From what I have seen, I really do think there is too much apathy among Canadian Catholics. There could be a few reasons for this. Perhaps some Catholics are really not aware of how badly we are persecuted . For others, they see the negative portrayal of us but feel helpless in the face of it. It is pretty daunting
Because I am a Catholic I am speaking from the point of view of a Catholic but all Christians in Canada are treated this way
Over the past few years we have been bullied over and over again for our beliefs. Remember when our so called Catholic Prime Minister wouldn't allow anyone who was Pro Life to be a member of the Liberal Party? How can we forget.
Well, all practicing Catholics ARE Pro Life. When we pray during mass and pray that "we believe in the Holy Catholic Church", this means that we believe in the Teachings of the Church. We believe that abortion and Euthanasia are mortal sins. And because the Church is Apostolic therefore Catholics are not meant to keep these teachings to themselves.
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church
Abortion
2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person -- among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.(71)Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you. (72)
My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth .(73) You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish .(74)
God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.(75)
2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:
'The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being's right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death.'(79)
'The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child's rights.' (80) 2274 Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.Prenatal diagnosis is morally licit, 'if it respects the life and integrity of the embryo and the human foetus and is directed toward its safeguarding or healing as an individual... It is gravely opposed to the moral law when this is done with the thought of possibly inducing an abortion, depending upon the results: a diagnosis must not be the equivalent of a death sentence.' (81)
2275 'One must hold as licit procedures carried out on the human embryo which respect the life and integrity of the embryo and do not involve disproportionate risks for it, but are directed toward its healing, the improvement of its condition of health, or its individual survival.' (82)
'It is immoral to produce human embryos intended for exploitation as disposable biological material.' (83)
'Certain attempts to influence chromosomic or genetic inheritance are not therapeutic but are aimed at producing human beings selected according to sex or other predetermined qualities. Such manipulations are contrary to the personal dignity of the human being and his integrity and identity' (84) which are unique and unrepeatable.
Euthanasia
2276 Those whose lives are diminished or weakened deserve special respect. Sick or handicapped persons should be helped to lead lives as normal as possible.
2277 Whatever its motives and means, direct euthanasia consists in putting an end to the lives of handicapped, sick or dying persons. It is morally unacceptable.
Thus an act or omission which, of itself or by intention, causes death in order to eliminate suffering constitutes a murder gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person and to the respect due to the living God, his Creator. The error of judgement into which one can fall in good faith does not change the nature of this murderous act, which must always be forbidden and excluded.
2278 Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate; it is the refusal of 'over-zealous' treatment. Here one does not will to cause death; one's inability to impede it is merely accepted. The decisions should be made by the patient if he is competent and able or, if not, by those legally entitled to act for the patient, whose reasonable will and legitimate interests must always be respected.
2279 Even if death is thought imminent, the ordinary care owed to a sick person cannot be legitimately interrupted. The use of painkillers to alleviate the sufferings of the dying, even at the risk of shortening their days, can be morally in conformity with human dignity if death is not willed as either an end or a means, but only foreseen and tolerated as inevitable. Palliative care is a special form of disinterested charity. As such it should be encouraged.
And we believe that marriage is a holy union between one man and one woman
ARTICLE 7
THE SACRAMENT OF MATRIMONY
# 1601 "The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament." [CIC, can. 1055 # 1; GS 48 # 1]"
I. MARRIAGE IN GOD'S PLAN
# 1602 "Sacred Scripture begins with the creation of man and woman in the image and likeness of God and concludes with a vision of "the wedding-feast of the Lamb." [Rev 19:7, 9; Gen 1:26-27] Scripture speaks throughout of marriage and its "mystery," its institution and the meaning God has given it, its origin and its end, its various realizations throughout the history of salvation, the difficulties arising from sin and its renewal "in the Lord" in the New Covenant of Christ and the Church. [1 Cor 7:39; cf. Eph 5:31-32]"
But in regards to what Catholics ( and all Christians) believe in regards to marriage: that marriage is designed by God and that it is a Sacred Union between one man and one woman; and even though Freedom of Religion is part of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms it doesn't seem to matter in this supposedly free country anymore because
On Friday, June 15, the Supreme Court of Canada threw out a quarter-century of legal precedent on religious liberty by deciding, by a margin of 7-2, that it was “proportionate and reasonable” for the law societies of British Columbia and Ontario to refuse accreditation to any law students coming from Trinity Western University due to TWU’s much-maligned “community covenant.” The covenant, which students who choose to attend Trinity agree to, is a lifestyle policy that asks students to adhere to biblical codes of conduct, including the restriction of sexual activity to heterosexual marriage.It was this covenant—again, a code of conduct for a small, privately-funded evangelical university that nobody has to attend if they don’t want to—that led law societies to claim that students coming from a TWU law school would not be able to escape their particular bias, and thus should not be accredited. Their presumption, apparently, is that people who have a specific set of religious beliefs are incapable of also reading the law as it is written, and that only those who heartily endorse every jot and tittle of what is legally permitted can function as lawyers. Ironically, the Court even managed to claim that their decision was being made as a nod to diversity, when their decision actually struck a devastating blow to diversity in the public square.
And below is another brilliant article by Jonathan
Jordan Peterson: Canadian Christians must ‘stand up’ for religious rights after top court ruling here
and from this article
Better stand up for yourselves, because your religious rights are very low on the rights totem pole at the moment,” Peterson warned, his voice deadly serious, “and that’s going to get worse, a lot worse, before it gets better. So if you think your religious freedom is worth having, you better be ready to defend it, and you better be ready to do that in an articulated way, because you’re not a priority—put it that way.”
Because I am a Catholic I am speaking from the point of view of a Catholic but all Christians in Canada are treated this way
Over the past few years we have been bullied over and over again for our beliefs. Remember when our so called Catholic Prime Minister wouldn't allow anyone who was Pro Life to be a member of the Liberal Party? How can we forget.
Well, all practicing Catholics ARE Pro Life. When we pray during mass and pray that "we believe in the Holy Catholic Church", this means that we believe in the Teachings of the Church. We believe that abortion and Euthanasia are mortal sins. And because the Church is Apostolic therefore Catholics are not meant to keep these teachings to themselves.
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church
Abortion
2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person -- among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.(71)
My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth .(73)
God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.(75)
2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:
'The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child's rights.' (80)
2275 'One must hold as licit procedures carried out on the human embryo which respect the life and integrity of the embryo and do not involve disproportionate risks for it, but are directed toward its healing, the improvement of its condition of health, or its individual survival.' (82)
'It is immoral to produce human embryos intended for exploitation as disposable biological material.' (83)
'Certain attempts to influence chromosomic or genetic inheritance are not therapeutic but are aimed at producing human beings selected according to sex or other predetermined qualities. Such manipulations are contrary to the personal dignity of the human being and his integrity and identity' (84) which are unique and unrepeatable.
Euthanasia
2276 Those whose lives are diminished or weakened deserve special respect. Sick or handicapped persons should be helped to lead lives as normal as possible.
2277 Whatever its motives and means, direct euthanasia consists in putting an end to the lives of handicapped, sick or dying persons. It is morally unacceptable.
Thus an act or omission which, of itself or by intention, causes death in order to eliminate suffering constitutes a murder gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person and to the respect due to the living God, his Creator. The error of judgement into which one can fall in good faith does not change the nature of this murderous act, which must always be forbidden and excluded.
2278 Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate; it is the refusal of 'over-zealous' treatment. Here one does not will to cause death; one's inability to impede it is merely accepted. The decisions should be made by the patient if he is competent and able or, if not, by those legally entitled to act for the patient, whose reasonable will and legitimate interests must always be respected.
2279 Even if death is thought imminent, the ordinary care owed to a sick person cannot be legitimately interrupted. The use of painkillers to alleviate the sufferings of the dying, even at the risk of shortening their days, can be morally in conformity with human dignity if death is not willed as either an end or a means, but only foreseen and tolerated as inevitable. Palliative care is a special form of disinterested charity. As such it should be encouraged.
And we believe that marriage is a holy union between one man and one woman
ARTICLE 7
THE SACRAMENT OF MATRIMONY
# 1601 "The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament." [CIC, can. 1055 # 1; GS 48 # 1]"
I. MARRIAGE IN GOD'S PLAN
# 1602 "Sacred Scripture begins with the creation of man and woman in the image and likeness of God and concludes with a vision of "the wedding-feast of the Lamb." [Rev 19:7, 9; Gen 1:26-27] Scripture speaks throughout of marriage and its "mystery," its institution and the meaning God has given it, its origin and its end, its various realizations throughout the history of salvation, the difficulties arising from sin and its renewal "in the Lord" in the New Covenant of Christ and the Church. [1 Cor 7:39; cf. Eph 5:31-32]"
But in regards to what Catholics ( and all Christians) believe in regards to marriage: that marriage is designed by God and that it is a Sacred Union between one man and one woman; and even though Freedom of Religion is part of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms it doesn't seem to matter in this supposedly free country anymore because
On Friday, June 15, the Supreme Court of Canada threw out a quarter-century of legal precedent on religious liberty by deciding, by a margin of 7-2, that it was “proportionate and reasonable” for the law societies of British Columbia and Ontario to refuse accreditation to any law students coming from Trinity Western University due to TWU’s much-maligned “community covenant.” The covenant, which students who choose to attend Trinity agree to, is a lifestyle policy that asks students to adhere to biblical codes of conduct, including the restriction of sexual activity to heterosexual marriage.It was this covenant—again, a code of conduct for a small, privately-funded evangelical university that nobody has to attend if they don’t want to—that led law societies to claim that students coming from a TWU law school would not be able to escape their particular bias, and thus should not be accredited. Their presumption, apparently, is that people who have a specific set of religious beliefs are incapable of also reading the law as it is written, and that only those who heartily endorse every jot and tittle of what is legally permitted can function as lawyers. Ironically, the Court even managed to claim that their decision was being made as a nod to diversity, when their decision actually struck a devastating blow to diversity in the public square.
And below is another brilliant article by Jonathan
Jordan Peterson: Canadian Christians must ‘stand up’ for religious rights after top court ruling here
and from this article
Better stand up for yourselves, because your religious rights are very low on the rights totem pole at the moment,” Peterson warned, his voice deadly serious, “and that’s going to get worse, a lot worse, before it gets better. So if you think your religious freedom is worth having, you better be ready to defend it, and you better be ready to do that in an articulated way, because you’re not a priority—put it that way.”
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.