The Areopagus 7-21-08
posted by Phil Lawson
7-22-08
World Youth Day concluded yesterday with Pope Benedict celebrating Mass with 350,000+ young people from 170 countries in Sydney, Australia. WYD continues to be an amazing event fueling countless vocations and sparks of Faith. I don’t know that there is any other gathering in the world quite like this—where else can young people, of all different ethnicities, nationalities, interests, etc, gather together, united in Peace and Goodwill?---all united under one banner and purpose—Jesus Christ and His Church.
The event (which occurs over the course of a week) concludes with an all-night vigil where the young people camp out and then participate in Mass with the Pope. The organizers had set up an area for the young people to go to Confession during this time. There were so many people seeking the sacrament that additional priests were brought in and were literally setting up plastic chairs to hear confessions.
See the full story here: WYD—priests setting up “emergency” confessionals..overwhelmed by the numbers.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world-youth-day/overwhelming-demand-for-confessionals/2008/07/19/1216163225930.html
Bishop Listecki (LaCrosse Diocese) recently spoke at our Theology on Tap series. At one point he addressed the alleged “spiritual renewal” going on in this country. He pointed out that there will be no authentic or true renewal until people start going to confession—and thereby face their sins—the first step to overcoming them.
Our own pastor, Fr. Louis, developed the habit of keeping track of the number of confessions he hears. He recently revealed that from July 1st 2007 to June 30th 2008. he had heard 3,679 individual confessions. Not bad for a parish priest!
Taking all the above together reveals further signs of hope and the fruits of John Paul the Great’s “New Evangelization.”
Phil’s Tidbits:
Today is the memorial of St. Lawrence of Brindisi (1559-1619). I came across this beautiful quote from one of his sermons about the effects of the Word of God:
“For the word of God is a light to the mind and a fire to the will. It enables man to know God and to love him. And for the interior man who lives by the Spirit of God through grace, it is bread and water…For the soul is a spiritual treasure of merits yielding an abundance of gold and precious stones. Against the hardness of heart that persists in wrongdoing, it acts as a hammer. Against the world, the flesh and the devil it serves as a sword that destroys all sin.”
Like this past weekend’s Gospel reading about the wheat and the weeds (Matthew 13:24-42), we see the 2 sides of the coin. For those with God—He is comfort, mercy, and peace. For those against God—He is hammer, sword, and fire. There is no middle ground. Choose wisely!
American Medical Association attacks pharmacists’ conscience rights
The American Medical Association attacked pharmacists’ right to refuse to dispense contraceptives, including those which may cause abortion, at its June 11-14 Board of Trustees’ annual meeting.
The AMA‘s Board of Trustees told members that:
"AMA supports legislation that would require individual pharmacists and pharmacy chains to fill legally valid prescriptions or to provide immediate referral to an appropriate alternative dispensing pharmacy without interference.”
It further stated the following:
"A pharmacist's deliberate refusal to dispense a drug on religious, moral, or ethical grounds, i.e., pharmacist conscientious objection, has been most often associated with Plan B, the emergency contraceptive, and has received considerable attention in both the lay media and in medical journal commentaries. Of all of the reasons why a pharmacist might not dispense a legally valid prescription, conscientious objection is the only one that places a pharmacist's personal views in potential conflict with the best interests of the patient."
Via: Pro-Life Wisconsin
At our local Theology on Tap, one of the speakers was a pharmacist who addressed conscience issues involved with his profession. It was an eye-opening presentation. While doctors are legally protected from being forced to perform any procedure that violates their conscience, pharmacists do not.
As a faithful Catholic, he had to come to terms with this while still in pharmacy school. He ended up choosing to be a hospital pharmacist, wherein he would not be put in situations where he’d be forced to violate his conscience. Likewise, he makes it a point to inform his employer immediately about his beliefs. Thus far, as a young pharmacist, he has been able to practice his profession in accord with his conscience.
Stories like the one above are cause for concern.
One possible solution to the difficulties caused by the above and the rapid advances in life-destroying technology, i.e. abortifacient drugs:
New Trend of Pro-Life Pharmacies Responds to Incursions on Pharmacists' Consciences
By Tim Waggoner
WASHINGTON, June 18, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A recent trend involving pro-life pharmacies opening up across the U.S. has sparked a debate about the relationship between employees' consciences and patients' rights.
Pro-life pharmacies have surfaced in response to the growing amount of abuse received by pharmacists who have refused to fill prescriptions for life-stopping medication or products, such as contraception and condoms, because doing so would conflict with their consciences.
As reported by the Washington Post, Karen Bauer, president of Pharmacies for Life, stated that these pharmacies allow a "pharmacist who does not wish to be involved in stopping a human life in any way to practice in a way that feels comfortable."
Tom Brejcha, president and chief counsel at the Thomas More Society, is representing a pharmacist who was fined for refusing to fulfill a patient's request for contraception.
"The United States was founded on the idea that people act on their conscience - that they have a sense of right and wrong and do what they think is right and moral…Every pharmacist has the right to do the same thing," Brejcha said.
Critics or pro-life pharmacies believe that these pharmacists have a duty to provide "medical care" to all patients and are acting in a discriminatory way.
Yet, according to the Washington Post, advocates of pro-life pharmacies also point to the right of employees to express their opinions in a pluralistic society and preach of the dangers of contraceptives.
"In general, I think product differentiation expressive of differing values is a very good thing for a free, pluralistic society," said Loren E. Lomasky, a bioethicist at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville. "If we can have 20 different brands of toothpaste, why not a few different conceptions of how pharmacies ought to operate?"
"We try to practice pharmacy in a way that we feel is best to help our community and promote healthy lifestyles," said Lloyd Duplantis, owner of Lloyd's Remedies in Gray, LA. "After researching the science behind steroidal contraceptives, I decided they could hurt the woman and possibly hurt her unborn child. I decided to opt out."
Currently, California, New Jersey, Illinois and Washington State require pharmacies to fulfill all prescription requests or to at least point a patient in a direction where their "needs" can be met. Numerous other states are in debate on whether or not to follow suit.
The City named after Saint Francis, continues to take pot shots at the Catholic Church. See the story below:
Via: WorldNetDaily:
FAITH UNDER FIREMajor U.S. city officially condemns Catholic ChurchInstructs members to defy 'Holy Office of Inquisition'
Posted: July 15, 20088:48 pm Eastern© 2008 WorldNetDaily
A San Francisco city and county board resolution that officially labeled the Catholic church's moral teachings on homosexuality as "insulting to all San Franciscans," "hateful," "defamatory," "insensitive" and "ignorant" will be challenged tomorrow in court for violating the Constitution's prohibition of government hostility toward religion.
Resolution 168-08, passed unanimously by the City and County of San Francisco Board of Supervisors two years ago, also accused the Vatican of being a "foreign country" meddling with and attempting to "negatively influence (San Francisco's) existing and established customs."
It said of the church's teaching on homosexuality, "Such hateful and discriminatory rhetoric is both insulting and callous, and shows a level of insensitivity and ignorance which has seldom been encountered by this Board of Supervisors."
As WND reported, Resolution 168-08 was an official response to the Catholic Church's ban on adoption placements into homosexual couple households, issued by Cardinal William Levada of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith at the Vatican.
The board's resolution urged the city's local archbishop and the Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of San Francisco to defy the Vatican's instructions, concluding with a spiteful reminder that the church authority that issued the ban was known 100 years ago as "The Holy Office of the Inquisition."
The resolution also took a shot at Levada, the former archbishop of San Francisco, saying, "Cardinal Levada is a decidedly unqualified representative of his former home city, and of the people of San Francisco and the values they hold dear."
The anti-Catholic diatribe had been challenged in U.S. District Court on similar grounds, but District Judge Marilyn Hall Patel ruled in favor of the city, saying, in essence, the church started it.
She wrote in her decision, "The Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith provoked this debate, indeed may have invited entanglement" for instructing Catholic politicians on how to vote. This court does not find that our case law requires political bodies to remain silent in the face of provocation."
She ruled that the city's proclamation was not entangling the government in church affairs, since the resolution was a non-binding, non-regulatory announcement.
Since no law was enacted, she ruled, city officials – even in their official capacity as representatives of the government – can say what they want.
"It is merely the exercise of free speech rights by duly elected office holders," she wrote.
Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, which is appealing the District Court decision on behalf of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights and two Catholic residents of San Francisco, disagrees with Patel's decision.
"Sadly, the ruling itself clearly exhibited hostility toward the Catholic Church," he said in a statement. "The judge in her written decision held that the Church 'provoked the debate' by publicly expressing its moral teaching, and that by passing the resolution the City responded 'responsibly' to all of the 'terrible' things the Church was saying."
Thomas More attorney Robert Muise will present oral arguments in the case tomorrow morning in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
"Our Constitution plainly forbids hostility toward any religion, including the Catholic faith," he said.
"In total disregard for the Constitution, homosexual activists in positions of authority in San Francisco have abused their authority as government officials and misused the instruments of the government to attack the Catholic Church. Their egregious abuse of power has now the backing of a lower federal court. … Unfortunately, all too often we see a double standard being applied in Establishment Clause cases," Muise said.
Thomas More attorneys argued in the District Court case that the "anti-Catholic resolution sends a clear message" that Catholics are "outsiders, not full members of the political community."
The cultural, and now political, straight-arm to adherents of the Christian faith in San Francisco has been increasingly public in the last two years. Just one week after the anti-Catholic resolution was passed, the San Francisco Board issued a similar resolution against a mostly evangelical group.
Following a gathering of 25,000 teens at San Francisco's AT&T Park as part of Ron Luce's Teen Mania "Battle Cry for a Generation" rally against the sexualization of America's youth culture by advertisers and media, the board spoke out formally again.
According to the San Francisco Chronicle, the Board of Supervisors unanimously passed a resolution condemning the "act of provocation" by what it termed an "anti-gay," "anti-choice" organization that aimed to "negatively influence the politics of America's most tolerant and progressive city."
Openly homosexual California Assemblyman Mark Leno told protesters of the teen rally that though such religious people may be few, "they're loud, they're obnoxious, they're disgusting, and they should get out of San Francisco."
The Chronicle also reported a San Francisco protester against the evangelical youth rally carried a sign that may sum up the sentiment: "I moved here to get away from people like you."
The Thomas More Law Center hopes the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will decide in the case of Resolution 1680-08 that even if a large portion of the community is at odds with a religion's views on homosexuality, the government cannot be used as a weapon to condemn religious faith.
Currently, as WND has reported, Colorado and Michigan are tackling the question of whether the Bible itself can be vilified as "hate speech" for it's condemnation of homosexuality, and Canada has developed human rights commissions, which have decided people cannot express opposition to homosexuality without fear of government reprisal.
God bless you!
Phil Lawson
For the latest info on St. Peter’s, check out the parish website: www.saintpetercatholic.com
(You can also find old editions of the Areopagus here)
The Areopagus is a regular email for adults that includes various reflections, tidbits, news and events. Hope you find it fruitful!
If you would like to be added to this list, send an email to lawsphil@gmail.com
On the other hand, if you would like to be removed, send an email to the same address indicating that.
World Youth Day concluded yesterday with Pope Benedict celebrating Mass with 350,000+ young people from 170 countries in Sydney, Australia. WYD continues to be an amazing event fueling countless vocations and sparks of Faith. I don’t know that there is any other gathering in the world quite like this—where else can young people, of all different ethnicities, nationalities, interests, etc, gather together, united in Peace and Goodwill?---all united under one banner and purpose—Jesus Christ and His Church.
The event (which occurs over the course of a week) concludes with an all-night vigil where the young people camp out and then participate in Mass with the Pope. The organizers had set up an area for the young people to go to Confession during this time. There were so many people seeking the sacrament that additional priests were brought in and were literally setting up plastic chairs to hear confessions.
See the full story here: WYD—priests setting up “emergency” confessionals..overwhelmed by the numbers.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world-youth-day/overwhelming-demand-for-confessionals/2008/07/19/1216163225930.html
Bishop Listecki (LaCrosse Diocese) recently spoke at our Theology on Tap series. At one point he addressed the alleged “spiritual renewal” going on in this country. He pointed out that there will be no authentic or true renewal until people start going to confession—and thereby face their sins—the first step to overcoming them.
Our own pastor, Fr. Louis, developed the habit of keeping track of the number of confessions he hears. He recently revealed that from July 1st 2007 to June 30th 2008. he had heard 3,679 individual confessions. Not bad for a parish priest!
Taking all the above together reveals further signs of hope and the fruits of John Paul the Great’s “New Evangelization.”
Phil’s Tidbits:
Today is the memorial of St. Lawrence of Brindisi (1559-1619). I came across this beautiful quote from one of his sermons about the effects of the Word of God:
“For the word of God is a light to the mind and a fire to the will. It enables man to know God and to love him. And for the interior man who lives by the Spirit of God through grace, it is bread and water…For the soul is a spiritual treasure of merits yielding an abundance of gold and precious stones. Against the hardness of heart that persists in wrongdoing, it acts as a hammer. Against the world, the flesh and the devil it serves as a sword that destroys all sin.”
Like this past weekend’s Gospel reading about the wheat and the weeds (Matthew 13:24-42), we see the 2 sides of the coin. For those with God—He is comfort, mercy, and peace. For those against God—He is hammer, sword, and fire. There is no middle ground. Choose wisely!
American Medical Association attacks pharmacists’ conscience rights
The American Medical Association attacked pharmacists’ right to refuse to dispense contraceptives, including those which may cause abortion, at its June 11-14 Board of Trustees’ annual meeting.
The AMA‘s Board of Trustees told members that:
"AMA supports legislation that would require individual pharmacists and pharmacy chains to fill legally valid prescriptions or to provide immediate referral to an appropriate alternative dispensing pharmacy without interference.”
It further stated the following:
"A pharmacist's deliberate refusal to dispense a drug on religious, moral, or ethical grounds, i.e., pharmacist conscientious objection, has been most often associated with Plan B, the emergency contraceptive, and has received considerable attention in both the lay media and in medical journal commentaries. Of all of the reasons why a pharmacist might not dispense a legally valid prescription, conscientious objection is the only one that places a pharmacist's personal views in potential conflict with the best interests of the patient."
Via: Pro-Life Wisconsin
At our local Theology on Tap, one of the speakers was a pharmacist who addressed conscience issues involved with his profession. It was an eye-opening presentation. While doctors are legally protected from being forced to perform any procedure that violates their conscience, pharmacists do not.
As a faithful Catholic, he had to come to terms with this while still in pharmacy school. He ended up choosing to be a hospital pharmacist, wherein he would not be put in situations where he’d be forced to violate his conscience. Likewise, he makes it a point to inform his employer immediately about his beliefs. Thus far, as a young pharmacist, he has been able to practice his profession in accord with his conscience.
Stories like the one above are cause for concern.
One possible solution to the difficulties caused by the above and the rapid advances in life-destroying technology, i.e. abortifacient drugs:
New Trend of Pro-Life Pharmacies Responds to Incursions on Pharmacists' Consciences
By Tim Waggoner
WASHINGTON, June 18, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A recent trend involving pro-life pharmacies opening up across the U.S. has sparked a debate about the relationship between employees' consciences and patients' rights.
Pro-life pharmacies have surfaced in response to the growing amount of abuse received by pharmacists who have refused to fill prescriptions for life-stopping medication or products, such as contraception and condoms, because doing so would conflict with their consciences.
As reported by the Washington Post, Karen Bauer, president of Pharmacies for Life, stated that these pharmacies allow a "pharmacist who does not wish to be involved in stopping a human life in any way to practice in a way that feels comfortable."
Tom Brejcha, president and chief counsel at the Thomas More Society, is representing a pharmacist who was fined for refusing to fulfill a patient's request for contraception.
"The United States was founded on the idea that people act on their conscience - that they have a sense of right and wrong and do what they think is right and moral…Every pharmacist has the right to do the same thing," Brejcha said.
Critics or pro-life pharmacies believe that these pharmacists have a duty to provide "medical care" to all patients and are acting in a discriminatory way.
Yet, according to the Washington Post, advocates of pro-life pharmacies also point to the right of employees to express their opinions in a pluralistic society and preach of the dangers of contraceptives.
"In general, I think product differentiation expressive of differing values is a very good thing for a free, pluralistic society," said Loren E. Lomasky, a bioethicist at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville. "If we can have 20 different brands of toothpaste, why not a few different conceptions of how pharmacies ought to operate?"
"We try to practice pharmacy in a way that we feel is best to help our community and promote healthy lifestyles," said Lloyd Duplantis, owner of Lloyd's Remedies in Gray, LA. "After researching the science behind steroidal contraceptives, I decided they could hurt the woman and possibly hurt her unborn child. I decided to opt out."
Currently, California, New Jersey, Illinois and Washington State require pharmacies to fulfill all prescription requests or to at least point a patient in a direction where their "needs" can be met. Numerous other states are in debate on whether or not to follow suit.
The City named after Saint Francis, continues to take pot shots at the Catholic Church. See the story below:
Via: WorldNetDaily:
FAITH UNDER FIREMajor U.S. city officially condemns Catholic ChurchInstructs members to defy 'Holy Office of Inquisition'
Posted: July 15, 20088:48 pm Eastern© 2008 WorldNetDaily
A San Francisco city and county board resolution that officially labeled the Catholic church's moral teachings on homosexuality as "insulting to all San Franciscans," "hateful," "defamatory," "insensitive" and "ignorant" will be challenged tomorrow in court for violating the Constitution's prohibition of government hostility toward religion.
Resolution 168-08, passed unanimously by the City and County of San Francisco Board of Supervisors two years ago, also accused the Vatican of being a "foreign country" meddling with and attempting to "negatively influence (San Francisco's) existing and established customs."
It said of the church's teaching on homosexuality, "Such hateful and discriminatory rhetoric is both insulting and callous, and shows a level of insensitivity and ignorance which has seldom been encountered by this Board of Supervisors."
As WND reported, Resolution 168-08 was an official response to the Catholic Church's ban on adoption placements into homosexual couple households, issued by Cardinal William Levada of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith at the Vatican.
The board's resolution urged the city's local archbishop and the Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of San Francisco to defy the Vatican's instructions, concluding with a spiteful reminder that the church authority that issued the ban was known 100 years ago as "The Holy Office of the Inquisition."
The resolution also took a shot at Levada, the former archbishop of San Francisco, saying, "Cardinal Levada is a decidedly unqualified representative of his former home city, and of the people of San Francisco and the values they hold dear."
The anti-Catholic diatribe had been challenged in U.S. District Court on similar grounds, but District Judge Marilyn Hall Patel ruled in favor of the city, saying, in essence, the church started it.
She wrote in her decision, "The Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith provoked this debate, indeed may have invited entanglement" for instructing Catholic politicians on how to vote. This court does not find that our case law requires political bodies to remain silent in the face of provocation."
She ruled that the city's proclamation was not entangling the government in church affairs, since the resolution was a non-binding, non-regulatory announcement.
Since no law was enacted, she ruled, city officials – even in their official capacity as representatives of the government – can say what they want.
"It is merely the exercise of free speech rights by duly elected office holders," she wrote.
Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, which is appealing the District Court decision on behalf of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights and two Catholic residents of San Francisco, disagrees with Patel's decision.
"Sadly, the ruling itself clearly exhibited hostility toward the Catholic Church," he said in a statement. "The judge in her written decision held that the Church 'provoked the debate' by publicly expressing its moral teaching, and that by passing the resolution the City responded 'responsibly' to all of the 'terrible' things the Church was saying."
Thomas More attorney Robert Muise will present oral arguments in the case tomorrow morning in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
"Our Constitution plainly forbids hostility toward any religion, including the Catholic faith," he said.
"In total disregard for the Constitution, homosexual activists in positions of authority in San Francisco have abused their authority as government officials and misused the instruments of the government to attack the Catholic Church. Their egregious abuse of power has now the backing of a lower federal court. … Unfortunately, all too often we see a double standard being applied in Establishment Clause cases," Muise said.
Thomas More attorneys argued in the District Court case that the "anti-Catholic resolution sends a clear message" that Catholics are "outsiders, not full members of the political community."
The cultural, and now political, straight-arm to adherents of the Christian faith in San Francisco has been increasingly public in the last two years. Just one week after the anti-Catholic resolution was passed, the San Francisco Board issued a similar resolution against a mostly evangelical group.
Following a gathering of 25,000 teens at San Francisco's AT&T Park as part of Ron Luce's Teen Mania "Battle Cry for a Generation" rally against the sexualization of America's youth culture by advertisers and media, the board spoke out formally again.
According to the San Francisco Chronicle, the Board of Supervisors unanimously passed a resolution condemning the "act of provocation" by what it termed an "anti-gay," "anti-choice" organization that aimed to "negatively influence the politics of America's most tolerant and progressive city."
Openly homosexual California Assemblyman Mark Leno told protesters of the teen rally that though such religious people may be few, "they're loud, they're obnoxious, they're disgusting, and they should get out of San Francisco."
The Chronicle also reported a San Francisco protester against the evangelical youth rally carried a sign that may sum up the sentiment: "I moved here to get away from people like you."
The Thomas More Law Center hopes the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will decide in the case of Resolution 1680-08 that even if a large portion of the community is at odds with a religion's views on homosexuality, the government cannot be used as a weapon to condemn religious faith.
Currently, as WND has reported, Colorado and Michigan are tackling the question of whether the Bible itself can be vilified as "hate speech" for it's condemnation of homosexuality, and Canada has developed human rights commissions, which have decided people cannot express opposition to homosexuality without fear of government reprisal.
God bless you!
Phil Lawson
For the latest info on St. Peter’s, check out the parish website: www.saintpetercatholic.com
(You can also find old editions of the Areopagus here)
The Areopagus is a regular email for adults that includes various reflections, tidbits, news and events. Hope you find it fruitful!
If you would like to be added to this list, send an email to lawsphil@gmail.com
On the other hand, if you would like to be removed, send an email to the same address indicating that.
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
This Stevens Point Website designed by Promotion Web Design
