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.
07 August 2008
06 August 2008
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.
I say God bless everyone from the moment of conception to their natural death.
30 July 2008
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.
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.
25 July 2008
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?
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?
23 July 2008
Atheist Link
I was asked here:
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.
If you are a Catholic, why are you linking to Richard Dawkins? -SMI 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.
17 July 2008
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.
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.
15 July 2008
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".
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".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)