Father Tim Moyle Interview of George Weigel

George Weigel is a well educated, faith filled Catholic layman, well known for his writings on Pope John Paul II, and his work in producing books on being a Catholic in the world in which we live.  He currently serves as Distinguished Senior Fellow and Chair of Catholic Studies at the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C.

Though Mr. Weigel was born and raised in Baltimore Maryland, and currently resides in Bethesda, he has lived in various places around the United States and Canada.  His Achilles heal would seem to be his life long support of the Baltimore Orioles of the American League in Major League Baseball.  But maybe not!  The once mighty Orioles have fallen on hard times since their last trip to the World Series in 1997, and do not look like they will be there anytime soon, with the mighty Red Sox and Yankees playing out of the same division.  But, hope springs eternal.

This is a lot like the once mighty Roman Catholic Church, which too has fallen on hard times, or so it would appear.  The Catholic Church plays in the Salvation League and has to compete against the better funded and more attractive Moral Relativists, and Secular Humanists, with the combined Agnostics and Atheists looking like the Toronto Blue Jays, not as much cash available and not as attractive a team to play for.


This undying support of the Orioles may in fact just have been a metaphor for his love and support of the Roman Catholic Church, which he not only supports but encourages.  Again, hope springs eternal.

Father Tim and Mr. Weigel have been friends for many years, and also shared that friendship with another influential, though now deceased author and Catholic priest, Father Richard John Neuhaus.

Father Tim recently interviewed Mr. Weigel and posted the interview on his blog site.  If you follow this interview, you will meet a rational man, with well reasoned thoughts and descriptions of his thoughts.  Above all, you will find a seeker of the truth, not one proclaiming that he has an exclusive lock on it, but one who is able to filter out the distractions that prevent so many of us from seeing it.
Here is a link to his interview with Father Tim Moyle at Where the Rubber Hits the Road.
 
I conclude from this interview that I would like to read more of what he has written and writes.  Some of his writings can be found at the Archdiocese of Denver site here.  Additional links can be found at his home bas, the Ethics and Public Policy Center here.

This Should Disturb You

Couple Rejected: Will Christians Be Allowed to Provide Foster Care in England?


Dear Readers:
 
Like frogs placed into cool water that is then slowly heated, Christianity has been and is being put to the test.  We will either sit in our kettle of water while we are cooked to death, or we will resist.  Resistance is not futile, but necessary.  Moral relativism is taking serious hold of our society, and articles like this from Deacon Keith Fournier at Catholic Online are continuing examples of what is happening in our society today.
 
WAKE UP.
 
Here is the article:
 

The ruling is part of a trend in England since the passage in 2007 of the 'Equality Act Sexual Orientation Regulations'
 
What happened to Eunice and Owen Johns this past week concerning their participation in foster care is ominous. What is next for Catholics and other Christians if this trend continues? We are in the throes of a Cultural Revolution involving two competing visions of the human person, human flourishing, the true nature of marriage - the family and society founded upon it - and the definition of the common good. These two visions of the human person and human freedom are in conflict.
 
NOTTINGHAM, England (Catholic Online) - Christian Concerns, a public interest legal group in England, reported on a disturbing Court ruling in an article entitled "High Court Judgment Suggests Christian beliefs Harmful to Children". A Protestant Pentecostal couple has been disqualified from being foster parents, in effect, because they are Christians. The Catholic News Agency in an article entitled "British court says Christian couple can't adopt due to beliefs." offered this summary of what occurred:

"Eunice and Owen Johns, aged 62 and 65, are Pentecostal Christians from the city of Derby and have cared for 15 foster children in the past. Following the ruling, Eunice Johns said she and her husband were "extremely distressed" at the ruling handed down in Nottingham Crown Court. "All we wanted to do was to offer a loving home to a child in need," Eunice Johns said. "We have a good track record as foster parents, but because we are Christians with mainstream views on sexual ethics, we are apparently unsuitable as foster parents. The judges have suggested that our views might harm children. We have been told by the Equality and Human Rights Commission that our moral views may 'infect' a child. We do not believe that this is so."

The ruling is part of a trend in England since the passage in 2007 of the "Equality Act Sexual Orientation Regulations" The Court ruled that if children were placed with people like Eunice and Owen Johns who hold classical Christian views on morality "there may well be a conflict with the local authority's duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of looked-after children." They gave lip service to religious freedom but held that in foster care "sexual orientation should take precedence." They also insisted that a foster family exhibit "positive attitudes towards homosexuality." Finally, they held that the "Article 9 [of the European Human Rights Act] only provides a 'qualified' right to manifest religious belief and ... this will be particularly so where a person in whose care a child is placed wishes to manifest a belief that is inimical to the interests of children." The Court in essence ruled that classical morality is "inimical to the interests of children."

In 2010 "Catholic Care", a Catholic adoption agency in the Diocese of Leeds, was forced to stop participating in adoptions because they refused to place children with practicing homosexuals. They were the last Catholic Adoption Agency left standing in the wake of the "Equality Act Sexual Orientation Regulations" Eleven other Catholic agencies closed down or severed their ties with the Catholic Church. Catholic Care appealed to the High Court seeking to limit its services to heterosexual married couples. They argued there were 'particularly convincing and weighty reasons' for such "discrimination." That is now the standard for any variation. This is how tyrants work. They make unjust positions sound "just" and then enforce their will with the police power of the State.

The Charity Commission rejected their argument about the best interest of children. They made light of their appeal to a fundamental human right to religious freedom. They worded the opinion in high sounding language but revealed that the Commission has become an apologist for a regime in the United Kingdom which promotes an equivalency between active homosexual relationships and authentic marriage. They also insist that homosexual practices be given protected legal status as a fundamental human right. In other words, unnatural acts between two men or two women are protected by the law in the same way as race, creed or natural origin.

The Commission wrote, "The High Court judgement had found that respect for religious views could not be a justification for discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation in this case, because of the essentially public nature of adoption services... In certain circumstances, it is not against the law for charities to discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation. However, because the prohibition on such discrimination is a fundamental principle of human rights law, such discrimination can only be permitted in the most compelling circumstances. We have concluded that in this case the reasons Catholic Care have set out do not justify their wish to discriminate." So, Catholic adoption agencies can no longer participate in providing adoption services in England because they refuse to bow to a new Caesar.

What happened to Eunice and Owen Johns this past week concerning their participation in foster care is ominous. What is next for Catholics and other Christians if this trend continues? We are in the throes of a Cultural Revolution involving two competing visions of the human person, human flourishing, the true nature of marriage - the family and society founded upon it - and the definition of the common good. These two visions are in conflict. One is a throwback to ancient paganism which calls itself "progressive" when it is regressive. The other is the path to a future of true freedom.

On January 22, 2007 Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor sent a letter to the government concerning the pending legislation which later passed as the "Equality Act Sexual Orientation Regulations" . Here is an excerpt:

*****

Dear Prime Minister and Members of the Cabinet,

"It has always been the wish of the Catholic Church in this country to work with the government for the common good of its people. We believe we do this in matters of social care, education and in many other ways. Catholic teaching urges us to do this, and we do it gladly in a spirit of cooperation. We would, however, have a serious difficulty with the proposed regulations on discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation in the provision of goods and services if they required our adoption agencies to consider homosexual couples as potential adoptive parents.

"The Catholic Church utterly condemns all forms of unjust discrimination, violence, harassment or abuse directed against people who are homosexual. Indeed the Church teaches that they must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. We, therefore, recognize many elements of recent legislation -- including much in the Northern Ireland regulations -- that takes steps to ensure that no such discrimination takes place.

"What, then, is the problem? It is that to oblige our agencies in law to consider adoption applications from homosexual couples as potential adoptive parents would require them to act against the principles of Catholic teaching. We require our agencies to recruit and approve appropriate married and single people to meet the needs of children in local authority care for whom adoption has been identified as being in their best interest.

"We place significant emphasis on marriage, as it is from the personal union of a man and a woman that new life is born and it is within the loving context of such a relationship that a child can be welcomed and nurtured. Marital love involves an essential complementarity of male and female. We recognize that some children, particularly those who have suffered abuse and neglect, may well benefit from placement with a single adoptive parent.

"However, Catholic teaching about the foundations of family life, a teaching shared not only by other Christian Churches but also other faiths, means that Catholic adoption agencies would not be able to recruit and consider homosexual couples as potential adoptive parents. We believe it would be unreasonable, unnecessary and unjust discrimination against Catholics for the government to insist that if they wish to continue to work with local authorities, Catholic adoption agencies must act against the teaching of the Church and their own consciences by being obliged in law to provide such a service...."

*****

The Cardinal's letter was reasonable. But reason seems to be losing its persuasive power as tyranny is released from its moral restraints and now masquerades as tolerance. Now, it is not only a matter of squeezing the Church out of providing adoption services, it is a wholesale effort to deny Christian couples a right to be foster parents. Perhaps this will soon lead to denying Christians the right to adopt as well. This Court decision against Eunice and Owen Johns is ominous and calls for a focused response of prayer and Catholic Action.

PRO-LIFE CLUB SUES CARLETON UNIVERSITY

Carleton Lifeline Seeks Restitution

The young are leading the Pro-Life fight.  Just see my earlier article where Lila Rose is highlighted, and now this.  The Pro-Life group at Carleton University is not taking it anymore, and good for them.  Bullies have to be swatted down hard.


Here is a press release from them:

Carleton Lifeline, the pro-life club at Carleton University, has sued the University and its administration for the discriminatory treatment they have been subjected to during the 2010-2011 academic school year.


“We believe that the behaviour of the University is actionable. We have suffered discrimination and intimidation, we have been arrested and threatened and we are seeking restitution”, said Ruth Lobo, President of Carleton Lifeline. “The University’s discriminatory actions are shocking, to say the least. We want to ensure, through law, that this behaviour is not repeated at Carleton University ever again.”


Lifeline is asking the Court to declare that Carleton University and its administration have breached their own internal policies regarding freedom of expression, academic freedom and discrimination. As such, Lifeline is also requesting that the University is ordered to comply with these internal policies.


On October 4, 2010, Carleton University had members of Lifeline handcuffed, arrested, charged and fined with trespassing for attempting to display an exhibit that the University administration deemed disturbing and offensive due to the graphic nature of the display. In November 2010, Carleton University’s administration provided Lifeline with an ultimatum regarding the expression of their opinions and threatened further arrests.


“Carleton University has allowed other exhibits using graphic images on campus” commented Albertos Polizogopoulos, Carleton Lifeline’s lawyer. “Clearly the University opposes Lifeline’s message and not its medium. This is censorship and viewpoint discrimination and it violates Carleton University’s internal policies."


To view a copy of the Statement of Claim, please visit http://www.carletonlifeline.wordpress.com/


For more information, please call Carleton Lifeline at 613-600-4791 or Lifeline’s lawyer Albertos Polizogopoulos at 613 -241-2701 Ext: 243

The Truth Will Set You Free

Live Action and the Fight to End Abortion

For the past several years, Lila Rose and a committed group of young pro-life advocates have been working to use new and social media to bring the truth of (expose really) Planned Parenthood's practices in abortion out into the open.  They have created videos and posted them to raise awareness of what goes on behind closed doors.

These videos have been created by having young people present themselves as underage pregnant girls, as pimps and other sex workers, at many of the PP clinics in the US, where they have produced consistent videos of the actions of staff at these clinics, actions that appear to be highly illegal, and actionable, actions that are meant to further the real aims of PP, or so they must since they are so consistent.

Live Action did not make up the scenarios that they have gone in and presented for the purpose of getting their videos.  They have researched the actions of PP, and have been very aware that even when PP has been brought before the courts in particular cases, or sufficient smoke has been raised as to their actions,  the Main Stream Media has turned a blind eye to PP and their deeds and misdeeds, and this has gone on for years and years. 

And so, Lila Rose and her band of young people have found their voices in alternative media, and their videos of misdeeds have been viewed by many, many people.  Eyes are being opened to the evil of abortion as never before.

What has come as a surprise to me is that some in the pro-life movement have spoken against the methods of Live Action.  Doctor Peter Kreeft, a noted Catholic writer and teacher has spoken out in support of them here.   As he writes, those against the actions of Live Action are dealing more in moral legalism than the truth.

Jesus spoke to us in parables, that were made up stories to prove a point.  Were they lies?  They certainly were not factually true.  Last night millions of North Americans watched NCIS on television.  In that series Mark Harmon portrays Jethro Gibbs, an NCIS Special Agent.  It is a work of fiction, from beginning to end, like most other shows on television. Yet, we enjoy these shows and do not think of them as lies. 

So, why do some of us get indignant when a group of young and very courageous pro-life advocates research scenarios about the actions of PP and then present themselves in similar roles to discern the truth.

Please watch what Glenn Beck reported on his show last week.  This YouTube video has been seen by over 20,000 people as of this morning, and deserves to be seen by more.

Let's Get Real - Whatever That Means

A thoughtful and thought provoking commenter at Where the Rubber Hits The Road - Martin, who writes cogently from an anti-religious bias responded to Father Tim's linking to my posting on "Rational Human Beings - An Oxymoron" as I hoped he would, and expected that he might.  It was his use of the word "RATIONAL" in a previous comment thread that had prompted my article in the first place.
On matters religious, Martin and I are not likely to reach accord, and he seems to hold in some measure of disdain many things religious.  He, like Small Town Guy, Father Tim's most prolific anti-Catholic commenter makes it a point to share his opinions from time to time.

Here is what he said in the comment thread on my article at Father Tim's blog:

Hi Michael,


An interesting and thoughtful reflection on what it means to be "rational".

I often suspect that "rational" is more of an aspirational goal for our species than something we actually possess.

To clarify - when I used the word "rational", I used it in the following 2 senses:

a) logically consistent and internally coherent
b) grounded in reality

I think some religous folks can be logically consistent and internally coherent. If one accepts their many premises about reality, then one may rightly conclude that much of what they say and do is quite rational in the sense of (a).

As you might suspect, I part company with many religious folks when their premises are not grounded in reality. While their premises MIGHT be true, these premises are often inconsistent with reality and therefore not rational in the sense of (b).

Having said this - I readily acknowledge that some religous views are neither logically consistent, internally conherent, nor are they grounded in reality. I think we have all met folks who would fit that description.

I apologize if my use of the word "rational" was confusing or sounded condescending. I intended neither.

Cheers...Martin

So, basically in the original article I wrote, I came to the conclusion in more words than this, that
"rational" is a relative term, and as I said in my own comment on the thread, it is elusive. 

So, in explaining his meaning of rational, Martin concluded that the term has two senses:

a) logically consistent and internally coherent

b) grounded in reality

But, again like rational, both of these are relative terms.  I concur that they pick up the flavour of the word rational.

The key word though is "reality."  It is interesting that Martin said in reference to "religious people" that their premises thought they "MIGHT be true", "these premises are often inconsistent with reality ."

Reality is defined in the Merriam Webster dictionary as follows:

1: the quality or state of being real



2a (1) : a real event, entity, or state of affairs
(2) : the totality of real things and events
b : something that is neither derivative nor dependent but exists necessarily

So, I am challenged to understand how something MIGHT be true, but not grounded in reality.  However, I do not think that Martin mispoke as much as he presented conventional wisdom.  Conventional wisdom is another really good oxymoron.

Are people who agree with me dealing with reality whereas those who do not agree with me are not?  And is anyone grounded in reality, or is reality too fluffy a word to put boundaries on?

Albert Enistein said this about reality:

Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.

John Lennon had this to say about reality:

A dream you dream alone is only a dream. A dream you dream together is reality.

John Lennon is not available to answer the question that comes to my mind reading his quote, but if he were here in my reality I would ask him how many dreamers it takes to make something real.  On the other hand, I can't ask Einstein for further explanation either, though I think his statement is sufficient unto itself.

The problem with words and terms like "rational", "consistent", "coherent", and "realistic" is that they are like "beauty" - found only, or at least, in the eyes of the beholder.

Speaking of beauty, maybe we can recall the closing lines of John Keats Ode on a Grecian Urn from 1819:

"Beauty is truth; truth, beauty -- that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know."

All the above not withstanding, I consider myself a rational human being.  I am a husband, a father, hold a university degree, and was qualified as a Chartered Accountant.  At 60 years of age, I am not the brightest bulb in the pack, but with the age of compact flourescents, I get some brightness out of my lower wattage.  I believe that what I write is both logically consistent and internally coherent, and for me, at least totally realistic.

One time I wrote about a particular miraculous healing of arthritis that happened for me here.
I was raised in the Roman Catholic Church, and walked away from my faith at age 20, when I believed at the time that it was not "logically consistent and internally coherent", and also for me at the time was not "totally realistic."  Over the ensuing decade, I had occasion to learn that the lack of consistency and coherence was in me, not in the Church and Christianity.

So, what is reality anyway? 

Rational Human Beings - An Oxymoron?

I find that Father Tim Moyle's blog, "Where the Rubber Hits the Road" provides a good source for things to ponder, particularly things that have a religious bent to them.   What can be telling though are the particular nuances of the comments placed there to some of the articles. 

I find it interesting that links to my own articles that Father Tim has found worth linking at his site receive many comments there, which is an oblique way of commenting to me about what I have written, though the commenters don't usually comment at my blog site.  The same applies usually, I have noticed, to other article links that Father Tim posts.

Recently, Father Tim linked an article from the National Catholic Register about 144 dissident German theologians, who want the Church to stand on its head, and basically deny much of what it has taught about the priesthood, and human sexuality.  However, like most article links that Father Tim posts, the article itself becomes an orphan as commenters wander down a new thread, or two, that might have some relationship to the actual article, but usually doesn't.

But, a particular comment by Martin, a frequent commenter, though not in the league of Small Town Guy for word count or even comment count, caught my eye.  He was responding in this comment thread to Father Michael Smith, a parish priest who formerly taught at St. Peter's Seminary, and is known by Father Tim.  Father Michael was responding in the thread to Lady Janus, and to "Anonymous" or two Anonymi, not sure which, and finally Martin surfaced as he oft times does, with this gem:

. . . you don't have any objective evidence whatsoever in support of your religious propositions. The best you can do is some vague arm waving about subjective experiences you or others have undergone, or mumble about unbroken lines of tradition, or philosophize that no one can prove that your propositions are untrue...but in the end, you have little to nudge the rational mind anywhere nearer to your beliefs.

The bold is mine, because it was the word "rational" that got my attention.



There are interesting definitions of the word Rational available for our cogitation.  Here are relevant ones from Dictionary.com:

1. agreeable to reason; reasonable; sensible: a rational plan for economic development.

2. having or exercising reason, sound judgment, or good sense: a calm and rational negotiator.
3. being in or characterized by full possession of one's reason; sane; lucid: The patient appeared perfectly rational.
4. endowed with the faculty of reason: rational beings.
5. of, pertaining to, or constituting reasoning powers: the rational faculty.
6. proceeding or derived from reason or based on reasoning: a rational explanation.

Rational is just such a reasonable and sensible word.  It conveys so much, or so it seems.

Martin appears to be as rational as any other commenter to that or other of Father Tim's posts, though some of the commenters tend towards bloviating.  So, if I catch the drift of his comment, he is rational, and those who think, in this instance that faith matters, and for those of us particularly of the Catholic faith, the Catholic faith matters, must therefor not be rational, since they/we are unable to convince his rational mind of the merits of their/our beliefs.

Ambrose Bierce started a reference book he called "The Devil's Dictionary" back in about 1881.  In it, he redefines some common English words with a little humour, but also some tongue in cheek sensibility.  Here is how "rational" is defined in The Devil's Dictionary:

RATIONAL, adj. Devoid of all delusions save those of observation, experience and reflection.

Now, there's a definition that I can hang my hat on.  Under this definition, Martin is rational.  Under this definition, Father Michael Smith is rational, and also Lady Janus.  Heck, I even qualify.  As for the Anonymous commenter, who did not sign his or her name, bloviating probably is more appropriate than rational.

Human beings are sentient (having the power of sense perception or sensation; conscious) usually, though consciousness is a relative term.  What we are is feeling beings, and those feelings have deep roots, and serious impact on our rationality.  They also cause us to have delusions as to the truth and rationality of things we observe, experience and reflect upon.



Frankly, we do not have to look hard around us to see that "rational human beings" is probably oxymoronic, more than rational.  For me to self define as rational, is a lot like self defining as humble.  For others to observe me as rational, says more about us both being in agreement about what I have come off as so rational about, than it is an observation of my rationality.

In other words, in my humble opinion, rational is a word that cannot be used alone, without being used as a qualifying adjective.  If you want to tell me you are a rational liberal, rational conservative, rational Catholic, rational atheist, rational witch, rational homosexual, at least then I can have a sense of the delusions that motivate you, and we can pretend to be rational together.

I am a rational married Catholic, heterosexual, conservative male, or at least me and the guy in the mirror in the bathroom think so.  I didn't ask My Dear Wife for her opinion on this last statement, in case she might dissent.

Persecution - Overt/Subtle

In a posting earlier today about Said Musa, a Christian in Afghanistan, that is clearly being persecuted for his Christian faith, I intentionally made a concluding comment as follows:

Persecution of Christians, Catholic or Protestant, takes many forms. This is the most overt form, though the criticism that fundamentalist Christians level against Catholics and their faith is little different, just not as violent.


It has the same root cause, ignorance, and the determination to be right at the expense of others freedoms and beliefs.

My comment begat a particular response from Small Town Guy over at Father Tim Moyle's blog where I put a link to it, as I expected it would. It became all about him, and about his excuses for behaviour that is unpleasant at least, persecution at worst. 

I have been contending for some time that systematic highjacking of a Catholic blog by a fundamentalist claiming to be a Christian, wherein he makes fatuous claims about the Catholic Church, quoting his interpretation of the Bible, as well as presenting as fact the writings of Lorraine Boettner, Jack Chick, and now even Avro Manhattan, is a form of persecution.

Well, as expected STG has his own take on it as follows:

Unfortunately Michael sees any comments which are critical of RC teaching, doctrines, or the dark side of RC history as "persecution" and brands it as persecution of the same kind as the tragic real persecution of christians as in this article, only without the violence.


I don't think he really understands freedom of speech or the meaning of the word persecution if he throws the word around so easily. I could ask if he thinks it was right or persecution for a Danish newspaper to publish cartoons of Islam's prophet with a bomb tied to his headcloth?

If one believes in freedom of speech for himself, he should be willing to allow others to have the same right even if he disagrees with the comments, without crying persecution. Can he disagree? Yes of course.

Well, let's see if STG has grounds for his response.  Let's start with the definition of persecution.  Persecution means:

1. To oppress or harass with ill-treatment, especially because of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or beliefs.

2. To annoy persistently; bother.

Now, if I go on to a fundamentalist blog, and participate in a dialogue on equal footing with those there on say, the Real Presence in the Eucharist, where I express Catholic teaching as documented, and accept that that is not what our Protestant brothers and sisters believe, then there is not likely any persecution in that.  Difference of opinion is not persecution.

If however, I go to their blog site, and consistently hijack postings about topic A and turn them into my own fatuous ramblings about the truth of the Bible, and how those there don't get it, maybe we are moving into another arena, the arena of persecution.

That is ill treatment in my humble opinion, based solely on religion, and it also fits definition two, as I am both bothered by it and find it annoying with persistence.  Persecution has less to do with the persecutor than it does with the one or ones being persecuted.  I have very little credibility to say I am not persecuting you, whereas you as the recipient of my venom are the only one who can readily determine if persecution has occurred.

STG threw in the "freedom of speech" thing.  In other words, it is his humble opinion that he can say whatever he wants because in this country (both Canada and the USA) we have laws that protect freedom of speech.

That would be a good point if that were all there is.  With freedom of speech comes responsibility for the speech that we communicate.  But, if you cannot police yourself, in Canada, we have the Canadian Human Rights Act, and similar law in each of the provinces and territories.  The Canadian Act has a section, Section 13, that deals with abuse of free speech as follows:

13. (1) It is a discriminatory practice for a person or a group of persons acting in concert to communicate telephonically or to cause to be so communicated, repeatedly, in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament, any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.


Interpretation

(2) For greater certainty, subsection (1) applies in respect of a matter that is communicated by means of a computer or a group of interconnected or related computers, including the Internet, or any similar means of communication, but does not apply in respect of a matter that is communicated in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a broadcasting undertaking.

So, here's the deal.  If I consider that STG has been exposing Father Tim, and all Catholics who hang out at his blog, to hatred or contempt on the grounds of religious discrimination, I have the freedom to file a claim with the Canadian HRC.  By the way, I can file a claim with the Canadian Human Rights Commission even if I personally do not feel injured by his ramblings.

In reality, I am also free to not read what he writes, and to ignore it for what it is.  So, usually as soon as I see that he has written a comment on the blog, I move right past it, after checking for key words.  That is the higher ground.  It does not make what he is doing any less of a persecution, but it is a higher ground, and really the one we as Christians are called to. 

Of course, we as Christians are also not called to pretend that we are more righteous than others of God's children, but that's another story.

No Ordinary Hero

Said Musa


The following was brought to my attention by Father Tim Moyle, in an article he linked to and commented on this morning here.

Said Musa is a Christian in Afghanistan, though he was raised a Muslim.  That is a crime there, punishable by death.  So, he waits in a detention center for the inevitable.  Oh, and by the way Canadian, British and American troops over there are fighting to defend the government and people, including those who would kill this man.


Mr. Musa is an amputee, the father of 6 and husband of one woman,and a firm believer in the love and atoning mercy of Jesus Christ.


Here is how his original arrest came about as reported at Compass Direct News last November 16, from Istanbul:

Authorities arrested Said Musa, 45, on May 31, days after the local Noorin TV station broadcast images of Afghan Christians being baptized and worshiping. Though there were other arrests in May and June during the ensuing man-hunt against Christians, Musa is the only known Christian facing a court case.

The deputy secretary of the parliament had this to say about converts to Christianity:

The subject of Afghans leaving Islam for Christianity became national news following the Noorin TV broadcast and ignited a heated debate in the country’s parliament and senate. In early June, the deputy secretary of the Afghan parliament, Abdul Sattar Khawasi, called for the execution of converts.

“Those Afghans that appeared on this video film should be executed in public,” he said, according to news sources. “The house should order the attorney general and the NDS [National Directorate of Security] to arrest these Afghans and execute them.”

Here is a hand written letter from Mr. Musa reported yesterday in the National Catholic Register, though the letter was written last Fall, and was first published on November 16, complete with grammatical and language challenges:

“To the international church of world and to the President Brother Barak Obama President of the United States and to the head of ISAF [International Security Assistance Force] in Afghanistan!


“My name is Said Musa 45 years old. I have been working since 15 years as a Physiotherapist in I-C-R-C [International Committee of the Red Cross] orthopaedic centre in Kabul, Afghanistan. About four and a half months before by security force of Afghanistan I [was] captured, due to faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, Saviour of the world.


...Since that time I am in jail. The authority and prisoners in jail did many bad behaviour with me about my faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. For example, they did sexual things with me, beat me by wood, by hands, by legs, put some things on my head, mocked me ‘He’s Jesus Christ’, spat on me, nobody let me for sleep night and day. Every person spat on me and beat me. Also the prosecutor wrote something wrong against me. He told from himself something wrong against me on my file.


“He is stimulating every day the prisoners against me, ‘He is also in jail due to spy for Iran country’, to reveal the church in Kabul. I’m in a very and very bad condition in the jail.


“I agree with long imprisonment about my faith even for long life. Because I’m the sinnest person in the world. Because sometimes they treated for died I refuse my faith due to died. Sometimes I tolerate the persecution but immediately I acknowledge my sin before Lord Jesus Christ: ‘Don’t refuse me before your holy angels and before your Father.’ Because I am very very weak and sinful man…


I am alone between 400 handlers of terrible values in the jail like a sheep. Please, please, for the sake of Lord Jesus Christ help me. Please send a person who should supervise my document and my file, what I said in it. My prosecutor has told something wrong to the judge because he asked [for] money but I refused his request. Please, please you should transfer me from this jail to a jail that supervises the believers. I also agree with died on cross of my pride. I also agree with the sacrifice [of] my life in public, I will tell the faith in Lord Jesus Christ son of God and other believers will take courage and be strong in their faith. Hundred percent I am stable to my word. I have family of seven - one wife, three daughters and three sons. My big son [is] about eight years old. One of my daughters can’t speak, she has some mental problems.


“This is a request from me to all over the world, people please help me. I could not have any person to help. For [the] sake [of] Lord Jesus Christ please pray and immediately help me and rescue me from this jail. Otherwise, they will kill me, because I know they’re very very very cruel and hard hearted!


“Your destitute brother in the world.


“Please my English writing is not enough good. If I did some mistake please forgive me! From Kabul Provincial jail.”

Barnabas Aid took up Mr. Musa's case back in the Fall, and published an article on November 16 to that effect.  The penultimate conclusion is important:

Dr Patrick Sookhdeo, International Director of Barnabas Aid, said:

The West can no longer turn a blind eye while the Afghan regime that it fought to put in place imprisons and tortures ordinary Christians and is calling for them to be killed simply because of their faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

However, the final conclusion is most important:

Please Pray:

That the Afghan government will come under increasing international pressure to release Said and uphold the right to religious freedom throughout the country.

That the Lord will strengthen and uphold Said who, despite his ordeal, is determined to proclaim his faith in Jesus.

The Barnabas Fund article from February 7 had this to say here:

Hundreds of British (Canadian also) and US troops have lost their lives fighting a violent insurgency by the Taliban, whose hard-line Islamic regime was ousted in 2001. But despite these ongoing and costly efforts to support the new government and constitution, Afghan citizens - especially converts to Christianity - are being denied the fundamental right to choose their own faith. The constitution upholds international standards of human rights in theory, but in practice the government's policy towards converts appears no different from that of the Taliban.

Persecution of Christians, Catholic or Protestant, takes many forms.  This is the most overt form, though the criticism that fundamentalist Christians level against Catholics and their faith is little different, just not as violent. 

It has the same root cause, ignorance, and the determination to be right at the expense of others freedoms and beliefs.

The Highways to Heaven

The Roads to Damascus, Emmaus, and Jericho


On the first night of the Parish Mission at San Xavier, this past Monday, Father Richard Gielow C.M., preached about the road to heaven.  He borrowed much of what he presented from a Baptist preacher, he met in Los Angeles, when he and his preacher brother Father Robert Gielow C.M. were there as Catholic chaplains of the Chicago Bears.  On the day when he first heard this concept, he and his brother had said mass for the Catholic members of the Bears and were invited to stay for a second service led by the Baptist preacher.


The Baptist preacher told all in attendance that no matter how important they thought they were, how rich how big, whatever, the way to heaven required them to travel on three roads.


The first road is the Road to Damascus that Paul was traveling when he was suddenly presented with the reality of Jesus Christ, and was brought to conversion.  As Father presented it, we must all come to conversion daily in our lives.  In essence the Road to Damascus is a road we travel each and every day of our lives. 

Like Paul, we each live in judgement of our fellow man, trying to justify our own actions and beliefs as the truth.  Like Paul, we live in spiritual arrogance.  We think we detest the evil in others, while being righteous ourselves.  But, the truth is that what we hate in others is what we see when we look into a mirror.  We might not actually  have or commit an abortion.  We might not actually kill someone with our bare hands or a firearm, or some weapon of mass destruction.  Paul, before Damascus was not evil because he wanted to be evil, but because he was blind to the good in other men, and to the truth about his own sinfulness.

For me, I detest most of the ramblings of a commenter on Father Tim Moyle's blog, Small Town Guy.  But, the truth is though his words are filled with self aggrandizement and arrogant judgement of the Catholic Church, from a revisionist and narrow view of history, that anger in his heart which he spews forth is no different than the self protecting anger that I carry in my own heart.

So, the Road to Damascus is not an event, like the moment of conversion that Paul encountered there, but the whole journey to Damascus that Paul took, from the moment he started until he arrived and encountered the Brothers there.  He had a moment of awakening, but a lifetime of conversion, as do we all.


The second road we must travel is the road to Emmaus. On that road, men who had been close followers of Jesus were walking after the Resurrection, and though Jesus walked along with them, they did not recognize him for some time.  Father Gielow told a personal story of not seeing Jesus that opened his eyes.


He was in Denver Colorado a number of years ago, preaching for the day (Sunday - a football Sunday at that) to 700 teenagers who were preparing for Confirmation.  As he stated, almost all of them did not want to be there, and so he worked hard for about 10 hours preaching, saying Mass, speaking to them.  By 8 PM he was exhausted and had headed back to the Basilica rectory, where he was staying, to rest.  As he approached the parking lot, he saw a man who looked dishevelled coming towards him, and carrying a bottle in a brown bag.  The man also had long hair down to the middle of his back.   He made the obvious, though erroneous, conclusion that this was someone who was down and out, and actually prayed to God to have someone else come and speak to him, as he was exhausted.


As he got out of his car, and beetled his way to the rectory door, the man approached him.  Father Gielow had reached into his wallet previously and had taken out a $5 bill to hand the man, if necessary.  As the man approached, he pulled out the bill and went to hand it to him.  The man said he did not want the money, but wanted to know if he could enter the Church to spend some time in front of the tabernacle, and also to fill his bottle with holy water for his home.  This incident brought home to Father the Road to Emmaus, and how we fail to see Jesus in each other.

For my friend Small Town Guy over at Father Tim's, the Road to Emmaus is elusive, since he is so busy telling anyone who will read his screed of the evils of the Catholic Church, that, like me in many of my fatuous ramblings, he cannot hear the voice of the Master.  As Jesus travelled with the men on the road, he listened to them, and conversed with them, meeting them in their grief, confusion, disbelief.  Yet, they did not recognize Him for who He was.  They did not know who He was until He broke bread with them and blessed the bread and them. Jesus did not judge them for their unbelief.  He walked with them.  He did not criticize their confusion at the events that had occurred.  He listened to them, loved them, and spoke gently with them.  In essence, He set an example for us to awaken our faith in His midst, in our daily lives.

But, should we awaken to our own sinfulness on our Road to Damascus, and should we become aware of His presence amongst us as we travel our Road to Emmaus, we must put our converted selves and our aware selves into action, and so we must travel the Road to Jericho.

On the Road to Jericho, a Jewish man had been robbed and beaten.  As Father Gielow described it, a priest happened by. The priest had priestly functions to attend to at the Church, things that were obviously more important to him than seeing to this injured man, and so he scampered on to what was more important (at least to him, if not to he injured man).  The Levite happened along next.  He was important in the administration of his parish/church, and had churchy things to handle, setting up for the bingo, preparing for coffee Sunday or whatever, and so he was too self important to minister to the injured man.

But along came a Samaritan.   Samaritans hate Jews, and it is mutual, not a lot unlike Catholic Christians, and many Protestant Christians.   But, when he came along, he set aside this animosity, and took it upon himself to help this man.  He did not look upon him as a Jew, an enemy, but as a man who had been injured and needed help.  He was colour blind.  Before he carried on with his own business, he looked after him, and even when he left to do his own thing, he left money to care for the man, and promised to return to pay any additional charges for his care.

This is where faith is put into action. Yes, our salvation is purely by the Grace of God, but "faith without works is dead", and so if we have been traveling to Damascus and Emmaus in our lives, we must also travel to Jericho, and make our faith have substance in the world we live in, not by our churchy words, but by our love inspired actions.

I bet that priest who passed by gave a rousing good homily in the synagogue that day, railing against those hated and hateful Samaritans, who so despise the Jews that they would kill them and torture them.  I bet he heard a lot of Amens, and "Preach it Brother" from the Levites that were present.  They might even have gone out from synagogue later that day, and beaten up a Samaritan, possibly even the one that had helped their Jewish neighbour. 

That's the thing with self righteousness.  It can pretty much justify any response to imagined or real injustices.  But, the Samaritan in this case was heeding the words of Jesus to love thy neighbour, and also to judge not lest you be judged. 

Which is easier; to stop what you are doing in your busy life to love a neighbour that you may never have met before, or to rail on about the differences between us?

Oh, one final thing.  The three Roads, to Damascus, to Emmaus, and to Jericho converge in a place we will all meet one day.  They converge at Golgatha, at the foot of the Cross.  There we will meet Him and each other face to face, the crucified Christ, the one who died to set us free from all the sin and corruption that has kept us from Him, and all those who have been His body here on earth.

There is a fourth road that meets there, for all roads lead to Golgatha.  It does not have a name, but it is a path of self righteousness, and judgement.  It is the road the priest and Levite were taking when they stumbled onto the Jericho road for a few moments.

There in the midst of Holiness personified, we will have no choice but to drop all pretence as to our own holiness, and self righteousness.  There, His eyes from the cross will pierce our being, as the sword pierced His side.  His love will wash over us, and in an instant we will have to choose between our own sin that has not drawn us closer to Him, but further away from Him, and Love personified. 

What road/roads are you taking to Golgatha?  If you see me on the Road to Jericho, will you stop to help me? If I see you there, will I stop to help you?

Does This Image Offend You? - I Didn't Think So. Me Either

What Makes Us Take Offense?

A while back, I posted an image of an aborted child.  It was real and it was graphic, as that child had been torn limb from limb during an abortion, which is what happens in an abortion.  It is the taking of an innocent life. 

One young woman who I know and respect very much wrote me personally to tell me that the image offended her (as I hoped it might) and explained her reasons for feeling offense.  I respect that she had the courage to personally tell me what she felt, rather than trying to carry on as if I never posted it and she never saw it.

We should be offended by that image, though we will be offended for different reasons, but should that image be censored for some reason?

How about this image?

This is an image from the Holocaust, the murder of over 6,000,000 Jews, mainly by the German armed forces during World War II.  This is historical fact.  It cannot be denied.  Many people did terrible things to others whose only sin was being Jewish, which most of us do not know to be a sin.  (It isn't, by the way.)

This image is publicly available, and is horrible in what it depicts.  Yet, we are not offended by it.  And we do not hate German people because of the sins of their fathers.  When we see something like this picture, we want to be sure that nothing like it ever happens again.  It is almost too horrible to imagine.

But, since Roe v. Wade, and other events that have propelled abortion into the prominence that it now has, we have seen abortion rise to an epidemic.  14,000,000 million American unborn children have been murdered in the last decade, and probably 1,400,000 or so Canadian unborn children.

If the numbers of the unborn who are killed are not staggering on their own, and the images not graphic enough for you and me to scream out that this must stop, what then will it take for us to demand an end to abortion in our countries.

Here is a picture of the man who was most responsible for the murder of 6,000,000 Jews.

Does anybody in their right mind want to praise this man, give him the Order of Canada, or give him accolades?  I thought not.

Yet, here is another man, who by fighting for the decriminalization of abortion, and running a series of abortion clinics, has led the charge that has resulted in the taking of the lives of so many unborn Canadian children.

 

This man, born in Poland 1923, and being Jewish, spent time in his youth, in a prison camp.  If any man on earth should know about Holocaust, he should.  He has been given the Order of Canada, for his work on behalf of Women.

Do we live in a wacky world or what?