February 2006 Archives

In Foreign Policy, of all places, there's a long article by Phillip Longman called "The Return of Patriarchy." The thesis paragraph is near the end:

Advanced societies are growing more patriarchal, whether they like it or not. In addition to the greater fertility of conservative segments of society, the rollback of the welfare state forced by population aging and decline will give these elements an additional survival advantage, and therefore spur even higher fertility. As governments hand back functions they once appropriated from the family, notably support in old age, people will find that they need more children to insure their golden years, and they will seek to bind their children to them through inculcating traditional religious values akin to the Bible’s injunction to honor thy mother and father.

I find this encouraging, particularly since I've been more than a little frustrated by money lately. The Washington area is a tough place to raise kids for a variety of reasons, not least financially. But if my four children are going to promote a patriarchal way of life in America, it's worth it!

Happy Mardi Gras, and a blessed Ash Wednesday to all. (Well, at least for the Latin Church!) Enjoy your last treats of whatever food you're giving up, and....

OK, folks: pick your penances!

'Da Vinci Code' Author Accused of Copyright Breach

I guess he'll have to spend some of his Da Vinci Dollars on lawyers...

Lately it seems the news team at WHDH-TV is on some weird new-age kick.

This week they did a story about a neo-pagan ceremony a guy held in his house in Salem (it figures) in order to get rid of the bad vibes there.

Monday they're running a story about so-called "Indigo Children" -- supposedly psychic kids who heal people.

Now, the movie about this idea was apparently produced by members of an esoteric sect . The sect's website offers a course on how to bend spoons with your mind. Very interesting, but it doesn't give me confidence that this deserves to be treated seriously as news.

Curiously enough, the group's leader seems to have taken his inspiration from a visit to Medjugorje!

I'm astounded. I didn't expect this at all.

ACI-Prensa's Alejandro Bermudez says that Fr. Bryan Hehir and the board of the Archdiocese of Boston's Catholic Charities will announce their refusal to obey directives ending CC's cooperation in the adoption of children by same-sex couples.

The timing of this event, an in-your-face confrontation to Archbishop (and shortly to be Cardinal) O'Malley, is of course very interesting. If this story is true, our Archbishop is soon going to set the course for the next few years: either a thoroughgoing reform to strengthen the authentic Catholic commitment of diocesan institutions and leaders, or a "truce of 2006", in Fr. Neuhaus' phrase, a truce of appeasement.

"Now, Bishop, I'm climbing out on this limb, where you told me not to go, and -- here's a saw, by the way, but don't you dare use it!"

Update: So far there's no confirmation of this in the press; is Bermudez mistaken?

Update 2: After dropping this bombshell, Mr. Bermudez says he's giving up blogging to focus on his regular work. And now he's removed the blog: why? out of embarrassment?

Dear readers, this story is starting to look like one big mistake. If it really turns out to be spurious, I apologize in advance for having given it more of an airing than it deserves.

Will Rome and the SSPX reconcile? It's a good question. Like many traditionalists, I've been following the current reconciliation talks. I think slowing down the talks was a good idea. This way nobody feels rushed or pressured except by their own conscience. This way important differences can be discussed in more depth.

That being said, I would caution anyone against reading too much into the day-to-day rumors. I think these are like polls before an election. It is not the daily news reports that matter since they are simply snapshots of an overall process. So being at 50% in the polls is bad if you were at 55 last week and 60 the week before, but good if you were at 45 last week and 40 the week before. But you will get a lot 47s and 53s thrown in.

What matters is the overall trend. I think it is hopeful. First, I think there's an appearance that Pope Benedict is much more nuanced in his understanding of the issues troubling the SSPX. Plus, given their cultural background, there's probably much more of a natural affinity between Pope Benedict and Bishop Fellay.

Secondly, while the SSPX continues to voice many of its longstanding concerns, I find that the SSPX is much more careful to state its respect for Rome's authority. I also see the SSPX curbing many of its past literary excesses when speaking of the Pope, the bishops, Vatican II, the Novus Ordo, etc. In fact, the SSPX just published a major study defending the validity of the Novus Ordo rite of ordination.

Thus the day-to-day articles are for better or for worse, but the overall trend is hopeful in my opinion. Yet many differences ramain that on the surface appear irreconcilable. Thus the best thing we can do as Christ's faithful is to offer our prayers and fasting to the Holy Ghost for Pope Benedict and Bishop Fellay. They will certainly need Divine guidance to negotiate any deal.

It's a question that rarely gets asked, since it's almost always framed in terms of "rights," either the baby's or the mothers. The wisest columnist in the world, Mark Steyn, takes on that question:

...So, whether or not her remarks were "outrageous" (the Democrats' Lyn Allison), "insensitive" (the Greens' Rachel Siewert), "offensively discriminatory" (Sydney's Daily Telegraph) and "bigoted" (this newspaper), I salute Danna Vale. You don't have to agree with her argument that Australia's aborting itself out of recognition and that therefore Islam will inherit by default to think it's worth asking a couple of questions:

* Is abortion in society's interest?

* Can a society become more Muslim in its demographic character without also becoming more Muslim in its political and civil character?

The first one's easy: One can understand that 17-year-old Glenys working the late shift at Burger King and knocked up by some bloke who scrammed 10 minutes after conception may believe it's in her interest to exercise "a woman's right to choose", but the state has absolutely no interest in encouraging women in general to exercise that choice.

Quite the opposite: given that today's wee bairns are tomorrow's funders of otherwise unsustainable social programs, all responsible governments should be seriously natalist. The reason Europe, Russia and Japan are doomed boils down to a big lack of babies. Abortion isn't solely responsible for that but it's certainly part of the problem.

In their encyclicals from 1789 until Vatican II, the popes frequently insinuate that the object of the Enlightenment wasn't to increase human liberty, but to destroy Christian civilization. To modern ears, they can seem grumpy and intemperate (think of Leo XIII's Syllabus of Errors), filled with passionate denunciations instead of calm refutations. For this reason, they were often dismissed as hopeless reactionaries.

It would be wrong to wholly dismiss the entire project of the Enlightenment -- and indeed, the encyclicals do no such thing, identifying positive developments while they condemn errors and half-truths. Men of the Enlightenment improved man's earthly life by emphasizing natural rights and forcing governments to recognize them. This is particularly true in the Anglo-American strain, much less so in the French, which begot mass bloodletting, vicious and supremely arrogant colonialism, and violent repression of the Church.

Common to all Enlightenment schools of thought was the belief in the right to free speech. At its noblest, this was a recognition that no human institution could long survive without honest criticism, protected from reprisals such as arrest or confiscation of property.

For most of the modern era, this belief has been loudly proclaimed by all of those who claim the Enlightenment as their intellectual lineage, most particularly by those who call themselves "liberals." These classical liberals had an honorable record of defending the rights of the despised, particularly those who wanted to advance an unpopular view against powerful interests.

But those kinds of liberals were eclipsed in the 1960s by the New Left, which saw classical liberals as the enemy. In the New Left's view, Western society was irredeemably corrupt, as it bore evil fruits such as colonialism and racism. Liberals, they thought, were much more dangerous to "progress" because they gave a veneer of legitimacy for Western values, most prominently Christianity, and thus they had to be destroyed.

After some initial resistance, the New Left triumphed in a rout. They now lead the left-leaning political parties in every Western nation. In the academy and the arts, they enjoy near-total dominance; whole communions of Protestant churches were given over to them. Thus, most of the people we call "liberals" today aren't really liberals, they are the New Leftists and their progeny. They continue to belive that Western society must be undermined, but now they wield real power and influence.

Time to write something a little less controversial. Here's my latest from Catholic Exchange. It concerns the Catholic education of children.

What do they feed the cats in China? [photo gallery]

Now we know the definition of "Italian roadblock"

I don't think I ever had before tonight, when they played it for some Italian athletes (I don't remember the event they won.) Listen to it here -- it sounds like a chorus from a Rossini opera. Apparently, it was composed by a contemporary of Rossini in 1847. The fifth verse seems a little outdated; I confess that I don't know a single historical reference in the fourth verse (that is, unless "the heart
and hand of Ferruccio" refers to Ferruccio Lamborghini, the car guy.)

My vote is for Wang Manli.

Revised: Actually, Ed Peters makes a good point. If I'm going to criticize the manner by which Vree goes around picking intellectual street-fights, I need to avoid using the same type of polemic. Therefore, I've gone through the following post and edited out as much as possible.

That being said, I honestly am concerned about the state of Dale Vree's soul. I don't presume to judge it, since that is left to God alone. Nevertheless, I cannot see how Dale isn't endangering his eternal salvation through the literary street-fights that he keeps picking.

And that's why rebuking the sinner is a spiritual act of mercy. We rebuke sinners is because we don't wish to see them go to hell. As angry as I am with Dale, I would rather see him go to Heaven than to hell. Homosexual acts are not the only sins that will condemn a soul to hell.

Take a look at how Dale attacks Amy Welborn or David Morrison or Fr. Pavone or Michael O'Brien (this last individual on the eve of a Canadian election where pro-marriage and pro-family forces were being told by an incumbant prime minister that there is no room for us in Canadian politics).

Well, what does the Bible have to say?

OLD TESTAMENT

1) Proverbs 6: 12-19 is very clear:

"A worthless person, a wicked man, goes about with crooked speech, winks with his eyes, scrapes with his feet, points with his finger, with perverted heart devises evil, continually sowing discord; therefore calamity will come upon him suddenly; in a moment he will be broken beyond healing.

"There are six things which the LORD hates, seven which are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and a man who sows discord among brothers."

2) And let us no forget the Eighth Commandment of the Decalogue:

"You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor." (Exodus 20: 16)

NEW TESTAMENT

Let's look at one of the New Testament passages that coincidentally also condemns those who practice homosexual activity:

3) 1 Corinthians 6: 9-10

"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God."

I pray this doesn't happen to Dale. This is why I prayed for him this morning, as well as yesterday at Mass today when the priest said the words of consecration. I would ask my readers to do so as well.

"To find out what Vice President Cheney has to say about this weekend's hunting accident and the resulting public relations fiasco, let's watch FoxNews together."

From the BBC car show Top Gear, a nun in a monster truck.

(from Greg Bruns, via Kathy Shaidle)

Generally, I don't mind seeing some politician going hunting with his buddies. Not that I'm for it: I think hunting animals with firearms is a rather unequal contest, and really not in accord with a Gospel way of life. Still, I can't demand that everyone live to that standard. I'm willing to tolerate sport hunting.

However, I think it's a bad idea for Mr. Cheney for a couple of practical reasons.

First, I think it's bad politics: hunting has the image of being generally a rich men's sport. This isn't something that the Veep, with his WASP-businessman image, should seek out.

Second, it's not prudent: the risk, small as it is, of being injured oneself or, God forbid, injuring someone else is not acceptable for a sitting President or Vice-President. When you go into the top two jobs, you simply should put hunting on hold for eight years.

Now that Mr. Cheney's had an accident serious enough to put a friend in the hospital, he should admit his blunder and do an act of penance for it: take a stand for hunting safety by giving up the sport. For him to persist in hunting at his age, after having made this somewhat dangerous mistake, creates an argument for banning hunting generally: probably not something he wants.

From a Catholic point of view, of course, safety -- protecting human life -- is more important than sport.

Do recent CDF actions against certain claimed private revelations add up to a trend? Times of London commentary points to warnings about the Ida Peerdeman case and the Fr. Gobbi case, and suggests more to come.

Update: Feb. 23: The Pope met today with the bishops of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

The snow has started here in Boston. I hope everybody was able to stock up on bread, milk, and muffins. On Saturday afternoon, the local bakery had only four flavors left: banana walnut, carrot, raspberry-blueberry, and orange almond (who wants that?). It may be tough for a while, but we'll get through.

It was bad enough when the pro-abortion celebrity Susan Sarandon was appointed to carry the Olympic flag in along with several other women activists from various countries. Then Peter Gabriel sang John Lennon's atheist anthem, "Imagine". What kind of appeal to peace is this, that suggests the world would be better off without God our Father who makes us brothers?

Have Europeans already forgotten that we just got through a century in which militant atheists (Mao, Stalin) and pagans (Hitler) staged the worst crimes in the history of man?

Foolishness!

Some bonehead editor working for NASA, a 24-year-old journalism major, decided to pick a quarrel with a scientist in the agency, demanding that he use the word "theory" every time he mentioned the "Big Bang".

Perhaps he thought he was defending the concept of a world created by God, but that kind of incompetent help we don't need. I'm pleased to see the guy's been exposed for lying about his college degree and has hit the sidewalk.

Our beloved ex-Mayor turned convict turned city-council member was up for sentencing today for failing to file city and federal tax forms from 2000 to today.

His sentencing has been delayed another month.

According to federal judge Deborah Robinson, the defense has yet to turn in a pre-sentencing report.

Barry's lawyer said he thought he submitted it, but didn't have a copy. The judge gave him until 4 p.m. this afternoon to turn it in. (source)

Are you skipping lunch today, counsellor?

Flagrant caricature of Catholic faith ignored

Ask any ethically sound man and he will tell you immediately that the kind of schizophrenic morality practised by some Malaysians cannot arise from a genuine obedience to the laws of the Almighty but rather that it is an undisguised worship of expediency (self-interest). It is often the hypocrites who make the most noise.

During the administration of John F Kennedy in the 60s when negotiations with the former Soviet Union were almost reaching a deadlock, the president told his aides that the attitude of the Russians seem to be: ‘What is mine is mine. What is yours we negotiate.’

Here's a blog written by an Opus Dei priest, Fr. John Wauck.

Cruise line sets sail for record with megaship

For you Star Trek fans: the ship will be called Project Genesis.

My friend Fr. Tom Carleton sent this:

There is an interesting story to which I would like to give testimony while it is fresh in my mind.

On Saturday I anointed a devout man named Anthony, who was dying and was not expected to live much longer.

Sister Cordata, a very holy nun and good friend of Anthony, was herself ill and was in fact today taken to the hospital with pneumonia (say a prayer for her, if you will). When her blood sister came for her this afternoon at about 2:15 p.m., Sister Cordata said, "Anthony has died." Those present of course assured her that although he was dying he had not yet died, and now she had to take care of her own health.

Well, as it turned out, at 12:15 p.m. this afternoon Anthony indeed had died, so it appears to me at least that God (maybe through a communication between Anthony's guardian angel and Sister's guardian angel) somehow revealed to Sister Cordata of his passing into eternity.

Really, this sort of thing happens all the time, doesn't it?

In my following column for a local community webzine, I expressed disagreement with the Canadian notion that multiculturalism is always a good thing for Canada. I stated that certain practices such as threatening violence over cartoons should not be tolerated in a free and democratic country.

Wow! It wasn't long before some leftist accused me of being a neo-con Nazi!

NBC backs off / denies Crucifixion joke

Anti-Western Muslims in Denmark went out of their way to foment outrage about the Mohammed cartoons published last year, distributing not just the twelve original cartoons by professional cartoonists, but three more particularly gross images not related to the newspaper caricatures.

Someone please tell me this isn't true.

"SECRET discussions between the Roman Catholic Church and Michael Jackson to put the prayers of Pope John Paul II to music appeared to be in disarray last night after the singer fled members of the press who had got wind of the project." ...more

Fr. John Zuhlsdorf has turned his fine Wanderer column on the subject of translations into a weblog: "What Does the Prayer Really Say?"

Welcome to the 'net, Father!

(Hat tip to Ephrem.)

BENNETT, Colo. - Some parents in this prairie town are angry with an elementary school music teacher for showing pupils a video about the opera "Faust," whose title character sells his soul to the devil in exchange for being young again...

Tresa Waggoner showed approximately 250 first-, second- and third-graders at Bennett Elementary portions of a 33-year-old series titled "Who's Afraid of Opera" a few weeks ago.

The video features the soprano Dame Joan Sutherland and three puppet friends discussing Gounod's "Faust." Waggoner thought it would be a good introduction to opera.

I wonder how many of those kids get to watch MTV or the Fox network after 8pm? Could that be any worse than Joan Sutherland and puppet friends talking about opera?

The Coup de grâce:

Another parent, Casey Goodwin, said, "I think it glorifies Satan in some way."

I agree that Joan Sutherland talking to puppet friends might be a little disturbing. See below:

But glorifies Satan? That's nuts.

The teacher gets a jab in at the end of the article:

"I was definitely not sensitive to the conservative nature of the community, and I've learned that," Waggoner said in Sunday's editions of The Denver Post. "However, from what has been said about me, that I'm a Satan worshipper, my character, I can't believe all of this. My intention was just to expose the kids to opera."

Get it? Having a conservative nature means you are a nasty reactionary.

For those of you who are now curious about the Faust story, here's a synopsis of the opera if you want to draw your own conclusions.

Nominations for the 2006 Catholic Blog Awards are open until Friday (Feb 3) at 3PM Central Time. There are so many fine blogs out there, including those here at stblogs.org: do take the opportunity to get your suggestions in.

Kid Writes Essay Threatening Bush, Oprah
Secret Service is investigating.

When hostile parishioners drive out their pastor, what's a bishop to do?

9 Then he proceeded to tell the people this parable. "(A) man planted a vineyard, leased it to tenant farmers, and then went on a journey for a long time. 10 At harvest time he sent a servant to the tenant farmers to receive some of the produce of the vineyard. But they beat the servant and sent him away empty-handed. 11 So he proceeded to send another servant, but him also they beat and insulted and sent away empty-handed. 12 Then he proceeded to send a third, but this one too they wounded and threw out. 13 The owner of the vineyard said, 'What shall I do? I shall send my beloved son; maybe they will respect him.' 14 But when the tenant farmers saw him they said to one another, 'This is the heir. Let us kill him that the inheritance may become ours.'

When the Son comes, will they respect Him?

Four years ago today, my professional life as a canonist changed when I became aware of what was breaking in Boston. Unlike other professional crises, this one affected my personal life in that I was just getting use to being a father. I spent part of this morning reflecting on this experience in a column I write for a local webzine.

Who wears t-shirts to the State of the Union address?

Cindy Sheehan, and the wife of Florida Rep. Bill Young. Both were ejected by Capitol police.

And what a lame way to go. I thought Sheehan would have waited to cause a spectacle. She might have jumped out of the balcony Tosca-style yelling, "Bush killed my son!" And as she lay injured on the floor of the senate, she would have smiled at the camera and said, "Senator Feinstein - I'm coming for you, you sell out... someone get Jessee Jackson - this is the photo op of the century..."

Instead she decides to wear a t-shirt that said "2,245 Dead. How many more."

A more appropriate shirt would have been this.

Britain's House of Lords has gained a rare victory by persuading the House of Commons to defeat a proposal by Tony Blair's Government.

After the Government put a bill on "hate crimes" and "hate speech" through the House of Commons, it went to the House of Lords, where a majority opposed its overreaching provisions as a threat to freedom of speech, and to religious speech in particular.

The Lords amended the bill to protect speech that was merely offensive and not threatening, and to give explicit protection to religious and anti-religious speech. Then, when the bill went back to the Commons, many Labourites joined opposition MPs in an unusual reversal and defeated the Labour Government's attempt to undo the changes.

England may yet endure.