Why this tumult among nations, among peoples this useless murmuring? They arise, the kings of the earth, princes plot against the Lord and his Anointed. ‘Come, let us break their fetters, come, let us cast off their yoke.’
Rather, this us from the Office of Readings today, from Psalm 2.
The Apostle commands us to rejoice, but in the Lord, not in the world. For, you see, as Scripture says, whoever wishes to be a friend of this world will be counted as God’s enemy. Just as a man cannot serve two masters, so too no-one can rejoice both in the world and in the Lord.
From a sermon by Saint Augustine
In one article in The Australian today, someone from the Sex Party (I kid thee not, that's what they call themselves) seem to have said the following:
Interesting report from WorldNetDaily. Very interesting quote from C.S. Lewis cited:
| Most of us are not really approaching the subject in order to find out what Christianity says; we are approaching it in the hope of finding support from Christianity for the views of our own party .. |
And while such an attitude exists among Christians, we are not presenting a very coherent witness to a world that is drifting more and more away from God. Much of what we got right in the past are still there in the formerly more Christian West, but without Christ at the true center, they will all have sand in their foundations.
Over at Slashdot, I found this link to Jason Walsh's criticism of Ireland's amended Defamation Bill. The slashdot post naturally elicited some criticism of Ireland's alleged return to the dark ages and so on, as well as quite a flurry about agnosticism, atheism and so on.
I posted a response because what Jason Walsh writes is incorrect. The bill's amendment wasn't about "shield[ing] religious belief from criticism". It defines what the Irish constitution does not, about what blasphemous matter is. Such vaguness caused a few problems in the past, apparently. The amended bill promises penalties for infractions, but significantly gives a definition of blasphemous matter (according to the Irish Times) as
.. matter "that is *grossly abusive* or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion; *and he or she intends*, by the publication of the matter concerned, to cause such outrage." (emphasis mine)
I repeat what I wrote in my Slashdot post:
Freedom of speech should not include grossly abusive speech that would take away from other people their own freedom to hold beliefs without anxiety about arbitrary gross insults. Engaging in healthy criticism and the debate that ensues is one thing, and is welcome. There is a meeting of minds and a clash of ideas. It is an entirely different thing to grossly abuse the beliefs of a group of people concerning what they hold to be sacred matter simply for the sake of insulting them.
It would be nice if governments didn't need to legislate such things, and for the citizenry to exercise common decency and engage instead in honest criticism whose objective is to right wrongs in the context of dialogue. Unfortunately, we have many published celebrities today who instead exercise their ego and vile contempt for those whom they disagree with, and copycats aplenty with blogs, YouTube accounts and art degrees at their disposal.
I truly do not think it ideal to have to enact such laws, but it's hard to blame lawmakers who look at things from a different perspective. Anti-religious bigotry are on the rise, in levels not seen in quite a while, and the world both watches and, sadly, emulates at times. I'm thinking about those museum exhibits involving Catholic personages and symbols in fecal matter, or urine. I also recall a fairly drawn out YouTube matter involving the consecrated host, abuse by bullet, blade, fire and what-not, and a college professor cheering and apparently paying for more. Who would welcome such vile contempt amplified in print?
It's a pretty good one. More importantly, given that the situation in Australia is not much different, if behind by a few years, here's the big question: What does the Church in Australia do about it? We've recently lost the battle over the Abortion Law Reform bill in the state of Victoria, with a number of self-named Catholic/Christian legislators voting the wrong way. Debate over the Assisted Reproduction Treatment Bill is ongoing, but votes from the same group are once more up in the air.
A few reports I've dredged up, plus my reactions. Please excuse me if I rant in some issues longer (and with more intensity) than others.
"Priest facing 33 charges of sexual offenses", and it appears that the man is guilty. It is logical to resolve this with a thorough criminal investigation.
A rebellion in the Brisbane Archdiocese from a parish where the sacraments, liturgy and goodness knows what else have been twisted, abused, misused, or applied illicitly. The news is grim indeed, which to me only drives home the point about being clear in doctrine and firm in pastoring. Being vague and soft only invites errors from well-meaning but confused or misguided folks.
New abortion laws introduced in Victoria. Many recognize that the current laws, which allow abortions only in cases where the mother's life is in danger, are not being applied consistently. The twisted logic is thus to normalize the infractions by decriminalizing abortion completely. It is incredible to read opinions that this will not affect the number of abortions. Those who hold such opinions will not be held accountable, of course, even if they are proven wrong. Sadly, the implications are too real for the unborn as well as their mothers, should abortion be considered. The Women's Affairs minister, Ms. Morand, is doing a disservice to women. Women deserve better. The minister is not giving them a solution, nor does she seem to have taken a close look at the devastation wrought by abortion on demand in other countries. The data is there, and it spans 30 years and more than 30 million abortions since Roe vs. Wade in the US. Why don't they simply take a look? The exaggerated reports of backyard abortions are dwarfed by the abortions legally carried out in the US today. I can't understand the stubborn refusal to look at the evidence. Abortion kills. Just look at what is extracted, or compare what happens between two pregnant women nine months later, where one has an abortion and the other doesn't. Or check the DNA of the aborted fetus, which is not identical with the mother's. The data is clear. It's the politics/ideology that happens to be shadowy.
[Sources: The Age, News.com, and Yahoo News.]
In Meet the Press recently, US Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the following about the her views on when life begins, within the context of abortion:
| "I would say that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time. And what I know is over the centuries, the doctors of the church have not been able to make that definition . . . St. Augustine said at three months. We don't know. The point is, is that it shouldn't have an impact on the woman's right to choose." |
Mercifully, a quick response came from the Church, this time, via this very straightforward statement coming from Archbishop Charles J. Chaput of Denver. [Links to a PDF file] The short form of his response is that the relevant issue to address is the fact that the Church has always considered abortion objectively and gravely wrong. The Curt Jester posts about several responses from the Church, in fact. I can only add from what I know that some ancient Christian literature such as the Didache and The Epistle of St. Barnabas are clear about this.
I am reading The Imitation of Christ and find it immensely edifying. The advice on admitting the distractions of the world around us is most apt. I suspect that a substantial amount of my time is wasted on such distractions, reading up news from at least three continents each day, a handful of my favorite blogs, writing my own blog posts ..
! oops
Or, in this case, a dog. I cannot see the logic of giving a dog 10 or even 2 million dollars when starvation ravages many parts of the world. Exceedingly bizarre.
My Latin may be mistaken, but this piece about truth is, to my thinking, as accurate as it is timely. Dr. Stan Williams is on to something that the sound byte generation really needs to ponder.
Msgr. Cormac Burke tackles the popular notion of self-esteem as espoused in western society today. I am not yet done reading, but what I've read so far is rather insightful, and probably quite apt.
This is rather funny. Mel Gibson's accent in Braveheart was voted second worst in cinema history, according to polls. What's funny is what is also revealed in the polls: several respondents nominated Sean Connery's accent as James Bond -- and their votes were disqualified since Sean is indeed a Scot. So why should we trust the results of the polls at all?
What isn't funny, however, is how people actually do put a lot of stock on polls. The problem, of course, is that some things are based on objective facts, not opinion. Yet many serious matters of law, right and wrong, life and death, are affected by polls, despite the fact that it is always possible to manipulate polls.
Except that it has been getting more and more obvious with each new low in the world today. Mark Shea doesn't doesn't have to spin a conspiracy yarn: he just tells things as they are and they fall into place. The war effort begins with prayer.
