Irish journalist facing jail time
tagged Africa, AIDS, An Garda Siochana, Britain, charity, Congo, Denise Charlton, Eritrea, Ethiopia, France, God, Immigrant Council of Ireland, Ireland, Kevin Myers, men, Morality, Rwanda, Sierre Leone, Somalia, Sudan, women and Zimbabwe
Kevin Myers crime? Well, as a man who spent some years living in Africa, he had the temerity to speak what he knew to be true about the problems on that troubled continent, and he did so in print:
When I went to Ethiopia* just over 20 years ago, I saw many things I never reported — such as the menacing effect of gangs of young men with Kalashnikovs everywhere, while women did all the work. In the very middle of starvation and death, men spent their time drinking the local hooch in the boonabate shebeens. Alongside the boonabates were shanty-brothels, to which drinkers would casually repair, to briefly relieve themselves in the scarred orifice of some wretched prostitute (whom God preserve and protect).
I saw all this and did not report it, nor the anger of the Irish aid workers at the sexual incontinence and fecklessness of Ethiopian men. Why? Because I wanted to write much-acclaimed, tear-jerkingly purple prose about wide-eyed, fly-infested children — not cold, unpopular and even “racist” accusations about African male culpability.
This follows from an earlier article that he penned, in which he noted still more problems:
The wide-eyed boy-child we saved, 20 years or so ago, is now a priapic, Kalashnikov-bearing hearty, siring children whenever the whim takes him.
There is, no doubt a good argument why we should prolong this predatory and dysfunctional economic, social and sexual system; but I do not know what it is. There is, on the other hand, every reason not to write a column like this.
…
Indeed, we now have almost an entire continent of sexually hyperactive indigents, with tens of millions of people who only survive because of help from the outside world.
They are now — one way or another — virtually all giving aid to or investing in Africa, whereas Africa, with its vast savannahs and its lush pastures, is giving almost nothing to anyone, apart from AIDS.
…
How much Morality is there in saving an Ethiopian child from starvation today, for it to survive to a life of brutal circumcision, poverty, hunger, violence and sexual abuse, resulting in another half-dozen such wide-eyed children, with comparably jolly little lives ahead of them? Of course, it might make you feel better, which is a prime reason for so much charity. But that is not good enough.
For self-serving generosity has been one of the curses of Africa. It has sustained political systems which would otherwise have collapsed.
And for saying as much, all of it good common sense, Mr. Myers could potentially be jailed…without benefit of trial. In Ireland, which is supposedly a free and democratic nation.
On the one hand, I expected some uproar in Ireland over my piece about Ethiopia on July 10. But there really wasn’t any. On the other, I didn’t expect an attempt to jail me by a state-sponsored body. Yet Denise Charlton, of the Immigrant Council of Ireland, has urged An Garda Siochana to investigate me under a special law, by which I could be tried and imprisoned for two years without even the benefit of a jury.
Oh, Denise, Denise, you silly, silly little girl: have you nothing better to do with your time and talents than to try to get someone jailed for saying something you dislike? So there we are. The apparatchiks of the equality industry merely have to contemplate the sector of their psyche wherein their self-righteous emotions reside: and if these are sufficiently overwrought, they decide that a hate-crime has been committed.
…
So, “a lot of Africans” are “all very offended”, are they? All of them? The poor dears. Well, if the countries on whose behalf they get so easily offended are so bloody marvellous — Sudan? Rwanda? Zimbabwe? Sierre Leone? Congo? Somalia? Eritrea? Etcetera? — why aren’t they enjoying themselves back home?
Just so.
The above are not easy words to read; I personally doubt that Mr. Myers intended for them to be easy to read. The reality of Africa — and even of the outcomes of the various aid monies that flow in to that troubled continent — is not an easy truth to hear, and I doubt there is any way to put it to paper in a palatable manner, save to gloss over the really nasty bits in favour of heart-wrenching stories about babies with bloated bellies.
And make no mistake: starvation, especially of infants, is a damnable tragedy. But nothing is really being done about this by simply pouring more money into the various countries that make up Africa — in the end, what is achieved is that governments are propped up which have no business being in power in the first place. The cycle of injustice is thus free to continue.
Positive developments do occasionally occur in Africa, admittedly, but one notes that many of these are intrinsically linked with foreign missions that see Westerners come in to Africa (once more) to take an active role in e.g. the construction of bridges and water systems.
But now, apparently, a man stands to be jailed in Ireland for saying as much.
* a quick note, for those who will attempt to lay blame for all this at the feet of the colonial escapades of e.g. Britain and France: Ethiopia was never a colony.
Answers from a Catholic #1: Salvation
tagged Annointing of the Sick, Baptism, Catechism of the Catholic Church, Catholicism, charism, charity, Chrismation, Christ, Confirmation, Council of Trent, doctrine, eternal life, Eucharist, faith, free will, God, grace of God, Holy Orders, Holy Spirit, Incarnation, Jesus, justification, love, Matrimony, mercy, merit, miracle, New Advent, Protestantism, Reconciliation, Sacrament, Sacramental life, salvation, sin, sola fide, St. Athanasius, St. Augustine, St. James, St. Paul, St. Thomas Aquinas, the Apostles, the Church and Theology
Does the Roman Catholic Church teaches that faith alone in Christ is all that is necessary for salvation?
Does the Roman Catholic Church not teach that according to Roman Catholicism, man cannot be saved by faith alone in Christ alone?
Do they not teach that a Christian must rely on faith plus “meritorious works” in order to be saved?
Is it essential to the Roman Catholic doctrine of salvation that one participate in the Seven Sacraments, which are: Baptism, Confirmation, the Eucharist, Penance [also called Reconciliation], Annointing of the Sick, Holy Orders, and Matrimony?
These will be the first four questions answered in what I hope will become an ongoing series. In truth, I’d prefer to answer only the first three at this time, but there’s a problem with that. Catholic doctrine is not a series of atomic statements, but rather a unified body of teachings that build off of, play into, and complement and enhance each other. In other words, and more plainly put, it would be impossible to discuss what the Church teaches about salvation without discussing, at least in brief, the various Sacraments of the Church.
But before we begin, let’s look at the short answers to each of the above questions:
- If you mean: do Catholics acknowledge sola fides as it is commonly articulated? No.
- If you mean: do Catholics reject sola fide as it is commonly articulated? Yes.
- No. A more appropriate term would simply be “merit.”
- No, not all of those seven.
Now, let’s unpack those answers a little bit, shall we?
The Pope calls for a return to Sacramental Confession
tagged America, Barrack Hussein Obama, charity, Christ, Confession, faith, God, Holy Spirit, hope, Jesus, Nationals Park Stadium, Penance, Pope Benedict XVI, sin, the Church and United States
From the text of a speech Pope Benedict XVI delivered at Nationals Park Stadium:
In today’s Gospel, the Risen Lord bestows the gift of the Holy Spirit upon the Apostles and grants them the authority to forgive sins. Through the surpassing power of Christ’s grace, entrusted to frail human ministers, the Church is constantly reborn and each of us is given the hope of a new beginning.
Let us trust in the Spirit’s power to inspire conversion, to heal every wound, to overcome every division, and to inspire new life and freedom.
How much we need these gifts! And how close at hand they are, particularly in the Sacrament of Penance!
The liberating power of this Sacrament, in which our honest Confession of sin is met by God’s merciful word of pardon and peace, needs to be rediscovered and reappropriated by every Catholic. To a great extent, the renewal of the Church in America and throughout the world depends on the renewal of the practice of Penance and the growth in holiness which that Sacrament both inspires and accomplishes.
“In hope we were saved!” (Rom 8: 24). As the Church in the United States gives thanks for the blessings of the past 200 years, I invite you, your families, and every parish and religious community, to trust in the power of grace to create a future of promise for God’s people in this Country.
I ask you, in the Lord Jesus, to set aside all division and to work with joy to prepare a way for him, in fidelity to his word and in constant conversion to his will.
Above all, I urge you to continue to be a leaven of evangelical hope in American society, striving to bring the light and truth of the Gospel to the task of building an ever more just and free world for generations yet to come.
Those who have hope must live different lives! (cf. Spe Salvi, n. 2). By your prayers, by the witness of your faith, by the fruitfulness of your charity, may you point the way towards that vast horizon of hope which God is even now opening up to his Church, and indeed, to all humanity: the vision of a world reconciled and renewed in Christ Jesus, our Savior. To him be all honor and glory, now and forever. Amen!
Just so. One consistent theme in Benedict’s papacy has been the ideal of hope — not the vacuous, vain “hope” that Barrack Hussein Obama seems to be promising in his campaigning in the presidential primary, but real hope that not only desires an end which is good, but also looks to an end that will be fulfilled and realized.
How consistently impressive this Pope is, and how often he says exactly what needs to be said at exactly the right time! What a magnificent blessing upon the Church.
Charity is the new narcissism
tagged Big Give, Celebrity Apprentice, charity, Christianity, Facebook, Hollywood Reporter, Matthew 6, Oprah and philanthropy
“Me generation puts the ‘I’ in charity“
charity may begin at home, but it only counts if there’s an audience. That’s the implied message of what some are calling “competitive compassion,” a trend quickly turning philanthropy into an exercise in self-congratulation.
Putting the “I” in charity, Facebook’s Causes application allows Canadians to flaunt their benevolence with all the subtlety of a Pride parade, displaying everything from the money they’ve personally raised to the number of friends they’ve recruited for their preferred charity or non-profit.
On TV, Celebrity Apprentice and Oprah’s Big Give have transformed philanthropy into a game show, with players competing as teams but being judged as individuals in the fight to be the ultimate altruist.
Of the latter show, the Hollywood Reporter writes: “Shallow as a bird bath, the program would appear to exist less as a true philanthropic exercise than yet another self-aggrandizing vehicle in Oprah’s divine quest to become synonymous with all that is virtuous and good on Earth.“
Our secular world really has sunk to depths uncharted — turning helping out the needy into a vehicle for self-aggrandizement and preening.
Myself, I tend to prefer this sort of thing.
“So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.
Aren’t you so glad, O Reader, that our post-modern society has shed the last trappings of Christian mythology and mysticism in favour of hard empiricism and the pursuit of the almighty self?
Those silly atheists
tagged atheism, charity, Christianity, logic, reason, Religion and Richard Dawkins
I have often made the claim that atheists — who, in my experience, prefer to hold themselves up as champions of logic and reason (theists like me are supposed to be irrational and deluded, if I understand the narrative correctly) — tend to forget themselves when the discussion turns to Religion. Tacitly, that statement implies that when the discussion is not about religion, an atheist can do well, in the same way that Richard Dawkins does some excellent work in his purely scientific pursuits. But turn the subject toward religion, and these self-styled champions of reason all too quickly abandon reason.
Vox Day provides a case in point:
Beelzebub takes a shot that I will readily admit to not expecting:
I’ll shoot the first volley. The Voxster makes a big case about the religious causalities of War. True/false? In the end it doesn’t matter, and in essence, by your comments you know it too. All we really need to prove is whether ONE war, or even one death can be ascribed to religion, and we’ve already condemned it.
I’ve had variants of this particular argument thrown at me more times than I care to count, and on the surface it would seem to make a legitimate point. “By your fruits shall you know them,” and all that.
Except:
1. On what basis does a single death ascribed to anything condemn that thing?
2. Does Beelzebub condemn everything else to which a single historical death can be ascribed?
3. Is that to which more deaths can be ascribed to be more strongly condemned than that to which fewer deaths can be ascribed?
As noted above, what Vox’s atheistic would-be antagonist has done is forgotten himself, in that he has forgotten that the rules which he applies to denounce religion can in turn also be used to denounce atheism, since atheism is every bit as much a philosophical/metapyhsical conjecture as any religion is. And Vox’s point is that if Christianity is condemned by having directly caused so much as one death, then atheism stands likewise condemned if it meets the same criteria (which it does).
Of course, the numbers game does not end there. If we shall know them by their fruits, then perhaps comparing bodycounts is not the real way to go (I’m being charitable here; comparing death tolls is a game atheism will lose, hard and fast). Perhaps the better comparison would be to ask how many peoples lives have been saved/enriched/helped along by…say…Christianity, versus how many have been helped by atheism? How many charity organizations has Christian philosophy inspired? How many has materialist philosophy inspired? How many Christians have been moved to works of charity because of their beliefs? How many atheists have been so moved because of their beliefs?
In the end, these are all numbers games, and don’t actually prove anything about the validity or invalidity of any religious belief (or lack thereof). But if atheists want to play by the numbers, that’s fine. I don’t know why they’d want to, given that it’s a losing game for them once we apply the same criteria to their own beliefs…but, as I said, those silly atheists do tend to forget themselves when the discussion turns toward religion.
