A reader writes:

Help me here. What do you do (how do you call yourself) when you can't support the Pope's own support of Arafat?

It's the same with about the pending war with Iraq; referring to the recent statement put out by the president of the American bishops. The questions are right. The catechism references are right. It's the "facts on the ground" which are wrong or muddled. His Grace and I are applying the same questions and references to different set of facts (and assumptions).

Back to Arafat. How can I support him as the Pope does? I can't - the facts-on-the-ground don't allow me to. I can't, on good conscience and observation, budge on this. Am I a faithless Catholic for doing so?

If you've listened to what the Pope has to say, informed your conscience, and done your homework by really trying to understand the Tradition, and still disagree with the Vatican's position on say Arafat or the war with Iraq, you call yourself a faithful Catholic who disagrees with the Pope about a matter of prudential judgment, not about a doctrine of the Church.

I have no idea whether you've done homework of listening to the Pope's position on this, so I can't say whether you are "faithless" or not. Most likely you are not faithless, or you wouldn't bother to try to find out whether you were disobedient or not. I *can* say that it is quite legitimate for faithful Catholics to arrive at different conclusions than the Holy Father in areas of prudential judgement. The goal is to try as hard as possible to think with the Tradition. There is no guarantee we will all arrive at the same conclusions in matters of prudential judgment. Nor is there a demand from the Tradition that we always agree with the Holy Father about absolutely everything. The teaching of the Church is binding in matters of faith and morals. But with respect to the question of how the Church's teaching on faith and morals is to be applied in the question of what to do about Arafat and Israel or war with Iraq, faithful Catholics can disagree legitimately--so long as they are truly seeking to think with the Tradition.

FWIW, while Palestinian terrorism is absolutely unjustifiable, there does remain the legitimate complaint of Palestinians over Jewish settlements on the West Bank. Terrorism is the absolutely immoral way to oppose this. But Rome is compelled (rightly, I think) to say that Israel's doubled population of settlers there in the past ten years does not send the Palestinians much of a message that they can really have the land they're supposed to get. Again, this does not justify Arafat's thuggish kleptocracy, but it is one of those stubborn realities the Pope cannot ignore.

Personally, I think Israel is doing what it needs to in the short run (demolishing Arafat's headquarters) and crushing terrorism wherever it's found. But in the long run, Israel *still* needs to pull those settlers out of the West Bank, I think. But I think the main onus lies with Radical Islam and its fellow travelers to change or face annihilation from a civilized world that will not put up with their arrogant ignorant barbaric 10th century crap forever. If they remain eager to die, they will find a growing number of people who are eager to kill them. And it will be entirely just and necessary, should they continue to threaten the civilized world.

For help in the conscience-forming department, see the ever-invaluable George Weigel on Just War.

Scam artists for the brow-furrowed wine-and-cheese-eating chattering classes are suing each other

Brainless intelligentsia think this stuff matters. But as C.S. Lewis noted long ago in the Pilgrim's Regress, the Clevers are all wage slaves to Mr. Mammon. The only truly avante garde people in our culture are orthodox Christians who live what they believe. "Break the conventions. Keep the commandments." - G.K. Chesterton

This

reminds me of Oliver Jensen, one of the editors of the old American Heritage Magazine, who once wrote a parody of how Eisenhower might have written the Gettysburg Address, the first sentence of which ran: "I haven't checked these figures, but 87 years ago, I think it was, a number of individuals organized a governmental set-up here in this country, I believe it covered certain Eastern areas, with this idea they were following up based on a sort of national independence arrangement and the program that every individual is just as good as every other individual."

Your mission: write the Preamble to the Declaration in kid-friendly language. Come you lawyers, poets and sons of liberty! This is your chance to cut loose! Here's the preamble, in case the neurons have ceased firing since the 8th grade class when you memorized it:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

(Sample rewrite: Sometimes people grow apart and need to go to their happy corner for a time out. But it's only fair they talk out their issues so that everybody knows what's going on.)

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

I'll leave the rewrite to you.

The Divine Miss Em showed me this, um, Curious site

If you like this...

You should get the rest of the book, featuring essays from folks like Rod Dreher, Fr. Joseph Wilson, Greg Popcak, Kristine Franklin and a whole bunch more.

Go here if you wanna get Shaken by Scandals from me with a John Hancock on it.

CAI continues to twist itself into pretzels to defend the indefensible

Missing in the endless wads of verbiage are the words "We apologize for saying that Judaism teaches Jews can rape infants. We apologize for cutting and pasting a Nazi screed about Roosevelt's Jewish blood (!) and then defending that screed. We apologize for repeating the falsehood that Kol Nidre allows Jews to break their promises to their fellow man. We apologize for teaching that Judaism regards gentiles as animals who can be cheated and even killed with impunity. We apologize for pretending to be Talmud scholars and posting as undisputable fact a whole range of high dubious junk cut and pasted from sources we never bothered to question or criticize. We apologize for quietly removing the most egregious anti-Jewish garbage we had cut and pasted into our screeds (thereby testifying by our actions that we knew it was garbage) and yet continuing to speak of our critics as though their criticism of our stuff was utterly and completely unjustified. We apologize for encouraging Holocaust deniers with our rhetoric about the mass slaughter of Jews by Hitler being "mere propaganda." We apologize for cutting off communication with those who have tried privately to reason with us. We apologize for demanding endless 'benefit of doubt' for ourselves while insisting on reading the documents of Jews in the darkest possible way."

That's why I continue to say that Sungenis' ministry should not be touched with a barge pole. I wonder how long it will be before Petersnet red-lights them, EWTN deep sixes every tape with Bob on it, and every serious Catholic website and media outlet in the civilized world severs its links with CAI? This will be an interesting test of how fast news travels in the age of the Internet. Maybe al-Jazeera will pick them up.

No one can defend the indefensible and CAI's self-congratulating back-patting from the few Lidless Eye troglodytes who know how to operate a keyboard and hit "send" will not help. The simple fact is it is not true that Judaism teaches it is okay to rape infant girls. It is not true that the Holocaust did not happen. It is not true that Kol Nidre gives Jews carte blanche to break promises. It is not true that Judaism regards gentiles as animals whom you can cheat and kill with impunity. And it is therefore not true that Bob knows what he's talking about in his confident pronouncements about Judaism. There are lots and lots of ways to critique indifferentism. There are lots and lots of ways to assert the superior claims of the Catholic faith over the Old Covenant. But you do not get there by spitting on the commandment "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor."

Till that is renounced, I will proudly list myself as one of the mortal opponents of the junk CAI is purveying in the name of the Faith and I will endorse the call to stay far, far away from CAI and its works and ways.

Mr. Anonymous bravely confronts John Mallon

Gotta hand it to those courageous kvetchers who won't sign their name to what they write. They have imaginations greater than Tolkien's. They seem to have seriously convinced themselves that the same ecclesiats who were too timid to deal with Paul Shanley for years are going to surround their houses with Swiss Guards and slaughter their families because of comments sent to a blog?

A reader writes concerning the "Trolling Trolling" blog below

During my tenure in the Dominican Republic, there were several former Catholics who worked at the school. Criticism of the RC was frequent and vehement. That is, until our Director, raised I believe Nazarene, made the following statement regarding this criticism: "Far be it from me to ever question or criticize God's methods for bringing His children closer to Him."

This, understandably enough, gave certain individuals "pause to consider." Particularly, considering the fact that much of their foundational christianity was composed of "dogma and doctrine" from the RCC.

Like a man who leaves his love because of some imagined slight, he no longer regards her as "The most wonderful woman I have ever met!" Nay, now she is "That hateful bitch that I'm glad to be free of!" Thus do we fools slander freedom.

I think this is important because it highlights a fact often overlooked by Catholics with the itch to polemicize: namely that there are many "Protestants" who aren't protesting anything and are, in fact, like that Nazarene Director, full of charity and not the urge to bash Catholics. To polemists of all stripes, perhaps the best thing to do is learn about the people you might feel an itch to pontificate about.

Decisions, decisions

I'm writing the January 2003 issue of My Daily Visitor and they asked for an author blurb. Which one do you prefer?

Mark Shea was raised by wolves after his interstellar craft crash-landed in the 5th Century BC in what would become Northern Alberta, Canada. Able to assume a human appearance at will, Shea has constructed a number of androids whom he calls his "wife and children" in order to maintain a respectable disguise among you hairless bipeds as he continues broadcasting coordinates for the Vegan invasion fleet that is bearing down on your planet even as you read this. Hopefully, you will have time to finish his article before the proton bombardment begins and annihilates all life on your puny, insignificant world.

or

Mark Shea

January's guest writer is the author of Making Senses Out of Scripture (Basilica) and By What Authority? (Our Sunday Visitor) as well as hundreds of magazine articles. He lives near Seattle with his wife and their four boys. Check out his website at www.mark-shea.com.

Sherry Weddell of the magnificent St Catherine of Siena Institute has a question

The Siena Institute, for them what don't know, is a terrific apostolate dedicated to helping lay Catholics discern their charisms so that they can live out their vocation in the New Evangelization. If you haven't had them to your parish for a "Called and Gifted Workshop" you don't know what you are missing and you should drop everything and begin begging your priest to invite them out. I absolutely guarantee you will rejoice that you did. I rave about their work periodically and have to be calmed down with cookies and milk since I think they are doing hugely important stuff that will benefit the Church on a global scale for many generations. Rave, rave, enthuse, enthuse, promote, promote! Siena! Yeah!

Well, anyway, Sherry writes:

A question for all lay Catholics, especially for those whose vocation is secular but also open to lay people working within the institutional Church:

Do you feel personally acknowledged and supported by the Church in your vocation? If not, would you welcome more direct acknowledgement and support? In your opinion, what kind of specific acknowledgement/support from the Church would help? How much of this support could happen in your local parish? What part would need to come from the clergy and what part could lay Catholics provide for one another? If you know of a diocese/parish or group that are effectively providing this acknowledgement/support for lay Catholics in their vocations, we’d love to hear about it as well.

Sherry will be checking my comments boxes for your feedback so: Discuss, class.

The very droll Fr. George Rutler on Catholics: Britain's largest minority

"A man who does not accept the Faith writes himself down as suburban." Nice quote.

George Weigel, the Soul of Lucidity, on Catholic Exchange

I am just so pleased...

to be the first one to break this vitally important story to St. Blog's. This is... worthy of Relapsed Catholic. That's how great a story it is.

Of course, the guy *does* look a lot like Greg Popcak. I wonder if this is the Mercedes Principle interpreted in a whole new way!

Ah me. Our funny little Anglican friends. Next thing you know, they'll have some nutty bishop getting married in the Unification Church. But no. No serious Christian Church would ever have *that* happen.

"It’s reminiscent of biblical times – killing all those children to get to Jesus."

Guess which respected leader of the black community uses this analogy to oppose war with Saddam Hussein?

One weird phenomenon I've noticed on Catholic boards...

is the strange compulsion so many ex-Catholics (especially Fundamentalists) have to linger around the Catholic Church saying "I'm so glad I'm not Catholic anymore. I used to be in bondage to the Church but now I'm free! Free! I'm living in the liberty of the Holy Spirit and I don't have to pay any more attention at all to the Catholic Church with its false doctrines and dogmas (which I have carefully documented at my website whoreofbabylon.com and which I hope you will send to as many people as possible). Nosiree, I don't think about the Catholic Church at all anymore. I don't dwell one little bit on the 2148 unbiblical innovations of Romanism which I have thoroughly documented on my website. I'm no longer obsessed in the slightest with the Roman Church and the Awful Crimes of the Inquisition, and I can prove it by my thousands of posts to Catholic bulletin boards about this. I am living in complete Christian liberty and am not tied in any way to the Catholic Church... or to the False Gospel of Justification by Works that it teaches--a false gospel that I am in the process of analyzing in minute detail in my upcoming web treatise."

Now I see Catholic converts arguing with critics of their faith, of course. What I don't see is this odd need to linger around the old neighborhood throwing stones through the allegedly shattered windows of an allegedly discredited Church. Indeed, what typically marks Catholic conversion stories such as Thomas Howard's, Scott Hahn's, Steve Ray's or virtually any of the wave of recent conversion accounts is gratitude for their Protestant roots. Virtually all of them have nothing but good things to say about their Protestant backgrounds even while they are contentedly Catholic. But there is a curious assymetry between these guys and people who leave the Catholic Church and then start writing polemics against it or lingering on boards to do battle with it. For these folks, there seems to be nothing good about the Catholic Church. There also seems to be a peculiar need to proclaim one's "liberation" from it, while simultaneously remaining in a weird form of unconscious bondage to it. It sticks in their craw. I want to ask such people why they are lingering about the Church throwing rocks and not actually embarking on their new and glorious life in Christ that they keep telling me they have while they are spray painting "The Pope sucks!" on every BBS they can find.

All this musing is prompted by a ditty a friend sent me in response to some guy who was doing his version of the patented "I'm an ex-Catholic and I'm free and now let me spend my life obsessing over the Catholic Church on every board there is" schtick:

Trolling, trolling
Over the Catholic boards!
Though free from Rome,
We fume and foam
At all those Papist hordes!

Trolling, trolling...
Never let up a smidgen!
We'd rather bait
The Church we hate
Than practice our own religion!

Happily, my blog seems to be free of very many people engaging in this odd form of self-medication. But it is peculiar.

Oh, and by the way, I don't think every ex-Catholic does this. But I do note that it is a disturbingly common phenomenon in cyber-space.

Irreformable Positive Reformulation? Huh? Wha?

A reader writes:

I gotta tell you I haven't laughed this loud in a long time after reading "Bene Canus". Good Lord, I nearly busted a gut! But that leads me to my question. In all seriousness, the doctrine of salvation outside the Church is like Bene Canus. When you said "the good Pope chose to leave undefined precisely what dogs' mouths are cleaner than", I thought, that's exactly how we get around the Unam Sanctam thing - you find the loophole - in this case the fact that being "subject to" the Roman Pontiff doesn't necessarily mean "submitting yourself to" the Roman Pontiff, and furthermore, that the decree never explicitly condemns anyone, even if implied. Implications are not infallible. But, my research took me to another papal decree, which ups the ante on finding a loophole way beyond my capacity. I'm thinking of "Cantate Domino", which explicitly states that Jews, Muslims, Heretics, Schismatics, even those who shed bled for Christ, unless joined to the Catholic Church, are explicitly hellbound:

It [the Church] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart "into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.

Can you help? I'm hurtin' on the infallibility thing. Vatican I said infallible statements were "irreformable in themselves." What does THAT mean? I mean, the Catechism, quoting Vatican II, "reformulates positively" the teaching on "outside the Church". How can an irreformable statement be "positively reformulated"? Don't get me wrong. I like the positive reformulation. No, I LOVE it. It keeps me Catholic. But logic complains! Irreformable and reformulation don't seem to by synonymous. I'm left dumbfounded when a Protestant asks me how I can pretend infallibility is not contradicted in light of this.

Think of an irreformable statement as a socket wrench. You can't turn it back, you can turn it forward. This is just what the Christological councils did. There are different iterations of the Nicene creed as the Church ratcheted forward its understanding of the nature of Christ and the Trinity. Same with ecclesiological developments.

Here's a piece that might help a bit.

Also Fr. Peter Stravinskas' piece is good.

Here's something you can do to resist Islamofascism

As many of you may have heard, a Nigerian woman was recently sentenced to death by an Islamic court for having a child out of wedlock. Amina Lawal has been sentenced to death by STONING-- she is to be buried up to her neck in the ground, after which men will surround her and throw rocks at her head until her skull is crushed and she dies a painful and horrible death. I'm sure you all feel the same shock and disgust as I do at this sentence.

Please go to the Amnesty International site, and sign the letter addressed to the President of Nigeria. It literally takes only a minute, and could help to save her life, as well as help put an end to this kind of cruel and disgraceful judgment in a country (Nigeria) that calls itself civilized.

John Betts continues to chronicle the implosion of Bob Sungenis

...and calls for a boycott of his "ministry". Sounds sensible to me. Most recent developments, the entire Canadian arm of Catholic Apologetics International has folded up shop in protest over Bob's nutty screeds about the Jews. (Please keep them in prayer. They gotta eat and now they have no job.) Bill Cork continues to document the various iterations of JewScreed 2.0, 3.0 and so forth as Bob quietly removes the most egregious bits while refusing to acknowledge that he has ever, ever, ever done anything wrong--ever. Too late, Bob. Attentive readers, I am told, have saved your original stuff and will be bringing it to the attention of your bishop. When he responds and takes away your right to call your ministry "Catholic", don't blame it on the Sinister Homosexual Conspiracy trying to silence your valiance.Blame it on the fact that you published Nazi crap which even you know is crap (which is why you've quietly removed it) and yet which you refuse to admit was crap (which is why you publish screeds against your critics while never admitting you've done anything wrong.) Meanwhile, Bob has now hired new help to replace the uppity staff who dared to challenge his kookiness and (surprise!) these people are quite sure that Bob is right and everybody else is wrong--and mean. At least one of them is a member of and advocate for the schismatic SSPX.

CAI still continues to advertise itself as green-lighted by Petersnet, even though Petersnet has removed the link to CAI from its site and will, as I am sure, be putting a huge red-light up very soon. I'm sure the webmaster at CAI will correct this oversight soon. Speaking of vanishing links, all but the most fever swamp reactionary Catholic web apostolates are removing links to CAI. Apparently, most Catholics don't hold with Sungenis' notions that few Jews died in the Holocaust, that it was "mere propaganda", that Jews are encouraged by their tradition to regard gentiles as animals and infant girls as fits objects of sexual intercourse, and that Roosevelt's Jewish blood is what led to our involvement in WW2. Oh, and of course, the Pope is leading the Church astray and only Bob Sungenis and other True Catholics[TM] in the Lidless Eye Secret Brotherhood of the Persecuted Remnant can save us.

Prayer to the Saints

A reader wrote:

I visited your web site and read your piece on Mary (I am an evangelical) I saw nothing that I disagree with. Surely Mary, as the bearer of Christ, was uniquely blessed. That we do not acknowledge that enough, I can allow.

But, what does that have to do with praying to her to, as a chief among many deceased intercessors? We are all priests (Hebrews). We needn't an intercessor beyond Jesus. Our humility is in the fact that the author of all that is and the incarnate savior of mankind see fit to commune with us directly (Revelation). We are to bow as a miniscule benefactor before an omnipotent and loving Father, not take our place beneath a hierarchy of intercessory beings, a la the Greek demigods.

I know a lot of great Christian men and women. But, no matter how great or how small in human terms, or how dead or alive, they are my brothers and sisters, not my media to God.

I have read your book, "By What Authority?" and I believe there is something of substance to consider in the evolution of the authority in The Church and in scripture. I have several Catholic friends, including some former Protestants. We should primarily raise our common loyalty to Jesus Christ. "Catholic-bashing," of the largely anachronistic sort chronicled by, for example, Karl Keating, is misguided and harmful. But, I feel it is important to stress the magnanimity of God, who wants to commune directly with all of us as sons and daughters. Other than Jesus, no intercessory beings or procedures are necessary.

Well, to begin with, my article has nothing to do with prayer to the saints. It was about veneration of the saints (in this case, Mary).

However, I should note that you've just contradicted yourself. If we are all priests, then Mary is a priest too. That is, a go-between. We are all priests because we all share in Christ's intercessory priesthood. We are called to do and be like Christ--including act as intercessors. If we need no intercessor beyond Christ, then why all the New Testament exhortations to us to pray for one another and intercede for one another? Mary is simply the supreme example of what we are *all* called to do: share in Christ's priesthood. She is an icon of the Church.

I do not quarrel with the statement that God sees fit to reveal himself to us. But he does it *through* his Body, the Church (this is the point of Ephesians). The saints are not demigods (except in the Lewisian sense). They do "participate in the divine nature" as do we, according to 2 Peter 1:4. They are sacramental: windows through which the light of God comes to us, not walls blocking it out.

You say (employing the classic Protestant "Either/Or" approach to the question that the members of the Body of Christ are "my brothers and sisters, not my media to God." In reality, however, they are both. You did not become Christian and you do not remain Christian without the constant mediation of grace to you through his Body, the Church. This is Ephesians again. All Catholic teaching points out is that the Church in heaven is not somehow forbidden from exercising the gifts they were taught to use in this life "for the building up of the Church" just as we on earth still do. Nor are we forbidden from honoring them, just as we honor our parents, or a friend, or a baseball star (if people still honor baseball players.)

Finally, as to stressing the magnanimity of God, I would argue that Evangelicalism isn't stressing it enough. It tends to treat honor like zero sum game. Honor paid a saint is honor subtract from God, who jealously wants all the credit for all good done and sits and fumes on his throne whenever something good is said about Mary or a saint. God is no more threatened by honor due his saints than he is by love given our parents or our spouse. To love your neighbor is to love God. To honor your neighbor (including your neighbor the saint) is to honor God (since honor is a species of love). Similarly, to ask for your Christian neighbor (whether living or dead) to pray for you is to obey God who commands us to ask prayer of one another and to pray for one another. It is the dignity of
the human person to pray for his neighbor. It is not an insult to God. In the words of Irenaeus, "The glory of God is a man fully alive."

By the way...

Thanks to all you kind folks who respond to my periodic blegging. Much obliged!

Well, I'm back!

I'm glad to see no beans were put up noses and vice versa while I was away (though Gordon needs to keep his hands on his side of the car!). I only have to do this one more time (this weekend). In case, y'all live near Ft. Smith and/or Barling, Arkansas, here's the scoop on my upcoming speaking date there:

September 28 Teaching class on Making Senses Out of Scripture at Sacred Heart of Mary Catholic Church in Barling, Arkansas, (just east of Ft. Smith, AR) from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Sponsors of the seminar are Sacred Heart Of Mary Church in Barling, AR, and Sts. Sabina and Mary Catholic Church in Jenny Lind, AR.  For information people can call the parish office of Sacred Heart of Mary in Barling, AR, at (479)452-1795 or Tom Bonin at (479) 414-5976.  Suggested donation is $10/person and and $15/family.  Babysitting is available by appointment.

You can get info on this and all my public appearance stuff from my calendar.

On the Road agin...

This weekend I'm at the Spiritual Life Center in Wichita KS. I'll be speaking there Friday evening and most of the day on Saturday. Friday evening is my talk "Behold your Mother: An Evangelical Discovers the Blessed Virgin Mary". Saturday is my "By What Authority?: An Evangelical Discovers Catholic Tradition" class. If you are in the Wichita area, come on by!

By the way, next weekend I'll be in the Ft. Smith, Arkansas area, teaching my "Making Senses Out of Scripture" workshop. Y'all come if you live around those parts. And if these or any other talks sound interesting, don't hesitate to check out my information about how to hire me as a speaker at your parish, retreat or conference.

I will try to check in a bit over the next four days, but posting will be fairly sparse, I think. Back on Monday.

You kids don't put no beans up your noses!

I know what you're saying...

"Goodness! Can it really be that I have never left a tip in Mark's PayPal Collection Plate? And after all the good he's done the human race! Ah me! What can I do about this shocking oversight?"

<------------------

About that French guy on trial

A friend observes:

If the guy is rating religions based primarily on the literary merits of their sacred books, and he thinks Islam is the dumbest, I can only conclude that the nuances of Book of Mormon haven't been adequately translated into French.

He's got a point. The book of Mormon was once aptly described by Mark Twain as "chloroform in print."

Explain to me again...

Why is it that so many Jews are liberal Democrats? Is it masochism? Why keep backing a party that asks you to bend over and take this? Worse still, why do so many American Blacks put up with creatures like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and Cynthia McKinney? Can't they see these people are scum? Whatever happened to Frederick Douglass and Martin Luther King? How long do American blacks get to be infantilized and receive a pass for blaming the International Jewish Conspiracy because Black Democrats support losers and dolts who can't get elected? If David Duke were black, would he be a "leader" distinguishable from the Three Stooges I mention above? I doubt it.

Relapsed Catholic makes an interesting point

Is it not rather myopic for a quadriplegic man to urge the state to deem certain human beings to have lives unworthy of being lived? How long till quadriplegics are deemed a source of valuable body parts for rich people who think their troubles outweigh a disabled person's right to live?

Catholic bishops have problems with a unilateral attack on Iraq

It may soon be a moot point, if the UN continues on its present course. Here's the text of the bishop's letter to Bush..

Bill Cork Continues to Try to Speak Reason to Bob Sungenis

He also has a nice analysis of how Bob might have gotten to where he is. As Bill is chronicling, Bob is quietly removing the most egregious passages from his anti-Judaic screeds (always a pleasure to see the Nazi literature go, despite Bob's earlier attempts to defend using it). But he's doing so without ever admitting that his critics had a point in their complaints. And he's leaving plenty that is still seriously defective about both the Jews and the teaching of the Church as Cork demonstrates. I suspect his bishop will still not be terribly happy to have him claiming to be a Catholic apostolate. And I will continue to agree with John Betts that his apostolate should not be touched with a barge pole.

Nature abhors a vacuum

Modern secularity's hostility to Christianity results, not in belief in nothing, but in belief in anything. It also renders the state peculiarly vulnerable to whatever form of spirituality will push the hardest and most militantly in the name of opposition to "religious persecution" (since secularists think "religious persecution" is a uniquely Christian sin and they don't want to be identified with Christians in any way). Result: a secular state where it's okay to file suit to "undo your baptism" (as some French buffoons did a few years ago) while simultaneously holding this loony trial of a French writer for "insulting Islam". "Professing to be wise, they became fools" - St. Paul

Joshua Claybourn wants to know my opinion of the recent "Reflections" document

As I've mentioned before on the blog, the document appears to me to pastorally dumb and confusing, using ultra-nuanced language that was bound to give reporters the basic idea that "the Church teaches Jews can be saved without the grace of Jesus." For this reason alone, it should not have been published. However, I also think that a careful reading of the document shows the bishops were not saying this. They do indeed say that all salvation is by the grace of Christ (sorry I can't find the quote, my archives are screwy). They even say, ""The Catholic Church must always evangelize and will always witness to its faith in the presence of God's kingdom in Jesus Christ to Jews and to all other people" and "Sincere individual converts from any tradition or people, including the Jewish people, will be welcomed and accepted." But they also send this baffling and nuanced message which everybody but a professional theologian will misunderstand.

On the bright side, this does not particularly mean the Church is "losing its focus". This is, as your instincts rightly told you, a document by some subcommittee that holds no doctrinal force and basically means that some ecclesial functionaries in the American Church issued a document that they didn't really expect anybody to read. The document is a prime example of theologians mulling a question, not formulating dogma. The Church's history is full of theologians mulling questions. To take such mulling as The Final Word is a huge mistake. Our Faith commits us to the proposition that there is no other Name than Jesus by which people are saved. The Church is already dogmatically committed to this and so it won't change. All that can be explored is the possible ways in which the saving power of Jesus Christ is already at work in the Jewish tradition.

The Dutch are so Sophisticated and We Americans are Such Cowboys

Can't people see that this nurse was just being extra-special super-duper merciful? She just had a lower threshhold for suffering than most of us, and for this she is on trial? People are so judgmental.

The War of the Rose is in Crisis

When I asked Rose if the two anonymous sources corroborated the claim that the senior seminarian was a homosexual who tried to pressure Kellenyi into an intimate relationship, Rose replied, "All I would say is this: What’s in the book was more or less corroborated by those two."5

But doesn’t "more or less" mean "no"? Since the two sources are neither quoted nor even alluded to in the section, it’s unlikely they agreed with Kellenyi’s claim. After all, Rose uses anonymous quotes throughout the rest of the book. If the two really had offered support for the charges against Louvain, why wouldn’t Rose have used their statements?

In the end, we’re forced to conclude that Rose based this entire section on the testimony of one named individual—an expelled seminarian who clearly had an axe to grind. Rose never talked to Father Windsor, current rector Rev. Kevin Codd, or any representative of the seminary. And he certainly never talked to Rev. Pat Van Durme, the then-seminarian Rose accused of being a homosexual (though again, he did not name him). Now a priest in New York, Father Van Durme is going public with his outrage at Rose’s allegations.

It's reading a piece like this that make me think Rose is living in a glass house and should really think before he hurls defamation suits at other people. The parable of the Merciless Servant is rather apropos for meditation here.

“Therefore the kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who wished to settle accounts with his servants. When he began the reckoning, one was brought to him who owed him ten thousand talents; and as he could not pay, his lord ordered him to be sold, with his wife and children and all that he had, and payment to be made. So the servant fell on his knees, imploring him, ‘Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay you everything.’ And out of pity for him the lord of that servant released him and forgave him the debt. But that same servant, as he went out, came upon one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii; and seizing him by the throat he said, ‘Pay what you owe.’ So his fellow servant fell down and besought him, ‘Have patience with me, and I will pay you.’ He refused and went and put him in prison till he should pay the debt. When his fellow servants saw what had taken place, they were greatly distressed, and they went and reported to their lord all that had taken place. Then his lord summoned him and said to him, ‘You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you besought me; and should not you have had mercy on your fellow servant, as I had mercy on you?’ And in anger his lord delivered him to the jailers, till he should pay all his debt. So also my heavenly Father will do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother from your heart.” (Matthew 18:23-35)

Toldja

bin Laden's been dead for months. I think this guy's on the level. An ego as towering as bin Laden's couldn't stand to be out of circulation this month. We would have seen a "Nyah nyah, you missed me!" video on al-Jazeer by now. He's dead, dead, dead. The divine plan did not pan out. Next, let's find and kill Mullah Omar, who was promised by something claiming to be God (in a perfectly delphic oracle) that he would rule Afghanistan as long as he lived.

And another thing, al-Quaeda is not staffed with the super-villain criminal geniuses our fears exaggerate them to be. A lot of these guys are rock stoopid. Just look at the 20th hijacker who is defending himself on trial right now. He has a cretin for a lawyer. Have hope people. A lot of these guys are not prizewinners in the brains department.

A reader comments:

Here's a story about Christopher Reeve's anger at the church for opposing embryonic stem cell research:

Let's ignore, for the moment, the fact that there are plenty of good sources of stem cells other than embryonic tissue. And, let's not get our feathers ruffled by his disdain for the church - God knows he's suffering and for most, suffering is very difficult to bear. His disdain is understandable given his perception that the Church is impeding his cure.

Let's consider this instead: Christopher Reeves, at least as it appears, has turned his faith to science. Wouldn't it be wonderful if instead he turned his whole heart to God, and through the intercession of the Church he disdains, his condition were cured? Would
it be too much to ask for prayers for him?

Sounds good to me. Reeves is just flat wrong about stem cell research and the Church is right. Doesn't mean he can't use our prayers.

UPDATE: Reeve apologized to Catholics. He still wrong to advocate fetal stem cell use, but at least he has the grace to apologize for slamming the Church.

Another day, another priest betrays his vows

At least Fr. Hamilton had the grace to resign. However, the priest who tried to sound the klaxon on this and other disgusting slime is discovering the "no good deed goes unpunished" rule applies to him too. What is the bishop of Arlington thinking?

Meanwhile, a reader writes in from the trenches, being a parishioner in Fr. Hamilton's parish:

I found out on Thursday about the porn and that being the reason one of our priests (fr. hamilton) had resigned at the end of august. We actually missed his last mass b/c we were out of town but the week before we happened to be at mass where he presided and he told us "next week I'll have an important announcement" and I almost think he added a "and you'll want to be here" or a "you wont want to miss it". I personally didnt have much of a fondness -ok I didnt have any fondness- for Fr. Hamilton. I just didnt care for his personality or style and because I already didnt think too much of his character I can't say I'm at all surprised with the "accusations".

We have two great priests left, but my husband was a tad concerned with the homily when he went to mass Sunday morning. I missed it since I went with the bunchkin the night before. We had a letter read that supposedly was read everywhere in Arlington from the bishop and afterwards our priest (according to my husband) seemed to give a homily on "the sin of coming forward with this information and slandering a persons character". Now, I tried to question my dear husband to make sure this wasn't the case, but knowing the priest who gave the homily (who I do like LOL) I can see how this priest might "go there".

At any rate I am going to our moms meeting on friday where this priest will be present and I'm certain this will be a topic if not THE topic of discussion. So I'm kind of writing to see if you wanted to throw this out as a blog topic (maybe not my particulars but this next part which is my point...im getting there i promise) . You all are so helpful in generating intelligent conversation most of the time and I'd like to be able to have some productive input at our meeting.

So to the point:

The Bishop found out about the porn situation with our pastor last fall. Media delusions aside, our pastor did have to leave and was shipped off somewhere to be de-programmed or re-programmed --receive "treatment" for I know it was over a week - more like 2 or 3(I remember this happening b/c last fall was such a busy time I wondered why anyone would choose a 'vacation' then).

Apparently he got out of treatment and "made use of the sacraments" as stated in the bishops letter etc.

I think my concern as a parishioner is this: Should we have been made aware of this priest's "struggle"?? I have confidence that our Bishop did what was right and followed his little guidelines etc, but I think I'd like to know if some guidelines need to be changed. If a priest is collecting gay porn, toys and whatnot, should that get a whole new set of guidelines, bells and red flags?? It seems to me that we know the real effects pornography has on individuals, corrupting the soul, arent there studies showing how pedophiles and murders all start on porn and slowly intensify with harder porn until they have to "act out" in a physical way? Maybe I watch too much court tv. Is this "just porn" or something serious that we should be made aware of?

It seems to me that yes, a priest as a public figure, and as the groom our Church should have to let us in on a struggle like this. As a sin against the community and something that could be an indicator -- should we have known? I know and I don't doubt for a second that God can heal and with grace they can overcome these types of sins, but maybe part of reparations and atonement is that in such a serious matter such a priest would have to come out of the closet so to speak! If you are struggling with celibacy like this, maybe active ministry isn't where you should be?

Anyway!! I'd appreciate any thoughts you all had.

My not-very-well-thought-out reply: Hell yes, I'd like to know if my priest is a gay porn addict since I have four boys and there is a vastly disproportionate amount of sexual abuse of minors coming from homosexuals. I'd also want to know that my bishop was trying desperately to overlook this. I'd also want to know about the bishop trying to punish whistleblowers. Most of all, I'd like to know that a priest who despises the evangelical counsel of chastity is soon not going to be a priest anymore.

The Dead are Practice for the Living

Forgiving the dead is practice for forgiving the living. The dead, for all their faults, can't commit any new sins against us. The living commit fresh sins every day. Learning forgiveness is like quitting smoking. You do it thousands of times. The hardest bit about forgiveness is that the people we forgive today commit fresh outrages tomorrow. Hence the command to forgive seventy times seven. It's probably the hardest part of Christian morality. Makes the Church's sexual teaching look like a cakewalk. Unconditional love is great to receive and terribly outrageous to have to bestow. But, as our Lord's teaching makes uncompromisingly clear, the degree to which we are willing to bestow it is the degree to which we will receive it. Scary.

The Winnah!

in the "Help Mark Surrender Graciously" Contest

Second Runner up: Zach Frey

"Surrender Dorothy!", of course.

First runner up, Palpatine

I suggest the Dark Side, but that's just me.

And the Winnah!

Stephen!

Why not surrender to France, just for irony's sake.

I like Jeff Jacoby, but...

Jacoby is Jewish, not Christian, and therefore does not have within his religious tradition the commandment "Love your enemies." Obviously, repentance is necessary if forgiveness is to be received. But that's hard for the dead to do. The Christian command to forgive wrongs done us is absolute. We are to extend forgiveness even to those who do not receive it or expect none ourselves. In the case of the dead, we commend them to the mercy of God (as the Pope did) and ask that he judge them mercifully.

Think about the alternative: Lives blasted with bitterness and the gall-suckled memories of wrongs done by long dead parents, teachers, siblings, schoolyard bullies, and foes of every sort who never repented (who perhaps never even knew they needed to). They continue to dominate us till our dying day because we refuse to extend forgiveness to them and hand them over to God.

There's a reason Jesus describes the punishment for unforgiveness as "being handed over to the torturers". You are handed over to the ghosts of the people you refuse to forgive. It's like choosing to watch a film you hate, forever.

Speaking of Rod's piece...

Somebody wants to know why I described myself as a "non-revisionist" Catholic and if I was cribbing from Marxist jargon. Nope. I was cribbing from Peter Kreeft. He might be aware of the Marxist origins of the term. I wasn't. I just think it's apt.

Also, a number of readers are noting that it's not Johansen's volubility that is torpedoing Rose's credibility for them, it's Rose's threat of suit. That's pretty much where I sit. I'm afraid I just don't buy Rose's claim that Johansen is obsessing over him or out to destroy him. I think Rose is doing a pretty good job of destroying himself at present.

Next, I don't think Rod is acting as advocate for Rose. I think he's doing his job as a reporter, covering a story of real interest, particularly to the cyber-community. He seems to me to have done a fine job of keeping his balance.

Finally, a priest commenter echoes a thought which has occurred to me as well: The parable at Mass last Sunday is all about the servant who was forgiven a huge sum then turning and throttling another servant who owes some piddly amount. Johansen's incautious volubility has incurred him a small debt to Rose. Fine. Let him say "Sorry" and be done with it. But, judging from the Crisis article (and a dumb luck encounter recently with a sibling of one of the priests whom Rose accuses of being gay--a sibling who laughs hysterically at the charge), it seems to me that Rose is pursuing folly to bring suit against somebody for defamation. Not to mention simply not behaving Catholicly.

From the "No Good Deed Goes Unpunished" Department

Rod Dreher does us bloggers a big favor by pointing out the dangers of libel law and ignorance thereof (in his article on the Rose threat of suit against Johansen). I, for one, was grateful since I don't know nuthin' 'bout legal stuff and neither do most bloggers I know. It's a useful thing to be aware of. So, of course, now Rod has readers yelling at him for somehow implying bloggers are dumb and ignorant of libel law. Well, if you know about libel law bully for you. Most of us don't and I can't for the life of me see what's wrong about doing a piece on this rapidly developing front in US journalistic law.

The War of the Rose Continues

Me, I'm no lawyer and so can't comment on the merits of the suit against Johansen, but given that Crisis wrote a rather damning piece on Rose's book last month the words that come to mind are "Pot. Kettle. Black." For the life of me, I can't see a lot of difference between Johansen's difficulties with the book and Amy Welborn's or Crisis'.

It is weird that in moments where unity among non-revisionist Catholics is most needed, they tend to turn on each other rather than oppose the real maladies in the Church.

The Implosion of Bob Sungenis

Several people have contacted Bob privately and urged him to abandon his attack on the Jews, much as they urged him to abandon his peculiar determination to insist on geocentrism. No dice. I've been kill-filed. Others are persona non grata with Bob.

James Scott over at TCR News took Bob to task for his choice to cut and paste junk about the Jews on his site. Bob now writes the unfortunate follow-up in which he argues in essence, "Everything I say is always right and nothing I say is ever wrong" and then threatens suit against Scott and spices it up with the classic "some of my best friends are Jews" line. He also quotes Canon 212 from the Code of Canon Law to show that this is all just ducky. Pete Vere (one of the best canonists in the country) demonstrates that Bob knows as much about canon law as he does about astrophysics and the Jews. Bob responds with another screed to the effect that "everything I say is always right and nothing I say is ever wrong."

Meanwhile, as Bill Cork is chronicling Bob has made the bizarre choice to post Nazi literature on his website (arguing that Roosevelt was a Jew?!). He's also calling the figure of six million Jews dead in the Holocaust "mere propaganda" and "highly exaggerated". Since Bill pointed out to him that he is uncritically cutting and pasting Nazi sources (Robert Ley, 1942), Bob has been making little cosmetic changes to a couple of bits of text, but also saying "Just because he was a Nazi doesn't make the information untrue." Translation: "Everything I say is always right and nothing I say is ever wrong"

Other sundry amazing true facts asserted by Sungenis: Paul VI had "Jewish blood" (and this matters how?), WWI and US involvement in WW2 were both Jewish plots. Jews control the UN, and, of course, ecumenism is a Jewish plot too.

I have a feeling Bob's bishop (Paul Loverde of the Arlington VA diocese) is going to be getting a lot of mail soon. I tend to think he needs a loose cannon "Catholic Apologetics ministry" that cites Nazi literature and buys into Holocaust revisionism like he needs a hole in the head.

Sensibly, John Betts is now echoing Scott by urging Catholics not to touch Bob's Catholic Apologetics International ministry with a barge pole. Several sites (basically, anybody who has become aware of Sungenis' meltdown) are hastening to remove links to CAI from their sites.

New Definition of Irony

Bill Clinton is getting $12 million for his memoirs, and Hillary got $8 million for hers. That's $20 million for two people, who for eight years, repeatedly testified they couldn't remember anything.

By the way, if you listen to Catholic Radio or are a fan of Greg Popcak...

The reason I was in Steubenville was twofold (threefold, really, if you count "I've always wanted to go to Mass in Mingo Junction, OH."): I was there to tape a four-tape series with Greg Popcak (which will be available very shortly since audio tapes don't need tons of post-production) and to tape the first 30 one minute "Word of Encouragement" radio spots for Catholic Exchange which will air on Catholic Radio. I reckon they' start broadcasting pretty soon (also not a ton of post-production). So keep your ears peeled. I'll let you know when they launch.

Back from Steubenville!

Arrived very late last night and tumbled into bed. Rose late. Took the kidlets off to the homeschool co-op. Plowed through a ton of email. Finally read my blog comments a minute ago. It's so nice to see folks can go on without me. Maybe I'll just start posting single word topics like "Divorce" or "Abortion" or "Naked Mole Rats" and then see how this verbal Rorschach blot causes people to respond in the comments box.

One of my readers has very mysteriously accepted my surrender about something, but since they neither gave their name nor troubled to inform me what I was surrendering about I'm at something of a loss as to what I am surrendering, where I should lay down my flag and whom I should stop shooting at. I therefore propose a contest:

Help Mark Surrender Graciously!

Readers are invited tell me what I should surrender, to whom I should surrender it and how I should do so. I, of course, as Supreme Plenipotentiary and Lord High Executioner of Catholic and Enjoying it! will decide which answer is best and will award One Full Day of Esteem to the Winner. Do be sure to sign your name to the entry or we will be back to square one.

I'm off to Steubenville!

Got a taping session (two actually) and a party to go to at Greg Popcak's house. Be back late Sunday, blog again Monday most likely. Hope to see any of you who are going to the writer's conference. Won't be there myself, but might pop in briefly.

Toodles!

Mercy Wars

There's a story I heard sometime ago about a sign in a parking lot that read, "Private Parking. Trespassers will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law! Signed, the Sisters of Mercy"

I just think that's funny so I thought I'd throw it in.

In the comments box on "Lord Jesus, Save me from your followers", one of my self-professed Lidless Eye types is twisting himself into a pretzel to keep up the prosecution of JPII for the ghastly sin of loving his enemies and asking God to have mercy on them. Arguments run on four tracks (rather like a shell game).

First, the Pope is evil for doing this because this somehow means there's no hell.

Answer: No. It means that we have a Christian duty to forgive and turn such questions as "Who goes to hell?" over to the Judge of the universe.

Second, the Pope is evil for doing this because the bombers didn't repent.

Answer: There is no escape clause in our Lord's command to forgive. He commands us to forgive those who sin against us. Period. He does not say we are free to go on hating them if they don't repent.

Third, the Pope is evil because he is forgiving people who did not sin against him personally.

Answer: The 9/11 bombers sinned against the whole world. They hurt the world. That's why the world, not just the families of the victims, had a day of mourning yesterday. The Pope, as Universal Pastor is certainly right to pray for God mercy on the enemies of mankind for they are his enemies and our enemies, and we are therefore bound to love them, per Our Lord's command.

Fourth, and most preposterously, we are told, in perhaps the most Clintonian parsing of a text I have read in months:

"Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." Notice, however, that Jesus is not forgiving them; he's asking his Father to do so. "

Okay. Lemme get this straight: when Jesus prayed for forgiveness for his murderers, it was because he did not forgive them?

Uh, right.

And so we are to conclude what?

That the Pope was also wrong to pray for forgiveness for his enemies as Jesus did? Um, that doesn't parse.

That it's okay to refuse to forgive as long as you ask God to forgive them?

Serious logic breakdown here. And my Lidless Eye knows it.

So, nothing daunted, now my Lidless Eye guy is, or rather was, informing me that "Had you lived 60 years ago, would you have hated Hitler? No, I guess not; you would have offered him unlimited forgiveness, no matter how many Jews he killed, no matter how many he wanted to kill."

Bzzzt! I'm sorry, you've just invoked Godwin's Law: whereby the comparison of a correspondent to Hitler and/or Nazis and/or their sympathizers automatically means that you forfeit the conversation and have nothing further of intelligence to say. Thank you for playing, please don't let the door hit you on the butt on the way out.

"Obeying God's command to love enemies and forgive people their trespasses necessarily means pacifism," is the doctrine you have cleverly deduced I hold from carefully reading between the lines of my blog as you have frequently read the souls of so many people in my comments box. That, Sherlock, is naturally why I wrote below that "Just because you extend mercy and forgiveness to somebody does not mean you are obliged to be a pacifist toward them." In proof that these are not just words but a conviction I have, I will extend mercy to my commenter by telling him a) I forgive him for that despicable slur (and many other insults) and hope he gets to heaven and b) I am making certain he gets off my blog. When he's ready to keep a civil tongue in his head and email me an apology, he's welcome back. Sorrow, contrition, firm purpose of amendment. That's what it takes to receive the mercy I now extend for his abusive remarks.

Practical moral theology in action.

John Mallon Answers a Gripe

From:
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 16:39:00 -0500
To: editor@insidethevatican.com

I feel compelled to write in response to the editorial by \"John Mallon . . . contributing editor at Inside the Vatican magazine\" recently published in the Boston Globe. I am once again shamed by those who call themselves leaders of the Catholic church. The type of innuendo driven, ad hominem attack contained in that editorial is worthy of muckraking politics, not what should be a debate among caring and believing Christians over what is clearly a crisis in the church. I point to the following particular example: The people in Voice of the Faithful imply in their clamor for \'\'reform\'\' that their authority trumps that of the bishops. They do not specify what they mean by \'\'reform,\'\' but if they mean the ordination of priestesses and the blessing of promiscuity, adultery, abortion, or contraception, the wait will be even longer than they imagine. There is not a syllable in Vatican II that gives any reason to expect these changes. What part of \'\'Infallible Teaching\'\' don\'t they understand? Having watched the defense of Bill Clinton by persons such as James Carville over the years, that is the type of attack I would expect from them, not an editor of a Catholic publication. Mr. Mallon knows full well that at no time has Voice of the Faithful ever espoused the ordination of women or any of the other odious doctrines with which he tries to tar the organization. To paraphrase: Which part of humility and charity doesn\'t he understand? Unfortunately this is just more of the imperious attitude shown by the Church hierarchy throughout this crisis. A little less of the attitude of the Medici and Borgias, and a little more Pope John would be welcome. And please, stop the name calling. Its undignified.

----------
From: John Mallon
Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 22:47:36 -0500
To:

Dear X,

Your letter was forwarded to me from Inside the Vatican. Could you please give me an example of innuendo, ad hominem attacks, muckraking, uncharity and name calling in my article? I can easily provide you with pages of documentation of extremely questionable attitudes and positions held by "Voice of the Faithful."

If that group supports authentic Church teachings let them say so in a public statement of support for them. They have back-peadled considerably after coming under intense pressure after having Deborah Haffner, former president of the fiercely anti-Catholic group SIECUS address their conference.

If they are indeed "faithful," let them affirm it with an oath of fidelity. Meanwhile, I await your examples of innuendo, ad hominem attacks, muckraking, uncharity and name calling in my article.

Personally, I believe it was a false notion of charity and "caring" that placed us in the current mess.

Thank you for writing,
Sincerely,
John Mallon

Game. Set. Match. Don't forget to check out his blog: Mallon's Media

A team of professional movers will use ropes, levers and pullies to move Ted Kennedy into the Senate chamber to hold hearings on this

I'm not an apologist for multinational corps. I think they do often treat people wretchedly (Nestle's among them). As a Catholic, the center of my social theory is the family, not the individual (the fetish of libertarians), the state (the fetish of leftists) or the corporation (the fetish of the leaders of the Stupid aka Republican party). So my dig at Kennedy should not be taken as a Rush Limbaugh endorsement for unfettered corporate rapaciousness in the third world. Insofar as something is good for the family, it's good. Insofar as it harms the family, it's evil. My problem with Kennedy is that he claims to be a champion of the downtrodden, but is actually an enemy of the family.

A Note to Commenters

I try to run a pretty loose ship here. I don't ask for a lot. I don't want lockstep agreements. I just want respectful disagreements. Think of yourselves as guests in my living room. I am not Thidwick the Big-Hearted Moose. In addition to believing a host should be nice to his guests I also think a guest should be nice to his host, and to other guests. 9/11 is a passionate topic, as is war, as is religion. So I know I'm asking a lot to keep it civil. But I am asking it. In fact, I'm requiring it. Disputes can be ardent, but they cannot get personal. Just ask the guy who decided to call me an idiot in my very own cyber-living room. He's the one who formerly posted here but now finds he can't. Others who are tempted to descend to this form of communication should take note and ask yourself if you are really addressing a substantive topic or just landing a good punch. Save the punches for private email if you must. My board is supposed to be about ideas, not personal insults.

Censorship? You betcha. If you want to insult people, blogspot is absolutely free. Get a blog and rave to your heart's content.

By the way, banning is not necessarily permanent. People who contact me by email with sorrow, contrition, and a firm purpose of amendment, will be happily reinstated.

Which leads to another point

Just because you extend mercy and forgiveness to somebody does not mean you are obliged to be a pacifist toward them. I hope for bin Laden's salvation and the salvation of the members of Al-Quaeda. I also hope that, barring their extremely unlikely renunciation of violence, we can track down and jail or kill every last one of them. God is their judge. My task is to keep my family and my people safe. For the same reason, I hope for Saddam's salvation. But I also hope he will be behind bars or dead by Christmas. It is the work of the Holy Spirit to convert. It is our job to do such right as can be done by our meager powers. Stopping a ruthless murderer who has called for terrorist acts against my country from acquiring WMD and the means to deploy them is one way to do that.

Which brings me to another issue

As is my custom, I manage to torque off some people for thinking the Pope has a sound theological reason for not firing bishops ("You keep making excuses for these guys!") and I also manage to torque off people because I refuse to make excuses for these guys (witness my recent arguments with Gerard Serafin in the comments boxes).

What could possibly be going on in my addled head? Basically this: I really do think the bishops are being left in office to bear their cross and experience purgation for their sins in the hope that they will finally figure out what it means to be a bishop. I view it as my duty to extend forgiveness to them and to hope for them, but not to pretend that things are suddenly fine or to overlook their obvious refusals to take responsibility for their actions. Hence my criticisms of Mahony's mendacities, among others. If he chooses to do something reprehensible (like exploit the piety of his Hispanic flock) then that mendacity should be criticized and he should feel the heat. Heat is, after all, part of what Purgatory is all about. But he should not be despaired of, or hated (as some of my readers appear to think).

Well there, that should piss off everybody! I'm insufficiently Pollyanna for the "bishops can do no wrong" crowd and I don't want the heads of JPII and the American episcopacy on pikestaffs either, to the dismay of the "Destroy them All!" crowd. Perhaps you folks can get together and start your own blog in opposition to mine! It would be an interesting read, I reckon. :)

Lord Jesus, Save me from your followers!

Always a pleasure to rise bright and early to find the latest crop of comments from the Lidless Eye crowd, calling me an idiot and the Pope a purveyor of pseudo-intellectual gibberish for the consumption of sycophants. Such winning ways the Lidless Eye folks have!

What was the Pope's sin? He prayed for mercy for the authors of 9/11 as well as for the victims. On cue, the Lidless Eye crowd found this to be a Menace to the True Faith. One "Real Catholic" peering in his palantir and reading the mind of God, tells me he knows for a fact that Atta & Co. are damned, but of course, the real thrust of his post was the subtext "and so will JPII be since he perverts the faith by..."

By what? Loving his enemies in clear obedience to the command of the Lord Jesus? Forgiving people in obedience to the Lord's command? Jesus makes absolutely no exceptions in his command to forgive. If you do not forgive, you will not be forgiven. Period. End of story.

"Real Catholic" is at bottom offended by this radical demand. Jesus surely can't have meant us to forgive the perpetrators of 9/11. There are reasonable exceptions! And so my Lidless Eye readers start trotting out the excuses. No 1 Favorite: You only have to forgive those who receive forgiveness, they say. If they do not repent, you don't have to forgive.

No. God commends his own love to us in that *while we were yet sinners* Christ died for us. There is not a hint in the teaching of Christ that we can go on hating unrepentant enemies and wishing them damnation. Mercy must be *extended* even if it is not received. This is not, by the way, arrogating the place of God. It is not an affirmation of universalism. When we extend mercy, we are extending the mercy *we* have to give as creatures, not the mercy God has to give as Judge of the World. We are releasing sinners from our judgment and handing them over to God's judgment, which is also his mercy. He knows their souls. We don't. We cannot determine the fate of any creature. In asking for mercy for his enemies, the Pope was *asking*. He was neither prophesying nor administering sacramental absolution. He was doing his Christian duty. We are bound to do the same by the words of the Lord's Prayer. To reject that and a) wish the damnation of a human being and b) attack the Holy Father for doing his Christian duy is, in my opinion, extremely dangerous to one's soul.

"For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father also will forgive you; but if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses." - Matthew 6:14-15

There is neither an exception nor an escape clause here. The only real idiocy is to refuse to see that.

We adore you O Christ and bless you, because by your cross and resurrection, you have redeemed the world

Light blogging today

But I do wish to offer this wholly inadequate token in remembrance of the greatness revealed in my countrymen on that day: Light and Darkness

God bless America.

Iraqi Newspapers Echo Bishop Gettlefinger's Comforting Words to Americans

From the "How to Make Yourself a Completely Ignored Bishop" file

Bishop Gerald Gettlefinger of the Diocese of Evansville IN graces a grieving nation with these comforting words for the first anniversary of 9/11 (in the Evansville diocesan paper):

September 11, 2002: A year later

"I worry! Have those in our hall of government moved beyond frontier justice? Has there been a conversion of heart not to repeat the subjugation of “less powerful” to “reservations” under its authority? Lest you forget, note what the United States and Canada did to native Americans by condemning them to harsh conditions on designated “Reservations” after wresting the land from them.

Have we learned anything from the apparent motives of those who used our own technology, arrogance, power, energy and smugness against us in the attacks of September 11, 2001. Let us never forget that those who terrorized us were committed to the mission of “getting our attention.” They died for their cause—just to get our attention!

The message from the oppressed has been very clear. Power to trammel on the rights and to take advantage of impoverished needs of its citizens under the guise of “national security” (translated into financial benefit) does not exonerate the United States, nor any other nation bent on the same course, from accusations of oppression.

Must we Americans continue to be blind? Must we continue to be deaf? Have we forgotten the haunting ballads of the late 1960’s? How many more must die?

Our president and his colleagues must learn to listen to those who counsel him from nations and territories beyond our borders. So must we!

Terrorism is terrorism under any title. “National Security” seems to be just another title for the same."

A year ago, "America Deserved It" and "9/11 was a plea for attention by socially concerned activists" were opinions so beneath contempt (as strange bedfellows Jerry Falwell and Noam Chomsky discovered) that no thinking person could express them without getting a well-deserved howl of derision. This year, a bishop who allowed two priests to remain active despite sexual improprieties (including having a collection of 92 hard-core child porn videos) and who wrote "As bishop and priest I, too, become a victim of sexual abuse of minors by priests" repeats exactly the same sort of stuff. Gee, thanks.

Memo to the bishop. Bin Laden was not "oppressed". The authors of 9/11 were not poor, nor did they give a rip about the poor (just ask the Afghans who experienced their haughty contempt up close). They were upper class and, in bin Laden's case, extremely wealthy jihadists who simply wanted to kill for Allah.

Honor your father, honor your father, honor your father, Mark. Breathe. Breathe.

Speaking of Whom...

A reader writes:

I lifted this from ZENIT. It appears the Holy Father has found the key for GWB to attack Iraq.

As Sept. 11 approaches, John Paul II appealed to world leaders to combat terrorism by fighting its roots, especially injustice and oppression.

To respond to terrorism means "to undertake new and creative political, diplomatic and economic initiatives aimed at relieving the scandalous situations of gross injustice, oppression and marginalization which continue to oppress countless members of the human family," the Pope said Saturday.

"History, in fact, shows that the recruitment of terrorists is more easily achieved in areas where human rights are trampled upon and where injustice is a part of daily life," the Holy Father said, when receiving the letters of credence of Kathryn Frances Colvin, the new ambassador of Great Britain to the Vatican.

Since the injustice and oppression (especially of women) is inflicted upon the people by the middle-Eastern governments, the best way to eradicate the roots of terrorism would be to take out those governments that are guilty of such flagrant abuse of human rights. I say, let’s start with Iraq and pray for the domino affect.

It’s not the Western nations, (US) that are keeping these people down, it’s their own un-elected leaders.

I realize this is not a “Just War” argument, just an agreement with the Holy Father. After all, a pre-emptive strike is a “new and creative political” initiative.

How to be a Universal Pastor

The Holy Father strikes just the right note here, I think. Some will object that in addition to praying for the victims he also prayed for mercy for the authors of 9/11, but surely this is in keeping with the example of Christ and St. Stephen. They obviously did not approve of or make excuses for the evil done. Neither does JPII. Whereto serves mercy but to confront the visage of offense?

Why the Sacrifice of Christ was Necessary

I've said before that we don't really believe in sin. "Sinners" are charming rogues, we think. Oh sure, I'm sinner. But I'm alright as is our charming, roguish little species. We get into a little trouble sometimes. We're only human after all. But at bottom, we're okay and don't need too much help from God. Certainly this dramatic "sacrifice" business is old-fashioned overkill. We'll pay respectful attention to Jesus' offer of advice, but all those demands for conversion of heart and death to self are not necessary any more. We are integrated adult personalities.

Here's a letter from a reader who puts into perspective just why Jesus had to endure such a sacrifice for us:

Sometimes I learn about something that casts a light on the reason for the desperate expedient of the Sacrifice.

The following is from a description of an NS trial - what we in this country call a war crimes trial - in Germany in the 70s.

It's from an essay in a book called The Healing Wound, by Gitta Sereny:

'The first defendant is called to the stand...He is a man of fifty-two, married, three children. Profession: grocer...

The judge: " Herr R, let me just read to you what this part of the accusation says, and then we'll see what you have to say about it."

He reads, without expression: "Johann R is accused, as SS chief of guards of the forced labor camp T in June 1943, on the course of the liquidation of the city's ghetto, to have caught about sixty children under ten years of age who had tried to hide...to have stood them up alongside a pit, to have killed them individually through repeated blows on their heads with a hammer, whereupon the bodies fell into the pit, while their parents were forced to watch...."

"Well now, Herr R, you've heard the accusation. What do you have to say?"

R (portentous and fluent): "I want to do everything to help the court, of course, but this was so long ago."

Judge: "One could hardly forget such a scene - unless of course it happened so often...."

"It is of course entirely untrue," R said very quickly. "Entirely a lie."

Judge: "Four witnesses are here to confirm what has just been read to you. They saw it happen. They will swear that they saw you do this."

R (straightening up): 'Whatever was done, whatever we did, all of us, any of us, we did under orders."

Judge: "Did you know that no one is obliged to obey a criminal order? Did you know that this was part of the Army code and applied all through the time of the Third Reich [note: There is no record that I am aware of that anyone was ever punished for refusing to carry out such an order during the Third Reich - A.]

R: "An order is an order."

Judge: "But these were children, small children." He stopped for a moment, a visible effort at control. "Tell me, Herr R did you consider Russians, Poles, Jews human, or not?"

[No answer. Defense counsel speaks with his client, then with the court.]

Judge: "You can go and sit down for a moment," he says stonily. "You will be recalled later."

[End of text]

Note, Herr R is not a theatrical monster from outer space. He's one of us. Blood of our blood. A human being.

When God became one of us and subjected himself to a horrible, prolonged death by flogging and crucifixion it was because we are, among other things, Herr R.

Do we recognize our humanity in Herr R, as well as in the judge? If we don't, we will be unable to understand the Sacrifice on Golgotha.

Arrrrrr! A beautiful way to bring humankind together, mateys

Iraq Calls for Suicide Squads to Strike American Targets & Interests

No need to be concerned though. They haven't actually done anything yet, so self-defense is out of the question.

Like Bill Clinton in the 8th year of his administration...

Jim Post of Voice of the Fuddled continues to try to figure out what the hell their core beliefs are and assure everybody that it's all under control and the critics are evil people conspiring against reform, not intelligent Catholics who agree that the Church needs reform but who disagree with VOTF's completely fuddled approach. Meanwhile David Alexander offers cogent critiques of VOTF.

Apropos recent discussions of Jew-hatred among Christians

Marvin Olasky, who was raised in Judaism and is now an Evangelical, has some rather sensible things to say on what Christians can learn from Judaism. The piece reminds me again of how close the Jewish and Catholic worldviews are in so many ways. I hope Olasky becomes Catholic some day. I think it would feel like a bit of a homecoming for him, judging from his affectionate and intelligent discussion of Jewish ways of piety.

More money paid out to sex abuse victims

I wonder how much will be paid in the end?

I don't recall likening the coming war with Dresden but...

a reader writes in with some intelligent comments:

I was struggling with the comparisons you and others made regarding the Dresden bombing and the Iraq War plans.

I was thinking if Dresden's bombing was really morally unjustifiable and the Nuremberg trials were about bringing justice to the men who committed atrocities -- why were the bombers of Dresden not included?

In my research I learned that one crime which Hermann Goering was not accused of was the indiscriminate bombing of civilians.The reason is obvious -- had this charge been included in the indictment, Air Chief Marshall Arthur Harris RAF would have been in the dock as well. This gives rise to the cynical thought that the victors write the rules after surrender.

The difference which for me makes the Iraqi War plans a just war is that not a moral change but a technological one. The United States has the ability to achieve military victory without indiscriminate bombing of civilians. As is the case in the areas of the Palestinian Authority, Iraq violates the Geneva Conventions by co-locating military facilities in densely populated areas.

All of men connected to the Dresden bombing are now beyond human justice, and biographies of Churchill include his approval of this atrocity which he denied authorizing after the war.

As for the American leadership, I believe they can conduct the coming war as a just war and bring liberation to the Iraqi people.

No evidence for an Iraqi connection to terrorism? Reeeeeeally?

It's not proof, but it's rather compelling.

By the way, after a conversation with a friend I'm now leaning back toward favoring war with Iraq

Just keeping you posted. Iraq has violated international treaties signed after the last war and is seeking to build weapons of mass destruction. It has been without inspectors for 4 years and harrassed them while they were there. At the end of the day, Just War theory doesn't require I sit and wait till after my neighbor has stockpile guns in his living room, pinned targets on my kids *and* put a bullet into several of them before I act to stop him.

Some people are saying the OKC bombing and 9/11 might be linked to Iraq

Let's go question Timothy McVeigh! This might be a valuable lead. Oh, wait. That's right. We put him to death.

Capitalism has Something For all your Apocalyptic Needs

Cliff Garner pulls a David Brock

Blames everybody else, says he can't live a lie, then expects that, after a rich full life of keeping people in the dark about his involvement in outfits like St. Sebastian's, we should now take his word for it that he's telling the truth. Or rather, that he's "Living in the light of my own truth", which is perfectly accurate. Meanwhile, the guy who blew the whistle on St. Sebastian's Angels sets the record straight on Garner's whiny tissue of, uh, inaccuracies about the warm and fuzzy place that was St. Sebastians:

According to Mr. Garner, “The priests involved in that Web site were like me. They were looking for the kind of companionship and solidarity that would help them minister with integrity. …these were also deeply spiritual men, and their prayerful support and unconditional acceptance nurtured my soul.” Many of the members did indeed offer and ask for prayerful support. A priest from Atlanta asked for prayers when his married lover had to return to his wife and children in another state. An Australian priest shared a morning prayer he had written that, among other things, asked God to bless his “orgasm.”

Not to mention the support for Bp. Cawcutt's death wish for JPII and Garner's own celebration of hot young Latin males. Brady is all wet about the invalidity of orders for gay priests. But most of the rebuttal is a refreshing bit of clean air after Garner's self-pitying rant.

More on Just War

A reader writes:

I saw your blog post on the immorality of the obliteration of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in light of Just War theory. I am inclined to agree with you, but allow me to play the Devil's Advocate for a moment. Consider this: how applicable is the demand to distinguish between soldiers and civilians to wars where one or more sides are so heavily militarized that this distinction has little if any basis in fact? Japan during the war was a totalitarian militaristic state - a society cannot get any more armed and warlike. And there is no question about there being significant pockets of Japanese society being held prisoner by the Empire's leaders; to the average Japanese person, Hirohito was a god and the allies were foreign barbarians, right up until the end came. Evidence of this can be found in the incredible mass suicides carried out by *thousands* of Japanese civilians on Okinawa and similar islands. All of these people chose to kill themselves and in some cases their children rather than see them fall into the hands of the Emperor's foreign enemies. There were serious plans in the works in the last months of the war to arm as many Japanese civilians as possible and fight a decisive battle somewhere on the main island in an attempt to stop the allied invasion; the Japanese gov't even concocted a slogan for the effort: "One Hundred Million will Die for Emperor and Country". One hundred million was the population of Japan at the time. Under such circumstances, when there is serious evidence of widespread animosity and a will to fight among the civilian population of one's adversaries, does it make sense to continue trying to distinguish between soldiers and noncombatants?

I would appreciate any comments you may make. Thank you.

Disturbingly, this was precisely the reasoning of the WTC bombers. "Americans vote for their leaders, therefore American civilians are legitimate targets since they approve the policies of leaders we regard as hostile, etc." The fact was One Hundred Million Japanese did not resist to the bitter end, as did a few nuts in the jungles of a couple of islands. So I remain unpersuaded that a country on a war-footing economy is therefore a legitimate target, as a whole, for military attacks. I think the basic Catholic paradigm which distinguishes between troops and civilians is still valid.

A reader writes...

Here in the archdiocese of Oklahoma City we are especially involved in the statements being made by Gov. Keating that have caused an uproar (to leave our dioceses for Mass, etc.) - especially with our own Archbishop Beltran. But then, we pick up the diocesan newspaper and find that the author of the report at the link is coming to speak at our own cathedral. As a writer who has written in defense of our bishop against Gov. Keating's statements in the local newspaper, this is the kind of thing that makes me wonder if I've lost my sanity. Thought you might be interested.

Read the link. Baby boomer narcissism in chemical purity. "We, we, we" What an unbelievably fabulous generation we Boomers are!

"Remember. Imagine. We are involved in the civil rights struggle. We teach in inner city schools and begin community organizations. We conduct and participate in "undoing racism" workshops.
Vietnam is happening. We are choosing whether or not to go to Vietnam. We march, protest, demonstrate, serve as draft counselors, go to prison. We exercise loyal dissent in the country that we love. After the end of the war, we teach and lobby for an end to nuclear weapons and for the passage of disarmament treaties.

We participate in the first Earth Day. We experience the rebellions in Watts, Newark, Detroit, and we recommit ourselves to the city, to the disenfranchised. We participate in the feminist movement calling for equality in our society and participation in decision-making. We begin to acknowledge that our brothers and sisters are gay and lesbian."

And so on endlessly for one self-congratulatory paragraph after another, concluding with (get this): "To enter into contemplation is to lose one's ego". That's rich.

To all Gen Y and Millennium Gen folks, remember Kathy Shaidle's happy words of consolation: In thirty years they'll all be dead.

So why not round these guys up and deport them? It seems rather convenient that they will all be in one place.

Klinghoffer on the Insanity of Liberal Jews

Condemning anti-semitic twaddle is not the same as saying Jews are above criticism. David Klinghoffer does a nice job of spotlighting one of the great idiocies of Jewish life in the US: the absolutely crazy rancor directed at Evangelicals by outfits like the ADL and the AJC. As Rabbi Daniel Lapin notes, the real religion for a huge number of American Jews is liberalism, not Judaism. Just as Catholics have to contend with AmChurch, many Jews have to contend with Judaism Lite, a religion whose holy text is the NY Times, whose sacred ritual food is the bagel, whose defining sacred event in religious history is not the Exodus, but the Holocaust, whose prophet is Barbara Streisand, and whose congregation is not a synagogue but the mailing list of NARAL. (Remember: these are the rabbi's observations, not mine--admittedly paraphrased and with apologies if I'm not remembering them precisely.) It is taking many Jews an inordinately long time to realize they are stuck in a ghetto of the Democratic party's construction and are so devoted to it that they consistently spit at their real friends and allies out of sheer habit and bigotry against conservatives and Christians. A pity.

Science sheds a little more light on the evil of abortion

Planned Parenthood spokesman issues the following statement: "LALALALA! We're not listening!"

"I'm so judgmental" says a reader...

Went to the rehearsals for the "Rolling Requiem" concert this week.

I've sung the Mozart a few times before, and didn't have anybody particular in mind while singing "Confutatis maledictis, flammis acribus addictis". The September 11 angle changes that.

Pavel Chichikov...

in addition to being a fine poet, is also a good photographer.

Integrity takes Nihil Obstat a lot more seriously than I do

Personally, I find N.O. amusing. But then that could be because we're the same person, according to some rumors by people with way too much tendency to buy into conspiracy theories. The truth is, however, I spend far too much time arguing with Gerard Serafin to waste time proofreading everybody's blogs. Besides, as my blog attests, I'm hardly in a position to fault others' proofreading.

Anyway, to all those who fuss because of N.O.: lighten up!

Bishop Ad Hoc Sex Abuse Panel Gets Re-Configured

Happily, Bp. McCormack, the man who didn't notice anything amiss when people complained that Paul Shanley was publicly advocating sex with children, is out. My question: how did he get on the panel in the first place? Oh well, he's gone now, so that's good enough for me.

Thou art Peter...

And upon this rock I will build my new movement within Judaism that is to evolve into Christianity. (Somebody named Rev. Edward Franks, an Episcopalian engaged in (surprise!) "gay" causes (support for "gay marriage") corrects John Mallon for taking Jesus seriously.)

From our bulging "Relapsed Catholic is Back" file

Memo to Jew Haters: Buh-bye!

I'm not a complete libertarian in the realm of ideas. There are conversations I don't believe it is worth my time to have--or moderate. If somebody wants to fill up my comments boxes on the "question" of whether Hitler got a bad rap, or "Incest: A Sensitive Reappraisal" or "Let's Take a Second Look at Stalin: Was He Really So Bad?" or "The Jews Had it Coming" or "Favorite Jokes about Karen Ann Quindlen" I feel no moral obligation to give them a forum and I feel completely impervious to their cries of "censorship!" There are some conversations just not worth the powder to blow them to a well-deserved hell. The internet is a big place. They can get their own blog.

Therefore, I have taken the step, for the first time, of banning a reader who insists on defending Jew-smearing poison. I mention this for two reasons: First, to redeem this reader's participation in my blogs by letting his life serve as a warning to others and second, out of fairness, so that his interlocutors (thankfully, there are several of these) will not think he simply clammed up on them.

I clammed him up. He has a perfect right to his vile and evil opinions and to his defense of the vile and evil opinions of other Jew-bashers. He does not have a perfect right to use my blog to express them. Let him get his own blog.

It's the weekend, so I'm mostly outta here

However, you can read my piece on The Uncle Walt Fallacy over on Catholic Exchange.

Also, if you live in Seattle, why not stop by Blessed Sacrament parish today (just north of 50th on 9th, in the U District) for our annual Greenspire Medieval Faire. We'll be there. Lotsa fun and food, with SCA guys beating each other up with swords, as well as music, poetry, juggling and much other cool stuff. Check it out! And bring the kidlets!

When I read stuff like this

It reminds me of this:

Since the modern world began in the sixteenth century, nobody's system of philosophy has really corresponded to everybody's sense of reality: to what, if left to themselves, common men would call common sense. Each started with a paradox: a peculiar point of view demanding the sacrifice of what they would call a sane point of view. That is the one thing common to Hobbes and Hegel, to Kant and Bergson. to Berkeley and William James. A man had to believe something that no normal man would believe, if it were suddenly propounded to his simplicity; as that law is above right, or right is outside reason, or things are only as we think them, or everything is relative to a reality that is not there. The modern philosopher claims, like a sort of confidence man, that if once we will grant him this, the rest will be easy; he will straighten out the world, if once he is allowed to give this one twist to the mind.

It will be understood that in these matters I speak as a fool; or, as our democratic cousins would say, a moron; anyhow as a man in the street; and the only object of this chapter is to show that the Thomist philosophy is nearer than most philosophies to the mind of the man in the street. I am not, like Father D'Arcy, whose admirable book on St. Thomas has illuminated many problems for me, a trained philosopher, acquainted with the technique of the trade. But I hope Father D'Arcy will forgive me if I take one example from his book, which exactly illustrates what I mean. He, being a trained philosopher, is naturally trained to put up with philosophers. Also, being a trained priest, he is naturally accustomed, not only to suffer fools gladly, but (what is sometimes even harder) to suffer clever people gladly. Above all, his wide reading in metaphysics has made him patient with clever people when they indulge in folly. The consequence is that he can write calmly and even blandly sentences like these. "A certain likeness can be detected between the aim and method of St. Thomas and those of Hegel. There are, however, also remarkable differences. For St. Thomas it is impossible that contradictories should exist together, and again reality and intelligibility correspond, but a thing must first be, to be intelligible."

Let the man in the street be forgiven, if he adds that the "remarkable difference" seems to him to be that St. Thomas was sane and Hegel was mad. The moron refuses to admit that Hegel can both exist and not exist; or that it can be possible to understand Hegel, if there is no Hegel to understand. Yet Father D'Arcy mentions this Hegelian paradox as if it were all in the day's work; and of course it is, if the work is reading all the modern philosophers as searchingly and sympathetically as he has done. And this is what I mean saying that all modern philosophy starts with a stumbling-block. It is surely not too much to say that there seems to be a twist, in saying that contraries are not incompatible; or that a thing can "be" intelligible and not as yet "be" at all.

Against all this the philosophy of St. Thomas stands founded on the universal common conviction that eggs are eggs. The Hegelian may say that an egg is really a hen, because it is a part of an endless process of Becoming; the Berkeleian may hold that poached eggs only exist as a dream exists; since it is quite as easy to call the dream the cause of the eggs as the eggs the cause of the dream; the Pragmatist may believe that we get the best out of scrambled eggs by forgetting that they ever were eggs, and only remembering the scramble. But no pupil of St. Thomas needs to addle his brains in order adequately to addle his eggs; to put his head at any peculiar angle in looking at eggs, or squinting at eggs, or winking the other eye in order to see a new simplification of eggs. The Thomist stands in the broad daylight of the brotherhood of men, in their common consciousness that eggs are not hens or dreams or mere practical assumptions; but things attested by the Authority of the Senses, which is from God. - St. Thomas Aquinas: The Dumb Ox by G.K. Chesterton

JPII Points out Obvious to AmChurch Types Who are Too Clever and Brilliant to See the Obvious

Here, here, and here.

In other news, Richard "Set my Superior Chromosomes Free!" McBrien condescendingly explains to aging, unpopular, out-of-touch Pope why superior Americans don't need the sacrament of reconciliation any more.

Fellow Blogger John Mallon Has an Editorial on VOTF in the Boston Globe

Selections from Sungenis' Piece on the Jews for People who Don't have Time to Read Endless Internet Tomes

Numerous people have briefly scanned the Sungenis piece and then written me asking, "What's the big deal? He's critical of the bishop's dumb "Reflections" document which wiggle waggle all over the place and can't seem to make up it mind about whether Jews should be presented with the gospel or not? Why are you upset?"

I'm upset because Bob doesn't seem to be able or willing (take you pick) to content himself with criticizing the bishop's document (something I myself have done). No. He can't just say, "The bishops should have been clearer that Christ is the only savior and that the Church is bound to evangelize the world without exceptions." Instead, he has to go out and find the most vile collection of ancient falsehoods about the Jews that he could find and cut 'n paste them into his screed without a moment's reflection and without, apparently, ever stopping to wonder if they were any more accurate than a Jack Chick tract portrayal of the Catholic Church. To wit,

"The Talmud is an assortment of every subject imaginable. Unfortunately, it is filled with obscenities and blasphemies of the highest order. It seeks to reverse many biblical moral teachings on theft, murder, sodomy, perjury, treatment of children and parents. It has an unrelenting and virtually insane hatred of Christ, Christians and every aspect of Christianity."

Smears refuted here.

"Talmudic laws discriminate against the non-Jew, ranking them as human animals."

Smear refuted here and here.

"Gitten has some other interesting commentaries. In Gitten 56b-57a it speaks about the punishment of Christ in hell. In Gitten 51a and Sanhedrin 106b Jesus is referenced under the name of Balaam, the false prophet of Israel."

Smear refuted here.

"In the section known as Moed, there are various other unpleasantries. Seder Nashim contains the most vile filth and obscenities. Kethuboth (on the sum due a wife who is divorced) occupies 2 volumes in the Soncino edition with 728 pages of sexual perversions (e.g. a baby girl being fair prey for adult men): "When a grown up man has intercourse with a little girl it is nothing, for when the girl is less than three years old it is as if one puts the finger into the eye-tears come to the eye again and again, so does virginity come back to the little girl under three years." (Kethuboth 11b; Exh. 180)."

Smear refuted here.

"In the section known as Nashim, the Seder Nezikin (damages), contains the Baba Kamma (the first gate), which is 719 pages of Talmudic ramblings, including a general law of damages that teaches that destroying Gentile property is permissible; but doing the same to Jewish property is like assaulting the Divine, for only "Jews" are men but non-Jews rank as animals."

Smear refuted here.

"The Nazir contains vows of hair-splitting judgments, and the Kol Nidre oath -- an oath made on the Day of Atonement which allows the Jew to break any promise or oath he may make during the coming year."

Smear refuted here.

This is but a sample of what Bob chose to publish. There's a lot more where that came from. However, it's close to the bottom of his ponderous tome and most people, happily, do not choose read his article because they have better things to do like take a nap.

By the way, kudos to Shawn McElhinney and others in my comments box for rebutting the one or two boobs attempting to defend this trash. I'm happy to see that there are a lot more of Shawn and his kind than there are low rent defenders of swill worthy of Der Sturmer.

Oh! Dear me, did that offend? Well, offended people can always take their defenses of trash elsewhere. I can manage without them. Then they needn't be offended. But on this blog, they will get the scorn they deserve.

Then again, there are saintly priests, even in California

Why I find Cardinal Mahony's behavior so revolting

A well-placed source told this digit that Mahony's minions had these anti-protest protesters brought in to make it appear that the archdiocese's hugely Hispanic membership supports the cardinal. When one of the protesters was asked in Spanish what the sign he was carrying proclaimed, he said he didn't know. He said a priest in South L.A. had asked him and his cohorts to appear. This monolingual digit was able to find two people in the group who spoke halting English. "We are here to protect our church. I don't want nobody to damage our church," a woman who identified herself as Maria said. "Those people who are protesting don't know nothing about our religion." When The Finger asked another counterprotester nearby if he'd heard of the pedophilia scandal racking the church, he said he hadn't. "That cannot be true!" he declared.

He bobs, he weaves, he plays the media like a fiddle. He faces his own neglect of office by hiring a public relations firm. He declares he's been an advocate of zero tolerance for years while keeping Carl Sutphin around. He paints himself as the Voice of Reform and assures us that, oh yes, that awful Cdl. Law has to go, I, the Voice of Reform, will see to that. And now this revolting exploitation of pious Hispanics. I hope the author of this piece has gotten a bum steer and his source was wrong. I don't enjoy regarding Cdl. Mahony with horror and revulsion. But so far he's given me many reasons to and precious little reason not to. When I read of SNAP people shut out and glitterati sashaying in, I can't help but think of the parable of Lazarus and the Rich man.

Girl power!

You ask and It is Done!

Behold, a web site, written by Jews who actually know something about the Talmud.

For the record...

I once contributed an essay to Not By Scripture Alone which Bob Sungenis edited and which is a good compendium of Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About the Catholic Critique of Sola Scriptura but May Never have Even Thought to Ask. But I completely and totally disassociate myself from this sort of stuff. I daresay virtually every Catholic would. Geocentrism is eccentric but harmless. This is poison.

Niggardly! Niggardly! Niggardly!

There. I said it. And if you are offended, then I am extremely happy, for you are a censorious Neanderthal who is too dumb to open a dictionary and find out the meaning and origin of the word and too wrapped up in your precious "sensitive feelings" to deal with reality.

The only thing more ridiculous than the idiot who brought the complaint is the cowards who made the teacher apologize for refusing to keep her students as stupid and ignorant as their parents.

How Not to Convince Me that War with Iraq is Unjust

The argument "Hey! We made Saddam Hussein so we are hypocrites for wanting to destroy his regime" makes no sense to me. As Christopher Hitchens cogently argued last years against Lefty lunatics like Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky, who idiotically opposed the war against the Taliban because "we made the Taliban and bin Laden during the Afghan conflict with the Soviets", it is all the more incumbent upon us to do something about evils which we ourselves have had a hand in creating. Arguing against war with Iraq because Saddam is, in part, a creature of past US machinations is like arguing it would be hypocritical to clean your room because you were the one who made the mess.

How to Not Convince Me that War with Iraq meets Just War criteria

Several commenters down below have gone at it hammer and tongs and have gotten periodically diverted into arguing that the nuclear attacks on civilian populations in Japan were just.

Ahem: Noncombatant Immunity: civilians may not be the object of direct attack, and military personnel must take due care to avoid and minimize indirect harm to civilians;

This is an integral part of Just War teaching in the Catholic tradition. Tossing out cliches like "War is hell" and so forth, does not square the circle for me. There is simply no way to reconcile something like the targeting of civilians at Nagasaki or Dresden with Just War. Period. So repeated appeals to these as somehow constituting a legitimate precedent for whatever it is we might choose to do in Iraq is a really bad way to begin an argument for war, in my book.

This does not mean I have rejected the idea of war with Iraq. It merely means that those who are arguing for it need to make their case more tightly.

Just a slight course correction for all arguers. Continue.

Hey! I just realized something!

My Village Atheist was explaining to us rubes just the other day that the resemblance of Christ to various "pagan Christs" such as Osiris and Mithras is due entirely to the fact that Christianity borrowed motifs like death and resurrection and virgin birth from pagan mystery religions. It is not, of course, due to the fact that that the God behind the world was dimly perceived by the pagan mind which created portraits of dying and rising gods in reflection of that reality. Nope. There is no God who entered the world in the Incarnation. The apostles just got all het up about a rabbi they knew and somehow got the notion he rose from the dead in fulfillment, not only of his own words, not only of the Scriptures but of much in pagan imagination as well. Now I know I'd certainly be willing to die a grisly death for a literary parallel, and so would you. Why just the other day I saw a religious teacher named Benedict Groeschel in gray clothes with a beard who reminds me of Gandalf a little bit and I can hardly wait till he's dead so I can announce his resurrection and spend the rest of my life in misery trying to convince people he is God incarnate and the savior of the world. So it's only natural to presume the same of the apostles.

But now I discover just how deep their knowledge of comparative religion and literature was! For according to Amphibious Goat, Quetzlcoatl "was the god who, at the cost of some self-sacrifice, created the humans of this age. Not surprisingly, he was also a great patron to them, introducing them to many arts, crafts, and sciences for their benefit. So benevolent was this god that he became a man himself. (Note: the name "feathered serpent" is supposed to evoke the idea of a union between heaven and earth.) A young virgin found a feather that had descended from the heavens, and when she put it in her dress for safekeeping, she became pregnant. During his earthly life as a priest, Quetzalcoatl taught the people that sacrificing other humans had no spiritual benefit. Instead, they had to reform their own lives and learn to sacrifice themselves through ascetic practices. The other gods did not like this, so Tezcatlipoca disguised himself as an old man and tricked Quetzalcoatl into breaking his priestly vows and committing a sin. When Quetzalcoatl awoke from his stupor, he was overcome with sorrow, and sacrificed himself (to death) in order to atone for his sin and the sins of other humans. From death, he rose to new life in the heavens. (There are many variations to this story, both in nuances and in details. For more information, I recommend starting with Laurette Sejourne's Burning Water: Thought & Religion in Ancient Mexico.)"

Of course, there is only one explanation for this: the apostles were profoundly influenced by Aztec religion and borrowed many of their religious images ideas from the Aztecs in inventing Jesus Christ. My Village Atheist is a genius!

The Quetzlcoatl Complaint Continues

My reader continues...

Apparently the concern is not with the outer doors, which depict Mary in various guises, but with the inner doors, which depict not only the "Southwest Indian Flying Serpent" (a form of Quetzalcoatl, I'm guessing), but a number of signs and symbols of pagan religion. You can see the whole list on the cathedral website at: http://www.olacathedral.org/index.html

If anybody thinks that these pagan images are incorporated into the doors of Roger Mahony's cathedral as a sign of Christianity triumphing over them, I'll cut them a great deal on the Brooklyn Bridge.

I looked at the link, but couldn't figure out where these images were to be found, nor could I find any mention of them in text. Since my comments boxes are starting to fill up with various factoids about Quetzlcoatl (there were two?) and with various arguments for and against the idea that this myth (or was it the historical king) is a "seed of the Word" in Meso-American culture, I'm gonna withhold judgement. At least one good friend startles me with the revelation that Quetzlcoatl was part of what God used to make her a (very serious and orthodox) Catholic. Since I have had less than 24 hours to digest what fragments of Meso-American religious culture have suddenly been thrust upon me, and I know nothing of the imagery on the doors, and even less of the relationship between Catholic faith and the indigenous religions of the Americas, I will just sit and listen for now.

Shocking Facts about Naked Mole Rats

and discussion of Just War too, continue on HMS Blog! It turns out they aren't all female and asexual (naked mole rats, not Just Warriors). And it turns out they have some strong reservations about war with Iraq (Just Warriors, not naked mole rats).

A Belgian-American writes:

Since I'm not Native American in the PC sense of the term I can't properly have a Native American animal spirit guide. But being almost entirely of Gaulish/Teutonic stock I feel entitled to a European vegetable guide to spirits. I'm pleased to tell you that I've managed a very satisfying relationship with brewers' yeast. What more could a Belgian ask for?

THE LOGICAL VEGETARIAN
by G.K. Chesterton

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Why shouldn't I have a purely vegetarian drink? Why shouldn't I take vegetables in their highest form, so to speak? The modest vegetarians ought to stick to wine or beer, plain vegetable drinks, instead of filling their goblets with the blood of bulls and elephants, as all conventional meat-eaters do, I suppose"--Dalroy.

You will find me drinking rum,
Like a sailor in a slum,
You will find me drinking beer like a Bavarian
You will find me drinking gin
In the lowest kind of inn
Because I am a rigid Vegetarian.

So I cleared the inn of wine,
And I tried to climb the sign,
And I tried to hail the constable as "Marion."
But he said I couldn't speak,
And he bowled me to the Beak
Because I was a Happy Vegetarian.

Oh, I know a Doctor Gluck,
And his nose it had a hook,
And his attitudes were anything but Aryan;
So I gave him all the pork
That I had, upon a fork
Because I am myself a Vegetarian.

I am silent in the Club,
I am silent in the pub.,
I am silent on a bally peak in Darien;
For I stuff away for life
Shoving peas in with a knife,
Because I am a rigid Vegetarian.

No more the milk of cows
Shall pollute my private house
Than the milk of the wild mares of the Barbarian
I will stick to port and sherry,
For they are so very, very,
So very, very, very, Vegetarian.

More on the Quetzlcoatl Thang from a Serious and orthodox Catholic Convert

Michael Rose apparently threatens suit against Fr. Rob Johansen for criticizing Goodbye Good Men

I'm really surprised by this, and deeply disappointed.

In other news, the Crisis piece on GGM is online.

Dunno if they'll get the same letter. I'm sure we'll hear about it if they do.

The great thing about Homeschooling...

is the field trips. To inaugurate our year, we are at the zoo today. Sadly, we will not be searching for Native American Animal Spirit Guides.

By the way, Seattle's Woodland Park Zoo features a memorial to Jimi Hendrix (go here and scroll down to read about it), put there through the pluck and determination of listeners of KZOK, Seattle's "classic rock" station. I know a woman who's a leader in the Seattle African-American community who was approached by these guys, begging for her support for this vitally needed community project.

Her question: "Why the zoo? Doesn't that send a rather odd message?" She declined to support the project.

Nothing daunted, they soldiered on, and now there's a plaque to Jimi in the zoo.

And yes, it does send a very weird message.

"65 per cent of Europeans said that the European Union should become a superpower similar to the US"

Something to add to my oxymoron collection!

"Jumbo Shrimp"
"Profoundly Shallow"
"Honest Clintonite"

and now....

"Weenie Superpower"

Progress on the Catholic School Native American Animal Spirit Guide Front in Plymouth, Michigan

Greg Popcak has discovered that his Native American Animal Spirit Guide is a Naked Mole Rat. (He revealed all--figuratively speaking--on the air with me today.) Me, I'm channeling my Inner Oyster.

Meanwhile, Our Guy in Michigan, Victor Lams, has been contacted by Powerful Forces with strict order to investigate, and is on the case, trying to figure out which Catholic school sponsored this goofiness. I can practically envision the Chick cartoon parody.

My Village Atheist Reveals his Touching Naivete

writing in the comments box under How Revelation Proceeds, he declares:

"Just about every religion says that they are the One, the True, the Only." He then lists exactly three (3) religious traditions as proof of this point. Oddly the three he names happen to be the great Western monotheisms.

In fact, the contention that "just about every religion says that they are the One, the True, the Only" is a proposition that would greatly amuse almost any ancient pagan and a huge number of contemporary ones, who could happily belong to several different cults of worship all at once and never see any difficulty with that. Ever hear the term "Pantheon"?

In fact, the idea of a "One True Religion" is largely a phenomenon that comes in with the three great Western Traditions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. And since Judaism has not been a proselytizing Tradition for, oh, about 2000 years, that pretty much leaves Christianity and Islam.

(Interesting biblical side note, ancient Israelite religion in the time of the Judges and Joshua was not especially interested in "winning converts". It is not even altogether certain that Israel is, strictly speaking, clear about monotheism at this time. Many biblical texts suggest a vague henotheism (i.e, the belief that there are many other "gods" but that, for Israel, the One God whom they met at Sinai in covenant, is "the God of Israel"). It is appears that only later does it become clear to Israel that there are no other gods. Thus, in the conquest of Canaan, Israel was interested (sort of) in exterminating the Canaanites, not in converting them. And it was interested in this primarily because it was interested in preserving the covenant of Hashem with Israel, not with converting the nations. The Canaanites were not a mission field, but a threat to the covenant because they might tempt Israel to abandon their fidelity to Hashem. The interest is not in God as true "for the world" but simply as true "for Israel." True, later on it is revealed (particularly to David and the prophets) that Israel is to be a "light to the nations" and that the Davidic Messiah will call the nations to worship the God of Israel. But, of course, this is precisely where the mission of Christianity comes in. Rabbinic Judaism does not seek converts.

As to the rest of my Village Atheist's picture of the world, he reveals once again that "atheism" is virtually always something that exists only as a reaction to Christianity or Judaism and is nearly always incapable of seeing beyond that provincial little reaction. For, of course, virtually the entire rest of the religious landscape of human history is not a collection of world-converting faiths who regard themselves as the "one, true, and only" but a gaggle of local cults with no universal claims and, very often, no interest in the question of whether they were "true" or not. Much pre-Christian paganism, in fact, had not even advanced to the point where cultic ritual was combined with an interest in ethical or philosophical questions of goodness and right and truth. Over here, the philosophers revolved their ethical problems. Over there, devotees performed mystic rites and never the two did meet.

My Village Atheist, by the way, notes that Christianity bears some superficial similarities with a variety of mystery cults in antiquity and, of course, concludes that it is therefore pretty much the same thing. He also notes that the concept of original sin was allegedly an innovation. So Christianity is therefore incredible because it answers to the deepest intuitions of a wide variety of pre-Christian culture and it is also incredible because it does not immediately appear to fit itself into all that had gone before.

A more simple-minded reader might suppose that a revelation which purported to speak to the deepest longings of humanity could very likely expect all sorts of intuitions and imagery foreshadowing it to appear in the literature of paganism and would, in fact, find the idea of a revelation that had nothing whatsoever to do with those longing and intuitions to be far more difficult to believe. But then, such a reader would also be simple-minded enough to think that the doctrine of original sin is not really a novelty, but merely a clarification and deepening of the age-old awareness, common to pagan, Jew, and Christian, that there is something haywire about us. What even the most simple-minded reader would not do, however (unless he is a Village Atheist), is try to simultaneously keep up the argument that Christianity is unbelievable because the culture prior to it anticipated it and the argument that Christianity is unbelievable because the culture prior to it did not anticipate it.

But, of course, Village Atheists are looking for excuses for Village Atheism, not reasons. Any excuse will do and when one breaks in your hand, you simply grab another. That's how Village Atheism works, you see.

My Reader Writes Back

...concerning the Quetzlcoatl thing....

I'm waiting to see a photo to be sent by a friend w/a digital camera, but I'm not hopeful. The description I read is not Christianity conquering pagan gods, but Christianity being one of many. Robert Graham, the artist who created the doors, did a statue honoring Q. for the city of San Jose a few years ago. Q. is not just a vaguely acceptable pagan god; for his sake, human beings had their hearts ripped out of their chests while still beating. I think this is as close to satanism as you can get without being the real thing. Besides, there's a strong movement underway in California to have devotion to Q., and not the "colonialist" Our Lady of Guadalupe, be the rallying point for Mexican identity. This must be resisted no matter what.

Hmmmm... Well, I'll withhold judgement till I've seen a decent picture of the thing and heard from you incipient Sister Wendy's out there before I make up my mind. Out here in pagan Seattle I'm used to a fair amount of Native American art finding it's way into some expressions of Christianity. Yet some of it is quite harmless. So I tend to be cautious about immediately assuming the worst and about immediately assuming it's all just fine. The question is always: Is the intent to fill pagan forms with Christian content or to fill Christian forms with pagan content? The former is often (not always) redemptive (like when John cribbed the pagan idea of the Logos from Greco-Roman philosophy and filled it with Christian content). The latter is always and only evil and pernicious. My question: which is the use of the Quetzlcoatl image on the Great Bronze Doors?

George Weigel Rocks

Got The Courage to be Catholic from Amazon today. The guy is sooooo good. Read this if you care about the reform of the Church in America.

A reader says

You guys do realize, do you not, that among the pagan deities carved onto the door of the L.A. Cathedral is Quetzalcoatl, the bloodthirsty Aztec demon-god to whom tens of thousands of human beings were sacrificed, and whose worship Our Lady of Guadalupe came to crush.

Lord knows I hold on to honor for Mahony by my fingernails, sheerly due to the honor due his office and not to the man, and from the pictures I've seen, I think the Cathedral is a big ugly bunker more suited to an armory for orcs than for a Church. But I have to ask: in what context is Quetzlcoatl on the doors? After all, St. Peter's has an Egyptian obelisk in the plaza--with a crucifix on top of it. If our Lady is depicted triumphing above all the pagan gods (as the statue appears to suggest with her standing on the moon like the Virgin of Guadalupe), then I don't know that there is a theological problem, just an aesthetic one.

But then, I haven't seen the doors so I could be all wet. The best picture I could find on the Web has no detail and no explanation of the squiggly little images on the doors and what they mean. Any help here from you artistic and iconographic types would be appreciated.

By the way, I have not weighed in on the cathedral much beyond the general observation that it looks pretty ugly to me for the simple reason that I've just seen a few pictures without explanation of context, leaving me with the general impression: "Gee, that's pretty ugly." As with all questions of artistic merit, I have only the wisdom of Cookie Monster to go on: "Me not know art. But me know what me like." If some artistic whiz out there wants to pull a Sister Wendy on me ("When one wooks at the cathedwal...") and deepen my thimble-deep understanding of the architecture, I'm all ears.

As to the scattered pictures of the opening Mass, I'm not going to freak out since, again, I'm not enough of a liturgical nitnoid to know what is and is not appropriate. Apparently some people freaked out over some Vietnamese nuns doing some sort of liturgical dance. I, for one, have no idea whether this is appropriate in Vietnamese culture or not, nor what a bishop can and cannot permit in his own diocese. And, most of all, I believe life is simply too short to rub acid on my skin over this. I'll let the liturgy experts work out whether it was an abuse or not. Not my diocese, not able to do anything about it, not gonna get angry and ruin my day (assuming, which I don't know) that it was an abuse.

Where's James Akin when you need him?

Sandra Miesel (that's MIESEL, not MEISEL) pleads

My comment under the ICEL defended by NCR entry, a commentator failed to note that I was making fun of myself and not Archbishop Chaput, whom I've met and highly admire. Somebody had speculated on whether he'd make a good pope and I was saying he's equipped to fulfill some entries in the Catholic prophecy books, it being a nutty thing on my part to link him and Charles Coulombe (who thought the idea of himself as HRE quite droll).

I can't get into the comment queue there and don't want your readers to think I'm attacking Chaput!

Y'know, I've just about had it with this comment box software. Anybody know of better comment box software? This feature is down half the time.

Bush to Discuss Attacking Iraq with Congressoids

Are you fer or agin war with Iraq? Discuss. I'd particularly like people to bring Just War theory to bear on this question. Keep it civil.

It turns out abstinence can make a dent in AIDS

Article blasphemes against my Village Atheist's god.

Ah September!

When apple-cheeked Catholic youth go off to their Catholic schools so they can burn incense and chant to discover their Native American animal spirit guides. Dunno which diocese this is that's just hung out the "Please Send Your Tithes Elsewhere" sign, but my two word reply is "Yay Homeschoolers!"

Doug Sirman on Fr. David Jaeger

You've made several references to this case. I think you ought to read it if you haven't already.

People can make appalling errors in judgement. Errors which may be understandable given a full comprehension of the context. However, those errors can lead to equally appalling consequences. I think of falling asleep at the wheel.

This case is sounding more and more like someone who is willing to take responsibility for his actions, but wants to distance himself from the consequences. That doesn't make him evil, that makes him human. Cynics would say it makes him "bishop material."

As I've mentioned before, I don't much like Fr. Jaeger, who did some sort of gay ministry here in Seattle, whose writings always struck me as an apologia for homosexual rejection of Church teaching and whose presentations always angered and irritated serious Catholics whose judgment I trust. I can't say I was stunned when he was one of the first people out of the gate to be fingered for abuse. Nor am I stunned that our lavender press in Seattle, after the first orgy of rejoicing over this scandal is now waking up to the fact that the main result will be gay priests getting kicked out for past abuse. However, as I've said before, I am highly skeptical about the merits of this particular case. Much as I dislike Fr. Jaeger, I really wonder whether Zero Tolerance is the Catholic response to a stupid act (a back rub!) committed 25 years ago. Is this really the equivalent of rape or pederasty? Does this really justify obliterating his priesthood? Believe me, if there's a priest in this archdiocese (and unhappily there are many) who I'd love to see just go away, it's Fr. Jaeger. And yet, I question the justice of the archdiocese's approach, as I question all Zero Tolerance thinking.

Update: After reading the article more closely, I've changed my mind. Jaeger needs to go, I think. Prolonged "Hey! I didn't do anything serious. See how much people love me!" stuff in the press simply gives him a forum and allows him to prolong the abuse of his victim in another form. As I read the description of what happened, this was more than a backrub thoughtlessly given.

Evangelical Atheist=Jerk

On the Good News Front

It's a happy thing to see these good bishops from obscure dioceses emerge to do good and save the day.

Neumayr on the Taj Mahony

It may be ugly, but at least it's inaccessible.

Tithes may be diverted to Mercy Corps, Human Life, or perhaps to a fund for Victims of Fr. Carl Sutphin. Here is a Cardinal who is eminently worthy of not receiving tithes. But don't you even think about refusing to go to Mass.

Speaking of which...

Support Our Aging Religious

What Happens When Bishops Ask a Secular Politician "Stop Me Before I Abuse Power Again"

He will, of course, apply a complete secular template to the situation (with one eye on pleasing the crowd so as to achieve future political aspirations) and be a little bit right and also disastrously wrong. In this case, the politico in question is Frank Keating, who along with various representatives of the Democratic Party at prayer, are supposed to somehow keep our bishops' noses clean as part of a completely novel, toothless, yet powerful National Review board. So far, the exhalations of that board have consisted of things like Keating's stupid call for Catholics to refuse to go to Mass and to not tithe if your diocese has mishandled funds.

The first suggestion is stupidity in chemical purity. Right, Gov. Stop worshiping God as a way to restrain sin! That'll help. The second is more reasonable since bishops who think like CEOs will presumably act like CEOs when the funds stop rolling in. But, of course, the question then becomes, "How long? To what end?" If the payoffs are over in a place like, say, Milwaukee or Boston is there any particular point to diverting tithes somewhere else? Will this just wind up punishing some widows and orphans somewhere? It's worth asking. And if the diocese has started to clean up its act, then what? Keep punishing them to make sure they get the message? When does reconciliation begin?

Anyway, given the composition of this panel I expect large amounts of folly and a certain amount of common sense to be spoken. But suggesting that Catholics boycott Mass is a helluva stupid way to start. Pathetic that this is what the bishops have come up with as a bizarre device to hold their feet to the fire because they are unwilling or unable to do their office without it.

Heliocentrism and Relativity May Well Lead to Homosexual Abuse, Robert Sungenis Suggests While Insisting He is not Suggesting it

No comment

Hey! It's Labor Day Weekend!

So I'm outta here. But there is an article up on Catholic Exchange. See you Tuesday!

It's here! GrovelSpam Apology 3.0!

Complete with pointers to GrovelSpam Apology 4.0 and it's iterations 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3!

Re: Your Email

Thank you for sharing with us your concerns about the "Opie & Anthony Show". We take your comments very seriously, and we are grateful that you took the time to share them and have given us the opportunity to respond to you personally.

We at The Boston Beer Company formally apologize to you and anyone we have upset or offended by the incident and by our association with it. My presence on the show, was a lapse in judgment, and I regret it. While not an acceptable excuse, I want you to know that I had no warning that a place of worship would be part of the show. I should have walked off the show and I didn't.

Many people have expressed their concerns that we need to issue a more public apology. Enclosed you will find a link to the apology letters that ran as paid advertisements in The Boston Herald, The Boston Globe on Friday, August 30th and in The New York Post on Saturday, August 31st.

http://www.samadams.com/pdf/OpenLetter.pdf

Everyone associated with The Boston Beer Company has worked very hard over the last 17 years to build a good company with world-class products and a quality reputation. Your feedback, along with other feedback we receive, will be used as we develop better guidelines for marketing in the future. As a result of this incident, we are re-evaluating our policy and controls on radio station activities.

Boston Beer is a company that cares deeply about its customers and its reputation with them. We regret that this incident has damaged our relationship with you, and I hope that, over time, we will earn your respect again. Please accept our apology, and again, thank you for taking the time to let us know how you feel. I hope you will continue to do so in the future.


Sincerely,

Jim Koch
Chairman & Founder
The Boston Beer Company

New letter. Same insult to our intelligence. "I had no warning that a place of worship would be part of the show." Funny, everybody else knew.

Grizzly Mauls Animal Rights Activist

I can't improve on that headline.

Rod Dreher Writes a Withering Blast of Scorn for CBS' Appalling Real Beverly Hillbillies

This is the sort of godly anger that inspired Amos. Woe to CBS, who buys the poor for silver and the needy for a pair of sandals. Thanks for doing this, Rod. Don't these dolts realize there is no Big Three anymore and there are hundreds of channels to choose from? They can be contacted here.

Nota Bene is having an interesting conversation

with a Pentecostal pastor about "Who is a follower of Christ?"

New Blog!

National Catholic Reporter Stamps its Tiny Foot in Impotent Rage

This is good news. The "overthrow" of the evil geniuses at ICEL means we are a step closer to non-bowdlerized "translations" of the Mass. The Reporter's helpless whine is a good sign.

The Planned Barrenhood Chick Who was Denied Permission to Marry in the Catholic Church laments

"How can you do this to me? It's 29 days before my wedding"

In other news, a third trimester abortion victim at her clinic lamented, "How can they do this to me? It's 29 days before my birth."

David Alexander, Our Man In Voice of the Faithful, Takes Issue with Fr. Doyle's Wrong-Headed Defense of VOTF

A reader sez:

I appreciate the tone of your letter to Samuel Adams CEO Jim Koch. He certainly deserves a spanking here. However, I am disappointed in your ninth point, asking him [demanding?] that he make a financial contribution to the Poor Box of St. Patrick's Cathedral. That sounds a little too much Jesse Jackson-like to me. I certainly think it would be grand if he, and his company, did contribute, but to demand it as retribution seems to border on extortion. I don't like it when Jesse Jackson does it to corporate America, I didn't like it when the gay activisits did it to Coors, and integrity demands that I not like it when you do it to Sam Adams.

Other than this one point, I think you wrote a grand letter, and I enjoy reading your site.
By the way, I am also a boycotter of Sam Adams, and I did write them to say so. I will stop boycotting when I am convinced that they are no longer sponsoring shock-jock radio.

I would feel a bit more Jacksonian if I had demanded Samuel Adams give something to the St. Pat's facilities and maintenance fund or the pastor's salary. I would feel absolutely Jacksonian if I had demanded Samuel Adams make an immediate deposit to my PayPal account to the tune of 1 million dollars. As it was, I demanded they give something to the poor, not the Church, and not to me. It's called penance, and is appropriate and fitting given that they have hitherto used their money to corrupt people rather than help them.

The Latest Round in the War of the Rose

The September issue of Crisis apparently has a piece on Michael Rose's critique of Louvain. Fr. Rob Johansen has some comments.

Oh, and final arguments in the Grip 'n Grin Discussion

Getting up to Speed

Lately, I've been getting email from people describing their acts of piety in the "Cult of Rod". I haven't quite known what this is all about. Now I see that Rod has laid out his own personal Book of Leviticus for the edification of cult members over in a comments box on Amy's blog. It reads as follows:

Attention Cult of Rod devotees! You are hereby commanded under pain of excommunication to deliver unto your Guru the following items: 1) a complete collection of "The Simpsons" episodes from seasons three, eight and nine; 2) a bottle of your favorite hot sauce; 3) a case of Zapp's Crawtators; 4) the keys to your Saab convertible. Be thee well advised, brethren and sistren, that you won't get into the temple unless you can recite the LSU Tigers "Hot Boudin/Cold Cous-Cous" cheer in flawless Latin. Let the word go forth...

I gotta get me one of them cults. Do you think it would be undignified for a newly minted god to demand free roof repair, an exterminator for a carpenter ant problem in the kitchen and some good chocolate? Or should I hold on that till I've filled you with a sense of awe and fear? For now, I will promulgate my Extra Special Cult Chant in the hope it catches on:

Salmon are fish!
Salmon are pretty!
Salmon have scales!
Doo Wah Diddy!

Let me know if you are starting to feel mind-numbed. There's a lot of home repair I need to get done.

Pope as Teacher, Pope as Flag

Stephen's reaction to my piece puts me in mind of one of the odd phenomena I have observed. Namely, there are those who love the Pope as a teacher and those who love him as a sort of flag. My thoughts on how facing the altar and the world side-by-side will inevitably lead to the creation of strong and vibrant communities came from teachings done at my parish on the Pope's encyclical Mission of the Redeemer and other formal teaching on the Church's mandate to evangelize. In short, I cribbed my ideas from John Paul II, who among other things, says that the way to make a parish strong is not to practice endless introspection but to throw the parish into the work of evangelizing. In sneering at and mischaracterizing what I had to say, Stephen was, all unaware, attacking the Pope's teaching.

He is doing so, it appears to me, because he thinks the Pope is a sort of Flag and I, who have disagreed with Rod Dreher, but defended him as a faithful son of the Church, am an opponent of that Flag in Stephen's extremely simple black and white world. In this worldview, it matters not so much whether you take the Pope's teaching seriously or not as that you stand next to the Flag. Now, I'm all for the Church's teaching on the Pope as a sign of the unity of the Church. But I don't think that unity is preserved by dividing the world into blacks and whites and then attacking everything a "black" says simply because he's "black". This is, in fact, what Stephen has done. And in doing so, he has wound up attacking something John Paul has pointed out, that the health of the Church is bound up with her approach to the Eucharist and the work of evangelization.

This "Pope as Flag" mentality is often carried very far. Often it is so dominant that when the Pope says or does something a Flag-waver can't bear, the "Powerful Forces" excuse is brought out to explain it away. So, for instance, when the Pope says (as he did forty years ago) that "Beat Music" (what we now call rock and roll) should be used as a tool for evangelization, I've known representatives of the "True Catholic Kids Should Only Listen to Gregorian Chant" crowd explain that "Powerful Forces" were at work in the Vatican or somewhere Behind the Scenes, tricking the Pope into saying things like that. He doesn't--he can't--really mean that, because that would mean he taught something at variance with My Understanding of the Faith. This is classic "Pope as Flag, not Teacher" thinking too.

So: a question: Is the Pope your teacher or just your flag? Something to think about.

Stephen Hand's critique of my piece on "community building" is mystifying me

He somehow forms the idea that I am pitting community against the transcendental dimension of the Mass and demanding people choose one or the other. Read the piece yourself. I could have sworn I said both were the goal, but that we get the former by focusing on the latter, not that the latter alone is important and the former must be rejected.

However, even weirder than this is the fact that Stephen has opted to put me in his email kill-file, so that I can't respond to him in any way but on a public blog. Then, he uses my comments box to advertise an odd swipe at my piece. He's welcome to use my comments box--even for that. But there is something rather ungracious about kill-filing a person and then showing up to advertise further insults against them on their own comment box, doncha think Stephen? This is community building? This is the social dimension of the gospel?

Another abusive priest is found after the clerical mafia's efforts to hide him fail

I hope they can put this guy away but I fear the statute of limitations will work against it. Maybe they can nail him for fleeing justice? After that though, I hope they can also jail his accomplices. Enough!

Now Here's a Cool Idea!

It turns out that 99% of the priests out there are good guys. They need encouragement and we need to be reminded just how good they are. Check out Thankyoufather.com. Read a cool story or two and leave one of your own if you've got one.

My Pal James Akin of Catholic Answers has a blog!

Your one-stop shopping point for all your apologetics needs. And, if you come from a Reformed background (which I don't) he's Da Man for answering your questions since he's been where you are and can scratch where you itch.

A Priest in Medicine Hat with Spine
Frances Quisling lecturing the priest on upholding Church teaching is like Michael Dukakis in a tank.

From the "My Readers Are Just So Incredibly Classy" Department

Mr. Koch --

I'm sure you're busy, so i'll keep it simple:

Protestant pastor, no Catholic family a'tall.

Massively offended, more by the cop-out rationalizations than by the fact you backed into this meat-grinder by way of doing PR, which i do actually understand.

Y'all crossed a line, and don't seem able to say that you get it very clearly.

Please consider doing so; i can't threaten much, as i like Guiness and Sam'l Smith Oatmeal Stout anyhow, but i do occasionally drink with others who do drink your product.

You've given me an interesting conversational gambit when that happens.

In Grace & Peace,

I won't publish the name, address, and phone stuff, but I would urge you to check out this reader's blog.

Oh, and Mr. Koch, there's more mail where that came from but I don't want to fill up my blog with it. Thanks, folks, for taking a moment to combat the culture of death. It does make a difference.

Anchor Hold on Vespers in Milwaukee

Tim Drake on Our Lady of Hollywood, Dreher and Signs

Your one-stop shopping place for all your August 2002 American Catholic cultural needs.

A Sam Adams Joke

Jim Koch sent the first bottles of Sam Adams off to be analyzed for FDA approval. The lab sent them back the bad news: "Your horse has diabetes."

Got the Apology 2.0 GrovelSpam from Jim Koch at Boston Beer this AM

Here's my reply to him:

Dear Mr. Koch:

If there's one thing that could serve to drive a customer away more emphatically than desecrating his or her faith, it's desecrating his or her faith and then insulting their intelligence to boot. Catholic faith is, of course, about the forgiveness of sins. There's remarkably little point to it if you leave that bit out. But forgiveness of sins presupposes a sincere confession of wrongdoing and a firm purpose of amendment.

Now then: you say, and expect me to believe, that you had no warning that a place of worship would be part of the show. Yet, according to the NY Post, everybody else knew this:

Fans of the WNEW show said the stunt was part of the program's "Sex for Sam" feature - which offers a prize to the couple having sex at the riskiest location in the city.

A couple having sex in a church would get 25 points, according to a list of 54 sites around the city seized from Mercurio.

So you seriously expect me to believe that you, the sponsor of this revolting stunt, had no idea what the stunt involved? Reeeeeally? Please.

You continue, saying you should have walked off the show and didn't. Not only should you have walked off the show, you should never have sponsored it. I'm sorry, but the transcripts of your enthusiastic commentary:

``I think these guys are awesome,'' Koch was saying from his voyeur's perch inside New York's WNEW studio during the now-infamous - and final - Opie and Anthony broadcast Aug. 15. ``The quality gets better every year.'' (source: Boston Herald)

...do not indicate a man undergoing a crisis of conscience there in the broadcasting booth, wondering if he should walk off the show and failing, out of weakness, to do so. It suggests a man who thought the whole thing was cool till it began to dimly occur to him that profits were being threatened by his despicable enthusiasm for this repulsive contest. Likewise, your initial lame excuse ("We were not in control of the program") suggests a company that cares, not about the fact that it just pissed in the faces of millions of its customers, but about the fact that its insulting and degrading sponsorship of insulting and degrading programming will lose it millions of dollars. Sure, you were not in control of the program. Fine. But you needn't have sponsored it at all and I don't believe for a moment that you did not know what the programming consisted of. Nor do I believe you were not completely enthusiastic about it till your vestigial conscience was pricked by the thought losing a million bucks and some dim awareness crossed your mind that it might be a special act of cretinism for a brewer--a brewer, for heaven's sake--to insult millions of German and Irish Catholics in a country where there are a hell of a lot of other beers out there.

So now, your vestigial conscience has prompted you to send out this somewhat-more-contrite GrovelSpam which adds mendacity to desecration and hopes that it quiets those dumb Catholics.

Sorry, but we're not that dumb.

Next time, when you draft Apology 3.0, here are the talking points:

1. Sincerest apologies
2. We knew exactly what we were doing when we irresponsibly sponsored this grotesque contest. It was wrong and we apologize.
3. We knew exactly how the contest worked, including the points for sex in Church. It was all grotesque, including the sex in Church, but we thought we could get away with it.
4. We not only insulted your faith, we were stupid, since so many Catholics drink our product.
5. We not only insulted your faith, we were mendacious, and attempted to pretend we didn't know what was going on when the public reacted.
6. We not only insulted your faith, we compounded our mendacity by sending out a GrovelSpam with a new improved apology from the one on our website, which still never addressed the heart of the problem: the fact that we knew perfectly well what the contest involved (including points for sex in church) and tried to finesse you back with Clintonesque apologies that never actually address the wrong we did.
7. We are also sorry for sticking legalese at the bottom of the GrovelSpam letter which makes it impossible for the letter to be posted publicly.
8. As a token of our sincerity, we of course promise that there will never again be another "Sex for Sam" contest or any other such insult to the public, nor will our advertising ever be anything but respectful, not only of the Catholic faith, but of all religious traditions.
9. Finally, we would like to donate a portion of our profits to the Poor Box of St. Patrick's Cathedral to put our money where our mouth is.

Do this, and I reckon you will find millions of Irish and German Catholics to be a forgiving lot. Otherwise, there's a hell of a lot of other good beers out there and yours goes in the toilet.

Oh, and by the way, I run a widely-read Catholic blog site (www.markshea.blogspot.com) and write for a wide variety of Catholic newspapers and magazines for a very large Catholic reading public. So, though you guys are too chicken to let me run your Apology 2.0 letter there, I will run my reply to your letter on my blog and (I hope) in the Catholic press, as well as giving the email for still more feedback to Boston Beer. Keep working on that apology until you actually apologize (and take some serious steps to pay) for what you did. Then we'll take you seriously.

Still disgusted,

Mark Shea