“Be creative in all things”- some recent advice given to me.
In order to follow more closely in the footsteps of the Master: find art in all things; in all things seek out an act of creation. Veni, Creator Spiritus!
Today is snowy. I almost allowed myself to become disappointed when I awoke as this morning represented the prolongation of what has been the longest winter of my life. I then remembered one sunny morning in early April two years ago. The sun was pouring in through the living room window of my Nova Scotia family home. It seemed inevitable that Spring has arrived. I was reading Anne of Green Gables and dreaming about wide-open fields and more carefree days. My father was facing me in his hospital bed with a far-off expression on his face.
“ I would like to see one more snow fall,” he said wistfully “just one more and then I can go home”. A few days later on April 7th. 2009, my father passed into eternity most gracefully. The snow flew as his soul flew to the Home of the Father.
Today when I awoke, I was disappointed with the snow.
This afternoon, I am blessing the snow.
Eternal Rest grant unto him O, Lord and may perpetual light shine upon him and may he rest in peace.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Nothing to Give
This is the best possible predicament. When we realize that we have "nothing to give", all is grace. Not that this isn't the case every waking moment, but somehow the conscious realization makes the whole surrender sacred.
I have nothing to give. All who think otherwise are fooling themselves. Happy Lent.
"You have no power that has not been given to you from above". -The Poor Nazarian on death row to Pilate
I have nothing to give. All who think otherwise are fooling themselves. Happy Lent.
"You have no power that has not been given to you from above". -The Poor Nazarian on death row to Pilate
Thursday, February 19, 2009
When Free speech is Only Sometimes Free
Abortion as genocide not popular on Canadian campus
Whether one agrees or disagrees with comparing abortion to the Holocaust, Jose Ruba of The Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform (CCBR) has generated substantial media attention for his presentation entitled: “Echoes of the Holocaust”. On February 5, Ruba was met with hostile opposition at a talk he gave at spoke at St. Mary’s University in Halifax, Nova Scotia.
The event attracted the attention of pro-life and pro-abortion students alike; the latter of whom, instead of listening to Ruba’s presentation before voicing their own opinions (in a free speech kind of way), barged into the room within the first 5 minutes of the presentation yelling cheers like “my body my choice” whilst covering the projector and effectively removing all possibility for Ruba to continue with his presentation.
When the university security arrived at the scene, the protesters were momentarily silent but promptly resumed their shouting as Ruba displayed pictures from the Holocaust and a video of an abortion being carried out. With this, the security then shut down the event, forcing Ruba to continue with his presentation at a nearby Catholic church.
“What looks worse, shutting down a university-approved presentation or arresting people who are unlawfully disrupting that presentation?” asked Ruba, who, according to a National Campus Life Network news release, said he was appalled that the university gave into the mob rule. “St. Mary’s should be ashamed of itself for showing students that they need only scream when they don’t like something, rather than dialogue respectfully”.
Blogs are still buzzing, and letters to the editor are still flooding in; it seems everyone has something to say about the issue, pro-life and pro-choice titles aside. The day before Ruba’s presentation at St. Mary’s University, as if on cue, Barbara Kay of the National Post wrote an article entitled “Barbara Kay: Women deserve better than abortion” where she, while professing to be sensitive to the pro-life cause, criticized comparing abortion to the Holocaust.
Drawing upon the fact that throughout human history, “desperate circumstances [have prompted] desperate choices”, Kay outlines that “the circumstances in which we find ourselves at the moment of decision” must be considered in the appraisal of what is moral. With this ideology in mind, Kay compares the decision to abort one’s child as being akin to nomadic Inuit peoples of old having to make a difficult choice to leave one of their frail elders behind in an effort to survive a particularly harsh journey because the elder “might endanger the entire group”. Kay then goes on to compare abortion to a mother’s decision to suffocate her child during the Nazi occupation in order that she and her family not be discovered because of the cries of the infant.
But as Kay states in her article: “you cannot build an argument on an analogy alone. In any debate, emotional arousal must be subordinated to rational persuasion”. That is, of course if people will even listen to rational persuasion, which is, one can only hope Kay’s point in writing the article in question.
“Moreover,” Kay writes, “you are not only describing the action of abortion as evil [when comparing abortion to the Holocaust], you are implying that women, who abort, like Nazis, are evil people. There is neither truth nor dignity in accusing women of such moral turpitude”.
“Choose any factual perspective, you won’t find a single moral parallel between [abortion and the Holocaust] . And that is why it is not in your interest to pursue the [Genocide Awareness Project] campaign. Or in our mutual interest, because it stands in the way of an alliance between us.
To which Stephanie Gray, director of the CCBR and proponent of the Genocide Awareness Project, replies in a follow-up National Post piece:
“In Germany, Jews were deemed nonpersons. In Canada, so are the unborn. Jews were used for medical experiments. So are the unborn. Jews were labelled parasites, as are the unborn. Jews were killed in centres designed to terminate their lives. So, too with the unborn. Medical professionals were involved with killing Jews. Again, that is the case with the unborn. The Nazi philosophy was ‘lives unworthy of life’. The pro-abortion philosophy is ‘quality of life’”.
Gray goes on to say that Kay’s take on the angle adopted by the CCBR is to be expected. After all, Gray writes “Should Dr. King have ceased his tactics because people got angry? If not, why should pro-lifers change what they do simply because their opponents don't like it? That allows the other side to set the terms for debate, enabling them to talk about what they can defend ("choice"), rather than making them defend what they cannot (baby killing)”.
Whether one agrees or disagrees with comparing abortion to the Holocaust, Jose Ruba of The Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform (CCBR) has generated substantial media attention for his presentation entitled: “Echoes of the Holocaust”. On February 5, Ruba was met with hostile opposition at a talk he gave at spoke at St. Mary’s University in Halifax, Nova Scotia.
The event attracted the attention of pro-life and pro-abortion students alike; the latter of whom, instead of listening to Ruba’s presentation before voicing their own opinions (in a free speech kind of way), barged into the room within the first 5 minutes of the presentation yelling cheers like “my body my choice” whilst covering the projector and effectively removing all possibility for Ruba to continue with his presentation.
When the university security arrived at the scene, the protesters were momentarily silent but promptly resumed their shouting as Ruba displayed pictures from the Holocaust and a video of an abortion being carried out. With this, the security then shut down the event, forcing Ruba to continue with his presentation at a nearby Catholic church.
“What looks worse, shutting down a university-approved presentation or arresting people who are unlawfully disrupting that presentation?” asked Ruba, who, according to a National Campus Life Network news release, said he was appalled that the university gave into the mob rule. “St. Mary’s should be ashamed of itself for showing students that they need only scream when they don’t like something, rather than dialogue respectfully”.
Blogs are still buzzing, and letters to the editor are still flooding in; it seems everyone has something to say about the issue, pro-life and pro-choice titles aside. The day before Ruba’s presentation at St. Mary’s University, as if on cue, Barbara Kay of the National Post wrote an article entitled “Barbara Kay: Women deserve better than abortion” where she, while professing to be sensitive to the pro-life cause, criticized comparing abortion to the Holocaust.
Drawing upon the fact that throughout human history, “desperate circumstances [have prompted] desperate choices”, Kay outlines that “the circumstances in which we find ourselves at the moment of decision” must be considered in the appraisal of what is moral. With this ideology in mind, Kay compares the decision to abort one’s child as being akin to nomadic Inuit peoples of old having to make a difficult choice to leave one of their frail elders behind in an effort to survive a particularly harsh journey because the elder “might endanger the entire group”. Kay then goes on to compare abortion to a mother’s decision to suffocate her child during the Nazi occupation in order that she and her family not be discovered because of the cries of the infant.
But as Kay states in her article: “you cannot build an argument on an analogy alone. In any debate, emotional arousal must be subordinated to rational persuasion”. That is, of course if people will even listen to rational persuasion, which is, one can only hope Kay’s point in writing the article in question.
“Moreover,” Kay writes, “you are not only describing the action of abortion as evil [when comparing abortion to the Holocaust], you are implying that women, who abort, like Nazis, are evil people. There is neither truth nor dignity in accusing women of such moral turpitude”.
“Choose any factual perspective, you won’t find a single moral parallel between [abortion and the Holocaust] . And that is why it is not in your interest to pursue the [Genocide Awareness Project] campaign. Or in our mutual interest, because it stands in the way of an alliance between us.
To which Stephanie Gray, director of the CCBR and proponent of the Genocide Awareness Project, replies in a follow-up National Post piece:
“In Germany, Jews were deemed nonpersons. In Canada, so are the unborn. Jews were used for medical experiments. So are the unborn. Jews were labelled parasites, as are the unborn. Jews were killed in centres designed to terminate their lives. So, too with the unborn. Medical professionals were involved with killing Jews. Again, that is the case with the unborn. The Nazi philosophy was ‘lives unworthy of life’. The pro-abortion philosophy is ‘quality of life’”.
Gray goes on to say that Kay’s take on the angle adopted by the CCBR is to be expected. After all, Gray writes “Should Dr. King have ceased his tactics because people got angry? If not, why should pro-lifers change what they do simply because their opponents don't like it? That allows the other side to set the terms for debate, enabling them to talk about what they can defend ("choice"), rather than making them defend what they cannot (baby killing)”.
Friday, January 9, 2009
OUR LADY - SKYSCRAPER IN THE NIGHT
Our Lady like a hundred-story building
standing all alone alight, amid a deep dark night,
rises, terraced strong on steel, and towers tall
high-shaped and sheer to stop the pilgrim and enthrall,
with each ascending floor a pyramiding row
of golden-squares - taller yet than all - of light.
Down by her feet fair fountains mirror-play their waters
in her polished stone, while at her utmost height
great spotlights print her crown in a dazzling white.
A skyscraper Mary is, and wears her hundred-stories tall
like one long mist-like golden gown of light;
A Queen She is, glorious-tall, majestic in the night.
Albert Joseph Hebert, S.M.
Mary, Our Blessed Lady. New York: Exposition Press, 1970.
standing all alone alight, amid a deep dark night,
rises, terraced strong on steel, and towers tall
high-shaped and sheer to stop the pilgrim and enthrall,
with each ascending floor a pyramiding row
of golden-squares - taller yet than all - of light.
Down by her feet fair fountains mirror-play their waters
in her polished stone, while at her utmost height
great spotlights print her crown in a dazzling white.
A skyscraper Mary is, and wears her hundred-stories tall
like one long mist-like golden gown of light;
A Queen She is, glorious-tall, majestic in the night.
Albert Joseph Hebert, S.M.
Mary, Our Blessed Lady. New York: Exposition Press, 1970.
where have all the cowboys gone?
Throughout the past week I am alarmed at my own alarm resulting from the lack of regular access to the internet. I am fearful that I have forgotten how to be human and that it takes an awkward, slightly embarrassing amount of effort to do something native to the human condition. Like getting on a bike and riding it downtown; taking a walk alone in unknown territory; taking in a baseball game. Anything that is natural now takes an unnatural amount of planning while that which is not natural to the human condition (i.e. sitting and moving only one’s fingers for hours on end) is a reality for most.
I keep veering away from thinking too much about this because it makes me terribly nostalgic. No wonder I am content in complete immersion into the world of literature and fiction. Musty old books are breathing more than we; their pages leap with life while ours continue down the blandest route humanity has ever known, although, don’t worry, we do so oh-so-efficiently and at unforeseen speeds. Well, I always thought that if my death were to be quick it would be painless, but it is not so.
Pardon me while I answer a text message about nothing. At least it’s instant.
I keep veering away from thinking too much about this because it makes me terribly nostalgic. No wonder I am content in complete immersion into the world of literature and fiction. Musty old books are breathing more than we; their pages leap with life while ours continue down the blandest route humanity has ever known, although, don’t worry, we do so oh-so-efficiently and at unforeseen speeds. Well, I always thought that if my death were to be quick it would be painless, but it is not so.
Pardon me while I answer a text message about nothing. At least it’s instant.
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Post-election reflection.
The Heavens are still telling the Glory of God
Yep, God was Sovereign over all of Creation before November 6th and He will continue to reign as sovereign throughout Obama’s presidency and infinitely beyond; despite many of His friends choosing to replace His age-old Law with that of a 47-year old Democrat from Chicago/Hawaii/Kenya.
It is quite interesting that the other day Obama appointed Rahm Emanuel as chief of staff for his administration. Emanuel (God is with us…?) is an irrepressible and uncompromising liberal gentleman known to thrust steak knives into the table whilst shouting out opponent’s names followed by ‘dead, dead, dead’ (LifeSiteNews.com). Emanuel has been not-so-lovingly described by colleagues and friends alike as being an attack dog in enforcing policies and in his general political demeanor. Sounds like a pleasantly approachable starting point for the Obama administration.
How and Why Christians, Conservatives and Christian-Conservatives (yes, they are separate somehow) Are Being Picked Out and Thrown Out
“The others” can focus their well-planned and non-strenuous rebellions because they can so easily target us. Our particular (peculiar) moral blend makes us not unlike elephants standing in the corner to an onlooker. Among ourselves, however, we perceive innumerable difference causing much division, and as a result, much weakening. Not only are most intentions noble in the initial stages, but they are more often than not, not just good intentions but good intentions bathed in blood, sweat, and tears from the backbreaking labour of educating and protesting, protesting and educating. Yes, friends we are being faithful to our call, but faithfulness must exceed far beyond the creation of a hub for change. This hub must connect with all of the others, or else it will turn in on itself and become an instrument for our own demise and our enemy’s gain (and ridicule-although this is a secondary loss). How much more would the Lord of the harvest be enabled to bless us with prayers answered (and souls saved) if our efforts were united. The success of one pro-life organization is a personal success for each one of us.
This past weekend, I took in “Amazing Grace” a movie about the life and work of William Wilberforce, a civil rights warrior for the abolition of slavery in the 18th century. I am inspired. I noticed one thing in particular, and that was the UNITY of the abolitionists. We MUST unite, or we will not be successful. If we unite only to become more inconspicuous, so be it- although we can still find ways of being inconspicuous whilst remaining true to our call-as did Wilberforce and his league.
So this means collaborating. This means communicating and striving for more transparency. As we know, one of the sure “fruits” of the enemy is division among well-intentioned people.
“Whoever is not for us is against us!”
I recently became perplexed when I thought about the idea of division and how in Sacred Scripture Jesus tells us that He did not come to bring peace but to bring a sword. **enter verse about turning family members against one another here**. I see this not as division but as the unifying of two groups each at their respective poles. I believe that Christ’s second coming will constitute the ultimate fulfillment of this work of unity. He will return to separate the sheep from the goats, once and for all. In this era of mercy, God is allowing people to choose life or death. Sadly, many of us will see our own family members choose death; some of us already see our family members making grave morally-wrong decisions. But this is where mercy comes in- our chance and the chance for our family and friends to “join the right team”.
You may be thinking, as I am, about those “well-meaning” members of our society who are seemingly faithful but who have begun to compromise for the sake of an uninterrupted “peaceful” state of life and, to put it bluntly, an unchristian love of comfort and of human esteem. It seems that there is very little to be said here except that there is a new generation of young people rising up who have JPII’s words “BE NOT AFRAID!” still ringing in their ears. Indeed, my dear friends in Christ, we must not be afraid. We must not even think of sacrificing one small element of our faith in the effort to maintain our image among our peers. We know that there is a difference between right and wrong and even when wrong is flanked with right…it is still wrong. At the risk of getting too political (here, my roots and my principle passion will inevitably show), allow me to highlight one very concrete example of preferring comfort over the Law of God. Yes, I am going to go there. I am talking about voting for and/or supporting a candidate whose personal doctrine explicitly or implicitly (for surely they are one in the same) involves upholding the culture of death: that is, the killing of over 100, 000 babies each year in our country. This is unacceptable. There is no amount of money that can be offered to the poor, no amount of carbon tax, no amount of social funding that can come remotely close- “proportionally” -to the devastation resulting from the mass destruction of human life.
One cannot know the height, or depth, or breadth of what it means to be pro-life
A very wise priest recently told me that the term “pro-life” like so many other buzz words has become diluted from its originally beautiful and supernatural form. “Are you pro-life?” should not be a reasonable question with a rehearsed yes/no response. Being pro-life means being in favour of living; living not only for beauty but also for its pain and for its power to save. We cannot pretend to understand the full “height breadth and depth” of this gift of life. So therefore we cannot isolate its parameters or even its threats. If God’s enemy’s are at work always and everywhere, and God is love and the source of all life, how much more will the affronts against life be complex, full of appealing lies and embedded comfortably in a massive “grey area”? There is, therefore, no small sliver of room for overlooking certain moral evils for the sake of other goods. We are taught as children that little white lies will always come back to haunt us, and to extrapolate from this little paradigm-any slackening on one’s esteem for the life of another human being is a massive loss for all of society. It is not a personal choice. The “choice” to kill one person is choosing the upheaval of a society. Because once one death can be rationalized for certain reasons, all other deaths can therefore be rationalized.
You can predict a great deal of demise from a country that pays no heed to Wisdom as she is revealed through history and through her students, the Saints.
Monday, November 3, 2008
T' was the night before elections...
Try to put your finger on it, and find that a finger won't do
When and if leaders in the public sphere speak out against the distorted nature of homosexuality and abortion they are immediately ransacked by the left movements as being fundamentalist bigots. It seems bizarre that such movements have so much power to silence the very people that facilitate their power.
For example the Queen of Spain, the Matriarch of an ancient, historically Catholic empire spoke out on abortion, euthanasia and perhaps most vehemently, against homosexual marriage. In doing so, the Queen was not staking out new territory or setting any new precedents; she was merely re-stating age old tenets that have facilitated the growth and well-being of her empire for centuries.
The Queen was particularly criticized for her comments on gay “marriage”.
"If those people want to live together, dress up as grooms and enter into a union, it might be in their right, but they shouldn't call it matrimony, because it isn't," The Queen said.
This was not only the voice of the Queen of Spain speaking, this was also the voice of natural order and of history. This is actually the voice of reason, a voice that has become so ostracized that its intonations now sound foreign to even the most ‘right wing’. Even in speaking truth, our voice sounds strange and shaky. From whence has this overwhelming pressure come?
There is an undeniable force rendering people of ‘good will’ subject to disillusion; this force is also disproportionate in that those individuals who are ‘gravely offended’ by tradition are an unmentionable minority (this point becomes more and more irrelevant by the day). Those members of society who have no tolerance for students of history (and of reason) have somehow harnessed the rest of the world to push their agenda forward as they bask in the swollen tide of political correctness.
I began to think about this phenomenon while reading an article on the Queen’s recent statement and the inevitable riot from homosexual lobby groups that ensued. My thoughts were summed up by a comment at the end of the article.
However the author of the book, veteran journalist Pilar Urbano, has defended her work, claiming that it is completely accurate and was even vetted and approved by the Royal House before publication.
"We can understand all of the prudence that surrounds the Royal House, but there is a very powerful lobby in this country, which is the gay lobby," said Urbano in a radio interview.
So then I am not being alarmist. Other people are noticing the walls moving in. We need to stand firm- the more we retreat and remain silent, the more of us will be lulled to sleep in the pseudo-peace that a dangerous passivity like ours creates.
When birth rates and marriage numbers plummet, it seems to me quite clear that a population is in decline. We continue to prop up our own distinction and the erosion of our children’s quality of life one small “nicety” at a time. The statements “freedom of choice” and “right to [fill in this blank with pretty much anything]” are workable in and of themselves. We must examine what we mean when we concede to these statements: if in saying them, we are saying that a given individual has the right to do such and such a thing at the cost of another person, where does person A’s rights end and person B’s rights begin? Is there then no standard? Do we construct morality, then on a case by case basis?
If I have the ‘right’ to kill another person the day before they are born, can I then kill them a week after? How about one year? Why not 30 years after their birth? A life is a life is a life. Where are our precedents? Who took down all of the fences without first asking what it was they were protecting?
We are living in times of reckless demolition.
To read about the Queen of Spain’s comments: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/nov/08110301.html
When and if leaders in the public sphere speak out against the distorted nature of homosexuality and abortion they are immediately ransacked by the left movements as being fundamentalist bigots. It seems bizarre that such movements have so much power to silence the very people that facilitate their power.
For example the Queen of Spain, the Matriarch of an ancient, historically Catholic empire spoke out on abortion, euthanasia and perhaps most vehemently, against homosexual marriage. In doing so, the Queen was not staking out new territory or setting any new precedents; she was merely re-stating age old tenets that have facilitated the growth and well-being of her empire for centuries.
The Queen was particularly criticized for her comments on gay “marriage”.
"If those people want to live together, dress up as grooms and enter into a union, it might be in their right, but they shouldn't call it matrimony, because it isn't," The Queen said.
This was not only the voice of the Queen of Spain speaking, this was also the voice of natural order and of history. This is actually the voice of reason, a voice that has become so ostracized that its intonations now sound foreign to even the most ‘right wing’. Even in speaking truth, our voice sounds strange and shaky. From whence has this overwhelming pressure come?
There is an undeniable force rendering people of ‘good will’ subject to disillusion; this force is also disproportionate in that those individuals who are ‘gravely offended’ by tradition are an unmentionable minority (this point becomes more and more irrelevant by the day). Those members of society who have no tolerance for students of history (and of reason) have somehow harnessed the rest of the world to push their agenda forward as they bask in the swollen tide of political correctness.
I began to think about this phenomenon while reading an article on the Queen’s recent statement and the inevitable riot from homosexual lobby groups that ensued. My thoughts were summed up by a comment at the end of the article.
However the author of the book, veteran journalist Pilar Urbano, has defended her work, claiming that it is completely accurate and was even vetted and approved by the Royal House before publication.
"We can understand all of the prudence that surrounds the Royal House, but there is a very powerful lobby in this country, which is the gay lobby," said Urbano in a radio interview.
So then I am not being alarmist. Other people are noticing the walls moving in. We need to stand firm- the more we retreat and remain silent, the more of us will be lulled to sleep in the pseudo-peace that a dangerous passivity like ours creates.
When birth rates and marriage numbers plummet, it seems to me quite clear that a population is in decline. We continue to prop up our own distinction and the erosion of our children’s quality of life one small “nicety” at a time. The statements “freedom of choice” and “right to [fill in this blank with pretty much anything]” are workable in and of themselves. We must examine what we mean when we concede to these statements: if in saying them, we are saying that a given individual has the right to do such and such a thing at the cost of another person, where does person A’s rights end and person B’s rights begin? Is there then no standard? Do we construct morality, then on a case by case basis?
If I have the ‘right’ to kill another person the day before they are born, can I then kill them a week after? How about one year? Why not 30 years after their birth? A life is a life is a life. Where are our precedents? Who took down all of the fences without first asking what it was they were protecting?
We are living in times of reckless demolition.
To read about the Queen of Spain’s comments: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/nov/08110301.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)