What! Going out to shop on the busiest shopping day of the year?!

When, by a simple click, you could order autographed copies of my books (as well as some terrific tapes) from the comfort, convenience and safety of your own computer? What better way to say "Merry Christmas" than with faboo copies of:
Making Senses Out of Scripture

(Also, Making Senses Out of Scripture is available as a three tape set with a fourth bonus tape thrown in featuring my conversion story "How I Got This Way")

By What Authority?

This is My Body and

Shaken by Scandals

or my three tape set "An Evangelical Discovers the Catholic Faith".

They're all so good, I don't want to play favorites. Just buy everything--several times! Your friends and family will blubber all over themselves with weepy gratitude this Christmas.

Not much blogging today, but I want to say...

Glory be to God for dappled things --
For skies of couple-colour as a brinded cow;
For rose-moles all in stipple upon trout that swim;
Fresh-firecoal chestnut-falls; finches' wings;
Landscape plotted & pieced -- fold, fallow, & plough;
And áll trades, their gear & tackle & trim.
All things counter, original, spáre, strange;
Whatever is fickle, frecklèd, (who knows how?)
With swíft, slów; sweet, sóur; adázzle, dím;
He fathers-forth whose beauty is pást change:
Práise hím.

Glory be to God also for my family and dear friends, for food laid in for the feast, for readers who intrigue, inform, challenge, delight and perplex me, for breath, for movement, for the brush of my son's fingers on my cheek, for the feel of showers in the morning and pillow at night, for the feeling of accomplishment when you hit the "SEND" button and an article goes to the publisher, for the ability to whistle, for the cough that did not develop into pneumonia but dwindled and vanished, for sunlight, and the sound of laughter in the yard in summer, for strength when my father died, for love of those who are with me, for the miracle of the Holy Eucharist, for all things, both pleasant and hard, I thank you O God my Father, through Jesus Christ. (Feel free to add your own thanks to God in the comments!)

Happy Thanksgiving y'all! It's all Grace!

An interesting interview with the lovely and gracious poet Luci Shaw

A terrific poet and a wonderful Christian.

Continuing with Today's Light Blogging and Thanksgiving Theme...

Another piece I wrote some time ago: Pilgrim's Progress

From the "People Who Live in Glass Houses" Dept.

Um, when your name is dangerously close to sounding Like "Cretin" do you really want your people popping off like this?

A Washington Thanksgiving

I wrote it a few years ago, but I'm still grateful. Now I'm grateful as well for my wife and children. The universe is full of grace, if you look.

The sensible Eve Tushnet on the Wrong-Headed Demand that Homosexuals Become Heterosexual Instead of Chaste

Despicable yes

But the full-throttle hagiographic "Martyrdom of St. Eddie" tone of this story only goes to highlight the incredible media void Rod describes when it comes to brutal crimes against Christian lebensunwertensleben such as the insignificant and disposable Mary Stachowicz. ABC, to put it bluntly, does not give a shit that she's dead. She was the Wrong Sort of Person and her murderer meant well.

A reader sez:

I share your sentiments re: Law and the visit to the mosque.

Also have encountered more than a few African and "other than North American" Western Hemisphere priests to realize that the Church is bigger than the 'issues' of those of us of Western European extraction.

As one who works primarily with youth from the public schools, I see that they live in a pluralistic world, out of touch with both the touchy-feely liberalism and the outward trappings of Tridentine piety. Example: My daughter attends a local high school -- she navigates the friendships of her Catholic youth group buddies, her Buddhist friend from biology, her Muslim girlfriend in PE - we both wonder how she plays basketball and the hajib never moves! -- and a lunch crew who gathered after school for a farewell that spanned three continents, five languages and four faiths. That's the world of now -- for her, the Holy Father's gathering of leaders of so many religions at Assisi resonates, not the paranoia and separatism of the Lidless Eye nor the spirit-less social work of the left. These kids speak of spiritual things -- in an atmosphere of mutual respect and joy! One of the things I like about the blogs -- every once in a while we remember how to be children of God and PLAY! Thank God we haven't destroyed that in our youth -- yet.

I've always wondered if the watery liberals and Lidless Eye folk are more alike than either would like to admit -- over the years, I've come to view each as a reaction to the reality that they aren't going to be in charge much longer, as much as they would like, a last grasp for power before the dawn of a new time. As I heard one African priest put it, the Church of the 21st century will look more like the church of Augustine than the church of Trent.

Dumb Dumb Dumb

Critics of the homosexual movement, however, said yesterday the case should be treated as a hate crime against Christians because Mr. Gutierrez killed Mrs. Stachowicz after she shared her religious beliefs.

"Hate crime" legislation is a stupid idea. It's an invitation to the Thought Police. (The Adventures of Commander Cressida Dick of the Diversity Directorate! Stamping out unacceptable thoughts in the name of diversity!) It does not cease to be stupid merely because the hatred is directed toward Christians. I don't care if a creep like Gutierrez hates me. I care if he tries to harm me. Christians are sealing their own death warrants if they give Caesar the power to prosecute for Incorrect Thoughts.

Backward Ignorant Violent Repressive Bronze Age Thugs Slap Murderous Fatwa on Nigerian Reporter Over Triviality

Reporter Makes Use of 20th Century Western Technology That Never Could Have Arisen in Backward, Corrupt, Ignorant Radical Islam-Ridden Lands to Flee to Liberty

Rod Dreher Hits One Out of the Ballpark!

Anything I say is gilding the lily.

By the way, to his credit, Jody noted this story on his blog when it happened and didn't make the disgusting whiny excuses Wagner did. He even (mildly) condemned Gutierrez' act. On the other hand, he does make pathetic excuses for the vastly more muted coverage of the story than the Martyrdom of St. Mathew Shepard received. ("Hey! It was mentioned in a few outlets, so there's total parity!" is his logic.) And he never even bothers to deal with the other examples of media bias in anti-Christian crimes. Most absurd of all, he somehow manages to suggest that Mass caused the murder (while, of course, insisting that he's not really suggesting it). I think he thought he was being oh-so-witty. Mostly he was coming off as a perfect manifestation of the media culture that makes it so possible to belittle the death of Mary Stachowicz, who possessed a life not entirely worthy of being lived and won't be missed all *that* much by Truly Cultured and Intelligent People like Jody. I give his performance a D-.

Robertson, you see, is a maniac who wants to ignite a religious war

That's what any Christian is who suggests that all is not well in the founding documents of the Religion of Peace.

But Muslims who kill a hundred people over a beauty pageant are "reasonable people".

St. Blog's Stars on Catholic Exchange Today!

What! Everywhere isn't here?

This will come as a shock both to watery liberals who can't stand a forthright orthodox Christian faith and to Lidless Eyes who strain at gnats (eek! the Pope received a traditional Indian greeting!) while overlooking the camel of a great deal of gung ho orthodoxy because it isn't dressed in the trappings of Tridentine piety (which is, of course, the only form of true Catholic piety the world has ever known). No, the southward movement of the gospel is not the Panacea for All Ills. Nothing in this world is. But it's a hopeful sign, on the whole. I, for one, have never met a bad African priest. I hope we get an African Pope.

Disputations Makes a Good Point...

that I mostly agree with and partly disagree with. Speaking as a Catholic, I agree completely (and have stated elsewhere) that insofar as a bishop is delivering the Tradition or acting in his office as teacher, his "moral authority" is utterly irrelevant to whether we should listen to him. Even Jesus makes this point. Insofar as they speak from office, even the Pharisees who demanded Jesus' death were to be heeded--but not imitated. It is simply not that case that Law (whose sins are considerably less than that of direct responsibility for the murder of God Incarnate) is "impossible" to take seriously. I take him seriously, by virtue of his office.

That said, prudence also dictates that yer average citizen of this here Republic *is* going to find him much more easy to ignore now that he has shown himself to be a dunderhead. Not, of course, that people were hanging on the bishop's words before the Scandal. But the reality is that gross immorality and corruption *does* compromise the Church's witness to the world. As Paul sez: "you then who teach others, will you not teach yourself? While you preach against stealing, do you steal? 22 You who say that one must not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? 23 You who boast in the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law? 24 For, as it is written, “The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.”
(Romans 2:21-24). This is simply a basic psychological fact and the Church will have to live with this compromised witness for a long time. In that sense, I agree with Rod and believe that it will therefore be all the more urgent that authentic *lay* witnesses to the teaching of the Church live out their baptism with fidelity, so that the Church's teaching may be compelling and not sneered at as Instapundit did the other day. But I disagree that that the lack of moral authority on the part of many bishops has anything whatever to do with whether a lay Catholic should listen to them when they speak from office and not from their person.

Harry Potter as a closet Catholic

A reader writes:

I was driving around today listening to the John Williams soundtrack for Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (excellent stuff, BTW) and realized something pretty...well, strange.

Potter authoress Jo Rowling has always been a bit cagey when it comes to discussing religion or her own religious affliation (if any). She once admitted in an interview that she considers herself a Christian, but that's been about it. Yet take a moment to mull over the following set of facts with me, if you will...

Guy Fawkes, as you probably already know, is the 17th century Roman Catholic who still gets burned in effigy all over England each and every autumn. The real Guy was allegedly responsible for the famous Gunpowder Plot, but the "straw man" who goes up in flames every November 5th is really a symbol for England's long-lost Catholic past.

The mythological Phoenix is another legendary figure known mainly for going up in smoke. The Greeks believed he was a real bird and that, like Guy Fawkes, he ended his lifespan in a blaze of glory. But unlike Guy Fawkes, the Phoenix was thought to have the power of rebirth. It was believed that he could rise from his own ashes, renewed in youth and vigor, and take to the skies once more. And since then, the Phoenix has been a common symbol for resurrection (notably, in the writings of the Church Fathers) and especially for an unlikely resurrection, hope against hope.

Well, in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets our heroic young wizard gets rescued from the forces of darkness at the very last moment, when all hope seems gone by...

a resurrected Phoenix...

...whose name happens to be Fawkes.

Has J.K. Rowling read Cardinal Newman's famous sermon on The Second Spring, perchance? ;-)

Hmmm... I know Rowling has a ton of background in this sort of arcana, but I'm still rather skeptical that she's really making an appeal for the return of England to the bosom of Holy Church. Still, a fun and imaginative bit of exegesis.

I know this will tick a lot of my readers off (so what else is new?)

But I don't see that this is particularly wrong.The council calls us to affirm what can be affirmed in common with Islam. He's not doing or saying anything that John Paul (and Peter Kreeft, for that matter) haven't said or done. A few years ago, when the Clinton administration was trying to impose abortion on the world at Cairo, the Pope said (and conservatives affirmed) pretty much was Law says here: that we do have much in common with Islam vs. the secular culture of death. Apart from the messenger (and Amy's made some salient points here) what's wrong with the message?

Good Guys Winning Hearts and Minds

Let no good deed go unpunished!

Here's how press bias works. All over the world, a human race that ignores, in various ways, what God says about sexual morality and drug use is currently suffering from the horrible scourge of AIDS. No institution on the planet has done more to bring comfort and succor to victims of this scourge than the Church in its many manifestations all over the globe.

But--mark this--it has failed to do it with absolute flawless perfection! Dear heaven! It turns out members of the Church are human beings who recoil from deadly diseases and their ghastly effects! Some of these people, feeling bad about this, put together a little statement which focused on the need to continue helping victims of AIDS, and included something many American bishops seem to be unable to muster: a frank confession of their occasional failures:

We acknowledge with deep regret:
That Caritas members have not always acted promptly or positively to respond to the challenges posed by HIV/AIDS.

That Caritas members have sometimes kept silent in the face of stigma or discrimination based on known or suspected HIV status. Through our silence we have colluded with this stigmatisation and discrimination.

That Caritas members have often rejected when we should have embraced, isolated when we should have included, judged and condemned when we should have offered love, understanding, acceptance and support.

What are we to conclude from this?

"Catholics admit persecution of AIDS victims" That's right. Persecution. Human failure to perfectly and instantly embrace victims of a disease that often has revolting physical consequences and is often acquired in revolting ways is tantamount to persecution. Only bigotry and hate can account for it.

And, of course, building on the rock solid foundation of such a headline, we then move to op ed pieces like this or even more sensible remarks like Kimberly Mills of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer who regurgitates the normal chatter about the Vatican being "officially silent during the Holocaust," and then blames the Church for AIDS in Africa. "Now a viral version of Hitler is rampaging through another part of the world," she says, "and the Vatican risks similar ignominy if it cannot find a way to relax the ban on condoms, particularly in Africa where more than 25 million people have been infected with HIV."

What strange power the Church has. It cannot keep the world from committing promiscuity and fornication and homosexual acts on a daily basis, but by some weird magic, all the people doing these things are petrified of using a condom because of the Church. Meanwhile, the only serious way to avoid infection is (surprise!) the way the Church urges: by heeding its teaching on sexual morality and drug use.

Sin makes you stupid. I wonder how many of these righteous reporters have worked in an AIDS hospice.

At Last! Some Good News for CAI!

A reader offers an antidote to Left Behind

I've referenced this in a couple of comment boxes, but in light of the wide (and highly unfortunate) popularity of the Left Behind stuff, I think it deserves a larger audience.

Monsignor Robert Hugh Benson was a convert from Anglicanism--his father was the Archbishop of Canterbury. He died at the age of 40, but not before writing one of the classic accounts of conversion, Confessions of a Convert and two more works, more apropos to the discussion:

Lord of the World and Dawn of All (which I have not been able to find online). The first, at least, is scarily prophetic for having been written in the early 1900's, and a highly authentically Catholic look at an end-of-the-world scenario.

I should also mention that Benson had the temerity to steal the title of my second book--By What Authority?--decades before I was born and without telling me, so that when my book was published, I only found out Benson had used it after the fact.

Boston's Hierarchy Continues to Distinguish Itself With its Courage and Justice

Same cowardice, only now the people being abandoned in the rush to neglect responsibility are priests instead of victims. I'm impressed with this guy:

"Foster says it is the victims of priests, and not him, who deserve the church's undivided attention.

''What I've been through doesn't compare to what these [victims] have been through. They need to hear how sorry the church is for what's been done. They need the apology. They need healing,'' he said. ''They need to be reached out to. For people in authority, that's their first obligation.''

Would that the Boston hierarchy had an ounce of his selflessness.

Take a second, maybe save a life

I know, I know. It's Oprah "Islam means peace" Winfrey's site. But she's doing the right thing. Send an email to the Nigerian ambassador and make noise about the backward cretinous Bronze Age barbarism of stoning Amina Lawal to death. Maybe they'll listen to a million or so protests and spare her.

The weird part of this is that there are many multi-culti apologists who will say, "She had it coming. She was evangelical about her faith."

The post-Christian West has a sort of death wish, I think.

The stupidity of all this is...

you don't have to cast the dragnet this wide. And you can start by, oh, focusing on every Saudi or Yemeni who comes here. But no. We have to pry into the bank account of Carl Krebsbach in Lake Wobegon. He *might* be a terrorist.

Memo to the US Gov't (and I know you can hear me, or will be able to soon): We are at war with Radical Islamicists, not the blue-haired lady from my parish and not a legion of Britney Spears fans. The Homeland Security logo says it all.

And remember: once this become law, it's going to be law forever. The Feds, once they seize sweeping powers, are extremely loath to give them back.

A Christian interview with Phillip Pullman

is here and a First Things review of his extremely well-written and destructive books is here. FT also has a nice review of Harry Potter, who so many Christians are foolishly in a lather about. Future generation are going to look back on this one and wonder why we spent so much time wetting ourselves over Harry and didn't notice Pullman.

I'm outta here for the weekend

Before I go, the enterprising Dave Armstrong took a thread I participated in last year concerning the Gathering for Peace at Assisi and boiled it into a single web page article (amazing editor, that Dave). Here it is. I was writing in response to a protracted sneer about Assisi published by Chris Ferrara, who seems to be in some danger of becoming a protracted sneer. It includes responses from other folks and some back and forth between us (though not Ferrara, who was not on the board). I've never, for the life of me, been able to see what the problem was with Assisi, though I have friends who disliked it a great deal. Anyway, if you are looking for something to make your juices flow over the weekend, this should do it.

Oh, and for Thanksgiving, I plan to give thanks, among other things, for youse guys--your intelligence, interest, love, thoughfulness, generosity and general rambunctiousness. So... thanks!

Stop this Menace before it's too late!!!!!

There but for the grace of God go I

I hear stuff like this a lot about guys like Law: "Law and others apparently have the attitude that priests are demigods who can do no wrong". I hear them described as men of calculated malice, etc. I don't think that's accurate. Here's my take on how somebody like Law gets himself where he is:

I think I'm looking at a man who spent his life basically thinking (as we all do) "I'm a decent guy, and I'm doing good work for the world. Just look at my civil rights work! I didn't become a priest to be a functionary, but to serve God and people. I remember when I felt the call of God and said yes. Sure age has taken the edge off my youthful zeal and I've made a few compromises, but I'm still basically OK. I'm not a saint, but I'm a decent chap! Sure I sin, but I'm not evil." Put such a man (who, like most bishops, wants to avoid conflict as much as possible) in situations where people scream about a grave injustice, and he will do what Law did: avoid conflict, promise resolution, take parental quietude in response to such promises as the resolution itself (whew! conflict avoided!) and then, to avoid conflict with the priest, reassign him. It's not that he thinks the priest a demi-god. It's that he's too much of a coward to confront somebody he doesn't want to look at closely for fear of having to face conflict. "The psychs said it was okay, and a decent guy like me can hardly be expected to do much more." The illusion of "I'm a decent chap" thus goes on undisturbed for years, the parents are content (they think something's being done and so something *has* been done, by the canons of conflict-avoidance) or, if not, they are muffled by bureaucracy, and the priest is not giving you trouble.

And so it piles up for years, all while you seriously believe that you are "basically doing a good job--not perfect, but good" because there are no major conflicts--till the colossal roar from the wings of thousands of chickens coming home to roost deafens you and you have to face some huge and terrifying facts about yourself that nothing in your conflict-avoiding life has prepared you to face. It doesn't take titanic evil to achieve this. It just takes little acts of conflict-avoidance so small you might never notice them if you've trained yourself to think in a certain way--a way that is rather common among more of us than I care to think. Look no further than an Internet BBS, an email list, or the comments boxes of the blogosphere when some rampaging ranter comes storming through hurling insults at everybody. How many people just quietly fold up and look the other way? How many actually spring to the defense of the abusive personality in the desperate hope that they can get the conflict to go away via appeasement? It's not a rare psychological trait. It's a temptation I struggle with myself.

In short, there but for the grace of God go I.

And so, when I look at Law's testimony (and at his slowly-arrived-at admission, only seriously articulated long after this testimony, that he has indeed done great evil) I see a snapshot of a man grappling with facing that fact and doing it badly last summer. But given his more recent statements which seem to me to really be attempts at taking responsibility for the evil he has done, I also see a man who is struggling with agonizing slowness toward serious acknowledgement that he has committed grave evil. I wonder how I would do if I had to face something like this about myself.

This is not to say "To understand all is to excuse all." As I wrote below, there is no excuse for Law's gravely sinful inaction. Rather, it is to try to accurately diagnose just what went wrong. I don't see calculated malice in Law. I don't see "creative evil" (look to Shanley, or Kurt Cobain for that). Rather, I see passive cowardice. Likewise for somebody like McCormack. Do you think for one second that he *really* "didn't notice" that Shanley was advocating sex with minors. Of course, he noticed. But, miserable coward, he trained himself not to notice because he could stave off conflict that way.

With Law, given his more recent statements that seem (at last!) to be taking some real responsibility for the evil he has done, I *hope* I'm seeing somebody with a long habit of passive cowardice slowly struggling to throw off the habit and take some responsibility, post-deposition. But at the end of the day, there's no excuse for his inaction. Indeed, his torpor in taking responsibility *adds to* and does not excuse his guilt here. So the only recourse for us who have been wounded by his sin is forgiveness, not excusing, since forgiveness is precisely ordered toward sin, not toward well-meaning faux pas.

Until he retires, that's pretty much what we have to do--as we prosecute, where Caesar deems it appropriate. And pray to God that he does not make trial of our cowardice in such a fiery furnace.

On the bright side

Krispy Kreme Donut profits are up 56%.

They must recruit bishops from the bottom 25% of the class or something

Yeah! Great idea! Let's kick off our Abortion Education Program with this trial!

George W. Bush Complains Maureen Dowd is Inciting a Climate of Hate Against Him and His Family

Rather far-fetched headline, right? That's because Bush is not a desperate demagogue with nothing to offer. Kudos to Greg Krehbiel for this observation.

Amy's right

It's a culture of protectiveness that puts the good of the chum above the good of the victim. It forms no legitimate part of the Tradition but is, like anti-semitism was for so long, an aspect of the Shadow Tradition, the sin the haunts the Church from its inception. Traditionalists very often confuse the Tradition with the Shadow Tradition because they assume "If it's old, it's automatically part of the Tradition." And so, among the Lidless Eye crowd on the right, we see frequent indulgences of anti-semitism (see "Sungenis, Bob") and apologies for Jew-bashing.

In the same way, we are seeing a long standing aspect of the Shadow Tradition with episcopal cover-ups and stonewalling of sin against the flock. There is no necessary reason for this garbage. It forms no part of what Jesus or the apostles established. Rather, it lives in the Shadow of the gospel. One might just as well say that sin itself is part of the Tradition since it too has always been with the Church. My hope is that this is the age the Holy Spirit has chosen to finally root out this shadow that has hovered about the Church for far too long.

There is a gap between "bare minimal compliance with human decency" and "sanctity". Caesar's job is to make sure that clergy who sink below the "bare minimum" line are punished. But he cannot compel sanctity. The only one who can bring that about is the Holy Spirit and the contrite sinner. I want to see criminal punished. But more than that, I want to see our episcopacy look beyond bare minimum compliance (something many are only now figuring out) and become saints. It can happen. But some serious repentance has to happen first. Meanwhile, let Caesar do his job! Clergy are not above the law!

Kevin Miller Agrees with Me, More or Less, About PBA

I think the Abortion Party is still galvanisable about this. Nothing gets people fired up like attacks on their fundamental religious beliefs and the Dems view abortion as a sacrament (suggesting that Moloch is tanned, rested, and ready for worship). Indeed, some of the more outre abortion proponents out in the wilderlands of neo-paganism have in fact offer apologies (mixed up with mumbo jumbo about "rituals of self-empowerment") to suggest that abortion is a positive good whereby the Goddess asserts her power over creation, etc. blah blah. I think it was Cicero who said "There is no idea so foolish that some philosopher has not said it."

Oh, and speaking of which...

It's also the Feast Days of C.S. Lewis and Aldous Huxley. In honor of all three, here is my piece, "Paranoia is the Serious Business of Heaven".

This being the Feast Day for John Fitzgerald Kennedy...

I thought I'd offer my JFK Assassination Conspiracy Theory.

My theory is that Lee Harvey Oswald was this nut with a gun who got up in the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository and shot the president. I know it sounds crazy and improbable, but there it is.

Scrappleface on Homeland Security

Me: I've thought of a perfect Christmas Carol to spruce up this advertising-impaired organization's image for the holidays

"They know when you've been sleeping
They know when you're awake
They know if you've been bad or good,
so be good, for goodness sake!"

The Awesome Power of the Cross

Such mercy will one day triumph over all. Surely this man is a son of Abraham. May his wife rest in peace.

Everybody has a website but you

What's next? Luddite.com?

I just knew I'd get some Kopp apologists coming out of the woodwork

And offering the normal unbelievably far-fetched moral conundrums to try to justify a grade A a******'s cold blooded act of vigilante murder ("Well what if you were a Polish Jew with a gun to your head, with an SS officer threatening your mom, and Vanna White offering you three guesses about which of three Dodge Caravans contained your quivering grandmother, and they both gave you exactly ten seconds to shoot one of your children, before they...")

Guys:

These incredibly far-flung moral conundrums are all well and good, but now let's return to earth, shall we?

Kopp's act was evil. Period. Murder is evil. You can't even give the lame excuse that he was saving a life. He saved nobody's life. He is, indeed, the accessory to many more murders now. Suzie Q, who was going to have her abortion at Slepian's clinic just went someplace else. And, of course, pro-choicers were provided with a fresh Horst Wessel for the Martyrology.

Let's turn the tables, shall we? You are Jesus of Nazareth, living in the time when Pontius Pilate slaughtered innocent Galileans and mingled their blood with their sacrifices. You have this friend named Simon the Zealot who has worked through all the vigilante theory carefully and can justify slitting the throat of any Roman centurion he finds alone and unprepared. So, do you begin your reign as the Son of David by murdering a number of Romans in their beds (think of the evil they *would* have done). Or are there other ways the Kingdom is to come?

Don't defend this creep. He is a murderer, liar, thief and traitor. He needs forgiveness, not excuses.

When he's not trying to prop up the creaky and preposterous edifice of atheism...

Andy's rather sensible. (see his blog on "The Black Men of America". Me: I'm suffering from post-Cromwell Stress Syndrome. I haven't been the same since the Brits took over Ireland. You people owe me! Big time! All of you!!!!

My other website is www.mark-shea.com

Now and then I look at the stats on the site to see where traffic is coming from. You know what pulls in a huge number of Google hits?

"Stick bugs"

You people are mysterious to me.

So... Did Bush Issue an Order for Gov't Art saying...

"Give me something that will really make folks flesh creep!"

Apparently so, given that *this* is yet another example of a "Homeland Security" logo:



Talk about the "Lidless Eye". Brrrrr.

Update for unbelievers: It's not a gag. See?

Thanks to JB the Kairos Guyfor this. And for being my Comment of the Day Winner: "Bring me the eye of Osama bin Laden!"

Daschle Stamps His Tiny Feet in Impotent Rage

Sheesh!

The NY Times grasps at straws

For months they insisted Bush could not prosecute war with Iraq because this would be "unilateral" and the UN had to sign off. So they did. Now that's not good enough either.

Reactions, Outrage, a few Stupid Excuses for James C. Iscariot from Prolife Voices

Just say he is a murderer, liar, thief, and traitor. Full stop. Don't come to me with any of this "Well, if you push people far enough..." BS.

David Mills at Touchstone Follows up on the Watery Judaism piece in the NY Times yesterday

Scroll down.

Others Have Noted this is Creepy...



But Huw has made it clear why. The eye used to be God's. Now it's Caesar's. Sleep well.

Hey! All you "Shooting Abortionists is an Act of Just War" Advocates Out There!

Just save time and slap the words "I Am a Babykiller" on all your T-shirts and hats right now. Thanks to morons like you, murderer and latter day Judas Iscariot James Kopp is now the Face of the Prolife Movement, and an invaluable aid to Planned Parenthood and the acolytes of the Cult of Abortion.

A reader writes:

Local New York City TV news led with this story – the confession of James Kopp in killing Barnett Slepian.

1. It was wrong and has been wrong for Catholics not to vote in candidates who support the right to life from conception to natural death. Each of us will surely have to answer on Judgment Day for those “choices” we made.

2. It was wrong for Slepian to abort the unborn children, but while we have civil laws that permit this, peaceful demonstration and prayer are the licit means to respond to him.

3. It was wrong for Kopp to kill Slepian.

4. It was wrong for Kopp to deny guilt and responsibility.

5. It was wrong for Kopp to use the pro-life movement to fund and otherwise aid his escape from civil authorities.

6. Kopp’s actions will make it all the more difficult to present pro-life advocates as being non-violent

7. Just as the printing presses at PPI, NARAL, and the rest are cranking out new fund-raising letters saying that they need money, they will get it – the pro-life organizations will see a drop in contributions.

8. Before they take it down visit http://www.jameskopp.com/ to get an idea of the magnitude of the betrayal of truth here.

9. If in the future, there really is a conspiracy to frame a pro-life advocate, it will be all the harder to overcome the memory of Kopp’s lies. This is baggage the pro-life movement doesn’t need.

10. The “face” of pro-life in the future will be James Kopp and the abortion movement and their friends in the media will never let us forget that.

Don't even try to defend this a******. He is an accomplice to the death of several million more babies, as well as a murderer, thief, traitor and liar.

Meanwhile, in Iran, the Radical Islamic House of Cards Teeters on the Brink

I wonder if the gospel will find hearers there now that Islam has made itself such a stench in the nostrils of its victims?

Iraqi Christians to St. Therese: Ora Pro Nobis!

Un-freakin'-believable

No comment necessary:

From Cardinal Law's deposition of August 13, 2002

MACLEISH: This is a letter from a gentleman by the name of Mr. Nash, Gregory Nash, to you shortly after you were installed as Archbishop. The letter is dated March 25, 1984. Do you see that?

LAW: I do.

MACLEISH: And the letter reports two actions of Father Rebeiro. In the first allegation Father Rebeiro is alleged to have had Mr. Nash's wife in the rectory office. He blocked, according to Mr. Nash, the only exit door, exposed himself and masturbated in front of her. Do you see that?

LAW: Yes.

MACLEISH: Is that a serious allegation?

LAW: Terribly serious allegation.

MACLEISH: One that would have been implemented in accordance with the policy that is described in -- that you described earlier today? It would have been investigated and looked at; is that correct?

LAW: It certainly would have been my intent that that be done, yes.

MACLEISH: Can you think of any reason why, in light of this allegation as you sit here today, that would not have been done?

LAW: No, I cannot. First of all, the act itself, as you know, is alleged to have occurred in a time frame before I arrived. The letter is written March 25.

MACLEISH: That's correct.

LAW: And --

MACLEISH: The letter is addressed to you.

LAW: The letter was addressed to me. I do not recall ever having seen this letter prior to this moment.

MACLEISH: Okay.

LAW: But the -- and that's not unlikely, because it's addressed to the Chancery, which is a different building than my office, the day after I was installed. However, the content of this is a terribly serious charge that would have to be looked at very, very carefully.

MACLEISH: Right. In the same way that the 1966 charge against Father Paul Shanley is a terribly serious charge that you said you would have acted upon if you had been made aware of it, correct?

LAW: That's correct.

MACLEISH: In this letter, the first allegation, just so we're clear, is of this priest, Father Rebeiro, who was suspended last weekend by the Archdiocese, Father Rebeiro masturbating in front of a woman and exposing himself, and then another instance where Mr. Nash's -- one of his parents had died, and Father Rebeiro comes over to the house, and Mr. Nash reports that he was pawing at his wife while in the family home while Mr. Nash was away. Do you see that?

LAW: Yes.

MACLEISH: And again, you were Archbishop on the date that this letter was sent, is that not correct?

LAW: I was. I think two days I was Archbishop.

MACLEISH: You'd been Archbishop for two days. So you never recall seeing this letter, but if you had seen this letter, you would have taken some immediate action to have the matter investigated; is that correct?

LAW: I would have had those assisting me look into this, yes, and follow up on this letter.

...

MACLEISH: Have you read Exhibit No. 44, Cardinal Law?

LAW: I have.

MACLEISH: This is your letter to Mr. Nash, correct?

LAW: It is a letter that apparently has my signature attached to it, and it's addressed to Mr. Nash.

MACLEISH: And it acknowledges his letter of March 25, 1984. Do you see that?

LAW: It does.

MACLEISH: And your letter is dated April 3, 1984; is that correct?

LAW: It is.

MACLEISH: So it's fair to state that this would have been -- Mr. Nash's letter would have been received within several days after March 25, and then you responded in a timely fashion on April 3, 1984; is that correct?

LAW: That's correct.

MACLEISH: And you stated, did you not, "As you must know, my knowledge of the case is not complete. After some consultation, I find that this matter is something that is personal to Father Rebeiro and must be considered such." Did you use those words?

LAW: Well, this is a letter that I have signed.

MACLEISH: Did you use -- go ahead.

LAW: I would -- my presumption is this letter was prepared for my signature, and I would need to -- in order to pursue what is meant here, I would need to deal -- speak with those who were -- who would have handled this matter and brought it before me. I can't tell you what -- I have no -- as I sit here, I don't know what that would mean.

MACLEISH: Cardinal Law, we know now that Father Rebeiro has been suspended from his job because of allegations of sexual misconduct occurring 30 years ago --

LAW: Yes.

MACLEISH: -- correct?

LAW: That's correct.

MACLEISH: We put in front of you Exhibit 43, a letter from Mr. Nash to you, that in detail set out allegations that you, yourself, acknowledged were serious allegations --

LAW: That's correct.

MACLEISH: -- of gross misconduct by Father Rebeiro; is that correct?

LAW: That's correct.

MACLEISH: And he wrote this letter to you and he gave you details about other parishes where Father Rebeiro had served, with other allegations of sexual misconduct, and you wrote back to Mr. Nash, and you said to him, "After some consultation, I find that this matter is something that is personal to Father Rebeiro and must be considered such." Is that correct?

LAW: That's correct.

MACLEISH: So there was no investigation of these serious allegations. There was simply a letter from you indicating that this was a matter that was personal to Father Rebeiro, correct?

LAW: My response in seeing Mr. Nash's letter, which remains my response, is that I have no recollection of seeing that letter. My presumption is that this matter was handled for me by someone assisting me, and that this letter was prepared for my signature.

MACLEISH: Cardinal Law, do you read your letters before you sign them as a general practice? Did you in 1984?

LAW: You know, did I on April the 3rd, 1984, three days into the job, read every letter that was put before me? Probably not. Is it my -- is it my custom now to read every letter carefully? It depends. Some are matters of routine, and I would not. But I cannot recall this letter. I cannot recall Mr. Nash's letter, and so it's really not possible for me to go into that matter further. I think you need to ask those who were handling this case for me. In this instance, I would imagine it would have been Bishop Daily.

MACLEISH: Well, we don't -- should Bishop Daily have brought Mr. Nash's letter to your attention prior -- we're conjecturing here, because we really don't know who sent out your letter --

LAW: We are conjecturing.

MACLEISH: We don't know -- we really don't know whether you saw Mr. Nash's letter, and we really don't know whether you read the letter of April 3, 1984 before you put your signature on it, correct?

LAW: That's correct.

MACLEISH: So if, in fact, as you conjecture it was Bishop Daily that got this complaint about a priest exposing himself, masturbating in front of a woman and then taking advantage of her when her husband is dealing with one of his parents' funeral arrangements, if, in fact, Bishop Daily had received a letter such as that and drafted a response such as Exhibit 44, would he have been acting in accordance with the policy that you describe in Exhibit No. 12 and what you would have done had you been aware of the Shanley allegations?

LAW: What would have to be done, Mr. MacLeish, is to ask Bishop Daily what, in fact, he did, and I'm not going to conjecture at this point what he did or didn't do. I can simply answer that I do not recall seeing this letter, I do not recall seeing this letter, that I consider these to be very serious allegations, and that I would have wanted them investigated, and acted upon if they -- if that was warranted. What happened, I cannot conjecture. I cannot conjecture at this point. I would need to -- one would need to talk to Bishop Daily about that.

MACLEISH: Well, we don't know whether we'd need to talk to Bishop Daily because we don't even know if it was Bishop Daily that drafted this letter of April 3, 1984, correct?

LAW: That's correct.

MACLEISH: All we know is that it's your signature on the letter.

LAW: That's correct.

MACLEISH: That there were no time constraints imposed by Mr. Nash to correspond -- for you to get an answer back to him. He didn't say, "I wish to hear from you by April 3, 1984." He didn't say that in his letter, did he, Cardinal Law?

LAW: No.

MACLEISH: So this was not a routine matter where there would be a routine letter prepared for you and a routine signature, correct?

LAW: I'm not sure I'm able to answer your question. No, it's not a routine matter.

MACLEISH: Well, you said that when they're routine matters that --

LAW: This was not a routine matter.

MACLEISH: So my question is if, in fact, Bishop Daily had received Exhibit 43, Mr. Nash's letter, and prepared a response such as is set forth in Exhibit No. 44, stating that the matter is personal to Father Rebeiro and must be considered such, he would not have been acting consistent with the unwritten policy as you understood it; is that correct?

LAW: I would need to discuss the matter with Bishop Daily, or whoever prepared that letter for me, to understand what is underlying that statement. It is a puzzling statement to me, but I don't know what investigation took place. I don't know what information was present.

MACLEISH: Cardinal Law, it says also in Exhibit 44, second paragraph, second sentence, "After some consultation." Does that not suggest, Cardinal Law, that that was consultation involving you? It says, "After some consultation, I find that this matter is something that is personal to Father Rebeiro." Does that not suggest that you had some consultations and discussions with others yourself concerning Mr. Nash's letter to you about this priest masturbating and exposing himself in front of a woman?

LAW: Certainly it implies that there was consultation.

MACLEISH: Okay.

LAW: And it's my letter, but obviously -- it's consultation about a fact that it occurred in an earlier time frame, and that consultation could be a matter of someone presenting a summary of the situation. I don't recall this. So, you know, I can sit here and conjecture, but it becomes foolish. I simply do not recall this letter, and I can't respond to what underlies this letter.

MACLEISH: It doesn't imply consultation, Cardinal Law, just to clarify. It states consultation.

LAW: Not only -- that's correct.

MACLEISH: It states consultation.

LAW: It states consultation.
...

MACLEISH: It well could have been the case that you were actually consulted about Mr. Nash's allegations that Father Rebeiro had masturbated in front of his wife?

LAW: Well, I wouldn't be consulted on that, you know.

MACLEISH: I'm sorry.

LAW: Others would, you know. I wouldn't be consulted with, because I wouldn't have any knowledge of this thing. The consultation would have to be with others who were knowledgeable and had somehow dealt with this case, and I would presume that that was done. I have no idea of what that consultation means. I have no recollection of either letter, and so I can't speak to what it is that the letter is referring to.

MACLEISH: Just to be clear, it says, a letter from you, "After some consultation, I find that this matter is something that is personal to Father Rebeiro and must be considered as such."

LAW: That's right. Yes.

MACLEISH: Correct? So you don't know -- your letter states that there was consultation with you, does it not?

MACLEISH: You make a finding. "I find." Do you see that in Exhibit 44?

LAW: Yes, it implies that -- it states that there was consultation, that this was looked into, and that it was determined that this matter is something that is personal to Father Rebeiro. But as I indicated to you, I don't recall this letter, and I have -- I cannot tell you what it is that that references.

...
MACLEISH: But I'm not attempting to point my finger at you. If I did, I apologize. I will ask you, Cardinal Law, were there any other instances where you can recall, between 1984 and 1990, which is the time period that we're focusing on in the Ford, Busa and Driscoll cases, that you can recall, where there was an allegation of sexual misconduct, and the matter was not dealt with in accordance with the policy that you described earlier in the day?
...
LAW: The way in which these matters were handled was through delegation. My expectation was and is that allegations would be looked at, would be examined, and that credible allegations would be acted upon, and that would include getting some kind of a medical assessment, if it seemed that there was substance to the allegation.

Now, were there cases that came that were not looked at? I rely on those working with me, and if I had in my head a case that hadn't been adequately looked at, I would ask that it be looked at. As you know, and I realize it's -- well, it's not totally out of the time frame, but one of the things that we did after we committed our policy -- developed it and committed it to writing in 1993, sometime after that, I asked that all previous cases be reviewed in the light of that policy, and if it was felt that they were not adequately dealt with in accord with that policy, that those cases be opened again.

Do I know of -- as I sit here, do I know of cases that were not dealt with adequately? No, I don't. And if there are any, I would hope that they would now be dealt with adequately.

There are no excuses left. Excusing is for people who have excuses. Forgiveness is for people who have sinned. It remains for us only to forgive. And for Caesar to prosecute, if he finds grounds to do so.

Why it will take the grace of God to fight the war on terror

Natural virtues will not be enough. Supernatural hope is required. Jesus Christ is a known supplier of this. Nobody else is.

Why Reform Judaism is sort of like liberal Protestantism for Jews

He makes a couple of good points, but winds up being a living demonstration of why liberal Judaism is becoming so hard to distinguish from Unitarianism or some other form of religious methadone treatment:

As Judaism focuses on its imminent demise, it grows less attractive to those looking for a living connection to something greater than the self. Many people turn to religion as a way of shifting their inward focus, not amplifying it. It is for this reason, perhaps, that so many people born Jewish have ended up gravitating toward the outward-reaching cause of civil rights, the quest for social justice or even the ego-shattering practice of Buddhism. To me it seems a cruel joke that many of the Jews who follow these pursuits are then, because they lack any synagogue affiliation, counted in studies as "lapsed" and mourned as the religion's failures.

er, yeah, sure. Why should it be thought a failure just because Jews abandon the God of Israel for Buddhism or "social justice" or some other trendiness? On the other hand, I agree with him that Judaism should be about something besides its own demographics. It's just that he doesn't really seem to have an idea of what that is. I do: the worship of the God of Israel. Orthodox Jews know this too, which is why they are doing much better than Reformed Jews.

C.S. Lewis and Peter Kreeft both argue that people who are seeking the true heart of their own tradition are much closer to Catholics than those who are seeking to water it down and explain it away. I think there's a really sound insight there. Of course, the trick is knowing what the true heart of a tradition is. Many would argue that bin Laden is an expression of the "true heart" of Islam. I disagree. The true heart of any tradition is the one that leads the worshipper closer to self-donating love. There are two ways to pervert love: to make it cold (which is the characteristic sin of the watering down types) or to make it hot but pervert its end (which is the sin of zealots like bin Laden). But it's also possible to pursue true love in other traditions. And when that is done, it is Christ who is being pursued, whether we humans know it or not.

Stop Genetic Diseases with your Screen Saver!

A reader sez:

I've come across a distributed-computing project very much like SETI@Home, save that this project deals with the "folding" of proteins. Since it's thought that some diseases may be caused by proteins that have gotten misfolded I'd think that this rates as a worthy cause. The folding site is http://folding.stanford.edu And, if you're willing to pitch this to your admiring public, I've even set up a St Blogs On The Web team; the team number is 12489, and the team statistics can be found at http://folding.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/teampage?q=12489

A friend observes
regarding the current hoohah about the inclination of the Church's bishops toward peace...

I think some of this reflects a certain anger at the clerical estate which you’ve eluded to in your blog, and perhaps even a residual clericalism that isn’t willing to shoulder personal responsibility. It would be nifty neeto if we could wash our hands of all moral responsibility by getting the go-ahead for a real honest to Allah jihad (like our enemies believe they have), rather than realizing that we are doing something imperfect but, given what we know, probably necessary. I think to, to be fair, there is a certain innocence bordering on the naïve in some of the Holy See’s pronouncements concerning Islam, peace in the Middle East, etc. which reflects the desperate juggling of pastors who are looking out for the interests of the not-inconsiderable number of Christians in the Middle East (a number of whom live in Iraq) and so are constrained in their comments and assessment by their sense of the complexity of the situation and of all the possible very messy outcomes. What separates us as Americans from the fascists who glory in war in and of itself is that we are making the case that this really is a desperate measure to cope with a too dangerous situation-and that involves making prudential judgments with which it is possible in good faith to disagree.

I think that's about right. At the end of the day, Just War theory is just that: theory. It's a conceptual tool for trying to evaluate enormously complex situations in the midst of a gospel that is, so to speak, biased toward blessing peacemakers. As much as my tribe of conservative Catholics would like it to be otherwise, it's gonna be a very long wait before bishops shout "God wills it!" to a prudential judgment that potentially involves the death of millions of people, should the fog of war descend and the best laid plans of mice and men go awry. The bishops have done pretty much what I would expect a pastor to do: cited their concerns and stated why they are skeptical that this war meets just war criteria. They have bound nobody's conscience and said we're free to disagree while leaving it up to Caesar to do his job as he sees fit, within conscience.

This is, paradoxically, one of the things that makes the West so great. We are extremely skeptical that our wars are Holy Wars. We think them humanly necessary, but are not easily persuaded that whatever we want is, of course, What God Wills. So I continue to not begrudge the bishops their opinion, while holding my own.

Why is Bush downplaying the trumpet calls for a partial birth abortion ban?

Because the surest way to ignite the spirit of jihad in the dying embers of the Abortion Party is to launch a full frontal assault on the sacrament of abortion.

All you Eeyores. Try to bridle your despair at least till the Republican's have been inaugurated, okay? Me: I'm very confident partial birth abortion will be banned. It just won't happen with fanfare.

Playwright Jim Sherman wrote this today after Hu Jintao was named chief of the Communist Party in China.

HU'S ON FIRST By James Sherman

(We take you now to the Oval Office.)

George: Condi! Nice to see you. What's happening?

Condi: Sir, I have the report here about the new leader of China.

George: Great. Lay it on me.

Condi: Hu is the new leader of China.

George: That's what I want to know.

Condi: That's what I'm telling you.

George: That's what I'm asking you. Who is the new leader of China?

Condi: Yes.

George: I mean the fellow's name.

Condi: Hu.

George: The guy in China.

Condi: Hu.

George: The new leader of China.

Condi: Hu.

George: The Chinaman!

Condi: Hu is leading China.

George: Now whaddya' asking me for?

Condi: I'm telling you Hu is leading China.

George: Well, I'm asking you. Who is leading China?

Condi: That's the man's name.

George: That's who's name?

Condi: Yes.

George: Will you or will you not tell me the name of the new leader of China?

Condi: Yes, sir.

George: Yassir? Yassir Arafat is in China? I thought he was in the Middle East.

Condi: That's correct.

George: Then who is in China?

Condi: Yes, sir.

George: Yassir is in China?

Condi: No, sir.

George: Then who is?

Condi: Yes, sir.

George: Yassir?

Condi: No, sir.

George: Look, Condi. I need to know the name of the new leader of China. Get me the Secretary General of the U.N. on the phone.

Condi: Kofi?

George: No, thanks.

Condi: You want Kofi?

George: No.

Condi: You don't want Kofi.

George: No. But now that you mention it, I could use a glass of milk. And then get me the U.N.

Condi: Yes, sir.

George: Not Yassir! The guy at the U.N.

Condi: Kofi?

George: Milk! Will you please make the call?

Condi: And call who?

George: Who is the guy at the U.N?

Condi: Hu is the guy in China.

George: Will you stay out of China?!

Condi: Yes, sir.

George: And stay out of the Middle East! Just get me the guy at the U.N.

Condi: Kofi.

George: All right! With cream and two sugars. Now get on the phone.

(Condi picks up the phone.)

Condi: Rice, here.

George: Rice? Good idea. And a couple of egg rolls, too. Maybe we should send some to the guy in China. And the Middle East. Can you get Chinese food in the Middle East?

Pavel Chichikov is making a very good point

In response to some of the more zealous pro-war types who are disgusted because the Pope and the bishops urge against war with Iraq, he writes in a comment below, "I don't *ever* want to hear my bishops advocating or justifying war. I want them to urge peace up until the last moment."

And, come to think of it, when *was* the last time you heard of a Pope or bishop *urging* war? Not just this Pope, but I mean, like, any Pope in our lifetime or in the lifetime of our great great grandparents? Did *any* Pope of the 20th Century *advocate* war? The popes on the eve of both world wars struggled mightily against it and urged that war not be fought. Were they also spineless wimps who loved dictators? Or were they acting as counter-cultural witnesses for peace? They did not (as our bishops do not) label the wars against aggression immoral. But they still urged against war while leaving it up to Caesar to make the final call.

The more I think about it, the more I would hardly expect (or want) them to do anything else. There's something appalling about the thought of a bishop or Pope *advocating* war. It's like the thought of a Pope standing outside a prison waving a frying pan during an execution and cheering. Or throwing a party to celebrate the termination of a tubal pregnancy. The Church's theology suffers the awful reality of just war and does not call it immoral. But to expect the Church to celebrate and root for war is somehow deeply tone deaf to the message of the gospel: "Blessed are the peacemakers."

I think, more and more, that the witness for peace of the bishops is something like the witness of celibacy. It's not binding on the rest of us, but it still challenges us to think of things higher than realpolitik and to try to strive heroically for peace rather than just settle for war with a sort of tired sense of inevitability.

As a layman, I still think the war with Iraq needs to be fought. But I do not share the contempt so many conservatives seem to have for bishops because they urge peace. I wonder more and more what the hell else we should expect them to do?

Tin Ear Award Goes to Planned Parenthood

For offering this sentiment...



in honor of a holiday which, for most Americans, is all about a Birth.

Brings new meaning to our Lord's saying: "Inasmuch as you did it to the least of my brothers and sisters, you did it to me."

What's next? The NRA taking out an ad on the glories of gun ownership on Martin Luther King Day? How about a special NASCAR event in honor of the anniversary of Princess Diana's death? A fireworks display on September 11? Such promotional ideas would only be slightly less tasteless than PP's latest contribution to our civilization.

Thanks (I think) to Minute Particulars for alerting me to this. And thanks to Veritas, which gave it to Minute Particulars.

Dude, wo ist mein Gehirn?

Okay, apart from the bizarre story itself

which of these passages from the sycophantic press apologies for Michael Jackson's bizarreness is more loony?

"There are also speculations the singer may pick up a Bambi lifetime achievement award on Thursday from the German Burda Publishing house." "Bambi Lifetime Achievement Award"?

or

"Michael is a very responsible father and it's just hard for me to believe that he dangled his son over the railing of his balcony" - Jackson's friend Uri Geller (!!!) (Well, if spoon bender and psychic quack Uri Geller vouches for him...)

or (my favorite) the ABC News headline "Michael Jackson Apparently Holds Baby out Window" It's accompanied with images like this:



"Apparently" he's holding a baby out the window. Five stories up. Apparently. But we shouldn't be in so much of a rush to judge. Cameras can play tricks on the eye, you know.

And here's another example of hard-hitting journalism going toe-to-toe with the Cult of Celebrity to defend the children:

The BBC's Glenda Cooper: "It was an eccentric way to greet fans"

Boy, with supercharged moral indignation like that, the rich and powerful will be lying awake tonight, knowing that the Vigilant Guardians of Children in our Press Corps are On the Job!

How could our bishops come to live in such an insular world when the free press is so aggressive against any and all abusers of children?

Memo to the Stupid Party

Lead, dammit!

It's finally in your power to save the lives of babies. Do it.

So does this mean the war starts anytime?

I mean, what's the point of inspections if Saddam is already cheating (which was not a huge surprise)?

'nother question: How do they know he's cheating if they haven't started the inspections?

Sad and bleak

There's a pagan sadness to these little "Remnant" groups, so clearly destined to wither like little flowers. Very often you find a few truly beautiful souls in them (often born into them), and a great deal of stoic pride that is trying soldier on to the Millennium through sheer dint of will. Such pride typically results in the sort of control freak behavior seen in the article. It's a pride that has no patience or room for the weak slobs which most of us are, and tends to go to its grave sounding like Hitler's Last Will and Testament, blaming the followers for not being worthy of the Greatness of their founder.

Like I say, Caesar is the guarantor of episcopal compliance with basic justice

If you will not obey the higher law of love willingly, you will obey the lower law of justice whether you will or no, Cardinal Egan.

I'm amazed to find myself agreeing with Richard McBrien.

The thrill of agony! The victory of defeat!

It's the WORLD ROCK PAPER SCISSORS SOCIETY!

Now, you're probably wondering how I'm going to tie this to Catholic faith, aren't you? You probably think I can't do it! Doncha? Huh? Doncha?

AHEM! Human beings differ from the rest of the animal kingdom in that, in the absence of biological opportunity, animals go to sleep. We get bored and invent stuff like Rock Paper Scissors. A tiny sign of our being made in the image of a Creator God. We are like animals in all the things that don't matter. We are unlike them in all the things that do.

But, of course, the real reason I blogged it is just cuz I thought it was weird and cool.

The Toxic Phase

When somebody has hurt you, there is a tipping point where you pass (if you aren't careful) from being cautious about trusting them (which is entirely sensible) to assuming the blackest and worst about them. Indeed, to *enjoy* thinking the worst about them. To take whatever they do and say, no matter how insubstantial the evidence of ill will, and turn it into yet another piece of evidence in the eternal court of law which your soul has become, dedicated to the everlasting collection of proofs that the one you hate is a miserable son of a bitch who is constitutionally incapable of redemption and whose every act, however apparently good-willed, is at best just a facade on the black and evil monster that they *really* are.

Some people I am running into in cyberspace are starting to reach that phase with our bishops. I mentioned below that Loverde actually ordered the priest in his diocese who was having an affair to cut off contact with the woman. He was, of course, ignored by the priest, who subsequently left the priesthood and married the woman. A reader announces his verdict that this is: "yet another example of a bishop protecting a sinful/weak priest (telling the priest to cut off contact sounds like the same policy followed with child molesters)."

My response: What else do you propose the bishop should have done with the priest who was having an affair? Sexual abuse against children is a crime, and you can call the cops. An extramarital affair is not a crime, just a grave sin. Do you suggest he should have handcuffed the priest to the radiator? What, besides giving him a direct order--which he did--was the bishop supposed to do?

We are now entering the "toxic phase" of lay distrust for bishops. It's the phase where people pass from being sensibly cautious about trusting bishops who have shown themselves untrustworthy to being reflexively bent on assuming the worst about every action and every word at all times and only grudgingly, if at all, relinquishing their steely grip on the will to condemn them on the slightest provocation. Just the other day I was being told by commenters on another blog that the "real" reason the American bishops oppose war with Iraq (and when was the last time you heard of bishops anywhere enthusiastically urging war?) was because they were sucking up to our "pacifist Pope" in the hope of getting back in his good graces. The evidence for this ridiculous scenario? Hey! Who needs evidence? No bishop could possibly have any good reason for anything they say or do! So simply assume the basest motive for any word or deed and assert it as fact. You'll always find a chorus of people to nod agreement to your stupid charge. It's bishops we're talking about after all, not human beings. It's not like they are capable of any goodness at all, ever, under any circumstance. So just attribute the basest motives at all times. It's easy! The Pope proposes new mysteries for the Rosary? It can't, of course, be because he believes prayer is necessary in this time of world danger. No, it's because (as a commenter remarked elsewhere in the blogosphere) he is egomaniacially trying to put his fingerprints on the Rosary, like Bill Clinton obsessed with his "legacy". Right. John Paul II: Egomaniac. Sure.

Elsewhere in the blogosphere, another alleged "Catholic" voice of "reform" is now writing "Vaticanus delenda est!" (The Vatican must be destroyed!). Right. The Petrine office is not a gift to the Church instituted by Christ (Matthew 16:18). It is purely evil and must be destroyed. Hey! We're only talking about an incontrovertible fact of revelation for Catholics, which we are no more at liberty to destroy than the doctrine of the Trinity. What does a triviality like that matter compared to my indulgence of hatred?

Our bishops have proven themselves abundantly capable of venality and corruptibility. This does not, however, justify asserting as *fact* that the only motive they have in every thought, word, and deed is "shelving the common good for the sake of episcopal image". Like it or not, one's rage does not give one carte blanche to ignore the Christian duty of charity. We are to be wise as serpents and not assume that unreliable bishops are automatically to be trusted. But we are also to be innocent as doves and not assume the worst about another person when we don't know what their motives really are.

To say "Vaticanus delenda est" is to abandon Catholic theology, however much you may claim to be Catholic. But it is just as serious, indeed more serious, to assume the Pope promulgated the Luminous Mysteries out of a vain Clintonesque obsession with his Legacy that cares only about his ego. It is an act of wicked sin to pass from legitimate disagreement with the bishops about their opinion on war, to asserting as fact that the "real" reason a bishop opposes war is to "shelve the common good for the sake of episcopal image". For these acts are fundamentally contemptuous of the divine demand for charity (and they make a fool of you to boot).

Theological blunders like calling for the abolition of the Petrine office can be due to profound ignorance. Not all Catholics know it is simply not something that can be abolished. They might, in their ignorance, conceivably think of it as a bit of bureaucracy that has outlived its usefulness and, in their zeal for the care of victims want to sweep it aside in the misguided notion that doing so will somehow reform the Church. It's a much more excusable error. But direct sins against charity--sins which seek to call white grey and grey black until all is black--are far more serious and involve a more direct application of the will to the hatred of other human beings. Such sins ought to make us tremble, for they will surely be remembered on That Day if we do not renounce them. In short, the Righteous should consider the mote in their own eyes. Bitterness and the will to condemn can damn a soul just as effectively as unrepentant episcopal malfeasance.

Andrew Sullivan needs to brush up on his theology

For reasons that are not too terribly difficult to grasp, Sullivan is eager to find examples of cafeteria Catholicism among the ranks of theocons like George Weigel. It makes his own selectivity about other aspects of Catholic teaching more palatable, after all.

Sullivan writes:

THEOCONS VERSUS THE CHURCH: I tend to agree with this essay by George Weigel, defending war against Iraq within the Catholic Church's just war tradition. He even argues that some clerics may not be the best candidates for figuring out questions of public morality:

There is a charism or gift of political discernment unique to the vocation of public service. That charism is not shared by bishops, moderators, rabbis, imams or inter-religious agencies. Moral clarity in a time of war demands moral seriousness from public officials. It also demands a measure of political modesty from religious leaders and public intellectuals, in the give-and-take of democratic deliberation.

Couldn't agree more. But isn't this a pretty flagrant dissent from Church teaching? And isn't Weigel one of the key intellectual supporters of enforcing Church orthodoxy on everyone, especially in the academy, who dare to question official Church teachings? That's one of my beefs with the theocons. They want strict orthodoxy on practical issues that have no deep moral meaning, like a celibate priesthood, but feel free to dissent openly on war, economics and social justice. Am I the only one to find their position just a little bit too easy?

Um, no, Andrew. I'm afraid you've got it wrong. From the teaching of Paul in Romans 13, which fully grants Caesar the power to use the sword within his proper sphere and the right to discern when to use it, to the present Catechism, Church teaching concedes to Caesar the right and duty to order society for the common good and an authority proper to him and not derived from the bishops. This does not mean he can, like Stalin, do whatever he likes since the Pope has no divisions. But it does mean that it is normatively up to Caesar to make the judgement call when a war is not clearly an immoral act. The bishops have not, contrary to what you say, issued any "official Church teachings" on war with Iraq. They have presented what amounts to their collective opinion, along with a big fat caveat that clearly and explicitly says, "We offer not definitive conclusions, but rather our serious concerns and questions in the hope of helping all of us to reach sound moral judgments. People of good will may differ on how to apply just war norms in particular cases, especially when events are moving rapidly and the facts are not altogether clear."

In short, the bishops are giving doctrine only insofar as they are saying, "Here are the tools called 'Just War theory' which the Church provides us with (CCC 2309). After this, they then use those tools to do their own bit of cogitating on this particular circumstance of the proposed war with Iraq. They say, in effect, "We don't think the case for war is all that great." But then, they make extremely clear that they are not binding anybody's conscience, and are merely giving their opinion which Catholics of good will can differ on, depending on their reading of the facts on the ground in light of the Church's tradition of Just War theory. This is precisely what Weigel does--and he too acknowledges that Catholics of good will can evaluate things differently using the conceptual tools provided by the Church's Just War Tradition.

This is not cafeteria Catholicism. Nobody on either side is saying "Screw Just War theory! Let's launch an aggressive war without provocation! Let's target civilians! Let's reduce Iraq to a vast plain of glass if they shoot down a single drone!" In order for your argument the Weigel is ignoring "official Church teaching" to really hold water, you would have to show, not that Weigel reads the situation differently in light of the same Church teaching as the bishops (which the bishops themselves acknowledge is completely legitimate for him to do) but that Weigel is saying "To hell with Just War theory."

Given that Jody has decided to take up more or less permanent residence in one of my comments boxes...

and only use his own blog to post short links driving all his traffic here, I feel as though I should do something. But what? Change the name of my blog to "Mark's Home for Wayward Atheists"? Or perhaps I should just charge rent. Nah. I don't really mind Jody being here. It's just that I'm afraid his mom and dad are going to start worrying about where he is. At any rate, he's welcome to stay. And if any of the rest of you want to abandon your own blogs for the much more fascinating conviviality of mine, you are welcome to do so. Just be sure to do like Jody and post a link driving all your traffic here. All advertising is good advertising.

Josh Claybourn on Catholic Conservative Nancy Pelosi

George Weigel on the Justice of War with Iraq

In a world riven by war and Islamicist terror, the American Humanist Association stood up for the things that really matter!

Rod Dreher on The Rapture Trap

I'm glad this fine book is getting some press. Ideas have consequences, in this case, both political and spiritual. Thigpen's book is a really fine piece of work that deals, not only with loony dispensational theories of The End, but also with how to deal with various loony Catholic notions, as well as private revelations of all sizes and shapes, and interesting legends from various sources. I learned quite a bit from his work. A valuable addition for anybody who wants to get a feel for healthy Christian eschatology.

Oh, and while I'm plugging eschatological stuff, if you have 50 odd bucks burning a hole in your pocket and want to get The Best Work of Exegesis on Revelation I know of, get Scott Hahn's outstanding tape series The End. This is a million miles away from the fevered speculations of Hal Lindsey and does a terrific job of setting Revelation in the real human context of early Christianity, rooted in the liturgy (the Mass and Revelation are inseparable), in the Old Testament imagery which clearly dominates the thinking of St. John, and in the events surrounding the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. You won't get any Jeanne Dixon predictions about the European Common Market or Saddam Hussein, but you will get what is easily the most sensible reading of Revelation there is.

Looks like I'm wrong about the OBL tape

Oh well. Looks like the hunt is on again.

Pelosi is a "Conservative Catholic"

Apparently, where she comes from "liberal Catholic", means somebody who openly worships Moloch, smears themselves with bull's blood in Dionysian orgies, and channels Ramtha's dialogues with Joseph Stalin. If not, I can't for the life of me grasp what she could possibly mean by "conservative Catholic." What will you wager me she favors unrestricted abortion, women priests and the normal menu of dissents du jour common on the menu among liberal dissenters?

Sparse blogging Monday

Running the fambly here and there, taking five-year-old Sean (who is now past his Viking Phase, thankyouveddymuch, and on to his Indian Phase) round to some Indian displays at local museums. Finally, a fascination with something local! I couldn't get to a Norse fjord very easily, but we actually have real live Indians in the area (abundantly attested by our magnificent place names like Puyallup (pyoo-al-up), Snohomish, Snoqualmie, Moclips, Samamish, Tacoma, Dosewallips, Duwamish, and the many other localities I savor as they come trippingly to the tongue). I think that may come as a shock to Sean. As far as he's concerned, Indians lived long ago and far away like all other historical figures in books. Wait till he finds out Israelites are still around!

This isn't a religious war or anything

A statement attributed to Al Qaeda threatened more attacks in New York and Washington unless America stops supporting Israel and converts to Islam, an Arab TV reporter who received the unsigned document said Saturday.

Authorities are puzzling over what "converts to Islam" might mean. They downplay any suggestion that the terrorists are motivated by Islamicist ideology and emphasize that modern wars are only fought for purely material ends.

Meanwhile G.K. Chesterton sez:

There is something we all know which can only be rendered, in an appropriate language, as realpolitik. As a matter of fact, it is an almost insanely unreal politik. It is always stubbornly and stupidly repeating that men fight for material ends, without reflecting for a moment that the material ends are hardly ever material to the men who fight. In any case no man will die for practical politics, just as no man will die for pay. Nero could not hire a hundred Christians to be eaten by lions at a shilling an hour, for men will not be martyred for money. But the vision called up by realpolitik, or realistic politics, is beyond example crazy and incredible. Does anybody in the world believe that a soldier says, 'My leg is nearly dropping off, but I shall go on till it drops; for after all I shall enjoy all the advantages of my government obtaining a warm water port in the Gulf of Finland! Can anybody suppose that a clerk turned conscript says, 'If I am gassed I shall probably die in torments; but it is a comfort to reflect that should I ever decide to become a pearl-diver in the South Seas, that career is now open to me and my countrymen! Materialist history is the most madly incredible of all histories, or even of all romances. Whatever starts wars, the thing that sustains wars is something in the soul; that is something akin to religion. It is what men feel about life and about death. A man near to death is dealing directly with an absolute; it is nonsense to say he is concerned only with relative and remote complications that death in any case will end. If he is sustained by certain loyalties, they must be loyalties as simple as death. They are generally two ideas, which are only two sides of one idea. The first is the love of something said to be threatened, if it be only vaguely known as home; the second is dislike and defiance of some strange thing that threatens it. The first is far more philosophical than it sounds though we need not discuss it here. A man does not want his national home destroyed or even changed, because he can not even remember all the good things that go with it; just as he does not want his house burnt down because he can hardly count all the things he would miss. Therefore he fights for what sounds like a hazy abstraction, but is really a house.

But the negative side of it is quite as noble as well as quite as strong. Men fight hardest when they feel that the foe is at once an old enemy and an eternal stranger, that his atmosphere is alien and antagonistic; as the French feel about the Prussian or the Eastern Christians about the Turk. If we say it is a difference of religion, people will drift into dreary bickerings about sects and dogmas. We will pity them and say it is a difference about death and daylight; a difference that does really come like a dark shadow between our eyes and the day. Men can think of this difference even at the point of death; for it is a difference about the meaning of life.

Followup on the soap opera with Fr. Haley and his bishop

I mention this below. Now a source familiar with the situation tells me:

1) When the bishop found out about the situation [meaning the affair between Fr. Jim and a parishioner], he personally ordered Fr. Jim to cut off all contact with the woman. So the allegations that the bishop knew and did nothing are simply untrue (with the implication that he would only take action to punish the whistle blower).

2) People close to this have characterized Fr. Haley as extremely zealous (like a new believer) but possessing no prudence. (And we know what the Church says about how essential prudence is to achieving the good).

I must say that his actions in the matter seem to be those of a child who tattles on a sibling or classmate (who really has misbehaved)and is puzzled by the fact that the adults around him don't automatically praise him as a "good boy" for doing so.

This, coupled with some of the comments by Patrick Rothwell in the box under the previous blog severely diminish my sympathy for Fr. Haley and my outrage at the bishop.

Had a lovely fambly day today

Went to Pike Place Market and had a splendid time wandering around the shops, sticking coins in Rachel the Bronze Pig, watching the shopkeepers throw fish around, and checking out all the wonderful diversity of the human race. Ate at a nice little family restaurant, popped into Golden Age Collectibles, savored the view of the Sound.

Heck, I savored the whole day! My kids thought it was cool and so did Jan and I. If you get to Seattle, Pike Place Market is one of the places you gotta see.

Oh, and had ice cream. The poifect Sabbath!

They don't know what's killing them

Exxxxxcellent!

New Muslim 'zine promotes interreligious dialogue

A True Word was established to provide an authentic Islamic viewpoint on contemporary issues, and to actively engage the non-Muslim world in a constructive and honest dialogue of ideas. We write for both Muslims and non-Muslims.

This magazine was born of a dissatisfaction with the level of dialogue in the Muslim world. We recognized the need to bring a fresh and coherent voice to respond to the challenges we face with reasoned and accessible arguments.

At the same time, we believe that the Muslim community needs to engage in constructive self-criticism and introspection, and be open and frank as we assess our successes and shortcomings.

In supporting that aim, we will endeavour to bring to our readership high quality, original and challenging articles that do not shy away from asking tough questions and proposing innovative solutions.

If you write them, for heaven's sake, don't be a belligerent Christian. These guys sound like they are interested in trying to have an intelligent engagement with the non-Islamic world and are open to self-criticism. Remember the merits of honey vs. vinegar, y'know?

The Latest Piece is Up on Catholic Exchange

Now you know what a Verihydripples is.

I'm outta here for the weekend

Many thanks for prayers! If you think if it, remember me to Our Lord.

Andy and Jody Fight a Straw Man

... as is the custom with atheists. I wrote that the answer to a diseased spirituality is a healthy one, not the watery mix of Mammon and Hallmark cards that characterizes so much of the West. Jody and Andy, on cue, reply with Straw Man Rebuttal #325: "Maybe I'm misreading something, but what I just read came across as "Secularism is weaker than fanaticism, so let's replace one fanatical spirituality with another fanatical spirituality - mine."

To which, of course, the reply is, "Of course you are misreading it. And if you took just a little time to think about that, you'd know it." But apparently they could not resist the tempation to just burp off rounds rather than think. I did not say that the answer to a fanatical spirituality is more fanaticism. I said the answer to a diseased spirituality (one that, for instance, has absolutely no room for religious liberty) is a healthy spirituality (one that, for instance, can produce a teaching like Dignitatis Humanae, which people tempted to cheap shots and shallow arguments should really familiarize themselves with).

What will never provide a sufficient response to Islam is precisely what Andy and Jody propose, a civilization founded on drinking lattes, reading newspapers and jeering.

Oh, and by the way, bin Laden's God is not "make believe". It is atheists who have to argue that 99.9% of the human race is absolutely wrong about the thing that matters to it most. Catholics can and do affirm that other theists have gotten *something* right, however much they have gotten other things wrong. If you took the trouble to find out what the Church teaches before talking about it, you'd know She teaches "841. "'The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day.'[LG 16; cf. NA 3.]" This is hardly an affirmation that the God worshipped by Muslims is "make believe." Bin Laden's God is real enough. It's bin Laden's idea's about Him that are screwy.

Justin Katz on Commonweal on St. Blog's

Still haven't seen the piece myself.

On not making the Dem's mistake

One of the things that sank the Dems was obsession with the past. They stopped having anything to say, because they were so obsessed with "overturning 2000" and other historical grievances. It's the same mentality that makes the Balkans the happy land you see today. Catholics pissed at our bishops and their failure to face up to their misdeeds now face a similar choice. You can chew the cud over the fact that bishops who have done wrong will, in some cases, not really appreciate the consequences of that before they stand before their Maker and kvetch endlessly that things did not turn out as you hoped, growing more and more bitter in the process. Or, you can move on, labor for the renewal of the Church in your little sphere, have hope, and grow in God with something to offer those around you. We live in a world that doesn't measure up to what we'd hoped for. That's life outside the Garden.

Me: I've learned from watching the Dems how to lose. I don't want to lose, especially when the prize is eternal life. Amy is right. Time to move on. We do what we can, not what we can't.

Comparative Cartooning

Scholars announced today that the legendary roots of the "Mouse Event" have been definitively proven. In a shocking revelation, a seven hundred year old fresco bearing an uncanny similarity to Mickey Mouse showed definitively that the long-accepted paradigm held by Disney traditionalists was in profound crisis.

According to Disney tradition, Mickey Mouse was "created" by "Walt Disney" c 1928 and leapt into popularity due to the efforts of a team of "cartoonists". Today's discovery, however, throws that commonly accepted myth into grave doubt.

"Clearly, the similarities are too great for this to be a coincidence. The entire historicity of the Mouse Event is now open to question," said Robert Funky, of the Mouse Seminar, in an interview with Larry King earlier today. "Indeed, we would argue that the Mickey we have come to accept today cannot be seriously believed in my any thinking person. And if he is in doubt, what are we to make of the outdated concept of 'Walt Disney'? Surely nobody today thinks there is a real mustachioed man who can allegedly draw thousands upon thousands of little tiny movie frames that only vary slightly from one another? Give me a break!"

Critics of the traditional Disney account of the origins of Mickey Mouse argue that the historical origins of the famous Mouse are shrouded in mystery, and probably find roots in such diverse sources as fairy tales, myth and legend. They agree with each other that it is simply impossible to trace the Mouse Event back to something as simplistic as "Walt Disney."

"Oh, it's a servicable enough notion for children and simple folks, I suppose." said John Dominic Hotcrossbun, who who holds the Iscariot Chair in Comparative Cartooning at RuPaul University, "but those of us who are truly educated can't accept such things at face value any more. This fresco simply lends weight to our theories."

Big Brother on the March in England

"People should not have to go through life being subjected to abuse because of who they are or what they believe in," says the irony-impaired Commander Cressida Dick of the (I'm not making this up) Diversity Directorate, adding, "You there! Stop laughing at my name! That's it! You're busted for sexual harrassment!"

Right thinking will be rewarded. Wrong thinking will be punished.

Me: I don't want Caesar punishing people for hating me. I want Caesar punishing people if they hurt me.

Yeah, I understand that there are "personalities" involved here

Like the case with the dumb priest who had kids wear nylons as an icebreaker and was subsequently threatened with bodily harm by some parents, you're looking at a relationship with a History here. Sources tell me that Fr. Haley is Not an Easy Person to Get Along With and exhibits some rather annoying Lidless Eye qualities that have made him a royal pain in the ass to people unfortunate enough to have to deal with him on a daily basis.

So the insta-template of Brave Priest vs. Craven Bishop doesn't explain everything here. But you know what? The bishop is still wrong, I think. Fr. Haley had information pertinent to the case and, since it was not protected by the Seal of the Confessional, Caesar has every right to ask for that info in order to make a just judgment. Clergy are not above the law.

UPDATE: On the other hand, reading the comments below, I wonder if the priest isn't even more of a prick than I'd thought. There's "obeying the law" and there's "glorying in salacious gossip". I'm gonna reserve judgment on the bishop's actions till I know more.

And here's the Bishops' Statement of Committment

About fraternal correction, they are non-committal.

I estimate 40 years before the vast majority of the people they hope to influence takes them seriously as moral guides again. I'll listen to them, because I'm a gung-ho Catholic fanatic who distinguishes between the person and the Tradition he is trying to articulate. But most people don't do this. That's life in the real world, your eminences. Exhibit A: your ignored teaching on the coming war. Nobody's listening to you.

From the "Strange Bedfellows" files

Andrew Greeley, of all people, springs to the defense of the revised norms. Unlike Lawler, he's not focusing in this article on what bishops should do about themselves when they are idiots, but what they are going to do about abuse, lay panels and all. And he mostly likes what he sees.

Odd world.

Philip Lawler on our Hapless Bench of Bishops

I begin to see why the Israelites wandered for 40 years after refusing to take the Promised Land. Sometimes you just have to wait for the old generation of cowards to die out. Well, like Amy said, what's done is done. Face reality, soldier on.

Fight Terrorism, Have Babies

The Pope continues to prove he read this blog. Rod Dreher was saying this just yesterday in my comments down below. Love ya, Holy Father!

Ann Coulter is just so fun

Yes, she's a bomb thrower. So was Tom Paine. I can't help but enjoy her anyway. Bomb throwers have their place in the political discourse of a nation. I hope the Dems follow her advice to the letter. I applaud the choice of Pelosi. We need more like her at the helm of the Dem party.

This is, in fact, rather close to what I think is going on
Why is it so far-fetched that somebody could have been recruited to do a bin Laden impression?
Modern secular Westerners have got to get over the idea that they are smarter than everybody else, as though nobody in the entire Muslim world would be capable of doing what Rich Little and thousands of other impressionists have done for a living. It leaves us unprepared for meeting clever people, whether they live in previous ages or in other cultures. And it leaves them wholly unable to deal with wisdom. We start thinking that our ability to make blenders makes us 2000 years smarter than the apostles and makes us invulnerable to clever people with box cutters.

I swear, I knew nothing about this speech when I blogged the previous blog

Nice to see the Pope is on my wavelength. I've long suspected he reads my blog. This just proves it.

Here's a passage from the "War of the Gods and the Demons" in the Everlasting Man...

that has haunted me since the war began. It's about the defeat of Carthage by Rome, when it was an absolute slam dunk that Rome was on the ropes and was sure to be destroyed by the overwhelming military superiority of Carthage:

In the whole world one thing still threatened Carthage, and that was Carthage. There still remained the inner working of an element strong in all successful commercial states, and the presence of a spirit that we know. There was still the solid sense and shrewdness of the men who manage big enterprises; there was still the advice of the best financial experts; there was still business government; there was still the broad and sane outlook of practical men of affairs; and in these things could the Romans hope. As the war trailed on to what seemed its tragic end, there grew gradually a faint and strange possibility that even now they might not hope in vain. The plain business men of Carthage, thinking as such men do in terms of living and dying races, saw clearly that Rome was not only dying but dead. The war was over; it was obviously hopeless for the Italian city to resist any longer, and inconceivable that anybody should resist when it was hopeless. Under these circumstances, another set of broad, sound business principles remained to be considered. Wars were waged with money, and consequently cost money; perhaps they felt in their hearts, as do so many of their kind, that after all war must be a little wicked because it costs money. The time had now come for peace; and still more for economy. The messages sent by Hannibal from time to time asking for reinforcements were a ridiculous anachronism; there were much more important things to attend to now. It might be true that some consul or other had made a last dash to the Metaurus, had killed Hannibal's brother and flung his head, with Latin fury, into Hannibal's camp; and mad actions of that sort showed how utterly hopeless the Latins felt about their cause. But even excitable Latins could not be so mad as to cling to a lost cause forever. So argued the best financial experts; and tossed aside more and more letters, full of rather queer alarmist reports. So argued and acted the great Carthaginian Empire. That meaningless prejudice, the curse of commercial states, that stupidity is in some way practical and that genius is in some way futile, led them to starve and abandon that great artist in the school of arms, whom the gods had given them in vain.

Why do men entertain this queer idea that what is sordid must always overthrow what is magnanimous; that there is some dim connection between brains and brutality, or that it does not matter if a man is dull so long as he is also mean? Why do they vaguely think of all chivalry as sentiment and all sentiment as weakness? They do it because they are, like all men, primarily inspired by religion. For them, as for all men the first fact is their notion of the nature of things; their idea about what world they are living in. And it is their faith that the only ultimate thing is fear and therefore that the very heart of the world is evil. They believe that death is stronger than life, and therefore dead things must be stronger than living things; whether those dead things are gold and iron and machinery or rocks and rivers and forces of nature. It may sound fanciful to say that men we meet at tea tables or talk to at garden-parties are secretly worshippers of Baal or Moloch. But this sort of commercial mind has its own cosmic vision and it is the vision of Carthage. It has in it the brutal blunder that was the ruin of Carthage. The Punic power fell, because there is in this materialism a mad indifference to real thought. By disbelieving in the soul, it comes to disbelieving in the mind. Being too practical to be moral it denies what every practical soldier calls the moral of an army. It fancies that money will fight when men will no longer fight. So it was with the Punic merchant princes. Their religion was a religion of despair, even when their practical fortunes were hopeful. How could they understand that the Romans could hope even when their fortunes were hope less? Their religion was a religion of force and fear; how could they understand that men can still despise fear even when they submit to force? Their philosophy of the world had weariness in its very heart; above all they were weary of warfare; how should they understand those who still wage war even when they are weary of it? In a word, how should they understand the mind of Man, who had so long bowed down before mindless things, money and brute force and gods who had the hearts of beasts? They awoke suddenly to the news that the embers they had disdained too much even to tread out were again breaking everywhere into flames; that Hasdrubal was defeated that Hannibal was outnumbered, that Scipio had carried the war into Spain; that he had carried it into Africa. Before the very gates of the golden city Hannibal fought his last fight for it and lost; and Carthage fell as nothing has fallen since Satan. The name of the New City remains only as a name. There is no stone of it left upon the sand.

Tangential thought: This is not my way of saying we will lose in Iraq. We won't. But it is my way of saying that I'm not at all confident of the West's ability to cope with Islam over the long haul. As time passes, I think that the West's materialist and secularlist philosophy will prove inadequate to meet the challenge of Islam over the long haul, just as Carthage's "practicality" proved incapable of dealing with real life. The West's attempt to hold to a watery spirituality combined with the worship of Mammon cannot vanquish a fanatical spirituality. The answer to the diseased spirituality of Islam is the healthy spirituality of the gospel. Only the truth of the gospel can do it, for only the gospel is eternal. Islam will, I think, force the West to either return to its Catholic roots or to perish.

This is hopeful

Also extraordinary was the Iranian student who contacted me by email, wishing to know all he could about Jesus and Christianity and eager to take whatever I could refer him to and translate it back into Farsi for his fellow students and teachers, who were also sick of Islam and deeply curious about the Faith. There are things going on under the ice over there. I sometimes wonder how strong Islam really is and whether a lot of it wouldn't cave in if it did not have the might of the state compelling adherence to it.

A reader sez...

Check out today's Goldberg File. I think it makes a very good point. The question he asks is essentially this: How does war against Iraq become moral just because Cameroon and Syria are now on our side? How does war become moral because we bought off France and Russia?

This is the question someone needs to ask our bishops, both here and in Rome.

If always had problems with the "UN, not US, as competent authority" argument. What carries more weight for me is the question of whether the benefits of the war are likely to be greater than if it had been left unfought. It's not a slam dunk that the region will be more stable afterwards. But since I'm not privy to intelligence information, what do I know?

Book burners cutters for Jesus

More Christians wasting time worrying about Harry Potter and being totally ignorant of Phillip Pullman's His Dark Materials trilogy.

A press release for people who are trying to think of something nice to do for a priest they love

WEB SITE TO BOOST MORALE OF ETHICAL PRIESTS GARNERS EARLY SUCCESS

LOUISVILLE, KY - In just its first three months of operation, the www.thankyoufather.com Web site has welcomed more than 25,000 visitors and received approximately 2500 letters.

"This site has greatly exceeded our expectations, because we thought this would be just a small way for Louisville area Catholics to say thanks to their favorite priest," said Rick Redman, one of the site's creators. "Now, we've received letters from all over the world. It's been nothing short of amazing."

Thankyoufather.com was started to provide Catholics in the Archdiocese of Louisville an opportunity to send special uplifting messages to priests who have ethically and diligently ministered to the community over the years. However, when the site received international media attention, letters started pouring in from all over the world.

"We've received letters from New Zealand, Australia, Spain, Italy, Brazil, Vietnam and India, just to name a few," added Joe Lilly, another of the site's creators. "Plus, the local letters are still coming in. We were especially pleased with a group of letters we recently received from second graders at a local elementary school. It shows that people or all ages are appreciative of the good and ethical priests who serve us every day."

Reaction to the site from priests has been extremely positive. One wrote, "I am one of those moved to tears on occasion, so touched by what I read --not only by postings I recognize as directed to me, but by postings which evidence the faith and support of the People of God and which highlight the faithful service of so many of my brothers in the priesthood. I just wanted you to know, from me, how profound an impact your love-in-action has made on me and how your support lifts and energizes me. "

The site does not, and will not, directly address the abuse crisis. Organizers agree that victims of abuse must receive justice. However, they stress that during this time, it's also appropriate to recognize that the vast majority of priests have been true to their vows to live a Christ-like life. "The best thing people can do is to thank priests personally," added Redman, "but this site has been added encouragement to all those good priests who shepherd us in our faith journey."

George Weigel on Rome's revision of the Norms

So the priest, the minister, the rabbi, the penguin and the dancing bear walk into the bar...

...the bartender says, "What is this? Some kind of joke?"

An interesting moral question

A reader sez:

Last week, I think, there was a particularly noisy thread on your blog about abortion.

One commenter was outraged about the "fact" that the Catholic church wouldn't allow Catholic doctors to do anything about a 13-year-old girl that had been raped and just came in to the hospital. She'd just have to carry the child to term.

Well, I don't think the objection captures the nuance of the Catholic position. The way I understand it, from reading several "conservative" Catholic medical ethics texts, there's some room for the doctor to give the patient a postcoital birth control pill with the intent that conception not take place, if the doctor knows that conception hasn't yet taken place. The male's sperm has no right to be where it is, and the act of intercourse was obviously not within the context of a marriage. So this isn't contraception in the sense that the Church opposes.

However, this would not work for someone who came in, having been raped sometime earlier, and was now, say, 10 weeks pregnant.

John Finnis, Benedict Ashley, Kevin D. O'Rourke, and some others, take this position. I can get you the citations if you're interested.

I don't know enough about the technology or about moral theology to make an intelligent assessment here. Offhand, it sounds as though such medication, if it does not act as an abortifacient, is legitimate. Any input from people who actually know something about moral theology and/or the technology is welcome. Light, not heat, folks.

My rabbi acquaintance, Andrew Sullivan and Cardinal Law

People are complex. I know a rabbi who makes very good sense about 95% of the time. The other 5% of the time, he holds to daffy ideas about "Bible codes" or regards mass transit plans (a very live issue out here in Seattle) as a harbinger of totalitarianism. Does this mean I should ignore his sensible conversation because I think some of his opinions are cracked? No.

Exhibit B: Andrew Sullivan. My description of his blog says it all: "Sensible About the War and Bush, Hopelessly Fuddled about Catholicism and Sex". If you want to hear some very insightful ideas about American politics and the war, Sullivan's your guy. If you want to hear blithering idiocy about the Catholic faith, Sullivan's your guy. People are, I say, complex.

So with Cardinal Law. Before he became famous for his disastrous idiocy with priestly abusers, he was rather well-known for other things too, including his very good work in many areas of social justice (particularly in the civil rights movement in the 60s). It is very simple--and wrong--to conclude that his idiocy in one place automatically means he has nothing to say about anything ever. People are complex.

More like him, please

My pal Pavel Chichikov...

in addition to beiing a fine poet, is also a fine photographer.



He writes:

I've been photographing at the Basilica of the Shrine of the Immaculate Conception here in Washington DC. I recently offered the Shrine as a gift one of the prints (see below), a photograph, about 10 X 8, of Our Lady of Vailankanni, an Indian representation of the Blessed Virgin and Child. The Shrine isn't interested in having it. I'm willing to give it to any party, not private, who would give it a home. It's free of charge, and would be autographed in the margin. The only other person to have a copy is a Benedictine monk who administers a parish in Baltimore. I'm going to send a smaller version to a PIME priest in Mitapaly, Andra Pradesh, India.

For more samples of Pavel's photography, go here. There's 20 images.

People say there's nothing sacred...

but it ain't so. If you want to know what people hold sacred, it's very easy to determine: see what they regard as blasphemy. Chesterton observed long ago that we only blaspheme what we hold sacred. Try thinking a blasphemous thought about Loki or Odin. It wouldn't even occur to most people. Likewise, routine spitting on the commandment not to take the Lord's name in vain doesn't even exercise TV networks anymore. That's because God is not sacred to the chattering classes. But that doesn't mean there's no such thing as blasphemy for them. As a reader writes:

You know, I saw "Midway" on TNT not too long ago, and Turner's station had not bleeped a single blasphemous oath - but there was a "bleep" every other sentence. You know what the Forbidden Word was?

"Japs". Despite that movie's careful treatment of the internment camps, the whole sub-plot with the heroic pilot's Nisei girlfriend and all, and the niggling (oh, forgive THAT word!) detail that everybody called them "Japs" at the time...

It says something to our credit as a people that we do regard racial epithets as blasphemous (and therefore regard equality under the law as sacred). I don't poo poo that. But I do note that this sacred dogma of human equality exists more or less in isolation from any serious philosophical framework. It is a custom, not a intelligent and thought-out principle, and 9 Americans out of 10 would not know how to defend it if it came under serious and sustained intellectual attack. They assume--wrongly, as Jefferson did--that equality is "self-evident" when, in fact, it is no such thing. It is a mystical dogma having roots in the Judeo-Christian tradition and in nothing else. I am not at all confident it will survive long if the same culture that thinks nothing of blaspheming the God who made us equal continues on its present course. Remove the foundation, the house falls. For more on this, see my piece "We Hold These Truths to be Self-Evident".

The Gospel According to Johann Sebastian Bach

It's fascinating to me, as a former Evangelical with the culture of "If you can't articulate it verbally, it's not really advancing the gospel" still coursing through my veins, that two of the greatest missionaries in the world are J.S. Bach, who communicates the Majesty through music and J.R.R. Tolkien, whose fiction is miraculous in its ability to somehow open hearts to the Catholic faith without ever mentioning Christ or God. Sacramentality at its finest.

I love the curious ecumenical cooperation of Bach and St. Francis Xavier too! Thrilling!

I love stuff like this

I need to make myself over into a super hero. Input from readers would be appreciated here. Super powers, costume design, origin story, mission in life, fatal flaw, faithful sidekick, and, of course, name ideas would all be appreciated.

Lay Involvement, Book of Acts Style

Now in these days when the disciples were increasing in number, the Hellenists murmured against the Hebrews because their widows were neglected in the daily distribution. 2 And the twelve summoned the body of the disciples and said, “It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables. 3 Therefore, brethren, pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we may appoint to this duty. 4 But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.” 5 And what they said pleased the whole multitude, and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolaus, a proselyte of Antioch. 6 These they set before the apostles, and they prayed and laid their hands upon them. (Acts 6:1-6).

Several things are worth noting here. First, Luke has no problem either with lay involvement in governance (d'ja catch that the occasion of the invention of the diaconate was ethnic bitching among "Hellenists" (Greek-speaking Jews)_and Hebrew-speaking Jews?). He also takes it for granted that the apostles have the final word, but not the *only* word in who gets named to the diaconate. That will offend hard-core authoritarian types who have the vague notion that post-Tridentine models of governance are eternal in the same way that Jesus and the apostles must always have spoken King James English.

Also worth noting is the language of the apostles as they describe their understanding of their role (and, by extension, the role of the bishop): "It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables." A bishop who said that today would be fried by all the pissed-off people who would insert the lecture on "Jesus the Servant Who Washed the Feet of the Disciples" in the tape player and let fly. Indeed, I don't doubt there are some who would see in these words the dreaded birth of clericalism. It would take scarcely a movement of the grey matter to spout such rhetoric. We'd hear endless cataracts of stuff about how bishops should be down in the trenches, working in soup kitchens, doing the Dorothy Day thing and so forth. Along with lots of stuff about the uselessness of theology and preaching and sacraments when the true gospel is only found in Service, etc.

And yet, it would be wrong. The apostles did not see their primary task as soup ladlers. The bishop is indeed called to serve the people. But his service is primarily, as the apostles teach, in "preaching the word of God". To be sure, he must also live the word of God. But there are many ways to do this besides soup kitchens.

I note that simply to point out that, yet again, Scripture refuses to simple confirm anybody's simple ideology, rhetoric and prejudice.

The problem is that, today, we don't have bishops or laity who seem to really believe as the folks in the book of Acts did. The New Testament sees the members of the Church as *members* of one body, literally body parts. We seem to operate in a quasi-Marxist framework which assumes that, when all's said and done, the clergy are the bourgeoisie and we are laity are the proletariat engaged in eternal class war. (Newspapers are especially fond of this framework.) Thus, getting lay input is, by definition, good because we manifest the charism of the Wisdom of the Voters or the Vanguard of History. Bishops, even if they weren't the dunderheads we have, would still be a monarchical imposition on our Jeffersonian lay goodness. No thought is given to the fact that we--we laity--lionized men like Paul Shanley for years and have proven ourselves just as incompetent to judge the things of God as some of our bishops.

Somehow we have to return to the theology of the body of Christ that dominates the entire thought of the New Testament. I don't know how to do that. But Acts 6 shows there is room for it in the Tradition. It begins, in the words of George Weigel, with "Fidelity. Fidelity. Fidelity."

McPaper Follows the LA Times Template of Presuming Accusation Equals Guilt

A reader writes:

Yesterday (11.11.02), USA Today had a long article and several related articles on priest sex abuse. Their staff has clearly done a lot of research and there were some very enlightening points. (Sample: less than 1% of priests serving in dioceses since 1965 have been accused; 1 in 10 accused priests account for more than half of the known allegations; 40% of those accused have been accused by just one person.)

The thing that I just could not understand was: USA Today published a list of EVERY priest they could find a record of being accused of abuse -- not those proved, not discriminating on the basis of amount of evidence -- just, there's a record of an accusation against you somewhere that we could locate, your name is now in print in USA Today as one of the accused.

I cannot see the point and it strikes me as grossly unfair to the priests. Here's the story (scroll down a bit) -- I'll be interested to see if you have any comments on your blog.

She then adds:

Here's the letter to the Editor that I just sent USA Today:

To the Editor:
Your article headlined "Facts of Priest Sex Abuse at Odds with Perception," published 11.11.02 was indeed very informative. As a Catholic, I especially appreciate your publication's effort to make an in-depth investigation into this horrible scandal. It was especially interesting, for example, to have it documented that such a large percentage of the (so far) reported abuse comes from a relatively small percentage of priests.

That said, I could not understand the rationale for publishing the names of all of the accused priests. SOME OF THOSE MEN ARE INNOCENT. Ironically, one of your headlines in a related article read, ''I'm Innocent,' but reputation is ruined, accused says.'

Exactly. I cannot understand what would be the purpose of printing the names of men who may be entirely innocent. If they are being unjustly accused, you have now nationalized and memorialized the smear.

If the point is to hold the bishops' feet to the fire for following up on cases, I am all for that. Couldn't that be accomplished by listing the NAMES OF THE BISHOPS and how many outstanding cases they have? Because it's odd, the dioceses are named, the priests are named, but not the bishops. (A few are named in the text of the story, but not systematically listed in the "database" you published.)

I want the guilty to pay, believe me -- both priests and bishops. And I believe the press has a very positive role to play in remedying this despicable abuse. (I also think the press reaction compares favorably with Church officials.)

I just cannot understand the editorial rationale for publishing, without regard to the amount or quality of evidence, the name of every priest who has been accused.

Are you also compiling a database of Boy Scout Troop Masters who have been ACCUSED of abuse? Will you be publishing the names of all of those men? What about Big Brother volunteers or pre-school employees? Or, how about a database of Protestant clergy who've been accused of adultery -- will we see those names in print?

It's true that too many lives have been and are being ruined by this horrible problem and its cover-up. But slandering the innocent only adds to the price.

Nice to see responsible journalism not fanning the flames of a witchhunt mentality.

Witch hunts can and do happen, you know. Here's a bleedin' ugly one that happened in Seattle's back yard.

Very good!

And I'm hopeful over Lott's aggressiveness on a partial birth abortion ban. Let's not panic because the Bushies are taking measured steps. I'm willing--for now--to trust it will happen. If they piss away this chance altogether however, I'll be disgusted.

"He has cast down the mighty in their arrogance"

and lifted up a sassy guy who refused to be put in his place by the insular mainstream media. Congrats, Drudge! Who could not love such a David v. Goliath story as your life?

Great and Terrible Os Speaks from Beyond Grave

Yeah? Lemme see him. Put up or shut up.

Man is the only creature capable of building Auschwitz. Man is also the only creature capable of going to its gas chambers singing praises to God

I am reminded of that when I read this. For this Muslim woman, I am hopeful that the favorable judgment of God will meet her in the person of the Lord Jesus, who goes with her to her cross. I hope the Nigerian gov't can stop the Bronze Age thugs. But if it can't I remain hopeful that one with such a trust in God will not be denied by our Lord. "When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. .They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them 16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus." (Romans 2:14-15). Whatever happens, may she find love and welcome from the true God which was denied her by worshippers of a cartoon god.

Prophets and Priests

We Americans respect prophets but not priests. That is, we respect people who bear authentic witness to a personally experienced truth that has changed their lives. We do not have much regard for priests, that is: the custodians of a Tradition which they neither invented nor have the power to change. Indeed, so deep is the American regard for prophets that we tend to talk as though every religious teacher is a prophet wannabe, even when he's obviously just a priest. This confusion can lead to problems.

So, f'rinstance, when the bishops come out with a perfectly legitimate statement opposing the war with Iraq (lots of Catholics of good will do), it's regarded with scorn simply because the person who's heading up the project is Cardinal Law. This is understandable, of course, and the bishops should really think about how such things will play with the audience they are trying to sway. But at the same time, we Catholics have to bear in mind that, insofar as the bishops are trying to articulate the Tradition, it matters not a whit what their personal morality or lack thereof is. Their personal morality or lack thereof doesn't alter what the Tradition sez, and there are some sound arguments, based on Just War doctrine, being put forward by faithful Catholics who are opposed to war with Iraq. I incline to disagree with them, but I respect them. Love ya, Rod. But insofar as Cardinal Law et al, articulate those arguments based on the Tradition, they should be given a hearing, not dismissed.

Just as important though, we should not encourage the idea that our attentiveness to a bishop's articulation of the Tradition should fluctuate with his personal morality. If I have a bad bishop, and he articulates the Creed, I am still bound to believe the Creed. (Obviously prudential judgements like war with Iraq are not the Creed, but the doctrine which underlies those judgements is still something we have to pay attention to.)

That said, you gotta wonder how the bishops could be so clueless as to expect the majority of American not to laugh at such a weighty message in the mouth of so absurd a messenger.

Just a point of consolation for Catholics

Nitwittery within the Church is usually a watered down version of nitwittery in the culture. When extreme ascetism was in vogue in the patristic period you had nutcases like Phibionites outside the Church and watered down nuts for ascetism like Tertullian within (till he left). When Calvinism was all the rage without, you had Jansenism within. And now (just to console you) it's worth pointing out that for all their idiocy, the Catholic bishops don't seem to be able to hold a candle to this guy (a Methodist) or Bishop Spong. How many tired cliches, condescensions, and bell-bottomed trousered theological fads of yesteryear can *you* spot in this warmed over bit of grooviness?

It's twaddle like this that inspired me to write By What Authority?

Hold off on that Tithing Boycott Crusade!

As an American I am in love with the idea of easy fixes, etc. So I suggested below the withholding of tithes in corrupt dioceses. I spoke too soon.

Fr. Paul (a very fine priest) writes in my comments box:

I just took over as pastor of a parish that was deeply divided by the arrogance of the previous pastor. Nothing scandalous, he was just a jerk. Several members of the parish organized a boycott - collections went down and the diocesan annual appeal met only half the goal for two years running. Meanwhile, the pastor doubled the payroll. In two years, the parish managed to accumulate $100k in debt, mainly owed to the diocese.

So tonight, I get to break it to the parish council that we're screwed: either I beg the diocese to forgive the debts (not likely), or we cut staff and bundle up on Sundays because we can't repair the heaters.

That's what boycotts do. And they're useless on the diocesan level. If we don't meet our assessments and appeals, it comes out of the parish collection anyway. IOW: you'll only end up destroying your local parish.

I replied:

Fr. Paul:

What if you tithe *only* to your local parish and stipulate the money can only be used in-house?

Fr. Paul writes back:

Mark: it can't be done. The diocese takes its "tax" regardless. First, we have our "assessment" which is based on offertory - something like 10%. The catch is that it is based on "estimated" offertory, which means if you have a situation like I do, where the offertory dropped off 30-50% because of the previous pastor, I still get taxed on what we should have been bringing in.

Then we have our Annual Appeal, which is ostensibly independent (the diocese asks each family to send in 1% of gross income), but will be assessed from the parish if not met. It still has to be paid, and if a pastor blows it off, he can look for another job.

Lovely, isn't it?

One catch about tithing only to the parish: in some cases you can give directly to projects in the parish without it being taxed. In my case, people give to the "school of religion" which is not taxed. But general offertory income is considered taxable.

A better alternative, and more of an answer to your original blog, is to give to "foundations" that can be targeted. My family has a CRUT (charitable remainder trust) that is currently with the diocese but we're about to switch over to a "Catholic Foundation". This foundation is independent of the diocese (but run by priests within it). It has two advantages: 1) it is protected from sex-abuse settlements, and 2) we can "target" it if we so choose (e.g. designating the funds to be used for seminary or scholarships or some such).

So, for those thinking about boycotting, two things: 1) don't decrease the tithe to your local parish. You'll only destroy it (unless, of course, you consider that a good thing). 2) If you are not happy with your bishop, then look into targeted tithing rather than the Annual Appeal. It will still hurt your parish (so maybe increase your local giving), but it will send a definite message to the bishop.

No easy answers here.

One final comment: the liability insurance rates in my diocese, used mainly to cover sex-abuse cases, have gone up 444%. Plus, we couldn't get as much as we had in the past. And we're a "fortunate" diocese that doesn't have the problems of Boston or LA. Guess how those increased premiums will be paid? From the health insurance premiums that parishes pay on employees. IOW, from the parish collection.

We're all in this together.

Hitchens on the lame "chicken hawk" school of argument

I've always thought the "Unless you have personal experience, you must not be allowed to have an opinion" school of argument was pushed way too hard. Yes, parents are probably better people to go to for advice on parenting than childless theoreticians. Yes, there is the reality that clueless academics know less about car repair than somebody who's done it. But really. Does anybody in the world think "Unless you've had cancer, you have no right to diagnose it or operate on it. Unless you've been in a car accident, you have no right to teach traffic safety. Unless you've been a soldier, you have no business talking about war." Unfortunately, with the last point lots of people thinks this, meaning that they want to exclude most of the population from the discussion.

I note, as well, that pro-abortion zealots routinely make appeals to this line of reasoning as well, as though nobody can make moral judgments about the morality of abortion if they aren't a woman. What this presupposes, of course, is that men and women are subject to different moralities. You might as well argue that women have no right to make moral judgments about rape since they just can't possibly understand the emotional and psychological pressures that drive men. It's a stupid way to approach moral reasoning.

Barbara Tuchman in The March of Folly

writes about the six Renaissance Pope who helped to provoke the Reformation:

The folly of the popes was no pursuit of counter-productive policy so much as rejection of any steady or coherent policy either political or religious that would have imporoved their situation or arrested the rising discontent. Disregard of the movements and sentiments developing around them was a primary folly. They were deaf to disaffection, blind to the alternative ideas it gave rise to, blandly impervious to challenge, unconcerned by the dismay at their misconduct and the rising wrath at their misgovernment, fixed in refusal to change, almost stupidly stubborn in maintaining a corrupt existing system. They could not change it because they were part of it, grew out of it, depended on it.

... No understanding of the protest, no recognition of their own unpopularity or vulnerability, disturbed the six minds. Their view of the interests of the institution they were appointed to govern was so short-sighted as to amount almost to perversity. They possessed no sense of spiritual mission, provided no meaningful religious guidance, performed no moral service for the Christian world.

Their three outstanding attitudes -- obliviousness to the growing disaffection of constituents, primacy of self-aggrandizement, illusion of invulnerable status -- are persistent aspects of folly. While in the case of the Renaissance popes, these were bred in and exaggerated by the surrounding culture, all are independent of time and recurrent in governorship.

American episcopacy: Read and learn.

Rod, the only guarantor of the bishops' compliance is going to be Caesar

"When you neglect the Big Laws, you don't get freedom. You don't even get anarchy. You get the small laws." - G.K. Chesterton

If the bishops continue to neglect the Big Laws about Not Raping Little Boys and Not Protecting Those Who Do then Caesar will be the only guarantor left that they don't get away with that. It's Caesar's job, after all, to punish people who rape little boys and obstruct justice. Look for lots of legislation, some of it sensible, a great deal of it draconian, micromanaging, and absurd, from Caesar, if the bishops refuse to get a clue.

Domenico Bettinelli on the LA Times on Rome

The LA Times obliges me by demonstrating what I was talking about in the "At the end of the day..." blog. They imagine lay review boards are "emasculated" because Rome points out what could always and only be the case: that the local bishop is the final word in his diocese. They also demonstrate that Assyrians, while useful cudgels in the hand of God for wayward Israel, are not good people to turn to for theological insights. Indeed, they don't even seem to have grasped English common law:

Among other things, the group emphasized priests' rights of presumed innocence, and it clarified the definition of sexual abuse.

This the LA Times thinks is bad, thereby implicitly arguing for presumption of guilt and for not having a clear idea of what constitutes sexual abuse.

The press, like Assyria, have played an essential role in bringing God's wayward Church to heel. They may continue to do that for a while. But don't forget that many, if not most, of the press do not love the Church and do not love God. It's a disconnect that always has to be borne in mind and little items like this are reminders of it. The primary goal of the media is to sell shampoo and and to hawk whatever the agenda might be of the few rich men and women who run it.

Good Morning! For your reading pleasure...

I have a couple of new pieces up on my site (scroll down and look for the stuff marked "New"). Consider them my clever way of distracting you from my minimal blogging today as I try to catch up on other stuff.

UPDATE: I fixed the code problem that was giving you "frame-in-a frame" annoyance. It's all readable now.

Lots of people talk as though PC is the end of civilization as we know it

It's not. It's the squishiness that precedes tyranny, the Weimar powerless before Nazism, as the Netherlands demonstrates in this article. Chesterton, ever insightful, denies that tyranny is the first stage of human political evolution, followed by the long march toward representative government. He argues very persuasively in The Everlasting Man, that tyranny is what you end up with after a democracy (or some variety of representative government) gets tired. People put up with rule by force because they lack the spine and will to go on guarding their rights against the abuse of power. The Netherlands are far down that path and are ripe for capitulation to Islamicist tyranny if they don't change. The same goes for large portions of the West. If it happens it won't be a thing foreign to biblical patterns. When Israel abandoned God they didn't get anarchy, they got domination from cruel foreign power with cruel foreign gods. This obtained till Israel repented and returned to God. It wouldn't be out of character for an apostate Christendom to experience something similar till it returns to Christ. No prophecy on my part. Just an observation. And leavened by the fact that no political entity is "chosen" as the Church (and the Jews) are.

One of my commenters on the "At the end of the day..." thread wrote...

If the bishop is the final word on governance in his diocese, then he can openly defy the Pope in matters of governance. Which is false. This discussion is sounding like an apologia for dissident ecclesiastics like Archbishop Hunthausen. The last authority in the diocese, yes. The last authority in the Universal Church, no.

No. If the bishop is the final word in his diocese, he is the final word in his diocese, not in the universal Church. How you get a defense of Hunthausen out of that is beyond me. The final authority in the universal Church is, as you say, the Holy Father. But the Holy Father (at least this one) obviously does not conceive of his role in the same way that Hildebrand or Innocent III did. And that's the problem again for those who want him to kick ecclesial ass. He disagrees and refuses--not neglects, refuses--to do so.

So again, we are faced with the fact that, judging from the Pope's actions, the local bishop is to be confirmed in his ordinary role as the final word in his diocese. That's a hard saying and people are still grappling with it. But it looks like this is the reiterated teaching of Vatican II, now being confirmed by the Pope in his actions. As I've said all along, it appears to me that the Pope is trusting in the grace of the office to penetrate the thick skulls and hard hearts of some of our bishops. Dunno if it will work. But it appears that this is what the Pope is banking on. That, and the intercession of the Blessed Virgin. As JPII has made clear, the Church of Mary precedes and makes possible the Church of Peter. We don't take that seriously. But JPII does and we won't understand his actions if we don't come to realize he really believes this and is acting accordingly.

A reader writes:

I can't turn this into comment-boxable form, so I'm punting to you, perhaps hoping this can at least be grist for the mill.

Does it seem wrong, or at least odd, that people propose what boils down to a boycott of their own diocese? "If that rotten bishop doesn't do what I want, I'll just send my money elsewhere."

I have at least two problems with that. One is that this is a very American, or at least very Western, approach, giving new meaning to the term "sacramental economy". Using dollars rather than prayer and fasting as weapons . . . I don't get it. Or maybe I do. There's a lot more visceral satisfaction of showing the bums what's what in the first one. That doesn't make it a good idea.

The other, and given my own situation, perhaps more personal problem, is that even if it were effective, there'd be an awful lot of collateral damage along the way. Do you think the social outreach will be the last to go? How about stipends for retired priests? How about the expenses of the seminarians who are a necessary part of the hope for the future (that's the part that gets personal)?

It's like the people who wanted to go bomb "them" after 9/11. Somebody needed bombing, and I hope we did a good job of selecting who got it, but random violence against any vaguely Middle-Eastern looking foreigner doesn't cut it.

Am I making any sense?

Some sense. I agree that it's often counterproductive to just lash out and punish "them" without giving thought to who "they" are. Not a few of my commenters talk as though "the bishops" (that monolith) are "guilty" and need to be "punished". This is dumb. It's usually a good idea to find out if your bishop has done something wrong before you punish him for the crime of being a bishop. He might be a good one. Also, it's good to find out if your punishment is going to punish him or just punish some kid in your diocese who is getting help from some charity. Also, it's important that your punishment is not really just a way of saying, "Good! Now I can spend my tithe on that new DVD I've had my eye on." And, of course, if your bishop is demonstrating penitence (assuming he did something wrong) then some practical questions have to be addressed, such as "Are you going to eternally punish him anyway?" and "Do you want God to treat you like that for your repented sins too?" If such criteria are thought about, however, I would say that there *is* a legitimate place for laity, not to *withhold* their tithes altogether, but to direct them to something besides the coffers of a corrupt diocese that has pissed away the finances of hard-working people on things that bring the name of Christ into disrepute. Instead, direct your tithes elsewhere, to charities and ministries that are doing the work of the gospel (I suggest Mercy Corps or some prolife organization, perhaps especially on in Michigan). Lay people have precious few ways of making it clear to a corrupt bishop that his abuse of power is wrong. And they may have a positive obligation to see that their money is not used to subsidize evil. That's just my opinion, of course, and I'm open to other views if folks have them.

Are all Lidless Eye types this out of touch with reality:

"...we have found another proof of our contention that the document Reflections on Covenant and Mission issued by Cardinal Keeler and the USCCB is one in a long line of Vatican attempts to advance the Zionist agenda and change Catholic teaching."

Or is it just Bob Sungenis? Hell-O? Bob? Are you conscious? Do you remember this photo?:



Jew-bashing really seems to be the drug of choice for the Lidless Eyes. Hey! If it's old, it's gotta be part of the Tradition, right?

Popcak and Shea Together Again!

Greg Popcak and your humble scribe are releasing a really nifty four-tape set called "There's Power in the Blood: The Life Changing Power of the Eucharist." I know it was nifty cuz I was there when we recorded it together. The cost is $24.95 and you can call 1-877-PSI-3915 to order. If you enjoy our cyber-chattiness, imagine what it's like when you stick us in a room together and get us going about matters of faith and family. Big fun!

Exceptional Marriages will have the online ordering up in a week.

Rod Bennett is a delightful guy

Author of the extremely interesting and readable book Four Witnesses: The Early Church in Her Own Words, he also runs the Wonder Magazine website, which preserves lotsa stuff from the late great magazine Wonder, which he used to edit. Check it out.

Please pray for Mike!

A reader writes:

A friend of mine named Mike Rudzis needs prayers. He has four children ranging from about 3 to 14 years old, and is about 40 years old.

He has just started a bone marrow transplant to treat lymphoma which has not been conquered by any other means. If you could post something so many prayers would come his way, I would be very grateful.

Father God, please grant healing to Mike, skill to his doctors and strength and peace to Mike's family through Jesus Christ. St. Peregrine, patron of those afflicted with cancer, please intercede for Mike. Let all that you do bring your name glory. We ask this in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen!

"America is a Nation with the Soul of a Church" - G.K. Chesterton

Like no place else in the First World, America insists on investing its political leaders with religious significance. From the "America Needs JC" poster (featuring Jimmy Carter with long hair, a beard and a long white tunic like You Know Who), to Bill Clinton's grotesque claim to establish a "New Covenant" to this cringe-making bit of iconography, we tend to do this. It always makes me wince, but it's deeply American. The photo of Bush, at least is a bit of serendipity. His head happened to be in the right place at the right time. But still... ick. The man's a politician, not a saint.

At the end of the day....

Bishops are still in charge.

Appoint some FBI lady to make sure things are done according to Hoyle. She works for the bishops.

Select some review panel. They serve at the pleasure of the bishops.

Organize this or that reform movement. The bishops remain the head of the Church in their local dioceses.

Sponsor dialogues, conferences, task forces, committees, and commissions all you like.

At the end of the day, the bishop is still the final word in governance in his diocese.

It is this irreducible fact that I keep seeing people struggle with. The new FBI lady is appointed and everybody goes "Ah! Now things are gonna start happening."

Then, the next day, it dawns on people: "Waitaminnit! She works for the bishops."

Right. The bishop is the final word on governance in his diocese. This is the way Jesus set it up. You may not like that. Hell, I may not like it at the moment. But Jesus didn't consult us.

This means people are going to have to get used to thinking in some non-American ways. They are going to have to disabuse themselves of the notion this arrangement is something the bishops cooked up to keep a monopoly on power. Bad bishops would acquit themselves well if they had the grace to tender resignations (even if they are refused, as they will apparently be). They would acquit themselves well to say "Send me a co-adjutor for I am a chucklehead." But they would not acquit themselves well to say "Somebody else should be the final word on governance besides the bishop." For their task is to hand down the Tradition as Jesus gave it to us through the apostles. And one rock bottom, irreducible, non-negotiable feature of the Tradition, whether the man in the office is a saint or a jerk, is that the bishop is the final word on governance in his diocese.

It's important to remember that, because it's so easy for us mortals to throw the baby out with the bath and talk as though the bishops are "clinging to power" by holding on to the fact that they are the final word when in reality they are just doing their job in preserving that annoying feature of the Tradition. There are lots of things they can change (like, f'rinstance, how well they uphold the rest of the Tradition). But the bishop's final authority in governance is not one of them. So there's not point being outraged that lay review panels and FBI ladies work for the bishop. It's not like it could be any other way. The one who can operate independently of the bishop is Caesar. I'm all for letting Caesar do his job in cases of abusive clergy and criminal bishops. But it's silly to hope that some parallel or superior ecclesial authority to the bishop will emerge within the Church. Ain't gonna happen and *can't* happen. Jesus set things up as they are.

There are, of course, other forms of authority in the Church than ecclesial ones. But that's grist for another post.

A Fossilized Fragment of America's Anti-Catholic Heritage...

should be seen as a threat by all Christians--and swept aside.

My latest piece is up on Catholic Exchange

Why don't have a hope in the world...and that's okay!

Whoa! When Do I get to Have a Shot at a Snazzy Photo in the Jewish World Review?

Kudos and Huzzahs to St. Blog's own Eve Tushnet! You go girl!

Here's Eve basically repeating my point of yesterday:

The Republican position, broadly speaking, can be summarized as, "Follow the rules!" Republicans use textualist rhetoric, praising judges who stick to the plain sense of the law rather than enacting their own policy preferences. Justice Scalia is the most famous textualist; he's also one of the judges then-candidate George W. Bush named as his favorites.

And the Democrats? Their jurisprudential philosophy can be summed up even more quickly than that of the Republicans. It's just one word: abortion.

When everything else is sacrificed by liberals, when feminism is sacrificed by NOW to defend Bill Clinton against credible charges of rape, when the peaceniks of yesteryear are firing cruise missiles at Sudanese aspirin factories to fend off American interests from the depradations of Monica Lewinsky's testimony, when alleged death penalty opponents defend his human sacrifice of a mentally retarded prisoner in order to look "tough on crime", when the party that fought for civil rights sucks up to men as contemptuous of black interests as the creatures Sharpton and Jackson are, when triangulation, focus grouping, spin and general liberal whoredom compels liberalism to abandon every last one of its principles, one principle remains: the inviolable sacrament of abortion. It's the only real core belief of American liberalism. They have made a covenant with Death and the grave. Republican whores dally with it. But the Democratic party is married to it, a succubus that is draining the life out of the party with vampiric gripping strength.

I hope and pray our spineless and stupid Republican Party will have the moxie to say no to the covenant with death in more than mere words. God, perhaps, will again choose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise. And there is no greater party of fools than Republicans.

Jeremy Lott writes me:

I read your comments about the ossuary with the inscription James brother of Jesus and couldn't help but realize that you've fallen into the same trap of many of your co-religionists: discounting possibly one of the most profound archeological discoveries of all time (from a Catholic point of view) because of a misplaced notion of what it would mean. Please, I beg you, read this article.

Thanks for writing, Jeremy. But You mistake me. I don't have a dog in the fight either way. If it's genuine (which we'll never know) it doesn't disprove the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. It just lends credence to the Eastern Church's tradition that Joseph was a widower.

I said as much on my blog a few weeks ago. What amused me was the seizure upon it (by some polemicists) as being certainly genuine when, in reality, we just can't know that. The critic of it's genuineness is a Jewish scholar, not a Catholic. She may be right that it's not James of Jerusalem's ossuary. I think it's unfair to call it a "fake" since we don't know who carved the inscription or why. It may have had nothing to do with Jesus of Nazareth.

Anyway, the thing doesn't much move me either way, whether it's the real McCoy or not. I think it would be cool if it was genuine, but we'll never know.

By the way, I know Scott McKellar. A good guy!

A reader asks

Is there any room, in your view, for lay boards to licitly have more power? Even if a Council of bishops were to take up the question? Or is this a question that the tradition has definitively answered in the negative?

Like I say, "final voice" does not mean "only voice". I think there can and should be lay involvement in governance. In fact, my parish (Blessed Sacrament in Seattle) has attempted it, using the Dominican model of communal discernment as our own. It had mixed results, largely due to a Lidless Eye faction that took every attempt at parish meetings as an ocassion to threaten and bully and act like thugs. But I think there's room in the Tradition for it, certainly, as Amy also mentions. In fact, I think it's quite on the cards that, since cardinals need not be ordained, we will someday see lay cardinals (both male and female) and I would welcome that.

But I'm cautious about doing this sensibly and not seeing a repeat and compounding of the stupid notions that took over the American Church after Vatican II. You know, the confusion between the notion of "the people of God" and "We the People." Laity can and should be involved in governance, I think. But at the same time, this must be done in accord with the Tradition of Jesus, not the tradition of Jefferson. And the theological illiteracy of so much of the American Church means that a learning curve is goin to have to be dealt with if we don't want to absolutely guarantee making matters worse. Remember: the bishops did not get us where we are by failing to consult the laity. Laity were consulted. The problem is that the laity were primarily lawyers and psychologists. This brings me back to what I mentioned before: namely that the bishops seem to have a weakness for listening to people who have a fundamental distrust of the Tradition. That too, must change.

It appears Amy and I are on similar wavelengths today

She has some (much more worthwhile) cogitations on the Norms on her blog. Go read her. She's much more clear-headed than I am.

Random and incoherent mulling about the Norms

A friend of mine tells a story about the gay 30 year old guy in his neighborhood who came on to him when he was a minor. The guy showed up in his basement during a party at the neighbor's and did the "I'm an expert in muscle therapy" schtick, offering to rub his neck. My friend thought it was weird, but being a kid, thought he should be polite and not be confrontational. So the guy rubbed his neck. Then he made his move and tried to get my friend to lie down and let him do a backrub. My friend balked and told him to leave. He did. Then my friend told his parents.

My friend's question is: why aren't more families going to the cops about abuse? I think I know part of the answer. Kids (especially younger ones) are ordered by the abuser to keep quiet and they comply. In such cases, unless there is another witness (and this does happen occasionally, to the everlasting shame of silent priests who know but don't talk), then there's no way for anybody to know. But in cases where the kid does talk, it's gonna come out to the parents before it comes out to the bishop. The bishop will know because the parents tell him. So my basic question is, "Why wait for the bishop to do something? Why not just go to the cops?" I sure as hell would if a priest harmed my son. Do the norms make it more or less likely that a bishop would obstruct civil investigation? It appears to me that they are saying the bishop is to cooperate with Caesar as he does his job here, but it appears that Fr. Doyle thinks otherwise. I'm still not clear why he thinks so. Lucidity without polemics, please, if you are inclined to reply here. I'm trying to get clarity, not win an argument.

With respect to lay review boards, I've always been ambiguous about them, because at the end of the day, the task of governance falls to the bishop. Complaints that the bishop remains the final voice in governance are, so far as I can see, complaints about the way Jesus chose to constitute the Church. Being the final voice is not the same thing as being the *only* voice, but it is very problematic (I think) for the bishops to have hastily slapped together this National Review Board, because it raises expectations in American hearts that the structure of the Church is going to be "democratized" in a way it can't ever really be.

Another point which occurs to me as well is that it seems to me to be exceedingly unrealistic to think that our mediocre American episcopacy is going to appoint people to their "Stop Me Before I Misgovern Again" board who are anything besides mediocre. Look at the Board: Clinton's lawyer (Bennett), another Clinton sycophant and acolyte of partial birth abortion (Panetta). A few other people of dubious fidelity and theological knowledge. Look at