February 2004 Archives

If only Haiti had oil, President Jean-Bertrand Aristide would have enjoyed the support of the international Left. After all, there is no practical reason America should care about that country, except the prospect of Haitian refugees flooding into Florida.

By contrast, the Left's reaction to the Iraq war was nothing short of hysterical: to them, it was, is, and ever shall be about oil, and oil alone. The U.S. imports oil, some of that oil is from the Middle East, and therefore there can be no honorable reason for military action anywhere in the region. The idea that there were legitimate security and humanitarian reasons is irrelevant. But invading the poorest country in the hemisphere to stabilize the government? That's perfectly fine.

For the Left, America is only virtuous if it acts when it has absolutely nothing at stake. For too many people on the Right, the U.S. should never act militarily unless vital national interests are at stake.

I disagree with both groups. Generally, we should be reluctant to take action unless some entity threatens our security, but we have a duty -- a God-given duty, in my view -- to intervene in certain dire circumstances. Anarchy, genocide, and mass starvation are three of those circumstances, and Haiti was headed for the first of them. We aren't, and shouldn't be, the world's policeman, but we are the strongest country on Earth and that strength should benefit humanity at large.

UPDATE: It's official! The Democrats say that not only do we not need a U.N. mandate to deploy combat troops, it's George Bush's fault for not acting pre-emptively to stop Haitians from hurting each other! Nevermind that the "international community" has been pressuring Aristide for the last four years, including depriving that country of aid money.

For the future, here's what you need to remember:

1. Bush goes against the consensus of the "international community" and France: BAD BAD BAD.

2. Bush pursues a policy reflecting the consensus of the "international community" and France: BAD BAD BAD. Even when it's a policy carried over from your predecessor.

The Left is not a serious moral force in the world any more. What's more, increasingly you can't even argue with them because they aren't operating rationally.

Probably the main topic of conversation at last weekend's meeting of the Alhambra's international board of directors was How do we sign up younger members and keep them active?

Of course, being by far the youngest member of our board, many of the other gold tassles turned to me for some possible answers. One of the things I proposed is that the Alhambra shift from a Catholic fraternal organization to a Catholic family organization. De facto, this is how many of our younger caravans (local branches) in terms of membership already operate, and this is how I intend to operate in Ottawa. Basically, these younger caravans keep the monthly meetings short, and invite wives and children to attend as well. All their activities involve the entire family, rather than just the boys. I myself keep pointing to Pope John Paul II's Familiaris Consortio and all that the Holy Father has done to promote the family apostolate. In fact, long before he ascended to the Throne of St. Peter, Fr. Wojtyla was leading a family kayak trip when he first received news that he was to be consecrated a bishop.

Anyway, there seems to be some interest in exploring this idea a little more, especially since our younger caravans in terms of leadership are already operating as de facto family organizations. Nevertheless, there continues to be much divergence of opinion among 1) our WWII era membership who want to keep this exclusively an old boyz club, 2) our boomer membership who see this primarily as an equality issue and want to see women become full members, but are wishy-washy when it comes to families, and 3) our gen-x membership who are basically pushing for full family membership. In case there is any doubt, I fall into the third category.

What I am interested in finding out, therefore, is whether you would be more likely to join and become active in a Catholic fraternal organization that operates as an all boys club, or whether you find a Catholic family organization that gets the entire family active within our Catholic apostolate more appealing? Please use either the comments box or private email to share your answer, and it would also be helpful if you shared your age and marital status. Thanks...

At least it isn't Catholic.

I thought Catholic theater companies only existed in places that have a Catholic culture: you know, like Poland. Not here in America.

Yes, there was the exception, Leonardo Defilippis, who for a long time seemed to have the Catholic theater niche all to himself, touring from his home base in Oregon.

Now the next generation is coming up. Boston's Fiat Productions opened Arthur Giron's Edith Stein tonight. The Epiphany Studio is active in Nebraska, there's an outfit called "Theophany" in Washington -- which I will see on Saturday doing readings from the Pope's poetry -- and San Jose has Quo Vadis, whose founder Cathal Gallagher has also launched a company in LA.

Any more out there?

Can be viewed in full at this url from arlingtondiocese.org Here are the high points:

Two years ago, Mel Gibson said he was going to make a movie about the suffering and death of Christ. The dialogue would be in ancient languages, spoken by obscure actors. People started snickering, saying this was an art-house movie nobody would want to see.

Next, they said people would want to see it, but they'd immediately start bombing synagogues and beating up Jews. The result? None of the major film studios wanted to bankroll the movie, and all the major film distributors rejected it.

On the first day of its release, "The Passion of the Christ" earned back nearly all of its production costs. By Friday, it will start turning a profit. And there are six more Sundays in Lent.

In a serious case of wishful thinking, the New York Times says, "New Film May Harm Gibson's Career." Riiiiight. Not with God and Mammon on his side.

...about inclusive language. Imagine renewing your Baptismal vows like this:

Do you reject Satan?

And all her works?

And all her empty promises?

Oh, Sal! you say, You're just being snarky again! Why don't you say something nice about the Passion?

I found it to be emotionally and spiritually provocative to the extreme. I walked out of the theatre never wanting to sin again. The most moving scenes were those with Jesus and Mary together. In one of the flashbacks in particular you see something that Chesterton said he thought was hidden in the Gospels - Jesus' mirth.

The charges of anti-semitism and gore-for-the-sake-of-gore are utterly false. The ninnies who have been putting this forth in the media should take a look at this piece on NRO about an actual vicious, anti-semitic film.

And more evidence of real anti-semitism in Saudi Arabia.

...only stupid people.

I was listening one of Fr. Benedict Groeschel's tapes on spirituality yesterday and he said something funny and profound. It was something like this:

It's easy to be stupid. But in order to be very stupid, you need to be very smart. Being very smart enables you to add depth to your stupidity.

He was referring to Theologians in general and was slamming the rationalism of the Enlightenment.

And I thought of that today when I say this link on the ABC News site:
"Who Killed Jesus? Theologians develop answers to this 2004 year-old question."

Several areas where someone is being very stupid.
The "Who Killed Jesus?" question is a valid one and the answer is I did, you did, we all did.

So to have it followed by the rest is like asking,
"Why is the sky blue? Climatologists debate something I can explain to a four year old."

"Why does my dog beg at the dinner table? Animal behaviorists struggle to understand what Pavlov knocked out decades ago"

"Why are French Fries called French Fries? Culinary anthropologists and linguistic specialists discuss polymorphic language parameters."

I prefer St. Augustine for my theological development. Throw in a few encumenical councils, Doctors of the Church and more recent encyclicals and it's all covered. But don't tell that to the PhD at the Washington Theological Union - he's busy trying figure out how old Jesus was when he realized he was God. And - again to quote Fr. Groeschel - that's just latent Arianism.

And very stupid.

Cardinal Pell
Steven Greydanus

[I'll add more later.]

Oh: my reaction? It's a sobering, purifying experience that left the audience and me in silence. I went home and read the Stabat Mater.

I've been perusing reviews of "The Passion" for the last few days, and Roger Ebert's is particularly good. Some excerpts:

...What Gibson has provided for me, for the first time in my life, is a visceral idea of what the Passion consisted of. That his film is superficial in terms of the surrounding message -- that we get only a few passing references to the teachings of Jesus -- is, I suppose, not the point. This is not a sermon or a homily, but a visualization of the central event in the Christian religion. Take it or leave it.

...Gibson's film is not anti-Semitic, but reflects a range of behavior on the part of its Jewish characters, on balance favorably. The Jews who seem to desire Jesus' death are in the priesthood, and have political as well as theological reasons for acting; like today's Catholic bishops who were slow to condemn abusive priests, Protestant TV preachers who confuse religion with politics, or Muslim clerics who are silent on terrorism, they have an investment in their positions and authority....

..."The Passion of the Christ," more than any other film I can recall, depends upon theological considerations. Gibson has not made a movie that anyone would call "commercial," and if it grosses millions, that will not be because anyone was entertained. It is a personal message movie of the most radical kind, attempting to re-create events of personal urgency to Gibson. The filmmaker has put his artistry and fortune at the service of his conviction and belief, and that doesn't happen often.

Read the full review here.

I'm not going to see "The Passion of the Christ" for a while, so I can't comment on the movie itself. The reviews are quite interesting, though. I've noticed that most of the reviewers who did not like it are not religiously observant, and that their criticism almost uniformly faults Mel Gibson for dwelling too much on the physical sufferings of the event.

Such criticism is not always uninformed. One negative critic on the Today show said that the movie downplayed the Resurrection. A fair comment, if true. It is ironic that committed Christians are enthusiastic about seeing a movie where the God-man they worship is tortured to death, but secular people are offended by it.

Many secular commentators have said that they wished Gibson had more of the Sermon on the Mount, and less of the brutality. They seek to reduce Jesus to their dessicated conception of what a religious leader should be, saying things like "Blessed are the peacemakers." Someone ought to remind them that Christ also said, "Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword." (Matthew 10:34)

A few months ago, this Dominican sister in LA was mentioned in some story as an example of the various isn't-that-nice ministries that today's religious are involved in. She runs a tattoo removal parlor.

Now I have to admit this job description sounds strange, and the usual cynical impulse out here in blogdom is to write her off as another case of a religious sister doing a secular job that's really in the domain of lay people. Let's resist the impulse this time.

This is a pretty admirable work she's doing, getting doctors to donate their services, getting the clients to do some community service in exchange for the free cleanup job they're receiving. When the plan all comes together, she's helping ex-gang guys, who are rejecting the glamor of evil and refusing to be mastered by it, to put their conversion away from evil into a concrete form, by removing the marks that used to reinforce them in lives of crime.

We could use something like that around here in Boston: a cashier at Wendy's on Route 9 has "thug life" in a column of capital letters down his forearm, and he probably doesn't have $2K to pay for his own cleanup.

Public officials should work for the public good, the Church says. It is the primary duty of the state to safeguard a well-ordered peace, and to repel threats against that tranquility, whether those threats arise from within or without. That duty, not confiscating and redistributing wealth, is the first function a state must provide.

In my judgment, Senator John Kerry does not have the qualities necessary to hold the office of the president. If he were elected, he would be entrusted with the solemn duty of defending the nation against foreign threats (the states are the main bulwark against domestic offenders.) His record in the Senate shows that he lacks prudence, and would be unwilling to risk his own political career to assure the safety of America.

Hyperbole, you say? I thought so, too, until I saw this. It's a list of defense projects that Kerry wanted to cancel 20 years ago. If he had his way, he would have ripped most of the vertebrae out of the military's backbone. Tomahawks, F-14s, F-15s, Apache gunships, Patriot anti-missile defense batteries -- in short, major components of the American forces that are feared by our enemies -- would have been cancelled by the senator.

(Speaking of backbone, I note that he did not propose reducing the number of ships the Navy wanted to build, which are much more expensive than dinky little airplane projects. Could the reason be that the Navy spent billions in Massachusetts shipyards during the 1980s? Principle often takes a backseat to protecting local industries, as when Joe Lieberman campaigns for stricter gun control while standing up for Colt Firearms.)

"We are continuing a defense buildup," Kerry wrote, "that is consuming our resources with weapons systems that we don't need and can't use." While our regiment was fighting in Nasiriyah, and we heard the "needless" Harriers flying close air support missions to destroy the people trying to kill us, it sure sounded necessary to us. But then, none of us had been in Vietnam, which according to the senator makes you an expert on the necessity of weapons systems. Even questioning whether we should have shelved advanced air-to-air weapons systems -- which ensured our pilots' success over Iraq in two wars -- is apparently "questioning his patriotism."

Voting against a military program does not mean you're against the military, nor does it mean you're imprudent when it comes to national defense. One item on Kerry’s list, the rehabilitation of WWII-era battleships, was expensive and unnecessary, just as he said. The Pentagon budget is often used for pork barrel spending. Some weapons systems, such as the ludicrously heavy and unwieldy Crusader howitzer, result from a military service's ideology instead of a keen appreciation for real-world defense needs.

However, when you explicitly criticize the Reagan military buildup as "wasteful," "useless," and "dangerous," and imply that the world is more dangerous because America was better able to confront the most murderous regime in human history -- a government that manufactured over 20,000 nuclear warheads to obliterate Western democracies -- you deserve to have your judgment questioned.

Kerry doesn't deserve special criticism: all of the leading Democrats said the same things. In 1984, he was campaigning in the state that sent the corpulent (but amusing) Tip O'Neill to the House and lady-killer (pun intended) Ted Kennedy to the Senate. Events showed that they were all fools, at least in these matters. The former heads of the Soviet Union confirmed that it was the Reagan buildup that bankrupted their evil empire, giving that doomed system one of its deathblows. (The other proximate cause was the Holy Father.)

If John Kerry and his cohorts had his way, there would still be a Soviet Union disturbing the peace and repressing peoples around the world. To use one of Bill Clinton's smarmy phrases, nuclear missiles would still be "pointed at America's children." The American military would still be using the technologies of the 1960s.

On policy as well as procurement, Kerry was a reliable voice against any robust measures against American enemies. From Grenada to Nicaragua to Iraq, and whenever America tried to help communism's victims, Kerry boldly excused the actions of the oppressors.

Senator Kerry served his country with honor in Vietnam. I will leave it to Vietnam veterans to deal with his later treachery against them. John Kerry's entire career in the Senate demonstrates that he cannot choose the proper tools for the military, and that he is incapable of identifying real threats against the United States and acting against them. His presidency would not likely produce a just and lasting peace; indeed his presence in the White House would invite murderous mayhem, as he has promised a tepid, "internationalist" response to any future threats. For those reasons, Kerry ought to be rejected on military terms alone.

COMING SOON — Why nobody should vote for Kerry: the Catholic explanation

I think Andy Rooney used to be the kind of guy who kicked dogs when no one was looking.

Now he doesn't care if people are watching - he just lets fly the loafer until it connects with Spot and sends the poor pooch across the room.
"It's raining!"
"I'm hungry!"
"Nader is running again!"
"That's for Pearl Harbor!" ...are all the things he says when he kicks the dog, blaming his bad mood on everything around him.

Now this from Rooney is not inspiring, entertaining or even perspicacious.

It's just nasty.

And it makes me wonder why CBS bothers to have him shake his boney finger at America on a weekly basis offering nothing but the ill-mannered mutterings of someone who is just mad at the world.

If you missed the "Making Of" special on Pax TV Sunday, you'll have another opportunity Tuesday night. My jaw's already dropping at this movie and its lingering, meditative manner.

Updated this entry with a better picture - so the comments below might not make sense (Sorry guys!)

This is Steve, me and my bride at the final moments of the toast (roast?) at our reception. Steve still watches our wedding video just to see the toast again.

We didn't get to spend the birthday together because he's studying for midterms at St. Charles in Philly. My thoughts and prayers are with you, Steve. I couldn't have shared the womb with anyone better.

Quotes at WorldNetDaily.

Says the Globe poll: opposition to "gay marriage" has risen from 43% to 53% since November; from 47% to 66% among Catholics.

Your average US bishop, when faced with the problem of bad Catholic politicians -- say, pro-aborts -- may go so far as to say that a pro-abortion pol shouldn't receive Holy Communion. On the other hand, most bishops won't go so far as to apply any penalty under church law: he'll just leave it up to that individual pol to hear the teaching and do the right thing.

In contrast, Archbishop Pilarczyk of Cincinnati, when faced with the question of non-discrimination against homosexual persons, indicates that civil legal enforcement of this moral teaching would be a good idea.

Let me get this straight, Archbishop: imposing mere penalties of church law on manifest grave sinners who support child-killing would be counterproductive, but imposing criminal penalties by the state on, say, housing discriminators would be fitting and right. You know, if you keep swallowing those camels, you're going to need an otolaryngologist.

For a few hours this morning, I mentioned a rumor at another site. It turned out to be an exaggeration, so I've removed the reference to it here.

I'm not reviewing this film, but my favorite priest is in this week's Arlington Catholic Herald. Go read what he says.

Once again the news confirms that nobody's wrong all the time, or in the words of the aphorism, "even a stopped clock is right twice a day."

Thanks to Rep. Barney Frank who has come out ... in opposition to San Francisco's illegal same-sex marriages, because, well, they're illegal. And dittos to gay-paper editor Fred Kuhr, who argued the same point on O'Reilly's show Friday evening.

John Allen says that the revamped ICEL is collecting comments on the draft English translation of the Mass and will issue a completed text this summer. Anybody out there got a copy you want to leak to us?

Nobody's been talking about the movies lately, so a bunch of folks have started a site for movie reviews: the Popcorn Critics.

As some of you know, I will be in Brooklyn this weekend for a meeting of the Alhambra's international executive. Friday night is free, so a group of us from the apologetics and St. Blog community are hoping to get together. (We did something similar in Chicago a few weeks, and had a great time!)

Below is the hotel information where I will be staying. Right now, we're hoping to get together sometime between 6:30 and 7:00 pm. I should be around if you want to come earlier (either in my room, or wearing one of my conservative t-shirts in the hotel lobby or pub) but if you need to come later, please let me know in advance if possible -- either by email before Thursday, or by leaving a message for me at the hotel on Friday.

Look forward to seeing you all...

> Marriott Hotel at the Brooklyn Bridge
> 333 Adams St
> Brooklyn NY
> Hotel # (718)246-7000
> Toll Free (888) 436-3759

Like just about everyone else around St. Blog, I have had a wonderful time this past month fisking Tim from Catholics for Dean. Yet the campaign seems to have wisened him a little, so I wish to draw everyone's attention to a serious project he's undertaken. This is a heart-felt plea on behalf of pro-life Democrats to Democratic hopeful Dennis Kucinich, urging him to return to his pro-life convictions. Seriously Tim, my prayers are with you in this brave effort and pray other Casey Democrats will support you.

Eric, can you comment on this? It seems rather imprudent that these Baptist ministers were traveling unescorted in Iraq.
Update: More details.

Wow! What a campaign!

What a great showing! Thank you! Thank you!

First, I'd like to thank every single one of the 64 people who voted for Catholic Light in this great race for the title of Best Catholic Group Blog. Your love has just been a great sustenance to us throughout these weeks, and I am so proud of every one of you for your courage and your fortitude, your prudence and your temperance, and all the other marvelous virtues you showed, day in and day out, throughout this great campaign for the good of the global village. It has truly been an amazing experience.

I want to acknowledge and congratulate our friends at Holy Whapping for their great showing tonight -- yes, they deserve a lot of credit for a fine and hard-fought and fair campaign; that is, unless the voting irregularities observed by our investigators turn out to be provable, in which case you'll be hearing from Pe-- oh, never mind.

Anyway, we still have a mission ahead of us. We have work to do for this weblog, for this audience, for this great Internet stretching across the world, bringing together the posts of our wonderful team and your great comments which together show forth with increased splendor that Light which we are all here to celebrate: the light of the Faith and of its truth and the one Light whom we in our limitations can never fully comprehend and yet which the darkness can never overcome. To that Light who enlightens all men by His quiet coming may there be effervescent glory when He is revealed in endless majesty and unto endless ages!

Good night and God bless you!

I was reading an interesting essay at Democrats for Life the other day, in which it is alleged that abortion is the one issue that continues to sap the Abortion Party of its electoral strength. Somewhere else, I read that almost half the Democrat grass-roots rejects their party's hardline pro-abortion stance. Which got me wondering...

Prior to the primaries, Dennis Kucinich was a reliable pro-life democrat. However, he crossed over to the dark side at the start of the primaries in order to give his campaign traction. At least, this is what was suppose to happen. Instead, he's consistently found himself in a tight race with Al Sharpton for last place.

Which makes me wonder, did the abortion issue kill Kucinich's campaign from the start? What traction would Kucinich have gained within the campaign among alienated pro-life Democrats had he stuck to his pro-life principles? He might not have been the eventual nominee, but would he have gained enough support to finally break the Abortion's Party culture-of-death plank?

I think he might have. Unfortunately, he didn't. Where he had a real opportunity to influence the party, he sold out instead. This is sad because pro-life Democrats consistently out-poll pro-life Republicans in elections. The results are even more devastating for the GOP where a pro-abortion Republican goes head-to-head with a pro-life Democrat.

Which brings me to another point: the only candidate for Casey Democrats in the upcoming general election is George Bush. Now is the time for pro-life Democrats (or their sympathizers like myself) to galvanize and send the party a message we will not vote for a candidate who supports the destruction of our children in the womb and of the traditional family. 2004 is gonna be one of the toughest campaigns in a long time, and a loss for the Democrats might finally awaken them to their bleak electoral prospects as long as they remain the Abortion Party.

So pro-life democrats should send the party a message by either voting Republican or sitting this one out.

Marc Zappala's weblog Transcendence is hardly out of the box, and already he's laid into the following subjects with acute attention and a few acerbic poems:

• pro-aborts who are at some level anti-choice
• people who still regard Bill Clinton as an innocent scapegoat
• why Margaret Cho is so bitter
• the gay lobby's reflexive support for abortion
• W.'s failure to understand and pursue American interests
• his own temptations.

As a civil Libertarian, I find the following piece quite reassuring about what's going on in Guantamo Bay. While this young lad denies having been Taliban, and while he was initially angry at America for having captured him, he states he soon came appreciate how nicely the American soldiers were toward him.

Something hit me this morning as I got out of bed. Namely, when did the homosexual lobby successfully co-opt the word "gay"? The word use to mean "happy", which from many accounts I have read, the homosexual lifestyle is anything but.

That being said, every marriage should be gay. That is, every marriage should adhere to the pro-life principles that make for a happy marriage. Unfortunately, the homosexual lifestyle contradicts many of these principles.

For example, the foundation of a gay marriage lays in the complementarity between a man and a woman. So for a marriage to be truly happy, it must be heterosexual in nature. This in itself will not ensure happiness in marriage, but it is constituative of all happy marriages. So gay marriage is by its nature heterosexual.

So is gay sex. This sounds a little strange, but as we read in Familiaris Consortio, there are two functions of conjugal relations that cannot be separated from one another. The first is unitive, in which the spouses enjoy each other's natural complementarity. Which is why homosexual relations can never be gay -- it lacks the unitive function because it fundamentally lacks this complementarity.

The second function of conjugal relations is the procreative function. It is also lacking within homosexual relationships. Thus a homosexual marriage can never be gay since such a relationship is intrinsically sterile.

A December article from New Scientist claims that cohabitation before marriage is good for men's health. I didn't read all of the argument because of the logical flaw in the first paragraph:

Cohabiting is better for men's mental health, but marriage is better for women's happiness, suggests a new study.

Don't these weirdos know that whatever isn't good for a woman's happiness will ultimately manifest itself in her man's mental health???

So far on day one of the Massachusetts Constitutional Convention (a joint session of the legislature), the ConCon has rejected two proposed amendments.

By 94-104, they rejected a text from the Senate Dem and Rep (!) leaders that would ban same-sex "marriage" but require the establishment of "civil unions"; and by 98-100, they rejected a compromise by the House Speaker that would ban same-sex marriage and allow the option of civil unions if the legislature so chose. The original text, which would ban both gay marriage and civil unions, will be on the agenda Thursday afternoon.

My guess is that the anti-family forces have done their part to stack the deck by bringing the Speaker's compromise proposal up for a vote first: if the strongest version had been debated first or second and failed, the compromise text -- restoring the legal status quo before Goodridge -- would have remained an option acceptable to pro-family folks. Now Thursday's vote will be for all or nothing, and if it's defeated, the anti-family forces will have what they want -- excepting a possible legislative end-run -- and the nationwide legal battles will be on.

Correction: I previously stated here that the Senate text had been proposed by my State Senator. That was incorrect; however, he did vote for it, sad to say.

Today is the first day of the rest of your life.

Fr. Shawn says that most of the ongoing argument that readers post in weblog comments isn't worth doing or reading, and he's got a point.

Sometimes people post stuff in the comments that I don't know how to respond to, if at all. Long-dormant weblog entries often get new additions, as for example, by this anti-Catholic dame; or as these folks posting their prayer petitions for their lost marriages, endangered jobs, and serious illnesses, onto web pages that few people will ever read again.

I guess the latter is a reminder that there's a world of hurt out there, folks.

"Every human being, even those marked by sickness and suffering, is a great gift to the Church and to humanity," the Pope said. He said that everyone who is in pain because of illness should find other people ready to provide them with care and concern. Human suffering, he said, "is always a call for the display of merciful love."

The World Day for the Sick should be a reminder of "the important place in the Christian community for people who suffer," the Pope continued. He reminded his audience that while suffering can appear pointless from a human perspective, in the light of the Gospel we should seek its "profound salvific significance."

Maine border resident fined for illegal crossing.

At Sunday's Boston Common rally for the preservation of legal marriage, the most enthusiastic and protracted ovation for any of the speakers (except for the archbishop) went to Jewish conservative and long-time columnist Don Feder.

Now, this applause was coming from the people who, if you want to believe the talking heads on TV, are one movie away from staging a new pogrom. Call me skeptical, but I don't think it's too likely.

The lay-run Padre Pio Centre in Pennsylvania appeals the Allentown bishop's ban on Masses at the site. God bless 'em, but I have to think that this is just a political maneuver with the aim of negotiating a deal, 'cause I can't imagine any argument that would give the Centre -- not a recognized Catholic institution -- a permanent right to let priests say Mass there.

Update: More coverage and comments at Amy's.

I'm posting this link to a story on National Review Online for all you nut-jobs clogging up the comments box in a previous post. I was going to summarize the article, but you should read it if you question whether President Bush served the nation honorably in the Air National Guard. Suffice it to say that people do recall him serving during the time in question, and that he was a very good pilot.

Meanwhile, on to topics that have more relevance to matters of faith.

Is anyone else completely bored with the subject of homosexuality? I just don't find it very interesting; never have, really. I can't seem to avoid the subject, though. In college, I wrote an opinion column for the newspaper, and people were always accusing me of being "against" gays, when I never wrote a single word about them.

From a religious perspective, I believe what the Church teaches. From a civic perspective, I would just as soon leave homosexuals alone, as long as they aren't out trying to indoctrinate our children or corrupt our institutions. I'm willing to bet a majority of Americans feel the same way: do what you want, and we won't stop you, but we'd just as soon not think about the things you do in private.

This year, it's astonishing that we're going to spend a huge amount of time publicly arguing about whether marriage is between a man and a woman. Doubtless, next year we will have another battle about whether water is "wet," not dry.

Kevin Miller blogs an excellent response to Bill Cork in the debate over pro-life and abortion, President Bush, and the current crop of nominies for the Abortion Party. This is not the first time Bill and Kevin have locked horns, as evidenced by this post a year ago on Just War theory.

Of course, I find myself agreeing with Prof. Miller in the current debate over whether or not abortion is a defining issue. As most of my regular readers know, I have the highest respect for Kevin Miller as a theologian. Nevertheless, I'm somewhat confused by how Bill appears to raise the issue of the Iraqi War in order to challenge Dubya's pro-life credentials. If we go back exactly one year, I recall that I strongly opposed the War in Iraq, but who was so favorable to the war that he was bandying about the word sedition to describe its opponents, because he intrinsically trusted the President and simply dismissed as ridiculous the arguments of the war's opponents to which he now appeals in the abortion debate?

Anyway, while Bill is a pretty good ecumenist (since that's his professional specialty within the theological sciences), I think I will stick to Kevin Miller when it comes to moral theology since that's Kevin specialty within the theological sciences. (Also, throughout the Church's history canonists and moral theologians have traditionally been allies). That being said, having consistently opposed the war, I still maintain abortion trumps this issue when it comes to the ballot box.

This may have been Your Catholic Voice's first public event, but it'll have to be just the beginning: about 2000 supporters of marriage rallied in the cold Sunday afternoon in front of the Massachusetts State House. Coverage from AP and Reuters.

In separate statements, black ministers and a multi-faith coalition speak in support of the proposed constitutional amendment.

This week I learned from a friend who works at the USCCB that there is a draft before the vocations committee that would explicitly allow homosexuals to enter a program for priestly formation. I was told one of the requirements is that they have lived a chaste life for three years prior to entering the seminary.

If one takes this to its logical conclusion it will permit and even institutionalize a gay subculture in our seminaries. Talks on chastity and celibacy would have to be talored for two kinds of candidates - straight and gay. Can you imagine the effect this would have on the straight men in priestly formation? On the culture of our seminaries? My impression is that seminaries in the US have been successful in rooting out the so-called "sewing circles" - if this draft becomes part of the new program for priestly formation the gay subculture wouldn't be swept under the rug and not spoken of in polite company, it would be part of the institutions themselves.

'Tis the season indeed, John. No doubt Kerry the patriot-turned-gold-digger will hammer GW on Iraq. I have believed the US and its allies were in the right to invade Iraq. VDH has a great piece on NRO that puts it in a proper moral and historical context. Here's a snippet. Click the link above to read the entire article in all its majesty.

If the United States went to war with Iraq only because of the threat of WMDs; if the mass murdering of Saddam Hussein was found on examination to be highly exaggerated; if we had some secret plan for stealing the oil of Iraq, if Saddam Hussein posed no future threat to the United States or its allies; if the war resulted in a worse future for Iraq, the United States, and the surrounding Middle East; and if the administration deliberately constructed false intelligence evidence to advance such an unnecessary war that resulted in misery rather than hope, then an apology is needed now. But so far, that has simply not been the case.

The real outrage is instead that at a time of one of most important developments of the last half-century, when this country is waging a war to the death against radical Islamic fascism and attempting to bring democracy to an autocratic wasteland, we hear instead daily about some mythical rogue CIA agent who supposedly faked evidence, Martha Stewart's courtroom shoes, Michael Jackson's purported perversion, and Scott Peterson's most recent alibi. Amazing.

Click. Read. Pray.

You can bet there will be more politcal postings here at CL over the next several months.

NRO linked to this Reuters story containing a quote so stupid it makes me want to move to another planet.

The gist is that a Kerry presidency would be good for financial markets because the deficit would come back under control.

Here's the quote:

"'Kerry (policy) will probably be similar to a Clinton economic policy, which would be more focused on balancing the budget,' said Gus Faucher, a senior economist with Economy.com, where he tracks elections.

'That would bring down interest rates and drive up bond prices,' he added."

Mr. Faucher - how far down can interest rates go from here?

Will rates be so low that they'll be counted in handfuls of cheetos rather than American dollars?

Or perhaps I'm missing some valuable information that only trained economists have... (Someone please tell me if I am.)

Sheesh. I can't wait until the Bush campaign gets in gear.

Since Republicans can vote in the VA primary, allow me to put in a plug for my favorite candidate!

John, Eric, Alex, Bryan, maybe even Steve -- since I presume you're all Virginia voters, and since there is no registration of party preference in the Commonwealth, a story on WTOP radio tells me you're all eligible and welcome to vote for your favorite Democratic Party candidate for the Presidency on February 10. Have you decided for whom you plan to vote?

Bill Logan, a sensible fellow, basically says that judges are supposed to make up laws when they see fit. I'll quote him at length and then refute him -- twice!

1. Eric wrote when a judge ceases to rule on points of law and begins to be a law-giver, he has overstepped his authority. I suspect that this is a fairly-widely held sentiment; my problem with it is that it is just so wrong. Judges have always made law. The common law is nothing more than judge-made law. How exactly would you differentiate "ruling on points of law" and "being a law-giver"? Is there any substantive difference other than that the former are actions you approve of and the latter are actions you don't?

I think you're confusing a "law," as in statute, with "law," as in jurisprudence. Surely you aren't saying that a law enacted by a legislature is equivalent to a legal precedent? Or that legislatures cannot pass laws that contradict and supersede legal precedents?

Is your tongue in your cheek here? I hope it is, because I would think that the distinction between interpretation and legislation is so clear that it scarcely requires explanation. Christ commanded us to "love our neighbor." If we interpret that to mean we must shelter our neighbor when his house burns down, are we writing a new commandment? No, it's an interpretation that naturally flows from the rule.

2. As for the talk of tyranny, give me a break. If this is tyranny, what does that make Saddam Hussein or Kim Jong-Il? Are tyrants just people you disagree with, or is there any real meaning to the term?

Pace Voltaire, let's start with defining our term. Merriam-Webster defines "tyrant" as

1a. an absolute ruler unrestrained by law or constitution

b. a usurper of sovereignty.

The people, as you know, are the sovereign under American law: the government is authorized to do certain things on our behalf, but nothing else. The people of Massachusetts did not petition their representatives to redefine marriage, nor did they authorize the formation of courts so the judges might dictate their mores. If they had been consulted, even in their debased condition the Massachusetts citizenry would have soundly rejected gay marriage.

"What does that make Saddam Hussein or Kim Jong-Il?" Really bad tyrants, that's what. Both of those monsters deserve the noose. Our judicial masters are petty tyrants, and deserve to be punished according to their abuses: they ought to be forcibly thrown from their chambers, departing to second-rate law faculties so they can write their wound-licking, self-pitying memoirs and whine about their mistreatment to bored law students.

We've been nominated for a Bloggie in the category of "Best Group Blog". Exit polls so far show us to be, um, still in contention.

Our Black-Robed Masters (thank you, Mark) at the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court have taken away the remaining wiggle room from politicians wanting to avoid the gay-marriage question. Civil unions, say the Justices, do not meet Our requirements: you, the legislature, must pass laws letting homosexual couples marry as We command.

The weaselly state Senate president, Robert Travaglini, wanted to obstruct a vote February 11 on a proposed state constitutional amendment to protect marriage from the Goodridge decision, but his excuse -- the lack of clarity on whether civil unions would satisfy the judges -- has just evaporated.

I recently picked a hymn from Ritual Song for Mass, it was a familiar tune and looked like a good choice. But when we sang it in rehearsal, I got the full impact of the words. Sing along if you know the hymn tune "Beach Spring."

As A Fire is Meant for Burning - v1.
As a fire is meant for burning
With a bright and burning flame,
So the church is meant for mission, Giving glory to God's name.
Not to preach our creeds or customs, But to build a bridge of care,
We join hands across the nations, Finding neighbors everywhere.

Let's break it down now.

As a fire is meant for burning
With a bright and burning flame,
Nice metaphor, but redundant use of the word burning. Fire burns - no need to remind us. How about bright and glowing? How about bright and holy, ie - Easter candle? You will be singing this during Liturigcal functions, right? How about bright and warming? So much promise, so many possibilities...

So the church is meant for mission, Giving glory to God's name.
I prefer my church to be "Church" but other than that this phrase is ok.

Not to preach our creeds or customs, But to build a bridge of care,
This is the line that almost set me into convulsions. Perhaps the author (Ruth Duck, b. 1947) meant creeds like the Boy Scout Pledge. Or perhaps the Shriner's Oath. Or maybe the promise to take out the trash. Even so, "preaching Creeds" it pretty much what Jesus wanted us to do when He instructed the disciples to go to all Nations. Nothing wrong with preaching, Creeds or customs per se. And they certainly aren't trumped "care" as though Paul wrote in Corinthians about how the "Greatest of These is Care."

We join hands across the nations, Finding neighbors everywhere.
Did I just go from Mass to an "Up With People" concert? Is this the background music for a ride at Disney Land? I know "joining hands" is pretty important to people from Ms. Duck's generation but the last phrase doesn't even make a bit of sense. "Neighbors everywhere" is an oxymoron. I have few neighbors. They are within walking distance of my house. Or if I'm traveling far from DC and run into someone from my town, I might call him a "neighbor" in a general sense. But, I don't make a habit of holding hands with them. And they aren't everywhere because I'm not Mr. Rodgers.

And this gets to the real issue: This hymn is nothing but nice, and in being it takes a broad slap at our Creed. Nice chases real prayer and authentic theology out of the room.

So whoever feels up to it: go ahead and write three verses that make some sense and glorify the Kingdom of God instead of the God of the Nice. Maybe I'll print it in program and we'll sing those words instead.

Seen on the net:

Statement by the Jackson Family

WHATEVERLAND, CA -- The Jackson family today issued a statement generally apologizing for ever coming into existence. Mrs. Jackson added quietly. "It seemed like a good idea when they were small." The statement also added that any member of the Jackson family testing positive for any kind of a hormone would be neutered, effective immediately.

The argument from silence is the weakest form of argument, philosophers agree. Not for the Washington Post! Because President Bush's military records are incomplete, he must have been shirking his military duties. Their commitment to accuracy is manifest in this passage:

"In 2000, the Boston Globe examined a period from May 1972 to May 1973 and found no record that Bush performed any Guard duties, either in Alabama or Houston, although he was still enlisted." Enlisted servicemen enlist. Bush, as a first lieutenant, was an officer, and thus he was commissioned, not enlisted. That's a huge difference, but to the Post, potayto, potahto.

An even better quotation: "In recent days, a one-year gap in President Bush's Texas Air National Guard service during the height of the Vietnam War has been raised by Democrats." And it is our duty, as an establishment media organ, to amplify this charge. With all their resources, the best they can do is find a man with the wonderful name of Turnipseed who doesn't think he saw Bush around the drill center, but then again he (Turnipseed) doesn't recall being there much at that time.

Also, the "height of the Vietnam War," in terms of American involvement, was 1968-69. By 1973, our combat troops were almost completely withdrawn. Did the factcheckers fall asleep?

All you left-wing muckraking journalists out there, here's how to make a name for yourself: just figure out what Bush was doing during the time in question, and show that he could not have possibly spent one weekend a month fulfilling his duties. Then you'll have proven your case. (Of course, if the unit commander excused him, then you don't have a case at all.)

If you want to be intellectually honest, you might consider the possibility that his paperwork was messed up. But that's only if you want to be intellectually honest.

Information on where we will be....

Just I reminder that Sonya, the girls and I will be in Chicago this weekend for a major Alhambra weekend, and there will be an informal reception Friday, February 6th to which all of my friends and readers in the Chicago are are invited.

Here is the corrected information for where we are all gathering. (Basically, the Chicago Alhambrans tend to be very laid back and informal when they organize these types of reception, so you can pretty much drop in at any time between 5pm and 1am and bring your spouse and children as well.) Anyway, we will be getting together at....

Marriott Courtyard
6 Trans Am Plaza Dr.
Oakbrook Terrace, IL

The informal reception will be held in meeting rooms A & B on the first floor, from 5pm to 1 am. The hotel phone number is (630) 691-1500.

If you think you might attend, and get the chance to do so between now and Friday, please call Mark or Ricky Montalbano at (708) 547-1010 or email Mark at mark@montalbanofurniture.com (Preferably by Wednesday, if possible, since this is when the order for food and refreshments go in...) If you are not sure, or don't get the chance to do so between now and then, you're still welcome to drop in on Friday.

Looks like we will have a nice turn-out from St. Blog's as well as Catholic Freepdom. Look forward to seeing everyone there!

Not Janet's nipple (which I didn't see on my 12" screen, thank goodness), the somewhat naked man (which I did see, briefly), a very badly played first half (on both sides), MTV's resident eunuch-type (Timberlake, I mean, and that's not libel), P. Diddy, and a bunch of yankee-types (also not libel) winning the game. All very disappointing. (During the half-time show, I kept thinking of the movie scene where a Russian missile is deflected and inadvertently hits the MTV satellite (Spies Like Us?) and wishing it were true.)

The evening wasn't a total loss, if for no other reason than the Ford-sponsored pre-game show, where we were introduced to the 500-hp, 500 lb.ft.-torquing Ford GT. Won't somebody please buy me this car?

It isn't even 9 a.m., and already I'm tired of hearing about Janet Jackson's nipple. Memo to all entertainers: taking off your clothes isn't remarkable for anyone over the age of 2. It's a sign that you're a talentless, soon-to-be-has-been hack -- that is, if you're not already a has-been.

AP writes:

Tacking Jr. or II onto a boy's name is too common, a new father decided, so the self-described engineering geek took a software approach to naming his newborn son.

Jon Blake Cusack talked his wife, Jamie, into naming their son
Jon Blake Cusack 2.0.

Now that everything is dying down, I thought I would blog a little wrap-up on the Katholics for Dean controversy. (BTW, here's the text of the flame war between Kathy Shaidle and Katholics for Dean) As I noted in the comments section of Against the Grain, I now seriously question whether Katholics for Dean is pro-life when it comes to abortion.

When I first visited their website, something troubled me, but I couldn't quite finger what beyond Dean being the most extreme pro-abort among the Abortion Party's presidential candidates. Upon further reflection, however, here's what IMMEDIATELY turned me off of the Katholics for Dean website. Admittedly, the first point is relatively minor when compared to the second.

First there is the smugness and arrogance, in my opinion, with which Tim approached Kathy Shaidle. I know Kathy from around St. Blog, through her writings and through private email correspondence. I don't know Tim from a hole in the ground, not even by reputation. Therefore, his coming to St. Blog and demanding to ball with us, according to his rules and not ours, over something most of us consider highly distasteful, just turned me off. St. Blog is a pretty open community, but since Tim is the one seeking to foster his strange ideas upon us, it is up to him to play by our rules and not us to play by his.

Yet this is only minor compared to the next point. The website only pays lipservice in my opinion to the pro-life movement, especially with regards to abortion. It was obvious to me from my first visit there that Tim expends the utmost effort trying to convert Catholics into Democrats, and very little (at least on the site) trying to convert Democrats into pro-lifers. While there is an admission that Dean is not pro-life, Tim simply rolls over and play dead in the name of tolerance and working together. He offers both excuses and apologies for Dean and the Abortion Party's extreme support of abortion but no calls to account. He attempts no correction of his comrades within the Abortion Party, and avoids any confrontation with the pro-abort Deaniacs on the site.

This is not good in my experience. Politicians who often start out pro-life, but who refuse to call their own party to account in public, usually end up selling out to the pro-aborts in order to move up the food chain. Dennis Kucinich is a good example. While he's a little loopy on a number of other issues, he did more or less have a consistent pro-life position up until he launched his presidential bid. Had he held to his previous pro-life position, he likely would have pulled in support from the Casey Democrats and a number of other pro-life Democrats who haven't yet crossed over to the GOP. But Denis sold out because he wanted more money to finance his campaign. One cannot serve both God and money, and Denis's previous pro-life constituency quickly abandonned him when they found out which one he served. (As an aside, it profits a man nothing to gain the whole world if he loses his own soul in the process -- but for two percent of the Abortion Party faithful? Why would he sell his soul for that?)

This is why, while I may not always agree with Democrats for Life or JCecil's blog, I'm willing to respectfully listen to them as they make their case for supporting the Abortion Party. Unlike Katholics for Dean, these latter websites firmly rebuke the DNC for positioning itself as the Abortion Party and they call the DNC to account. You don't see this with Katholics for Dean which, like the battered wife, tries to hide the problem until forced to admit it, then makes excuses for it rather that firmly stand against it.

Again, most of us at St. Blog parish were deeply involved with the Terri Schindler-Schiavo situation. Come the ballot box in November, we will remember President Bush's firm support for his brother in Florida as well as Gov. Dean's (although it is doubful he will be the Abortion Party's candidate) outrage against the intervention of the Florida Governor and Legislature. We will remember Terri in the ballot box. So Tim would be better off trying to convince the Democrat Party to become pro-life rather than try and convince orthodox Catholics to support the Abortion Party.

Although Dean's regime is now crumbling faster than a cookie in my toddler's hands, I had this real wierd dream last night. It was Autumn of 2002 and I was watching Fox News when President Howard Dean came on to address the nation concerning his administration's plans for Iraq. Here's what he said:

"While we haven't convinced Saddam and his sons to close their children prisons, give up their rape rooms and stop pushing Iraqi citizens through plastic shredders, if you had told us a year ago that Saddam would now be allowing weapons' inspectors back into Iraq, we would have given anything for this. So there remains a lot of work to be done. First we're gonna go to France, and then to London. AND ON TO MOSCOW and GERMANY and BEJING and NORTH KOREA and to SUDAN! AND ARGENTINA! AND PAKISTAN! AND NIGERIA! AND BELGIUM! AND AUSTRALIA! AND THEN ON TO GENEVA TO FORCE THROUGH A RESOLUTION AT THE UNITED NATIONS.... YEEEEAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!!!"

Geesh...and the Abortion Party thinks Dubya's a cowboy on foreign policy?