July 2004 Archives

Let's start with a hypothetical proposition:

If God exists, I will not see the movie "Catwoman."

The mixed hypothetical syllogism in standard form, minus the stuff about demands, moral behavior, cat ears, postage stamps, and sin:

If God exists, then I will not see the movie "Catwoman."
God exists.
I will not see the movie "Catwoman."

Maria is a new convert to the faith who lives in Vermont.

Maria: I'm still a little fuzzy on the whole saint and angels thing, I read recently that saints are the avatars of angels, is that what you believe? I'm gathering it's not, or I would think you'd pray directly to the angels? That's what I mean by still being a little "fuzzy" on all this stuff!!!

Here’s my reply.

Today's letter from the CDF, a meditation on man and woman, reminds us that in the Christian understanding of reality, God created beings with distinctions among them, and he created humanity in two kinds. These differences are not illusory and baneful, but good and based in the ontological character of the created beings.

WIthout distinctions between beings, there is no relationship between them. Certain Eastern religious ideas affirm only one Being, with no fundamental difference between God and us, and even all the things and persons that we experience. Christianity affirms the difference between the Creator and the creature as true and as the most fundamental distinction of all. This difference makes possible a relationship between an 'I' and a 'You', not merely an 'I' and itself.

CDF writes:

The first text (Gn 1:1-2:4) describes the creative power of the Word of God, which makes distinctions in the original chaos. Light and darkness appear, sea and dry land, day and night, grass and trees, fish and birds, “each according to its kind”. An ordered world is born out of differences, carrying with them also the promise of relationships. Here we see a sketch of the framework in which the creation of the human race takes place: “God said ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness'” (Gn 1:26). And then: “God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them” (Gn1:27). From the very beginning therefore, humanity is described as articulated in the male-female relationship. This is the humanity, sexually differentiated, which is explicitly declared “the image of God”.

Acknowledging the other as other, and as good, is absolutely necessary. Without it, there is no possibility of love.

What: you mean--? Oh, they were the originals from the movie....

...Maureen Dowd's column in the NYTs.

js: this sounds like something I would read on the blog of a writer for the left school paper:
js: "The Democratic money honeys, whose hive is the posh Four Seasons Hotel, flounce around with wads of embossed V.I.P. invitations, every bit as regal as Republican Rangers."
Tiberius: I know. that's just sucky writing, no doubt
js: I mean
js: she must live with like 10 cats
js: and have no human contact
js: And her cats have names like Honey, Flounce, Regal and Ranger

Reading news coverage of the Church is hilarious when it isn't completely frustrating. Here's an AFP story about the Holy Father "fir[ing] a shot across the bows of radical feminism in a letter to Roman Catholic bishops to be published by the Vatican on Saturday."

The headline says "hits out," which doesn't make sense (they meant "lashes out," maybe?), but then English isn't AFP's first language. You have to really scrutinize the article to realize that this is not an encyclical, but merely a document approved by the Pope, not written by him.

[The document] says radical feminism's view of equality "has in reality inspired ideologies which for example call into question the family, in its natural two-parent structure of mother and father, and to make homosexuality and heterosexuality virtually equivalent..."

The author calls Cardinal Ratzinger "the Church's powerful doctrinal enforcer," which makes him sound like a total badass -- which he is.

The Battle of the Mosque by Arnold Kling. Publish 07/27 on Tech Central Station

If the Dead Could Talk by Victor David Hansen. Publish today on NRO.

Both of these speak to the challenges of the terror war and how it's not going to be won with platitudes and irrational idealism. I would add that entrusting our national security to the party of those who formerly eviscerated our intelligence capabilities with budget cuts and who suggest now that we make every islamofascist read "All I Ever Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten" to change their minds about us is not going to win this war.

We need to face the fact that we're at the beginning of an active conflict with Islamic terrorism, not at the end. This is going to be won by besting the enemy, not surrending to their capability to influence the media. It seems to me the terrorists are in control of the debate in this country, not us.

As VDH says,

billions of American dollars flow to Jordan, Iraq, and Egypt. We have even given billions to that wretched Arafat kleptocracy and saved Muslims from Kuwait to Bosnia. U.S. jets, not deranged riff-raff from Afghanistan, stopped Milosevic. There is no legitimate complaint of the Arab world against the United States — any more than Hitler had a right to Czechoslovakia or the Japanese to Manchuria. Just because the Japanese whined that the cutting-off of U.S. petroleum forced them to bomb Pearl Harbor didn't make it true.

I apologize in advance for the disjointedness of this missive. I'm in a hurry as I have an exam for my summer class today.

I saw some great TV tonight, but only 60 seconds of it, and it combined two of my worldly loves: R&B music and office supplies.

The OfficeMax chain is running a "Back to School" ad with Eddie Steeples returning as the delightful and limber "Rubber Band Man". The first RBM ad is available on-line, along with an amusing "Making Of..." video. (Be patient: they take a while to load, even at broadband speeds.)

"What does it mean when people are huddled in blankets in the cold, sleeping in Lafayette Park on the doorstep of the White House itself," Senator John Kerry asked in his acceptance speech.

Most days, I work in an office building that's about 50 yards from Lafayette Park, so I pass by it frequently. I even go on walks through it with my co-workers. Only rarely are homeless people sleeping on benches, and if they're huddled in blankets, they're nuts, because in D.C. it's usually 80 freakin' degrees by 8 a.m. in July.

The homeless people usually sleep near the steam grates on 15th Street, south of the White House and next to the Ellipse, but I guess that doesn't sound good in a speech. And even if they were sleeping in Lafayette Park, "what does it mean"? I guess it means that the park benches are comfy....

I hereby declare that since Senator John Fightingman Kerry did make no reference to abortion, overt or oblique, in his acceptance speech, I lost the wager I made with Alison Schieber. I have already asked her for her address so I can send her a check.

There is one more opportunity to take $5 from me: I will bet that none of the pro-abortion Republicans will mention abortion in their convention speeches.

I don't envy John Kerry having to face the NARAL harpies' wrath, when they realize he neglected to mention the Feminist High Sacrament.

The latest movie by the director of "Signs" and "Unbreakable" (and who's name is nearly Unpronounceable) looks pretty bad to me. The previews seemed all spooky for no reason.

But then I read this review and I'm tempted to see it. After all, how many movies have a Village Simpleton these days?

The USCCB doesn't have a movie review up yet.

And this topic bests the question: should Catholic Light have a Village Simpleton?

Here I am, after receiving orders from the Elders of Zion, defending the security of the State of Israel by overthrowing a hostile government -- hostile, that is, to the Elders, but completely harmless to the United States.

And I would do it again, if the neo-cons need me.

I was silent.
When they carted away the CFO, I said nothing.
When the CPAs got interrogated, I just minded my own business.
When the CEO got taken away in chains and was convicted of fraud, I was pleased since he was kind of a jerk.

But - what will I do when they try to take away the donuts?

Did you know that 15,000 inconvenient old people died last year in France, and it was completely preventable? It was a hot summer last year, and unfortunately, the country (meaning: the French government) was unprepared for the heat. Family members, who were on their extended summer vacations, couldn't be bothered to retrieve their parents' corpses, so morgues were overflowing with bodies.

This was in the most civilized country on the planet, without whose permission the U.S. cannot act in the world. It might happen again this year, according to a French doctor who was disturbed at the mass death, which received almost no coverage in America. Yet even if it does, you won't hear much about it.

Under a regime where the state (supposedly) takes care of everyone, nobody will take care of their neighbor. Why, when your high taxes are paying for somebody else to do it?

Socialism isn't contrary to the culture of death. Socialism is the culture of death.

Drudge: KERRY FILM DIRECTOR: THE BULLETS IN THE WATER WERE NOT FROM THE ACTUAL EVENT

“I would have used archival footage,” Moll tells the NEW YORK OBSERVER's Joe Hagan, “but it was a pleasant surprise that he had taken his own footage while in Vietnam.”

Kerry's homemade films are at the center of a growing controversy in Boston.

A bombshell new book written by the man who took over John Kerry's Swift Boat charges: Kerry reenacted combat scenes for film while in Vietnam! "Kerry carried a home movie camera to record his exploits for later viewing," charges a naval officer in the upcoming book UNFIT FOR COMMAND.

"Kerry would revisit ambush locations for reenacting combat scenes where he would portray the hero, catching it all on film. Kerry would take movies of himself walking around in combat gear, sometimes dressed as an infantryman walking resolutely through the terrain. He even filmed mock interviews of himself narrating his exploits. A joke circulated among Swiftees was that Kerry left Vietnam early not because he received three Purple Hearts, but because he had recorded enough film of himself to take home for his planned political campaigns."

I posted earlier this week some parts of my correspondence with an old friend who recently became Catholic. A couple of days ago she emailed me about a retreat for women mystics she was interested in going on and how a "prophet" was going to come speak at her parish. I share my reply with you:

Sal: If you talk with someone about the retreat ask them what the program is, what kind of spirituality it's based on, who is giving the talks, and if there will be a priest to hear confessions. They might balk at the questions - I'm not sure. I think, though, it's important to know these things beforehand because the environment of a retreat can make people very vulnerable, and when people are vulnerable they are easily manipulated. You are responisible for your emotional and spiritual well-being.

I probably sound like I'm pontificating again. I'm sorry. I just think as a someone new to the faith you might get more out of a traditional retreat. I'm very much a fundamentals kind of guy. The Church has two thousand years of saints and spiritual masters who we can learn from and emulate. I think it's best to start with a method that is proven, rather than someone talking about how the Virgin Mary appears in her oatmeal every morning and tells her to plant rubharb in a cruciform fashion. The challenge is finding on what sort of spirituality appeals to you. I think you'd like Franciscan spirituality, really. They are all about the flora and fauna.

Some people clearly have other gifts like visions, inner locutions, premonitions, or speaking in tongues, but it's very hard to discern what the source of those things are without the mind of the Church behind you. I might be over-reacting a bit, but my experience has been that it's easy to get hooked on tangible things, like when you see someone speaking in tongues or talking about their prophecy or visions. There is a kind of instant gratification in that that you don't get in the same way from mental prayer and contemplation. It also can be sensational. And it doesn't build an interior life in the same way as traditional spirituality, because people look for those tangible things instead of earnestly seeking after Jesus and accepting His presence even if they can't feel it. Ah, Maria, just take all I'm saying with a grain of salt and trust that Jesus will lead you where He wants you to go. But stay away from the oatmeal and rhubarb visionary until the Vatican makes a statement!

You are in my prayers,

Sal Ravilla

One of the priests in my parish decried a mandatory all-day meeting in the Chancery Office last week:

"The Chancery is where priests become desks, where every day is Monday, and where good ideas go to die."

Stephen Sanchez, a Catholic Light reader, asked us to post information on this conference. (The text below is taken from the online promotional flier. I have no idea if there will be anyone there who is "cooler than me," though it wouldn't surprise me.)

What: Ars Conference Where: South Bend, IN When: Aug. 7-8, 2004 Who: High School Teens and their Families How Much: $75 with discounts for families

This conference is gonna be sweet! It's named after the Cure of Ars, St. John Vianney and stands for America Returns to the Sacraments. The story goes that the Fr. Vianney was travelling to his first parish assignment (Ars) when he got a little lost. He found two shepherd boys out in a field and he said to them "My sons, show me the way to Ars and I will show you the way to Heaven." So this Conference is all about getting to Heaven, baby!

It's got Matt Smith from the Real World, Fr. Pontifex of Phatmass phame, the Pete Cornelius Band and Fr. Dan Sheidt who is so cool, there just aren't words for him.

Seriously, if you live near South Bend, IN (that means Chi-town all the way to Indy and back up to Cleaveland and around Detroit to Grand Rapids) you should make it a point to be at this Conference. It's gonna be great. I'm gonna be there. And well, a bunch of people cooler than me. Check it out!

This post is for all the left-leaning Catholics that arrive here at CL.

What's the difference between charity and social work? What's different between Mother Teresa bringing in lepers off the streets of Calcutta and the Fairfax County Homeless Shelter?

One word: Jesus.

Social Work happens because people care about the community, the people in the community, their health, welfare and quality of life. It provides temporary aid and comfort to those in need. In some cases, it gets people through a tough time so they no longer need assistance.

Charity happens because people are touched by the one living and true God who came down to earth to teach us how to love one another. Each act of charity is grounded in eternity: it's not just relief from the cold, it's an act of love that means we confess with our hearts, minds and lips that Jesus is love and we should live out our lives as an example of his love for us.

Charity points to heaven. Social work points to the here and now.

The government, being a secular instituation, can't engage in true charitable work.

And if you are one of those Catholics who thinks the Democrats have the Republicans beat on "social issues" then you misunderstand where the efforts, energy and earnings of Christians are best spent.

Below is a photo depicting the Mount Vernon High School Young Republicans, circa 1989-90. At that time, I was just beginning my faith journey toward Republicanism. Pope Bush I was on the throne. As the arrow indicates, I am the one with the Rolling Stones t-shirt and the unshaven face.

By the way, Schultz boys -- I've got the yearbook open. You want me to scan in some pics of you?

Annika, a blogger in northern California, has a response to Yahoo/Planned Parenthood's "I had an abortion" t-shirt. It is funny on many levels.

Liberal Catholic meets Conservative Catholic for the second time

A friend from high school recently emailed me after seeing my name on an alumni website. She remembered me being Catholic in High School and was writing to tell me she entered the Church this year. I was positively elated. We began an email dialogue in order to catch up after more than a decade of no contact.

I'd like to share some snippets from our emails, if for no other reason than she is very liberal and I am, as you know, conservative. I want to believe modern liberalism is compatible with the faith but I think it involves a suspension of disbelief that, in the final analysis, is contrary to the demands of faith itself. More on that unsupported premise later. Now, on to the emails.

I'll call her "Ms. Often Wrong Silly Pants" to protect her true identity. But I jest! I will call her "Dianne." Nope, I never liked that name. How about "Maria"? Maria is it! Ok, now on to the emails!

Our current gadfly, Nathan, has been hounding us to declare that we are more Republican than Catholic for a while. At first, he gave actual reasons for this, but now he says "just admit that if the Church ordered you to vote Democrat tomorrow you would still vote Republican, and we can all move on."

Well, his forcefulness has worked. I am switching my religious allegiance from Roman Catholic to Neo-con Republican. My baptism, effected by the sprinkling of coins on my forehead, is scheduled for next Monday, the beginning of the capitalist work-week, at the moment the New York Stock Exchange opens for trading.

I hereby embrace the solemn teachings of the Republican Party, as defined in its party platform, which I have not read yet, but my faith, like my love for Republicans, is blind.

Saint Calvin Coolidge, ora pro nobis thou shouldst deign to offer intercessions to the Most High on our behalf!

Zionist masters of Israel, what is it you require of me?

This hymn is the translation of the hymn of Lauds, office of St. Rita, approved by Decree of S.C.R. Nov. 24, 1900. St. Rita is the Patron Saint of the Impossible.

I'm posting various prayers today for the edification of our readers. In the interest of space and general readability of the blog, I'll post most of the prayers as extended entries so you will have to follow the link below to view them.

This one, which St. Patrick had etched on his armor, is usually abridged to include only the second to last stanza.

I have prayer cards with the entire prayer. Email me if you are interested in acquiring one.

Rev. John B. Ardis will give an invocation later this week at the DNC. He's director of the Paulist Center, a progressive Catholic church and outreach center that focuses largely on social justice income redistribution and hugs. Eric posted about the center recently, commenting on a piece by Jonathan V. Last. The Paulist Center is John Kerry's home parish faith community.

Father Ardis on pro-aborts receiving communion:

...it is "contrary to the meaning of the Eucharist to use it as an instrument of division and as a weapon in political battles" and that it would be a "misuse of our authority" to do so.

I agree with Eric that the Center knows precisely what it is doing. “Woe to those who lead the little ones astray! Better they had died in their mothers’ wombs than to walk the earth to destroy souls.”

Here’s a scuplture of a dead tree and a man hanging from the ceiling and the mission statement of the Paulist Center.

The mission statement reads: "Attentive to the Holy Spirit, we are a Catholic community that welcomes all, liberates the voice of each, and goes forth to live the Gospel of Jesus Christ." Liberates the voice of each? As I said, the freedom from captivity that Christ preaches in the Gospel is freedom from sin, not freedom from or of conscience. Freedom of conscience at present means license to do whatever one wants, and this leads to the very enslavement Christ wishes to liberate us from.

Are the Paulist Fathers are getting many vocations these days? No, their order is contracepting vocations with this perversion of the Gospel. They squander and profane our greatest treasure, Chirst in the Eucharist. Where are the post-concilliar reformers as there were after Trent?

Syrians flew with expired visas

I hope someone in Washington is paying attention.

Kerry on a wild space ride in a special outfit.

He was quoted as saying,

"SPACE SHIPS ARE COOL! ASTRONAUTS RULE! I LOOK LIKE A SPACE MAN! I LIKE TO RIDE ON THE SPACE SHIP!
WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!"

No, I haven't been watching the Dems' convention live, but later Monday night I saw some clips from Bill Clinton's speech. He was talking about how John Kerry volunteered to serve his country in several capacities, and his refrain was that each time, John Kerry said, "Send me." The former president was speaking in his "preaching" style, and he made that refrain sound like a little echo of Samuel the prophet. Of course, Clinton himself used to say something like that: he told the state troopers, "Send me that woman over there."

Alison Schieber of St. Joseph, Missouri, has taken me up on the first wager I offered. I say that Senatory Kerry will mention abortion in his speech; she does not. Alison thinks Kerry he will mention the Supreme Court, but not abortion by name. However, she wins as long as abortion (including obvious synonyms like "reproductive rights" or "choice") is not mentioned. Of course, no politician will say the actual word "abortion" at either convention, at least not while television cameras are running.

Lest you think she is hoping that Kerry mentions abortion, Alison hastens to point out that she is not a liberal, and that she likes Catholic Light; therefore, we at Catholic Light like Alison.

To add to Sal's item below: PP's T-shirt that announces "I had an abortion" is a way to commemorate one's participation in a murder, though I doubt most aborted women really want to remember it that way. I wonder if they give one free to each such ex-mother as a parting gift: been there, killed the baby, got the T-shirt.

Why stop at T-shirts? They could go to offer hats, too. Maybe a little set of forceps on a chain. Lots of souvenir tees come in baby sizes, or with bibs and booties. Of course, the slogan would have to be adapted: "I was aborted."

Since PP is selling these so-called goods through Yahoo's on-line store facility, you can make a difference by letting Yahoo know that these materials are inappropriate. Since Yahoo's Merchant Guidelines forbid adult-oriented and "otherwise objectionable" material, there seems to be sufficient reason to bar it from Yahoo's site. Remember to be polite, now.

Genesis 3:19 "For you are dust, and to dust you shall return."

Since when does the killing of an innocent human being serve as a badge of honor? Since Planned Parenthood, by way of the online store hosted by Yahoo, starting selling t-shirts that say "I had an abortion." How can the words "I had an abortion" support women's rights?

I direct your attention to a post I made back in June about Respect Life Masses here in Arlington.

Report: Saddam Writing Poetry in Prison

Maybe HBO will feature him in a special called "Humbled Tyrants: Poetry from the world's Detained Despots"

We could have a Saddam poetry contest...

"George Bush took my army, my death squads and my riches. I lived in a hole with lipton tea. Woe is me. Woe. Whoa... it sucks to be locked up like this."

Kerry stops, drops, and rolls when questioned about his statement that he believes life begins at conception. Here is part of an interview with Peter Jennings, from Jay Nordlinger on NRO.

Jennings: "You told an Iowa newspaper recently that life begins at conception. What makes you think that?"

Kerry: "My belief, just my, my, my personal belief about what happens in the fertilization process as a, as a human being is first formed and created, and that's when life begins. Something begins to happen. There's a transformation. There's an evolution. Within weeks, you look and see the development of it, but that's not a person yet, and it's certainly not what somebody, in my judgment, ought to have the government of the United States intervening in. Roe v. Wade has made it very clear what our standard is with respect to viability, what our standard is with respect to rights. I believe in the right to choose, not the government choosing, but an individual, and I defend that."

Jennings: "Could you explain to me: What do you mean when you say 'life begins at conception'?"

Kerry: "Well, that's what the Supreme Court has established — is a test of viability as to whether or not you're permitted to terminate a pregnancy, and I support that. That is my test. And I — you know, you have all kinds of different evolutions of life, as we know, and very different beliefs about birth, the process of the development of a fetus. That's the standard that's been established in Roe v. Wade. And I adhere to that standard."

Jennings: "If you believe that life begins at conception, is even a first-trimester abortion not murder?"

Kerry: "No, because it's not the form of life that takes personhood in the terms that we have judged it to be in the past. It's the beginning of life. Does life begin? Yes, it begins. Is it at the point where I would say that you apply those penalties? The answer is no, and I believe in choice. I believe in the right to choose, and the government should not involve itself in that choice, beyond where it has in the context of Roe vs. Wade."

Our friend MichiganCatholic wrote the above while commenting on Sal's post below about the tendency for some hispanic/latino Catholics to embrace evangelical protestantism upon immigrating to the U.S. I understand why recent immigrants from countries that still have a Catholic culture would be turned off by many Catholic parishes in the U.S. Indeed, I attended Mass yesterday and had that very reaction.

That Diogenes is onto something. Since donations to campaigns for Federal office are a matter of public record, he's found some Catholic clergy and college presidents whose donations funded pro-abortion politicians.

Is it any surprise that the same is true of the Rev. Fr. Robert Drinan, S.J., professor at Georgetown? His donations to Peace PAC and Council for a Livable World funded an array of candidates for the Senate and House.

All the Senate incumbents on the CLW list and most of the House incumbents on the PPAC list had a 0% NRLC rating.

I guess these organizations are indifferent about peace in the womb.

Well, readers, now that you have the links at hand, try your own research. Post any interesting results in the comments.

I will bet $5 that Senator Kerry will proclaim his support for abortion in his acceptance speech.

I will bet another $5 that none of the pro-abortion Catholic Republicans will mention abortion in their speeches.

Anybody want to put their money where their mouth is? I'm serious about this --I'll take the first one to contact me on either wager. Nathan, I'm glancing over at you....

On the Weekly Standard's site, Jonathan V. Last reports from Boston's Paulist Center, which proudly gave Senator John Kerry (D-Moloch) the Eucharist after promising to work for the holy good of abortion on demand. I don't have much to add to Mr. Last's observations -- read his article, shake your head, and pray for God to have mercy on the clergy, staff, and supporters of the Center.

Their mission statement did catch my eye, though. Last says:

The ideology which brings people to the Paulist Center is best explained by the Center's Mission Statement which declares, "Attentive to the Holy Spirit, we are a Catholic community that welcomes all, liberates the voice of each and goes forth to live the Gospel of Jesus Christ." (Before Mass, this Mission Statement is projected, in large type, onto the wall above the alter, on either side of the statue of Christ.) In their Vision Statement, the Center goes on to explain that they aspire to serve "those persons searching for a spiritual home and those who have been alienated from the Catholic Church."

The subtext here--with talk of liberating voices and welcoming those alienated from those other mean Catholic churches--is that the Paulist Center is Catholic, but not really: more Episcopal lite; or orthodox Unitarian.

I ask again: how many times will the bishops allow the Body of Christ to be betrayed and flogged? If not for the sake of your offices, won't they intervene to defend the honor of God?

Jesus told us to pray for our enemies. He didn't say that Christians didn't have any enemies, or that the Church's enemies would never arise from within her.

... its language as the international tongue of peace and diplomacy.

Pete, can you tell us where it went?

Bill Bennet gives the Democrats some excellent advice. One can't help but think they won't take any of it. Here are some excerpts.

As you continue your efforts to defeat President Bush, I hope you will not abandon your legacy nor President Clinton's remorse. Today we are learning about the CIA's failures to get the facts right about Iraq's WMD program. But those failures do not belong to President Bush alone — and before you allow the various reports coming out to become your next platform of attack, take a moment and ask yourselves why former Kerry advisor Sandy Berger said the following in 1998: "He [Hussein] will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Ask yourselves why Kerry adviser Madeleine Albright said the following at the same forum: "Iraq is a long way from Ohio, but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." Ask yourselves why President Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998 that made it our foreign policy to change the regime in Iraq.

The liberation of Iraq was a positive good, with or without WMDs — a haven for terrorists is now a genesis of democracy; the mass graves where tens of thousands were buried are being emptied rather than filled; one of the worst human-rights violators in the world is now out of power — no longer able to torture, no longer able to invade neighbors, no longer able to threaten the world's oil supply, no longer able to subsidize homicide bombers in Israel.

...a small amount of money to the Catholic League every year.

Catholic League hits Kerry on abortion

"Kerry's dichotomy," Donohue said, "was advanced by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1857 in the Dred Scott decision."

"In that ruling, Chief Justice Roger B. Taney wrote that members of 'the Negro race' were 'not regarded as a portion of the people or citizens of the government.' Similarly, he concluded that 'it is too plain for argument, that they have never been regarded as part of the people or citizens of the state."

From TWT, July 21 edition. It's an article about how many Hispanic immigrants begin to attend Spanish evangelical churches when they arrive in this country, leaving Catholicism behind.

I admire the zeal of the pastors who run these churches but unfortunately they are leading people away from the true Church, the sacraments, the tangible prescence of Christ in the world. Many dioceses are ill-equipped to deal with their immigrant population and one bad experience with a priest can spoil everything. We are, in most cases, lacking the zeal of the evangelical leaders. For their part they aren't always honest in their approach. They call their services "Missa" and typically have a poster of Our Lady of Guadalupe outside of their church. It's typical for a Hispanic Catholic-turned-evangelical to go to a priest when there has been a death in the family. Why do you think that is?

So much for the Cahoot Theory of why we are fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq. Or perhaps you can subscribe to the theory that Bush, Cheney and the Military/Industrial complex are all in cahoots but can't seem to manage the work to a profit...

The report is via the WSJ. I believe you need to be a subscriber to read it.

SPRINGFIELD, Mass. (AP) The Springfield Diocese reached a proposed settlement of more than $7 million Thursday with 46 people who accused priests of molesting them when they were children....

''I'm overwhelmed,'' said Marty Bono, a Chicopee man who says he was molested by a priest in 1971. ''I've been crying ever since I heard.''

''I respect the bishop,'' Bono said. ''He's done in four months what (his predecessor) couldn't do for a year and a half.''

Let's have a gander at what some of the democrats are saying about the vote in the House today on the bill that would prevent Federal Courts from requiring one state to accept the gay marriage license of another.

"This debate is about a national election," Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat, said in opposing the bill. "We are playing with fire with this bill, and that fire could destroy the nation we love."

"I rise in defense of the Constitution, in defense of the separation of powers," said House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, a Maryland Democrat. "What's next? No judicial review of laws that restrict freedom of speech or religion?"

Considering that freedom of religion has become freedom from religion I think we're well on our way, but in a respect Rep. Hoyer isn't thinking of. In fact, he commits the fallacy of false alternatives by lobbing this rhetorical hand grenade. There are obviously other alternatives than "no judicial review of laws that restrict freedom of speech or religion."

As an irrelevant and uncharitable aside, I'd just like all of you to know I think "Steny Hoyer" is a dorky name.

Catholic Lawmakers Ignoring Bishops - AP

"I believe that what I do as a public servant is in accord with church teaching," said Virginia Lt. Gov Tim Kaine, the presumptive Democratic candidate for governor next year. He supports abortion rights with restrictions such as requiring parental consent for minors and banning late-term abortions. "It hasn't caused me discomfort as a Catholic personally," he said.

Ah, as long as it doesn't cause a politician discomfort that it is a-ok! This is, of course, a fallacious interpretation of the so-called primacy of conscience. If one's conscience isn't properly formed to begin with, or if it's been killed by pathologies of modernity, it can't be a trusted.

This probably isn't a full quote of Lt. Gov Kaine, but it's clear that what is behind these statements is a subjective ethical and moral view, in addition to a faulty understanding of Church teaching.

From an interview of Bishop Robert Vasa of Baker City, Oregon.

Bishop says he will deny pro-abort politicians Communion and that Cardinal McCarrick withheld text of the memoradum from Cardinal Ratzinger at the Bishop's Retreat.

Full text of the interview via Catholic.org:
http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=1155

As if you needed more proof to be convinced that popular culture is devoid of any substance, here's a contest looking for the best "guitar face." Not a face shaped like a guitar, but rather the face of one playing the guitar. Ability doesn't matter at all, just your face while you are playing it. I guess, Eric, you could play air guitar and win.

Frank at IMAO says:

I think Arnold should keep up the rhetoric. He should have a press conference to apologize saying, "I am so sorry I upset the Democrats by calling them 'girlie men.' To make up, I'll give them all pretty flowers so they squeal with girlish glee."

Is there a picture of this guy on the net someplace? Bet he's a Star Trek fan. Or he had his name legally change to "Hamburglar." He could be edgy and hyphenate it: Ham Burg-lar. Sounds Klingon - a warrior's name!

Column by Maggie Gallagher. A snippet:

Democrats complain the marriage issue is divisive. By that they mean it divides the majority of Democratic voters from some key special interests of their party, who provide money and manpower. If Democrats would do what the majority of their constituents tell pollsters they want -- protect the normal definition of marriage as the union of husband and wife -- marriage would not be a divisive issue; it would unite the great majority of Americans from both parties, and all races and ethnic groups. (The majority of African-Americans are particularly upset at the framing of same-sex marriage as a civil rights issue.)

Same-sex marriage activists know that their path to victory lies in confusing the issue, keeping the discussion on anything but marriage itself -- the sacred constitution, discrimination, hate, federalism -- to silence the public and let courts do their political work for them. So Democrats in Congress are pinned between the money and the votes.

One paragraph from Means to Message: A Treatise on Truth by Father Stanley Jaki.

No logical escape hatch is offered from man's ethical predicament by specious rhetoric. It is hardly logical to deprive all but one, the Seventh, of the Ten Commandments from a strictly ethical content. The illogicality rests with the cohesion among those Commandments. Thus for, instance, it is hardly possible to sin against the Seventh. which forbids thefts, without shortchanging truth, which is forbidden by the Eighth. Also, thefts begin with coveting, which is forbidden by the Ninth and Tenth. Since the Ninth forbids the coveting of one's neighbor's wife (or secretary or babysitter) the step to the Sixth should seem a very short one indeed. Yet the Sixth is no longer taken for even a mere counsel, although the brazen flouting of it now threatens the biological survival of modern affluent society. The latter now emancipates children from parental authority, the gist of the Fourth, which bases the duty of obedience on existential dependence. Clearly, then, it is atavistic in this society to refer to the thrust of the first three Commandments, which refer to a reality infinitely above any societal factor.

Sandy Berger, Clinton's National Security Advisor. Here is part of his statement to the AP.

"In the course of reviewing over several days thousands of pages of documents on behalf of the Clinton administration in connection with requests by the Sept. 11 commission, I inadvertently took a few documents from the Archives," Berger said.

"When I was informed by the Archives that there were documents missing, I immediately returned everything I had except for a few documents that I apparently had accidentally discarded," he said.

Discarded, eh? Accidentally? Right. Mr. Berger has a bridge to sell us - who's buying it?

Larry Miller, contributing humorist to the Daily Standard, says no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. Just look at the residents of the Twin Cities and you'll see why. Read the whole thing - it's a riot!

Since I live near Boston, I'm speaking, of course, of the impending Democratic party convention that is about to close highways and bridges, make our subway stations operate as smoothly as airport checkpoints, shut down business for a week, and - oh, yeah -- cost the taxpayers over $20 million in direct subsidies.

Well, at least we get to crack jokes at the Dems.

Update: Coverage of highway and subway closures.

If someone used the phrase "girlie men," what comes to mind? Physical weakness, certainly. You might think of the recurring "Saturday Night Live" skit which used that phrase.

But if you're a California Democrat, you think this is the equivalent of calling someone gay. Governor Schwarzenegger called Democrats blocking the state budget "girlie men" because they are being used as supine tools of special interest groups. I can't say for certain if that charge is true -- I suspect it is, since the governor singled out "unions and trial lawyers" as the special interests behind the obstruction, and the Democratic Party gets most of its money from those two groups. I do know that it's kinda funny, and that one shouldn't go ballistic over a little joke, even if you think it's unfair.

Unless you want to tag a political opponent as a thought criminal, that is. Does it fascinate you that when the Democrats in that article hear "girlie men," they hear "fags"? Doesn't this remind you of the famous "Seinfeld" episode where other people think George and Jerry are gay, and they violently deny it, but then quickly add "not that there's anything wrong with that"?

I mean, if the Dems think "girlie men" is a code word for "homosexuals," how can they possibly think that's insulting, unless you think calling someone a homosexual is an insult? If the New York Times and "Queer Eye" have taught us anything, it's that the gay lifestyle is the epitome, the apotheosis of all that is good and right in the modern world. Isn't calling someone "gay" like saying they are cultured, well-dressed, and worthy of our utmost respect and admiration?

You may say, as State Sen. Sheila Kuehl (D-Neptune) said, that the governor used "an image that is associated with gay men in an insulting way, and it was supposed to be an insult." Effeminate men are associated with homosexuality, and so if you call someone effeminate, you automatically are calling them gay. How does that follow? The CIA used to reject homosexuals because they thought gays were a national security risk; does that mean if you call someone a national security risk, you're calling them gay?

The term "homophobic," like "racist," has ceased to have any meaningful content. It's just a word like "idiot," used as an insult rather than a descriptive term.

Stunning media bias and the presidential campaign. How about that story of lawyer Edwards "channeling" an unborn girl in arguments at a trial? And how he avoided paying $600,000 in Medicare taxes even as he was attacking tax shelters that shortchange Medicare on the campaign trail? Imagine if Cheney did that! Kerry and Edwards would rend their designer garments at every campaign stop across the USA.

What is news anymore? The dishonesty in the media and the Democratic ticket is astounding. And believe me, they have been using the same techniques and double-talk to marginalize Catholics in the debate on moral issues. I'm going to drink some decaf now.

An e-mail interview of Rev. Jean Benjamin Sleiman, Archbishop of Baghdad.

Registration probably required.

Once, within living memory, it was a day apart in many places: a 24-hour stretch of family time when liquor was unavailable, church was the rule, shopping was impossible and — in some towns — weekend staples like tending the lawn and playing in the park met with hearty disapproval. But America changed, and it dragged Sunday along with it.

And such an article wouldn't be complete without a quote like this:

"We've erased a lot of the distinctions between night and day, between weekday and weekend," says Susan Orlean, author of "Saturday Night in America," a 1990 book. "Our notions of time and space are collapsing."

Yes, space and time are collapsing to one point in time, now, and one lonely microcosm, where, as David Hume said, “we never advance a step beyond our selves.” Did I use too many commas in that sentence?

More on the collapse of space and time later, if I have space and time enough to blog something I read today about Stephen Hawking.

A letter to the Editor of the Washington Times form Laurie Letourneau, President, Life Action League of Massachusetts and Mass Voices for Traditional Marriage. You have to scroll down the page a bit.

Don't miss the the other letters on the Federal Marriage Amendment. A pro-homosexual marriage advocate says Bush's job "is to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, not to change it and abuse it." A premise he in no way substantiates or justifies.

Another reader says the defeat of the amendment is a victory for states' rights. I think Eric mentioned there is litigation pending to recognize Massachusetts same-sex marriages in other states. Of course I could be mistaken. Regardless, the question of homosexual marriage is on an inexorable course for the federal judiciary system if it is not there already. What is left up the states now anyway? I think states' rights ended with the War of Northern Aggression.

No, not in Mass, in the public schools.

A friend of mine is on vacation in Colorado right now, where he writes about his puzzling visit to a monastery with lots of activity but no monks.

...who might consider himself a spiritual rationalist if had those words in his vocabulary, was explaining to me that reason trumps faith in all matters, faith is just a feeling, and by the way, you're a fool to believe all the stuff those icky, old, and oppressive father-figures in the Catholic Church have been churning out all these centuries. What do I? Gave him the link to Fides et Ratio. "It's long but it's good for your soul," I said.

The fundamentalists and evangelicals have turned faith into a feeling as though was some kind of drug or anti-drug that buys you eternal fire insurance - bliss in this life and assurance of bliss in the next. That's not faith. Faith is an intellectual assent to the teachings of the Church. We believe these teachings because God has revealed them, so they are even more believable than something that can be empirically tested or observed. But are there degrees of truth? Is the Incarnation more true than one plus one is two? Do these truths have no degrees of veracity but rather different metaphysical import? Or do I sound like I've been educated beyond my intellect? I shall discuss all this with my pagan friend when he finishes reading Fides et Ratio.

I'm attempting to look up the abortion voting records or positions of all the prominent speakers at the Republican National Convention. I'm righteously steamed that the most notable ones, Schwarzenegger, Pataki, and Guiliani, are all pro-abort Republicans who call themselves Catholic. What about McCain? Not Catholic, but pro-abort, right?

Please post in the comments if you can point me in the right direction to find their stance on abortion, and let me know if I'm leaving any names out. I have never been a card-carrying Republican, and this is one of the reasons. The tent is too big if pro-lifers are marginalized in such an important forum.

Kate O'Beirne has some thoughts on the topic. Again, on NRO.

At the Big Apple convention, three Kerry Catholics will be representing the millions of faithful Catholics being aggressively courted by the Bush campaign. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist will likely be heard from as a congressional leader, but haven't senators who have been on point on crucial issues like abortion, cloning, same-sex marriage, and international human rights earned primetime placement alongside their tormentor John McCain? Conservative Republicans should be asking why senators like Rick Santorum and Sam Brownback aren't enjoying the same public embrace as the New York Times' favorite Republican.

By Victor David Hansen over at NRO. In the midst of an election year, it's important to have a historical perspective.

About this time 60 years ago, six weeks after the Normandy beach landings, Americans were dying in droves in France. We think of the 76-day Normandy campaign of summer and autumn 1944 as an astounding American success — and indeed it was, as Anglo-American forces cleared much of France of its Nazi occupiers in less than three months. But the outcome was not at all preordained, and more often was the stuff of great tragedy. Blunders were daily occurrences — resulting in 2,500 Allied casualties a day. In any average three-day period, more were killed, wounded, or missing than there have been in over a year in Iraq.

And an article by Philip Chase Bobbitt, linked to by Jonah Goldberg, published before the invasion of Iraq, states that we can't measure future outcomes based on the present, but rather we must judge future outcomes based on other possible future outcomes. So the question, "Are we better off now than we were four years ago" is meaningless:

Or, consider the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan. Are we better off now than we were the day before we intervened? Probably not. Before that war we knew where Al Qaeda had its bases and it had not struck since Sept. 11; a number of American and allied soldiers who became casualties were then alive and unwounded; public opinion in Pakistan was less hostile to America; there was a greater measure of sympathy around the world for our losses in New York and Washington; our economy and confidence in our markets were stronger.

But let's ask the relevant question: Are we better off today than we would have been if we had let the Taliban continue arming and sheltering our Qaeda enemies, many of whom we killed and captured in our intervention? Clearly, we are vastly better off for having acted.

A pretty old post of an article over at freerepublic.com, but worth reading the whole thing.

When the Catholic Church hierarchy took a strong stand on abortion, it found itself the target, rather than the position espoused. Quickly, the public issue of whether or not abortion should be fully legal in the United States descended into a cauldron of unrelated issues of separation of Church and State, the Catholic Church’s tax exempt status, the religious affiliation of abortion opponents, alleged "Catholic power," and the imposition of sectarian belief on American law. As one New York state legislator would thunder in the midst of abortion debate, "you have no right to come to the floor of this body and ask us to enact into law church doctrine."

Sound familiar? The author is talking about the abortion debate in the mid-1960's.

The NYT in particular.

Today "The New York Times" proves once again that it uses its news pages to promote its editorial point of view. "The Times" ran two articles about the gay marriage amendment. In article number one on the front page, it referred to supporters of the amendment as conservatives four times. In article number two on page 19, it's referred to supporters of the amendment as conservatives five times. That's nine mentions of conservatives being for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

Now if you read the articles, it's obvious what "The Times" is doing. Anyone who opposes gay marriage is labeled a conservative, which is the worst thing you can possibly be at "The New York Times."

Of course, the polls show that the majority of Democrats in America oppose gay marriage. And even the bomb-throwing Democrat from West Virginia, Senator Robert Byrd, voted for the constitutional amendment protecting traditional marriage, but don't tell "The New York Times" that. They want their readers to think that everyone who opposes gay marriage is some kind of right wing nut.

Tomorrow, I start my graduate seminar in Program Management, Quantitative Methods and Making My Brain Hurt. I will likely be relying on my compadres here at Catholic A'ight to fill in for me while I do Excel functions, statistics, etc.

Sad thing is, I wouldn't know a two-tailed variance test if it was on the endangered species list...

RC - I will resist the temptation to call for assistance.

O Beautiful Flower of Carmel, most fruitful vine, splendor of heaven, holy and singular, who brought forth the Son of God, still ever remaining a pure virgin, assist us in our necessity! O Star of the Sea, help and protect us! Show us that you are our Mother!

John was hoping today was Our Lady of Mount Carvel. Alas, is it not.

Links to news of Bishop "You've got Porn" Krenn and his reflection on authentic Catholic healing in the wake of these scandals.

Regarding Bishop Krenn and the diabolic shennanigans at his seminary, I'd be ready to leave the country if I had any of his newly-ordained priests in my parish. After being formed in an environment like that it's highly likely they would be psychologically and spiritual unwell. Perhaps some of our priest readers would care to comment on how the environment of a seminary influences candidates for the priesthood. It's imagine the influence is tremendous and a seminary like Krenn's could have become a freak factory in recent years.

Yes, Phatmass. A grassroots movement in the Church whose import and orthodoxy I was entirely unaware of until today. I apologize to the members of Phatmass whom I may have offended with my initial post. In particular Nathan Nelson. Thanks for calling me on this, man. Keep the faith!

The Nashville Dominicans had a serious mishap last night. High winds caused the roof to cave in at Saint Cecilia's Mother House. Thankfully, no one was hurt, but the sisters need money immediately to make repairs. They have been in the process of raising money for regular repairs and expansion of the motherhouse to accomodate their growing ranks. Please pray for them and offer them some material help if you are able! Their website is http://www.nashvilledominican.org/

You can donate online here.

This is their mailing address.

Saint Cecilia Motherhouse
801 Dominican Drive
Nashville, TN 37228-1909
(615) 256-5486

-link via Drudge

"I'm a big loser." What a clever play on words! But Whoopi is a big loser - she got canned by Slim-Fast for her offensive remarks at a fund raiser for the Democrats last week. I have it on good authority that Whoopi has on Oprah's pants in this photo.

SNAP and Voice of the Faithful aren't satisfied with the Diocese's action in the Krafcik incident and his subsequent (by 20 years) laicization.

On Monday, the diocese announced that the Vatican had defrocked Andrew Krafcik, 76, of Arlington, for a 1984 sex abuse conviction near Richmond. Krafcik served in limited ministry at a Fairfax parish for nearly 12 years after he was convicted.

The diocese has said no other victims have come forward with allegations of abuse by Krafcik. But Mark Serrano of Leesburg, a SNAP board member who was a victim of pastoral sexual abuse, said it's foolish to assume there was only one victim without conducting an active investigation to seek others who may be reluctant to come forward.

"Some things are clear: A pattern of secrecy persists in the Diocese of Arlington, and victim outreach is woefully inadequate," Serrano said. "Christ strapped on his sandals and walked the countryside to seek out the hurt, the sick and the wounded. ... We are calling on Bishop Loverde today to strap on his sandals and seek out victims of clergy sexual abuse where they would likeliest be."

At a minimum, Serrano said, Loverde should go the parishes where Krafcik served and urge people who may have been abused to contact police.

I don't believe there is a pattern of secrecy in the Diocese or that victim-outreach has been woefully inadequate. In this climate, I don't know how a Bishop could keep those issues a secret. Arlington has been extremely forthcoming with respect to past child sexual abuse. Quoting from this link,

[the late] Bishop Keating put in place diocesan Policy on the Protection of Children/Young People and Prevention of Sexual Misconduct and/or Child Abuse which was revised in 1993, 2000 and 2003 in light of the passage of the bishops’ Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People.

9 of the 891 diocesan and religious priests who have served in the diocese, or 1 percent, were accused of sexual abuse of minors by 11 victims. Of the nine priests, one was exonerated; two are deceased; one is retired without faculties; and the remaining five are no longer in ministry.

Mr. Krafcik must have been the one who was retired without faculties. He was laicized for an offense that occured twenty years ago. In Arlington, there not the terrible number of victims or repeat-offenders that there were in Boston and other parts of the country. I trust the Diocese and Bishop Loverde with respect to the information they've given the public about instances of child sexual abuse.

It wouldn't serve any purpose for the Bishop to go to the parishes where Krafcik served to search for more victims. How does Mr. Serrano expect Loverde to do this? To speak at all the Masses on a weekend in each parish? That is absurd. There would be a public outcry unknown in the history of this Diocese. It would do much more harm than good. Instead of being viewed as a shepherd of the Diocese earnestly attempting to reach out to victims he would invite even more scrutiny. Everyone would ask themselves, "Why is he asking this at our parish unless he knows there are more victims?" The crisis of confidence in his leadership and spiritual fatherhood would be severe. The trust of many people in this Diocese would probably be unrecoverable.

Krafcik was a priest for about 45 years. He was most likely ordained in the Richmond Diocese. If there were other instances of child sexual abuse abuse I'd be shocked if the victims hadn't come forward by now.

On his blog. Frum's blog. On NRO.

Opponents of the Federal Marriage Amendment suggest – or insinuate – that without it, conservative states will be left alone to define marriage as they wish. This promise will be a short-lived one. Once 10 or 12 or 14 states have submitted to liberal local judges and accepted same-sex marriage, the federalist position now championed by the New York Times will be discarded. Today, federalists are the progressive heroes of the hour. Tomorrow, they will be condemned as black-hearted reactionaries. The forces of progress will demand that Illinois, Georgia, Arizona and the rest fall into line behind Massachusetts – and those who wish to defend marriage as it was will discover that they have no tools left with which to protect themselves.

On marriage, the United States will remain all one way – or else go all the other. Those who vote against the Federal Marriage Amendment are not voting for local rights. They are voting for a national policy of same-sex marriage – a policy that will be pressed upon this country sooner than almost anyone now expects.

A transcript of canon lawyer Marc Balestrieri's appearance on Fox's Hannity and Colmes is available on-line. In the July 9 program, Alan Colmes and fill-in host Monica Crowley interviewed Mr. Balestrieri about his heresy complaint against J. Forbes Kerry.

Fr. Sibley's fourth ordination anniversary is July 15. Ad multos annos, Padre!

From the Washington Post. July 13 edition

A retired Roman Catholic priest convicted of child sexual abuse in 1984 has been stripped of his clerical status by the Vatican at the request of Arlington Bishop Paul S. Loverde, the diocese announced yesterday.

The Rev. Andrew W. Krafcik, 77, who served "in limited ministry" from 1985 until his 1996 retirement, was informed Saturday "that he has been dismissed from the clerical state by a decision of the Holy Father," the diocese said.

Krafcik said his 1984 misdemeanor conviction in Henrico Country arose from one incident in which he was accused of kissing a 12-year-old girl at a swimming pool near Richmond.

Krafcik, who was ordained in 1959, said he was working at St. Ann Parish in Arlington at the time of the offense. Confirming the diocesan assertion that he was ordered by the court to undergo counseling instead of being incarcerated, Krafcik said he was an outpatient for seven years at St. Luke Institute in Silver Spring, a church-sponsored facility for troubled priests. He said that he was treated with a drug that suppresses sexual arousal.

WASHINGTON, D.C., JULY 13, 2004 (Zenit.org).- Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and U.S. bishops are "very much in harmony" in regard to the Church's position on the issue of pro-abortion Catholic politicians' access to Communion.

Who are you and what have you done with Cardinal Ratzinger?

Philosophy professor James Tuttle is suing Lakeland (OH) Community College. The College reduced his teaching schedule and thus his salary -- contrary to seniority rules -- in an apparent move to punish him after he disclosed his Catholic point of view to his students and even -- shock -- mentioned it in a class syllabus!

Dean Brown went on to suggest that Dr. Tuttle "would be happier in a sectarian classroom."

Over Greek authorities killing 15,000 stray dogs before the Olympics to far surpass any outrage over the nearly 4,000 humans killed each day in abortion mills in this country. How many abortions worldwide daily? Anyone have that figure?

Weezie Jefferson, known in her earthly life as Isabel Sanford, has passed on to the real dee-luxe apartment in the sky. Please listen to the theme from "The Jeffersons" in her honor.

As many as 40,000 photos and an undisclosed number of films, including child pornography, were found a year ago on computers at the seminary, the respected news magazine Profil reported.

It published several images purportedly showing young priests and their instructors kissing and fondling each other, and said others showed them engaging in orgies and sex games. The child porn came mostly from Web sites based in Poland, the magazine said.
[Bishop] Krenn, a conservative churchman, told Austrian television he had seen photos of seminary leaders in sexual situations with students, but he described the images as part of an elaborate prank that "had nothing to do with homosexuality."

The article referenced below by professional buffoon Ted Rall is less provocative than his usual schtick. Next to condemning President Reagan to hell, or accusing a dead Ranger of wanting to murder innocent people, this is mild stuff. Maybe he reads his critics on the Web and has started to reconsider his vile tactics.

I love the quotation, "There isn't even one letter written by a soldier at the time referencing" spitting on Vietnam veterans. There is no record of any liberal screaming at me when I was in college, or making rude comments to my girlfriend (now wife), but it did happen, whether or not I can document it. I didn't think to report it to the police, because it didn't seem like they needed to be involved. I imagine that if you were in combat for the better part of a year, you wouldn't go running to the cops just because of saliva. Yet apparently there's a professor -- at Holy Cross, no less! -- who wrote an entire book saying that no protestor anywhere spat on any veteran.

Now, as it happens, I have a good source of first-hand observations about Vietnam protestors and how they treated members of the military. He is my father, who was an ROTC candidate while a student at the University of California, Santa Barbara. Campus protestors showed their spirited yet civil disagreement with the war by blowing up the ROTC building. That did make the papers, so the good professor has some evidence for his next book. And the future Army officers could not wear their uniforms on campus, for fear of being physically attacked. These attacks were not urban legends, either.

I've known many Vietnam vets with similar stories. It's funny, though -- they never mention working-class folks performing the abuse. The only ones doing the hitting and yelling were privileged, self-righteous college kids. Perhaps all these stories are invented, too.

I enjoy the pseudo-analysis of military compensation. He refers to a "two-year stint" in the military, which is unusually short -- most active-duty enlistment terms are four or six years. He complains that "Starting pay in the U.S. armed forces runs about $12,000 per year, about the same as working at McDonald's," but that pay increases almost immediately after boot camp, and the figure doesn't include the free housing, food, medical care, and other benefits. Add in college tuition money, and they are earning the equivalent of over $30,000 annually, which isn't bad for an entry-level job.

The cartoonist heroically says, "I'd rather sleep under a bridge, eating trash out of a Dumpster, than murder human beings for Halliburton." That life would be a big step up for Ted Rall.

To rise to its defense against this Op/Ed piece by Ted Rall, "BOYCOTT THE MILITARY"

Have a gander at Mr. Ralls "editorial" cartoons and you'll see where he's coming from.

Readers of the Left Behind series and believers in the Rapture are going to eat this up!

NYT: COLLAPSE OF THE EARTH'S MAGNETIC FIELD ACCELERATES - link via Drudge

What do you care as long as you don't have to!

Japan: Schoolkids to be tagged with RFID chips

The rights and wrongs of RFID-chipping human beings have been debated since the tracking tags reached the technological mainstream. Now, school authorities in the Japanese city of Osaka have decided the benefits outweigh the disadvantages and will now be chipping children in one primary school.

The tags will be read by readers installed in school gates and other key locations to track the kids' movements.

Do they have that many kids disappearing that they have to track them in and out of the school? Do the Japanese even have kids anymore? This sounds vaguely like a StarTrek episode in which members of the crew disappear some beiged-suited crewperson suggest they tag everyone with some chip so they can determine when and where the other crewpersons are disappearing. They then can rescue the missing crewpeople and maybe make first contact with some aliens from another dimension who want to do stem cell research on humans.

It's important to use inclusive language when writing about vaguely-remembered StarTrek episodes as it is in the liturgy when you don't want to offend anyone because we have such an easy-going, mellow God who made all us the exactly the same with trivial differences in biology and instinct that aren't really products of nature at all but rather a result of the environment: sociological factors, gender power-dynamics, and discrepancies in income. He doesn't have to tag us because He, I mean Mother Father Mighty Enabler of Humanity, knows where we are all the time but doesn't judge us about all the stuff we do, like treating our kids like cattle if we actually allow them to be born or engaging in unethical stem cell research and suchlike.

What are ethics anyway except a projection of sociological factors, gender power-dynamics, and discrepancies in income? We ought to abolish the word "ought" from our language and from our memory, individual and collective. And why would I even want to watch my kids? Am I my children's keeper? If the government wants to do that I'd be willing to pay more taxes and give up the freedom to raise my kids. A national nanny system can always watch the kids! I'm just one man, er - person - and I can't be depended on to look after my own hatchlings what with all the sociological factors, gender power-dynamics, and discrepancies in income that I grew up with.

On my local infotainment show this morning, they mentioned that President Bush devoted his Saturday radio speech to supporting the federal marriage amendment, defining marriage as one man and one woman. Instead of mentioning one of his reasons, they immediately characterized this as "playing to his base."

No politician acts out of conviction these days, especially not conservative Republicans, if you listen to the mainstream media. While that is true in spades for the Kerry-Edwards campaign, it isn't true of all politicians. The public is better served when moral ideas are discussed as such, not just as election tactics. Gay marriage is a moral issue, and has dimenstions that stretch far beyond the merely political. Would it be so hard for the media to acknowledge that?

Ron Reagan, who gave disloyal, backstabbing sons a bad name in the 1980s, will speak at the Democratic National Convention later this month. He wants Dr. Mengele's spiritual descendants to create and destroy tiny human beings at will, and he doesn't like the Bush Administration's opposition to such things.

"This gives me a platform to educate people about stem-cell research," Reagan said. "The conservative right has a rather simplistic way of characterizing it as baby killing. We're not talking about fingers and toes and brains. This is a mass of a couple hundred undifferentiated cells."

Of course, when we are talking about entities with "fingers and toes and brains," the Democrats want to destroy them, too -- but not for any high-minded reasons like curing heart disease or Alzheimer's or whatever stem cells are supposed to fix this week. They think it's fine to rip off the arms and legs of live babies in utero -- abortionists need something more substantial to grip than fingers and toes -- or suck out the brains of babies who could survive on their own. The reason isn't medical research, but how can you possibly question the tough, personal decision to stab an eight-month-old fetus in the back of his neck as he's being born?

Characterizing the killing of babies as "baby killing" may be simple, but it is not "simplistic." There's no nuance here: either an embryo is a living, human entity with a separate life from its parents, or it isn't. If it is a human being, then it needs to be treated with more respect than toenail clippings.

Sir, you were an embarrassment when your father was in office, and you are an embarrassment now that he has left us. Please sit down and stop talking.

Christopher starts bawling at 5:48 this morning. Paige thinks she can give him a bottle to make him go back to sleep; that works for a few minutes, but then he starts sounding borderline hysterical. So at 6:18, I get on my clothes, slip into my slippers, and rescue the baby from his crib.

I love the little guy dearly, but he's at a very awkward age (17 months). He's very mobile and strong, but he gets frustrated because he only knows about eight words and can't tell us what he wants. Also, he doesn't watch television, and that's not helpful. For all you Catholic super-parents out there who turn up your nose at the very thought of "using TV as a babysitter," even for a few minutes a day, that's great -- now back in your hole.

Sorry, that sounded a little grumpy. Christopher's older siblings can play by themselves or watch TV while I make breakfast. They are happy, I get to make the food in peace. Everybody wins. But the little guy can't entertain himself at all. He plays with a toy for a few minutes, and then staggers over to me and starts pulling on my shorts, begging to be picked up. We have done this for many mornings, ever since he started waking up before 6 a.m.

A number of you asked me how you can go about helping Marc Balestrieri in his canonical effort to combat the alleged pro-choice heresy espoused by Catholic politicians such as John Kerry. In fact, Al Matt asked me to answer this very question for his readers when I asked him last Wednesday whether I could cover this story in my regular monthly column for the Wanderer.

With this in mind, here's a sneak peak at the rough draft of the column I hope to submit. It is written in three parts. The first part is basically a summary of what I've already blogged on this subject, while the second part offers a basic explanation of why I maintain the pro-choice position to be heretical according to the clear teaching of the Catholic Church. Finally, the third part outlines three basic actions every Catholic can do to support Marc in his canonical petition.

----------------

Of Canons and Culture…
Lay Canon Lawyer Sues John Kerry for Heresy

Pete Vere, JCL

On June 14th, some heavy news hit both the canon law world and the American political scene. Marc Balestrieri filed a formal canonical petition before the Archdiocese of Boston in which he denounced John Forbes Kerry for the ecclesiastical crime of heresy. By July 1st, Marc had posted his eighteen-page petition available to defide.com where those with Internet access may view it.

Balestrieri’s canonical petition came as a surprise to many – including conservative canonists like myself. While other Catholic faithful have filed similar canonical actions in the past, what makes Balestrieri’s petition unique is that he happens to be a respected lay canonist. Yet like many lay canonists who fall within generation-x, Balestrieri is fed up with the scandal caused by pro-abort Catholic politicians. So he decided to attempt canonical recourse against the well-known senator from Massachusetts.

I know Marc personally. I will gladly vouch for his credentials as a canon lawyer. He told me in our last conversation that he spent six months researching both the procedure and the merit of this canonical action before undertaking it. It shows. When it comes to the facts and to the law, Balestrieri’s research, presentation, and handling of the situation is solid. I only wish that I had possessed enough courage to initiate a similar action against Paul Martin in Canada before he became Prime Minister.

In terms of Balestrieri’s future, however, this is the most risky venture undertaken by a canon lawyer since the eighties when Fr. Tom Doyle predicted a future sexual abuse crisis among the clergy. Defide.com reports that Marc is a lay judge with the Archdiocese of Los Angeles tribunal. One can only imagine Cardinal Mahony’s reaction to this petition. So Marc is likely putting both his reputation and his livelihood on the line with his canonical denunciation of Democrat presidential nominee. You’ve got guts Marc, and I pray our readers at the Wanderer will support you in this endeavor.

Yet this canonical action raises an important question, namely, what precisely is John Kerry’s heresy? Despite the misunderstanding of some sympathetic to Balestrieri’s action, Kerry’s heresy does not concern his reception of Holy Communion. This is separate – albeit not unrelated – issue. Rather, Kerry’s heresy concerns his affirmation that abortion is a matter of private morality with no public responsibility on the part of Catholic politicians.

For example, the presidential hopeful recently appeared on Larry King Live. When questioned about bishops threatening to deny him Holy Communion because of his voting record on abortion, Kerry responded: "Well, there are some bishops who have spoken out, but that's not the position of the Church, and as you know, we have a separation in America of Church and state. My obligation as a Catholic is to examine my conscience, under the freedom of conscience under Vatican II, Pope John XXIII, and Pope Paul […] I mean, being for choice does not mean you are for abortion..." As an aside, perhaps it is no coincidence that Kerry failed to mention Pope John Paul II in his litany of Church authorities whom he claims support his position. One need only read Evangelium vitae to know where our current Holy Father stands with regards to this issue.

Alternatively, one can contrast Kerry’s doctrine with that taught by the Catholic Church. The Catechism of the Catholic Church aptly summarizes Church teaching in article 2270 as follows: "Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person – among which is the inviolable right of every innocent to life," (emphasis mine). With regards to the political responsibility of every Catholic toward the child in the womb, article 2273 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches: "The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation…"

In denying these clear teachings of the Catholic Church while claiming to be a devout Catholic, John Forbes Kerry inflicts scandal upon Christ’s faithful. As fellow Catholic blogger Lane Core, Jr. explains in somewhat more contemporary language: "John Forbes Kerry is a darn heretic. He has caused and continues to cause great harm to the Catholic Church and to individual Catholics by stirring up doubt among Catholics and others about the Church's teaching and the Church's authority to teach, and by other scandals — even to the point of leading innumerable others, including Catholics, into believing The Right to Murder Unborn Children heresy — not by what he professes to believe but by what actions he takes and does not take, which is all that really matters."

Obviously, Balistrieri’s canonical action is something every orthodox Catholic should support. So how can we go about doing so as simple Catholic laity? First, keep Marc in your daily prayers. This battle is as much spiritual as it is canonical. Perhaps you can offer up an extra Rosary for him or spend an hour before Our Lord in Eucharistic adoration.

Secondly, Marc requires some financial support. Perhaps it is only coincidence that the same day Marc’s petition was made public, the Archdiocese of Los Angeles posted a new job opening for a canon lawyer. Time will tell. In the meantime, Marc requires basic living amenities such as food, water and shelter like the rest of us. When I last spoke to Marc, however, he had not eaten in several days, having poured his meager life savings as one of the Church’s lay employees into this canonical action. You can donate to Marc’s effort electronically at defide.com or you can send a check via postal mail to the following address:

DE FIDE
1223 Wilshire Boulevard, PMB 346
Santa Monica, CA 90403-5400

Thirdly, like over 1500 other Catholics, you can join Marc as a petitioner to his canonical action against John Kerry and the latter’s alleged pro-choice heresy. In my opinion as a canonist, this is in keeping with the canonical right of every Catholic outlined in the third paragraph of canon 212 as follows: "Christ’s faithful […] have the right, indeed at times the duty […] to manifest to the sacred Pastors their views on matters which concern the good of the Church." The destruction wreaked on millions of women and children each year by abortion, as well as the scandal to the faith caused by pro-choice Catholic politicians such as John Kerry, obviously concerns the common good of the Church. Therefore, to exercise your canonical right to express yourself on this matter, please visit Defide.com and learn how you can join Marc Balestrieri as a co-petitioner to this canonical action.

LOL! Lane Core, Jr. has attempted to translate Marc Balestrieri's petition against John Kerry for heresy into the language of the laity. Here's a sample:

"John Forbes Kerry is a damn heretic. By word and deed, he espouses the heresy that The Blog from the Core will call The Right to Murder Unborn Children. The Church has dogmatically defined that the deliberate taking of innocent human life is intrinsically evil, and that procured abortion is included in this definition. John Forbes Kerry is a damn heretic. Though he says that he personally believes what the Church teaches about abortion, he nonetheless espouses heresy by what he does: he pro-actively, even vigorously, does whatever he can to assure that an intrinsically evil act is legal and will remain legal, and to advance its status in society to the point that it will be understood as an everyday human right and acknowledged by mainline churches as such."

You can read the entire translation at Lane's blog.

To begin, thank-you everyone for your prayers this past weekend. They are much appreciated.

Well I've basically monopolized Pacheco's phone line this weekend as phone calls and emails (both incomming and outgoing) in the canon law world are abuzz about Marc Balestrieri's canonical action against John Kerry. Behind the scenes, the situation has taken on a little more clear definition -- some good, some bad and some ugly.

First the bad news. While I have not been able to confirm this independently, I have heard from a trusted third-party source that Marc has now reportedly lost his job. Please keep this in mind. Marc expressed deep gratitude to the people at St. Blog's and FreeRepublic for their spiritual, moral and financial support and asked me thank everyone from him. He was especially taken back by Oswald Sobrino's donation of book royalties to the cause. Additionally, a lot of the leading boomer canonists are not too pleased about this canonical action, and they're gonna fight hard to oppose it.

On the positive front, a number of other leading gen-x canonists are weighing in on Marc's side and/or have enthusiastically committed to defending this action. They have contacted both Marc and myself, and it looks like our battle plan is coming together. Two of the canonists weighing in (Anselmo and another I will call Constantine for the time being) are procedural experts, which is good news for me since my prowess when it comes to procedural law is only average among canonists. So for the time being, the decision was made to keep me out of the procedural action until Anselmo and Constantine figure out a way to weigh in, at which point I will simply piggy-back off of their effort.

Basically, this means I will be helping Marc with the media and fundraising end of things until we come to the substance (or what canonists call "the merit") of the case. At this point, I look forward to arguing that pro-abort Catholic pols should be given the opportunity to repent, and failing to do so, excommunicated for heresy. On this note, it is important to remember that the heresy is not that they frequent Holy Communion, as has been misunderstood by some acting in good faith on our side. This is a separate problem. The heresy in question is that the topic of abortion is one of private morality, and that one can legitimately be privately opposed to abortion while defending and promoting a public "right" to dismember and butcher a child in the womb.

With my canon law books in boxes, and given the calibre of canonists on the other side, I feel much more at ease arguing the heretical nature of the pro-choice position rather than engage in procedural battles over whether laypeople can bring such an action before a tribunal. Canonists on the other side are arguing that the competency to initiate such an action falls exclusively to the Promoter of Justice. Concerning this procedural controversy, Dr. Ed Peters (a canonist whom I highly respect and probably the only boomer canonist that has taken a public stand generally favorable to Marc thus far) has now weighed in with some pretty solid commentary in my opinion. Given my own strengths and weaknesses as a canonist, I'm gonna leave this debate to Marc, Peters, Anselmo and Constantine.

Additionally, Marc put in a solid performance before the media -- both Catholic and secular -- despite having eaten very little over the past week and getting even less sleep. His one slip-up, which fortunately does not concern the merit of his action, was forgetting to mention the defide.com website on Fox News. I'm pointing this out publicly, Marc, so you won't forget next time. Anytime you have millions of viewers watching, you need to promote your website.

Now for the ugly. I spoke with a number of respected boomer canonists opposed to this action over the weekend.  Their opposition is stiff. They have been caught off-guard by this action. However, they have also been caught off-guard by the growing number of leading gen-x canonists that support the action. Although we should keep in mind that there are boomers and gen-x canonists on both sides.

In the last fifteen years, the fighting between boomer and gen-x'ers in a number of the sacred sciences has become fierce. In many cases, it's personal. Fortunately, canonists have avoided this because, to their credit, boomer canonists have for the most part not taken these debates personally and have held any ideological debates between the two generations to the realm of ideology. Part of it, I think, is that the fight between boomer canonists and World War II era canonists after the Second Vatican Council was particularly fierce, and most boomer canonists who recall the battles fought during this time do not wish a repeat.

Of course, I'm simplifying the situation somewhat. But in a nutshell, certain unwritten rules have evolved through which canonists, when divided, argue their differences in both private and public forums. What my boomer friends have basically told me is that as long as our side sticks to the unwritten rules, their side will do so as well, and thus regardless of how the debate is ultimately resolved, everyone can walk out with their reputation untarnished. That being said, our side should keep in mind that the issue is very emotional for them as well. They recall a time when Rome investigated every little minor suspicion of theological or canonical imperfection. Additionally, they remember when Catholics were persecuted and basically locked out of the political process. So they are also willing to stick to the rules of "the game", but they're gonna hit hard as well as bring out all their star players. They also anticipate we will do the same. But as long as everyone sticks to the unwritten rules, we all may come out bloodied, but the issue will be resolved with our reputations as canonists still intact.

That is, if you've been away for a while.

Sometimes people become disaffected with the Church and end up in small sects or "independent" chapels because they got scandalized by something bad going on in the Church. And sometimes people come back after they get scandalized by even freakier stuff in the small sects. Here in Boston, the death of long-time "independent" traditionalist dissenter Fr. John Keane left his followers and his privately-owned chapel in an uproar: apparently two factions are now feuding over control of the property.

The priest they hired to fill in for him is reported to have a teensy weensy bit of a criminal record from running over a six-year-old, plus there's that little matter of the sexual abuse case. Oh, yeah, and he's said to be a sedevacantist kook too. So, God bless the congregation, they got rid of him and sent him back to the bottom of the barrel he came from.

Memo to Abp. O'Malley: maybe this would be an opportune time to reach out pastorally and seek a reconciliation for the 120 souls in that little group. We 250 at the indult Mass would be happy to welcome them. That's what we're here for.

MarketWatch reports that pizza mogul Tom Monaghan is taking Domino's public (DPZ) 44 years after its founding; 3 million of the shares sold will benefit his Ave Maria Foundation with an estimated $45-51M. Congratulations to all involved.

Civilization vs. Trivia

This war — like all wars — is a terrible thing; but far, far worse are the mass murder of 3,000 innocents and the explosion of a city block in Manhattan, a ghoulish Islamic fascism and unfettered global terrorism, and 30 years of unchecked Baathist mass murder. So for myself, I prefer to be on the side of people like the Kurds, Elie Wiesel, Hamid Karzai, and Iyad Allawi rather than the idiotocrats like Jacques Chirac, Ralph (the Israelis are "puppeteers") Nader, Michael Moore, and Billy Crystal.

Sometimes life's choices really are that simple.

Read the whole thing!

The lay canonist charging John Kerry with heresy was interviewed on Fox News Channel's "Hannity & Colmes" show tonight. The show will be repeated later on for us night-owls.

One of our astute readers in the Diocese of Richmond sent me a very amusing, very telling email today:

...thought you might get a kick out of it since you seem to be following our travails in the Richmond Diocese. TQ's comments, which you linked, reminded me of the funniest thing I've seen this year. Some brief background:

TQ mentioned "a manual" that was discussed in Bp. DiLorenzo's homily. The "manual" was a document prepared a couple years ago by Bp. Sullivan and his cronies that deals with the goals, strengths, weaknesses, etc., of the diocese. (They mostly get the strengths and weaknesses backwards, as you might expect). Supposedly, they got input from the parishes in preparing it, but at the parish level very few people seem to have heard of it.

They seem to have presented it to Bp. DiLorenzo with great fanfare -- "this is the course the diocese wants/needs to follow" -- so Bp. DiLorenzo talked a lot about it in his homily.

Then he went on the road, meeting lay leaders, and discovered that very few had heard of the document. The diocesan newspaper, reporting on the meeting, quoted him as asking "Is this document relevant, or is it a house job?"

I figured that by "house job" he meant, like, an "in-house" thing by the diocesan staff that wasn't really relevant to the situation "on the ground" in the parishes -- which is true enough.

But Tuesday, the new edition of the diocesan paper arrived with this correction, which gave me one of those wonderful diet-Coke-through-the-nose moments:

"Corrections: The term used by Bishop Francis X. DiLorenzo ... was "hose job," and not "house job" as was printed in the June 21 issue..."

Hose job, of course, means snow job. As though blowing sunshine in the direction of the Bishop will distract him from the real work of the Church.

I'm really starting to like Bp. DiLorenzo. A lot.

Thank you, anonymous reader, for your email and a Diet-Coke-through-the-nose moment.

Bill Schilling was a parishoner at St. John's Parish in McLean, VA . He founded a scholarship in the name of his late wife for seminarians from the parish, giving them sorely needed money each semester to pay for essentials. He also funded a Catholic orphanage and school for victims of the AIDS virus in Kenya. He continued to support the seminarians and the orphanage in his will. He left a substantial amount of money to the Diocese of Arlington as well.

I visited him some weeks ago as his health began to fail. He told me about how he and his wife had saved their whole life to buy a house. As the years went on decided not to buy a home of their own. Rather, they stayed in the same modest apartment for decades. They never had children of their own, but their life's work would go to support their spiritual children in Africa and the good work of the Arlington Diocese. He said missed his wife very much and was ready to see her again. She passed away in 1999. He sat wrapped in the blanket that kept her warm in her last days. As we spoke I thought of a story I once heard about Father Wilfrid Faber. Seemingly on his death bed, surrounded by family and friends, Father Faber got better. Bill passed away this morning from liver cancer. He didn't get better, he got the best. "Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his saints." Psalm 115:15

May he rest in peace.

...in the Diocese of Richmond.

When will we hear from them about their progress? We'd like to know if they can see any changes since the Bishop DiLorenzo arrived on the scene.

I can't mention Richmond without mentioning "TQ" - Pastor of Church of the Holy Family in Virginia Beach. Former Pastor of Good Shepherd Catholic Church in the Mount Vernon area, he is known far and wide for driving a VW Bug up the aisle while wearing an Easter Bunny suit some decades ago. He didn't like Bishop DiLorenzo's installation. No, not one bit!

For the first time in memory there were no LAY extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist distributing the Body and Blood of Christ. The sea of white vested clerics (deacons and priests) “grabbed “ everything with a sort of “it’s our Church” possessiveness. A GIRMness pervaded all.

Why use EME's if there are so many ordinary ministers of the Eucharist on hand?

But hold the "cesspool water of American capitalism."

My crummy local state rep sent out a mailing the other day that included a "survey" of constituents' opinions.

I throw those scare quotes around "survey" because unlike a well-made survey instrument, the form was plainly designed to elicit approval for the rep's positions, the "Yes" answers in each case. It gives me a special feeling to have cheap politicians insult my intelligence at my own expense.

One of the agree/disagree items was: "It is important for the state to fund stem-cell research." (Disclaimer: I don't have it here in front of me.)

Now, what's the correct answer for this? Technically, one could answer "Yes" because if the state funds immoral stem-cell research, that certainly is an important matter. But one should answer "No" because you and I know very well how they meant it.

And that's where Senator Lurch comes in and wins my gratitude today. He made it possible to explain to the rep in the Additional Comments space:

Stem cell research must be conducted within the proper ethical limits. As Sen. Kerry said, life begins at conception.

Pro-Abort Catholic Politicians and Heresy Trials

Well, I’m back. Thanks to everyone for your prayers, and thanks to St. Anthony, we finally made it across the border with our car. That being said, it appears I missed some excitement while off-line these past couple weeks. A number of you kindly sent me links to stories involving Marc Balestrieri’s canonical petition against John Kerry concerning the scandal being caused to Christ’s faithful from the latter’s support for abortion. Marc is a lay canonist in his early thirties and a pretty solid guy. So his action in support of innocent children in the womb took both myself and other lay canonists from our generation by surprise.

I cannot begin to explain the likely consequences of Marc’s actions. Don’t get me wrong; up until this point Marc enjoyed a solid reputation as a canon lawyer. He spent six months researching this petition, and his research, presentation, and handling of the facts and of the law is solid. Yet in terms of his future, this is the most risky venture undertaken by a canon lawyer since the eighties when Fr. Tom Doyle predicted the clergy sexual abuse crisis. Basically, Marc is putting his reputation and his livelihood on the line here.

We spoke earlier today by phone, and he is already come under heavy fire from the Democrat machine, some heavy players within the Catholic hierarchy, not a few respected canonists, and even some neo-conservative Republicans. Up until now, he’s also fought much of this battle alone, against powerful enemies on several fronts, and out of his own pockets. Keep in mind that Church employees don’t make a whole lot of money to begin with, and Marc has living expenses like the rest of us. As long as this canonical action is drawing public attention, despite the Church’s shortage of canon lawyers, most dioceses won’t touch him.

Yet Marc assured me when we spoke that the costs were worth it. He also told me that he would rather seek Kerry repent than be excommunicated, and this remains the end for which Marc hopes. Barring this happy outcome, however, Marc is ready and willing to sacrifice his future over this canonical action. Although I cringe whenever I think of what’s in store for Marc, I know he is doing the right thing.

I cannot deny that I have often toyed with the idea of initiating a similar canonical action. Nevertheless, I always backed down. There’s a number of excuses I could offer – having a wife and two children to support being the main one, not wanting to draw too much attention as a Canadian living in the United States being another – but in the end, these were merely excuses.

The real reason I backed down was cowardice. I simply was not ready to absorb the personal and financial costs involved. Yet Marc’s actions have forced me to confront the costs of my own cowardice. Each year there are close to three million victims of abortion in America. Half of these victims, the children in the womb, forfeit their lives to altar of the sexual revolution. The other half, that being the mothers, find themselves emotionally and psychologically damaged for the rest of their lives. This has got to stop, and the Church must take firm action against the Catholic politicians who support this grave evil.

Marc, I know you follow these blogs. And I appreciate your kind compliments towards me and other lay canonists who fought some of the earlier battles. But we spent most of the day speaking among ourselves and we all agree that you’ve set the new standard of courage with your canonical action as none of us have had the courage thus far to lay it all on the line like you have. You’ve got some heavy persecution ahead and none of the boys envy you. May God bless you in this effort and may He give us the courage to stand by you and you defend His most innocent of creation.

Contrary to what Beregond posted in the comments last week, this does not rise to the level of schism. Perhaps Father JP would care to comment?

Washington Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick downplayed a letter to the U.S. Catholic bishops from the Vatican's chief doctrinal watchdog on whether priests should refuse Communion to pro-choice Catholic politicians.
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger sent his letter in early June to Cardinal McCarrick and Bishop Wilton Gregory, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, in the context of dealing with Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry, a Catholic whose positions on several issues, including abortion, contradict church teachings.
But its full text, which was published Saturday in the Italian newspaper L'Espresso, contains much stronger language than Cardinal McCarrick used last month at a meeting of the country's Catholic bishops near Denver.
Cardinal McCarrick's nuanced speech during the meeting from June 14 to 19 paraphrased the Ratzinger letter to say that the Vatican had left the issue of Communion in the hands of the U.S. bishops.

Robert Reich's Religion Problem

Ramesh Ponnuru writes today about Robert Reich's latest column in The American Prospect. I would link to Reich's article, but they want $14.95 to read it in toto, so instead I'll give you their email address so you can tell them what they can do with whatever is it that they do it with. Instead you'll have to read Ponurro's article on NRO. Ponurru elucidates Reich's "liberal religion-bashing" -

He [Reich] says that "the problem" with "religious zealots" is that "they confuse politics with private morality."

The problem is really the reverse. Liberals, in an effort to take God out of every aspect of public life and stigmatize those who practice it zealously, even if only in "private" life, want to make moral issues simply issues of political opinion. Hillary Clinton speaking about the "common good" is just as obtuse.

Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you," Sen. Clinton said. "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

Apparently income redistribution serves the common good but passing just laws that keep four thousand babies from being killed each day does not. More from Reich's article -

The great conflict of the 21st century will not be between the West and terrorism. Terrorism is a tactic, not a belief. The true battle will be between modern civilization and anti-modernists; between those who believe in the primacy of the individual and those who believe that human beings owe their allegiance and identity to a higher authority; between those who give priority to life in this world and those who believe that human life is mere preparation for an existence beyond life; between those who believe in science, reason, and logic and those who believe that truth is revealed through Scripture and religious dogma. Terrorism will disrupt and destroy lives. But terrorism itself is not the greatest danger we face.

Apart from advances in medicine and technology. what has modernity really given us? Do we have a more perfect ethics than the previous centuries, a greater and more widespread understanding of natural law, a more civil society, or more peace? I hate to break it to him, but we're back fighting a similar fight to that of Socrates who stood up to the Sophists. We live in an age, as Socrates did, where knowledge has only utility, truth is relative, and the only thing that matters is success and fame. Call me an anti-modernist any day. Incidently, Reich proves the old adage, "Scratch a liberal, find a fascist." Perhaps he should know about Pascal's wager as well. Or the logical proofs for the existence of God even. How would he explain the finitude of things or persons? Ultimately they can only be explained by the existence of an infinite being. Don't buy what the neo-Sophists are selling, Mr. Reich. And don't pull the un-PC PC routine on people of faith. The rotten fruits of the Enlightenment are communism, nazism, facism, aetheism, secularism, abortion-on-demand, and what else? Modern liberalism. The so-called "Dark Ages" were the height of Medieval philosophy and Christian evangelization. That's not something you hear from Reich-types who think all people did for centuries was boil stones for soup.

"No Funeral, No Memorial Service and No Widow"

Brando's older sister Jocelyn says, "If someone wants to do something, that's their business. But Marlon would have hated it. He would not have liked it, and we don't want to do anything he didn't want to do. He's off on his trip, whatever that is."

His trip, whatever that is. Pascal's wager, anyone?

The Associated Press quoted two officials "close to the Kerry campaign" Monday who said that Edwards interrupted a trip to Walt Disney World last week to meet with Kerry in Washington.

The poor kid - he had to get off Tigger's lap and fly to Washington!

I bought my lunch at Safeway today and heard this exchange between two employees:

Employee 1: "What was wrong with that guy?"
Employee 2: "I think he was a little inebriated."
Employee 1: [dumb look on face]
Employee 2: "You know..." [hand to mouth gesture]
Employee 1: "Oh. It's funny you thought that, because I thought he was drunk."

Portland Archdiocese Filing Chapter 11

Proof that you should be careful what you sow. What's the line from the Bible? "The measure with which you measure shall be measured back unto you?" Have I got that right?

Let me get us started.

• Your eyes say "No!" but your hair says, "Yes! Yes! Yes!"
• Kerry: You smell, terrific, John! Edwards: You smell terrific, too, John!
• Edwards: I've never felt this way about a man before! Kerry: I've never run for President before!
• Kerry: Don't mention Vietnam too much. Edwards: What's Vietnam?

Or maybe just bear one another.

Is carrying your wife a bit of rustic chivalry? Man's exploitation of woman? Woman's exploitation of man? Maybe a symbol of mutual self-donation?

A look at His Eminence's re-emergence in connection with his new title at St. Mary Major.

I've made an update to the "lite" version of the blog, intended for PDA users. It presents the titles of the last five posts, and full text of the latest ten comments. I've downsized the logo graphic too for faster loading. If anybody else is using it besides me, let me know!

A bunch of terrorists attempted to blow up an Israeli barracks from underground, but in a miscalculation, their tunnel ran underneath a car-park. They did blow that up, killing one soldier instead of dozens. American writer Meryl Yourish quips (with no apologies to Joni Mitchell): "They craved paradise but blew up a parking lot."

(via OxBlog, thx)

Sandro Magister, writing in L'espresso, presents the letter Cdl. Joseph Ratzinger sent the US bishops supporting the denial of Communion to pertinacious pro-abortion politicians.

(via CWN)

PLATTSMOUTH, Neb. -- Some Americans this Fourth of July plan to get a bang out of blowing Osama bin Laden's head off.
The Bin Laden Noggin, a cone-shaped pyrotechnic device with a cartoon of bin Laden's face, has been a hot seller at some fireworks stores across the country. When lighted, the bin Laden cone erupts in blood-red flames and screeches for 60 seconds. Two shots blow off his head.
It is part of an Exploding Terrorists Heads four-pack that also includes Saddam Hussein, Yasser Arafat and Moammar Gadhafi.
Another hot seller in some places: Game Over, a package of three artillery shots decorated like bin Laden, Saddam and Col. Gadhafi in striped jail uniforms.
Both sets of fireworks are made in China.

The work of Scots Catholic artist Tommy Canning.

Written by a couple of seminarians who shall remain nameless!

Warning: if you are offended by liberal use of the word "crap" don't continue reading!

I, for one, consider that with many men their faith has become uninteresting to them, because they have not grow out of the metaphor, the imagery of it, into a rational understanding. In everything else, their mind has become a man's mind; they have put away the things of a child. In matters of Faith alone, they still are bound to speak as a child, to understand as a child, with the result that Faith has become insipid to their virile minds.

From a book written in 1913, this short passage has much to say to about catachesis today.

Here's Eric in the NY Post.

And he got a link from The Corner as well.

And Jonah Goldberg describes Eric as "My friend."

Congrats again, Eric! Among other, more important things, you've proven that republicans have friends.

If you think Cosby is wrong, or that this is solely a problem of the supposed appeal of victimhood in the black community, think again. Clearly our expectations of any youngster are too low if the Worcester, Mass. school system thinks it's ok to put Tupac Shakur's "poetry" on the summer reading list: Rap Lyrics on Students' Summer Reading List

The appeal of victimhood is quite paradoxical, because while for a child it may be based in fact rather than imagination, it leads the adult to be a victim of his own sloth, neglect for duties to self, to family, and to community. It's reinforced by the diminished expectations of students in the public schools and the culture in general. When have you ever heard a rapper laud the virtue of getting his homework done, doing his chores, saying his prayers, and going to sleep early? That simply doesn't sell music or movies. Indeed the appeal of victimhood is fueled by the entertainment industry. Cosby is right. Whether or not anything will come of his tirades is another matter. I'm glad Jesse Jackson is behind him on this now, though he has made a career of convincing his brothers and sisters believe they are victims of forces outside their own community.

Jeff Miller invites our terrorist friends for a stay at the Ramadan Inn.

"Terri's Law," passed in October, allowed Gov. Jeb Bush to order the reinsertion of a feeding tube keeping Terri Schiavo alive. She has been in a persistent vegetative state for 14 years after collapsing from a chemical imbalance.

The 2nd District Court of Appeal upheld Circuit Judge W. Douglas Baird's ruling denying an attempt by Bob and Mary Schindler to join the fight over the law's constitutionality.

The appeals court didn't issue an opinion with the ruling.

Terri Schiavo's husband, Michael Schiavo, is suing the governor to have the law overturned. Bush is defending the law and the Schindlers wanted to join him as a party to the lawsuit.

What music does your parish do for Marian feasts? We'll likely be doing the Stravinsky "Ave Maria" and if we have a chance we'll do the Oswald Jaeggi arrangement of the "Salve Mater" chant.

Andrew Stuttaford does not like religious belief. I am sure he likes some religious believers, and some of them are, doubtless, among his best friends. Yet in National Review Online, he makes it clear that the blasphemous movie "Life of Brian" is a Gospel to him.

"The Corner," NRO's blog, is turned over to Stuttaford on most weekends, where he vents about two topics: health puritans, and religious believers who won't get with the secularist program. I am with him on the first point, though his attacks on the no-smoking-and-drinking crowd are tiresome by now.

The second point is the key to his thinking, at least the thinking he contributes to NRO. Stuttaford seems to loathe -- the word does not seem too strong -- the beliefs of Islamists, Evangelicals, and religious believers of all stripes, probably in that order. For instance, he does not merely disparage radical Islamist clerics in his native Britain because they incite murder and undermine civil society. He thinks they need to shut up because the U.K. is a secular nation, and their God-talk has no place in the modern world.

An exaggeration? Here are his words of praise for "Brian": "If there's any type of belief that runs through the movie, it's disbelief, unbelief, a world-weary skepticism." Stuttaford means this as a compliment, though the world needs more skepticism the way it needs more genocide.

"The real target of the movie's satire is not religion as such, but the unholy baggage that too frequently comes with it — the credulity, the fanaticism, and that very human urge to persecute, well, someone." I could make the same case about sports fans or science-fiction devotees. Since the Enlightenment unleashed its monstrous crimes, all for secular reasons, religion is a distant second to politics as a raison d'abattre. I've seen drunks come to blows over perceived slights -- and religion is a primary cause of "unholy baggage"? Not human frailty?

Given the massive failure of secularism to make people happy, whether through ascetic utopian scemes (Marxism) or wretched excess (consumerism), it's touching that Stuttaford can maintain his faith in it. To maintain his beliefs, he takes aim at easy targets like Scientology or Jerry Falwell, avoiding more formidable targets like, say, Confucianism or Catholicism, which have vast intellectual traditions that don't fit into his model of religion as "superstition."

He continues: "There's a lovely moment when, appalled by the spectacle of the faithful gathering beneath his window, he tells them that, 'you don't need to follow me, you don't need to follow anybody. You've got to think for yourselves, you're all individuals.' Simple stuff, but, these days, pretty good advice."

But we're not "individuals" in the sense that we are radically separated from everyone else. We rely on others to grow our food, make our electricity, build our houses, and most other necessities. None of us has invented our worldview out of whole cloth; we choose what we believe (hopefully) based on whether it is true or false.

Our species is more interconnected than it has ever been, yet some persist in thinking that we can somehow be "individuals" in the most literal sense. Yet the more disconnected people are, the more miserable they become. When entire societies embrace that philosophy, they begin a slow march toward oblivion, just as Britain and Western Europe's populations are slowly dying.

Belief in the unfettered self is the most superstitious belief of all, and the surest path to self-destruction.

From the Washington Times: "A Catholic lawyer has filed heresy charges against Sen. John Kerry with the Archdiocese of Boston, accusing the Democratic presidential candidate of bringing 'most serious scandal to the American public' by receiving Holy Communion as a pro-choice Catholic."

This is Pete-bait, if any story be. Pete Vere, if you still exist -- your comments on the merits of the case?

(via Mark Shea)

HLI's Fr. Thomas Euteneuer is fighting the good fight for the cause of life, but I think he let his passions get the better of him in his rebuke of Nancy Pelosi.

To be sure, the Minority Leader deserves reproof for publicly promoting her erroneous views on the duties of Catholic politicians, but Fr. Euteneuer goes way over the top when he accuses her of apostasy. After all, that's "a total repudiation of the Christian faith": a total rejection of adherence to Christianity, and merely declaring some false doctrine about morals isn't the same thing.

There are several sins against faith that don't constitute apostasy, and the Catechism paragraph that Fr. cites (2089) makes distinctions between apostasy, heresy, incredulity, and schism. He doesn't seem to notice. Even rejecting the teaching authority of the Church would be heresy but not necessarily apostasy.

It's embarrassing to see a worthy priest stumble into making such an exaggerated charge.

Update: I originally misstated Ms. Pelosi's title in the post, but have fixed the reference. Thanks to TPFKAAC.