These postings should be interesting... I'm sure that at one point in your young lives, your parents or any adult told you, "You should never mix religion and politics in a conversation..." When I was your age, especially at family gatherings, I waited for this moment when the two topics would erupt into yelling and screaming across the table, not too long after we all expressed how thankful we were to be able to get together as a family to share the meal. Ah, the memories... To date, you have all proven yourselves to be extremely political and you are quickly approaching the voting age, if you aren't already. You may find yourself having a conflict of conscience or faith when faced with choosing leaders to represent you, especially when they are proponents of certain actions not supported by your religion. Can you be political and religious?Your Task:
1. (15 marks, inquiry) Look at the pie chart. It is the result of a 2003 American poll. People were asked, "Should churches express views on political matters?" What is your opinion? Do you think result would have been different if conducted in Canada? Consider the following example...
2. (15 marks, inquiry) What are your reactions to Father Mario's presentation? What were some of the things you had trouble with? With what did you agree? Ultimately, what point was he trying to make? Do you agree? Be specific...
3. (10 mark, inquiry) Click on the following link:
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/politics/pg0020.html
Read the article. Do you agree with the "Practical Suggestions" being made? Why/why not?
4. (10 marks, application). React/respond to any comment made by your classmates.
You should post your responses by Friday, October 10, 2008. This should be very interesting... Looking forward to reading what you have to say!
29 comments:
1)I do not believe that the church was realistic at all in their belief that they could influence the actions of positions; despite whether or not those politicians are Catholic it is still very unrealistic. As a result, it is believed that one does in fact check their faith at the door and replace it with secular views due to the fact that they must represent a diverse constituency. However, I do not believe that this is done by choice- it is simply what a politician must do in order to be a representation of the society they rule in. The church simply cannot be of any influence or structure for politicians, because church has been completely removed from state due to all of the immigration, causing a very diverse and multicultural society. The idea that we accept the differences of people and their religion, ethnicity, culture and beliefs as a nation, means that we cannot base our laws and rules upon that of Christianity. As a country, Canada has chosen to hold a very diverse identity, which completely welcomes and promotes all that makes up such diversity and multiculturalism. Therefore, the church’s belief towards their possible influence is simply unrealistic in Canada, evidently however, not in all countries. The idea that politicians must “check their faith at the door,” does not mean that he/she as an individual looses their own faith, culture, or religious beliefs, but in times of their political leadership for the Country, they must take on very secular views in order to compliment that of our Country, and maintain our acceptance and diversity of such multiculturalism.
2)My reactions to father Mario’s presentation can be best described as shocking yet sadly consisting of much truth. He basically exposed all of the Western society’s downfalls-much of which was very accurate. Father expressed his own personal views on what was wrong with society, and presented much evidence to support his beliefs. Overall, he linked much of these issues to government, as they allow for negative media ( such as television, music, movies, internet etc.), in addition to society’s lack of parental control and direction. As a result, Father described society as being “the devil,” and connected individual weakness as being the main cause, because we as people give into such temptations and the government allows this. Despite the fact that much of what he said was very true, I found that he failed to recognize the fact that the world is changing very much, and the idea that we should follow the Ten Commandments, and go to church, etc. was simply not enough to prevent such “satanic” temptations. Most are able to understand and respect these guidelines, but the idea of following them without any exceptions is quite simply unrealistic in my eyes. For example, Christianity teaches that sex before marriage is wrong, but in today’s world, most people tend not to get married until very late, or do not get married at all. So how can one not be sexually active in such situations. This concept of no sex before marriage was developed by the church in early times, when people got married at extremely young ages, and therefore there was not even opportunity for pre-marital sex. Another example is the idea of censorship. Father identified us as “weak,” which is not deniable; however, we were developed with conscience, and opportunity to make choices, making such temptations as nothing more then ways of making individuals stronger and much more knowledgeable. We cannot hide from what exists, nor can we ignore it. Instead, we should expand our notion of right and wrong, and attempt to become mentally stronger and further prepared from a young age to deal with such issues, rather than having the government or our parents hide them from us and attempt to remove them. Whether we like it or not, our world will continue to develop causing us to have to develop with it- good or bad. In addition, I felt that Father failed to acknowledge that there have always been good and bad people, and his stab and former president Clinton was completely unnecessary in it’s regarding towards why the youth have a sever misunderstanding of sexuality. Such misunderstanding is due to being un- informed and not conscience enough of occurrences in the “real world,” something that should have been implicated from a young age.
3)No, I most definitely do not agree with the practical suggestions being made. These suggestions consist of “shunning” and publicly criticizing such politicians who obtain antilife and secular views in matters of the law. I do not agree with their suggestions towards such politicians because they are completely contradicting their own beliefs, and therefore taking away from any form of help they claim to provide for the weak. Not only is this a completely immature and unethical way to handle the situation, but it proves the notion of separation among people due to religious beliefs. The idea that the Church would ever “shun” or “criticize” publicly any other individual because of their beliefs completely goes against what they claim to stand for. The Church, as Jesus taught, is suppose to accept and try to help those who may be miss-guided or have wrongful beliefs, not at any time should they basically disown those individuals. If we are all said to be God’s children, we should then be embracing one another and attempting to help eachother. If the Church cannot change the beliefs of such politicians, despite the fact that they are wrong, they should instead continue to love them and accept them despite their sinful beliefs and unjust attitudes towards such issues of abortion especially. These political leaders are clearly miss guided, and their defense of not allowing state to be influenced by church is simply not enough to justify antilife laws. Although, to restate what I have already mentioned, the church should practice what the preach and accept these individuals regardless, and attempt to help them- otherwise leave it in the hands of God, and love them unconditionally in the meantime- just as Jesus taught us.
4)I very much agree with Anna’s belief on Father claiming that the church “help’s the weak.” Anna has stated that this claim is untrue and very little practiced by the church. A prime example of this this can be seen through their attempt to “shun,” and “publicly criticize” those politicians who govern antilife laws. If the church “helps the weak,” and has always helped the weak as Father claimed, they should therefore be attempting to help these political leaders and others who carry this belief, in efforts to guide them towards what is right rather than shunning them and publicly humiliating them for wrong beliefs. Another prime example of the Church’s lacking of help towards the weak can be seen through homosexuality, as the Church completely disregards people who condone homosexuality and homosexuals all together. It has been stated that most priest and religious leaders in the church refuse to give such individuals the Eucharist when they are aware of this sexual orientation and the Church as a whole has completely ignored and denied this state of being as anything human. They have once again shun, and on many occasions, publicly criticized and humiliated homosexuality. Jesus has taught us, through many biblical teachings, which we are to accept and love people despite their sins or weaknesses. The church should therefore attempt to help people in such situations, and many more, and if they cannot- they should still love unconditionally and leave the matter to be dealt with by God when their time comes. If we are all creations of God, then nothing can cause for public humility nor denial of existence. As previously mentioned- the Church must begin to practice what they preach matters of the weak.
1) It is evident that when churches express their views on political matters many issues arise where the separation of church and state are argued. However, it is apparent that churches do have the right to express their opinions on political issues. Church and state can be separated, but it is not reasonable for churches to not be permitted to express their views as well. If the poll based on separation of church and state were conducted in Canada, the result for “Churches should not express political views” would be much grater than the American poll result. Due to Canada’s multicultural/ multi-religious society, Canadians prefer to not offend their county’s diverse population. Canadians would rather practice their faiths in private and be political in public. When the church believed that they could influence Catholic politicians, they were extremely unrealistic. It is apparent that politicians are strictly political despite their religion. Same-sex marriage, to a politician is viewed through equality rights and human rights laws. However, churches expect issues such as same-sex marriage to be viewed though biblical perspectives. There is no reason for churches to not be able to express these views; they are just not recognized by everyone in Canada. When a religious politician is elected into office, their views automatically become secular. If these politicians are accepting the responsibility to be accountable for the well being of a nation, they must be willing to recognize diversity, human rights, and equality. Therefore, leaving their catholic views behind and focusing on thee good of society as a whole.
2) Father Mario’s presentation was extremely fascinating; it was very surprising to hear a priest speak so politically. Father Mario spoke out against secular views and separation of church and state. I was shocked at many of the remarks he made about same sex marriage and abortion because I did not agree with most of it. I believe that church and state can be separated and both aspects can still be valued by society. Where as, Father Mario stated that Catholic politicians are hypocrites. I believe that it is their job to be political. Personally, if I were a politician, I would be very upset with this. I believe in my catholic faith, however, the Catholic Church is not known for being perfect in the past. Therefore, when a politician speaks their opinion for something serious like abortion, the Catholic Church is entitled to their opinion. However, they are not entitled to criticize someone else’s I also did not agree with Father Mario when he said the church has always been there to defend the weak. During the dark ages; the rise of the Catholic Church, it is evident that the church strived to pick on the weak. The Catholic Church sold the weak indulgences to buy their salvation. They also encouraged individuals to give up their land to acquire salvation. High priest positions were bought during the dark ages. Therefore, if a male had a lot of money and power they could donate a large property in return for a powerful position. Lastly, I did not believe in Father Mario’s opinion on same-sex marriage. If homosexuals are not getting married in the church, then the Catholic Church should not care what they do. These individuals obviously do not practice the Catholic faith. Therefore, they are entitled to live their lives however they wish. Father Mario also said that the government changed the definition of marriage. However, they did not; they changed the laws in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to “a union”. Therefore, a marriage is still between a man and a woman. However, I do agree with Father Mario in the sense that people are becoming worse and society is less religious. Ultimately, Father Mario was trying to express that church and state should not be separated. However, I clearly disagree, I believe that they should be separated but they both should be heard. Both church and biblical views, as well as political views are important, society is responsible to decipher between what they would like to get out of each.
3) The “practical suggestions” being made are completely unethical. It does not make sense to have bishops and members of the Catholic Church shun people of political influence who do not agree or conform to all Catholic policy. This would be hypocritical to the Catholic Church’s teachings. The Catholic Church practices forgiveness and acceptance. If members of the Catholic Church are shunning out politicians, it will demonstrate that priests to do not follow the teachings of Jesus and the Bible. In accordance with the Catholic religion’s teachings, ignoring and removing someone out of one’s live is unethical. One must accept and forgive to live a moral life. Priests criticizing politicians publicly also goes against Christian morality. It is completely wrong to guide others to discriminate against certain individuals, especially when in a position of power. Therefore, criticizing politicians publicly is out of the question.
4) In response to Christina’s answers, I would like to agree with her opinion on censorship. The government is not able to determine whether people take things too seriously or not. It is up to the individual to decipher between right and wrong. Therefore, sheltering the public of what really exists would be wrong. If a parent does not allow their child to watch a certain program on television, they have the right to censor that. However, the government does not; the government can only worry about profit and economics because that is their job ultimately. Therefore, I believe that censorship should not be viewed as a way to fix society’s issues, whether satanic programs are censored or not these issues will still exist.
Churches should defiantly express their views on political matters as they can be as subjective as they like, since they are not the ones depending on the popularity of the people. Commoners can be easily persuaded through means of television, radio and other sorts of media, and without the guidance of religion one can easily fall under the negative influence of society. Politicians respond to matters concerning society in order to gain the most popularity as their objective is to govern over a country. The reasoning for religion is to guide people into an ethically and morally life, therefore if a politician is promoting corrupt or outrageous behaviour, religion should step in and correct their ways. With the example of the same sex marriage legislation, church should defiantly have their say in the matter, especially within North American, European, and South American countries. All these counties have a dominant Christian faith, and are built on those morals of the Christian faith. Even in Canada our laws take into consideration Christian morality. The 10 Commandments are the basis of our laws in Canada, and our sins lead to punishments. Since Canada is now 45.27% immigrants, they bring different religious traditions into our nation. Now in Canada politics and church can not mix, as not everyone is a believer in the Christian faith.
If we take Christian view in perspective while determining our politics, it is only “fair” that we take the other religious views when deciding on government. All religion should have their say and stand point on matters facing our society, but not be able to control or dictate the way matters are handled. Although at one point the church and state were integrated it has not always lead to the best results.
When church and state mix, they use each other for survival and growth. If a church can justify political doing, then the politician can impose and spread the church beliefs, ultimately promoting Christianity. This may not always be a good thing as according to Father Mario when either the church or government has too much power they begin to act unjustly, such as in the Medieval ages, where the church took money in order to cleanse individuals of their sins.
Not only do Christians have a bad history when they interfere with state but so do other religions such as India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. They were all once the same country but as soon as religion started to play a role in their government partition was initiated. The Muslims and Hindus did not get along and the only way to resolve this issue was to divide and separate. If religion had no affect on the country, it would not have resulted in such extremes.
Another interesting point the Father Mario raised was that the government has become corrupt and has supported the satin mentality as they refuse to question or interfere with the wrong doings of society. The state has now taken the 10 commandments, of which Canada’s legal system has been built on and corrupted their meaning. They are not the 10 “suggestions” but the 10 commandments. Applied to the issue of abortion, it is a sin as it is murder. Murder is prohibited within our society yet we have leniency towards abortion. We are still committing murder of the soul, even though the body has not fully developed. The government also allows for inappropriate television programs without censorship, and although they do not clearly state they are for these programs, by them turning “the other cheek” they promote that this behaviour is acceptable. Religion teaches us to be ethical and moral, and once politicians are elected they should not ignore religion but integrate it within their governing style. Some flaws in Father Marios teachings that I was not too clear about was when he stated that parents agree to raise their children within the Catholic faith, but if he knows that they do not know how, why would the church for such a covenant. In order for a marriage to occur in a church a couple has to go for counselling to understand the agreement of marriage and what is involved, shouldn’t a similar type of counselling be offered to parents wanting to baptize their children? Parents should be aware of the commitment they are obliging too when baptizing their children, therefore they should know what it means to raise their children with Christian values. If this step is done by the church individuals will start to learn about Christian morals practicing them in their everyday lives, without the need of having the Church or state to impose religion on their citizens.
Father Mario was not a typical priest therefore he was easily able to openly address an issue threatening our society. At one point our civilization was at the extreme of having our Churches dictate our state, which only lead to corruption, and now we have turned to the next extreme being “freedom from religion”. In our modern society we emphasize and attempt to remove religion from our politics which in actuality is not beneficial. Without religion we will not have guidelines or restrictions, but instead be able to do as we please, ultimately leading to a nation of chaos.
The “practical suggestions” offered in the article “A failure of Catholic Political Leadership,” would be beneficial to our society. Instead of excommunicate politicians who support the “culture of death,” the church should accept them with open arms. If the church refuses these office holders, it would only lead to a backlash as they will call negative view and publicity to the church. If these leaders can come to church, priests and religion can influence their lives, and they can utilize these teachings to ultimately change their ways within their decision making. The second suggestion is also quiet effective as without them publicising their support of Christians, politicians will loose most of their popularity, seeing how the majority of Canada is Christian. Although these suggestions are practical, these tactics need to be done with caution. If either the church or state too much power or control, it will lead them into temptation for corruption, which will negatively affect our society and the development of our civilization.
Resources
1.http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census06/data/topics/RetrieveProductTable.cfm?TPL=RETR&ALEVEL=3&APATH=3&CATNO=&DETAIL=0&DIM=&DS=99&FL=0&FREE=0&GAL=0&GC=99&GK=NA&GRP=1&IPS=&METH=0&ORDER=1&PID=92333&PTYPE=88971&RL=0&S=1&ShowAll=No&StartRow=1&SUB=801&Temporal=2006&Theme=80&VID=0&VNAMEE=&VNAMEF=,
2.http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1754272/posts
Response:
Responding to Anna’s post, I agree with the outcome of the hypothetical survey that in Canada most would agree that the church should not express their view on political issues. The reasoning for this is because of our very diverse and multicultural society where we are too concerned with being “politically correct” instead of stating our true beliefs. The United States of America is also a well diverse society, but is not afraid to openly express or discuss religion. This is because in America their society resembles a “melting pot,” although there are many different cultures and religions they ultimately follow and respect American beliefs and traditions such as Christianity, seeing how it is the fundamental religion in the States. (This is evident as at the end of political speeches the phrase “God bless America,” is commonly used.) In Canada we are too concerned with obliging and respecting everyone’s own individuality, pleasing their own religion and culture, yet we do not get the same in return. Canada is a Christian country; therefore Christian practices should be respected as well. A Toronto judge should not be able to order the removal of a Christmas tree in a court house because it resembles Christianity, but should respect it and appreciate that Canada a Christian rooted country has offered him a safe country free from discrimination and prosecution.
1) I think that churches should express their views on political matters. The Church in Canada is run by Canadian citizens and should therefore be able to voice their opinions, regardless of the motives that formed those opinions. Whether or not the government decides to listen to those opinions is their prerogative. As for the poll, I'm not too surprised. America is a bit less secular in it's political practices than Canada. America has a large Christian population, and the majority of the people who said that Churches should express political opinions probably live in the Bible Belt. I don't think the results would be the same in Canada. Canadians are so careful not to offend anyone that when a religious person expresses their opinion on a political issue, everyone else jumps down their throat. For a country that, up until about 50 years ago, was predominantly Christian, Canada has gone drastically in the other direction. On the issue of same-sex marriage, the Church was realistic to think it had some influence over Catholic politicians. I don't think it's possible for religious politicians to "check their faith at the door" and become completely secular. If they are practicing Christians, their political beliefs are in some way influenced by the morals and values of their faith. It's impossible to separate themselves from it. If a politician goes against the Church, the Church has every right to excommunicate them. If a politician goes against the teachings of their own faith, they shouldn't be allowed to declare themselves as belonging to that faith. It makes a mockery of the people who actually do follow the teachings of the faith.
2) Father Mario's presentation was interesting. The comment about Family Guy being a Satanic show was hilarious. For a priest, he has some pretty radical views, but he is being realistic, and they do make sense. Society has become too secular, and it has had a very negative impact. We live in a society where there are no rules, and we can live as scandalously as we want. There is no honour or modesty in people these days, which has lead to widespread moral decay. I agree with Father Mario that there has to be a balance of religion and secularism. The thing I kind of had a problem with was when he said that parents these days are stupid and don't know how to parent. Everyone has the right to raise there kids however they want. If they screw up, it's their problem and they have to deal with their failures. Ultimately, what I think Father Mario was trying to tell us is to be objective and not so gullible as to buy into all the vices of society.
3) I do agree with the "practical suggestions" mentioned in the article. If a politician is a practicing Catholic, isn't it right for the Church to assume that that politician agrees with and abides by the Church's teachings on the sanctity of life? Why should a bishop be forced to publicly associate with a politician he doesn't agree with, or who has turned his/her back on the moral teachings of their faith. If that politician goes against the moral and fundamental teachings of the faith they claim to believe in, they shouldn't be a part of that faith anymore. Period. No one is forcing them to do anything , it's their personal choice and they must deal with the consequences. Going back to what I said in #1, allowing a politician to continue to declare themselves a member of a religion, and then have them publicly abandon their religious morals makes a mockery of the people who do defend their moral beliefs.
4) Response to Christina's post.
I agree with her that most of what Father Mario said was sadly true, but that society is changing very much, and Church and the Ten Commandments have become impractical. However, I strongly disagree with her views on the "practical suggestions". The Church's idea to shun certain politicians may in some way contradict their teachings, but allowing those politicians to remain full members of the Church would be an even greater hypocrisy. By shunning politicians who vote in favour of abortion, for example, The Church is actually standing up for their belief that life begins at conception and is sacred. If we are all children of God and should embrace each other, then we should not kill our fellow human beings, especially with something as disturbing and grisly as partial-birth abortion.
-Martina Vlasic
By looking at these results in 2003 that people voted 52 % based on the church should express their political views, it is pointless. Consider the separation of the church and state, they become so independent that the state views the church to be a joke compared to the old days where the church was the law. All they expressed was people should be praising the lord and if they do not, should be ex-communicated. Society lives in a generation where, religion is considered false and people are better without it due to many reasons. I mean look at the world, people are constantly battling each other with the misinterpretations of religion thus increasing the jobs for gravediggers. Besides the catholic faith being attacked by other faiths in Canada, the multiculturalism will begin to fall if political views are taken into consideration once more. People already have trouble just attending to church rather than listening to a preacher giving a lecture based on a book full of deception. In addition, if they were granted power to express their views in politics, the only view that will be looked upon is Christianity, since most of our laws are based on Judeo-Christian morals. This will divide Canada’s nation because with the acceptance of all religions, and the fact that most faiths will fight one another since they believe their religion morals are “real”. Now with the example of the Canadian government passing the bill of the same-sex marriage attracted the church to step in. The church argues that homosexual couples should not be married since the code of God, is to love the “opposite sex”. Canada does not seem to care, since all their culture is accepting of all practices including, same-sex marriages. Through the perspective of a politician, their job is to satisfy the needs of its people, rather than fulfill their own desires. The church only views their society through a biblical sense instead of viewing the economic problems that are at our doorstep. The church is unrealistic when it comes to influence the Christian politicians because the nation’s rights come first, than that of a religion. Even if these politicians are elected, their faith would not matter, since their secular view already generates the modern makeup of Canada being diverse. If these Christian politicians were true to their faith, this nation would have rejected many of its constitutional law which is multiculturalism.
First off, that priest is a man who knows what he is preaching about when it comes between politics and religion. Even though the priest does bring some good points about society falling off from religion and its biggest fear, however his views on western society being “Satan”, is truly inaccurate. As far as admitting that he had explained why over time that the church had fallen; that much is true, yet explaining how humanity is sinned by our government is a little extreme. The generation society lives in, does not care much about its faith because of the suffering that people face already. If this entity called “God” is real, why hasn’t this being saved humanity from its own destruction or smite people for their sins? Honestly all I see is a lie by this priest and his preaching that people are sinned. This man speaks humanity being corrupt, so is the church, since it is a council that was created in the image of not in God but man itself. God’s message was expressed through mouth, and with that mind, people could had twisted those words, and form it in a way that religion should be dominate over people, and control our life. The priest mentions when people go off to war to fight for those who carry weakness, they kill for the reason of not God but the satisfaction to commit murder. The Ten Commandments were mere guidelines, developed by an old man who wanted people to worship a monotheistic god instead of the polytheistic. The government allows secular shows to be broadcasted because the idea of religion is falling, it is shown throughout the streets, just visit the streets where God is not known to the poor. Society is ever-changing as much as is time. Even science has proven most facts that the religious stories are mere myths, people only accept the appearance rather than the reality which is what the government displays. The government has full right to display their message to be secular because, people watch the television since most of our world is notified in case of any chaos. When he mentioned about abortion how evil it was, and if any Christian women should do it, should be ex-communicated, I disagree. As Liana or Nick had said “we have a choice”, that much is true since women have the choice to have an abortion or not. Consider the fact that abortion has its door open for the reason if women do not wish to have a baby for any reason such as rape, or a mistake in the bedroom. As much as anyone would love to debate on this issue, the fetus does not have a life until it has fully grown its human functions and brought out of the women’s womb. In addition I also disagree with the priest’s lecture of how he addressed most people to be “weak”. He has not considered that people choose to be weak rather than be strong to withstand these “satantic” temptations he spoke of. People always had the choice to be strong or not because we run our lives in the way we want, not according to these religions. If people were weak in general, how would people judge one another without values/morals? I mean humanity has the common sense to do right or wrong based on their perspective of life. Without the choice to make these moral decisions, humanity would be unrealistic in terms of good/bad instead of being challenged to judge right and wrong. Even though I disagree with most of what the priest had to say, I believe this priest needs a vacation instead of dealing with the personal issues of abortion and teenagers being exposed to drugs. He only feels that humanity is Satan’s main street because of all the downfalls he had experienced in his life.
With the submission of the article called “Practical Suggestions” should be dropped as of now. These bishops, who wish to shun political officials for not following their catholic policy, may go ahead and do that personally, but not publicly because the bishops who feel obligated to do so are being hypocrites to their faith. I remember that the church taught their children to forgive and accept all sins, however the practice of forgiving has been lost. The bishops role is not shun other’s view on abortion, since everyone has different values. If the bishops do not follow according to a person’s view, it is their time to shine and explain why their perspective of that value is wrong instead of to ex-communicate them. This only shows that these priests are ignorant to reason and will reason with people who obey their own religion. If these bishops were true to their word, they should read the bible again, they are taught to be accepting all of God’s children and try to help them instead to leave them on the street left to rot. These political officials only speak of supporting abortion or any other value, due to the fact they are representing the people who wants to have a government with their shared values. At this moment in time politicians should not take the blame of being shunned, since they support the values of not themselves but the people. The people, who should be questioned, are those bishops who want to “shun”, since their values of Christianity seems to contradict their own values of politics.
RESPONSE: TO ANNA
I’m going to have to agree with Anna’s posting on the “weak. With the fact of the weak, Anna is right in everyway about humanity having the choice to commit decisions despite if the intention is either good or bad. Without the thought to commit these acts, humanity would be considered lifeless, without the challenges to be tempted to do wrong or good. The priest stated that when men who go to war they are forgiven by the church to do wrong, similar to the saying “in order to do good, one must commit acts of evil”. The priest is contradicting himself, since the law clearly states “thou shall not kill” meaning should not kill at all. Even if the Vatican approves men to kill for the intent of war, it’s still taking the life of another and only shows that man is able to twist their rules. Through my perspective I believe the weak is the faith itself, since most of the theories are becoming irrelevant and will be looked upon such as myth, in our future generations. Look in the history of our past, the Greeks, and Romans believed in polytheistic gods, which represented many of their values. Even though their culture and religion has been non-existent for centuries, today by learning their lost culture we see it to be a myth. In conclusion, the faith should be reconsidered to the fact if their rules are actually valid today, since many of our beliefs are ever-changing as time.
Sorry comment above was done by John Schokman.
1) Church and politics should be limited in ruling, in the sense that one should not have control over another. The Church should defiantly play some role in influencing politics and Canadian culture but it should be minimal. In the past it seems that the church has played both positive and negative parts in the upbringing of society. Our current laws are in favour of the church for they represent the 10 commandments. They were implicated during a time where the Catholic Church was extremely powerful, and seemed to have reasonable ethics. Although, much has changed regarding the rights of woman, children, minority etc they seem to be efficient. One the negative aspects religion has caused for society is the fact that they seem to manipulate their power. In the past and in today’s societies, countries that had their politics governed by religion seemed to be unjust to many. For example, paying fees to get into heaven or countries such as Iran where men abuse their wives if they do not follow in what they say. Everyone should have the right to their freedom, God created us with minds so that we can make choices for ourselves. When we follow what the laws a religion implicates upon us we do not have freedom of mind, so are we not going against what God made us to be? People should have a choice in what they want to be represented by, but should also take in account what is moral. Religion should only play a part in society by encouraging good over evil but it should not dictate on should be considered normal. The poll that was taken regarding on whether the church should play a large role in society seems as if it represents the North American culture very well. Many still believe in the fact that religion should play a role on society but there is also a large amount who do no. The 52% which represents the population who believe it should it the majority which is accurate in the sense that Canada promotes religion ( Catholic schools). There are many who are not entirely religious but still believe in some of the Catholic morals. They may go against some of the things the church believes in but like how they bring a sense of order.
Politicians of the Catholic faith, who are elected to lead, are highly looked upon by the Country. Seeing as Canada is very multi diverse there are many of different religions who want their needs met. No one should be discriminated against because of what they believe in so anyone of any culture should be elected if they are deemed worthy, but they have to put forth what is best for the country. A political leader can not view those who do not believe in what they do as sinners. They must be open minded and accept everyone and what choose to believe. They church was not realistic in the sense that they could influence a catholic leaders standing. A leader should not value what they church wants over what they country needs. It is wrong for the church to act as they did because it goes against their own beliefs. God wants everyone to be forgiven and to accept all of his creations. In the example of gay marriage, the church should not act ad they did. Homosexuals are a creation of God as well so they are generally good, they should embrace the fact that they are happy with someone of the same gender.
2) Father Mario’s presentation was an eye opener in the sense that I did not realize how influenced we are by our entertainment. He brought forth some ideas suggesting that the evil resides in our everyday actions and that we are naïve. The Father, related specifically to how parents do not watch what their children see and in a sense encourage them to stray from the Catholic faith. He expressed his concern with how as a society we are drifting from religion. Father Mario wanted for religion to play a larger role in our society and thought that the more freedom we has the more we would stray. I agree, with the fact that we will stray more from religion with rights but it should be allowed. No one should be told what to think about religion and life especially in a country where there are freedoms that promote us to say what we think. It is wrong for a parent to not watch over what their child it watching on TV, but that is something that should be dealt with in a different manner. The church has done so much wrong in the past, I do not understand how they can tell or teach the rest of the society, what is right. The government should deal with inappropriate things such as that the episode of Family Guy which Father Mario used as an example. I did not agree with Father Mario, in the sense that he did no take into consideration those who are not of the catholic faith. Why should one particular religion be in charge of such a cultured country, it is not fair.
3) The “Practical suggestions”, in the article are biased for they do not take the fact the political leaders need are in power to help all of people in a country. Even though those of the Catholic faith may hold a majority of some other beliefs, they should not only promote laws that abide by that faith. A person of the Catholic faith does not have to agree with all every aspect of a religion. They also have the right to believe in anything that they like. By shunning them from church of society, Catholic leaders are acting unruly. They should accept everyone and everything; this applies to those who they oppose as well. Forgiveness is fundamentally on of the basic blocks of a the Catholic faith. By no forgiving someone who a law they have made or allowed leaders of that religion are going against what they believe. They are doing exactly what they politicians are doing, but are judging their actions. Abortion, which was used in the article is the right of the woman carrying the baby. It is not up too her faith to decide what would be best for her, although it is ethically wrong to commit a partial birth abortion it is her right.
4) I agree with Christina and Anna, with the fact about censorship. People have every right to be notified on what is happening in the world. If television shoes represent something unethically that happened in the past, the producers should have a right to show it. There are ratings that appear when every program starts, a parent should take better responsibility of their children and block those programs themselves. They also have every opportunity to change what they are watching to something else.
I do not agree with Martina, in her views on the “practical suggestions”. The political leader needs to do what is best for the country, they should take into account their faith but need to see the views of others. The church does not have the best past, why should they have so much power. No one is perfect, and yes partial birth abortion is wrong but shunning a person is wrong as well.
1. The church has the right to voice their beliefs in political matters. The church was being very realistic when they thought they could influence, at the very least, the Christian politicians; i belive this because, the job of the church is to reinforce and remind people of what the rules and regulations are. When the church decided to speak against abortion and same sex marriage, that was their way of fulfilling their duty, they are there to remind people what the Catholic church i sall about, and that is simply what they were doing.
In Canada, it is very important that church and state remain seperate due to the multiculturalism and many religions. Therefore, before one is elected, they must take into consideration what their beliefs are and how these beliefs co-exist with their religion.
For example: a Catholic politian, according to his faith, must be Pro-Life and vote against pro-choice. However, in relation to same-sex marriages, he believes that everyone has right to marry whom they choose. At this point the church needs to realize which issue is of more importance, and i think that would be the Pro-Life movement. Therefore, in Canada, checking religion at the door, may be a good idea, because in the end politicians must decide what is good for the people of a nation, not simply what is good for the church. Due to all the multiculturalism, listening soley to the Catholic churches, would cause uproar in Canada.
2. Father Mario was an interesting priest, with-what i belive to be- many obscure views on society. The fact that he is so involved in politics is a good thing. He allows himself to be connected to the media and events around him, because he realizes that they will one day affect him as well.
I very much agreed when Father Mario bluntly stated that Canada is a "eh, whatever" country. The fact that he has realized this, proves him to be very intelligent. In addition, he said that the devil presents himself through the government, the internet, and also t.v shows. This may be true, because the devil has always tried to attract people when they are doing what they believe is innocent, such as simply watching t.v. However, when he spoke of censorship, i disagreed in every way. The reality is, the devil is everywhere, it is all around us. Yes, the strong are able to see this and the weak, obviously, can not. However, things like pornography, and "strange" t.v shows do not have the power to weaken someone. These things will always be around, because they always have, and it is the job of the strong, NOT THE GOVERNMENT, to censor viewing, for example, parents. My parents did a great job censoring what they believed i shouldn't have been watching at eight years-and i thank them for that. While my brother, who is twelve years older was allowed to watch the Simpsons, for example, because he was old enough to know right from wrong, and simply enjoy the show. Therefore, i must admit, Father Mario did not make my list of top ten favourites, but i appreciated that he knew so much of his surroundings and was able to answer questions because he, too, is strong enough to know where his morals stand.
3) I disagree with these suggestions for the exact reasons Christina and Anna stated. Churches should not be allowed to ostracize a politician, because they are doing what they belive to be good for the people. The church can not possibly believe that all members of the Catholic church, for example, will conform to EVERY policy and belief. As Christina said, we can't base laws on Chriastianity, because, contrary to popular belief, we ARE NOT a Christian country...or at least not anymore. There are far too many different people with different faiths that live in Canada, meaning that we can not possibly accomodate every single belief because then we will be contradicting ourselves. I think that church and state need to remain separate, however churches(collective, including all faiths) should be able to voice their opinions with the issues present. This is so that the politicians can be reminded of where they stand and therefore make a proper decision, all things considered, so that the best decision can be made for the people in a country.
In addition, I very much agree to what Anna said about censorship, because no matter what, "religious conformity" issues will still exist regardless of what is on t.v.
I disagree with Martina when she says that a bishop has the right to "shun" a politician, because the Christian faiths teach that everyone goes to heaven regardless of their beliefs.
-Liana Angelucci.
1) The church is obviously entitled to its opinion on any aspects of society which they deem to be evil or misguiding, however I believe the church’s time has passed for it to institute its moral values within the political systems of secular society. The church and state have been separated in the majority of democratic countries around the world because of the growing amounts of people who choose to remain non-believing due to one reason or another and choose to live a life as humans rather than Christians or Jews. Society has separated religion from politics due to the obvious issues of corruption and discrimination that have arisen as a result of a Church run government in the past as well as the right to human freedoms. During previous church rule of state, non-believers were given a choice to convert or die, which as I recall is, a transgression of the Ten Commandments along with countless other actions deemed to be historically accurate. This new stage of human evolution in the West is at a point where religion will be left to the religious. Instead of teaching god-fearing values and rewards based on the following of moral teachings and rules, humanity will hopefully, within itself, achieve an understanding of right from wrong without the interference of the church whose goal in the past was to act as a medium to keep our animal instincts under control and our morals strong. On the topic of Catholic politicians, I believe it is within the individual to determine if he/she believes something is morally right or morally wrong from a logical standpoint. If a politician is Catholic and decides against church values or moral teachings, it is up to the church to deal with them as they may, but this should be done in private with no forms of humiliation. The choice of belonging to a religious sect is that of the individual and should not be translated to the political system as it is their obligation within secular society to appease as many people as possible in accordance to the human condition. In the end I do not believe that political individuals should be condemned for allowing something such as partial birth abortion because it is up to the conscience of the individual to choose whether or not to snap an infant’s neck as it comes into this world full of life. I believe that consequence for fulfilling such actions is a permanent stain on your conscience that individuals will have to live with forever. Rather than ban certain concepts such as this type of abortion, society should be educated with the facts and if they choose to do so, then so be it. Everyone knows that all revolutions and extraordinary people doing extraordinary things arise from oppression or a lack of morals within governance. If society reaches a point where things are purely evil and immoral, there will as always rise an individual or groups of individuals that guide us back to a path of righteous living where morals thrive. Everyone learns from their mistakes and it just takes time to realize a mistake.
2) As Father Mario addressed the issues within our society and focused on the evil of choice, it was clear that he knew what he was talking about. At this moment time there is much evil in our society with all the different types of explicit humour and outrageous pornography to name a few. Morals have dwindled in a large fraction of society, but I believe the church is not the only way to retrieve those morals. There are many people in society that remain atheist or agnostic, but still have a good set of moral values which they live by; some of which have even better morals then many Catholics as their morality reaches to include animals and the earth, which is our ultimate source of life that has been abused time and time again. Father Mario is by all means right in addressing all the evils that were mentioned and showing proof of reasons for these evils. The concept of choice that was frequently embarked upon by Father Mario did have its roots in truth, but I believe the reason that too much choice is evil at this stage of humanity, is only due to our selfish human nature and our thriving for more of what we can’t have and expecting it to fulfill us. We do not have too much choice if we are choosing on behalf of humanity as a whole and not on behalf of our own selfish desires. What can possibly teach you to refrain from greed and constant personal gain? I know that the church does not have the answers to this unless they are based in fear or a topic of hell. I will comment no further.
3) The practical suggestions found in the article ARE orthodox. If you choose to be Catholic, enjoy facing the consequences. However, those consequences should be found in your conscience and in the private opinions of your religious superiors (priests and bishops). If you willingly belong to a religion/institution such as Catholicism and go against their moral teachings, then feel the consequences and try to hold true to the morals that you believe in. As politicians have the choice to advocate abortion and euthanasia, the church and all other moral beings (Do not assume church composes of all moral beings) have the right to advocate against it. As I stated earlier, it is up to the individual if he/she wants to perform any immoral actions and the way I see it is we are still in sight of progressing positively in society even with these immoral speed bumps along the way.
4) I have to agree with Anna and Christina when they say censorship is not a responsibility of the governing body, but rather of the parent and the individual. Everything in this world comes down to the individual and how they want to be treated/treat others. Decisions to take a serious approach to vile media and use it as a source of education, remains the choice of the individual and they will suffer when they realize that the world does not work in such an evil and negligent way. The reason we create laws is to rid society of the individuals that do not know how to live morally or to teach them otherwise. There are obvious bends in this concept such as partial birth abortion and euthanasia, but as these concepts live as a CHOICE, I believe when people see the heredity of these choices, the majority will CHOOSE otherwise. Or so we can hope.
If I have much hope for humanity, am I an idealist or a realist? (Don’t answer that. Just a brain fart/ass thought)
1) I believe that churches should be allowed to express their views on political matters just as anyone should be allowed. In Canada, we have the right to speech guaranteed under section 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. There is no reason why the church should not raise their views on different topics, just as anyone else should not be refused to state their views. Any one in this country should be allowed to express their views on political issues whether or not their views are realistic. If the poll was taken in Canada rather than the US, the outcome would be different. I think that the portion of the chart that says churches should not state their views would be much higher than the portion that says that they should. This is because Canada is a multi-religious and multi-cultural society and unless their religious views are voiced, the church should stay quiet and stay out of political issues. Also, in this multi-cultural country there are many people who are not religious and don't believe that politics should be influenced buy a religious organization. I also think that the "Don't Know" portion would be increased quiet a bit. This is because I think a lot of Canadians are on the fence with this question. In one aspect, I think they believe the church has the right to say what they want, and on the other hand that the church should not get involved with politics. I think that the Church was not realistic to believe that it could influence the actions at least of Catholic politicians because the job of politicians is to appeal to the majority of voters. Politicians take their job very seriously, and in many aspects, are more important than their religious views. Politicians are required to appeal to the public, and also continue to guarantee equality through the nation. By allowing the same-sex marriage law to pass, the politicians create equality to people guaranteed by the Chart under section 15. The church was very unrealistic that the politicians would change their political views to incorporate their faith views when they go against the diverse religions in Canada. I do not believe that once a politician in Canada is elected that they actually "check their faith at the door and replace it with secular views". I believe that they put aside their religious views while at work, to be unbiased and make decision that benefits the greater good of the country. Once at home, and they are not being a politician, their religious views are part of their life. In essence, I believe their faith is part of their life, just not the center of their life.
2) I found that Father Mario's presentation was very interesting. He made very bold statement multiple times and was not shy about expressing his views on various topics. I was not surprised by the fact that most of his views were strictly religious and against other secular views. Some of the thinks that I had trouble with into eh presentation was when he implied that all abortion is wrong, and all same-sex marriage is wrong. I understand that for a religious stand point it is, but I believe if a person is not catholic, or at all religious for that matter, that they should be able to do what they believe in. Sometimes I felt that he was implying that the views of the Catholic Church were the only "right views" and all other views are considered wrong. I believe that church and state can exist separately and still be both valued at the same time. Many times I felt that it was wrong for him criticizing other people’s views that were none religious, since the Catholic Church is far from perfect themselves. I find that it is a bit hypocritical. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone". Basically do not criticize others way of life if yours is not perfect as well. If the western world is so corrupt and troubled, and the catholic faith is the way to go, then create your own society and let the religious views govern the country and do not point at fingers to people who do not agree with your beliefs. Every one is entitled in their on views and their is no right or wrong answer, they are just beliefs. The Catholic Church was not always there to defend the weak, actually the weak was picked on a lot in the dark ages during the corruption of the Church. The poor became poorer by selling their land because the church stated that by doing so, they will be allowed into heaven. I do agree with Father Mario's statements on the problems in western society. I do agree with him that people are becoming less religious and that there are many downfalls and problems in the western secular society. Through he failed to mentions the problems in the catholic faith. Ultimately I believe that Father Mario was trying to make the point that church and state can not co-exist peacefully and that people are shying away form religion.
3) I believe that the "practical suggestions" go against the teachings of God. Jesus said to love your enemies, and treat everyone equally. Jesus also said to love those and care for those who do not believe even more. Teachings of the Catholic Church are all about forgiving and accepting, thus the "practical suggestions" seem unethical in accordance with the catholic views. With these “practical suggestions", the catholic church is setting a precedence that it is okay for anyone to completely shun someone out of their life because their views do not match on a certain topic. Jesus said to always turn the other cheek, not to slap someone back. Two wrongs do not make a right. Instead the Bishop's should be the bigger persons in this situation and be forgiving and accepting of these politicians.
4) In response to Christina’s posting, I find many of her points very valid. The example that Christianity teaches that sex before marriage is wrong, but in today’s world, most people tend not to get married until very late and concept of no sex before marriage was developed by the church in early times, when people got married at extremely young ages, and therefore there was not even opportunity for pre-marital sex. I never thought of this situation in this way, and I see that it makes a valid point, because being marred at the age of fourteen the old times is equivalent to teenagers having sex at this time. Overall, teens are not having sex younger, it is basically the same age as always, except for the "married" part of it. I also highly agree with her point about censorship and that we should not ignore these things that are "evil" instead we should view it because it can make us mentally stronger as people.
1. Yes OF COURSE CHURCHES SHOULD EXPRESS THEIR VIEWS ON POLITICAL MATTERS! There is a difference between making a law and expressing views. I do not see any harm in the church expressing views because it is for the societies benefit. The church did make mistakes and that is what people are considering but look at our politicians. Are they not hypocrites and liars! We need the church to stand up and express vies because honestly, CANADIANS ARE TOO LAZY TO DO SO THEMSELVES! Are our elections at all like the American election? NOT AT ALL. Many Canadians do not care today which is a sad reality and I think if the church expresses their views, it can have an overall affect (for the better) on Canada. Just because I am religious does not mean that I feel the Church should only be able to express their views. Other religions should also and maybe one day all Canadians will actually care about what is going on in society. I feel that we are just letting the government do whatever they want and even if it is bad, we couldn’t care less. I honestly wouldn’t be surprised if this country became Communist. Slowly, I feel that it is beginning to and not many people are doing anything about it! If I go on, I will go out of topic so I will end with this: everyone has rights to freedom of speech right (it is stated in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms)? Yes, and that means the Church or the people in the Church have ABSOLUTLY EVERY RIGHT TO SAY WHAT THEY NEED TO SAY. Will it affect society? Yes but so do politicians and do we listen to these freaks? Unfortunately we do. That is all I have to say about this because it is ridiculous how it is a big deal if the church expresses views about political culture. People today think the church is corrupt but it is not at all. Instead, many people are dumb and take the advice of politicians. It’s fine if half are tax money is going to the people in the government but when the church expresses there views, IT’S LIKE THE WORLD IS GOING TO END! Unbelievable!
2. I really enjoyed Father Mario’s presentation and I agreed fully with what he had to say. I have been to the Church Father Mario is at and I have to say, he is one brave priest to talk about the things he talks about! I really like the fact that he clarified the whole watching The Simpson’s thing because I remember when I was at St. Wilfred’s, (back in the day, I was probably 7 or 8) he talked about not watching The Simpson’s. Since that day, my parents didn’t let me watch The Simpson’s and I never understood why. When he came to talk to us today, not only did I realize he was the priest of the church I used to go to but also, he answered, my question about The Simpson’s. I know it seems stupid, but I was so curious ever since his homily that day about why The Simpson’s were so bad. Honestly, I did not have any trouble with anything that he said because I understood where he was coming from. I go to retreats a lot and I know that every word that he said that day is ABSOLUTLY 100 PERCENT true because I have heard it all before. The main point that I agreed most with Father Mario was the fact that parents and many religion teachers are hypocrites. Many parents don’t raise their children in the Christian practice, why do think so many children today are atheist? Also, many religion teachers REALLY PISS ME OFF! They are supposed to guide kids in the religious faith but what do most of them do ABSOLUTLY NOTHING! Forget religion teachers, even some other teachers of different subject’s state that there is no God. I know from experience because my teacher did! It is so sad how I didn’t even learn the Ten Commandments from school. Imagine the generations to come. I wouldn’t be surprised if he whole Christian faith would be gone in the next hundred years from now, the way we are going. That is exactly why after I get my job, I will protest against hypocrite teachers! I’m not even joking, someone needs to! If a teacher does not believe in god, they should not be in a catholic school and DEFINATLLY not be a religion teacher. Ultimately, I think he was trying to tell us how what the world is evolving into. He is right, the Devil is extremely smart and we need to outsmart him or else the world is going to end up being a very horrible place.
3. Yes I totally agree with the “Practical Suggestions being made”. “The shunning of pro-choice politicians would vividly remind ordinary lay Catholics of the seriousness of the Church’s teachings regarding the sanctity of human life and would send the clear message that Catholics and other Christians who serve the “culture of death” are tragically weakening their relationship with Christ and alienating themselves from the community of Christian faith.” THIS IS TRUE AND MUST BE DONE! How can the church not shun these hypocrite, low life, fake, loser pro-choice politicians; killing the life of a PERSON and DISOBEYING THE SIXTH COMMANDMENT! I bet you that some politicians have these abortions because they commit adultery with another politician! Some of our politicians are sluts for goodness sakes!
4. I feel that all the people who posted are so wrong except for Martina. Especially John! You are so wrong man. I am going to be brutally honest so bare with me. To everyone else, if the church does not stand up for these HUMAN BEINGS OR HUMAN LIVES who will! WHO WILL! Yes, the Church is not a hypocrite John! Have you looked at the politicians in the world? Bill Clinton for instance: “no I did not get a blow job and I have to make sure there is abortion for every women politician that I have sex with!” So don’t always criticize the church because all they are trying to do is help us grow in peace. Do you honestly have the facts straight, do you have proof that the Church is a hypocrite because CLEARLY YOU OBVIOUSLY DO NOT. Yes, the church has made mistakes but are humans perfect, NO. But NO we have to always put the church at fault WHEN IT IS THE GOVERNMENT WHO IS RUNNING THE COUNTRY FOR GOODNESS SAKES. Back to everyone else’s posts, the Church has to be harsh with these politicians because nobody else will. It is like a child, who does something bad. If the mother or father are not harsh with them will they learn their lesson NO! That’s all I have to say.
1.) I personally believe that both church and state should both be kept seperate because when you put the two ideolgies together they create conflict. I also think that if the results were based on candadian citizens that it would have been that more people belived that church and state should be sperate.This is because Canadians are known to not get religion invovled in certain issues because they want to be "fair". The church was not realistic in believing that they could influence the ations of atleast Catholic Politicians because Politics changes the way that people think, once a person get involed in politics they become people who will do anything or say anything in order to get that extra vote. This also means that they become hipocrites always making promises that they never full fill.If the majority of the polticians voters want same-sex marriage then that politican with put his or hers personal views aside and will follow the way of the voters. Once elected politicans do leave their faith at the door and replace it with secular views because politicans main goal is to please their voters while campainging.
2.)My reaction to father Marios presentation was that i was blown away by the things that he was saying which were all true things. I fully agreed with him with everything that he said about how the devil uses media to brainwash humanbeings. I personally think that father Marios point was that in society there will always be evil and good and we have to make the desicion on which path we feel is the right one. He also said that we should not mix both religion and politics becasue it then creates an unnecessary conflict.
3.) I agree with the "partial suggestions" made in the article the Catholic faith has been in the world for thousands of years and has stayed the same for ovbious reasons. A bishop should not have to allow a politican back into their church because that politican has turned their back on their faith with agreeing with partial abortion. If you are Catholic you should agree with majority of the churches beliefs. If you do not agree then you can leave the catholic faith since no one is forcing you to. There is no such thing as being "partically catholic".
4.) I fully agree with martina on the article comment because you cant not agree with the teachings or morals of the church and then claim that you are a catholic, to me i think that is a slap in the face to god and to the church. Im not saying that the church is perfect but there are certain things that they have that should be kept the same. i.e. abortion views.
1) Judging by the survey I believe that the church like anyone else has the right to express their opinions on political matters. After all free speech is a right protected by the charter of rights and freedoms. But however, the church cannot expect for politicians to input the teachings of the church in lawmaking and agree with the church’s opinions. After all, despite what it was before, politics is now essentially a secular business. It is aimed towards what is the “best” or “right” for everyone not just for those of the Christian faith. This is why separation of church and state is necessary because society is constantly evolving with changing ideals and politics reflects those changing ideals whereas the church remains rigid in its position. Thus there will always be conflict between the church and the state since the two are fundamentally different entities, one preaching free choice and free will and another bent on preserving the traditions of the past.
If this survey was taken in Canada, I expect that there would be a dramatic difference in the results. In Canada, the public would lean more towards the idea that the church should not have a say in political matters. This is because Canada is much more secularized than the United States which preserves its religious identity to a greater extent with the Bible belt, the Republican Party and all that “God Bless America.” Also, let’s not forget that the church in America is a major lobby group and in America, politicians to support the ideas of the church can be easily bought. Another difference is that Canada is a country that respects multiculturalism and the fact that everyone is free to practice whatsoever religion and thus does not impose the Christian religion on its population. In terms of politicians “checking their faith at the door,” I am not opposed to this matter because politics is secular, designed for the common good and thus politicians should not have a religious bias affecting their duty in representing the needs of the public.
2) Personally, I found Father Mario’s presentation entertaining but nonetheless something to be taken with a grain of salt because after all he is a priest and has his own take on the relationship between the church and the state. I did not agree with him when he constantly alluded to the fact that society is the devil since everything has become so secularized. Father Mario believed that this outright secularization was wrong because it is leading those who are weak closer to Satan because secularization exposes them to immorality. However the freedom to choose is available to everyone and blurs what is exactly weakness because a person can be as moral as they like. Secularization is essentially good because it allows individual thought unlike the church that has historically been known for telling people what to believe. In society you have the ability to examine everything objectively and ultimately decide for yourself what to do and think. Free will allows people to open their minds and develop a belief system that is not centered on religion since values can be developed outside the church.
3) The practical suggestions made in this article say that a politician who supports abortion and other anti-life policies and remains in the church should be excommunicated and denied all the church sacraments. Of course, a bishop is free to do this because the politician in question is failing in his mandate to uphold the values of the church and according to the church faith comes before everything else. However, the church shunning a politician and publicly speaking about the politician’s transgression and making them out to be the antichrist is a very backward way of thought. It only shows that the church is afraid of losing its authority since its teachings are now being questioned and challenged. If the church was truly as accepting of everyone as it preaches to be than it would allow the politician to obtain penance for their transgression instead of turning its back on them for siding with their party on pro-choice initiatives.
Response:
I agree with Anna in terms of the censorship issue when she states that the government cannot be held responsible when someone takes something too seriously. Everything depends on the individual themselves and if they are weak, there should be someone to guide them on the right path (e.g. parents, teachers etc). Banning something when it cannot be interpreted objectively is not the answer because you are depriving the ones who can think objectively. However I disagree with Martina when she says that allowing a person who goes against their faith’s teachings is making a mockery out of the people that follow that faith. The church prides itself on community and acceptance and publicly humiliating someone when they make a wrong choice by shunning them is what makes a true mockery. Forgiveness is supposed to be available to all. In politics party allegiances are very important and one feels pressured to conform when being under that kind of public scrutiny. Sure following your faith is important but so is siding with your party when trusted to do so. Priests should be compassionate and attempt to understand the circumstances behind that person’s decision because after all no one is capable of always making the right decisions. After all, adultery was a grave sin but Jesus did not stone the woman, instead he allowed her to obtain penance and that is what priests should do in this matter, following in Jesus’ example.
Ready
Steady
1. I believe that a politician should leave their religion at the door because politician needs to be reasonable and fair not to one group in society, but to all and respect the wishes of the people. The have a duty to serve the state, there duties should not infringe on the right of the people just because of a belief. That would not be a true democracy.
If religion did have say in politics and impacted the Canadian society,which is multicultural, and supports freedom of religion.
We, my classmates would have a very big issue on our hands.
Like what religion should have a say, or which say is the correct say.
To prove my point Israel and Palestine have been fighting religious battles for at least hundreds of years. The fighting for Jerusalem has been going on for thousands.
What have we gained from all this? Nothing but problems and bloodshed.
There was a time where Roman Catholic Church was a huge player in a political system. Ironically the period of time was called the dark ages.
In Canada itself, our issue is with government funded religious schools obviously this isn’t fair, and is unjust to the people. The government two options are to support and fund all schools for all religions or all schools are public. I support that all Canadian schools should be public.
I truly believe a nation or country that has a church's voice in their political system is on a road to ruin. In Canadian I hope that politicians that are religious leave it at the door. For the equality and the betterment of the Canadian people.
2. I am of the belief that father Mario danced around all questions and tried to sell us the idea that religion is the saving grace and that there trying to save you from the devil. I found many, many flaws in his beliefs and statements.
I) Family Guy, The Simpsons and South Park are the devil and that they portray disturbing scenes such as a dog having sex with a human. I’m not saying that they don’t. What I am stating is that they also show religious aspects and morals as well.
For example one episode of the Simpsons, Bart’s girlfriend at the time stole all the money in the church’s donation box, Bart came out and said “Even I know that stealing from the church is wrong”. He showed morality. Father Mario doesn’t either see A. there are two sides to every coin, there is bad and good. Or B. Father I’m sorry to say this but you have issues when it comes to humor. This is not meant for the devil to steal your soul. No this is a form of entertainment; it pokes fun at world issues and brings them to public attention by jesting at it. If you’re saying that making a joke at something is satanic, then there is something wrong.
II.) It’s true that we’re living in a time and age today where Society is not suggesting freedom of religion but freedom from religion. Father Mario knows as well I do that that the church had its chance and did run the show, and that system was just as corrupt. Surely the father agrees that that the religious oligarchy which currently rule a few nations. Ex. Iran. Are corrupt and infringe on women’s rights and its justice is not religious but being manipulated through religious means? So I say that this system is not as corrupted as the church’s was. Father Mario, I Also noticed, never mentioned how we could integrate both religion and society. He just solely focused that society is the devil and religious was good and great.
III.) Father Mario was correct that this society is about choice more than the rules of the church, where father Mario said Christians and society should follow the Ten Commandments. I don’t Disagree, but however the ten commandments are statements, and if we take them as laws there rigid and should have no exception. In that regard tell me father, where is the specific commandment where you cannot be gay? I want to know the reason why there can’t same-sex marriage? If the father says cases Jesus or god say that marriage is between a man and a wife. That’s illogical, because he never said that a man and a man is ok too. It’s appealing to ignorance. The church makes the assumption that it must be bad. The very same goes with the definition.
Father Mario is an uptight church radical, reminding of the church psychos where every word is the truth. I can’t find any logical sense to it. Choice was as apparent back then as it now. Judas chose to sell Jesus out. Jesus chose to walk straight to the cross. Choice has been given to us, and we have a choice to everything we do. Choices do have their consequence, that’s a fact. One person’s choice could affect millions of people however, I belief that choice is essential and that it’s part of human’s mortality. It’s our choice on how we perceive the media, our choice to believe in what’s right and wrong, and our choice the life that we will live. There is stability; there is peace most of the time (because we do have differences). SO I choose the society and not religion. Does that mean I have no moral values? Does that mean I’m corrupted? Does that mean I’m oblivious to how screwed our world is and how human nature is both very cruel and justified? No, it does not. So I think the father has over stepped his bounds and that he should perhaps come with a way to integrate both the religion and society. That would be the most successful way for us as human beings to function. If that collaboration did happen. I would go back to the church with open arms.
3. I agree that if a father, bishop whatever wants to protest, refuse, shun, and excommunicate a politician. Then I say the do it, and if they do it, do it right. The bishop and the church have that choice. Whether if it will help or hinder the church I don’t care, as long as they can claim a justified reason for it and it doesn’t harm the politician either psychically or doesn’t challenge the rights as a human being. It would like a normal restraining order. The church has that right, and they should use it as they see fit. With just cause of course.
4. I agree with John.
Andrea you are wrong when you say and criticize john of “So don’t always criticize the church because all they are trying to do is help us grow in peace.”
What church are you taking about; the church has killed thousand, millions, perhaps even billions. Your think that the church is innocent, is had been a reason for conflict. A part of conflict and it will endorse wars. For the greater good! What HAPPENED TO PROTECTING THE WEAK? SURELY YOU KNOW OF THE INNOCENCES THAT THE CHURCH AS PUT TO DEATH FOR THE STUPID PHRASE “BLASPHEMY” . You think the government is worse than religion. I want you to look back into your history because it’s their, every religion has caused deaths and has used power to their advantage. Who know I wonder what more responsible for more problems in this world. Hitler or the Catholic Church.
There you are,
Whose else but
N.Paesano
1) The United States is a nation that is predominately Christian. That is why I think it is surprising most people don’t want the church to express views on political matters. Looking at the pie chart it is clear to see that Americans stand pretty darn close to 50-50 on the question if churches should express views on political matters. Since this nation is mostly Christian, wouldn’t it make sense that the people would want a religious perspective? Obviously, religion isn’t that significant anymore when it comes to politics. Or maybe, people just think that religion should not be given a voice when it comes to politics. I beg to differ. I believe that religion and politics should have separate voices, however religion should not be forgotten. In the United States, their first amendment to the constitution says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...." it is clear that the US wants to separate religion form the state. Maybe it is because of all the divisions that the church has made when it came to politics in many European countries. Moreover, I think the Christian voice, along with the other religions of the world all share common beliefs, therefore should not be forgotten when it comes to political matters. Integration of religion in politics, as long as it is for the common good, will always benefit a society and keep it in check. All world religions have a God, that they appeal to and worship. The values are the same, and rooted in good. So, taking the voice of the dominant religion which is that of Christianity(the church) will only benefit, and bring about good, and ethical ideologies to political matters. If this poll was conducted in Canada the results would be a little different. I think that people would not want the church to express its views on political matters, and law making processes even more so than the Americans. The reason why I say this, is because of the controversy that has happened with one law that has offended he church already. Since same sex marriages have been allowed in Canada, it has been controversy after controversy with the church. I can totally understand though! It is like a bite in the a$$ to practicing Catholics and the church. How can Canadian politicians consider themselves Christian, publicly present themselves that way while going to church etc, and then vote for passing same sex marriages. It doesn’t make sense. If you are a Catholic, you must hold firm to the belief that same sex marriages are not part of our religion. Marriage is for the sole purpose of unity and procreation. I get the union part, but two males, or two females can’t procreate. Therefore, that is why the church doesn’t allow same sex marriages and has excommunicated politicians who call themselves Catholics and voted for same sex marriages. It is hypocrisy in my eyes. Canadians are very politically vocal, and fend for their human rights more than for religious freedoms in my perspective. Therefore, it would make sense that they would fight for same sex marriages and other political rights that deal with the individual in a secular fashion, over a concern for religion.
2) Firstly, I would love to make it clear that father Mario's presentation was GREAT! I enjoyed every part of it. I had no trouble understanding anything he was saying, and agreed with it all. Okay, to start off I would like to mention that his belief that Family guy, south park, and the Simpsons are satanic shows made me laugh. However, it is so true..lol. I see where he is getting at. He is trying to show us that some of the themes, scenes, and plot of the shows are really stupid and give off some twisted ideas. He kept mentioning the fact that they were satanic, as in "Satan is clever..he gets to us though these small things..and aims at the weak". This is pretty true too, if we notice it or not. I think that these twisted images and portrayals aren't Godly in any way, so they must be satanic since they are so twisted, and even sometimes evil. (even if it gives us a good stupid laugh)
Secondly, I want to mention the issue of premarital sex. Father Mario kept saying that this should not be performed. It only gives the people performing this act a psyche that has entered their mind about this action to be normal. If it being performed over so many years, what makes you think that they will not keep having sexual relationships with other people. Their mentality was built on having all this 'sex' before marriage, is a ring really going to make a difference? Nowadays, sex is all about the pleasure this intercourse gives us. Not about union, and procreation. Thats the last thing on peoples mind, however what we fail to realize as father Mario said, is that this will only hurt the individuals emotions once the relationship is over. There is no more romance, or sublimation of sexual energy. Sublimation has been eliminated out of our lives. A funny comment he made concerning this topic was when someone said that in the bible it says to "spread the seed"...Father Mario responded...Yea, not with everything that moves!...(I found this hilarious since nowadays thats all people are doing-even portrayed in Family guy)
The part of the presentation that I found quite disturbing was when he mentioned partial abortion. This is an extreme practice, however it is legal. It means that when the child is being born, justs as the head is coming out, the spine is cracked to terminate the baby's life. I was shocked when I found this is actually legal in some places of the world. It is incredible how people can come so far just to have an abortion, partial one in this case. Like the baby is already being born, at least give it up for adoption, don't kill it! Oh yeah, I forgot since only half of the body is out of the womens body it means it is not yet considered a person. To bad that the moment the sperm hits egg, a soul is created in the eyes of God and that is something so special and miraculous and is considered to be somebody.
Finally, he talked about church and state. This was the whole point of the presentation. The separation of church and state in his opinion is just fine. However the issue at hand is that our country, and neighboring country as well has gone from freedom of religion, to now a focus on freedom FROM religion. Our society has become pretty much GodLESS. All the movements now have to do with the betterment of society and the individual without a voice from the church. We are becoming more secularized nation as every day passes. Father Mario was trying to get cross the fact that it is okay to separate state and religion, since obviously in the past the church has brought so many conflicts etc, but to always have our faith in the background for the decisions we make etc., and to not lose it as some politicians are doing.
3) I agree and disagree with the practical suggestions being made. I agree with he fact that the church shouldn't refrain from pointing out the inconsistencies within the politicians actions towards anti life and their profession of the catholic faith. It is just plain out a contradiction. How can a politician call themselves Christian, and profess the faith when they are supporting anti life and the "culture of death". (Let's remember the first commandment, thou shall not kill-[or support it for that matter]). What I do not agree with is the public display of criticism for those anti life politicians. That is not Christian like at all, Jesus wouldn't do such a thing, he wouldn't humiliate or oppress any human being, even a sinner. Also, these politicians shouldn't be shunned, or refused as Christians. Yes they are not following a commandment, or being 100% Christian, but they shouldn't be treated any different. Jesus wouldn't suggest them to be made an example of, publicly. This is what caused so many religious conflicts in the past (western Europe). Many people were being killed in the name of religion to be made examples of. That is not the way to go. As Christians, we must forgive, understand, and accept everyone who is a human being, and try to lead them in the right direction if anything. For instance, bishops and priest should talk to these people and inform them that serving the "culture of death" is only weakening their relationship with God and separating them from the Christian faith.
4) In response to Paesano....
I agree with he fact that the church has caused so many deaths to millions of people, religious wars etc in the past. However, this was back in those times. When I think of church, the first thing that pops in my mind is peace, love, God and all those other nice things that are really positive in the growing of a persons spirituality. I don't think about wars and deaths, on the contrary, those are the times that helped shape our religion to be what it is now. Mistakes have always been made, but we learn form our mistakes just as the church has been learning from its mistakes made in the past. Why do you think there have been reformations in Catholicism? That is to improve the situation that was happening back then. Those people were extremist of the faith and weren't interpreting the word of the lord correctly. They were acting opposite of the way Catholics nowadays are taught and called to act.
1. The concept of Churches “interfering” with politics has been around from the time the church was created. Now the realization is that the Church has a strong view point on may political “aspects” that affect us as a whole. With this strong view point, it is expected that the Church will voice its opinion. Back before there was government per say, the Church lead what society was to think and what was “legal” in a sense. It is not about whether or not the church should voice its opinion on political issues, it is the fact that it has a RIGHT to. Just like every party leader has the right to voice their political view point, the church has that right too. It does not matter how many toes they step on or how many politicians are asked to leave the church because of a law they passed, the Church is taking a stand for the beliefs it cares along with the religious factor. That needs to be understood. People think of the church as a big institution that wants to make everyone “follow the laws of Jesus and do as the Bible commands,” its not just that, think of the church as a Party Leader who just wants to say their piece and sit down, Is that so hard to recognize? The outcome was not surprising, it is America, enough said. Now if the poll was conducted in Canada, I strongly believe that the outcome would be different. I say this because Canada does not have a back bone like America does, like I have stated before we are a “whatever” type of country. For the purpose of this analysis, the “I Don’t Know” section should be changed to “I Do Not Care!” The population would probably come to a similar agreement with the aspect of the Church say in the matter. But to be completely “Honest” how many Canadians would pick a side in the poll when they don’t seem to care about who the next prime minister of their own country is, as an ‘astonishing’ 64% voted for the last election. Not to go off on a tangent, what Martina stated was right, if a politician does not make or pass laws that enforce his faith when it becomes an issue, the church has the RIGHT to excommunicate them, IT IS A FACT!
2. Father Mario’s visit was highly entertaining. From the time he started till the time he finished he stated many BOLD opinions. I found him to be very different from any catholic priest that I have met, which I must admit is few since I am not Catholic but he’s cut from a different cloth. He is what I would call ‘real’. He is not afraid to get on that level with anyone, and he doesn’t have that (I apologize if I offend anyone) the typical stiff catholic, don’t ask me questions just do as I say and go to church catholic priest attitude. He was very open and direct but the problem that I had was that when I posed a direct question he would kind of ‘dance’ around with the answer. I think I was looking for a more personal type of answer because what I always got as an answer was what the church stated, but I figured it was because he was a Priest there fore he represented the church. I do agree when he stated that there needed to be a balance between religion and the aspect of secularism, I also agree with the point that he made about parents raising their children. Parents have a duty as a parent to develop morals and values in a child from an early age, with this why should a parent have to say “oh I didn’t know that was on the television show” Who are they trying to fool, there are just trying to cover their rear ends because they messed up. As a parent your duty is to PROVIDE your child with a nurturing environment! Emphasis on NURTURING! His ultimate message was as a group growing up in a corrupt society, living LIFE in general is tough. He wanted us to realize that we are going to have to be able to stand up for our firm beliefs and to not be so easily mislead.
3. I do agree with the “practical suggestions” stated in the article. Let me start of by emphasizing the fact that a politician is a PRACTISING Catholic. Now under the umbrella of being classified a practicing catholic a politician has to realize that there are certain boundaries faith imposes. Being a catholic and supporting Abortion laws contradict each other to the letter. The church has the right to assume that practicing political leaders will publically enforce the teachings they state. As Martina already stated, If a politically leader cannot uphold their faith’s beliefs then they should not be apart of that religion. It is very simple. The fact that a politician can publically say that they are catholic and then publically support Abortions is a contradiction and it creates a display of mockery of their religion. It is a basic form of back stabbing but it is back stabbing ones faith.
4. Response to Classmates Blogs
First I would like to say that Martina made many good points in her blog especially about a politician and his/her religion. We share some of the same viewpoints.
Nick, Nick, Nick, I’m sorry but I’m going to have to:
NICK have you lost your mind, Ya ok the church has gotten things wrong but who hasn’t!!! I need to ask you one question, if you had to make a choice what would it be to stand up for the government or stand up for your faith? How many times have people in the world taken a bold step in the persecution of their faith and yet weakened at the sound of a dictatorship government. I am not saying that the church did not do many wrong things in the past and has not taken many lives. I am the biggest NO person against the killings of innocent people who choose to be different because I am a NON Catholic going to a Catholic school. But my point is that the church is now standing up for lives and with in the society that we live in now Church values preserves the rights to many rights taken for granted. One day the government can say “O we dislike the Catholic Faith so we will ban it” it is the same thing over and over again. With out the church there trying to preserve what is right in society the government can come and corrupt it all. Look at the article Mrs. C listed it is proof enough. You make a very strong argument I just have to flat out say that you are wrong!
~ Keisha De Coteau Nedd
First off miss, sorry I didn't post last night, I had problems with my internet connection and was not able to get on.
I do not believe the Catholic Church should influence politics. The chruch seems to be a pain in everyones ass when it comes to controversial matters with science and politics. The reason for these contreversial matters, such as same sex marriage, is because it is an issue within society. Obviously there is more homosexuals and they want to get married, so why not? Canada did not see a problem with this but the church went nuts. But I ask this, we are all creations of God, and if God created gay people, who is the church to judge his creations? This is the argument of many, but the church seems to go agaisnt what they say and they judge God's creations. The church should have no say politicaly because all they do is cause problems. When a politician is elected he represents our country as a whole not some people. He must have secualr views because if he uses his religous views it would cause alot of problems with the other religions. When your a leader of Canada, your leading every country and every religion because that is how Canada is. That survey was done in the states where once you get in the south is 100% catholic and those guys are hardcore about it. Though in Canada we have a large Islamic population aswell as Jewish, though each religion may have their different opiions about same sex marriage, when representing Canada you must take into consdieration the other religions. To do this as evenly and fairly, you got to be secular. Also just like anything our society and the wway we live has changed since the Bible was written. Back then the word gay didn't exist and if might have who knows if the it might say something differenly. And who told them that marriage was to procreate. Did God come down and tell them because maybe he intended it for two loving people to enjoy a loving life together. All I'm goign to say is, you cannot run a society on a book that is over 2000 years old, has been passed through too many hands and has too many versions and is twisted so much that you dont know which one is right, and the fact that it belongs to a religion that has dark secrets and mystery than a religion should. You don't evene know what is truth and what isn't. The stories that is realistic we are brought to believe as truth, but the stories (creation story) that is way out there, we are told to take the moral lesson. It can never gove you a straight answer. The Bible was not created in our society, and was not written for our society, therefore it should not be used to shape our society and laws.
Miss I know your going to kill me but I'll finish the rest of my post tonight because I start work at 1 and I'm goign to be late, I finish at 10 so I'll post osmetime after that, sorry.
1) I believe that you can be religious and political, but it depends on what kind of society you are representing. For example the only countries that religion and politics can mix in are countries that do not have multiculturalism, like Canada. These countries share all the same beliefs, and ideas. I say this because the politicians here in Canada have to represent a wide variety of people and cultures. Canada’s diverse society makes it very hard for politicians to be religious because not all the people in Canada believe the same things. I believe that one does check their faith at the door and replace it with secular views because they are charged with representing a diverse constituency. I believe this because the catholic people who voted pro-same sex marriage are a perfect example of this. Although they may have not done this porously because in reality they are only trying to what they believe is right for Canada. They also went against their beliefs in the church this is why religion and politics can’t mix here in Canada. Our society is so diverse that it is impossible to mix both politics and religious beliefs in one community.
2) My reaction to father Mario’s presentation was shocked, but it also left me with the sense that most of the things he was saying are true. It was shocking because I have never heard a priest speak in the way that he did, however it was good that he did not let his title stop him from saying what he believed. Some of the comments he made were very truthful. For example the society we live in does not care anymore we do what we want with out any values that were once such a large factor in human life. Like when he said honor is a dead word, this is true in a way there is not any honor it’s gone, people just look out for themselves, we have become selfish. Another thing he said was that the “devil” attacks the weak in different ways for example family guy, I personally enjoy this show but I can see where he is coming from when he says that the devil is very much at work. This show is not meant for young people but the main audiences of people who watch it are young, and they are easily persuaded. He also explained western civilization and how we are and how we act, this was very much so truthful. Something’s I had trouble with were how he wasn’t really answering the questions fully he would touch them then talk about something else. The point he was trying to make was that we are basically being run by the media and have lost are own beliefs and values, I believe this is true because we live it and experience it each and everyday. Ultimately the presentation was an eye opener and was a good experience.
3) The practical suggestions being made are a little over-the-top. I think this because the catholic church cannot just walk up to the president and tell him that based on catholic law certain things cannot take place. The president is trying to run a country with many types of people and cultures in it. Yes, abortion is wrong but you should know that as a catholic. The church cant just reject people who are of political power and vote to pass this law because it would go against the churches views of forgiveness. The topic of abortion and the fights caused between religion and politics have proven that religion and politics cannot mix due to the values and morals of different people.
4) I agree with Anna when she said that if the separation of church and state pie chart would be done here in Canada that the side in which says that the church should not express political views would be greatly larger then the one of the United States because of Canada’s vast multiculturalism. This is very much so true because in Canada religion doesn’t have much say in politics due to the fact of Canada’s many cultures. The example of same-sex marriages and how the church would say no, is a perfect example of this split. The people of Canada said yes, therefore the law is passed. The church in general is starting to lose more and more power when it comes to political issues that involve the church.
Sorry for the late posting miss…
Daniel Orsi
to continue what I was saying earlier..
2) To me, father Mario came off a bit radical. He sounded to me like an old catholic white folk who believes everything media related is the devil. It might be, but us as humans have that freedom of choice to choose if we want to watch family guy or porn. he said we shouldn't have freedom of choice. i totally do not agree with that. it seemed a bit brainwashing to me the way he was talking and just the way he was insisting that the church is the way to go and everything else is wrong, bothered me a bit, because God gave me freedom of choice and i'm going to use it how i like and don't want to be told how to choose what i do and watch. During his whole presentation I really didn't agree with much he said. the only thing that i might be able to agree with is when he said that a blowjob has become a bodily function. it pretty obvious that teens dont think twice when it comes to sex. and i do agree that keeping your virginity to teens doesn't mean anything and that oral sex is normal now and isn't thought twice about. I'm not saying its a bad thing but i do agree in that he was saying it has no meaning anymore. The message i think he was trying to get across was to keep faith and show your full faith towards your religion and dont pick and choose what you want to believe. i didn't totally buy it, but i'm pretty sure thats what he was trying to do. I think priests like father Mario are preaching this more often now because people are beginning to raise questions about Catholicism and its beginning to turn people away from the faith. and people like father Mario are trying to keep peoples faith and get involved with society and its practices. I don’t agree with him when he says we shouldn’t have the freedom we have, it sounded kind of Marxist. Also I don’t agree with him when he said if you believe in gay marriages or abortions your not catholic, because then that makes me a non-catholic and I guess if I said that to my priest I wouldn’t be welcomed to church. And I don’t think an institute that rejects freedom of thought and rejects people with different views is one that should lead society.
3) i agree with "practical suggestions", if it were done to me, at first iw ould be kind of pissed of, but if a preiest or bishop excommincates me because i dont believe in what they teach then fine. their the boss and they run the show so I would have to listen. Though it should be done in a proper manner not one that would come down as embarrasing or insulting. they got to understand that people are allowed to have their own views and that they cant control the views of everyone. thoguh if they got a problem with someone being in their parish then all the power to them to kick them out. jsut do it in a proper and understanding manner.
4) im going to have to comment on andrea. you said the church can express their views because thats all their doing, thier no making laws, though the church has a loud enough voice and enough followes that expressing their views can turn into law because of th epower they have, and they know that, that is why they do it. And you said politicans are liars and hypocrites, totally agree, and you said the church ahs lied to, agree with that too, but the church has been lying for thousands of years about their own faith. We still dont know the full story of Jesus because because the church has keot secrets of other books of the new testimant. you cant compare the lies of politicans to the lies of the church, because the lies of the church rank higher. i still dont see how our ocuntry is becoming communist?? ya us candians we dont really care much for politics, but nothing really bad has happened yet, if something did turst me Canada would use its voice. If the gov't were to take away health care, their would be riots at Queens Park. Its not that were lazy, its just nothing really bad has hapened that is meaningful. when you said to take the word of polticians and those freaks is unbeleievable, i see it the other way around, the church word is the word that reflects the Bible, a 2000 year old book (as i stated earlier) that can barely seen as fact. one thing I forogt to add earlier was that Ftaher Mario said The chruch is trying to sell you something jsut like anything else. To me the Bible is a great book with great stories that would sell, becasue thats what they had to do to make people catholic, sell it. so who knows if some of these stories and books have been twisted a bit to make it more appealing for people who were on the fence about becomeing catholic. and when you said " the church is not corrupt" I actually started to laugh.
-Daniel
I believe that the church should express there view on political matters. But just express not just what hey have to say be done I feel what they have to say should be respected because of the morals that they bring to society. In the American poll were people were asked should churches express views on political culture and 52% thought that they should does not surprise me because of the fact that America is a very religious nation and the voice of the catholic church is highly respected. And in America when one does speak of the church it is automatically assumed the Catholic Church. In Canada the Catholic Church is respected also, but not to the same extent because of the many other religions and faiths that Canada has. Yes if feel that the result would have been very different if conducted in Canada because there are many religions in Canada and it is difficult to come to an agreement. For example the same-sex marriage legislation was recently passed, and the church had an extremely bad view on this law especially the Catholic Church but it was passed any ways. So it is evident that the results would be very different because of this example. Also Canada is a nation not like the USA Canadians are more passive on laws that we feel that are unjust, were Americans would fight and I believe that this law would not enter America anytime in the near future.
I believe that Father Mario’s Presentation was shocking to all students that not only in are class but to many students that heard him speak in the library. His presentation allowed me to see how a man that is devoted into the church can see how there are many flaw that they have and how they should be corrected, For example he saw that the teachings of the catholic schools are not the way that they should, as he said many times that when he went to a public school and they practiced the catholic faith more the catholic schools today. I agree with this statement because I went to a catholic elementary school but learned very little it has only when I attended high school I started to see the way of the Catholic Church. I also agree on the fact when he said that people are confused about satin he said that people think that he appears in a scary form and it is easy for us to identify him no I agree with him that he comes in forms that we find amusing in a bad way were he made continuous amounts of remarks to family guy. And one major point that Father Mario was trying to make that today in society today people are going to freedom from religion. Were people are not having a moral view on life from any religion and escaping the way of not only the catholic church but any form of religion or faith. I do agree with this because if we are escaping religion as a society in the year 2008 imagine in the year 2020 religion would probably not exists and humanity needs religion in my opinion to give us a sense of purpose and for us to live a good and moral life.
I see the “practical suggestions being made are crazy. Because it does not make sense to have bishops and participants of the catholic community reject people of political influence who do not agree to all catholic policy. The idea that the Church would ever “shun” or “criticize” publicly any other individual because of their beliefs completely goes against what they claim to stand for. The practical suggestions made in this article say that a politician who supports abortion and other anti-life policies and remains in the church should be excommunicated and denied all the church sacraments. In this article one sees that the church is afraid on losing there hold of influence on people because of the questions people are asking. I think this is why because of the way that science is progressing and the need for humanity to be able to see something proven is getting greater and greater and faith and religion will be lost in my opinion in a few years to come.
I agree with Anna and teodora because i believe that the censorship issue when they state the government can not be responsible when one takes something to seriously. I believe that everyone has choices in life and that particular person has to choose the path that is right for them. And it is up to the parents to guide there child to that path that hopefully leads to God. I strongly disagree with Martina when she states that that allowing a person who goes against their faith’s teachings is making a mockery out of the people that follow that faith. Is in my opinion very unjust because when a church rejects an individual for the choice that person makes is itself a mockery in itself and the fact that the church does this in my opinion is wrong because Jesus teaches us that we should be all forgiving and accept others for what they are and the choices that they make as long as they don’t go against the ten commandments.
Sorry Ms. I've been trying since Friday to post but it won't let me
1) The idea of separation between church and state has been an ongoing issue throughout history, it’s just like religion and science they just don’t mix. There is no right or wrong answer to this question because everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion. However, I believe that there should be a separation between the church and state. I believe that any place of worship, a church, synagogue, mosque, temple, should not have a say in politics. If the poll were taken in Canada, the results would have been much different. Instead of 52% keeping church and state together, it would have been opposite here in Canada. It has become politically incorrect to use any religious terms in Canada. I especially see secularism in our schools today. Majority of my friends don’t even believe in the Catholic faith. I don’t really think its because they’re trying to be cool, but because the Catholic faith is pushing our youth away. It seems like they are trying to brain wash us with “Catholic is the best religion, if you don’t believe your not going to heaven”.
2) I thought Father Mario was very brave for coming to speak with us. We are a bunch of seventeen-year-old kids, undeceive about what we believe in. Just like any other priest he seemed like he was trying to sell us the Catholic religion. I was not shocked though, because he did mention that in the beginning of his presentation. But on the other hand he was not like any other priest, he told us flat out what he thinks is wrong with the world, and how he believes that we are influenced by pop culture (Bill Clinton). I think that the only part of his presentation that I agreed with was the segment about Family Guy. I would have to agree with him there, that show is probably one of the worst shows ever created. What also bothers me is that its on at a time where so many young kids could be watching it and learning from it. I know for a fact that it does influence the minds of young children, my brother for example is 10 and religiously watches that show. (even though he knows he is not supposed too) But the point I am trying to get across is that his young mind is like a sponge and he sometimes repeats what he hears. Even though his presentation did not really change my life, I thought it was good to hear a different perspective.
3) I think it was fair kicking the priests who do not believe in pro-life, and other teaching of the Catholic faith. Becoming a priest means you understand that you will accept and agree with all the teachings of the Catholic faith. Going against it is wrong because not only are you disagreeing with what the religion stands for, but you’re setting a bad example for the believers in the parish community. It was kind of rude the way the kicked them out, but it also proved to the public that they mean business, if you’re going to become a priest you have agree with everything, its simple, either you do or you don’t. I don’t necessarily agree with it, but it is a good way to knock fear into the public, again.
4) I’m really sorry to have to disagree with you Andrea.
I don’t see you can say it’s the place of the church to have any say in the government. Majority of Canadians are not Catholic, so whom would that be benefiting? And I think mentioning that Canadians are lazy is irrelevant to whether the church should be involved because you’re generalizing all of Canadians as Catholics. I do agree with Daniel Listi though, because nothing really bad has happened here in Canada, so we do not have anything to worry about. Instead of worrying how the Catholic Church should be incorporated into our society, we should be coming up with a solution on getting our troops out of Iraq. I do agree with that politicians are all hypocrites and liars, but aren’t they all? Don’t you need to be one to be a good politician? What I don’t understand is how the Catholic influence will be better on Canada? Or how our country will become communist? No one is forcing you not to believe in your religion, it is clearly in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, also, I think it is great that they are not allowing any religion to have a say in government because they should not have a biased opinion.
Sorry for the late assignment, but my computer finally let me post the assignment. thanks:)
1) In my own words I would have to say that church should be involved with political matters. Religion makes us who we are it plays a big part of our character. If our politicians leave this at the welcome mat before going to work then it is like leaving a piece of that person who might usually think different if religion was allowed to be involved in certain discussions or arguments. I think if this poll was taken in Canada it would be completely one sided because we are different than the US. The United States is a majority of Christians so all these believers would say that it should be involved and the rest would say no. But here in Canada it is filled with many different religions which all share their own beliefs. Therefore if you make one religion happy you will be upsetting three other ones. This is why the poll will be all one sided to secularism, the church shouldn’t be involved in such discussions. I agree with the church but I don’t not believe they were in any way realistic to believe it could influence at least the Catholic Politicians because, these politicians knew that if they sided with the church in their position it would end their career as they knew it. I believe that the church was trying to use a guilt car to convince politicians to agreeing by pretty much saying "I know we could believe in our politicians to side with God". It is social suicide to talk about your own personal beliefs as a politician when referring to the world’s issues. You cannot talk about religion and same sex marriage so yes i strongly believe that all politicians leave there beliefs at the door and replace them with secular beliefs. To be brutally honest I believe politicians shouldn’t leave their religion at the door, but there should be no religion to leave in the first place.
2) I believe that Father Mario has made some very strong points in his presentation. I like the fact that he was straight out about the history of the church and its corrupt ways. I was caught by surprise because I have never seen such a priest but none the less I am still not convinced that having a religion free world is such a bad thing. Some of the things that i had trouble with is the way how he would speak that the devil would work through cartoons to manipulate us. To me it sounds like a bunch of hocus pocus, if the Devil and God really did exist why not just duke it out in a one on one fight to declare ruler over all. If God really is this almighty being then why does he let evil exist? It would save a lot of time instead of waiting our whole lives and praying to get into heaven. MY belief is that there always has to be a balance. For ever good there is a bad, for every light there is a shadow. It just might be possible the devil is an invention of the church to get those of non believers to be scared and join the church. Just think about it, why do we need God? Because he wants to save us from our evil ways and the "devil" is corrupting us to be his followers. Why is it that the devil is so up to date that he works through our own technology, yet God is still in the past getting a prophet to send his message. He should clearly know by now that a prophet isn’t the way to go, because claim to be one and they are all seen as maniacs. Why shouldn't we be aloud to put the Lord to a test to prove he really exists? What is wrong with that? If he can do something to prove to us he exists does he not realize he would have many followers? The churches answer to all these questions is "you just have to believe"
The Nicene Creed decided what would be put in the bible, so basically a small group of men got in a room and decided what we will believe. The bible cannot even seem to find the consistency. Don't you think being born of the Virgin Mary is a very important factor? Yet only 2 of the 4 gospels mention this. The church is still under construction and will always have problems therefore we should think critically even about the church.
The one thing that I did agree with is that same sex marriage should only be for a man and a woman, only if you are of catholic faith. If you are not a believer of Christ than you should be able to legally marry.
The point he was trying to make is that the church has made its mistakes in the past but it is still the way to salvation. No i do not agree with this, If the world is messed up when church had all the power and its now messed up when it is intertwined with politics, why not see what the world would be like with no religion. It is not like it could get much worse when were on the brink of a nuclear war. In the history of Religion The church has had total power they abused it to get everything they can, and then it begins to lose power it is no mixed with governments which cannot be good so i believe the world should try no religion and see how that works out.
3) I in no way agree with the idea of "Practical Suggestions". Once again the Catholic Church is contradicting itself with this. The church has always been about forgiving your sins, even though in the past it was done with a bribe. But the main concept of acceptance of God and his forgiving heart has always been there. The belief of the Catholic Church has always been about forgiving others of there sins and trying to show them the way. If they have made a mistake or have gone against these religious beliefs they should not be shunned but by the church, they should be prayed for in hope that they will someday see the true path of God.
4) According to Liana she believed that the church was being realistic in its beliefs. I strongly agree simply because the world we live in today is about material and not about faith. So when these politicians were put on the spot to choose between faith and a job to support there family and continue living on their lives. It could easily be said that most would choose the job and go against the church. The simple mentality of these people of the church is that it is always forgiving, so go public and say what you need to say even if it goes against the church, then go to church and ask for forgiveness. So the church is clearly not realistic in this particular situation.
Ariel Benavidez
Hey mrs this damn thing did not let me post so i saved it an printed it, but when i did the post due tuesday that one worked so i took another shot with this one and TADA! forgive me attila the hun =)
I am really sorry if I offended anyone, especially John =(
I am just SO tired of the fact that the Catholic Church is always getting criticized for the world's problems. (Also, I was in a bad mood when I did this post so that might have to do with it!)
1.I do not think that church's should be expressing views on politics because when one goes about making decisions there should be no moral's holding them back from doing what is right. A good leader must do what they must in order to ensure that the majority prospers. In order for our government to make right choices, they must not be influenced by anything other than the fact that they were elected as our leader and must make the right choice. Besides its not like the church has never had influence on politics. The church used to be involved in politics very heavily, this was when everyone believed and if you went against the church you were a heretic. The church has had their chance, and throughout the entire time that they influenced politics, there were wars being fought over religion. As well, throughout history, the most corrupt institution ever! was the catholic church. I can understand the church getting mad at the fact that they don't express political opinions if none of this never happened, but the reality is that it did and i believe that if we are influenced by the catholic church in politics again, the church will end up ruling us the way it did centuries ago. I believe that if this same survey were to be conducted in Canada, people would vote that the church should be left out of politics. We tend to be more liberal than USA so it wouldn't be a wonder as to why we would think in that state of mind. In USA if a politician mentions god in any way i.e. and god bless America, it is perfectly acceptable. In Canada however, that same politician would be digging his own grave.
2.Father Mario's presentation was truly one to remember, i don't think ill be forgetting this discussion anytime soon. personally i really enjoyed have him come in, let loose, and give it to us straight. He didn't have to filter anything, he just told us as it is. The thing that i admire about him though is that even though he is catholic, he doesn't let that make the decisions for him. He told us that he believe that church and state should be separated. What he has a problem with, was freedom from religion. Freedom from religion is the radical outcome that comes with freedom of religion. I disagree with him 100 percent that our political decisions should be influenced by the church. I believe that in politics, and politics alone, we should be free from religion, because in the end we must do what benefits us the most, rather than the church. I did however agree with him on the fact that even society now is free from religion. Ya sure we all like to watch family guy, Simpson's, or South park. But when it gets to the point where it starts affecting our minds, thats when we know that we should be filtering what we watch. You might not think it, but subconsciously we are being sort of brainwashed into believing that doing drugs, cheating on your spouse, or killing others is the norm.
3.I do not believe that politicians should be shunned because they vote for what they believe in. I am referring to my point i made earlier, the church is corrupt. They preach forgives, turning the other cheek, but they don't seem to be practicing it. Just with that article alone they have broken a few commandments. The church has to understand that politicians do what they must do in order to benefit the countries citizens rather than religion.
4. I agree with anna that the church does not help the weak. Once again i am going to the medevil ages to back up this point. The church was the most powerful, and richest institution in the world, but instead of helping the poor, they found more and more ways of exploiting them. They taxed everyone very heavily, kings were exempt from much of the taxes, and perhaps the most corrupt thing they did was selling heaven. Another way they don't help the weak, is with their disapproval of gay marriage. Gay's are criticized by almost everyone that is not gay. They don't need the church telling them that they cant get married because they are the same sex. Jesus taught us that we are to love and accept those that are weak and sinful. The church should be in more support of these people rather than against them. They should perhaps try and follow what they preach, we were all made in the image of god and homosexuals are included in that image.
mrs sorry i couldn't post earlier, blogger wasn't letting me
1. The idea of separation between church and state has been an ongoing issue throughout history, and like oil and water the church doesn't mix. I believe that there should be a separation between the church and state. I believe this because the church should not be influenced by politics. Canada is a very diverse country and is known for its multicultural people. It is filled with many different religions which all share their own beliefs. There is more than one religion and the people within that religion have their own beliefs and opinions. Thus showing if one religion would be focused on it would eventually lead to conflict between other religions. This is why the poll will be all one sided to secularism.
2. Fathers presentation was basically a wake up call and with what he was saying it was accurate enough to be the truth. He spoke out against secular views and separation of church and state. He talked about how peoples morals have been influenced by evil in the media. Although very true, he seemed to narrow minded. Constantly saying that the media is the devil, shows these days are satanic. That could be true to an extent but he made it seem as if the church could teach us better. But i can't blame him, hes a priest so of course he will be bias to the church. In my opinion he is a down to earth person though and I agree with Father Mario that there has to be a balance of religion and secularism.
3. I believe that the "practical suggestions" go against the teachings of God. A bishop is free to do this because the politician in question is failing in his mandate to uphold the values of the church. The way the church sees things is that you should put faith before anything. However, the church shunning a politician and publicly speaking about the politician’s transgression and making them out to be the antichrist hypocritical, bibles teaching show that if one is misguided, show them the way. And that is what the church steered away from doing.
4. I agree with Anna and Alex when they say the church does not help the weak. Various reasons could explain why the church cannot help the weak. One being the previous article viewed about the practical teachings. Which basically proves the contradictory in the church teachings. Shunning a person is obviously wrong. I don't agree with alex when he says " we were all made in the image of god and homosexuals are included in that image." I do believe in we are created in the image of God but homosexuals are not included in that image. I have nothing against homosexuals but I just do not believe that they are created in God's image. God put us on this earth to pro create. And I know 2 guys ain't going to be producing a child and I know 2 girls are not going to be producing a child. Thus showing homosexuals are not made in God's image.
And miss i know the posting is late, but it will never let me post it. It kind of gets frustrating, So i usually have a printed copy. Like the other posting i have a printed copy in case it doesn't post. I'm going to try posting the one. Sorry miss for the lateness i swear its different from last year.
Okie dokie... From what I understand, a number of you have been waiting to hear my take on the subject. After reading all of your posts, I do have some things to say in response. I just want to make a couple of things clear before I start... 1.) My intention is not to pass judgement on any one thing said by any one individual. 2.) The opinions about to expressed are my own and are rooted in a specific point of view. 3) Finally, I don't wish to offend anyone. I am quite pleased with the honesty being expressed within this forum with a great deal of academic integrity, and I hope to keep it that way. That said, here we go...
I have been teaching young people for quite some time now, and one of things that I love about teaching adolescents is watching you all try to figure out this extremely screwed up world in which we live. Part of me is hoping that one day, one of you will fill me in, because I don't quite get it yet myself. When it comes to religion, it's no different. What I can tell immediately is that we have all been raised very differently when it comes to deciding how important a role religion plays in our lives. Clearly, the practice of religion has been modelled for each of you quite differently. That's why, I'm not so surprised at the various reactions to Father Mario's presentation.
A number of people have addressed the issue of hypocrisy in the Church and therefore, what business does this institution have passing judgement on politicians who claim they are Catholic and then support abortion and same-sex marriage. I say, the Church is well within their right to do so. I also say that if you make public declarations of your Catholicism, especially through the Sacraments, then you should be excommunicated for supporting institutional changes that allow human beings to assume a role only God was intended to play. Hypocrites? Hypocrites are those who are first in line to get married in a Catholic church, send their children to Catholic school, ensure that all the Sacraments are had, and then do not insist on attending mass regularly or any other sort of spiritual enrichment. People of the world do me a favour: if you have no intention of raising your children in the faith (a promise by the way, which is made during the marriage ceremony BEFORE the man and woman promise each other to themselves), then don't baptize your children and don't send them to Catholic school, and don't give your children any grief because they want to get married on a golf course.
When one chooses the public life, I fail to understand how anyone could perform that job with any dignity if they begin by lying about what they fundamentally believe. You can't "check your faith at the door" and expect to be respected if you're not upfront with what you really believe. I think the excuse that politicians represent the whole of society is a crock. If they are upfront from the beginning, from the time they start campaigning, people will know what they are all about. If that doesn't get you elected, then oh well! I mean, what is your soul worth? Why is it so easily sold for public approval and acceptance. Okay, the salary is tax-free and there are loads of perks that go along with being an elected official, but you can't take it with you. How does anyone explain the choice to abandon faith for the sake of employment to God? Christ didn't abandon us for the sake of living. He chose to die for us, for the sake of our immortal souls, and this is how we repay him? Can you be a Catholic and support abortion? NO! Can you be a Catholic and support same-sex marriage? NO! Look guys, like you, I'm a work in progress. Do I totally understand why God wills that homosexual couples not to be in intimate relationships? Not a chance. I accept it though. I feel that my task is to spend whatever time God has chosen to give to me trying to come to a better understanding of those things which I don't quite get at the moment. I also don't think I will truly ever understand everything, but at least I'm engaging and questioning. I think that people who at least do this are far better Catholics than those who wear rosaries around their necks, clutch onto their Bibles and proceed to tell everyone else that they are going to hell.
As far as Father Mario's comments regarding what he felt was "satanic", I think some of you missed what he was intending to say. Society is not the devil! However, the devil is at work in society and he seems to be using popular culture to get everyone's attention. With the popularity of shows like The Simpsons and Family Guy, he seems to be succeeding. Want to know why I think he is succeeding? 40 years ago, about 8% of all people said that they don't have a religion. Today, it's 18%. Sad that almost one fifth of all people think that they can be in this world on their own. I've done a little more living that you, and I can say this for sure, it's pretty hard to make it on your own without the help of a supreme being watching out for you.
Let's face it guys... you haven't been given great role models when it comes to faith. I can't speak for your parents and I don't presume to judge them either. My guess though, is that you have a lot of questions and there aren't too many people around to answer them, so the easy thing to do is abandon your faith, accuse the Church of hypocrisy and corruption (because everyone seems to know those stories really well... kick in the head, eh?) and declare that religion is not so important to you. The schools haven't done a great job arming you with the information you need to be able to defend your faith in the world. Memorizing prayers and the sacraments aren't quite enough. The Church herself has a pretty shady past, and Father Mario will be the first to admit that the Church is responsible for how young people veiw their faith. That said, you are soon to embark upon adult life, and you have to make some pretty big decisions and those include what you believe. Part of deciding what you believe should be a sense of duty to ensure that you leave the world in better shape than when you entered it. That women can choose to end the life of an innocent child without fear of punishment isn't exactly making the world a better place. Where does that lead to? Are more lines going to be blurred when it comes to deciding the value and worth of human life?
That's my two cents worth...
Post a Comment