An article on the progress of Pope John Paul II's canonization (hint: it's going to be a long, hard road) reports that a new miracle has been reported: a man suffering from an incurable liver disease in the United States.
News Clips: March 2006 Archives
The Afghan Christian I spoke of earlier was successfully released and spirited into Italy, who is granting him asylum.
Truly thanks be to God!
Sex education is becoming the latest school battleground
I am fairly impressed that abstinence-based programs are as common as they apparently are. Chalk this up to a good consequence of the present administration.
A married Muslim man in India uttered the word "talaq" (divorce) three times in his sleep, and local Islamic leaders told him and his wife that this constitutes a binding divorce. The couple have refused to obey the order (and have been ostracized for it).
Profanity is on the rise, according to an AP poll. 74% of Americans say they encounter profanity in public frequently or occasionally &mdash and 25% are lying (ok I made that last part up). 32% of men say they use the F-word at least a few times a week. Many pointed out my pet peeve — people who their conversation with the F-word in useless places. The F-word is the only swear word that singes my ears. I'd overlook it if you have just hit your thumb with a hammer, but to add it to your conversation for no purpose at all is just supremely offensive.
I'll admit that the F-word has been known to pass my lips; usually when I'm in serious trouble about something. (At least it has profound meaning when I use it.) That's something I'm especially working to extirpate.
I have been trying to clean up my language. I tried to construct an elaborate biblical justification for mild profanity but I realized it just didn't wash. The trouble is I don't understand why it is wrong, at least when you're alone. Some things don't make sense. Why is it OK to say "poop" or "crap" but not to say s*? They mean the same thing. Is it wrong when the person you're talking to isn't offended by it? Presumably, but why? Is it wrong to use it in that situation and when you are alone strictly because it reinforces a habit that may land you in trouble when you're around someone who is offended?
I must say that my Catholic friends have been no help in cultivating an environment where I feel any conviction about using profanity. (Basically I'm blaming my friends for my own profanity.) This, sadly, includes some priests. They behave just the same as any pagan. (Just like I've been doing.) I guess I'll just have to set the example for them. (Someone has to do it.)
It is harder to keep your own mouth clean when all the mouths around you are so filthy.
Of course, I taught a CCD class today where I tolerated the foul language of 9th and 10th graders (as did the DRE who taught with me). I should have said something — not necessarily making a big deal but at least making them stop and think about what they are saying.
What are your stories about profanity?
New research has found that mouse testicles can provide adult stem cells, raising hope that a new source of adult stem cells can be found in human testicles and eliminating the need for embryonic stem cells.
This is good news indeed. The more sources of adult stem cells, the better.
Pray for this life-saving technology!
An Afghan man threatened with execution because he converted from Islam to Christianity is expected "to be released in the coming days," an official says.
Thanks be to God!
A major adoption institute issued a report endorsing gay adoption and pushing agencies and officials to "make firm statements in support" of such adoptions. This is on the heels of a controversy where Catholic Charities in Boston ended its century-old adoption program (forced by Cardinal O'Malley, kudos to him) rather than allow gays to adopt.
Apparently opposition to gay adopting is waning; it was 57% in 1999, and now is 48% (with 46% in support).
In my opinion, when it comes to gay adoption, one has to consider the quality of the home. We don't want to place a child into a situation that would be psychologically or morally damaging to them, especially when a better situation is readily available.
Every child up for adoption has a right to a mother and a father — a parent of the same sex to identify with and learn from concerning matters of their own sex, and a person of the opposite sex to help them understand the opposite sex, whether for romantic purposes or even just for relational purposes. There are also unique things that each of the two sexes has to offer that every child should experience if at all possible. The sexes are not interchangeable. A "family" all of one sex starts getting in a danger of isolating themselves and the child from the missing sex. Consequently a mother and a father are in the best interest of the child.
For similar reasons I would argue against allowing single people to adopt. That is just not the best situation for them.
Two women died of sepsis (blood infection) when they used RU-486 in an off-label fashion. (They inserted the final course of drugs vaginally, instead of orally; studies have shown this has fewer side effects.) This has renewed calls for banning RU-486.
I'm all for banning RU-486 but the sepsis rate of RU-486 doesn't exceed the rate for surgery. Trying to ban it alleging it is "dangerous" to women would therefore seem to me to be a bit disingenuous. Still, it's worth keeping an eye on. Now banning it because it is dangerous to unborn children is another matter.
A federal appeals court has allowed Tennessee to offer pro-life "Choose Life" license plates, overturning an earlier ruling.
Alleluia!
The irreverent — and from what I understand rather obscene — cartoon South Park has turned its incisive wit toward Scientology, specifically making fun of Tom Cruise and John Travolta, prominent celebrity Scientologists. Ironically one of the cast members is a Scientologist and quit over the scuffle, with the creators taunting him that he had no objection when they skewered Christianity, why object now? (I have to admit, rightly or wrongly, that gives me a warm, fuzzy feeling.)
Theoretically speaking we should oppose any attempt to be disrespectful to religion, though it's hard to think of Scientology as a legitimate religion. And for consistency's sake, if we complain about them skewering Christianity, we should also complain about them skewering Scientology.
Suppose though Scientology is a fraud (it is, but for the sake of argument). Existing solely to fleece members of their cash. Should not that be something that's exposed? Respect for religion doesn't mean tolerating fraud, does it?
Now after what those Brokeback Mountain people did, I'm afraid the Scientologists will come and try to shut down my website. :-)
(Thanks to Caleb)
I predicted this would happen. Introduce gay marriage and suddenly the polygamists will be knocking down your door. And making the gay activists embarrassed! Ha! (You'd think they'd rejoice, though, what with someone getting their sexual rights.)
Here is a good article in which the Melkite Catholic bishop of the U.S., Archbishop Cyril Bustros, eloquently explains what the issue is between Islam and the West. Abp. Bustros was born in Lebanon and was bishop there for 16 years. He says that the current conflict is not about religion but about "the different forms of structuring society and the relationship of religion to the state." "[T]he doctrines of Islam dictate war against unbelievers," he says, and the concept of non-violence is absent. Church and state are united. They see their culture as superior, and see themselves as victims of an anti-Muslim prejudice similar to anti-Semitism. He says that both sides must change: the West must not seek to impose its values on them, and Islam must arrive at a less literal version of its teachings. A tall order, indeed.
(Thanks to R.C.)
There is a good article in the Detroit Free Press posted to the Hail to Pitt! blog about churches podcasting their services and otherwise using high-tech ways to get the message out. Worth a read.
Here is an update on the apparent miracle invoking the intercession of John Paul. The inquiry begins this week. The miracle pertains to a nun with premature-onset Parkinson's disease so severe that she could not take care of newborns due to the tremor in her hands. She was completely cured.
The New York Times has a thoughtful article about kids with severe birth defects and the ethical questions involved. In particular it casts a critical eye on health care providers who are biased towards abortion and fail to give positive and encouraging advice to parents of Down Syndrome and other victims of birth defects. It also presents some secular arguments against abortion. (Ironically, the journalist herself had such a child aborted, and doesn't regret it.)
A retired Lutheran pastor has decided to write an icon of St. Augustine and present it to the Pope. He is also writing an icon (of St. Paul) for His Beatitude Bartholomeos of Constantinople. Interestingly it is unclear where the impetus for this coming. Again, I hate to say it, but most papal gifts are warehoused — is there any well-founded hope that this one will not be? It would be a shame for such a gift to be locked in storage.
The article makes an interesting reference: to the Center for Evangelical Catholicism at St. Mary's Catholic Church in Greenville, S.C.
Don't you hate it when you're going to bible study and this happens? Let it be a lesson to you — pay your prostitute bill before heading to bible study.
Clermont (FL) Fellowship Church is offering a Free Porn Weekend — catch it if you can.
By the way, did you know that there are 280 million porn sites on the web? That's virtually one for every man, woman, and child in America. (Although I suspect this covers all sites internationally.) (Somehow I find this number hard to swallow.)
(No way am I illustrating this post.)
Apparently the Pope's iPod did not go to the big warehouse in the Vatican. Hey Mikey! He likes it!
Wonder if Apple will make a marketing campaign out of it.
This brings up a related question — I wonder how tech-savvy the Pope is. Does he use a computer more than JP2? Does he use email? Does he compose his documents on a word processor? Interesting questions.
The Pope got an iPod from a group of Vatican Radio employees.
Now the question is whether it will go to that big warehouse where all the other papal gifts tend to go.
According to the conclusions of an Italian investigative commission, the Soviet Union was responsible for the attempt to assassinate Pope John Paul II.
In his last book, the Pope said he was convinced the shooting was not Agca's initiative and that "someone else masterminded it and someone else commissioned it."
Not surprisingly Russia denounced the report.
Slate (of all places) has an interesting article on how Lent is becoming popular with Protestants as old biases fall away.
I am happy to see this. The old biases really should fall. Lent is a good thing to celebrate. I see it as a way to focus on things we should be doing year-round in a renewed way. For example, you might decide during Lent to make a renewed effort to pray every day. Praying every day should be something you do year round, but perhaps your schedule is just a little too busy or you are in a habit of not doing it or you find it overwhelming. Lent is a good time to make a renewed effort to do it. And hopefully you'll resolve your problems and carry the habit outside of Lent. If you didn't have Lent, you would have less motivation and opportunity to examine yourself and do such things. In essence Lent is an opportunity to take stock of one's spiritual life and make repairs.
Shouldn't one do this constantly? Well, yes, but often when one tries to do something like this constantly, one becomes accustomed to it or inured to it and it is less effective. Or, it becomes so overwhelming one instinctively starts to tune it out. For example, one might have carried a good intention for many years to pray every day, but never got in the habit of doing it, because you tried for a while unsuccessfully, and then lost track of it, or lost focus. Perhaps the worries of everyday life choked it. Lent provides an opportunity and reminder to re-focus, to get back on track.
Another problem I see with the "you should do this constantly" approach is that sometimes you can get so used to hearing all the spiritual stuff that you subconsciously ignore it — you're de-sensitized to it, you think it's for someone else, and you don't pay attention anymore. It's like the people in California who see 75 degree days all year round who no longer appreciate them because they've never experience anything else. They become boring and insignificant. A season of repentance such as Lent provides a wake-up call, something to shake you out of your apathy.
Here's a good example. One of the refreshing things I find about fasting is that it gives me a renewed appreciation for food. It's easy to take food for granted when you have no problems providing for yourself. But boy, today, I was deeply grateful for my dinner in a way I am not on ordinary days. It reminded me of the poor, and of how much God has given me. I can say I should strive to be grateful for my food every day (and I do, and I am) but nothing brings it home and makes it vivid like a day of fasting.
This is all completely compatible with the Gospel. And the goal indeed is to live out the Gospel more perfectly. Who could complain about that?
