Reflection on the Video with Ronald Davis

The Catholic Church teaches that all humans were made in the image of God, and as such are equal in their inviolable dignity. In short, the Catholic Church believes every human person is a human person. Earth-shattering, I know. But as evident in Ronald Davis's video, many people do not recognize this fact. Ignorance, a consequence of Original Sin, clouds people's intellects to make them believe people like Ronald are just bums, and inferior to all others. It's dehumanizing enough to have no home and have to beg for food and shelter; such ignorant folk only humiliate the homeless even more. 

I think Ronald's story can teach us a lesson about judging and condemnation. People are quick to label homeless people as drunks and crackheads. Many of us look at someone like Ronald and assume he or she is just a good-for-nothing bum. But we do not know their story. We do not know what they have been through. We cannot honestly judge Ronald for not having a job when employers will not hire him due to his appearance and he has no phone number to leave them. As humans we have no right to judge other humans and make assumptions about them. The only thing we can assume about somebody is that they are a human being like the rest of us. 

Reflection on YouTube video ''Homeless Man Ronald Davis"

Although I had seen this video before, it was very powerful the second time around. The most important thing I got out of this video is the concept of human dignity and that every human, no matter the richest or poorest in the world, has the same amount of dignity and is equally a "human being". I think the most powerful part of this video was how Ronald Davis said "God Bless you Sir" after he heard a man walking down the street calling him a bum and other names. This proves that some people in the world, unlike others, have a sense of forgiveness that is awesome.

After watching this video, I am more conscious of those in need around me, especially ones without a home to go to at the end of the day. When you think about it, having a meal is always certain. However, sometimes these people do not have enough money for even a meal at the cheapest places. This influenced me greatly to think about the problems in society. Hopefully Mr. Ronald Davis will find employment soon and get some good luck.

If you haven't seen it before, check it out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AusCA28efa0&feature=youtu.be

Reflection on "All Are Welcome!"

This article is about two main things- first it explains the role of the Church and the perosns who make it up; and second it preaches a philosophy of “hate the sin but not the sinner”. On the first note, a kid joins the family for dinner one day, bringing the analogy to “the Church as catholic” which means the Church is universal and is for all humans. Next, the article goes on to explain the role of the person in the formation of the Church; specifically that we all make up the body of Christ and are members of the priesthood of the laity (incorporating class teachings +1) because of our partaking in Christ’s nature as a priest.

The second part of the article talks about the philosophy of “hate the sin not the sinner’ which I think is an important distinction that needs to be made in Christian theology today. So long Christians have blamed x person as a “bad person” , but not as a “good person with bad actions”. Genesis and the creation story teaches us that all of God’s creation is created good, but after the fall this creation takes on original sin and because lazy and sins. So, it is technically improper to hate the person; we must instead hate the sin.

I think this article is a good one to explore the characteristics of the Church, especially its unity and apostolic qualities. Furthermore, it is a good article to explore the basics of “hate the sin, not the sinner” that was crucial to Jesus’ teachings.

Reflection on "All Are Welcome!"

I think this blog makes a very important and necessary observation about the universality of the Church. Many people misinterpret universality to think that their actions do not matter, that there are no rules that they have to follow to be a part of the Church.  The Church does not discriminate against people in the slightest; however, it does discriminate against people's actions. Discriminate implies that there is little or not justification for an action, and is probably not the right word for this situation. The Church condemns sinner's actions rightly.

Another observation that I think would help this blog would be that all people can follow these rules that the Church imposes upon them. After seeing this article, one might object by saying that the rules cannot be followed. For example, the author brings up the example of someone having to wash their hands in order to eat dinner at their house. What if the rule was that they would have to steal the Mona Lisa, put it back, then steal it again, and then sit down at the dinner? Kind of ridiculous right. However this is not the case. These "rules" the author I keep referring to are capable of being followed by every single human being. For example, the Church does not want unmarried people of different sexes to cohabit before marriage. All humans have the ability to not partake in this activity--it's not an impossible sanction by any means.

The Church is a universal Church. Although it has rules, these rules are also universal.

All Dogs Go to Heaven...Not

Our family owns a lovable 5 year old cockapoo named Maddie. Maddie's favorite activities include chasing squirrels around the yard and playing fetch with her masters. She's a mischievous one as well, stealing food off the counter on a consistent basis. Dogs such as Maddie are great companions, and many people treat their dogs as members of the family. One lady even filed for a tax deduction because she considered her dog "a dependent."

As much as we all love dogs, and all sorts of pets for that matter, we have to recognize that they will not be joining us one day in Heaven. Maybe it is sad, but at the same time, they are not going to Hell either. They, along with the rest of creation aside from humans, go nowhere--their existence is defined by their material body, not anything more.

What I'm getting at is that our dogs and cats do not have souls. The soul, the spiritual element that gives humans our intellect, will, and capacity to love, is unique only to man within creation. The soul is made directly in God's image, and is what elevates human dignity above that of the rest of creation. The Church teaches that after humans die, our souls separate from our earthly bodies, going to Heaven, Hell, or Purgatory (I believe this is discussed in a previous post by atohme). After dogs die, they have no soul to separate from their body.

This is not a terribly controversial issue in the Church. In fact, it is so uncontroversial that people often fail to realize it.

Some do object however. People often insist that their dog can indeed think rationally, and experience emotions. However, these are distinct from human rational thought and emotion. A dog's actions and thought processes are mere products of evolutionary adaptations and consequences involving rewards and punishments. A human, on the other hand, can have complex thought processes, such as pondering God's existence, that a dog could never hope to do (which kind of has a double meaning, because a dog cannot hope).

I love my dog, but the Church teaches that she cannot love me back. Ruff.

-Shoe

The Church's Stance on Women Priests

A few weeks ago, Maria McClain, a 71 year old devout Indiana Christian, was ordained as a priest in defiance of Church law. I had heard of movements to include women in the priesthood, but never did I hear of such radical actions as schism for this cause. Upon further research, Maria is not a unique case. Approximately 10 years ago, a group of three male bishops secretly ordained seven women as priests, some of which were ordained as bishops so they could ordain other women. They pride themselves on being crusaders fighting against unjust, out-dated, patriarchal rules.

Obviously, the Church does not allow women to be priests. Those involved in the above escapades were surely excommunicated from the Church, as they are essentially forming their own church. This movement however has been gaining momentum in recent years. A demand for more priests, due to a lack of male ones, has left many people thinking the next logical move would be to allow women priests. The Church remains adamant in her stance forbidding female priests, and here is why.

The Church will likely never change the rule that there can be no female priests, not because it is a sexist, patriarchal institution, but because it has no authority to do so. The Church recognizes that Jesus chose his first twelve Apostles to use as the foundation for his Church. All twelve of these Apostles were men, and ordained only men to assume their authority. This has been a tradition in the Church held for its entire almost 2,000 year old existence.

For the Church hierarchy to go against Jesus's actions in founding the Church and allow the ordination of women priests, it would be asserting its authority above Christ's. The Church recognizes that she simply has no place to do that. Her hands are tied--maybe it would be beneficial for women to be included in the priesthood, but she has no authority to make that happen.

The priesthood is not a "job", and the Church is not an "employer." If this were so, and the Church picked which people could become priests, it would certainly be discrimination to exclude women. Rather, the priesthood is a calling by God. The Church is in no position to recognize the legitimacy of a woman's calling to the priesthood, as Jesus never called a woman to this position in his ministry.

Technically the Church can change its stance on women priesthood. And for all we know she might. However, theologically, there is no justification for such a move.

Sources:
http://www.wthr.com/story/17413563/indiana-woman-seeks-to-be-ordained-as-roman-catholic-priest

-Shoe

Scriptural Beginnings of Baptism

The scriptural beginnings of Baptism are mostly found in the New Testament, however some are found in the Old Testament. First, a reference to baptism was made in the Old Testament in the book of Genesis when the Bible explains the sanctity of circumcision. In the book of Psalms, Psalm 51 says, “Have mercy on me, O God, according to your unfailing love; according to your great compassion blot out my transgressions. Wash away all my iniquity and cleanse me

from my sin. For I know my transgressions, and my sin is always before me”.

This is a clear scriptural beginning of Baptism because the book of Psalms says “wash away all my iniquity” which means baptism. Furthermore, the most clear first reference to baptism in the New Testament comes in the Gospel of Matthew when John the Baptist baptizes the followers of the coming Christ. The Gospel says,  “John's clothes were made of camel's hair, and he had a leather belt around his waist. His food was locusts and wild honey. People went out to him from Jerusalem and all Judea and the whole region of the Jordan. Confessing their sins, they were

baptised by him in the Jordan River”. 




This Biblical passage clearly shows that Baptism has many scriptural beginnings and continues through the teachings of Christ up until his Resurrection. After the death and resurrection, members of the Church continued this tradition, which has many roots in Sacred Scripture.

-atohme