Blessing of Same Sex Couples

 https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/18/europe/pope-francis-same-sex-couples-blessing-intl/index.html

If you read the above CNN news report on Vatican's decision to bless same-sex couples today (or the same from any other major news outlet), you will get the wrong impression that the Catholic Church is moving away from its longstanding opposition to same-sex marriage (SSM) because it finally agrees to bless the same-sex couples.

The news report also accused the Church of changing "a 2021 ruling from the Vatican doctrine office which barred any blessings" of same-sex couples. The implication was that the Church's teaching is not to be taken seriously because it can change and has changed in this case. 

Nothing is further from the truth. 

If you read Vatican's Declaration directly (Fiducia Supplicans, Declaration on the Pastoral Meaning of Blessings, December 18, 2023), you will realize that the Church remains firm in its opposition to SSM; and that the 2021 ruling barring any blessings of SS couples remains valid.

If anything, the Declaration re-affirms again and again the Church's opposition to SSM, insisting that marriage is the "exclusive, stable, and indissoluble union between a man and a woman, naturally open to the generation of children". It emphasizes that "the Church's doctrine on this point remains firm" (n.4).

What the document does is to clarify that there are two kinds of blessing. A liturgical blessing "requires that what is blessed be conformed to God's will, as expressed in the teachings of the Church" (n.9). As an example, what the Sacrament of Matrimony confers is a liturgical blessing. As SSM does not conform to God's will and is morally wrong, it cannot be blessed. So, the above-mentioned 2021 ruling remains unchanged. In other words, the CNN report's accusation that the Church's teaching has changed is wrong.

The second kind of blessing is a general, pastoral blessing which allows the Church or an ordained minister to bless someone - anyone - who has the humility to realize that they need God's mercy and help "to move forward, to live better, and to respond to the Lord's will" (n.20). This kind of blessing is essentially open to everyone. There's no need for the Church or an ordained minister to scrutinize closely the moral status of the receiver of the blessing to ensure they "have prior moral perfection" (n.25). Blessing for same-sex couples and couples in irregular situations (divorced and remarried for example) falls into this category.

In this special season of Advent, let's pray for unity and harmony in the Church handed down to us from St. Peter and the Apostles. Let's pray in particular for the Holy Father, who is constantly in need of the Holy Spirit's guidance and protection.

"Francisco" - My Response to People's Concerns I

I always welcome and respect people's responses to my writings and presentations. I really do, especially those expressing concerns because concerns not voiced can easily lead to misunderstandings and cause unnecessary alienations. As a result, I'd like to thank a couple of my contacts who took the time to let me know their concerns about my last email on Pope Francis' endorsement of "convivencia civil". In doing so they graciously accorded me an opportunity to explain. 

One of them, to whom I had replied directly, thinks that the claim that "very close unions between people of the same sex do not in themselves imply sexual relations" is "naive". Since this is a good opportunity to explain the Church's core teaching on homosexuality, I'd like to share my reply as follows:

We all know that the Church is against homosexuality and sees it as a grave sin. Her position on this will not change and shouldn't (CCC 2357). 

At the same time, the Church also understands that she herself is but a house of sinners who receive redemption not because they deserve it but because of God's unfathomable mercy. She understands that the proper execution of her magisterial duty of teaching - "don't do this or that" -  must always be balanced out by the same mercy she receives from God. Therefore, the Church must take a loving and merciful approach in handling the homosexual community, always ACCEPTING them "with respect, compassion and sensitivity", and cautioning against any unjust discrimination that sees them as social outcasts (CCC 2358). 

Since the homosexual acts are "intrinsically disordered" (CCC 2357), "homosexual persons are called to chastity", accepting the difficulties of their sacrifice as a participation in the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross (CCC 2359).

From the Church teachings above, it's easier to understand why Pope Francis embraces the concept of "convivencia civil" to the extent that sexual relations, i.e. the homosexual acts, are not involved. Are they still homosexuals? Of course they are. The "deep-seated homosexual tendencies" are still there, although "they do not choose their homosexual condition" (CCC 2358). But the difference is that people with homosexual inclinations, who opt for chastity, accept that the homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered and sinful. They are willing to shun their homosexual desires and offer up their effort as their sacrifice to unite themselves to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross. This is a noble endeavor that deserves our full support, and the Pope is not afraid to embrace it. 

As for the concern that people in "convivencia civil" may not practice chastity, that's for God to hold them to account; nobody else can, not even the Church. The Church takes the same position on those priests who have homosexual inclinations. Her advice is for them to "at least try not to express this inclination actively, in order to remain true to the intrinsic mission of their office" (Pope Benedict XVI, Light of the World, p.153). What if secretly some of them disregard the Church's advice? Only God can hold them accountable. But the Church will not kick all of them out just because there are a few bad apples. 

God have mercy! More reason to pray for the Church and our clergy!

What did Pope Francis really say in "Francesco"?

New insights continue to emerge on Pope Francis' comments in the "Francesco" interview, including the clarification that “convivencia civil” in Spanish was mistranslated as "civil union". 

Even with this language clarification, there's still a need to further clarify what the Pope's idea of "convivencia civil" or "law of civil coexistence" was when he said he supported it. If his idea of "convivencia civil" included sexual relations, then he was essentially supporting SS civil union because there's really no difference between the two. However, a new CNA article offers strong evidences that the Pope's idea of "convivencia civil" doesn't include sexual relations or the homosexual acts. According to the CNA article, these are the actual words coming out of the Pope's mouth in the 2019 interview (an interview used and edited heavily by "Francesco" per CNA; highlight mine):

There, what I said is that they ‘have a right to a family.’ And that doesn’t mean to approve of homosexual acts, not at all.

Is "convivencia civil" without sexual relations a reality? Is it even practicable? Apparently it is according to the CNA article. It quoted Archbishop Victor Manuel Fernandez, a theologian who's close to the Pope, to explain the concept of "convivencia civil" in Argentina and why it needed legal protection (highlight mine):

The Archbishop posted on Facebook that before he became the pope, then Cardinal-Bergoglio “always recognized that, without calling it ‘marriage,’ in fact there are very close unions between people of the same sex, which do not in themselves imply sexual relations, but a very intense and stable alliance. They know each other thoroughly, they share the same roof for many years, they take care of each other, they sacrifice for each other. Then it may happen that they prefer that in an extreme case or illness they do not consult their relatives, but that person who knows their intentions in depth. And for the same reason they prefer that it be that person who inherits all their assets, etc. This can be contemplated in the law and is called ‘civil union’ [unión civil] or ‘law of civil coexistence’ [ley de convivencia civil], not marriage.

The info above from CNA is important for understanding the Pope's comments in "Francesco". It gives us reason to believe that, at least in as far as his comments in the Francesco interview are concerned, his public appeal for legal protection for "convivencia civil" is not an attempt to redefine the meaning of marriage. Conceivably, his suggestion doesn't even contradict the 2003 CDC's opposition to "legal protection of homosexual unions" in which sexual relations are understood to be inherent.

Did Pope Francis' Film Interview Change the Church's Teaching on Marriage?

CNA article

To follow up on my previous post, I'd like to refer my fellow-bloggers to the CNA article above. It said exactly what I was trying to say, only better - much better - and more comprehensive in its coverage of the issue; breaking it down piece by piece and offering the right answer for each. Great article. 

I heard the Pope's film interview had triggered heated arguments among Catholics. The CNA article proves that if you understand the issue properly and think it through based on proper theological understanding, there should be no argument. The whole issue is crystal clear: 

The Pope has always supported and maintained the Church's infallible teaching on marriage; his endorsement of legal protection of SS civil unions - if that's indeed what he said in the interview - is not infallible teaching; as such the Catholic faithful's obedience of faith is not mandatory or even expected. 

A Pope's casual opinion in a film interview cannot change the Church's long-standing and infallible teaching on marriage, nor was it his intention to change it. 

His position or alleged position of endorsing legal protection for SS civil unions differs from his immediate predecessors, JPII and BXVI, who were also HIS POPES, to whom he owes allegiance and religious obedience. His suggestion or alleged suggestion could be a bad application of the Church's teaching on marriage, but the Church's position against homosexuality and SSM still stands.

Pope Francis endorses same-sex civil unions

https://www.ncregister.com/news/pope-francis-calls-for-civil-union-law-for-same-sex-couples-in-shift-from-vatican-stance

As Catholics, we should be startled by this morning’s news headline: Pope Francis endorses same-sex civil unions. But don’t jump to the conclusion just because of this headline that the Pope has done a complete 180 on a 2000-year old Church doctrine about marriage. The doctrine still stands and will continue to stand. It’s the Church’s infallible teaching; it cannot be changed by an interview in a film, even if the person expressing the view was the successor of Peter. 

We should be startled by the Pope’s view because, as pointed out in the NCR report, it’s a departure from the position of his predecessors, including St. JPII and Benedict XVI. It goes against the Church’s official direction as given by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith under St. Pope JPII in 2003. The CDF opposed “legal recognition of homosexual unions” and saw homosexuality as a “deviant behavior”.  To the CDF, such laws would endanger “common good” and fail to “promote and protect marriage”.

The Church Militant is constantly at war with “the principalities, with the powers, with the world rulers of this present darkness, with the evil spirits in the heavens” (Ephesus 6:12). Defending the Church’s infallible doctrine of marriage is the main battlefront that will determine whether the Church wins or loses this war. “The history of mankind, the history of salvation, passes by way of the family” (Letter to Families, 23). Yes, marriage and family is that important. 

Because it’s so important, it’s also the battlefield where the forces of darkness amass their fighters and armory; it’s where they launch most of their attacks. As a result, the Church will suffer many setbacks on the issue of marriage and family. It’s not unexpected.

Endorsing same-sex civil unions under the false pretense of inclusiveness is a setback. As the above-mentioned CDC position suggested, this is simply against common good and will put the institution of marriage further at risk. But has the Church “lost the battle”? No. If the Church changed its infallible teaching on marriage – I can assure you this will never happen – then, and only then, would the whole battle be lost. What will constitute a “change” in the Church’s infallible teaching on marriage? Just to give you some idea, one example is when the Church allows same-sex couples to receive the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony; or when people practicing homosexuality are allowed to receive the Sacrament of Holy Orders.

Let's continue to fight in the Church Militant using our most fervent prayers....

Bishop Barron - A Case for Priestly Celibacy

Bishop Barron is always a pleasure to read. One reason why is his language, which is uniquely articulate in style and distinctively scholastic in tradition. In the article below, he discusses the reasons - both good and bad - for celibacy in priesthood and how he has "struggled mightily" with it even after more than 30 years of priestly vocation. I like how he pinpoints the unique sacramental nature of celibacy - that it's pointing us to God and to the form of life as an eschatological person. Interestingly, the sacramentality of sex - its beauty and goodness that reveals God - is at one and the same time a support and a hurdle for practicing celibacy in his case. I can assure those of you who take the time to read that you will have no regrets for doing so.

Bishop Robert Barron - A Case for Priestly Celibacy

活在前所未見的世代中

(這文章英文原版同日在此網誌刊登。鳴謝《生命恩泉》翻譯組幫助中文翻譯。)

這些恐怖的影像在每個人的腦海裡仍然記憶猶新，揮之不去： 在聖枝主日， 埃及坦塔和亞歷山大兩個城市裡的兩間埃及科普特東正教會教堂，發生兩次爆炸事件, 造成四十四名無辜的人喪生，一百人受傷。而只有四個月前 – 2016年12月11日 – 在開羅一間科普特東正教會教堂亦發生類似的自殺式炸彈事件， 造成二十九人死亡，四十五人受傷。

人習慣了邪惡，這些事情或者已經不再是新聞: 這個月 <國家郵報> 的一篇專題報導，揭露了安大略省一所大學行政階層的偏見， 把尊重生命團體的活動標籤為 「敵對性的」，「挑釁性的」和 「反對選擇權的」。

當今之世，道德相對主義失控般泛濫於學校，媒體，企業和各級政府中。 他們認為每個人都有權跟隨自己所認定的真理。那些堅持自己所相信的是絕對真理，而認為全人類都應當跟隨的，被認定是 「心胸狹窄, 缺乏包容」。天主教會和許多宗教是當中表表者。

相比早期基督徒所面對無日無之的毀謗，鎮壓和迫害,今天基督徒的情況可說比他們好不了多少。 這樣說並沒有誇大其詞。 早期教會用什麼信息來幫助信徒克服逆境呢？有許多信息。而且由於今天教會所面對的困難和早期的教會所面對的有很多相似之處, 當年的信息到了今天仍然適用。以下的主日讀經是其中特別有用的信息之一：

「因此，你們要歡欣，雖然現在你們暫時還該在各種磨練中受苦， 但這是為使你們的信德， 鍛鍊得比經過火煉而仍易消失的黃金更有價值， 使你們在耶穌基督顯現時，得到稱讚，光榮和尊敬。」（ 伯多祿前書1：6-7）

我們正活在前所未有的世代中，唯願這不是世界的終結。 伊拉克和敘利亞經歷了多年的緊張狀態和危機後， 亂狀正以恐佈主義的形式和暴徒式的侵略擴散至歐洲和中亞地區， 敘利亞阿薩德用化學武器， 引起西方國家和包括敘利亞阿薩德和伊朗的俄羅斯陣營的正面衝突, 互發最後通牒，擺出各不相讓，不惜一戰的姿態。而在西太平洋, 正蘊釀著同樣激烈甚至更嚴重的危機, 北朝鮮警告美國, 如果美國轟炸其核設施, 北朝鮮會用核武器襲擊南韓, 日本, 和美國大陸。

聖經多處有刻劃入微的描述，預測世界末日的可怕境況。 在現在這些衝突中，祇要一方有計算上或人為的錯誤, 以致在朝鮮半島或中東爆發核戰， 這些聖經中所提及的恐怖場面隨時會變成事實。不知是什麼原因，《 若望默示錄》中的兩個栩栩如生的描述一直存留在我腦海中：

「以後我看見，當羔羊開啟第六個印的時候 ，發生了大地震，太陽變黑，有如粗毛衣；整個月亮變得像血， 天上的星辰墜落在地上………；天也隱退，有如捲起的書卷； 一切山嶺和島嶼都移了本位。……….向山嶺和巖石說：「 倒在我們身上，遮蓋我們罷！ 好避免那坐在寶座上的面容和那羔羊的震怒， 因為他們發怒的大日子來臨了，有誰能站立得住？」（ 若望默示錄6：12-17）

「在那日期內，人求死而不得；渴望死，死卻避開他們。」（默9： 6））。

正如耶穌在福音讀經中對多默說：「那些沒有看見而相信的， 才是有福的!」（若望福音20:29）。在某種程度上，我們也能看見耶穌，不過不是以多默的方式， 而是以天主聖言和聖體聖事來與耶穌相遇。 我們確實生活在前所未有的世代中。 有可能這真是末日的先兆，雖然我們希望和祈求，最後獲勝的是信靠與和平。不過，祇要耶穌在伯多祿的船上與我們在一 起，陪伴我們抵擋風暴，我們還要害怕什麼(參見瑪竇福音8：23-27）？ 「因此，縱使地動山崩，墮入海心，我們也絕不會疑懼橫生； 海濤儘管洶湧翻騰，山嶽儘管因浪震動：與我們同在的， 是萬軍的天主，雅各伯的天主是我們的保護。」（聖詠集46：3- 4）。就讓我們忍耐和接受，其實各種試探都是為了考驗我們，「為使你們的信德，得以精煉」(伯多祿前書1：7）。

Living In Unprecedented Times

The horrific images are still fresh in everyone’s mind: on this Palm Sunday, two Coptic church bombings took place in Tanta and Alexandria, Egypt, killing 44 innocent people and injuring more than 100. Only 4 months before, on December 11, 2016, a similar suicide bombing of another Coptic church in Cairo had killed 29 people and injured 45 others.

People have become so accustomed to evils, perhaps this is no longer considered news anymore: in a special report this month, the National Post revealed the biased ideologies of the administration of a university in Ontario that labeled the activities of pro-life groups as “adversarial”, “confrontational”, and “anti-choice”.

Nowadays, moral relativism is running rampant in schools, media, businesses, and all levels of government. Everyone is entitled to uphold their own truths, so it’s claimed. Those who insist the truths in which they believe are absolute and universally applicable, as do the Catholic Church and many religions, are considered “intolerant”.

Compared to the early day Christians, for whom denigration, repression and persecution were the daily norms, it’s no exaggeration to say that today’s Christians are not faring any better. What messages did the early Church give her faithful to help them deal with their adversities at hand? Many. And most of them are still useful for us considering the similarity between the early Church’s difficult experiences and ours. But here’s one from this Sunday’s lectionary readings that is particularly useful:

“In this you rejoice, although now for a little while you may have to suffer through various trials so that the genuineness of your faith, more precious than gold that is perishable even though tested by fire, may prove to be for praise, glory, and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ.” (1 Peter 1:6-7)

We are living in unprecedented times – hopefully not the end of time. After many years of tensions and crises in Iraq and Syria, which have spilled over to the European continent and Asia Minor in many forms of terrorism and rogue invasions, the western countries and the Russian camp, which includes Assad of Syria and Iran, have come to a head over Assad’s chemical warfare, with both sides issuing ultimatums to each other and taking belligerent positions that are difficult to back down. A similar – if not more intense and dangerous – situation has also been developing in the west Pacific where North Korea is threating to “nuke” South Korea, Japan, and the U.S. mainland should the U.S. decide to bomb its nuclear facilities.

The Bible is filled with vivid predictions of the horrific hardships that the world will experience on the Last Day. Many of them bring to mind horrors that may well become a reality should a nuclear war break out due to one single miscalculated threat or human error in the Korean peninsula or in the Middle East. For whatever reason, stuck in my head are two very graphic descriptions in the Book of Revelation:

“Then I watched while he broke open the sixth seal, and there was a great earthquake; the sun turned as black as dark sackcloth and the whole moon became like blood. The stars in the sky fell to the earth…the sky was divided like a torn scroll curling up, and every mountain and island was moved from its place…They cried out to the mountains and the rocks, ‘Fall on us and hide us from the face of the one who sits on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb, because the great day of their wrath has come and who can withstand it?’” (Revelation 6:12-17)

“During that time these people will seek death but will not find it, and they will long to die but death will escape them.” (Revelation 9:6)

As Jesus said to Thomas in the gospel reading: “Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed” (John 20:29). In a way, we see Jesus too: not in the manner Thomas encountered him, but in the word of God and the Eucharist. These indeed are unprecedented times that we live in. They may well be the precursors to the Last Day although we hope and pray that trust and peace would somehow prevail. But what are we to fear if Jesus is there with us in Peter’s boat, accompanying us to weather the storm (cf. Matthew 8:23-27)? “Thus we do not fear, though earth be shaken and mountains quake to the depths of the sea, though its waters rage and foam and mountains totter at its surging, the LORD of hosts is with us; our stronghold is the God of Jacob” (Psalm 46:3-4). Let’s hang in there and accept our various trials as a test of “the genuineness of your faith” (1 Peter. 1:7).

福傳道上

「你們在主內應當常常喜樂，我再說：你們應當喜樂！」(斐4:4)

斐理伯人書是保祿在羅馬監獄中所寫的書信。古羅馬的監獄與今天我們在電視中常見的監獄完全是兩回事，獄中環境惡劣和危險，囚犯們過渡著非人生活，隨時性命難保。在如此艱辛和惡劣的境況中，保祿卻偏偏寫成了這喜樂平安的作品。為甚麼呢？

其實，基督徒心裡的喜樂平安，與世人所追尋的喜樂平安，完全是兩回事。基督徒的喜樂平安是真正的喜樂平安，一旦得到，是永遠不會失去的。所以保祿在惡劣的羅馬監獄中，心裡仍存喜樂，也提醒斐理伯城信徒要常常喜樂。

基督徒心裡的喜樂也是感染性的，所以在福傳道上，我常遇上福傳良伴，大家懷著同樣喜樂的心情，一起效法保祿，將自己生命的每一分、每一秒，和生活上的每一點、每一滴，都像祭酒般獻上，為光榮天主而傾流淨盡(cf.弟後4:6)。郭詠觀醫生(Dr. Jason Kwok)就是我在福傳道上遇上的一位良伴。他和我相遇時擦出的一點火花，或者也算是在基督的愛內綻放的異采。這異采記述在《生命恩泉》最近推出的兩輯專訪中。願天主賜給郭醫生和我在主內的喜樂與平安，藉《生命恩泉》的製作，感染性地傳給你們！

(以下是郭詠觀醫生的分享，《浪子回頭上/下集》，每集大概26分鐘。)

浪子回頭上集

浪子回頭下集

Should Doctors Be Forced to Accept the Patients' Morality in Performing All Treatments, Including the Non-Emergency Ones?

Many readers who share my Christian beliefs will agree with me that living in the world of liturgies, prayers, and Scriptures is peaceful and full of joy. But, as we have seen so many times and in so many places where people are persecuted and killed for no reason other than their religious convictions, our freedom to lead a religious and moral life that's grounded in Christian beliefs and morality should not be taken for granted. It needs to be defended. Sometimes, as so many martyrs and saints have done in the history of the Church, it may even require the shedding of blood and the sacrifice of lives.

"OK. I'll fight a good fight! I'll join the Church martyrs; I'm ready to die for Christ!" you say. Not so soon! And it's not so simple. Often times, it's the little battles that add up and eventually get us killed without us knowing it - much like a frog dying in the "warmth" of slow boiling water! Here's one of those battles we cannot afford to ignore.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO) is asking for public input as part of its regular review of policy guidelines. At issue in this current review is the right of doctors to refuse to provide certain treatments based on religious or moral grounds. The current CPSO policy allows doctors to refrain from performing non-emergency procedures should the procedures violate their individual conscience.

“Non-emergency procedures” refer to issues such as infant male circumcision, prescribed birth control, certain types of medications, medicinal marijuana, or an abortion procedure. (In the future, this list may very well include euthanasia or assisted suicide.) In other words, we are not talking about providing health-care services where a patient’s life is at risk.

If you believe, as I do, that CPSO should NOT be imposing morality on all physicians, to the point where doctors need to violate their own conscience in order to serve their patients’ need to do non-emergency procedures (as listed above), you should go to CPSO’s Quick Poll to vote YES on their question: “Do you think a physician should be allowed to refuse to provide a patient with a treatment or procedure because it conflicts with the physician’s religious or moral beliefs?”

While you are there, you may also want to submit a comment against CPSO’s attempt to impose their morality on all physicians. You can do so by posting your comment to the CPSO forum, or by emailing CPSO. Links are available on the CPSO Quick Poll to allow you to do both. Here’s the link to the CPSO Quick Poll (deadline for feedback is August 5, 2014):

CPSO Quick Poll

Should you be interested in researching more about this issue and why the answer to the CPSO Quick Poll question should be YES, I would recommend the following three articles:

1. Article by John Carpay
2. Article by David Bulgar
3. Article by Mike Schouten

(Acknowledgement: The content of this post is adopted partly from the Mike Schouten article with modification.)

Is Pope Francis Backing Down From the Church's Teaching Against Homosexuality?

“If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and his good will, who am I to judge?” - Pope Francis on board the papal plane while returning from the World Youth Day in Brazil.

The media are quick to take the Pope’s remark above to mean that the Church is showing signs of backing down from its position against homosexuality; that after the election of a new Pope the Church is now back paddling on this very touchy issue; and that unlike his predecessor Pope Benedict XVI who taught that people with homosexual inclination should not be allowed to become priests, the new Pope is reaching out to the gay clerics. This is a typical example of how people are inclined to hear the way they want to hear.

It’s no secret that the media and the secular world dislike the Church’s teaching against homosexuality, i.e. its teaching that the homosexual acts are "acts of grave depravity" and that they are “intrinsically disordered” (CCC #2357). They also believe - in a very ignorant and naïve way, I must add - that given the pressure and momentum of the worldwide gay movement, which has won battle after battle in the courts of law and legislatures, the Roman Catholic Church and its “bigoted view” against homosexuality will eventually buckle. As a result, anything that the new Pope says that bears the remotest resemblance of a friendly comment on the issue of homosexuality will immediately be reported - or misreported - as the Church changing its position.

If one reads the Pope’s remark more closely, one will realize that what he says is really nothing new. Following the Scripture, the Church has always maintained that God, who is merciful and kind, will always forgive a sinner if he truly repents his sins and opts to follow God’s will (cf. Mt. 4:17, 1 John 1:9). What the Pope is saying is that if someone repents the sins of his gay behaviors and chooses to follow the will of God, which is for the homosexual persons to exercise self-mastery and live in chastity (CCC #2359), who am I – Pope Francis – to say that God will not forgive?

One pro-gay National Post reader was smart enough to pick up another comment that the Pope said in the same breath, namely, that “when someone sins and confesses, God not only forgives but forgets.” The pro-gay reader expressed dissatisfaction that in spite of the soft tone, the Pope saw homosexuality as a “sin”. But that’s exactly what the Pope is saying, just as the Church has always been saying: homosexuality is a sin, a grave sin that is intrinsically disordered. The Pope is also saying, just as the Church has always been saying, that if the sinner – the homosexual person in this case – is prepared to repent and follow God’s will (stop the homosexual behaviors in other words), how can we say or judge that God will not forgive him?

1 World Trade Centre and the Divine Builder

The World Trade Centre gleaming ever so gloriously in the morning sun was a sight itched deep in my memory. It was the first thing that caught my eyes on the second day of my arrival in New York City. It was July 19, 1974 when I left Hong Kong to study in Canada. Before going there, I took three weeks to visit my sister in New York City. A few logistical complications and confusions in my itinerary had left me stranded in Oakland for the whole morning; and I didn't make it to New York until almost mid-night Eastern Time on that same day. Like Jeremy Lin, I spent the rest of the night sleeping in a couch in my sister's apartment after a very warm welcome by her family. The sun streamed in early the next morning. I looked out the window of her old Chinatown apartment; standing there to greet me like two giants were the twin towers of the World Trade Centre.

Today marks the 1-year anniversary of the killing of Bin Laden. It’s fitting that on this very day, the construction of the re-incarnated building of the World Trade Centre, 1 World Trade Centre, has reached a meaningful milestone: already the tallest building of New York City. It’s taken Ground Zero a full decade to reclaim its former glory and dignity since Bin Laden’s horrific terrorist act of 9/11.

Monumental and special as it is, the 1 World Trade Centre project currently underway can never compare with the divine project that takes place everyday ever so inconspicuously in the maternal womb of a conceived woman. It’s a project that takes only 9 months to complete, from the time of conception to birth. Unlike the 1 World Trade Centre, people generally don’t consider this project monumental or glamorous; it’s more like just another ho-hum pregnancy. Concealed by the abdominal tissues of a human body especially in the early stages of its development, the project is not very eye-catching and does not attract many camera crews from media outlets all over the world. Sad to say, it is so low-key and so vulnerable many people will not feel the slightest sense of guilt to nip it in the bud.

With the help of modern day MRI technology, the glamour of the Divine Engineer is finally visualized and revealed to the human eye. Hang on tight to your chair; get ready for a 10-minute mystical tour. Watch it and be prepared to be humbled by the Divine Builder:

Alexander Tsiaras: Conception to birth -- visualized

March for Life on Thursday, May 10!

The March for Life event this year will take place on Thursday, May 10.

Pilgrims in support of this event will be departing from the Chinese Martyrs Catholic Church on May 10, Thursday at 7:30 a.m. after attending a 7 a.m. mass. By 12 noon the bus will arrive in Parliament Hill. There will be talks by MPs, a walk through Ottawa downtown and back to Parliament Hill, for talks by women who will share the aftermath of abortion. At 3:30 to 4 p.m. the bus will head back to Markham, arriving at around 9 p.m. at the Chinese Martyrs Catholic Church. The fees for adults and students are $20 and $10 respectively.

With the kind of world we are in these days, planting the seed of life is like cultivating arid grounds: it takes a lot of hard work. To me, joining the March for Life is akin to promoting Church teachings on sex and marriage year in and year out: both are very difficult and unpopular undertakings, but undertakings that must be carried out with perseverance nonetheless if we truly believe that the Gospel that we preach is not a Gospel of death but a Gospel of life; and that the God who oversees this world is not a God for the dead but a God for those who are fully human and fully alive!

Hope some of you would join Jeannie, me, and many others on Thursday, May 10. We'll have plenty of time to chat and catch up with one another on the bus and during the trip. Please contact Jeannie Wu at jwu7@rogers.com directly if you are interested.

Praising and proclaiming the Risen Lord on this Easter Saturday!