“Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends.”—J.R.R. Tolkien (via haereticum)
I don’t really understand the concept of overindulging in everything you’re not supposed to have during Lent.
As my priest always says, whatever you’re doing for Lent should not be something that you plan on going back to once Easter is here. You should do something that will affect your life forever after. As an adult, you shouldn’t give up candy because it’s difficult, but because you have a problem with enjoying candy so much that it’s somehow interfering with your relationship with the Lord.
I’m not sure if this is how I understand Lenten sacrifices. As my priest-professor explains, Christian asceticism is not giving up something bad, let alone giving up sin. It is giving up something good (marriage, other pleasures such as food, clothing, etc.) in order to glorify God.
Avoiding sin is a responsibility of all Christians (whether ascetics or not) during the whole year.
This smells of gnosticism. I think I probably used to think of Lent this way. I would use the season to kick a bad habit. That is not what Lent is about.
Historical asceticism involved fasting from sex/meat/other-things-that-are-not-in-themselves-bad. An ascetic (which all Christians were called to be) would give up these things for periods (like Lent, or other traditional fasting seasons). The monastic (which all Christians were not necessarily called to be), might give up one or more of these things for life.
In antiquity the Christian ideal would have been asceticism, and abstinence from sin would have been assumed. In fact, correct me if I’m wrong about this (it’s been a while since I’ve taken a class in early Christianity), but I think that historically, the Christian still somewhat beholden to sin wouldn’t have been considered ready for asceticism yet. This has shifted in modernity— the Christian ideal is now abstinence from sin, and asceticism is equated with monasticism (which it shouldn’t be). Asceticism is something extremists do.
So, on the contrary from what the OP says, I would say that during Lent, you can and should fast from something you plan to go back to. Don’t “fast” from sin. Rid it from your life entirely. Fast from something good to remind you of how good it is. Fast from something good that you have a disordered attachment to, so that when it is returned to you, you can have a more appropriate relationship with it.
This is not to say that Lent is not an opportunity to put off sin— it is. You can use Lent to kickstart your spiritual life, or as a motivation to cleanse yourself from something you are addicted to. But for the Christian who more or less has put off [grave] sin already, Lent is most certainly about fasting from something good. So in conclusion, I hope you did get that last indulgence in alcohol, or meat, or wheat, or Facebook, or tv, or what have you, before beginning your journey of reorienting yourself toward what is important.
"So, on the contrary from what the OP says, I would say that during Lent, you can and should fast from something you plan to go back to. Don’t “fast” from sin. Rid it from your life entirely. Fast from something good to remind you of how good it is. Fast from something good that you have a disordered attachment to, so that when it is returned to you, you can have a more appropriate relationship with it."
This is not contrary to what I said. In fact, it’s in agreement to what I said.
“For example, a few years ago, I gave up clothes shopping for Lent because I care too much about fashion. After Lent was over, I bought clothes again, but for a long time I was able to stop overdoing it like I had prior. I’ve had a little backsliding since I’ve wanted to redo my wardrobe for college, and one of my Lenten sacrifices will be giving up clothes shopping.”
"If you are giving up chocolate, of course you want to have some the day before. But if you don’t overdo it, then you can really savor every bite - you can appreciate it, and if you can appreciate something so simple, there’s no way that can hurt your relationship with God. If you eat until your pants don’t fit, all you’ve done is gotten sick over something that’s supposed to bring pleasure."
Though I can’t really blame awkwardbutaccurate for missing this because it looks like someone cut off all but the first two paragraphs of my post. So here’s the whole thing for anyone who missed it.
Essentially, all I was saying was if you have a problem with overeating a certain kind of food, give it up, but not with the idea of eating as much as you want again after Lent. Give it up so that once you go back to eating it after Lent, you have a new awareness and can better proportion how much of it you eat.
I don’t really understand the concept of overindulging in everything you’re not supposed to have during Lent.
As my priest always says, whatever you’re doing for Lent should not be something that you plan on going back to once Easter is here. You should do something that will affect your life forever after. As an adult, you shouldn’t give up candy because it’s difficult, but because you have a problem with enjoying candy so much that it’s somehow interfering with your relationship with the Lord. Regardless of the time of the liturgical year, overdoing anything is not good for our spiritual health. If you take in as much as you can up until midnight, it defeats the purpose of Lent entirely.
While we are called to sacrifice as Christ did for us, we are also called to use this time of year to invoke a permanent change that brings us closer to the Lord. I have health problems that prevent me from doing a strict fast during this time, but I began my version of fasting last weekend, and I tend to let it affect me even after the Easter season is over.
For example, a few years ago, I gave up clothes shopping for Lent because I care too much about fashion. After Lent was over, I bought clothes again, but for a long time I was able to stop overdoing it like I had prior. I’ve had a little backsliding since I’ve wanted to redo my wardrobe for college, and one of my Lenten sacrifices will be giving up clothes shopping.
Fat Tuesday is gluttony, and gluttony is always a blockage between us and the Lord. It’s like saying the day before you go to confession, you may as well sin all you can because hey, you’re about to be forgiven. If you are giving up chocolate, of course you want to have some the day before. But if you don’t overdo it, then you can really savor every bite - you can appreciate it, and if you can appreciate something so simple, there’s no way that can hurt your relationship with God. If you eat until your pants don’t fit, all you’ve done is gotten sick over something that’s supposed to bring pleasure.
I encourage everyone to take this idea to heart. Give up Fat Tuesday and eating the entire basket’s worth of candy on Easter Sunday. Pray for a real internal change that will make you a holier person, not just while you’re fasting, but for the rest of your life.
“We are prepared to discontinue our health plan and pay the $2,000 per employee, per year fine rather than comply with an unjust, immoral mandate in violation of our rights of conscience.”—Jim Towey, President of Ave Maria University
Today, Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan appeared on CBS This Morning to present the Church’s position. Ahead of his appearance, however, CBS correspondent Bill Plante appeared on-air to report that the White House sees this as a Generational Issue and is counting on Catholic Women who are of the age most likely to use contraception. In other words, President Obama needs to receive feedback—or push back—from that same demographic: faithful Catholic women between the ages of 18 and 35.
Please, if you are in this age range, please write to the White House and to your politicians. Let them know you are in that demographic, and tell them you support the Church. You can e-mail the White House on their page, Corresponding With the White House. Please do it today. You can make a difference!
“To whom will you compare me? Who is my equal?” asks the Holy One. “Look up into the heavens. Who created all the stars? He brings them out like an army, one after another, calling each by its name. Because of his great power and incomparable strength, not a single one is missing.”
Hutchins asserts that when Isaiah wrote about the power behind the universe, he did not have the benefit of a powerful space telescope, yet his description matches the discoveries made by Hubble in recent years of powerful galaxies like the Sombrero Galaxy. The Sombrero with its ominous glow at its center exhibits unimaginable energy. The glow is made up of eight hundred billion stars like the Earths’ sun, which gives the galaxy the appearance of a Mexican sombrero hat.
I love that the Sombrero Galaxy is what they use. They should have included a picture.
The Sombrero Galaxy does not look like a Sombrero.
A group of pro-life advocates were arrested today outside the White House as they protested the new mandate pro-abortion President Barack Obama put in place requiring religious groups and employers to pay for birth control and abortion-inducing drugs.
PREMIUM BEAUTIFUL PERSON! Once you receive this award, you are supposed to paste it into the asks of eight people who deserve it. If you break the chain nothing will happen, but it is sweet to know that someone thinks you're beautiful inside and out :)
"The reduction of women to objects used to satisfy men. "? Does that mean women are just meant to satisfy men? Even if she doesn't want it? But God forbid he masturbate with a fleshlight. What a fucked up way of thinking, I dare you to come up with even a decent argument for this
Hello sir or madam!
I am under the impression that you did not read the entire article that I posted, but rather just the bullet statements without the context.
Are women “meant” to satisfy men? Absolutely not. In no way at all. I don’t say that, nor did the article. Has society turned women into an object for men’s enjoyment? In so many ways, yes.
If you would like an argument, please read the entire article I posted.
If you do read the article and still don’t understand the argument it is making, I will try my best to clarify as well as I can.
Also, I would prefer it if you wouldn’t curse. It makes for hostility when that is never the intent of the points I make. It is very difficult to have a discussion when there is so much anger.
Today I issued a statement regarding the new Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) mandate that will require Catholic colleges and universities to provide contraceptive services, including sterilization, as part of their health plans. Presently Ave Maria University does not provide such coverage because of our adherence to the teachings of the Catholic Church.
Bishop Frank Dewane issued a letter on January 31st that was read at all diocesan Masses and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has urged action. I have attached my statement to this email, and yesterday I videotaped a brief message on this same subject that you can see on our web site.
Ave Maria University is proud to subsidize our health care plan. Please be assured that I will do everything possible to make sure our employees continue to have access to health care insurance. The Board of Trustees will be meeting to discuss this matter and explore our options for legal remedy. I will be contacting our elected representatives and working with my colleagues in Catholic higher education to protect the University’s interests. The HHS mandate is unjust and must not stand.
I welcome your thoughts on this important matter. You can email me at firstname.lastname@example.org with any advice or reaction you have.
Please pray that this mandate is immediately rescinded and the University’s religious liberty rights are respected. On behalf of the University, I entrust this matter to the Immaculate Heart of Mary and her intercession.
Talking with a friend of mine about private, religious colleges. He mentioned that getting certain degrees from religious colleges are worthless, and his example was a science degree from a particular fundamentalist college.
I asked him why it didn’t count, and he told me something about how they teach creationism and pass it off as science.
I promptly said that I don’t know about other religions, but the Church is a big supporter of the sciences because there is nothing that science will uncover that disproves God. I went on to say that science even supports a lot of what the Church teaches.
He was very skeptical and asked for an example. So, using his idea of creationism not being scientific, I connected it with the Big Bang theory.
I would very much like to hug Georges Lemaitre right now.
I came across an article arguing the myth behind overpopulation. As I was reading, I discovered an idea that I vaguely remember hearing about years ago, that having more than two children is immoral. The idea is that the earth is finite, and if we have too many children, we will face overpopulation. The logic is that each couple is to have two children, which would create an equal birth to death ratio.
People so passionately believe in this moral issue that they have come together and formed groups about it. They’ve even come to the conclusion of sterilization after a couple has more than two children.
Anyone else see any flaws in this logic?
I sure do. Here are some obvious factors that need to be considered: -couples who are unable to have children -homosexuals who do not have children -people who remain single -couples who are only able to have one child -people who - I shudder to think - find a vocation in the religious life and dedicate themselves to being priests, nuns, monks, friars, brothers, etc.
And what about facts of life, such as war, that constantly kill off the population?
I would also like to point out: how many species of animals - especially those who we don’t regulate by farming, hunting, poaching, etc. - have only two offspring per pair? How many of them face problems of overpopulation?
If that doesn’t convince you, here’s some more logic: -The world population is 6.7 billion  -The land area of the world is 149 million km2 , or roughly 1.6 quadrillion ft2 (that’s 15 zeros)* -That means that if each person in the world chose to live alone, they would be given 239,376.5168 ft2 -Imagine how much leftover space there would be if some people actually lived near each other, say, in an apartment complex - or maybe if they lived in houses that were next to each other - or even, I hesitate to suggest, live in the same house
Also, the world’s population growth is roughly 1.1% right now, which is a decline from the past 50 years . I don’t believe that poses a real threat. The United States in particular has a growth rate of 0.66% , which is actually is not a “growth” at all, but a decline. This percentage would actually suggest that on average, every person in the U.S. is forming a couple and only producing one offspring.
We also seem to forget the renewable resources that the world has. The nonrenewable resources will always pose a threat, regardless of the population. That isn’t solved with having fewer children, but with finding more renewable resources to produce the kind of energy we have come to require.
Overpopulation is a myth. All it takes is a little digging.