|
Sunday, November 21, 2004
I have recently read various things on the internet where people have said that there are people who are against abortion personally, but say that it should be legal because we can't tell people not to have them, because we are a "free" country. This also ties in with my other post about how politics gets in the way of the Truth. However, you CAN NOT be pro-life personally, and say that abortion should be legal. This is a logical fallacy This is a more lukewarm position, in which we are warned by Christ that this is an evil position. Some people say, "The Church is so unaccepting of certain people." No, the Church isn't unaccepting of people, but of their actions, at times.
Here is why it is a logical fallacy. You are basically saying that it is and it isn't ok. In other words, you are contradicting yourself. You are saying two completely different things, so you are contradicting yourself. If you truly think about it, you can see how it is illogical.
Posted at 12:57 pm by drewmeister2
Permalink
Monday, November 08, 2004
Please visit my new site: Proper of Saints. It will include simple prayers to Saints on their feast days. I will see if I am able to keep it up, hopefully I will be able to! This site will still remain open!
Posted at 07:17 pm by drewmeister2
Permalink
Wednesday, November 03, 2004
While I know that Bush isn't a perfect president, and has problems with his own leadership, I am glad he got elected, for the sake of the morals of America. Kerry would have caused too many problems with the morals of this country, causing them to go downhill even more. I am glad that Bush has won, even if he continues to make more mistakes, which he will, because he isn't perfect. But life has another chance at living because of him! Pray for his strength in leadership.
Posted at 07:28 pm by drewmeister2
Permalink
Saturday, October 30, 2004
I am going to tell you what the Church's stance on the death penalty is. Here are quotes from the Catechism:
From the Catechism of The Catholic Church:
2267
Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity with the dignity of the human person.
Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm—without definitively taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself—the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically non-existent."
2306
Those who renounce violence and bloodshed and, in order to safeguard human rights, make use of those means of defense available to the weakest, bear witness to evangelical charity, provided they do so without harming the rights and obligations of other men and societies. They bear legitimate witness to the gravity of the physical and moral risks of recourse to violence, with all its destruction and death.
Hope this helps anyone wondering!
Posted at 03:59 pm by drewmeister2
Permalink
Saturday, October 23, 2004
I would like to say something about politics. Politics seem to get in the way often of a spiritual life. That doesn't mean, however, that you can't be a politician and be a good Catholic. You can use your Catholic background to further make politics a more Christian-like thing.
But what I am addressing here in this article is this: by siding with one party or another, can obscure your perception of the Truth. I have seen it happen with many of my friends, and within my own family. I used to be kept from following the Truth by siding with one political party, but then I changed. Many people that I know support the Republican party, and are Catholic. So, they are thus Pro-Life in the sense they dont support abortion, fetal stem cell research, etc. But, they also support the death penalty. I don't think I have a previous entry about the death penalty, but later I will show you more aboout the Church's position on the issue, which, right now, they don't support it, because of technology, especially in America.
So, my point is, when siding with one party, make sure and also be open to the teachings of the Church, and make the Church the number 1 thing that influences your thoughts, not politics, because politics, at times, can be very bad and dirty. God bless!
Posted at 02:54 pm by drewmeister2
Permalink
Saturday, October 02, 2004
Slander seems to be all too common in today's society, and especially with the elections. Just turn on tv, and watch an ad against Kerry or Bush, and you might be seeing some form of slander. Slander is also easily "carried" by gossiping. By "carried", I mean that it spreads easily by gossip. For those who slander, remember: "Love one another as you love yourself." So if you don't wish to have slander put against you, then don't slander others. Also, if someone does slander your name, remember not to slander theirs back.
Let me define slander more clearly. Slander is when one speaks out against one's name and says they did something bad or wrong when the slanderer knows them to be innocent. There are two evils in slander: the fact that you lie, and that you also make it possible for someone else's name to be ruined. After you have ruined someone's name, it is very hard for someone to get it back. It isn't like stealing. With stealing, you can just give the tv, or whatever you stole, back. This isn't always that easy. Even if you come out and say that you slandered their name, somehow, somewhere, someone isn't going to hear what you said about the slander not being true, and the slander will still live on in some people's minds. Each person in this world has a right to their reputation. With slander, their reputation can be ruined. For someone to be fully forgiven of this, one must go out and say that they slandered someone's name, and make restitution. First of all, he must undo the injury of the defamation itself. There seems in general to be only one adequate way to do this: he must simply retract his false statement. In addition he is bound to make compensation to his victim for whatever losses may have been sustained as a result of his malicious imputation. It is supposed that the damage which ensues has been in some measure foreseen by the slanderer. There is, however, this difference between slander and detraction: that, whereas there are circumstances in which we may expose the misdeeds which another has actually committed, we are never allowed to blacken his name by charging him with what he has not done. A lie is intrinsically evil and can never be justified by any cause or in any circumstances. Slander involves a violation of commutative justice.
Just something to keep in mind.
Ora pro meo vocationi,
Andrew
Posted at 04:09 pm by drewmeister2
Permalink
Saturday, September 18, 2004
I have been thinking lately about how I haven't talked much lately about my vocation. So I will write a little here about my discernment.
I wonder every day where exactly God wants me. One of the hardest things in life for me to do, and for many people, is to discern what God really wants you to do. I have recently felt an interest in Archaeology again. Am I called to that? Although I feel more called to the priesthood, I have to be open, because maybe God is calling me to it. Another problem with discerning is making sure that what we do with our lives is what God wills, not what we want. And this can apply to just about everyone. We all need to think and pray about what we might be called to.
So, I will continue to remain open over the coming years, to whatever God wants me to do. That is the key, remain open! Never be closed to what He wants.
God bless
Posted at 10:29 pm by drewmeister2
Permalink
Sunday, September 12, 2004
I would like to briefly talk about the 2004 elections later this year. I read something one day from a pamphlet while in Church, waiting for Mass to begin. There was just one; they weren't distributed around the whole parish. Someone probably had left it there. I was curious, so I started looking at it. It talked about five major issues on which to see if a candidate supports or doesn't support. The major issues that I remember reading were: Abortion, Fetal Stem Cell Research, Homosexual Marriage, Euthanasia, and Human Cloning. To read the full explanations of these, please click here. This is the same guide I read in Church. I didn't know such guide existed, until I read it about a month ago.
One of the sections talks about how you shouldn't vote for a candidate just because they are Catholic. At first, when Kerry was just starting his campaign, I heard he was Catholic, and was very glad of the possibility of having a second Catholic president. But while he is a baptized Catholic, he doesn't practice the faith very well. He supports abortion, and I know I have also heard many other various things that he supports that the Church doesn't. So beware, just because they are Catholic, doesn't mean they are really "Catholic".
When you read the guide, you must see who goes against the fewest of the non-negotiable items. At this point in time, it is Bush. As far as I know, and please correct me if I am wrong, he violates none of the non-negotiables. If I was able to vote, I would probably vote for Bush, just because he violates none of the non-negotiables.
Please read the pamphlet that is on-line at the link, and vote responsibly. Listen to your conscience, and to what the Church has to say on these issues. God bless.
Posted at 08:58 pm by drewmeister2
Permalink
Friday, September 03, 2004
I heard today at my school someone who said that abortion is good because a fetus doesn't have a soul. This is completely not true! From the moment of conception, a baby has a soul. Here is a great website: Arizona Right to Life. Paragraph 2274 in the Catechism says that an embryo, from the moment of conception, must be treated as a person. And persons have souls. The embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being, like a human who is 20 years old, for example. As said in Para. 2271, since the first century, the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching hasn't changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion will either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law. Formal cooperation, as in p. 2272, in an abortion constituted a grave offense, and can result in the penalty of excommunication. ABORTION IS MURDER!!! It is as plain as that. And it is murder against a completely defensless life. This doesn't make murder any better, but at least if a grown person is murdered, they might have a chance to defend themselves. A fetus doesn't have this chance!
Abortion comes from the Latin word aboriri, which means to perish. We are taught by the Church that we aren't given the right at any time to kill a child, even if it means that the mother will die. This is called obstetrical abortion. The embryonic child has a human soul; and therefore is a man from the time of its conception; therefore it has an equal right to its life with its mother. Therefore neither the mother, nor medical practitioner, nor any human being whatever can lawfully take that life away. No matter how desirable it might seem to be at times to save the life of the mother, common sense teaches and all nations accept the maxim, that "evil is never to be done that good may come of it"; or, which is the same thing, that "a good end cannot justify a bad means". Now it is an evil means to destroy the life of an innocent child. The plea cannot be made that the child is an unjust aggressor. It is simply where nature and its own parents have put it. Therefore, Natural Law forbids any attempt at destroying fetal life. I have also read in theology books and have heard from theology teachers that women who have an abortion often have a certain type of sadness, almost a depression, later on because of the abortion. It would be less depressing to the mother if she would have let the child live and put the baby up for adoption.
Posted at 06:05 pm by drewmeister2
Permalink
Saturday, August 28, 2004
I changed this post because I have had many interpretations of it. I also had a poll up on another website, and so many people thought that I was for the ordination of women. I want to make something clear that I do not support women becoming priests, and that my previous post on this may have led some to believe this. I am sorry if this led you to think this. But I stand with the Church. For all you who want to read more on this issue, please refer to the Inter Insigniores entry.
I personally am still a little unsure on the whole infallibility issue. I had a former Dominican Seminarian of 6 years tell me these are the only two issues that are for sure infallible in recent times. Does this make the Eucharist fallible? No, that isn't what he means. We have plenty of other Dogmas, and we know it is the Body of Christ, but the infallibility phrase is only used when necessary. A document will say specifically: This document is infallible, according to the seminarian. This phrase is only used when necessary, and at the time of these two doctrines, many Protestants were questioning these things, so the Church used the phrase, from what I understand. But again, that doesn't make everything else fallible. Keep this in mind. But I am going to talk to some other people to confirm my understanding on this. He also did say that even though something may not formally be declared infallible, the Church will not change their stance on the issue. I hope I clarified the issue. God bless!
Posted at 04:26 pm by drewmeister2
Permalink
|
|
|
Thank you for visiting my site. You are visitor #
online
|
|
