A first in my 28 years as a Catholic: A homily explaining the church’s teaching on contraception.

Today is the 4th October 2009. It is also the 27th Sunday in Ordinary time if you are liturgically minded.

So what’s so special about today?

Well, of course Sunday is always special. After all, it’s the Lord’s day and we should take the time to worship, rest and relax (in that order).

What makes it a bonus of course, is when you hear a homily which inspires and uplifts.

Well that was what I heard today. The parish was St Joseph’s Church (Bukit Timah). The mass was 11am. And the homilist was Fr. Alex Chua, Vocations Director and Chaplain for the Universities, Archdiocese of Singapore.

And he chose to preach about contraception, and why Catholics who use contraception should go to confession for they would be guilty of serious sin.

To be honest, it was simply a typical Sunday Mass for me. I arrived just in time, settle down to the pew, tried to follow the Gloria and the Kyrie as best as I could and sat down to listen to the readings.

The first reading was from Genesis 2, 18-24 where we heard that God created man and woman and that a man shall leave his father and mother and unite with his wife and the two shall be one flesh.

The Gospel was from Mk 10,2-16 where Jesus spoke against divorce and quoted Genesis 2, 18-24 to demonstrate God’s original plan for man and woman.

Fr. Alex Chua read the Gospel and proceeded to give the homily.

Fr Alex then recounted an incident where a woman who had three children complained bitterly to him that because of her “stupid husband”, she is now pregnant with her fourth child. She resents that and asked Fr Alex, “where in the bible does it say that couples cannot use contraception”.

And for good measure, she informed Fr Alex that she did ask a priest about this and he gave such a convoluted answer that it was of no help at all.

I cringed at the beginning of the homily, wondering where all this would lead. Would Fr. Alex proceed to attack the Church’s teaching on contraception? Would he disparage the clear teaching of Humane Vitae?

I saw my parish priest, Fr Edmund, a man known for his orthodoxy and fidelity to church teaching (he is never seen without his roman collar), squinting his eyes and listening attentively to what would be preached.

My fears were unfounded. What followed was a wonderful homily on the truth of marital love and conjugal union that I nearly wept for joy.

Fr Alex proceeded to give a learned scriptural exegesis on the Bible’s description of the conjugal union as a one flesh union.

“In the conjugal act”, preached Fr Alex, “it is an act of total and unreserved self giving.” “You are attempting to be one flesh with your spouse. How can you be one flesh when you refuse to give your spouse your sperms or eggs?”

Fr proceeded to share that the conjugal act possess two meanings, union and procreation. By separating the procreative dimension from the unitive, couples would fail to unite themselves completely too and that is a recipe for selfishness.

“Contraception is death dealing”, insisted Fr Alex, “we are people of life and true union is the goal of every marriage, especially in the conjugal act.” “What happens in the bedroom will affect what happens in the day to day of married life. If there is no union there, there would not be true union in a marriage.”

Fr proceeded to assure couples that the church does not insist that you must have as many children as possible but insists on responsible parenthood. “Every couple who marries ought to know about natural family planning. Please check with the parish secretary for NFP information.”

He subsequently shared that the woman who challenged him admitted that he did know the scripture after all.

And to end it all, he urged couples who are contracepting to throw away their contraceptives into the rubbish bin, begin dialogue with each other and come for confession and be reconciled with the Church.

Wow!

Now I am paraphrasing what I remembered from Fr Alex’s homily and his homily is much better than what I have recalled. Will try to get the full text and post it in this blog.

And when i congratulated Fr Alex on a beautiful homily, he humbly said "well, with today's reading, what else should we priests preach on."

If you would like to thank Fr Alex, you can write to him here. SingaporeDiocesanVocation@gmail.com

Thank God for a courageous and compassionate priest! Deo Gratias!

Beware also of Intolerant Secularism: On PM Lee's National Day Rally

I would give the Prime Minister 85 out of 100 for his national day rally speech on race and religion.

First the good points.

It was good that the Prime Minister praised religion, as “a positive force in human societies… provid[ing] spiritual strength, guidance, solace and a sense of purpose to many, especially in our fast-changing and uncertain world”.

Also, it is always a good thing to remind religious Singaporeans and their religious leaders (85% of the population by the way) of the need to be tolerant, rational and grow the common space so that all can live harmoniously.

When then, you may ask, does he score only 85 marks at least in the mind of this Singaporean (whatever that grade is worth to the PM of course)?

That’s because, in the PM’s attempt to “assess progress” and “recognize trends”, he has somehow neglected to include a sector of Singaporeans (about 15% of them) in his analysis; namely Singaporeans who identify themselves as professing no religion, and who describe themselves variously as freethinkers, secularists, atheists or agnostics.

Now don’t get me wrong. I have nothing against such Singaporeans. I count a few of them as my friends. While not being religiously inclined themselves, and sometimes looking at their religiously inclined Singaporeans (I am one of them) with a certain amount of bemusement, they are, mostly tolerant, rational and also value the harmonious multi racial and multi religious society that is Singapore.

My “gripe” with the PM (if I can use that word), is very simple actually. Why is this group of Singaporeans somehow exempt from scrutiny, and from the need to be reminded by our national leaders that they too must play their role in striving towards a harmonious Singapore?

It is true. Some religiously inclined persons are susceptible to intolerant and irrational ideas and need to be put in their place.

But are so called “non-religious” persons, by virtue of their non-religiosity, naturally immune to the plague of intolerance and irrational behaviour?

I would think not.

In a speech about a year ago, Anthony Fisher, auxillary Bishop of Sydney coined the term “dogmatic secularism” to describe secularists who are “uncomfortable with pleas of immunity on religious or other conscientious grounds.”

Bishop Fisher should know. The State of Victoria, Australia, recently passed a law not only legalizing abortion up to 24 weeks but also mandating that doctors and other healthcare professionals who object to abortion on religious or conscientious grounds “refer women who approach them to other healthcare professionals”. Not only that, they are required to perform the abortion in case of an emergency. Failure to do so would result in a lost of their medical license.

This is a clear case of dogmatic secularists griped by intolerant behavior.

But surely secularists in Singapore are different. We will never go the way of the West.

I hope so but I am not so sure.

Indeed, if one is to browse through any major bookstore in Singapore (Borders and Kinokuniya comes to mind), one would quickly discover books with titles that are, to put it mildly, provocative.

We will quickly discover, titles like “God is not great: Why religion poisons everything” by Christopher Hitchens. Or if you prefer, there is also “the God Delusion” by Richard Dawkins (who by the way called the teaching of religion to children by parents a form of child abuse and has gone on record to call for government intervention). And if you are still in the mood “the atheist manifesto” by Michael Onfray, who for good measure, subtitles his book “the Case against Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.”

Books do not appear on the shelves of major bookstores unless there is a market for them. And judging by their prominent locations (very often in the religion section of all places), there is a sizeable demand.

Nor is this appetite for books advocating dogmatic secularism simply read as a pastime.

We see intolerant secularism actually rearing its ugly head in concrete actions.

Take the question of homosexuality for instance. If you disagree in public, even in Singapore, where homosexual sex acts are technically illegal, that the homosexual lifestyle should be promoted as a normal or a neutral thing, you had better be prepared to face being called "fundamentalist", "Christian Taliban" "hate monger" and other types of inflammatory language which, if used in other contexts, will risk bringing down the power of the sedition act on you for inciting racial and religious tension.

Or if you are a religiously inspired organization, who intend to raise money for a children’s learning centre by tying up with a local bank, but happen to also hold views on sexuality deemed by secularists to be politically incorrect, you risk facing a campaign waged against you demanding that Singapore’s largest bank stop its tie up with you.

Or if you are a parent concerned about what’s being taught for sexuality education in schools, you might be accused of “have[ing] an inflated sense of your own worth in society” “a selfish, ignorant fool” and “a menace to society”. (Oh yes this was published in a mainstream newspaper’s blog before it was thankfully taken down. If you want the full text of this so called journalist’s vile writings, please email me separately).

But nevertheless kudos to you, Prime Minister. It was good of you to remind our religious leaders and religiously inclined Singaporeans to be vigilant and not allow racial and religious intolerance to boil over.

It would have been even better if you have reminded the 15 percent of non-religious/secular Singaporeans that the same rules which apply to religious groups also apply to them.

Now I know that dogmatic secularists might accuse me of making a mountain out of a molehill and that they are fundamentally nice people and that I am engaged in scaremongering. (after all, that’s what religious people are often good at).

For the sake of this country, I hope for once that they are right.

Saruman at Notre Dame

Commentary: Saruman at Notre Dame
By Thaddeus J. Kozinski

President Obama's masterful speech was widely applauded -- but what did he actually say?

"Those who listened unwarily to that voice could seldom report the words that they heard; and if they did, they wondered, for little power remained in them. Mostly they remembered only that it was a delight to hear the voice speaking, all that it said seemed wise and reasonable, and desire awoke in them by swift agreement to seem wise themselves. When others spoke they seemed harsh and uncouth by contrast; and if they gainsaid the voice, anger was kindled in the hearts of those under the spell. For some the spell lasted only while the voice spoke to them, and when it spake to another they smiled, as men do who see through a juggler’s trick while others gape at it. For many the sound of the voice alone was enough to hold them enthralled; but for those whom it conquered the spell endured when they were far away, and ever they heard that soft voice whispering and urging them. But none were unmoved; none rejected its pleas and its commands without an effort of mind and will, so long as its master had control of it." ~ “The Speech of Saruman,” J.R.R.Tolkien, The Two Towers

Towards the middle of his May 17th commencement address at Notre Dame, President Barack Obama asked the following questions:

Is it possible for us to join hands in common effort? As citizens of a vibrant and varied democracy, how do we engage in vigorous debate? How does each of us remain firm in our principles, and fight for what we consider right, without demonizing those with just as strongly held convictions on the other side?

Essential and vital questions, these, and the concise and straightforward manner with which he proposed them reveals Obama’s rhetorical brilliance. But Obama did more than propose thought-provoking questions to his Catholic audience; he provided definite answers to these, at least for those in the audience not entirely spellbound. Obama’s answers, along with the philosophical and theological principles they presuppose, were deftly hidden behind his rhetorically honed, magical words; and when they are exposed to the light, they reveal a different incantation than the one that appeared upon the exquisitely polished linguistic surface.

In the middle of the address, Obama recounts the story of a Christian doctor who informed him that he would not be voting for him for President in the upcoming election, due not to Obama’s pro-choice position, but to the uncivil, ideological language in which this position was expressed on his website. Obama then told the audience how he immediately changed the wording, expressing his hope that “we can live with one another in a way that reconciles the beliefs of each with the good of all.” This anecdote, I think, provides an interpretive key to understanding not only the essential point of Obama’s Notre Dame address, but also his entire political project as expressed in his many addresses, writings, and acts since President.

Reconciling the Irreconcilable

The anecdote is a microcosm of Obama’s macro-political vision: a multitude of people with irreconcilable religious and moral convictions living together in peace and reconciliation. “Irreconcilable” is not my word, mind you, it’s Obama’s. From the Notre Dame address:

Understand — I do not suggest that the debate surrounding abortion can or should go away. No matter how much we may want to fudge it — indeed, while we know that the views of most Americans on the subject are complex and even contradictory — the fact is that at some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable. Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction. But surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature.

Of course, by definition there can be no “reconciliation” between irreconcilable views, but Obama means something entirely different here. In light of the doctor story, what it means to “reconcile the beliefs of each with the good of all,” is not to change or encourage others to change views on an issue, but simply to change the way the view is articulated, so as not to “caricature” any opposing view.

The doctor’s “humble” request for rhetorical civility, and Obama’s ready acquiescence to it, is the model for such reconciliation. “I do not ask at this point that you oppose abortion,” Obama quotes the doctor as saying, “only that you speak about this issue in fair-minded words.”

A question arises, here, though: Why would someone who believes abortion to be the deliberate murder of a fully human and innocent person, as the pro-life doctor does, not ask everyone they meet, let alone a President with the most power to see it criminalized, to oppose abortion! That is, why would someone with such a “passionate conviction” judge the “fair-mindedness” of pro-murder language more important than truth, than speaking in such a way as most effectively to stop the killing? We are talking, after all, about a life and death issue here, not one’s view on the estate tax.

Can Values be Aligned Without Changing Them?

In the speech, Obama urged all Americans to “align our deepest values and commitments to the demands of a new age,” that is, not to change our values and commitments, whether secularist or religious, but merely align them. What this alignment entails must have something to do with the exchange between the doctor and Obama, our models of American virtue.

Allow me to change the anecdote a bit to help discover the connection. The year is 1834, and the issue is slavery, not abortion. There is a law that allows a slave to be killed by its master for any reason whatsoever, and thus thousands of innocent slaves are killed every year. The “pro-life” doctor opposes this law, but his senator advocates it. The doctor, after mystically hearing Obama’s future Notre Dame speech in a prophetic dream, is mesmerized by Obama’s “fair-mindedness,” and recognizes that the “demands of the new age” require that he and every other opponent of the murder of slaves refrain from asking pro-slave-murder persons to change their views, but ask only that they improve their rhetoric. The senator has the same dream, which causes him to recognize that his highest obligation is being fair-minded when he supports the murder of slaves so as not to “caricature” any opposing views.

I think the point is made: if being rhetorically civil were the extent of the required “alignment” for the 19th century America citizen, we would still have legalized slavery, not to mention the genocide of tens of thousands of African-Americans. Needless to say, there would be no President Obama. Suppose the situation were a President proposing a mass genocide of “less-than-human” Jews. “Okay,” assures the President to the doctor, “I’ll be fair-minded and say that they are quite human while we kill them.” One gets the point.

Irony, Faith and Doubt

I said at the outset that the questions in Obama’s speech at Notre Dame could be mined not only for Obama’s answers, but also for the theological and philosophical principles his answers presuppose. More space would permit me to treat these in some depth; for now, allow me to shed light on what I consider to be the central philosophical/theological reason that Obama would advocate a social and political ideal favoring conversational fairness over truth, and use as his main example what the majority of Americans consider to be a life and death issue. Here is the master key, as it were, that unlocks Obama’s speech:

But remember too, that the ultimate irony of faith is that it necessarily admits doubt... This doubt should not push us away from our faith. But it should humble us. It should temper our passions, and cause us to be wary of self-righteousness. It should compel us to remain open, and curious, and eager to continue the moral and spiritual debate that began for so many of you within the walls of Notre Dame.

I propose this more philosophically and theologically transparent translation:

Whatever “values” and “commitments” we may hold to be true, those that stem from or involve in any way our “faith” must be held with a certain amount of irresolvable doubt—for the “truth” in these sorts of matters can never be known. And this is why we should seek above all to continue, not ever resolve, the “moral and spiritual debate,” whose quite attainable goal is not the truth of any political matter, no matter how life-threatening, but “fair-mindedness.”

I think this interpretation, or something like it, is best able to make sense of why a pro-life Christian doctor revealing his tolerance of the mass-murder of baby-humans in the womb is held up by the President of the United States as a model of civic virtue to a group of graduating Catholic college students. Needless to say, such a relativistic notion of faith and truth is completely irreconcilable with any genuinely religious worldview, and according to Obama, that means over 90 percent of the American people.

What “fair-minded” voices, then, would be permitted to speak in this sort of “vigorous debate”? Would those who refuse to accept its relativistic presuppositions, and who say so plainly, be “caricaturing” their opponents? The kind of debate Obama’s “faith” would “compel” us to undertake is a mockery of debate, for it denigrates the point of any debate, the discovery of truth, and therefore it denigrates the human beings who participate in it, for our greatest desire is to know, love, and act upon the truth.

But with truth eclipsed by “fair-minded” rhetoric as the political summum bonum, what is to prevent the strongest and must ruthless – but, of course, rhetorically “fair-minded”—from exerting power over the weaker? Sure, the pro-life doctors would be speaking quite nicely with all the pro-abortion abortion doctors, while the baby humans are slaughtered in their wombs.

Pace the president of Notre Dame, I, fair-mindedly, or perhaps not, decline to participate in Obama’s “renewal” of political life, in solidarity with all the baby humans killed in the past and who will be killed in the future due to the amoral cultural, spiritual, and political climate only exacerbated by Obama’s cleverly cloaked relativism, wherein the weakest and most defenseless are given a, not-so-fair-minded, silent treatment. Obama asks us not to caricature other American citizens—fine—but let us ask, nay, demand that he not allow them to be murdered.

This article by Dr. Thaddeus J. Kozinski, Assistant Professor of Humanities and Trivium at Wyoming Catholic College, in Lander, Wyoming, was originally published on MercatorNet.com under a Creative Commons Licence. If you enjoyed this article, visit MercatorNet.com for more. http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/saruman_at_notre_dame/

AWARE Saga and the question of the separation of the secular and religious realms

For those of you who do not know already, the AWARE saga is over. The New exco has been ousted and the old exco is back in power.

During the saga, something which has been bandied about a lot was the need to "separate the religious realm from the secular realm". Christians and other persons of faith, we are told, can have their opinions and say what they want only within their churches, temples and mosques. They should not propagate their views in the "secular" realm. The "secular" realm should, we are told, stay secular.

That's the popular view. Many people believe in it. Many Christians, even some religious leaders think that such a view is wisdom.

They are wrong on many accounts.

Imagine if the abolitionists in the 19th century, many of whom believed fervently that God created everybody in his image and likeness and thus, black people ought not to be slaves were to say that well, that's my personal religious belief. I won't own slaves myself but I shouldn't be stepping into the secular realm to persuade others that slavery is wrong. If they want to own slaves, that's their right.

We would still be owning slaves today.

Or imagine if Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, or Archbishop Desmond Tutu, fervent Christians all and other Christians of different racial groups, were to say that well, its my personal religious belief that segregation, apartheid and racism are wrong, but I will not impose my beliefs on other people.

We would still have segregation and and official policy of racial discrimination today.

Indeed,when it was revealed that a Methodist Organization, the Chen Su Lan Trust, under the leadership of retired Methodist Bishop Yap Kim Hao, donated $113, 000 dollars, out of wish nearly a third was used for AWARE's controversial sexuality education program which we all know by now, endorsed anal sex as potentially normal and healthy and labeled pre-marital sex as a neutral thing, nobody was screaming that a religious organization is interfering in the affairs of a secular organization. Neither was anybody objecting that through donating money, it is attempting to "influence" and "impose" its agenda on a secular organization.

Yet when 6 people who happened to attend the same Church were constitutionally elected at AWARE's AGM, and came out to say that they were concerned that the leadership of AWARE has been promoting lesbianism and homosexuality as acceptable alternative lifestyles, they were accused of hate mongering, possessing a religious agenda and worst of all, received death threats.

What's going on here?

The issue is not separation of the secular and religious realms. The issue really is that when people of faith agrees with the values of militant secularists, they are welcomed with open arms and seen as enlightened and progressive.

But when a person of faith dares to disagree with the values endorsed by these same militant secularists, then they had better confine their views to the walls of their churches and temples or risk facing the wrath and anathemas of these new high priests/(or priestesses).

Take the question of homosexuality for instance. If you disagree in public, even in Singapore, where homosexual sex acts are technically illegal, that the homosexual lifestyle should be promoted as a normal or a neutral thing, you had better be prepared to face being called "fundamentalist", "Christian Taliban" "hate monger" and other types of inflammatory language which, if used in other contexts, will risk bringing down the power of the sedition act on you for inciting racial and religious tension.

This is not civil society. This is unchecked criminal intimidation.

It is civil society when we can discuss in a rational manner, whether sexual complementarity is merely a social construct to be deconstructed at will or whether sexual complementarity and everything that flows from it, i.e marriage between a man and a woman, family, children etc is vital for human flourishing and that the state and society at large should have a special interest in promoting it.

It is civil society when someone should be able to point out, without being called a bigot, the tragic fact that persons who are involved in a gay lifestyle are catching HIV at disproportionately higher rates than heterosexuals and wondering if a homosexual person should at least be open to the option of abstaining from risky sexual practices.

And it is civil society when concerned parents, should be able to get together to sign a calm and respectful petition urging the Ministry of Education to better inform them of what is being taught as sexuality education in schools without being called intolerant or interfering in the internal affairs of AWARE.

Let's get this straight. The issue is not about the separation of the religious or secular realms or that Christians and other people of faith should confine their views to the private sphere.

The issue is really how far militant secularists are willing to tolerate inconvenient truths being brought to their attention by persons of faith.

The Pope and Condoms

This morning, i received an email from Avaaz a human rights group. They have decided to launch a petition protesting what the Pope said about Condoms and AIDS. They are wrong on many counts. Below is what i wrote to them to tell them why

______________________________
Dear Sir

I applaud Avaaz passion for the poor and the oppressed but this time I am very disappointed that you have chosen to launch a campaign against the Pope.

Your petition takes the Pope's words on Condom use out of context. His full words, in a response to the question from a reporter on the plane can be read here.


In this, the Pope sketches a vision of hope and happiness and he goes to the root of the problem, so vital for the building of a civilisation of love.

Moreover, the Pope's position is supported both by research (see for example Harvard Epidemologist Edward Green who is not a catholic but an agnostic)

and also from what he is hearing from the African bishops themselves. (see John Allen from the Left leaning National Catholic Reporter)

Lastly, Avaaz should also consider whether the massive flood of condoms and Aids experts from Western countries is not a form of contraceptive imperialism and an imposing of first world ideas on the cultures of third world countries. Don't take it from me, take it from Sam L. Ruteikara co-chair of Uganda's National AIDS-Prevention Committee from Uganda who said as much in the Washington Post some time ago.

I hope that Avaaz will retract this petition and give readers the correct pircure.

With much regret and sadness
Nick Chui
Singapore

Not Truth but Truthiness!

The Colbert ReportMon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c

The Word - Truthiness

Colbert Report Full Episodes
Political Humor

Rap Battle
Joke of the Day