R. J. Grigaitis

http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=1621830

This story about the procedures orthodox Jews can go through to use in vitro fertilization and artificial insemination is missing one very important piece of information: natural family planing is nearly three times more successful and far cheaper.

Fr. Thomas J. Loya’s  interview with Right Rev. Dr. Andriy Chirovsky on the November 12, 2006 broadcast of Light of the East has really captured my imagination. So much so, that I bought the books Pray for God’s Wisdom: The Mystical Sophiology of Metropolitan Andrey Sheptystky by Fr. Chirovsky and Christian social Ethics in Ukraine: The Legacy of Andrei Sheptytsky by Andrii Krawchuk from the Metropolitan Andrey Sheptytsky Institute of Eastern Christian Studies at Saint Paul University.

I particularly enjoy the little story about Fr. Chirovsky and his grandmother praying for Archbishop Slipyj.

Fr. Thomas J. Loya answered a letter of mine on the May 17, 2009 broadcast of Light of the East. I asked him what the Byzantine Church’s position is on the debate of the predestination of the Incarnation.

Listen to the answer here:
http://blog.grigaitis.net/files/predestinationOfTheIncarnation.mp3

Listen to the entire show here:
http://www.byzantinecatholic.com/radio.htm

Last week I read and commented on Sr. Helena Burns’ review of the movie Angels & Demons. This is what I wrote:

Good review except for this one sentence: “The screenplay (which is kinder to the Catholic Church than the book) zigzags schizophrenically between insulting the Church and patting her on the head.” Schizophrenia is not the disorder you wanted to refer to. What you wanted to refer to was dissociative identity disorder, also known as multiple personality disorder. The pope made a similar mistake almost a year ago. You can read about it here:
http://blog.grigaitis.net/2008/09/humble-correction-of-the-pope/

Sr. Helena respectfully made this reply describing how she corrected her review:

Thanks! I fixed it to “rapidly.”

Today I saw the movie at a matinée and have decided that schizophrenic, though Sr. Helena used it in the wrong context, describes this movie perfectly.

A couple of times close to the beginning of the movie, I was almost offended; however, closer to the end, I could hardly keep myself from laughing out loud it was so ridiculous. Of course you shouldn’t react either way when dealing with someone delusional, and this is how I interpret the main character, Robert Langdon.

Mr. Langdon is a very ill person who believes he’s been summoned to help the Vatican. His delusions defy theology, history, and physics. This is the only rational way I can explain what goes on in this movie.

I met a guy once on the psych ward who had similar delusions. It was ten years ago, so I don’t remember all the details, but I do remember that the organisation that played the same role in his delusion as the Vatican in this movie was MTV. He believed that some evil force in this world was going to annihilate everyone of his ethic background, and was sending all sorts of e-mails to MTV for this to be stopped. Maybe Ron Howard should base his next movie on this story.

I can’t take the delusions of Angels & Demons seriously enough to be offended by them, just as I can’t be offended by the delusions of someone with schizophrenia.

Now I’m not saying that Dan Brown and Ron Howard have schizophrenia. I doubt they share the same delusions their stories suffer from, which begs the question: Why are they creating these stories?

They must have some unhealthy obsession with the Catholic Church. Maybe they should turn it into a healthy obsession. Wouldn’t it be something if both of them became devout Catholics a few years from now?

by Mark Shea

Provided to you for free by Ascension Press

The theatrical release of Angels & Demons is set to appear in theatres around the country on Friday, May 15. While being hailed as a masterful work of cinema, Angels & Demons is little more than an overt attack on the Catholic Church. This movie has the potential to shake the faith of millions of people who know little about Catholic teaching and Catholic and Western history. 

Wrapped in an exciting story of mystery and intrigue, Angels & Demons has a clear agenda. Pretending the Church to be a murderous institution bent on eliminating those who would foster scientific progress, this story paints a picture of our Catholic heritage that denies even the most basic facts of history.

As a response, Ascension Press has teamed up with Mark Shea to set the record straight in the book Answering Angels & Demons. Available for free at www.AnsweringAngelsAndDemons.com, this resource contains 33 questions and answers that dispel the outrageous claims made in the story.

We hope you will download this free book, read it for yourself, share it with your friends, and spread the word.

Sincerely,
Ascension Press

I thought about commenting on the news article Bleak stories behind failed condom campaigns back in mid-April when it was highlighted on the Catholic Radio International show The Heart Of The Matter. When I read it again last Saturday in the May 1st issue of Life and Family Report by St. Joseph’s Workers for Life and Family, I decided to finally comment.

No, I would never again eat sweets with a wrapper on. I tried it before I was Catholic, and it just wasn’t as pleasurable  as without a wrapper, which is why I often took the wrapper off before the sweet was gone.

OK, if that wasn’t graphic enough for you:

Two-thirds of the world’s HIV/AIDS cases are in Sub-Saharan Africa. The men there sleep with whomever they like and don’t get married until they are old and need someone to cook for them. “A man might be sleeping with six different women in a year.” These men want to have children, so they don’t use condoms.

HIV positive men in Sub-Saharan Africa often don’t care if they give it to someone else. They think, “I can’t be the only one. Since someone gave me the disease, I will give it to someone else.”  Men that don’t care if they pass on a disease don’t use condoms.

Rape is common place, and “even if the rapist is known, nothing much is done.” In South Africa, “more than a quarter of all the females can expect to be raped at least once in their life.” Rapist don’t use condoms.

These are the facts of the general sexual morality in Sub-Saharan Africa. This is why Pope Benedict XVI is sceptical about the effectiveness of distributing condoms as a solution to this problem. Even if a condom is used, it’s no guarantee that a disease will not be transmitted. If anything, condoms embolden people to take more risks. “Fighting AIDS with condoms is like extinguishing a fire with petrol.”

Will a man who sleeps with several different women say, “I better not use a condom because the pope says it’s a sin”? Will a man who doesn’t care if he passes on a disease say, ”I better not use a condom because the pope says it’s a sin”? Will a rapist say, ”I better not use a condom because the pope says it’s a sin”? It is ludicrous to think that anyone that engages in activity that is far more immoral than using a condom will not use a condom simply because the pope says it’s a sin.

What is needed in Sub-Saharan Africa is not condoms, but morality. The only positive thing about distributing condoms as a solution is the revenue generated by western condom manufacturers; a revenue that is funded primarily by taxpayers. Since the condoms don’t get used, wouldn’t it be a lot easier to just flush money down a toilet? Oh yeah, they can’t afford ones that flush.

There is only one rational solution to the world wide problem of HIV/AIDS and other STDs: have only one sex partner for your entire life. Since you know you’re not going to get a disease, and NFP is more reliable for avoiding pregnancy, there’s no reason to compromise sexual pleasure with a condom. Don’t eat sweets with a wrapper on.

Many do not understand how Catholics were forbidden from eating meat on Fridays, and then in 1966 they were suddenly allowed to. To understand this, one must realise that the no meat on Fridays rule, like the celibate clergy rule, was never a doctrine but only a practice. As well, this practice was not done away with, but simply modified.

In 1966, Pope Paul IV determined that the rules for fasting and abstinence should be set by the various bishop conferences according to local circumstances. Many, but not all, conferences decided that they would allow the faithful to eat meat on Fridays if the faithful chose some other form of penance; although, abstaining from meat was still preferable.

The actual act of eating meat on Fridays was never itself a mortal sin. However, it was, and still is, a mortal sin for Catholics to wilfully disobey Church rules. At one time, it was against Church rules to eat meat on Fridays, so wilfully doing so would be a mortal sin. Now, some bishops allow the faithful to substitute another form of penance for eating meat on Fridays, so they can in good conscience eat meat on Fridays if they do some other form of penance.

Doctrines never change. Practices can.

This is just like the speed limit for the highway that connects my hometown with the big city north of us. For years it was 110km/h at day and 100km/h at night. Around thirteen or fourteen years ago, it was changed to 110km/h both day and night. Does this mean that people driving 110km/h at night twenty years ago were not speeding? Of course not. One has to follow the laws when they are in force. (I found this out the hard way. I got my first speeding ticket a few months ago in a zone that changed a few years ago from 60km/h to 50km/h. I really watch the signs now.)

Just as the rules changed so some Catholics could eat meat on Fridays, this change can be reversed. This is what Bishop R. Daniel Conlon of Steubenville did. As of April 17, 2009, Roman Catholics in the Diocese of Steubenville must abstain from meat on Fridays. You can read his letter to the faithful of his diocese concerning this here:
http://home.catholicweb.com/diosteub/index.cfm/NewsItem?id=260466

All Protestant Fundamentalists will admit that both Christ and St. Paul encourage celibacy for the Kingdom for those that can accept it (cf. Matthew 19:12, 1 Corinthians 7:32-38). The reason for celibacy for the Kingdom is so that one can devote himself wholly  to God. Everyone has the right to choose a life of celibacy. Well, almost everyone.

Some of the Rites of the Catholic Church, most notably the Roman Rite, have wisely chosen to only select men for the presbyterate (priesthood) who have chosen to devote themselves wholly to God through celibacy. All of the Rites of the Catholic Church have chosen to only select celibate presbyters for the episcopate (bishops). Strangely, some Protestant Fundamentalists have chosen to select only men for what they call the presbyterate (elders) who have chosen to marry and cannot devote themselves wholly to God. I say strangely because it doesn’t make sense that the leaders of these churches are not allowed devote themselves wholly to God.

These Fundamentalists are quick to say that it is unfair to force celibacy on Roman Catholic priests; however, it is just as unfair to force marriage on their elders.

As with many heresies, mandatory marriage of elders and deacons comes from a misinterpretation of the Bible. 1 Timothy 3:2 says bishops must be “the husband of one wife.” Titus 1:6 says priests must be “the husband of one wife.” And, 1 Timothy 3:12 says deacons must be “the husband of one wife.” A correct interpretation of these verses is not that marriage is mandatory for men that hold these offices, but that if they are married and their wife dies, they are not allowed to remarry. The key word in these verses is one, as in no more than “one wife.”

The most obvious argument against mandatory marriage is that there was celibate clergy in the New Testament: St. Paul was celibate. The most common counter-argument is to simply say that Paul was not an elder. If we ask how we know this, we are told, “He couldn’t be an elder because he wasn’t married.”

Not only is this counter-argument based  on circular reasoning, it is proven wrong with the original Greek of the New Testament. St. Peter calls himself a presbuteros in 1 Peter 5:1, which is congruent with this counter-argument because St. Peter was married. However, St. Paul calls himself a presbutas in Philemon 9, which is essentially the same word. If one calls Peter an elder, he has to call Paul an elder; therefore one has to admit that there was celibate clergy in the New Testament. (Actually, in these two contexts, the words in question should be translated as senior and not as priest. This is how the Latin Vulgate does it.)