December 2002 Archives

Sal's movie reviews!

Star Trek: Nemesis is a festering hunk of cheese. Picard's Nemesis? Think Dr. Evil. The plot fell back on every Star Trek contrivance except for time travel, which was already overused by the time Star Trek IV: You've Got Whales was released. The Next Gen crew all had fairly minor roles excluding Picard and Data. Regardless, I'm sure they made millions just to squeeze into their Star Fleet jammies again for another cruise around the sound stage. More later - I have to get back to work!

I'd like to see some Diogenes sort out the disputes about Goodbye Good Men, but is there anybody left in the Catholic world who has not already taken up sides?

Empty Lott

The problem with Trent Lott isn't that he made a stupid comment a couple of weeks ago, one he'd get away with if he had the correct opinions. The problem is that he's had a history of making stupid comments, and he was a poor majority leader the last time around. Nothing in Lott's history indicates that he will grow more prudent or intelligent by remaining in a leadership position.

The Senate needs to consider some bills that will loom large in the light of history, foremost among them the partial-birth abortion and cloning bans. It will consider at least one or two Supreme Court nominations. If this guy were Sen. Santorum, you bet he'd have plenty of people willing to defend him, but as he is neither effective in a Machiavellian sense nor principled, he's as good as gone. Look, it isn't a human right to hold a political office. Don't cry for this guy, if you're at all tempted to rail against the "injustice" of a politician being held responsible for his remarks.

Holiness begins here

I was reading Eric Johnson post below about the reform of the Marines, and how Catholics should attempt something similar within the Church. Basically, I agree with Eric. That being said, what Eric proposes is nothing new. In fact, this is how many pious people have been canonized in the past -- by resolving here and now to live a life of holiness. More recently, Vatican II issued a universal call-to-holiness in which we are all called, regardless of our state in life, to respond to God's grace and live a life of holiness. Granted, this is something that is difficult, however, we are greatly assisted in the endeavor through the grace of the Sacraments as well as through numerous approved pious and popular devotions.

...as it returns to its previous standing as an institution for women.

Fugitive update: irony, providence or both?

The Fugitive and I are talking again, thank God. It looks like we will be friends after all. I have a bit more to post on this later but I will leave you with this amazing fact that I was totally unaware of last week: we were on our way to the church where she was Baptized. What a wonderful homecoming that could have been. It may yet be. I'm praying for that, to be sure.

Jury clears man who shot priest he accused of abuse

A sympathetic jury cleared a man of most charges in the shooting of a priest who he said abused him as a teenager.

Sympathetic indeed. The jury acquitted Dontee Stokes of the attempted murder of Rev. Maurice Blackwell. A forensic psychiatrist Dr. Michael Spodak, testified via video tape that Stokes was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder when he shot Blackwell.

Stokes testified that he didn't intend to harm Blackwell when he confronted him. But he said that when Blackwell brushed him off, memories of abuse flooded back.

If he didn't intend to harm Rev. Blackwell why was he packing heat? The article mentions nothing about whether or not he felt he had to defend himself or the circumstances surrounding their meeting. I won't defend the indefensible crime of abusing children, but this case unfortunately sets a precedent for victims who wish to take the law into their own hands. Of course a jury is going to be sympathetic to a victim of abuse, even alleged abuse. Of course a jury will think the vitctim-turned-perp has emotional or psychological damage as a result. Perhaps this is justice, I just hope it doesn't become a justification for vegeance.

That was a friend's question today as he sent me a Globe article about cohabiting couples who negotiate and sign legally binding contracts to regulate the consequences of their potential breakup. These agreements aren't pre-nuptial, since the pairs don't plan to marry, so what shall we call them: peri-nuptial? para-nuptial?

He wrote: This is weird. If you want to go through this much effort, why not just get married? What is it about marriage that causes these people to try to replicate it while vociferously rejecting it?

Here's a sample of the article, presented in the usual Globean glow of approval that left-liberalism confers on every new manifestation of abnormality:

In just about every way, Deborah Zysman and Dan Gluck have a near-marriage.

Both 26, they have lived together in Cambridge for four years, and they've been a couple for nearly twice that long. They share bank accounts and jointly plan to buy a house. With flowers and gourmet meals, each year they honor their ''anniversary,'' pegged to their first date.

They are also about to borrow a concept from the annals of modern marriage: They want a prenuptial agreement - without the nuptials.

''Of course, we will each have our own lawyer,'' Zysman said, lovingly, to Gluck.

As America's cohabitation rates soar, live-in couples are increasingly drafting legal documents to clarify their financial arrangements if they split up. While married people can rely on divorce laws, the nation's 11 million unmarried same-sex or heterosexual couples don't have a similar rule book to follow.

To fill this legal void, more couples are viewing cohabitation agreements as a smart alternative, a way to offer legal protections for each other - and from each other. And the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, in two key rulings recently, found these documents valid and enforceable.

Zysman and Gluck point out that casual lovers don't put their relationship in writing, so they see their desire for a cohabitation agreement as a sign of their ''serious bonds.'' They don't believe a wedding ceremony is needed to show their commitment to each other.

I should note an exception to my statement above. One of the couples cited as an example in the article does "share...two children". But as you might expect with the Globe, it's a case of "Heather Has Two Mommies".

May the farce be with you

There ought to be a name for the phenomenon I'm about to describe -- let's call it the "Buyer's Endorse." It's when you have committed time and money to something that sucks, but since you've just devoted those resources, you convince yourself that it was worthwhile.

My brother lent me the DVD of "Attack of the Clones" on Thanksgiving, and my wife Paige and I finally got around to seeing it this weekend. I saw it last summer, and afterwards, the warm glow of the Buyer's Endorse clung to my body like a moist, warm blanket. Or maybe that was sweat, because it was summertime in northern Virginia. Either way, I thought I liked it.

Now that I've seen it again, I realize how much the movie sucked. Part of this is because Paige kept making snide (and fair) comments about the movie; part of it was because I kept comparing it to "The Phantom Menace," whose plot, you will recall, turned on some sort of intergalactic trade dispute. (Nothing like a trade dispute to get the blood running! When you're having a boring day at the office, don't you think of the NAFTA negotiations to put a spring back in your step?)

Were "Clones" not part of the Star Wars marketing phenomenon, it would have gone straight to video after a short, ignominious run at the box office. Once again, the plot is inscrutable: something about that trade dispute turning ugly again, and rebellious guilds, and a crucial vote to restore order to the galaxy. I defy anyone to explain it adequately in fewer than 50 words. Yet for all of its complexity, the dramatic tension of the plot is almost wholly about protecting Senator Amidala (Natalie Portman) from getting murdered. From the opening scene to the climactic battle, the Jedi and the other forces of light

Why is she so important? Well, her character is demographically important because she draws girls to the theater. And for the last quarter of the movie, the bottom half of her tight-fitting white outfit is torn off, producing images that will inhabit the imaginations of young teenage boys for years to come. But other than as a cynical marketing ploy, we never see why the fate of the universe hangs on her very existence. Every once in a while, the script has the characters spew outbursts of gibberish having to do with "democracy" and the importance of the "republic," but in a real democracy no individual is supposed to be indispensable. And while we're on the breathtakingly dumb politics of "Clones," in the last movie Amidala was a queen, but now she's been appointed a senator because her two monarchical terms have expired. A term-limited queen! On a planet that belongs to a republic! Don't any of the offices at Lucasfilm have a dictionary? Did anyone think to look up the meanings of the words they're using?

This is a manifestation of a reversion to pre-modern drama. Before the Shakespeare, audiences accepted the existence of evil and needed no explanation as to why it was evil. Shakespeare attempted to probe the psychological roots of evil, without disputing its existence. Today, in movies like "Clones," they don't even bother to explain why evil people do what they do. So the folks in league with the Dark Side don't just feed the doe-eyed senator to one of the many hideous, man-eating creatures that populate the Star Wars universe. No, they throw Amidala and her two Jedi protectors into an arena so several man-eating creatures can attack and kill them with plenty of witnesses. Why? Well, it's a convention in the movies that bad guys never kill good guys outright, they have to kill them slowly so the good guys can escape.

Wittgenstein, the Austrian philosopher, loved to watch Westerns in his spare time. People would ask why a man of his powerful, probing intellect would enjoy such slight entertainment. It's simple, Wittgenstein explained: "There are the good guys, and there are the bad guys." The original "Star Wars" was successful because it tapped into that primordial desire for earthly justice -- to see evil men frustrated by a band of intrepid warriors. From all appearances, George Lucas believes that people watched that shallow, flawed movie because it had great special effects and imaginative extraterrestrials. George, you'd do well to leave your ranch and meet non-movie-industry-related people if you want to start making good movies again.

Circulating on the net:

The Lord and I are in a sheep-shepherd relationship, and I am in a position of negative need.
He prostrates me in a green-belt grazing area.
He conducts me directionally parallel to non-torrential aqueous liquid.
He returns to original satisfaction levels my psychological makeup.
He switches me on to a positive behavioral format for maximal prestige of His identity.
It should indeed be said that notwithstanding the fact that I make ambulatory progress through the umbragious inter-hill mortality slot, terror sensations will not be initiated in me due to para-ethical phenomena.
Your pastoral walking aid and quadruped pickup unit introduce me into a pleasurific mood state.
You design and produce a nutriment-bearing furniture-type structure in the context of non-cooperative elements.
You act out a head-related folk ritual employing vegetable extract.
My beverage utensil experiences a volume crisis.
It is an ongoing deducible fact that your inter-relational empathetical and non-vengeful capabilities will retain me as their target-focus for the duration of my non-death period, and I will possess tenant rights in the housing unit of the Lord on a permanent, open-ended time basis.

Funny?

Not exactly. Satirical? I don't think so. It's Bill Garner's cartoon today in the Washington Times. I'd post it here but I don't want to get in a tiff with Eric's employer. In it the Holy Father is dragging Cardinal Law by the ear to a doghouse. On the doghouse are the words "Thine Doghouse." It just doesn't speak about Cardinal Law's resignation or the crisis in Boston with any insight. Then again, it's just a cartoon.

Reform, Marine-style

In the 1970s, the Marine Corps was on the fast track to ruin. In many units, discipline was lax or broken. Young lieutenants would party with their subordinates, and smoked pot with them before training. Fights and racial tensions were even higher than in the '50s and '60s. By almost any measure, recruits entering the service were substandard. If these conditions persisted, it would have meant the end of the Corps.

Far more than the other services, the Marines are theoretically unnecessary to America's defense. The Air Force has planes, and the Army has ground troops and artillery, but the sole reason the Marines still exist is because of its culture, the cause of its unique record of success. (The Corps has never been defeated in a battle -- ever.)

With that culture disintegrating, a group of officers, almost all of them Vietnam veterans, decided that they had had enough. Generally, they were mid-level officers who were not about to see their Corps go down without a fight. To my knowledge, they created no institutions and formed no cabals; there was simply a common agreement that reform had to happen, and quickly.

Though their reforms did not happen overnight, in bureaucratic terms the changes happened rapidly. Drug users were identified through a rigorous testing program and kicked out. Other malcontents were unceremoniously removed. New recruits were held to higher educational and behavioral standards. Most importantly, the rank-and-file Marines began to police their own more than they had been, stopping dishonorable actions and encouraging martial virtues at the lowest level. These reforms were part of the general rehabilitation of the U.S. military in the 1980s, but the Corps was particularly successful. Though the other services have had intermittent problems attracting new recruits, the Marines have not missed a recruiting quota for two decades.

The Catholic Church in America has been experiencing a crisis similar to the Marines a generation ago. Because she is unsupported by taxes, she could theoretically disappear. Because of the protracted internal war after Vatican II, large swaths of the Church have been corrupted by worldly (and netherworldly) influences. Yet there are still plenty of people who care about her, and who will not let her die in our country.

The "current crisis" in our Church will end when enough bishops and priests decide they have had enough, and undertake reforms similar to the Marines: raise standards and kick out the main troublemakers. I have heard commentators -- including people I trust -- say that it will take a generation or two for the Church to recover. Nonsense. The goal should not be recovery, but purity and a renewed sense of mission; there is no reason we can't turn things around by the end of the decade, or at least get a big start on it. Maybe it will take dozens of years for the Church to regain its former influence (an influence that was hardly overwhelming or universally accepted, mind you). I have no way of knowing. But there is no reason to proceed slowly, and no reason not to begin right now.

A suggestion for a first step: fire the people who caused the recent problems -- those who publicly dissent from Catholic sexual morality. Immediately.

Refined Jambalaya

This year, you may be having people over to your house for a Christmas feast or a New Years' bacchanal, and the question in the back of your mind is: how can I feed the most amount of people for the least amount of effort and cost? Let me propose to you this recipe for jambalaya, which I've refined over the years. I don't propose it as the definitive version, merely as one that I've been working on for a long time. (So by "refined" I don't mean that it's a fancy dish, because it isn't.)

Before I was married, I made big pots of jambalaya and froze the excess quantities in Mason jars, which I would eat for weeks thereafter. I got the original recipe from my Grandma Jane, who with my grandfather used to live in Louisiana for a while. If you omit the shrimp, it’s pretty cheap, and the flavors are nothing short of spectacular. A bowl of it will fill your belly nicely, and its moderate amount of fat won’t increase your belly’s permanent size.

If you’re not familiar with jambalaya, it’s a Louisiana specialty that is made many different ways. At its most basic, it is sautéed vegetables and meat with rice. It can have a tomato-based sauce or a stock-based sauce; this version uses both. The meats lend themselves to substitution: people will use oysters or crawfish instead of (or in addition to) shrimp, and ham for the sausage, or duck for the chicken...anything you like, or anything that’s available.

To eat the leftovers, cover a bowl full of jambalaya with a plate to make sure it doesn’t dry out. Or don’t, if it’s moist enough to lose a little water in the process.

4 c. onions, chopped
2 c. green onions (including tops), chopped
1 c. green peppers, chopped
1 c. celery, chopped
¼-½ c. fresh parsley, minced
½ c. butter (one stick)
16 oz. canned diced tomatoes
8 oz. canned tomato sauce
12 oz. tomato paste
1 tbsp. basil (if dried; 2 tbsp. if fresh)
1 tbsp. oregano (if dried; 2 tbsp. if fresh)
4 med. cloves garlic, minced
2 lbs. sausage (can be kielbasa, andouille, or whatever you like)
2 lbs. chicken meat
1 ½ lbs. large frozen shrimp, peeled and deveined
3 c. long-grain white rice
8 c. stock or broth
Tabasco to taste

1. Roast or bake the chicken before commencing; leftover chicken is fine, as long as it’s not too highly seasoned.

2. Heat butter in a large stockpot (at least 12 quarts) until it has stopped frothing.

3. Throw in the onions, green onions, peppers, celery, and parsley, and sauté until onions are semi-transparent.

4. Add tomatoes, tomato paste, and tomato sauce, along with oregano, basil, and garlic. Stir until well-mixed.

5. Add rice and stock. Bring to a boil.

6. Reduce heat, but keep an energetic simmer going. Let a substantial amount of the liquid evaporate. How much liquid is up to you – if you like a thicker jambalaya, then let more liquid evaporate. Regardless, don’t let the liquid get below the top of the ingredients. Stir frequently.

7. When you like the amount of liquid you see, add the shrimp and the chicken. Cover pot tightly, reduce heat to low, and let it cook for 45 minutes. Resist the urge to uncover the pot, as it may cause your rice to cook unevenly. Cook longer if the rice isn’t done.

8. Stir in a few shakes of Tabasco or other seasonings.

9. Serve in bowls along with salad and good bread, or maybe biscuits. Jambalaya will stay hot in a covered pot for an astonishing amount of time, but take it off the heat or the rice will get mushy, and nobody likes that.

Choir Mayhem

During today's gathering hymn, I noticed one of the bass's fly was down. Not only that, his white shirt tail was having a liberation party. I had to ask one of the tenors to turn around and let him know that Mr. White was out of jail. Problem discretely taken care of, the rest of the Mass proceded without incident.

I've learned another valuable lesson this week

It is: don't ask the newly-ordained Baptist minister at work any questions about politics, religion, or anything else for that matter. I saw he was reading "Revelation Unveiled" by Tim Lahaye of the "Left Behind" series fortune and fame. (No linked provided for Lahaye's book because I don't think Catholics should be reading it.)

"What do you think of that book?" I asked. Forty-five minutes later my guardian angel tapped me on the shoulder to tell me my lunch break was over and I'd better get back to work before I committed any more sins against charity. He didn't look happy.

The Reverend had assailed me with a heaping pile of garbage about the "Book of Revelations," the end-times, the Rapture. "There is going to be a great chastisement during which time all non-believers will be chaste. But I'm not worried, I don't plan to be here for the tribulation," he said.

"You believe in dispensationalism?" I asked.

"No, what I am saying is that Christ is going to come back, all the believers are going to be caught up with him, and then everyone who is left behind is going to be tribulated."

Tribulated. If I had laughed out loud it would have knocked over all our modular office furniture. I think my lip quivered for a second. Reverend might have noticed.

As that singularly hilarious moment passed he spoke about how he believes the Holy Spirit is going to leave the Earth during the tribulation but there will still be an opportunity for salvation if those left behind accept Christ.

"What about what Jesus said, 'I am with you always, until the end of the age.'?" I asked.

"Well see that's only for the believers." he replied.

"The ones who won't be tribulated?"

"Yeah, them."

Yow. Don't just pray for our preachers, pray for other Christian preachers as well.

Silent retreat

Steve Mattson, St. Blog's seminarian, hung up his mouse this week. We'll miss him! Let's remember to pray for him and all other holies-in-training.

John J. Myers has written some instructive pastoral letters in the year and a half that he has been Archbishop of Newark.

In December 2001, he wrote about "the Church as communion", and starting from that concept addressed numerous important matters that are often misunderstood. I'll mark some of his points in color:

The relationship between the local church and the universal church
18. The Church as communion is experienced by her members as they gather together in particular places. Each bishop is entrusted with the care and protection of a portion of God's people called a diocese. Each diocese can also be referred to as a particular church, and all particular churches are part of the one Church of Christ. In each, the Council teaches, "the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of Christ is truly present and active" (Christus Dominus 11). We would be mistaken, however, to assume that the universal Church is somehow a federation, or simply the sum, of particular Churches. The universal Church already existed before communities of believers were formed in particular places. Pope John Paul II has described the relationship between the particular church and the universal Church as one of "mutual interiority," a shared intimacy like that which exists among the persons of the Trinity. Mutual interiority might also describe the relationship of husband and wife or expectant mother and child. It can even describe the way that Jesus abides in us and we in Him when we receive Him in Holy Communion.

19. For the particular church to be "church" in the fullest sense of that term, it along with the bishop, must be in full communion with the Holy Father. In other words, the community of believers must be of one mind and heart (cf. Acts 4:32). The Holy Father should be seen as part of every particular church, a vital member of the family. [...]

The relationship of parishes and other institutions with the local church
21. It is not through membership in a parish that we belong to the local Church, but by being members of the Archdiocese. Parishes and other institutions (hospitals, schools, Newman centers, etc.) in any particular church function as intermediaries between individual believers and families. They exist to serve men and women as well as the common good of the local church. Thus, they do not have the same status as particular churches. The diocese is the local expression of the universal Church. Parishes and other institutions can therefore be founded, merged, or retired as required by the needs of the diocesan family. We must always take care to avoid the kind of parochialism that would isolate us from the larger diocesan community and the Church universal.

22. This does not mean that we relate to the institutions of the Church in a purely objective way. Ask any fan of Seton Hall University! Or consult your own experience, as have I. A small parish dedicated to St. Teresa of Avila in the rural Illinois town of Earlville is very dear to my heart and I know that major changes there would hurt me personally. [...]

Can't I live a relationship with God apart from the Church?
31. All creation enjoys some form of relationship with God, for God sustains all things in existence. But this impersonal way of relating to Him is not what God wants for us. Instead, God wants us to know Him from within His own life, not from the outside or at a distance. Jesus came to bridge the gap that separated the human family from God, and to provide for us - through His flesh and blood - a way to be in the Father's life. While anyone living an upright life according to the demands of conscience is in a relationship with the God of creation, such a relationship remains partial. [...]

What if I disagree with the Church?
37. There are many things about which reasonable Catholics -in good faith- can and do disagree. People have different tastes when it comes to art, music, and architecture. Within reasonable limits these disagreements are not wrong. Rather, they can be fruitful expressions of legitimate diversity within a local community as well as within our Archdiocese.

38. There can also exist within local communities disagreements regarding liturgical norms and the implementation of canon law. These disagreements sometimes touch on matters of faith. But, even when they do not, justice and discipline call for adherence to them for the common good. The liturgical rubrics of the universal Church provide for a wide range of options. It would be unjust for any community or person to impose a practice upon the people of God that violates liturgical norms. The liturgy is meant to bring us together and should never be a cause of division. Authentic communion is harmed when liturgical norms are ignored and our common act of worship is used to make a statement or to express discontent.

His most recent letter, given this week, responds in a way to the current church scandal by teaching about the sacredness of the human body, including the Catholic vision of sexuality.

Clarification Concerning Lane Core, Jr.

Over on The Blog from the Core, Lane Core writes: "Pete Vere, blogging at Catholic Light, seems to agree with my assessment of the term 'previous condition'". Just to clarify (since I needed a pretext to plug Lane's blog, which is one of my favorites), I agree with your assessment Lane!

``It's an awfully sad day,'' [Fr. John] Ahearn said of Law's resignation. ``Maybe a necessary day but a sad day, because I think the cardinal did a lot of good. What I didn't expect is when I said the Mass this morning, it was the first time in 17 years I didn't mention the cardinal's name in the Eucharistic prayer, and I actually did get very emotional and I began to cry.''

Law quits, pope accepts

First one to post the news! Ha!

Feast of our Lady of Guadalupe homily

I actually heard a priest say if you ever want to get into a fight with a Mexican you can make fun of his mother, his sister, or Our Lady of Gualdalupe.

We've got your number, Nihil.

We're coming for you.

I agree with Mrs. Shea!

I've spent the last couple of days sleeping off a flu and catching up on email, so I apologize to Mark and others who asked for not weighing in sooner on this subject. Basically, it involves a Boston reporter who is trying to spin the situation in order to lay the blame on Rome. Anyway, Mark Shea provides the background to this controversy along with the general opinion of his lovely wife at the following URL: From the "Must. Get. Scoop!" Department of Snap Judgments

Mark, I've read this over a couple times, and while I'm not exactly sure what to make of it (without the entire context of the letter I'm guessing at snippets) I also tend to agree with your wife. From what I'm able to understand, it appears that this order is being given on the assumption that the priest has been defrocked.

In short, it appears that this applies not to a priest in active ministry, but a priest who has now been reduced to the lay state that is being asked to "to live away from the place where his previous condition is known." Notice how it does not specify "parish" but "place", which would imply town, county, region or local geographical area. This is standard in these cases. Subsequently, the Holy Father then states: "The local [superior] . . . is able to dispense from this clause of the decree if it is foreseen that the presence of the suppliant will cause no scandal."

Basically, as your wife points out, the context seems to be that the abuser-priest has been reduced to the lay state, and can therefore no longer exercise ministry. (Although I would assume in keeping with canonical tradition that certain restrictive exceptions are made when there is danger of death -- ie the defrocked priest comes across someone dying in an auto
accident on the side of the road.)

I should also point out that this is a standard request when a priest is reduced to the lay state, regardless of the reason for the reduction to the lay state, or whether or not the reduction is voluntary on the part of the priest. Thus I would assume that the word "his condition", in keeping with canonical Tradition, refers to his laicization, and not to the crime which led to his laicization. Again, this is pretty standard canonical jargon when a priest is laicized.

Nevertheless, the local ordinary charged with executing the decree is given the option of dispensing from the clause requiring the defrocked priest to move away, if it is forseen that no scandal will arise. For example, unlike a small town where everyone knowns everybody, this is not possible. On the other hand, Boston is a large enough city where a laicized priest can just lose himself in the crowd and attend a parish across town without anyone ever having known he was priest. He can then live out his faith in the pew as a simple Catholic, without engaging in any ministry and without anyone ever knowing he was once a priest.

My last word on the Fugitive unless something good happens

I sincerely appreciate all the comments we've received in the past few days over this issue with the Fugitive. I appreciate most of all your prayers for her because I know she needs them. I can't thank you enough. Please keep them coming, she needs them. Fr. James Poumade was kind enough to offer his perspective via Eric. Father, you have a standing invitation to join the Catholic Light team any time you wish. You presence would not only be welcomed, it would be an objective ontological improvement to our content. We might even be able to block access from the Chancery in Arlington if that would help!

After thinking quite a bit about this I realized that in telling her not to receive Communion I had two principal motivators: first, I didn't want to do anything, by action or inaction, that would dishonor our Lord. Second, I didn't want her to do anything that would be bad for her soul. I thought about how to advise her not to receive Communion when she mentioned her desire to go to Mass a few days earlier, and I honestly believed she would accept my words because of the trust we shared. In saying what I did I stepped on a emotional landmine. It has cost us our friendship, which I deeply regret, and it might cost even more. She may never set foot in a Catholic church again. Perhaps she might do so after this has incident has receded from her memory. I can't say. She may remember and be drawn to the peace she spoke of when she was quiet before the Blessed Sacrament. She has told me that she went to the chapel of a church near her home rather regularly and found solace there. "It's because God is there," I said. "In body, blood, soul, and divinity." I remember her nodding as if she was accepting that but didn't fully understand it. She told me she wanted to go to Mass because she was looking for answers. I should have said, "You'll find the answer there." The answer, as Peter Kreeft has said in his book Making Sense out of Suffering is not an statement, but a person. The person of Jesus Christ is the answer to our brokeness, our restlessness, our suffering, our pain, our anxiety, and our sin. Why does God let bad things happen to good people? He let it all happen to Himself to show us He is the answer, to show us how deep His love is for us, and to show us the way home.

I thought she might be able to understand that in a small way if she just went to one Mass. I could have given her directions to the Church, let her go, and discussed it with her afterwards. I decided to go with her, to bring a missal so that she could read the prayers, and to support her. It didn't happen the way I hoped it would. In fact, it has been an absolute disaster. I have lost a friend I valued very much. I think if everyone in the world knew her this would be a better place. She really is that special. If you could see her smile or hear her laugh you would understand. There is tremendous joy in her and so much pain, so much yearning for God. I really thought she might have been slowly turning a corner. Perhaps when this is all behind us she will. Perhaps all this pain is causing it. I don't know. But I do trust in God who santicfies our suffering even when we don't know the purpose of it or why we are enduring it.

Thanks again for your thoughts and prayers.

Injured WV man survives in wilderness, thanks to Border Sauce.

Pro-gay left-wing pacifist Call-To-Action bishop Thomas Gumbleton is in town offering his opinions.

"I think if I were in that position I would certainly say I must resign. Any bishop would know that if the people have lost confidence in [his] leadership I can't lead," said Bishop Thomas Gumbleton.

Ahem, your Excellency, don't you think this might apply to you too? The Catholic faithful lost confidence in your leadership -- oh, back around 1980.

Stanford University reignited the debate over the use of stem cells when a top scientist said the school intended to experiment with nuclear transfer technology, an effort many consider to be cloning.

''Our avowed goal is to advance science,'' said Stanford medical professor Dr. Irving Weissman, who will direct the school's stem cell effort. ''For any group to stay out of the action and wait for someone else to do it because of political reasons is wrong.''

Nobel laureate and Stanford professor Paul Berg, when asked at the news conference if nuclear transfer and cloning were the same, he had a two-word response: ''It is.''

He added. ''We use the word cloning in science as a term to describe the production of many copies of a starting material.''

Maybe it's time to re-read That Hideous Strength.

Off-topic: Dom Bettinelli correctly sizes up the fuss over Sen. Trent Lott's praise for Strom Thurmond.

What to say to a Mass-bound fallen-away Catholic, con'd.

Fr. James Poumade, regular visitor to Catholic Light, diocesan priest of Arlington, Va., and future godfather of our pending baby, weighs in on Sal's dilemma.

As a priest and a moral theologian, I can say without a single shred of doubt in my mind whatsoever that Sal did the right thing. There are a few operative principles here:

Scandal, in the moral sense, meaning something that leads one into sin. Lessening someone's reverence for the Eucharist in order to make them feel welcome is not a good way to restore them to the right practice of the faith. It teaches people that the Church's teaching and respect for Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament can be discarded when they make people feel bad.

Additionally, people who hear of the situation from her may get the idea that missing Mass, etc., is not a mortal sin. We already have enough Catholics of that persuasion.

It is true that we do not know if she would have committed a mortal sin, subjectively. Depending on her level of knowledge, she may well still have committed a venial sin. Anyone who says, "Oh well, it's just a venial sin," needs to take a good long look at his own conscience before he starts throwing stones at Sal. The Sacraments should bring grace, not cause sin, which would likely have been the case here. Even if no sin was imputed because of total ignorance, she still would not have received any sacramental or sanctifying grace. That is a misuse of the Sacraments, which is not spiritually healthy for anyone.

More to the point, yes, it's possible that subjectively Sal couldn't know whether or not it was a mortal sin for her. That is precisely why he HAD to stop her from receiving. All we can do in that case, since we don't read souls, is to go by the objective reality of the situation. Objectively it would be a mortal sin.

So out of love for that soul and for Jesus Christ, he had to say what he did. If you see someone innocently about to set fire to a building, you don't tell yourself he probably doesn't know that it's wrong and keep going.

Now, some seem to think that any mention of confession or of not receiving is harsh. I would agree if it were done in an arrogant or severe manner. But that doesn't seem to be the case here. Instead, gently, lovingly and patiently, this is a perfect chance to explain the doctrine of the Real Presence, the beauty of Christ's love in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and why, for love's sake, we need to get our spiritual houses in order before we can receive Him.

Why did the Fugitive cry? I have no way of knowing - and neither did Sal. Perhaps her tears actually signal the start of a painful but necessary healing process. ("And you, My disciples, will you also leave?") Perhaps they don't at all. Either way, Sal did what a Catholic should do, and most likely in the manner that it should have been done.

Now we can say that it's between her soul and God.

Would I have denied her Communion if she approached me? If a Catholic comes to me in the Communion line, I am not allowed to refuse him in most circumstances. But I can and do approach people with "issues" before and after Mass, which is what Sal did. For example, I can't refuse Ted Kennedy if he comes up. But I can tell him before Mass not to receive, or suggest after Mass that he really should see me in the confessional.

The Archdiocese of Cologne has an attractive Advent calendar on the web. Here's today's entry:

Too much good. God is radiant. He shares with us. He shines around us.

But we're afraid of him. We don't know how to interpret him. To take in the good. After all, who can. Mistrust runs deep in us. Better to give more than we take. We want to be on the safe side, and have some good.

With God the rules are different. We're still learning them. Be not afraid. --Mechthild Hüsch

The ranters and ravers calling daily for Cardinal Law's resignation -- from VOTF to 45 diocesan priests (out of 900) to Mark Shea -- seem to have forgotten that the Vatican doesn't jump to respond to public pressure. And while all this hub-bub is new to Americans, it's old hat to Rome, because they went through similar pressure campaigns a few years ago from the German and Austrian "We Are Church" movement. And in that case Rome did then what it's doing now: a bishop accused personally of sexual misconduct resigned, and otherwise... not much happened all that quickly.

You're welcome!

I guess my only response to Pete's comment below is "you're welcome," though I play a teeny, tiny role in America's defense. There are plenty of other ways to defend freedom: speak out for justice, protect the weak, learn why freedom is precious, and teach others to love it. That should be a good start. Don't think the defense of freedom is something you can "outsource" to a few people in the military. It's your job, too. Find your little role, and fulfill it.

This message first posted with a spelling error, but was corrected quickly before Nihil Obstat found out.

Say Thank-You To Our Troops

Todd Reitmeyer sends along this wonderful website which has already garnered 2.2 million signatures: Thank-You For Defending Our Freedom. I have already signed it (there was even I nice box where I could mark "Canada"), but won't say much more, since I feel this is a topic more appropriate for our resident reservist Eric Johnson to comment upon.

Fugitive update: Where's my crash helmet?

Thanks all of you for your thoughtful comments. Though we don't seem to have a concensus, I appear to be somewhere between a saint and a Pharisee. I haven't decided if what I did was right or wrong. To judge it by the result I can see, it was wrong. It is far worse than I feared. I've pushed her away from me and from the Church, that much is clear. I doubt we will ever be friends again. That's pretty hard to take. Please pray for me and pray for her.

Listen. Today I went to daily Mass at the church we planned to go to yesterday. I was sitting behind two women who appeared to be in their 30's. One looked like a regular, the other looked like a fish out of water. During the Our Father the regular had her hands in the orans position and after a few seconds reached down and grabbed the hand of fish out of water. At Communion time the regular was trying to pursuade fish out of water to follow her. She didn't go. How ironic.

If my life was a book I would re-write these last two days. I can't go back but I can trust that God can turn my garbage into gold.

"Infants Now Murdered As Often As Teens"

On the social progress front, infants are now being murdered as often as teenagers. No, they aren't joining gangs or running drugs, but for some reason people, mostly parents and family members, think they can get rid of babies when they don't want them. This has been going on for about 30 years, according to this report. I'm trying to think of a social development 30 years ago...also connected to babies...that may have something to do with this....

(Hint: it's waaaay down there at the bottom of the article, third paragraph from the end.)

Bombay is dbomb

I was looking for some information on Bombay, India, and noticed that Catholic-Hierarchy.org's page on the Archdiocese of Bombay is called "dbomb" (full address: http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/diocese/dbomb.html). I thought that was pretty funny. Okay, mildly funny.

Readers of John Mallon's Media Watch will not want to miss his recent appearance on local TV news (RealPlayer required) commenting on the clash of styles between the bishops and Gov. Keating's committee.

Check the family tree

Trent Lott, the Senate Majority Leader with fantastic hair, made a dumb comment last weekend about how if Strom Thurmond had won the presidency in 1948, we wouldn't have had any problems. It's the kind of innocuous thing that people say at formal occasions that no one is expected to believe. Well, people did some checking, and they found out that Strom was a segregationist a half-century ago (as was practically every other Southern politician). Now, the Hymietown Rhymer has called on Lott to resign, and former Vice President Algore (D-Sequoia National Forest) wants Lott censured by the Senate.

Leaving aside the Rhymer...no, wait, I won't leave him aside. Lott should, according to Jesse Jackson, leave public life because he made a dumb comment, the implications of which he certainly did not mean. Jesse himself shouldn't leave public life for cheating on his wife, fathering an illegitimate child, and using money from one of his "charities" to hush things up. Calling New York "Hymietown" in an unguarded moment when he didn't know he was being taped wasn't enough to shame him from public life, either.

My real reason for posting is Algore, though. He says Lott's statement "is divisive and it is divisive along racial lines." He ought to know about senators sending strange signals on race: his daddy did the same thing. Though he was known as a "progressive" senator, the elder Sen. Algore voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. His defenders say that this was one blemish on an otherwise impressive record, but that happened to be the most important piece of civil rights legislation since Reconstruction, and he opposed it to get himself re-elected.

P.S. Everybody knows about Algore the Younger and his record of moving from pro-life to pro-abortion and all the other issues, but has anyone read or seen the new book from the Gores? The one about how "family" is anything you want it to be? I saw it at Border's the other day, but I didn't pick it up because my wife hates it when I get mad during a nice evening together.

Fugitive update: I am a complete idiot

Take me now, Lord, before I turn anyone else away from the Catholic Church! The first thing the fugitive said when I walked in the door today was "Let's go to Mass at lunch." I couldn't believe it. I was unspeakably glad and excited for her to be returning to Mass after so long. In the car ride over to a church in the area and I attempted to explain to her why she shouldn't receive communion. I could not have dreamed a thousand bad dreams that would have been matched the reality of how badly it went after that. It was so bad I don't even know if we're going to be friends any more. She pulled the car over and just started crying. She wouldn't talk about it. She just wanted to go home. I must have dredged up bad feelings and memories that were the reason she turned away from the Church to the begin with. There was nothing I could do or say that would make her feel better.

I appreciate the help of our readers and my fellow bloggers who responded over the weekend. I was really hoping this was going to be a turning point. It seems I have just pushed her away even more. I don't know if I did the right thing by telling her she shouldn't receive the Eucharist. I don't know if it would have still been bad for her soul if she didn't know it was bad for her soul, or if she didn't know she was doing something wrong. Pray for her, please.

I am going to take a cue from St. Francis not use words the next time I share the Gospel.

Simple apologetical advice

Sal asks below about how to talk to someone about returning to Catholicism. I don't know exactly what to do in that particular situation, but I can offer the piece of apologetical advice that I find most useful: smile. When discussing the Faith with others, I used to be serious, almost deadly serious. It was such a contrast to my normally affable demeanor that I think it threw people for a loop. Now, whenever the subject of religion comes up, I don't change my tone and I talk about Catholicism like any other subject. It defuses any tensions, and I've been surprised at what I can get away with saying -- a light touch can make the most difficult of subjects seem palatable.

If you believe that deep down, everyone wants to embrace and live the truth, you have only to show it to them. This is a way of saying that you're not doing anyone a favor by withholding an uncomfortable truth. Yes, Jesus revealed the Gospel to the Apostles slowly, but he did not hesitate to warn people if they were endangering their souls. Even though a person might not be committing a sin because of ignorance by receiving the Eucharist unworthily, gently pointing her in the right direction is the right thing to do.

From my own experience, I never resented anyone telling me that I could not receive the Eucharist before I formally entered the Church, or that I should go to confession beforehand. If the Fugitive gets upset by a reminder about confession, maybe she's not ready yet. Not knowing her mind, I don't know for certain, but she'll probably react better than you think she would.

Please let us know what happens, Sal -- if she does re-enter the Church, I think we should all welcome her back. I'll keep her and all other fallen-away Catholics in my prayers. They know not what they left.

While protest turnout (12/8) failed to meet expectations, archdiocesan spokesman Donna Morrissey confirmed that the Cardinal was at the Vatican. Speculation proceeds as to whether he's asking permission to declare bankruptcy (and simplify the awarding of damages to abuse victims) or to step down.

Globe:

Yesterday, a group of Boston priests began circulating a draft letter calling on Law to resign. In the letter, a copy of which was obtained by the Globe, the priests would praise Law for his many positive contributions to Boston, but say ''the events of recent months and, in particular, of these last few days, make it clear to us that your position as our bishop is so compromised that it is no longer possible for you to exercise the spiritual leadership required for the church of Boston.'' A priest who is helping to circulate the letter said that the group hopes to gather 50 signatures before delivering the letter to Law. Some priests are reluctant to support the letter either because of fear or because they believe it is inappropriate.

While several priests have individually urged Law to step down, no group of clerics had yet done so. Stephen Pope, chair of the Theology Department at Boston College, a Jesuit university, has said that any collective call by priests for Law to resign would signal "open revolt" in the archdiocese.

What Every Priest Should Know
Post-Dallas/Washington and Violations of Due Process

After a week at a canon law conference in Biloxi, and a weekend in Miami to discuss some projects with Pat Madrid, I'm finally back at the computer and Catholic Light. I had intended to blog on the following topic as soon as I got back, and as I opened the email messages that accumulated during my absence, I discovered that one of my Catholic Light teamates was hoping that I would blog on this subject as well. So here goes... Basically, here's what a number of canonists have been able to assemble as sort of a canonical equivalent to Miranda Rights, based upon current jurisprudence and practice of the Holy See, as well as observation from the ground level, although admittedly it is still pretty much a work in progress

First of all, and this is sad to say, if you're falsely accused, don't give any statement to your Bishop, your religious superior, and especially not to any member of the board without first talking to a civil lawyer and a canon lawyer -- specifically one who is not employed by your diocese or religious institute. If the diocese tries to pressure you, insist upon your right to civil and canonical representation, and insist upon the presence of your civil and canon lawyer when giving any statement.

Secondly, you cannot be compelled to testify against yourself.

Thirdly, you cannot be compelled to undergo psychological or psychiatric evaluation, not even under pain of obedience, and especially of the more intrusive kind.

Fourthly, you have the right to insist upon the presence of a priest, as well as the Promoter of Justice, before any review board.

Fifth, no penalty in this process, especially of a perpetual kind, can be imposed by administrative decree. Insist upon a judicial process.

Sixth, if you have previously undergone any psychiatric or psychological treatment, these records cannot be used in a judicial process without your consent.

Fugitive news!

Readers of this blog have seen posts on another coworker of mine who used to be a practicing Catholic but fell away from the faith during college. She told me she is a fugitive from the Church so in this venue I refer to her as "The Fugitive." She recently told me she wants to go to Mass. What can you tell someone like her about the Mass that would help her understand how awesome it is? How do you tell someone who hasn't been to Mass in years not to receive the Eucharist without going to Confession? Would you recommend I don't say anything and let God handle it?

Thanks for the help!

Christianity as fig leaf

A coworker told me about a sermon he heard once about why there are so many Christian denominations. It boiled down to this: after Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit they covered themselves with fig leaves because they knew they were naked and didn't want to be ashamed before God. Each Christian denomination is a fig leaf a believer puts on so that he or she won't be ashamed in the sight of God. He was smiling why he was telling me this as though it was so illuminating everyone should hear it. I wasn't quite sure what to say. I suppose I could have said, "Christ is has one body, not tens of thousands." That would have been too adversarial. Perhaps I should have said that we as Christians don't worship out of shame, we worship out of love and adoration for God. Or going even further with the clothing or covering analogy I could have asked him how do we know God approves of the religion what we've put on? Clearly there have been Christian sects and schismatics that were thoroughly wrong - does it help a man to practice a religion that denies the divinity of Christ? In the end I just let it go.

Larry the Cucumber Goes Dutch

Choice on Earth

This from Al Gore's least favorite newspaper:

Concerned Women for America railed this week against "shameful" holiday cards sold by Planned Parenthood that read, "Choice on Earth," instead of "Peace on Earth," saying the cards were offensive to Christians.

"Planned Parenthood, a giant organization that receives hundreds of millions of tax dollars, has chosen to profit from a day sacred to Christians by offending them," said Wendy Wright, senior policy director for CWA. "The group twists a well-known Scripture in which God offers peace on Earth — not abortion — through the birth of His Son Jesus Christ."

The front of the holiday card reads "Choice on Earth," the inside message reads "Warmest wishes for a peaceful holiday season" and the back reads "Planned Parenthood."

It strikes me as a supreme piece of illogic to equate peace with our post-modern slaughter of the innocents. Maybe they mean "peace and quiet," which is what one gets with dead people.

On the alleged insanity of Parishoners at the Cathedral in Boston, what "vibrant" means, and donut-hogging

The Pew Lady is on a roll.

FYI

Bigfoot is (was) a hoax. We can now don giant wooden ape-feet and leave footprints all over Ray Wallace's grave. He'd probably think it was funny. This makes you wonder about the Loch Ness Monster, Santa Claus, Batman, the Easter Bunny, and the Golden Asteroid.

On a Catholic note, who wants to discuss the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin?

Bush, Clinton and Kwanzaa

NRO's David Frum has a comparison between Bush and Clinton's remarks at the lighting of the national Christmas tree. Besides the firm statement of Christian belief in the Bush's message, I thought one of the remarkable points was Clinton's mention of Kwanzaa.

Although I find the entire idea of Kwanzaa to be ridiculous, I generally favor more celebrations rather than fewer. If I were a kid, I'd want more gift-giving holidays, too. But to put it on a par with Christmas, the third-most-holy day on the Christian calendar behind Good Friday and Easter, is way too much. It's not even on a par with the minor Jewish Festival of Lights. My biggest problem with Kwanzaa is that the implicit message isn't just that one ought to celebrate one's ethnic heritage -- a harmless thing, if kept in perspective -- but that Christmas is a "white" holiday. There are tens of millions of black Christians in the world; do they really think Christ wasn't born for them? Doubtful.

I wonder what the future of Kwanzaa will be. Given that its organizers have harnessed the powerful engine of consumerism in its service, it might be around for a while, but my bet is that it will mostly die out within a generation.

And what's with the extra "a" at the end? Was it originally a Dutch word?

NEW TAPE MAY MEAN AL GORE IS ALIVE

Mark Shea is a funny, funny man.

Dog days of winter

John told me earlier today he was having lots of fun with his dog in the snow. Where are the pictures, John? Gerard Serafin posted a picture of ONION on his blog. Jonah Goldberg and the nefarious Cosmo had a blast as well. It makes me wish I had a dog! Heck, it makes me wish I WAS a dog!

On the road with Sal Ravilla

I told myself I wouldn't do it, but I had to get in my car and run some errands today after four inches of snow had turned Northern Virginia into a post-apocalyptic wasteland. It's not really the end of the world as we know it, but people sure act like it is when we get a couple of inches of snow. As I feared the grocery store was out of milk, bread, toilet paper, and spam^TM. The roads were an icy mess but there had to be a Village Idiot convention downtown for way people were driving. I have an SUV but I don't drive like I'm invincible in the snow. I'm still paying the loan off on it! Who would have thought my car loan was going to last longer than my career in the internet industry? I'm glad to be home. Hopefully the kids who got to play and the adults who played with them had fun today.

It appears there was a wave of removals from 1992-1994, and another batch from 2000-2002. Draw your own conclusions.

So Cardinal Law has banned archdiocesan agencies from holding their meetings and events at a certain church: an affluent suburban parish whose pastor who is outspokenly dissenting and gay-friendly. He should have done this 15 years ago. Mark Sullivan's Ad Orientem sums up his and my puzzlement. Dom Bettinelli indicates that there's more going on than the Globe article would lead you to believe.

AP reports:

About 15,000 of the 46,000 U.S. priests belong to religious orders such as the Jesuits, Franciscans and many others.

In August, leaders of the orders in the United States decided that sexually abusive priests should be kept away from children but not barred from all church work a less restrictive plan than the bishops'. The orders left open the possibility that some abusers could return to their communities after treatment, serving the church in administrative jobs far from young people....

Rev. Ted Keating, executive director of the Conference of Major Superiors of Men... and the organization president, the Rev. Canice Connors, came to Rome last month, addressed a meeting of the International Union of Superior Generals and met with Vatican officials.

Keating said he was told that the international assembly on Nov. 30 expressed support for the concerns of U.S. orders. Officials of the world group were not available for comment Thursday.

In an interview with The Associated Press, Keating declined to provide details of his talks with the Vatican, but said he didn't expect the Vatican to make immediate changes in the latest version of the norms.

''What we heard in Rome is, it's too late to do that and we would work it out during the provisional period, case by case, and then take a thorough look at the end of two years,'' Keating said.

He indicated the lobbying effort was aimed at the long term. The sex abuse policy will come up for review by the bishops and the Vatican two years after it is formally approved by the Holy See.

Best blog headline

"NEWS JEWS CAN USE" by Eve Tushnet.

Bishop Loverde responds to criticism of how the Diocese deals with allegations of misconduct in general and with Fr. James Haley's suspension specifically:

In the case generating the most media interest, that of Father James Haley, some facts need to be clarified. 1) Father Haley has not been made a pastor because of separate issues concerning his own past conduct which came to light before he brought the misdeeds of three other priests to my attention. 2) When Father Haley began a period of discernment and his faculties were withdrawn last year, I ordered Father Haley to behave in a manner consistent with principles of our faith and canon law, and to respect the privacy of others as well as his oath of obedience to me as his Bishop. While Father Haley was always free to "go over my head" and bring his accusations and criticisms to other ecclesiastical authorities, he chose instead to resort to the media. 3) As to the perception that Father Haley was complying with some sort of civil law duty to give a deposition in a civil proceeding, it is our understanding that no subpoena was issued by the Court or served on Father Haley. A notice of deposition was served on our civil law counsel, but a notice of deposition is not a subpoena. Father Haley volunteered his testimony to his own lawyer. No one from the Diocese attempted to stop him from doing so. The lawsuit was then dismissed on August 29, 2002, on multiple grounds, including the failure to state a valid legal claim. The deposition was not even used in support of the lawsuit and most of it had nothing to do with the allegations in that suit. The Diocese requested that the court protect the privacy of non-parties, including priests and parishioners, by sealing the transcript, but the court declined to do so.

Most important to note, Father Haley is still a priest. He is receiving a monthly stipend plus full healthcare benefits. The canonical process currently underway involving Father Haley does not seek in any way to punish him for bringing to my attention any concerns about the three priests mentioned above. This canonical process is dealing with other issues regarding Father Haley and will be carried out in accordance with canon law.

Eric - here are the facts you were looking for. I was certain that one of the reasons for Fr. Haley's suspension was his going to the media with the goods on those miscreant priests. We will probably never know why Fr. Haley did what he did. It's clear that he is not being punished for bringing the allegations (which turned out to be true) to the Bishop, he is being punished in part for his disobedience in bringing them to the media.

NOT a laughing matter

Over at Mark Shea's joint and at HMS they have been soliciting ad ideas and slogans for Planned Parenthood's "Celebrating 30 years of legalized holocaust" poster contest. This topic does not lend itself to satire. Consider that the Bush adminstration sent Solicitor General Ted Olson to argue before the Supreme Court in favor of RICO being used to crack down on protests in front of abortion mills. I have only seen snippets of Olson's lawyering with regard to Scheidler v. NOW and Operation Rescue v. NOW. Here is a link to the amicus brief he filed. I don't understand the administration's position on this completely but it appears the administration is indeed in favor of using RICO against some forms of organized protest, including anti-abortion protests. If it is true it is beyond disheartening - it is an total betrayal of the pro-life movement. If any of our readers have more info please post it in the comments.

Huh?

Another Google search today. I'm sure the surfer didn't find what he was looking fer.

"homosexual christmas tree purple"

High Court to Hear Abortion Free Speech Case

The Supreme Court will decide if Operation Rescue is the equivalent of the Gambino crime family. This story by the Associated Press is fair, but it does leave unchallenged the statement that the pro-lifers trespassed and destroyed property. If they did that, they should be prosecuted, but to treat them like the Mafia is obviously wrong. The civil rights protestors in the 1950s and '60s could have been prosecuted under RICO, as could many of the anti-war protestors. I think our friends on the Left should think through the implications of treating civil disobedience as organized crime.

By the way, one of the authors of the RICO statute, a law professor at Notre Dame, says the law is being abused by prosecutors. "Such a weapon of terror against First Amendment freedoms was not what I designed," he says. "Had I been told to do so, I would have refused."

We're gearing up for some weather...

The DC area is gearing up for a "snow event" tomorrow. The weather people call it a "snow event" when they have no idea how much of the white stuff we're going to get. It also means that every store in the area is going to be out of toilet paper, milk and bread by 7 PM tonight. I don't understand how people think they are going to run out of toast if they can't get on the road for a day.

The other quirky thing about DC is that as soon as the the first flakes start to fall every eldery person with an old Buick gets on the road. It's like they all have to get to Denny's for an eldery Buick driver meeting.

I'm staying off the roads tomorrow - I've gotten in two accidents in past "snow events" because of other idiots on the road.

Jesuit abortion links

Mark Shea posted this link on his blog yesterday, and it literally took my breath away for a moment. The Jesuits of the University of San Francisco are actually suggesting that pregnant students should visit an abortion clinic or Planned Parenthood. There's an obligatory link for what looks like a pro-life crisis pregnancy center, listed last (how cute).

Looking around the site, I also found a section on "Sexually Transmitted Infections." That's a less judgmental term than "Sexually Transmitted Diseases," which makes it sound like someone did something wrong by contracting it; however, a virus by any other name will still make you sick.

How do we prevent STIs? "The best way to prevent STIs is to avoid sexual contact with others," says the site. "Abstinence is the only method to guarantee that you will not contract and STI." Good so far. But then, "If you decide to be sexually active, there are things that you can do to reduce your risk of developing an STI."

What are those things?

• "Use clean needles if injecting intravenous drugs."

• "Avoid having sex during menstruation."

• The best one: "Avoid anal intercourse, but if practiced, use a male condom."

How to be Anti-Social in December

When you receive an invitation for an Open House, tell the host that you will not be able to make the event because you are having an Open House at that very time. Express your regrets that they will not be able to attend your Open House since the events will happen at exactly the same time.

How to get here from Google
My comments in italics
"pants modesty Catholic" - pants and modesty go together
"millie kondracke" - someone was probably disappointed after this one
"catholic beliefs sexual" - we have tidbits here but no detail
"roman catholic apolegetics" - I'm flattered

DC Metro Blog Map

This snazzy map is part of a blog "by maureen, a law student and sad, sad punk wannabe." Email her if you have a local blog and want it listed.

In My Backyard

Protesters Lash Out at Bishop

An October article in the Evangelical news magazine World (LRR) reminds us of the suffering of Christians under a North Korean regime that really does deserve to be labelled "evil", and reports on the efforts of Western believers to aid them:

In a North Korean prison camp, inmates went about their work in a furnace - backbreaking labor their jailers forced them to perform 18 hours every day. As they worked, many of them appeared to be mumbling under their breath. They were not complaining; they were singing hymns. The prisoners were Christians - locked up for the crime of believing in God. Eventually, a guard noticed a female prisoner singing - and trampled on her face.[...]

Treatment of Christians was especially barbaric. "During the seven years I served in the prison, there must have been thousands of Christians who died as a result of punishment," Ms. Lee related. "They were treated less than beasts, sub-human beings, being kicked by the boots of prison guards and lashed by leather lashes. The prison guard was telling these people to say, 'We will not believe in God but we will believe in our leader, Kim Jong Il.' So many people died because they did not say, 'We do not believe in God.'"

In an effort to help Korean refugees, Sen. Sam Brownback has urged the State Department to review its policy of not admitting North Korean refugees into America. In response, Arthur E. Dewey, assistant secretary for the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, began a policy review - one that frustrated Brownback staffers say has been going on for eight months with no end in sight.

Don't they get enough from their members' dues?

Almsgiving is in the air, and all sorts of people are probably calling your house asking for money. Here's a letter I wrote when I found out a "charity" wasn't a charity at all.

To whom it may concern:

Recently, I received a solicitation from the Fairfax Coalition of Police asking for a donation. The caller led me to believe that I would be giving to a charity. I said I would give $15, and your group sent me a package in the mail with the pledge request.

I was surprised to find that you are not a charity: you are a local police union affiliated with the AFL-CIO. While I think police officers are brave and honorable people – I serve with several of them in my Marine Reserve unit – I have a low regard for unions of almost any kind. In particular, the AFL-CIO gives almost all of its political donations to the Democratic Party, including the cop-bashing liberals who are disliked by every police officer I’ve ever known. More than that, your union supports candidates with whom I disagree on many other non-law-enforcement-related issues such as abortion, homosexual marriage, tax policy, and gun control. Giving money to the Fairfax Coalition of Police would mean supporting such candidates, albeit indirectly.

I don’t think you’re being honest when you ask people to help fund your “drug and alcohol education efforts” and “Christmas toys for hospitalized children,” then use the (non-tax-deductible) donations to fund your union. Consider my pledge null and void because it was contracted under false pretenses, and please do not call again.

Regards,
Eric M. Johnson

Advent Decorations

Why not put purple lights in your window candles during Advent and replace them with white lights for the Christmas season? My wife had that idea this weekend when we found purple lights at the store. I'm so excited about her idea that I am telling *everyone*.

(Thanks to Drudge for the link.)

France and Germany vs. Ireland and economic reality

This should displease CL's huge Irish readership: France and Germany are teaming together to beat up on little countries who don't gouge corporations sufficiently. These two countries, which together are responsible for some of the deadliest ideas in human history (Bonapartism, Marxism, Nazism, croissantism), want to force European Union nations to "harmonise" their tax rates. Ireland lowered its corporate taxes over the last decade, and next year the corporate tax decreases to a puny 12.5%. The Franco-German alliance wants them to "harmonise" their butts back up to 30-40%.

Because of their smart tax policies, Ireland has gone from basket case to powerhouse. Its per capita income is now one of the highest in the world. This poverty-reduction programme has worked even better than the traditional Irish solution of exporting their poor to other countries. Yet now Europe's dominant, stagnant nations (combined population: 142.1 million) may well force Ireland (3.8 million) to abandon its successful experiment. What's more, the countries responsible for more war deaths than any other two nations on the planet -- with the possible exception of Russia, depending on how you view WWII -- are prepared to stop the citizens of Estonia (1.5 million) from imitating Ireland and lifting themselves from poverty.

Some conclusions from this sordid episode:

1. Church leaders generally smile on international agreements, judging that it's better for nations to work with each other than to fight each other. But the contents of the agreements are morally neutral; sometimes, they can be the means for stronger nations to coerce weaker nations.

2. Entering into compacts like the European Union can lead to the loss of national sovereignty.

3. The religion of Europe's elites is no longer Christianity: it is statism, and it has been for decades. They view the state as Christians view God, as the provider of all good things. Any challenge to the state's supreme providential role, even when it can be proven in black-and-white statistics like poverty rates and incomes, must be beaten back.

4. To minimize poverty, one thing you should do is avoid penalizing the institutions -- i.e., businesses and corporations -- that facilitate the creation of wealth.

1st Sunday of Advent

We sang all 7 verses of "O Come Emmanuel" during the Preparation of the Gifts. A good sign - no one threw hymnals at me after 4 verses.
We did the Kyrie and Agnus Dei to their respective non-English common chants.
Teresa and I put up about 85% of our Christmas decorations, including our window candles and our Christmas Tree. Unlike most Catholics, we live out the penitential aspect of Advent in the form of extra choir rehearsals.

Teresa did put purple lights in the window candles - a first for the Schultzes. We'll switch to white on Christmas Eve.

's following excellent explanation of the passage in the Talmud that sparked this controversy. It is from Suzanne Fortin's Catholic Communion Website. Many of you also probably know Suzanne as the feminine voice of Catholic Legate, which is an exciting new venture for Catholic apologists from Canada founded by noted apologist, John Pacheco. Anyway, I wasn't able to directly link to the post in question, so I hope Suzanne and Russ don't mind if I reproduce here in its entirety:

Tractate Kesubos begins with the Mishna which tells us that the kesuba of a virgin is greater than that of a widow. That is to say, if a man divorces his wife, he is obligated to pay her a set sum of money (as well as numerous other obligations). The amount depends on whether she was a virgin when he married her, a virgin being entitled to a greater sum than a non-virgin.

So the legal mind has to ask, "what is a virgin?" Jewish law is evidentiary. It is not sufficient to say that nobody ever saw a woman having sex, so she is presumably a virgin. In fact, the Torah cites the case of someone questioning the virginity of his new bride, and the response of her parents to refute this charge (Deut. 22:15) - they are to bring forth the "tokens of the damsel's virginity" - which is to say, the blood-stain sheets that resulted from the breaking of her hymen. So the definition of virginity in Torah law is an intact hymen, not a question of whether she was actually intimate with a man and to what degree.

The discussion in the Talmud then ranges over the conditions under which a woman would lose her virginity, and thus the right to the virgin's kesuba. I don't have my copy handy, but I seem to recall that there is mention of a sharp stick as one possibility. Then the discussion turns to actual intercourse. Two cases of sex with minors are mentioned. The sages aver that a woman who manages to have sex with a boy under the age of nine does not lose her virginity, since the boy is unable to break her hymen. They also state that if a man somehow has sex with a three-year-old girl, her hymen will grow back, and she will therefore still be considered a virgin. That is, for the purpose of the law in question, he has done nothing - not changed her status. BTW, "he has done nothing" is a common phrase in the Talmud. It always is used in the sense of the law under discussion, not a general comment that the action has no consequences at all.

That does not mean that such acts are permitted - certainly not! Only that they do not cause a loss of virginity.

All of this is evident from any honest reading of the Talmud.