Eucharistic Adoration: Adoro Te Devote

One of my favorite pastimes is sharing my Catholic faith on the social networking site called Twitter. This afternoon I was on Twitter sharing the Catholic Church's teaching on the sacrament of the Eucharist with a person I met. While I was talking to him, a friend of mine, a Catholic nun named Sister Lisa, noticed the conversation. When she saw that the topic of the conversation was the Eucharist, she sent me a link to a beautiful YouTube video of a Catholic hymn called Adoro Te Devote. It is a hymn that is usually sung during Eucharistic adoration. It is one of my favorite hymns. I shared the video with the person I was talking to, and now I share it with you:






Here is another version of Adore Te Devote that is equally awesome:







Thank you, Sister Lisa! :)

Book Preview: Theology of the Body - Explained

The following is a book preview of "Theology of the Body - Explained", by Christopher West. It is described as a "clear and profound commentary on Pope John Paul II's theology of the body, which 'breaks open' the Holy Father's thought regarding the human person and sexuality."

The Humanity of the Unborn, in 3D

Time and time again I hear stories of pregnant women who decided against having an abortion after they see an ultrasound of their unborn baby. As I was getting ready for work this morning, I wondered how many women would decide that abortion is wrong if they could see an ultrasound of an unborn child before they even get pregnant?

Budgeting 101: How Taxpayer Money Can Indirectly Fund Abortion

Most people have a budget. They budget their income for expenses like clothing, food, medical expenses, etc. When they receive income, they set aside money for each of the different types of expenses. If an unexpected windfall of money is received, it can free up budgeted money to be used elsewhere. Consider the following scenario:


A husband and wife budgets $500 a month for college expenses for their daughter. They would like to budget money for medical expenses, but after setting aside the $500 for college expenses, there isn't enough money left over. At the beginning of the school year, they receive a government grant to help pay for their daughter's college expenses. When the grant is divided up over the 9 month school year, it equals $300 per month. If they apply the $300 towards their $500 monthly college expense budget, it frees up $300 that they can use to budget for medical expenses. 


Even though the purpose of the grant is to pay for college tuition expenses, does it not indirectly fund the couple's medical expenses? If the couple didn't receive the grant, they wouldn't be able to budget money for medical expenses.


Republicans in the House and Senate are currently trying to pass H.R. 217, which is a bill that would prohibit federal grants from being awarded to family planning organizations that provide abortion services, like Planned Parenthood. Opponents of the legislation claim that the federal grants aren't used to provide abortion services. They claim the federal funds are used to provide family planning services, such as the dispensing of contraceptives, cancer screenings, pregnancy tests, etc. Even if this is true, wouldn't the federal grants free up money that these organizations could use to fund abortions services? Of course they would. Anyone who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves. The less money organizations like Planned Parenthood need to spend on family planning services, the more money they have to spend on the abortion part of their business.


The purpose of H.R. 217 isn't to prohibit all family planning organizations from receiving federal grants. It would only prohibit grants from being awarded to family planning organizations that also provide abortion services. If the opponents of H.R. 217 are concerned that H.R. 217 will prevent Planned Parenthood and other organizations like it from providing family planning services, maybe they should try to convince these organizations to drop the abortion part of their business. Then they'll have nothing to worry about, right?   

Someone is Wrong on the Internet

If I didn't know better, I'd think that someone wrote this comic about me. I'm confident that my wife would wholeheartedly agree. :) (Comic entitled "Duty Calls", courtesy of XKCD.com)

There is Life After Having a Child

Dr. John Bruchalski is an ob/gyn physician who used to perform abortions, but now he offers hope for women experiencing crisis pregnancies. The pro-life group Live Action posted a link on Twitter to an article about Dr. Bruchalski on LifeSiteNews.com. The following is an excerpt from the article that provides insights into how to reach abortion-minded women:


Dr. Bruchalski said his experience working with abortion-minded women has shown him the need to focus on offering women hope for life with their child, rather than emphasizing adoption or images of fetal development.

“You can show women fetal development and many of them it doesn’t phase,” he said.  “Remember the fetus, the baby, the unborn child is an adversary to the woman, it’s going to cramp her life.”

Abortion-minded women see adoption, on the other hand, as a “double negative,” he says. “Not only are you not qualified to be a mother and care for the child, but you have to give the child up,” he explained.  “They hate that choice, so for them the abortion becomes the best alternative, the least terrible of those options.”

“You really have to focus on [the fact] that there is life after having a child, that there is a way out of your predicament,” he said. “Just meeting women where they are by being able to listen to their pain and their agony and their suffering, and then love them so much that we walk them through this."


This is a really important message for people in the pro-life movement to hear. I think we're too quick to offer adoption as the only alternative to abortion. As Dr. Bruchalski says, it's important to help abortion-minded women to know that it is possible for them to keep their baby. Having a baby doesn't ruin a person's life. It completes it.


Please take a moment to read the entire article about Dr. Bruchalski:


http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/former-abortionist-spreads-gospel-of-life

Relativism and the Abortion Issue

If you held up an apple in your hand, and I looked at it and said "That's an orange!", would I be right? What would you think if I said that the object you held in your hand is whatever I believe it to be? If I believe it's an apple, it's an apple. If I believe it's an orange, it's an orange. Would you agree with me, or would you think I'm a few bricks shy of a full load?


How you answer these questions depends on whether you think truth is relative, or absolute. If truth is relative, the apple is whatever a person thinks it is. If truth is absolute, the apple is an apple, regardless of what anyone thinks it is.


While the apple analogy is extremely simple, the principle can be applied to complex moral issues. Let's take the abortion issue, for example. People usually take one of the following positions in regards to abortion:

1. Abortion is always bad.
2. Abortion is always good.
3. Abortion is good for some people, and bad for other people.
4. Abortion is good in certain circumstances, and bad in others. 

A person that takes position #1 believes that abortion kills an innocent unborn human being, and that killing an innocent human being is always wrong. A person that takes this position identifies themselves as pro-life, and denies any association with the pro-choice movement. A person that holds this position believes that abortion is wrong at any stage of the pregnancy.


A person that takes position #2 believes that abortion is always good, because it provides a way for a woman to avoid having a baby when she doesn't want one. A person that takes this position identifies strongly with the pro-choice movement, and believes that it is acceptable to perform abortions at any stage of the pregnancy, right up to the point of birth. Like position number one, position number two is an absolute position regarding abortion.


A person that takes position #3 believes that the morality of abortion is up to each individual. People who take this position are the ones who say "I personally wouldn't have an abortion, but I'm not going to prevent someone else from having one, if they feel it's right for them."


A person that takes position #4 believes that the morality of abortion depends on the situation. People who take this position believe that abortion is wrong except in certain situations, such as pregnancies due to rape or incest, or pregnancies that endanger the mother's life.


Which of these positions is correct? Positions 3 and 4 can be taken out of the running right away. Why?  Because they are both relative positions, and truth is absolute. An apple is an apple, regardless of what people think it is, or the circumstance. The same applies to abortion. To say that abortion is right for some people and wrong for other people is as ridiculous as saying that an apple is an apple to some people, and an orange to others. To say that abortion is wrong in all situations except for certain ones is as ridiculous as saying an apple is an apple except when you play catch with it.


Since positions 3 and 4 have been eliminated, all that's left is positions 1 and 2. Which of these is the correct position? The answer depends on when a human being comes into existence. The only logical point at which a human being comes into existence is at the moment of fertilization. To think that a human being comes into existence at some arbitrary point between fertilization and birth is unreasonable, and not in accordance with human embryology (http://catholiceducation.org/articles/abortion/ab0027.html). Therefore, position 1 is the only position that can be correct. Abortion is always wrong, because it ends an innocent human being's life, regardless of how the human being came into existence. Abortion is always wrong, whether a person thinks it's wrong or not. Abortion is always wrong, regardless of the situation.