Alright, I really wanted to avoid pigeon-holing this blog into a politics, religion, philosophy category because I don't want to be seen as speaking for anyone but myself.
I am no more qualified to write on philosophy than your average joe and I'm even less qualified than that perhaps to write on religion.
Nevertheless, that's what seems to attract my attention and so maybe that's what this blog will become. It's definitely the topic of this entry.
My thoughts on the Church
I decided to write this blog for a few reasons. While a couple of friends and I are engaged in a serious debate on faith and reason and the Bible and whether God is good etc., I've decided to speak for a moment to my fellow Christians and even more so, fellow Catholics.
THIS BLOG IS INTENDED FOR CATHOLIC AUDIENCES. BE ADVISED.
I believe by faith that Christianity is the truth. Furthermore, I believe the Catholic Church to be God's Church, legitimate by Apostolic Succession from Jesus to Peter to Benedict XVI. What I intend to discuss today are some of the reasons why I love this Church.
I read this article today: German Catholics urge reforms as papal visit nears
The article starts "Over 140 Roman Catholic theologians in Germany have urged the church to embrace far-reaching reforms to end priestly celibacy, ordain women, welcome same-sex couples and let lay people help pick their bishops."
While the Church hasn't responded to this and likely won't, I like to picture in my mind one way they could. They could dress Damon Wayans back up as Homey the Clown, walk him over to these theologians, have him hit them with a sock and say "Homey don't play dat."
Of course fortunately for us all Church leaders are often more mature than my imagination.
One reason I love the Catholic Church is that while reform is encouraged when needed, it doesn't bow to the whims of modernity.
The Catholic church doesn't look at the world, see it changing and then go "I guess we need to keep up."
The Catholic Church instead says "God showed us the way long ago, if the world gets away from that, it's all the more reason for us to hold fast to the proper way and be a beacon."
Now some reforms can be discussed like for example priestly celibacy. It could be on the table, but it isn't at the moment. There are married Catholic Priest in the orthodox world and some in the Latin rite who are converted ministers from other faiths. The thing is, why change this?
Will letting married men become priest stamp out pedophilia? Will it increase mass attendance? Will it do anything but take some of a pastor's attention off his flock?
I don't think so. As the priest shortage continues this may become a moot point and we may have to go this route, but so long as there is no benefit to changing except that the modern sex-crazed world could feel better about itself, I see no reason too.
Another reason I love the Church is that it sticks to its guns. Some (mind you not all) protestant groups often charge the Church with not being biblical enough. The less educated think we worship Mary and the saints etc. In reality, we draw everything from the bible and early church tradition. We're not the ones rewriting Christianity to keep church attendance up.
The church works in part because of Apostolic Succession, Jesus gave the keys to Peter and so on. As Jesus chose no women for public ministry in the same way, the Church has no authority to ordain women.
On the other hand, there has been a male domination of the Church that can at times be bad. Now though, women can hold any post in the Church except Deacon or Priest (and hence Bishop and Pope). They can be extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist, they can be lecters, altar girls, parish council presidents, parish business managers etc.
So though the Church grows and develops and reforms, it doesn't change it's core because it's unpopular.
People want the Church to accept gays, but they're not paying attention. We do. Don't get me wrong here I bet most congregations have bunches of homophobes in them but I'm talking about Church teaching.
The Church officially (not that it should have been needed) affirmed the dignity of homosexuals as made in the image and likeness of God, admitted that it is not a lifestyle choice but a built-in inclination and has encouraged outreach. However as the Bible speaks of homosexual acts being wrong, the Church has no authority to change that. The Church teaches all people that sexual activity is for marriage, and that the sacrament of marriage is between a man and a woman. Being gay is not a sin, extramarital sexual activity is. It's as much as sin for a straight person as it is for a gay person. Yes the straight person has the benefit of possible future marriage but that's something above my pay grade.
Now is it hard to stick to these unpopular beliefs? Of course. Jesus said it would be and that those who do will be blessed. The world tries again and again to turn away from God and members of the Church from the bottom to the top fail God again and again but the teachings remain as a beacon.
In a world that says everything is OK so long as it's right by you, the Church serves to remind that it's not us that determines what is ok. There is right, there is wrong and there are eternal truths.
You can change the music, you can alter the mass in some ways, you can change the priests outfits and you can allow interpretive dance in the aisles if you want. These are ways the Church can look to adapt to modern times (I don't recommend the dancing, I've seen it).
What we cannot do however is say that God's teachings as preserved by the Church are suddenly wrong because the secular world says so.
Friday, February 4, 2011
Thursday, February 3, 2011
If I were a super hero I would be...
Kudos to a Stephen Lynch song for the title of this blog.
First off if I could have any one super power, the answer is easily invincibility, like Superman. You couldn't hit me, shoot me, blow me up etc.
And if I could be any superhero, it would be Green Lantern, who is arguably more powerful.
Batman of course is the coolest superhero, Spiderman is a baby, Hulk is a so-so character, Wolverine is hardcore and Thor...well no one really cares about Thor.
Nevertheless, Superman, Batman, Spiderman, Green Lantern, Hulk, Wolverine and Thor are all mentioned in a news article I read today about how American actors are no longer playing America's greatest heroes...and Thor.
First here's the roster the article mentions:
Superman.........Henry Cavill.....British
Batman...........Christian Bale...British
Green Lantern....Ryan Reynolds....Canadian
Spiderman........Andrew Garfield..British
Thor.............Chris Hemsworth..Australian
Wolverine........Hugh Jackman.....Australian
Hulk/Banner......Eric Bana.........Australian
They did cast an American, Chris Evans, to play Captain America...even though he already played Johnny Storm/Human Torch in a couple movies.
But is this a problem? Is it newsworthy? Hell Kevin Costner played Robin Hood without an accent and John Wayne played Ghengis Khan and while people had a good laugh at the accents, we didn't seem to care.
I say find the best man for the role. Plus let's be honest here, it's not like their casting Tom Hanks as Shaka Zulu. It's a bunch of white guys with muscle playing white guys with muscle. Sure maybe Thor should be Icelandic but hey, that's Thor and no one cares.
Captain America is American, if they ever make Captain Britain (he's real), they should probably cast from within the UK. Otherwise who cares.
Superman may stand for truth, justice and the American way, but the fact that these heroes are now a global phenomena speaks volumes to the fact that American culture has conquered the world.
First off if I could have any one super power, the answer is easily invincibility, like Superman. You couldn't hit me, shoot me, blow me up etc.
And if I could be any superhero, it would be Green Lantern, who is arguably more powerful.
Batman of course is the coolest superhero, Spiderman is a baby, Hulk is a so-so character, Wolverine is hardcore and Thor...well no one really cares about Thor.
Nevertheless, Superman, Batman, Spiderman, Green Lantern, Hulk, Wolverine and Thor are all mentioned in a news article I read today about how American actors are no longer playing America's greatest heroes...and Thor.
First here's the roster the article mentions:
Superman.........Henry Cavill.....British
Batman...........Christian Bale...British
Green Lantern....Ryan Reynolds....Canadian
Spiderman........Andrew Garfield..British
Thor.............Chris Hemsworth..Australian
Wolverine........Hugh Jackman.....Australian
Hulk/Banner......Eric Bana.........Australian
They did cast an American, Chris Evans, to play Captain America...even though he already played Johnny Storm/Human Torch in a couple movies.
But is this a problem? Is it newsworthy? Hell Kevin Costner played Robin Hood without an accent and John Wayne played Ghengis Khan and while people had a good laugh at the accents, we didn't seem to care.
I say find the best man for the role. Plus let's be honest here, it's not like their casting Tom Hanks as Shaka Zulu. It's a bunch of white guys with muscle playing white guys with muscle. Sure maybe Thor should be Icelandic but hey, that's Thor and no one cares.
Captain America is American, if they ever make Captain Britain (he's real), they should probably cast from within the UK. Otherwise who cares.
Superman may stand for truth, justice and the American way, but the fact that these heroes are now a global phenomena speaks volumes to the fact that American culture has conquered the world.
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Good morning Cairo!
The world is doing some crazy crap. Tunisia and Sudan have made news for unrest as has Yemen and there is concern of other nations in Africa and the middle-east having uprisings.
The big show though is happening in Egypt where once again, an entire continent is showing it's inability to handle itself.
Don't get me wrong though, this could be the beginning. This could be the time Egyptians stand up, take control of their lives and become all they can be.
Thing is, Africa isn't really the mess we over here think it is. There are 10 or 15 of the 50 or so countries on that continent are screwed up. Genocide and war are ways of life in some places but then you have Ghana which is pretty stable and Kenya which is pretty good too. South Africa also is stable.
But the nation on that continent with the strongest military, one of the world's most ancient societies, Egypt, is making them all look stupid again.
I support the protests, I even support revolution if called for. What I have a problem with is this morning's news.
President Hosni Mubarak announced he will not step down today, but will not seek reelection. I understand the protesters disappointment with this, I do. But it is what it is now.
The military said go home. You were allowed your free assembly, your voices have been heard around the world, and if you president/dictator does as he says (and with international pressure he pretty much has to), then you will get your way in seven months.
But did they turn around and go home? No. They continue to keep the nation gridlocked and shut down. There is little to no commerce in Cairo, tourism is dead for the moment, I don't even want to think about where 1 million people in the streets for this many days take a crap.
What's worse though, is that Mubarak supporters are now protesting. All would have likely been well but eventually two angry mobs met and now the citizens are fighting each other.
AP News had a photo of a man on a camel charging a man on a horse in the middle of a mob of people throwing rocks.
That image isn't all of Africa, but I think many Americans think it is. If one of that continents most stable nations degrades to that level this fast, I just don't see the world taking any of them seriously anytime soon.
The U.S., England, Iran, Turkey and Austria among others have weighed in on Mubarak publicly and behind the scenes. Those countries have to step up because Africa is eerily silent. A Google search finds little to no comment from any African leader.
I'm not saying the need to intervene, but their neighbor is a major economic player over there and what happens in Egypt will effect the rest of them. They can't just sit there like they're doing now.
But as usual, where ever problems strike, the world looks west to U.S. for some kind of leadership. On the Today show this morning they even showed an Egyptian protester with an Obama-esque sign that said "Yes we can, too."
I hope we don't need to bother. The Egyptians, like all people, need to show restraint equal to their recent enthusiasm and take control of their own destiny without throwing rocks like children.
The big show though is happening in Egypt where once again, an entire continent is showing it's inability to handle itself.
Don't get me wrong though, this could be the beginning. This could be the time Egyptians stand up, take control of their lives and become all they can be.
Thing is, Africa isn't really the mess we over here think it is. There are 10 or 15 of the 50 or so countries on that continent are screwed up. Genocide and war are ways of life in some places but then you have Ghana which is pretty stable and Kenya which is pretty good too. South Africa also is stable.
But the nation on that continent with the strongest military, one of the world's most ancient societies, Egypt, is making them all look stupid again.
I support the protests, I even support revolution if called for. What I have a problem with is this morning's news.
President Hosni Mubarak announced he will not step down today, but will not seek reelection. I understand the protesters disappointment with this, I do. But it is what it is now.
The military said go home. You were allowed your free assembly, your voices have been heard around the world, and if you president/dictator does as he says (and with international pressure he pretty much has to), then you will get your way in seven months.
But did they turn around and go home? No. They continue to keep the nation gridlocked and shut down. There is little to no commerce in Cairo, tourism is dead for the moment, I don't even want to think about where 1 million people in the streets for this many days take a crap.
What's worse though, is that Mubarak supporters are now protesting. All would have likely been well but eventually two angry mobs met and now the citizens are fighting each other.
AP News had a photo of a man on a camel charging a man on a horse in the middle of a mob of people throwing rocks.
That image isn't all of Africa, but I think many Americans think it is. If one of that continents most stable nations degrades to that level this fast, I just don't see the world taking any of them seriously anytime soon.
The U.S., England, Iran, Turkey and Austria among others have weighed in on Mubarak publicly and behind the scenes. Those countries have to step up because Africa is eerily silent. A Google search finds little to no comment from any African leader.
I'm not saying the need to intervene, but their neighbor is a major economic player over there and what happens in Egypt will effect the rest of them. They can't just sit there like they're doing now.
But as usual, where ever problems strike, the world looks west to U.S. for some kind of leadership. On the Today show this morning they even showed an Egyptian protester with an Obama-esque sign that said "Yes we can, too."
I hope we don't need to bother. The Egyptians, like all people, need to show restraint equal to their recent enthusiasm and take control of their own destiny without throwing rocks like children.
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
If it were wrong to paint a wall on Thursdays...
Let's get hypothetical.
If it were wrong to paint a wall on Thursdays, then it would always be wrong to do so.
It would be wrong to do even if late on a Wednesday some stranger broke in and painted it a color you hate. It would be wrong even someone knocked it down and built a new unpainted wall and you had guests coming over the next day. If it is wrong to paint that wall on Thursday, it stays wrong.
This is a bad metaphor but it's a clear one I think. If something is wrong objectively, it stays wrong regardless of the circumstances.
If abortion is wrong, it's wrong no matter the reason. (It is wrong btw)
That said, we don't live in a black and white world and black and white legislation isn't always a good idea.
So today we're talking about the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act."
First let's say what H.R.3 is. The bill is designed to do what it says, prevent federal funding from being used for abortions.
The reason for this bill is to replace a patchwork of other laws that do the same thing. Legally it changes almost nothing about federal funding for abortion which pretty much already isn't allowed under the new health care law with the usual exceptions.
This bill does change those exceptions. At the moment, medicaid (federal money and mostly what we're talking about) allows abortions to be covered if the pregnancy is a result of rape, incest or there is risk to the mothers health.
Conservative lawmakers are essentially adding the word "forcible" in front of rape which brings about the hubabuloo.
The bulk of complaints focus on section 309 which reads
The limitations established in sections 301, 302, 303, and 304 shall not apply to an abortion--
‘(1) if the pregnancy occurred because the pregnant female was the subject of an act of forcible rape or, if a minor, an act of incest; or
‘(2) in the case where the pregnant female suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the pregnant female in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.
At first glance this is a bit heartless. What about statutory rape? What about coerced rape? This wording COULD be interpreted as saying if the rape isn't physically violent it doesn't count, which is inconsistent with why these exceptions are around and even supported by some pro-lifers.
But that's not why they wrote it that way. That's just a sign they're not writing a good bill here. What the bill seeks to prevent is federal funding going for regret victims, not rape victims.
Before I go on I know some pro-lifers want no exceptions and most pro-choicers want abortion to be ultra available. I know. Neither one of us are getting our way today so let's move on for the moment.
At the moment there is no burden of proof to get medicaid funding for abortion if you were raped. If you and longtime buddy Steve get hammered on a Tuesday and make a baby and three weeks later you regret it, you can claim rape and if you qualify for medicaid, boom it's paid for.
Every system can be abused and that was the basis for this law, stopping that abuse. This bill does not effect the criminal charges of rape, it has no effect on crime or punishment, its an administrative idea for a change to stop a system from being abused.
If I had it my way all abortion would be illegal but if I had my way there would be no rape either.
H.R. 3 was a good idea, poorly written, to fix a problem that needs to be fixed.
My solution?
There isn't time usually in the gestation cycle to get a rape conviction so we can't wait for that. If a women meets one of the exceptions however, before getting funding perhaps they should have to at least file a charge of rape/incest etc. with the police. I know that's not asking an easy thing in many cases. It could also still be abused, but filing a false report is a crime so that should help cut it down.
As it stands our tax dollars are being used to give women who are abusing the system a way out. It's a waste of money, and it leads to more abortions, which is also bad.
This money should still be used, so long as abortion is legal, for those who legitimately meet the exceptions but for those using abortion as a form of birth control on the taxpayer dime, it's time for a change.
Too bad that change wouldn't be the right one if this bill passed, which is isn't likely to be...which mean's there was no real point to this blog.
Your thoughts?
If it were wrong to paint a wall on Thursdays, then it would always be wrong to do so.
It would be wrong to do even if late on a Wednesday some stranger broke in and painted it a color you hate. It would be wrong even someone knocked it down and built a new unpainted wall and you had guests coming over the next day. If it is wrong to paint that wall on Thursday, it stays wrong.
This is a bad metaphor but it's a clear one I think. If something is wrong objectively, it stays wrong regardless of the circumstances.
If abortion is wrong, it's wrong no matter the reason. (It is wrong btw)
That said, we don't live in a black and white world and black and white legislation isn't always a good idea.
So today we're talking about the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act."
First let's say what H.R.3 is. The bill is designed to do what it says, prevent federal funding from being used for abortions.
The reason for this bill is to replace a patchwork of other laws that do the same thing. Legally it changes almost nothing about federal funding for abortion which pretty much already isn't allowed under the new health care law with the usual exceptions.
This bill does change those exceptions. At the moment, medicaid (federal money and mostly what we're talking about) allows abortions to be covered if the pregnancy is a result of rape, incest or there is risk to the mothers health.
Conservative lawmakers are essentially adding the word "forcible" in front of rape which brings about the hubabuloo.
The bulk of complaints focus on section 309 which reads
The limitations established in sections 301, 302, 303, and 304 shall not apply to an abortion--
‘(1) if the pregnancy occurred because the pregnant female was the subject of an act of forcible rape or, if a minor, an act of incest; or
‘(2) in the case where the pregnant female suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the pregnant female in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.
At first glance this is a bit heartless. What about statutory rape? What about coerced rape? This wording COULD be interpreted as saying if the rape isn't physically violent it doesn't count, which is inconsistent with why these exceptions are around and even supported by some pro-lifers.
But that's not why they wrote it that way. That's just a sign they're not writing a good bill here. What the bill seeks to prevent is federal funding going for regret victims, not rape victims.
Before I go on I know some pro-lifers want no exceptions and most pro-choicers want abortion to be ultra available. I know. Neither one of us are getting our way today so let's move on for the moment.
At the moment there is no burden of proof to get medicaid funding for abortion if you were raped. If you and longtime buddy Steve get hammered on a Tuesday and make a baby and three weeks later you regret it, you can claim rape and if you qualify for medicaid, boom it's paid for.
Every system can be abused and that was the basis for this law, stopping that abuse. This bill does not effect the criminal charges of rape, it has no effect on crime or punishment, its an administrative idea for a change to stop a system from being abused.
If I had it my way all abortion would be illegal but if I had my way there would be no rape either.
H.R. 3 was a good idea, poorly written, to fix a problem that needs to be fixed.
My solution?
There isn't time usually in the gestation cycle to get a rape conviction so we can't wait for that. If a women meets one of the exceptions however, before getting funding perhaps they should have to at least file a charge of rape/incest etc. with the police. I know that's not asking an easy thing in many cases. It could also still be abused, but filing a false report is a crime so that should help cut it down.
As it stands our tax dollars are being used to give women who are abusing the system a way out. It's a waste of money, and it leads to more abortions, which is also bad.
This money should still be used, so long as abortion is legal, for those who legitimately meet the exceptions but for those using abortion as a form of birth control on the taxpayer dime, it's time for a change.
Too bad that change wouldn't be the right one if this bill passed, which is isn't likely to be...which mean's there was no real point to this blog.
Your thoughts?
Monday, January 31, 2011
But I must say, who dey
Ok no time for a real blog today as already mentioned but I do want to thank the Cincinnati Bengals.
After what was shaping up to be a terrible offseason, the team has fired offensive coordinator Bob Bratkowski.
If Bob is lucky he’ll catch on at a Division III-VI high school as a waterboy.
That guy took a ton of talent and turned it into garbage. With the same quarterback, a comparable running back and better receivers than 2005 (AFC North champ year), Bratkowski ran the Who Dey attack into the ground with predictable play calls.
We can’t be too happy. Mike Brown is still there, he’s still an idiot, we don’t know what this means for Carson’s plans and we are still the Bengals.
All I know is this was a step in the right direction.
After what was shaping up to be a terrible offseason, the team has fired offensive coordinator Bob Bratkowski.
If Bob is lucky he’ll catch on at a Division III-VI high school as a waterboy.
That guy took a ton of talent and turned it into garbage. With the same quarterback, a comparable running back and better receivers than 2005 (AFC North champ year), Bratkowski ran the Who Dey attack into the ground with predictable play calls.
We can’t be too happy. Mike Brown is still there, he’s still an idiot, we don’t know what this means for Carson’s plans and we are still the Bengals.
All I know is this was a step in the right direction.
All too brief
Sorry folks. Again the lunch excursion ran long.
Coming tomorrow however, there will be a blog. Not sure what about yet but I encourage everyone to give ideas.
To tide you over here is today's weird news from Yahoo.
Girl with girl cheating OK, half of boyfriends say
See you all tomorrow.
Coming tomorrow however, there will be a blog. Not sure what about yet but I encourage everyone to give ideas.
To tide you over here is today's weird news from Yahoo.
Girl with girl cheating OK, half of boyfriends say
See you all tomorrow.
Friday, January 28, 2011
We learned something today
Going out for lunch mean no blog, or at least not a long one.
So instead just a link. I have always admired the ingenuity of the human spirit...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110127/od_nm/us_mexico_catapult_odd;_ylt=Ar9ztnr_cc9q9rbauMTNCabtiBIF;_ylu=X3oDMTJucWU5ODBtBGFzc2V0A25tLzIwMTEwMTI3L3VzX21leGljb19jYXRhcHVsdF9vZGQEY3BvcwMxBHBvcwMyBHNlYwN5bl90b3Bfc3RvcnkEc2xrA3NtdWdnbGVyc3dpdA--
Yeah it's a pot catapult.
Gives a whole new meaning to getting high.
So instead just a link. I have always admired the ingenuity of the human spirit...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110127/od_nm/us_mexico_catapult_odd;_ylt=Ar9ztnr_cc9q9rbauMTNCabtiBIF;_ylu=X3oDMTJucWU5ODBtBGFzc2V0A25tLzIwMTEwMTI3L3VzX21leGljb19jYXRhcHVsdF9vZGQEY3BvcwMxBHBvcwMyBHNlYwN5bl90b3Bfc3RvcnkEc2xrA3NtdWdnbGVyc3dpdA--
Yeah it's a pot catapult.
Gives a whole new meaning to getting high.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)