The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe - A Christian Appreciation

The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe - A Christian Appreciation -->
By Sister Wendy Ooi, fsp

“Someday you will be old enough to start reading (watching) fairy tales again”—
Preface to “The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe”

(Warning: This article contains spoilers for those not familiar with the plot)

THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA – THE LION, THE WITCH AND THE WARDROBE (“Narnia”), the film adaptation of C. S. Lewis’ book “The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe”, will appeal to more than just Christians.

It is a fantasy adventure of four children who discover Narnia, a magical world filled with talking animals and mythical fauns and centaurs.
Unfortunately, Narnia is under the spell of the evil White Witch, who has cursed Narnia with perpetual winter “but never Christmas”. The children battle the Witch to free Narnia forever from her spell with the help of Aslan, the noble and mighty lion.

Lewis’ imaginary world of Narnia has taken more than half a century since the publication of “The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe” in 1950 to come to the big screen. One reason may be that only today’s film technology and Computer-Generated Imagery makes possible a realistic portrayal of Narnia and her inhabitants. Another possible reason is the commercial viability of Christian-theme movies following the enormous success of Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of the Christ”.

Though “Narnia” does not include everything in the book, and there are even slight changes from it, it is a faithful adaptation and fans of C. S. Lewis will not be disappointed. While cherished as a fairy tale with mythic motifs on one level, a deeper perspective reveals beautiful Christian allegories.

(Continue reading on The Catholic News)

Same-sex Marriages

I came across this interesting article in Catholic World News (CWN) regarding same-sex marriages. As more countries and states legalise same-sex marriages, what if one day Singapore faces this option? How should you as a Catholic argue against the legal recognition of same sex marriages?

The same-sex marriage proposal is a scam. Here's why.

A) Eric is married to Kate. Their marriage provides the state with many significant benefits.

1) They produce in their children the next generation of citizens.

2) They provide a very great part of the education and socialization of their children, teaching them to communicate, to cooperate with others, to do their fair share of the common toil, to restrain their appetites in service of a common good. Most of the values that incline citizens to contribute to society (and to act so as to stay out of jail) are learned in the home and inculcated and reinforced by parents and siblings.

3) When the young behave in harmful ways, most of the needed disciplinary correction will be meted out by their families and the more stable the family, the more effective the correction is likely to be.

4) Eric and Kate are interested in the welfare not only of their children but of their children's children, and consequently have a vested interest in the long-term prosperity of the state (and neighbourhood), and inculcate the same sense of responsibility in their children.

The state can, in unusual circumstances, provide or attempt to provide benefits 2, 3, and 4. The state will almost never succeed in providing them as well as an average family, and the expense involved will always be grotesquely disproportionate to the effect, as compared to the same benefit provided in the context of married family life. Because Eric and Kate make sacrifices in order to stay married and raise a family (sacrifices involving career choices, education and health expenditures, etc.), the state traditionally acknowledges the benefits provided by partially compensating Eric and Kate in legally "privileging" their marriage: recognizing the marriage as a civil reality, making it difficult to dissolve, penalizing polygamy (whether serial or concurrent), protecting property by inheritance law, and so forth.

B) Greg and Charlie graduated from college together and both have entry-level jobs in business. They are friends, and room together to cut expenses by sharing rent and utilities, and because they enjoy each other's company. Their main interests are in providing economic prosperity and security for themselves and in pursuing their own amusement. Their conjunction, in and of itself, provides no benefit whatever to the common good; each individually makes contributions as a working and tax-paying citizen, but each would make the same contribution if he lived alone.

C) Dave and Jason live in the apartment below Greg and Charlie. They graduated from college together and both have entry-level jobs in business. Their main interests are in providing economic prosperity and security for themselves and in pursuing their own amusement. Each individually makes contributions as a working and tax-paying citizen, but each would make the same contribution if he lived alone. Dave regularly sodomizes Jason. The principal reason they share the domicile is to facilitate this conjunction.

Question: what good does the conjunction of Dave and Jason provide the state that the conjunction of Greg and Charlie does not? How do we, their fellow citizens, benefit from their partnership? In what sense is their relationship productive of the common good such that the state would want to assimilate it to the marriage of Eric and Kate? Keeping in the mind that the recreative appetites of Greg and Charlie were not specified and so may be heterosexual or homosexual or some combination thereof what is it that we, the citizenry, stand to gain by the fact that Jason is sodomized by his roommate?

Or, if this picture is seen as too reductionist, what public, civilly verifiable fact about Dave and Jason's relationship makes it a "same-sex partnership" in a way that distinguishes it from the same-sex co-habitation and friendship of Greg and Charlie? What, in short, is the state imagined to be rewarding in granting civil recognition to their partnership?

Edit: Link provided.

Understanding the Latin 'Our Father'

In this week's Catholic News, a Benjamin wrote in to express shock that the Our Father was being sung in Latin at a mass he attended. He basically says that:

1. We don't understand Latin
2. We can't pronounce Latin
3. Therefore it takes away the meaning of anything
to sing in Latin
4. Therefore Latin is unnecessary
5. Therefore, let's keep to English.

It is true that we don't understand Latin. But we do know what the Our Father says, so we do in fact know the meaning of Pater Noster. In an interesting coincidence, Peter Low in another part of the CN refers to the Latin mass:

"We were singing in a language that we did not speak, but that doesn't mean we didn't understand it (the worship)," he said and likened the practice to that of Buddhists who chant in Sanskit and Muslims in Arabic."
I'm in favour of selective use of Latin as it's strongly endorsed by Popes JPII and Benedict XVI as the language of the Roman Catholic Church. It's a connection not only between nations but with our past."
He feels that singing the "Our Father" and the "Creed" in Latin adds a sense of the sublime.

"Adds a sense of the sublime" - I second that

I wonder if any public debate will be ignited by Benjamin's
letter.

There has been some previous debate about the reintroduction of Latin into our masses. Please go to Should we sing the 'Our Father' in Latin? and On the recent changes to the way we celebrate mass in Singapore to read those posts.

I will now here attempt to share what little I know about the latin Our Father so that those of us who come across it can have better appreciation of it. After singing it for so long in mass, I have been able to remember to and even understand it a little, as English has many roots in Latin. Do give understanding it a try; its not that difficult.

Pater noster qui es in coelis,
Father-our-who lives in-heaven,
sanctificetur nomen tuum;
sanctified-your name,
adveniat regnum tuum,
come-your kingdom,
fiat voluntas tua,
be done-your will,
sicut in coelo et in terra.
as-in-heaven-and-in-earth.
Panem nostrum quotidianum da nobis hodie,
Bread-ours-daily give-us-today,
et dimitte nobis debita nostra,
and-forgive-us-sins-our,
sicut et nos dimittimus debitoribus nostris.
as-and-we-forgive-those who owe us.
et ne nos inducas in temptationem
And-not-us-induce-in-temptation
sed libera nos a malo.
but-liberate-us-from-evil.

Basically, if you sing the Our Father in your head, you'll find that you can already guess at the meanings of lots of the words. Here's some words that you'll find easy to understand:

pater: Father
noster; nostra: Our (Latin can have different inflexions on a word but the root meaning remains)
nobis: us
adveniat: advent/coming
fiat: by fiat means to have something done by will
voluntas: will, same root as voluntary
sicut: as
terra: earth, as in terrestrial
Panem: panis means bread
et: and, as in et cetera - and the rest
demitte: forgive
debita: sins, or debit/due
malo: evil

I hope that by knowing these few words, you might be willing to attempt praying the Our Father in another language. It would certainly be an interesting experience. Try it!

Theology of the Body

I've been wanting to write an article on Theology of the Body for some time, but have never had the chance to put my thoughts down till today.

For the uninformed, Theology of the Body is a compilation of Pope John Paul II's 129 short talks over the first five years of his papalship. It is the source of the sexual revolution that he tried to bring about, but the message of his theology is only now starting to be felt in Singapore.

This article is taken from the OXYGEN sharing on Jan 15. Since I wrote it already, I thought it would be good to put it out as a sharing/article here in this blog. It comes from a reflection on the biblical passage 1 Corinthians 6:13-15, 17-20, which is the second reading for the second Sunday in Ordinary Time.

So, here goes:

When we think of the sacraments, we realise that each one deals with the body and the soul. Think about the sacraments. In Baptism, running water is poured onto our foreheads. In Confirmation, we are anointed on our skin with holy oil, the same as during the Anointing of the Sick. In Holy Communion, we receive and eat with our mouths, the Body of Christ. In Reconciliation, we confess our sins with our lips to another person, another body, through which Christ acts. During Holy Orders, we lay our bodies down prostrate before the Lord. And during Marriage, the primordial sacrament, we make love to our spouse, professing with our bodies the vows that we took at the altar.

Every sexual act that we make has to be a reflection of the vows we make at the altar. It has to be a free choice between both spouses, giving of themselves and receiving each other totally. It has to be done only with each other, and it has to be open to life.

Hold on, you may say. Why does every sexual act with my spouse have to be open to life? If we allow that one to go by, then we might come to ask as well, why must every sexual act be with my spouse? Both are vows taken at the altar, and to let one go means a weakening of the marriage bond, which can and does lead to unfaithfulness. If you doubt me, just take a look at the world around us today. See how much the marriage bond has weakened in society because the society has what Pope John Paul II called 'the culture of death'. It begins with the weakening of the marriage bond and this begins when couples are lie to each other with their bodies.

Hold on, hold on, you may say again. What is this about lying with my body? A couple who engage in sexual intercourse while using contraceptives is saying that they are not open to life. Which means to say, the Lord, the giver of life, the Holy Spirit, is not welcome in their union. They are saying, "God, we don't want you in our marriage. Stay out of it. If you try to come in, we will kill any life that you try to create." Hence, culture of death.

What does this contracepting culture lead to? Firstly, we know that no matter how good a contraceptive is, there is always room for error, particularly human error, misuse of the condom or the pill. Regardless of how, pregnancies do take place even when contraceptives are used, correctly or incorrectly. A couple that has sex and are not open to life are putting themselves in a position where a pregnancy, if it occurs, is unwanted.

Therefore, we have unwanted pregnancies, abortions, parentless children. Have you ever heard parents tell their children, "I never wanted to have you"? Even if they don't say it, the children will grow up in an environment where they were never wanted.

But contraceptives were invented to prevent the spread of diseases through sexual intercourse, we might say. Does it work? I have to ask. Since contraceptives were invented, more and more people have contracted AIDS and other STDs. Why? Because of incorrect use, firstly. But more importantly, if people don't want to contract such diseases, then they can abstain from sex. That's a 100% way of not contracting STDs.

If you look at it closely and honestly, you cannot help but admit that contraceptives were invented for one and only one purpose - for people to have sex for pleasure and only for pleasure. What does this lead to? It leads to the human body being used for pleasure only. It leads to an increase in pornography, both male and female. This leads to young girls being kidnapped or paid to bare their bodies on cameras. It leads to child pornography and all other perverse forms of pornography as well, because different people have different fetishes. And of course it leads to masturbation.

It leads to the human body being used as a commodity. Once a woman can no longer satisfy a man during sex, or vice versa, they are discarded and a new one found. This leads to extra-marital affairs, and we know that adultery is the number one leading cause of divorce.

With the human body being used as a commodity, we are led to a culture where humans are made to be used. We have immoral forms of scientific research - cloning, embryonic stem cell research etc - which pays no heed to human life, since it is now a commodity to be bought and used.

I read in a friend's blog today that asks "What worth is a theory or principle if it doesn't have any bearing on everyday life?" Today's reading seems to be the old, boring teaching of the Church that tells us not to have sex outside of marriage. What relevance does an ancient, old-fashioned tradition have in today's world? As you have seen, it has a lot to do with today's world.

Today's world has many problems. As you can see, unwanted pregnancies, abortions, unwanted children, divorces, contraceptives and its side-effects, pornography, adultery, increase in cases of AIDS and other STDs, cloning and other immoral forms of scientific research (including faking of cloning results), etc, they all come from one source - the abuse of sex.

The Church is not down on sex. Far from it. The Church places such a high value on sex, which is why it has so many rules on it. The Church is trying its best to protect one of its greatest treasures - God's gift of sexual union, because it is a reflection of Christ's union with his Church.

And Satan knows it. Satan assails the world's view on sex, because he knows it is one of humanity's greatest treasures. He has profaned it greatly, largely through the help of us humans who fail to understand the beauty of sex as God meant it to be.

So the question today is: whose side are you on? God's or Satan's? There is no in between. And remember, what you profess with your soul must be reflected in your body, because they cannot be separated. Your body is the voice of your soul.

**********
A book I would recommend for much, much more is "Theology of the Body for Beginners" by Christopher West.

Okay, you can start commenting now. :)

Preach message of abstinence with proper understanding

Sex education is sometimes set up as a fight between the "safe sex message" and the "abstinence message". The Singapore government has been stepping up its campaign to publicise "safe sex" - the use of condoms to prevent disease and pregnancy. In a letter to CN, John Ooi points out that the safe sex is not really that safe. I reply that his use of statistics is unfair, and that perhaps both messages can be allowed in schools. Catholics should remember that the church does not condone premarital sex and that abstinence is the only way to practice "safe sex".

Dear Editor,

I am writing in reply to John Ooi’s letter ‘“Safe” sex is not really safe’ (CN, 25th Dec 2005). In it, John argues that condoms are neither effective in preventing pregnancies nor sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), and that abstinence is more effective than practicing “safe sex”. I agree wholeheartedly that the abstinence message is not “out-of-touch with reality” and should be propagated. However, there are certain misrepresentations that need to be addressed, lest we come away with a skewed perspective regarding the “safe sex” message, and be accused in the end of being “out-of-touch with reality”.

First, John states that “studies show that the user-effectiveness rate of the condom against pregnancy is 86 percent”. While this statistic is correct[1], it is from a study of couples that use condoms as a birth control method. It turns out that most of these condom failures are caused by errors in use, "most notably the failure of couples to use condoms during every act of sexual intercourse."[2] Its true effectiveness in preventing pregnancy is probably much closer to the estimated 97 percent if ‘used perfectly’[3]. In fact, if calculated on a per condom basis, its effectiveness is closer to 99.96 %[4].

Next, John extrapolates from this 14 percent first-year failure rate, to a 26 percent failure rate over two years. While this is correct, it needs to be put in perspective in that an estimated 85 percent of women using no method of birth control will become pregnant in the first year[5]. Using the same reasoning, 97 percent, or 970 out of 1000 teens will become pregnant in two years if they do not use birth control. But this would not be a fair representation of the statistics. We should also not use such extrapolations and large sample sizes to make the numbers support our argument; we should present the facts as fairly as possible.

In truth, these statistics about failure rates are actually not relevant to the question of how effective the “safe sex” message is. The relevant statistics should be “how many teens get pregnant after being taught only the ‘safe sex’ message” versus “how many teens get pregnant after being taught only the abstinence message”. It is not at all clear in this regard that the abstinence only message is more effective.

John also refers to how condoms are not actually effective in preventing a number of common STDs. This is true. He then adds that it is logical to conclude that condoms are not any more effective in preventing the transmission of AIDS then in preventing pregnancy. There is an unfortunate impression that condoms are not at all effective in preventing AIDS. As a clarification, while latex condoms provide almost no protection against HPV (human papillomavirus), the cause of genital warts and cervical cancer, lab studies show that using a latex condom to prevent transmission of HIV is more than 10,000 times safer than not using a condom[7].

Here, if we are arguing about effectiveness, the relevant question is whether more teens will catch HIV if they are taught the only “safe sex” message, as opposed to if they were taught abstinence only. Again, it is questionable that the abstinence only message is more effective. If even one straying teen could be prevented from catching HIV by the proper use of a condom, it is arguable that teaching “safe sex” is justifiable just to save that one life. In my opinion, we should not be opposed to the teaching of the “safe sex” message as long as abstinence is taught correctly and as the primary message.

I thank John for educating us about the fact that condoms are not really as effective as commonly thought, but his use of statistics and talk about effectiveness is skewed and misguided. Individuals such as John and organisations such as the Family Life Society should be honest and responsible in propagating the truth about Catholic teachings. Feeding us such figures while ranting against the popular perception of the “safe sex” message only invites people to blindly believe in the abstinence only message. This is actually why we are being accused of being “out-of-touch with reality”, and prevents the message from being more widely accepted.

Most of my information was gotten from this website: The Truth About Condoms (2002),
While a good article to read about sexual education in Singapore is What should be taught in sex education?

[1] R. A. Hatcher, et al., Contraceptive Technology, 17th revised edition (New York: Irvington Publishers, Inc., 1998), p.328.
[2] CDC Update, Questions and Answers on Condom Effectiveness, January 1997.
[3] R. A. Hatcher, et al., 1998, p. 328.
[4] Ibid, p. 329.
[5] Ibid., p. 216.

[7] R. F. Carey, et al., "Effectiveness of Latex Condoms As a Barrier to Human Immunodeficiency Virus-sized Particles under the Conditions of Simulated Use," Sexually Transmitted Diseases, July/August 1992, vol. 19, no. 4, p. 230.

“Safe sex” is not really safe
Letter from John Ooi (Published in an edited form in CN, Dec 25)

Practise safe sex - use the condom, and you’re be protected against pregnancy or sexually transmitted disease (STD)! This is what articles about sexually active teenagers that appear regularly in the secular press push for. And in discussing sex education, these articles may make the Church’s teachings on chastity (which means abstinence for the unmarried) appear out-of-touch with modern day reality.

It is agreed that there is a problem, which is that a portion of our youth are sexually active. There are generally two options to solve any problem. Option 1 (the safe sex message) is to go for a quick fix that its proponents hope would be adequate. Option 2 (the abstinence message) is more difficult but more effective as it identifies and addresses the root causes.

How valid is the safe sex assumption that the condom would address the problem of teenage pregnancy and of teenagers contracting STDs such as chlamydia, gonorrhoea, syphilis, genital herpes, HPV (Human Papilloma Virus) and HIV (Human Immunodeficiency Virus, which leads to AIDS)?

The user effectiveness rate of the condom is of the order of 86% (1). This means that of 1000 women and their partners who are using the condom, 140 would be pregnant after one year. Now if the remaining 860 women continue using the condom for a second year, another 14% of this group (or 120 women) would possibly be pregnant by the end of the second year, that is, there is a 26% chance of an unintended pregnancy after 2 years. The probability of an unintended pregnancy would increase with length of use – this is a statistical fact.

As for the effectiveness of the condom in preventing STD transmission, what is the scientific evidence? This was the question that brought together a number of public health agencies in the United States at the start of this millennium. The scientists involved reviewed and discussed the data from many published studies. As indicated in the table below, they were unable to conclude that the condom can effectively prevent the transmission of a number of common STDs. One reason for this could be that these STDs infect the entire genital area and are spread by skin-to-skin contact. Also, if one compares the factors involved in achieving pregnancy versus AIDS transmission, it would be logical to conclude that the condom cannot be more effective in preventing AIDS than in preventing pregnancy. Should one promote an airline that has a crash rate per year of 14% or higher?

Condom Effectiveness for STD Prevention (2)

—————————————————
STD Effectiveness
—————————————————
Chlamydia No proof of effectiveness
—————————————————
Gonorrhoea Men: Some risk reduction; Women: No proof of effectiveness
—————————————————
Syphilis No proof of effectiveness
—————————————————
Genital Herpes No proof of effectiveness
—————————————————
HPV No proof of effectiveness
—————————————————
HIV / AIDS Significant risk reduction (but not elimination of risk)
—————————————————

An effective approach must first understand why people get sexually active. Our youth, indeed all of us, search for love and happiness. Unfortunately, some mistakenly believe that they will find this love and happiness in sex or through sex. Abstinence education helps our youth to understand that, while we are all sexual beings, we are more than just being physically male or female. Our sexuality includes, in addition to the physical, all the mental, emotional and spiritual characteristics associated with being male or female. The way we think, feel, behave, react - these are all affected by our being male or female. One interacts with and builds up relationships with other persons as a complete and whole sexual person.

Abstinence education suggests to our youth that, before marriage, it is best to develop a relationship by focussing on these other aspects of sexuality first (that is, to learn to relate to each other mentally, emotionally and spiritually). Only after a couple have developed a great relationship and sealed their commitment to each other in marriage will sexual intercourse (which is the intimate language of the body in marriage) be an appropriate way to express, strengthen and deepen that love further. This contrasts with unmarried teenage couples involved in a sexual relationship where the focus on sex makes it difficult for their relationship to progress beyond a shallow, physical level. The common experience is that most of these relationships break up eventually after the initial attraction has died away.

Beyond the physical, the condom provides our youth with no protection against emotional hurts from relationships that have gone wrong, nor does it help to develop their self-mastery. Compared with the safe sex message which is based on erroneous beliefs, abstinence education is more consistent with the aim of education to develop our youth holistically, for it does not pander to desires but strengthens the will, develops self-mastery and enhances self-esteem.

(1) Robert A. Hatcher, et. al. Contraceptive Technology (17th Revised Edition). New York: Ardent Media, Inc., 1998. Table 31-1, p. 800.

(2) From the Summary Report on Scientific Evidence on Condom Effectiveness for Sexually Transmitted Disease Prevention prepared by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Dept of Health and Human Services, USA, July 20, 2001.

The Catholic News online

Good news! It appears that the Catholic News has a web presence after all! It has a good stock of past articles in a blog style and it looks promising. It can be found at http://www.catholic.org.sg/cn/.

now the bad news.. In this Sunday's edition of the Catholic News, the forum ('Viewpoints') directs readers to http://www.catholic.org.sg/cn/ for longer versions of the published letters. However, it appears that they have not been added yet. Daniel, can you feedback to your editor on this?

I think the CN has come very far over the past year. Keep it up! On this note, I would like to welcome readers to share their suggestions and comments about the Singapore Catholic News.

May Christmas bring you the blessing of Peace, Hope and Love!

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

Sr Wendy Ooi, fsp has posted a sharing on the book at her blog:

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire


Directed by Mike Newell
Screenplay by Steven Kloves
Novel by JK Rowling
Genre: Adventure/Fantasy/Mystery/Thriller
Rating: PG for fantasy violence and frightening images
Duration: 157 mins

Harry is in his fourth year at Hogwarts which opens its doors to host the international Triwizard Tournament. Although officially under aged, he is named the 4th champion to compete in the tournament and faces the greatest challenge of his life.

The Harry Potter books and their film adaptations are secular stories. In Goblet of Fire, Christmas is celebrated in a secular way in the Yule Ball. There is no mention of the main reason for the season, Jesus Christ himself. Professor McGonagall even describes the evening as one of “well mannered frivolity.”

Nevertheless, there are Christian and moral values that can be gleaned from this film, and Harry Potter, the atypical hero who still suffers moments of being the underdog, can be a point of reflection for Christians committed to live Gospel lives.

The Narrow and Difficult but Right Path
In Matt 7:13-14, Jesus recommends his disciples to take the narrow gate and difficult path rather than the wide gate and easy path. Professor Dumbledore towards the end of the film tells Harry, “Tough and difficult times lay ahead Harry. Soon we must all face the choice between what is right and what is easy." Dumbledore sums up what Harry has been doing all along in the film.

Harry consistently chooses and does the difficult and right, not the easy. During the tournament, Harry continually faces the choice between winning and ensuring the safety of the others. He consistently and courageously chooses the latter.

From the very start, Harry shares with fellow competitor Cedric Diggory, about the first task...
Please continue by clicking here.

What is the difference between a Catholic bible and a Protestant bible?

Do you know? Fr Paul Staes asked this question over the weekend, and here is his answer:

The Catholic bible...

...is always covered with dust..

and a Protestant bible...

...you can smell it.

(just imagine where it is held usually)

It's funny because it's true!

Fr Paul also asked another question: What is your favourite verse or chapter in the bible? Try answering it before reading on.

.

Too often we don't have one, or don't know what chapter or verse it is. The moral is that we should learn to use the bible much more. We must use it as a reference; there really is no reason why not. Our bibles really should be dirty and 'smelly'! How can we know God better without knowing the bible?

What is the difference between Protestant and Catholic Bibles? For the actual answer a simple web search will do: e.g., http://www.twopaths.com/faq_bibles.htm:

At the time the Christian Bible was being formed, a Greek translation of Jewish Scripture, the Septuagint, was in common use and Christians adopted it as the Old Testament of the Christian Bible. However, around 100 A.D., Jewish rabbis revised their Scripture and established an official canon of Judaism which excluded some portions of the Greek Septuagint. The material excluded was a group of 15 late Jewish books, written during the period 170 B.C. to 70 A.D., that were not found in Hebrew versions of the Jewish Scripture. Christians did not follow the revisions of Judaism and continued to use the text of the Septuagint.

Protestant reformers in the 1500s decided to follow the official canon of Judaism for the Old Testament rather than the Septuagint, and the excluded material was placed in a separate section of the Bible called the Apocrypha. Protestant Bibles included the Apocrypha until the mid 1800s, but it was eventually dropped from most Protestant editions.

The Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches continue to base their Old Testament on the Septuagint. The result is that these versions of the the Bible have more Old Testament books than Protestant versions. Catholic Old Testaments include 1st and 2nd Maccabees, Baruch, Tobit, Judith, The Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), additions to Esther, and Susanna and Bel and the Dragon which are included in Daniel. Orthodox Old Testaments include these plus 1st and 2nd Esdras, Prayer of Manasseh, Psalm 151 and 3rd Maccabees.

The Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox New Testaments are identical.

Drug trafficker confronts hanging

These articles talk about Nguyen Tuong Van's conversion to Catholicism, and his faith in God as he confronts his death. Van will be excecuted by hanging on Friday, Dec 2nd at 6 am.

I've linked these articles here for our own reflection.

Nguyen seeks solace in martyr

Loving son's letters from death row

Nguyen's correspondence

The local church in 20 years

Let's talk about vision.

Practicalities aside, what would you want the Catholic Church in Singapore to be like in 20 years time? What would be different, ideally?

The Seven Deacons

ActsChapter 6
1
1 At that time, as the number of disciples continued to grow, the Hellenists complained against the Hebrews because their widows were being neglected in the daily distribution.
2
2 So the Twelve called together the community of the disciples and said, "It is not right for us to neglect the word of God to serve at table. 3
3
Brothers, select from among you seven reputable men, filled with the Spirit and wisdom, whom we shall appoint to this task,
4
whereas we shall devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word."
5
The proposal was acceptable to the whole community, so they chose Stephen, a man filled with faith and the holy Spirit, also Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicholas of Antioch, a convert to Judaism.
6
They presented these men to the apostles who prayed and laid hands on them. 4
7
The word of God continued to spread, and the number of the disciples in Jerusalem increased greatly; even a large group of priests were becoming obedient to the faith.
------------------------------------------------------

As I ponder about the role of the priests or for that matter parish priests in our Catholic Church today, I cannot help but think about this passage from the Acts.

What is the original role of our priests? Is it just a managerial role, to be concerned with the profit and loss and fund-raising? Or to provide sacraments to the people?

A priest can do the job of a 'deacon' but certainly, a group of 'deacons' cannot administer any sacraments like a priest.

With all due respect to priests and their vocation, by controlling everything in their little 'kingdom', it would take very little for the power to get into their head. Such that they lose focus in the taking care of parishioners and offering them spiritual food but instead be overly concerned about their physical aspects such as fund raising, rebuilding and renovations.

I wonder why there are so little spiritual programs offered on a local basis, or community services offered to the less fortunate.

But yet there are so many "fund-raising activities" going on in all churches.

Am I missing anything here?

Is there any reason behind this lack of empowerment? The cynical me questions if it's because they want to hold on to the power, so there is a lack of oppurtunities for lay people to be involved in church. So by keeping us at bay, they will keep that power of spiritual knowledge and we will continue to hold them with respect because we would not know what is the spiritual truth.

Jesus said. "No one should be called teacher". So power and prestige should be secondary for religious.

Does anyone have a different view or am I myopic?