Saturday, September 24, 2016

Is Anointing of the Sick Primarily for Spiritual or Physical Healing?

Recently, there was a quick little Q&A posted over on Catholic Answers regarding the sacrament of Anointing of the Sick in regards to a baby being denied the Sacrament. Apologist Michelle Arnold gave the following answer on why the child was refused the Sacrament:
Anointing of the sick primarily is for spiritual healing. Physical healing might occur, but it is not the main purpose of the sacrament. Certainly the sacrament should not be expected to automatically cure the sick person. Such an expectation tends toward superstition (cf. CCC 2111). Baptized children below the age of reason cannot commit personal sin and so do not need anointing of the sick if they are in danger of death. Rather, when in danger of death, such children can be given confirmation, for spiritual strengthening and more fully to initiate them into the Christian religion.
This quick answer led me to read up on this specific sacrament from the Catechism and other sources, and what I already knew about the Sacrament was bolstered even more. A discussion ensued on CA's Facebook page, in a couple of different spots, and ended in a very fruitful conversation where I and the people I talked with both learned a lot about the Sacraments at the same time. Both of the people I talked with claimed that Ms. Arnold's answer "didn't seem right" and that it was not "compassionate" as Christ was. I thought this was ridiculous on its face, and below are the two conversations that ensued. My main interlocutors' words ("Tom" and "Harry") will be in shades of red, mine in blue, and other people joining in represented by other varying colors:
Seven Sacraments: Extreme Unction II- Nicolas Poussin

Tuesday, September 20, 2016

Government Requests Comments on Contraception Services Mandated by HHS

The United States government has asked the public to weigh in on the five-year war it has waged against religious non-profit groups over the HHS mandate. As many of you may know, the regulations in the mandate decreed that all employers, including religious organizations such as the Little Sisters of the Poor, had to provide contraception coverage including abortifacients such as Plan B and RU 486. The Supreme Court has overturned the rulings made by the lower courts that were in favor of the government. The Supreme Court has now sent all cases (such as those of the Little Sisters) back to the federal appeals courts for rehearing.
The HHS is now inviting public comments on how an accommodation may be reached between the government and religious non-profit organizations. This is a little late, but please follow the link to leave your comment to the government that religious non-profit groups cannot be part of the chain of distribution of contraceptive materials that also act as abortifacients. Comments must be received by Tuesday night. Fr. Frank Pavone gives more insight here on his website. My comment, which had to be edited a bit for length before I submitted it, is below.

Saturday, September 3, 2016

Abortion Is Safer Than Childbirth?

There's been a lot of confusion going around the interwebs in recent months regarding the safety of childbirth. Thanks to a ridiculously deceptive and patently false video, several pro-choicers now believe that having an abortion is actually safer than giving birth. Let that kind of logic sink in for a minute. Well, it would take longer than a minute... seeing as the assertion is anything but logical. Somebody quoted this "revelation" in response to a post on social media regarding a woman who died from complications following an abortion. The following is the short conversation that ensued, with the person making the claims in red, my thoughts in blue, and the thoughts of others in the conversation in various different colors: