The New York Sun published an opinion piece called, "The Second Holocaust", which gives a detailed account of a scary (and very possible) scenario of a showdown between Iran (specifically under Pres. Ahmadinejad) and Israel that results in Iran nuking Israel.  More importantly, it details the reasons why this is a political possibility.

However, the focus of this post is on whether this is theologically possible.  There are some (including this comment poster) who hold that, because the Bible says that God would protect Israel, that it can never be nuked without also nuking the faith of every Christian and Jew.  However, this is not true, neither from the viewpoint of Catholic theology, nor from history.

As a Catholic, our interpretation of the Book of Revelation is that the New Israel (i.e., The Church) is the one that Christ founded and will protect for all time.  The nation/land of Israel is not specially protected in this respect, because through Jesus, God has created a New Israel, not built with stone and by human hands, but built on people and by the blood of the Lamb.

Eventually, "heaven and earth will pass away".  Does this not also include the real estate known as Israel?  In that respect, we expect a new heaven and a new earth to replace this world.  However, Christ's Church will continue past the end of the age.  His Church starts here on Earth as the Church Militant (still fighting the temptations of the world), but continues in Heaven as the Church Triumphant, the exultant Bride of Christ.

Therefore, there is no promise of protection of a parcel of land, just as there is no promise of protection from bodily harm for the faithful - martyrs have been made at every age and time.  The loving care of the Father is that he will protect us from those that "may harm the body but cannot harm the soul".  Let us pray for the souls of all those in the Middle East, because eventually, this entire world will pass away - parts of it possibly from nuclear annihilation, but the world in total by Christ's Second Coming.  We should be more concerned with saving eternal souls, rather than whether or not temporal real estate belongs to one tribe or another.  After all, the nation (or kingdom) of Israel has come and gone several times through human history, but the Jewish people and their faith have been preserved, regardless of location.

The Book of Revelation is not, primarily, an "end times" book.  If you read The Lamb's Supper, you will see that much that the evangelicals believe about this book of the Bible is patently false.  The "revelation" in the last book of the Bible is that what goes on at the Mass on Earth is the wedding feast of the Lamb in Heaven.  Our sacrifice of the Eucharist on Earth is exactly the same sacrifice on the Heavenly Altar, with all the angels singing "Holy, Holy, Holy".  This eternal city, the New Jerusalem, The Church, is the protected and beloved Bride of Christ, and this should be our focus - the salvation of souls.

Tags: Israel Ahmadinejad Iran Holocaust Church

Noah Benton Markham was rescued from Hurricane Katrina 16 months ago.  However, he "entered the world" this morning via c-section, according to the AP news article.

Embryo saved after Katrina is born
By JANET McCONNAUGHEY, Associated Press Writer
Tue Jan 16, 8:56 AM ET

COVINGTON, La. - Sixteen months after being rescued as a frozen embryo from a hospital flooded by Hurricane Katrina, Noah Benton Markham entered the world Tuesday morning and was greeted by his cheering family.

The 8 pound, 6 1/2-ounce boy was born by Caesarean section at 7:23 a.m. CST at St. Tammany Hospital. He was in good shape, doctors said.

Before the procedure Rebekah and Glen Markham had decided that if their baby was a boy, he would be named after the biblical builder of the Ark. A girl would have been Hannah Mae -- Hannah means "God has favored us."

Interesting choice of words.  He entered the world today, and yet the hurricane that hit New Orleans (which, last I checked, was a part of "the world") nearly destroyed him 16 months ago.  So, which is it?  Did he enter the world today, or did he enter 16 months ago?

The point is this: this child was saved by Roman Pyrzak, lab director for The Fertility Institute of New Orleans, and it makes headlines.  What are we to do about all those other frozen children (including any other Markhams who are in stasis)?

Were these children saved, just to be ripped apart for medical experiments?

Were they saved just to be thrown out?

Or were they saved in order to be birthed, so that they could be "born again" and saved by the Blood of Christ?

The answer lies in the free will of men and women.  What will we choose?

UPDATED: Thu, 18 Jan 2007  10:55:10 - The headline has changed!!!

Embryo saved from flood is now a boy
By JANET McCONNAUGHEY, Associated Press Writer
Tue Jan 16, 2:04 PM ET

Rescued from a great flood while he was just a frozen embryo in liquid nitrogen, a baby boy entered the world Tuesday and was named after the most famous flood survivor of them all, Noah.

Noah Benton Markham — 8 pounds, 6 1/2 ounces — was born to 32-year-old Rebekah Markham by Caesarean section after growing from an embryo that nearly defrosted in a sweltering hospital during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

So, is the new headline implying that, even though the embryo possessed a Y-chromosome, it was not a boy until it grew some more in the womb? (Remember that the baby wasn't even technically "born", i.e. passing through the birth canal.  Noah was removed via c-section.)  What kind of scientific and categorical determination is being made here by an AP reporter?  If not, then why the headline change and overwrite of the link?  The link that had the prior headline is now at http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070116/ap_on_re_us/katrina_rescued_embryos_3

Words are how we process and express thought and the words we use (or don't use) say a lot more about our message than our message alone says.  This change of words is an attempt to remove life from the cycle of life, because we aren't supposed to believe in a divine creator (and therefore a divine purpose behind creation).

But we're supposed to believe in an unbiased mass media...

Tags: abortion pro-life stem cell science research embryo hurricane Katrina in vitro headline media bias

While waiting for news of how the vote on H.R. 3 went, I decided to see if anybody else had written anything about stem cells and this upcoming vote. I found this post which talks about the media distortion of stem cell research. I went to read it to find out their take on it, thinking they would also attempt to debunk the mainstream media claim that embryonic stem cells are our only panacea.  Instead, the blog post questions the timing of releasing news of a discovery of stem cells found in amniotic fluid, believing it to be an attack by the mainstream media against promoting embryonic stem cell research.

I'm sorry, but I have a hard time believing that the mainstream media is on the offensive against embryonic stem cell research, especially when they will trot Michael J. Fox and Christopher Reeve (God have mercy on his soul) out there to promote the wonders of killing babies for medicinal purposes, yet they ignore the message of another Parkinson's sufferer, who happened to write an entire book on the subject. Therefore, I posted the following comment on their site:

I, too, questioned the timing of the article about stem cells in the amniotic fluid. I knew that these had been discovered a while ago, but it didn't dawn on me that there might be a "media timing" issue until I talked with my sisters and some of my friends about this.

You see, H.R. 3 is coming up for the vote today, but it has not gotten a whole lot of attention, due to media frenzy around Ms. Pelosi, as well as Pres. Bush's address last night. The "looky-loo" was in full swing, because I called my congressman to give my take on H.R. 3, and lo and behold, I got through on the first attempt. Same with both of my Senators. This is very unusual, which tells me that either nobody cares about this vote, or nobody was aware it was going to take place. This is where the beginning of said "looky-loo" comes in.

When I called my sisters and friends to tell them to contact their elected officials, they were puzzled: "Wasn't there just a discovery of stem cells in amniotic fluid? They wouldn't vote on using embryos if there's a dilemma-free alternative..." This was not just the case with my family - it was also the case with many of my friends, with varying degrees of education and political awareness. They all knew about the amniotic stem cell discovery, but none of them knew the H.R. 3 vote was going forward anyway.

The timing of the article was not to draw criticism to the House bill - it was to deflect attention completely away, under the assumption of, "problem solved! No vote will even take place now..."

I hope that you will check out the transcript to the stem cell quiz which is currently available on Google videos. I would be interested to hear a rebuttal to any of the points mentioned. (It is only through debate on both side that we can all come to the truth.)

We shall see if I receive any comments to the transcript.  As it stands, though, I also believe that we deserve better than embryonic stem cell research fraud, even if the researcher who discovered the amniotic stem cells says ESCR should still receive federal money.  (Wouldn't you say the same thing, if it were possible that the place you work would receive gobs of money based on your opinion?)

Tags: abortion pro-life stem cell science research embryo Parkinsons Michael J. Fox amniotic

Check out the Stem Cell Quiz at Google videos, and be sure to email it to a friend/co-worker/etc. who may not know everything they should know about stem cell research.  (And don't forget to tell your congressman to vote against H.R. 3.)

If you would rather email it, here is the transcript of the video:

A short quiz about stem cell research

Think you can pass?

True or False...
1) Bush's veto banned stem cell research in the United States
FALSE - Neither Bush's 2006 veto nor his 2001 policy changed the type of research allowed in the U.S.

2) Embryonic stem cell research is banned in the United States
FALSE - Research can be conducted on animal and human embryonic stem cells in the United States

3) Human embryonic stem cell research is limited to the few approved lines and they suck
FALSE - We actually have some of the least restrictive federal regulations worldwide, and the approved lines have been used for most of the published hES studies around the world (hES is short for human embryonic stem cell)

4) Stem cells only come from embryos
FALSE - Stem cells are found in most parts of your body, including bone marrow and blood, placenta, chorion, amniotic fluid, and cord blood, brain, heart, pancreas, liver, dental pulp, hair follicles, fat, and testicular tissue.  With that, you can make any tissue in the body.

5) The U.S. government doesn't spend much on stem cell research
FALSE - The U.S. spent almost half a billion dollars on stem cell research in 2006 alone.

6) We don't spend much on embryonic stem cell research
FALSE - $40,000,000 was spent in 2005 just for human embryonic stem cell (hES) research, primarily studying hES-to-animal and even more went towards embryonic stem cell animal-to-animal studies.

7) There are 400,000 embryos in fertility clinics that will just be thrown away
FALSE - Here's the study
Conclusion(s): Nearly 400,000 embryos are stored in the United States, the majority of which (88.2%) are targeted for patient use. Few are available for research (2.8%), limiting possible conversion into embryonic stem cell lines. (Fertil Steril 2003;79:1063-9. ©2003 by American Society for Reproductive Medicine.)

Now, there ARE 400,000 embryos, but almost all of them are designated for future family building.  Only 11,000 are available for research.  That's 250 per state.  Most are available because of their age or poor quality.  Many wouldn't survive the thawing process so living stem cells could be extracted.

Let's move on to treatments.

• the number of axons myelinated per cell
• the thickness of myelin sheath,
• and post-myelination nerve signal conduction speed.

Many people have been successfully treated using their own stem cells.

• 84% off insulin with no complications, and
• Juvenile Diabetes has been "cured" in mice, with clinical trials underway in humans

10) hES are well on the way to safely curing Parkinson's (like Michael J. Fox and Pope John Paull II had)
FALSE - They form brain tumors in all the subjects instead

11) hES research will put no one needlessly at risk
FALSE - Poverty stricken women around the world are already being pressured to donate eggs.  Up to 10% of women undergoing the procedure suffer OHSS, which can result in stroke, renal failure, future infertility, and death.  With growing evidence, future offspring are more likely to be deformed or stillborn.

Find the facts at StemCellsCure.info

Need help now?  Visit: ClinicalTrials.gov

Tags: abortion pro-life stem cell science research embryo Parkinsons Michael J. Fox diabetes transcript fertility clinic

I've received comments in the past regarding this blog that have me concerned.  It seems that some are getting the impression that the purpose of this blog is to show all that is wrong with the world, in order to depress people or make them disappointed in the world, as if disappointment were an end in itself.  The point of my blog is not to disappoint or depress - it is to give people notice of what is going on so they know to change it to match what the Church's ideal is.

The main reason things don't change is because people are unaware of the slippery slope to begin with.  Essentially, evil triumphs when good people do nothing.  The basis of our form of government is that the people (not just the politicians, businessmen, scientists, and entertainers) have the power.  The government that governs best is the one that governs least.  That's why we have 2 parties, 2 chambers of Congress, and 3 branches of the government - so that they will fight among themselves, thereby accomplishing nothing, so the ordinary people can rule their own lives.  G. K. Chesterton said, "It is a good sign in a nation when things are done badly. It shows that all the people are doing them. And it is bad sign in a nation when such things are done very well, for it shows that only a few experts and eccentrics are doing them, and that the nation is merely looking on."  He also said, "All government is an ugly necessity."

It is only when people are uninformed (or worse, ill-informed) and subjugate to others authority over their own lives that the problems start.  One of the principle underpinnings of a democratic form of government is an educated and informed populace.  We must curious enough to get the truth and be intelligent enough to understand it.  (A form of that from our faith is that we must "be shrewd as serpents and simple as doves" - Matt 10:16.)   Again, Chesterton (from What's Wrong with the World, which was written in 1910): "Men are ruled, at this minute by the clock, by liars who refuse them news, and by fools who cannot govern."  According to Dale Alquist:

Chesterton consistently defended the amateur against the professional, or the "generalist" against the specialist, especially when it came to "the things worth doing." There are things like playing the organ or discovering the North Pole, or being Astronomer Royal, which we do not want a person to do at all unless he does them well. But those are not the most important things in life. When it comes to writing one's own love letters and blowing one's own nose, "these things we want a man to do for himself, even if he does them badly." This, argues Chesterton (in Orthodoxy) is "the democratic faith: that the most terribly important things must be left to ordinary men themselves - the mating of the sexes, the rearing of the young, the laws of the state."

So you see, my blog is not an attempt to say, "look how horrible life is" - it is more "look how bad things might get if we don't do something about it now."  I also write positive things on my blog (such as the article I'm about to post, which talks about a new discovery of stem cells in amniotic fluid, which are as potent as embryonic stem cells, but without the controversy of cloning and killing embryos), because life is good, or as Archbishop Fulton Sheen would say, "Life is worth living."  The world is good - just broken.  God created the world and found it good.  Unfortunately, sinful man found it and broke it with sin.  If something is bad (like a rotted apple), we throw it out; but if something is merely broken (like a toaster), we fix it to make it good again.

People are the same way: good, but broken.  The remedy to fixing them is not always to offend them.  (In fact, offending is rarely the best solution.)  The primary solution to fixing people is with love, because love is enlightening and life-giving, and "this life was the light of the human race; the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it." (John 1:4-5)  Yes, people will disappoint you - that's because they're human (just like you and me), not perfect, which is why we do not put our trust or faith in any human being, except the Perfect One.  It doesn't mean we are to love them any less - it means we are to pray for them even more, especially when we are tempted to "tell them off."  By your life, they will know what you believe, because actions speak louder than words.  If your life truly reflects high morals, no words are necessary.  Hence the words of St. Francis: "Always, always, always preach the Gospel... and when necessary, use words."

If, then, people are still offended, it is their own conscience which is offended by your example, not their heart or mind offended by your words (see James 3:13-18).  One more time from Chesterton: "Reason is always a kind of brute force; those who appeal to the head rather than the heart, however pallid and polite, are necessarily men of violence. We speak of 'touching' a man's heart, but we can do nothing to his head but hit it."  Words, when they are "logical" or "teaching a lesson" are often more harsh than a whip.  Compassionate words, though, are tender, loving, and healing.  This is the reason that instructing is called a "work of mercy" (CCC 2447), not a work of justice or punishment.

There is no "logical" reason for forgiveness and mercy - you can think of a thousand "reasons" to continue to hold a grudge, and you can rationalize for all eternity why you were right and they were wrong.  Logic is used in arguments and debates, and reason is best used to figure out your own best course of action.  Love (mercy and forgiveness), on the other hand, sweeps away the entire argument and allows you (and your "opponent") to move on to other things.  This is why love is a commandment; because it is not a natural reaction, but a super-natural decision.  It doesn't necessarily solve by concluding; it solves by erasing.  And this is the same love that The Father shows us.

Therefore, make sure your own life is as blameless and spotless as possible: "remove the log from your own eye, then remove the speck in your neighbor's eye" (Luke 6:41-42; Matt 7:3-5) And we now come full circle to our government again.  We have no right to "blame society" or "blame the government" or "blame the culture" if we have done nothing to attempt to change things; because in this country, WE are the government; in all countries, WE are "society" and "the culture".  If society is bad, it is because we have allowed it to be bad.  If the culture is bad, it is because we support it with our "dollar votes" and "eyeball votes".  If the government is bad, it is because we get the government we deserve.

The flipside of it is this: if we are endeavoring to "be perfect, as our Father in Heaven is perfect" (Matt 5:48) and we are spreading God's perfection by "make deisciples of all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit"  (Matt 28:19), then we have the hope of changing this world for the better.  Our government of, by, and for the people will be better because the people are better.  Likewise, the culture and society will also reflect the light of Christ.

But charity begins at home, and peace on earth begins with me.

Tags: blog government culture society love mercy logic Chesterton

Not that we needed any more proof that the birth control pill is bad news, but now there's a study that claims that the birth control pill raises the odds of children having nasal allergies.

The team found that, compared to children whose mothers had not used oral contraceptives, those who had taken the pill within a year of becoming pregnant had a 67 percent greater likelihood of having a child with allergic rhinitis, or nasal allergy.

When will women realize that "the pill" is not only not safe for them or their future children - it also has not made them free.  If I were told that I had to take a pill every day for 30-40 years, just to have a 90% chance that a recreational act will not result in life-altering consequences... well, I'd give up that "recreation".  (Oh yeah, and that unnecessary medication also has all kinds of side-effects, from occasional bleeding to damaged children to outright infertility.)  Let's hear it for freedom from God's natural plan... *crickets chirping*

Tags: birth control pro-life allergies science research side-effect

The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
House of Representatives
235 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-0508

Re: Embryonic Stem Cell Research Funding - Oppose

Speaker of the House Pelosi:

I noticed that, before going to the Capitol this morning, you stopped by a Catholic Church to ask God to guide your actions.  As a Catholic, you know that the Church is God's representative on Earth and the teachings of the Magisterium are binding on all Catholics, if we are to be One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic.

The Church opposes embryonic stem cell research and federal funding for it for the same reason it opposes abortion - it directly causes the destruction of innocent human lives.  It does, however, support "adult" stem cell research, i.e., research using stem cells harvested from umbelical cords, bone marrow, etc.  There has been much success already in this area, and studies suggest that "adult" stem cells may be as pluripotent (wide-ranging and potentially beneficial) as embryonic stem cells - all without the moral dilemma.

Please remain true to the Faith and refuse to start federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.  I heartily encourage you to increase funding for adult stem cell research, but I pray that our country will never seek to destroy many innocent human lives for the off-chance that some may live a little longer and a little easier.

Sincerely and God bless,