If you still think your car is useful to you, try driving through Sao Paulo traffic for an afternoon. It took me 3 hours to travel a distance of only 25Km.
Honestly, we should go back to the transportation model of the 19th Century: Horses, chariots & trains. I warrant a horse's fuel is as biodegradable and sustainable as what comes out of its tail pipe.
Besides, there will be no worrying about drunken driving... Your horse will not crash onto another because you're drunk!
Tuesday 20 July 2010
Friday 16 July 2010
The Church is the Church
When the Catholic Church reinforced today that the ordination of women will continue not to be acceptable by raising the gravity of the offence, it meant to answer the continued pressure from groups not always of the Church, chiefly but not only in the United States of America, for the ordination of women.
It had nothing to do with the pedophile scandals that were made very public in the recent past, and which received prompt and decisive attention from the Vatican, and which continue to be resolved in as constructive and practical a manner as is possible.
However, the media (and those who have a personal agenda against the Catholic Church) choses to focus on the equation of the punishment for the ordination of women to the crime of violation of children.
In any case, if you so choose to focus on this side-effect of the Church's response to the public call for the ordination of women, you must first understand that - unlike civil law - Canon Law does not have a whole lot of prescribable punishments. Once you have grasp of this, you must then understand that the whole issue has to do with the Norms and that these Norms have to do with delicts(offenses)by the clergy such as:
1. Against the faith (Heresy, Schism) [art 2]
2 Against the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist (desecration etc) [art 3]
3. Agains the Sacrament of Confession (soliciting in the confessional, breaking the sacramental seal of confidence)[art4]
4. Against the Sacrament of Ordination (attempted ordination of women which does not go against a discipline of the church - like priestly celibacy - but against a Sacrament in itself - Holy Order - which the church has no power to change [art 5].
5. Against morals (offences against the 6th commandment commited against a minor below 18 by a cleric, acquisition and distribution of child porn by a cleric) [art 6]
The Church has always been clear about the gravity of attempted ordination of a woman. What new is the raising of the gravity of the offenses in Art 6 to the level of Articles 2-5 which are offenses which strike at the essence of the Church itself. This was done to put an end to the continued pressure for a more "democratic" system of ordaining both men and women.
The point is made frequently throughout History; often with confidence in change. There is a common assumption in modern democracies that the Catholic Church's persistance on an exclusively male priesthood is an anomaly, which endures only because a Polish pope has, in the 1990s, refused to move with the times. This is ignorance, plain and simple.
Historically, female priesthood has been favoured and never more so than in the Classical World. When Christ ordained His first priests, nearly 2,000 years ago, this was so. Virtually all the pagan religions of His day had priestesses, and it would have been unsurprising and natural for Him to elect women for this task. In light of His excellent potential candidates. From the Virgin Mary, His own Mother, who stood with Him even as He suffered on the cross, to Mary Magdalene or the women of Bethany, Jesus Christ did not have to go far to choose a priestess if he wanted one. Instead, He chose only men, and He remained immovable on this. From those twelve men that he trained a direct line of apostolic succession has given the Catholic Church the bishops and priests it has today.
In the Church's previous official statement on this matter, Pope John Paul II, using his full authority as the successor of Peter, states categorically that the Church cannot (not will not, but cannot)ordain women, now or ever. The Catechism of the Catholic Church sets it out clearly, quoting the decree Inter insigniores:
Only a baptized man receives sacred ordination. The Lord Jesus chose men to form the college of the twelve apostles, and the apostles did the same when they chose collaborators to succeed them in their ministry. The college of bishops, with whom the priests are united in the priesthood, makes the college of the twelve an ever-present and ever-active reality until Christ's return. The Church recognizes herself to be bound by this choice made by the Lord Himself. For this reason the ordination of women is not possible.
We must always remember the Catholic Church is NOT a democracy and never can be. It has a holy duty to defend and divulge its Faith, as it was handed by God. If you don't accept this, you shouldn't even be concerned with what the Church does with its laws, rules and regulations. I can understand Catholics debating the issue, what I cannot abide is all the non-Catholics complaining about what the Church chooses to do with Canon Law.
The Catholic Church must construe its internal regiments as it sees fit. Whether you want to belong to the Catholic Church and share Its views is your own to decide.
It had nothing to do with the pedophile scandals that were made very public in the recent past, and which received prompt and decisive attention from the Vatican, and which continue to be resolved in as constructive and practical a manner as is possible.
However, the media (and those who have a personal agenda against the Catholic Church) choses to focus on the equation of the punishment for the ordination of women to the crime of violation of children.
In any case, if you so choose to focus on this side-effect of the Church's response to the public call for the ordination of women, you must first understand that - unlike civil law - Canon Law does not have a whole lot of prescribable punishments. Once you have grasp of this, you must then understand that the whole issue has to do with the Norms and that these Norms have to do with delicts(offenses)by the clergy such as:
1. Against the faith (Heresy, Schism) [art 2]
2 Against the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist (desecration etc) [art 3]
3. Agains the Sacrament of Confession (soliciting in the confessional, breaking the sacramental seal of confidence)[art4]
4. Against the Sacrament of Ordination (attempted ordination of women which does not go against a discipline of the church - like priestly celibacy - but against a Sacrament in itself - Holy Order - which the church has no power to change [art 5].
5. Against morals (offences against the 6th commandment commited against a minor below 18 by a cleric, acquisition and distribution of child porn by a cleric) [art 6]
The Church has always been clear about the gravity of attempted ordination of a woman. What new is the raising of the gravity of the offenses in Art 6 to the level of Articles 2-5 which are offenses which strike at the essence of the Church itself. This was done to put an end to the continued pressure for a more "democratic" system of ordaining both men and women.
The point is made frequently throughout History; often with confidence in change. There is a common assumption in modern democracies that the Catholic Church's persistance on an exclusively male priesthood is an anomaly, which endures only because a Polish pope has, in the 1990s, refused to move with the times. This is ignorance, plain and simple.
Historically, female priesthood has been favoured and never more so than in the Classical World. When Christ ordained His first priests, nearly 2,000 years ago, this was so. Virtually all the pagan religions of His day had priestesses, and it would have been unsurprising and natural for Him to elect women for this task. In light of His excellent potential candidates. From the Virgin Mary, His own Mother, who stood with Him even as He suffered on the cross, to Mary Magdalene or the women of Bethany, Jesus Christ did not have to go far to choose a priestess if he wanted one. Instead, He chose only men, and He remained immovable on this. From those twelve men that he trained a direct line of apostolic succession has given the Catholic Church the bishops and priests it has today.
In the Church's previous official statement on this matter, Pope John Paul II, using his full authority as the successor of Peter, states categorically that the Church cannot (not will not, but cannot)ordain women, now or ever. The Catechism of the Catholic Church sets it out clearly, quoting the decree Inter insigniores:
Only a baptized man receives sacred ordination. The Lord Jesus chose men to form the college of the twelve apostles, and the apostles did the same when they chose collaborators to succeed them in their ministry. The college of bishops, with whom the priests are united in the priesthood, makes the college of the twelve an ever-present and ever-active reality until Christ's return. The Church recognizes herself to be bound by this choice made by the Lord Himself. For this reason the ordination of women is not possible.
We must always remember the Catholic Church is NOT a democracy and never can be. It has a holy duty to defend and divulge its Faith, as it was handed by God. If you don't accept this, you shouldn't even be concerned with what the Church does with its laws, rules and regulations. I can understand Catholics debating the issue, what I cannot abide is all the non-Catholics complaining about what the Church chooses to do with Canon Law.
The Catholic Church must construe its internal regiments as it sees fit. Whether you want to belong to the Catholic Church and share Its views is your own to decide.
As with all sins, we are invited to see the act of sinning as regrettable, but the sinner deserves compassion, love and understanding, which does not in turn translate to approval. This is a Christian standing on all things of social conduct.
On all matters of social behaviour and personal choice, judgement shall be given by Him, not by us. Yet we are human, just as any sinner who would offer contestation to our consistency with our own Faith. We too sin. We too need kindness and compassion.
Thursday 15 July 2010
Argentina Legalised Same-Sex Marriages
Today Argentina legalised gay-marriages by a margin of 6 votes, in a move contrary to 200,000 protesters shouting against it on the streets of Buenos Aires.
The very next minute my anti-Catholic interlocutors started writing/calling to rub the issue in my face, which was an act I found regrettable and prejudiced. Funnily enough, my gay friends and acquaintances didn't. What does that tell you?
In all honesty I am tired of hearing the same fallacious arguments over and over again by people who aren't interested in listening to the reality of the situation and seek only to reinforce their own opinions. Even so, I'll have a go one last time:
1. First and foremost, the Catholic Church does not condone violent behaviour of any sort, nor does it condone prejudice of any kind. Regrettable historical moments notwithstanding, the Catholic Church remains universally open to take-in any who would like to be with us, and to live peacefully alongside any who would not.
2. Second, the Church’s official view toward homosexuality is that the ACT is condemnable, but the DRIVE isn’t. In any case, the homosexual himself/herself is seen as a person worthy of fraternal love and solidarity like any other person. We see the act of seeking the sexual partnership of the same sex as a sin, but the sinner deserves love and understanding.
3. Third, the Church does not impose this view by rule of force on any Government or State. It is the governments of some countries that have been imposing their rule on the Church, even when it is contrary to the Church’s legal right to think otherwise and to speak its mind on moral and religious issues. Furthermore, it is quite obvious to me that no one should be forced to accept and incorporate homosexuality just as no one should be forced not to accept it or incorporate it.
In other words, this should not be a legal matter at all, but a matter of individual choice, just as a person’s religion is a matter for individual choice.
Forcing the issue in the way it is being forced indicates to me that there is a political/socioeconomic agenda (emphases on the “economic” bit) behind the entire charade.
The very next minute my anti-Catholic interlocutors started writing/calling to rub the issue in my face, which was an act I found regrettable and prejudiced. Funnily enough, my gay friends and acquaintances didn't. What does that tell you?
In all honesty I am tired of hearing the same fallacious arguments over and over again by people who aren't interested in listening to the reality of the situation and seek only to reinforce their own opinions. Even so, I'll have a go one last time:
1. First and foremost, the Catholic Church does not condone violent behaviour of any sort, nor does it condone prejudice of any kind. Regrettable historical moments notwithstanding, the Catholic Church remains universally open to take-in any who would like to be with us, and to live peacefully alongside any who would not.
2. Second, the Church’s official view toward homosexuality is that the ACT is condemnable, but the DRIVE isn’t. In any case, the homosexual himself/herself is seen as a person worthy of fraternal love and solidarity like any other person. We see the act of seeking the sexual partnership of the same sex as a sin, but the sinner deserves love and understanding.
3. Third, the Church does not impose this view by rule of force on any Government or State. It is the governments of some countries that have been imposing their rule on the Church, even when it is contrary to the Church’s legal right to think otherwise and to speak its mind on moral and religious issues. Furthermore, it is quite obvious to me that no one should be forced to accept and incorporate homosexuality just as no one should be forced not to accept it or incorporate it.
In other words, this should not be a legal matter at all, but a matter of individual choice, just as a person’s religion is a matter for individual choice.
Forcing the issue in the way it is being forced indicates to me that there is a political/socioeconomic agenda (emphases on the “economic” bit) behind the entire charade.
Wednesday 7 July 2010
Pricing
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." - Thomas Jefferson
"The price of greatness is responsibility." - Sir Winston Churchill
"The price of inner peace is oblivion." - Noel-Morgan
"The price of greatness is responsibility." - Sir Winston Churchill
"The price of inner peace is oblivion." - Noel-Morgan
Is Helping Enough?
No. Helping is not enough. Nor is the desire to help someone ever sufficient basis for contentment. If you want to truly help someone, you must bear in mind the following:
1. The form of your aid will ultimately influence its result. Unwanted help or unwelcome help is no help at all in the end.
2. Is your help long-term? Must it be? If so, is your help sustainable?
3. Is your "help" actually helpful, or will it turn that someone into someone dependent on you? If so, your help is not very efficient and may not be any help at all.
Helping someone is a worthy thing, but we must first understand what true help is.
1. The form of your aid will ultimately influence its result. Unwanted help or unwelcome help is no help at all in the end.
2. Is your help long-term? Must it be? If so, is your help sustainable?
3. Is your "help" actually helpful, or will it turn that someone into someone dependent on you? If so, your help is not very efficient and may not be any help at all.
Helping someone is a worthy thing, but we must first understand what true help is.
Tuesday 6 July 2010
On the FIFA World Cup 2010
The BBC interviewed me on the results of this year's World Cup and the impact it had in Brazil.
After watching all the play-acting by players and their pretense injuries, after witnessing the incongruencies perpetrated by referees, the attempt by FIFA to ban the very technologies that were revealing these mistakes and the overall injustice that resulted on the fields of South Africa, I have only this to say:
The way fairplay was abused during the FIFA World Cup 2010 only reflects the (lack of) moral standards by which Western Society is steering.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/worldhaveyoursay/2010/07/forgive_and_forget.html#comments
After watching all the play-acting by players and their pretense injuries, after witnessing the incongruencies perpetrated by referees, the attempt by FIFA to ban the very technologies that were revealing these mistakes and the overall injustice that resulted on the fields of South Africa, I have only this to say:
The way fairplay was abused during the FIFA World Cup 2010 only reflects the (lack of) moral standards by which Western Society is steering.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/worldhaveyoursay/2010/07/forgive_and_forget.html#comments
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)