A Worldly Church is a Weak Church

Understand this: The Catholic Church is universal by name and definition, and all are welcome to it. However, this does not translate into chaos and lawlessness, and by being welcome, it does not mean that the Church agrees that you should do whatever you like and live howsoever you desire. There are definitly rules to follow. There are definitely objectives to which we should aspire. You can live per your own leave, of course, and the Church will not bar you from it, but then why do you seek the Church? And if you don't seek it, why mind about what those who do choose to do of it? In the Church, we are taught not to hate the sinner, but the sin. Still, while the Church hates no-one, it cannot, in good conscience and in all fairness to its purpose, accept certain behaviours even if others do. The Church cannot bend to fashion. It cannot bend to the times. It cannot bend to society’s appetites. For a Church of Christ is a beacon of God’s values; not man’s.

On "Happiness by Money" Chart Posted by The Economist

Bollocks! I’m with The Beatles: “Money can’t buy me Love”. If you take into account that our society, by adopting consumerism as the norm, has been preaching for more than 50 years that consumption of goods is what makes everyone happy, and that perennial efforts in advertising and marketing exist to foment this concept via a constant bombardment in all media, then you can easily see that earlier studies, made with samples from a generation less indoctrinated into the ethics of consumerism, are likelier to be more imaginative about the concept of happiness. http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2013/05/daily-chart-0?fsrc=scn/fb/wl/dc/moneybuyhappiness

NO! To Relativism.

What is right, meaning what is natural and correct and good and true and civil and favourable to harmony, is STILL right even if no one does it. What is wrong, to be understood as incorrect, and bad and false and conducive to disharmony, is STILL wrong even when everyone does it. If you feel you need to rely on “your truth” and I in mine, it’s probably not because you respect mine, but because you don’t care about it. This is apathy, not love, nor democracy. Nor is a mutual “non-interference” pact true democracy because, in a society, it is hardly possible not to interfere in one another’s affairs, most of all when non-interference actually incurs favouring one side over another via new legislation. There exists no gain to democracy in our not discussing our issues and resolving them. True democracy is founded in open discussion to find common grounds, or failing that, a settlement. It is certainly not rooted in an imposition of the few over the majority just as it is not found in a tyranny of the majority. It is certainly not rooted in apathy and alienation, but in seeking knowledge of one another to achieve understanding and empathy. Relativism is then not a tool of democracy, but a tool for totalitarianism; for in Relativism there is only division.