Friday, January 13, 2012

What were they thinking?

One of the rights guaranteed us in the Bill of Rights is the right to free speech. Here is what hey wrote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
What do you think the founding fathers had in mind?
  1. Citizens should be able to criticize their government and express their opinions and beliefs without fear of government reprisal?
  2. Children should all be forced to hear F-bombs wherever they go?
Ironically we live in a time when the government tells religious institutions they cannot speak about matters the government deems as "political speech" (even if the topic is one of morality and religious values) without losing their status as religious institutions (and thus lose all of their other first amendment protections), while it tells us we cannot create a venue which does not expose our children to explicit language.

Is this what most Americans want? I don't think so. As I was thinking about this topic I came across this article at LifeSiteNews "New numbers show G-rated movies earn 3 to 5 times more than R-rated." One has to wonder, when big media is lobbying for no restrictions on vulgar and sexually explicit language for children's programming, are they doing it because they think their viewers/listeners want it or because they want to push their agenda on our children? What were they thinking?

Thursday, January 12, 2012

On Love and Hate

The video in my previous blog post referred to a statement from the following video, "Penn Jillette gets a gift of a bible". In the video Jillette, an avowed atheist, is confronted by a man who gives him a religious booklet, and he (Penn Jillette) says [emphasis mine]:
If you believe that there's a heaven and a hell, and you could be going to hell, or not getting eternal life, or whatever, and you think that it's not really worth telling them this because it would make it socially awkward - and atheists who think that people shouldn't proselytize, just leave me alone keep your religion to yourself - how much do you have to hate somebody to not proselytize? How much do you have to hate somebody to believe that everlasting life is possible and not tell them that?

If I believed that a truck was coming towards you and you didn't believe it, and the truck was bearing down on you; there's a certain point where I tackle you, and this is more important than that.


On May 18, 2011 I met Bill. I was praying the rosary with some others in front of an abortion clinic. Bill parked his car across the street and walked over to our side. He saw our rosary beads and asked if we were Catholic. He then proceeded to tell us that we were damned to hell, that our priests were all pedophiles, that we worshiped idols, and other interesting facts.

I walked over to him and started defending the faith. The conversation became heated, and for about 10 minutes he and I shouted in each other's faces. After a while we got tired of yelling. I told him I'd listen to him without interruption or contradiction for as long as he liked if he would do the same.

He told me he was an altar boy, and wanted to be a priest, but his mother stopped him, because had he stayed in Catholic institutions he knows he would have been repeatedly raped. He told me that I worshiped my rosary without knowing it. he told me that priests are evil, and contrary to the Bible, which is the sole word of God. He told me that all churches were evil, and that Satan had entered into the church. And he told me I had only a few days to live, because the Rapture would occur on May 21, 2011. But most of all, he sincerely thanked me for listening.

In turn I told him that priests who break their vow of celibacy are not living what the Church teaches, that he can't know what would have happened, that I use my rosary as a counting aid so I can concentrate on my prayer, that priests are all over the Bible (remember Caiaphas?). I agreed about Satan, and told him the Pope had said something similar and that we must understand that we (he and I) are not enemies, but our common enemy is Satan. And I told him that I thought he was wrong about the world ending.

Bill remained unconvinced, but we spoke calmly and respectfully to each other after that. I explained to him that the reason why I defended my faith so vigorously wasn't because I hated him but because I wanted to see him in heaven. God wills all men be saved, and so it is important to me that he hear the truth in order to have that option.

In the end, we hugged and parted friends, although still disagreeing on many thing. I made Bill and offer (that still stands); if the world didn't end on May 21, to come back one Wednesday and we'd have lunch together and talk more. In the meantime, I said I'd pray for him. Bill replied that if he wasn't taken up one May 21 he'd know he wasn't saved and there wouldn't be any more point to life.

I prayed hard for Bill. When he didn't show up the next Wednesday, I prayed harder, hoping that he hadn't done anything rash when he wasn't taken up. I kept this up for weeks, and carried a Bible with me wherever I went, so that if I met Bill, I could show him some passages.

I never did meet Bill again. As you can see by this blog post, I still think about Bill, and still pray for him. I pray for you too, dear reader, and ask that you pray for Bill, and for me. And Bill, if somehow you read this blog post, come on back. Lunch is on me.

Wednesday, January 11, 2012

Got 14.5 minutes?

Then please watch (or at least listen to) the first 14:30 of this video:

On June 25, 2011 LifeSiteNews Editor-in-Chief John-Henry Westen gave this powerful and moving talk to a Toronto, Canada audience. Westen, in a personal way, presented an overview of LSN reporting philosophy related especially to the most controversial issues covered by this news service. John-Henry received a standing ovation from the conference audience at the end of his presentation.

There are consistent themes tying the entire talk together as well as specific divisions within the talk as follows:

1. The first 14 and one-half minutes addresses the reasons, experiences and philosophy behind LifeSiteNews coverage of the homosexual issue.

Tuesday, January 10, 2012

Defending racism for "the cause"

The Huffington Post published this story about Rick Santorum, including the following video. In their usual style, HuffPo follows the video with a long series of Planned Parenthood apologetics, about how women will lose their heath care if Planned Parenthood doesn't receive federal funding.
As Live Action has proven, Planned Parenthood for the most part doesn't perform these health procedures anyway. But of course, that is not mentioned. Nor is the fact that Santorum didn't call for shutting them down, or even reducing funding for women's health care, he specifically mentioned redirecting it to less controversial providers. But the facts don't seem to matter here - this is a fight for principles!

The article quotes Pamela Merritt of RH Reality Check who writes
We do not associate the Ford Motor Company with anti-semitism, despite the well documented history of it’s founder Henry Ford in collaborating with Nazis and we should not associate contemporary reproductive health care providers or the reproductive justice movement with eugenics because of some views expressed by Margaret Sanger.
and that's true, but Ford Motor Company was founded for the purpose of making automobiles, not collaborating with Nazis, and it continues to make automobiles today. Planned Parenthood was founded specifically to promote birth control, sterilization, and abortion in order to reduce the "undesirables", and it is still performing these "services" today.

From The Negro project:
Sanger built the work of the ABCL, and, ultimately, Planned Parenthood, on the ideas and resources of the eugenics movement. Grant reported that "virtually all of the organization’s board members were eugenicists." Eugenicists financed the early projects, from the opening of birth control clinics to the publishing of "revolutionary" literature. Eugenicists comprised the speakers at conferences, authors of literature and the providers of services "almost without the exception." And Planned Parenthood’s international work was originally housed in the offices of the Eugenics Society. The two organizations were intertwined for years.
So, is the HuffPo defending women's rights? Or are they defending a corporation that made over a billion dollars last year, with almost $500 million of it from your tax dollars? It seems the people who are outraged when the government bails out "big business" in financial trouble are quite willing to overlook government funding a big business that's doing great, as long as the business is abortion.

But the whole "racism" thing is ultimately not the primary reason to defund Planned Parenthood. The fact that they kill babies is. I would like to leave you with this post by Abbey Johnson:
True story. I once read about a man named Dennis Rader. He was very active in his community. He was a deacon in his church, a cub scout leader, a military man, and a volunteer for many different local organizations. He has two children by his wife of 34 years. Radar was caught and arrested in 2005 and sentenced to multiple life sentences. Why? During a 17 year time period, Rader (also known at the BTK killer) stalked, tortured, raped and killed 10 women. Shouldn't we just let that slide? I mean, he was a really good guy...look at all of the good stuff he did. Nevermind that he killed ten women. Certainly we can overlook that, right? Of course not. However, that is EXACTLY what many people do when they think of Planned Parenthood. Well, PP does so much good...perhaps we can just look over the more than 320,000 children that they kill every year. Why do we give PP a pass, but not other criminals?

Monday, January 9, 2012

The Rite

I was in a conversation online a long time ago, about the movie "The Rite". Having summed up a bit about it in 140 characters I thought I'd go for a more verbose medium. Of course, it took me months to get around to blogging it, and you've probably already seen the movies, do probably never will. But here goes anyway. This post will cover the book as well. I'd warn you that this post contains spoilers for the movie, but that would imply something to spoil. OK, I'll avoid spoilers.

The Book
The book The Rite is an interesting treatment of exorcism. And who isn't fascinated by the supernatural? We all want proof of the existence of things beyond our experience. I think it is comforting in some respect to know these things exist, because it points to the existence of God, and not just any God, but a God who loves us and who is infinitely good and powerful.

In the book, Matt Baglio intertwines a biography of Fr. Gary Thomas with the history and real world experiences of exorcism. The story is not scary, although it is disturbing to think of the reality of demonic oppression and possession, and our part (or lack of it) in the spiritual battle for souls. I think most Christians, and most Catholics, are ashamed to mention exorcism, since it sounds so superstitious and "unscientific." That's what society tells us it is, and I can't help but think that in itself is a demonic influence.

If you are a Christian you have to admit the existence of demons, or deny the words of Christ himself. Although recent bible "scholars" have tried to convince us that Jesus' driving out of demons was really Him healing schizophrenia, their argument remains unconvincing. First off, we have Jesus' healing of the paralytic in Mark 2.
A few days later, when Jesus again entered Capernaum, the people heard that he had come home. They gathered in such large numbers that there was no room left, not even outside the door, and he preached the word to them. Some men came, bringing to him a paralyzed man, carried by four of them. Since they could not get him to Jesus because of the crowd, they made an opening in the roof above Jesus by digging through it and then lowered the mat the man was lying on. When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralyzed man, “Son, your sins are forgiven.”

Now some teachers of the law were sitting there, thinking to themselves, “Why does this fellow talk like that? He’s blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?”

Immediately Jesus knew in his spirit that this was what they were thinking in their hearts, and he said to them, “Why are you thinking these things? Which is easier: to say to this paralyzed man, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up, take your mat and walk’? But I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.” So he said to the man, “I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home.” He got up, took his mat and walked out in full view of them all. This amazed everyone and they praised God, saying, “We have never seen anything like this!
Jesus is teaching that a spiritual event can have physical consequences. I don't think that He's trying to say all physical ailments are a result of sin, because He doesn't generally heal people by saying "your sins are forgiven", but He is saying that sin is real and forgiveness from sin can cure a physical illness. Likewise when He cures the demoniacs, Jesus doesn't say "be sane" but "Go!".
When he arrived at the other side in the region of the Gadarenes,[a] two demon-possessed men coming from the tombs met him. They were so violent that no one could pass that way. “What do you want with us, Son of God?” they shouted. “Have you come here to torture us before the appointed time?”

Some distance from them a large herd of pigs was feeding. The demons begged Jesus, “If you drive us out, send us into the herd of pigs.”

He said to them, “Go!” So they came out and went into the pigs, and the whole herd rushed down the steep bank into the lake and died in the water. Those tending the pigs ran off, went into the town and reported all this, including what had happened to the demon-possessed men. Then the whole town went out to meet Jesus. And when they saw him, they pleaded with him to leave their region.
If demons did not exist, Jesus would not have bothered to talk to them. He could have healed them of a mental illness as simply as He healed the Centurion's servant.

And whether or not you're a Christian, you have to admit that there are phenomenon that science can't explain. The Catholic church is very skeptical about miracles and all supernatural phenomena in general, employing investigators who are skeptics to investigate these things before arriving at the conclusion that things are beyond science. In fact, before an exorcism can be attempted it is generally necessary to find some proof that the condition isn't medical. The priest will speak to the affected person and look for signs of possession. Such signs may include knowledge of events that the person could not know, ability to speak and understand all languages, the ability to tell the difference between blessed and unblessed objects. These are abilities you don't get form a mental illness.

I found the book enlightening, and thoroughly enjoyed it. I had read it in anticipation of the movie, and so when the movie came out, and was not panned, I saw it. What a huge disappointment.

If you are at all curious about the subject, rather than watching Hollywood's distorted views, I urge you to read the book. Or. if you prefer a different medium, Catholic Answers Live! also has interviews available with both Matt Baglio and Fr. Gary Thomas.

The Movie
If you want to see the movie be advised that other than titles and names very little is like the book. The protagonist (Michael Kovak, played by Colin O'Donoghue) is not a priest, he's a seminarian who's dropping out because he doesn't believe God exists. Despite this, a priest looks on as the seminarian gives last rites to a woman. Of course, the priest should have been doing himself, since a seminarian cannot validly give last rites or forgiven sins - or perform an exorcism for that matter (but I get ahead of myself). This scene, early in the film, looks like the setup for something deep, but it is just a random event not referred to again.

Of course there has to be a woman involved, in this case a secular journalist (Angeline, played by Alice Braga) who's trying to get an interview with the very priest (Fr. Lucas, played by Anthony Hopkins) that the seminarian is assigned to study under. The whole thing is bad theologically, and as a movie completely predictable and relies on cheap tricks like a cat jumping at you to try to be scary. The makeup and special effects are so overdone as to detract from the story rather than enhance it. Even Hopkins (whom I usually like) doesn't seem to be able to do anything with this movie.

The climax is, like the rest, predictable and bad. I wish I could tell you what it is so you could grimace, but I did say I'd leave out spoilers.

Oh, and there's one scene in which I think Fr. Lucas makes the sign of the cross incorrectly. I'm not sure and I don't have the desire to see it again just to make sure, but it looked like it to me when I saw it.

Of course my views of the movie are partially based on my disappointment at it not being the book. And it wasn't totally bad. On the plus side, there is a scene involving a frog that I thought was very well done. And as much as I didn't like this movie I must admit that it's better than "The Exorcist" sequels. If you like exorcism films, I think the best one I've seen is "The Exorcism of Emily Rose".

Just to prove I'm not nuts here's another review that runs along the lines of this one (but contains spoilers).

Sunday, January 8, 2012

Why not?

I saw this editorial cartoon by Steve Benson on Jill Stanek's site the other day. According to Jill, Benson is the one obsessing about banning abortion, not Santorum.

I think the whole thing is absurd, along with this "Santorum is coming for your birth control" idiocy. The president does not have the authority to ban abortion or confiscate condoms. The real goal is to scare people into voting for a president who has looser morals than they do because, hey, then he can't possibly criticize anyone else.

I say absurd, because what we desperately need in politics are people with morals. When we elect people who are OK with killing children, why are we surprised that they can't be trusted with money either?

But the good thing about this cartoon is it got me thinking. Is banning abortion really the way to fix the economy? To end war? To balance the budget? Last year, the federal government paid close to $350,000,000 directly to the abortion industry. What if we got rid of that? I know it's a drop in the bucket, but what would happen economically if abortion were banned?

As I pointed out in my post "Healthcare economics and abortion" the children aborted since Roe v. Wade would have contributed 17 trillion dollars to the US GDP. And that's net gain, not gross.

So, if you want to make fun of the idea that banning abortion is the solution to all our problems go ahead. But you've chosen some pretty shaky ground to stand on.

Wednesday, January 4, 2012

Monument to the Unborn

"On 28 October 2011 at 16:00 o'clock in Nova Ves Bardejovske a dedication ceremony was held for this memorial to unborn children, which is the work of a young sculptor Martin Hudáčeka of Banska Bystrica. This ceremony was attended by the Minister of Health, Ivan Uhliarik MD.

The idea to build a memorial to unborn children came from the community of young women, mothers who are deeply aware of the value of each human life and the damage that is inflicted by abortion; not only a waste of unborn children, but also permanent damage on the mental (and sometimes physical) health of every woman who chooses to abort her unborn child.

The monument expresses sorrow and regret, not only mothers but also forgiveness and love for the unborn child to mother.

Initiators thank all who contributed financially, or otherwise make this work."