May 2006 Archives

The word "tragedy" gets abused a lot these days, but here's something truly tragic:

BAGHDAD, Iraq - U.S. forces killed two Iraqi women — one of them about to give birth — when the troops shot at a car that failed to stop at an observation post in a city north of Baghdad, Iraqi officials and relatives said Wednesday. Nabiha Nisaif Jassim, 35, was being raced to the maternity hospital in Samarra by her brother when the shooting occurred Tuesday.

The U.S. military said coalition troops fired at a car after it entered a clearly marked prohibited area near an observation post but failed to stop despite repeated visual and auditory warnings.

Given the frequency of suicide car bombings in Iraq, the rules of engagement are justified. That is no comfort to the family involved. And imagine if you were the gunner who killed the two women -- knowing that you acted properly, and in ignorance of what the vehicle was really doing, is no comfort either.

But there's a reason Kim Gamel of the AP filed an 800 word story on a simple incident: to blur the moral distinction between accidental killing and murder.

[The victim's brother] said the killings, like those in Haditha, were examples of random killings faced by Iraqis every day.

The killings at Haditha, a city that has been plagued by insurgents, came after a bomb rocked a military convoy on Nov. 19, killing a Marine. Rep. John Murtha (news, bio, voting record), D-Pa., a decorated war veteran who has been briefed by military officials, has said Marines shot and killed unarmed civilians in a taxi at the scene and went into two homes and shot others.

Kim didn't mention that the congressman, a living disgrace to the Marine Corps, declared that the Marines were guilty though none have been charged with anything yet, and he implicated the Marines' chain of command, too. Very discreet. Then she reveals her main theme:

Former Iraqi Foreign Minister Adnan Pachachi told the BBC that the allegations have "created a feeling of great shock and sadness and I believe that if what is alleged is true — and I have no reason to believe it's not — then I think something very drastic has to be done."

"There must be a level of discipline imposed on the American troops and change of mentality which seems to think that Iraqi lives are expendable," said Pachachi, a member of parliament.

Pachachi was being droll -- for if anyone considers Iraqi lives expendable, it's other Iraqis. And then comes...you can see this coming...Abu Ghraib!

If confirmed as unjustified killings, the episode could be the most serious case of criminal misconduct by U.S. troops during three years of combat in Iraq. Until now the most infamous occurrence was the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse involving Army soldiers, which came to light in April 2004 and which Bush said he considered to be the worst U.S. mistake of the entire war.

I wouldn't put barking dogs and naked Iraqi pyramids on the same level as mass murder, but the AP is as mainstream as journalism gets, and mainstream journalism decided two years ago that Abu Ghraib is equivalent to Dachau.

It's 5:00 a.m. in Baghdad as I type this. Thousands of Marines and soldiers have already woken for the day, and they are getting their gear ready to go out on patrol, man checkpoints, give fire support, render medical aid, and countless other tasks. Over the last three years, hundreds of thousands of men have risked their lives to save Iraqi civilians, and many more will in the future.

If Marines really committed murder in Haditha, people like Kim Gamel of the Associated Press will use their guilt to eradicate any good that servicemen did in Iraq. They've done a good job so far: most of the American public thinks that the war hasn't been worth the cost. Who can blame them? The feckless Big Media never ceases to highlight bad events in Iraq, and no one can answer them effectively.

Dom Bettinelli is looking for a new job, as he's leaving Ignatius Press this summer. If you read his site and haven't chipped in lately, this would be a fine time to do that.

From Reuters this morning:

"DUTCH pedophiles were launching a political party to push for a cut in the legal age for sexual relations from 16 to 12 and the legalisation of child pornography and sex with animals."

The newspapers and bloggers got this one wrong: there is no plan afoot in Iran to make Christians and Jews wear special insignia on their clothing.

The Venerable Sister Rita Amada de Jesus (1848-1913) was beatified today in her native diocese of Viseu, Portugal. Living in the 1800s, when Masonic governments persecuted the Church and forbade religious institutes to accept new novices, this "Apostle of the Rosary" founded the Institute of Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, a community dedicated to teaching poor children, and began to operate schools in spite of government harassment.

In 1910, intensified pressure from the government forced religious institutes to operate underground and led Rita Amada to send sisters to South America, giving her community the missionary dimension she had long desired.

As of December 2005 (when Dom cited it), the pro-gay, pro-abortion group "Human Rights Watch" listed Fr. Bryan Hehir, the President of Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Boston, on its Board of Directors.

Now, it doesn't.

What's this: a window display at a clerical tailor?

But these four priests are no dummies: they're watching the Pope's Mass in Warsaw as they shelter from the rain in Pilsudski Square. AP's pictures from the event are on-line at Yahoo.

Captions, anyone?

It's good to be Big Media. You don't even have to conceal your biases anymore.

Senate Passes Immigration Bill Overhaul By DAVID ESPO

WASHINGTON (AP) - Legislation to secure U.S. borders and offer millions of illegal immigrants access to the American dream cleared the Senate on Thursday, a rare election-year reach across party lines and a triumph for President Bush.

The issue at hand was, apparently, "access to the American dream." What kind of horrid monster would be against access to the American dream?

You'd never know it from the article, but would-be immigrants can apply for access to the American dream at over 260 U.S. embassies and consulates throughout the world. Trouble is, they might refuse you for trifing reasons, such as no demonstrated ability to support yourself, or maybe you stabbed somebody in an argument and went to jail for six years. The other option, sneaking into the U.S., will then become more attractive.

Therefore, the Senate wants to grant amnesty -- sorry, access to the American dream -- to people whose first act on American soil was to commit a crime. In this debate, we have lost sight of that simple fact: It is already a crime to enter the United States and take up permanent residence without a visa. The Senate bill pretends to "secure the borders" by building some new fences and hiring some new Border Patrol agents. This is what they mean by a "compromise bill" -- the Republicans get to pretend to their constituents that they are "serious" about defending our borders, and the Democrats get to spend more tax money, while knowing that the enforcement will never materialize.

Those in the country unlawfully for five years or more would be permitted to remain, continue working and eventually apply for citizenship. They would be required to pay at least $3,250 in fines and fees, settle any back taxes and learn English.

These sound great, but they won't happen. What does "required to pay" mean, anyway? Who will track them down and make them pay? Immigration and Customs Enforcement? Federal courts? The IRS? These are illegal residents who have managed to dodge the law for a half-decade and more: you think they won't dodge the tax man?

And the requirement to learn English is an utter joke. Again, how will that be enforced? You only have to take a literacy test if you apply for citizenship. Permanent residents don't need to know English. (The guidelines for applying for permanent residency are here.) If learning English wasn't a problem for five or more years, it probably won't be a problem at all.

In other words, this is like a common-law marriage -- you shack up long enough, you're de facto married. You live in America long enough, you get to be a permanent resident, and maybe even a citizen with full civil rights, including the right to vote.

American citizenship used to mean something. The Founding Fathers risked their lives to establish it. Multitudes have died to keep it. And the United States Senate wants to give it away for $3,250 in fines and fees, plus back taxes. What gutless, loathsome, contemptible bastards.

If any of our readers happen to be family lawyers in the state of Arizona, would you take a moment to look into a family that needs help?

Nancy Sandrock is a practicing midwife and mother of twelve in Maricopa County. Seven of her children live at home, but they were removed by the Arizona CPS recently in connection with a complaint against her 18-year-old son.

Our blog neighbor Alicia the midwife (May archive) has visited the family in the past and knows the mother well, so she's been posting about the case.

What they need most now is legal help to stop apparently abusive state social workers from bulldozing their family.

This BBC story tells of an amazing story: in a small trial, three patients diagnosed with PVS woke up temporarily when given an anti-insomnia drug.

Each of the three patients studied was given the drug every morning.

An improvement was seen within 20 minutes of taking the drug and wore off after four hours, when the patients restored to their permanent [sic] vegetative state.

Notice how the BBC's culture-of-death mentality appears here, when the writer uses the wrong name for the condition: "permanent vegetative state" vs. the usual "persistent". Even when the patient has awakened to an obviously conscious condition with the help of a medication, the writer still calls the patient's uncommunicative state "permanent".

It appears that the tendency to deny the patient's humanity and worth is persistent.

Teresa and I made a Marriage Encounter this weekend. It was absolutely wonderful - probably the best thing we've done together since we got married. May 28 is our seven year anniversary.

If you're married, or a priest and haven't gone on an encounter weekend, I highly recommend it.

Many Catholics take a cavalier attitude toward mass immigration, including commenters on this here blog. "Sure, immigration might be a problem," they say, "but at least most of the immigrants are Catholic!"

How can we face our fellow citizens in the public square and argue for our views if we take that attitude? Translated, this says to our opponents, "Either agree with our arguments, or we'll import zillions of foreigners and your guys will never get elected again because Latin Americans aren't keen on abortion or gay marriage or all those other things you like so much."

There are two problems with that approach. First, it treats American citizenship as if it means nothing -- hardly a convincing tactic to anyone who is the least bit patriotic. Second, it isn't true, because the current wave of immigrants will enshrine the Culture of Death for at least another generation.

I've met lots of Mexicans, and I've been to Central America a couple of times; Latin America as a whole is unquestionably more morally traditional than the U.S. But in the end, it won't matter: Latinos will vote for Democrats, because the Democrats will promise them welfare, medical care, and subsidized education, and in the end, those goodies will trump moral traditionalism.

This is not an ethnic slur, it's a sociological fact. Immigrants of all ethnicities overwhelmingly vote for Democrats. This is true of poor Salvadoran laborers and wealthy Indian entrepreneurs. There are a few anomalies -- Vietnamese and Cuban immigrants trend Republican -- but they do not disprove the rule.

That's why California, which 40 years ago elected Ronald Reagan, now will have pro-abortion governors in the future. Arizona, which sent Barry Goldwater to the Senate, now drifts leftward; Colorado continues on the same path, and as more Mexicans are naturalized and begin voting, Texas will follow in a decade or so.

And the Democrats they're electing in these states aren't like the morally conservative Democrat politicians that you can find in Mississippi or Alabama. Even if they elect Republicans, they will be weak on moral issues. Look at Schwarzenegger, and you will see the future of American politics.

If you agree with mass immigration on Catholic grounds, and I disagree with it on Catholic grounds, we can agree to disagree. Just don't think the country will be moved closer to Catholic teachings because of it.

Two postscripts:

1. Latin immigrants won't necessarily remain Catholic, even if they were Catholic to begin with. In the Arlington Diocese, where I reside, there are about 300,000 Spanish-speaking immigrants, and only about 10% actively practice the Catholic faith. Evangelical and Pentecostal groups are much better at getting Hispanics involved.

2. Read about the American Church in the 19th century, and the widespread resentment against the Irish domination of the Catholic clergy and institutions. But as the Mass was in Latin, there was no controversy about the language of the liturgy. Catholic schools taught their classes in English. But if the current illegals are given amnesty, and 40 million additional Latino immigrants come to the U.S. because of family reunification laws (a low number, by some estimates), we will essentially have two parallel churches in the same country, one English, one Spanish, each with their own liturgies, traditions, institutions, clergy, religious, and laity. Many bishops will be forced to contend with two linguistic blocs within their dioceses, and will have to adjudicate an endless series of disputes between the two.

Will that be a source of unity, or division?

Would you agree that the Catholic Church has an image problem? The causes aren't just third-rate novels like "The Da Vinci Code" or the "discovery" of "The Gospel of Judas," as if spurious ancient writings about Jesus Christ were something new under the sun.

No, the image problem is largely self-imposed these days. The Church's enemies magnify the flaws of her members, to be sure, but they did not instill those flaws, nor do they install those members into positions of power.

Primarily, the Church's reputation has suffered because of the priest sex scandals. I would argue -- I have argued -- that the laity share the blame, for insisting that their clergy be "nice," non-judgmental, and non-dogmatic. But the primary responsibility rests with the bishops who did very little to stop the problem, beyond moving offending priests into therapy or reshuffling them into different jobs.

The scandal, then, stemmed from bad governance. (If you think the problem was because priests can't get married, you came to the wrong blog.) Instead of confronting the problem and causing a temporary disruption, bishops opted for a "soft" approach that would not cause grave scandal to non-Catholics. The result was an even more grave scandal when the facts came to light. To those outside the Church, it looked like bishops were doing what was good for their "tribe" instead of doing what was right. And there was much truth in that assessment.

In light of that, non-Catholics will be forgiven if they think the bishops' defense of illegal immigration is just another cynical ploy. In this case, the prelates want to continue the flow of immigrants so they can increase the size of their flocks and wield more influence in society.

I do not pretend to know what goes on in the heads of the bishops, whether individually or collectively. Personally, I doubt that they are that coldly calculating, and they genuinely believe that legal and illegal immigrants should all be granted citizenship, showered with various forms of public assistance, and receive a gentle kiss on the forehead before going to sleep every night. But you can't blame the public at large for harboring doubts.

Some of you have been asking me to comment on Ed Peters' reflection on Fr. Maciel's penance. As usual, I agree with Ed on some things but disagree with him on others. That being said, my perspective is going to be coloured.

Although I was never formally involved in the case, some of Fr. Maciel's more recent accusers approached me a few years ago for canonical advice. I heard their stories and I offered what canonical advice I could at the time.

I won't deny this experience shook my faith in the Church. I thank God for His sustaining grace during this time.

Yet there's an old expression in canon law that the petitioner's case seems overwhelming until the respondent opens his mouth. I never spoke to Fr. Maciel for his side of the story. Nor was I appointed to adjudicate this case.

Therefore, I don't feel that it would be appropriate to engage Ed in a public debate. I would, however, ask everyone to please keep both Fr. Maciel and his alleged victims, whose stories I found believable, in prayer.

Now the Fr. Maciel has been "invited" to relinquish all public ministry as a result of CDF's investigations into sixth-commandment violations, what will happen in the religious community he founded? Will the Legion of Christ continue to speak of him reverently as "our father"? Will it remain an order that appears to select its seminarians in part for their pretty-boy looks?

One has to have some sympathy for members of the LC and the Regnum Christi lay group; they're good Catholic folks, sound in faith, who do many good things. Yet the founder of those groups misled them about himself, and they have to come to terms with the fact that he apparently committed some heinous crimes. His personality, with its defects, shaped the culture of those groups, giving them some dysfunctional aspects, so those communities will need their own efforts at truth, reconciliation, and reform. Alas, the LC's spokesmen seem to be circling the wagons so far.

The canonical accusers deserve credit for telling their story against a popular figure praised by thousands, including Pope John Paul II. God bless them for their courage, and may He bring healing to whatever harm Maciel caused them.

(The VIS announcement follows, and John Allen's NCR report is on-line.)

Update: Ed Peters has a commentary.

Update 2: Here's a link to the Legion press release. Reader Michael Gorman spotted that the URL I cited earlier went to an old press release instead of today's. Thanks! While today's release does not deny the charges outright, it still maintains the idea of Maciel as a Suffering Servant, choosing "not to defend himself in any way". Perhaps it's too early to expect an expression of regret from Maciel for his actions, or from the LC for its erroneous defenses of him.

Found this on NRO:

The art historian Bruce Boucher has suggested that the book be turned into an opera instead of a movie, because “If something is too stupid to say, you can always sing it.”

If they did turn it into an opera, it would probably rival Wagner's Ring Cycle in length. Unless they sing fast!

...about storms and tsunamis along the US coasts this year. Thanks, Pat Robertson!

During my youth, I worked on a construction site and four different restaurants. A large percentage of my co-workers were immigrants, and I got to know their personal lives -- what it was like growing up in Central America, what their lives were like now. I also think of the kids in the multi-ethnic neighborhood where I grew up. For several years, I played on a league soccer team drawn from our housing development, and only two players had been born in the U.S. (Not me: I was born in Germany.) As you'd expect, we won almost every game.

So when I write about immigrants, I'm not just talking about the guys who cut my lawn. From first-hand experience, I can see how difficult it is for those in the lowest economic strata of our society...working two or three jobs, hoping they won't get sick, trying to survive in a very expensive area of the country.

To those of you who think illegal immigration is no big deal, I ask you this: why do you want to hurt those struggling workers? You may protest that you just want to give immigrants a chance at a better life. But admitting millions of unskilled or low-skill immigrants -- legal or illegal -- depresses wages among the poorest workers.

That point should be so obvious that only a fool or a professor would deny it. When they seek employment, workers don't apply for "a job," they seek jobs for which they are qualified. Employers such as restaurants and construction companies do not need to pay better wages or provide better working conditions, because they know they can replace their workers easily.

It will only get worse over the next decade. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, job growth will be almost exclusively in high-skill sectors. (Click the thumbnail to see the official chart.) Job losses will be in low-skill sectors (read the full article from the BLS.)

Yet if the Senate's immigration "reform" bill is enacted, it will increase, not decrease, the supply of low-end workers, as the number of low-end jobs dries up. We will have more people fighting for fewer jobs at lower wages.

Once again, could someone please explain what is "just" about that?

Heh:

Code misses mark for Cannes critics

Audience grew restless and tittered over some of the film’s melodrama

Update: For more delightful Schadenfreude, get over to Barb Nicolosi's blog.

When Tom Hanks' neck-length hairstyle became a matter of press comment, the sharks began to circle the movie. Apparently he adopted that somewhat old-fashioned academic image in order to fit his idea of a Harvard prof. Silly Tom: why didn't he just ask me or any other Harvard alumnus? Glasses are essential, hair should be on the short side, and for the classic look, a bow tie helps. If the character looks a little like a twit, that's just right. Or for that matter, look at some pictures of faculty.

Better luck next time!

(Hat tip to ol' pal JJG)

I have been stewing about the Church's response to the sham immigration "reform" bills percolating in the Senate. This response has been led by Cardinal Mahony of Los Angeles, who has never been noted for any political activism that didn't involve running interference for liberal Democrats.

The cardinal's position boils to this: the United States should abandon its southern border and let everyone in. In Mexico alone, according to a recent survey, something like a quarter of the population would move to the U.S. if given the chance. That means about 28 million people, in addition to the 11 million illegals already here.

This is not a teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. It has little to do with the Gospel. It is the cardinal's personal opinion. Let's go to the Catechism:

The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him.

Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants' duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens.

How can immigration possibly be a "natural right" in the same sense as the right to life, if it is subject to "various juridical conditions" -- and thus can be denied if the civil authority sees fit? The answer must be that it is a conditional right, based on dire circumstance. Like the classic hypothetical situation where a man takes bread from a store to feed his family, the Catechism presumably means that a person has the right to leave his homeland if the alternative is death (which is the literal reading of "livelihood.")

Mexico is a Third World country, but they are well-off by Third World standards. They have a trillion-dollar economy, which works out to over $10,000 per capita. Compared to regional neighbors Guatemala ($5,200), El Salvador ($5,100), Honduras ($2,800), and Nicaragua ($2,400), Mexico is quite wealthy. Its citizens aren't fleeing north because they are starving, they are trying to improve their economic prospects. Big difference.

The Mexican government wants to keep exporting its poor, mainly so it won't have to undertake necessary social and economic reforms to solve its internal problems. I cannot recall the good cardinal, or any other prelate, calling on Mexico to institute "social justice" measures -- for instance, to insist on honest judges or property rights for all classes, which would help their economy immeasurably.

What about the effect on black people? They are Americans who helped build this country, contributed sons to fight and die in its wars, and have contributed heavily to the cultural life of the nation. Two-thirds of blacks are middle class or richer, but one-third aren't. They deserve prior consideration in any social decision regarding mass low-skill immigration, and their interests should be protected. Same thing with poor whites, or poor Hispanics, or any other poor person.

No matter how rich or powerful it is, the United States is a country like any other, and it has the right to require documentation of immigrants, to refuse entry to criminals, and protect its poorest and most vulnerable citizens against economic calamity. Aiding and abetting a corrupt and dysfunctional government, impoverishing the poor, imperiling our common culture -- how exactly does mass immigration further social justice?

What's the easiest way to get no one to sing?

Play a hymn too slowly.

Our organist for the wedding told me it's a widespread problem here in RI.

Aside from taking away the charm and life from some great hymn tunes, it forces the congregation to do something they aren't used to: hold their breath for a long time while they sing. The slower the tempo, the longer the phrases. Even folks with no vocal training know that they have to hold their breath with singing and only get to breathe between phrases. You can cheat if you breath half-way through a phrase, but then you just feel like you can't sing. If you go ahead and sing the long phrase, you might feel some discomfort in your torso. That's your abdominal muscles working to hold your breath. And that just gets more and more uncomfortable for people who aren't used to long phrases.

So - push your tempos! You'll know when you're playing something too fast, it won't feel right. Faster, without comprimising the musicality of the hymn tune makes everyone feel better about singing.

If I'm traveling, I should do what RC does and get the 411 on local parishes. Holy Ghost on Federal Hill in RI was beautiful inside, but it turned out they were having first communions. No problem with that by itself, except like I mentioned before even my parish has trouble with first communinions. Apparently, DRE's everywhere think first communion Sundays are times to:

1. Have the first communicants do the readings and general intercessions.
2. Have them sing special songs.
3. Have them bring flowers to their families during offertory.
4. Do some wacky procession or dressing of the altar.
5. Emphasize first communion being a friendly meal.
6. If in May, bring flowers to the Virgin Mary, then sing a Hymn to the Virgin Mary.

The other challenge of first communion Sundays are the families. I saw people come in to church with Dunkin Donuts coffee cups. Flash photography, video cameras, and cell phones were everywhere. A fella behind took a phone call 3 minutes before Mass. I finally couldn't take it anymore when we stood for the Eucharist Prayer and he sang the first few words of the National Anthem. I turned around and asked him to show some respect.

So what are the practical things we can do?

First communicants need to be focused on receiving Christ in the Eucharist. Everything else is just cuteness, or devotions that don't necessarily support the sacrament. One of the things on the list above may be appropriate, but to turn the Sunday liturgy on its head because of first communions strikes me as a misguided effort at participation that detracts from the real reason the kids are there: to receive Jesus in the Eucharist for the very first time.

What to do about parents and families? Do they need lecturing at their own kids first communion classes? Do they need a list of norms and guidelines? Should we, like some parishes I know, refuse the sacraments to people who don't attend Mass weekly for a good reason?

The parents seem like a harder nut to crack. The folks who don't attend Mass on Sunday are the ones who want the Church to be there for Christmas, Easter, funerals, weddings, and first communions. How do you make their own kids first communion a moment for them to reflect on how little they may value and understand the Eucharist?

I'm up near RC's neck of the woods for the weekend. My cousin is getting married and Teresa and I will be singing at the wedding.

We ate lunch up at Federal Hill across the street from a big brick Catholic parish. The name is chiseled on marble over the entrance:

HOLY GHOST CHVRCH
That's right: a V instead of a U.

There's no school like old school. I'll let you know what the morning Mass is like.

Sami the cat. Used to be my brother's, but he gave her to us when he entered the seminary. He took this photo a while back at a family gathering.

The L.A. Times tells us that "Sex is essential, kids aren't," in an editorial by David P. Barash, professor of psychology at the University of Washington. It seems that the psychiatric profession, or at least this guy, embraces the idea of free will wholeheatedly:

And evolutionary biologists (including me) are asked, "How can this be?" If reproduction is perhaps the fundamental imperative of natural selection, of our genetic heritage, isn't it curious — indeed, counterintuitive — that people choose, and in such large numbers, to refrain from participating in life's most pressing event?

The answer is that intentional childlessness is indeed curious — but in no way surprising. It is also illuminating, because it sheds light on what is perhaps the most notable hallmark of the human species: the ability to say no — not just to a bad idea, an illegal order or a wayward pet but to our own genes.

When it comes to human behavior, there are actually very few genetic dictates. Our hearts insist on beating, our lungs breathing, our kidneys filtering and so forth, but these internal-organ functions are hardly "behavior" in a meaningful sense. As for more complex activities, evolution whispers within us. It does not shout orders.

People are inclined to eat when hungry, sleep when tired and have sex when aroused. But in most cases, we remain capable of declining, endowed as we are with that old bugaboo, free will....

Ignore (if you can) the smug, facile cheerleading for the culture of death, and the blithe disregard for what German depopulation will mean for the world's future. (Hint: no beer, no pork sausages.) Isn't this the perfect argument against those who argue that homosexual behavior is pre-programmed into certain people? Even if it is, David P. Barash, professor of psychology at the University of Washington, says that homosexuals don't have to obey it.

Taking this a bit further, we often hear that teenagers "are going to have sex anyway" so we might as well equip them with condoms and pills to protect against the consequences. But if David P. Barash is right -- and I think he may be -- young, unmarried people don't have to get it on! It's just an urge, and they can say "no" to it!

Wait...you say the professor might not agree? But those are the clear implications, aren't they?

Is Islam a religion of peace? Nope. Just ask Cardinal Pells of Australia. And the Koran.

"In my own reading of the Koran, I began to note down invocations to violence," he said. "There are so many of them, however, that I abandoned this exercise after 50 or 60 or 70 pages."

He discussed the perceived differences between parts of the Koran written during Mohammed's years in Mecca - when his position was weak and he was still hoping to win converts, including Christians and Jews - and those written during his subsequent years in Medina, when "the spread of Islam through conquest and coercion began."

[The differences in the text from those two periods hold apparent contradictions between, for example, the concept of "jihad," meaning striving or waging war. Some verses counsel a patient response to mockery from unbelievers; others incite warfare against them. The question of whether the Medina chapters (suras) replaced and revoked the Mecca ones have long exercised scholars.]

"The predominant grammatical form in which jihad is used in the Koran carries the sense of fighting or waging war," Pell said.

It was legitimate to ask "our Islamic partners in dialogue" for their views on these matters.

"Do they believe that the peaceful suras of the Koran are abrogated by the verses of the sword?" he asked. ...more.

A very valuable question to ask.

He did make some comments about environmentalism that probably needed more explanation. Think about this coming from the USCCB - would that make you laugh, or cry?

In a section of the speech dealing with what he called the "emptiness" of secularism, he said "some of the hysteric and extreme claims about global warming are also a symptom of pagan emptiness, of Western fear when confronted by the immense and basically uncontrollable forces of nature."

I spent the past week in Blind River, a community of about 3000 in a peaceful part of Northern Ontario. It was great! No internet, no television, choppy cell phone service and some of the most beautiful tracts of nature to fall within a friendly community.

Every Thursday evening in Blind River the local Legion Ladies Auxiliary holds its charity Bingo. Given that all my co-workers are ladies who enjoy playing Bingo, they invited me to join them. I purchased the smallest Bingo card package at the door and my supervisor passed me a bingo dabber.

"Make sure you turn the cap upside down," she said. "It brings bad luck to the table if turns right side up."

I glanced around me. Sure enough, everyone's cap was upside down. I had only been to a Bingo once before in my life -- about fifteen years ago -- but I found this superstition ridiculous. Thus I grabbed my bingo dabber cap, turned it right side up, and slammed it down on the table.

Everyone around me gasped. "You'll bring bad luck to the table," they protested.

"I'm Catholic. My God trumps the god of Bingo."

The ladies just kinda stared at me for a moment, then went back to helping me get set up and play.

Throughout the evening, everyone at my table won a small Bingo pot except me. So our table was pretty lucky and my coworkers began to doubt this Bingo superstition.

Then came one of the last games of the evening with one of the largest pots. My supervisor said: "I have a feeling Pete is going to win this. If that happens, I will put all my caps right side up from now on."

I sorta laughed it off. I hadn't invoked God's name in the gamble, but against this silly Bingo superstition. Well God showed everyone that He wasn't bound by which way a dabber cap stood. I won the Bingo pot.

Over the last few weeks, I have been haunted by these questions:

1. How long will the war against Islamofascism last?

2. How many people will die as a result?

3. Will the Islamofascists win, or will their non-Islamofascist opponents win?

I'm interested in what you think — please contribute your own views. My answers are:

1. 10-15 years, though it may drag on for several more decades.

2. Somewhere between 500,000 and 20 million will die, but I will guess 2-3 million. My reasoning goes as follows: over a decade, the Islamofascist regime in Khartoum killed 1 million Christians and animist "rebels" in southern Sudan. I believe that there will be two or three similar genocides, given the number of countries in which the Muslim radicals operate, and the large populations involved. The low number seems far too optimistic. A nuclear war with Iran, Israel, and/or Pakistan involved as belligerents could easily kill 15-20 million.

3. We will lose, and the Islamofascists will win.

Four years ago, I would have strongly disputed the last point. But four years ago, I thought that the "War on Terror" would be an interlude after which we would go back to arguing about abortion or a flag-burning amendment or whatever else.

It isn't working out that way. We now live in a post-post-September 11 world. Americans were willing to support a "War on Terror" as long as it meant wiping out or containing regimes that promote terrorism. When we slaughtered the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan, and deposed the terrorist-supporting regime in Iraq, the public was willing to support it.

But we are facing an enemy determined to wear us down, in the classical Arab fashion of avoiding direct battle and harassing their enemy with raids until his will is broken. Our Western tradition of seeking a decisive military confrontation — a tradition that stretches back at least 2,500 years to the ancient Greeks — chafes at the idea of patiently rooting out a malign force and supplanting it with congenial institutions. Westerners want the "War" to cease so they can get back to their daily lives. But jihadis don't have day jobs, because their countries' economies are moribund. They have plenty of time on their hands for mortal thoughts.

You may think I am referring to Iraq, but I am thinking further down the road. Iraq is neither the first nor the last time that we have faced an insurgency enmeshed with the local population. Nor is it the last time we will confront jihadi thugs. In the next couple of years, Iran will get nuclear weapons. Those weapons will give them newfound influence to wreak great evils in the world. And the United States, and every other free nation in the world, won't do a f——— thing about it.

That is because to most Americans, the "War" doesn't exist. Few people are affected by it directly. It consumes very little of our gigantic economy's abundance, and has (relative to our population of almost 300 million) produced low casualties from a historical perspective. There is no sense of urgency, and little desire to prevent Iran from getting its nukes.

Knowing this, Iran will continue to expand its sphere of influence in the Middle East and Central Asia. Iran's allies will continue to kill Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan, and elsewhere as opportunities present themselves. Bit by bit, piece by piece, they will consolidate their gains until they are the Islamic superpower they aspire to be, vouchsafed by their nuclear deterrent. Muslim states, out of fear and religious solidarity, will side with Iran or at least do nothing to antagonize it.

The only thing that might jeopardize this plan is another clumsy, September-11-style terror attack. That might rouse Americans and other free peoples into action. Iran will studiously avoid this mistake.

Besides nuclear technology and thuggery, the Iranian regime and other Islamofascists have another advantage: culture. No, not high culture; they have no interest in art, architecture, literature, music, or any other beautiful thing. I mean culture in the most primitive sense, the soil in which they grow and thrive. There are few truly secular Muslim countries. Some nominally secular states do exist in the Muslim world, but their populations are sustained by an essentially Islamic worldview. States were not sanctioned by the Koran, so they have no real standing to a pious Muslim, unlike in Christianity where they have a temporary but divinely-sanctioned role in human life.

Within Islam, the only sanctioned institution other than the teachings of Mohammad himself is the family. Religion and family reinforce each other and provide a strong cultural basis for Muslim societies. Today, these societies are often anemic and dysfunctional, and the more anemic and dysfunctional, the more likely they are to produce Islamofascists. But religion and family are far more powerful and enduring influences than secularism and consumerism, the chief twin values of Western elites. In the long run, the men animated by stronger forces will wear down the men sustained by weaker ones.

As I said above, I did not believe that the "War on Terror" would last more than a couple of years, as I did not think it represented a true challenge to our civilization. Like many others, I spent the 1990s thinking that the challenge was mainly from within: lack of faith in God, lack of confidence in, and knowledge of, the four pillars of our own culture (Greece, Rome, Judaism, and Christianity).

Now we face a determined enemy bent on our destruction, and we do not have the internal strength to resist. Either Western civilization will recover and renew itself by embracing the Cross once again, or it will perish eternally. The only other alternative — that Islamofascists will lose their appeal, and will not use suicide bombers and nuclear devices to work their will — is highly unlikely.

Richard notes that Rod Dreher, religion correspondent for the Dallas Morning News and a convert, is considering leaving the Church.

This isn't very surprising. A while ago, many people chastised Rob for his increasingly unhinged writing about the gay sex scandals. Catholic Light had commentary such as this and this, where Rod himself left a drive-by comment.

There is a strong element of narcissism in Rod's public conduct: Me, me, me. What I think, what I experience, what I believe. Playing out one's most intimate internal struggles for public consumption, in a manner that calls attention to one's own virtue, is not the approach of a serious man. It is the hallmark of the adolescent.

Sounds harsh? Maybe so, but it's the root of the problem. Rod is not having an intellectual difficulty. He believes that he has the right -- no, the duty -- to stand in judgment over the Church and her clergy. Read this 2004 column, where Rod "outs" his parish priest who was accused -- not arrested, much less convicted -- of molesting a male minor. Google isn't telling me what the resolution was.

I spent the next several days trying to find whatever information I could about Father Clay's situation. It was true: Father Clay had been banned from active ministry.

What to do with this information? I wasn't worried about Father Clay. I was worried about Father Allan Hawkins, the parish's very fine pastor, and the good people of the congregation.

I thought: Can't this be handled quietly, so Father Hawkins and the parish aren't embarrassed?

And then I thought: If I go that route, I am no better than the bishops and others I have criticized. They kept it in-house for the sake of the church and led us all off the cliff. Public exposure is the only sure way to handle Father Clay.

Father Clay might have been an innocent man unjustly accused, swept up in the frenzied reaction to the scandal. But Judge Rod will not be deterred by considerations of prudence, avoiding scandal, or protecting the reputation of others. Father Clay was accused, and so he must pay!

God is allowing Mr. Dreher's faith to be tested. Will he be a man and contend for it? Or will he allow his own personal disappointments to divert him into rejecting the head of the Church? I pray it is the former.

I'm going to be in Houston for work May 6-13; what should I visit, and where should I attend Mass?

John Foley, SJ and the other St. Louis Jebbies are interviewed in LA:

The Life Teen movement has been very interesting; it's very powerful to see how parts of the Mass, especially the Eucharistic Prayer, become very holy to these youth. And to hear what they can do with older music --- I once heard a reggae version of "One Bread, One Body" that I would have thought couldn't be done, but it was, and done very well.

For some of us, singing OBOB in a reggae style would be a joke among the musicians, not something for the sacred liturgy. Blurring the line between satire and the Holy Mass is a risky idea.

No ganja during the postcommunion, please.

(via CWNews)

Excommunications in Roman Catholic history

Rod Dreher, sorely vexed by all the scandals, is tempted to leave the Catholic Church and join an Orthodox church. Here's my comment:

Ultimately, God does not intend us to each be our own judges of what is right and wrong in matters of faith. When we came into the Church, we were asked to consider the Church's teaching authority. The Church teaches that certain doctrines are divinely revealed, and we were asked: Do you hold and believe all the doctrine that the holy Catholic Church teaches as divinely revealed? It's a significant obligation to take on, and one we intended to be irrevocable.

Unless breaking communion with Rome has a positive value for someone, it's hard to see a way to justify the departure. That's why the converts I've seen leave were people who came in from Protestantism, passed through Eastern Catholic life, and on out to one of the Orthodox churches, all the while maintaining a consistent anti-Roman attitude.

Rod, if you choose to reaffirm your identity as a Catholic in union with the Pope, whether Roman or eastern, you will be giving your children a valuable lesson about fidelity and about acceptance of our limitations.

(via Amy.)

The Wall Street Journal has an article about the roadkill of the information superhighway: the worst businesses launched on the internet.

And they did stink. The iLoo. Flooz. CueCat. You can read all about how moronic they were from conception thru to losing millions.

But it looks like some people never learn. See bold below:

"I would have wanted a different outcome," said Mr. Levitan [formerly of Flooz], who has since moved on to start-up Pando Networks Inc., which aims to simplify the sending of email attachments.

Click paper clip icon. Browse for files. Hit "attach." Send.

How do you simplify that?

And someone has already given them $4M. Suckers!

As an Easter gift, my wife bought Fr. Cantalamessa's "Come, Creator Spirit" for me.

It's the mother lode of meditations on Veni Creator Spiritus

Here's a tidbit from page 2:

"... the Veni Creator has enjoyed extraordinary success even out Church circles. Goethe produced a splendid German translation of it, as did the poets and mystics Tersteegen and Angelus Silesius. Composers showed their interest in it. Bach set Luther's translation to music; Gustav Mahler chose the hymn as libretto for his choral work Symphony of a Thousand, to say nothing of the many other authors of lesser note. Yet none of them so far has managed to equal the simple fascination of the Gregorian melody that seems to have come to birth in the same creative act as produced the words. To listen to this melody at the beginning of a retreat or at a priestly ordination is, as it were, to enter without further ado into an atmosphere charged with mystery and with the presence of the Spirit.

Thanks to all who posted on the text read during the dressing of the altar. The consensus is it stinks. It's just not worthy of the Mass, isn't allowed for to begin with, and makes no mention of what the Mass and the Eucharist really are.

The actual execution of it on Sunday was worse than I imagined. The renegade DRE (originally responsible for this being done) gathered up all the kids during the Creed and ushered them into the back to prepare for her production. Right in the middle of the creed, on a Sunday where it's particularly important to affirm what the Church teaches and believes.

I haven't had contact with the DRE - it turns out she's less than a year from retirement and has a sour disposition. So - our liturgy director gives her a wide berth. Nice: no one wants to engage the DRE because she's so defensive about what she does.

I'm sure options will be kicked around for next year that don't include this. Hopefully the kids and their parents can focus on the sacrament instead of being involved in a big, meaningles production that detracts from the sacrament.