-Jews, women, lepers and other suffering people. He courageously stood up to the hypocrites of his time and defended the poor and weak.

With such an awesome and inspiring life, it's little wonder that so many people over the past 2000 years have been fascinated by him. Even atheists admire his life. Most of us wish we could be as dedicated and sincere as him. He's such a great role model. We wish we could imitate some of his greatness. What a happier world we could live in if everyone emulated Jesus.

Do you feel drawn to this incredible man? Do you want to know more about him? What drove him? What made him tick? How could he be so perfect in all respects?

Do you wish that you could have known him personally? You can! He's always available, right at your side, just as he always made himself available 2000 years ago when he walked in Israel. You just need to call on him and he'll come running to you.

He's not an imaginary friend. He's not a figment of your imagination. He's as real as it gets. We'll talk more about this next time.

.

Ignatieff supports D&P-style of pro-abortion international aid

2010-02-06T13:07:00.004-05:00

Michael Ignatieff, the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, has stepped up his attacks against Prime Minister Stephen Harper on the most bizarre of fronts: he insists that Harper's initiative to help maternal and child health in developing countries must include abortion services and contraception.

Ignatieff's position doesn't surprise me one bit, since he's always been pro-abort and pro-homosexuality. That's what the Liberal Party is all about. What is interesting is that this model of development is identical to the model espoused by Development and Peace and the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops. As the evidence has shown, D&P and the CCCB are supporting more than 40 groups in developing countries that promote abortion and contraception.

So D&P and our bishops are of the same mind as Ignatieff: any time you
provide a needy woman with food and medicine, you also have to slip her a birth control pill and some condoms. Somehow they think that both go hand in hand. It's despicable.

Now if you read the "official" rhetoric published by D&P and the CCCB, you'll find that they claim to oppose abortion and contraception. But that's just empty lip service. Just a gong in the wind, as St. Paul would say. They copy-paste good phrases from the Catechism but they don't mean it in their hearts. It's just a diversion, a cover, a front. Actions speak louder than words, your Graces, and your actions are screaming your aggressive support for abortion and contraception.

Please spare us the hypocritical lies about your pro-life beliefs. Nobody buys it. You need to put your development money where your mouth is before anybody takes you seriously.

Rumour has it that there are a few genuinely pro-life bishops out there, but they lurk in the shadows, too cowardly to take action against D&P to defend God's little ones. They've gone into the Witness Protection Program. You bishops are useless for the coming of the Kingdom. Jesus said "You will know them by their fruits... A good tree cannot produce bad fruit". How can you claim to be pro-life in your hearts if you don't produce any fruit? Where's the beef? "Show me your faith without works, and I by my works will show you my faith." (James 2:18)

Most bishops in this country are a dis-Grace to the sublime and divine institution of the episcopacy. A bunch of Judases, abandoning Christ and His teaching for a few development bucks. We must never lose faith in the institution of the episcopacy, but we can certainly be disillusioned by the falling away of our bishops.

Your Graces, does this kind of talk offend you? THEN PROVE ME WRONG AND DO SOMETHING.

As for Harper, I'm certainly not claiming that he's pro-life. He isn't. Most of the Conservative MPs are pro-life, but Harper represses them and does not let them introduce policies in that direction. He cracks the whip anytime an MP tries something too pro-life. That's horrendous. But at least Harper isn't implementing additional anti-life policies, as the Liberals did during their 12 years in power. So he's the lesser of the evils.

.

Apparently, even cold weather is a sign of global warming

2010-01-30T18:00:00.000-05:00

The folks pushing the climate change ideology have gone from desperate to outright ridiculous. After the incalculable damage done to their credibility by ClimateGate, now we have this claim: "Report: Harsh winter a sign of climate change" (see picture).

This report cited in the article comes from that great bastion of scientific analysis called the National Wildlife Federation (cue the sarcastic laughter).

If you've been following the climate change debate, you've realized by now that any weather development is "evidence" of global warming.

If it's hot, you obviously blame it on global warming.
If it's cold and snowy, it's also global warming.
If it's wet or dry, blame global warming.
Heck, I've even seen some people try to blame the tsunami and earthquakes on global warming.

We all know people who cling irrationally to unprovable theories and who interpret any new evidence as a confirmation of their view. It's called paranoia. It's also called conspiracy theory. You can't reason with such folks. If you try, they cut you out of their "peer reviewed" journals and they fudge their numbers to try and prove you wrong.

I'm not surprised that radicalized environmental groups pursue this road, but it annoys me when the main stream media swallows the bait, hook, line and sinker. The article featured in this picture is from MS-NBC. The report was also featured in the Washington Post. Goes to show that you really can't trust the main stream media anymore.

.

Bribing the Taliban to stop: has it really come to this?

2010-01-29T20:59:00.000-05:00

News flash from Roubini Global Economics:

New Afghan Plan: Financial Incentives to Give up Arms?

At the London Conference on Afghanistan co-hosted by British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Afghan President Hamid Karzai and UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, it was decided that a fund would be set up to provide employment and housing to Taliban fighters that give up the fight. Conference participants are expected to pledge about US$500 million for the fund.

We're gonna bribe them so they stop fighting?

Um, er... I'm not sure what to say. It would be great if it works. But I think this proposal reflects a serious misunderstanding of who the Taliban fighters are. Part of their zeal in this battle is their utter disdain for the West and its materialist/capitalist ways. The notion that cash will make them lay down their weapons seems absurd. It will only serve to reinforce their notion that Westerners worship money and are willing to abandon any cause to acquire more money. It's like trying to make amends with your vegetarian wife by inviting her to dinner at Al's Steakhouse.

Besides, don't you think that anybody that accepts this offer will be considered a traitor in the eyes of the Taliban? How long do you think traitors will survive? I think the odds are pretty good that they would be killed and subsequently blown up (just to be doubly sure).

This plan is unfortunately doomed to fail. The Taliban will probably spit on the letter of offer.

.

That grudge is killing you

2010-01-29T18:54:00.003-05:00

Grudges are a strange thing. It goes by many names: bitterness, vendetta, rancour, resentment. But it all boils down to the same thing.

We don't always seek them intentionally. Sometimes they just "happen", sort of a defense mechanism after someone has hurt us badly.

What most people don't realize, however, is that the grudge you are holding is damaging you, not the person that hurt you. The anger and resentment eats away at you and doesn't let you have peace or move on.

Letting go of that resentment is not a sign of weakness. It doesn't expose
you to danger. You can and should remain vigilant towards somebody that has hurt you severely, in order to not get burned again, but you don't need to harbour that anger and bitterness. Prudence does not require hatred or anger.

The Newsboys released a song many years ago called "Let it go". You can listen to the song through the YouTube link below. I've copied the lyrics below the video. Let it sink in. Let God free you from your bondage to anger.

Let it go (by the Newsboys)

You are waiting on a beach
For a healing word to come
Maybe an apology in a bottle
Maybe a flare that says, "I'm sorry."
And the hurting leaves you numb

Will you forgive?
Will you forget?
Will you live what you know?
He left his rights
Will you leave yours?
You don't understand it
Let it go

You are waiting on a beach
This is where the east meets west
And as another sun sets on your anger
The darkness laughs, as the wound destroys
And it turns your prayers to noise

Will you forgive?
Will you forget?
Will you live what you know?
He left his rights
Will you leave yours?
You won't understand it
Let it go

This bitterness you hide
It seeps into your soul
And it steals your joy
'til it's all you know
Let it go

Will you forgive?
Will you forget?
Will you live what you know?
He left his rights
Will you leave yours?
You won't understand it
Let it go

Will you forgive?
Will you forget?
Will you live what you know?
Beneath the Cross
You hear His words,
"Father, forgive them," and you know
You can't understand it
Let it go

.

You have the power

2010-01-26T21:13:00.000-05:00

The First Reading from today's Mass is from 2 Tim 1:1-8. Here's a poignant passage:

For this reason I remind you to rekindle the gift of God that is within you through the laying on of my hands; for God did not give us a spirit of cowardice, but rather a spirit of power and of love and of self-discipline. Do not be ashamed, then, of the testimony about our Lord or of me his prisoner, but join with me in suffering for the gospel, relying on the power of God.

Don't underestimate the magnitude of what God can accomplish through you.

Always remember the infinite power of the One who "has your back" and who will carry you through every trial and challenge. The God who made the billions of galaxies can certainly grant you success in your undertakings for His Church.

The power of the Holy Spirit has been given to you. It's there for the taking. Will you claim it? If you were given a cheque worth one billion dollars, would you cash it? Or would you stick it in a drawer?

Rise up and claim what is yours! Do something bold. Get creative. Take a risk. Try something new. God is with you. Do not be afraid. Do not be bashful in what you ask of God. If you ask for little, you will get little.

Stop complaining about the problems you see and start fixing them in whatever way you can.

Make something happen.

.

Calgary church loses charitable status for its "non-partisan political activities"

2010-01-24T15:22:00.000-05:00

A Calgary church has lost its charitable status in part because it spends too much of its time advocating on social issues such as abortion and marriage.

In October, the Kings Glory Fellowship Association, a non-denominational Protestant group, was told by the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) that for several reasons, including a lack of clarity on how it spends it money, they could no longer issue charitable receipts.

But the letter highlighted that the group spent more than 10% of its time on “non-partisan political activities and therefore strayed into activities “outside its stated purpose.” (Source)

God bless those folks for their dedication to proclaiming the Truth. It's also nice to hear that Bishop Fred Henry came to the defense of this church. You
can read about it towards the end of the article.

I know that they must be feeling discouraged by this loss of charitable status, but I think that this is probably the best thing that could've happened to that church. Having sat on the board of directors of a registered charity myself, I am aware of the limitations that the charitable status can impose on the activities you wish to pursue. It binds you like a straitjacket and does not allow you to take the most effective means to achieve your goals. The loss of charitable status for this church means that it is now completely free to do and say whatever it wants without having to worry that the taxman will be on their case. This will make their ministry more effective.

The only downside is the risk that the congregation will reduce their donations because they won't be getting a tax receipt anymore. That would be very unfortunate. Christ taught us in to give generously and not expect anything in return. If we only make donations when we can expect a tax receipt, we're falling short of His expectations.

I wonder if some Catholic churches are holding back on proclaiming the Truth out of fear of the taxman. Maybe our churches need to lose their charitable status too.

.

A second D&P partner supports new abortion policy in Brazil

2010-01-24T14:34:00.035-05:00

A few days ago, I reported that one of Development and Peace's (D&P) partners in Brazil had publicly endorsed the government's proposed policy that would make abortion a human right and would greatly advance the homosexualist agenda. They also publicly rebuked the Brazilian Catholic Church for requesting amendments to this policy. Read about it here.

I've now learned that a second D&P partner in Brazil called Movimento de Mulheres Camponesas (MMC) has also publicly and unconditionally endorsed this policy. Their article entitled "Who's afraid of human rights?" supports the complete and integral implementation of the policy, which has been widely criticized by the Catholic Church in Brazil. The article also makes a veiled rebuke of the Catholic Church by criticizing "conservative sectors" of society that have made "unfounded criticisms" of the policy. You can read MMC's article in Portuguese here.

So we now have two partners of Development and Peace that are supporting a pro-abortion and pro-homosexual policy while publicly rebuking the Brazilian Catholic Church.

This is crunch time for the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB). As we are now witnessing, the D&P scandal is not some abstract or theoretical debate. D&P's partners are contributing to the imminent legalization of abortion in Brazil. We are witnessing this process live, right before our eyes. This will have real and bloody consequences for Brazilians and their unborn babies very, very soon.

Are there any bishops in Canada that give a damn? How can they sleep at night knowing that they will have been complicit in legalizing abortion in the world's largest Catholic country? Is there any bishop left who will rise up and defend the unborn?

Your Graces, I'm sure you have many excuses for your inaction.

Maybe you think that you did your part when you wrote some pastoral letter or gave a homily on abortion a few years ago. Unfortunately, that's not even close to being enough. It's relatively easy to write a beautiful letter and post it on your diocesan website where nobody will read it.

Or perhaps you think that one man acting alone cannot make a difference when the majority of bishops are supportive of Development and Peace.

Or maybe you think that it wouldn't look good to break ranks with your brother bishops, as if the image of unity projected by the CCCB supersedes the Truth of the Gospel. Do you think that it's more important to exhibit a common front than to prevent the slaughter of thousands of innocent babes? Do you think your distorted notion of episcopal solidarity excuses you from fulfilling the obligations of your sacred office?

I'm sure you have no shortage of rationalizations to justify your inaction. But they all boil down to cowardice or ignorance of what God is really expecting from you. How can you possibly claim to be pro-life when with one hand you're writing a letter against abortion but with the other hand you writing cheques to advance abortion in the Global South?

I understand that it's not easy to fight against the establishment. It's much easier to keep quiet on watch the hockey game on Saturday night. But don't forget that you were given a special grace from the Holy Spirit when you were elevated to the rank of bishop. You've been endowed with the same gift of the Spirit that was granted to the Apostles. You are capable of breaking the code of silence being imposed by corrupt bishops. God has given you all the graces you need. It's up to you to muster enough testosterone to take a stand.

If you fulfill your duty, you will find that God will support you and give you strength and consolation. You'll also find that many Catholics will rally behind you. We will love you for your courageous stand. We will support you in whatever means you request -- publicly or privately, through prayer or through works, financially or otherwise -- in order to bring change to D&P. We will be humble and loving servants at your disposal, eager to lend a hand. You won't be alone.

So what will it be? On the day of your death, what will you say to Almighty God while He is surrounded by the souls of the aborted babies who never had a chance to live because of D&P?

************************************

I invite all readers to join me in a prayer for bishops:

Heavenly Father,
In these difficult times when the spirit of the age threatens Christian values, grant to all bishops holiness of life
and wisdom to proclaim the Gospel with faithfulness, boldness and charity, so that humanity may grow closer to You.
We ask this through Christ our Lord.
Amen.

.

Obama's arrongance is starting to cost him

2010-01-23T12:32:00.000-05:00

Read this great article by Rex Murphy in the National Post.

.

D&P partner supports new abortion policy in Brazil

2010-01-23T00:52:00.007-05:00

In case you haven't heard, our brethren in Brazil are facing a tough battle over a new government policy proposal. Here's a quick overview:

Brazilian President Luiz Lula da Silva has introduced a massive legislative reform package in the last year of his term that would secure abortion as a "human right," impose socialist and homosexualist ideology in the schools and media, and ban crucifixes from government facilities, among other measures.
The legislative program, which is called the Third National Program for Human Rights (PNDH-3), would establish a level of control over the media and private property that is being called a nonviolent "coup d'etat" and a socialist party "dictatorship." It has elicited widespread protest from institutions ranging from the Catholic Church to military leaders, the agricultural sector, and even members of the president's own cabinet.

The leadership of the National Conference of Brazilian Bishops (CNBB) has issued a declaration "reaffirming its position, manifested many times, in defense of life and the family, and against the decriminalization of abortion, against marriage between people of the same sex and the right of adoption of children by homosexual couples."

The CNBB leadership "also rejects the creation of 'mechanisms to impede the display of religious symbols in public establishments of the Union,' because it regards such an intolerant measure as ignoring our historical roots." (Source)

Development and Peace (D&P), the official charity for pro-choice Catholics and wishy-washy bishops (or OCPCCWWB for short), funds three partners in Brazil. One of them is called FASE (Federação de Órgãos para Assistência Social e
Educacional). In response to the government's new policy proposal, FASE wrote a total and unconditional endorsement of the policy. They even highlighted the provisions for same-sex unions and homosexual adoption as being a particular milestone. If you can read Portuguese, feel free to read their endorsement yourself here.

In fact, FASE was emphatic that the policy should be adopted without amendments and that the government should resist demands for amendments from the Catholic Church and other groups. Such amendments, said FASE, would be a step backward.

So let me get this straight:

On the one hand, the bishops of Brazil are crying murder over this policy because of its obvious violation of natural law and Church teaching.
On the other hand, Canadian bishops are joyfully and proudly funding a partner that is endorsing the policy and publicly rebuking the Brazilian bishops?

Dear Canadian bishops, how would you feel if bishops from another country were funding apostates in your diocese that lead your flock astray and interfere with your ministry? As we witnessed recently in Medjugorje, the local bishop has jurisdiction in his diocese and bishops from the outside must respect that. Why doesn't the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishop (CCCB) respect their brothers in other countries? Why continue slapping them in the face by funding the pro-choice groups they cross swords with on a daily basis?

According to Wikipedia, "abortion is currently illegal in Brazil, except if the pregnancy puts the life of the woman in danger, or if the pregnancy is the result of a rape." If D&P's support for pro-choice lobby groups contributes to a loosening of the laws in Brazil, which is on the verge of happening, there will be thunder and lightning on Judgment Day for some folks here in Canada.

Your Graces, is that the legacy you want to leave behind? That you helped legalize abortion and contribute to the death of countless babes in the world's largest Catholic country?

Somebody pinch me and tell me this is just a bad dream.

************************************

I invite all readers to join me in a prayer for bishops:

Heavenly Father,
In these difficult times when the spirit of the age threatens Christian values, grant to all bishops holiness of life
and wisdom to proclaim the Gospel with faithfulness, boldness and charity, so that humanity may grow closer to You.
We ask this through Christ our Lord.
Amen.

.

The CRUtape Letters

2010-01-22T18:41:00.000-05:00

A new book has been published to summarize the scandal now known as ClimateGate. They explain behind-the-scenes details about those famous emails on the climate change hoax that were leaked from the Climate Researu Unit (CRU).

They picked an awesome title: The CRUtape Letters.

.

Beware of killer baby strollers

2010-01-22T18:13:00.000-05:00

Apparently some strollers have a design flaw that could chop off your child's finger! Read here.

.

Contraceptives linked to bone problems

2010-01-22T18:07:00.002-05:00

Study: Low-Dose Birth Control Pills Decrease Bone Density in Young Women

By Thaddeus M. Baklinski

SEATTLE, January 21, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A new study showing a link between long-term use of oral contraceptives and a decrease in bone density in women under the age of 30 has found that the modern low-dose forms of estrogen pills have the greatest risk of harming a woman's bone density.

The study, published in the January issue of Contraception Journal, measured bone mineral density (BMD) of the hip, spine, and whole body to analyze how both the duration of taking the contraceptive pill and the estrogen dose affected bone density in young women.

Researchers studied 606 women, aged 14 to 30, and found a 5.9 percent decrease in bone mineral density of the spine in young women taking birth control pills for longer than one year, as compared with those not taking oral contraceptives. BMD of the whole body was shown to be decreased by 2.3 percent in those taking the pill.

Read the rest here.

.

Seeking a missionary opportunity in Haiti

2010-01-17T13:49:00.001-05:00

I've been heart-wrenched at the images of Haiti that I've seen on TV. I'm feeling a tug to go on a trip to Haiti to help with the disaster relief. I'm currently discerning this in prayer.

In the meantime, I would be grateful if anybody would let me know of any Canadian Christian groups that may be organizing a missionary trip to Haiti to help with the relief. I don't want to go on my own. I wouldn't know where to go or how to make myself useful. That's why I'd like to go with a group that has a plan and has done this sort of thing before. This would be a first for me.

.

Will we eventually see AbortionGate?

2010-01-16T12:56:00.001-05:00

Many researchers have found that women who have abortions have a significantly higher risk of developing breast cancer. In fact, the majority of research on this topic reaches the same conclusion. Only a minority of studies have found no link. However, as pointed out by Lorne Hunter in this excellent article, the politically correct "consensus" on this issue appears to be that no link exists.

I wonder what would be found if somebody hacked the servers of the major researchers who claim that such a link doesn't exist...

Yet, I think that pro-lifers sometimes get too excited about this issue. The abortion-breast-cancer link (or ABC link) is not the reason why we oppose abortion. Even if science found a Star Trek technology to cure breast cancer painlessly with 100% effectiveness, we would still oppose abortion.

The same is true about pro-lifers who focus on the damaging psychological and emotional effects of abortion. This may be true. However, some women are not negatively affected in this way. And even if we had a great new anti-depressant that would cure the symptoms of women who do suffer after abortions, we would still oppose abortion.

I understand the strategy: most women (and most men) tend to think about themselves first and foremost. I'm just as guilty as anybody on this count. We pay more attention when somebody warns us of suffering that will affect us personally than a more abstract notion of the death of an unborn baby that we'll never see (goes straight from the womb into the abortionist's garbage can). I'm not saying that this strategy is useless, but it should remain secondary.

As I mentioned earlier, it is not implausible for science to find cures for some of the negative physical and psychological consequences of abortion. And then what? A whole line of argument of the pro-life cause falls. The core reason to end abortion is to save babies. That has to remain front and centre. I think pro-lifers sometimes get sidetracked when they should be focusing on the real issue.

.

Killing me softly with his blog?

2010-01-12T20:54:00.001-05:00

I read the results of a new study suggesting that watching TV is bad for your health. And it's not because it correlates with less exercise and poor health. Read this excerpt:

Researchers tracked the TV-viewing habits of 8,800 adults and followed them for six years. They found those who spent four hours daily in front of the tube had an 80 percent greater risk of dying from cardiovascular disease than those who watched the box for less than two hours. The association was independent of risks such as smoking, obesity and unhealthy diet.

Prolonged inactivity, which can raise blood-sugar and cholesterol levels, is to blame for the health effects, not the appliance itself, said David Dunstan, a study author and researcher at Baker IDI Heart & Diabetes Institute in Melbourne.(Source)

(...)

“Too much sitting is bad for health,” said Dunstan, a professor of health sciences. “Avoid sitting for prolonged periods and keep in mind to move more, more often.”

So sitting for extended periods is bad for your blood-sugar and cholesterol. Go figure. Sitting in front of a computer isn't very different from sitting in front of a TV, is it? So is blogging bad for your health? Should I sue my boss for making me work at a desk all day? At home, maybe I should raise my desk and blog while standing up? Better yet, let me setup a treadmill or a stationary bike in front of my PC...

.

So much work to be done in educating the faithful

2010-01-11T21:10:00.000-05:00

Here's an excellent article from CatholiCity regarding the dire state of Catholics' knowledge of their faith. One particular area of weakness is their knowledge of the Word of God. According to this article, 93% of adult Catholics in the U.S. own a Bible, but about 3% read the Bible each day only 7% read it at all each week. This paragraph would be funny if is wasn't tragic:

Recent studies have shown that sixty percent of American Christians believe that Jesus was born in Jerusalem, not Bethlehem. Only forty percent of Christian Americans can name any five of the ten commandments. Half of high school seniors think that that Sodom and Gomorrah were married. Less than half can identify Genesis as the first book of the Bible. Only a third of Americans know who gave the Sermon on the Mount, and more people believe that the Reverend Billy Graham delivered it than Jesus. Twelve percent think that Noah's wife is Joan of Arc. The examples abound.

There's so much work to be done in helping Catholics learn about the Faith. But there's a key problem: you can't teach someone if they're not listening. How can we get Catholics to make the effort of educating themselves when we can't even get their attention for five minutes?

Great humour on "dentists" from an old Bill Cosby monologue

2010-01-10T15:09:00.001-05:00

This video cracks me up! Good clean humour.

Ontario Catholic schools could be forced to push homosexual agenda

2010-01-09T13:49:00.002-05:00

In April 2009, the Ontario government launched an Equity and Inclusive Education Strategy that might force all school boards in the province, including the Catholic ones, to fight "homophobia" and ensure the absence of discrimination based on "sexual orientation". The policy is to be fully implemented for the start of the next school year in September 2010. Read about it here and here.

I can't say that I'm surprised given the McGuinty government has pushed many policies that contradict the Church's teaching on family values. It's still too early to tell exactly where this is going, but we've certainly seen this game before. The incremental approach is all too familiar. If this strategy is implemented in its current form, it will likely force Catholic schools to teach that homosexuality is a legitimate lifestyle choice, allow students to hold a "Pride Week" and create homosexual student clubs, not to mention the open acceptance of teachers living an active homosexual lifestyle.

Nobody in the Catholic Church endorses authentic discrimination against homosexuals. Like every other human being, homosexuals deserve complete respect and love. Bigotry, insults and violence against homosexuals are completely out of the question. But as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith so eloquently pointed out, "Sexual orientation' does not constitute a quality comparable to race, ethnic background, etc. in respect to non-discrimination. Unlike these, homosexual orientation is an objective disorder and evokes moral concern.”

I believe that there is still time for Ontarians to fight this proposal between now and September. Let us pray that clergy and laity will join forces to oppose any intrusion that would force Ontario Catholic schools to act in contradiction to our values. Contact your MPP to voice your views. Otherwise, the little bit of Catholicism that is still left in our diluted schools will be lost.

.

Two Men Arrested in Probe of New York Terror Plot

2010-01-09T12:40:00.000-05:00

Read about the latest Islamic terrorist plot. As you can see, airplanes are not the only places where security needs to pay attention.

.

Naming the evil of terrorism

2010-01-09T12:34:00.002-05:00

This video is so politically incorrect, yet so accurate on most levels.

Disclaimer to protect myself from Human Rights Commissions (normal people need not read this paragraph): I hereby solemnly declare that I do not harbour any hatred or anger towards any religion or religious group, especially not Islam or Muslims. I do not advocate any form of violence, hatred or discrimination against Muslims. I am simply concerned by the statements made by Muslims themselves to the effect that they support terrorist acts. I am therefore exploring the implications of their position on the public good of Canadians and the world.

The Global Warming Inquisition

2010-01-09T12:21:00.001-05:00

A few insightful article from The Catholic Thing regarding the oppression that honest scientists are facing at the hands of the manipulators who are perpetrating the great fraud of man-made global warming. Here are a couple of juicy excerpts:

Probably more scientists have been adversely affected – estopped altogether from a given line of research, guided, shaped, propelled, decelerated, forced into nonpublication, secrecy, turned down for funds or promotion, and barred from access to laboratory space or archives – because of defiance of conventional wisdom in America since World War II . . . than existed in the whole of the world in Galileo's day.

(...)

Fr. James Schall and historian Paul Johnson have observed how some strains of environmentalism have religious features: a fall of man, a catalogue of sins, a call to repentance and asceticism (at least for those of us who aren't ex-Vice Presidents living in Nashville mansions), the promise of salvation, and dire warnings of a secular apocalypse.

Interesting perspective on pornography

2010-01-08T01:34:00.001-05:00

I only watched Part 1, but I though there was some good insight there from a secular perspective (although the audio was bad quality).

Happy feast of Blessed Brother André!!

2010-01-06T18:31:00.000-05:00

Today the Church commemorates Blessed Brother André, that holy and humble religious from Montréal who founded St. Joseph's Oratory and spread devotion to Jesus' adoptive father. I'm looking forward to the day, coming soon, when he will be officially canonized.

Bienheureux Frère André, priez pour nous!

Sacraments 101

2010-01-06T18:27:00.001-05:00

This is a beautiful explanation of the sacraments from a Catholic perspective.

Understanding the meaning of our bodies

2010-01-06T12:03:00.000-05:00

Every human being on Earth needs to know about the Theology of the Body. It will revolutionize the way you see the world and sexuality. Here is a little teaser.

Good show by our national junior hockey team

2010-01-06T10:58:00.000-05:00

Last night, Canada's junior hockey team played it's heart out and lost the gold medal match to the Americans in overtime. It was a great game and much more entertaining than many NHL games. Our juniors have nothing to be ashamed about. They made us proud.

You did a great job guys. I know you must feel very disappointed right now, but there are worse things in life than winning a silver medal. It's good to keep everything in perspective. We'll get 'em next year ;-)

Hang in there, Brit Hume

2010-01-06T10:45:00.000-05:00

On January 3, 2010, Brit Hume publicly recommended that Tiger Woods turn his life over to Jesus Christ in order to experience the forgiveness and redemption that he needs at this time in his life. Well done Brit! Watch the video below.

Not surprisingly, he did this on Fox News, the only network where you can still say these things and not get fired.

Also not surprisingly, other networks and reporters have been heaping scorn on Mr. Hume for his remarks. One guy from MSNBC actually compared Mr. Hume to Islamic extremists. Are you kidding me? I don't suppose the the families of dead American soldiers are too pleased with that remark.

Hang in there, Brit, you did the right thing. We're praying for you and Tiger.

Are you ready for retirement?

2010-01-05T11:06:00.005-05:00

There's an interesting parable that many people find difficult to understand. I was fortunate to have a priest explain it to me. It's often called the parable of the dishonest manager or crafty steward (Luke 16:1-8). Let's read it:

Then Jesus said to the disciples, ‘There was a rich man who had a manager, and charges were brought to him that this man was squandering his property. So he summoned him and said to him, “What is this that I hear about you? Give me an account of your management, because you cannot be my manager any longer.”

Then the manager said to himself, “What will I do, now that my master is taking the position away from me? I am not strong enough to dig, and I am ashamed to beg. I have decided what to do so that, when I am dismissed as manager, people may welcome me into their homes.” So, summoning his master’s debtors one by one, he asked the first, “How much do you owe my master?” He answered, “A hundred jugs of olive oil.” He said to him, “Take your bill, sit down quickly, and make it fifty.” Then he asked another, “And how much do you owe?” He replied, “A hundred containers of wheat.” He said to him, “Take your bill and make it eighty.”

And his master commended the dishonest manager because he had acted shrewdly; for the children of this age are more shrewd in dealing with their own generation than are the children of light. And I tell you, make friends for yourselves by means of dishonest wealth so that when it is gone, they may welcome you into the eternal homes.

On the surface, the story isn't too hard to understand: The manager wants to make friends and build "connections" so that he can receive favours in return
after he gets sacked. But Jesus' parables also have a spiritual meaning. So what is he trying to say?

Notice how the master commended the dishonest manager for acting shrewdly. Jesus is teaching us that there's nothing sinful in recognizing the skills of a person acting dishonestly. In that spirit, we could also say that Osama bin Laden is very intelligent for having orchestrated various terrorist attacks and eluding authorities, even though we abhor the acts that his underlings carried out.

But didn't the master lose money because of the manager's actions to make friends? No. In Palestine, the manager was not paid directly by the master. His income was derived by charging a "profit margin" or fee in addition to what was owed to the master. So in the current example, the first person probably owed the master only 50 jugs of oil, the remainder being the manager's profit. So by telling the man to only repay 50 jugs, the manager was forfeiting his own income without depriving his master of anything. Likewise for the second guy. That's one reason why the master commended him.

But there's a more profound spiritual lesson here. Jesus is illustrating how worldly people are successful at planning for their future in material terms. He wants us to do the same in planning for eternal life, which starts after we get "sacked" from this life. Are we making good use of worldly goods in order serve God and amass treasures in Heaven? Do we act in such a way as to improve our odds of being saved? Are you preparing for the day when you checkout of this life?

.

UK moving towards an atheist autocracy

2010-01-05T10:34:00.000-05:00

Imagine this: a teacher offers to pray for a student who has leukemia, but then gets fired because the atheist parents complained about it. That's what has just happened in the UK. Read about it here.

The UK has become delirious. The government has completely lost its mind. There's no way I'm going to vacation in UK anytime soon. I think Afghanistan ranks higher on my "top vacation destinations" than the UK.

.

Fr. Prieur gets it wrong -- again

2010-01-04T18:57:00.007-05:00

I was surfing the web and minding my own business when I came across an article by Catholic Insight that debunks another error by Father Michael Prieur. In 2001, Fr. Prieur claimed that it was acceptable for Catholic hospitals to cooperate in a tubal ligation performed for the purpose of contraception.

Wrong -- again.

Why do we care what one priest thinks? This isn't just any priest. He's a Professor of Moral and Sacramental Theology at St. Peter's Seminary in London, Ontario. He's also Canada's foremost Catholic bioethicist. If you're angry about the rotten state of the Catholic Church in Canada, ask yourself what kind of formation our priests and ethicists are receiving with teachers like this. You can read more about Fr. Prieur's other errors here and here.

This is not a witch-hunt, but I'm tired of blind shepherds leading Christ's faithful into a spiritual ditch. If we ever hope to turn this Church around, there will need to be changes at many levels, not the least of which is in our seminaries and other areas of formation.

Let's get back to the issue of tubal ligation. Dear reader, in case you think that you don't have enough theology degrees to address this question, please don't underestimate yourself so quickly. Your gut instinct is correct. This one is a no-brainer. There's no way a Catholic can freely and directly cooperate with a tubal ligation or any other method of contraception. Don't take my word for it. Read the Catholic Insight article here.

In the meantime, our seminary professor continues to mislead our future priests and health care practitioners. Here's a non-exhaustive list of major errors found to date:

He endorsed "early inductions" before viability for 12 years, which is exactly the same thing as abortion but under a different name (by his own admission). He only changed his tune when the US bishops dropped the hammer in 1997.
He continues to endorse "early inductions" on babies with severe deformities using a misguided notion of viability. The hospital where he serves as ethics advisor even performs early inductions in cases when the mother's life is not in danger, which is euthanasia, pure and simple.
He supports the Winnipeg Statement and believes that the decision to use contraception is up to the individual conscience.
He wrote an article endorsing embryonic stem cell research, in opposition to Church teaching.
And now we know about his support for tubal ligations, again in opposition to the Magisterium.

On virtually all the major issues in bioethics, he's at odds with Church teaching. And yet we rely on him to form our priests and health care practitioners? We're getting what we deserve.

.

Is Novalis questioning the humanity of the fetus and endorsing divorce?

2010-01-04T14:25:00.004-05:00

Novalis is a "Catholic" publishing company based at St. Paul's University in Ottawa. In the past two weeks, I came across some troubling stuff in their French daily missalette.

If you know anything about St. Paul's, you'll understand why I put the word "Catholic" between quotation marks. While St. Paul's used to be a world-renowned Catholic institution several decades ago, it is now more renowned for it's liberal brand of Catholicism. In an effort to increase enrollment, the university has diluted the teaching in order to welcome Christians from all denominations. Tragically, successive Archbishops of Ottawa have done little or nothing to fix the problem. There are still good teachers there, but there's too much crap. It's not a safe place for a beginner to learn about theology or philosophy.

Novalis is best known for the daily missalette called "Living With Christ" (in French it's called "Prions en Église"). But they produce a wide variety of other books too. In 2004, they caused quite a stir among faithful Catholics when
they published a book called "The Hidden Pierre Elliott Trudeau". The book is a collection of memories from politicians and others that "examines our former prime minister's spirituality, theology, and faith. It shows how his faith influenced public policy and the 'public' man." Yeah, right. You mean like his policy to legalize abortion? His womanizing behaviour? His distorted Charter of Freedoms? His joy at scoffing at the Church at every possible occasion? Wonderful theology indeed. Read a good review of the book from the pen of Fr. Alphonse de Valk C.S.B. of Catholic Insight.

During these Christmas holidays, I was visiting my parents who live in the suburbs of Montreal. On New Year's Day, the Solemnity of Mary Mother of God, we went to Mass at a French parish. When we came to the prayer intentions, we read the suggested intentions from the Prions. We came across this dubious prayer intention (my translation):

On the day of the Nativity, Mary gave Jesus His humanity. That we may also know how to give Christ to the world, let us pray to the Lord. (Au jour de la Nativité, Marie donne à Jésus son humanité. Pour que nous sachions à notre tour donner le Christ au monde, prions le Seigneur)

Is your Spidy sense tingling? Christ received His humanity from Mary on the day of His conception, not the day of His birth. The same applies to the rest of us. This notion that a baby is not human until it's birth is eerily similar to the fallacies vehiculated by pro-abort activists. Is Novalis trying to subliminally suggest that the fetus isn't human until birth? That would certainly match Trudeau's "theology", eh? I hope that was just sloppy writing.

At the same Mass, another intention read as follows:

On the day of the Visitation, Mary set off to see the sign given by God. That we may know how to recognize in daily events the ways of love and service, let us pray to the Lord. (Au jour de la Visitation, Marie se met en route pour voir le signe donné par Dieu. Pour que nous sachions reconnaître dans les événements quotidiens les chemins d'amour et du service, prions le Seigneur)

This intention implies that as Mary hit the road to visit her cousin, she was mainly looking for a sign to confirm what the angel had said about Elizabeth being pregnant. Her desire to help her elderly cousin seems secondary. This strikes me as a distorted image of Mary's faith. Again, I hope that was just careless writing, but you never know with Novalis.

On Sunday, December 27th, we went to Mass together again at a francophone parish. One of the intentions read as follows:

Let us pray for separated parents that endeavour to build a new family: God of Jesus Christ, help them (Prions pour les parents séparés qui s'efforcent de constuire une nouvelle famille: Dieu de Jésus Christ, assiste-les.)

To me, that intention sounds out of place in a Catholic Mass. At best, it's a very poor choice of words. At worst, they are advocating for divorced couples to commit adultery by remarrying (coming from Novalis, that wouldn't surprise me one bit). Maybe they're thinking of couples that got an annulment? Or maybe couples that weren't married in the Church? It doesn't sound like they're talking about couples separated by death because they refer to "separated parents" in plural, so both parents are presumably still alive. If they meant to remain within Church teaching then they should have been more explicit in their choice of words. The overwhelming majority of separated couples are the result of divorce.

I sympathize enormously with parents who have been divorced, but the bond of marriage cannot be undone. One liberal Catholic once told me that there's nothing wrong if couples married in the Church find themselves a new spouse after they get divorced. She argued that God is so merciful and is willing to forgive any sin, so surely He would "forgive" the mistake that the couple made when they chose to marry each other. True, God is infinitely merciful, but her position is pure fabrication and unbiblical. Christ was extremely explicit about the indissolubility of marriage. Why? Because marriage is so important, not only for the stability of society, but also because it is an image of the Trinity. Once you distort the image of God, the rest falls apart. Like many liberals, this friend of mine was trying to ignore the words Christ actually said and stick some other words into His mouth.

These are but a few mild hints of the more substantial re-engineering of the Faith that St. Paul's and Novalis have been implementing over the years. I pray that our Archbishop, Terrence Prendergast, will clean house at the university and make it worthy of the Catholic name again.
.

Summary of the ClimateGate scandal

2010-01-03T19:53:00.000-05:00

In case you're just tuning in, this article provides a great summary of the ClimateGate scandal that reveals that man-made global warming is likely the greatest scientific fraud ever committed. Don't let yourself be duped.

.

Canadian terror suspect arrested in Chicago; Danish police stop Muslim terrorist

2010-01-02T20:43:00.006-05:00

The attacks keep coming. We live in dangerous times. God help us.

Danish police said on Saturday they shot and wounded a Somali man with al Qaeda links when he tried to break into the home of a cartoonist whose 2005 caricatures of Prophet Mohammad sparked global Muslim outrage. (Source)

In a separate report, we learn that a Canadian Muslim has been arrested in Chicago for allegedly helping plot a terrorist attack against the same Danish newspaper that published those cartoons of Mohammed. Story here.

Where are the so-called "moderate" Muslims to denounce these terrorists?Surely, the majority of Muslims oppose terrorism, so why don't the speak up and talk some sense into the minority?

Disclaimer to protect myself from Human Rights Commissions (normal people need not read this paragraph): I hereby solemnly declare that I do not harbour any hatred or anger towards any religion or religious group, especially not Islam or Muslims. I do not advocate any form of violence, hatred or discrimination against Muslims. I am simply concerned by the statements made by Muslims themselves to the effect that they support terrorist acts. I am therefore exploring the implications of their position on the public good of Canadians and the world.
.

Concerns about Islam: Part 3

2009-12-31T20:50:00.020-05:00

Disclaimer to protect myself from Human Rights Commissions (normal people need not read this paragraph): I hereby solemnly declare that I do not harbour any hatred or anger towards any religion or religious group, especially not Islam or Muslims. I do not advocate any form of violence, hatred or discrimination against Muslims. I am simply concerned by the statements made by Muslims themselves to the effect that they support terrorist acts. I am therefore exploring the implications of their position on the public good of Canadians and the world.

In the second article of this series, we saw that a large proportion of Muslims living in European countries support terrorist acts. But Muslims are only a small part of the population, right? Wrong. In the four countries we examined, the Muslims supporting terrorist acts totalled more than 2.1 million people. And that was just four countries.

The situation will become more preoccupying in the future due to demographics. The vast majority of immigrants into Europe are Muslims. Muslims already living in Europe are having way more children than other groups. So the share of the population represented by Muslims is growing rapidly.

I used to be concerned about the USSR being a threat to world peace, but they disintegrated. While Russia is still unstable, I'm not all that worried.

I also used to think that China was a big threat to world peace. They're still communist and have nukes too. They are also growing very rich and influential. But China's history has generally not involved invading neighbouring countries. They have been relatively peaceful in that sense and their current ambitions
seem to be focused on material wealth. To achieve that wealth, they absolutely need the rest of the world to buy their goods.

No, the greatest threat to world peace might come from Europe. Rich, well-armed and soon to have a large Muslim population that is prone to terrorism. European economics also suffer from multiple sclerosis, such that their economies are likely to yield higher unemployment are greater discontent than what we see in North America, Australia or New Zealand.

Shooting at Fort Hood raises fresh questions about Muslims: Part 2

2009-12-30T15:43:00.009-05:00

Disclaimer to protect myself from Human Rights Commissions (normal people need not read this paragraph): I hereby solemnly declare that I do not harbour any hatred or anger towards any religion or religious group, especially not Islam or Muslims. I do not advocate any form of violence, hatred or discrimination against Muslims. I am simply concerned by the statements made by Muslims themselves to the effect that they support terrorist acts. I am therefore exploring the implications of their position on the public good of Canadians and the world.

In part 1 of this series, I presented the result of an opinion survey conducted among Muslims living in the U.S. The results showed that 13% of Muslims living in America, or approximately 305,500 people, support the use of suicide bombings and other violence against civilians. Among those under 30 years old, support for such attacks on civilians was 26%. That's very disturbing. I'm sure it causes many a sleepless night for law-enforcement officials in the U.S.

Today I will be presenting further survey results conducted in other countries. They are even scarier.

You may be aware that Muslims represent a larger share of the populatoin in European countries than here in North America. The Pew Research Center, the same group that did the aforementioned study for the U.S., also conducted surveys in major four European nations in a report published in June 2006. They asked the same quesiton as in the U.S. study, i.e. whether it was ever justified to conduct suicide bombings or other attacks against civilian targets.

In Germany, 13% of Muslims approved of such attacks, the same rate as in the U.S.
In Great Britain, 24% of Muslims approved.
In Spain, 25% approved.
In France, a whopping 35% of Muslims approved of terrorist attacks. That's more than one out of three.

As in the U.S., the percentages are higher when you consider people under 30 years old:

Germany: 22% approval.
Spain: 29% approval
Great Britain: 35% approval.
France: 42% approval. That's close to half of young Muslims.

Using the number of Muslims in each country, we can extrapolate the approximate number of potential terrorists:

Spain: 250,000 potential terrorists.
Germany: 430,000 potential terrorists.
Great Britain: 440,000 potential terrorists.
France: 1 million potential terrorists.

Please keep in mind that the birth rate among Muslims in these countries is much higher than in the rest of the population. Moreover, immigrants into these countries are largely composed of Muslims. As a result, these numbers are expected to rise rapidly over time.

Also keep in mind that Great Britain and France have nuclear weapons.

Do these facts disturb you? They should. It is a disturbing reality. I'll have more to write on this topic in the future. For now, let me repeat the statement I made in my previous post: This is not stereotyping, prejudice or discrimination. This is science. This is a rigorous statistical survey conducted by a reputable organization. The researchers didn't put words in the respondents' mouths. The respondents incriminated themselves by asserting that they support suicide bombing. We got the info straight from the horse's mouth. Don't be afraid to admit the truth.

To be continued...

.

Lord Monckton and Michael Coren denounce global warming fraud

2009-12-29T14:14:00.002-05:00

Christmas terrorist attack: a real miracle

2009-12-28T19:31:00.017-05:00

Disclaimer to protect myself from Human Rights Commissions (normal people need not read this paragraph): I hereby solemnly declare that I do not harbour any hatred or anger towards any religion or religious group, especially not Islam or Muslims. I do not advocate any form of violence, hatred or discrimination against Muslims. I am simply concerned by the statements made by Muslims themselves to the effect that they support terrorist acts. I am therefore exploring the implications of their position on the public good of Canadians and the world.

By now, most of you have heard about the despicable failed terrorist attack that a man tried to perpetrate against the American people on Christmas Day. You won't find me running for cover behind politically correct platitudes. I'll call a spade a spade: he was a Muslim terrorist. Period.

Here's a brief summary of the key facts:

A man named Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab boards a plane in Nigeria en route for Detroit. He's carrying explosives, but nobody seems to detect them.
The plane makes a stop-over in Amsterdam. Nobody notices the explosives.
As the plane is approaching Detroit, the man tries to detonate his explosives, which were strapped to his body.
The chemicals did not explode but rather caught fire, which severely burned the terrorist but didn't do much other damage.
The man is now under arrest and claims that he was sent by al-Qaida.

I think this is a real Christmas miracle. The guy had succeeded in circumventing all the security checks and inspections. Although his name had been put on an international watch list by his father one month earlier because his dad thought that his son had gotten to extreme in his religious views (kudos to the dad), somehow that didn't show up on the computer screen when he checked in. He had flown on two planes for many hours without anybody noticing a thing. He was home free. He even managed to pull the trigger, so to speak, to detonate the bomb. Somewhere in his distorted extremist mind, he must have been filled with some whack-job glee, exhilaration and pride of a job well done. Yet the bomb didn't blow because God didn't let it happen. Praise God!

God doesn't prevent every evil, as we've witnessed so often in our lives, not the least of which was the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Why does God allow evil? Because He intends on making an even greater good come from it. Remember that God doesn't sit in an ivory tower watching us suffer. The stepped up to the plate Himself and let us crucify Him. He suffered evil too. In fact, it was the greatest evil of all time: deicide, the killing of God in His human nature. Yet He brought the greatest good out of it: salvation for all humanity. The pattern is repeated in our lives.

Somebody once wrote: "All men are born to live; one man was born to die." As we look at Christ in the creche during this Christmas time, it is worthwhile to remember that religious artists over the centuries have often painted the birth of our Lord with a crucifix hanging in the manger. In other cases, the baby Jesus is wrapped in burial clothes (see right). This is precisely to illustrate the key part of His mission on Earth.

Nothing has changed in 2,000 years. God still allows suffering in some circumstances because He's capable of making a greater good come from it, as long as we cooperate with His plan. We might never see that good. In fact, most of the time we don't see it. It can frequently take the form of grace brought down from Heaven thanks to someone patiently offering up their suffering. This is extremely powerful. Countless souls can be given the grace of repentance and conversion if you offer up your sufferings patiently in order to obtain grace. Don't let your suffering go to waste.

Follow St. Paul's example: "I am now rejoicing in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am completing what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church." (Col 1:24) Many Protestants don't understand this verse. What could possibly be lacking in Christ's suffering? Catholics and Protestants agree that Christ's sufferings were more than sufficient and complete to expiate the sins of the whole world. So what's missing? Our sufferings are missing. If you read the Bible, you'll realize that God doesn't want to carry out His will unilaterally. He makes us partipants and cooperators in His plan of salvation. Consider:

Christ is the true King of kings. Yet, Christians are called a "royal priesthood" (1 Peter 2:9) and are promised that they will reign with Christ (2 Tim 2:12). So He lets us participate in His royalty and priesthood.
Christ is the true Teacher. Yet, through the Holy Spirit, many Christians are given the gift of teaching in order to build up the bretheren (Eph 4:11).
Christ is the true mediator and advocate before the Father on behalf of humanity. Yet, Christ mandates Christians to pray for one another and promises to hear our prayers (Matt 7:7-11; Matt 18:19; Matt 21:22). We therefore participate in this role of mediator/advocate. He goes as far as to make some grace conditonal on our efforts (Gal 6:9; James 4:3)
Likewise, Christ is the Holy Redeemer of mankind through His Cross. But he asks us to cooperate in the redemption by uniting our suffering to His in order to bring down grace. That's the meaning of Colossians 1:24. So please play your part!

Also keep in mind that God is still busy preventing lots of evil from occurring. You never hear about those instances because they never happened. You might have died in a car crash a couple of years ago, but God prevented it from happening so you never noticed.

This past Christmas Day, we learned of one such instance where God prevented it. Let us give thanks to Him.

CCCB pro-life promises: taking stock after 2 months

2009-12-23T21:37:00.002-05:00

As I reported in an earlier post, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB) made some commitments at the end of the Plenary Assembly, on October 23rd, to be more active in promoting a respect for life. That's great news. This is badly needed.

It has now been two months since that commitment. So far, we haven't seen any action. But there was some movement. Kinda. On December 9th, the Permanent Council of the CCCB appointed three bishops to an ad hoc Committee on Life and Family. The three bishops are CCCB Vice President Archbishop Richard Smith (Edmonton), Bishop Ronald P. Fabbro (London) and Auxiliary Bishop Gérald C. Lacroix (Quebec City). The CCCB had this to say about the Committee in a press release:

Its mandate is to develop an intermediate and long-term strategy for the promotion of a culture of life and family in Canada and to submit a proposal to the Permanent Council before the 2010 Plenary.

This is somewhat underwhelming. There are a few disturbing issues about this approach:

Sadly, the solution requires another committee. More bureaucracy, I'm afraid. I can't say that I'm surprised, however.
The Committee will submit a proposal before the 2010 Plenary. They're not implementing the strategy by the 2010 Plenary. Just formulating a proposal. The 2010 Plenary is likely to be held in the fall of 2010. The bishops will likely discuss the proposal at that time, maybe make some amendments and, if we're lucky, give the go-ahead to the actual launch of the strategy, which may not be visible to ordinary Canadians until 2011. If we're not lucky, the 2010 Plenary will decide that further study is required and will form a new committee. Too pessimistic? Not at all. Remember that this is what happened with the Development and Peace scandal: a committee reported to the 2009 Plenary, which then decided to form a new committee to report back at the 2010 Plenary. All the while, the money keeps flowing to pr-abort activists.
One of the members of the committee, Bishop Fabbro, is embroiled in a controversy surrounding "early inductions" at St. Joseph's hospital. If not done properly and under the right circumstances, these early inductions are tantamount to euthanasia. Read about it here and here. The matter is currently being investigated by the Vatican. Regardless of your opinion on early inductions, it is strategically unwise to pick a bishop who is in the middle of a controversy on a pro-life issue, especially given the near unanimous criticism of early inductions by pro-life groups across the country. This lack of strategic flair bodes ill for the effectiveness of the pro-life strategy that the Committee will be designing.

I understand that an effective strategy can take time to design and implement. I'm not stupid. But a whole year? Surely there must be examples from other countries that can be quickly adapted to the Canadian context. Besides, nothing is stopping the CCCB from taking immediate actions in parishes, such as:

Obliging all parishes to hold a pro-life Sunday once a year (we already have that in Ottawa)
Demanding that all parishes actively promote 40 Days For Life and the March For Life.
Making available pro-life material and "propaganda" in churches. There exist many great educational charities like Action Life that can provide tons of pro-life resources free of charge, including posters, brochures, DVDs, etc. They also have speakers available to give talks.
Reforming marriage prep courses to banish the teaching of artificial contraception and mandate the teaching of the Theology of the Body (there are some great DVDs by Christopher West that we could play to the engaged couples). Speaking of marriage prep, I've just learned of a parish in Ottawa where engaged couples are taught that they can use contraception if their conscience doesn't disapprove. Sound familiar? I'll be blogging on this shortly. I'm sure this is not an isolated case.

See, it took a dope like me just 5 minutes to come up with a few ideas that can be implemented lickety-split. We need the bishops to get moving in a manner at a speed that is commensurate with the stakes involved in the protection of life.

Dear bishops, I'm BEGGING YOU to please do something quickly to demonstrate that you understand the urgency of the situation. I know that various bishops and the CCCB visit my blog regularly. PLEASE DO SOMETHING. When a child is drowning in a pool, that's no time to form a committee to evaluate options. You just jump in. Please don't leave the unborn children to perish any longer!

.

Father John Corapi's take on the Winnipeg Statement

2009-12-23T20:01:00.004-05:00

In 2001, Father John Corapi, one of the best preachers of our time, gave a series of lectures in Winnipeg, Manitoba. I really love Fr. Corapi. He's right-on when it comes to Church teaching. No wishy-washy-ness here. And he's so blunt. He preaches the plain truth. No sugar-coating.

During one of his lectures in Winnipeg, he spoke out boldly regarding the Winnipeg Statement, that infamous
document from the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops that stated that they were not accepting the Church's teaching on contraception.

Click on the video below to hear what he had to say. Fasten your seatbelt! After you've heard this excerpt, you'll realize that bloggers aren't alone in using blunt language to denounce evil.

You can also read excerpts from these lectures here.

Vatican paves way for canonization of Brother André

2009-12-21T19:26:00.001-05:00

On December 19, the Vatican approved miracles allowing for the canonization of five people and the beatification of five others.

One of the five people named by the Vatican is Blessed Brother André Bessette, the humble man who founded St. Joseph's Oratory.

I was born and raised in Montréal. After a number of years of apathy, I returned to the Faith thanks to St. Joseph's Oratory, where I found the healing power of the Sacrament of Reconciliation. Thereafter, I went to Mass regularly at St. Joseph's for several years. That's when I got to know Brother André. I read a biography and was amazed at his simplicity and incredible faith. Many writers compared him to the Curé d'Ars.

So it brings me joy and peace to hear that Brother André is now on the verge of being canonized. Praise be to God!

Blessed Brother André, pray for us!

.

Abortion's dirty secrets

2009-12-21T18:30:00.001-05:00

Almost two years ago, a Spanish TV network called Intereconomia TV broadcast an investigative report that showed an undercover reporter posing as a physician in order to infiltrate an abortion clinic in Spain.

The video revealed illegal practices in the clinic. It also illustrated the gory reality of how abortion is the killing of a small human being. The video contained graphic images of live abortions.

The original report was only available in Spanish. However, my parents and I combined our efforts to produce a version with English subtitles.

Regardless of your position on abortion, the video below is a must-see. It's a real eye-opener.

WARNING: The video contains images of female genitals. This video may not be suitable for minors. Viewer discretion is advised.

How Wikipedia was hijacked to promote global warming hoax

2009-12-20T00:06:00.001-05:00

Read this very insightful article by Lawrence Solomon of the National Post. The emails that were released as part of ClimateGate continue to reveal more disgusting misinformation being perpetrated by so-called "scientists" in order to trick the world into accepting the theory of man-made global warming. In this article, you'll learn about one "scientist" who re-wrote and deleted thousands of articles on Wikipedia in order to re-write climate history in a manner that was in accordance with the global warming hoax.

.

H1N1: Going, going, gone!

2009-12-19T12:00:00.004-05:00

According to the latest statistics published by the Public Health Agency of Canada, H1N1 is almost a thing of the past. The number of reported outbreaks has crashed faster than the stock market last year. During the latest week for which data are available, there were 28 reported outbreaks of which 27 were in Quebec and 1 in New Brunswick. The 28 outbreaks represents a drop of about 95% compared to the peak reached about 5 weeks earlier.

The number of new confirmed cases of H1N1, as tested in provincial labs, in down by about 96% from the peak in early November. Recently, the numbers have fallen by more than half in each week. Check it out

Oct 24: 2,880
Oct 31: 4,802
Nov 7: 6,151
Nov 14: 6,007
Nov 21: 3,725
Nov 28: 1,764
Dec 5: 687
Dec12: 260

The cumulative number of deaths from H1N1 so far have been 397 as of December 17. That's 397 people in 9 months. Remember that the garden-variety flu kills roughly 4,000 Canadians each year. It turns out that H1N1 wasn't so nasty after all. Thanks be to God!

You'll notice, however, that the mainstream media isn't talking about the demise of H1N1. They were only interested in the story while cases were rising and panic was gripping the country. Now that the worst is far behind us, they won't admit their exaggerations nor will they inform people that it's safe to come out of their bunkers. It's comforting to know that when the world is coming to an end because of some killer virus, you can always rely on the media to sensationalize first, and ask questions later (or never).

The good hygiene habits that we've learned during this episode should be maintained throughout our entire lives. Hygiene is a good thing. But don't let fears of the H1N1 virus spoil your Christmas celebrations.

Take care!

.

Find the true meaning of Christmas

2009-12-19T11:29:00.000-05:00

This Christmas, why don't you try something different?

Really dumb idea from Diane Francis

2009-12-18T20:23:00.003-05:00

In a recent article, Diane Francis thinks that the world's environmental problems can be solved by depopulation. She wants to impose a one child policy like in China. But from atop her ivory tower, she doesn't have a clue of the unspeakable suffering the Chinese have endured because of this policy: the forced abortions, the babies left to die in sewers and rice fields, the harvesting of organs from "spare" people. I thought you had to be smarter than that to write in a national newspaper.

Here's a few points for Diane to ponder:

Diane, you have two children. Which one are you going to send to the firing squad in order to save the spotted owl? Will it be Eric or Julie? Whoever you pick, make sure to tell them that it's nothing personal.

You have a sister. So which one of you is going to commit suicide in order to save the planet?

Once we've gotten rid of all the humans, who's gonna be left behind to enjoy the pristine environment?

Read some sanity from Maurice Vellacott.

.

Credit where credit is due

2009-12-16T19:59:00.004-05:00

As I mentioned in an earlier post, the Bishop of London didn't want St. Joseph's to conduct embryonic stem cell research (see picture). To their credit, St. Joseph's implemented a policy of of "No Fetal Stem Cell Research".

A couple of weeks ago, I contact St. Joseph's directly to inquire if this was still their policy. They confirmed that they do not conduct any embryonic stem cell research. Well done!

Sometimes we don't understand teachings of the Church, but it is necessary to still conform to them while we are seeking understanding. God is extremely pleased when we humbly submit to legitimate authority that is in accordance with Church teaching. However, God still wants us to seek answers so that we can understand the reasons for Church teachings. God wants us to use our reason to complement our faith. When we understand a teaching, we are more likely to adhere to it with fervor. In the meantime, until we find that answer, we need to obey.

Bad idea amid the H1N1 frenzy

2009-12-15T20:00:00.011-05:00

I pray that I never see one of these in a Catholic church.

A company called Purity Solutions has developed a hands-free communion dispenser to cope with the H1N1 panic. While I can appreciate their good intentions and the practicality of this tool for Protestants who don't believe in the Real Presence, this would certainly be a no-no in a Catholic Mass.

The first picture on the right shows the device, which comes in gold, silver and "white" (whatever substance that is). Or maybe the "gold" and "silver" on their website only refers to the color of the device, not the metal it's made of. Now gold and silver would certainly be suitable precious metals for a Catholic paten or ciborium, but if they are made of stainless steel and simply coated with gold or silver paint, that's a non-starter.

Even if they were made of gold or silver, it gets more complicated. As you can see by the second picture, the hosts are not directly placed inside the metal device. They are placed in plastic cartridges, much like Pringle potato chips, which are subsequently inserted into the aforementioned communion dispenser. There they will remain remain throughout the consecration and during the distribution of communion. Somebody refresh my memory: does plastic qualify as a valid precious material for the sacred vessels? The company also sells hosts that are pre-soaked with wine, so that you can
receive communion "under both species" by just consuming the host. Whaaaaaah!!!!

Now this company is quite ingenious. They have created a demo video that also serves as a training guide for sacristans and clergy. You can see the video below. I found it quite amusing, assuming that this would never be used in a Catholic setting.

At the beginning of the video, they show some ladies preparing the bread and wine before the worship service. You can see how she loads the cartridge of hosts into the device, just like ammo into a gun. Lock and load, baby. Click click. I can almost visualize Schwarzenegger in the background: "I'll be back."

One woman pours wine into some dinky disposable plastic glasses. Eeeeeeeeek!!!!!! I won't even go there! Makes me wanna scream!

As you watch the video, the worship service looks eerily like a Catholic Mass, albeit with some ad lib adaptations. Maybe this is an Anglican service?

At the end of the video, the instructor explains that consecrated hosts that were unused after the celebration are to remain in the plastic cylinder until next time. Not sure that would fit into most Tabernacles. I hope we never need to find out.

How would one go about purifying the dispenser after a Mass? It doesn't look like an easy-open device, so we would never know if particles of the consecrated host remained stuck in there. You could pour water down the top, but it would probably get messy.

All this to say that the device may come in handy for Protestants, but it sure doesn't make the cut for a Catholic Mass. However, that doesn't mean that Catholics couldn't make good use of it. Heck, if I had one, I wouldn't hesitate for a second to use it to distribute the Ruffles at my Superbowl party, if it makes my guests feel more secure about the whole germs thing. Go Eagles!!

.

Clever idea amid the H1N1 frenzy

2009-12-15T18:55:00.003-05:00

This fellow in Italy developed a cool-looking hands-free holy water dispenser.

It works just like those hands-free soap dispensers you find in some restaurants. You just pass your hands in front of the motion detector and the machine drops a bit of holy water in your hands. He even designed an elegant cover with a cross and a small receptacle at the bottom to collect and wayward drops.

Sounds like a good idea to me. I'd rather have one of these in my church than no holy water at all. We all benefit from the grace of God that flows through this sacramental.

Well done, Luciano Marabese!!

Troubling discussion with Fr. Prieur about embryonic stem cell research

2009-12-14T18:42:00.014-05:00

John Pacheco at Socon Or Bust recently wrote a thought-provoking piece about Fr. Michael Prieur. John and I researched that piece together, although John did virtually all the work in writing the article. Collaboration among bloggers is a beautiful thing, as varied skill sets can be combined.

If you haven't read John's article, I would highly recommend it. In my current post, I would like to focus on Fr. Prieur's controversial paper on embryonic stem cell research. In the paper, Fr. Prieur and nine co-authors argue that it's morally licit for Catholics to conduct research on embryonic stem cells as long as the killing of the embryo and the extraction of its cells are done at another facility and that the Catholic researcher doesn't agree with the killing of the embryo.

Here are some important chronological markers to keep in mind before we go further:

In 2000, the Pontifical Academy for Life published a Declaration in which it clearly stated that it's morally unacceptable to conduct research on embryonic stem cells, even if the killing of the embryo and the extraction of its cells had been done at another facility and that the Catholic researcher didn't agree with the killing of the embryo.
In 2006, Fr. Prieur published his paper, which referenced the 2000 paper above, but his conclusions contradicted those of the Pontifical Academy for Life. What Fr. Prieur was advocating in this paper was almost word-for-word what the Pontifical Academy for Life was condemning.
In 2008, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) issued Dignitas Personae and re-affirmed what had been said in 2000.

My correspondence with Fr. Prieur

Inspired by some comments I received on earlier posts about Fr. Prieur, I decided to contact the author directly on this matter before John went public with his article. I don't want to publish my confidential correspondence with him, but I can give you the gist of the discussion.

I asked Fr. Prieur if his views expressed in 2006 had changed after the CDF published Dignitas Personae in 2008. He didn't answer directly or admit that he was mistaken, but he politely said that he subscribed wholeheartedly to Dignatas Personae. I then asked him if he was planning on publishing an article to explain the change in his views since 2006. Given that he's such a renowned bioethicist and theologian and that many people rely on his judgment, I figured it would be prudent for him to set the record straight so that nobody would be misled by his 2006 article. His response was short and non-committal, but still polite. Feeling somewhat confused, I asked him why he would publish a paper in 2006 that was inconsistent with the prohibition published by the Pontifical Academy for Life in 2000. He abruptly replied that he was terminating the discussion. That was the end of it.

Fr. Prieur's bishop didn't agree

As I dug a little further into this issue, I discovered that one of Fr. Prieur's co-authors made a presentation of the main conclusions of their paper at the annual conference of the Catholic Health Association of Canada, on May 15, 2005. Note Slide 4, which I have copied on the right. The slide admits that although the Bishop of London, Ronald Fabbro, agreed with many aspects of the paper, he didn't think he could approve of any embryonic stem cell research at St. Joseph's hospital, where Fr. Prieur is a key advisor. Sure enough, St. Joseph eventually created guidelines stating "No Fetal Stem Cell Research." I contacted St. Joseph's before writing this post and they confirmed that they still do not conduct any embryonic stem cell research.

Red flag flashing!!! If your bishop doesn't agree with the key conclusion of your paper, shouldn't that be a warning sign? Do you imagine how many health practitioners at that conference came away with a misguided view of Catholic morality with regards to embryonic stem cell research? Notice how the slide says "Interest from across Canada." So many people led on the wrong path. You also have to wonder why Bishop Fabbro encouraged them to publish their paper anyways.

CCCB was publicly opposed to embryonic stem cell research in 2003

In 2003, three years before Fr. Prieur's paper was published, Canada's legislators were crafting the Assisted Human Reproduction bill, which would cover issues such as cloning, IVF and embryonic stem cell research. At the time, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB) published a position paper in which they expressed, among other things, their opposition to embryonic stem cell research. Here's the key excerpt, which was completely consistent with the Pontifical Academy for Life:

Some argue that the embryos who remain after fertility treatments will die anyway, so why not use them in order to do some good? It is not necessary that we do something with these embryos so that some good or meaning will be given to their lives. There is good and meaning in their lives simply because they are intrinsically human which also means from a faith perspective that they are known and loved by God. It is unnecessary to search for meaning on their behalf, especially when such a search is really nothing more than a way of justifying the decision to release human embryos for research purposes.

While we realize that our position on protection of the embryo will preclude embryonic stem cell research in which so many hopes have been invested, we are convinced that adult stem cell research, which is showing remarkable promise, can still go forward and has every potential to fulfill those hopes. We could thereby signal to the world, in a global arena influenced by strong commercial interests in the area of the reproductive technologies, that Canada is committed to honouring, protecting and including everyone in the human family.

Red flag #2!!!! The CCCB was publicly opposed to embryonic stem cell research. That probably explains Bishop Fabbro's hesitation with regards to Fr. Prieur's paper. So why did he go ahead and publish it?

So you've go the Pontifical Academy for Life saying "No". You've got your own bishop saying "No". You've got the CCCB saying "No". Why did Fr. Prieur say "Yes"?

"Little old ladies" outsmart big-shot bioethicists

Two months before the CCCB published their position paper in October 2003, the Catholic Women's League (CWL) of Canada published their own position paper on the topic in August. Some people dismiss the CWL as a bunch of old ladies who just bake pies and have interminable meetings. I think that's unfair. I believe that most CWL members are women full of faith. They may not have PhD's in theology, but they make up for it by an openness to God's grace.

In their position paper, the CWL cites the 2000 paper by the Pontifical Academy for Life (you know, the one that Fr. Prieur dismissed) in order to justify their opposition to embryonic stem cell research.

Red flag #3!!! Isn't it disturbing that a lay association like the CWL is able to read and understand the prohibition by the Pontifical Academy for Life and yet Canada's leading Catholic bioethicists don't get it or don't want to get it?

"At that time Jesus said, ‘I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and the intelligent and have revealed them to infants." (Matthew 11:25)

Conclusion

Fr. Prieur's decision to publish the article despite all these red flags is quite disturbing. Being in a position of great visibility and influence in the field of bioethics, he bears a great responsibility for his actions. This is even more true in light of the fact that he teaches theology at St. Peter's Seminary. The formation of our future priests rests in his hands.

This isn't a witch hunt against Fr. Prieur. I tried to get his version of the story, but he wouldn't answer the burning question. The whole point of this post is to warn people of this erroneous teaching and to exhort Fr. Prieur (as I did in my last email to him) to publicly recant his position. That's the only option left for him. He must publish a retraction or a correction so that nobody else is misled by his 2006 paper.

Matthew 18:6-7: ‘If any of you put a stumbling-block before one of these little ones who believe in me, it would be better for you if a great millstone were fastened around your neck and you were drowned in the depth of the sea. Woe to the world because of stumbling-blocks! Occasions for stumbling are bound to come, but woe to the one by whom the stumbling-block comes!

Did "Liberating Potential" undo the dissent of the Winnipeg Statement?

2009-12-13T21:05:00.008-05:00

In September 2008, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB) issued a document called "Liberating Potential". The document was issued to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the encyclical Humanae Vitae. Liberating Potential is an excellent document that speaks about the greatness of the gift of sexuality and the fact that contraception and abortion are incompatible with God's plan for life. The document is very robust and doesn't contain any trace of dissent. It is everything you would hope to see from the pen of our bishops.

I applaud the bishops for having issued this document. It was badly needed.

Given that "Liberating Potential" is in agreement with the Church's teaching on contraception, it is legitimate to ask the question as to whether this nullifies the Winnipeg Statement. In other words, did the assent in "Liberating Potential" undo the dissent of the Winnipeg Statement? I don't think so. In my opinion, it was a good first step, but it doesn't go far enough. Let me explain why.

When the average Joe like you or me commits a sin, God requires several steps in order for us to be forgiven:

1. We must admit our wrongdoing.
2. We must be sorry for having offended God and others.
3. We must change our behavior and make a firm resolve to not commit that sin again.

I think that the bishops need to be held to the same standard when it comes to the Winnipeg Statement. So let's see if Liberating Potential lives up to this standard.

1. Admitting their wrongdoing

Have the bishops admitted the error of the Winnipeg Statement and all the erroneous pastoral actions that flowed from it over 40 years? No.
Has there has been any admission of guilt and of the huge damage done over the last four decades? No.

Now someone might claim that the bishops may have privately repented of the Winnipeg Statement. That's certainly a possibility. However, bishops should know that a public sin requires a public repentance, as was explained recently by Archbishop Raymond Burke (Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura and member of the Congregation for Bishops) over the Ted Kennedy funeral scandal:

"When a person has publicly espoused and cooperated in gravely sinful acts, leading many into confusion and error about fundamental questions of respect for human life and the integrity of marriage and the family, his repentance of such actions must also be public." (Source)

The purpose of public repentance is not to bring humiliation on the person who committed the sin. Rather, it seeks to make sure that anybody who may have been misled by the sinner will be made aware of the change in position and will no longer be led astray by whatever erroneous positions were being advocated. Sadly, none of this has happened with regards to Canadian bishops and the Winnipeg Statement.

Someone could also claim that the current bishops are not the same people who wrote and signed the Winnipeg statement and therefore don't need to admit any wrongdoing. Such an argument fails to recognize the corporal nature of the Church and the gravity of an institutionalized sin. For example, when a priest has been convicted of sexual abuse, we often see the current bishop make a public apology to the victims, even though he wasn't involved in any way in the crime. Likewise, as part of the celebrations of the Jubilee Year, John Paul II made public apologies for past sins of the Church, some of which had been committed centuries ago. Heck, even secular politicians have made apologies for grave errors committed in the past, such as war crimes. These apologies are necessary and reflect the reality that we are all part of the Body of Christ, which is eternal, and that if one member of the Body suffers, all suffer together with it (1 Cor 12:26).

So the CCCB did not perform the essential act of admitting any wrongdoing. Quite the contrary. During this past year, we discovered the Development and Peace (D&P) scandal, which is intimately related to the life issues from which the CCCB dissented in the Winnipeg Statement. Did we see any admission of wrongdoing over D&P? No. Instead they dog-piled one denial after another. So I don't see much of a break with the past.

Given these facts, the CCCB has unfortunately not fulfilled requirement #1.

2. Expressing sorrow for sin

If the sinner does not admit any wrongdoing in step #1, it's really hard to express sorrow over the sin he didn't admit. Liberating Potential does appear to express some concern over the widespread use of contraception in our modern world, as witnessed by the following excerpt:

"Indeed, how can we fail to recognize its [Humanae Vitae's] prophetic character when we consider the troubling evolution of two fundamental human institutions, marriage and the family? Both continue to be affected by the contraceptive mentality feared and rejected in the encyclical of Pope Paul VI. And what can be said of the future demographic deficit confronting Western societies?"

Notice, however, that they speak of the affliction of the contraceptive mentality as if it were something foreign and external to them. It's somewhat hypocritical of them to write "how can we fail to recognize" when in fact they've been dissented from it for 40 years. The sad reality is that through the Winnipeg Statement, the bishops were great enablers of this contraceptive mentality by reassuring Catholics that they could use contraception in good conscience. So why are they speaking as if this were something external to them? This just reinforces my earlier point that they are still in denial of having endorsed the contraceptive mentality. As long as they remain in denial, there won't be any pastoral changes to reverse the contraceptive mentality.

As a result, it appears clear to me that the CCCB has not fulfilled requirement #2.

3. Changing behaviour and resolving not to sin again

Liberating Potential makes some very orthodox and sound statements about life, sexuality and contraception. It's a very strong document in that sense. So one could interpret those strong statements as a sign that the CCCB is changing its attitude with regards to these issues. This is clearly a judgment call on my part and is subject to interpretation error, but I think there's a glimmer of openness on the part of the bishops in this respect. That's definitely good news.

Keep in mind, however, that the Winnipeg Statement was not merely a bunch of words on a piece of paper. Before the words were ever written, there was a dissenting attitude among bishops. And after the words were put on paper, that dissenting attitude was reflected in how the Church taught the faithful on the issue of contraception and other life issues. Through spiritual direction, marriage preparation courses and the teaching in our Catholic schools, contraception became increasingly mainstream while pro-life issues were put on the back burner. So in order to fully reflect requirement #3, the bishops need to do more than just put good words on paper. They need to reform marriage preparation courses, seminaries, spiritual direction and the Catholic school system in order to redress the problems that they created.

In this respect, it's interesting that Liberating Potential talks quite a bit about John Paul II's Theology of the Body. They speak very highly of it. I was very happy to read that because I think the Theology of the Body is an incredible gift to the Church. So why hasn't the Theology of the Body been implemented in marriage preparation courses throughout the country? Why is it not taught in our high schools? There is an urgent and dire need for married couples and teenagers to understand the true meaning of sexuality and how it fits into the married vocation. The Theology of the Body also needs to be taught in the seminaries so that future priests may understand how their vocation and call to celibacy is not a rejection of God's gift of sexuality but rather the complete fulfillment of the sign it is meant to signify. I think that too many priests and lay people were taught that sex is somehow a bad thing. A well-formed Catholic should understand that sexuality has immense beauty and sacredness. In today's world where sexual messages are constantly being thrust upon us at every moment, it is vital that Catholics be able to understand sexuality and successfully integrate it into their life.

So I'm encouraged that the bishops have become fans of the Theology of the Body, but I long for the day when they will take action so that all Catholics may benefit from this rich teaching of John Paul II.

So on point #3, I see some signs of hope, but the Development and Peace scandal poured a lot of cold water on the notion that bishops were changing their behaviour. It's really easy to write a pastoral letter that repeats Church teaching. The true test of good faith comes when it's time to practice what you preach. The D&P scandal was definitely not a good sign.

I can't over emphasize the point that the Winnipeg statement is not merely a piece of paper lost in the drawer. Much like the Constitution of a country, the Winnipeg Statement was the foundation upon which a distorted version of Catholicism was propagated in Canada. The solution will require much more than just a repudiation on paper. It will require a deep and thorough rebuilding of programs, school curriculum, seminaries and pastoral practices. Only then will we have a chance of turning this thing around.

.

Toronto Transit Commission rejects bus ads promoting adultery

2009-12-12T11:08:00.002-05:00

The title of this post probably makes most readers say: "Duh! Of course they should reject such ads!" Sadly, in today's world, there's no guarantee that secular government organizations will display any amount of common sense. Not so long ago, the TTC allowed ads on their buses that said: "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life." We had those same ads in Ottawa.

Fortunately the TTC trashed the adultery ads that would have show a huge message that says: "Life is short. Have an affair."

You may ask: who on earth would want to advertise and promote adultery? The answer is Ashley Madison, a company that specializes in... you'll never believe it... hooking up married people to have affairs. They've been called "The kingpin of Internet infidelity." They work like an online dating service for married people.

The founder is a Toronto native who is married and has children. Here's a question for you women out there: would you marry a guy who makes a living out of helping others have affairs and who thinks there's nothing immoral about it?

I suspect that business at Ashley Madison is going to take a hit after the Tiger Woods scandal. Through Tiger's self-destruction, many would-be adulterers might come to understand the disaster that awaits them if their affair were ever to become know by their spouse or children.

While we're on this topic, let's remind ourselves that the surge in infidelity during the last half-century has been largely facilitated by the generalized use of contraception and abortion. Without these two "backup plans", infidelity becomes extremely risky because if the woman becomes pregnant, the cover is blown. Contraception and abortion are the equivalent of a paper shredder for people engaging in infidelity. The sin leaves no trace, which reduces the risk of being caught and encourages people to go for it.

Pope Paul VI had foreseen this rise in infidelity due to contraception. Experience has proven him right. Now we just need the Canadian bishops to clue in and repudiate the Winnipeg Statement so that we can revitalize our Church with sound teaching.

.

Totalitarianism is alive and well in Germany

2009-12-12T10:36:00.001-05:00

When Catholics in Canada didn't bother opposing the advances of promiscuity in this country, they kept saying to themselves: "It won't affect me." It was most obvious when Chrétien and his gang were legalizing same-sex marriage. Most Catholics were opposed, but most didn't raise a finger to stop it, saying "if some homosexuals get married, that doesn't change my life."

Well, reality is setting in. Our school children are now being indoctrinated with contraception, casual sex and books like "My Two Dads". It's worse in other countries, but we're catching up fast. For example, read about these dads in Germany that are going to jail for the ominous crime of pulling their elementary-aged children out of sex-ed classes and for refusing to enroll them in a theatre production that informs young children on how to engage in sexual intercourse.

Can you believe it? God helps us.

Bishop Fred Henry has spoken out bluntly regarding pro-abort politicians and communion

2009-12-09T19:56:00.002-05:00

In an earlier post, I congratulated Bishop Thomas Tobin of Rhode Island for his strong stand on refusing communion to Patrick Kennedy.

In Canada, the only similar example that comes to mind among active bishops is Fred Henry of Calgary. Even though Bishop Henry supports the Winnipeg Statement, he nonetheless was very vocal on the issue of denying communion to Catholic politicians engaged in grave sin. For example:

In 2004, he said John Kerry, the presidential candidate, should be denied communion because of his anti-life positions.
In 2005, he enunciated the same principle, without referring to any specific politician, during a testimony before the Canadian Parliament regarding the bill to legalize same-sex marriage. An NDP member grilled him about it (no surprise) but Bishop Henry held his ground admirably.
In fact, in 2003, Bishop Henry had been so blunt as to suggests Mr. Chrétien was jeopardizing his "eternal salvation" by trying to change the definition of marriage!

Good show! We need to celebrate these success stories and applaud them. At the time, I remember sending an email to Bishop Henry to thank him for his strong witness. We need more of this.

However, all is not sunny in Calgary. Even as Bishop Henry was denouncing same-sex marriage in 2003, he didn't appear to realize that his approval of contraception, as per the Winnipeg Statement, is inconsistent with his position on homosexual behaviour. You see, once the notion of sterilized sex became widely accepted through contraception, the legalization of homosexual marriage was the next logical step in the progression. Once society separates the unitive and the procreative, why wouldn't same-sex marriage be okay? John Pacheco explains it very well in this post.

.

Good start, but we need much more

2009-12-06T19:57:00.001-05:00

Bishop James Wingle of St. Catharines recently made some very strong and inspiring comments about the need for Catholics to be more involved in pro-life activities. This is certainly great news. Thank you Bishop Wingle.

We need more bishops to sound the clarion call. But that's not nearly enough. We also need the bishops themselves to be active leaders in pushing the pro-life cause, even if it earns them scorn and hate from politicians and the media. Heck, anybody who's been involved in the pro-life movement knows that scorn and hate are par for the course. If you don't get insulted at least 10 times per year, you're not doing your job as a pro-lifer.

Here's a quote from the bishop:

"If we could get families, parishes, schools to appreciate that this is something highly significant and a great moral witness as well as a great opportunity for education and even a chance to celebrate life together, perhaps we could change more minds," Bishop Wingle concluded.

Wonderful. I couldn't agree more. But why is it always the laity that have to organize these things without any logistical support or even just moral support from their bishop? Do you know how much easier it would be to organize these things if a bishop were to demand that all parishes advertise and recruit for pro-life causes?

At the plenary assembly of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, the CCCB made some important commitments to get involved in pro-life issues. I wrote a blog post on that issue and I refer you to the comments I made at the time.

Keep up the good work, Bishop Wingle. But please make sure you participate actively in pro-life events, not just as one more person in the crowd, but as a leader and shepherd. Please stand with us at the front-line, in the line of fire, not at the back.
.

Shooting at Fort Hood raises fresh questions about Muslims: Part 1

2009-12-05T22:47:00.005-05:00

Disclaimer to protect myself from Human Rights Commissions (normal people need not read this paragraph): I hereby solemnly declare that I do not harbour any hatred or anger towards any religion or religious group, especially not Islam or Muslims. I do not advocate any form of violence, hatred or discimination against Muslims. I am simply concerned by the statements made by Muslims themselves to the effect that they support terrorist acts. I am therefore exploring the implications of their position on the public good of Canadians and the world.

This is not an easy post to write. It will contain facts that some people will consider "politically incorrect", "hateful", "xenophobic" or "intolerant". I can understand that opinions can be designated with such adjectives, but facts shouldn't be subject to censorship just because they raise difficult questions that people would rather avoid. Catholics are called to be courageous and to face the facts. So let's get with it.

The shooting at Fort Hood has re-opened the discussion about whether Islam is truly a "religion of peace" as some scholars claim. First of all, I would like to extend my deepest condolences to all the families of the victims.

The media as reported many disturbing facts about the shooting at Fort Hood. The shooter was a Muslim. He shouted "God is great" as he started emptying cartridges on unsuspecting bystanders. He had some sort of connection with some shady extremist Muslims, although the extent of the connection is not entire clear. He also seemed to be upset with the war in Afghanistan and about the U.S. killing his brother Muslims over there.

As an economist who has conducted a lot of research and analysis, I don't get too excited about isolated cases such as this. Researchers call that "anecdotal evidence". It's very risky to generalize from anecdotal evidence because it's just one case. For example, some people will argue that cigarettes don't harm you because their uncle Billy-Ray-Bob smoked since he was 15 years old and nevertheless lived until the ripe old age of 94. Although I'm very happy for Billy-Ray-Bob, I wouldn't generalize from one example. Researchers need lots of data gathered from a big enough sample to enable more accurate generalizations. That's why, for example, when you read in the newspaper about the latest political poll, you will rarely find a survey that questioned less than 1,000 people.

That's enough statistical talk for now. Back to Fort Hood. Just because one Muslim shot all these people, I wouldn't consider that sufficient to make a blanket statement about Muslims. Just like it would be unjust to make generalizations against Christians when some nutcase shoots an abortionist. Just like it would be unfair to consider all postal workers to be dangerous just 'cause a few people have "gone postal" over the years. We need more data.

Fortunately, we do have more data. I will report the first piece of evidence in this post. Subsequent posts will discuss other evidence.

In 2007, the New York Post published the results of an extensive survey on Muslims living in the United States. The article was entitled "Time Bombs In Our Midst". Here is a key quote:

One out of four young U.S. Muslims believe suicide bombings against innocent civilians are OK to defend Islam, a disturbing new poll revealed yesterday.

The nationwide survey - one of the most exhaustive ever conducted of American Muslim attitudes - also found widespread doubt that Islamic terrorists carried out the 9/11 attacks.

But at the same time, three out of four U.S. Muslims are worried about the rise of Islamic extremism around the world - and more than 60 percent are "very concerned" it will grow in America.

The survey - revealing possible radicalization of homegrown American Muslim youth - included more than 1,000 of the nation's estimated 2.35 million Muslims and was conducted in English and several foreign languages.

The most shocking responses came when those surveyed were asked whether suicide bombings and other violence against civilians can be justified "in order to defend Islam from its enemies."

Thirteen percent said it can be justified, at least on rare occasions.

Among those under age 30, that 13 percent doubled to 26 percent.

The survey discussed by this New York Post article was conducted by the Pew Research Center. The full report is available here. (For all those statistical geeks out there, I have included a footnote with methodological details at the bottom of this post.)

Notice the question discussed above was not about violence against military people. Even Catholics would admit that in a just war violence can be used against enemy soldiers. No, the question was specifically about suicide bombings against civilians. That's very unsettling.

Let me do the math for you. There are 2.35 million Muslims in the U.S. If this poll is accurate, 13% approve of suicide bombings against civilians in some circumstances. That works out to 305,500 Muslims in America that support killing innocent people in such a way. Now the margin of error in this survey was +/-5 percentage points. So the percentage approving of suicide bombings could be between 8% and 18%, which would mean between 188,000 and 423,000 Muslims.

Remember that it only takes one or two guys to blow up a shopping centre and kill hundreds of people.

This isn't a story about Billy-Ray-Bob. This is a rigorous statistical survey. It's safe to make generalizations here. Don't be afraid. This isn't stereotyping or prejudice. This is science. I'll be presenting more evidence in the near future that corroborate these findings and present even scarier data for other countries...

I'd love to believe that Islam is a "religion of peace". However, the data are suggesting that there are enough fringe elements to warrant some concern. We'll continue to explore this subject soon. Stay tuned.

Statistical footnote:

The overall margin of error is +/-5 percentage points at a 95% confidence interval.

This is the exact wording of the question asked regarding suicide bombing of civilians:

"Some people think that suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilian targets are justified in order to defend Islam from its enemies. Other people believe that, no matter what the reason, this kind of violence is never justified. Do you personally feel that this kind of violence is often justified to defend Islam, sometimes justified, rarely justified, or never justified?"

Just to clarify the results presented in the New York Post, which were awkwardly worded: 8% of respondents said thatsuicide bombings against civilians was justified "often" or "sometimes", while an additional 5% said it was justified "rarely". That's how you get the total of 13%. 78% said it is "never" justified and 9% refused to answer or didn't know.

.

Real court overturns ruling by "thought police" against Protestant pastor

2009-12-05T20:10:00.001-05:00

This certainly good news! Protestant pastor Stephen Boisson had been convicted of hateful speech by the Alberta Human Rights Commission and forced to pay $7,000 and keep his mouth shut. His "crime"? Speaking out boldly against the homosexual lifestyle.

Mr. Boisson appealed to a real court -- you know, where things like truth and evidence are actually taken into account -- which overturned the ruling and vindicated Boisson.

Read a great summary at Freedom Through Truth, which is run by Michael Brandon. Michael is probably Canada's foremost Catholic expert on the abuses committed by these kangaroo kourts.

The truth about priests

2009-12-03T20:59:00.005-05:00

Here is an excellent article published on MacLean's web site. I found it very balanced and down to earth. It talks about the horrible sexual abuses committed by too many priests over the years. It offers a very compassionate discussion of the immense suffering that the victims have undergone. It sympathizes with the contempt that good priests now have to face because of the sins of their brothers. But the article points to a truth that is too often overlooked and that needs to be repeated:

But at the risk of downplaying decades of unspeakable abuse—or forgiving a Church hierarchy that moved heaven and earth to suppress scandal and protect criminal clergy—an obvious point is often ignored: the vast, vast majority of Catholic priests are not sexual predators. In fact, the scientific research suggests that men who target children are no more pervasive in the priesthood (and perhaps less pervasive) than in any other segment of society. Depending on the study, somewhere between two and four per cent of priests have had sexual contact with a minor. Or, to put it another way, between 96 and 98 per cent have not.

“It’s part of that myth—the myth of the pedophile priest who can’t help himself,” says Thomas Plante, a psychology professor at Santa Clara University who has published dozens of studies about sexually abusive priests. “It’s really an issue of perception rather than reality. Believe it or not, probably the safest place for a kid to be is in a Catholic church environment.”

My only reservation with this article is that it tends to use the term "pedophile" to describe these priests who abuse children. Later they say that a more accurate term would be "ephebophiles,": which means "people attracted to post-pubescent boys, typically between 13 and 17." In either case, I think they're missing the elephant in the room. Virtually all the victims are boys. You know, as in the male gender. Priests are men, also of the male gender. These crimes have a homosexual nature. The article tries to debunk that theory, but I think their arguments are weak on that point.

That being said, the article is largely positive about debunking the myth that every priest is a pedophile. That's rare in the mainstream media and I commend them for that.

We need to stand up for good priests. On this blog, I have certainly criticized some members of the clergy for their obstinate errors. That needs to be done, unfortunately, for their sake and for ours. I take no pleasure in doing it, but I firmly believe that the Church grows stronger when light is shone on the areas of darkness. However, I have also applauded the virtuous acts of faithful clergymen. We need to do lots of that too. LOTS. We need to love our priests and support them as they strive to live up to the high demands of the priesthood.

Satan attacks the priesthood because he knows that when the shepherd is struck, the sheep are scattered. The priests also represent Christ. Since Satan can't lay a finger on Christ, he attacks the next closest thing. Moreover, without priests, we can't have five of the seven sacraments.

Of course, it's not enough to just have priests. They need to be faithful priests, otherwise they might do more damage than good, as we've witnessed so often.

So please pray for our priests. Don't let a day go by without lifting a prayer for them towards Heaven.

.

Is there a Canadian "Bishop Tobin" anywhere?

2009-12-01T22:02:00.006-05:00

I've written a couple of posts about Bishop Thomas Tobin of Rhode Island, who told pro-abortion policitian Patrick Kennedy (son of Ted Kennedy) to not receive communion. Bishop Tobin isn't making up some strict rules here. He's just doing his job. The Vatican ordered that such politicians are to be instructed not to receive communion, and if they present themselves at the communion rail they should be denied communion. No ifs, buts or maybes. No exceptions. Read the key passages of Cardinal Ratzinger's instructions here. It's sad that we have to cheer a bishop or priest when he actually complies with the minimum requirements of his job. That's the sad state of the Church today.

Canada has it's own "Patrick Kennedy". His name is Justin Trudeau, son of the famous Pierre Elliot Trudeau. He claims to be Catholic, like his father, yet he's vigorously pro-abortion and pro-homosexuality. He's a Liberal Member of Parliament for the riding of Papineau.

So the burning question on everybody's lips is: will any bishop tell him not to receive communion?

Hmmmm... Let's see now. The Parliament buildings are in the Archdiocese of Ottawa, which is part of the jurisdiction of Archbishop Terrence Prendergast. The riding of Papineau is on the Island of Montreal, which falls under Cardinal Turcotte.

I understand that these bishops need not make a public statement about this. They only need to speak privately to Justin Trudeau and to the clergy in their dioceses to give instructions on not giving communion. I just hope that we don't hear some story about Trudeau having been given communion somewhere.

It's worth remembering that Bishop Fred Henry (Calgary) has spoken out on several occasions on refusing communion to politicians.

In 2004, he said John Kerry, the presidential candidate, should be denied communion.
In 2005, he said the same thing during a testimony before Parliament.

There may be other examples. This list is not meant to be exhaustive.

I am very proud that Bishop Henry took such a public stance on this issue. That was truly inspiring. God bless him.

.

Clarifications on "early inductions"

2009-12-01T21:32:00.006-05:00

A few days ago, I wrote a post regarding the unethical practice of "early inductions". I would like to clarify something. I will also add this new information to the original post.

There exist some rare conditions where it may be necessary to remove the membranes that surround the unborn baby because these membranes have become diseased and could result in the death of the mother (and, of course, of the baby). For example:

Chorioamnionitis is an inflammation of the amnion and chorion membranes that surround the baby due to a bacterial infection. The amniotic fluid typically gets infected too. If left untreated, both the mother and baby could die. Apparently, antibiotics are not sufficient to fix the problem. As a result, it is necessary to take out those membranes and the amniotic fluid from the mother. Of course, since the baby is inside those fluids, the baby comes out at the same time.

Pre-eclampsia is a dangerous condition that leads to high blood pressure, high protein levels in the blood and seizures in the most severe cases (this is not an exhaustive list of symptoms). This condition is potentially fatal for the mother and baby. While the cause is not known, some theorize that it may be due to problems with the placenta. Medication can be used to treat the moderate cases, but the most severe cases appear to be resolved only by removal of the placenta, which takes the baby out.

I've chosen my words carefully because I'm making a direct reference to the principle of double-effect. In these two cases, you will notice that it's not the baby that is killing the mother. It's the "stuff" that surrounds the baby
(amnion, chorion, amniotic fluid, placenta, etc.) that is causing harm. Removing a diseased part of the body is an acceptable thing to do. For example, you may have your tonsils or your appendix removed if they become sick. In the case of the "stuff" surrounding the baby, the unintended side-effect is the removal of the baby from the womb.

Because of this distinction, I think it would be ill-advised to call these particular procedures "early inductions" because that term gives the impression that the baby is the problem and that direct action is taken against the baby to solve the problem. If you look at it from the perspective of taking out the "stuff", then you understand the morally licit nature of the intervention. Is this just a question of semantics? I don't think so. The principle of double-effect REQUIRES the physicians to approach the treatment as a removal of diseased "stuff" and not a removal of a baby. Just like the treatment of an ectopic pregnancy is the removal of a diseased fallopian tube, not the removal of a baby.

So is St. Joseph's off the hook? I don't think so. First, we have real evidence of women being asked or pressured to have an "early induction" in the absence of life-threatening complications for the mother. See my original post for three examples. Second, and more importantly, even if the mother's health is really in danger AND that removing the "stuff" would solve the problem, the only morally acceptable approach would be for the physicians to take every necessary means to save the baby by giving it specialized care in an incubator. That's not the practice at St. Joseph's. They just let the baby die.

By someone could argue: all that specialized care is simply "extraordinary" and "burdensome" treatment, which a patient has the right to refuse in order to allow nature to take its course and for a natural death to ensue. Catholic teaching does contain provisions for refusing extraordinary treatments. BUT in the case where a baby is delivered as a result of the removal of diseased "stuff", remember that the life-threatening condition of the baby was inflicted by the physicians through premature delivery. That's not a death by natural causes. You can't put the baby in critical condition and then wash your hands of the situation by invoking "extraordinary means" of treatment. If you inflicted the condition, you're responsible to do everything you can to fix it.

ClimateGate: the fraud of global warming is finally unmasked

2009-11-29T04:48:00.001-05:00

If you've been following the mainstream media lately, the odds are good that you haven't heard of this scandal because most people in the media are left-leaning environmentalists who won't let the truth get in the way of a good story.

Here's what happened: some hackers managed to break into the computer systems at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia in Britain. They discovered thousands of emails and documents that climate "experts" have been sending to each other for more than 10 years. All this info is now posted on the web. You're welcome to search through it yourself. Although it's taking time to sift through all these emails, many startling revelations have come to light:

Scientists admitting to manipulating the data in order to prove that the Earth is warming.

Scientists preventing research that disproves global warming from ever getting published.

Scientists deleting emails to cover their tracks.

The New York Times has confirmed that these emails are authentic.

As governments from around the world prepare for an upcoming climate change conference in Copenhagen, I think you are entitled to know what's really going on. This article from the National Post provides some juicy quotes. The video below is also excellent.

New videos from Priests For Life

2009-11-29T04:20:00.001-05:00

Check out these new videos from Priests For Life. The first offers unprecedented footage of a live baby inside a mother's womb using a tiny little camera the size of a pen tip. The second video is a moving little advertisement.

My God bless Priests For Life in their excellent ministry.

H1N1 gradually fizzling out

2009-11-29T04:11:00.003-05:00

On Friday, the Public Health Agency of Canada released fresh statistics on H1N1 activity in Canada. The data is for the week ended November 21st, because there is a certain delay before data from hospitals across the country are received and compiled.

The new stats show that H1N1 activity continues to decline. Since April 18, 2009, there have been a total of 280 deaths related to H1N1. My deepest sympathies go out to the families that have been affected. Yet, from a scientific perspective, that's not an alarming rate at all. Experts estimate that the regular garden-variety flu kills about 4,000 Canadians each year. So the fact that we've only had 280 deaths since April (7 months) is quite underwhelming. It's not much.

The number of outbreaks of H1N1 has dropped off a cliff since the peak attained two weeks earlier (see first chart). It seems very likely that we've past the peak of this bug.

The second chart shows the percentage of patients visiting hospitals with flu-like symptoms that have tested positive for H1N1 (red line). Again, the percentage is down from the previous week and sits at its lowest level in the past 3 weeks.

More important, in my opinion is the trend in the actual number of people who are diagnosed with H1N1 each week. I'm surprised that the PHAC doesn't provide any chart for this data. I've cobbled together the data from various tables on their site:

Number of people diagnosed with H1N1 each week (new cases)

Oct 24: 2,880
Oct 31: 4,802
Nov 7: 6,151
Nov 14: 6,007
Nov 21: 3,723

As you can see, there was a surge in early November, but the number of new cases has fallen dramatically in the most recent week.

In summary, I continue to think that H1N1 was way overblown and over-hyped. I seriously doubt that we'll reach 4,000 deaths over a full year, as we have in past years. I'm not losing any sleep over it.

But wait! This news just in: apparently a cat has been infected with H1N1. Don't ask me how a feline can catch a swine flu that mutated into a human virus, but that's what I heard. I don't suppose we'll do a mass vaccination of cats.

.

Spanish Bishops stand their ground against pro-abortion politicians

2009-11-29T03:38:00.000-05:00

Here's another great example of bishops being faithful to their duties regarding the most precious treasure in the Church: the Eucharist.

The bishops have just announced that politicians who support a new abortion bill will not be eligible to receive communion. Awesome!

Muchas gracias queridos obispos!

.

Another great witness by Bishop Tobin on denying communion

2009-11-29T03:15:00.008-05:00

Watch the video below. Some very courageous and bold statements by the bishop, yet very balanced and charitable. Bravo to Bishop Tobin!

I wish our bishops and priests would step up to the plate and follow this example. In fact, it is their obligation to do so, because the Vatican has spoken clearly on this matter several times in the last few years. The most explicit document was a letter written by Cardinal Ratzinger in 2004, a year before he became Pope. It's a short letter but very rich in teaching about a number of important issues. Paragraphs 5 and 6 are so explicit on this issue that even a child would grasp them:

5. Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person’s formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.

6. When "these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible," and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive
the Holy Eucharist, "the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it" (cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts Declaration "Holy Communion and Divorced, Civilly Remarried Catholics" [2002], nos. 3-4). This decision, properly speaking, is not a sanction or a penalty. Nor is the minister of Holy Communion passing judgment on the person’s subjective guilt, but rather is reacting to the person’s public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion due to an objective situation of sin.

That's not a typo: a priest or bishop has the authority and obligation to deny communion to an unworthy recipient. It's not an option. These ain't potato chips that he's handing out. It is Christ Himself. Any priest out there who doesn't comply is committing a direct act of disobedience to the Vatican.

So for the priests who read this: are you following orders? Why not? Are you chicken? That's not a valid reason. There is no valid reason to disobey. Fall into rank now.

Do it for Jesus in the Most Holy Sacrament.
Do it for the sake of the unrepentant communicant who needs to realize that his/her life is not in accordance with the Gospel.
Do it for the sake of setting a good example for your parishioners of obedience and reverence for the Eucharist.
Do it for the salvation of your own soul. Never lose sight of these words from Scripture:

Ezekiel 33,7-9: "Son of man, I have appointed you as sentry to the House of Israel. When you hear a word from my mouth, warn them in my name. If I say to a wicked man: Wicked wretch, you are to die, and you do not speak to warn the wicked man to renounce his ways, then he shall die for his sin, but I will hold you responsible for his death. If, however, you do warn a wicked man to renounce his ways and repent, and he does not repent, then he shall die for his sin, but you yourself will have saved your life."

You can read about other statements from the Vatican here.

Happy New Year!

2009-11-29T02:52:00.000-05:00

Today we start a new liturgical year. Happy New Year!

I pray that this new year will bring you many blessings and happiness. I pray that you will grow deeper in love with our loving Saviour and increase in zeal for your neighbour. And when suffering comes, as it always does, I pray that God will grant you the patience to suffer patiently and to offer up your cross.

Take care!

P.S.: Enjoy the Grey Cup game!

The moral problem with "early inductions" at St. Joseph's Catholic Hospital

2009-11-28T01:37:00.010-05:00

Following an earlier post of mine on the scandalous "early inductions" at St. Joseph's Catholic Hospital, a very interesting discussion ensued in the comments section. This post is a synthesis of why I believe that the procedures at St. Joseph's are not morally acceptable.

What is happening at St. Joseph's

Before starting my explanation, I'll just repeat what exactly is happening at St. Joseph's:

A prenatal diagnosis test reveals a baby has serious birth defects.
The doctors conclude that the mother is in some physical, psychological or psychiatric danger because of the baby's defect.
Doctors wait until the baby reaches 21 weeks of gestation, the point at which it is considered "viable", in other words that it could theoretically survive outside the womb if it were given highly specialized intensive care treatment.
The doctors then artificially induce labour so that the baby is born prematurely.
They intentionally let the baby die. They only provide palliative care to the dying baby.

Why this is morally unacceptable

In this section I'll explain why this practice is so horrible. Not only are St. Joseph's official guidelines - as written on paper - morally unacceptable, but their application is even worse because they're terminating babies when the mother's health isn't even in danger.

In the 5-point description above of what happens at St. Joseph's, you'll notice that the baby does not die of its deformity. It dies due to prematurity. Heck, even a perfectly healthy baby delivered at 21 weeks would not survive without a lot of specialized treatment in an incubator. So the cause of death for these babies at St. Joseph's is not their deformity. Death is inflicted by the medical personnel that delivered the child. That's a huge distinction.

If a baby suffers from a severe birth defect such as anencephaly, it will surely die at some point, maybe before birth. However, to hasten is death is not the Catholic way. Just because the baby is disabled doesn't mean that it's expendable. Most Catholics agree on this point.

Now if the mother's life is in grave danger, then certainly the principle of double effect allows for a treatment to save the mother, even if the baby dies as an unwanted side-effect. The Catholic teaching of the principle of double-effect state that you can legitimately carry out an act that is morally good, but which has unintended side effects that are morally evil. A correct application of the principle of double-effect requires that the following conditions be met:

The act must be morally good in itself and may not be morally evil.

The good effect of the act must be that which is directly intended by the one who carries out the act. The bad effect that results may be predictable, but it must not be intended. It is an unfortunate side-effect of the good act.

The good effect must not be brought about by using morally evil means. This is important: the ends do not justify the means in Catholic morality. You cannot commit an evil act in order that a good may result from it.

The good effect must be of equal or greater proportion to any evil effect that would result.

Acts that have morally evil effects are permissible only when truly necessary, i.e. when there are no other means by which the good may be obtained. If there is another way to achieve the good effect, that you must use it.

So how can this principle be applied to the "early inductions" at St. Joseph's? The issue of ectopic pregnancy can be insightful on this matter. An ectopic pregnancy occurs when the fetus attaches to the wall of the fallopian tube rather than in the uterus. In such conditions, the baby would eventually grow too large for the tube, causing a serious hemorrage and leading to the death of both mother and child.

A few years ago, I contact Priests For Life and Human Life International (separately) to learn about the proper Catholic treatment for ectopic pregnancy. They both told me the same thing. The only valid application of the principle of double-effect in an ectopic pregnancy is to remove the fallopian tube (salpingectomy). Termination of the pregnancy is not a morally licit option in their opinion. What's the distinction? The removal of a fallopian tube, in itself, is a morally neutral act. The procedure is no different than if there were a tumour in the tube. The unintended side effect is the death of the baby inside the tube. That's a valid application of double-effect. Contrast this with a termination of pregnancy, such as the "early inductions" at St. Joseph's (or abortions which are done in other places) where a direct action is taken on the baby alone. That's not a valid application of double-effect.

Does this example apply to other instances where the mother's life is in danger? I believe it does, not because of my own opinion, but because of what the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has said. Let me quote from an important document they issued in 1996 called Moral Principles Concerning Infants with Anencephaly, which deals with the issue of whether or not it is licit to terminate pregnancies of expectant mothers whose child is diagnosed with anencephaly (severe abnormality):

"In other words, it is permitted to treat directly a pathology of the mother even when this has the unintended side-effect of causing the death of her child, if this pathology left untreated would have life-threatening effects on both mother and child, but it is not permitted to terminate or gravely risk the child's life as a means of treating or protecting the mother. [Comment by SG: This is a good summary of the principle of double effect]

Hence, it is clear that before "viability" it is never permitted to terminate the gestation of an anencephalic child as the means of avoiding psychological or physical risks to the mother. Nor is such termination permitted after "viability" if early delivery endangers the child's life due to complications of prematurity. In such cases, it cannot reasonably be maintained that such a termination is simply a side-effect of the treatment of a pathology of the mother (as described in Directive 47). Anencephaly is not a pathology of the mother, but of the child, and terminating her pregnancy cannot be a treatment of a pathology she does not have. Only if the complications of the pregnancy result in a life-threatening pathology of the mother, may the treatment of this pathology be permitted even at a risk to the child, and then only if the child's death is not a means to treating the mother.

The fact that the life of a child suffering from anencephaly will probably be brief cannot excuse directly causing death before "viability" or gravely endangering the child's life after "viability" as a result of the complications of prematurity" (Source)

Even though they are talking about anencephaly, the principles can be generalized to other fetal abnormalities. The excerpt above is very explicit and clear, but I'd like to highlight a few points:

Notice the sentence I underlined in red: the bishops condemn any termination of pregnancy after viability if it endangers the life of the baby. In the case of St. Joseph's, the interventions definitely endanger the life of the baby.
In the sentence I underlined in green, they explain that the child's death cannot be used as a means of treating the mother. That's exactly what they're doing at St. Joseph's.
In the blue sentence, they are contradicting another aspect of St. Joseph's policy, whereby the hospital says that the baby is already dying of its deformity, apparently implying that it doesn't matter if they just help it along.

In that excerpt from the USCCB document, they state that termination of pregnancy is "never permitted" if the life of the child is in danger, even if to avoid physical risks to the mother. "Never" is a very strong word. It admits of no exceptions. I'm sure they thought long and hard before choosing that word because it is very definitive. Why such absolutism? They explain themselves in the next sentence: because "it cannot reasonably be maintained that such a termination is simply a side-effect of the treatment of a pathology of the mother." They appear to be invoking the principle of double effect and saying that this wouldn't be an appropriate application. Later in the paragraph, they state that treatment may be administered to save the mother, even if the child dies. Notice how they say treatment may be permitted, not termination may be permitted. Words are important in theology and I'm sure they picked their words very carefully. The morally licit treatment must therefore be something other than termination, otherwise they would have used the word termination.

For greater certainty, the USCCB sums it up in another passage:

"In other words, it is permitted to treat directly a pathology of the mother even when this has the unintended side-effect of causing the death of her child, if this pathology left untreated would have life-threatening effects on both mother and child, but it is not permitted to terminate or gravely risk the child's life as a means of treating or protecting the mother."

This is another great summary of the principle of double effect. And notice, again, how they distinguish between treatment and termination: they say "it is permitted to treat" but "it is not permitted to terminate".

In the comments section of an earlier post of mine, a good priest was sharing his thoughts about the St. Joseph's situation. He does ministry with couples who lose their baby very early. He related the tragic case of a baby named Sophia who had a serious defect that was not diagnosed. So she was carried to term and died shortly after birth. This is not rare: many babies with severe deformities will actually survive until birth and beyond, before eventually dying. If the deformity had been diagnosed, what would have happened under St. Joseph's guidelines? They would have induced Sophia at 21 weeks and left her to die. Because of their policy, she would have died at 21 weeks instead of full term. This is a perfect example of the horror I'm talking about. Despite her deformity, Sophia was able to live until term in her mom's tummy. But under St. Joseph's rules, they would have brought about her death at 21 weeks. That is not sound Catholic morality. The cause of death would have been inflicted by the medical personnel who caused the premature delivery, not by her deformity since clearly she was able to live until term.

Some doctors are understandably confused by the policy at St. Joseph's since fetal abnormalities do not generally cause the mother's life to be in danger. Even more worrying is that St. Joseph's allows early termination in the cases of "psychological or psychiatric" dangers. I understand that some people suffer from mental disorders and I greatly sympathize with their situation. My Dad was a psychologist for 25 years so I know a thing or two about mental disorders. Such disorders can be exacerbated when the mother learns the bad news that her child is deformed. Yet, I still can't see how this is a proportionate cause for early termination of the pregnancy. Mental disorders rarely kill people, but "early inductions" without intensive care will definitely kill the baby 100% of the time. The most serious mental disorder that comes to mind would be strong suicidal impulses. But that can be treated with medication, therapy, and in extreme cases, with medical supervision and a suicide watch. Even if the medication were to cause detrimental effects on the baby, this would probably be a valid application of the principle of double-effect if the lives of mother and child were at serious risk due to suicide.

But that's such an extreme case. In the overwhelming majority of cases of mental disorders, I can't see the mental anguish of the mother being proportionate to the death of the child. And there's no guarantee that the mental disorder will subside after the pregnancy is terminated. Women who lose their baby often suffer depression.

In fact, there are at least 3 documented cases of mother's being advised or even pressured to have an early induction even though the mother wasn't at risk:

The case of Myah Walker and her daughter Faith, who lived for 93 days after birth. Doctors were pressuring her to terminate.

The case of Gillian DeSouza and her daughter Jayla.

The case of Nikki Cooke and her baby, who lived up until 1 week before the expected date, instead of being terminated at the 21 week deadline (pun intended). She says she was pressured by doctors to terminate even though her life was not in danger.

I find it difficult to accept some claims that these mothers simply misunderstood what the hospital staff was telling them. This is not like jotting down a phone number where you can accidentally write a 6 instead of an 8. We're talking about the life and death of these women's babies. They asked several times and spoke to different people who repeated the message several times. In the case of Nikki Cooke, she has five letters from doctors at St. Joseph's to her family doctor recommending termination. It's in writing. A misunderstanding is not a logical or plausible explanation.

Possible exceptions

There exist some rare conditions where it may be necessary to remove the membranes that surround the unborn baby because these membranes have become diseased and could result in the death of the mother (and, of course, of the baby). For example:

Chorioamnionitis is an inflammation of the amnion and chorion membranes that surround the baby due to a bacterial infection. The amniotic fluid typically gets infected too. If left untreated, both the mother and baby could die. Apparently, antibiotics are not sufficient to fix the problem. As a result, it is necessary to take out those membranes and the amniotic fluid from the mother. Of course, since the baby is inside those fluids, the baby is delivered at the same time.

Pre-eclampsia is a dangerous condition that leads to high blood pressure, high protein levels in the blood and seizures in the most severe cases (this is not an exhaustive list of symptoms). This condition is potentially fatal for the mother and baby. While the cause is not known, some theorize that it may be due to problems with the placenta. Medication can be used to treat the moderate cases, but the most severe cases appear to be resolved only by removal of the placenta, which takes the baby out.

I've chosen my words carefully because I'm making a direct reference to the principle of double-effect. In these two cases, you will notice that it's not the baby that is killing the mother. It's the "stuff" that surrounds the baby (amnion, chorion, amniotic fluid, placenta, etc.) that is causing harm. Removing a diseased part of the body is an acceptable thing to do. For example, you may have your tonsils or your appendix removed if they become sick. In the case of the "stuff" surrounding the baby, the unintended side-effect is the removal of the baby from the womb.

Because of this distinction, I think it would be ill-advised to call these particular procedures "early inductions" because that term gives the impression that the baby is the problem and that direct action is taken against the baby to solve the problem. If you look at it from the perspective of taking out the "stuff", then you understand the morally licit nature of the intervention. Is this just a question of semantics? I don't think so. The principle of double-effect REQUIRES the physicians to approach the treatment as a removal of diseased "stuff" and not a removal of a baby. Just like the treatment of an ectopic pregnancy is the removal of a diseased fallopian tube, not the removal of a baby.

So is St. Joseph's off the hook? I don't think so. First, we have real evidence of women being asked or pressured to have an "early induction" in the absence of health risks to the mother. Second, and more importantly, even if the mother's health is really in danger AND removing the "stuff" would solve the problem, the only morally acceptable approach would be for the physicians to take every necessary means to save the baby by giving it specialized care in an incubator.

By someone could argue: all that specialized care is simply "extraordinary" and "burdensome" treatment, which a patient has the right to refuse in order to allow nature to take its course and for death to ensue. Catholic teaching does contain provisions for refusing extraordinary treatments. BUT in the case where a baby is delivered as a result of the removal of diseased "stuff", remember that the life-threatening condition of the baby was inflicted by the physicians through premature delivery. That's not a death by natural causes. You can't put the baby in critical condition and then wash your hands of the situation by invoking "extraordinary means" of treatment. If you inflicted the condition, you're responsible to do everything you can to fix it. That's not the practice at St. Joseph's. They just let the baby die.

Conclusion

To sum up, not only are St. Joseph's policies - as written on paper - morally unacceptable, but their application is even worse because they're terminating babies when the mother's life isn't even in danger. Based on the assessment of the USCCB, I think that the practice at St. Joseph's is too direct an attack on the baby to be a valid application of the principle of double effect, and it is applied in circumstances where the mother's life is not likely to be at serious risk anyways.

It is scandalous that the Canadian bishops, in particular the bishop of London, Ronald Fabbro, have done nothing to stop this. Bishop Fabbro launched an investigation in March, eight months ago, but nothing has happened. The fact that he launched this investigation after pro-lifers started raising a stink tells me two things: 1) there is likely something wrong about these practices (if they accusations were ludicrous, there would be no investigation); 2) pro-lifers can make a difference when they take action against injustice.

.

Eagerly awaiting CCCB action on pro-life promises

2009-11-23T21:23:00.008-05:00

Today, November 23, marks one month since the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB) completed their plenary assembly. At the end of this meeting, the bishops expressed their desire to be more involved in pro-life work. Isn't that wonderful?

Bishop Ronald P. Fabbro (London) was part of a panel presentation on the topic. He emphasized the importance for bishops to assume greater leadership in pro-life activities.

Referring to the recent debate on euthanasia and assisted suicide, as well as debates on other life issues, Bishop Fabbro noted the importance of being pro-active in framing the questions. “If Bishops don’t step up,” he said, “others will who may present a distorted view of the Church’s teaching. We need to inform our people on the foundations of our faith.”

In his presentation, Archbishop Blanchet noted the tensions and difficulties that have emerged among individuals and groups involved in defending the right to life from conception to natural death. He stressed the importance being united in thought and action, and proposed a dialogue involving all parties in the “pro-life movement”. Such a dialogue, he said, would help lessen difficulties within the movement and also help establish common ground.

In their reflections, the Bishops stressed there was an important link between the sacredness of human life and the quality of life. They also noted the importance of activities for life at the diocesan level. (Source)

So just to recap, they seem to have three broad areas where they've committed to act:

More proactive teaching on life issues
Dialogue with pro-life groups
More activities at the diocesan level

I'm very curious to see how all this will unfold. It sounds so promising, yet we haven't seen any action during the month that has elapsed since this commitment.

The bishops need to do more than issue a letter or press release condemning euthanasia and assisted suicide. That's a start, but it's not nearly enough. No offense, but very very few people read the press releases issued by the CCCB. Moreover, the mainstream media often won't provide any coverage and most parishes won't mention them.

If the bishops are serious about this, they need to take more concrete actions from a pastoral perspective. Here are some concrete examples:

They should reform marriage preparation courses so that the Theology of the Body becomes mandatory teaching. They should also instruct engaged couples about the evil of contraception and abortion.
They should encourage their parishioners to be active in the pro-life movement by volunteering their time and by making donations to good ministries like LifeSiteNews.
Every bishop should participate in pro-life marches across the country each May because it isn't very difficult to book off 2 hours per year for a good cause.
They should take a public stand against politicians who support abortion, telling them that they cannot receive communion.
They should publicly rescind the Winnipeg Statement.

You think I'm too demanding? I don't. Anything short of such actions will just be the same old, same old. Anything short of such actions won't make a dent in the growing apathy among Canadian Catholics. The CCCB made some strong statements on pro-life issues at the end of their plenary assembly and now they must follow through with some strong actions. They've created big expectations; they shouldn't disappoint.

22,000 youth in a Eucharistic procession!!!

2009-11-23T20:35:00.000-05:00

This is absolutely amazing! You have to see the pictures! Click here.

Praise be to Jesus Christ in the Most Holy Sacrament of the altar!

Dear clergy: please fulfil your calling

2009-11-23T20:24:00.008-05:00

It's true that our Church is in bad shape. But God doesn't abandon His children. There are always some faithful shepherds who will give a good example. Today's news brings us another such instance.

LifeSiteNews reports that Providence Bishop Thomas J. Tobin instructed a pro-abortion politician, Patrick Kennedy (son of Ted Kennedy) not to receive communion because of his dissenting views. Now there are elements in the Church who think that such a statement by a Bishop is un-Christian, uncharitable, unloving, etc. If we had eyes to see the truth as God has revealed it, we would realize that such a statement by a Bishop is an extreme act of virtue and is of immense benefit to the Church in many ways:

First and foremost, this directive by the Bishop sends a clear message to the recipient that he or she is endorsing a grave sin and that their eternal salvation is in peril. It is therefore a strong call to repentance and conversion, which is what the Gospel is all about.
In cases where such a directive is made public, as in the current case, it also instructs the other faithful of the gravity of the sin that is being endorsed by the politician. It therefore gives them reason to pause and rethink in their own positions.
It protects Jesus in the Most Holy Sacrament from sacrilege. Jesus gave us a priceless gift in the Eucharist. Do we want to repay Him with love and worship or by offering Him a dwelling place that is full of filth and corruption?
It prevents further sin by the politician by protecting him from the opportunity to commit sacrilege.
It ensures the salvation of the Bishop's soul, because it is his responsibility before God Almighty to instruct the faithful and to call sinners to repentance. If he were to shun away from this responsibility, his own salvation would be in peril. As St. John Chrysostom once said, “the road to hell is paved with the skulls of bishops.”

I sure wish that other bishops and priests would realize the benefits of this type of fraternal correction. It need not be done in public. And in fact, Bishop Tobin kept the matter private. It was Patrick Kennedy who made the matter public when he told the press that the Bishop had asked him to stop receiving communion back in 2007.

So I urge all the clergy out there to pray to the Holy Spirit for the strength they need to effectively carry out their ministry. Yes, it's important to emphasize the positives of the Gospel. But you cannot ignore the importance of calling sinners to repentance. Jesus did it. And aren't you called to imitate Jesus in a special way through the sacrament of ordination? Then get with it!

.

You are so precious

2009-11-16T19:13:00.005-05:00

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 people. We have the impression that we're not good enough, that we need to impress people, and we need to be more witty, more attractive, and more intelligent, more athletic, more wealthy, more powerful. The result is that we live in fear, insecurity and distress. Sometimes it's unconscious. We don't even realize that we are living our lives to impress others.

In in this passage of the Gospel of Luke, we see how Jesus sees so much more than other people. He delights in you and longs to spend time with you. You are worth so much to Him. Even though He calls you to grow in perfection, He still loves you as you are today.

"You mean he loves me despite all my sins?" Yup. You better believe it.

We need to remind ourselves of this truth so that we don't become insecure, depressed or dejected. Everybody wants to be loved. Fortunately, everybody is loved by Christ.

Don't let anybody convince you of the opposite. Don't let anybody's insults make you believe that you're useless and unwanted. You are unique in an unrepeatable. And you have an exclusive role to play in this world that nobody else can fulfill. You are a key player in God's plan for the salvation of the world.

You are someone very special and nobody can claim otherwise.

Take care.

Bishop Henry rips bill C-484 but ignores euthanasia committed under Bishop Fabbro's nose

2009-11-15T23:40:00.017-05:00

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 St. Joseph Catholic Hospital in London, Ontario, where they have been deliberately euthanizing babies with birth defects for 20 years. Here's how it works:

A prenatal diagnosis test reveals a baby has serious birth defects.
Doctors wait until the baby reaches 21 weeks of gestation, the point at which it is considered "viable", in other words that it could theoretically survive outside the womb if it were given highly specialized intensive care treatment.
The doctors then artificially induce labour so that the baby is born prematurely.
They intentionally let the baby die. They only provide palliative care.

And voilà, instant euthanasia of a little baby in a Catholic hospital. Can you believe it? Disgusting.

The priest responsible for overseeing this procedure at St. Joseph's, Fr. Michael Prieur defends his Catholic euthanasia and has stated on several occasions that Bishop Fabbro approves of the situation. Fr. Prieur, by the way, is a staunch supporter of the Winnipeg Statement (notice how it keeps popping up every time there's a moral problem in the Church?) Fr. William McGrattan, rector of St. Peter’s Seminary, and another member of St. Joseph’s ethics committee also approves of this euthanasia.

In some cases, expectant mothers have been pressured into having their baby euthanized by the hospital, despite the claim from Fr. Prieur that the procedure is only done when the health or life of the mother is at risk.

The bishops of the United States, on the other hand, have their heads screwed on straight on this matter. They clearly state that such a practice is never permissible. In a 1996 document called Moral Principles Concerning Infants with Anencephaly, the US bishops explain the moral principles that makes this practice unacceptable:

"In other words, it is permitted to treat directly a pathology of the mother even when this has the unintended side-effect of causing the death of her child, if this pathology left untreated would have life-threatening effects on both mother and child, but it is not permitted to terminate or gravely risk the child's life as a means of treating or protecting the mother.

Hence, it is clear that before "viability" it is never permitted to terminate the gestation of an anencephalic child as the means of avoiding psychological or physical risks to the mother. Nor is such termination permitted after "viability" if early delivery endangers the child's life due to complications of prematurity. In such cases, it cannot reasonably be maintained that such a termination is simply a side-effect of the treatment of a pathology of the mother (as described in Directive 47). Anencephaly is not a pathology of the mother, but of the child, and terminating her pregnancy cannot be a treatment of a pathology she does not have. Only if the complications of the pregnancy result in a life-threatening pathology of the mother, may the treatment of this pathology be permitted even at a risk to the child, and then only if the child's death is not a means to treating the mother.

The fact that the life of a child suffering from anencephaly will probably be brief cannot excuse directly causing death before "viability" or gravely endangering the child's life after "viability" as a result of the complications of prematurity" (Source)

Even though they are talking about anencephaly, the principles can be generalized to other fetal abnormalities. The excerpt above is very explicit and clear, but I'd like to highlight two points:

Notice the sentence I underlined in red: the bishops condemn any termination of pregnancy after viability if it endangers the life of the baby. In the case of St. Joseph's, the whole point of early termination is to end the life of the baby.
In the sentence I underlined in green, they explain that the child's death cannot be used as a means of treating the mother. That's what they appear to be doing at St. Joseph's.

Politics among bishops

Now watch how the politics works among bishops. LifeSiteNews called the bishop's office a dozen times to get a comment from the bishop. Now this was before the Development and Peace scandal. A spokesperson for the diocese told them that the bishop wouldn't comment. When asked if the bishop would make comments to the Toronto Star or another agency, the spokesperson said that if "I was contacted by a legitimate news outlet, then the diocese would have a comment on it." Sure enough, the bishop made some comments when the National Post wrote an article about the scandal. Talk about being snobbish. Reminds me of James 2:1-4

"My brothers and sisters, do you with your acts of favouritism really believe in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ? For if a person with gold rings and in fine clothes comes into your assembly, and if a poor person in dirty clothes also comes in, and if you take notice of the one wearing the fine clothes and say, ‘Have a seat here, please’, while to the one who is poor you say, ‘Stand there’, or, ‘Sit at my feet’, have you not made distinctions among yourselves, and become judges with evil thoughts?"

But wait, it gets ~~better~~ worse. Suddenly, in March 2009, Bishop Fabbro announced that he was launching an investigation into the practice. Why the sudden flip-flop? Is it a coincidence that the Vatican also launched it's own review around the same time? Notice how he said all the right things in public at the time he announced the review: he said he "wasn't necessarily going to wait until all of this work had been done before I would be in a position to make changes to the guidelines the hospital is following now." Sounds like a man with determination and a sense of urgency, eh? Well guess what? That was in March 2009. We're in November. That's eight months. How many more babies have been euthanized in the interim? Is he going to wait until the Vatican forces him to shut down the racket?

Which brings me back to Bishop Henry. Your Grace, your letter on C-484 was great. But I would exhort you to pick up the phone and call Bishop Fabbro to talk some sense into him. You should also make a public statement against what's happening at St. Joseph's.

.

Catholic priest speaks boldly about bishops who cover up sex abuse scandals

2009-11-15T22:28:00.000-05:00

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!

Dangers of homosexual lifestyle

2009-11-15T22:04:00.004-05:00

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 and reconsider some of their beliefs.

Research

Studies have shown that years of smoking shortens the lifespan of the smoker from 1 to 7 years. Recent analysis of the age of death in Norway and Denmark for gays who are legally married suggests that engaging in homosexual behavior reduces the lifespan by 24 years. These results were presented by Drs. Paul and Kirk Cameron at the annual convention of the Eastern Psychological Association on March 23, 2007.

According to their data for Denmark, the country with the longest history of gay marriage, for 1990-2002, married heterosexual men died at a median age of 74 years, while the partnered gays died at an average age of 51. In Norway, married heterosexual men died at an average age of 77, compared to 52 years old for the married gay men in the study.

With respect to women, Danish heterosexual married women died at an average age of 78 years, compared to 56 years for the lesbians studied. In Norway, women married to men died at an average age of 81, compared to 56 years for lesbians.

According to Dr. Cameron, "The consistency of reduced lifespan for those engaging in homosexuality is significant. The same pattern of early death turned up whether we looked at obituaries in the U.S. or deaths in marriage. Given the greatly reduced lifespan for homosexuals, school children should be strongly and consistently warned about the dangers of homosexuality even more so than smoking. Those school districts which are introducing pro-gay curricula need to rethink their priorities."

This has important implications for the debate on homosexual adoption. If the parents are likely to die young, is it advisable to allow them to adopt children? Is this in the best interests of the child?

Let's be logical, folks. Leave behind the political correctness and use your head to make a ration decision. The legitimizing of this behaviour makes no sense whatsoever and must stop.

.

Does this repulse you?

2009-11-14T13:34:00.008-05:00

Let me show you a couple of recent headlines from the secular media. First, from the CBC:

Life sentence in 30-year-old Longueuil murder

A 61-year-old Longeuil woman has been sentenced to life in prison for the first-degree murder of her sister and her sister's partner in August 1979... (Source)

Do you find that headline offensive? Does it make you feel that the Quebec authorities are too strict and grumpy? I didn't think so. Grave crimes require grave punishment, right? Let's try another headline from the UK:

Ben’s law: Knife murder minimum sentence raised to 25 yrs after Kinsella campaign
Knife killers will spend up to a decade longer in jail after a successful campaign by the family of victim Ben Kinsella. Justice Secretary Jack Straw announced the tougher new penalties yesterday. It means a minimum sentence in most cases increasing from 15 to 25 years – just five below the 30-year term for gun murder... (Source)

Does that headline scare you? Does it make you feel like the authorities in the U.K. are mean or negative people? No? Me neither. Murder is serious business and requires a serious penalty.

So what's my point? You might be asking yourself what I've been smoking. Let me show you a third headline:

Spanish Bishop Says Catholic Politicians Who Vote for Abortion Excommunicate Themselves
The secretary general of the Spanish bishops' conference, Auxiliary Bishop Juan Antonio Martinez Camino of Madrid, warned that Spanish Catholic legislators who vote in favor
of a bill to liberalize abortion which is currently before parliament would publicly place themselves in an "objective state of sin" and therefore may not receive Communion.

Does this headline offend you? Does it make you think that the Church is too negative? If you answered No to the first two headlines but answered Yes to the third headline, then you need to ask yourself some serious questions. Why is it okay for secular authorities to enforce strict penalties for serious crimes, but it is somehow "harsh" for the Church to do the same?

Here's the point. There are some people in the clergy who think that bold statements like the one from the Auxiliary Bishop of Madrid are too "negative." These spineless clergymen think that being firm about Church discipline is un-Christian and turns people off. This has been particularly obvious in recent months as pro-lifers have been outraged over the Development and Peace scandal or the Ted Kennedy funeral scandal.

Certainly, the Catholicism is much more than a set of rules and penalties. Catholicism is fundamentally about learning to know God, love God and serve God in this life, in order to be with Him forever in the next life. This does not exclude rules and penalties, however, which help guide our actions. God knows our weak human nature. Without discipline and accountability, we easily drift away. Rules and penalties help keep us honest.

So why do these spineless clergymen refuse to publicly enforce Church rules on serious crimes? We're not talkin' about petty mischief like spitting on a sidewalk. We're talking about serious stuff here, like abortion. So why the hangup from the clergy? Do they not realize that without some rules and enforcement that chaos will necessarily ensue? Do they not worry about the possible damnation of the faithful who will go astray without the proper guidance and teaching? Or have they stopped believing in the concepts of sin and hell? Are they too afraid to take a public stand? Are they too cosy with politicians to rebuke them in public?

None of these possible explanations would be a valid one. I understand that clergy need to be "pastoral," but you cannot forsake the Truth in the process, otherwise Heaven becomes and open bar and the practice of Catholicism becomes irrelevant. In fact, some of these clergyman will openly say that hell doesn't exist and that everybody is saved. Indeed, if we are free to commit any serious sin, even abortion, without any consequences, then why bother with any other of the requirements of the Gospel? Why go to Mass? Why repent from sins? Why believe in the doctrine of the Faith? Why make any sacrifices? Why obey the clergy? Why pray? Why donate to your local church?

This brand of "pastoral" Catholicism leads to self-destruction. It is being aggressively pushed by priests in Quebec, with disastrous consequences. I've seen it with my own eyes and have heard numerous reports from others. The clergy in Quebec are so eager to make Catholicism as "burden-free" as possible that everything has become optional. But in the process, people are realizing that there is no point in practicing anything the Church teaches. Hell doesn't exist so everybody gets saved regardless of what they believe and how they live. Predictably, the number of practicing Catholics keeps plummeting and churches keep closing. The priests are preaching their churches into irrelevance and oblivion.

Until the Truth is proclaimed, people will not return to the Church. These clergymen need to realize that the Gospel is endowed with the power of God. It is not a human teaching. When you preach the authentic Gospel, the power of the Word of God will change hearts. If you preach a diluted pseudo-gospel, you lose that power and enter into a merely human philosophy of life. There's no power in there.

.

Muslims somehow become the victims after Fort Hood shooting

2009-11-12T19:22:00.005-05:00

Disclaimer to protect myself from Human Rights Commissions (normal people need not read this paragraph): I hereby solemnly declare that I do not harbour any hatred or anger towards any religion or religious group, especially not Islam or Muslims. I do not advocate any form of violence, hatred or discimination against Muslims. I am simply concerned by the statements made by Muslims themselves to the effect that they support terrorist acts. I am therefore exploring the implications of their position on the public good of Canadians and the world.

It's the paradox of political correctness. A Muslim man kills 13 innocent people in a shooting rampage in Fort Hood (he started shouting "God is great!" in Arabic as he opened fire) and now the media are treating Muslims as victims. That's not a typo. The media seem more worried about potential violence that might be committed against Muslims in retaliation for the shooting, than about the 13 real dead people.

Read this great editorial on the topic by Father Raymond J. de Souza in today's National Post.

.

Outsource your own job!

2009-11-12T19:11:00.000-05:00

Okay, I admit that this post is quite off topic for Catholic Dialogue. But as an economist, I really got a kick out of this great video from The Onion. Enjoy!

Dear ladies: would you like to share a changing room with a man?

2009-11-12T19:05:00.003-05:00

The Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) has struck again. Sort of.

The latest case involves a gentleman who owns a gym in St. Catherine's Ontario.

The dispute began in the summer of 2006, when a man, calling himself Lisa MacDonald, sought membership in John Fulton's fitness club for women. The man insisted not only on joining the club, but on using the women's change room and bathroom, despite Fulton's efforts to offer alternative solutions. MacDonald refused, however, to consider any other possibilities and threatened legal action. (Source)

The rest of the story is pretty much a cut and paste from most other "human rights" complaints: "Lisa" filed a complaint with the CHRC; as the complainant, "Lisa's" legal fees were entirely covered by the government; the poor owner of the gym had to pay tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees. In this case, however, "Lisa" decided to drop the charges. So technically, the owner was never convicted, yet he still dished out loads of cash or during the legal proceedings.

Does the system make any sense to you? As Ezra Levant aptly remarked, the process itself is the punishment. It doesn't matter if you're guilty or innocent. If somebody files a complaint against you, get ready to be wiped out financially.

Let me ask a hypothetical question to all the ladies who read this blog: would you feel comfortable sharing a change room and bathroom with a man who thinks he's a woman? How could you be sure that such a man is acting in good faith? What about the possibility that he's just an opportunist who wants to see naked women? The possibilities for abuse are endless.

Unfortunately, don't look to Stephen Harper and to make any changes to this horribly corrupt system. Stephen Harper has less backbone than a snake that got run over by an RV. Until we get somebody more competent to run this country, we aren't gonna get things done.

.

Ask yourself: are you doing enough for the Kingdom of God?

2009-11-11T19:10:00.001-05:00

Yesterday was the feast of St. Leo the Great. The Gospel reading was Luke 17:7-10. It presents us with a very challenging message. At the end of this passage, Jesus says:

"So you also, when you have done all that you are ordered to do, say, 'We are worthless slaves; we have done only what we ought to have done!'"

That's a pretty tough message. We all have a tendency to pat ourselves on the back when we've done good work. But Christ is reminding us that we are called to do more. We're called to heroic virtue.

Let's be frank. The vast majority of us are not doing enough for the Kingdom of God. Whether it be feeding the poor, proclaiming the Gospel, working on pro-life matters or helping the sick, we fall short. In fact, most of us are downright lazy and apathetic. I'm just as guilty as anybody on this.

Through the prompting of the Holy Spirit, our conscience tells us that we need to get moving, but too often we settle for mediocrity. We'll cut a cheque to our local charity so that we can appease our conscience and pretend that we've done our share. Or perhaps we'll go to the March for Life once a year so that we can put a little check mark in our minds next to the requirement of doing some good pro-life work. Sorry, but that's not good enough.

Another frequent temptation is to persuade ourselves that we're powerless and that we can only pray. In some cases, this is true, but are we really praying as much as we could? Are we fasting and making sacrifices? In most cases, however, we can do something, even if it's just a little. We can write a letter. We can make a phone call. We can visit somebody. It just takes a little will power.

Christ is asking us to look in the mirror and honestly ask ourselves what more we can do. It's useless to throw our arms up in the air and complain about the state of the world if we aren't doing anything to make a change.

So what are you going to change in your life?

.