It sometimes horrifies me to witness the duality of our society. We suffer from such moral inconsistency nowadays that it startles me that some of us can navigate through this sea of opposing waves of rationalizations. Perhaps, like in natural physics, our conflicting relativistic “moral waves” do not really interfere with one another. That is to say that we allow ourselves to be morally dulled out of convenience.
Take for instance the matter of abortions. Why is it controversial? It shouldn't be. All that needs to be done is to decide - as a society - whether life is precious or not. All we need do is decide - as a society - whether we condone murder and genocide in "certain cases".
How can we, as a society of conscience, as a society that claims to cherish the welfare of children, justify the killing of innocents? Don’t kid yourself thinking otherwise, for no matter how you paint elective abortion that is what it really is in the end.
To call an abortionist a “pro-choicer” is an euphemism. By the time there is a child in the womb, the moral choice has already been made and a responsible person should be committed to the result of that choice. If the choice was not yours, it was even less so the child’s and the babe should not be made to pay for the sins of the father. To call abortion “surgery” is another euphemism. Morally, it is just as much surgery as euthanasia with the aggravation that the subject of the murder has not had the opportunity to live a full life before dying and is not aware that he/she has been selected to die. Besides, let’s not be hypocritical: more than 75% of elective abortions have nothing to do with risk of death or forced intercourse. They are elective, pure and simple.
To deem the act of electing abortion on the premise that a pregnancy is “unwanted” CAN be compared to murder. It isn’t even all that hard because there are recent Historical precedents where some social groups have been deemed "unwanted" and have been expunged – which is another euphemism by the way. They have been persecuted and killed in genocide during recent historical events in places such as Nazi Germany and occupied Europe, Rwanda and Srebrenica, Algeria, Zanzibar, Uganda, Nigeria, Guatemala, Bangladesh, Burundi, Equatorial Guinea, Cambodia, East Timor under Indonesian occupation, Sabra-Shatila in Lebanon, in the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Ethiopia, against Iraqi Kurds, Communist Mao's China, Tibet, Democratic Republic of Congo, Azerbaijan, West New Guinea & West Papua, Sri Lanka, Bosnia & Herzegovina and the list goes on.
We tell ourselves we abhor these horrendous acts of yesterdays’ tyrants, we promote wars and trials against them and then we see people condoning abortion. Why the double standard? If we are unwilling to accept genocide thousands of kilometers away, why are we so willing to allow it to happen under our very noses?
We see people manifesting strong opinions against the death penalty, and then we see them vouching for abortion. Why the double standard? If one is unwilling to kill a condemned man, why murder one that hasn’t even been allowed the opportunity to chose between crime and an honest life?
We see people raising their voices against pedophilia, but defending abortion. I ask them: how can that be? Why the double standard? Is it not worst to kill a child than to molest him/her? A child should be defended against ALL evils, including murder through abortion.
We see people vouching for abortion and birth control WHILST vouching for artificially induced pregnancy on varying grounds that reach from population control to the right to bear offspring. How conflicting can one be?
Our society has become completely morally inconsistent. We must return to the standpoint where we defend ALL life, or at least face the fact that NONE is safe.
I would appeal to individual conscience, except there seems to be none. Moral conscience is a rare commodity in our contemporary society. It has long since been replaced by relativism.
Tuesday, 20 April 2010
Consumerism is NOT Capitalism
No, I am NOT a communist. Neither am I an anarchist. I’ve sometimes been accused of such things; mainly by colleagues in Social Communication, Marketing and Advertising. I assume it is because nowadays I often speak against Consumerism.
I see Consumerism as a form of Radical Capitalism, and as most radicalisms, it produces important distortions from the initial proposition. What this means is that, though I am favourable to Capitalism – mainly because no one came up with a better option yet – I am indeed opposed to the concept of Consumerism as an answer to contemporary socioeconomic problems.
Why? Because I don’t think we can make the world a better place by pushing things people don’t need into their lives and into their homes. I don’t think we can make this a better world by ravishing its natural resources with increasingly greater velocity to make these products that no one really needs. I don’t think we are building a better future by selling mobile phones, credit cards and bank accounts to our children just as soon as they can learn to speak.
What I do think is that we exacerbate our social problems by creating social distinctions based on wealth. I do think we endanger our planet by exploiting its natural resources irresponsibly to generate products that serve mainly the purpose of setting people apart as tokens of wealth and poor replacements for true hapiness. I do think our kids deserve to be looked at not as convenient consumers, but as innocent children deserving of our love.
So, while I think commerce and the industry play an important socioeconomic role, I also think we have allowed greed to permeate these activities to the last degree. This same greed is what taints our contemporary society and it is the source of various important evils of our time. This greed is congruent with the words "insatiable", "waste", "pollution", "inequity" and ultimately "Consumerism".
Think what you like of me, but I am no communist/anarchist. What I am is responsible.
I see Consumerism as a form of Radical Capitalism, and as most radicalisms, it produces important distortions from the initial proposition. What this means is that, though I am favourable to Capitalism – mainly because no one came up with a better option yet – I am indeed opposed to the concept of Consumerism as an answer to contemporary socioeconomic problems.
Why? Because I don’t think we can make the world a better place by pushing things people don’t need into their lives and into their homes. I don’t think we can make this a better world by ravishing its natural resources with increasingly greater velocity to make these products that no one really needs. I don’t think we are building a better future by selling mobile phones, credit cards and bank accounts to our children just as soon as they can learn to speak.
What I do think is that we exacerbate our social problems by creating social distinctions based on wealth. I do think we endanger our planet by exploiting its natural resources irresponsibly to generate products that serve mainly the purpose of setting people apart as tokens of wealth and poor replacements for true hapiness. I do think our kids deserve to be looked at not as convenient consumers, but as innocent children deserving of our love.
So, while I think commerce and the industry play an important socioeconomic role, I also think we have allowed greed to permeate these activities to the last degree. This same greed is what taints our contemporary society and it is the source of various important evils of our time. This greed is congruent with the words "insatiable", "waste", "pollution", "inequity" and ultimately "Consumerism".
Think what you like of me, but I am no communist/anarchist. What I am is responsible.
The Path to Harmony Isn't Wealth
Today’s Western Society rewards financial success. That isn’t wrong in any way, but it is rather limited and it carries with it an inherent danger that is already manifest in our midst. When one rewards financial success only, the danger is that everyone will do whatever it takes to achieve that single rewarding experience. If in pursuing this course of action one commits acts of malice, cruelty or even lunacy but is STILL rewarded with basis on one’s measurable financial success, everyone else around that individual will feel compelled to do likewise.
It goes without saying that what follows is chaos and disaster. Nevertheless, this is EXACTLY the pickle in which we find ourselves today. One need do little more than look around and into the contemporary icons of our Society’s regard for success to realise this very simple fact. What are the symbols our Society identifies with success? Who are today’s heroes? If you look honestly into these, you will be as baffled as I to discover we have been rewarding greed, corruption and unscrupulousness for quite some time now.
I sometimes refer to the past for a comparative reference, and I like using what is regarded presently as "controversial periods" to achieve maximum effect. One such period is the Dark Ages.
What is funny to me is that many of my interlocutors who are self proclaimed “free thinkers” frown on the values proposed by European medieval societies; saying that they were retrograde and enslaving of the human mind and the human heart. My interlocutors hold that the Middle Ages offered nothing but ignorance and bigotry. I beg to differ.
There was a time when adhering to the chivalric code of honour was the aim of every reputable public figure, and by proxy, of everyone else. This was a code of conduct based on Aristotle's concept of Virtue Ethics and on pre-Islam Middle Eastern Society. It was proposed by the Catholic clergy as a means of enabling a sustainable basis for society to grow. In all fairness, I warrant that the code was seldom fully followed and never at all times, but it was an icon of civility and purity that was cherished universally.
Part of this code were the knightly virtues, which were a set of standards that served as guidelines for the warrior class, the Knights and Dukes of the High Middle Ages, in their daily living and interactions with others. Though there was no definitive list of virtues, the most common were embraced by pan-European organisations. These were the cardinal virtues – Prudence, Temperance, Justice and Fortitude – and the beatitudes – Humility, Compassion, Courtesy, Devotion, Mercy, Purity, Peace and Endurance. Other proposed virtues widely embraced by knightly orders included: Courage, Sagacity, Charity, Generosity, Faith, Valour, Hope, Diligence, Chastity, Truth and Integrity.
Albeit one can’t claim that all knights followed this code, the fact that the code existed and that it had been proposed as something to be prized and pursued by all men and women of good will was, in my understanding, a much more advanced social code than what we’ve been procuring today. Disagree? Then follow my reasoning through:
If, however imperfectly, we seek to follow, as a Society, the path of Integrity, Prudence, Temperance, Justice, Compassion, Courtesy, Purity, Peace, etc, what must follow is an understanding between and amongst the peoples of the Earth. This is coherent because, in seeking to be prudent and just and courteous etc, it follows that we achieve at the very least the semblance of it. By doing so, the recipient of this effort will be positively impressed and pressed toward reciprocity. If this, at any point, becomes the general rule, we will have a world of charitable, prudent, honest people. To me, this is a goal heartily to be cherished.
In contrast, if we should follow the path of Ambition, Greed, Competition, Consumerism, Self Determination, Egotism, Hedonism, Relativism and Success without Remorse, it will follow – as it has been following – that Machiavellianism will prevail over even the most basic concepts of contemporary Ethics such as Deontology (ethics of fulfilling duty) and Consequentialism (ethics of attracting good consequences). If wealth is ALWAYS rewarded, then the ends justify the means so long as you become rich. This is evident in the lives of public figures, who are often involved in abhorrent scandals of pornography, disloyalty, corruption and even crime; yet they endure in the limelight and continue to gather fans and followers.
It's all a question of what your aims are. That's the point! We often fall short of our aims, but if the aim itself falls short, what hope do we have then? We should aspire to better things. We should strive to be better as a people. Instead we are divided by greed and individualism.
If we persist in rewarding only Financial Success and the display of its trappings as the maxim for our contemporary Society, and if we continue to do so in detriment of Virtue Ethics, then we must realise that Deontology and Consequentialism will not be enough to hold the social fabric together. In reality, if wealth is all that is rewarded, we become enslaved by it.
We must stop rewarding material wealth and we must resume the reward of the man/woman behind it and his/her conduct before his/her peers. We must stop to revolve around THINGS and we must start looking at PEOPLE. Only then will we be able to live in a harmonious and sustainable society. Only then will we be really free.
It goes without saying that what follows is chaos and disaster. Nevertheless, this is EXACTLY the pickle in which we find ourselves today. One need do little more than look around and into the contemporary icons of our Society’s regard for success to realise this very simple fact. What are the symbols our Society identifies with success? Who are today’s heroes? If you look honestly into these, you will be as baffled as I to discover we have been rewarding greed, corruption and unscrupulousness for quite some time now.
I sometimes refer to the past for a comparative reference, and I like using what is regarded presently as "controversial periods" to achieve maximum effect. One such period is the Dark Ages.
What is funny to me is that many of my interlocutors who are self proclaimed “free thinkers” frown on the values proposed by European medieval societies; saying that they were retrograde and enslaving of the human mind and the human heart. My interlocutors hold that the Middle Ages offered nothing but ignorance and bigotry. I beg to differ.
There was a time when adhering to the chivalric code of honour was the aim of every reputable public figure, and by proxy, of everyone else. This was a code of conduct based on Aristotle's concept of Virtue Ethics and on pre-Islam Middle Eastern Society. It was proposed by the Catholic clergy as a means of enabling a sustainable basis for society to grow. In all fairness, I warrant that the code was seldom fully followed and never at all times, but it was an icon of civility and purity that was cherished universally.
Part of this code were the knightly virtues, which were a set of standards that served as guidelines for the warrior class, the Knights and Dukes of the High Middle Ages, in their daily living and interactions with others. Though there was no definitive list of virtues, the most common were embraced by pan-European organisations. These were the cardinal virtues – Prudence, Temperance, Justice and Fortitude – and the beatitudes – Humility, Compassion, Courtesy, Devotion, Mercy, Purity, Peace and Endurance. Other proposed virtues widely embraced by knightly orders included: Courage, Sagacity, Charity, Generosity, Faith, Valour, Hope, Diligence, Chastity, Truth and Integrity.
Albeit one can’t claim that all knights followed this code, the fact that the code existed and that it had been proposed as something to be prized and pursued by all men and women of good will was, in my understanding, a much more advanced social code than what we’ve been procuring today. Disagree? Then follow my reasoning through:
If, however imperfectly, we seek to follow, as a Society, the path of Integrity, Prudence, Temperance, Justice, Compassion, Courtesy, Purity, Peace, etc, what must follow is an understanding between and amongst the peoples of the Earth. This is coherent because, in seeking to be prudent and just and courteous etc, it follows that we achieve at the very least the semblance of it. By doing so, the recipient of this effort will be positively impressed and pressed toward reciprocity. If this, at any point, becomes the general rule, we will have a world of charitable, prudent, honest people. To me, this is a goal heartily to be cherished.
In contrast, if we should follow the path of Ambition, Greed, Competition, Consumerism, Self Determination, Egotism, Hedonism, Relativism and Success without Remorse, it will follow – as it has been following – that Machiavellianism will prevail over even the most basic concepts of contemporary Ethics such as Deontology (ethics of fulfilling duty) and Consequentialism (ethics of attracting good consequences). If wealth is ALWAYS rewarded, then the ends justify the means so long as you become rich. This is evident in the lives of public figures, who are often involved in abhorrent scandals of pornography, disloyalty, corruption and even crime; yet they endure in the limelight and continue to gather fans and followers.
It's all a question of what your aims are. That's the point! We often fall short of our aims, but if the aim itself falls short, what hope do we have then? We should aspire to better things. We should strive to be better as a people. Instead we are divided by greed and individualism.
If we persist in rewarding only Financial Success and the display of its trappings as the maxim for our contemporary Society, and if we continue to do so in detriment of Virtue Ethics, then we must realise that Deontology and Consequentialism will not be enough to hold the social fabric together. In reality, if wealth is all that is rewarded, we become enslaved by it.
We must stop rewarding material wealth and we must resume the reward of the man/woman behind it and his/her conduct before his/her peers. We must stop to revolve around THINGS and we must start looking at PEOPLE. Only then will we be able to live in a harmonious and sustainable society. Only then will we be really free.
Monday, 19 April 2010
Secularism vs. Religion: What's Behind It?
So why is spirituality contrary to secularism? Couldn’t both coexist as they have for the past several millennia? Why not? What’s changed so much that would make the proposition unviable? This is something of a provocative problem, but all of us already know the answer to it, don’t we? The answer is “yes”.
Hang on a minute, if the answer is quite simply “yes, secularism and spirituality can coexist”, then why is it that there is so much conflict between the two in modern society? The answer to that question is twofold:
The first element is this: Spirituality is source of comfort and self-sufficient fulfilment to most spiritual/religious people. It is more times than not independent from one’s financial status and it requires little or nothing in the way of monetary investment (some even preach against awarding wealth too much stock). It simultaneously gives a person a sense of belonging to something greater than oneself and it distinguishes you quite individually before one’s faith in the sense that it is a personal experience. It entices an individual to seek to better himself in terms of what he is. It prompts you toward valour, charity and understanding. It requires dedication and altruism. It rewards with consolation, self awareness and connection to a community. Happiness becomes a function of this reward.
The other element is this: Secular Western Society has grown away from its traditional values to embrace a newer and different set. Whereas a man was once defined by origin, commitment and achievement, today a man is defined mostly by appearance and financial achievement alone. Per the current social requirement, we are expected to seek wealth as a means to achieve happiness. We work to prove our worth and to seek the means to procure contentment. In our present capitalist society, gratification is sought through consumerism. The concept is simple: we make money to spend money rewarding ourselves in a cyclic pattern of satisfaction and longing. The more money we make, the better we are before the eyes of our peers. It matters more that we have money than how we’ve made it. That’s because we are judged by how we appear in public. With more money, we can present ourselves better; with better garments and with posh cars and stamped passports. This is an ingenious social system insofar as economics are concerned.
So, if you don’t yet grasp the conflict, I’ll make it plain for you: The concept of self-sufficient fulfilment present in spiritualism is in stark contrast to the concept of renewable gratification proposed by consumerism. It makes sense, if you think of it.
While spiritualism is a personal search that beckons the shedding of material attachment in exchange for timeless bliss, consumerism is a socioeconomic order that is dependent on the systematic creation and fostering of a desire to purchase commodities in ever greater amounts. It isn’t meant to be fulfilling as much as it is purposefully meant not to be. It generates only temporary gratification whereby it becomes economically renewable. If that gratification were ever to become perpetual contentment, the entire system proposed by consumerism would collapse, as there would be no renewal on consumption. In other words, at the same time as spiritualism is more an internal search for happiness, consumerism proposes an external source of gratification dependent on social acceptance through material wealth.
Now, I don’t know about you, but if I were a greedy tycoon whose power and recognition came from the maintenance of consumerism, I might feel threatened by any alternative system of fulfilment; especially one that proved viable.
Hereby do we find the source of the conflict. While genuine spiritualism is happy to coexist with other systems, rampant capitalism, which we call consumerism, isn’t. Yet, consumerism doesn’t offer strong enough arguments against spiritualism on its own. You can’t just tell people they have to let go of God just for the sake of a new car or a new trip (or the wealth of the industrialist behind these desirable items). Where does consumerism seek support then? In relativism and in secular radicalism.
By blaming the ills of Humanity on spiritualism (or rather the mistakes and values of different religious sects), and by breaking with religious aspirations and codes of conduct, the promotion of secularist thinking offers only consumerism as a replacement source of fulfilment; thereby triggering the consumption cycle that fuels consumerism.
Make no mistake: radical capitalism is using secular relativism to fight spiritualism. It is competing with religion because its promoters know that spiritual fulfilment can outdo the fleeting gratifications offered by consumerism.
Hence, radical secularists are actually the priests of consumerism preaching against spiritualism to promote ephemeral happiness and the decay of modern society.
Hang on a minute, if the answer is quite simply “yes, secularism and spirituality can coexist”, then why is it that there is so much conflict between the two in modern society? The answer to that question is twofold:
The first element is this: Spirituality is source of comfort and self-sufficient fulfilment to most spiritual/religious people. It is more times than not independent from one’s financial status and it requires little or nothing in the way of monetary investment (some even preach against awarding wealth too much stock). It simultaneously gives a person a sense of belonging to something greater than oneself and it distinguishes you quite individually before one’s faith in the sense that it is a personal experience. It entices an individual to seek to better himself in terms of what he is. It prompts you toward valour, charity and understanding. It requires dedication and altruism. It rewards with consolation, self awareness and connection to a community. Happiness becomes a function of this reward.
The other element is this: Secular Western Society has grown away from its traditional values to embrace a newer and different set. Whereas a man was once defined by origin, commitment and achievement, today a man is defined mostly by appearance and financial achievement alone. Per the current social requirement, we are expected to seek wealth as a means to achieve happiness. We work to prove our worth and to seek the means to procure contentment. In our present capitalist society, gratification is sought through consumerism. The concept is simple: we make money to spend money rewarding ourselves in a cyclic pattern of satisfaction and longing. The more money we make, the better we are before the eyes of our peers. It matters more that we have money than how we’ve made it. That’s because we are judged by how we appear in public. With more money, we can present ourselves better; with better garments and with posh cars and stamped passports. This is an ingenious social system insofar as economics are concerned.
So, if you don’t yet grasp the conflict, I’ll make it plain for you: The concept of self-sufficient fulfilment present in spiritualism is in stark contrast to the concept of renewable gratification proposed by consumerism. It makes sense, if you think of it.
While spiritualism is a personal search that beckons the shedding of material attachment in exchange for timeless bliss, consumerism is a socioeconomic order that is dependent on the systematic creation and fostering of a desire to purchase commodities in ever greater amounts. It isn’t meant to be fulfilling as much as it is purposefully meant not to be. It generates only temporary gratification whereby it becomes economically renewable. If that gratification were ever to become perpetual contentment, the entire system proposed by consumerism would collapse, as there would be no renewal on consumption. In other words, at the same time as spiritualism is more an internal search for happiness, consumerism proposes an external source of gratification dependent on social acceptance through material wealth.
Now, I don’t know about you, but if I were a greedy tycoon whose power and recognition came from the maintenance of consumerism, I might feel threatened by any alternative system of fulfilment; especially one that proved viable.
Hereby do we find the source of the conflict. While genuine spiritualism is happy to coexist with other systems, rampant capitalism, which we call consumerism, isn’t. Yet, consumerism doesn’t offer strong enough arguments against spiritualism on its own. You can’t just tell people they have to let go of God just for the sake of a new car or a new trip (or the wealth of the industrialist behind these desirable items). Where does consumerism seek support then? In relativism and in secular radicalism.
By blaming the ills of Humanity on spiritualism (or rather the mistakes and values of different religious sects), and by breaking with religious aspirations and codes of conduct, the promotion of secularist thinking offers only consumerism as a replacement source of fulfilment; thereby triggering the consumption cycle that fuels consumerism.
Make no mistake: radical capitalism is using secular relativism to fight spiritualism. It is competing with religion because its promoters know that spiritual fulfilment can outdo the fleeting gratifications offered by consumerism.
Hence, radical secularists are actually the priests of consumerism preaching against spiritualism to promote ephemeral happiness and the decay of modern society.
Wednesday, 14 April 2010
Ed Koch: "Catholics ARE Under Persecution"
If you are Catholic and have of late felt that it is open season on us, you are not alone. Though if your read my diary you know that I feel as you do, we are joined also by Ed Koch, the former mayor of New York, who has declared that "continuing attacks" by the media on the Church and Benedict XVI have become manifestations of anti-Catholicism. The Jewish former mayor, who also served as a U.S. Congressman from 1969 to 1977 and is presently a political commentator, published his very objective statement in blog belonging to the Jerusalem Post.
He said: "The procession of articles on the same events are, in my opinion, no longer intended to inform, but simply to castigate." He further asserted that "many of those in the media who are pounding on the Church and the Pope today clearly do it with delight, and some with malice."
If you've been reading my blog these latter years, then you known how I stand before the scrutiny of Western Society over the precepts of the Catholic Faith. You already know that I believe in our taking responsibility over the choices we make and their consequences; even though most individuals try to shun the latter whilst retaining the former. You already know that I think we - as a Society of arrogant hedonists - have sought to make religion a convenience, but we neglected the fact that it is not so. Though we are not obliged to follow a particular religion, the religious precepts that guide it are not ours to change or modify to suit our own economies, conveniences, urges and desires. In this, Edward Koch seems to agree with me.
He added: "The reason, I believe, for the constant assaults is that there are many in the media, and some Catholics as well as many in the public, who object to and are incensed by positions the Church holds, including opposition to all abortions, opposition to gay sex and same-sex marriage, retention of celibacy rules for priests, exclusion of women from the clergy, opposition to birth control measures involving condoms and prescription drugs and opposition to civil divorce." Who can dispute those claims? Not I, for this is indeed the very same comments I have been making here for the past years.
We live in a Society that has degraded its values of honour, family and charity into greed, corruption and consumerism. To that end, we - as a Society - found the need to attack and destroy that which impeded the progress of our conveniences. We dismantled values and beliefs to make them suitable to our socioeconomic ends. Yet, in our collective blindness, we have forgotten that the Catholic Faith is not the Church's property to meddle with. Our Faith was entrusted to the Church to be guarded and proclaimed with fielty, not liberalism. Hence, the Church is most assuredly not a democracy. It cannot be.
Though the politician offered evidence that he does not personally agree with the Catholic position on these issues, Ed Koch seems to agree with this assessment when he mentions that the Church "has a right to hold these views in accordance with its religious beliefs." He went further to declare: "Orthodox Jews, like the Roman Catholic Church, can demand absolute obedience to religious rules. Those declining to adhere are free to leave." He went on to deliver: "My good friend, Cardinal John O'Connor, once said, 'The Church is not a salad bar, from which to pick and choose what pleases you.' The Church has the right to demand fulfillment of all of its religious obligations by its parishioners, and indeed a right to espouse its beliefs generally."
Koch offered his belief that "the Roman Catholic Church is a force for good in the world, not evil." As well, he said, "the existence of 1 billion, 130 million Catholics worldwide is important to the peace and prosperity of the planet. (...) Of course, the media should report to the public any new facts bearing upon the issue of child molestation," held Koch, "but its objectivity and credibility are damaged when the New York Times declines to publish an op-ed offered by New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan on the issue of anti-Catholicism and offers instead to publish a letter to the editor, which is much shorter and less prominent than an op-ed.(...)Enough is enough," he affirmed. Koch continued: "Yes, terrible acts were committed by members of the Catholic clergy. The Church has paid billions to victims in the United States and will pay millions, perhaps billions, more to other such victims around the world. It is trying desperately to atone for its past by its admissions and changes in procedures for dealing with pedophile priests." What more can be expected by a Society that is itself also guilty of the same offenses?
I could go on, but I fear it is painful to feel that so much antagonism could be aimed at this, that is my Church and simultaneously the largest humanitarian and charitable organisation in the planet. Inconvenient as we may be to consumerism, I can say that - at least for my part - we will continue to uphold our Faith in all its beauty and in defence of life, ethics and moral values that make us freer persons than the supposed liberalism that is preeched by radical captalists and their consumerism.
If you are interested, the full text of former mayor Ed Koch can be found here: http://cgis.jpost.com/Blogs/koch/entry/he_that_is_without_sin
He said: "The procession of articles on the same events are, in my opinion, no longer intended to inform, but simply to castigate." He further asserted that "many of those in the media who are pounding on the Church and the Pope today clearly do it with delight, and some with malice."
If you've been reading my blog these latter years, then you known how I stand before the scrutiny of Western Society over the precepts of the Catholic Faith. You already know that I believe in our taking responsibility over the choices we make and their consequences; even though most individuals try to shun the latter whilst retaining the former. You already know that I think we - as a Society of arrogant hedonists - have sought to make religion a convenience, but we neglected the fact that it is not so. Though we are not obliged to follow a particular religion, the religious precepts that guide it are not ours to change or modify to suit our own economies, conveniences, urges and desires. In this, Edward Koch seems to agree with me.
He added: "The reason, I believe, for the constant assaults is that there are many in the media, and some Catholics as well as many in the public, who object to and are incensed by positions the Church holds, including opposition to all abortions, opposition to gay sex and same-sex marriage, retention of celibacy rules for priests, exclusion of women from the clergy, opposition to birth control measures involving condoms and prescription drugs and opposition to civil divorce." Who can dispute those claims? Not I, for this is indeed the very same comments I have been making here for the past years.
We live in a Society that has degraded its values of honour, family and charity into greed, corruption and consumerism. To that end, we - as a Society - found the need to attack and destroy that which impeded the progress of our conveniences. We dismantled values and beliefs to make them suitable to our socioeconomic ends. Yet, in our collective blindness, we have forgotten that the Catholic Faith is not the Church's property to meddle with. Our Faith was entrusted to the Church to be guarded and proclaimed with fielty, not liberalism. Hence, the Church is most assuredly not a democracy. It cannot be.
Though the politician offered evidence that he does not personally agree with the Catholic position on these issues, Ed Koch seems to agree with this assessment when he mentions that the Church "has a right to hold these views in accordance with its religious beliefs." He went further to declare: "Orthodox Jews, like the Roman Catholic Church, can demand absolute obedience to religious rules. Those declining to adhere are free to leave." He went on to deliver: "My good friend, Cardinal John O'Connor, once said, 'The Church is not a salad bar, from which to pick and choose what pleases you.' The Church has the right to demand fulfillment of all of its religious obligations by its parishioners, and indeed a right to espouse its beliefs generally."
Koch offered his belief that "the Roman Catholic Church is a force for good in the world, not evil." As well, he said, "the existence of 1 billion, 130 million Catholics worldwide is important to the peace and prosperity of the planet. (...) Of course, the media should report to the public any new facts bearing upon the issue of child molestation," held Koch, "but its objectivity and credibility are damaged when the New York Times declines to publish an op-ed offered by New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan on the issue of anti-Catholicism and offers instead to publish a letter to the editor, which is much shorter and less prominent than an op-ed.(...)Enough is enough," he affirmed. Koch continued: "Yes, terrible acts were committed by members of the Catholic clergy. The Church has paid billions to victims in the United States and will pay millions, perhaps billions, more to other such victims around the world. It is trying desperately to atone for its past by its admissions and changes in procedures for dealing with pedophile priests." What more can be expected by a Society that is itself also guilty of the same offenses?
I could go on, but I fear it is painful to feel that so much antagonism could be aimed at this, that is my Church and simultaneously the largest humanitarian and charitable organisation in the planet. Inconvenient as we may be to consumerism, I can say that - at least for my part - we will continue to uphold our Faith in all its beauty and in defence of life, ethics and moral values that make us freer persons than the supposed liberalism that is preeched by radical captalists and their consumerism.
If you are interested, the full text of former mayor Ed Koch can be found here: http://cgis.jpost.com/Blogs/koch/entry/he_that_is_without_sin
Friday, 2 April 2010
Arriving Upon Easter With My Penance Done
This week the universe seemed to be conspiring to keep me off my usual chores. While I was preparing myself for an introspective Good Friday and joyous Easter Sunday – striving to dodge the consumerism that has been permeating every aspect of the season – even the simplest of daily tasks turned suddenly impossible.
The first thing that seemed worst than usual was the infamous Sao Paulo traffic. I don`t know how many of the readers have ever been to Sao Paulo, but the first thing one learns upon venturing into the grey vastness of this metropolis is the hardship of traffic. Disobedience to traffic laws abounds and one is constantly assailed by motor-bikers flashing by in between the cars; often nicking your paint job or knocking off your side-view mirrors. One takes up to 4 hours to complete a 30Km route.
Along the road to my office there is a section where 6 lanes turn into just 2. This is where bikers exit their lane altogether and take to piloting in the wrong way of the street; shouting insults at whoever is prudently driving in the correct direction. Needless to say, this practice often results in disaster. This week saw a sudden increase in the hostilities between bikers and drivers. Now, they kick-in your car’s doors as they pass you by coming the wrong way. Mine was kicked-in this Monday.
The next disruption to my working week came in the form telecommunications troubles. The local infrastructure is extensive and very modern, but interruptions are commonplace. Our company website was down for a full day on Monday and the e-mail servers on our host were “updated” over the weekend with protocols that simply interrupted the flow of e-mails from Monday to Wednesday afternoon. If that wasn’t enough, my office was left without phone lines for 4 hours on Tuesday because the phone cables were quite literally stolen from the public poles. Again, this was nothing out of the ordinary, but it didn’t make me a happy businessman.
Wednesday started with the unexpected arrival of a good friend from South Africa. He dropped in just as I was leaving to go to the office, only lacking of 6:15AM. I was surprised to see him that early in the day and even more surprised to learn he would actually be crashing at my apartment. Seeing as I had no telecom at the office, I decided to work from home to keep him company. It turns out he needed advice to sort out personal issues motivating his trip, and I was glad to be there to provide him with some insights. Yet, to my discredit, I must confess I was just as happy to see him arrive as I was glad to see him off to a hotel on Thursday morning. It's just that given my present scenario, I had no time at all to entertain.
Thursday saw the return of our e-mails to working order and I actually managed to arrive at the office unscathed and within a decent time-frame. I was happy at the perspective of getting some work done. Yet, to my surprise, I had to work out of the netbook because my brand new Hewlett Packard workstation has been acting out and finally collapsed. No hope of tech support from HP...
It’s as if nothing works properly in Sao Paulo, but the bright side of all this was that I was left with extra time and motivation to philosophise on my blog; so at least in this sense the week was productive. Nevertheless, I`ve very few times looked forward to devoting my Good Friday to some quiet soul searching as much as after this week. It seems I'll arrive into Easter with my penance well under way.
The first thing that seemed worst than usual was the infamous Sao Paulo traffic. I don`t know how many of the readers have ever been to Sao Paulo, but the first thing one learns upon venturing into the grey vastness of this metropolis is the hardship of traffic. Disobedience to traffic laws abounds and one is constantly assailed by motor-bikers flashing by in between the cars; often nicking your paint job or knocking off your side-view mirrors. One takes up to 4 hours to complete a 30Km route.
Along the road to my office there is a section where 6 lanes turn into just 2. This is where bikers exit their lane altogether and take to piloting in the wrong way of the street; shouting insults at whoever is prudently driving in the correct direction. Needless to say, this practice often results in disaster. This week saw a sudden increase in the hostilities between bikers and drivers. Now, they kick-in your car’s doors as they pass you by coming the wrong way. Mine was kicked-in this Monday.
The next disruption to my working week came in the form telecommunications troubles. The local infrastructure is extensive and very modern, but interruptions are commonplace. Our company website was down for a full day on Monday and the e-mail servers on our host were “updated” over the weekend with protocols that simply interrupted the flow of e-mails from Monday to Wednesday afternoon. If that wasn’t enough, my office was left without phone lines for 4 hours on Tuesday because the phone cables were quite literally stolen from the public poles. Again, this was nothing out of the ordinary, but it didn’t make me a happy businessman.
Wednesday started with the unexpected arrival of a good friend from South Africa. He dropped in just as I was leaving to go to the office, only lacking of 6:15AM. I was surprised to see him that early in the day and even more surprised to learn he would actually be crashing at my apartment. Seeing as I had no telecom at the office, I decided to work from home to keep him company. It turns out he needed advice to sort out personal issues motivating his trip, and I was glad to be there to provide him with some insights. Yet, to my discredit, I must confess I was just as happy to see him arrive as I was glad to see him off to a hotel on Thursday morning. It's just that given my present scenario, I had no time at all to entertain.
Thursday saw the return of our e-mails to working order and I actually managed to arrive at the office unscathed and within a decent time-frame. I was happy at the perspective of getting some work done. Yet, to my surprise, I had to work out of the netbook because my brand new Hewlett Packard workstation has been acting out and finally collapsed. No hope of tech support from HP...
It’s as if nothing works properly in Sao Paulo, but the bright side of all this was that I was left with extra time and motivation to philosophise on my blog; so at least in this sense the week was productive. Nevertheless, I`ve very few times looked forward to devoting my Good Friday to some quiet soul searching as much as after this week. It seems I'll arrive into Easter with my penance well under way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)