The Crusader: My first attempt at poetry =

The Crusader

Fallacy.
The present.
Better than the past.

Identity.
The weight.
On my shoulders at last.

Frailty.
New start.
The germ that haunts me still.

Hypocrisy.
The present.
No different.
The past.

Humility.
The past.
The present.
The mass.

Can talkative people make it to Heaven?

The good Christian's default mode?

The title of my post might sound a bit weird but this thought comes to me whenever I finish an enriching conversation with somebody. My definition of enriching would mean that the conversation contained no gossip, was intellectually stimulating and humanly deep and done in an atmosphere of mutual listening and sympathy. It need not always be explicitly about God though God and religion are very often (at least for me!) one of the most interesting topics to talk about.

Will heaven be like that I sometimes wonder? Or is my talkativeness (and I can be very talkative, just ask Grace my fiancée!) simply a symptom of my deeper restlessness for deep and abiding communication with God? 

To be sure, the Christian tradition places a lot of emphasis on silence and with good reason. We are reminded constantly to slow down amidst the busyness of our lives, to still our hearts and quiet the noisiness in our souls. After all, the prophet Elijah did not discover God’s voice in the earthquake or fire (noisy events to put it mildly) but only in a gentle breeze. (1 Kings 19:12-14). And when we reflect on the times we have mis-communicated with someone, we know that it is very often because our minds are so preoccupied and cluttered that we have heard but failed to listen to the other. And we proceed to give advice and to talk even before we have truly listened.

Does that mean the talkative people are to repent in sackcloth and ashes? Well I think that they should repent of being talkative without listening and try to cultivate a capacity for silence. Yet being talkative in itself, when properly understood is not a bad thing at all. In fact, the ability to communicate is really a participation in the eternal speech of God. Jesus, is the WORD of God as we are reminded in John’s Gospel. And when the word became flesh, hosts of Angels were singing hosannas to frightened Shepherds.

Pretty chatty if you ask me.

Indeed, redeemed in Christ, we are able to speak to each other as heirs to the Kingdom, adopted children of the Father. Our sharings are characterized not by boasting but by mutual concern for each other. Conversation becomes enriching as it is free of jealously, one-upmanship and pride. One would genuinely want to listen to the other as the other is a brother in Christ of infinite interest.

We know however that this is not possible on earth. To begin with, we are unable to have conversations with everybody we respect for extended lengths of time as time is finite (though with facebook, the possibilities are extended!). So we are usually limited to conversations with close friends. And an enriching conversation in which there is mutual vulnerability and friendship seems to me a participation in the eternal conversation of the Trinity in which we are also invited. (Indeed, that’s Fr Robert Barron’s definition of prayer.) Prayer, an invitation to participate in the eternal conversation of the Trinity.

When I was studying theology, the joke which went around was that when talkative theology students (the kind who can spend literally hours talking about the processions of the Trinity for instance) pass on to the life to come, there would be two doors waiting them. One would be labeled “God”. The other would be labeled “seminar about God”.  Guess which one would the theology student chose? 

I began to panic as I realized that I might choose the second door. I remembered St Augustine’s passage that the restless heart can only rest in God and know that I must be careful not to mistake theology for God himself. Nevertheless, will that mean that I won’t be able to talk about theology in heaven if and when (God willing) I get there?

Then I read St Gregory of Nyssa. His idea of the afterlife is a bit different from Augustine as he holds that there would be no rest in heaven as we would be constantly stretched onwards and upwards towards God. “No limit can be set to our progress towards God; first of all, because no limitation can be put on upon the Beautiful, and secondly because the increase in our desire for the Beautiful cannot be stopped by any sense of satisfaction” as Gregory puts it in one pungent sentence.

If I understood Gregory correctly, I would have an eternity to talk about theology and an eternity to communicate deeply with the Blessed Trinity and all the saints in heaven. That would include not only the hall of famers like Our Blessed Mother, St Peter and Paul but also our loved ones and others whom we hope have also placed God or following their conscience their top priority.

In the book of Revelation, heaven is portrayed, as a wedding feast where guests will be at table, and served by the Lamb himself. (Revelations 19:7-9)

 I presume there would be lots of talking at a wedding feast.

And I do hope that you and I would accept the invitation  =)

The wedding feast in heaven

Catholic planking and the feast of Corpus Christi

Some of you might be familiar with the latest fad to take the on (and off)line world by storm – planking. As you might guess from the choice of words, it has something to do with human beings pretending to behave like (you guessed it) a plank of wood.

Plankers (those who plank) do so by lying flat on the ground with their arms pointed inwards by the side. They invite friends to take photos or videos of them which are then uploading for the viewing of the online planking community.

If you are a beginner, you can simply plank on your bathroom floor. For more advanced plankers, the clothesline, the supermarket refrigerator, or a seventh-storey balcony can be fair game. Sadly (or not depending on your perspective,) the seventh-storey balcony gave plankers its first martyr when he fell to his death.

This is not a place to issue a wholesale condemnation of the planking craze. Suffice to say, I agree with Zac Alstinwhen he notes that in many cases, “It’s the sheer lack of proportion between risk and reward (online and offline social affirmation for the most part) that makes these notable cases of planking seem insane, and make me wonder about the deeper motive.”  

What I would like to note rather is the sheer fact of the media circus surrounding this phenomenon and what it suggests about our nature as human beings.

As someone once noted, “dog bites man” does not make the news headlines. “Man bites dog”, on the other hand, will surely make it to the front page of The New Paper. Have a community of human beings biting dogs and you will make the headlines of the Straits Times and ChannelNewsAsia for weeks.

The point to note here is that news is made when something out of the ordinary happens. “Planks of wood found on the floor” is not news. They are simply in keeping with what planks are supposed to do. “Man falls asleep” is not news either. But “Man pretends to be a plank of wood” is.

Indeed, as G.K Chesterton suggests perceptively “Unless a thing is dignified, it cannot be undignified. Why is it funny that a man should sit down suddenly in the street? There is only one possible or intelligent reason: that man is the image of God.”

It is this often unconscious recognition that the human being is a being with a certain special dignity that we find someone suddenly deciding to lie on the floor amusing. When we see someone suddenly collapsing onto the ground, we would immediately rush to help. Lying flat on the ground is somehow recognised as not normal (and dignified) for the human being.

And doing that deliberately in dangerous places for the proverbial 15 seconds of internet fame has had this observer wanting to paraphrase Chris Tucker in Rush Hour 2: “You are human, stop humiliating yourself!”

Happily for us, the Catholic blogosphere has helpfully suggested how Catholics can incorporate planking into their daily routine. Jo Bryant for instance has announced that planking is really a fine Catholic tradition.

To prove his point, Jo provides pictures of Catholic plankers, prostrate in front of the Eucharist, during good Friday Service, preparing for ordination or if you are so inclined, after being slain by the Holy Spirit during a charismatic prayer meeting. (Do check out the pictures!)

Planker purists would object to Jo Bryant’s attempt to co-opt the art of planking for the Catholic Church. They would note for instance that real plankers put their hands beside them turned inwards. Catholic plankers, on the other hand (no pun intended), often have their hands stretched out in front of them. That’s not real planking, they would argue.

Yet having your hands stretched out is really what would save plankers from being turned in on themselves and treated by others as mere objects of amusement. “Oops, this plank(er) just fell into the sewer, must be painful, let’s have a look at the next one” can be a very real reaction for an internet user casually browsing through planking pictures while sipping his morning coffee.

Catholic planking, on the other hand, is neither weird nor contrary to human dignity. Indeed, it is precisely the fact that we plank that we come to realise the fullness of our dignity, the ability to recognise that all of reality is gift and that lying prostrate in adoration of the Supreme Gift giver is the only adequate response of the creature. 

Last Sunday, we celebrated the feast of Corpus Christi. It is a feast to recognise that the King of Kings can deign to be so small and humble as to come to us hidden in the form of bread. The only correct response really is to plank.

Nor is this simply a private spirituality with no consequences for the wider world. As Pope Benedict XVI, planker extraordinaire would say, “In an increasingly individualistic culture such as that in which we live in… the Eucharist constitutes a kind of “antidote”, working on the hearts and minds of believers and continually infusing them with the logic of communion, service and sharing, the logic of the Gospel.

Here’s to planking without pretension and illusion!

Cher You Christian Ah, No wonder your Engrish so good

The title of this piece is taken literally from a pupil from the Normal Technical stream whom I was helping with her English at school one day. Hoping to give her some further encouragement, I gently shared that I am a Christian and that I pray to God and He helps me. If she is a Christian she can pray too, if not, no harm trying as well.

Her response took me completely by surprise. Her actual words were “’Cher, you Christian ah, no wonder your Engrish so good, I Buddhist, that’s why my Engrish no good.”

Being the typical Singaporean teacher, I fumbled around to explain to her that not all Christians are English-speaking and that there are English-speaking Buddhists as well. Furthermore, proficiency in language is a different thing from professing a particular religion.

Nevertheless, consciously or not, her remarks have crystalised for me in one pungent sentence, the question of what does it mean to be Christian and Singaporean, something which I have been pondering for some time.

In the letter to Diognetus, an ancient Christian author explained to his fellow non-Christian citizens of the Roman empire that while “Christians are indistinguishable from other men either by nationality, language or customs… there is something extraordinary about their lives. Like others, they marry and have children, but they do not expose them. They share their meals, but not their wives….

“Obedient to the laws, they yet live on a level that transcends the law. Christians love all men, but all men persecute them. They live in poverty, but enrich many; they are totally destitute, but possess an abundance of everything. They are defamed, but vindicated. A blessing is their answer to abuse, deference their response to insult.”

While one may dispute the accuracy of such a picture of the early Christians, the fact that the author boldly writes this to be is nevertheless a bracing challenge for the Singaporean Christian.

What may well be a modern day letter to Diognetus in the Singaporean context? In many cases, it may go something like this “Christians are indistinguishable from other Singaporeans… like others they marry and have not too many children. Nevertheless there is something extraordinary about their lives. Most of them speak English and many of their children are in the university. They live in riches and possess an abundance of the 5 Cs.

“They love all people and want them to accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and saviour. They are condemned because people do not understand why this Jesus will send them to hell if they don’t accept Him. Sometimes, a curse is their answer to such abuse and brandishing their high educational qualifications is a response to insult.”

To be sure, I admit that I am probably too harsh. I personally know of many selfless co-religionists of mine whose faith and works of charity put me to shame. Nevertheless, I think my student’s pungent remark should still haunt us.

Is this the view of a typical non-Christian Singaporean? Are non-Christian Singaporeans attracted, if at all, to Christianity because they see it as an entrance into an upwardly mobile, socially elite crowd? Did Jesus give this Christian a new BMW? Well, I’ll take Jesus (with the COE too if you please!)

The challenge placed before me today is essentially a Eucharistic one. In the words of St. John Chrysostom, “Do you want to honour Christ’s body? Then do not scorn Him in His nakedness, nor honour Him here in the church with silken garments while neglecting Him outside where He is cold and naked. The rich man is not the one who is in possession of much, but the one who gives much.”

If Singaporean Christians were to take up the challenge of St. John Chrysostom, perhaps the letter to Diognetus can be rewritten. Perhaps our non-Christian countrymen might say the following of us:

“Christians are indistinguishable from other Singaporeans because they comprise members from all races, ethnic groups and social status. Yet, there is something extraordinary about their lives. Like others, they marry and have children, but they do not expose them to the pursuit of the 5Cs. They share their meals, with their domestic helpers.

“Obedient to the law, they yet live on a level that transcends the law, ensuring justice for the most vulnerable. They are condemned because they are considered naïve. They live a spirit of poverty, using money for the common good. They suffer dishonour, because Christ and not GDP is their king.”

And maybe, future Christian teachers might hear their students saying the following to them “Cher, you Christian ah, no wonder you going the extra mile for me, can I be one too?”

A Catholic Halloween More Scary (and glam) than you think

The other day, I was at Vivo city with my fiancé where I chanced upon a poster with a man with an axe buried in his head. “Halloween Horror nights, Singapore’s scariest party” proclaimed the poster, insinuating, of course, that if you are part of the glamorous crowd, you should be there (at Universal Studios, Resorts World Sentosa, where else), dressed in your Halloween best.

One’s Halloween best can include of course being dressed as one of those traditional Halloween creatures, such as werewolves, vampires, or Frankenstein’s monster. For those preferring modern versions, there is always Edward Cullen of Twilight fame or Lady Gaga.

Party goers know that they are only at their ghoulish best (worst) for one night. As they party the night away, they know that when morning comes, they go back to work or school and will return to being plain John Lee or Jane Chan. Nevertheless, taking a night off to connect with your inner monster sure was fun.

Catholics, (at least for those who consider days of obligation obligatory,) will instead be found huddled in churches for the celebration of the Vigil Mass of All Saints’ Day. I know I was. And a very insightful homily by Fr Derrick Yap, OFM at the Church of St. Mary of the Angels got me thinking.

In his homily, Fr Derrick mentioned the surprise he felt when he realized, upon asking a group of children, that they knew next to nothing about All Saints Day but knew everything about Halloween. He had to explain to them that Halloween is connected to All Saints’ Day. Indeed, the word is a Scottish rendition of All Hallows Eve, that is, the day before All Saints Day.

Fr Derrick urged the congregation to let their children know the saints better, for All Saints Day is potentially the feast day of every single Christian, since that is our destiny. In his typically folksy style, Fr Derrick insisted that surely the saints are “more glam” than any of the strange creatures that come for our Halloween parties.

Fr Derrick’s words got me thinking. Why are our saints seemingly not as “glam” (if one were to use this word) as the parade of spooky monsters? Before we decry the secular world for yet another attempt at commercializing a Christian festival (think Christmas for instance), perhaps we should look at the way we present our saints.

Do they look pallid and overly sentimental in our typical Catholic artwork? Are their stories told to our children as a means of social control, for example: the saints obeyed their parents/teachers therefore you should too, making them glorified teacher’s pets? Or do we teach our children that these saints are first (potential) spiritual dispensing machines, helpful if they grant “practical” favours like passing the exams and getting into a good school but whose lives ought not to be imitated too seriously?

If that is the way our attitude to the saints are, then no wonder the spooky monsters seem more glamorous. I don’t want to be a glorified teacher’s pet on All Hallows Eve. I want to be someone larger than life.

Yet the best of Christian art and storytelling has never portrayed the saints in this way. The saints were usually troublemakers and provocateurs, who inspite of their human weakness, strive to love the person of Jesus Christ and shine his light onto every facet of life. They confronted human problems in the most creative and remarkable ways provoking either fierce loyalty or strident opposition. When they were peacemakers, they were able to reconcile seemingly irreconcilable foes. And yes, they were prepared to face martyrdom for their beliefs.

Indeed, if one were to look at the frescoes of The Last Judgment painted by Michelangelo, one would notice a parade of saints, many of them showing the tools of their martyrdom to Jesus Christ the Just Judge. If one were to look carefully, one would notice one man carrying his flayed skin and showing it to Jesus. That is St. Bartholomew, who was believed to have suffered martyrdom by being skinned alive.

And if one were to come to a Singapore’s scariest party dressed like St. Bartholomew, one would surely be one of the finalists in the best dressed competition.

The best of the Catholic tradition is not unfamiliar to pain, suffering and gore. But pain, suffering and gore are not ends in themselves. They are celebrated not for its own sake, but for the reason that they can be transfigured into scars of victory and love. St. Bartholomew showing his skin to Christ does not glorify pain in itself but offers it as a pledge of love.

On the other hand, Halloween parties seem to glorify pain and gore in itself. It is, instead of a transfiguration, a disfiguration; it takes suffering either too seriously, by telling the world that suffering is the final destiny of man, or too trivially, reducing it to mere entertainment.

As Catholics, we need to reclaim Halloween in the right way, first by recognizing that our saints, in loving Christ, become some of the most interesting people on the planet. Indeed, sainthood is our destiny.

So dress your children in a saint costume the next Halloween. As they “party” the night away and when morning comes, they return to being plain Johns and Janes. But they remember these real people (the saints) were also plain Johns and Janes. But by loving Christ and being loved by him, they fulfill their full potential and destiny.

]]>http://www.singaporecatholic.com/a-catholic-halloween-scarier-and-more-glam-than-youd-think/feed/ 0

Can going for Mass be an occasion of sin? An observation over the Dresscode debate in Singapore Catholic Churches

There is an old Catholic saying "lex orandi lex credendi" - i.e the Law of prayer is the law of belief. i.e how you pray will affect your beliefs about God.

I think we should also propose another Catholic saying "lex clothing orandi lex credendi" (Apologies, i don't know enough latin). i.e The law of wearing clothes for prayer affects your beliefs about God
Some of us would probably have read about the dresscode debate within the Catholic Church. If you have not, you can read an exercpt here.
http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_631895.html
http://www.catholicnews.sg/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5570%3Areaders-weigh-in-on-mass-dress-code-issue&catid=263%3Afebruary-13-2011-vol-61-no-3&Itemid=79#comment-472

One may ask why are people spilling so much ink over this. Actually, from a theological/sociological perspective, that makes a lot of sense. Clothing is always culturally symbolic and never neutral. Gandhi wore homespun clothing. Do you think he did it without any intention?
Likewise how we dress for mass will necessarily have symoblic and even theological meaning whether we are conscious of it or not. If a middle class family decides to "just happen" to put on whatever is available at the moment i.e shorts, t-shirt and slippers, they may not consciously intend to make a statement but they do bring a certain attitude to worship. (what that really is, only they know themselves)

I also notice a bit of an irony when i read these debates. We are told very often in homilies, especially in the Post-Conciliar Church after the Second Vatican Council that the Mass should not be a privatised devotion but should spur us on to care for and notice our neighbor.

And sometimes, clergy do that by getting (during mass!) people to shake hands with the person next to you.

Those who wear the spaghetti straps and flip flops et al will like it but those who wear mantillas etc will cringe. (i am generalisng and being ironic here)

But suddenly when it comes to dress code, i have noticed that those who defend the spaghetti strapprs etc or the spaghetti strappers themselves will say when they are challenged that they come to Church "only for God" and hence my dressing is God's business and none of my neighbour's business. If a guy stumbles because of my spaghetti strap, than it is his problem not mine. Also if by your flipflops and bermudas and singlets cause the little ones i.e children to have less reverence for a place of worship, and form the impression that attending Mass is no big deal, its the children's problem not mine.

You can't have it both ways. Either the Mass is a purely private deovtion, then everybody can wear what they want i.e including mantillas or spaghetti straps etc and receive Holy communion kneeling on the tongue without being refused and also with the words on your clothing "F*ck You God" without being refused since every one relates to God in their own way.

Or the Mass is necessarily a communal sacrifice, a communal and public act of worship.

Which means all the ten commandments apply when one is in Church.

Which also means, that all the relevant litrugical norms ought to be followed.

We go for mass among other things, to ask God for the grace for the week and to help us love our neighbour better.It will be a tragedy and the greatest irony when going for mass becomes an occasion for sin and where the battle against sin has to begin right within the Sanctuary.

The Hungry Ghost Festival: Some Catholic Thoughts

I have actually been thinking about this for some time and the hungry ghost festival presents certain interesting theological questions.

The ghosts/spirits are believed to be released on the 7th month to roam the earth, something like a "free pass." These ghosts are "hungry" in the sense that they do appreciate human beings entertaining them and giving them food etc.

From a Catholic theological perspective, there do exist "hungry ghosts". They are the Holy Souls in purgatory. They are ultimately hungry for God's love, longing and fainting for the courts of the Lord as the psalmist would say. We help them of course through offering prayers and the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass for them to satiate their hunger. And within Catholic tradition, these souls in purgatory do get to appear to human beings in the forms of apparitions to certain select individuals. A book entitled "hungry souls" by Dr Gerard Van den Aardweg provides fascinating material of this phenomenon. There is even a Church in Italy with a "purgatory museum" storing artifacts which have been touched by these souls a visible reminders of their visit. A bit spooky but within the boundaries of Catholic teaching.

As such, in inter-religious dialogue, this can be a good starting point to share with those who practice traditional chinese religion.

However, from a Catholic theological perspective, all we can say is that God has not revealed to us that there is a special month where souls are released from purgatory to roam the earth to beg for prayers. That would be in the category of natural human religiosity.

In anycase, we have all souls day, a day dedicated to pray for these hungry souls. There seems to me no harm per se for Catholics coming out of a Chinese religion background to intensify prayers and offer masses during the month of August should they so chose. Of course the elements not in keeping with Catholic teaching have to be slowly weaned away.

Catholics sometimes report that they feel "oppressed" during this season. Some of a more traditional/charismatic bent advocate spiritual combat. What then should one do?

For one thing Catholic teaching is clear that there is only one "King of hell", i.e. Satan. He tempts human beings all the time and will use whatever historical circumstances to bring that about. Since the hungry ghost festival is in the category of natural human religiosity, truth is often mixed with error. Hence it is very possible that satan and his minions makes use of this period of time the "hungry ghost festival" to burrow into human religious practices and cause spiritual disturbances.

Then again, God could also permit the holy souls in purgatory to be "more active" in seeking the prayers of the living during this month. If that's the case, he seems to be drawing good out of natural human religiosity.

In any case, while we can't be absolutely certain, we can draw some guidelines.

The bottom line for Catholics is Mass, the rosary and other approved devotions directed to the Holy Souls in purgatory or minor exocrisms designed to drive away infestations. According to Dr Gerard van den Aardweg, souls in purgatory when they do appear to human beings, will sadly beg for prayers, help and compassion. Damned souls/demons do not.

A Catholic knows that any attempt at placating a soul with food, entertainment, joss paper etc is while done with good intentions, is ultimately not helpful.

Worst still if Catholics attempt at placating demons via the usual hungry ghost practices.

That's one category of intelligent beings we absolutely don't negotiate with.

Body Shop and Natural Family Planning

You’re beautiful whatever your quirks… It’s about making the best of yourself without having to try to hard but sometimes you may need a helping hand… we unearth nature’s ingredients the secrets of timeless regimes and we bring your products bursting with effectiveness… we do this while respecting the planet, the communities who depend on it and standing up for causes that are important to the world we live in because we believe that is only one way to be beautiful, nature’s way.”
Nope this is not the latest commercial by the Couple to Couple League or the Australian Council of Natural Family Planning but by BodyShop the second largest cosmetic franchise in the world. Yet this text could have easily been transposed into an advertisement promoting Natural Family Planning. Indeed, if Dame Anita Roddick’s successors were to declare to the world that they have designed a product that is suitable for sophisticated first world women and poor third world women in whatever stage of their lives, and in whatever physical condition to understand and responsibly manage and monitor their reproductive health which is simultaneously natural, drug free, low cost, environmentally friendly, effective in both postponing and achieving pregnancy, helps in marital communication and a more enjoyable sex life , and actually acts as a protective factor against divorce, they might actually win a Nobel Peace Prize.
Considering the contemporary wave of enthusiasm for natural, organic and sustainable products, it would seem that the Church will do well to promote Natural Family Planning as an environmentally friendly lifestyle choice. After all, most people would react to a reminder to lead a healthy lifestyle with a grudging nod of the head. And on the other hand, most who promote healthy lifestyles do make allowance for an occasional indulgence in food dripping with trans-fat. Yet Church’s teaching has always been that the use of Natural Family Planning is not merely a healthier lifestyle choice, i.e. the difference between eating processed or natural foods, but the only morally legitimate choice for couples intending to space their families and that only for serious reasons. It considers the use of the contraceptive pill and any and all forms of contraceptives not simply as a physical evil akin to ingesting a high dosage of cholesterol into your body but a moral evil, which done with full knowledge and consent of the will constitutes mortal sin which can cut one of eternally from union with their Creator.

Can this teaching be rationally defended? I think so and in my next post, I will share how…

Studies at John Paul II Institute

Whew! Its been a month already since i arrived in Melbourne and I am really enjoying my studies at John Paul II institute.

Classes are usually about no more than 10 people thus giving a sense of community and opportunity for free flowing discussion. We are a mixture of clergy and laity from different walks of life united however with a basic conviction and love for the Catholic church and a desire to engage the culture at large in a rigorous and thorough manner. You might be surprised but there are quite a number of Asians studying at JP2!

There are two singaporeans (myself and Gregory who's dad Thomas is active in Marriage encounter and who was a former exco member of Family Life Society). Gregory brought his wife Elizabeth and his five month old son Nathan along to melbourne. he is studying for a graduate diploma and shared that studying theology was what he always wanted to do.


Another two fulltime students are Simone and Jasmine. Simone is from Australia and she is often seen in the chapel praying before the lessons. She studied theology at graduate level and is now pursuing a masters.

Jasmine is from HongKong and she is here because she was inspired by another Hongkonger Peter Ho who is doing his PhD examining the understanding of the virtue of chastity in scripture.

Among the clergy there are Korean, Thai, Mauritian and Vietnamese priests. The Vietnamese priest Fr John Baptiste Nguyen is having a bit of a struggle with English and i try to help him by sharing my notes. He is determined though to succesfully complete his studies in bioethcis as he has been given a scholarship and will not want to disappoint his Bishop and his benefactor back home. I really admire and respect his determination. One thing i notice is a total lack of clericalism on the part of the clergyman. After all we are fellow students who are engaging the same material and i think that's healthy.
We also have a sprinkling of other students who are doing courses part time and for audit. They are mostly australian. There is a Canadian student Peter Baklinski who is doing his PhD examining the vexed question of portraying the human body in art. He graciously invited me to his place for dinner. His wife and three kids came with him all the way from Canada and we had interesting conversations about beauty art and philosophy. He is also an accomplished pianist and has actually produced a CD of piano pieces inspired by the Theology of the Body. You can actually visit his website and have a look. They are quite good, i bought an MP3 version of it myself =)

http://www.resonanceofthegift.com/resonance_of_the_gift/Welcome.html

The lecturers are really top notch in their field. In terms of teaching method, Dr Adam Cooper is the best and is a really good teacher, able to breakdown complicated concepts into understandable portions. Aristotle and Plato are easier to understand with him around. Dr Tracey Rowland the Dean has very important things to say as well and is very generous and helpful in freely lending her collection of books an articles to students who may want to use them for reference. Dr Nicholas Tonti-Filipini teaches the NFP module and is the associate dean and head of the Bioethics Department. He is a quiet superhero really. He has been going for dialysis for many years and thus, his reflection and teaching on bioethics has a very personal bite to it.

Bishop Peter Elliot who teaches the Marriage in the Catholic Tradition module and who is the Institute's director is humorous and wise and happily weaves in apologetics when he talks about the history of the Christian understanding of marriage.

So yes am enjoying the company very much. It does get a bit lonely at night though when i am back home but i guess that's part of the experience of living overseas.

 

I've got a couple of blog posts i intend to write, a series of reflections on what i have learnt so far and its relevance for contemporary culture. I've got the titles for them, "Aristotle's classification of knowledge and the modern confusion of the practical and theoretical", "Plato's cave - thoughts for a modern day apostle", "Duns scotus: On the right way to worship and not getting yourself into metaphysical trouble" "Contraception: it's been around...we've just got better at it. "Marriage abortion and infaticide: The revenge of the Romans", "Speciesm, if man is a naked ape, then plants are capable of screaming"

 

Just need to get down to writing them. Stay tuned!

My First Days In Melbourne

As some of you know, I will be commencing studies at the John Paul II Institute beginning 15th Feb 2010. I will be there until Nov 2010. Am really looking forward to this.

Just like to introduce you to two people whom i am sharing the same accomodation with.

The first is my landlady Shirley Low. She's a Singaporean who has been staying in Melbourne for close to six years already. A mandarian and teochew speaking evangelical christian who accepted Christ a number of years ago she loves gospel music (in chinese of course) and plays it when she is at home and in the car. When i asked her about her conversion story, she simply said that there was a time when she really needed help and she prayed to Jesus and soon realised that He truly was the true and Living God.

                                                                                                                       Shirley reading the Bible

The second is "auntie susan" as we call her who is renting a place (like me) from Shirley while looking to buy a new house. She was originally from Cambodia and arrived in Australia in 1983. An australian citizen, i found out today that she was one of the vietnamese boat people who packed into boats by the 100s, drifting into open sea and hoping to be rescued, in the hope of escaping communist oppression and for a better life. In her case, she fled cambodia for vietnam in 1975 when the Khemer Rouge took over her country and had to flee again in the early 1980s when life under communist rule prove unbearable. In a matter of fact way, she told me that escaping from Vietnam was a gamble. If you win, you get rescued by boats and may be able to fin asylum in a friendly country. If not, you get drowned when you boat capsizes. What was not an option (at least for her) was continued stay in Vietnam. She is grateful to Australia for accepting her and proudly recounts how her two children are now successful in life. Her son is a professor at the Nanyang Technological University (NTU) while her daughter has her own business. She too became an evangelical Christian but only a couple of months ago.

So i have a landlady and a fellow tenent who prefers to speak Mandarin and Teochew. Devout Christians both, i am very happy to be here and will surely be developing my faith, and chinese langaguage skills while i am here!

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