Abortion of Jesus?

Last Sunday in the RCC, we read the gospel about the annunciation to the BVM by Gabriel (about Jesus' incarnation). In his homily, my Pastor, who has said more and more things about controversial topics, said that the conception and birth of Jesus through Mary was the basis of the pro-life position (OTAAAC).

I also noted in the “Libertarians for Life” library here the quote below from “Fr. Frank Pavone, Founding Director of Priests for Life”. (It's also interesting to note how the Atheist founder of “Libertarians for Life” became OTAAAC.)

Fr. Pavone: "Yes. The key document, of course, is Pope John Paul II's encyclical The Gospel of Life. One of the specifically religious arguments against abortion found there is from the Incarnation. God, in other words, became human in Christ, and thereby united every human life -- including life in the womb -- to Himself. The Pope therefore concludes that to attack a single human life is, in some way, to attack God Himself.

"The impact this has on the conclusion that abortion is wrong is simply that for believers it gives another motive for the conclusion, and strengthens their awareness that they cannot be `pro-choice believers.' At the same time, as you know, the Catholic Church holds that one can come to the conclusion that abortion is wrong without having any faith at all."

May the most venerable in our midst, including the poor, disillusioned, lonely, brokenhearted, and preborn be given the Hope of the newborn Christ through his Church and His Holy Mother, through Christ our Lord. Amen.

"The Line Between Contraception and Abortion" Comment

I just posted the message below (posted at 12/19/2008 10:47 PM EST). Since I spent so much time on it, I thought it should be posted here.

---

I just joined this group. I first have a few websites that may be of interest, and then I'll respond to some of the more recent comments.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/dec/08121704.html
Full Text of Cherie Blair Speech at Angelicum: Sticks to Support for Contraception, Dodges Abortion Question

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2006/sep/06091507.html
UK Abortion Rates Continue to Climb Despite Increasing Emergency Contraception Use
In fact pregnancy and abortion rates continue to rise in the UK

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2004_docs/contraceptionmisconception.htm
The Contraception Misconception
By Natalie Hudson

World's Most Successful AIDS Prevention Programme in Uganda "Sabotaged" by Western "Experts"
Western advisors used their control of international funding to force a change in direction to condoms and casual sex
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jul/08071112.html

---

OK.

From:Re: "sweating the small stuff"
posted at 12/19/2008 7:05 PM EST
"And I saw/see the Church's Teaching on contraception as an ideal (perhaps) to strive to achieve, but mostly as an issue of "control" over Church members by Church officials who lacked any "standing" to dictate to the members what they might and might not (lawfully) do with their bodies."

So, are the 10 commandments an ideal? The Church to which one belongs has a duty to tell their followers what is right and wrong. If one goes off the path, they must *repent*, not tell the Truth tellers to go away or ignore them.

Until 1930, all Christian Churches did not allow contraception. See here http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9704word.asp.

---

"Vatican Roulette"
posted at 12/19/2008 8:00 PM EST
"It is, but it is considered "natural" contraception, while birth control pills, condoms, intra uterine devices are considered to be "unnatural" methods of contraception.

Many of us refer to the "rhythm method" by its popular name: "Vatican Roulette" ... kinda like "Russian Roulette" - you never quite know when the bullet will make its way through the gun barrel and hit its target."

This is incorrect. The "rhythm method" is not contraception since one is still able to naturally get pregnant. There is no device or chemical that is used but only abstinence for a time. However, this method is only licit if there is no contraceptive mentality present (see http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2004_docscontraceptionmisconception.htm The Contraception Misconception By Natalie Hudson).

Further, the rhythm method is old. The new version is NFP (http://www.ccli.org/nfp).

Lastly, babies aren't bullets, they are gifts of God.

(FYI: all protestants until 1930 and many now are anti-contraception. See
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9704word.asp PROTESTANTS AGAINST CONTRACEPTION and http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9707word.asp CONTRACEPTION REVISITED)

---

Re: sparrow4
posted at 12/19/2008 8:43 PM EST

"I'm neither a lawmaker to create laws for you nor a law enforcement officer to punish you for breaking those laws. I was merely responding to your pro-abortion arguments from a scientific perspective."

And what other perspective is there besides the scientific perspective that can be used to convince everyone (esp. Americans)?

How about a liberal perspective? (http://wonderingzygoteemeritus.blogspot.com/2008/07/i-already-started-putting-up-my-old.html?showComment=1217484660000) Abortion is contra social justice, inclusion, and progressiveness.

How about Margaret Sanger's perspective (founder of Planned Par.)?
"http://www.prowomanprolife.org/2008/12/15/woah-talk-about-mission-creep/
Woah–talk about mission creep
Published by Andrea Mrozek
But there I learned that Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, had this to say about abortion (from Wikipedia):
Sanger notes that her 1916 opposition to abortion was based on the taking of life: “To each group we explained what contraception was; that abortion was the wrong way—no matter how early it was performed it was taking life; that contraception was the better way, the safer way—it took a little time, a little trouble, but was well worth while in the long run, because life had not yet begun.""

(I argue some above and below how contraception leads to abortion.)

How about the Decl. of independence? "When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

When are we "created equal"?

How about the (UN) Universal Declaration of Human Rights Perspective (http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html ; do a search on "family" in this document)?

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world...

Isn't a human zygote part of "the human family"? What's freedom without the basic right to life?

Further, contraception (that will eventually fail and also leads to the objectification of women) leads to abortion since the men that impregnate women refuse to support women and their children (often outside of marriage). Women need to gain power to say no to men's advances and live in freedom (http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=4077) and to live peacefully in marriage for themselves and their children and husband (without objectification).

Lastly, from http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=10904 and http://wonderingzygoteemeritus.blogspot.com/2008/07/new-evangelization-contrasted.html, “Given my background, the Catholic idea that we are always to treat the sexual act with awe and respect, so much so that we should simply abstain if we are opposed to its life-giving potential, was a revolutionary message. Being able to consider honestly when life begins, to open my heart and mind to the wonder and dignity of even the tiniest of my fellow human beings, was not fully possible for me until I understood the nature of the act that creates these little lives in the first place.” Jennifer Fulwiler, she converted to Catholicism from atheism in 2007

Interesting Quotes I

I've been busy with Christmas things with the families (my wife and mine), so I haven't had time to sit down and write much. Did do some surfing though. I have a few quotes from articles I liked.

What do you think of them?

Did I mention I like Chuck Norris even more now.


Atheists' National Holiday?

by Chuck Norris

As Benjamin Franklin [a Deist, gbm3] noted in his 1787 pamphlet for those in Europe thinking of relocating to America: "To this may be truly added, that serious religion, under its various denominations, is not only tolerated but respected and practiced. Atheism is unknown there."
...
What profit would there be if I posted that atheism hides behind a false pretense that it is scientific when eminent scientist Paul Davies -- the renowned British-born physicist, agnostic and professor of cosmology, quantum field theory and astrobiology -- once spoke against the certainty of atheism to Time magazine (in the column "Science, God, and Man"): "Agnosticism -- reserving judgment about divine purpose -- remains as defensible as ever, but atheism -- the confident denial of divine purpose -- becomes trickier. If you admit that we can't peer behind a curtain, how can you be sure there's nothing there?"
...
George Washington's farewell address: "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens."

This was posted on a comment section of newsweek.washingtonpost.com at December 17, 2008 10:50 AM.

"Marriage is neither a conservative nor a liberal issue; it is a universal human institution, guaranteeing children fathers, and pointing men and women toward a special kind of socially as well as personally fruitful sexual relationship. Gay marriage is the final step down a long road America has already traveled toward deinstitutionalizing, denuding and privatizing marriage. It would set in legal stone some of the most destructive ideas of the sexual revolution: There are no differences between men and women that matter, marriage has nothing to do with procreation, children do not really need mothers and fathers, the diverse family forms adults choose are all equally good for children. What happens in my heart is that I know the difference. Don't confuse my people, who have been the victims of deliberate family destruction, by giving them another definition of marriage."

Walter Fauntroy-Former DC Delegate to Congress Founding member of the Congressional Black Caucus Coordinator for Martin Luther King, Jr.'s march on DC

Is this perhaps one of the reasons why a super-majority of California black voters voted for Prop. 8?

Prop. 8 Comment II

I tried to post the following about Prop. 8 on Ales Rarus here, but I keep getting spam/error messages:

It's been a few weekends Peter since you last commented above. Do you have any responses to my comments? Thanks.

Also, for discussion, see the videos below (on YouTube; I hope they imbed correctly).

Here.



and here.



They are from people from CA.

(I got the videos here at a good Catholic online magazine Godspy. "GODSPY is an online magazine for Catholics and other seekers.")

Thanks.

Québecois, te souviens-tu?

It’s about time: a part of Québec finally gets it. The mayor of the Québec city of Saguenay, Jean Tremblay gets it. With the rise of secularism, the Culture of Death has been inculcated in the people of Québec and Canada. Québec is about 95% Catholic and has forgotten its roots. Suicide (self/life-hatred), abortion (child-hatred), and sexual perversion (God-hatred) have gutted the perpetuation of Québec (Catholic) culture (Ma grande-grande-grande mère était québecoise). It’s not just about keeping the French language vibrant. Stand up and pray that The Blossoming of Canada will start with Catholic Québec. Amen. (Most of the links above came from Lifesitenews.com.)

UPDATE (1-7-09):
This is a very good analysis of this song and the culture of Québec.

Prop. 8 Comment

I wrote the following at Ales Rarus today:


This quote is telling from lifesitenews.com regarding the legal issue of CA:

[Pacific Justice Institute president Brad Dacus] believes the ongoing vandalism and protests against Prop. 8 will backfire. He noted, "Californians are among the most tolerant people in the world. They are also not stupid, and they deliberately rejected forced acceptance of gay marriage, while leaving in place domestic partnerships and a host of other special rights based for homosexuals."

The "marriage" definition question of Prop 8 is just a revision (under CA law). There are many "domestic partnerships" laws in place. The definition of marriage is only a revision since the "rights", ie money matters, of "domestic partnerships" are in place in CA.

This whole debate is about whether CA legitimizes same-sex "marriage". (I think it should not for these reasons.) Further, it is not a debate whether law enforcement officers should go around arresting those in "domestic partnerships".

When you get down to it, what's the uproar really about? A very important word: marriage.

I watched part of the interview with M. Ethridge (sp) and her "partner" on Oprah today. They were sitting on a couch as a "married couple". What will they get if Prop. 8 is struck down? They will get no more money or property rights. They will get legitimacy for their relationship as a "married couple".

The voters of CA spoke with their vote: they do not legitimize their relationship as such.

(Of course this is only about CA. It's not my state, but it is a State issue.)

gbm3

Hail Emperor Palpatine!

From the Witherspoon Institute’s “Public Discourse” Website by Robert George entitled "Obama's Abortion Extremism":

[Senator Obama] has co-sponsored a bill-strongly opposed by McCain-that would authorize the large-scale industrial production of human embryos for use in biomedical research in which they would be killed. In fact, the bill Obama co-sponsored would effectively require the killing of human beings in the embryonic stage that were produced by cloning. It would make it a federal crime for a woman to save an embryo by agreeing to have the tiny developing human being implanted in her womb so that he or she could be brought to term. This "clone and kill" bill would, if enacted, bring something to America that has heretofore existed only in China-the equivalent of legally mandated abortion. In an audacious act of deceit, Obama and his co-sponsors misleadingly call this an anti-cloning bill. But it is nothing of the kind. What it bans is not cloning, but allowing the embryonic children produced by cloning to survive.

Who is Emperor Palpatine? Every Star Wars fan knows who he is, but not being a Star Wars fan myself, let me lay out some basic details for clarity (I’m sure Star Wars fans will correct me if I’m wrong on any of the fictional facts).

Before becoming Emperor Palpatine, he was Senator Palpatine. When the Chancellor of the Republic had a vote of no confidence, Senator Palpatine became Chancellor. While Chancellor, a clone army was commissioned indirectly by Palpatine (cloned off one individual Jango Fett). During a type of civil war, the clone army killed almost all the Jedi. After some time, Chancellor Palpatine of the Galactic Republic became Emperor Palpatine of the Galactic Empire.

Before becoming President (elect) Obama, he was (Junior) Senator Obama. When President (W.) Bush had a very low approval rating, Senator Obama became (Super Senator) President. It is very possible that during his term(s) in office, President Obama will “authorize the large-scale industrial production of human embryos for use in biomedical research in which they would be killed.”

The rest is to be played out (it is already written, but we are to try to stop it by speaking out).

Hail Emperor Palpatine!

"So this is how liberty dies—with thunderous applause." ―Padmé Amidala

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” -Thomas Jefferson

FOCA Animation Part 2

Below is part two of the FOCA animation.

FOCA Animation Part 1

Please see the videos below. Email otaaac@yahoo.com with "I am otaaac" (without the underlining of otaaac) in the subject line if you would like to produce an animation, live action, or combination video of parts that have been already written.

Note: Sen. Obama co-sponsored this Act that will eliminate all state laws that limit abortion.





© 2008 OTAAAC Productions

My Musical CV

Sacred Pieces

Tertius Dies – Exodus 19: 16-20 – 2007
SATB divisi, Bass solo, Organ, and Percussion

O Quam Gloriosum est Regnum – 2007
I. O Quam Gloriosum. SATB, Three Trumpets, Trombone, Bass Trombone
II. Justorum Animæ. – Wisdom 3: 1-3 – SATB a cappella
III. Alleluia. SATB, Three Trumpets, Trombone, Bass Trombone

Lux et Veritas – 2006
I. Lux et Veritas. SSATB a cappella
II. Lux. SATB a cappella
III. Veritas. SATB, piano

Christmas Day – 2006
SATB, guitar

Une Voix dans Rama – Mt 2:18 – a cappella SATB choir – 2008
Une Voix dans Rama – four a cappella SATB voices – 2005

This Christmas Joy – a cappella SATB – 2005
This Christmas Joy – SATB, cello – 2005

Jesus in the Psalm – Psalms 22-23 – 2005
SSAATTBB a cappella

Tandum Dic Verbo – Mt 8:8 – 2004
SATB a cappella

An Irish Blessing – SATB, Piano, Flute – 2004
An Irish Blessing – SATB, a cappella – 2006

Non-Sacred Pieces

Shane’s Cheesecake Passion
"Shane's Cheesecake Passion" by Sarah Holmes – 2007
SSAATTBB a cappella

Garden Party
“Garden Party” by LA Crompton – 2007
SSATTBB a cappella, Tenor solo


Mother of Exiles
“The New Colosus" by Emma Lazarus – 2006
SSATB, Soprano solo, piano

Contraception Causes Market Instability

“Are you serious? You think that “Contraception [Caused this] Market Instability”?” You’ll see by the end of my argument.

Way back in 1919, all major Christian denominations viewed contraception as evil. Then in 1920, the Church of England allowed (said it was moral for) married couples to use them, and then eventually all Christian denominations except the Catholic Church allowed them to be used by all.

The daughters of contraception are abortion, pornography and prostitution, same-sex “marriage”, spousal abuse, divorce, extreme selfishness, and all things that lead to the objectification or dehumanization of the human person (IVF, sperm banks, surrogates, genocide, etc). Through the widespread use of contraception, the actual statistical frequency and severity of all its daughters have increased.

Especially to the (usually masculine) rich, if their spouse was being objectified in the use of contraception, why not objectify and exploit the workers for all they’re worth. Eventually, many employees were loosing their jobs and their pensions to workers overseas.

The workers, who also used contraception because they thought they couldn’t afford children, instead spent the saved money on themselves and their pets. Their debt grew larger and larger.

Eventually, all the money being passed back and forth was credit because the greedy employers wouldn’t hire fellow citizens and the poorer citizens spent beyond their means. The employer couldn’t pay back the bank since no one was buying his goods.

By the way, people would buy their homes with no money down, beyond their means, and essentially sub-prime, interest-only loans.

By all the increased selfishness caused by contraception, the market was heavily burdened by heavy credit debt. Without the banks able to solidly secure debt, the global economy suffers with instability.

Can I prove that my thesis is true about the connection with contraception? No. I just wanted a forum to introduce the idea that contraception is the root of its daughters listed above.

What do you think? (Be nice now.)

Institutionalizing Same-sex “Marriage” is Detrimental

I’ve heard it asked – I’m sure you have too – how will legalizing, or institutionalizing same-sex “marriage” (or civil-unions or the like) detriment you personally or society as a whole in secular terms? It’s all about what is legitimate and what isn’t.

Let’s start in assuming that same-sex “marriage” will continue to become legalized (as in, now, MA and CA). The view that marriage is only for two people in eros love will be promulgated and strengthened. In the inevitable juncture that the two people fall out of (eros) love, the marriage effectively becomes de facto, if not de jure, void in the resulting separation, annulment, or divorce. Marriage effectively becomes a temporary state of life as if a couple was not married. In legally making this blanket judgment on the marriage definition, there will be no institutional safeguards for traditional marriage (the legality of no-fault divorces is also detrimental to marriage – another topic).

What is traditional marriage? Traditional marriage is a contractual, covenantal, or sacramental arrangement in which the union of a couple is fortified in mutual fidelity for the upbringing of children. The only people that can naturally have children of their own in this union are a man and a woman (Creating human children any other way is unethical – another topic. Also, human adoption is another topic).

If marriage is redefined, not just in the narrow sense of allowing same-sex couples to legally “marry”, but to redefine it to mean “marriage only in the throws of passion (eros)”, society will break down as marriages break down in response to the diminishment of couples’ passion for one another.

For the state to only and explicitly espouse heterosexual marriage, it legitimizes marriage only in the traditional sense. Thus, when eros love diminishes, extinguishes, or changes, the married couple has a state-backed institution that upholds their marital duty to live in mutual fidelity (even agape, charitable love) for the upbringing of children.

Further, research has shown that children who live with their natural parents in a low conflict home become happier kids overall than those in other family situations, including that of a same-sex couples’ home. Also, married parents are also happier than (an) unmarried parent(s) and live longer.

So, I am against same-sex “marriage” not because I hate homosexual people (I know some personally) but because I think that we will be better off in the long run if we uphold traditional marriage as the norm for a better society today and tomorrow.

I personally believe same-sex “marriages” as well as heterosexual couples living or having sex together is wrong. However, since this behavior does not literally take the life of anyone (as in abortion), people engaging in this detrimental behavior are not to be arrested per se (although I believe sodomy is harmful even if consensual – another topic). This is not because it’s part of a private choice (there is no such thing as a private choice since society as a whole is effected by its members decisions), it’s because this is a free country.

Yet, as the above argument shows, legitimizing same-sex “marriage” via state law will further breakdown society due to the breakdown of the family in general.

We are already in the midst of a societal breakdown. The number of unwed mothers and the number of broken families (through divorce or other means) is up from the 1920’s. Beliefs of some interviewed teens reveal the state of the traditional marriage that is the foundation of a healthy society.

From the blog “Positively in Control”, given the following list of four relationship types, teens report that they are equivalent.

• Two people who are seeing each other exclusively for some period of time
• Two people living together
• Two people who live together and have children but are not married
• Two people who have taken public vows.

If same-sex “marriage” is legitimized throughout the country, there will be no state institution that will uphold the reality that marriage is an arrangement in which the union of a couple is fortified in mutual fidelity for the upbringing of children. It is in the state's interest - us - to uphold traditional marriage.

IVF is Immoral

In-vitro fertilization, or IVF is gravely immoral for at least six reasons:

1. One or more human zygotes are created that may be destroyed later for research or to create additional space for newly created human zygotes;
2. A human is created unnaturally and not in a marital embrace;
3. Sperm is collected by degrading means, degrading for the man and for those involved in the porn industry;
4. An objectified surrogate mother may be used that is not the actual mother of the newly created human;
5. One must pay money to create and implant a human zygote into a woman;
6. A human child that is up for adoption looses their chance to be placed into a foster or adopted family’s home.

I look forward to the day when a human zygote legally becomes part of the human family and is not manipulated, created, or destroyed as a piece of property by morally bankrupt means. Yes, I hope IVF one day becomes illegal.

Update (1-23-2009):
For some more information about the unethical nature of IVF see this: "Couples Tempted by IVF Face a Number of Moral Dilemmas" by Kate Bluet

A sampling from Ms. Bluet:

Since abortion was legalized, the number of babies put up for adoption has plummeted. Would-be adoptive parents far outnumber the babies who need a home. The control of childbearing has resulted in a dearth of children. Infertile couples who want children must therefore choose between long waiting lists and assisted reproduction.
...
Of course, it’s possible for a multiple pregnancy to be reduced, and the procedure is fairly common. After all, goes the logic, better to lose two babies in utero than lose all four at birth. Doctors can determine the position of all the fetuses by using ultrasound. They will then test those fetuses that are easiest to reach for abnormalities. And if all the fetuses are equally healthy and get-at-able, the doctors will ask the parents which gender they would prefer to keep.
...
Luckily for us, we’re not the ones who have to find out; that’s left to the babies being born in greater and greater numbers who will have to struggle with questions of genetic identity, with siblings lost in utero, and with the fact that half of their genes were shopped for and purchased by credit card.

Talk about sick!

No Morality Without God

I’ve already finished “The God Delusion” by Dawkins, and I’ll be resuming the breakdown of the book later. However, I would like to make one observation about materialism and atheism.

I’ve heard many atheists and agnostics say that they can be “moral” even if they don’t believe in God. In other words, they can believe that they can act morally even though they do not believe in God. I believe this claim is self-contradictory and false. One cannot deny the existence of God while at the same time believe that they are moral.

If one does not believe in God, I would argue, one is a materialist by definition. If there is nothing spiritual or supernatural, everything has only a material dimension contained within. Since everything is believed to contain only material essence, only material causes can determine how everything acts. Since only material manipulates material, there is no basis for morality since morality presupposes that there is a free will contained in some material in some fashion. In other words, in order for a material human to be moral, more than just internal material processes must determine any action taken.

For an atheist to be non-contradictory, there can be no morality since only material processes determine causes and ends. Therefore, one cannot believe at the same time that God does not exist and that they are moral.

On the other hand, as a Christian, I believe free will is a spiritual construct that comes from God since humans were specifically chosen to be made in the image and likeness of God. Theists, and even Deists can be moral since they believe that morality has a basis in God, in whatever form. Further, Christians can acknowledge that Atheists are moral or immoral since Christians have a non-material basis for morality. However, to be consistent, Atheists can never see anyone as moral, otherwise they will be indirectly acknowledging a moral Creator of the moral universe.

An Assessments of a Zygote Argument

Hello,
I am new to the discussion and to your blog. The arguments above are very interesting. I have a few points to pose.
Premise 2 seems strange to me for three reasons.

1. In biology, the development of organisms is a natural function of their existence. In order to appear as a mature organism, said organism goes through a series of stages to reach maturity. Therefore, in all those stages, it is the organism that it's DNA programs it to be.

2. There are concepts of active and passive potential. A heap of scrap metal has passive potential to become a car. An agent outside the boundary of the scrap metal must do work to create a car.
A lit match and dry wood that are in physical contact have active potential to become a bonfire. In just letting the lit match and dry wood "do what they do", so to speak, the bonfire naturally matures.

The zygote, if left in the correct environment has active potential to become a fetus, baby, toddler, child, teenager, and adult. A skin cell has passive potential to become a zygote.

3. In terms of engineering, a car does not become a car because an internal stereo is added. The modified car still functions as the original car.

(In general I like the SLED test.)

Let me know what you think.

Abortion for Capital

It just struck me today that abortion has a stake in the economy of the world just as slavery was part of it, especially of the US South before the civil war. The South went to war for succession from the union, but for what reason? History tells us that a slave was worth everything for the South and that if that body was lost or turned free, the South’s wealth would be lost. Lives were being used as labor and as a capital good in multiple industries by almost everyone.

The same goes for abortion today.

• Abortion mills such as Planned Parenthood provide abortions and contraception that fails in order to create the “need” for abortion. (not to mention lobbies for sex-ed that leads to more abortions)
  
• Aborted fetuses are sold to pharmaceuticals and biological industries for vaccines (including MMR), drugs (including “The Pill” and other abortifacient), and bio-products' creation and testing. (big, big bucks folks)
• Abortion providers, pharmaceuticals, and biological industries give politicians lots of money.
• The abortion topic helps political candidates win political offices (goes for both sides).
• Men want abortion to keep them from becoming fathers and loosing money towards child support.

No wonder Democrats like Senators Ted Kennedy (D) and Joe Biden (D) switched their view on the topic. (Yes, they used to be pro-life, or OTAAAC.)

Today we don’t have borders to differentiate the sides. It takes a culture war to fight and outlaw abortion as slavery was in the Constitution (Amendments 13-15).

Do I want a zygote to be protected by the Constitution? You bet. Yes, it will also outlaw in-vitro implantation (IVF), test-tube babies, and “The pill” (etc.). It’s what is right, just as outlawing slavery was.

Abortion will continue but so has slavery. Outlawing abortion -- as slavery has been -- is the right thing to do for justice for all.

We all have a right to life from the moment we come into existence as a zygote.

That's why I can be called a zygote emeritus. You and I were once zygotes; we are now people who can read.

Violent and Degrading Passions

One of P.Z. Myers’ Atheist minions emailed the following to “Mike Koelzer, a member of American Life League Associate group Pharmacists for Life International.”

‘And..... the rumor is you have quite a nice looking butt and if you play your cards right ... well, let's just say, I can be awfully grateful.’
http://www.lifesitenews.com/

This reminds me of Romans 1, Sodom & Gomorrah, and a blog series I wrote for Ales Rarus regarding a homosexual bible study I attended at Pitt.

Therefore, God handed them over to impurity through the lusts of their hearts for the mutual degradation of their bodies.
They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and revered and worshiped the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity.
And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God handed them over to their undiscerning mind to do what is improper.
Romans 1:24-28

The two angels reached Sodom in the evening, as Lot was sitting at the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he got up to greet them; and bowing down with his face to the ground, he said, "Please, gentlemen, come aside into your servant's house for the night, and bathe your feet; you can get up early to continue your journey." But they replied, "No, we shall pass the night in the town square."
He urged them so strongly, however, that they turned aside to his place and entered his house. He prepared a meal for them, baking cakes without leaven, and they dined.
Before they went to bed, all the townsmen of Sodom, both young and old--all the people to the last man--closed in on the house.
They called to Lot and said to him, "Where are the men who came to your house tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have intimacies with them."
Genesis 19:1-5

This email is almost a case study of what happens to someone when they don’t believe in God: they want to have “unnatural” “intimacies” with those of the same sex. Instead of holy and loving “intimacies” in marriage, they are traded for “shameful” and violent and degrading ones.

May God have mercy on us all.

Happy Constitution Day!

On this day in 1787, the Constitution of the United States of America was signed. May everyone at least read it once in their life.

Apparently, Whoopi hasn't.



This is my point: Has McCain read it? If he is such a maverick, why didn't he stand up to Whoopi with the truth of the document in history? It would've been a great teaching moment for all of us, especially for women watching "The View". In order to lead, one has to tell it as it is.

(Goes for Ellen about gay "marriage", too.)


I guess it's that he wants to get elected. Will he take up the teaching role as President?

I hope he has the guts to tackle the big people in the White House. They're a little more powerful.

He needs to be more than a Super-Senator.

The Pill

Did I mention that "The Pill" is an abortifacient (a substance that causes an abortion)?

By It’s Fruit

The abortion and gay issues may be coming to a head. They first have to hit rock bottom before the Truth comes around and exposes the falsehoods. After sin is exposed to the light, it can be purged.

I think with the candid admissions below, it’s the time in history when respective policies may turn around in democratic or semi-democratic countries. My wife is not too sure. She thinks the worst is yet to come. We’ll see.

The admissions come from Camille Paglia and Simon Fanshawe, respectively. (See LifeSiteNews.com)

The woman who is pro-abortion as a choice (PAAAC) is an atheist and libertarian who admits that “Abortion is Murder” but is nonetheless justified. “I believe that government must stay completely out of the sphere of personal choice. Every individual has an absolute right to control his or her body.” She says later that “[abortion] results in the annihilation of concrete individuals and not just clumps of insensate tissue.” This clearly contradicts her position: since each individual has a right to control his or her own body, or to have life, the ”concrete individual” must be free to live.

The man who is gay says that the "Gay Lifestyle a 'Sewer' of Casual Degrading Sex, Drug Abuse and Misery”. In other words, the gay lifestyle makes human persons into animals: it degrades their human dignity in a truly concrete way. I would argue even “sexually committed gay relationships” do this since they contain the same humanly degrading sex as those that are not committed.

From the two people, I see that the fruit of both positions is death: infanticide (actually it’s back now in, of course, the Netherlands) and the annihilation of society into the ways of the sexually active gay person (by having no children and being self-destructive and degrading) are only a step away.

Live Music MP3's

Below are two of my (composed) motets that I recorded for a competition. Enjoy and let me know if you want a copy of the sheet music (or any other music of mine).

Tantum Dic Verbo



Mt 8:8

Domine, non sum dignus,
ut intres sub tectum meum:
sed tantum dic verbo
et sanabitur anima mea.

Lord, I am not worthy
that Thou shouldest enter under my roof:
but only say the word,
and my soul shall be healed.


Justorum Animae



Wisdom 3:1-2a,3b

Justorum animae in manu Dei sunt,
et non taget illos tormentum malitiae:
visi sunt oculis insipientium mori:
illi autem sunt in pace.

The souls of the just are in the hand of God,
and the torment of malice shall not touch them:
in the sight of the unwise they seemed to die,
but they are in peace.

© 2008 Musique de McClain
© 2008 Wondering Zygote Emeritus

Open Letter on "A Vote for Sarah Palin"

The following is a response to this inquiry:

A Vote for Sarah Palin
Posted by Joseph Bottum on September 3, 2008, 12:27 PM

Has everyone read “A Vote for Sarah Palin,” the Daily Article here at First Things this morning? I’m not sure what to make of the nomination and would be interested in your thoughts. Email us here [ft@firstthings.com].

The response is here:

The nomination of Sarah Palin brings one word to mind: courage. No wonder you and other people are “not sure what to make of the nomination” since the observation of apparent courage prompts the observer to interpret the action as real courage or real stupidity. The interpretation may take a short term or long term to develop. In the nomination of Sarah Palin, it will probably take the outcome of the election to tell if it was a courageous or stupid act.

I suggest that the nomination was a truly courageous act for two main reasons. First, it showed that if Senator McCain becomes President, he will be able to make decisions with courage, determination, and with the nation’s interest at heart. He showed that even though safe choices can be made without the threat of reprisals, such as picking an obvious person such as Governor Romney or Mayor Giuliani to be Vice President, there are better choices to be made that will probably be looked upon as foolish by the self-labeled experts.

Second, he chose a running mate that personifies courage. Governor Palin carried to term a down-syndrome baby who, statistically, most other people would kill by abortion. She showed her courage by bucking most of society in making the right decision not to destroy her son. She demonstrated courage by supporting her daughter in making the right decision to bring her child and grandson to term. How many other woman and mothers would give in to fear and abort all their unexpected children?

It will only be a short few weeks before all of us know if President or Senator McCain made a courageous or stupid decision in choosing Governor Sarah Palin for the next Vice President of the United States of America.

My Music

If your interested in hearing some of my composed a cappella music performed live (I did it for a competition), ask me here for the password, and why you would like to hear it. The link is here.

Paradoxical Truth

For me, one of the proofs for the Truths of Christianity is its paradoxical nature. What I mean is that what seems to be apparent is actually not true. For example, in order to gain happiness for ourselves, we must deliver happiness to others and deny ourselves. If we try to make ourselves happy by indulging ourselves, we can never grasp happiness. It is only in giving that we receive. In order to live, we must die, etc.

This makes most sense to me for two reasons. Since no one had fully known the truth about God, the origin of our happiness, until the revelation and incarnation of Christ, paradoxes must have existed that keep humanity from the full Truth. Buddha said that escaping from physical reality was necessary to reach nirvana, but he was not correct. We must be redeemed in our bodies to be connected to the Communion of Saints at the resurrection.

Second, intellectuals have a great difficulty in grasping the Truth of the gospel because of their logical hang-ups. Why would someone become lowly to be exalted? It is the unwanted and destitute that see the illogicalness of life and embrace the paradoxical Truth of the Gospel for hope.

“He has scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts.”

Living In Sin

Today is the Memorial of the Martyrdom of Saint John the Baptist. Saint John told King Herod, “It is not lawful for you to have your (Mark 6:17-29) brother’s wife.” King Herod knew that he was sinning, but he kept on doing it. His unlawful wife Herodias wanted to kill John, and she finally had her way by her daughter’s seductive dance.

John knew that he would eventually be killed, but he told the truth about Herod living in sin.

I personally know people, some very well, that personally used the phrase “living in sin” regarding living together before marriage. At least one of their parents, usually the mother, told them that it was wrong to live together before marriage since it was almost inevitable that there would be sexual relations between the couple. While the other parent, usually the father, did not really have an opinion on the matter. Yet, they did it anyway.

Just the other day, in my own car, someone acknowledged that they were “living in sin”, but it was the practical thing to do. About a year before that, someone jokingly said that, “Yup, I’m living in sin!” In fact, most couples that I know lived together before getting married. (I also know many that did not.)

What did I say? Nothing. Am I afraid to tell them that they’re wrong? I guess so.

When you get down to it, we’re all living in sin. However, what’s the main difference? One set acknowledges their sin and repents, the other set perhaps – if at all – acknowledges their sin and does not repent. Am I being holier than thou? I think I'm not holy and need God's forgiveness, not brush off my sin as nothing.

There is difference, though, between King Herod and those “living in sin” nowadays. King Herod knew God’s law and directly disobeyed it. Today, people do not really know right and wrong. In saying or joking that they “live in sin”, they really do not acknowledge that it is a sin to live together before marriage (or take another wife/concubine while still being married to another; I know these people too). The moral standard they use is similar to Obama’s: it’s a sin to be “out of alignment with [their own personal] values”. Therefore, if they think living together does not cause a moral dilemma, go for it. If religious, old-fashioned people say living together is a sin, they’re not in line with my values, and I can ignore them while still mocking them for their impropriety towards my feelings and disregard for my values.

In the end they’ll realize that old-fashioned people are right. More people than not divorce if they lived together beforehand. More abusive relationships develop after marriage if they lived together before. If contraceptives are used, the wife is seen more as an object than one that is to be loved and cherished. Families fall apart and society suffers from lack of foundation.

I will try to say something in the future if “living in sin” comes up. I guess I just fear getting my head put on a platter. I must try to “be not afraid”.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us!
John Paul the Great, pray for us!

Self-Control in the USA

Last week on Bill Moyers Journal, Andrew Bacevich talked some sense about why the United States is no longer the world leader it once was. Our overspending into dept and our oil dependence - including that of the government and individual citizens - will sink this ship ever more deeper.

ANDREW BACEVICH: Well, I would be one of the first to confess that - I think that we have misunderstood and underestimated President Carter. He was the one President of our time who recognized, I think, the challenges awaiting us if we refused to get our house in order.

BILL MOYERS: You're the only author I have read, since I read Jimmy Carter, who gives so much time to the President's speech on July 15th, 1979. Why does that speech speak to you so strongly?

ANDREW BACEVICH: Well, this is the so-called Malaise Speech, even though he never used the word "malaise" in the text to the address. It's a very powerful speech, I think, because President Carter says in that speech, oil, our dependence on oil, poses a looming threat to the country. If we act now, we may be able to fix this problem. If we don't act now, we're headed down a path in which not only will we become increasingly dependent upon foreign oil, but we will have opted for a false model of freedom. A freedom of materialism, a freedom of self-indulgence, a freedom of collective recklessness. And what the President was saying at the time was, we need to think about what we mean by freedom. We need to choose a definition of freedom which is anchored in truth, and the way to manifest that choice, is by addressing our energy problem.

He had a profound understanding of the dilemma facing the country in the post Vietnam period. And of course, he was completely hooted, derided, disregarded.

BILL MOYERS: And he lost the election. You in fact say-

ANDREW BACEVICH: Exactly.

BILL MOYERS: -this speech killed any chance he had of winning reelection. Why? Because the American people didn't want to settle for less?

ANDREW BACEVICH: They absolutely did not. And indeed, the election of 1980 was the great expression of that, because in 1980, we have a candidate, perhaps the most skillful politician of our time, Ronald Reagan, who says that, "Doom-sayers, gloom-sayers, don't listen to them. The country's best days are ahead of us."

BILL MOYERS: Morning in America.

ANDREW BACEVICH: It's Morning in America. And you don't have to sacrifice, you can have more, all we need to do is get government out of the way, and drill more holes for oil, because the President led us to believe the supply of oil was infinite.

BILL MOYERS: You describe Ronald Reagan as the "modern prophet of profligacy. The politician who gave moral sanction to the empire of consumption."

The above quote made me think of someone who died this month: Alexander Solzhenitsyn. He had some real insight into this question.

Below is my comment on Moyers' blog.

Mr. Bacevich is absolutely right on mostly everything he said.

I wonder if looking at Alexander Solzhenitsyn would help the discussion.

From two journals:

"Obviously, the demands of freedom and higher obligation are paradoxical. They seem as different as pride and humility, and there is no political solution in the real world which can reconcile them. They can be reconciled only in a world where freedom is used solely for self-limitation in service to the highest good—a condition that Solzhenitsyn sometimes compares wishfully to a new historical stage that would be as different from today as the change that occurred from the Middle Ages to the Renaissance and Enlightenment."
First Things

"For example, describing the Western worldview as “rationalistic humanism,” Solzhenitsyn decried the loss of “our concept of a Supreme Complete Entity which used to restrain our passions and our irresponsibility.” Man has become “the master of this world . . . who bears no evil within himself,” he announced. “So all the defects of life” are attributed to “wrong social systems.”"
CE

I would be interested in how Mr. Bacevich would relate religion to the current state of US affairs.

Note that both President Carter and Solzhenitsyn came to their conclusions by Way of Christianity, by faith and reason. Without the guidance of Almighty God for self control, we'll all end up in a sunken ship in a stormy sea. As we forget about God, deny His existence and Divine Providence, and ignore His Will in our lives, we will sink deeper and deeper into the Enemy's grip.

Everyone bless God, no exceptions.

Dawkins Dreaming

The next arguments that Dawkins refutes are that God must exist because he created Beethoven (pp. 86-87) and Mozart and that God must exit because one has a personal experience with the divine (pp. 87-92). The former argument is one that seems to be out of place. Why should one argue that God exists because He created historical figures? Why shouldn’t they say that God exists because I am standing here (or writing here) because God made me in some sort of fashion (natural selection is only an intermediary explanation as will be argued later) rather than not at all? Nevertheless, why not thank God that He created Shakespeare and Haydn?

Furthermore, it is notable that we should time-remotely thank the historical figures that had the initiative to become such figures. These famous people came on the scene because they had the free will to take their opportunities or to perhaps leave them to someone else in another place and time.

According to Dawkins, “personal ‘experience’” of the divine must be delusional. However, what is his basis for judgment? Perhaps Dawkins is delusional in that he either does not have personal experiences with the divine or that he does not recognize the divine he encounters? Even if no one has encounters with the divine, how can we encounter each other if something did not create matter from nothing?

On pages 91-92, he sites the apparition at Fatima, Portugal in 1917 to 70,000 pilgrims in which it is reported that they saw the “sun ‘tear itself from the heavens and come crashing down upon the multitude’.” He says that this couldn’t have happened because there was no physical destruction of anything, including the Earth at Fatima.

He sites David Hume as saying, “’No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish.’” Doesn’t Dawkins understand that this miracle is not about the physical regeneration of a removed lung, or the changing of the Eucharistic host into physical flesh? It’s a vision that tens of thousands of people witnessed at the same time. One cannot logically refute a vision with an intact planet.

Dawkins Is Not Omniscient

I actually finished The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, the pope of contemporary Militant Atheists. I agree with other Atheists that his logic in the book is embarrassing regarding the disbelief in God. If anything, the tone and rhetoric of the book will charge up Atheists to form into a political force and turn ungrounded Theists away from Theism.

I think I’ll continue wading through the book and commenting on some points that Dawkins made. However, I won’t write a post about each chapter like I have done before. Instead, I’ll break it up into small, perhaps arbitrary, book-chronological chunks.

In Chapter three, in very few pages (pp. 77-79), some of Saint Thomas Aquinas’ proofs of God’s existence are addressed. He said that God couldn’t be both omniscient and omnipotent; they are “mutually incompatible”. Why not both? Why couldn’t God act or not act (omnipotence) because He is omniscient? Why shouldn’t God know best when and when not to act, even if we think He should or shouldn’t. Who are Dawkins or myself to say that the omnipotent actions by God are not directed by his omniscience?

“To return to the infinite regress and the futility of invoking God to terminate it, it is more parsimonious to conjure up, say, a ‘big bang singularity’, or some other physical concept as yet unknown. Calling it God is at best unhelpful and at worst perniciously misleading.” (p. 78) He then goes on to say the smallest piece of gold is an atom of gold.

This goes back to my Modified Toddler Theory that is really just a philosophical infinite regress instead of a positivist infinite regress. Dawkins insists that we talk physical and that only physical explanations are able to satisfy him. Without physical proof, nothing would seem to satisfy him. To this end, what would going back to the ‘big bang singularity’ prove to him? Even if it were physically explained, which is really and truly impossible without traveling back in time, one would have to explain from where the singularity originated and so on.

In order to escape from the trap of positivist infinite regress, one must invoke the less physically provable philosophical infinite regress that posits that the physicality of the universe was derived from the non-physical reality of what is called God. Nothing made God because He is not physical. He is existence itself. This existence has a persona that created physicality – in whatever way – as an act of His will.

Of course the question arrives about the current state of His being. Just because physicality is now a reality does not mean that the non-physical reality does not exist. In fact, without the non-physical reality, God, the physical reality that exists as you are reading couldn’t exist.

What about the gold atom? Looking deeper and deeper into it, the term “gold” it too cumbersome. The term “gold” describes, when observing at a near infinitesimal level, a structure that is too general to be relevant at the infinitely small scale. At the limit of the terminal regress, one can only speak of the non-physical derivation of the structure. In fact, all matter has this non-physical derivation. Therefore, God, who is existence itself, created all physical matter.

Since God has a hand in maintaining all physical reality, God is at work with all physical reality. God knows what should become reality since he created all matter in all time.

Dawkins’ problem is that he insists that a physical phenomenon, including natural selection, must explain a question. If we take his approach, we will, in reality, get nowhere. In fact, I will later posit that even using non-physical explanations will get us nowhere unless there is some kind of revelation from the non-physical reality, or there is a revelation from God.

Prayer Request

Please pray for Fr. Joe Link (formerly of the Pittsburgh Oratory) and his family.

Mary, Our Lady of Consolation, pray for us.

It’s a Wonderful Tahn

The article below was my first ever article published in any paper. It was published in The Pitt News on Tuesday, 29 February 2000. In my byline, the editor said I was never pessimistic. They didn’t know me very well.


It’s a wonderful tahn [“town” in Pittsburghese]

When’s the last time you heard, “Man, Pittsburgh sucks. There’s nothing to do ‘round here. I can’t wait to graduate and get out of this place”?

Whenever these words hit my ears, I cringe. I love this place enough to stay after graduation. How can there be such extreme perspectives on the boredom scale?

The bored among us can’t seem to find Pittsburgh’s plethora of cures. But as an independent who doesn’t just go out and drink, some small amount of creativity was bound to creep into my little ol’ head. I’ll mention some things here that came to mind.

The most obvious cure for boredom is to join a club or group. After determining things I liked to do, it was very easy to discover what groups were available to quench my active thirst. You can find out about student groups from Pitt’s home page, the student handbook or friends. The main advantage to groups is that they find activities that focus on individual’ interests.

As a Roman Catholic, I found that I wanted to learn more about Christianity. I searched for a deeper understanding and discovered many Christian fellowships on campus that met during the week, along with finding a group to learn more about Catholicism. In addition, there were also many other religious groups to study Judaism, Islam and others.

Pittsburgh is such a source of diverse cultural events that there are so many things to try – you just have to look a little. On Fridays, I go to an event called “What’s Cooking” at the Catholic Newman Center on campus. I met someone there who recently moved here to dance in the Pittsburgh Ballet Company. When I talked to her, she mentioned that she didn’t think that Pittsburgh, of all places, would be the center of so much art and culture. When I first came here from the Trenton-Philadelphia area, I shared the same sentiments, but I have since changed my mind.

While you’re here as a Pitt student, why not take advantage of free or very cheap student tickets to many cultural events ‘round the ‘Burch? If you think you hate ballet or opera, this is a great chance to actually see if you do. If you find you don’t like them, you would only lose the time spent at the event and maybe a little money. If you do like these events, you’ll be able to go back either with Pitt Arts or on your own. You’d have that many more opportunities to enjoy your newfound love.

There are many free weekly or daily resources that list happenings to suit your taste. In Pittsburgh and the City Paper list weekly events such as music performances, movies, concerts and just about anything that moves you.

You might be tempted to say, “But I don’t have a car to go anywhere.” That may be true, but there is an obvious solution: the infamous Port Authority bus. Pitt students have free bus passes on every Port Authority route. You can get a sightseeing tour of the countryside and the people of Pittsburgh (a cultural experience in itself). Even if you have nowhere to go, why not take an adventure? Take a day trip to the North Side, the South Side or Station Square. Travel to the far reaches of the Pittsburgh universe.

If all else fails, remember to keep your friends in mind. Do you know everything about your friends? Instead of going to a party where loud music is distracting, try just talking or hanging out with you friends, or play some party games such as Pictionary. Ask more serious questions to grow closer to your buddies. If you feel so inspired, break out the “Book of Questions” to get a discussion going.

Don’t put Pittsburgh down as being dead. Those who believe this aren’t asking the right questions. Pittsburgh is a mystery; therefore, there’s always chance to discover [sic]. It’s like people not pursuing their spirituality or being content in their ruts. If you do the same thing all the time and don’t try to expand your understanding or knowledge, of course you will get bored. As a result, you will become complacent about your situation or basically become disinterested in the pursuit and fall away.

Nobody ever accused Gutter Ball Master of being pessimistic.

Pauvre Katie Holmes

I usually don't write about celebrities, but what the hey? It's all over the papers.

Katie Holmes, the latest wife of Scientologist Tom Cruise, has a new hair cut. I can't get over the thought that she went from cute to scary and creepy overnight in this relationship. I hope she's OK and not too Stepford like it seems.

What do I know anyway?

Just wondering.

Catholic Teachings Are Not At Fault

I wrote the letter below in The Pitt News regarding the sex abuse scandal for the campus Catholic student group (the links don't work). This is the latest in the series regarding my writings (as opinions columnist etc.) in The Pitt News.


Letter to the editor
By:
Posted: 3/27/02
Catholic teachings are not at fault

The Newman Oratory Catholic Organization, as the official Roman Catholic organization on the Pitt campus, would like to take this opportunity to formally address the recent criticism the Church has received. We would like to acknowledge the current situation about pedophilic and ephebophilic priests, address the general attack the Church underwent recently in the Pitt News and finally address the Catholics here on the Pitt campus.

It pains us that priests of the Catholic Church violated members of the Church’s innocents in the recent and distant past. In this scandalous sin, they strike at the very God, Church and world they vowed to serve. May God have mercy on us.

We also wish to address the bishops of the dioceses that allowed this crime to continue. In all 50 states, sexual child abuse is a felony. At the first proof of abuse, those priests should have been immediately pulled from ministry and handed over to the authorities.

Of course this criticism is easily assailed in hindsight, as Bishop Wuerl of the Diocese of Pittsburgh reported. “[All the Bishops] were … assured [by psychological scientists] that with proper treatment and oversight, this type of compulsive behavior could be controlled … Nonetheless we know today that the risk is too great.” (see www.pitt.edu/~oratory/citations.html for all article references.)

Now, the policies of the Bishops have changed. The way in which these cases were treated was a grievous error, but the Catholic teachings that deal directly or indirectly with the priesthood are not to be blamed. Other unrelated issues should be addressed separately.

It had been speculated by Catholics and non-Catholics alike that the requirement of celibacy for Catholic priests in the Roman rite is indeed what caused the current situation. According to Dr. Frederick Berlin, M.D., Ph.D., the founder of the Sexual Disorders Clinic at John Hopkins University School of Medicine, there is no evidence that supports the claim that the celibate priest is any more likely to be a pedophiliac or ephebophiliac than any other person, including those who are married.

In fact, as reported by Deal Hudson of CRISIS Magazine, “…celibacy should be rather easy to defend, especially in a culture where sexual behavior has damaged so many people. The fact that you have 46,000 men in the U.S. and 100,000 men around the world who have dedicated themselves totally to the service of Catholics is a powerful witness to a generation addicted to genital satisfaction.” (ccc#2352)

In “The Ten Commandments: The First Draft”, [M. Derek] Care mentioned that priests in the Catholic church are celibate to remain pure, but in fact, according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraphs 1579-80 (ccc#1579-1580) priestly celibacy is “‘for the sake of the kingdom of heaven,” to “consecrate themselves with undivided heart to the Lord and to ‘the affairs of the Lord” and to “radiantly proclaim the Reign of God.” If a priest disregards the Church’s teaching, it is caused by his own sin.

Further, as ignorantly alleged, the church is not hostile toward homosexuals, only opposed to the gay acts they commit (ccc#2357-2359), teachings about birth control are not “arbitrary” (ccc#2366-2372 and Onan’s sin in Genesis 38 (see citations)) and Catholics do not worship idols (ccc#2112-2114), but create art, or icons (see ccc#1159-1162 and 2129-2132) that remind us of Jesus, heavenly beings and the Saints.

In addition, the Catholic Church did not fully ignore the recent scandalous events, but definitely did not ignore the Holocaust. As a matter of fact, Einstein spoke for the Church in Time magazine in 1940 about the Holocaust, saying, “Only the [Catholic] Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler’s campaign for suppressing truth.”

For all those in the Catholic Church on campus, please realize the only response to this and all scandals is holiness. When the Church suffers the most as the Body of Christ from within or by others (John 15:18-20), God calls us all the more to witness to the Church’s real face: as people called into the race for Holiness (1 Corinthians 9:24-27) by the grace of Jesus and guided by the Spirit in the pillar and bulwark of Truth (1 Timothy 3:15). Even Judas betrayed Jesus, but thank God the other Eleven Apostles found the grace to continue as His disciples to proclaim One Lord, One Faith and One Baptism with Simon Peter as their Rock (Ephesians 4:4-16, Matthew 16:18, John 1:42).

Gutter Ball Master, on behalf of
Ryan Catholic Newman Center
4450 Bayard St.
Pittsburgh, Pa. 15213
(412) 681-3181
http://www.pitt.edu/~oratory
© Copyright 2008 The Pitt News

So Mature.

What is maturity? My Mom defined it as being able to talk about things besides yourself. A VERY popular definition is that one must be sexy or open to casual or premarital sex (de facto marriage). I think how one defines maturity determines an adult’s attitude and, therefore, actions. Changes in societies' view of maturity change the very landscape of that society since adults act from their view of what society defines as mature behavior.

Remember Debbie Gibson (of the ‘80/90’s)? As a girl and early adolescent, she dressed and carried herself in a respectable manner. When she became older, or, grew up, she dressed and performed more “maturely”. Why must this maturity include an increase in one's 'sex factor'?

It begs to question, how do I define maturity, and, therefore, believe what society should view as mature? Maturity is NOT becoming sexed up. It's a change in attitude wherein one simply takes responsibility for themselves and comes to a realization that they need to respect themselves and their neighbor's freedom, or, better yet, to love their neighbor. An outward sex appeal should not define one's maturity. In actuality, it shows that they are really not so mature.

Hahn vs. Dawkins

I have to read this book. A discussion of the book is below.

[1]

[2]

[3]

God Bless Everyone

I look at bumper stickers a lot. The other day there was a car with an Obama campaign one and a “God bless everyone, no exceptions” sticker. I wonder if they knew that Obama doesn’t think that some people are to be blessed but killed just after they are born in partial birth abortions (intact D&E)? Maybe they’re like many other people who try not to think about it. I don’t know unless I talked to the driver. Do you think they’re just ignorant of Obama’s radical views on abortion?

I say God bless everyone from the moment of conception to their natural death.

Pro-Life a Liberal Notion?

I already started putting up my old articles from The Pitt News when I was an opinions writer. Here's another one that I thought was one of my better ones.


Pro-Life a Liberal Notion?

When I think liberal in reference to the abortion issue, I usually think pro-choice; on Saturday, February 26, however, my notions changed. I had the pleasure of listening to Mallory Crawford, founder of Earth Mother Enterprises, speak at this year’s Pro-Life Saturday presented by Students for Life. She spoke about her pro-life stance as a liberal, hippie and Suffragette, sharing basic concepts enunciated in current liberal vocabulary (obviously, conservatives also use some liberal terminology).

“Social justice” is a phrase used in liberal circles to obviously highlight the individual’s need for justice in society. This notion of social justice reaches all people regardless of race, creed, or position in life. According to the Declaration of Independence, all people have the right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. Wouldn’t justice for all include the right of life for the unborn child?

The next word in standard liberal vocabulary is “inclusion”. With a liberal viewpoint, the more inclusive something is, the more valuable that entity. By definition, exclusion would not allow certain individuals to participate in something if they didn’t measure up to certain standards. Recently, the standard measure of life is the value of its productivity. If a particular life is a burden or inconvenient, it is deemed to have less innate worth. This is some of the reasoning behind abortion, euthanasia and suicide. In the case of abortion, the unborn human is excluded on the basis that they would not only be unable to produce enough but actually hinder a mother from certain tasks or a valued role if they were present. However, aborting the child would exclude him or her from participating in the most basic entitlement: life. As Mother Theresa said, “It is a poverty that a child must die so that [the mother] can live as [she wishes].”

I love the next word. It is “progressive”. By definition, one with a liberal perspective loves things that are new. New technology and medicine enlighten us to things that we could never even imagine in the past. These new technologies, social programs and medicines make the possibility of bringing a life into the world more possible and successful. When we know better, we think better. A picture of an unborn baby on an ultrasound makes it clearer that the moving fetus within the mother is alive. As said by Harrison Hickman, pollster for the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League, “Probably nothing has been as damaging to [the pro-choice] cause as the advances in technology which have allowed pictures of the developing fetus, because people now talk about the fetus in much different terms than they did 15 years ago. They talk about it as a human being, which is not something that I have an easy answer on how to cure.” As Mallory Crawford put it, the “lack of imagination for a person [thinking of] having an abortion” can be supplemented by the real image of a sonogram.

Certainly pregnancy can pose practical concerns. However, new social programs have made bringing a baby boy or girl into the world more feasible than ever. Project Women in Need (Project WIN at 1-888-LIFE-AID) is a PA state “government-aided pregnancy care service that is a model for a congressional bill that would enact a similar [program] on a federal level”. There are about 100 Project WIN and 100 private pro-life crisis pregnancy centers like Birthright in PA alone. They all provide free pregnancy testing and offer real, practical measures to allow the mother to bring her baby into the world. This, by the way, is many more than the current number of pro-choice directed sites like Planned Parenthood. There are indeed progressive options for pregnant women who have an unexpected “life detour” in their own lives.

The ideals of social justice, inclusion and progressiveness are indeed embraced in liberalism just as they were for the old hippies and Suffragettes, two groups by which Mallory Crawford identified herself. Hippies valued life, while abortion was contrary to love and life. On the other hand, the Suffragettes, or the original feminists tackled many women’s issues in the earlier part of this century as well. Women like Susan B. Anthony talked about motherhood as a woman’s right while, at the same time, not attacking their unborn children. They were trying and succeeding to gain equal rights for themselves as women, mothers, sisters and daughters: created equal by their creator and in their mother.

A Dissent from the Humanae Vitae Dissent

Today is the fortieth anniversary of Humanae Vitae, the controversial – to say the least - encyclical of Pope Paul VI “On The Regulation Of Birth”, or on contraception. An introspective article of Cardinal James Francis Stafford was written today in which he personally describes the time in July/August 1968 when the encyclical was released and the – mostly dissenting - aftermath (my current parish, St. Joseph's Passionist Monastery Parish in Baltimore, is mentioned in the article).

I was thinking about all the Truth that was restated (from the constant teaching in all the Christian Churches until 1931 at Lambeth, England) in the encyclical when my mind turned toward Lambeth (the site of the Church of England’s conference) of this year (going on now) and the Church of England. An almost inevitable split in the Church of England will take place soon between conservative and liberal bishops over the consecration of an unrepentant, practicing gay bishop and other controversial topics. Many conservative bishops of the Church of England are either turning towards Rome or looking into forming separate diocese but with the same traditions (little “t”) of the Church of England.

The Church of England has fallen into this state of disrepair from its founding. Why does the Church of England exist? It’s because a powerful man wanted a pretty girl and his father said no. (and another girl, however many times)

When will Christians learn that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ, the head of the Church? No matter what the political landscape or currents of the day, the Church will remain firm in the Truth revealed by Christ and the Holy Spirit entrusted to the Church and the Pope.

Whether dissent exists from Humanae Vitae, or whether there is separation of the Church of England from the Holy See over unchaste behavior, the Truth about sex, marriage, and the human body remains intact in the Church Christ founded upon Peter.

I wonder if the Church of England will totally rejoin with Rome someday?

Further, a major way that religious vocations can make a comeback is for Catholics to have more children by adhering to Catholic teachings relayed in Humanae Vitae, Evangelium Vitae, and the Theology of the Body.

Will you join me in trying to be faithful to the sexuality teachings of the Church?

Atheist Link

I was asked here:

If you are a Catholic, why are you linking to Richard Dawkins? -SM

I frequently visit the links on my page. I do not agree with much of the liberal and Atheist content on those pages. However, I strive to stay informed about topics with which I don't agree. Further, since I will probably hear the content of these pages in my conversations online and in real life, I would like to have the opportunity to think and pray about them. If I did not do this, I would probably get caught off guard. I know I am to let the Holy Spirit speak through me, but it doesn't hurt to stay informed.

Specifically regarding the Dawkins website, after I finish The God Delusion, I would like to sign up as a commenter on the site and comment. Would you join me in signing up and commenting? The Church Militant needs to confront the Militant Atheists head on. We'll get spit on, but so was Christ.

Thank you for commenting! God bless.

On Marriage, Divorce and Concubines

I just came across a few articles I wrote for The Pitt News (opinions section) around 2000 during my undergrad days. I'll be posting them for the next couple 'o days.

Here it is:

Recently, I overheard two people talking on the bus about marriage. One said, "Yeah, I think I really love this guy. I think I'm going to end up marrying him. Hey, and if it doesn't work out, divorce is pretty accepted now, so it's no big deal."

Why would someone say such a terrible thing about the institution of marriage? I did some searching trying to answer this question.

I came upon a review by Kari Gold of a book by Maggie Gallagher titled "The Abolition of Marriage." Gallagher suggested that "the legal, social and economic supports that sustained marriage over the centuries have been dispatched with astonishing speed, and marriage has been reconceived as a purely private act, not a social institution. ... Thanks to no-fault divorce and the attitudes, norms and policies that support it, getting married now more closely resembles taking a concubine than taking a wife."

The institution that was created long ago for rearing children within the loving, mutual self-giving context of the parents' relationship is now severely diminished. Instead, marriage's primary mission is more the pursuit of self-satisfaction for each individual member of the couple.

I see something very detrimental in this trend.

Once something valued for its ability to please becomes less pleasing or unpleasing, even for a short time, it is then easy to exchange it for something more satisfying. This could suggest one possible motivation for divorce and adultery.

As far as I know, even on "Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire?" (50 concubines for one millionaire!), the vow "for better or worse, in sickness and in health, till death do us part" is still said. It seems that it is said now purely for pleasure as just another romantic gesture. Really, how romantic are the words if they're not meaningful? It's just like perjuring oneself for personal gain in court.

As Gallagher wrote, "[We've come to] nurture a moral code that effectively turns abandonment into a virtue and self-interest into the highest virtue. ... Lacking any common good to appeal to in dealing with one another, we are driven instead to use selfishness as the currency of all exchange."

This selfishness could result in the sorrow of divorce for the couple. It could also result in distress for a divorced person's next spouse after another divorce. More importantly, the children could become deeply troubled by the mere fact that their parents are no longer together and could see it as their fault.

But one might ask, is it not better for parents to get divorced if they are always quarrelling? Not according to Laurie Lee in "Models of Marriage and the Law." She says, "[This trivial love] makes a paper house of marriage, flimsily built for instant collapse, haunted by rootless children whose sense of incipient desertion already dooms them to an emotional wasteland."

From this downward trend, society - of which families are the foundation - will continue to take a nose dive into despair. Those trained in this failing institution will continue to look for what their parents did, seeking pleasure at the expense of others' happiness. In response to their experience, they will more likely have multiple partners and/or equally unstable relationships. In turn, their lives will seem empty due to the depravity of any stability or true unconditional love, making them continue the cycle.

What is a possible cure? From observation, and some experience, I have realized that if commitment is a problem, don't get married. If the only way to get closer to someone is marriage and you genuinely desire to grow old with that person, marriage might be the way to go. Don't take marriage lightly.

Marriage commitment is becoming another dissolvable, shallow union without the total self-giving vow of the individuals within the couple. Further, just as in concubinal relationships, sex, which should be a beautifully symbolic expression of total immersion in one's marriage partner's life, is becoming a cheap thrill or means of control in and out of marriage.

In this continuing downward trend, children who eventually grow up in society will become more unstable because of this selfish training at home. Keeping this in mind, the Americans for Divorce Reform stated, "The best marriages are those where both husband and wife realize [from the start] that good marriages take work and effort; they just don't happen."

[Gutter Ball Master's] guides to true agape are Jesus, the Bible, his parents and his girlfriend.

Celebrating Humanae Vitae

Is your Church doing anything to celebrate the 40th anniversary (July 25, 1968) of Humanae Vitae? What are you doing? I would like to propose something to do at my Church.

It reaffirms the constant Christian teaching/Tradition (until 1930 with the Church of England, but constant in the Catholic Church) that using contraception is a mortal sin. Read this at First Things to learn some more about the Papal encyclical, Protestant reaffirmation of the Tradition, and the "The Vindication of Humanae Vitae".

Zeal For Your House Consumes Me

It's been reported (I don't remember where) that the US has become more divided since people have moved to areas where most other people agree with their moral/religious/political positions. I see this in Baltimore, MD where I live. We have two of the most liberal US senators, mostly liberal US rep's., a very liberal State Senate, and a liberal Governor (former Balto city mayor).

More moral/religious/political conservatives need to populate the liberal areas. I need some help. Will somebody help me?

I pray that God will give me the strength in perseverance to do and say what is right for the glory of His Kingdom.

Zeal for Your House consumes me! Saint Thomas More pray for me.