Daily Archives: March 1, 2012

Is Pre-Emptive Strike Morally Justified?

Thursday, March 1, 2012

Unless one is hiding under a rock, one is hard pressed to avoid the continuing conflict between Iran and Israel, such as is discussed here.  What is of interest in this is that, in the end, Israel is attempting to define a case for legitimate defense against Iran.  The question is this: If Iran does develop a nuclear weapon and Israel has a reasonable case to presume that this is a threat to their existence of a state, then can one legitimately initiate an attack as a defensive posture?  What does Catholic Social Teaching about this matter?

Let’s do a BRIEF overview of the conditions for war before we go any further.

Competent Authority

Those who choose to go to war must be in a position in which they can be reasonably informed in regards to the intelligence received.  Furthermore, the competent authority must also be legitimate, that is to say, they must be a true representative of the people said authority serves.

Right Intention

Two intentions must be at play when going for war: to pursue a peaceful order and the willingness to aid in rebuilding if disorder is brought to another nation.

Just Cause

The cause must be just.  This plays off of right intention.  Traditionally, there are three things that are just according to classical just war theory: to fight against evil, to recapture something which is unjustly taken, or as an act of defense.  Usually, only the last of these three is taken into account when discussing whether or not an act of aggression is legitimate.  Many think the other two categories ought to be taken into consideration, and cite good reasons for it.  For the sake of clarity, we will only take this third category because it is the only one enunciated in the Catechism.  I would cite John Paul II’s personalism as the reason for the rejection of the other two, though that is another post, really.

Reasonable Chance of  Success

This one is rather self-explanatory.  If a peaceful order is pursued, if it a reasonable chance of rebuilding afterwards can be sustained, and if a military measure can have success within the realm of proportionality, then one can engage.  This criterion becomes problematic for nations that are unable to defend themselves.  This is where nations that are more powerful need to stand up against unjust aggression by powerful states against weaker states (think of Russia’s virtual takeover of Georgia).

Proportionality of Ends

This criterion is very utilitarian.  It the criteria of judgment the lawful authority must take into account before entering into war in which the good that is to be attained is greater than the evil that is exerted within the war or the evil to be endured by allowing the status quo.

Last Resort

Has every reasonable means been attempted to avert a war, a crisis?  Has trade embargoes, sanctions, etc, been attempted to avert the action of the aggressor state?

Pre-Emptive Strike

Taking these into consideration, we are now in a position to discuss pre-emptive strike.  Pre-emptive strike, according to Catholic Social Teaching, is justified in accordance to the “just cause” criteria of defense.  A legitimate act of aggression must be either imminent or taking place.  One scholar, Anne-Marie Slaughter, offers three characteristics that justify pre-emptive activity: possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), abuse of human rights which display a lack of control in the relationship between the government and those governed, or clear evidence that harm is intended towards another nation.  In regards to category of imminence, it must be clear and present.  If it is neither of those, then a nation cannot justify an attack.  However, if one is to act pre-emptively, the governing conditions of just war theory (the above 6) must be taken into account when creating a defensive strategy against the imminent aggressor.

To put these terms into a concrete example, we can take the current conflict between Iran and Israel.  Let us imagine that Iran has indeed constructed or is near completion of a nuclear weapon.  Furthermore, let us say that Israel has sufficient intelligence to determine that this is a clear and present threat to the existence of the nation of Israel.  These would satisfy the condition of taking a pre-emptive strike.  This pre-emptive strike, however, must be proportional.  In other words, Israel would have to engage in an attack that would only remove the threat of a nuclear attack, nothing more, and it cannot be done with a nuclear device because that would violate proportionality.

This is VERY cursory, but a good introduction to what Ratzinger calls the necessity of adapting Just War Theory to contemporary weaponization.

Concluding Notes

As a sidenote, we must take the idea of legitimate and competent authority seriously as Catholics.  All too often people will critique a war – the second Iraq war is the greatest example out there – without taking the legitimate authority into account.  They look to the other categories, but fail to realize that the information necessary to make a judgment about the justice of a war falls within the realm of the competent authority.  All sorts of intelligence necessary to make a legitimate judgment is currently lacking because it is still under lock and key by a government.  Who are we to judge if a war is just or not if we do not have all the necessary information to make said judgment?  So we must be careful, nuanced, and, at best, can propose hypotheses until we have all the information.

Finally, as a second sidenote, there is one element I am finding to be weak in the Just War tradition.  It is dependent purely on the natural law and those who promote it tend to stay at that category.  I am convinced that John Paul II is the first person to begin to move the just war discussion beyond the purely natural law argument and to develop it within the category of a theology of the human person.  Just war theory must take sin, theology of the human person, Trinitarian theology, Christology, etc. into the conversation.  I think this is the reason for the conflict between those who take a pacifist position and those who take a pro-war position.  I think these tensions can be resolved if theology were given a greater role in the discussion of the just war theory.

in Christ

-Harrison

More here: 

Is Pre-Emptive Strike Morally Justified?

Read More

Shout Out: more social indoctrination masked as educational resources

Thursday, March 1, 2012
Thumbnail

To make sure that the lesbian, gay, transgender, bisexual, LGTB lifestyle is promoted and normalized in Ontario schools teacher unions have been busy publishing resources. One is a very colorful book published by the Rainbow Resource Centre, a gay and lesbian group involved in political awareness and activism. It’s called,

Shout Out Against Homophobia, Biphobia, Transphobia and Heterosexism

.

The Ontario Secondary School Teachers Federation, OSSTF, has reprinted the text for teachers and students. The description used to promote it to teachers claims it’s “designed to educate young people on issues relating to sexual orientation and gender identity. Included in the publication is a series of autobiographical stories describing the first-hand experiences of those challenged by these issues, as well as educational information and resources.” The reader may want to also read another resource titled, Creating Spaces: Embedding Equity in Education put out by the OSSTF, which we reviewed in an earlier blog entry. Other publications include, Promoting Equity and Inclusive Education in Schools: A Teacher’s Guide and the video, “Hear Me Out” produced by the Ontario Teachers’ Federation, OTF, and features the former Minister of Education Kathleen Wynne.

There’s little “education” happening in the book. There’s a great deal of indoctrination. We have read it and it’s mostly propaganda for the LGTB agenda. It uses emotional words to try to convince readers who are mostly going to be young high school students. The text is an apologetic work for the LGTB lifestyle and those who wish to do activism in schools under the umbrella of education. The OSSTF is now in the business of political correctness and activism. We urge parents to take notice and be prepared to act pro-actively.

In the book’s introduction we find this disarming idea, “Knowing and accepting yourself as gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, two-spirit or just plain queer can be a freeing experience.” It goes on to tell the reader to be proud of your sexual orientation because this will be “a unique and amazing journey.” Nowhere in the book or in its references is there any information about the health risks of the homosexual lifestyle. Shout Out will serve to hyper-sexualize the school environment. Marketing and advertising already bombard children with too many degrading sexual images as well as sexist stereotypes that treat girls and boys of all ages as sexual objects. Teacher unions should be publishing resources to offset this troubling trend and not to encourage it.

Overcoming the “negative messages”

According to this book, once you recognize your sexual orientation, the next step in educating yourself is overcoming all the negative messages that have come from family, friends and religion. One needs to fight the fears and “phobias” such as “homophobia”, “biphobia”, “transphobia” and “heterosexism”. By knowing about these phobias, one can feel physically and mentally better.

The writers should be questioned about the meaning of these newly constructed words such as “biphobia”, “transphobia” and “heterosexiam”. But with teachers’ unions mostly preoccupied with political correctness, there’s little room for reason and for providing the appropriate information to students about the human person and human sexuality. The “phobia” words are too often used to stop people from asking any questions. But if you really think about it, a “phobia” is another word for “fear” . So if you feel this fear of homosexual behaviours, you are not allowed to feel this fear. You are only allowed to feel the feelings that the LGBT lobbies want you to feel…Only some people can have legitimate feelings, namely those who feel attractions to same sex people….If you disagree, you will be accused of either having a “phobia”(which by now you will recognize is not the correct word) or a bias for heterosexuality.



Language shapes our thinking and feeling

The book goes on to list and define the “phobias” that make it difficult for those who want live the “queer” life. Heterosexism is viewed as another “social prejudice, such as racism or sexism” Heterosexism is the prejudiced belief that heterosexuals, or ‘straight’ people, are socially and culturally superior to queer people. The definition goes on to say, “A common example of heterosexism is the assumption that everyone is straight. This often happens without even thinking about it. It might present itself in a simple way, such as asking a girl/woman if she has a “boyfriend’ or “husband” rather than a partner or significant other. The heterosexist assumption is that because she’s female she would naturally be dating a male.”

To persuade, the text uses the emotional victimhood pitch: “If we believe that queer people are not equal or deserving of being equal, then we are engaging in heterosexism. Throughout history and today, queer people exist in all cultures and same-sex sexual behavior exists.” The argument tries to convince the reader through feelings and a faulty analogy. To state that you are sexist and racist, if you accept the idea that the majority of the population is heterosexual, is an attempt to substitute an assumption for a fact. If the observation reflects the reality, that most people are heterosexual, then the reasoning is sound. To raise and confuse the issue with equality is a way of masking the truth. Of course the writers of this book have a different agenda: to convince us that the LGTB lifestyle is the “same” or “equal” to the heterosexual one. It’s like saying apples are now oranges and oranges are like apples because fruits are all equal aren’t they?



Personal testimonies

The reader is given several testimonies from young people stating the importance of celebrating and being proud of one’s sexual orientation. We hear the “coming out” stories of Nicole who is 15, Jennifer 17, Jeffrey 21 and Karen who is 16. In her biography, Karen says, “When I told my best friend that I liked girls and boys and that God doesn’t make mistakes, she said, ‘How do you know that God created you?’ I felt scared and evil even though I went to church every Sunday.” Eventually she got the courage to overcome her fears and accept that she was a “homo”; she hopes her story will help to make a difference for herself and others. The lesson here is “God does make mistakes”, and so it’s the person who must correct them and be proud of having done so. In short, sexuality is a choice and the choice is up to the individual, not to God or anyone else.

Facts and lies

The book tells the reader that society only “acknowledges two distinct genders.” This natural fact of being male or female is distorted by stating, “this binary leaves little room for people to openly express their gender in a way that feels right for them. Gender is also a socially constructed concept or idea of what is male or masculine, and what is female or feminine (e.g. blue for boys and pink for girls).” The male and female sex is not socially constructed. What is socially constructed are the dozen or so sexual orientations that the book tries to get the reader to accept as if they were the same as female and male. We should not confuse this with any colors we may associate with what is masculine and feminine or socially accepted characteristics of one sex or the other. Surely there’s a measurable difference between the cultural attitudes about being male or female and the socially constructed and self-chosen sexual orientations advocated in this resource.

Language with no meaning

Much of the wording in the book is abstract and open to interpretation. Consider this observation, “We’re a multifaceted community that expands beyond society’s gender expectations. Our self-determined gender is what we personally make it: emotionally, psychologically, and even physically. Our individuality should be based on who we are as people, not on what society expects us to be or what is between our legs.” The reader is instructed not to let society decide their “gender expectations”, but the writers of the book do exactly what they are telling the reader not to do. The writers are defining gender, manipulating language and playing once more with the feelings of young adults. The advice given here is both irresponsible and socially dangerous because there’s an invitation to experiment with one’s sexuality. This will confuse young people who look to adults they can trust to lead and counsel them. It’s the book that is reducing one’s individuality to what is not “between our legs”: the sexual orientations based on feelings and societal pressure. The emperor now not only has no clothes but also has no genitalia.

Church teaching could soon be illegal

These kinds of resources serve to undermine and help students to reject Christian values, their friends and even their families. They also may become a source of conflict between parents and children on the question of a moral education. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, teaches that homosexual acts are disordered. It can be compared to contraceptive sex between heterosexuals. In both instances the acts are directed against God’s natural purpose for sex – procreating and love. In Ontario if Bill 13 becomes law, Christian parents may no longer legally teach what they believe about human sexuality because they will be contravening the law. Christian teaching and Catholic schools could easily be held in contempt of the legislation. It will become a crime and a prejudice to live and speak the faith.

Ultimately parents must take an objective look at what is happening in our schools, our government and our society. There’s an open willingness to publish books such as Shout Out that have the potential to cpmpletely turn these institutions against the Church, against parents and against a moral education. Soon the present generation will not remember how our freedom of conscience and of religion disappeared and the future one will not know it ever existed. It’s up to the adults to provide that bridge from the past to the future. Are Christians willing and ready to do their part?

See original article:  

Shout Out: more social indoctrination masked as educational resources

Read More

Killing babies the same as abortion: Experts

Thursday, March 1, 2012

Killing babies the same as abortion: ExpertsMar1st20121 Comment Written by juvericciReally? I thought that’s what pro-lifers have been saying for the last little while, but don’t trust us

Read More - 

Killing babies the same as abortion: Experts

Read More

Killing babies the same as abortion: Experts

Thursday, March 1, 2012

Home

>

Abortion

> Killing babies the same as abortion: Experts

Killing babies the same as abortion: Experts

March 1, 2012

Really? I thought that’s what pro-lifers have been saying for the last little while, but don’t trust us! Trust the experts!

Seriously, though, this article in the British Medical Journal is callous. It really goes to show what kind of mentality arises when there is no respect for life. What stood out for me is that for a medical journal article there is a lot of talk about “personhood”, which is really a philosophical issue instead of a scientific one. And in terms of verbal gymnastics, check out this little somersault on the issue:

we propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion’, rather than ‘infanticide’,
to emphasise that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus (on which ‘abortions’ in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child.

Disgusting. In order to feel better about the killing of a newborn they use the euphemism of “after-birth abortion” rather than “infanticide”. Not only does it lessen the personhood of the newborn, it sounds nicer too. Win Win! Again, I ask why is there talk of moral status of an individual in a scientific journal? How can you perform experiments in a lab regarding personhood?

Science already has a term to describe a fetus, a newborn and a child: Human life.

Categories: AbortionTags: , , , ,

Continue at source: 

Killing babies the same as abortion: Experts

Read More

Queer Taxonomy

Thursday, March 1, 2012

I’m planning to blog soon about the whole question of whether or not homosexuality is rightly conceived of as a psychological disorder by conservative Christians, but as a prelude to that I’d like to establish some distinctions. The blanket term “homosexual” has a number of different, related but distinct meanings: there are several groups of people who are covered by this term, and there are significant variations between them.

The simplest definition of a homosexual is a person who has attractions for members of his or her own sex: SSA. This is the meaning that the Vatican tends to use in Her documents on homosexuality, and it is the definition which most people assume when they hear the word. The word “homosexual” in this sense does present some problems: it assumes that people who engage in homosexuality have some sort of underlying sexual preference or inclination which directs their sexual behaviour. It assumes that a person who has gay sex does so because they are attracted to members of their own sex, and not for other reasons. The people of Sodom, for example, were probably not homosexual in this sense: their demand to have sex with the angels was probably not a manifestation of sexual attraction, but was more likely a form of ritual domination, or of politically organized violence designed to keep unwanted outsiders out of their city, to send a clear message to Abraham who was camped nearby with his men, and/or to exercise magical or religious power over potential enemies. Prison homosexuality, lesbianism in harems, and pederasty in single-sex boarding schools are other examples of homosexuality in which people are likely to practice homosexual sex without necessarily having any same-sex attraction. The term “homosexual” in this sense also tends to assume a bipolar sexuality in which people are either exclusively SSA, or exclusively OSA (opposite sex attracted), and it doesn’t account for the fact that vast majority of SSA people have some degree of OSA as well.

A second possible definition, one that is fairly popular in contemporary discourse, is that a homosexual is a person who has an LGBTQ identity. A person who comes out of the closet as gay, is homosexual. That’s straightforward enough. Certainly when studies or research into homosexuality are undertaken, the LGBTQ community is the primary focus — both because it is incalculably easier to recruit people for studies when they are willing to identify themselves, and because people who identify as LGBTQ are more likely to access products and services which are directed towards a gay demographic. The problem with this definition is that it excludes all SSA people who, for one reason or another, do not want to identify themselves with the gay movement. Some people reject LGBTQ identities for religious or political reasons (Courage, Exodus and other Christian groups often explicitly discourage their members from identifying as gay, on the reasoning that it cements a link between personal identity and sexual sin, and that it may be a barrier to spiritual healing). Others reject LGBTQ identities because they reject gay culture, or because they have negative stereotypes associated with words like “gay” or “lesbian” that they feel do not apply to them. Still others reject an LGBTQ identity out of a feeling that labels are restrictive or artificial: they feel that their own sexuality cannot be adequately described or constrained by any of the available terms. Finally, SSA people may reject these identities because they want to keep their sexual preferences private, or because they don’t feel that their sexual desires are an important part of their identity at all. On the other hand, people who are not SSA may identify as LGBTQ either because they wish to access gay culture and gay services, or because they feel non-sexual romantic attractions to members of their own sex, or because they experience some variant of gender-queerness without SSA, or because they routinely have sex with members of their own sex even though they do not have strong same-sex attractions. (This latter category might seem a bit bizarre, but think, for example, of the situation of an OSA woman who has been raped and is now too terrified to have sexual relationships with men, and who therefore seeks out lesbian encounters in which she employs heterosexual mental imagery during sex.)

Finally, a third definition of homosexual, also seemingly intuitive and straightforward, is “someone who has sexual relations with members of his/her own sex.” The terms MSM (man who has sex with men) and WSW (woman who has sex with women) are often used in social studies research in order to precisely indicate this type of homosexual — studies of HIV/AIDS, for example, will tend to focus on MSMs regardless of attractions or sexual identities because HIV is spread by behaviours, not by desires or labels. The problem with this definition is that it would exclude all successfully chaste SSA people from ministries directed at homosexuals, and it would exclude all non-sexually active (or exclusively heterosexually active) LGBTQ people from public services, anti-bullying strategies, political protections, etc. which are designed to help or protect sexual minorities. It also fails to address the problem, mentioned above, of opportunistic or ideologically motivated homosexual sex by heterosexual people.

The bottom line is that these three groups, SSA folks, LGBTQ people, and MSMs/WSWs, are all in some sense “homosexual,” but they do not represent a homogeneous, or coterminous population. Any statement, study, or research about “homosexuals” must take this into account, it must resist the sloppy temptation to equivocate between these terms, to assume that statistical information or clinical observations of any one of these populations can be automatically applied to the others.

Continue at source:

Queer Taxonomy

Read More

Let’s Make a Deal

Thursday, March 1, 2012

More here:

Let’s Make a Deal

Read More

Let’s Make a Deal

Thursday, March 1, 2012
Thumbnail

Lent is a time to make certain God is number one in our lives. When we give up the little things like chocolate or Facebook or television, etc. we are confirming that nothing is more important to us than God. We test our faith. Do we believe that in God alone we find the greatest happiness? Or do we doubt and so settle with the kind of pleasures the world provides us with?

In the game show “Let’s Make a Deal“, contestants are given a prize that they can keep or else trade in for a hidden mystery prize. Consider that we’re a contestant and our worldly pleasures, such as internet, food, even friends and family, are prizes given to us by God, the host. Yes, our prizes are good and enjoyable. Yes they bring us a certain amount of happiness and pleasure. But now, if God says to us, promises us, that hidden behind a door is a prize greater than anything we could possibly imagine, would you trust Him? Would you have enough faith to trade in your current worldly prize for His mystery prize? What if He told you the mystery prize is Him?

I suspect it would depend on what our current prize is and the value we attach to it as to whether or not we would be willing to trade it in. Our faith may be strong enough for us to believe that God is greater than chocolate and so we likely wouldn’t hesitate too much trading it in, especially if only for 40 days during Lent. However if our prize was say… our house… the trade becomes more daring, taking more faith as we would have to desire God even more than the roof over our heads before we would willingly give it up. Now, let’s imagine if your prize was…

your only son.

What if God asked you to trade in your only son, your current prize, for Him, the mystery prize. Would you do it? Would anyone do it? Could anyone do it?

Abraham did it.

“God tested Abraham. He said to him, ‘Abraham!’ And Abraham said, ‘Here I am.’

God said ‘Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains that I shall show you.’

When Abraham and Isaac came to the place that God had shown him, Abraham built an altar there and laid the wood in order. He bound his son Isaac, and laid him on the altar, on top of the wood. Then Abraham reached out his hand and took the knife to kill his son.” - (Genesis 22:1-2, 9-10)


After years and years God had finally blessed Abraham with a son, his most desired prize, Isaac, and now God was asking him to give him up! Abraham’s faith was tested as God told him to take his son, his only son, and offer him as a burnt offering. Abraham had to believe that God was such a great Good that even his only son, whom he loved, did not compare to the reward of God Himself. Abraham’s faith was tested, and by this test he proved that God was indeed first and most important in his life. Then, at the last minute, an angel came and stopped Abraham from hurting his son, explaining that he had passed this test of faith.

“But the Angel of the Lord called to him from heaven and said, ‘Abraham, Abraham!’ And he replied, ‘Here I am.’ The Angel said, ‘Do not lay your hand on the boy or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me.’” - (Genesis 22:11-12)

For all of us there will be something in our lives that we hold so dear that we wouldn’t want to trade it in for anything. We

know

the pleasures of this life, we

see

them and

feel

them and

taste

them and so we

trust

them. We cling to them, this happiness we know, instead of letting them go in exchange for a more perfect happiness known only through faith. Our Lenten sacrifices can test our faith as Abraham’s was tested. What do we treasure more than God? Why? Do we not believe that God is the greatest treasure of all? Do we not believe that He, our Creator, can and will provide us with greater joy than any creature ever could?

In response to Abraham’s great faith God blessed him abundantly! Willing to give up his only son he instead chose God’s mystery prize and was in turn blessed by a replacement offering and with “offspring as numerous as the stars“.

“Abraham looked up and saw a ram, caught in a thicket by its horns. Abraham went and took the ram and offered it up as a burnt offering instead of his son.

The Angel of the Lord called to Abraham a second time from heaven, and said, ‘By myself I have sworn, says the Lord: Because you have done this, and have not withheld your son, your only son, I will indeed bless you, and I will make your offspring as numerous as the stars of heaven and as the sand that is on the seashore. And your offspring shall possess the gate of their enemies, and by your offspring shall all the nations of the earth gain blessing for themselves, because you have obeyed my voice.’” - (Genesis 22:13,15-18)


See original:

Let’s Make a Deal

Read More

THURSDAYS AT THE PARK

Thursday, March 1, 2012

Dear Catholic Mamas…

A few of have decided to do a regular park day at Fort Rodd Hill the

first and third Thursday of each month

from about 2-4,

starting on the third Thursday in March, the 15th.

If you aren’t familiar with Fort Rodd Hill, it’s a National Historic Site with acres or space to run, lots of great beach combing, an original lighthouse that is now an interpretive center….here’s the link if you want to know more.

Fort Rodd Hill

It is a great place just to hang out, and lots to do for the older kids. There are washrooms, picnic tables, lots of grassy area…

This is just an open space when people can meet if they wish to, without obligation. If it’s really important to meet up with others on any particular Thursday, it might be a good idea to phone or email around first to see if anyone else is going.

This article:

THURSDAYS AT THE PARK

Read More

Ordinariate celebrates a week to remember

Thursday, March 1, 2012

From www.ordinariate.org.uk

Around one hundred members of the Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham spent last week on pilgrimage of thanksgiving to Rome. Led by the Ordinary, Monsignor Keith Newton, the pilgrims made their way to the Eternal City to give thanks for the establishment of the Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham, and for all the many blessings they have received.

On Monday, His Eminence Cardinal Bernard Law celebrated and preached for the group at Santa Maria Maggiore. During his homily the Cardinal recalled the devotion of Anglo-­‐Catholics to the Blessed Virgin Mary, and how this reminds all Christians of the true nature of God and of humanity. In the evening, the group celebrated the traditional Anglican service of Evensong in Santa Maria in Trastevere, singing words from the Book of Common Prayer.

Tuesday saw the Ordinary preside at the Eucharist in San Giorgio in Velabro, the titular church of the Ordinariate’s patron and nineteenth century Anglican convert, Blessed John Henry Newman. During the Mass a former Anglican clergyman and his wife received the Sacrament of ConPirmation and hymns by Cardinal Newman were sung. The Ordinary, preaching at the Mass, recalled Newman’s famous biglietto speech which was delivered when he was made a Cardinal by Pope Leo XIII.

After the Mass, pilgrims visited the Papal Basilica of Saint Paul outside the Walls, where they were greeted by Abbot Edmund Power OSB. The group was joined for supper by Monsignor Mark Langham from the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, who spoke warmly and enthusiastically about the contribution of Personal Ordinariates to the life of the Catholic Church.

The group was joined on Ash Wednesday by His Eminence Cardinal William Levada, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, as well as Monsignor Steven Lopes and Monsignor Patrick Burke, and Father Uwe Michael Lang from the Congregation for Divine Worship.

The Cardinal celebrated Mass with the priests, deacons and lay faithful of the Ordinariate before the group went to the General Audience with Pope Benedict XVI. During the audience the Holy Father spokeabout
the conversion of all people during the season of Lent, and also welcomed especially the clergy and lay faithful of the Ordinariate. At the close of the ceremony, Mgr Newton was presented to the Holy Father
alongside other visiting dignitaries. In the afternoon, members of the group were present at the Papal Mass for Ash Wednesday in Santa Sabina.

On Thursday, members of the group visited the monasteries of Saint Benedict and Saint Scholastica in Subiaco.

At Saint Peter’s on Friday, the group celebrated Mass with traditional Anglican hymns. After Mass
the Ordinary led the General Thanksgiving, originally from the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, at the tomb of the Apostle, St Peter.

The final day was marked by the celebration of Holy Mass in Santa Maria del Popolo before the pilgrims set off for the UK.

Pilgrims were drawn from around thirty groups of former Anglicans who are now members of the Catholic Church across the UK. They were received into the full communion of the Catholic Church in 2011 as a result of Pope Benedict’s Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum coetibus.

Read original article: 

Ordinariate celebrates a week to remember

Read More

Fasting and feasting

Thursday, March 1, 2012

Fasting and feasting

Fasting and feasting: which is more appealing, and which is the more
difficult to do? My instinctive answer
is to say that fasting is arduous and uncomfortable, while feasting is fun and
indulgent, so I would prefer to do the latter.

First, let’s establish our terms: what is fasting? It is the denial of one good in order to
attain another good. According to canon law, fasting is the taking of only one
full meal and two smaller meals which do not equal the full meal, with no
eating between meals. We fast to mortify the flesh – to discipline the body in
order to focus on the spiritual. We also fast out of obedience because it has
been asked of us. [Religious] fasting is not a device to help us finally follow
through on our New Year’s resolutions – though that may be a happy side effect!

We know that Lent is the big ‘season of fasting’, but Catholics used to
fast on Wednesdays and Fridays during ordinary time as well – Wednesday being
the day Jesus was betrayed, and Friday the day He died. There were also several prescribed days of
fast in addition to the season of Lent, such as on the vigils of high feast
days. Some religious orders still observe some form of fasting from Advent to
Easter. Sigrid Undset’s trilogy Kristin
Lavransdatter vividly brings to life what old (14th Century)
Catholicism was like with strict fasts, a full allotment of daily Masses and
communal prayer, and penances that cost the penitent some effort to fulfill,
such as a walking pilgrimage. This may
sound grim and harsh, but Undset also clearly shows that the people sincerely
desired holiness and were very happy in their faith (she just as clearly shows
that holiness is not an easy accomplishment, and that good people, fallen into
sin, can seek and accept redemption.)

Our current practice of fasting is very relaxed from what it used to
be, and the thought of forgoing meat or chocolate for a time can seem
unnecessarily harsh. How ironic – not to mention illogical – that people will voluntarily
and happily discipline their consumption for health reasons, whether to diet,
or purge and cleanse, or as part of an athletic training regimen.

People flinch at the idea of fasting, but it really is feasting that is
difficult to sustain. This was brought home during our last Christmas season,
when around day eight of Christmas I was beginning to be tired of fireworks,
rich cakes, and silver bells, and longed for a return to the usual and
ordinary. Twelve days is a very long
time through which to sustain a feast in attitude, spirit, and stomach! Clearly feasting, like gratitude, and
joyfulness, is a state that requires effort and must be practiced. That leads
me to think this life is really preparing us to endure and maintain the eternal joy and celebration of heaven. We’ve got to do the work now in order to be
able to sustain it then.

Perhaps feasting isn’t the easy option after all. Thank goodness it’s Lent!

Link - 

Fasting and feasting

Read More

CMS Welcomes Medieval Colloquium Attendees

Thursday, March 1, 2012

The CMS 33rd Medieval Colloquium is this Friday and Saturday March 2–3, and we are looking forward to having you all here with us in Toronto. Here are some important points of information in preparation for the event.

1. Registration and Conference Schedule:

 Here is

 the current conference schedule

. Please note the registration and coffee/breakfast time of 8-9am, where you may pick up your conference packets. Registration will occur at the main conference location of Alumni Hall, in the

Old Victoria College building

.

2. Conference Locations:

 

Here is a link to a Google-Map of local conference locations

. Touch your cursor to the name of the location and the appropriate pin will be highlighted. We also have a

printable walking map

.

Registration, panels, and keynotes, together with various coffee breaks, will take place in Alumni Hall of Old Victoria College

 (not to be confused with Alumni Hall of Saint Michael’s College). “Old Vic” is the castle-shaped building in the middle of the Victoria University complex of buildings, and has a large main door. Alumni Hall is the room directly ahead of you upon entrance.

Lunches will be served in the Great Hall of the Centre for Medieval Studies, which is on the third floor of the

Lillian Massey Building

across from the ROM. There will be signs with arrows posted around, so you should be able to find it without difficulty.

Our Friday evening reception will be held in the Provost’s Lodge of

Trinity College

, which is accessed through the door to the right of the main entrance.

Any extracurricular drinking will probably occur in the Bedford Academy, which is a friendly local pub on Prince Arthur Street near Bedford Road. Members of the conference committee will be going for an informal drink there on Thursday March 1, beginning at around 7 if anyone wishes to join us. The reservation will be under the ‘CMS Medieval Conference’. The CMS Social Committee will also be having a pub night on Friday evening at 8:00 PM in the Bedford Academy (36 Prince Arthur Avenue).

Each of these locations is wheelchair-accessible. Please contact us if you have any special requirements.

3. Getting to downtown from the airports (for visitors to Toronto):

To transit downtown from Pearson International airport: from the Pearson Terminal, take the 192 Airport Express to Kipling Subway Station. Take the subway eastbound to St. George Station.

To transit downtown from Toronto Island Airport: a free shuttle bus runs from the ferry terminal at Toronto Island Airport to a hotel about a block from Union Subway Station. Take the ‘University-Spadina’ subway line northbound from Union and get off at either Museum (closest to the conference building) or St. George (closest to the hotel). Transit fares are $3 one-way.

If you do not wish to transit, you may take a taxi; fares to downtown should be ca. $35-40 from Pearson and ca. $15–20 from Toronto Island Airport.

4. Inquiries and Directions: various volunteers will be stationed around the conference areas full of helpful answers to all your questions.

Read more:

CMS Welcomes Medieval Colloquium Attendees

Read More

Solemnities and Memorials in March

Thursday, March 1, 2012
Thumbnail


Solemnities and Memorials in March



March Solemnities and Memorials

Posted by
Gilles Côté

at
6:00 AM

Labels:
,

Subscribe to:

Post Comments (Atom)

Visit source:

Solemnities and Memorials in March

Read More

Why I’m Not Vegetarian

Thursday, March 1, 2012


First of all, I need to start of by saying this is not an anti-vegetarian rant. In many ways, I sympathize with and practice vegetarianism, (depending on how you define vegetarianism – I point I’ll get to below.) I eat very little meat. My family buys and eats small portions of meat once a week, and we’re happy with that. We would probably be just as happy if we ate no meat at all. For lent, we are eating no meat (except on Sundays if the occasion arises, which it usually does with our very carnivorous friends and family.) Lent is hardly a change or challenge. During normal weeks, we don’t miss it or even think of it if we miss our weekly trip to the butcher. So why don’t I just take that easy step and make myself vegetarian? Here are my reasons.

Vegetarianism is a means not an end. In its proper context, practicing vegetarianism at times, most of the time or even all the time is a means to accomplish something else – health, religious devotion, saving money, economic improvement, protesting animal abuse, etc. In their proper context, I consider all of these valid; I would definitely say some of these goals are more important than others, but all have some degree of validity. But when we define vegetarianism as a practice which is a means to accomplish another goal, it means that there is no such thing as a “vegetarian.” Both a monk and an animal rights activist may practice vegetarianism, but it would absolutely incorrect to lump both together under the category of “vegetarian.” Their reasons have nothing to do with each other, and their manner of living and focus in life are entirely different.

Vegetarianism is something you can do sometimes, and not at others. This definition of vegetarianism (a means to accomplish other ends) is the definition I support. Depending on the purpose, I sympathize with and practice vegetarianism. This definition allows someone to practice vegetarianism 95% of the time, then eat meat at the family Christmas dinner without feeling they’ve “lost their (meat) virginity,” so to speak; it allows people to practice vegetarianism during religious fasting, and enjoy eating meat again when the feast day comes.

The label “vegetarian” makes vegetarianism an end rather than a means. I would say most if not all vegetarians start off with something like I described above; they abstain from meat for a specific purpose which is an end more important than the practice itself. Yet, I feel that often once people make the leap and finally to call themselves “vegetarian,” (note: this is not giving up meat altogether, but actually taking on the label) the relation of means vs. end gets turns on its head. Vegetarianism is now the end, and the purpose, and all the other ends (religion, health, animal rights, economy) suddenly become the means to justify being Vegetarian. A vegetarian trying to convince someone else to become vegetarian (a situation that couldn’t happen in the above definition) will give a long list of justifications – “Take your pick,” is the message, “so long as you become vegetarian, it doesn’t matter what your reason is.”

Vegetarian purity. Once someone calls himself “vegetarian,” he is committing himself to NOT eating meat pretty much at all costs. I’ve seen vegetarians have a whole household running around trying to change the food so they can eat it. If a “vegetarian” eats meat once, they’ve committed a grave error on a moral level. They’re left with the moral conflict of whether they will continue to be vegetarian or give in to their failure and abandon their cause. Being vegetarian, if you’re not careful, can become like a religion in itself.

I probably don’t have to say that I’m not a fan of this kind of vegetarianism. Besides the fact that I still haven’t heard a compelling reason to give up meat completely (to eat less or even little meat, yes, but to eat no meat, no,) I’ve never liked the idea of putting my hosts to all sorts of trouble to accommodate my preference. The most important point is, I see vegetarianism as a means to accomplish more important goals.

I will continue to practice vegetarianism as often as it’s necessary or reasonable to do so. I’ll continue practicing vegetarianism many days of my life because meat costs too much; I’ll continue practicing vegetarianism during religious fasts to focus on God and give more to others. On the other hand, for now, I’ll continue eating meat when my family feels like it, to celebrate feast days and (usually) when I’m at another person’s house and they offer me meat. But even if one day I stop eating meat altogether, I still won’t be “vegetarian,” because it will still be a means to accomplish another end, and not an end in itself.

See the original article here:

Why I’m Not Vegetarian

Read More

Dieu m’aime-t-il vraiment?

Thursday, March 1, 2012


Lire Romains 8, 31-34

Lorsque j’étais prêtre de paroisse, j’aimais bien participer à la préparer des enfants à la première communion. Je me plaisais à leur redire que l’Eucharistie est un sacrement où Dieu leur exprime son amour. Je leur rappelais qu’ils ont une valeur inestimable aux yeux de Dieu. Mais j’avais parfois l’impression que certains parents, en entendant cela, se disaient en eux-mêmes: “Ouais, si Dieu m’aimait, je n’aurais pas perdu mon emploi… mon mariage aurait réussi… ma mère ne serait pas malade… mon ami me pardonnerait…” De fait, j’ai l’impression que beaucoup d’adultes doutent de l’amour de Dieu lorsqu’ils regardent tous les problèmes que la vie peut leur poser. Peut-on croire à l’amour de Dieu lorsque tant de choses vont mal?

Ce genre de doute semble inévitable si l’on croit que Dieu contrôle les événements de la vie. En effet, si c’est Dieu qui décide des pratiques d’embauche de ma compagnie, ou de l’attitude de mon époux, ou de la santé de ma mère, ou de la dureté de cœur de mon ami, alors je ne pourrai en conclure qu’une chose : Dieu est un metteur en scène sadique qui se plait à voir souffrir ses enfants. Ce Dieu-là, je ne pourrai pas lui faire confiance. Au contraire, je devrai m’en méfier, chercher à l’amadouer, négocier avec lui pour qu’il détourne son regard et me laisse en paix.

Mais est-ce là le Dieu de Jésus-Christ? Saint Paul professe ouvertement et clairement sa foi dans notre extrait d’aujourd’hui. Il y affirme sa conviction que Dieu nous aime, que Dieu est pour nous, que rien ne peut nous séparer de cet amour divin. C’est que Paul ne voit pas Dieu comme un metteur en scène sadique, mais comme un Père compatissant qui comprend notre souffrance et vient la partager. Il a même donné son Fils, Jésus, pour nous montrer jusqu’à quel point il nous aime. En Jésus, Dieu est venu partager notre souffrance, la subir jusqu’au bout. Devant la souffrance de Jésus, comment continuer à croire que Dieu nous envoie nos problèmes? Au contraire, il vient subir nos problèmes avec nous, toujours à nos côtés, toujours prêt à nous appuyer, nous encourager, nous aider. Bref, en Jésus sur la croix, Dieu nous révèle son amour, un amour sans limites, un amour sans fin.

Nous devons changer notre façon de voir et de comprendre la vie. Dieu n’est pas la cause de nos problèmes et de nos souffrances. Dieu n’est pas le metteur en scène de notre vie qui se plait à multiplier les problèmes et les obstacles. Non, Dieu est avec alors que nous confrontons ces problèmes et ces obstacles. En Jésus, il s’est donné jusqu’au bout. Et en ressuscitant Jésus, il nous montre que son amour est plus puissant que tout obstacle, que la vie qu’il nous partage est plus forte que la mort. En lui, notre espérance revit.

Alors, faisons-nous un cœur d’enfant, comme à la première communion. Redécouvrons la confiance en ce Dieu d’amour. Oui, nous avons du prix à ses yeux. Il nous aime.

Source article:

Dieu m’aime-t-il vraiment?

Read More

Spring Dresses

Thursday, March 1, 2012
Thumbnail

Original article: 

Spring Dresses

Read More

Postcards from toddler-dom!

Thursday, March 1, 2012
Thumbnail

So lately, what with having a fourth child and everything, it seems like all I do all day is take care of children. And yes, I’m a stay at home mom, its what I do essentially. But when I mean ALL I do all day is take care of children I mean ALL I do all day is take care of children.

Theres a constant din in the background. I have to sometimes force myself to take a timeout from discipling everyone else! When I’m not breaking up fights I’m answering to the myriad demands of 3 tiny very demanding people. When they’re not fighting or demanding they’re eating….usually food I provide for them and have to cook. And when they’re not eating they’re asking me questions. Like “But what does Belle say to the Beast when he stops being a Beast?” or “Where does the sun live?” or “Why do I have to go to the corner for hitting Dom with a toy hockey stick?” Oh, and when all that isn’t going on and sometimes at the same time, they’re all creating individual works of vague mess.

Sometimes in the midst of all this toddler-ness that “To whom much is given, much will be required” quote hits me. And then I think, “Damn right!” or “Hells to the yes” or “True dat”. Most days its asked of me constantly, times four little mouths. Don’t you just hate when quotes from the Gospel up and hit you in the middle of your real life?

All this is to be expected when you have three toddlers so close in age- all the fighting, questions, noise, mess, repeating, teaching, cuddling, nurturing, that is. Clearly if it was easy to have multiple children close in age everyone these days would be doing it. But its just not.

I am deep in toddlerhood. So deep I can’t imagine what the other side must be like. So deep I can barely imagine popping out the other side!

But hopefully if we keep on slogging through we’ll make it. Right??

“To maintain a joyful family requires much from both the parents and the children. Each member of the family has to become, in a special way, the servant of the others.”

-Blessed John Paul II


Read this article - 

Postcards from toddler-dom!

Read More

A holiday renewal

Thursday, March 1, 2012

Note: This is a much older post…I’m not sure if I had put it on my blog or not.

I should also note that I am blogging more regularly with my scholastics brothers:

http://www.iboetnonredibo.blogspot.com/

My contributions to that one will be bi-weekly..more than I can say for this current blog.

I’m sure this one will find it’s renewal at some point!!

My semester ended a few weeks ago. It’s been a good one, with it’s own set of challenges.
In my own little way, I have grown in God’s love deeply enough to understand that being loved
by God means being given the strength to renew ourselves, to strive even more towards that perfection that God invites us to. It’s probably something none of us ever will achieve.However, the most important thing I learned a long time ago in my faith journey, is that I have to accept the invitation towards perfection, without ever expecting to reach it. The moment one thinks they have perfection, they fall into the trap of complacency. I’m not free of the poison of complacency myself, but my labors towards building the Kingdom of God on earth move me further and further away from this! This has been the most positive thing of my year…growing in confidence in my own little contribution in helping build God’s kingdom on Earth.

One of the more difficult aspects of my journey that is almost becoming a routine for me considering how often I come back to it, is one rather complex question: How do I live my own vocation as a Brother, ‘seperately’ from the vocation of my scolastic -future priests- brothers/house mates, yet still in complete communion with them? I knew my community of studies would be a difficult place to make some progress in finding an answer to that question, being surrounded by guys who just have a different way of proceeding, and different ambitions than I do. It does become hard for me to be in such a community and to not compare how they approach their work, and how I approach mine. Those who know me well will be groaning at this point and be saying ” are you still comparing yourself to others? When will you let of that?”

Honestly? Probalby never. I mean, put yourselves in my shoes: We haven’t had a brother enter the Society of Jesus in almost 40 years, and the last one that considered entering would have done so with a carpentry background. So there are no more young brothers left, and most brothers in the Society are people that have specific manual skills. Other brothers have followed a similar path of studies in the past, but they’re not really my peers, at least, not in age! So, here I am, trying to help formulate an identity for Brothers in the Society of Jesus of Canada in the 21st century, and being surrounded by priests, older brothers, and future priests. I’ve never been in such a unique position in my entire life. Fr. Doug in Wiky was the first to point to this challenge I had, when he told me that I had no role models in terms of Brothers in Canada. This makes the path even more challenging.

However, from the moment I arrived in Toronto for studies, I realized how well surrounded, well supported I was. How many priests and how many of my peers have confirmed my vocation and its uniqueness by ‘validating’ the way I operate. Some would see the fact that I still need validation once in a while as a sign of weakness, but to me it’s an expression of the human reality that none of us are as strong as we think on our own, and that our true source of power is that which we gather from our community.

So we come back to this sense of communion. My experience of communion and love for God and others deepened these past months, not only within my community, but with the larger communion of Saints that is our Catholic Church. People like Theresa of Lisieux and Bernard Lonergan have been shaping my spiritual and intellectual growth in ways I’m still trying to process. To my surprise, my sense of growth has been accompanied with a deepening of my sense of love of self, and my confidence in the role I can play in the future within the Society of Jesus. The difficulty remains that I still don’t know what that role is necessarily going to be, but as my wise parents once put it, since my Jesuit journey has begun, I have always struggled for a week or 2 with new environments, and have eventually, always found a way to find my niche, and even thrive there. This idea is one of my greatest sources of trust for the coming year. I know I’ll still struggle some more this year, because it’s the struggle that leads me to this path of holiness that I seek to live.

Much more to tell…I’ll probably make a seperate post about my holiday experience!!

View the original here:  

A holiday renewal

Read More

  • What did I miss ???

  • sample
  • sample

  • CC Archives

  • sample
  • facebook twitter youtube
  • sample
  • sample