Candy Bag Diversity Index

About three years ago, I stopped trick-or-treating and started handing out the candy while my sisters were walking around the neighborhood. This year, for some capricious reason, I decided to trick-or-treat.

When I got home I had a short statistical conversation with my aunt about diversity indices, and then I decided to engage in a session of intense geekery and ran a Shannon-Wiener Diversity Index on my bag of candy. The index is one of several indices used to measure diversity and evenness in a sample. Here is my index:


According to Ms. Wiener, an index value near 0 indicates an unevenness in the sample, an index value near 4.6 indicates an evenly distributed sample, and an index value in the middle is ambiguous. My Candy Bag Diversity Index displays an unevenness in my sample, as evident by the fact that 40% of my bag is filled with chocolate. While I could have come to this conclusion by my own means, samples aren't always as small as mine.

The question remaining is: why do 40% of the houses prefer chocolate over other types of candy? But that's a different package of wieners.

Of course, you could just eat the candy, but that's not as much fun.

Vote Yes on Proposition 8

I originally spoke on Proposition 8 in my previous post, but I've decided separate theology and politics into two separate posts. When I wrote the post on Monday, I was sick, I had a million things going through my head, and I wanted to get it all out on the table. Anyway, this post is intended to explain why I am for the passing of Proposition 8 in California.

Before I go any further, an explanation of what Proposition 8 is necessary, because there seems to be a lot of misconceptions over what it is exactly. Simply put, it is a measure on the 2008 California General Election ballot, which, if passed, would add the following fourteen words to the California Constitution: "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

Proposition 8 Does Not Take Away Rights

First off, Proposition 8 does not take away any rights. One of the greatest arguments against it is that it does not grant equal rights to every citizen. This is simply false. Before May 2008, there never existed in the United States of America the fundamental right for homosexuals to marry. Before this time, same gender couples who wanted to register as domestic partners had the right to do so under California law.

According to the Family Code section 297.5, "Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses."

This law specifically says that domestic partners can enjoy all of the same rights and responsibilities as all married persons under the law. Proposition 8 is not now, and has never been about rights. It is about societal acceptance, and you cannot impose that by way of judicial fiat. So when November 4th rolls around, remember that under California law, domestic partners have the same legal rights as married persons.

In the year 2000, Californians voted for Proposition 22 that specifically limited marriage to a man and a woman, which has been the definition of marriage since the inception of California as a state. If anyone's rights have been challenged, it is that of the California voters who passed this original measure, only to be overturned by the Supreme Court.

If the Vote Fails, There Will Be Consequences

If the vote fails, there will arise six main consequences, as outlined on What Is Prop 8:

1. Children in public schools will have to be taught that same-sex marriage is just as good as traditional marriage. The California Education Code already requires that health education classes instruct children about marriage. (§51890) Therefore, unless Proposition 8 passes, children will be taught that marriage between any two adults is of the same worth, regardless of gender. There will be serious clashes between the secular school system and the right of parents to teach their children their own values and beliefs.
2. Churches may be sued over their tax exempt status if they refuse to allow same-sex marriage ceremonies in their religious buildings open to the public. Ask whether your pastor, priest, minister, bishop, or rabbi is ready to perform such marriages in your chapels and sanctuaries.
3. Religious adoption agencies will be challenged by government agencies to give up their long-held right to place children only in homes with both a mother and a father. Catholic Charities in Boston already had to stop providing adoption services in Massachusetts because courts legalized same-sex marriage there.
4. Religions that sponsor private schools with married student housing may be required to provide housing for same-sex couples, even if counter to church doctrine, or risk lawsuits over tax exemptions and related benefits.
5. Ministers who preach against same-sex marriages may be sued for hate speech and risk government fines. It already happened in Canada, a country that legalized gay marriage. A recent California court held that municipal employees may not say: "traditional marriage," or "family values" because, after the same-sex marriage case, it is "hate speech."
6. It will cost you money. This change in the definition of marriage will bring a cascade of lawsuits, including some already lost (e.g., photographers cannot now refuse to photograph gay marriages; doctors cannot now refuse to perform artificial insemination of gays even given other willing doctors). Even if courts eventually find in favor of a defender of traditional marriage (highly improbable given today's activist judges), think of the money – your money – that will be spent on such legal battles.

Five scholars from the Netherlands, the first country to adopt full-fledged same-sex marriage, wrote a letter addressed to parliaments of the world debating the issue of same-sex marriages. In the letter, they indicated their concern about the consequences of their country's decision and how it is related to the decline of marriage in the Netherlands.

Proposition 8 Upholds Separation of Church and State

Lastly, the passing of Proposition 8 will uphold the idea of Separation of Church and State.

Derived from the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, the principle is summarized by "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Simple put, this means that no specific religious institution should have significant influence on matters of state. Likewise, government should have no influence on church policy or doctrine, short of protecting life and property.

Look at the second consequence listed above. If the vote fails, churches may be sued if they refuse to allow same-sex marriage ceremonies in their religious buildings open to the public. If churches refuse to allow such ceremonies, they will be called discriminatory. This is clearly the government influencing church policy and doctrine.

Now look at the fifth consequence listed above. Ministers and priests who have spoken out against homosexuality and same-sex marriages, something that is clearly defined in many church's doctrines, may be sued for hate speech and risk government fines. That also sounds like the government influencing church doctrine.

People try to cover this up by saying that the policy of separation of church and state really means that legal laws are unaffected by direct religious morale. This is horrible logic. Religious morale teaches that murder is a sin, and yet murder is illegal in our country. Religious morale teaches that stealing is a sin, and yet stealing in illegal in our country. Saying that legal laws should be unaffected by religious morale is illogical.

Don't you see how the passage of Proposition 8 upholds the separation of church and state that we have in our country?

Closing

In closing, one thing is for sure: this is going to be a very interesting November, with both the propositions and the presidential election.

My advice: go into the voting booth well-informed and, for God's sake, go in there with a erudite attitude.

Weekly Apologetics: Chapter 4

I've decided to move Weekly Apologetics to Mondays from now on, since my weekends are usually filled with obligations and I rarely find time to type these chapters on Sundays.

Anyway, I had a conversation with my friend the other day in regards to homosexuality. This friend has always been a seemingly liberal Christian when it comes to these types of issues. He's the type of person who wants to wish or explain away a Bible verse that clearly displays the truth. He said that many passages in the Bible regarding homosexuality require meticulous study, and that he doesn't believe the translations to be pure. I decided to look into his claims, so I did a little research. Here's what I found:

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church "Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms throughout the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on sacred Scripture, which present homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered [Persona Humana 8]. They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved." (CCC 2357)

Let's take a look at a few Bible verses that us Catholics cite as evidence for homosexual acts being acts of grave depravity.

Romans 1:24-27 says "Therefore, God handed them over to the impurity through the lusts of their hearts for the mutual degradation of their bodies. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and revered and worshiped the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up their natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity."

The wording in this passage is quite clear in regards to what St. Paul found objectionable about same-sex intercourse. It’s important to understand that in St. Paul's society, homosexual behavior was “against nature." Even pagans, who did not worship the same God as us, understood acts of homosexuality to be against nature. Under inspiration of God, Paul therefore saw that same-sex eroticism physically shows the nature and the effects of sin on a culture and its individuals. St. Paul tells us that the misuse of gender violates God's purpose of sexuality on the basis of natural evidences alone. St. Paul uses expressions such as “the degrading of their bodies,” “shameful lusts,” and “indecent acts” in order to emphasize the unnaturalness of homosexuality.

In Leviticus 20:13, we see that God says that if a man lies with another man, he shall be put to death. Even before Christianity, God has revealed that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered, unhealthy, and mortally sinful.

In 1 Corinthians 6:9, St. Paul teaches that sodomites will not enter into the kingdom of God. The Greek word for “sodomite” (arsenokoites) means “male copulation” or “male sexual relations.” The Greek “arsen” means “male” and “koites” means “coitus” or “sexual relations.” Paul uses the same word in 1 Tim 1:10, where he calls sodomites ungodly and sinners, unholy and profane, and lawless and disobedient. Sodomites are called by God to chastity. It is important to note that homosexual attractions and inclinations (the feelings), while disordered and dangerous, are not by themselves sinful per se. It is the homosexual acts that are sinful. Those with homosexual desires can still live a life filled with God's grace by remaining chaste and pure as they abstain from acting out on their desires.

Just as the Bible is not silent on homosexuality, neither are the Early Church Fathers.

The Didache is the common name of a brief early Christian treatise containing instructions for Christian communities. On homosexuality, it says "You shall not commit murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not commit pederasty, you shall not commit fornication, you shall not steal, you shall not practice magic, you shall not practice witchcraft, you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill one that has been born." Didache 2:2 (A.D. 90). The term pederasty is usually defined as anal intercourse of a man with a boy. Pederasty is a form of sodomy.

St. Augustine, in his Confessions says "[T]hose shameful acts against nature, such as were committed in Sodom, ought everywhere and always to be detested and punished. If all nations were to do such things, they would be held guilty of the same crime by the law of God, which has not made men so that they should use one another in this way." He says that acts of homosexuality are crimes of the law of God and should be detested and punished.

Both the Bible and the Early Church Fathers agree on one thing: acts of homosexuality are unnatural and should be punished just like every other mortal sin. It's amazing to see how the Enemy has blinded even Christians into believing the acts of homosexuality are alright and natural. People need to understand that God created man and woman so that they could share communion, which is consummated in the marital act which must only be between a man and a woman. The communion that God intended is also a reflection of the eternal communion of the Blessed Trinity, who created man in His own image and likeness.

How much more meticulous could I be? Both the Bible and plenty of Early Church Fathers agree with me.

Letter of Warning

NaNoWriMo is quickly approaching, and I decided to write a letter to my family and friends warning them of what the upcoming month will hold:

Dear Family and Friends,

Last year I embarked on a journey called novel writing. During November 2007, I wrote a 50,000-word novel in thirty day’s time. It was a huge accomplishment for me, and even though Orwyne will never see the light of day again I have still accomplished the task and drown in a pool of self-pride every time I think about it.

The task, however, is not a one time thing. You don’t just cross “Write a novel.” off of your list of things you want to do before you die and resume any sense of normality. No, as a writer you do it again and again and again. Each time you write a new novel, you notice changes from your previous novels. Such changes include your writing style and your vocabulary. And hopefully these changes have improved the quality of your novel.

Chris Baty, the founder of NaNoWriMo, will write his tenth novel this year. I’m sure if he juxtaposes all of his previous novels with the novel he will be writing this November, he will find that the quality has improved manyfold.

That was my lengthened version of me telling you that I will be participating in NaNoWriMo 2008. This year I will write my second novel, but here’s the catch: my personal goal is 100,000 words – twice that of the average participant. The 50,000-word novel challenge has come and passed. I’ve raised the bar for myself, and am determined to meet my goal. The way I look at it, I don’t have school 45% of November, so reaching my goal will be a lot easier to achieve than you think.

However many days off of school I have, there are some hindrances to this year though. I have a very busy schedule. Every day after school I have rehearsal for the school play from 3 PM to 5 PM. If the rehearsals run late (which they often do), I rush to catch the 5:30 PM bus hoping to catch a bite to eat before I have to start my nighttime obligations. Those obligations include: occasional Liturgy Planning Meetings on Mondays, Boy Scout meetings on Tuesdays, German Club meetings on Wednesdays, practices for my church's choir on Thursdays, and crashing at local coffee shops on Fridays. This past week, however, I had to skip my Boy Scout meeting as well as the church choir practice, due to the fact that my school choir had our concert on Thursday night and we had a rehearsal Tuesday night. On Thursday night I didn't start my homework until nine o'clock (after going to school all day, going to rehearsal, and performing in a concert) and proceeded to get 5 hours of shut-eye before I started everything over again.

However hectic my schedule may be, my time management skills have improved manyfold from last year. Last year I was the procrastinator, but this year I am the workaholic. I have learned to lighten my load by getting homework done during school, whether it be during break and lunch or during other classes, and on the bus ride home. Chris Baty said that if you want to get something done, let a busy person do it. What he's saying is if you have very few things to do, you end up not doing anything at all. On the other hand, if you already have a hectic schedule like myself, adding one more thing is not going to be anymore of a hindrance than the other thing's you're committed to doing.

I am positive, in the midst of all of this, that I will still be able to complete my novel, which still maintaining my health, sanity, and good grades. And I promise, that if any one of those three may fail (with the exception, perhaps, of my sanity) I will throw my hands up and complete my novel when I am not swamped with obligations.

In the frame of mind that I’m going to win, I need to make you aware of four things:

1. It’s not so much that I’ll be totally absent for one month, as it is that I’ll be exceptionally present for the other eleven. The good thing about writing a novel in a month is just that: you are writing a novel in a month. I’m not writing a novel in three months, or a year, or five years. I am writing a novel in a month, and I won’t ask you to put up with my noveling quirks for the other eleven.
2. I’ll still have time for fun stuff while I work on my novel. During this next month, I’ll need some time to go out and have fun. There’s no way I can become a social hermit while writing my novel. Human interaction (partly because I can get a lot of inspiration from conversations on the bus, and from other social activities) is very much a necessity when I’m writing my novel. I’ll be busy, but not that busy.
3. Doing this is important to me. There’s this thing called the “one-day novelist.” Basically, it’s a person who goes around saying “One day I’d like to write a novel.” The one-day novelist waits and waits, until he has amassed enough knowledge and wisdom to pour into his masterpiece. Then, when he actually sits down to write it, he fears he’s going to screw it up. I am announcing the end of the one-day novelist. Because of this frame of mind, few people actually get to writing their novels. I have stories to tell, and I want to tell them.
4. I need your help. As my family and friends, I am going to need you to be understanding of the task I have ahead. You can be of help in several ways. First, you can simply check in on me every two or three days to see how my novel’s coming. If you want to be more involved, you can give me subplots or even characters. And if you REALLY want to be involved, you can take on the task with me. You never know, you might have a story waiting to be written.

Now that you’re equipped with the job description to being an incredibly nonirritating novelist’s cheerleader, be prepared to live with a bipolar writer who will drink way too much tea and meet in coffee shops with other people who are doing NaNoWriMo.

This year I am making many more changes to my novel. First, I am not starting with an outline. I’ve decided that I’m going to experience the fullness of the seat-of-your pants approach, and on November 1st I will start with a vague understanding of my characters, and a general idea of where my plot is going. Secondly, I am integrating a moral theme into the novel. Last year my novel was all about adventure, but this year you will be able to literarily analyze it. And thirdly, I will be posting my day-to-day writings at http://henrytippe.blogspot.com, so you can ask me questions, and give me suggestions or comments as the month goes on.

Thank you for your time and patience during my endeavor,

Henry Tippe

My "Favorites" Playlist

Thoughts on: Simple Blogging

This is an article I wrote for Fuse Magazine two months ago.

Four years ago, when I barely knew how much better Mozilla Firefox is, I stared at my computer monitor and gawked at the sight of a website that would transform my web career. I didn’t know it then, but that blog publishing system—known universally as Blogger—was bought by Google and quickly ranked 16 on the list of top 50 domains in terms of number of unique visitors.

I began my journey in the blogosphere with Blogger. Like most bloggers, I yearned for some unknown thing that Blogger didn’t provide, so I moved to using Haloscan, and then Cutenews, and finally WordPress. I never touched Textpattern or Expression Engine, but those are different cans of worms. Needless to say, I went through it all, and with each new content management system, I experienced something new.

There came a time after the domains had expired and when I decided create a new blog, I used Blogger (for several reasons, most of which I will cover in the following sentences). I have concluded that Blogger is for simple bloggers, and I am a simple blogger.

Blogger or WordPress?

In my day, the main blog publishing systems were Blogger and WordPress. There are many key differences between accounts at Blogger.com and WordPress.com, and your decision to use the former or the latter to host your blog is based solely upon what features you think a content management system should include.

Let’s begin with themes, because every blogger is obsessed with how their website looks. With Blogger, you are free to edit any of the themes, style sheets and colors, and you can also install a third party theme (a popular website that offers free downloadable Blogger themes is BlogSkins). There’s a catch, however, and that is that Blogger has a unique markup language, so in order to create your own theme, some learning is involved. WordPress seems to fall on the entirely opposite end of the spectrum, where there is no template editing available to users, and style sheet editing is available as a paid upgrade. Select WordPress themes allow you to upload a header image, and even then, many of the available WordPress themes are quite disappointing.

The next issue that arises is how images are stored and how much storage space you get. Unless you have an image heavy blog (like a photo blog or a showcase of your work), bloggers don’t tend to use that much image space. Blogger gives users 1GB of image storage and all images are uploaded to a Picasa Web Album gallery that is linked to your Google Account. WordPress on the other hand, gives users 3GBs (paid upgrades are available) of images, .ppt, .doc, and .pdf file storage and you can add an image gallery to any post. If you’re concerned about uploading other types of files on Blogger, you can always upload .ppt, .doc, and .pdf files to Google Docs.

Another thing that will tear bloggers’ opinions is the static page feature. WordPress has consistently allowed the publishing, editing, and deleting of static pages. Blogger, on the other hand, does not offer the same time of availability. At a first glance, the unavailability of this feature on Blogger seems a little disappointing, however, with some patience and time, static pages can be artificially created.

Those are the main ones, but of course, there are many more feature differences that I didn’t discuss.

Blogger's Custom Domains

One of the deciding factors that swayed me towards Blogger was the option to purchase a “custom domain.” When you create a blog on Blogger, you will have the option to purchase, for $10 a year, a .com, .net, or .org domain name (purchased through eNom and hosted with Google).

Blogger will both buy and host the custom domain, which is not something you find every day.

Buying a custom domain is a painless process, and it takes approximately three minutes from start to finish.

Simple bloggers?

Blogger’s target audience is the simple blogger, that is, a blogger who enjoys the basic features of a blog without having to deal with more features than they know what to do with. Throughout Blogger’s history, they have done an amazing job of catering to the simple blogger.

While WordPress provides features that an advanced Blogger would find appealing, Blogger’s simple features perfectly quench my thirst. So, are you a simple blogger?

If I Can Do This, Anyone Can.

If I can maintain my health, sanity, and grades with everything that I have on my plate right now, then anyone can.

This week was über-hectic, to say the very least. Every day after school I have rehearsal for the school play from 3 PM to 5 PM. If the rehearsals run late (which they often do), I rush to catch the 5:30 PM bus hoping to catch a bite to eat before I have to start my nighttime obligations. Those obligations include: occasional Liturgy Planning Meetings on Mondays, Boy Scout meetings on Tuesdays, German Club meetings on Wednesdays, practices for my church's choir on Thursdays, and crashing at local coffee shops on Fridays. This week, however, I had to skip my Boy Scout meeting as well as the church choir practice, due to the fact that my school choir had our concert on Thursday night and we had a rehearsal Tuesday night. Last night I didn't start my homework until nine o'clock (after going to school all day, going to rehearsal, and performing in a concert) and proceeded to get 5 hours of shut-eye before I started everything over again. If it's any consolation, however, today I had four cups of tea (and counting). It's the best thing since sliced bread.

Before I become an incessant complainer, however, I will admit that my hectic schedule has taught me two things. Firstly, my time management skills have improved manyfold from last year. Last year I was the procrastinator, but this year I am the workaholic. I have learned to lighten my load by getting homework done during school, whether it be during break and lunch or during other classes, and on the bus ride home. Chris Baty, founder of NaNoWriMo, said that if you want to get something done, let a busy person do it. What he's saying is if you have very few things to do, you end up not doing anything at all. On the other hand, if you already have a hectic schedule like myself, adding one more thing is not going to be anymore of a hindrance than the fifty other thing's you're committed to doing. Secondly, my hectic schedule has taught me to more deeply love tea. Since the beginning of the school year, I have been drinking tea on a more routine basis, whereas last year I wasn't. But which lesson is more important? It's a tossup, in all honesty.

If I can do this, anyone can. Thank God it's Friday.

Ten Days Left

There are exactly ten days until NaNoWriMo 2008 begins, and from now until December 5-ish, this will be my desktop wallpaper (click to view larger):


This year, I am committing literary suicide and am making it my personal goal to write a 100,000-word novel - two times that of the other participants. I have a lot on my plate right now, and am determined to meet my goal while still maintaining my health, sanity, and high grades. After all, I don't have school thirteen out of the thirty days in November.

Because last year all of my friends and family wanted to read my novel, I will be posting my day-to-day writings on my writing collective this year. If you feel inclined to read my novel, it will be available for you in its raw, unedited beauty.

Weekly Apologetics: Chapter 3

I apologize for postponing this week's chapter of Weekly Apologetics until today, but I was far too busy yesterday to spend any sort of time on the computer, be it checking emails or typing a blog entry. But I'm here now, so without further ado...

A friend asked me once, "Isn’t the whole point worshiping the Lord and not which religion is better? What if Catholicism is the right religion for you but Protestantism is right for someone else?" Here's my response to her question:

The "point" is to indeed worship the Lord. In our worship of God, we celebrate Him as Creator, Deliverer, Provider and Redeemer, and center on such things as His life, death, and resurrection. God tells us to to love him (Matthew 22:35-40), and loving God includes praising him, thanking him and obeying him (1 John 5:3). We agree that God wants us to worship Him.

What we don't seem to agree on is if it matters which religion we do the worshiping. Let me use this example to help make my point: going out to eat is not as simple as saying you want a hamburger. There are many, many fast food restaurants that serve hamburgers. In the United States, we have McDonald's, Wendy's, In-N-Out, Carl's Jr., and Burger King, just to name a few. When you want to eat a hamburger, you have to decide - you have to pick and choose - which fast food restaurant you are going to buy your hamburger. There is a choice involved.

Look at the example in this manner: I may like In-N-Out hamburgers because of the special sauce that they put on it, but my mother may not like the special sauce, so she likes McDonald's hamburgers. Like this, my male friend may like one church because it teaches that only males go to heaven, but my female friend likes another church because it says that only females go to heaven. (Of course, this is just an over-exaggerated example to get a point across.) This can be applied to worship, and, in fact, this example is applied to worship in today's society. Today, many people pick and choose which church they want to worship in, just as they pick which fast food restaurant they want to buy their hamburger.

I believe, and the Catholic Church agrees with me in her Catechism, that "the sole Church of Christ [is that] which our Savior, after his Resurrection, entrusted to Peter's pastoral care, commissioning him and the other apostles to extend and rule it.... The Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him" (CCC 813).

In this generation, many people are caught up on finding the religion that is right of them. And here arises a problem. This belief assumes that what matters is what the individual believes. In today's society, to say "there is one true Church" seems arbitrary and arrogant. But if God wants us to know and love Him, why shouldn't He want us to know and love Him by coming together in a particular community - a "Church"? I don't see any a priori reasons why that's impossible. In fact, it seems quite probable. We are, as Aristotle said, "social animals." We form communities as humans. It's part of who we are. So why shouldn't it be an important part of how we relate to God?

I believe that God does not want us to pick and choose a Church, because I believe that He gave us a Church to worship him in. Look:

• Jesus said that He would build His Church, and not "churches" (Matthew 16:18).
• Jesus referred to His Church as the Church (Matthew 18:19).
• Jesus promises the gates of Hell would not prevail over His Church (Matthew 16:18).
• Jesus gave His Church the Keys of the Kingdom (Matthew 16:19).
• Jesus gave His Church the power to bind and loose (Matthew 16:18).
• Jesus gives His Church final authority on questions of the faith (Matthew 18:17-18).
• Jesus gave His Church the power to forgive or retain sins (John 20:23).
• Jesus promises He will be with His Church "until the end of the age" (Mathew 28:20).

Peter even recognizes Christ's Church as "the pillar and bulwark of truth" (1 Timothy 3:15). Non-Catholics take Peter to mean the invisible church - the spiritual body of believers who believe and profess Jesus Christ to be their Lord and Savior. But this is not so. Peter is not talking about an invisible body of believers, rather, he is speaking about visible Church, which is the pillar and support of truth. How do we know? Look at today's invisible body of believers - all Christians. Do you see any sort of unity in truth? Do we agree on the simplest of doctrines, such as salvation or Mary? No. We can therefore conclude that Peter is talking about a visible Church.

Steve Ray said, "Let me ask a hypothetical question: If I belong to a Reformed Baptist 'church' and a Christian brother from a United Methodist 'church' sins and I go to him to show him his fault in private, and then before two or three witnesses - and he refuses to listen, what am I to do? Jesus said I should 'tell it to the church and if he (the sinner) refuses to listen even to THE church, then let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector' (Matthew 18:15-18). So my question is: Where is THE Church? Should I take the sinner to my Reformed Baptist 'church' or to the sinner's United Methodist 'church'? The situation today makes a mockery of Jesus' words."

Peter and Jesus are both talking about the Catholic Church. How do we know? We can examine two things: the papacy and history. Pope Benedict XVI, is the 265th Bishop of Rome, and the successor of Peter, the Catholic Church's first Pope. The papacy is the oldest continuing institution in the world, and two hundred sixty-five men have held the office in an unbroken line of succession. In addition to this unbroken line, the Early Church taught the same doctrine that the Catholic Church teaches today, and we can confirm this by comparing the teachings of the Early Church Fathers (Refer to works such as The Didache or other writings of the Early Church Fathers.) with the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The similarities in the doctrines are unmistakable.

So, of course, the "point" is to worship God, for He deserves all worship. However, if God set up a Church for us to worship Him in, a Church that is the support and pillar of truth, then wouldn't it be logical to worship God in said Church - the Catholic Church? This is what I believe, and I don't expect everyone to agree with me. But up until the sixteenth-century, every Christian did agree with me. It wasn't until the Protestant Reformation when the schisms occurred. I am a member of the Catholic Church because I believe that it is the fullness of the truth and it is Jesus Christ's visible Church that He intended to establish with Peter as its rock (Matthew 16:18).

Weekly Apologetics: Chapter 2

In America, we focus on American literature during our junior year of high school. We recently completed our Puritan unit, but before we began reading Puritan literature, our teacher prefaced the unit by teaching us Puritan theology. I don't have any problem with learning about different religions. In fact, I think that American high schools should be educating students about different religions and cultures more than they are right now. But that's a different can of worms.

The Puritan doctrine that was made most evident by their writing was predestination. According to this doctrine, before we are born, we will either be predestined to heaven or predestined to hell, and nothing we do on Earth will affect God's decision regarding our salvation or damnation. This is not what the Catholic Church teaches, nor is it what the Bible teaches. The Catholic Church teaches that God wills all men to Him, and we have the free will to accept the invitation or disregard it.

A perfect example of this in the Bible appeared in the Gospel reading at Mass yesterday. In Matthew 22: 1-14, Jesus tells a parable where a king sends invitations out for a party he is throwing for his son. Those who were invited did not come, so the king told his servants to go out into the streets and bring in anybody and everybody. The servants do as the king says, and all those in the streets come to the party. When the king sees that one person is not dressed in a garment, he forbids the man from attending the party, and locks him up in chains outside.

It is, of course, a parable. In the story, the king represents God and his son is Jesus Christ. God is giving a banquet for Jesus Christ - a banquet to symbolize the great feast in the eternal kingdom. Just as in the parable, everyone is invited to the banquet and everyone is offered a chance for salvation. Everyone receives the invitation, and it is what we do with that invitation that determines the fate of our soul. To say that God predestines people to heaven or to hell is narrow minded.

The only thing left is what garment do we have to wear? Through the ages, theologians have speculated what the "wedding garment" represents. The early church fathers thought it was love (see 1 John 4:8). Martin Luther thought the man without the wedding garment lacked faith. The Apostle James (2:26) told us, "faith is dead if it is separated from good deeds." Of course, a true Christian will combine all three - love as God commands, have firm faith, and do good works.

What will you do with the invitation, and what garment will you wear?

Class Project

In my media class, we've been working on a really interesting Photoshop project. Basically, you and a partner swap a photograph of yourselves and seven photographs of things that you love, and then, using only the the crop tools in Photoshop, you must recreate the photograph of your partner using only pieces from the seven additional photographs that he supplied you with. And because my Photoshop skills are not as amazing as my partners, I'll be showing you the outcome of his project and not mine.

With the seven photographs I gave my partner, he took this:


and turned it into this (click to view larger):


Once you get over the fact that I look slightly monstrous or even beastly to a point, you realize that my partner did an exceptionally amazing job at piecing the puzzle together. The product of my project was not nearly as impressive as this because, as one of the photographs my partner gave me was a bowl filled with Japanese food, he ended up looking like a giant sushi head.

Anyway, I just thought I would share this with you, since I thought he did a surreal job.

Weekly Apologetics: Postponed

Due to the fact that I just got home from an amazing weekend on Catalina island with my Boy Scout troop, this week's chapter of Weekly Apologetics will be postponed until tomorrow.

On an unrelated note, I wonder if there is any truth behind this story and the "misinterpretations" that arise.

Weekly Apologetics: Chapter 1

Most of today's argument comes directly from Beginning Apologetics 1. All credit is given to San Juan Catholic Seminars and their work.

I received a comment this week from John, who suggested I talk about the doctrine of sola scriptura. After getting a Voters Guide for Serious Catholics and a bumper sticker that says "Yes on 8" after Mass today, I had originally planned on talking about Proposition 8 and the intrinsic evils that arise if we vote no, but I decided to tone it down a bit, seeing as this is my first chapter of Weekly Apologetics.

First, I shall define sola scriptura so there is no question as to what I will be refuting throughout the remainder of this chapter. Sola scriptura is the doctrine that claims that the Bible alone is the authority in matters of faith.

Before I go any further, I would first like to comment on John's biblical evidence of sola scriptura. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 says "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, so that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." John takes this to mean that all we need is scripture, and nothing else. However, his interpretation is contrary to the Bible, history, and common sense. No Catholic disagrees with what these verses say, however, nor do we disagree with what any verses in the Bible say. But Protestants are reading into this text what they want to see. Saying that Scripture is profitable or necessary and that Scripture helps one become thoroughly furnished for something doesn't say at all that Sacred Tradition or the Sacred Magisterium (the teaching authority of the Church) are also not profitable or necessary and that they help one become thoroughly furnished for something. Robert Sungenis commented on this particular verse by saying "If 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is teaching sola scriptura today, then it had to be teaching sola scriptura in the first century, since there cannot be two diametrically opposed interpretations of the same verse. But if 2 Timothy 3:16-17 was teaching sola scriptura in the first century, then that would mean that St. Paul is contradicting himself, since in the first century he was also promoting inspired oral tradition as another source of divine revelation to the Bible."

As I mentioned before, the doctrine of sola scriptura contradicts three things: the Bible, history, and common sense.

First, sola scriptura goes against the Bible. Scripture tells us that Christ left a visible Church with divine authority to govern in his name (see Matthew 16:13-20, Matthew 18:18, and Luke 10:16). Christ promised that His Church would last until the end of time (see Matthew 16:18, Matthew 28:19-20, and John 14:16). The Bible also tells us that Sacred Tradition is to be followed alongside Sacred Scripture. St. Paul says: "Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours." (2 Thessalonians 2:15) and "We instruct you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to shun any brother who conducts himself in a disorderly way and not according to the tradition they received from us" (2 Thessalonians 3:6).

Additionally, the doctrine of sola scriptura is found nowhere in the Bible. Funnily enough, the Bible tells us that we need more than just the Bible alone. Sacred Scripture says that not everything Jesus said and did on this earth is recorded in the Bible (see John 21:25), as the entire world would not have enough room for all of the books written containing such things. The Bible also tells us to hold fast to oral tradition, the preached Word of God (see 1 Corinthians 11:2 and 1 Peter 1:25). Additionally, in 2 Peter 3:15-16, we are warned that the Sacred Scripture can be very difficult to interpret, which strongly implies the need for an authoritative interpreter. Today, many people are questioned as to how they know their interpretation of a certain verse is correct, and they conclude that the Holy Spirit helped them arrive at their interpretation. It's always funny to ask them which Holy Spirit, because it seems that the Holy Spirit is giving members of over thirty-three thousand Christian denominations mixed messages. In accordance with my former statement, 1 Timothy 3:15 reassures us that the Church is the pillar of truth. Not churches, but Church. By use of history, you can see that the only Christian church that existed since the time of Christ was the Roman Catholic Church. Therefore, St. Paul says that the Roman Catholic Church is the pillar and foundation of truth.

Second, the doctrine of sola scriptura contradicts history. We must remember that the first century Christians did not believe in sola scriptura, for two reasons. The first reason is that the first word of the New Testament was not written about AD 50 (1 Thessalonians) and the last word between Ad 90-100 (Revelations). There were various bishops who developed lists of inspired books, however, the canon of the Bible was not closed until AD 405, when Pope St. Innocent 1 approved the 73-book canon. Where was sola scriptura during these years? The answer is simple: the doctrine did not exist. In fact, until The Reformation, there was no such doctrine named sola scriptura. Until then, the Church - the Roman Catholic Church - viewed Sacred Scripture as one of three pillars, the other two being Sacred Tradition and the Sacred Magisterium. The history of the Bible attests that it was the Church exercising its Apostolic authority that determined what is and is not Scripture. We need the authority of the Church to tell us what belongs in the Bible, as St. Paul tells us in 1 Timmothy 3:15 "But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth."

Lastly, the doctrine of sola scriptura contradicts common sense. Any document of collection of books meant to play a critical role in determining how people live must have a living, continuing authority to guard, guarantee, and officially interpret it. If this living authority does not exist, chaos will reign as everyone interprets the document according to his personal whim. As I mentioned earlier, we see this when several people with several interpretations of the same Bible verse claim that the Holy Spirit led them to their conclusion. For example, the Founding Fathers of the United States of America put together the U.S. Constitution, a document that would authoritatively determine how our country would be governed. However, in order to avoid such mass confusion and multiple interpretations, the Founding Fathers also established a living, continuing authority to guard, guarantee, and officially interpret the Constitution: the Supreme Court. Like God, the Founding Fathers knew that without a living authority, the Constitution would lead to endless divisions as every one acted as his own interpreter. And God certainly has more wisdom than the founders of the United States of America. God would have never left a written document to be the only rule of faith without a living authority to guard and officially interpret it.

Before the doctrine of sola scriptura arose, there stood a strong, undivided church: the Roman Catholic Church. However, since the dawn of this "revolutionary" idea, it has given fruit to the splintering of Christianity into over 33,000 denominations. Sola scriptura did NOT come from God, and was unheard of fro 1500 years before the Reformation.

The question is: who got it wrong? A Church that has stayed constant in her teaching for over two-thousand years, or a few men who protested against her teachings in the 1500s?

Just Call Me Doctor

I have prolonged this entry until I was completely sure that I was cast in my school's first production. The cast list went up this morning, and the level of excitement I experienced when I saw my name next to Dr. Zubritsky was higher than when Hiro found out that he could manipulate the space-time continuum. Random Heroes references aside, I wanted to write my thoughts on the audition process, seeing as this was the first time I have ever auditioned for a play.

Last Thursday and Friday, the Theatre Department announced that they would be holding auditions for Fools on Monday and Tuesday. When people started signing up for audition dates, I was surprised to see how much response the play got. There were at least a hundred people who singed up to audition. I've been in Drama Club for the past two years, so I've always known that the Theatre Department has always been relatively small, and it isn't exactly the most popular thing at our school. Our school is a magnet school, so it attracts those who are in tune with their intellectual side of their brain, more than their artistic side. Students like Science Olympiad, Computer Science, and AP classes, more than the Theatre Department. Don't get me wrong, my school puts on good productions, it's just that in my experience, we haven't got nearly as much response as we did for Fools. When it was all said and done, there were forty auditions on Monday and then close to sixty on Tuesday.

Even though my audition was on Monday, I helped out on Tuesday with moving people forward, finding people to read with others, and just making everything go more smooth. For our audition, we were todl to prepare a monologue as well as a dialogue from Fools. On Monday, I showed up ready to audition, and while I waited my scene partner and I practiced our dialogue for half of the time, and then we each practiced our monologues. In all honesty, I perfected my monologue to such that that was the thing that was going to push me over the top. Then, when it came time to audition, the directors told us that they did not have enough time do hear our monologues and that we would just perform the piece from the play itself. Both my scene partner and I were so mad that we didn't get to perform our monologues. I panicked to the point where I was doubting I'd get a call back.

I was very nervous after my audition, but all I could do was hope that instead of seeing how badly (I think we're all self-conscious) I did, the directors saw my potential as an actor. Of course, with some foreshadowing at the beginning of this blog entry, you know that I got a call back. One thing that never failed to surprise me throughout the entire process was how punctual the directors were in putting up the call back list or even the staff list. If they told us the call back list would be by the Drama Room at the beginning of first period, you'd better believe they were pinning it up a few seconds before the bell rang. That and a couple of other things really made me believe that I was taking part in something professionally done, as opposed to an amateur production where there is a huge lack of communication between the directors and the actors.

Call backs started promptly at 3:10. Those who came in late, regardless of their "excuse" were frowned upon, because it was like them saying that they didn't care about the call back enough to get there on time, and, when looking at the bigger picture, it was almost showing the directors how punctual they would be when the actual production was being prepared. Funnily enough, most of the people who showed up to the call back late did not get cast.

When we arrived, they immediately paired us with our counterparts. Leon was paired with Sophia, Dr. Zubritsky was paired with Lenya, and so on. I, being called back for the Doctor, was paired up with the same scene partner I had during the initial auditions and we ha the same scene. In a sense, I viewed this as an advantage on my part because we had "perfected" our scene and all we needed to do was work on a few areas of it. I think we practiced it about twenty-five times, and then finally went back into the theater, reading to perform it. It was an open audition, so we were able to see the other people and then whisper things to each other regarding things such as the other actors' techniques, things that we liked about their call back, things that we didn't like about their call back, and so on.

Now is an ideal time to comment on the play itself. Fools tells the story of a schoolteacher who has taken up a pupil in the village of Kolyenchikoc who is apparently unteachable. When the schoolteacher realizes the village is cursed with stupidity, and the only way to break the curse is either to teach the girl or to have the girl marry Count Gregor (who, other than the curse itself, is the antagonist of the play), he makes it his mission to break the curse as he falls in love with Sophia, the beatiful girl. I have been cast for Doctor Nikolai Zubritski, the father of Sophia. Everyone in the play, save Leon, is cursed with stupidity, and the play is written in a very Amelia Bedelia-esque style, where almost everything is taken literally. Fools allegedly was written as the result of an agreement Simon made with his wife during their divorce proceedings. She was promised the profits of his next play, so he attempted to write something that never would last on Broadway. Given it closed after forty performances, he succeeded. Regardless, it fits in with the type of comedy we see enjoy today.

The scene that auditioned with and used during my call back is not the funniest scene in the entire play. As a matter of fact, save Leon's monologue at the beginning, it is the most boring of scenes. So I was especially bummed out when everyone else's call back scenes made the directors laugh and mine only caused them to raise an eyebrow, look down at their notes, and write furiously. I didn't know it while I was acting out my scene, but I was slightly disappointed that they didn't pick a more funny scene for the Doctor, because, in my opinion, the particular scene that I had did not allow me to show the directors the full extent of my capabilities. After we did our scenes, the directors dismissed all of the Lenya's from the theater, but kept all of the Doctors.

On a side note, for each production our school puts on, we have two casts - Cast A and Cast B. There are ten characters in the play which means that the directors casted twenty people, not counting all of the tech people.

There were three people who got called back for the Doctor - myself, Jordan, and Brian (I'll use pseudonyms to keep the identities of the actual people anonymous). Jordan, in my opinion is an exquisite actor and his skills, without a doubt, transcend my own. Brian, on the other hand, is someone average. I would, honestly, range myself somewhere between Brian and Jordan, being much further from Jordan than Brian, but still in range of Brian. If you had no idea what I just said: good. One of the directors then called back myself and Brian. She paired us up with two people who were called back for Leon, handed us a new script and told us each to play Count Gregor.

I was slightly confused, but when I read the script, I realized why she had done so. I believe that her reasoning was based on the fact that that the comedy in the Count Gregor and Leon scene is so rich and the directors wanted to see how well we handled comedy, since that's what the majority of the play is based on. So I went outside with Stone (again, a pseudonym) and we rehearsed the scene about five times. This time I was very confident, and I knew that I could nail all of the jokes, and even create some with my actions that weren't necessarily explicitly written into the scene. After Stone and I rehearsed it, we went back into the theater where we let Brian and his partner perform their Gregor and Leon scene before we did ours.

To sum up the audience's reaction to our scene in one word, I would use: hysterical. I thought that the female director (On a side note, there is a female director and a male director. The male director's wife is going to have a baby soon, so the female director will cradle the play while he is cradling his child.) was going to lay an egg. She was laughing so hard that I was confident I had been cast. I didn't care whether I played Count Gregor or Dr. Zubritsky, because both of them had their share of jokes. Count Gregor is a smaller part and Dr. Zubritsky has much more stage time, but it didn't really matter as this is the first production I've participated in. I left with a feeling of accomplishment. I was the last scene, and I didn't hear that much laughter throughout the entire call back session.

The cast list was posted this morning, at exactly 8 AM. Four of my friends and I skipped the first five minutes (with permission, of course) of our first period to see if we had been cast. Thankfully, all five of us got a part in the play. Some big, some small, but definitely all essential to the success of the production. I am extremely excited to be participating in Fools, but my only fear is that by the end of this all, I will have lost the remnants of my sanity, as I have so many commitments right now. It sure is going to be crazy, and I don't care what science says about girls being able to multi-task better than boys, I can do it. And I'll do it well.