Showing posts with label Technology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Technology. Show all posts

Monday, March 22, 2021

Will Social Media Giants Shut Down Catholic Content?

I have written in this blog for many years, in fact starting over 15 years ago. There have been periods where I have written very little, but over the past several months, I have re-committed myself to adding content and updates to this website. A recent project of mine has been posting the daily Mass readings. I have missed a few days, but I will try to be fully consistent.

Over the last little while I have started to worry how far cancel culture will go. My blog is about Catholicism and my personal experience of being a Catholic. I don't just write things that are inflammatory on purpose. I seek to clarify and elaborate on Catholic teaching as it applies to many things. It could apply the teachings of the Church to society, media, technology, etc. and also provide my own opinion informed by my faith.

I am becoming rather concerned that this information will become more and more difficult to publish as more things which were once considered the norm are being considered attacks and hate messaging. Amazon, Twitter, Facebook, Youtube and dozens of other media outlets are cracking down big time on people espousing traditional morality which happens to differ from "new moralities" that developed in the last 5 years. It's becoming a very crazy world.

As of right now, simply indicating that your content provides a Catholic point of view does not mean an automatic shut down of your content. However, if you overstep the ever-changing boundaries, it's very likely that your website or content will be shut down. However, I feel that will change very soon. The Catholic Church differs with the world on dozens of issues, and it's only a matter of time before social media giants decide that essentially anything related to Catholicism must be banned, especially if it touches on morality.

One of the main areas of disagreement between the Church and the world is on the topic of sexuality. The Church is very clear: sexuality is exclusively between a married man and woman. It's as simple as that. Anything outside of this is illicit. Well, this flies in the face of secular teaching on this subject. Previously, this would be treated as a difference of opinion which was allowable. No longer. Now, believing what the Church believes on these issues is to the world a hate crime. You are attacking other people simply by believing in a more restricted definition of marriage and sexuality. The allegation now is that words are violence. It's not a matter of differences of opinion anymore. Anyone not towing the party line are seen as violent word attackers who must be squelched. 

I think part of the problem is that the leftist secular world doesn't really have any good arguments, so instead of fighting words with words, they try to ban certain opinions and words.

I don't think anything should be taken for granted. You can't assume that just because you are part of the largest group of the largest religion in the world that your opinions will e allowed or even legal.

The main thing is we need courage. Christians have faced much worse than we currently face. But things could continue to get worse and worse. Already we are seeing in some places like Scotland it is becoming illegal to express certain viewpoints, to have certain opinions, even in your own home. A Canadian man was recently put in prison for calling his daughter his daughter. Things seem to be escalating each and every day.

My advice is to have a plan. Do you make a living online through a blog or through content of some sort? Do you write for a newspaper? Whatever the case may be, how will you survive if the mainstream is completely opposed to what you do? Think about these things now. Things might possibly get better, but you have to prepare for the worst.

I don't write this to be negative, I write it as a warning so people can prepare. God bless all the readers of this blog. For my part, I will perhaps be soon moving to my own domain name. I will keep you posted. Thank you for your continued support.

Wednesday, January 06, 2021

Popular Youtubers Bashing Catholics

There is a disturbing trend I have seen lately: youtubers randomly and for no apparent reason bashing Catholics and the Catholic Church. It appears to bolster the view that the last acceptable prejudice is anti-Catholicism (words from author Philip Jenkins). Perhaps this explains why many Youtubers and social media personalities so readily opt to bash Catholics without giving it much thought.

To be clear, I'm not talking about just any Youtubers, I'm talking about people with broad appeal with many followers. Usually Youtubers thankfully take the stance of not espousing any particular political belief or belief in general. They wish to remain neutral on most things in order to appeal to the broadest audience. This is what makes these statements so surprising.

Let me give a couple of examples to clarify what I am talking about.

Adam Ragusea:

I was watching a video by Adam Ragusea who focuses on cooking home meals. He's not a professional chef, but he has learned some things and he produces videos with high production value. He generally seems to stay away from discussion on politics and religion. You can tell he is probably a liberal in many regards, but he doesn't bring it up front and center, so watching his videos is normally fine.

One day he was talking about being attacked for writing an article about Mariah Carey's "All I Want for Christmas" song and being interviewed on the article. He made some small mistakes and he was mercilessly bashed by know-it-all music critics. He was criticizing what was happening.

The anti-catholicism came up when he compared these critics to the Catholic Church hierarchy. He jokingly said the Church tells everyone they cannot read the Bible on their own or have their own opinions because the hierarchy has "funny hats" that others do not, or something along those lines. I guess the point he was trying to make was that some people are elitist, and was saying the Church is like that as well.

Anyone who knows anything about the Church knows this is false. It's in fact the opposite. We don't listen to people because of their hats, we listen to them because they are holiest and most learned people within the Church. The hats are worn by bishops and they get these hats because they have been seen to be holy, spiritual, and able to guide the flock. So the knowledge, understanding, grace, and wisdom come first and the position comes later.

However, we don't only listen to those in the hierarchy or those of a certain rank. Many Doctors of the Church, those who best enunciate Church teachings, were not bishops or popes, but perhaps only priests, and even several women.

So, his analogy is wrong. I'm not saying his speech is some kind of discrimination. It's just his fallacious point of view. I'm not saying Catholics are some kind of victims or something. I'm just pointing out the ease with which a personality like him can make these assertions. Would he say such a thing about other religions? I doubt it.

Awaken with JP (Sears)

JP Sears is a well-known critic of Covid protocols and rules. He has also criticized other things prior to Covid such as political correctness and censorship. His comedy centers on parodying and mocking left-wing ideologies.

A couple of times I have heard him bash the Catholic Church and the hierarchy of the Church. However, it was for no apparent reason and made little sense in the context.

Most recently he made a video about fact-checkers. These are the groups online who allegedly fact-check information present on various social media such as Facebook and Twitter. They are criticized for being biased and not providing valid fact-checking. In particular, JP criticized them for all being on the same side as well-known left-wing activists and could thus not be unbiased as they should be.

However, out of nowhere he says sarcastically the fact-checkers can be trusted just like priests could be trusted not to abuse children. This is an extremely overused example. I don't really see how it really fits here. His video has nothing to do with Catholicism or even religion in general. Why drag the church into it just to bash it?

What is strange about this is that many Christians probably appreciate his videos. Why go out of your way to alienate your supporters? I even remember Patrick Coffin posting to Facebook that he likes JP Sears and his videos. Coffin is a very devout Catholic and would be put off by these comments.

Abuse definitely happened in the Church and it's a horrible tragedy. I'm all for routing out the evil. But most people are not able or willing to make the distinction between the hierarchy and structure of the Church and churchgoing Catholics, let alone a distinction between good and bad priests and bishops. Bringing up comments about clergy sexual abuse out of nowhere does nothing but provide fodder to anti-Catholic attitudes.

---

I cannot say why these social media personalities randomly resort to Catholic-bashing that is out of context and can easily turn off much of their audience. I feel it is absolutely unnecessary and they should refrain from doing this.

Tuesday, July 20, 2010

Top 6 reasons Quebec is wasting resources on IVF

Quebec's health care system is currently struggling. Important surgeries are sometimes postponed for months or years because of lack of funding. For example, in 1997, in a 4-3 decision in the province, the court ruled that making someone wait for a year for hip replacement violated the patient's rights. Because of this, private health care has been allowed in some cases.

The average wait time for medical procedures in the province of Quebec is around 18.7 weeks. That's about 4 months. People often wait in misery for these procedures, which in the United States could possibly take just a week on average.

Despite the constant strain on Quebec's medical system, they are now opting to provide a completely unnecessary medical procedure at taxpayers' expense. The Quebec government wants to start paying for in-vitro fertilization. This is a big mistake and here are six reasons why:

1. It is unnecessary
In-vitro fertilization procedures are ALWAYS optional. No one's life is going to be put at risk because they cannot have an embryo implanted in their womb. Therefore is it superfluous and unnecessary for people's health.

2. Those seeking IVF can afford it
The typical candidate for in-vitro fertilization are older women who have placed their priority for a career first and now that they are established are seeking to have a child to complete the picture. I'm not saying this is always the case, but it often is. Most of the people in this category can afford to pay for this procedure, and if it's going to be legal, it should be kept private like it already is.

3. Wasting Resources
The main point of my article is that resources are being wasted on this procedure. Money is being spent on IVF when it could be used to save lives through transplants, important surgeries, etc. The budget is already very thin, and with IVF being funded wait times will only increase for life-saving procedures. I heard that a single round of IVF costs at least $10,000. I'm not sure how many rounds the government of Quebec is planning on covering, but as you can see it is rather expensive.

4. It is immoral
There are many reasons why IVF is immoral. First of all, it separates the unitive and procreative aspects of sexuality. A child is no longer conceived in the loving embrace of his parents, but in a glass petri dish of a scientist's lab. On top of this, since gay marriage is recognized in Quebec, as is sperm and ovum donation, many gay people will be availing of IVF treatments to get pregnant and taxpayers will have to support it. We will be creating so many families where children are not raised by their real parents but by intruders.

Another big issue is that usually more embryos than necessary are created. These "unnecessary" embryos are then either destroyed or used for experimentation. Embryos are human lives and must be treated with respect, not killed or experimented on.

5. IVF is Risky
We know from research that IVF is far more risky than normal pregnancy. Think about it. A man ejaculates millions upon millions of sperm and only one reaches the egg and fertilizes it. There is a reason there are so many sperm. It is to make sure only the very best reaches the egg. But how can a scientist looking through his microscope determine which is the best? He cannot. Nature has perfected the procreative process and we do not know better. That is why there are more risks for medical issues associated with IVF babies than those in the general population.

6. Adoption is a better option
There are many kids out there without a home, including in Quebec. The government should be spending its money on increasing the efficiency of the adoption process so more of these children can find good homes.

Conclusion:
Many people are living in a me-me-me frame of mind. They create an image in their head of the ideal family and go to any length to achieve it. Maybe a better idea would be to ask what God's plan is in their life and go by that.

The following article gives some good insight into the moral dilemmas of In-Vitro Fertilization:

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/medical_ethics/me0059.html

Monday, March 30, 2009

Earth Hour: a good idea for Catholics?

Earth Hour is designated by the Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF), formerly World Wildlife Fund to reduce consumption of energy. It lets us experience what it is like to reduce our use of energy and see how it affects our lives. It makes us more thankful for the energy we have and the ability to use it. But how does it square with Catholic thinking?

Looking at all the evidence points to the fact that Earth Hour is something Catholics can be proud to participate in, as long as they keep certain things in mind. The Vatican has been at the forefront of promoting conservation and policies which are beneficial to the Earth. It even sponsored an international conference on climate change to address the issues. Pope Benedict XVI has been very active in promoting proper stewardship of the Earth in a way that is sustainable to future generations.

Pope Benedict is especially concerned with how the environment has a major impact on poor countries and people and says that we share in our solidarity with others by helping the environment. The Pontiff said "In dialogue with Christians of various churches, we need to commit ourselves to caring for the created world, without squandering its resources, and sharing them in a cooperative way."

Many monasteries and churches were built on beautiful grounds with lots of nature around. There is a sense of peace that comes from nature. I remember hearing about a monastery that was built on a desolate swamp. Nobody would dare live there because it was so inhospitable. But this did not deter the monks who went there. They spent years working the land and promoting healthy and environmental ways to improve the situation. They were very successful and soon every type of wildlife and plant life was growing and it became a beautiful paradise on Earth.

We should have the same mentality when we approach the environment. We should appreciate God's work in nature and spend time there to be with God. But we should not go too far.We as Catholics understand that the Earth is here for us and that we are the pinnacle of God's creation.

We ought to enjoy and share the nature that God has provided us. We should not feel unworthy to be on this Earth or feel as though we are simply a nuissance or a pest on the Earth. While we treasure the planet, we must remember to keep things in perspective. Every child is a gift, therefore the Earth can never be overpopulated. We thank God for all his gifts, but especially our own lives and the lives of those around us. In the light of this most recent Earth Day, let us thank God for all the gifts he gives us.

Sunday, March 29, 2009

Obama Nation? More like Abomination!

Every day we hear more news from the US concerning Obama's decisions. It seems like he sits down and asks how he can violate Catholic doctrine every move he makes. It almost seems too coincidental to be true. Here is a quick list of some of the stuff Obama has done:

1. Vowed to sign the Freedom Of Choice Act (or FOCA), which would make abortion a constitutional right which would be codified at the federal level. It would erase any good laws concerning abortion and any progress made by the pro-life movement in the past 35 years or so since Roe vs. Wade in the United States.

2. Obama will eliminate funding for sexual-abstinence-only programs. Instead he will promote sex before marriage, the use of contraception and abortafacients, abortion, etc. This programming of course will only lead to more STDs, infidelity, and abortion.

3. Obama has allowed federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. Now babies will be brought into existence to be used as medical research tools. Using human persons as medical research tools is very contrary to divine law. It makes a person a mere object to be used by those who are physically stronger.

4. Obama has said that his worst decision as a politician was to support Terri Schiavo in her struggle for life. Terri was mentally hanicapped. She only required food and water to survive. She was not brain dead, she was fully alive with disabilities. Her husband wanted to her to be left to die. Her family said they would take care of her and pay all her expenses, but the judge decided to side with Terri's husband and let her die. Terri died of starvation after all food was refused her. No, she did not die because a machine stopped pumping her heart or because her lungs were not being artifically inflated. She died of dehydration, just like anyone would if denied food and water for an extended period of time. The Rule of Threes states that people cannot generally survive more than 3 days without water. Most the time it can be a week or 11 days. Terri lived for 12 or 13 days after being denied all food and water. She was left to thirst to death.

The list goes on. Obama has heralded the culture of death like no President before him. He has taken a somewhat cowardly path. He chooses to destroy the lives of the defendless. Instead of slaughtering people who can fight for themselves, he goes after the weakest and most vulnerable.

Let us pray that like Bernard Nathanson, who started NARAL, the National Abortion Rights Action League, Obama will see the errors of his ways and plot a new course for life. Although Nathanson performed thousands of abortions, he is now one of the top spokespeople against that industry and he promotes the cause of the Pro-life movement. Let us hope that Obama will see the light and work toward a society that cares about its most vulnerable.

Saturday, March 14, 2009

Embryonic Stem Cell destruction and Euthanasia: Evil Sisters

A few days ago, United States President Barrack Hussein Obama announced that he would allow public funding to destroy embryos for research. This fruitless research, which has yielded no results, is the last frontier (or perhaps the beginning of the last frontier) for mad scientists bent on breaking all boundaries.

Human life is sacred. This is a truth that has been affirmed by almost all religions, especially those which are more than 100 years old. There are many instances of medical codes which forbid the destruction of human life, including embryos through abortion. Not surprisingly, none of these codes indicate abortion is alright.

An embryo has all the DNA it ever will. To put it crudely, just add water. In other words, with basic nutrition and water, a tiny embryo will grow to be an adult person. All the DNA is present at the moment of conception. We do not say that a small child is not human because it has not fully developed yet. Therefore, there is a beginning, and that beginning is fertilization.

For the sake of convenience, people started having abortions. The convenience came first, the explanations later. Now they have moved into a new frontier. The frontier of harvesting people in order to find cures. During the holocaust, people were used in experiments for the benefit of others. They were put through many tortures in order to ascertain scientific information. But this was morally reprehensible. The same arguments for this could be used to justify embryonic stem cell research. Many say the embryos will be destroyed anyway, so why not use them for something beneficial? Well, these people in the Nazi holocaust were going to be slaughtered anyway, so why not use them to advance scientific knowledge.

Well, that's what Josef Mengele did, who was known as the Angel of Death. He killed many innocent people to conduct his experiments.

Many will not worry that embryos are being sacrificed. They cannot be seen and they dont "look" human. But even if someone is cruel enough to say this, there is another evil sister to this whole mess. When human life is devalued at any stage, it is devalued in all stages. People are now trying to legalize euthanasia, and this is absolutely terrible.

Ask 1000 people this question: There is a man, 32 years old. He says he is in a lot of suffering. He lost his job, his wife left him, his children hate him. He is now homeless and addicted to alcohol. He says he wants to end his life. Would you give him a loaded gun if it was legal? How many would say yes? I would estimate 5 to 10 percent, and that would be a lot.

Now let's say this: A person is terminally ill. Their life is very sad. They can't see an end to their suffering. Their family does not want to take care of them because they are too much of a burden, and they do not feel loved. They would rather not live. They say you have no right to tell them they cannot die as they please. They ask for help in ending their own life. Would you help them or deny them their request? In a recent poll, 80% of Canadians said they would help in a situation similar to this one. That's shocking! These are the same situations. They just have slightly different circumstances.

Nobody is born with a desire to kill themselves. This develops because of things that happen to them throughout their lives. But when we stop valuing life, we start looking at life in a utilitarian way. We start to ask about people's utility, and not their worth as human beings. We start to ask what they can do for us. We become like animals or robots.

We must all try to elevate our being upward, not toward animal behavior. We must truly become more human. Jesus Christ is the only way to get there.

XP: Not a version of Windows, but a Catholic symbol: ☧

Today I was at Mass at St. Pius X in St. John's, Newfoundland, and noticed a very common symbol, XP. Usually it's stylized as:





XP are the first 2 letters of Christ's name in Greek - chi rho. The full name is ΧΡΙΣΤΟΣ. Also, it can be written as: Χριστός.

Notice, this has nothing to do with Windows. In fact, when you think about it, Windows seems like it uses a lot of Catholic words. For example:

Images and Icons: Nowadays these terms refer to large pictures or smaller representations of larger pictures. Prior to their use in computer language, "images" and "icons" were representations of God, Mary, and the saints. Catholics do not worship images or icons, but they use them to remind themselves of a saint or God.

Path: Catholics see this as the path to Heaven, by following Christ. Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. However, in computer language this means where a file is located.

If you can think of any more, please let me know!

Thanks.