'Sky Cake' is More Profound than This Dude Thinks

Patton Oswalt is deliberately offensive in this video implying that anyone who takes their faith seriously might as well believe in 'sky cake.' His athiest fans love it and if you're not offended too easily it's kinda funny:



The interesting thing to me though is that it actually makes a pretty profound point. Right of the top he says, "if we didn’t have religion we wouldn’t be here by now . . . there’d be no civilization."

I don't think I could have said it much better. Maybe his athiest fans can take note the next time they try to remove any reference to God from the public sphere.

Is Religion a Force for Good?

75% of Economist readers think not. During a 10 day debate, polling was consistent with a daily maximum of 27% of respondents agreeing with the statement, "This house believes that religion is a force for good."

The result is not unexpected given the typically hostile view the magazine holds toward religion. But, the result is scary none the less as the magazine has a massive circulation and is read by leaders of industry, government, and academia as well as wannabe thinkers like me. I don't usually comment on online articles but I couldn't resist this time. Here's what I had to say:

Dear Sir,

It seems that the working assumption on both sides of the motion is that God does not exist and that religion's primary benefits are fostering a sense of community and the enjoyment of ritual. When weighed against the clear evils that have been done in the name of religion such as Islamist terrorism, the widespread conclusion that it is not on balance a force for good is understandable.

I suggest that if both sides started with the assumption that we are created beings longing to be in touch with our creator, this debate would have been entirely different. That said, without getting into the debate about the truth of religion it is still a force for good on both an individual and societal level.

On an individual level religion provides meaning and answers the basic question of why we are here and what is our purpose. There is no satisfactory answer provided by atheists.

Religion empowers people through prayer. When there is little or nothing you can do individually to change a situation, prayer offers something positive that can be done.

As a society, religion defines virtue. Secularists and unbelievers can claim to be moral (and very often are), but that morality must be measured against an objective standard and without religion no such standards would exist.

The point was made well that religion builds community. I can speak personally to that, attending world Youth Day in Toronto in 2002 was a chance to see 1 million people gather to participate in the mass led by Pope John Paul the Great. Looking around and seeing the faith, energy, and enthusiasm from people from countless cultures and every corner of the planet was a truly transformative event in my life.

The criticisms leveled against religion seem to assume that it is an irrational opinion to hold. However Pope Benedict has made explaining the mutual dependence of faith on reason and vice versa a cornerstone of his papacy.

I applaud the Economist for attempting to debate this important topic, however, next time I’d encourage inviting people with more theological depth and breadth
to participate.

I don't suspect my comments will have any influence, after all the Economist's debate has ended. The results are a warning especially to Christians who feel like their views are being deliberately excluded from public policy. People of faith must make the their views known eloquently and fight for the right to continue to do so. There's a large segment of the population that would prefer we be silenced.

Eddie Long Coverage Reveals Double Standard

Televangelist Eddie Long is vowing to fight allegations that he used his wealth and position of power to coerce young men into sexual relationships. Long is 57 years old, married, and head of a 26,000 member Baptist mega-church in Georgia.

So far, that seems to be the theme of the coverage. A focus on his flash and charisma more than the pain that his victims that have (allegedly) suffered. One article even used the tragedy to rave about his fashion sense and chiseled abs:

I'm just a fashion editor. And while we may not be the first to spot a good liar, we sure can spot good style. And no one, but no one, makes a stronger style statement than Bishop Eddie Long. The leader of New Birth Missionary Baptist Church, an Atlanta-area mega-church with over 25,000 members, has a penchant for bad toupee's and good clothes. Really, really good clothes. He's also - allegedly - got a penchant for young men. At least that's what his accusers, all four of them (and counting) are saying. . .

If his wardrobe in the pulpit is predictable, his sartorial choices outside of it aren't. In the few photos of a more casual Long that litter the Internet, it is very apparent that he is an exercise buff. A news clip of him in a tracksuit hint that he might have a workout wardrobe as collated -- and curated -- as his preaching one.

That hint was proven true when suggestive, self-portraits of a remarkably buff Bishop surfaced. They showed Long, primping and preening in flimsy muscle shirts that hugged every ripple in the fifty-seven year-old's startlingly chiseled physique.

What this man is accused of doing is a disgrace and a tragedy. Unfortunately, the event has generated a sea of spin and gossip mongering.

I suppose that's all we can expect since prominent evangelical pastors crash and burn regularly. Ron Hart notes sarcastically, "By now we know how the redemptive process works for a televangelist accused of sexual relations with young males." So the story needs a new angle weather its race or fashion sense.

A few things about the story strike me:

First there just doesn't seem to be the same kind of anger directed toward this guy as toward the Catholic Church when allegations of abuse surface.

Second, in most accounts, including the article above, he is referred to as "Bishop Eddie Long," despite the fact that Baptists do not have a hierarchy. Strictly speaking a 'Baptist Bishop' is a misnomer. Including the title of Bishop in the story seems to be just another way to somehow transfer the tarnish of this man's sin onto the Catholic Church by association.

Most importantly, the fact that he is married apparently did nothing to stop his aggression or sexual appetite. This is very reminiscent of the charges brought against prominent evangelical Ted Haggard. Haggard was also married and sought homosexual relationships.

Whenever news of a scandal happens in the Catholic Church it is used as an argument against the vows of chastity that men and women consecrated to holy orders take. But stories like this make it clear that allowing priests to marry would not end abuse. Something else must be done. Fortunately, especially since the scandals in 2002, the Church has placed an emphasis on screening unfit candidates before they enter the priesthood, on proper formation of the men in seminary and on supporting priest's spiritual needs in order to prevent tragedies like this.

How Crazy was the Crazy EnviroWacko?

EnviroWacko James Lee was shot dead earlier this week after a foiled attempt to takeover the Discovery Channel and force them to broadcast his anti-human manifesto. Safely dead, he's being widely condemned as a crazed extremist. But seriously just how crazy was he? Or rather how far are his views really outside of mainstream environmentalist thinking? My two favourite quotes from his rant are:

Saving the Planet means saving what's left of the non-human wildlife by decreasing the human population. That means stopping the human race from breeding any more disgusting human babies!

Humans are the most destructive, filthy, pollutive creatures around and are wrecking what's left of the planet with their false morals and breeding culture.

Honestly if he didn't decide to invade a major TV studio, his thoughts would be totally unexceptional. I'm reminded of an almost readable blog that I stumbled on the other day. The blogger describes his writing as follows:

The blog of a bipolar misanthrope. The fact that I like many individuals and even love a few doesn’t stop me from hating our species as a whole. This is what I mean by bipolar, rather than that I actually am bipolar in a clinical sense.

Our species has truly earned its place in history. We are the cause of the sixth great
extinction on this planet. Like the comet that killed off the non-avian dinosaurs, we are a catastrophe. Quite literally, our evolution has been a catastrophic event on this beautiful insignificant planet we call home.

The Misanthrope is almost eloquent, and I think he demonstrates that it's not necessarily unreasonable to hate humans. Rather, it's a logical conclusion if you assume that (1) the biodiversity of the planet is the most important value on Earth and that (2) humans are just another species.

Was James Lee crazy? He did want to eliminate people to save the planet, but then again we will often have controlled hunts or animal culls when a species is taking over in it's environment. So if he really bought into the ridiculous notion that the value of our species is equivalent with all others maybe he wasn't that crazy at all.

How do we stop the next James Lee from trying to take down a TV station? Maybe all we need is a different worldview, one that says humans are in fact special and that every human life is valuable because it was made in the image of a loving creator.

Powerful Scriptural Themes in LOST

As I gear up for tonight's LOST episode, I'm still stuck on last week's episode that featured the story of Richard, a mysterious character on the island who doesn't age. As with many episodes, I've seen strong Biblical and religious references. Last week's references were so strong everyone seems to be talking about them. Early in the show Richard is in a prison cell awaiting punishment reading his Bible. The Bible was open to Luke 4:37 a passage where Jesus cast out an evil spirit, that's possibly important to the plot, but not particularly interesting theologically.

The really interesting part of the episode was a conversation between Richard and Jacob, a supernatural being who appears to be a force for good and a protector. Here's an excerpt form their conversation that I'll intersperse with my own comments and some outside references. To make things less confusing outside references will be blue. You can read the complete transcript here.

[Richard is sitting on a log near the remains of the statue with a blanket wrapped around him. Jacob approaches with a bottle of wine. Richard glances towards the Statue.]
RICHARD: What is inside?
JACOB: No one comes in unless I invite them in. [offers Richard a cup of wine.]

Compare that to Jesus' words, "No one comes to the Father except through me." John14:16. Also the way Jacob poured the wine appears to be strongly Eucharistic, although his later use of the wine in the bottle to represent evil kinda blows the analogy.

RICHARD: Are you the Devil? [Jacob pauses a moment and smiles.]
JACOB: No.
RICHARD: Then who are you?
JACOB: My name is Jacob. I'm the one who brought your ship to this island.
RICHARD: You brought it here? Why?
JACOB: [picks up the bottle of wine] Think of this wine as what you keep calling hell. There's many other names for it too: malevolence, evil, darkness. And here it is, swirling around in the bottle, unable to get out because if it did, it would spread. The cork [raises cork] is this island and it's the only thing keeping the darkness where it belongs. That man who sent you to kill me believes that everyone is corruptible because it's in their very nature to sin. I bring people here to prove him wrong. And when they get here, their past doesn't matter.

Compare that to the story of Job:

One day the angels came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came with them. The LORD said to Satan, "Where have you come from?" Satan answered the LORD, "From roaming through the earth and going back and forth in it."

Then the LORD said to Satan, "Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil."

"Does Job fear God for nothing?" Satan replied. "Have you not put a hedge around him and his household and everything he has? You have blessed the work of his hands, so that his flocks and herds are spread throughout the land. But stretch out your hand and strike everything he has, and he will surely curse you to your face."

The LORD said to Satan, "Very well, then, everything he has is in your hands, but on the man himself do not lay a finger."

Then Satan went out from the presence of the LORD.

In the Bible God proves to Satan (and to us), through Job, that people can be faithful and just in spite of our hardships.

The other part is the offer of a fresh start. Of course God offers us a fresh start every time we repent of our sins.

RICHARD: Before you brought my ship, there were others?
JACOB: Yes, many.
RICHARD: What happened to them?
JACOB: They're all dead.
RICHARD: But if you brought them here. Why didn't you help them?

Huh. There's a humdinger. Compare to "why does God allow good people to suffer?" Another conversation though.

JACOB: Because I wanted them to help themselves. To know the difference between right and wrong without me having to tell them. It's all meaningless if I have to force them to do anything. Why should I have to step in?

I think that free will has been a major theme in the show. It's a major theme in Christianity too. The Catechism says, "God willed that man should be left in the hand of his own counsel, so that he might of his own accord seek his creator . . ."

RICHARD: If you don't, he will.
[Jacob pauses for a moment, taking Richard's words into consideration.]
JACOB: Do you want a job?
RICHARD: A job?
[Jacob nods.]
RICHARD: Doing what?
JACOB: Well, I don't want to step in. Maybe you can do it for me. You can be my...my representative and intermediary between me and the people I bring to the island.

Again, big theme in Christianity. If we allow it, God uses us to accomplish his will. I'm thinking of the story of a statue of Jesus that had been damaged by bombs in WWII. After the bombing the people repaired the statue, but couldn't find the hands. They erected a sign, "he has no hands, but yours.

RICHARD: What will I get in return?
JACOB: You tell me.
RICHARD: I want my wife back.
JACOB: Can't do that.
RICHARD: Can you absolve me of my sins so I don't go to Hell?
JACOB: I can't do that either.
RICHARD: I never want to die. I want to live forever.
JACOB: Now that...
[He touches Richard's shoulder.]
JACOB: ...I can do.

And that's the conversation. Although I have to admit the character of Jacob is not that clear cut, and I found the "I can't absolve your sins" bit somewhat troubling.

The next episode is starting in just a few short hours!

The Food Post

Food is highly personal and we all need to eat something so it makes sense that it would be a hot topic. I just did a Google Blog search and found more than 71 million blog posts about food. Truth be told I'm pretty much fed up with people telling me what to eat, a few examples come immediately to mind.

Last night the lady cutting my hair said we shouldn't drink milk because we're the only animal in the world that drinks milk from another species or drinks it as an adult. Ugh - newsflash - we're not like 'other animals.' No other animals plant their own crops, raise their own livestock, or even trade different types of food. What silly logic.

Of course there are the militant vegans. Last week, the Globe and Mail gave front page coverage to that extremism in an article titled, "Is any meat OK to eat?" The article is full of bizarre assertions about animals such as, "We don't think it's right to create animals that can't reproduce sexually." The only animal I've heard of that doesn't reproduce on it's own is a donkey, and I've never seen that on a plate.

I think of my friend, affectionately known as French Fry because of her pretty clear food preference. Everyone seems to take an opportunity to make fun of her food choices, but she looks perfectly healthy to me. My only goal is to match calorie intake with usage close enough that I don't turn into a butterball. That seems to be working too.

I'm quite tired of the silliness and would prefer to be left alone to eat what I want. Unfortunately the debate seems to have been ranging for quite some time. But the good news is previous generations often figured it out.

The stoic philosopher Epictetus felt he had to address it saying, "Preach not to others what they should eat, but eat as becomes you, and be silent." Sound advice there. More than 100 years ago Mark Twain made a similar observation, "Part of the secret of success in life is to eat what you like and let the food fight it out inside."

Even today there are people who get it. Max Fisher wrote earlier this year, "My mistake--and the mistake of anyone bothered by the diets of others--is placing an objective value judgment on what a person chooses to eat and not eat." Right on.

The most definitive answer to the question, "what should I eat?", probably comes from the Bible. St. Peter says:

I looked into it and saw four-footed animals of the earth, wild beasts, reptiles, and birds of the air. Then I heard a voice telling me, 'Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.' "I replied, 'Surely not, Lord! Nothing impure or unclean has ever entered my mouth.' "The voice spoke from heaven a second time, 'Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.' Acts 11:6-9

I won't argue with the Big Guy. Maybe I'll have a cheese burger for breakfast.

Goldman Sachs and Caritas in Veritate

I've gotta spend a lot more time reading Pope Benedict's latest encyclical, "Caritas in Veritate," or Love in Truth. When I do read it, I'll post on the encyclical again. In the meantime I think this article by Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach, Vice-Chairman of Goldman Sachs International is significant. Lord Griffiths says:

Despite heavy competition from some of the world’s finest minds, it is without doubt the most articulate, comprehensive and thoughtful response to the financial crisis that has yet appeared. It should strike a chord with all who wish to see modern capitalism serving broader human ends. . .

Pope Benedict’s words are not just platitudes. They affect every person at work every day. In the City they are a challenge to management to create a culture of prudence, responsibility and integrity.

There has to be zero tolerance for misleading clients, fudging conflicts of interest and inflating valuations. However great the revenue they produce, those who deviate must be disciplined. This kind of ethos cannot be imposed by regulation alone.

From what I know about the encyclical so far, I believe Lord Griffith's analysis strikes at the heart of the message in the Encyclical. It's encouraging to know that the Pope's words are being read and understood by those at the highest levels of finance. If Goldman Sachs follows the recommendation of the Pope and their vice-chair, maybe their record earnings will be sustainable.

Don't Call it a Wafer!!!!!

Today Stephen Harper responded to accusations that he took the Eucharist, but didn't consume it:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper dismissed reports that he pocketed a communion
wafer as "ridiculous" and "terrible" and said he would never do such a thing.

. . .

"First of all as a Christian I've never refused communion when offered to me, that is actually pretty important to me," Harper said.

Good for him for taking a principled stand. It's comforting to hear him address the issue directly because it actually is important. Strictly speaking he should not have taken the Host, but this issue has been badly handled all around. At most catholic weddings and funerals the priest will make a statement before communion inviting non-Catholics to come up and receive a blessing. If that didn't happen at this funeral, at least part the fault lies with the presiding priest.

I agree with Archbishop Richard that Harper clearly did not mean any disrespect. The thing that makes me angry isn't whether he received the Eucharist but the discussion around it - especially from Harper's so called defenders who have tried to downplay the issue saying it's unimportant and just a wafer. Terms like 'wafer-gate' drive me bananas. Catholics refer to the sacrament by a number of names most prominently the Host, the Eucharist, and the Body of Christ, so terms like wafer and cracker are just not accurate.

I haven't seen very much discussion on the relevant Catholic teaching. Simply put Catholics believe that the Eucharist really is the body and blood of Christ. It's not just some crazy church teaching, but Jesus' own words that form the foundation of this belief:

While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take and eat; this is my body." Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." Matthew 26:26-28

The Church's teaching that communion must only be taken by Catholics who are in communion with the church, free from mortal sin, and observed an appropriate fast also comes straight from scripture:

Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 1
Corinthians 11:27

It really doesn't matter to me if you believe this or not, I suppose most people don't but PLEASE be respectful. The Eucharist is important.

Finally, I wanted to tip my hat to Owen who carried the flag on this topic in the comment section of my last blog post. Near as I can tell Owen is a good Conservative, a faithful Catholic, a fellow cyclist and quite the artist. Thanks as always for your comments sir.

Pope Benedict in Israel

Today was the highlight of Pope Benedict's visit to Israel. His message of peace and reconciliation between Christians and Muslims was delivered before 50,000 people at an open air Mass in Nazareth, the largest Arab city in Israel. The message appears to be well received, even Al Jazeera has favourable coverage:

Al Jazeera's Sherine Tadros, reporting from the scene, said about 50,000 people had gathered to listen to the pontiff. "There's a real sense of exitement and pride here as the ground mass gets under way.

"This is the largest Arab city in Israel so it's a great source of pride that the biggest mass of the papal pilgrimage is taking place here.

During the mass the Pope said Christians and Muslims should,

reject the destructive power of hatred and prejudice. . . Sadly, as the world knows, Nazareth has experienced tensions in recent years which have harmed relations between its Christian and Muslim communities, I urge people of goodwill in both communities to repair the damage that has been done, and in fidelity to our common belief in one God, the father of the human family, to work to build bridges and find the way to a peaceful coexistence.

This is clearly the biggest challenge of his journey and indeed one of the biggest of his papacy to foster a more healthy and respectful relationship between Christians and Muslims. It's a tough road especially with the violence and hatred spewed out by Islamic extremists. Many Christians are simply moving away to avoid the conflict. The Jerusalem Post reports that the Holy Father tackled this issue head on:

"While understandable reasons lead many, especially the young, to emigrate, this decision brings in its wake a great cultural and spiritual impoverishment to the city [of Jerusalem]," he said. . .

In his speech, the pope said he would like to "speak directly to the tragic reality - which cannot fail to be a source of concern to all who love this city and this land - of the departure of so many members of the Church community in recent years. Today I wish to repeat what I have said on other occasions: In the Holy Land there is room for everyone!"

I hope that his words have power to encourage Christians in the Holy Land and to help earn respect from Muslims as well. I think they might. Benedict XVI did a lot to set the stage for this message earlier in his visit. In addition to remembering the holocaust and lamenting the violence against Israelis, he also called for a Palestinian State and said he hoped Israel's security wall will come down. His words were kindly received by Arabs and demonstrate that he's well aware of both the suffering felt by Palestinians and the legitimate fear felt by Jews and Christians.

The overtures to Muslims were tempered by the Pope's decision to walk out of a meeting on interfaith dialogue after an out burst by a muslim cleric. That decision was principled and sent a strong message that respect and reason are essential to any discussion on faith or peace in the Middle East.

The Pope had a lot to accomplish on the visit from strengthening ties with Israel to building bridges with Muslims and supporting local Christians. Despite critics that were ready to jump at every supposed gaffe, such as using the word 'killed' instead of 'murdered,' I believe Benedict accomplished all 3 goals while staying true to Church teaching. This is no small feat and I'm thankful God allowed it to happen.

Is Capitalism Catholic?

That's the question Richard Bastien poses in this thoughtful essay on the topic. In it he argues that many of the economic theories posited by John Locke, Adam Smith et al and those generally associated with the so called protestant work ethic can be traced back to medieval theologians and city states from as far back as the 12th century where . . .

capitalism existed in Italian city-states during the late Middle Ages, a period not of obscurantism and darkness but of progress and intellectual vibrancy that established the foundations of what eventually became modernity. Shortly after the publication of Weber's theory, economic historian Henri Pirenne produced a vast documentation showing that "all of the essential features of capitalism -- individual enterprise, advances in credit, commercial profits, speculation, etc. -- are to be found from the twelfth century on, in the city republics of Italy -- Venice, Genoa, or Florence"

The essay also suggests that Catholic theologians and academics outlined and supported the early capitalist systems:

nearly all the ingredients of modern value and price theory can be found in the writings of medieval thinkers. They developed price and value theories remarkably similar to neoclassical models and rejected the labor theory of value on which Marxist and socialist theories are based. Moreover, they acknowledged the legitimacy of profits and interest charges as early as the 13th century. . .

The best illustration of this is St. Bernardino of Siena, a Franciscan missionary and reformer active in the first half of the 15th century who systematized scholastic economics and was one of the first theologians to write an entire work dealing solely with economics.

Titled 'On Contracts and Usury', it provides a justification of private property, the ethics of trade, the determination of value and price, and the usury question. Bernardino described the entrepreneur as being endowed by God with a special combination of four entrepreneurial gifts -- efficiency, responsibility, hard work, and
risk-taking -- and argued that the latter two legitimized the notion of profit. In short, profit was understood as the valid remuneration of the entrepreneur.

It's a convincing case that capitalism had a well established roots before protestant and secular intellectuals began taking the lead in capitalist economic theory. Today the Church continues to endorse the kind of regulated capitalism that is present in North America. Bastien supports this assertion by referencing John Paul the Great's encyclical, Centesimus Annus. The encyclical answers the question of whether capitalism is the model that countries seeking true economic and civil progress should follow, like this:

If by capitalism is meant the positive role of business, the market, private property and responsibility for the means of production as well as free creativity in the economic sector, the answer is in the affirmative . . . . But if by capitalism is meant a system in which freedom in the economic sector is not circumscribed within a strong juridical framework which places it at the service of human freedom nor is seen as a particular aspect of freedom, the core of which is ethical and religious, then the reply is certainly negative.

Fascinating stuff.

Super Soakers and Holy Water

Well we made it and what a ride. There was so much going on at Church this weekend, but we managed to make it to the 4 main events. There are a few things that stuck out at me.

First thing I think most Priests genuinely look forward to this. Especially Easter Vigil on Saturday night. There's a lot going on with a big fire at the back of church representing the light of Christ - the flame then spreads throughout the darkened church with everyone holding a candle. But the part these men look forward to most definitely seems to be when we renew our baptismal vows. The whole congregation repeats the vows and then the priest goes through the church and sprinkles everyone with holy water.

It seems they get more generous with the holy water every year it's only a matter of time until the priests are walking through the church with super soakers set to a wide spray and just hitting the fire button. I can imagine the retreat weekends they hold for young men considering entering the priesthood are just about sitting around watching videos about how throw as much water as possible.

They do the baptismal rite on Easter Sunday as well, but I think the priests are a little more restrained with all the extra people around on Sunday morning. Incidentally there were a lot of extra people around in our small parish on Sunday morning. We enjoyed Easter Sunday mass from the front steps because the standing room only section at the back was already full - and we weren't even late.

Suffice to say it was a joyful time at Church this weekend, which brought to mind a quote I read from Ayatollah Khomeini, who I think is as close as you get to an equivalent of the pope in the Muslim world. Anyway he was quoted saying:

"Allah did not create man so that he could have fun. The aim of creation was for mankind to be put to the test through hardship and prayer. An Islamic regime must be serious in every field. There are no jokes in Islam. There is no humour in Islam. There is no fun in Islam. There can be no fun or joy in whatever is serious."

Wow - glad I'm Catholic. I gotta say I prefer living in the joy of the Resurrection. But we Christians got our solemn moments as well. Good Friday was time to fast and reflect on the pain, suffering and brutal death that Jesus endured for our sins. It was a good reminder for me that God's love is real and tangible. It's easy to get disappointed and question His love and fairness when really important things just don't go our way. But Good Friday shows us the depth of Christ's love and that there really is no reason at all for us to hold on to any anger we have at Him.

About Condoms

The silliness continues on the so called condom controversy with a Facebook group claiming 60,000 people will send a condom to the pope as a sign of protest over his earlier comments suggesting that merely increasing condom distribution to Africa would not solve the problem of AIDS, but may risk aggravating the problem. The pope said:

I would say that this problem of AIDS cannot be overcome with advertising slogans. If the soul is lacking, if Africans do not help one another, the scourge cannot be resolved by distributing condoms; quite the contrary, we risk worsening the problem. The solution can only come through a twofold commitment: firstly, the humanization of sexuality, in other words a spiritual and human renewal bringing a new way of behaving towards one another; and secondly, true friendship, above all with those who are suffering, a readiness - even through personal sacrifice - to be present with those who suffer. And these are the factors that help and bring visible progress.

This whole kerfuffle seems overblown. For one thing a lot gets lost in translation. If you follow the link to the Pope's comments you can see the original question was in French, but the Pope responded in Italian, more than likely because he thought that nuance and clarity were important. However, in the English speaking media I've seen many various paraphrases of his remarks in quotations. Many of these paraphrases are significantly more blunt than His Holiness' actual comments.

Second, strictly speaking the pope is correct. The World Health Organization claims that used properly (a pretty open ended caveat) condoms are 90% effective at preventing HIV transmission. Abstinence or being faithful to an uninfected partner are 100% effective. So the question of which method of preventing the spread of disease cannot be in doubt.

Of course, if someone is going to have sex with an infected partner their best to use a condom. Pope Benedict never said anything contrary to this. It's useful to take a look at Church teaching. The church teaches that married couples should give themselves fully to one another and accept children lovingly from God. Condoms are viewed as contrary to this teaching because you are placing the couples are not 'giving themselves fully' or being open to children. The Church also teaches that sex outside of marriage is sinful, extramarital sex isn't any more or less sinful with a condom it's just sinful.

Then there's the question of whether condoms promote promiscuity. I think this is an open question that people should recognize is debatable. When I think of the question, I remember frosh week at university. There were condoms in the frosh kits and they were handed out at every concert or pub event. Back then their heavy promotion and distribution definitely seemed to send the message that we were expected to be having (a lot) of sex. So I'd say there are situations where condom distribution can encourage promiscuity and therefore 'risk worsening the problem' of disease.

The sharp criticism of the pope in the mainstream media is inaccurate and misplaced.

What-ification?

Today is Ash Wednesday, the end of Mardi Gras, and the beginning of Lent. I've always practiced and appreciated lent. Almost always anyway. There was the year I gave up chocolate and Cadbury came out with their Easter cream eggs for the first time. I still think that's cruel.

Lent has definitely become more meaningful since I became Catholic because the Church still places a lot of emphasis on it. I remember as I was considering becoming Catholic and one of the guys at university was all excited about Lent, singing the praises of self-denial and mortification. What-ifcation? That sounds kind of morbid. It is. It's about dying to yourself - denying your body or your mind certain things in order to draw yourself closer to God.

On first thought, it sounds pretty wacky but it's not at all. It's a reminder that we're spiritual beings and our body is just a temporary vessel. By saying no to some of our cravings we recognize that life is about more than eating, sleeping and seeking earthly pleasure. I'm going to try to deny myself again this Lent. Here's how:

• No internet poker - I enjoy this but it takes up way too much of my time.
• No Cookies - I usually eat at least 6 cookies a day, plus more if I can get my hands on them.
• I will call my family more. I'm so self centered I usually wait for them to call me, unless I need something.
• I will read a book, probably, Feeding Your Appetites.

Wish me luck. Better yet, pray for me!

The Tragedy of Penny and Karissa Boudreau

When I first heard of how Penny Boudreau strangled her 12 year old daughter in a bid to keep her boyfriend I was shocked and disgusted. The details are sensational: Penny's boyfriend told her she would have to choose between him or her daughter, so Penny strangled her daughter, put the twine in a garbage can, threw her daughter's body in a river, put her daughter's clothes in a garbage can and then reported her child missing and went on National TV pleading for her daughter's return.

She eventually confessed everything to an undercover police officer and her fate was sealed. She received a life sentence for the murder. So justice has been served and it's time to close this sad chapter of history. Well maybe. What has struck me more recently is the viciousness of the condemnation that she has received. Most commentary seems to be of the "hanging's too good for her" variety, and I shuddered when I read the judge's comments:

"You can never call yourself mother," said Justice Margaret Stewart, glancing up at Boudreau. "The words, 'Mommy, don't' ... are there to haunt you for the rest of your life."

The judge may be more right than she knows. I cannot fathom how a mother could do this to her child, and I definitely can't begin to understand how she is living with herself. It seems like she's already grappling with the magnitude of the situation, the article said that she was weeping throughout the hearing and:

After sentencing, Boudreau stood up briefly to address the court.

"I'm sorry," she said in a meek whisper.

Nobody seems to interested in her apology. But maybe we should be. I'm reminded of a number of sermons I've heard about evil and about confession. There's a classic trap that the devil seems to use - first he tries to convince us that whatever wrongdoing we're being tempted to do is OK, normal, or justified by the circumstances. THEN after we've done it he encourages us to feel guilty, ashamed, worthless and unforgivable. I'm certain that's how Penny Boudreau is feeling right now, the judge did her part to make sure she is.

The amazing thing for Penny, and for all of us, is that if her guilt leads her to sorrow, and her sorrow leads to true repentance, then God is willing and able to forgive even her. What Penny did was less than human, but she is still a person. I'm praying for her that she will truly repent for her sins and that she will feel God's love. I'm also thinking it's time to go back to confession myself.

Just one disclaimer: Our system is just and Penny was rightly given the maximum sentence for her actions. My only hope is that the next 20 years she spends in jail is a time of healing and repentance not a time of debilitating guilt and mental anguish.

Iranian Muslim Hitchhiker

Here's something for the "It goes to show what I know file:"

I picked up a hitch hiker today. He was very polite and grateful. He told me that he was Iranian and had two daughters, Michelle and Maria. He named Maria after the virgin Mary. He noticed the rosary on my review mirror, and said many people have these in Iran. I was surprised, but he said that there are about 70% of the population is muslim and that about 10% is Christian and another 10% is Jewish. He told me that he was a muslim, but that Jesus and the virgin Mary were very close to his heart. He said that there were 124,000 prophets from Adam through to Mohammed, and he seemed to geniunely believe that being muslim was somehow an extension of Christianity. Sometimes, he even goes to the Catholic Church to worship. He served for 3 years in the Iranian military during the Iran – Iraq war 2 years because of conscription, but he volunteered for the third year. He said he would gladly join the Canadian military if he was called to because Canada is his country now.

Can anyone shed some light on this?

A Faint Glimmer of Hope for the Anglican Church

Last Sunday's decision by Canadian Anglican Bishop's not to bless gay marriage has narrowly averted a crisis that would have led to the Canadian Church's expulsion from the Anglican Communion, a mass exodus of members and the closure of countless parishes. It is clearly a victory for reason and the church as a whole. It was also a surprise victory given the church's relentless march to irrelevance.

It's a rare moment for Anglicans faithful to scripture such as Anglican Essentials to claim any victory in the battles for theological purity. Instead they focused on the short comings of the synod with these two quotes from the Edmonton Sun:

Cheryl Chang, a spokeswoman for Anglican Essentials, a group lobbying against same sex blessings, said she believes confused and frustrated parishioners will start finding other churches immediately.

"People (will) leave to go to the Catholic Church, the Baptist church, the Pentecostal church. That's going to happen starting next Sunday, or next Monday even," Chang said.

"These are decisions that are very confusing for the church, and ultimately, very divisive."

And

"To do what they've done is to step apart from the worldwide Anglican communion," said The Rev. Canon Charlie Masters, the head of Anglican Essentials.

"This is a very sad day for Anglicans."

Come on guys. What would you have said if the Church had decided to bless same-sex unions? It very nearly did. Instead, you won the key vote. You worked hard for this victory claim it.

What Canon Masters and Mrs Chang are focusing on is a decision by the Synod that blessing same-sex unions “not in conflict with the core doctrine” of the church. OK, it's a set back, but it doesn't have any bearing on the actual practices of the church. Advocates for same sex blessings such as Bishop Michael Ingham will have a hard time continuing to go against the expressed wishes of the Synod.

My bigger concern is with the incoming Primate (head) of the Anglican Church in Canada:

“There is disappointment – a lot of pain. Some people will be saying ‘How long, O Lord, how long?’” said Bishop Fred Hiltz of Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, who is the incoming primate or national archbishop. When asked how he might maintain discipline among clergy and bishops who want to move forward, he said, “My sense is that, as painful as these realities are, we do have a responsibility to respect the decisions of General Synod. It’s not the last time this will come up.”

Sir - there should be no more waiting, the Synod has spoken. This is the problem with the Anglican Church, the idea that doctrine and church teaching can change every few years and that liberals in the church believe they can use the same strategy as Quebec separatists, keep on voting until you get the result you want.

For those scriptural christians patient enough to stay in the Anglican Church I say fight the good fight. You still have a long uphill battle, but you won a victory on Sunday, enjoy it.

Easter Weekend 2007

I love Easter. There's always a danger it can get routine, but, it's also an opportunity to be inspired by the incredible suffering Christ endured for us and the mind-blowing power of His resurrection. This Easter has been a major blessing.

Holy Thursday:

I haven't always participated in Holy Thursday, but this has been my loss. Here we celebrate the Last Supper, when Jesus gave us the Eucharist saying, "This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me." (Luke 22:19) It's also when Jesus gave one of His greatest examples of servant leadership by washing His disciples' feet.

This year my priest asked me to have my feet washed at the front of the Church along with 5 other men and women. I usually don't mind getting up in front of large groups of people, but I was absolutely terrified. I wanted to skip Mass altogether to avoid any potential embarrassment. Of course, I went and it was a moving experience, allowing a man I deeply respect to humble himself in this way. I was also very pleasantly surprised, that they used warm water to wash our feet, I wonder if the apostles had this luxury.

Of course Thursday was also the night when Jesus was betrayed by Judas, and when he prayed so hard that he sweat blood in the Garden of Gethsemane. Holy Thursday sets the stage perfectly for Good Friday.

Good Friday

Today we remember how Jesus died. We remember the torture he endured, the abandonment and betrayal of so many who had followed him. We remember the cruel, merciless death on the cross, and the sharp pain that must have been felt by those who loved him.

Church liturgy is rich today; we are called to fast and make it a solemn day. In the last few years, we've also made a habit of watching The Passion of the Christ. It's a bloody and gruesome retelling of the story that really makes his sacrifice real.

It's a holiday in Canada (at least here in Ontario), and I'm very thankful because it allows us to observe this day properly. I pray that Americans will also get this day off because it is so important.

Holy Saturday

Easter Vigil, which begins at sundown, is when Catholics begin to celebrate the resurrection. The church is totally dark with a small fire or candle lit at the back, representing the light and life that Jesus has brought into the world. Everyone is given a candle and soon the glow has spread through the entire church. It's a long service, where we remember how often God has saved his people throughout history from Creation to Christ.

It's also the day when new people are brought into the Catholic Church through baptism or the Rite of Christian Initiation. I wonder how many thousands of new Catholics were brought into the church today.

Today's a bit of an anniversary for me; it was Easter Vigil 5 years ago when I was received into the Catholic Church!

Easter Sunday

Always Awesome. The new day and the (usually spring like weather), highlight how truly amazing it is that Jesus rose again after dying. After spending most of the weekend reflecting on Christ's suffering and death, and imagining how his disciples must have been totally crushed. It's a wonderful feeling to imagine the joy and bewilderment they must have felt when they first realized what has happened.

Our Easter joy increased a little when we noticed how much snow was on the ground. We were able to go tobogganing for a couple hours after church. Great fun!

The best part is . . . Easter is not just a weekend. Liturgically it's a season that stretches on for several weeks. More than that, it's the reason Christians celebrate anything at all. Truly it's not too late to wish you a very HAPPY EASTER!

The Theology of Sex

I am absolutely amazed at an apparent lack of understanding of Christian Theology that has been on display since Anglican Bishop Michael Ingham declared:

The Christian church has a deeply flawed understanding of sex that has led to morally groundless objections to masturbation, birth control, abortion and homosexuality, says a leading Canadian Anglican bishop.

In particular, the church has been wrong for centuries on the notion that sex exists only for the purpose of procreation, Right Rev. Michael Ingham, bishop of the greater Vancouver Diocese of New Westminster, told a conference in Ottawa last night.

"Christianity as a religion stands in need of a better theology of sexuality,"
he said, "a better understanding of the complex role sexuality plays in our
human nature and of the purposes of God in creating us as sexual beings."

Does it? The Christian Church has a very coherent teaching on sex, and this teaching was recently enhanced by Pope John Paul the Great's Theology of the Body.

In reality the Church Teaching is really not that difficult. Here's how I understand it:

• God created man and woman to be physically complimentary.
• God gave us sex as the means to procreate and therefore it is good.
• Sex is an essential part of marriage that serves to draw husband and wife closer together and can allow the couple to participate in God's plan of creation.
• Marriage is a symbol of God's love for his people, where the two become one flesh.
• Sex outside of marriage is always sinful, and God explicitly forbids homosexual sex.
• Chastity is a high virtue that every single person is called to.
• When we remove the procreative aspect from sex, we diminish the gift that was given to us by God.

Unfortunately Bishop Ingham and his followers reject this outright assuming that traditional church teaching is a list of prohibitions. Like all of God's law, we are given this direction not to diminish our pleasure but to protect us from the hurt and emptiness that are inevitably caused by sin. God also recognizes that we will inevitably fail to meet his standard of perfection, but He is quick to forgive us every time we confess our sins.

If Bishop Ingham began to propose a new Christian Theology of Sex, he would have a very difficult time improving on the Church's current teaching, which, derives directly from God's word in the Bible. Ingham's vision of a new permissive sexual theology that called all sex moral could simply not be called Christian in any sense.

Lorna Dueck at the Globe and Mail

Christian journalist Lorna Dueck will be taking questions on the Globe and Mail website about the recent comments by Anglican Bishop Michael Ingham, who suggested Christians need a new 'theology of sex'. I submitted the following comment:

Lorna, are you familiar with Pope John Paul the Great's Theology of the body and
an earlier papal encyclical Humanae Vitae? Do you think it's possible that this Anglican Bishop can actually be ignorant of some of the significant Theological work that has been done? Finally in your experience do you believe greater communication between protestant and catholic theologians would create a greater understanding of this topic?

My comment and concern is that Mr. Ingham is wholly dismissive of both scripture and Christian tradition, and that from that perspective it is absolutely impossible to develop any theology that could properly be called Christian.

It's scary to watch my old church fall apart. As I wrote earlier, I left my old church for a reason. Anyway most of the rather weak Anglican brain trust was quick to jump on the Ingham bandwagon. (See: Some Anglicans welcome debate on theology of sex) I was encouraged by one Anglican theologian who still has his head screwed on right:

Dr. Gary Badcock, theology professor at Huron University College, said the
bishop's argument rests on “slender foundations.”

“The fact of the matter is that Judaism, prior to Christianity, universally rejected homosexuality. It would be very, very strange for a first-century Jew like Paul to make a case like Ingham is trying to claim,” Dr. Badcock said.

As for the argument that procreation is not truly basic to human sexuality, Dr. Badcock said the procreative aspect can't be ignored.

“Theologically and biologically, one would still need to privilege the procreative aspect of human sexuality since if that were to cease for 40 years, the human race would be extinct. It exists for some purpose,” he said.

That's the thing about truth; it will always be true no matter how hard some people try to deny it.

Turning the Other Cheek

First two quotes.

Bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Luke 6:28-30 (NIV)

"Enough now with this turning the other cheek. It's our duty to protect ourselves." Monsignor Velasio De Paolis, secretary of the Vatican's Supreme Court.

My first reaction to this was disbelief and disappointment. I just don't like the sound of a clergyman contradicting scripture.

Christian History is full of martyrs who willingly gave up their lives rather than protecting themselves by force. We would not have a Church if Christ had defended himself instead of willingly accepting a brutal execution as a punishment for our sin. Here in Ontario we have a shrine to Canadian Martyrs like St. Jean de Brebeuf, a missionary to the Huron Indians who refused to flee when they were attacked by the Iroquois.

However, in reality, I don't believe that Monsignor De Paolis is contradicting scripture. Rather he is contradicting a mistaken interpretation of it that would suggest the Catholic Church should allow its members and other Christians to be persecuted, tortured, and murdered for their faith. Daniel Pipes outlines the problem in an excellent article here.

In the nineteen eighties, the Church was largely successful in protecting Christians' freedom to worship in Russia, Poland and the other communist countries of Eastern Europe. Today there are many countries where religious freedom is in serious jeopardy, many of them are majority Muslim countries. The church is right to recognize the threats to believers and to use all of its political influence to protect the rights of people in every country of the world to worship freely.