Thursday, December 13, 2007
Death and Advent
There is something about this month of November that urges silent reflection. All of nature is quiet and asleep. The color of life as seen in trees, blooming meadows and fields—is all gone. The landscape is gray and brown—or perhaps even covered in white! Holy Church, always in harmony with God's providence and creation, dedicates this month to praying for the dead. And how can we do so without thinking of our own life—and our own death—which is meant to free us from the bonds of earth and bring us into God's presence forever? Does not St. Francis say in his beautiful prayer, "it is in dying that we are born to eternal life"?The thought of death is not, and must not be, a morbid thing. No. Correctly seen, this life of time, given by God, is only temporary and but the brief, passing trial that must bring us to eternity. Our Lord and His Saints teach us this incessantly.
These are good thoughts to lead us into the liturgical season of Advent. For in this season of penitential, yet joyful anticipation, the Church continues these thoughts, as She presents for our reflection the coming of Christ Our Lord, not only in time, but also at the end of time. So is it not good to think about our own place in God's providential plan, and perhaps to examine our lives to see just how well we are corresponding to that loving plan? And when we do, let us practice that virtue so greatly needed in our time—hope. Remember what hope means? It is good to read the consoling definition of this essential virtue as we read it so long ago in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
Hope is the virtue by which we firmly trust that God, Who is all-powerful and faithful to His promises, will in His mercy give us eternal happiness and the means to obtain it.
It is an infused theological virtue, received at Baptism together with sanctifying grace and having the possession of God as its primary object. It belongs to the will and makes a person desire eternal life, which is the heavenly vision of God, and gives one the confidence of receiving the grace necessary to reach heaven...
Our Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI reminds us of this virtue in his new encyclical Spe Slavi. In the introduction, he explains that "according to the Christian faith, 'redemption' (or salvation) is not simply a given. Redemption is offered to us in the sense that we have been given hope, trustworthy hope, by virtue of which we can face our present: the present, even if it is arduous, can be lived and accepted if it leads towards a goal, if we can be sure of this goal, and if this goal is great enough to justify the effort of the journey. Now the question immediately arises: what sort of hope could ever justify the statement that, on the basis of that hope and simply because it exists, we are redeemed? And what sort of certainty is involved here?"
Faith is Hope. Our Holy Father also reminds us that "before turning our attention to these timely questions, we must listen a little more closely to the Bible's testimony on hope. “Hope”, in fact, is a key word in Biblical faith—so much so that in several passages the words “faith” and “hope” seem interchangeable".
Dear brothers and sisters in Chirst, the Season of Advent is THE season of hope. Hope in the one who was, who is and is to come. Amen.
Labels: Advent, Catechism of the Catholic Church, Death, Hope, Spirituality, Thoughts
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Open Letter: The Love of God
Dear Naliakbar, I'm a Catholic (I do not hold certain views of Islam which the Protestants have) and I hope we can have an open discussion on the matters of religion; my only intention is to know and understand more. There are so many similariteies which we share as "people of the book". We believe in monoaestic faith, God is a transcendent creator, sovereign, ominpotent, spoke (and continues to speak) to humanity through prophets, angels, written word, knows our intimate thoughts, the wicked will be judged.
Having said all this, my issue with Islam is the concept of the love of God/Allah.
Having said all this, my issue with Islam is the concept of the love of God/Allah.
In Chrisitanity, God, the Father, provided a sinless savior- Jesus Christ- who took our sins upon himself & bore God's wrath in our place.(Mt20:28,26:28,Lk22:37,Jhn3:16,10:9-11,2Cor5:21,Gal3:13,1The5:9-10) whereas in Islam, Allah provided a messenger- Muhd (P.B.U.H.)- who warned of Allah's impending judgement(Surah2:119,5:19,7:184,188,15:89-90). Through the death & ressurection of Christ, there is no condemnation; hence the love of God is shown and perpetuated. Thus, there isn't a need to weigh good deeds against bad deeds (Surah 7:8-9, 21:47).
Also, on love, Catholics- as many other Christians- believe that God does not take any pleasure in the death of the wicked (Eze 18:23) & is "not wanting anyone to perish but come back to repentance" (2Pet3:9), however in the Koran (Surah 5:49,Ali;Surah4:168-169,7:179,9:2,40:10), we see that Allah desires to afflict man for some of their sins. Perhaps you could explain this part as Catholics do have some understanding regarding this matter where souls are sent to purgatory. Does "afflict them for their sins" imply purgatory or damnation?
Still on love, Allah "loves not the prodigals" (Surah3:140) & neither does he love "him who is treacherous or sinful" (Surah4:107;Ali). This is entirely different from the Christian doctrine where god demonstrates His love for us in this: while we were sinners, Christ died for us- our sins (Rom5:8), also looking at the Parable in the Gospel of the prodigal son who returned to the father was warmly welcomed.
Now, there seems to be some contridiction since the Koran says that the God of Islam is the God of the Christians and Jews (Surah 29:46). How can this be when Allah is impersonal and unitarian (Surah4:48) whereas the Christian scriptures reveal God as personal (1Pet5:6-7) and Trinitarian (2Cor13:14)? Also, how can God/Allah be changeble or capricious (Surah 2:284)? Finally, how can the God of the Muslims be the God of the Christians when no where is Allah ever presented as the God of love; not being a loving God is contrary to the very essence and nature of God (1Jhn4:7-16).
Thank you for you time, please correct me if I've wrongly quoted the Koran or if I've misinterpretated it. Otherwise, I hope you can provide your view(s). Anywhere where a harsh or rude tone of language is sensed is not intended.
Before, I go, what are your opinions on this: The Catechism of the Catholic Church 841 regarding the Catholic Church's relationship with the Muslims: "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."
Hope to hear from you soon.
In the God of Abraham,
Paul M.
Labels: Catechism of the Catholic Church, Catholic Belief, Discussions, Muslims, Open Letter, Reply
Friday, March 30, 2007
The Future of Catholicism: Vatican Council III?
The Second Vatican Council was somewhat ambiguous. It opened the windows to other Churches, to the modern world and to the future. Such action has led to many changes in the life of the Church, some new emphasis on official doctrine; in some ways it also appears that the Council seemed to have acknowledged some pluralism in the Church’s life. The Council raised much hope or fears of more radical changes, the situation back then could have been one of considerable uncertainty.
Yet, the Council was often conservative, taking great care to be loyal to the papacy and to previous councils. In fact it is this conservative side that the new catechism proclaims! This was done either by the changing of the order of the subject matter, the selection of one quotation over another, placing stress on old doctrines that have been left untouched, or by reviving doctrines that the Council left unmentioned. The mood was probably different from the confusing but ‘creative’ 60’s. The intention of John Paul was to stabilize and unite the Church in one theology and one discipline. Personally, I liked the fact that the Vatican did not bless what has become the current usage where the language reflects the challenge of feminism. For example, the translation refers to ‘men’ instead of ‘people’ or ‘all’.
Yet, the Council was often conservative, taking great care to be loyal to the papacy and to previous councils. In fact it is this conservative side that the new catechism proclaims! This was done either by the changing of the order of the subject matter, the selection of one quotation over another, placing stress on old doctrines that have been left untouched, or by reviving doctrines that the Council left unmentioned. The mood was probably different from the confusing but ‘creative’ 60’s. The intention of John Paul was to stabilize and unite the Church in one theology and one discipline. Personally, I liked the fact that the Vatican did not bless what has become the current usage where the language reflects the challenge of feminism. For example, the translation refers to ‘men’ instead of ‘people’ or ‘all’.
Despite this restoration- a genuine catechism faithful to the essential content of Revelation and up to date in method. There seems to be some danger that the detailed catechism which has been authorized solemnly may be used in a manner that would be alien to the spirit of the majority in the council, by not allowing enough local liberty.The most significant change in Church history could probably be change from the Church as being a fortress repelling enemies by firing off dogmas to being the Church as the pilgrim people of God, loving God and God’s world, moving into a future with joyful faith. To this change, I sing te duem. This is also a ‘sign of the times’. In the 90’s two-thirds of Catholics lived in Europe and North America. Now more than three-quarters of the much larger numbers live in Latin America, Asia and Africa. As the Council registered, “the Church has become more educated and humble”. The Second Vatican II Council is likely to be the last Council to be dominated by Europe. The Church has become less white, less rich and more distant from the Vatican. The consequences of both these revolutionary developments will set the agenda for future Popes. Many of the challenges that will confront the Church and the Holy Father will be more or less the same throughout the Church, regardless of locality.
Future Popes would have inherited a severe decline in the number of priests. Many are leaving the priesthood. This decline has encouraged lay movement, like in the days of the apostles; a small compensation. However, priests- no matter how young or dedicated- would be too few to provide the sacraments, care and teaching to those who look to them. The Vatican estimates one priest to seven thousand Catholics in South America as a whole, and one to four thousand in Africa. I’m not advocating, but could this be inter alia, due to the restriction on priests to marry? This could have been the wishes of potential priests to carry out their human right of marriage.
The rising movement to release female talent in Church (as well as society) would be another issue. Certainly (and hopefully) the option of Priesthood is closed. However, an easier option to consider would be the deaconate, as Phoebe certainly was when St. Paul wrote to the Church over which you now preside (Romans 16:1-2).
Perhaps one of the hardest decisions that would have to be made would be the from the multitudes of Catholic laity that sexual intercourse which transmits love need not be always be open to the transmission of life. Would artificial contraception be allowed? In all the weight of Roman authority the answer would definitely be a resounding ‘No’. However, considering the expected doubling of the world’s population (at least twelve billion), how are Catholic clergy to regain the respect of the laity as teachers of sexual morality?
Our future Pope, whoever he may be, would inherit the legacy of many centuries. Will he be open to the possibility of substantial changes or remain conservative- faithful to Roman Catholic tradition?
We are not far from the day where we’ll hear the wide ranging criticisms coming from all corners of the Church. We need to ask ourselves: What is the authority of Sacred Scripture and of the Church? What is the heart of the Christian faith? What diversity in its expressions is right? What is sex for and what is the priesthood for?
In the sixteenth century, nationalist policies increased the force of the Protestant question: What is the authority of the Bible? In the twenty-first century, the importance of sexuality in human life may fuel explosive power to the Catholic question: What is the authority of the Church?
It can be foreseen that the future Popes would have voices coming from their own heart, warning him not to divide the Church whose unity is entrusted to him. He would also look upon Protestantism and be reminded of the innumerable divisions that we created by men and women who followed their own private judgments in defiance of the mind of the Church. He would be warned not to sacrifice the truth entrusted to his guardianship for modernism, post-modernism, agnosticism, materialism, and other passing fashions of a godless age.
We need to pray unceasingly that the ‘deposit of faith’ will be guarded conservatively, as it was under John Paul II or Paul VI or John XXIII as well as Pius XII and his predecessors.
Many marvelous and creative changes have taken place in the history of the Roman Catholic Church, including the papacy. It is Divine Will that the Church has survived the might of the Roman Empire’s persecutions, and the corruption of her own wealth and power, to be the centre of great civilization of medieval Europe. It was by the grace of God that the Council of Trent inaugurated a Catholic Reformation, pouring new energy into the life and mission of the Church after a period when it had seemed that despite many scandals reform was impossible. Likewise, it was grace that brought forth the Second Vatican II Council, changing Catholic thought and life, after a period when it was widely assumed that no further council would be necessary and the only tendency would be an ever-increasing weight of authority and dogma.
Would it be too bold of me to suggest the dangerous duty to convene the Third Vatican Council? In like of (true) ecumenism, which Vatican II blessed, it seems logical that a third council be convened to have many uncomfortable voices heard. And that dialogue could mark the beginning of full restoration of communion with each other and with the Christ who cannot be divided.
Echoing the words spoken in Rome in 1967 by Athenagoras, Patriarch of Constantinople:
The Bishop of Rome who is “the bearer of apostolic grace and the successor to a shinning company of holy and wise men who have shed lustre on this see which, by honor and rank, stands first in the living body of Christian Churches dispersed throughout the world; and whose holiness, wisdom and valiant fight for the common faith of the undivided Church are a permanent asset and treasure for the entire world”. May God the life-giving Holy Spirit guide our Popes
so that they may teach truth and practice love.
Labels: Catechism of the Catholic Church, Catholic Belief, Eucmenism, Holy Father, Priesthood, Second Vatican Council, Thoughts, Vatican
Friday, January 19, 2007
Testing the Faith: Homosexuals Destroy Themselves
The last two publications of The Catholic News talked on the subject of Homosexuality and the Catholic Church. Rev. Fr. Albert Renkens received much flak from lay Catholics for his "liberal" and "unorthodox" views on the matter. Some readers expressed that Fr. Renkens was wrong to present his own views and ideas on the matter and not official Church teaching.
Those who are confused after reading the article, read what H.H. Pope Benedict XVI has to say on the matter in Homosexuals Destroy Themselves:
In his most powerful statements to date on issues involving sexual morality, Pope Benedict XVI said homosexuals end up destroying themselves so the Church has a duty to speak out on moral issues that affect the very spiritual and physical lives of man.
"In seeking to emancipate himself from his body (from the 'biological sphere'), [man] ends up by destroying himself," the pope told cardinals, archbishops, bishops and members of the Roman Curia last week in a traditional meeting overlooked by most of the world's press. "Against those who say that 'the Church should not involve herself in these matters,' we can only respond: does man not concern us too? The church and believers must raise their voices to defend man, the creature who, in the inseparable unity of body and spirit, is the image of God."
The pope also lamented low birth rates in Europe, saying couples no longer seem to want children. This fact, he said, has "penetrated my soul."
"Men and women today are unsure about the future," he explained. "This fact, alongside the desire to have all of life to themselves, is perhaps the most profound reason for which the risk of having children appears to many as almost unbearable. ... If we do not relearn the basic foundations of life – if we do not rediscover the certainty of faith – it will also be ever more difficult for us to give others the gift of life and the challenges of an unknown future."
The pope also referred to the controversy over same-sex marriage.
"At this point, I cannot fail to mention my concern over 'de facto' couples," he said. "When new legislation is created that relativizes marriage, the rejection of the definitive bond gains, so to speak, juridical endorsement. Relativizing the difference between the sexes ... tacitly confirms those bleak theories which seek to remove all relevance from a human being's masculinity or femininity, as if this were a purely biological matter."
The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches us that (My emphasis):
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.
Labels: Catechism of the Catholic Church, Catholic Belief, Holy Father
Saturday, November 4, 2006
Condoms & Safe Sex
If you're Roman Catholic & a Temasek Polytechnic student, please help get this message across, according to how you feel the Holy Spirit is trying to guide you. As good, faithful, Catholics we should always ensure that the message of Christ and His One True Church never drowns into the voice of the ever increasing secular world.
I was shocked to walk into Temasek Polytechnic (Tampines Campus) yesterday, Friday Nov 03, to see free condoms being distributed in the concourse and facilitators encouraging the use of the contraceptive device. What message is the Administration trying to get across? I am disgusted to know that the Administration is encouraging an active (pre-marital) sexual livestyle among students instead of abstinece. How low has our society's moral value declined?
Even if we were to discuss this from a non-religious viewpoint, sexual intercourse threatens the loss of integrity. It is intergrity that we need to focus on. We must never, ever, compromise our integrity. Sexual intercourse is a possibly fertile human act between one man and one woman, married to each other. To tamper with the act, using it in ways other than what is truly human nature, is to damage and eventually to destroy our integrity, both in mind and body.
No responsible doctor, priest or educator can ever confuse his patient, penitent or pupil that sex with a condom is a way he can eat his cake and have it. To so offer an excuse for illicit sex is to create the rationale and the demand for it. Psychologists would agree with me that behavioural drives are subliminal and subconscious. It produces effects that may seem intuitively contradictory.
The comdom is guilty for the development of the HIV pandemic in 1981 and the promiscuity it facilitated in the 1960's. If anything, the condom is the cause of the pandemic, not its cure, trapping students in a destructive mindset created and maintained by the Administration.
The sexually transmitted Herpes Simplex Virus is three times larger than HIV yet managed to create an epidemic in the USA in the condom era.
Turning to the condom for protection is a fool’s errand.
Evil is its own nemesis.
Our attempts to save our lives must never be at the cost of losing our souls. To use a condom in order to “save a life” nurtures a contradictory result instead, not only in the HIV pandemic itself but also in:
I was shocked to walk into Temasek Polytechnic (Tampines Campus) yesterday, Friday Nov 03, to see free condoms being distributed in the concourse and facilitators encouraging the use of the contraceptive device. What message is the Administration trying to get across? I am disgusted to know that the Administration is encouraging an active (pre-marital) sexual livestyle among students instead of abstinece. How low has our society's moral value declined?
Even if we were to discuss this from a non-religious viewpoint, sexual intercourse threatens the loss of integrity. It is intergrity that we need to focus on. We must never, ever, compromise our integrity. Sexual intercourse is a possibly fertile human act between one man and one woman, married to each other. To tamper with the act, using it in ways other than what is truly human nature, is to damage and eventually to destroy our integrity, both in mind and body.
No responsible doctor, priest or educator can ever confuse his patient, penitent or pupil that sex with a condom is a way he can eat his cake and have it. To so offer an excuse for illicit sex is to create the rationale and the demand for it. Psychologists would agree with me that behavioural drives are subliminal and subconscious. It produces effects that may seem intuitively contradictory.
The comdom is guilty for the development of the HIV pandemic in 1981 and the promiscuity it facilitated in the 1960's. If anything, the condom is the cause of the pandemic, not its cure, trapping students in a destructive mindset created and maintained by the Administration.
The sexually transmitted Herpes Simplex Virus is three times larger than HIV yet managed to create an epidemic in the USA in the condom era.
Turning to the condom for protection is a fool’s errand.
Evil is its own nemesis.
- institutionalising contraception,
- institutionalising population destruction,
- threatening the sanctity of life,
- threatening the lives and welfare of unborn babies,
- (eventually) nurturing the acceptability of euthanasia.
These elements of the Culture of Death, described by Pope John Paul II in 1995, are an insight into how the world has already deteriorated and how it continues to deteriorate.
We need to detach ourselves from this evil process!
Although it has been 11 years since the passing of Abp. M. Lefebvre, his mission and words are still very much alive in many of the faithful. Below is an extract of a sermon on his Sacerdotal Jubilee (23 September 1979) in Paris:
...... Consecrate yourselves to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, and to the Immaculate Heart of Mary...... do not listen to these abominable slogans...... in this degenerate urban atmosphere in which we are living...... And if it is necessary, yes, you yourselves will teach your children at home. If the schools corrupt your children, what are you going to do? Rather that your children be poor, rather that they be removed from this apparent science that the world possesses, but that they be good children, Catholic children who love to pray and who love to work, children who love creation which the good God has made.
Let us ask Our Lady who was conceived without sin to pray for us sinners who have recourse to her: for the gift of PURITY.
God bless you!
Feast of St. Charles Borromeo
Official teaching of the Catholic Church on Contraceptives:
CCC Par. 2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, "every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil: Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.
CCC Par. 2399 The regulation of births represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood. Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception).
Labels: Catechism of the Catholic Church, Contraceptives
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
