R. J. Grigaitis

The term pro-choice is misleading and inaccurate. Those that say they are pro-choice are not really pro-choice. It may sound good, but being totally pro-choice is absurd. There are some choices that should not be allowed. No one should be given the choice of driving 200 km/h or 30 km/h (remember, I’m Canadian) in a school zone, especially when kindergarten is letting out. No one should be given the choice of stealing a $40,000 car or paying for it. No one should be given the choice of killing a person, whether that person is an abortion practitioner  or a fetus (the word fetus, by the way, is Latin for “young one”).

Even more misleading is the use of the term anti-choice instead of pro-life. Those that say they are pro-life are not anti-choice. There are many choices that should be allowed. Everyone should have the choice of fair-trade chocolate, strawberry, or vanilla (even if you’re allergic, wouldn’t it be nice to have the choice?). Parents should have a choice of names for their children. Everyone should have a choice of religion.

Even when it comes to abortion, many of those that say they are pro-choice are not really pro-choice. It seems those in the abortion business are doing everything they can so women who have an unplanned pregnancy do not have an informed choice. They lie about the relationship between abortion and breast cancer. They lie about the pain that a fetus feels during an abortion. And, they lie about the psychological damage abortion does to the woman. As well, Canadians do not have a choice in financially supporting abortion with their tax money.

No one is pro-choice, so stop using the term. If you’re pro-abortion, call yourself “pro-abortion.” If you’re afraid to, it only goes to prove that there is something wrong with abortion.

There are some men that have “left” the priesthood so they could marry, only to be later confronted with news of married clergy from other churches entering the Roman Catholic Church and being ordained to the priesthood. They feel they have been done an injustice because they had to “give up” the priesthood to marry, and here married men have become priests without giving up their marriage. To some, this looks like a double standard.

The first mistake these men make is that they never left or gave up the priesthood. The Sacrament of Holy Orders, like Baptism and Confirmation, is unrepeatable and permanent. What they did leave or give up was their vow of celibacy. Being released from this vow came with the serious consequence of not being allowed to normally exercise their priesthood. I’ve explained this in a previous post (http://blog.grigaitis.net/2009/04/married-clergy/).

The second mistake these men make is in seeing a similarity between their situation and the situation of married men coming into the Roman Catholic Church and being ordained as priests. The main difference is that celibate clergy have taken a vow of celibacy, and married clergy have not. If the wife of a married priest dies, the priest must remain celibate. He would be in the same situation as a priest that took a vow of celibacy before ordination. A widowed priest can also petition the Church to release him from his vow of celibacy and allow him to remarry, in which case he would suffer the same consequence of not being allowed to normally exercise his priesthood.

This is not a matter of a double standard but an example of compassion on the part of the Church towards those coming from a different tradition in which mandatory clerical celibacy is not the norm. It must be remembered that it is a norm and not a doctrine. It is possible, although very unlikely, that the Church return to the original norm of clerical celibacy being optional. However, all bishops, priests, and deacons that took a vow of celibacy before ordination will be expected to keep that vow. As well, widowed clerics would also be expected to remain celibate.

Celibate priests that give up their vow of celibacy and marry are not allowed to normally exercise their priesthood. Married men that become priests and have not taken a vow of celibacy are obviously not in the same situation.

or if you’re Eastern Rite, Happy Theophany
or if you’re on the Julian calendar, Merry Christmas
or if your bishop thinks Epiphany shouldn’t be on a weekday, Happy Wednesday After Epiphany

I celebrated Epiphany twice this year, both times in the Roman Rite, and both times in my home diocese. On the 3rd I assisted at Sunday Epiphany Mass at my local parish, and today I assisted at an FSSP Epiphany Mass. FSSP is for Fraternitas Sacerdotalis Sancti Petri (Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter). If you want to know more about the FSSP, visit their website: http://fssp.org

Why do some Roman Catholics celebrate Epiphany on the Sunday between January 2nd and 8th, and some Roman Catholics celebrate Epiphany on the actual feast of Epiphany? I guess you’ll have to ask the men who made this option available to Roman bishops in 1969.

What if they did the same thing for Christmas? Would more people come to Christmas Eve Mass if it were on the Saturday night between December 20th and 26th? Would Santa Clause know which house to go to on the Sunday and which house to go to on the 25th? What if the family isn’t Catholic, or even Christian? Which day should Santa visit? What if a family does on Christmas what I did this Epiphany? Would Santa visit their house twice?

These are some deep theological questions that make my head hurt. I wonder if their heads hurt in 1969?

This video is an update on the Obama Admits He Is A Muslim blog entry.