When most people think of Elvis Presley they envision the 1957 teen who revolutionized music and sent girls swooning with his gyrating performances. Few of these people know how spiritual “The King of Rock-n-Roll” was and how he struggled daily to be closer to the “King of Kings”. Gospel was Elvis’ greatest musical love, which is fitting since despite his multitude of number #1 hits, he never won a Grammy Award until 1967 for “How Great Thou Art”.
Catholicexchange.com (http://www.catholicexchange.com/2008/09/27/113998/) has posted an interview with Dolores Hart, the actress who starred with Elvis in Loving You and King Creole before leaving Hollywood to become a cloistered Benedictine nun. Among the stories she tells is that of her and Elvis during the filming of King Creole:
When we were making King Creole, he had so many people after him — you couldn’t walk through the streets in New Orleans. It was like a circus. You would not believe the crowds. Policemen were everywhere. We had to go to hotel rooms to wait in between scenes. When we finally got to the site, we were ushered into the elevator, [and] in the hotel rooms. There would be boards built from one hotel to another. We crossed over to another hotel and would go down the elevator and enter another room. They’d bring us sandwiches. Elvis would open the Gideon Bible, as that was the version placed in the hotel rooms. Whatever passage he’d open it to, we would talk about it. He would ask me, “What do you think of this passage?”
In the estimation of many, including myself, Elvis was the greatest ballad singer in history. When he sang ballads (and gospel) his spiritual hunger for God shone through in his voice, his mannerisms, and his passion. It was as if a portion of his soul was spent with each note, each lyric.
Society idolizes celebrities. They are royalty. They are larger than life. Elvis’ life de-mythologizes that “Cult of Personality”. He was an incredibly gifted performer who brought joy to many. Yet he was also a sad, flawed individual desperate to be re-united with God and suffering the pains of that separation.
In other words, he was like you and I.
Catholic Agenda
Catholic Agenda
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Monday, September 29, 2008
Spinning Stalin
As George Santayana once said, “Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.”
21st century Man is quick to portray itself as evolved. We argue that more money than ever is donated to humanitarian causes, and that “Save the planet” is the mantra most-heard today. Yet it is important to remember that we are no different as a species than we were just 60 years ago during WWII. Within the past 20-25 years we’ve witnessed Man’s- inhumanity-towards-Man on a scale equaling the brutality inflicted by Nazi Germany. Genocide erupted in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. In Iraq the former “president” of the country gassed his own people. And let’s not forget the Islamic terrorist who flew planes into the World Trade Center. Why is it important to remember this generation’s evil deeds?
On Saturday, the Wall Street Journal published an article that indirectly supported Santayana’s warning. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122229545606472921.html) Recently the Kremlin and the Russian state media created an online poll asking their countrymen to select the nation’s top historical figure. The contest’s purpose is to strengthen national pride. To the dismay of many the man who repeatedly appeared at or near the top of the list was none other than mass murderer Josef Stalin.
Alleging that hackers had used automated voting in an effort to start trouble, RTR “corrected” the “inaccuracies”, which dropped Uncle Joe’s supporters from two million to one million (as of last week). Did hackers really inflate the numbers, or was it merely a case of a citizenry longing for mythical “better” times? Who knows? But one has to wonder if the RTR “corrections” were enacted solely to avoid the embarrassment the Kremlin would face globally if the tally was acknowledged as accurate. How many other Russians agree with Communist Party leader Gennady Zyuganov, who said earlier this year “that Stalin, if alive, could solve Russia's problems ‘in one day.’”
Last October I traveled to Moscow to promote a boxing match between Evander Holyfield and Sultan Ibragimov. The company I work for represented Holyfield. It became apparent quickly that the country was split according to the haves and the have-nots. You were either wealthy or poor . . . and clearly there were more of the latter. Many elderly women could be seen begging for money or hustling trinkets to foreigners. Yet, the hotel we stayed in during fight week regularly costs guests $800 per night. (We did not pay this) This year Forbes magazine announced that Moscow is the most expensive city in the world.
Adolf Hitler rose to power in Germany at least in part because of the dire economic conditions in post-WWI Germany. When you are forced to spend your life savings on a loaf of bread it becomes very easy to embrace the person who promises you the quickest solution.
The Russian people are demoralized. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union the majority continue to live a meager existence. Stalin murdered an estimated 20 million people; yet, he transformed the Soviet Union into a major superpower. When you no longer have to worry about watching your family carted off in the middle of the night by the secret police, it’s much easier to forget history. One worries whether Russia is doomed to repeat its errors.
Donald Tremblay
21st century Man is quick to portray itself as evolved. We argue that more money than ever is donated to humanitarian causes, and that “Save the planet” is the mantra most-heard today. Yet it is important to remember that we are no different as a species than we were just 60 years ago during WWII. Within the past 20-25 years we’ve witnessed Man’s- inhumanity-towards-Man on a scale equaling the brutality inflicted by Nazi Germany. Genocide erupted in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. In Iraq the former “president” of the country gassed his own people. And let’s not forget the Islamic terrorist who flew planes into the World Trade Center. Why is it important to remember this generation’s evil deeds?
On Saturday, the Wall Street Journal published an article that indirectly supported Santayana’s warning. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122229545606472921.html) Recently the Kremlin and the Russian state media created an online poll asking their countrymen to select the nation’s top historical figure. The contest’s purpose is to strengthen national pride. To the dismay of many the man who repeatedly appeared at or near the top of the list was none other than mass murderer Josef Stalin.
Alleging that hackers had used automated voting in an effort to start trouble, RTR “corrected” the “inaccuracies”, which dropped Uncle Joe’s supporters from two million to one million (as of last week). Did hackers really inflate the numbers, or was it merely a case of a citizenry longing for mythical “better” times? Who knows? But one has to wonder if the RTR “corrections” were enacted solely to avoid the embarrassment the Kremlin would face globally if the tally was acknowledged as accurate. How many other Russians agree with Communist Party leader Gennady Zyuganov, who said earlier this year “that Stalin, if alive, could solve Russia's problems ‘in one day.’”
Last October I traveled to Moscow to promote a boxing match between Evander Holyfield and Sultan Ibragimov. The company I work for represented Holyfield. It became apparent quickly that the country was split according to the haves and the have-nots. You were either wealthy or poor . . . and clearly there were more of the latter. Many elderly women could be seen begging for money or hustling trinkets to foreigners. Yet, the hotel we stayed in during fight week regularly costs guests $800 per night. (We did not pay this) This year Forbes magazine announced that Moscow is the most expensive city in the world.
Adolf Hitler rose to power in Germany at least in part because of the dire economic conditions in post-WWI Germany. When you are forced to spend your life savings on a loaf of bread it becomes very easy to embrace the person who promises you the quickest solution.
The Russian people are demoralized. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union the majority continue to live a meager existence. Stalin murdered an estimated 20 million people; yet, he transformed the Soviet Union into a major superpower. When you no longer have to worry about watching your family carted off in the middle of the night by the secret police, it’s much easier to forget history. One worries whether Russia is doomed to repeat its errors.
Donald Tremblay
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Disposable
“If you're demented, you're wasting people's lives - your family's lives - and you're wasting the resources of the National Health Service." (http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=29538)
These are the words of Baroness Mary Helen Warnock, “regarded as Britain's leading moral philosopher” and often referred to as “the philosopher queen”. Lest anyone accuse her of inhumanity, Warnock spins suicide as altruistic: “There's nothing wrong with feeling you ought to do so [commit suicide] for the sake of others as well as yourself. In other contexts, sacrificing oneself for one's family would be considered good. I don't see what is so horrible about the motive of not wanting to be an increasing nuisance." Not surprisingly, Warnock’s views echo those of “prominent voices in Britain's House of Lords [who] continue to advocate for legalised euthanasia and assisted suicide.”
This is what passes for morality in our increasingly utilitarian Western culture.
Assisted-suicide supporters argue that suicide is voluntary and hence a personal decision beyond the reach of the state.
But let’s face it: once a human life’s continued existence is viewed as a drain or a nuisance, how long is it before that voluntary act becomes mandatory for the “good of society”? I was reminded of George Orwell’s classic Animal Farm as I read the above Catholic.org article. Farmer Jones mistreats the animals on the farm. The animals revolt and take over. Within no time the pigs take extra liberties for themselves, such as more food, and enlist the dogs to serve as their “muscle”. Ultimately, the pigs become more totalitarian than Farmer Jones ever was. No work of literature better expounds on the capacity of humanity to become that which it abhors, a point ably addressed in the Catholic.org piece.
“German officials in the 1930s instituted a program of mass euthanasia for persons the state considered undesirable, labeling them ‘lebensunwertes leben’: life unworthy of life and ‘useless eaters.’ Among the groups targeted for euthanasia were developmentally disabled people, disabled children, and elderly people suffering from dementia. In Nazi Germany's Aktion T4 programme, in which the gas chamber technology was developed, patients "judged incurably sick, by critical medical examination," were killed by physicians on the grounds that they were a burden to their families and to the state. After the war, the Nuremberg Trials found evidence that about 275,000 people had been euthanised.”
Sound familiar? And for those who argue that today’s assisted-suicide and euthanasia movements are motivated by empathy, be aware that the Nazi’s also tried to portray euthanasia as “a ‘compassionate’ solution for patients and their families”.
A society’s responsibility is to defend those who cannot defend themselves. Judging by the “philosopher queen’s” comments we have lost sight of this.
Donald Tremblay
These are the words of Baroness Mary Helen Warnock, “regarded as Britain's leading moral philosopher” and often referred to as “the philosopher queen”. Lest anyone accuse her of inhumanity, Warnock spins suicide as altruistic: “There's nothing wrong with feeling you ought to do so [commit suicide] for the sake of others as well as yourself. In other contexts, sacrificing oneself for one's family would be considered good. I don't see what is so horrible about the motive of not wanting to be an increasing nuisance." Not surprisingly, Warnock’s views echo those of “prominent voices in Britain's House of Lords [who] continue to advocate for legalised euthanasia and assisted suicide.”
This is what passes for morality in our increasingly utilitarian Western culture.
Assisted-suicide supporters argue that suicide is voluntary and hence a personal decision beyond the reach of the state.
But let’s face it: once a human life’s continued existence is viewed as a drain or a nuisance, how long is it before that voluntary act becomes mandatory for the “good of society”? I was reminded of George Orwell’s classic Animal Farm as I read the above Catholic.org article. Farmer Jones mistreats the animals on the farm. The animals revolt and take over. Within no time the pigs take extra liberties for themselves, such as more food, and enlist the dogs to serve as their “muscle”. Ultimately, the pigs become more totalitarian than Farmer Jones ever was. No work of literature better expounds on the capacity of humanity to become that which it abhors, a point ably addressed in the Catholic.org piece.
“German officials in the 1930s instituted a program of mass euthanasia for persons the state considered undesirable, labeling them ‘lebensunwertes leben’: life unworthy of life and ‘useless eaters.’ Among the groups targeted for euthanasia were developmentally disabled people, disabled children, and elderly people suffering from dementia. In Nazi Germany's Aktion T4 programme, in which the gas chamber technology was developed, patients "judged incurably sick, by critical medical examination," were killed by physicians on the grounds that they were a burden to their families and to the state. After the war, the Nuremberg Trials found evidence that about 275,000 people had been euthanised.”
Sound familiar? And for those who argue that today’s assisted-suicide and euthanasia movements are motivated by empathy, be aware that the Nazi’s also tried to portray euthanasia as “a ‘compassionate’ solution for patients and their families”.
A society’s responsibility is to defend those who cannot defend themselves. Judging by the “philosopher queen’s” comments we have lost sight of this.
Donald Tremblay
Monday, September 22, 2008
Novus Ordo or Nothing
Novus Ordo or Nothing
Last year Pope Benedict XVI released "Summorum Pontificum”, which stated that the Tridentine Mass “should be made available in every parish where groups of the faithful desire it.” Not surprisingly, many bishops and pastors have ignored the papal directive. (http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0804776.htm)
“’We're only looking at one calendar year, and we know that in the church these things take time. But the problem -- dare anyone say this? -- the problem is the bishops. Because you have bishops who aren't on board,’ said John Paul Sonnen, an American Catholic who lives in Rome.”
Traditional Catholics should expect this intransigence to continue. After all why would the same bishops who allowed, and in some cases even encouraged, the destruction of the Latin Rite be eager to welcome it back?
Sacrosanct is how post-Vatican II changes in the Church are viewed by many in the episcopate. This is particularly true in the case of Novus Ordo. Many bishops battle opposition to Novus Ordo the way they would combat Aryanism or some other heresy. When it is not silenced by the powers-that-be, criticism about Vatican II’s implementation is met with the lame explanation that choices were made in the “spirit of Vatican II”.
The Spirit of Vatican II. How is that for an amorphous concept?
Novus Ordo is not doctrine, nor is it consistent with the liturgy as it was celebrated for many centuries prior to Vatican II. It can and should be changed. Am I advocating the complete elimination of our current liturgy? No, I do not believe that going back to the Latin Rite as it was is the answer. Even those who supported the Tridentine Mass in the first half of the 20th century acknowledged that changes to the Mass were necessary. But the refusal of many clergy to offer the Latin Rite is an indication of how little interest the current generation of bishops has in hearing the concerns of those who do not believe that Novus Ordo sufficiently honors the Lord.
Sadly, Traditional Catholics will have to wait for these bishops to retire or pass away before Pope Benedict XVI’s directive is honored worldwide.
Donald Tremblay
Last year Pope Benedict XVI released "Summorum Pontificum”, which stated that the Tridentine Mass “should be made available in every parish where groups of the faithful desire it.” Not surprisingly, many bishops and pastors have ignored the papal directive. (http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0804776.htm)
“’We're only looking at one calendar year, and we know that in the church these things take time. But the problem -- dare anyone say this? -- the problem is the bishops. Because you have bishops who aren't on board,’ said John Paul Sonnen, an American Catholic who lives in Rome.”
Traditional Catholics should expect this intransigence to continue. After all why would the same bishops who allowed, and in some cases even encouraged, the destruction of the Latin Rite be eager to welcome it back?
Sacrosanct is how post-Vatican II changes in the Church are viewed by many in the episcopate. This is particularly true in the case of Novus Ordo. Many bishops battle opposition to Novus Ordo the way they would combat Aryanism or some other heresy. When it is not silenced by the powers-that-be, criticism about Vatican II’s implementation is met with the lame explanation that choices were made in the “spirit of Vatican II”.
The Spirit of Vatican II. How is that for an amorphous concept?
Novus Ordo is not doctrine, nor is it consistent with the liturgy as it was celebrated for many centuries prior to Vatican II. It can and should be changed. Am I advocating the complete elimination of our current liturgy? No, I do not believe that going back to the Latin Rite as it was is the answer. Even those who supported the Tridentine Mass in the first half of the 20th century acknowledged that changes to the Mass were necessary. But the refusal of many clergy to offer the Latin Rite is an indication of how little interest the current generation of bishops has in hearing the concerns of those who do not believe that Novus Ordo sufficiently honors the Lord.
Sadly, Traditional Catholics will have to wait for these bishops to retire or pass away before Pope Benedict XVI’s directive is honored worldwide.
Donald Tremblay
Friday, September 19, 2008
Empty-Handed
I was disturbed this morning by an article I read on the “Inside Catholic” website. (http://insidecatholic.com/Joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4514&Itemid=48) The Rich He Hath Sent Away proposes that “there is much to celebrate in the collapse of Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch”. Lest readers believe he holds a vendetta against these former corporate behemoths, author Jeffrey Tucker explains why the current financial crisis is a benefit to everyone: “It shows the impossibility of holding onto wealth and power in a free society that is always in flux. And this is as it should be.” To support his argument he adds a theological dimension, quoting a section of the Magnificat and suggesting that we are witnessing its fulfillment:
"He hath scattered the proud in the conceit of their heart. He hath put down the mighty from their seat, and hath exalted the humble. The rich he hath sent away empty.”
My first complaint with Tucker’s assessment is theological. To cite Mary in this context is to misunderstand her confession. In the Magnificat she praises God for exalting those who are poor in spirit, those who approach Him as a child would. “Mighty” and “rich” refer to those whose pride is great and who either feel disinterest towards God or who refuse to approach him in a child-like manner.
My second complaint is economic. I’m sorry, but regardless of whether it is Lehman Bros, Merrill Lynch, Bear Sterns, or any other conglomerate, the rich will hardly “walk away empty”. Ever hear of the Golden Parachute?
Golden Parachute: A clause in an executive's employment contract specifying that he/she will receive large benefits in the event that the company is acquired and the executive's employment is terminated. These benefits can take the form of severance pay, a bonus, stock options, or a combination thereof.) (http://www.investorwords.com/2201/golden_parachute.html)
Neither will the rich investors who did business with Lehman and Merrill walk away empty since odds are they diversified their portfolios, insulating themselves from financial ruin. The current crisis will adversely affect the wealthy, but it is a wild exaggeration to refer to them as “empty”.
However, there are some who will walk away empty. The Lehman employee who earned corporate stock options as a reward for his years of service is one example, as is the mid-level investor who wasn’t wealthy enough to diversify her portfolio. No, Mr. Tucker, it is the working “grunts” who leave empty-handed, not the wealthy.
Case in point: my neighbor and his wife were born and raised in Brooklyn, NY. Thanks to his success as a broker, the couple bought a house and settled in a NJ suburb. Recently he sold his home and moved back to Brooklyn to rent an apartment. Why? It is difficult paying a mortgage and property taxes when you’ve just lost $160K in stock options and other benefits because your firm, Bear Sterns, has tanked.
The rich may lose more money in pure numbers, but when you calculate the percentage of a person’s total assets that are lost in this type of financial disaster, the impact to the mid-level employee and investor is much greater.
Perhaps a better biblical analogy to explain the effects of the Lehman/Merrill disasters can be found in Mark 11: 41-44
“And Jesus sitting over against the treasury, beheld how the people cast money into the treasury, and many that were rich cast in much. And there came a certain poor widow, and she cast in two mites, which make a farthing. And calling his disciples together, he saith to them: Amen I say to you, this poor widow hath cast in more than all they who have cast into the treasury. For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want cast in all she had, even her whole living.”
Donald Tremblay
"He hath scattered the proud in the conceit of their heart. He hath put down the mighty from their seat, and hath exalted the humble. The rich he hath sent away empty.”
My first complaint with Tucker’s assessment is theological. To cite Mary in this context is to misunderstand her confession. In the Magnificat she praises God for exalting those who are poor in spirit, those who approach Him as a child would. “Mighty” and “rich” refer to those whose pride is great and who either feel disinterest towards God or who refuse to approach him in a child-like manner.
My second complaint is economic. I’m sorry, but regardless of whether it is Lehman Bros, Merrill Lynch, Bear Sterns, or any other conglomerate, the rich will hardly “walk away empty”. Ever hear of the Golden Parachute?
Golden Parachute: A clause in an executive's employment contract specifying that he/she will receive large benefits in the event that the company is acquired and the executive's employment is terminated. These benefits can take the form of severance pay, a bonus, stock options, or a combination thereof.) (http://www.investorwords.com/2201/golden_parachute.html)
Neither will the rich investors who did business with Lehman and Merrill walk away empty since odds are they diversified their portfolios, insulating themselves from financial ruin. The current crisis will adversely affect the wealthy, but it is a wild exaggeration to refer to them as “empty”.
However, there are some who will walk away empty. The Lehman employee who earned corporate stock options as a reward for his years of service is one example, as is the mid-level investor who wasn’t wealthy enough to diversify her portfolio. No, Mr. Tucker, it is the working “grunts” who leave empty-handed, not the wealthy.
Case in point: my neighbor and his wife were born and raised in Brooklyn, NY. Thanks to his success as a broker, the couple bought a house and settled in a NJ suburb. Recently he sold his home and moved back to Brooklyn to rent an apartment. Why? It is difficult paying a mortgage and property taxes when you’ve just lost $160K in stock options and other benefits because your firm, Bear Sterns, has tanked.
The rich may lose more money in pure numbers, but when you calculate the percentage of a person’s total assets that are lost in this type of financial disaster, the impact to the mid-level employee and investor is much greater.
Perhaps a better biblical analogy to explain the effects of the Lehman/Merrill disasters can be found in Mark 11: 41-44
“And Jesus sitting over against the treasury, beheld how the people cast money into the treasury, and many that were rich cast in much. And there came a certain poor widow, and she cast in two mites, which make a farthing. And calling his disciples together, he saith to them: Amen I say to you, this poor widow hath cast in more than all they who have cast into the treasury. For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want cast in all she had, even her whole living.”
Donald Tremblay
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Free Will and Death
Free Will. We use it to marry and have children, to accept or reject employment, even to elect public officials. Our life is a series of choices determined by the use of our Free Will. But should that same Free Will decide our death?
Since the appearance of “Dr. Death” Jack Kevorkian in the 1980s, the chorus of those supporting doctor-assisted suicide and euthanasia has grown markedly. Below is a definition of the two terms:
· Doctor-assisted suicide: The voluntary termination of one's own life by administration of a lethal substance with the direct or indirect assistance of a physician. Physician-assisted suicide is the practice of providing a competent patient with a prescription for medication for the patient to use with the primary intention of ending his or her own life. (http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=32841)
· Euthanasia: “The act or practice of ending the life of an individual suffering from a terminal illness or an incurable condition, as by lethal injection or the suspension of extraordinary medical treatment.
The difference between the two is determined by who is the person administering the death act. If it is the patient, it is assisted-suicide; if it is by someone other than the patient, it is euthanasia.
Many argue that if we have Free Will in all other aspects of our lives, shouldn’t we also have it with respect to our deaths. In their view suffering is inhuman and an insult to the dignity of Man. “I shouldn’t have to suffer; nor should any of my loved ones have to suffer.”
The Church’s response to this plea for control over death is a resounding “No”.
A few days ago Pope Benedict XVI celebrated Mass in Lourdes to honor the 150 year anniversary of Mary’s apparitions to a 14-year-old girl and future saint, Bernadette Soubirous. The Mass was well-attended by the infirmed, who hoped to be cured by the site’s miraculous healing waters. During the Mass the Pope took the opportunity to speak out against assisted-suicide and euthanasia, making it clear that death can only come at “the hour chosen by God”. (http://www.kansascity.com/news/world/story/798631.html) Many will accuse the pontiff and the Catholic Church of insensitivity. The Church will be labeled antiquated and will be accused of ignoring Man’s pain. Nothing could be further from the Truth.
Man’s plight in this fallen state is one of suffering. We are racked by Sin and are confronted with daily crosses and trials. On most days we want to raise our fist to God and scream, “You don’t know what I’m going through.” But we can’t because we are Christians. Unlike any other religion that has existed on this earth, Christianity teaches the Incarnation. God became Man to live as a man. He experienced all the sufferings, temptations, and trials we undergo daily. And ultimately, he suffered the greatest indignity an individual can undergo: torture and abuse followed by murder at the hands of evil people. Yes, a Jew or a Muslim can accuse God of ignorance of Man’s condition, but we Christians cannot. Christ’s life, and most importantly his death, proves that our Lord understands our suffering first hand.
Perhaps nobody better understood how we imitate Christ most when we suffer than did Pope John Paul II. The final years of his life were spent battling Parkinson’s syndrome. With each day it became more difficult to control his movements and constant shaking. Nevertheless, he continued to travel, to meet the flock, and to be filmed by the media. Many cringed at the sight of the stricken pontiff, openly questioning whether he had any dignity. “Isn’t he embarrassed” they would ask?
No. He wasn’t. And he was teaching us that we shouldn’t be embarrassed either. Suffering is a part of the human condition, and as Pope Benedict XVI noted in his Lourdes Mass, “Dignity never abandons the sick person.” If suffering were de-humanizing then Christ would never have accepted crucifixion. His acceptance not only freed us from Sin, but provided us with an example of how we must accept suffering as redemptive. Yes, it is painful to suffer and to watch others suffer, but we must always remember: we did not give ourselves life; therefore, we cannot decide when that life should end. Only He who is responsible for life can decide the hour of death.
Donald Tremblay
Since the appearance of “Dr. Death” Jack Kevorkian in the 1980s, the chorus of those supporting doctor-assisted suicide and euthanasia has grown markedly. Below is a definition of the two terms:
· Doctor-assisted suicide: The voluntary termination of one's own life by administration of a lethal substance with the direct or indirect assistance of a physician. Physician-assisted suicide is the practice of providing a competent patient with a prescription for medication for the patient to use with the primary intention of ending his or her own life. (http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=32841)
· Euthanasia: “The act or practice of ending the life of an individual suffering from a terminal illness or an incurable condition, as by lethal injection or the suspension of extraordinary medical treatment.
The difference between the two is determined by who is the person administering the death act. If it is the patient, it is assisted-suicide; if it is by someone other than the patient, it is euthanasia.
Many argue that if we have Free Will in all other aspects of our lives, shouldn’t we also have it with respect to our deaths. In their view suffering is inhuman and an insult to the dignity of Man. “I shouldn’t have to suffer; nor should any of my loved ones have to suffer.”
The Church’s response to this plea for control over death is a resounding “No”.
A few days ago Pope Benedict XVI celebrated Mass in Lourdes to honor the 150 year anniversary of Mary’s apparitions to a 14-year-old girl and future saint, Bernadette Soubirous. The Mass was well-attended by the infirmed, who hoped to be cured by the site’s miraculous healing waters. During the Mass the Pope took the opportunity to speak out against assisted-suicide and euthanasia, making it clear that death can only come at “the hour chosen by God”. (http://www.kansascity.com/news/world/story/798631.html) Many will accuse the pontiff and the Catholic Church of insensitivity. The Church will be labeled antiquated and will be accused of ignoring Man’s pain. Nothing could be further from the Truth.
Man’s plight in this fallen state is one of suffering. We are racked by Sin and are confronted with daily crosses and trials. On most days we want to raise our fist to God and scream, “You don’t know what I’m going through.” But we can’t because we are Christians. Unlike any other religion that has existed on this earth, Christianity teaches the Incarnation. God became Man to live as a man. He experienced all the sufferings, temptations, and trials we undergo daily. And ultimately, he suffered the greatest indignity an individual can undergo: torture and abuse followed by murder at the hands of evil people. Yes, a Jew or a Muslim can accuse God of ignorance of Man’s condition, but we Christians cannot. Christ’s life, and most importantly his death, proves that our Lord understands our suffering first hand.
Perhaps nobody better understood how we imitate Christ most when we suffer than did Pope John Paul II. The final years of his life were spent battling Parkinson’s syndrome. With each day it became more difficult to control his movements and constant shaking. Nevertheless, he continued to travel, to meet the flock, and to be filmed by the media. Many cringed at the sight of the stricken pontiff, openly questioning whether he had any dignity. “Isn’t he embarrassed” they would ask?
No. He wasn’t. And he was teaching us that we shouldn’t be embarrassed either. Suffering is a part of the human condition, and as Pope Benedict XVI noted in his Lourdes Mass, “Dignity never abandons the sick person.” If suffering were de-humanizing then Christ would never have accepted crucifixion. His acceptance not only freed us from Sin, but provided us with an example of how we must accept suffering as redemptive. Yes, it is painful to suffer and to watch others suffer, but we must always remember: we did not give ourselves life; therefore, we cannot decide when that life should end. Only He who is responsible for life can decide the hour of death.
Donald Tremblay
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
With Friends Like These...
The U.S. and Saudi Arabia have had full diplomatic relations since the early 1930s. Each year the two nations exchange billions of dollars through trade in goods such as oil, machinery and transport vehicles, food and live animals, etc . . . (http://www.saudia-online.com/saudi.htm) During the Gulf War (1990-1991) the Saudi kingdom allowed the U.S. (and its coalition partners) to use its territory as a military base to deploy forces against Saddam Hussein. In 2006, the NY Times reported that the U.S. “maintained its role as the leading supplier of weapons to the developing world,” and that one of the three biggest buyers was Saudi Arabia.
(http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/01/us/01cnd-weapons.html?_r=1&oref=slogin)
Clearly, the 75-year relationship between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia has been mutually beneficial, which is why economic cooperation between the two nations continues to expand.
Yet, it is difficult to reconcile the image of Saudi Arabia as a western ally with the stark reality of the kingdom’s enforcement of Wahabism, “an austere form of Islam that insists on a literal interpretation of the Koran.” (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saudi/analyses/wahhabism.html)
During a Frontline investigation of Wahabism a few years ago, PBS interviewed several Islamists about the Saudi religion and its teachings. One person named Ahmed Ali who was raised in Saudi Arabia gave an example of what is taught to ninth-grade students:
“’The day of judgment will not arrive until Muslims fight Jews, and Muslim will kill Jews until the Jew hides behind a tree or a stone. Then the tree and the stone will say, 'Oh Muslim, oh, servant of God, this is a Jew behind me. Come and kill him.' Except one type of a tree, which is a Jew tree. That will not say that.’ This is taught for 14-year-old boys in Saudi Arabia.” (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saudi/analyses/wahhabism.html)
Why do I raise this issue today? CBS News reports that Saudi Arabia’s “top judiciary official [Sheik Saleh al-Lihedan ] has issued a religious decree saying it is permissible to kill the owners of satellite TV networks that broadcast immoral content.” (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/12/world/main4443857.shtml)
During a radio program recently al-Lihedan stated the following to his listeners:
“’What does the owner of these networks think, when he provides seduction, obscenity and vulgarity?’ he said.
‘‘Those calling for corrupt beliefs, certainly it's permissible to kill them,’ he said. ‘Those calling for sedition, those who are able to prevent it but don't, it is permissible to kill them.’"
This fatwa will come as little surprise to anyone who has followed the Saudi religious police.
In June 2005 Christian World News reported that “over the past three months, close to 100 Christians—all of them guest workers in Saudi Arabia —have been arrested by Saudi religious police. The guest workers’ crime? Worshipping Jesus Christ.” (http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/CWN/061005SaudiArabia.aspx) That’s right.
Non-Saudi’s prevented from freely worshipping their religions. But if you think that is bad, it’s even worse if you are a Saudi who rejects Islam: “Recently, a Saudi member of the religious police cut his daughter’s tongue off and burned her to death for converting to Christianity.” (http://viktorb.wordpress.com/2008/09/09/christian-persecution-saudi-arabia/)
Politics do makes strange bedfellows and it is naïve to believe that we can only trade with those who agree with us on cultural and religious issues. But shouldn’t we be doing more to object to this mistreatment of others on religious grounds? At some point a nation has to look at itself and wonder whether it is slowly selling its soul for material benefits and comforts. We need to speak out more against this inhumanity. And although things won’t change overnight, we need to remember an ancient Chinese proverb: “Even the longest of journeys begins with a single step.”
Donald Tremblay
(http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/01/us/01cnd-weapons.html?_r=1&oref=slogin)
Clearly, the 75-year relationship between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia has been mutually beneficial, which is why economic cooperation between the two nations continues to expand.
Yet, it is difficult to reconcile the image of Saudi Arabia as a western ally with the stark reality of the kingdom’s enforcement of Wahabism, “an austere form of Islam that insists on a literal interpretation of the Koran.” (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saudi/analyses/wahhabism.html)
During a Frontline investigation of Wahabism a few years ago, PBS interviewed several Islamists about the Saudi religion and its teachings. One person named Ahmed Ali who was raised in Saudi Arabia gave an example of what is taught to ninth-grade students:
“’The day of judgment will not arrive until Muslims fight Jews, and Muslim will kill Jews until the Jew hides behind a tree or a stone. Then the tree and the stone will say, 'Oh Muslim, oh, servant of God, this is a Jew behind me. Come and kill him.' Except one type of a tree, which is a Jew tree. That will not say that.’ This is taught for 14-year-old boys in Saudi Arabia.” (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saudi/analyses/wahhabism.html)
Why do I raise this issue today? CBS News reports that Saudi Arabia’s “top judiciary official [Sheik Saleh al-Lihedan ] has issued a religious decree saying it is permissible to kill the owners of satellite TV networks that broadcast immoral content.” (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/12/world/main4443857.shtml)
During a radio program recently al-Lihedan stated the following to his listeners:
“’What does the owner of these networks think, when he provides seduction, obscenity and vulgarity?’ he said.
‘‘Those calling for corrupt beliefs, certainly it's permissible to kill them,’ he said. ‘Those calling for sedition, those who are able to prevent it but don't, it is permissible to kill them.’"
This fatwa will come as little surprise to anyone who has followed the Saudi religious police.
In June 2005 Christian World News reported that “over the past three months, close to 100 Christians—all of them guest workers in Saudi Arabia —have been arrested by Saudi religious police. The guest workers’ crime? Worshipping Jesus Christ.” (http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/CWN/061005SaudiArabia.aspx) That’s right.
Non-Saudi’s prevented from freely worshipping their religions. But if you think that is bad, it’s even worse if you are a Saudi who rejects Islam: “Recently, a Saudi member of the religious police cut his daughter’s tongue off and burned her to death for converting to Christianity.” (http://viktorb.wordpress.com/2008/09/09/christian-persecution-saudi-arabia/)
Politics do makes strange bedfellows and it is naïve to believe that we can only trade with those who agree with us on cultural and religious issues. But shouldn’t we be doing more to object to this mistreatment of others on religious grounds? At some point a nation has to look at itself and wonder whether it is slowly selling its soul for material benefits and comforts. We need to speak out more against this inhumanity. And although things won’t change overnight, we need to remember an ancient Chinese proverb: “Even the longest of journeys begins with a single step.”
Donald Tremblay
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Thank You, Camille
Finally one of them has admitted it. At last an abortion supporter acknowledges reality: “’I have always frankly admitted that abortion is murder, the extermination of the powerless by the powerful.’” http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/sep/08091204.html Wow! Camille Paglia’s confession in a recent Salon.com column must have set the ears of our nation’s pro-abortion lobby ringing.
Imagine one of the most-respected and most-popular liberal feminist academics admitting, in the words of lifesitenews.com author Tim Waggoner, “that in order to rationalize and accept abortion, one would have to not only accept, but logically condone other atrocities against life - that is, one would have to accept murder for the sake of protecting a particular, more important ‘right’, as she does.” Unbelievable. Excuse me if I sound giddy, but the image of abortion supporters trying to weasel their way around Paglia’s comments is amusing.
Paglia admits that in her view a woman’s right to choose supersedes a baby’s right to life. “’As an atheist and libertarian, 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.’" Unlike most abortion supporters who throw red herrings by questioning when life begins in the womb, Paglia unflinchingly faces the ethical ramifications of her belief: “’Liberals for the most part have shrunk from facing the ethical consequences of their embrace of abortion, which results in the annihilation of concrete individuals and not just clumps of insensate tissue.’”
In a final slap at her fellow-abortion supporters, Paglia criticized those who support abortion but reject the death-penalty: “’I have never understood the standard Democratic combo of support for abortion and yet opposition to the death penalty. Surely it is the guilty rather than the innocent who deserve execution?’”
As aptly pointed out by Waggoner, Paglia’s testimony exposes the utilitarianism that is increasingly infecting our culture. He also points out two other examples of it:
• The medical community recently acknowledged that “brain death” may not be an accurate way to determine if a person has died. In response, instead of questioning the concept of “vital organ donation”, Waggoner says a recent New England Journal of Medicine article argued that “the piece instead suggest[ed] that the criteria for dead donors should be eradicated altogether - thus sanctioning killing a potential organ donor in order to harvest his/her organs.”
• A report published in early 2008 in the highly-acclaimed bioethics journal The Hastings Center Report addressed infanticide. According to Waggoner “the authors advocate infanticide for those new born babies who may face a life of what medical personnel deem to be ‘unbearable’ suffering.” He adds that “under what is known as the Groningen Protocol, infanticide is already taking place on a regular basis in the Netherlands with government support.”
Individuals who recognize the evil of utilitarianism must stay alert because our society is clearly gravitating toward using the philosophical method as the barometer for gauging a decision’s morality.
Donald Tremblay
Imagine one of the most-respected and most-popular liberal feminist academics admitting, in the words of lifesitenews.com author Tim Waggoner, “that in order to rationalize and accept abortion, one would have to not only accept, but logically condone other atrocities against life - that is, one would have to accept murder for the sake of protecting a particular, more important ‘right’, as she does.” Unbelievable. Excuse me if I sound giddy, but the image of abortion supporters trying to weasel their way around Paglia’s comments is amusing.
Paglia admits that in her view a woman’s right to choose supersedes a baby’s right to life. “’As an atheist and libertarian, 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.’" Unlike most abortion supporters who throw red herrings by questioning when life begins in the womb, Paglia unflinchingly faces the ethical ramifications of her belief: “’Liberals for the most part have shrunk from facing the ethical consequences of their embrace of abortion, which results in the annihilation of concrete individuals and not just clumps of insensate tissue.’”
In a final slap at her fellow-abortion supporters, Paglia criticized those who support abortion but reject the death-penalty: “’I have never understood the standard Democratic combo of support for abortion and yet opposition to the death penalty. Surely it is the guilty rather than the innocent who deserve execution?’”
As aptly pointed out by Waggoner, Paglia’s testimony exposes the utilitarianism that is increasingly infecting our culture. He also points out two other examples of it:
• The medical community recently acknowledged that “brain death” may not be an accurate way to determine if a person has died. In response, instead of questioning the concept of “vital organ donation”, Waggoner says a recent New England Journal of Medicine article argued that “the piece instead suggest[ed] that the criteria for dead donors should be eradicated altogether - thus sanctioning killing a potential organ donor in order to harvest his/her organs.”
• A report published in early 2008 in the highly-acclaimed bioethics journal The Hastings Center Report addressed infanticide. According to Waggoner “the authors advocate infanticide for those new born babies who may face a life of what medical personnel deem to be ‘unbearable’ suffering.” He adds that “under what is known as the Groningen Protocol, infanticide is already taking place on a regular basis in the Netherlands with government support.”
Individuals who recognize the evil of utilitarianism must stay alert because our society is clearly gravitating toward using the philosophical method as the barometer for gauging a decision’s morality.
Donald Tremblay
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Does Blame Have an Expiration Date?
Today the NY Daily News announced that the NY Giants and the NY Jets are considering selling naming-rights to their new stadium to Allianz—a German insurance company with ties to Nazi Germany. Jewish groups are outraged. (http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/giants/2008/09/10/2008-09-10_considering_firm_with_nazi_ties_for_nami.html)
Below are a few facts the Daily News printed about Allianz:
• It was the insurer of the Auschwitz death camp's facilities and personnel.
• Its chief executive, Kurt Schmitt, served as Hitler's economics minister.
• Like other insurers, it refused to pay back Jews' life insurance policies and sent the money to the Nazis instead.
• The company did pay restitution over the years.
The issue raises an important moral question: Are their certain crimes for which people will never be forgiven?
As Christians we are taught to “forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.” Regardless of the crime’s horror or the evil of the injustice committed, our Lord tells us we must forgive.
Yet, in the case of the Holocaust when should the Jewish people be expected to forgive? Is more than fifty years of seeking vengeance against all involved in this crime-against-humanity enough? Or is there no amount of reparation capable of mitigating the anger towards the guilty? Perhaps the crime committed was so evil that all involved should be forced to wear a metaphorical Scarlet Letter for as long as they exist?
Complicating matters regarding the naming rights for the new stadium is that NY Giants co-owner, the Tisch family, is Jewish. Has the Tisch family decided that Allianz has paid enough reparation over the years to warrant acceptance? Or is it simply a matter of economics and the Tisch family is willing to “sell out” for the right price? Considering the Tischs’ reputation as active supporters of Jewish philanthropy the sellout accusation seems highly unlikely.
So when is enough, enough?
I would be lying if I said I had the answer.
Donald Tremblay
Below are a few facts the Daily News printed about Allianz:
• It was the insurer of the Auschwitz death camp's facilities and personnel.
• Its chief executive, Kurt Schmitt, served as Hitler's economics minister.
• Like other insurers, it refused to pay back Jews' life insurance policies and sent the money to the Nazis instead.
• The company did pay restitution over the years.
The issue raises an important moral question: Are their certain crimes for which people will never be forgiven?
As Christians we are taught to “forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.” Regardless of the crime’s horror or the evil of the injustice committed, our Lord tells us we must forgive.
Yet, in the case of the Holocaust when should the Jewish people be expected to forgive? Is more than fifty years of seeking vengeance against all involved in this crime-against-humanity enough? Or is there no amount of reparation capable of mitigating the anger towards the guilty? Perhaps the crime committed was so evil that all involved should be forced to wear a metaphorical Scarlet Letter for as long as they exist?
Complicating matters regarding the naming rights for the new stadium is that NY Giants co-owner, the Tisch family, is Jewish. Has the Tisch family decided that Allianz has paid enough reparation over the years to warrant acceptance? Or is it simply a matter of economics and the Tisch family is willing to “sell out” for the right price? Considering the Tischs’ reputation as active supporters of Jewish philanthropy the sellout accusation seems highly unlikely.
So when is enough, enough?
I would be lying if I said I had the answer.
Donald Tremblay
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
I Now Pronounce You...
Step 2 in California’s plan to destroy the sacrament of marriage has begun.
Step 1 was California’s highest court ruling that limiting marriage to a man and a woman is unconstitutional. In step 2 all words having a connection to traditional marriage will be cleansed from the state’s books. Just ask Pastor Doug Bird of Abundant Life Fellowship in Roseville, CA.
According to worldnetdaily.com, a couple just married by Pastor Bird made the mistake of signing their marriage license “ ‘bride’ and ‘groom’ next to ‘Party A’ and ‘Party B’ because they wanted to be legally recognized as husband and wife. “
(http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=74768) Not so fast said Placer County. "I received back the license and a letter from the Placer County Clerk/Recorder stating that the license 'does not comply with California State registration laws,'" Bird said in a statement from the Pacific Justice Institute.
California is using an Orwellian method to redefine the definition of marriage. The theory is that if you remove the offending words from people’s vocabularies, over time you will expunge the concepts themselves from people’s minds. Hence, if the younger generations don’t hear “bride” and “groom”, it will never occur to them that they should hear anything other than “Party A” and “Party B”. (Incidentally, if this hasn’t happened already, look for the same approach to be taken with regards to children. The terms “parents”, “mother”, and “father” will be rejected in favor of “guardian” and “caregiver”.)
One other observation: I am surprised that a group such as the polygamists have not tried to capitalize on the California court’s rejection of traditional marriage. If a court has decided that marriage cannot be defined as only between a man and a woman, then why can’t a man justifiably have five or ten wives? Once you’ve removed the restriction from marriage’s definition, you have no moral grounds to ban any other voluntary arrangement.
Donald Tremblay
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
The Law of Unintended Consequences
Perhaps no better term summarizes our flawed analysis of life than the Law of Unintended Consequences. How often we make confident choices in life only to be confronted days, even years, later by unanticipated results. The feminist movement of the late 60s and early 70s demanded women’s equality, particularly sexual equality. And through their bra-burnings and assorted protests, they were wildly successful with regards to sexual liberation.
Enter The Law of Unintended Consequences.
What nobody anticipated as a result of this sexual freedom is that women would become viewed as sexual commodities. Worse still is that women would treat themselves as commodities.
Today’s New York Daily News features a story in its Gossip section about shock jock Howard Stern. (http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2008/09/09/2008-09-09_howard_stern_in_virgin_territory.html) Always looking to up the ante of guests willing to demoralize themselves for 15 minutes of fame, Stern today will auction off the virginity of a 22-year-old San Diego girl. Apparently, this girl has decided that prostituting herself will be a lucrative way for her to pay-off her student loans.
Oh, excuse me. Paying off debt? That is a different story. I thought she was doing it merely as a backdoor means of becoming a reality star. How fiscally responsible of her.
"We live in a capitalist society," she tells us. "Why shouldn't I be allowed to capitalize on my virginity?"
And there you go. Once you cheapen sexuality as this society has, you turn it into a commodity that can be bartered like any other good or service. The reason for selling it becomes irrelevant.
How proud her parents must be. An event in a woman’s life that a dinosaur like me believes should be special is warped into a financial transaction.
Wonderful.
Donald Tremblay
Enter The Law of Unintended Consequences.
What nobody anticipated as a result of this sexual freedom is that women would become viewed as sexual commodities. Worse still is that women would treat themselves as commodities.
Today’s New York Daily News features a story in its Gossip section about shock jock Howard Stern. (http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2008/09/09/2008-09-09_howard_stern_in_virgin_territory.html) Always looking to up the ante of guests willing to demoralize themselves for 15 minutes of fame, Stern today will auction off the virginity of a 22-year-old San Diego girl. Apparently, this girl has decided that prostituting herself will be a lucrative way for her to pay-off her student loans.
Oh, excuse me. Paying off debt? That is a different story. I thought she was doing it merely as a backdoor means of becoming a reality star. How fiscally responsible of her.
"We live in a capitalist society," she tells us. "Why shouldn't I be allowed to capitalize on my virginity?"
And there you go. Once you cheapen sexuality as this society has, you turn it into a commodity that can be bartered like any other good or service. The reason for selling it becomes irrelevant.
How proud her parents must be. An event in a woman’s life that a dinosaur like me believes should be special is warped into a financial transaction.
Wonderful.
Donald Tremblay
Monday, September 8, 2008
Tattooed
I’m amazed at the number of people today, particularly women, who have tattoos. Personally I don’t think they make much sense. What enamors you today may not five or ten years from now. But to each his own, I guess.
The September 7, 2008, issue of the National Catholic Register asks an interesting question about tattoos: Are they moral? Does one deface the temple of the Holy Spirit when they add any tattoo, or does it depend on what tattoo is chosen? Is the morality of tattoos gender-specific?
One gentleman who regrets getting a tattoo is quoted in the article, Tattoo Taboos, comparing a tattoo to “putting graffiti on a work of art.” On the other hand another gentleman views his tattoos as an evangelizing ice-breaker. He has nearly 20 tattoos on his right forearm, including “Jesus wearing a crown of thorns, a pair of hands praying with a rosary, the angel of death, Our Lady of Guadalupe, and a vine.” Men have always worn tattoos, so any increase in their numbers is not as noticeable. The difference today is that the practice of “body art” has become fashionable, resulting in a staggering number of tattooed young women. (I confess: Although I may not like tattoos on a man, I find it especially distasteful on a woman. The female body is God’s most beautiful creation and adding artwork mars its beauty.)
Perhaps the gentleman with the 20 tattoos on his arm is correct and religious body art encourages spiritual inquiry . . . but I doubt it. One of the photos posted alongside the NCR article is of a young man with tattoos on both of his legs. On the calf of his left leg is the Virgin Mary, while on the right calf is St. Joseph holding the baby Jesus. More than honoring God or encouraging theological discussion, this “artistry” serves to draw attention to the wearer . . . which I believe is ultimately the goal of someone who gets a tattoo. And if that’s the case then a tattoo-wearer may not only be guilty of marring the body, but of surrendering to Pride as well.
The jury may still be out as to the morality of tattoos, but do yourself a favor regardless: If you want a visible expression of your faith, wear a cross or carry around a pair of rosary beads.
Donald Tremblay
The September 7, 2008, issue of the National Catholic Register asks an interesting question about tattoos: Are they moral? Does one deface the temple of the Holy Spirit when they add any tattoo, or does it depend on what tattoo is chosen? Is the morality of tattoos gender-specific?
One gentleman who regrets getting a tattoo is quoted in the article, Tattoo Taboos, comparing a tattoo to “putting graffiti on a work of art.” On the other hand another gentleman views his tattoos as an evangelizing ice-breaker. He has nearly 20 tattoos on his right forearm, including “Jesus wearing a crown of thorns, a pair of hands praying with a rosary, the angel of death, Our Lady of Guadalupe, and a vine.” Men have always worn tattoos, so any increase in their numbers is not as noticeable. The difference today is that the practice of “body art” has become fashionable, resulting in a staggering number of tattooed young women. (I confess: Although I may not like tattoos on a man, I find it especially distasteful on a woman. The female body is God’s most beautiful creation and adding artwork mars its beauty.)
Perhaps the gentleman with the 20 tattoos on his arm is correct and religious body art encourages spiritual inquiry . . . but I doubt it. One of the photos posted alongside the NCR article is of a young man with tattoos on both of his legs. On the calf of his left leg is the Virgin Mary, while on the right calf is St. Joseph holding the baby Jesus. More than honoring God or encouraging theological discussion, this “artistry” serves to draw attention to the wearer . . . which I believe is ultimately the goal of someone who gets a tattoo. And if that’s the case then a tattoo-wearer may not only be guilty of marring the body, but of surrendering to Pride as well.
The jury may still be out as to the morality of tattoos, but do yourself a favor regardless: If you want a visible expression of your faith, wear a cross or carry around a pair of rosary beads.
Donald Tremblay
Friday, September 5, 2008
Big Mac vs The Whopper
Over the past few weeks the American Family Association (AFA)-- http://www.afa.net/-- has been sending e-mail alerts exposing McDonald’s support of the homosexual agenda. The boycott attached to the e-mails specifies that AFA’s objection “is not about hiring homosexuals, or homosexuals eating at McDonald's, or how homosexual employees are treated. It is about McDonald's, as a corporation, choosing to put the full weight of their corporation behind promoting the homosexual agenda, including homosexual marriage.”
AFA reached out to McDonald’s and asked the corporation for the following:
Remove McDonald's name and logo from the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce (NGLCC) Web site listing McDonald's as a "Corporate Partner and Organization Ally" of NGLCC.
Remove the endorsement of NGLCC by Richard Ellis, Vice President of Communications for McDonald's USA, from the NGLCC Web site.
Not only did McDonald’s deny the request, but according to AFA the fast-food chain even “paid $20,000 to become a member of the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce and to have a seat on the board of directors.”
On August 13 AFA announced that McDonald’s had upped the ante in this cultural poker “game” by sponsoring a group called Out & Equal Workplace Advocates. According to AFA,
“Out & Equal™ Workplace Advocates is a national organization devoted to the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community in the workplace.
One of its primary purposes is to train employees how to aggressively promote homosexuality within the company they work for, all the way to the corporate boardroom. Part of last year’s Out & Equal Summit in Washington, DC, (sponsored by McDonald’s) was an organized march into congressional offices demanding same-sex marriage laws be passed.”
So the next time you crave a hamburger, go with a Whopper.
Donald Tremblay
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Miracle or Myth
Medjugorje is back in the news today as Pope Benedict XVI “has authorized ‘severe cautionary and disciplinary measures’ against Father Tomislav Vlasic, the former ‘spiritual director’ to six children who said Our Lady was appearing to them at Medjugorje in Bosnia.” (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1052230/Pope-finally-launches-crackdown-worlds-largest-illicit-Catholic-shrine-suspends-dubious-priest.html#)
The alleged apparitions began in June 1981. “Three Church commissions failed to find evidence to support their claims and the bishops of the former Yugoslavia finally declared that ‘it cannot be affirmed that these matters concern supernatural apparitions or revelations’”.
The pope was forced to punish Father Vlasic after the Franciscan refused to cooperate with a
Church investigation of him for the following:
· Scandalous sexual immorality aggravated by mystical motivations
· Diffusion of dubious doctrine
· Manipulation of consciences,
· Suspected mysticism
· Disobedience towards legitimately issued orders
· Suspicions of heresy and schism
Although then-cardinal Ratzinger banned pilgrimages to Medjugorje in 1985, hundreds of thousands of people continue to flock to the site. Many have returned with anecdotal evidence of the site’s holiness. A priest once told me that a friend of his—also a cleric—entered a Medjugorje church with an old, tarnished set of rosary beads. When he left the church the rosary beads had turned to shining gold.
Were these alleged apparitions truly visitations from the Virgin Mother and is Medjugorje another Fatima? Or is the whole phenomena a case of mass hysteria where people are seeing what they want to see? Or worse, is the whole thing merely a hoax?
One detail that seems more than coincidental is that the phenomena took place just a few years prior to the War in the Balkans that ravaged the former Yugoslavia and saw unspeakable acts of cruelty and genocide. One would expect that if there were a place Mary would visit to warn of doom it would be the location of a future war.
However, there are also legitimate arguments against the apparitions’ credibility. For ex, the above article mentions that “the seers have grown wealthy as a result of their claims – and so has their town, which has boomed as a result of the ‘Madonna gold rush’. Some today own smart executive houses with immaculate gardens, double garages and security gates, and one has a tennis court.”
It seems unlikely that those blessed by apparitions from the Virgin Mother would be concerned with accumulating wealth or that the town blessed by these supernatural visits would transform itself into a country-club community. One would think that being visited by Our Mother would be a life-altering experience revealing the necessity of seeking God’s kingdom as opposed to the transitory gifts of this world. For instance, Lúcia de Jesus Rosa Santos was one of the witnesses of Mary’s apparitions at Fatima. As an adult she entered a convent and became a Carmelite nun. (The other two children who witnessed the Fatima apparitions, Jacinta and Francisco, died shortly after the visions)
This issue will not go away anytime soon. It’ll be fascinating to see how it unfolds. Will Medjugorje’s followers be vindicated or will Italian Bishop Andrea Gemma’s claim that Medjugorje is the “‘work of the Demon’” prevail?
Donald Tremblay
The alleged apparitions began in June 1981. “Three Church commissions failed to find evidence to support their claims and the bishops of the former Yugoslavia finally declared that ‘it cannot be affirmed that these matters concern supernatural apparitions or revelations’”.
The pope was forced to punish Father Vlasic after the Franciscan refused to cooperate with a
Church investigation of him for the following:
· Scandalous sexual immorality aggravated by mystical motivations
· Diffusion of dubious doctrine
· Manipulation of consciences,
· Suspected mysticism
· Disobedience towards legitimately issued orders
· Suspicions of heresy and schism
Although then-cardinal Ratzinger banned pilgrimages to Medjugorje in 1985, hundreds of thousands of people continue to flock to the site. Many have returned with anecdotal evidence of the site’s holiness. A priest once told me that a friend of his—also a cleric—entered a Medjugorje church with an old, tarnished set of rosary beads. When he left the church the rosary beads had turned to shining gold.
Were these alleged apparitions truly visitations from the Virgin Mother and is Medjugorje another Fatima? Or is the whole phenomena a case of mass hysteria where people are seeing what they want to see? Or worse, is the whole thing merely a hoax?
One detail that seems more than coincidental is that the phenomena took place just a few years prior to the War in the Balkans that ravaged the former Yugoslavia and saw unspeakable acts of cruelty and genocide. One would expect that if there were a place Mary would visit to warn of doom it would be the location of a future war.
However, there are also legitimate arguments against the apparitions’ credibility. For ex, the above article mentions that “the seers have grown wealthy as a result of their claims – and so has their town, which has boomed as a result of the ‘Madonna gold rush’. Some today own smart executive houses with immaculate gardens, double garages and security gates, and one has a tennis court.”
It seems unlikely that those blessed by apparitions from the Virgin Mother would be concerned with accumulating wealth or that the town blessed by these supernatural visits would transform itself into a country-club community. One would think that being visited by Our Mother would be a life-altering experience revealing the necessity of seeking God’s kingdom as opposed to the transitory gifts of this world. For instance, Lúcia de Jesus Rosa Santos was one of the witnesses of Mary’s apparitions at Fatima. As an adult she entered a convent and became a Carmelite nun. (The other two children who witnessed the Fatima apparitions, Jacinta and Francisco, died shortly after the visions)
This issue will not go away anytime soon. It’ll be fascinating to see how it unfolds. Will Medjugorje’s followers be vindicated or will Italian Bishop Andrea Gemma’s claim that Medjugorje is the “‘work of the Demon’” prevail?
Donald Tremblay
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Religous Fluff
Apparently dwindling parishioners is not just a Catholic problem. Today’s Wall Street Journal reviews Quitting Church by Washington Times religion reporter Julia Duin. The Weekly Standard publisher, Terry Eastland, is the writer of the WSJ’s review. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122031237268288821.html?mod=2_1580_middlebox)
According to Duin droves of evangelicals are fleeing their churches for a variety of reasons, including
“a lack of a feeling of community among church members, inducing loneliness and boredom; church teaching that fails to go beyond the basics of the faith or to reach members grappling with suffering or unanswered prayer; pastors who are either out of touch with their parishioners or themselves unhappy, or who fail to shepherd their flocks, or who are caught up in scandal, or who try to control the lives of church members in a high-handed way.”
Of the above listed complaints I find “church teaching that fails to go beyond the basics” most interesting. Many who left the Catholic Church for evangelical worship did so because they wanted to shed their spiritual lives of Church teachings and dogma. They wanted less structure and more emotion. How ironic is it that this same vanilla, non-judgmental, “love-is-in-the-air” brand of religion is responsible for the emptying of churches?
The truth of the matter is that people want and need to be challenged. A psychologist friend once told me that the most important word to teach a child is “no”. Children will get angry, but subconsciously they are happy to hear it. “No” teaches them they are not alone, that someone is protecting them. “No” sets boundaries, which makes a child feel safe. We adults are no different. We are children of God. We too need the guidance. We too need to hear “no”. Boundaries let us know we are on the right path—that we are not headed for destruction.
It’s no surprise that the post-Vatican II Catholic Church has led the way in dwindling Sunday Mass attendance. The church no longer challenges the Faithful as it did prior to Vatican II. I often laugh when I recall the CCD instruction I received in the 1970s. I can honestly say that I learned nothing in all those years except that God is Love. I remember beautiful pictures of flowers, oceans, and sunsets, but nothing else. Anything I learned about The Faith was from reading the gospels during Mass or from doing my own research.
Evangelicals are learning what Catholics need to learn: Challenge strengthens spirituality; religious fluff does not.
Donald Tremblay
According to Duin droves of evangelicals are fleeing their churches for a variety of reasons, including
“a lack of a feeling of community among church members, inducing loneliness and boredom; church teaching that fails to go beyond the basics of the faith or to reach members grappling with suffering or unanswered prayer; pastors who are either out of touch with their parishioners or themselves unhappy, or who fail to shepherd their flocks, or who are caught up in scandal, or who try to control the lives of church members in a high-handed way.”
Of the above listed complaints I find “church teaching that fails to go beyond the basics” most interesting. Many who left the Catholic Church for evangelical worship did so because they wanted to shed their spiritual lives of Church teachings and dogma. They wanted less structure and more emotion. How ironic is it that this same vanilla, non-judgmental, “love-is-in-the-air” brand of religion is responsible for the emptying of churches?
The truth of the matter is that people want and need to be challenged. A psychologist friend once told me that the most important word to teach a child is “no”. Children will get angry, but subconsciously they are happy to hear it. “No” teaches them they are not alone, that someone is protecting them. “No” sets boundaries, which makes a child feel safe. We adults are no different. We are children of God. We too need the guidance. We too need to hear “no”. Boundaries let us know we are on the right path—that we are not headed for destruction.
It’s no surprise that the post-Vatican II Catholic Church has led the way in dwindling Sunday Mass attendance. The church no longer challenges the Faithful as it did prior to Vatican II. I often laugh when I recall the CCD instruction I received in the 1970s. I can honestly say that I learned nothing in all those years except that God is Love. I remember beautiful pictures of flowers, oceans, and sunsets, but nothing else. Anything I learned about The Faith was from reading the gospels during Mass or from doing my own research.
Evangelicals are learning what Catholics need to learn: Challenge strengthens spirituality; religious fluff does not.
Donald Tremblay
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
