a sense of place

A Rather Unsettling Pair of Articles

2009-10-30T06:29:00.000-07:00

Maybe everyone already reviews Realclearpolitics.com each day, like me, already. Making this post and others like it thoroughly unnecessary. Just in case you do not, however, here are two of my favorite OpEd writers: Sowell and Noonan.

Sowell is a long-time professor of economics at Stanford and Noonan is, amongst other things, a former speech writer for Reagan.

We're Governed by Callous Children

Americans feel increasingly disheartened, and our leaders don't even notice.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703363704574503631430926354.html

Dismantling America: Part II
By Thomas Sowell

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/10/30/dismantling_america_part_ii__98936.html#at

I Knew It...

2009-10-13T07:54:00.000-07:00

What Happened to Global Warming?

By Debra Saunders

"What happened to global warming?" read the headline -- on BBC News on Oct. 9, no less. Consider it a cataclysmic event: Mainstream news organizations have begun reporting on scientific research that suggests that global warming may not be caused by man and may not be as dire and eminent as alarmists suggest.

Indeed, as the BBC's climate correspondent Paul Hudson reported, the warmest year recorded globally "was not in 2008 or 2007, but 1998." It's true, he continued, "For the last 11 years, we have not observed any increase in global temperatures."

At a London conference later this month, Hudson reported, solar scientist Piers Corbyn will present evidence that solar-charged particles have a big impact on global temperatures.

Western Washington University geologist Don J. Easterbrook presented research last year that suggests that the Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO) caused warmer temperatures in the 1980s and 1990s. With Pacific sea surface temperatures cooling, Easterbrook expects 30 years of global cooling.

AND

On a mostly separate matter...A National Geographic article was forwarded to me yesterday and it seems most of the dinosaur bones we have are completely misidentified. They now believe that there was only a handful of species, as young dinosaurs went through a virtual metamorphosis as they aged/matured.

The Rationale

2009-10-09T16:24:00.000-07:00

"Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future," the committee said. "His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population."

-Perhaps the Swedes should read the latest poll results from Rasmussen, Gallop, Pew, and pretty much everyone else...the US is becoming pretty darn disillusioned.

-Fascinating: must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority. Do they truly pretend to know what the majority of the world thinks? What a standard? I would be disappointed if my 6th graders failed to see the logical consequences of such a paradigm. Lets think...at one time the majority of the world thought slavery was ok; at another time most people advocated monarchies; perhaps it wasn't quite the majority of the world, but certainly the majority of the world as the Aztecs knew it thought human sacrifice was advisable--so they did follow the standard of doing what was popular with the greatest number of people.

I side with Pope Benedict the XVI, who recently stated that it is the creative minority that most often influences history and changes the world.

Let's get creative...

Current Headlines

2009-10-09T06:23:00.000-07:00

There are so many dandy headlines I have come across today! This post will simply be a list of rewards for best and worst headlines.

1. The award for, No Real Surprise There goes to the Clevelandleader.com who has, honestly I presume, discovered that the late Ted Kennedy actually came clean about much of his disordered life while dictating his autobiography to a ghost writer. Fortunately for his legacy, the late Senator's family prevented this material from making it into the final version, which is to be published. http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/11555 Ted Kennedy Claimed to Have Slept with over 1,000 Women One of the highlights is as follows: The source added that Kennedy even admitted to having planned to seduce Kopechne the night his car plunged off the road in Chappaquiddick. He even admits to paying out $10 Million to keep things mum. And to think that a Cardinal opted to honor this man at a Catholic Mass...SCANDALOUS!

2. The award for, Humor goes to realclearpolitics.com and their following short headline: Ethics Panel Widens Rangel Probe

3. The award for, You Have Got To Be Kidding Me goes to the Swedes who saw fit to award Oh, Bama the Nobel Peace Prize. One colleague declared that he is truly offended by these racist Swedes. Obama has published multiple books and is on his way to curing all that ills the American Health system. There is no excuse for them to have overlooked Obama for the Nobel prizes in literature and medicine! Clearly this was a race-based "oversight."

and

4. The award for, Well That Just #*sses Me Right Off goes to Harry Reid and all his fellow frauds. He actually found a way to get Nevada, and three other states, off the hook of paying for their own states' required expansion of Medicare as required by the Baucus Bill. To think that thoroughly bankrupt states like California and Ohio will have to pick up the tab for Nevadans, who don't even have to pay any state income taxes just ticks me right off. Especially because everyone else, but Alaska--as far as I know, has to pay a state-income tax to build their roads and what not, but Nevada gets that covered by their dividends from the gambling industry...which, incidentally, mostly comes from the residents of other states already.

Public Schools...a monster's metamorphosis

2009-10-07T07:50:00.000-07:00

A cousin recently made a facebook comment on my facebook page, expressing her desire to reform education in our home state of California. I replied with the following comment:

Oh I have plans for education! Let me ask you this? What would be the worst possible system of education??? I posit that a system that is governed by large numbers of far away bureaucrats, with schools that are meant to house thousands of students at once, with 20+ students per teacher, with teachers that must pass the latest pop-psychology courses and be trained in theories of education but not required to truly master a specific discipline, all while providing a minimal amount of supervision between classes and, further more, not allowing even a conversation of objective, absolute values may be the most preposterous debacle ever to be evolved.

I would like to add a few more thoughts.

1. Bishop Sheen warned years ago, when massive public funding of schools began, that if private schools did not share in that funding then Catholic schools would soon collapse. I'm not certain if he foresaw the collapse of their mission or just the collapse of their finances.

2. How is it ethical for the state, federal and local, to confiscate a parents' income to subsidize public education; an education the parents might find immoral and dangerous. When public schools are rife crime and bullying. When the parents are opting to save nothing in order to put their children through a private school which receives no, or almost no, financial assistance from the money the state took to educate their kids.

3. I once read that all but one of the founding fathers of the US could speak or read Latin and Greek. Why does the public, and typical Catholic, school omit our heritage?

4. The US public schools did fine, initially...but like all things that are grounded with/in a false premise...it failed in the long run.

5. Many in the Reagan administration wanted to dissolve the Federal Department of Education...Bill Bennett, former Sec. of Education says Reagan told him he simply couldn't do it at that time, but needed Bennett to at least make sense of the thing. I don't think any one in a major office, at present, has the guts to take on this one.

6. Did anyone else think that the video of children singing the Obama kumbaya song smacked of scenes from the Hitler Youth...when the young were instructed to sing and praise and thank the political leader that made all things possible?

Rebuttles to some of Oh, bama's li(n)es

2009-09-09T19:03:00.000-07:00

My comments are inserted after the quotes pasted from the transcript of Obama's speech, they are in italics.

under my plan, individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance - just as most states require you to carry auto insurance. But with auto insurance you are only required to purchase it if, and only if, you choose to own and drive a vehicle. Talk about apples being compared to jello.

While there remain some significant details to be ironed out, I believe a broad consensus exists for the aspects of the plan I just outlined: consumer protections for those with insurance, an exchange that allows individuals and small businesses to purchase affordable coverage, and a requirement that people who can afford insurance get insurance. I'll concede this one. You probably could gather fairly broad consensus on these three points...but that's when you started in on part II of your speech tonight.

the claim, made not just by radio and cable talk show hosts, but prominent politicians, that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens. Such a charge would be laughable if it weren't so cynical and irresponsible. It is a lie, plain and simple. But the house/senate bill that was floated did include some sort of panel that would make decisions on what was and was not reasonable treatment for individuals. Of course you didn't CALL it a death panel...Sarah Palin and others simply saw through that one.

under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions But you are already using federal dollars to fund abortions internationally. It was right around the annual March For Life that you revoked the Mexico City Policy, which Bush II had restored after Clinton. So you are perhaps half-truthful on this one. Also, what is abortion anyway??? homicide, murder?

Unfortunately, in 34 states, 75% of the insurance market is controlled by five or fewer companies Then tear down the restrictions that prevent out of state companies from marketing their competitive policies in other states.

they'd be right if taxpayers were subsidizing this public insurance option. But they won't be. I have insisted that like any private insurance company, the public insurance option would have to be self-sufficient and rely on the premiums it collects. But by avoiding some of the overhead that gets eaten up at private companies by profits, excessive administrative costs and executive salaries, it could provide a good deal for consumers. It would also keep pressure on private insurers to keep their policies affordable and treat their customers better, the same way public colleges and universities provide additional choice and competition to students without in any way inhibiting a vibrant system of private colleges and universities. What a bogus example...considering that the US government is already subisdizing the private colleges and universities in the form of student loans, grants, etc. What would be left of the private colleges and universities if federal and state aid were not allowed to be paid to them??? And you just said you want to end such subsidies to health insurance companies. And what do you call the start of costs or the coverage of overhead, other than subsidies out of taxpayer pockets??? If you are not offering the same deals to the private firms, then you are using the taxpayers, and their customers, to undercut them...subsidze them. I find this one of the most egregious mis-truths of the night.

a strong majority of Americans still favor a public insurance option of the sort I've proposed tonight. Thank you for informing us of this one, oh omniscient one...every report/poll I have read for the last few weeks says the opposite.

I will not back down on the basic principle that if Americans can't find affordable coverage, we will provide you with a choice. That is unless you want to choose to opt out of health insurance, because you already said that such a choice would be met with a penalty fee.

I will make sure that no government bureaucrat or insurance company bureaucrat gets between you and the care that you need. Define 'need.' Just the word I would choose to use here, if I wanted wiggle room later on down the road.

we've estimated that most of this plan can be paid for by finding savings within the existing health care system - a system that is currently full of waste and abuse. Right now, too much of the hard-earned savings and tax dollars we spend on health care doesn't make us healthier. Shouldn't that money be...no longer taken from us, if we are being overcharged presently, then stop taking so much...just because you found a way to prevent fleecing the tax payers, you think you get to keep the fleece to do what you want with it???

This reform will charge insurance companies a fee for their most expensive policies, which will encourage them to provide greater value for the money This will encourage every insurance buyer to go .....1%below the policy that is being taxed, this is a golden goose that will drop dead, not keep laying. Further, everyone wants such a plan! How is this just? You have the best, now you have to pay an extra fee for having the best. I bet that all of congres and all the Kennedy's have just such a plan!

health care is decisive for our future prosperity, but he also reminded me that "it concerns more than material things." "What we face," he wrote, "is above all a moral issue; at stake are not just the details of policy, but fundamental principles of social justice and the character of our country." Yes this is a moral issue! Taking responsibility away from the individual is morally repugnant. If I have to work two jobs to pay my bills then that is my problem, not Oh, bama's.

Obama's second half

2009-09-09T18:34:00.000-07:00

Tonight I found myself down right surprised by the number of particulars I thought tolerable, and in some cases even liked, in Oh, Bama's speech. And then the second half of the speech ensued.

Let's simply highlight three humorous moments:

1. When Obama declared that his bill would not cover illegal immigrants. There was a racous boo, hiss that ensued. Oh, Biden and his cohort Pelosi truly glared, Pelosi possibly snarled.

2. Biden and Pelosi continued to glare at the crowd to their left (not a political code in this instance). Biden even passed Pelosi a note. It seemed he almost tried to pass it under the table, but a couple inches of the page were visibly passed, received, read, and acknowledged with a nod.

3. Some bald Representative continued to sit, while others stood, with a sign he had quickly drawn: "What Bill?" Because, after all, despite all his talk about the bill he has put forward their remains no bill in anyone's hand. Is it all in his mind?

Catholic Bishops and Health Care

2009-09-03T11:50:00.000-07:00

Let me start by saying that I was livid, appalled, furious, and seething two weeks ago when a I read the stance of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, USCCB, on Health Care. The USCCB declares

"In our Catholic tradition, health care is a basic human right. " Our Bishop's conference goes further and states the following as well: This teaching is rooted in the biblical call to heal the sick and to serve "the least of these," our concern for human life and dignity, and the principle of the common good. http://www.usccb.org/healthcare/position.shtml

Let me me explain why I was seething as I read this hideous statement.

1. The basic human rights are to be allowed to follow ones conscience, to have access to earn food and water, and so on.

2. The Bible calls upon individuals to heal the sick. Scripture DOES NOT call on the faithful to abandon their responsibilities and hand them over to the power of the state.

3. The principle of the common good...is this to imply that doctors and nurses are to be slaves of the common good? If a doctor withholds the brilliance of his mind and ability, because he wants fair compensation, what will be done to punish him for harming and denying the common good?

4. For thousands of years the care of the poor has been placed upon individuals that volunteer to heed the call of the gospel. By handing this task over to the state they would destroy charity. Forced tithing is not charitable giving!

5. Christ said to, render unto the Caesar the things that are Caesar's. This is not Caesar's. This is our own responsibility!

6. Education has already been handed over to the state. Diocesan schools are almost systematically collapsing and using texts which advocate against the Catholic Faith. I see government health care replacing Catholic ministry to the sick and infirm and corrupting it, just as government managed education has done to Catholic education.

However, I am overjoyed to read what two bishops worthy of the name have declared. The bishops of Kansas City have stated the following: I. The Principle of Subsidiarity: Preamble to the Work of Reform

This notion that health care ought to be determined at the lowest level rather than at the higher strata of society, has been promoted by the Church as “subsidiarity.” Subsidiarity is that principle by which we respect the inherent dignity and freedom of the individual by never doing for others what they can do for themselves and thus enabling individuals to have the most possible discretion in the affairs of their lives.  (See: Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, ## 185ff.; Catechism of the Catholic Church, # 1883) The writings of recent Popes have warned that the neglect of subsidiarity can lead to an excessive centralization of human services, which in turn leads to excessive costs, and loss of personal responsibility and quality of care.

Pope John Paul II wrote:
“By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending.” (Pope John Paul II, Centesimus Annus  #48)

And Pope Benedict writes:
“The State which would provide everything, absorbing everything into itself, would ultimately become a mere bureaucracy incapable of guaranteeing the very thing which the suffering person -every person -needs: namely, loving personal concern. We do not need a State which regulates and controls everything, but a State which, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, generously acknowledges and supports initiatives arising from the different social forces and combines spontaneity with closeness to those in need. … In the end, the claim that just social structures would make works of charity superfluous masks a materialist conception of man: the mistaken notion that man can live ‘by bread alone’ (Mt 4:4; cf. Dt 8:3) - a conviction that demeans man and ultimately disregards all that is specifically human.” (Pope Benedict XVI, Deus Caritas Est #28)

While subsidiarity is vital to the structure of justice, we can see from what the Popes say that it rests on a more fundamental principal, the unchanging dignity of the person. The belief in the innate value of human life and the transcendent dignity of the human person must be the primordial driving force of reform efforts.

...C. The “Right to Acquisition of Health Care” in the Teaching of the Church
The “Right to Health Care” as taught by the Church is a companion to the fundamental right to life, and rights to other necessities, among them food, clothing, and shelter. It may be best understood as a “Right to Acquire the Means of Procuring for One’s Self and One’s Family these goods, and concomitantly, a duty to exercise virtue (diligence, thrift, charity) in every aspect of their acquisition and discharge. This language of rights, coupled with duties toward those who ‘through no fault of their own’ are unable to work, is present throughout papal teaching, and only reinforces the idea that, in its proper perspective, the goal is to live and to work and ‘to be looked after’ only in the event of real necessity.” (Source: Catholic Medical Association, 2004 document,Health Care in America. – bold and italics our own)

The right of every individual to access health care does not necessarily suppose an obligation on the part of the government to provide it. Yet in our American culture, Catholic teaching about the “right” to healthcare is sometimes confused with the structures of “entitlement.” The teaching of the Universal Church has never been to suggest a government socialization of medical services. Rather, the Church has asserted the rights of every individual to have access to those things most necessary for sustaining and caring for human life, while at the same time insisting on the personal responsibility of each individual to care properly for his or her own health.

Obamemnon and the NYC date

2009-06-03T07:36:00.000-07:00

My sister in law asked me to blog about the Obama date in NYC...she said one news agency is now saying that the total cost was more like 250K, passed on to the American people.

I'm the type who thinks the job of President is one that deserves a bit of extravagance. A job that includes many perks. I just take issue with the way Oh'bama's rhetoric fails to match his actions.

Ben Shapiro has a worthy little article on the matter with a Greek bent on it. The first two paragraphs are pasted below and followed by a link to the entire article.

Obama Makes You Sacrifice for Him

by Ben Shapiro

Let us compare two historical situations. One took place several thousand years ago. The other took place on Monday.

According to legend, during the 13th century B.C., there was a Greek king named Agamemnon. He was bound and determined to attack and raze the city of Troy. When Agamemnon sought to launch his ships for Troy, however, the goddess Artemis sent a stagnant wind to stop Agamemnon's fleet. Agamemnon responded by calling out his daughter, Iphigenia, and sacrificing her to appease Artemis.

Fast forward to last Monday. In announcing the bankruptcy of General Motors, President Barack Obama spoke directly all those who would lose their jobs and their livelihoods. "I want you to know that what you're doing is making a sacrifice for the next generation -- a sacrifice you may not have chose to make, but a sacrifice you were nevertheless called to make so that your children and all of our children can grow up in an America that still makes things; that still builds cars; that still strives for a better future," he said.

Obama is fond of calling upon Americans to make sacrifices -- or rather, he is fond of forcing Americans into sacrificing themselves at a time and place of his choosing. Heroic sacrifice requires volunteerism, or at least an element of extraordinary choice; Obama's sort of sacrifice runs along Agamemnon-esque lines. He names the time and the place, and you are expected to put your neck on the altar.

torture at kylecupp.com

2009-05-29T20:37:00.000-07:00

I've mentioned it before...Kyle is the guy who first suggested I start a blog. Since doing so, he and I seem to disagree on every topic that comes up. There has been a long, drag-on back-and-forth about torture on his blog, journeys in alterity. You can reach his blog by clicking on the name of his blog at the bottom of this page.

A couple of my recent comments to Kyle is posted below. I am eager to hear other people chime in on both this blog and Kyle's!

Kyle, et al...

Sorry I haven't been around for a few weeks.

Please allow me to posit the following remarks:

1. Kyle is right. V.P. Cheney did not make a sound case. His logic is flawed.

2. Teresa, I believe it was, to say that moral relativism is ok some of the time is preposterous. To state that such would be ok once in a while implies it is ok at all times. Moral Relativism is never ok. Like T. More said in R. Bolt's play, "Would you strike down every law in England to get the devil? [Roper says, "yes."] "Then where will hide when there is nothing in the land to stop the devil from coming down upon you?"

3. Kyle, we are at completely at odds with e/o when it comes to the issue of relativism. I side with P. Johnson in 'Modern Times' believing that moral relativism is at the heart of every problem and every evil that transpired in the 20th century.

4. I still uphold that severe, harsh questioning with physical and psychological tactics can be permissible by grounds of self-defense. Just like I don't think the death penalty is murder, so I don't think waterboarding is intrinsically torture.

5. I think that Dick Cheney will take Oh, Bama down with this torture issue. I think that Dick Cheney running for the presidency is possible if Obama doesn't change his tack--a Cheney-Obama debate would be fascinating to observe!

6. I think that libertarians are usual right but for the wrong reasons. I would say the same of Cheney, presently.

7. Some one said: If, according to Catholic teaching, the object chosen is intrinsically evil, the latter two sources of the moral rightness of an act cannot justify it. So, I make my point again, the question is whether EIT is intrinsically evil.
-I don't think EIT is intrinsically evil. Torture as revenge is wrong. Vengeance is not ours. But EIT upon an individual who is part of an ongoing plot of a certain nature can be reasonable.

So there it is, I continue disagree with every one of you. Aargh. Why is this?

May 22, 2009

and

Below I've pasted the entire section of Gaudium et Spes that keeps coming up. I copied the section from Vatican's website version of the "Pastoral Constitution."

MY COMMENTS ARE IN ALL CAPS.
-FIRST OFF, THIS DOCUMENT IS A PASTORAL CONSTITUTION, PROMULGATED BY PAUL VI...WHICH IMPLIES IT DOES NOT HAVE THE FULL WEIGHT AND AUTHORITY OF CHURCH TEACHING AND TRADITION BEHIND IT. (IT IS NOT AN ENCYCLICAL, IT IS NOT AN APOSTOLIC EXHORTATION, WHICH WOULD HAVE MORE WEIGHT.) IT DOES STILL IMPLY THAT WE SHOULD EXAMINE IT CAREFULLY AND EXPECT INFORMATION THAT CAN AFFECT OUR LIVES FOR THE BETTER, HOWEVER.

27. Coming down to practical and particularly urgent consequences, this council lays stress on reverence for man; everyone must consider his every neighbor without exception as another self, taking into account first of all His life and the means necessary to living it with dignity,(8) so as not to imitate the rich man who had no concern for the poor man Lazarus.(9)IT WOULD SEEM THAT THE SECTION SPECIFICALLY IS MEANT TO ADDRESS OUR TREATMENT OF THE POOR. WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE SAME SORT OF POOR IN OUR BACK AND FORTH.

In our times a special obligation binds us to make ourselves the neighbor of every person without exception. PASTORALLY SPEAKING THIS IS PERFECTLY TRUE, BUT IF OUR NEIGHBOR HARMS US WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO RECOMPENSE AND IF OUR NEIGHBOR ATTACKS WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO SELF DEFENSE. and of actively helping him when he comes across our path, whether he be an old person abandoned by all, a foreign laborer unjustly looked down uponHOW DOES THIS CATEGORY MEASURE UP TO THE OTHER ONES? THIS SORT OF INSERTION IS WHAT HAS CONVINCED SOME THEOLOGY STUDENTS THAT THIS DOCUMENT IS ONE OF THE WORST CONSENSUS DOCUMENTS VAT. II PRODUCED, a refugee, a child born of an unlawful union and wrongly suffering for a sin he did not commit, or a hungry person who disturbs our conscience by recalling the voice of the Lord, "As long as you did it for one of these the least of my brethren, you did it for me" (Matt. 25:40). AGAIN, NONE OF THE SCENARIOS LISTED ABOVE MAKE ME THINK THIS SECTION IS MEANT TO BE A GUIDE TO WHAT TO THINK OF EIT'S ON ENEMY COMBATANTS. (I AM ONLY ATTEMPTING TO DEFEND THE POSSIBILITY OF A SCENARIO WHERE EIT CAN BE JUSTIFIED, NOT ANY PAST USE OR ABUSE.)

Furthermore, whatever is opposed to life itself, such as any type of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia or wilful self-destruction, whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, torments THIS SORT OF TERM NEEDS SERIOUS DISTINCTION AND CLARIFICATION BECAUSE ANYTHING COULD BE CLAIMED AS A 'TORMENT' TO SOMEONE!inflicted on body or mind, attempts to coerce the will itself; whatever insults human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportationDEPORTATION? WERE THE WRITERS OF THIS DOC. SERIOUS? HOW IS THE JUST EXPELLING OF A PERSON WHO VIOLATED MULTIPLE LAWS TO ILLEGALLY ENTER A SOVEREIGN NATION APPLICABLE TO THIS SPECIFIC DISCUSSION OF SECTION 27 OF GAUDIUM ET SPES?, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children; as well as disgraceful working conditions, where men are treated as mere tools for profit, rather than as free and responsible persons; all these things and others of their like are infamies(DEFINED BY WEBSTERS AS A BAD REPUTATION) indeed. DOES ANYONE KNOW THE LATIN TERM AND ITS POSSIBLE OTHER TRANSLATIONS FOR/WHERE INFAMY IS HERE USED? INFAMY HARDLY SEEMS A UNIVERSAL CONDEMNATIONThey poison human society, but they do more harm to those who practice them than those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are supreme dishonor to the Creator. THIS LAST LINE SEEMS OUT OF PLACE WITH SOME OF THE OTHER LINES...AGAIN, HOW DOES DEPORTATION QUALIFY AS 'SUPREME DISHONOR TO THE CREATOR?"

I'M NOT THE BIGGEST FAN OF GAUDIUM ET SPES. IT IS A POORLY WORDED PASTORAL DOCUMENT WHICH CAN BE USED TO MEAN ALL THINGS TO ALL PEOPLE JUST LIKE THE INFAMOUS USCCB DOCUMENT ON FAITHFUL CITIZENSHIP WHICH VARIOUS 'CATHOLIC' LEADERS THEN USED TO JUSTIFY CALLING OBAMA, THE NATION'S LEAD DEFENDER OF ABORTION IN THE SENATE "THE REAL PROLIFE CANDIDATE." WHICH, OF COURSE, WAS TOTAL NONSENSE.May 27

and, lastly,

The following is taken from the most noble, trustworthy source of information in the modern world: wikipedia!

"Criticism

It [Gaudium et Spes] has been criticized[citation needed] as over-optimistic, even from the floor of the council.
The ongoing question that arose from Gaudium et Spes is: how can the church be credible in a secular world? In the commentaries of the document, Pope Benedict XVI (then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger) called certain parts of Gaudium et Spes "downright Pelagian," particularly in the treatment of free will in article 17. He is not wholly negative in his judgment about Gaudium et Spes, however, and praises the discussion of atheism in articles 19-21 as “balanced and well-founded.”
Gaudium et Spes is a pastoral document. Lumen Gentium on the other hand is a dogmatic constitution document."

This excerpt may not have specific impact on our ongoing disagreements, but it does help serve to show us the weight we ought to give the pastoral document; casting doubt as to whether you can say that G. et S. has the authority to claim universal, complete denunciation of anything.

May 29

-Any insight people have to offer on Gaudium et Spes would be very welcome as well!

Catholic Colleges and Required Courses

2009-05-11T07:29:00.000-07:00

It has been announced that the University of San Francisco, USF, is doing away with its MA in theology program. Two reasons were given: it is losing money and the 'pastoral ministries' program at Santa Clara (home of old acquaintance Fr. Warren, S.J.-who led me on a personal Ignatian retreat years ago) essentially does the same thing, allegedly.

An excerpt from an article that addresses this move by USF: But, he said, the university needs to adapt to all of its students - 71 percent of whom are not Catholic.

"I'm not sure that forcing students into a Catholic theology course is appropriate if the student is Muslim, Hindu or Jewish," he said. In the core curriculum, "what we are trying to do is evoke from students sensitivity to the mystery and reality of God."

Undergraduate students seemed to agree with Privett.[Privett is the president of USF]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/05/10/BAKQ17HD1I.DTL

I'm curious to hear from others...it seems to me that a public school which requires a class in psychology or history or art or music or economics or political science would be forcing or foisting a potentially offensive course upon their students as well. I'd say it is even worse, by such reasoning, for a public school to have such requirements...at least a Catholic/Jesuit school has a clear, sectarian history, mission, and identity which its students applied and requested to enter and and take part. What about Public Elementary and High Schools that require a course in World Religions and allow non-Muslims to educate the young on Muslim precepts?

Why would anyone want to consider themselves Catholic if the "mystery and reality of God" were not something they considered absolute and certain? If an institution has been around for 2000 years and it doesn't have any certainty of its 'core curriculum' then why is it around?

My thought on USF...If you don't think it is fitting to require the students that voluntarily enroll in a Catholic school to be reasonably well-informed of Catholicism, what do you think must be required core curricula at a Catholic institution? Is history required? Is Literature required? If education pursues truth and knowledge, what role does Catholicism play in all things objective and absolute, such as truth. Didn't someone ask the same thing of Christ, What is truth, some 2000 years ago?

Church hierarchy sees Oh, Bama's pragmatism at work

2009-05-09T15:52:00.000-07:00

Taken from a short blurb from Catholic World News, a link to CWN can be found at the bottom of the blog.

While L'Osservatore Romano took a mild editorial view toward the Obama presidency, other voices from the Vatican are more critical. At a conference on human rights sponsored by the Pontifical Academy for Social Sciences, Archbishop Roland Minnerath of Dijon, France, said that Obama's "subjective" approach to human rights actually undermines human dignity. Father Michel Schooyans denounced the "messianism" of the approach taken by Obama and Tony Blair. He continued:

In fact, a society that calls itself democratic but whose leaders, invoking subjective "new rights," permit the elimination of some categories of human beings, is a society that has already set out on the road of totalitarianism.

Adding to the discussion on Kyle's blog

2009-04-24T10:17:00.000-07:00

Please read Saunders' article on waterboarding and the US approach to "torture."

Los Angeles or Waterboarding?

A Commentary By Debra J. Saunders

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_debra_j_saunders/los_angeles_or_waterboarding

Torture discussion on Kyle's blog: Journeys In Alterity

2009-04-23T07:56:00.000-07:00

For a few days now, a discussion about the legitimacy of torture and how Christians should regard it as been going on at Kylecupp.com and his Kyle's blog: Journeys in Alterity.

You can reach Kyle's blog by clicking on the name, Journeys in Alterity, on the list of blogs I peruse found at the bottom of this page.

Next you will find Kyle's original blog posting on the matter and one of my responses. Please do go to Kyle's site and make some comments...I'm eager to explore this more myself.

Kyle said: SATURDAY, APRIL 18, 2009

Torturing Christ

I find it disturbing that we’re actually debating the concept of torturing people, but what I really don’t get is the defense of torture by Christians. I say this not because Christians are better than others, but because, from the Christian standpoint, what we do to one another, even to the least among us and to the worst of sinners, we do to Christ. We show our love and respect for God in how we treat one another. A Christian who defends torturing a human person defends, in a sense, torturing Him in whose image and likeness we are all made.

I said:S. Rich said...

I don't have a definitive answer. But let me mention a few thoughts.

-Christ was certainly willing to be tough at times. When the money changers desecrated the temple Christ personally smacked them with a whip-like instrument. Was such a torturous action? Christ smacked them and publicly humbled them. Christ embarrassed there fragile psyches and physically assaulted their bodies, their temples of the Holy Spirit.

-Christ also buys into justice. Of Judas, it would be better for him if he had never been born. Of someone that would harm a child, may he have a millstone tied about his neck and be cast into the sea.

I suppose the definition of torture is at issue here. Is waterboarding torture because it scares someone? Is putting a caterpillar in a closet with someone afraid of bugs torture?

I am inclined to believe that if it is possible to have a just war, then it is possible to have a just extraction of information...but there is certainly a fine line that cannot morally be crossed. I don't have an exact demarcation of that line myself, though I would tend to be cautious so as not to risk crossing that line.

Article from my favorite Stanford Prof., T. Sowell!

2009-04-21T12:38:00.000-07:00

I didn't really think about what I would post on this blog when I started the thing...but it seems posting someone else's article just for the sake of sharing things I find significant has been appreciated. Here is another such post, I've pasted sections of Sowell's article and my commentary will be inserted in bold print here and there in a scattershot manner. A link to the full article is found at the bottom

While the rest of us may be worried about violent Mexican drug gangs on our border, or about terrorists who are going to be released from Guantanimo, the Director of Homeland Security is worried about "right-wing extremists."...According to an official document of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, right-wing extremists include "groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration." It also includes those "rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority."I wonder if rejecting federal authority refers to states that want to secede or is it broader, including the subsidiarity advocates and distributists at the chesterbellocmandate? ...

According to the same official document, the Department of Homeland Security "has no specific information that domestic rightwing terrorists are currently planning acts of violence."...

So-called "honor killings" by Muslims in the United States, including a recent beheading of his wife by a leader of one of the American Muslim organizations, does not seem to arouse any concern by the Department of Homeland Security.

When it comes to the thuggery of ACORN -- its members harassing the homes of bankers and even the home of Senator Phil Gramm when he opposed things that ACORN favored -- the Department of Homeland Security apparently sees no evil, hears no evil and speaks no evil.it is an overreaction, but actions like this by ACORN made me think of Hitler's Kristalnacht...when his minions swept through the towns to intimidate all the churches and synagogues that resisted 'them.'

Maybe they are too busy worrying about right-wing "extremists" who don't like abortions or illegal immigration, or who favor the division of power between the state and federal governments established by the Constitution.

... it can be sinister as a revealing and disturbing sign of the preoccupations and priorities of this administration -- and their willingness to witch hunt and demonize those who dare to disagree with them....

All this activity takes on a more sinister aspect against the background of one of the statements of Barack Obama during last year's election campaign that got remarkably little attention in the media. He suggested the creation of a federal police force, comparable in size to the military.this may be an overreaction, but this smacks a bit of Hitler's SS

Why such an organization? For what purpose?...

What would be different about a new federal police force, as compared to existing law enforcement and military forces? It would be a creation of the Obama administration, run by people appointed from top to bottom by that administration -- and without the conflicting loyalties of those steeped in existing military traditions and law enforcement traditions.

In short, a federal police force could become President Obama's personal domestic political army, his own storm troopers....

http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2009/04/21/are_you_an_extremist?page=full

Revisiting an old idea-a horse for every home!

2009-04-20T20:13:00.000-07:00

A friend, that would be you Doug, asked why I don't have any new posts posted...I was on vacation. I'm short on the usual inspiration that comes to me as my mercurial personality reads the daily headlines. So, to hopefully satisfy Doug, let me posit a revolutionary, backwater idea that if forced on society could save society. It's late and I'll only give the briefest of outlines of my old idea for the time being. I'll look for a massive number of comments and expand my thinking in my responses.

All families and homeowners should be required to house and maintain a horse. The positive benefits to society will be as follows:
1. people will realize that even majestic animals are typically a great burden and royal pain. worth it if you love horses, but a real pain...this will have a great effect on the ignoramuses at PETA, and those that are wooed into sympathizing with the PETAns
2. synthetic glue marketers and manufacturers will see more competition
3. people will have to start having more kids, so that they don't have to do all the horse-ing around. farmers usually have many kids, share the wealth/burden!
4. jobs! horse trainers will be in high demand again, not to mention the shipping and growing of hay...small time farm operations will be more profitable due to increased demand for hay
5. less potentially harmful chemicals in the soil and food supply...the great glut of horse processed plant matter has to go some where
6. (and last for tonight) increased sense of responsibility for something other than yourself

I know this isn't quite workable, but it could save the world, maybe?

Keep Drugs Illegal

2009-03-28T09:16:00.000-07:00

Ms Christine Flowers has a lovely little article defending the continued illegal status of Marijuana and other currently illegal drugs. This has been a somewhat pet issue with me for some time. Allow me to expand in bullet point fashion. Ms. Flowers’ article is l

-This is my greatest beef with Libertarians…it doesn’t hurt me, let them do what they want to themselves. Hemingway and Donne both explained it well…’For Whom [does] the Bell Toll’? ‘It Tolls for Thee.’ Everytime a member of our league, that is humanity, is lost we all lose something. As father Klein once said…if he is still addicted to drugs or alcohol then you don’t really have him back…meaning that someone who is addicted to such controlling substances is not free to be a part of society. They may be high functioning at times, but an addicted soul is not a free soul. A man who is always acting under the spell or compulsion of drugs is not himself. If someone is addicted to drugs then it is a long slow toll of the bell for thee!

-Let’s say the congress legalized marijuana…that’s commonly accepted as the least dangerous drug on the list. How many people can drink a beer and then safely drive a forklift…I ‘d wager most all of us. How many can smoke one joint and then safely drive a forklift…it’s not a bet I want to take, though neither is prudent. A considerable amount of my research activities in DC at the think tank/lobby group FRC were dedicated to the issue of medical marijuana. I think people need to keep in mind that current strains of the plant yield more than 30% of the active ingredient THC, while the stuff the “hippies” were smoking in the 60’s averaged only around 3 to 5%. If you are an old hippie, or just from that age, or foolishly romantic about that age, then you should be very aware of the new state of the plant and its wildly expanded potency!

-If you want to use THC as a drug…make a pill. Actually a suppository is quicker in delivering the active ingredient than is inhaling the smoke…which one coroner told me is significantly more damaging to lungs than is simple cigarette smoke-and just think of the bans states have place on cig. Smoke! It’s not like states are legalizing opium production for the diseased and disabled the way CA and others have done with ‘medical cannibis.’ Why? That’s my next point.

-Recall the Opium Wars of the history books…Imagine something like 8 of every 10 people in the country being addicted to a drug…that was China at one time. Britain defended their right to engage in free trade (read: selling addictive drugs) to the people of China and militarily defeated China’s government to preserve this ‘right.’ How much harm was done to China by doing so? I’ve read that entire villages ceased to function…as everyone hung out in the Opium Den all day. Gangs of thugs roamed the streets to get money for the legal ‘goods.’ And gangs sent by merchants prowled the streets to lure more customers…image the billboards that would be on the freeway to recruit your kids like a cool-hip new rendition of the Marlboro man with a syringe wedged in his hat bank-sure such a comic lure would be made illegal, but there would undoubtedly be advertising. Even well-raised kids with everything going for them would find it tough to resist peer pressure when it is legal. Some kids would certainly resist, but how many good kids have experimented with alcohol and then turned away…you can’t just turn away so easily with highly addictive stuff.

-Some argue that a more cleanly refined product would be less dangerous…but morphine is exactly that, well-refined opium…it remains one of the most addictive substances on earth. The body physically craves the stuff forever, once it is tried. Imagine legally experimenting with the stuff, just for kicks when you’re young…The rest of your life could be a constant struggle to fight addiction.

-The documents, articles, and figures, I read and reviewed at FRC about eight years ago as regards the Netherlands’ experiments with drug legalization were severely disturbing…they tried and continue with a narrow legalization, all is ‘fare’ and legal in the red light district. Drugs of all shapes, sizes, potencies, and qualities were legalized in one small area so that those who do it anyway would be clear of the rest of society. The story that disturbed me above all others: prostitutes, all addicted to heroin, lined the streets, sat in a chair behind a clear glass door, naked for the world to use. To think that drug use and addiction doesn’t lead to sexual exploitation of young women who experimented and became addicts is preposterous. Drug experimentation, especially if it is legal and thereby more common, will lead to junkies who are incapable of functioning…imagine your sister or daughter, addicted to drugs because of foolish college experimentation being abused by prostitution so that she can get the next dose she craves. Now imagine the source of that addiction was legal and you hand no recourse to intervene for her good and for her life.

-Some time back PBS did interviews with drug addicts in Europe, who, thanks to their society’s permiscuous goodwill gave them clean needles and cleanly refined heroin. Though they were no longer in the same danger they were in in the streets from gangs and unclean product, they were still addicts, incapable of being the people they were raised and capable of being.

-I was shocked to see that Pat Buchannon even endorsed drug legalization. Of course Buchannon also argued that the US would eventually bring in Quebec as the 51^st state, and Greenland as well. Good grief. Of course, if the US thinks it is well and good to allow mothers to abort, or terminate, the lives of their young, forming children then allowing profit maximizing companies to peddle addictive, mind-altering drugs is not unreasonable.

http://www.philly.com/dailynews/opinion/20090327_Christine_M__Flowers__Legalize_drugs__Far_out__dude___

Monday's press conference and how Oh, bama "wrestles" with ethics

2009-03-26T12:30:00.000-07:00

Below is a portion of the transcript from Obama's press conference from Tuesday March 24th. Obama's remarks on stem cell funding and ethical wrestling seems to have received no coverage based on my searches. I've inserted my commentary in bold print throughout the text of the transcript.

OK. John Ward, Washington Times? Where's John?

Question: Thank you, sir.

Obama: There you go.

Question: Thank you, Mr. President.

Obama: Sure.

Question: In your remarks on stem cell research earlier this month, you talked about a majority consensus in determining whether or not this is the right thing to do, to federally fund embryonic stem cell research.

I'm just wondering, though, how much you personally wrestled with the morality or ethics of federally funding this kind of research, especially given the fact that science so far has shown a lot of progress with adult stem cells, but not a lot with embryonic?

Obama: OK. No, I think it's a legitimate question. I wrestle with these issues every day.

As I mentioned to -- I think in an interview a couple of days ago, by the time an issue reaches my desk, it's a hard issue. If it was an easy issue, somebody else would have solved it and it wouldn't have reached me.We disagree. If you are certain of a hard and fast rule, such as ‘murder is wrong’ or ‘organic is good,’ then on all questions that relate to those foundation principles a decision is easy. If you have a solid core of beliefs, if you believe in absolutes, then moral questions are rarely mind boggling.

Look, I believe that it is very important for us to have strong moral guidelines, ethical guidelines,what are those guidelines?—are they more than just popular consensus? when it comes to stem cell research or anything that touches on, you know, the issues of possible cloning or issues related to, you know, the human life sciences.

I think those issues are all critical, and I've said so before. I wrestle with it on stem cell; I wrestle with it on issues like abortion. But every vote you have ever cast sides against conservatives. Every social policy you promote seems one-sided. The Mexico City Policy, calling abortion a “right” while campaigning, saying your daughter could be “punished by a pregnancy,” rescinding the conscience protections Bush signed into law, and now using tax money to do research on stem cells from aborted (murdered) children. Your record shows no sign of any wrestling…you have the highest rating NARAL can give…clearly they don’t see you wrestling with this either. Perhaps you do wrestle, but the decision always seems to be the same.

I think that the guidelines that we provided meet that ethical test.What Ethical test? I’m yet to see where you identified the grounds, rubrics, or criteria of any test? I know of no anti-abortion advocates you've included in your staff...is abortion advocacy your litmus test? Do you think an anti-abortion judge could ever be fit for you to nominate to the Supreme Court? What we have said is that, for embryos that are typically -- about to be discarded, for us to be able to use those in order to find cures for Parkinson's or for Alzheimer's or, you know, all sorts of other debilitating diseases, juvenile diabetes, that it is the right thing to do. If you saw the child from which the stem cells were extracted as a murder victim, then you would likely have a problem with how they were acquired…so, do you have a problem with how the stem cells are acquired? If you’re ok with abortion then I don’t see why you would need to wrestle with the issue of funding stem cell research, as you said before. If abortion is murder, then no one should have these stem cells in the first place. (miscarriage would be a completely separate issue)

And that's not just my opinion. That is the opinion of a number of people who are also against abortion. I’m curious to hear names. And, again, is consensus the criteria, is pragmatically making the greatest number of people happy your criteria? It’s not a matter of how many people hold the opinion. What reasoning, logic, teleology (ends/means thinking) do YOU use to draw these conclusions?

Now, I am glad to see progress is being made in adult stem cells. And if the science determines that we can completely avoid a set of ethical questions or political disputes, then that's great.When do you think all scientists could ever agree on that? How can science prove that stem cells could never be useful for some scientific experiment. Science can’t prove that. Some scientist will always want to tinker with stem cells. The question remains: what is the morality of acquiring the stem cells in the first place?

I have no investment in causing controversy. I'm happy to avoid it if that's where the science leads us. But what I don't want to do is predetermine this based on a very rigid ideological approach (this is code for???), and that's what I think is reflected in the executive order that I signed.How is a matter of moral reasoning labeled as mere ideology? I’m more than ever inclined to believe that you hold no absolutes. Is there one action which is forever wrong under any and all circumstances no matter where or when you live?

Question: I meant to ask -- just to follow up -- do you think that scientific consensus is enough to tell us what we can and cannot do?

Obama: No. I think there's always an ethical and a moral element that has to be a part of this. Again, what is that line of ethical and moral reasoning? What are your philosophical/ethical/moral premises that lead you to this conclusion? And so, as I said, I don't take decisions like this lightly. They're ones that I take seriously, and I respect people who have different opinions on this issue. (like those you labeled as people who “cling to guns and relgion?”

But I think that this was the right thing to do and the ethical thing to do.Again, why do you think this? On what grounds? And as I said before, my hope is, is that we can find a mechanism, ultimately, to cure these diseases in a way that gains 100 percent consensus. And we certainly haven't achieved that yet, (do you honestly think that that is in any way possible in your life time?) but I think on balance this was the right step to take. Is a balance of good and bad your standard? If it is only a little bit evil then is it ok? What is your balanced criteria?

A tragedy for sure

2009-03-26T05:03:00.000-07:00

Family of Irving 'Bud' Feldkamp, Owner of the Nation's Largest Privately Owned Abortion Chain, Dies in Montana Plane Crash

Contact: Gingi Edmonds, www.gingiedmonds.com, 559-772-7911

MEDIA ADVISORY, Mar. 24 /Christian Newswire/ -- Some of you may have seen the major news story of the private plane that crashed into a Montana cemetery, killing 7 children and 7 adults.

But what the news sources fail to mention is that the Catholic Holy Cross Cemetery owned by Resurrection Cemetery Association in Butte - contains a memorial for local residents to pray the rosary, at the 'Tomb of the Unborn'. This memorial, located a short distance west of the church, was erected as a dedication to all babies who have died because of abortion.

What else is the mainstream news not telling you? The family who died in the crash near the location of the abortion victim's memorial, is the family of Irving 'Bud' Feldkamp, owner of the largest for-profit abortion chain in the nation.

Family Planning Associates was purchased four years ago by Irving Moore "Bud" Feldkamp III, owner of Allcare and Hospitality Dental Associates and CEO of Glen Helen Raceway Park in San Bernardino. The 17 California Family Planning clinics perform more abortions in the state than any other abortion provider - Planned Parenthood included - and they perform abortions through the first five months of pregnancy.

Although Feldkamp is not an abortionist, he reaps profits of blood money from the tens of thousands of babies that are killed through abortions performed every year at the clinics he owns. His business in the abortion industry was what enabled him to afford the private plane that was carrying his family to their week-long vacation at The Yellowstone Club, a millionaires-only ski resort.

The plane went down on Sunday, killing two of Feldkamp's daughters, two sons-in-law and five grandchildren along with the pilot and four family friends. The plane, a single-engine turboprop flown by Bud Summerfield of Highland, crashed into the Catholic cemetery and burst into flames, only 500 ft. from its landing destination. All aboard were killed.

The cause of the crash is a mystery. The pilot, who was a former military flier who logged over 2,000 miles, gave no indication to air traffic controllers that the aircraft was experiencing difficulty when he asked to divert to an airport in Butte. Witnesses report that the plane suddenly nosedived toward the ground with no apparent signs of a struggle. There was neither a cockpit voice recorder nor a flight data recorder onboard, and no radar clues into the planes final moments because the Butte airport is not equipped with a radar facility. Some speculate that the crash was due to ice on the wings, but this particular plane model has been tested for icy weather and experts have stated that ice being the cause is unlikely.

In my time working for Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust, I helped organize and conduct a weekly campaign where youth activists stood outside of Feldkamp's mini-mansion in Redlands holding fetal development signs and raising community awareness regarding Feldkamp's dealings in child murder for profit. Every Thursday afternoon we called upon Bud and his wife Pam to repent, seek God's blessing and separate themselves from the practice of child killing.

We warned him, for his children's sake, to wash his hands of the innocent blood he assisted in spilling because, as Scripture warns, if "you did not hate bloodshed, bloodshed will pursue you". (Ezekiel 35:6)

A news source states that Bud Feldkamp visited the site of the crash with his wife and their two surviving children on Monday. As they stood near the twisted and charred debris talking with investigators, light snow fell on the tarps that covered the remains of their children.

I don't want to turn this tragic event into some creepy spiritual 'I told you so' moment, but I think of the time spent outside of Feldkamp's - Pam Feldkamp laughing at the fetal development signs, Bud Feldkamp trying not to make eye contact as he got into his car with a small child in tow - and I think of the haunting words, 'Think of your children.' I wonder if those words were haunting Feldkamp as well as he stood in the snow among the remains of loved ones, just feet from the 'Tomb of the Unborn'?

I only hope and pray that in the face of this tragedy, Feldkamp recognizes his need for repentance and reformation. I pray that God will use this unfortunate catastrophe to soften the hearts of Bud and Pam and that they will draw close to the Lord and wash their hands of the blood of thousands of innocent children, each as precious and irreplaceable as their own.

"I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. Choose life, then." (Deut. 30:19)

Gingi Edmonds is a freelance pro-life activist, writer and photographer based out of Hanford, California. Gingi writes a bi-monthly ProLife Opinion Column and is available for pro-life presentations and speaking engagements. Visitwww.gingiedmonds.com for more information.

2009-03-20T18:02:00.000-07:00

Below is another clip from Australia's Cardinal Pell, courtesy of Catholic World News. Pell continues to graciously encourage things that modern society detests...the item below which really caught my eye is the bit on ad orientem worship, which means that the priest would stand with his back to the congregation...in other words, he does not so much preside as head of a table, but rather leads a flock in a ritual sacrifice of worship to their God. It's ironic how many have called for a leveling of the clergy and laity, having the priest turn and face the congregation allegedly makes him more one with the people in some sense. Yet, in so doing the priest is becoming more prominent, sitting in a chair often right where the tabernacle belongs. It seems in taking away part of the priest's mystique and separateness they have made the priest a bigger attraction, forced to perform as he looks at the people. When the priest faces away, as leader of the sacrifice, the focus is more clearly upon God and not a man...I have heard many fault Catholic priests with the flippant aside, a priest is just a man like anybody else. I find the ad orientem posture far more conducive to theat thinking.
Cardinal Pell hopes for mandatory ad orientem worship, says Obama has ‘very slight curriculum vitae’
In a wide-ranging interview with the British Catholic Herald newspaper, Cardinal George Pell credited Pope John Paul II with preventing the Church in Australia from falling into a Dutch “ultra-liberalism’” and offered candid comments on a wide range of other issues, including the lifting of the excommunication of the four bishops of the Society of St. Pius X and the possible canonization of Pope Pius XII. Cardinal Pell also predicted that more accurate English translations of the Roman Missal will be implemented toward the end of 2010:

It's approved by the national hierarchies. The level of change now will be very small in comparison with the enormous changes that were foisted upon the people just after the Second Vatican Council. Undoubtedly there will be a small element which will try to resist them. I'm quite confident the overwhelming majority of Mass-going people will quickly learn to love them. The quality of the language there will emphasise that we're not talking to the bloke next door. We're worshipping the one true God. Not in old-fashioned, archaic language, but in beautiful, strong and appropriate language. I'm quite confident it will be successful.

Asked, “Where do you think the liturgical development is heading?” Cardinal Pell responded, “I don't know. I'm not a professional liturgist. I am keen that we strengthen the vertical dimension of the liturgy, if we can, in the popular understanding, so that it's very obviously not just community-centred, it's God-centred, it's an act of worship. I'm very sympathetic to that. I'm even sympathetic for the Canon of the Mass that the priest has his back to the people.” Asked, “As something obligatory?” he replied, “Yes. Now there's nothing like a consensus in favour of that at the moment. I think I would be in favour of it because it makes it patently clear that the priest is not the centre of the show, that this an act of worship of the one true God, and the people are joining with the priest for that.” Asked to comment on President Barack Obama, Cardinal Pell said:

[H]is record on life issues is very, very bad indeed. I'm still hoping against hope that he won't do the worst, that he won't bring in that Freedom of Choice Act. I wish him well, because so much rides on his decisions. But he's got a very slight curriculum vitae to be a president of the United States. He ran a brilliant campaign. I think he's an outstanding public orator. We've yet to see him really do anything that has significantly changed the situation for the better. But it's very early days yet. And he has inherited an appalling financial situation.

It's not that I look for things and ways to pile on Oh, Bama, they just keep coming to me. Beware of FOCA!!!

Oh, Bama fllippancy and foreign policy, according to Senik

2009-03-19T07:21:00.000-07:00

A former Bush administration official has an op ed piece posted with RealClearPolitics.Com today. Senik appears to be a self-confessed Neo-Con; a "school" which I constantly endeavor to separate myself with by a mental brick wall. Senik is making an insider's comparison to the differences between the Obama Foreign Policy and the Bush Foreign Policy...aside from abysmal actions like the Mexico City Policy...Obama is making vast turnarounds from the goals, advances, and achievements of the last 8+ years. Below are some of Senik's words. I'll let you decide the validity of Obama's path v. Bush's path...

the Obama Administration’s attitude towards persecuted dissidents has been flippant [I embolden this to point out that, previously, I identified Obama's politics as 'Pragmatic-Flippancy.'] at best. When Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visited Beijing in February, she told her Chinese hosts that “Our pressing on [human rights] issues can't interfere on the global economic crisis, the global climate change crisis and the security crisis." Translation: don’t think about standing in front of a tank anytime soon. While America’s economic dependence on China is undeniable given the profligate spending that we have indulged thanks to Beijing’s line of credit, voicing that reality out loud is destined to crush the spirit of the friends of liberty in the Far East. How many Tibetan monks will be able to take inspiration from the Declaration of Independence if they think it truthfully reads “all men are created equal ... but some hold hundreds of billions of dollars in American treasury bonds”?

The usually branding conscious Obama Administration has yet to give a label to their foreign policy. Given where its priorities seem to lie, let’s settle on the “Tyranny Agenda” for now.

The Obama Administration has struttingly declared its fealty to realism, the only foreign policy school of thought so insecure that it seeks validation in its name. Over the past decade, realists have come to define themselves in opposition to “overly idealistic” neoconservatives, but that sells a proud tradition short. Historically, realists have provided a valuable service to the foreign policy community by relying on steely-eyed analysis and a focus on the national interest to cut to the quick of even the most vexing national security issues. But the diluted progeny of those realists past have polluted the legacy of their forebears. Steely-eyed analysis has given way to clammy-handed diplomacy. And the national interest has been supplanted by the least offensive consensus.

Thus, the Obama realists will have none of this dunderheaded democracy talk. Sophisticated nations, after all, thrive by starving the universal hunger for liberty and gorging the bloated enemies of freedom. At least, that’s the only intelligible way to understand President Obama’s foreign policy.

explain a presidential offer to barter away the missile defense of Eastern Europe’s young democracies in exchange for Russian efforts to slow Iran’s development of nuclear weapons? Were Obama’s offer tied to any tangible outcomes it could perhaps be justified on the coldest of realist grounds: between your security and ours, ours comes first. But a promise to talk, even if fulfilled, doesn’t disarm warheads.

My diocese is to close centenary churches by the dozens

2009-03-17T20:21:00.000-07:00

For any who do not know, Cleveland is now home. Within the next 15 month something like 50 churches are set to be closed. Many of these churches are over 100 years old and are of museum quality...something you would not be surprised to see in Europe.

I recognize the given reasons for their closing...lack of priests, lack of money, and a basic lack of persons in the pews on any day of the week.

Over the years, I have come across many arguments on the importance of beauty in the life of man. Many people claim that good art uplifts mankind. I have even heard the argument that, in the end, it is beauty which will convert this earth to faith in God.

I have no sense of loss, shame, or remorse when a novel architectural sham of a round church is converted to a green house, parking lot, or trash depot. I cringe when I see some the truly magnificent churches of Cleveland on the verge of auction, emptiness, and/or leveling.

I'm very curious to hear from others: what role does art and beauty, particularly beautiful architecture, have in the day to day life of man? What role should art have in our daily lives? What does decidedly ugly architecture do to mankind?

Illinois' chief Clergyman pushes Oh, Bama for the Conscience Clause

2009-03-17T20:13:00.000-07:00

Below is a clip from the Catholic World News daily headlines. Cardinal George, I thought, came to Chicago with much hype but has not always seemed to deliver as I had initially expected. On the conscience clause, however, he is right on. The word "despot" is certainly not one you just want to throw around! But if the president and legislature do away with conscience protections for nurses and doctors, and a bill like FOCA or even the allowance of hospital requirements that make the usefulness of FOCA moot-then a tyrannical despotism...that is, unjust illicit total control of a citizen's moral decisions...will be the fitting description of Obama.

Cardinal George warns US heading toward despotism, urges Catholics to lobby for conscience protection
Warning that the Obama administration’s proposed removal of conscience-protection regulations for health care workers “would be the first step in moving our country from democracy to despotism,” Cardinal Francis George, president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, urged Catholics to contact the Department of Health and Human Services before the administration makes its final decision. “We therefore need legal protection for freedom of conscience and of religion-- including freedom for religious health care institutions to be true to themselves,” Cardinal George said. He added:

Conscientious objection against many actions is a part of our life. We have a conscientious objection against war for those who cannot fight, even though it’s good to defend your country. We have a conscientious objection for doctors against being involved in administering the death penalty. Why shouldn’t our government and our legal system permit conscientious objection to a morally bad action, the killing of babies in their mother’s womb? People understand what really happens in an abortion and in related procedures—a living member of the human family is killed—that’s what it’s all about—and no one should be forced by the government to act as though he or she were blind to this reality. I ask you please to let the government know that you want conscience protections to remain strongly in place. In particular, let the Department of Health and Human Services in Washington know that you stand for the protection of conscience, especially now for those who provide the health care services so necessary for a good society.

Perhaps it is not too late in Boston

2009-03-14T20:22:00.000-07:00

It seems there is reason to hope that the Boston Archdiocese will not go forward with the insane idea of working with abortion providers and making referrals for abortions. The following was posted on Catholic World News:

While I appreciate the opportunity given to Caritas Christi to serve the poor through this agreement, I wish to reaffirm that this agreement can only be realized if the moral obligations for Catholic hospitals as articulated in the Ethical and Religious Directives of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops are fulfilled at all times and in all cases. In order to assure me that this agreement will provide for the integrity of the Catholic identity and practices of Caritas Christi Health Care System, I have asked the National Catholic Bioethics Center to review the agreement and to assure me that it is faithful to Catholic principles.

I still take considerable issue and umbrage with the Archbishop's plan to have a separate entity make the review and decision for him. I can't tell you how much a look up to and admire bishops that take into their own hands their responsibility make decisions!

Pell is worth reading!

2009-03-11T18:43:00.000-07:00

Below is a link to the entire article. I have posted a few of my favored lines as well.

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0901096.htm

Australian cardinal calls for confrontation of religious intolerance

By Simon Caldwell
Catholic News Service

LONDON (CNS) -- Confronting religious intolerance regularly and publicly is among the "crucial tasks" of Christians in the 21st century, said an Australian cardinal.

Cardinal George Pell of Sydney said the Catholic Church's freedom in the Western world was under pressure from a new and dangerous trend of the use of anti-discrimination laws and human rights claims to attack the role of religion in public life and individuals' right of conscience.

"The secular and religious intolerance of our day needs to be confronted regularly and publicly," he said. "Believers need to call the bluff of what is, even in most parts of Europe, a small minority with disproportionate influence in the media. This is one of the crucial tasks for Christians in the 21st century."

As his primary example of mounting intolerance, Cardinal Pell cited the treatment of U.S. Christians and Mormons who supported Proposition 8, the constitutional amendment that reversed California's gay marriage law in November.

He described how churches and temples were subjected to violence, vandalism and intimidation, and how some supporters of the amendment were forced from their jobs and blacklisted.

"We should note the strange way in which some of the most permissive groups and communities, for example, Californian liberals in the case of Proposition 8, easily become repressive, despite all their high rhetoric about diversity and tolerance," he said.

"There is the one-sidedness about discrimination and vilification," he said, because anti-Christian "blacklisting and intimidation is passed over in silence."

Cardinal Pell added that in a healthy democracy people should be free to discuss and criticize each other's beliefs.

Reciprocity, he said, was essential to this but "some secularists seem to like one-way streets," seeking to drive Christianity from the provision of education, health care and welfare services to the wider community.

The cardinal predicted a "major escalation in the culture wars" if President Barack Obama signed into law the Freedom of Choice Act, which would sweep away restrictions on abortion and deny medical practitioners and hospitals the right to conscientiously object to participating in abortions. As of March 10, the act had not been introduced in Congress.

He explained that the effect of the rising intolerance of modern liberalism was to "enforce conformity" and to strip Christianity of the power of its public witness.

"There is no need to drive the church out of services if the secularization of its agencies can achieve this end," he added.

The pressure against religion in public life, he said, stemmed mainly from a misplaced belief in "absolute sexual freedom."

He said that as sexual freedom became a driver of consumption, people could see the "re-emergence of slavery in Europe and Asia, the booming exploitation of pornography and prostitution, and the commercialization of surrogacy, egg donation, and the production and destruction of human embryos and human stem-cell lines."

Recent Headlines and Commentary

2009-03-11T18:19:00.000-07:00

Connecticut lawmakers withdraw legislation governing Church parish affairs
Rep. Michael P. Lawlor and Sen. Andrew J. McDonald-- co-charimen of the Connecticut legislature’s judiciary committee-- announced on March 10 that they would withdraw controversial legislation that would have placed parish finances and outreach under the control of elected lay boards. . . .
I still cannot fathom how anyone thought it reasonable for a state government to direct how a church, in particular-one that has been around for 2000 years, can reach out to the people and use its monetary resources. Simply unfathomable! I read the constitution in 8th grade and knew back then the absurdity of this notion.

Brazilian president blasts archbishop over abortion excommunications
Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva has blasted Archbishop José Cardoso Sobrinho of Olinda and Recife following the excommunications of those complicit in the abortion of the unborn twins of a 9-year-old girl who had reportedly been raped by her stepfather. “As a Christian and a Catholic, I find it deeply lamentable that a bishop of the Catholic Church has such a conservative attitude,” the president said. “In this case, the medical profession was more right than the Church.” Media reports on the subject have typically failed to note that abortion carries an automatic excommunication under canon law. . . .
Why do so many expect the church to step back and change its canons to suit them? If x happens, then y is the result. There is no backpedaling on an action that constitutes an act of evil..oh, but I did evil for this reason, doesn't that make it ok???

Vatican criticism of Obama stem-cell decision
Archbishop Salvatore Fisichella, president of the Pontifical Academy for Life, has criticized President Barack Obama’s executive order that lifted restrictions on federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research, calling it a “victory of politics over ethics.” The Vatican newspaper L’Osservatore Romanoon March 10 reiterated the Church’s teaching on the dignity of the unborn. . . .
Why this needs to be debated any further is beyond me. Recent developments in multiple countries now have produced stem-cells without harming an unborn child. What is more, chord blood stem-cells are easy to gather and have no moral issue whatsoever. Lastly, only adult stem-cells have yielded results so far, from the last I've read. But the drive to use and research adult stem-cells is never mentioned, maybe not never, but I cannot recall the last time.

Cardinal, theologians back Boston health-care agency's bid for government contract
Amid controversy over a proposed arrangement that would lead the Archdiocese of Boston’s health-care network to become involved with insurance coverage for abortion, the Boston Globe found "leading theologians" from Creighton and Duquesne universities who supported the move, noting that the Church would be providing health care for the poor. (The Catholic network would administer a state government program offering subsidized coverage for low-income residents.) . . .
See the note about Brazil above, automatic excommunication is the result of any formal cooperation with an act of evil like abortion.

Pope notes that 'burning faith' of St. Boniface brought faith to Germany
At his regular weekly public audience on March 11, Pope Benedict XVI spoke about the legacy of St. Boniface, "apostle of the Germans." After a first failed effort to bring the Gospel to the pagans of the region, St. Boniface consulted with the Pope, received his blessing for a new effort, and achieved tremendous success before he finally met martyrdom in June 754. The Pope remarked that two lessons can be drawn from the great saint's life: "the central importance of the Word of God," and the value of "faithful communion with the Apostolic See." The Holy Father contrasted the saint's "burning faith" with the approach taken by too many Catholics today: "often lukewarm and bureaucratized." . . .
I love the story of Boniface chopping down the pagans' idolized oak tree to prove that pagan gods would not harm him. I've never heard of the saints of old being mild-mannered in their efforts to convert pagans. Then again, I recall all the pagans of old persecuting the saints of old. Don't forget though, more Christians were martyred in the 20th century than in any other century which preceded it. The persecution of old continues, do we still have the saints of old with the requisite mettle?

Madrid archdiocese’s building provoke Church-state controversy
The Archdiocese of Madrid’s plans to build a monastery, residence for retired priests, religious library, parking garage, and center for the homeless in a beloved park has provoked protests from Spain’s Socialist government, which has filed an appeal with the European Commission in Brussels following approval of the plan by Madrid’s city council. The park was portrayed in a 1788 painting by Francisco de Goya. . . .
Take the time to read my post on Spain's Socialist government removing all tributes to Franco...how does a sovereign nation appeal to the European Commission, whatever that is, to stop the construction of a retirement home, library and homeless shelter? What kind of a government is in power in Spain? Be sure to read up on the atrocities committed by Franco's enemies!

Dalai Lama: object of Beijing's hostility, but key to peace in Tibet
Heavy Chinese military patrols in Tibet have effectively established martial law there as the occupied land marks the 50th anniversary of its failed rebellion. Father Bernardo Cervellera, the director of the Asia News service, argues that Beijing is making a strategic error by trying to eliminate the influence of the exiled Dalai Lama, because he is the only Tibetan leader who could provide for a peaceful resolution of the conflict in Tibet. . . .
I still find the sham Olympics of 2008 such a mockery...

Viva Cristo Rey, El Caudillo's battle cry

2009-03-06T10:35:00.000-08:00

Generalísimo Francisco Franco Is Still Dead -- And His Statues Are Next

Socialist Government Banishes Fascist Icons Though Nostalgia for the Dictator Lives On

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123594813501604681.html

Franco's Spain is nearly gone.

The Socialist government of Spain is continuing its efforts to tarnish Franco and his memory, while white washing their own disgusting history. The anecdotes are endless...allow me to briefly describe a handful of events that could be used to accurately memorialize Franco's opposition from the 1930's

-In the first three months of the Spanish Civil War in 1933 more than 3,000 unarmed priests, nuns, and brothers were systemically executed and assassinated. How about a series of massive bronze statues in a square of Barcelona that shows five priests on their knees with arms extended to give blessings to their assassins as they are mowed down by gun shots. (Autopsies of the brothers often showed the bullets had entered their hands and wrists, then traveled all the way up their arms into their shoulders because they were in the process of blessing their persecutors while being executed.)

-More priests and religious were killed in 6 months in Spain, by Franco's opposition, than in any time since the persecutions of Diocletian. Diocletian had ordered Roman soldiers to go house to house to uproot each and every Christian, if someone refused to offer a sacrifice to Rome's gods, then he was promptly executed. How about a plaque in Bilbao, which indicates these statistics and comparisons. Is this good company for Franco's enemies to be in?

-Sometimes fiction is stronger than reality...Ernest Hemingway spent time in Spain during the Civil War and his novel For Whom the Bell Tolls is set in that Civil War. How about we place a sculpted relief before Madrid's weekly flea market which shows Hemingway's account of Pablo's anti-Franco volunteers taking over their local village. The highlight of the relief would be how the gauntlet of thresher, club, and scythe wielders formed to hack the "Fascist Nationalists" that supported Franco's side into pieces before they were thrown over a cliff. And to think Franco's government found cause to execute the perpetrators?

-My old friend Maria Luisa de Castro, born and raised in Algeciras, had some good tales her grandmother passed down to her from when she was a child in the 1930's. Maria once recounted to me how her grandmother described seeing Franco's enemies publicly executing Franco's supporters in the streets while she was enroute to elementary school...just like the Goya painting, I believe.

-My personal favorite, because it's the least gory of these anecdotes, would be to have a larger than life bronze of the leader of Franco's enemies handing over pallet upon pallet of solid gold bars to be delivered to Stalin for safe-keeping, in case Franco were to sack Madrid. It is said that Stalin gave a gleeful toast the day Spain's entire gold reserve was delivered to Russia. Apparently it is still being held, it has not been returned.

-They could also publish pamphlets that include mention of Spain's birth-rates since the socialists took over...according to Mark Steyn (Canadian extraordinaire) Spain is so far beneath the replacement rate that they may never recover. A Spain without Spaniards, imagine that. IT is certainly a less visible means to depopulate your nation, unlike the mass drownings that Robespierre, Danton and Marat orchestrated in the Vendee during the French Revolution.

A lovely segment of the article, from which this post stems, is as follows:

"The left is attempting to rewrite our country's history. They base it on a series of half-lies, half-truths and outright lies," says Mr. Bezanilla. The 44-year-old municipal worker was just 11 when Franco died. But he has read volumes on the former dictator's ideas and is nostalgic for his regime.

More than three decades after Franco died and 72 years after he seized power, Spain is on a controversial mission to expunge the many emblems of its painful past that are still on public display.

We should not forget that it was just in the 1990's that his Holiness, Pope John Paul II, beatified several hundred of the soldiers that fought with and for Franco; against the anarchist, communist, socialist, and Trotskyite popular front government that had given Spain's gold reserve away and executed thousands of priests and religious. John Paul II's profound declaration regarding Franco's soldiers was and remains the largest mass beatification in history!

Some parting thoughts...Franco followed the centralized, planned government structure of fascist principles (ones which I do not support mind you), the racism of Hitler and the expansionism of Hitler and Mussolini (fascism's founder) were never a part of Franco's reign. Franco actually withdrew Spanish forces back into Spain, vowing never to draw his sword again except in defense of Spain. Franco did meet with Hitler at the height of WWII. Franco refused to send any forces to assist Hitler...he only allowed volunteers to enlist in the war against Communist Russia (which was also executing Christians-Belarus was once 98% Catholic, today it is 2%. Hitler declared that he would "rather have two teethed pulled than to ever go through a meeting with that man [Franco] again." Know of any other leaders from Franco's era that stood up to Hitler that well??? Neville Chamberlain is still a laughing stock for the way he was played by Hitler. Not so with El Caudillo, aka Franco, whose supporters and soldiers were notorious for shouting Viva Cristo Rey, Long Live Christ the King!

Another's commentary on Brooks, et al

2009-03-05T11:52:00.000-08:00

I always enjoy reading David Brooks, though I always cringe at the way he ends each op ed with a denial or defeat of what he had written up until the end. For example, Brooks once called Obama a "Fast Eddie" because of how he "threw his pastor under the bus" the week after he explained away his pastors racist remarks. Just like yesterday's op ed, "Obama is not who we moderates thought he was." Still, he end the op ed by stating how he wants to bring Obama back to his better self. The excerpt below from a townhall.com article puts Brooks and Cramer (not Kramer as I had mistakenly spelled his name) and co. into proper perspective:

"Centrists," "moderates" and "social justice Catholics" (among others) who believed otherwise did so because their entire justification for supporting Obama consisted of, "We know what he's saying, but we don't believe him." This is the political equivalent of sticking one's fingers in one's ears and yelling, "Nah nah nah nah nah nah - I can't hear you." How else to describe the deliberate obtuseness of authors and commentators who insisted before the election that Obama was "going to govern from the center," and the increasingly desperate and transparently specious assertions after the election that that's precisely what he was doing? Hell, they’d still be saying it, if it weren’t for the fact that the Dow takes a tumble every time he opens his mouth.

Well, I'll give Brooks credit for this much: at least he is willing to admit it now. Prominent Catholic and Pepperdine Law School dean Doug Kmiec is still running around proclaiming Obama to be the most pro-life president ever. This despite Obama's historic refusal to support the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, his promise to sign the Freedom of Choice Act, his repeal of the Mexico City Policy, his appointment of EMILY's List and NARAL operatives to important positions, and his nomination of pro-choice Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius for Secretary of Health and Human Services. (At this rate, Kmiec will soon have a pro-life website up and running in support of Kansas late-term abortionist Dr. George Tiller. I can see it now: www.catholicsfortillerthekiller.com. Perhaps Kmiec could argue that Tiller, too, actually serves the pro-life cause, because the procedures he employs are so horrific, even women who want an abortion are scared off.)

LA's Mahoney and denial

2009-03-05T05:06:00.000-08:00

I've never been a fan of Cardinal Mahoney. The same bishop that once "served" my home diocese and set in place the various policies on accused pederasts that ended up getting the diocese sued for millions, though that is extremely minor as compared to the children that men like my former parish pastor harmed.

Cardinal Mahoney is the one who spent hundreds of millions of dollars to complete a notoriously hideous new cathedral just in time for the sex abuse law suits to slam the diocese for money it no longer had. The diocese then went on to sell hundreds of millions of dollars worth of real estate to pay for its legal settlements.

I once attended Mahoney's infamous LA catechetical congress for a weekend...the two+ hour opening prayer ceremony was void of two striking things: not a single crucifix in the arena and not one priest, nun, or the cardinal himself led us in the sign of the cross. The Cardinal did find time to enter into the "liturgical dance" portion of the opening ceremony, he lacked style-but, again, that's minor.

Today the good Cardinal made the following declaration, as told by AP: LOS ANGELES (AP) — Cardinal Roger Mahony on Tuesday took the unusual step of banning Holocaust-denying British Bishop Richard Williamson from any Roman Catholic church, school or other facility in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles.

"Holocaust deniers like Williamson will find no sympathetic ear or place of refuge in the Catholic Church, of which he is not — and may never become — a member," said a commentary signed jointly by Mahony, head of the nation's largest archdiocese, and two officials of the American Jewish Committee.

Since when does this diocese censor people? Name one excommunicant in the the last 20 years. Name five of his high school theology teachers that would accept the oath of fidelity. To claim that a leader of the SSPX is not and may never become a member of the Catholic church is preposterous. Was he validly baptised? Is he currently under some form of excommunication? (no, that was lifted!) How can a cardinal declare that a baptised catholic is not catholic? Does he have some special insight into his soul's disposition and belief?

So, for questioning historical evidence he is persona-non-grata, but a cardinal that wastes hundreds of millions on his pet-cathedral and shuffled around pedophiles for years is some how a good catholic??? Oh, my!

I could say more on Mahoney, but will refrain. I do not think much of Williamses remarks, but his remarks question history as Mahoney's question prudential judgement and the safety of his flock...which is worse?

Interesting economic bits, scary too

2009-03-03T07:54:00.000-08:00

This first site is an article that recounts the testimony of one and other wall street people who were uber-pro-Oh, Bama and who not fear, like Kramer, that this "radical agenda" will devastate wall street even further. The article expands the expected effects and explains that a once of blood on wall streets takes a "pound of flesh" from main street.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-03-02/is-the-worst-yet-to-come/

This next link (though you may need to copy and paste it to the browser), is a four minute clip of an interview with the beloved Alan Keyes, who valiantly, yet foolishly, ran for Illinois Senator against Obama. Keyes was an ambassador and advisor to Reagan, speak a few languages, is black, has his doctorate, and is quite Catholic. His voice can be shrill and nasally at times, but having seen him speak twice and having met him twice I know of no better speaker!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqkMfToY9Pk

Incidentally, David Brooks' New York Times headline today says, Obama is not who we thought he was.

Wow! David Brooks, Kramer, and Alan Keyes all agreeing, on this...??? Wow!

Kramer and tv's 'Mad Money'

2009-03-03T04:53:00.000-08:00

I told myself I'd steer clear of politics for a day, but I can't resist. I have a post on Romano Guardini and the Industrial Revolution planned for later in the day. Now, onto a small bit of politics and economics...

I usually don't care for (Larry?) Kramer, host of tv's Mad Money and frequent guest on the morning news on channel 3. Today he was in quite a furry with Matt Lauer, not with Matt personally, however. Kramer repeatedly stated that the recent Oh, Bama budget is a "radical agenda" and laughed at the notion that it was in any way investor or share holder friendly. He also said that this budget is devastating to job creation in the market place.

Kramer has pushed for the bailouts and what not since long before Bush began them, and he seemed to support Obama up until now in my opinion. Kramer was down right furious over the amount of time it took Bush to respond to the calls for government intervention back in Oct./Nov. He essentially went on to add that though the stimulus was helpful and right, this budget completely changes the game and will destroy the economy.

I haven't read the stimulus or the budget and I likely will not get to it. In principle I tend to dislike the stimulus and bailouts no matter what their details. But when Kramer, a pro intervention and pro stimulus and pro bailout guy gets so exasperated with such things I am quite intrigued.

Some Responses

2009-03-02T19:44:00.001-08:00

The computer didn't want to let me post this as a comment, so I'm posting it as a new message. This is a response to Kyle's comments. Kyle is the one responsible for getting me to start this blog in the first place...and the first to challenge me on it.

I think you're giving him too much credit, Kyle. I hope I am wrong, but I think it likely he let his feelings slip at the PA town hall meeting where he said he wouldn't want his daughter to be "punished" by a pregnancy. I don't think him to be Moloch, but Obama's vision of the good is so ghastly wrong that Moloch has control. To think of a child as punishment which can be disposed of to avoid the costs speaks to his premises, if this is ok then that is ok, it's cogent reasoning, but the premise is despicable and if he holds this premise then what else is ok?

I do agree on the long-term term solution, conversion. There is no other way, we aren't morally able to force them to act as we wish, our task is to spread the gospel.

Allow me to ramble a bit...In the realm of ideas, I think the underlying premises speak louder than the tenets of the policies themselves. If "whether or not it works" is his premise than he is capable of nearly anything. If nixing legal protection for a nurse who finds abortion murderous is permissible, then what will follow. I have been told by several in the nursing field that hospitals are inserting lines in their contracts that they must assist in abortions, or they will lose their jobs. So such coercion is going on and Bush signed an order that would protect their consciences, legal protection.

Are you familiar with Budzizewski (sp?) he wrote 'written on the heart' and 'what we can't not know.' He argues that at some point people need to be shocked with blunt reason. He may be wrong. Flannery O'Connor made the same argument: to the blind you must write in very large letters. I've grown quite weary of cordial non-discussion of so many issues just for the sake of tranquility. I don't mind roughing the waters, but I do pray that my approach is what certain people need at a given moment.

I spent some time in DC at Family Research Council and from that experience I can not accept that there is not a larger agenda behind seemingly small changes. Again, the premises behind the actions are more powerful than the initial acts and a larger legislative goal is being pushed by many ngo's upon every sen. and every cong'ssm'n at all times. Steps such as this and the Mex. City policy are hideous, but things will get much worse, I am convinced.

I'm not the only one who sees it

2009-03-02T10:13:00.000-08:00

Kevin McCullough has recently penned a longer, more provocative account of the Obama administrations intentions to cram murder into the hands of our nation's doctors. His parallel is precise and obvious. I've pasted a lengthy excerpt and placed a link at the bottom of the excerpt for all to read the full article.

Obama as...

by Kevin McCullough

...In the 1930's and 40's as Hitler wished to use his captive “lesser-humans” for "experiments" in his final solution. He too forced doctors to do things they did not wish to do. Everything from injecting living humans with horrible chemicals to see the effect, to trying differing grades of poisonous gases in what eventually became death chambers. These doctors, who were purveyors of those things that helped save lives, were suddenly forced to use the medical knowledge they had of death--to end them.

In today’s scenario Obama wants doctors to exterminate “lesser humans” for the purpose of immediate solutions to his social experiment. And he wishes them to do so regardless of whether or not they are compelled by the higher call of morality on an individual basis.

Put another way Obama's policy shift would be the equivalent of forcing those who believed slavery to be immoral and never even owned slaves, to begin purchasing them, beating them, raping them, and exploiting them.

This policy shift that Obama has attempted to slide under the radar screen is grossly immoral, and doctors should disobey it and run a medical mutiny against the administration if it becomes law.

The President did this, as he has done most things since coming to power as a pure, pragmatic, political move to pay off the campaign favors of those special interest groups he railed against during his campaign. In this case the abortion industry which is increasingly under attack from the next generation who understand the taking of innocent life to be horrific.

As to all the comparisons that the left made in 8 years of the previous administration, they never once had such a clear comparison that so vividly laid out the exact parallel between the dictator who thought it moral to gas people in chambers, and now a President who believes that live babies should be left to starve in soiled utility closets of hospitals, even if it violates the voice of God telling the doctor to do otherwise.

This stroke of the policy pen, moves the administration into its first conflict with the first amendment right of religious belief and expression, and he should be penalized for it quickly. ...

http://townhall.com/columnists/KevinMcCullough/2009/03/01/obama_as_hitler

Bishop Martino and the "home" of 'The Office'

2009-03-02T07:35:00.000-08:00

In case someone is unaware, tv's hit sitcom, 'The Office', is set in Scranton, PA. Scranton is also the Episcopal seat of Bishop Martino, perhaps the most plain spoken and publicly engaged member of the American hierarchy. The sort of man one wants to follow, why? because he speak with authority--which is how the masses described Christ, "he speaks with authority" unlike the scribes. He speaks objectively, rather than skeptically as Pilate did to Christ, "What is Truth?" If the Church is unable to confidently speak truth in its third millenium then can it exist in a fourth? At any rate, the point of this post is as follows: Bishop Martino continues to serve his flock by doing all he is able in preventing scandal and doubt as to the respect and reverence due to the Blessed Sacrament, the Panus Angelicus.

Bishop Martino posted the following:

Therefore, His Excellency, the Most Reverend Joseph F. Martino, Bishop of Scranton, reminds all ministers of Holy Communion, ordinary and extraordinary, that:

1. To administer the Sacred Body and Blood of the Lord is a serious duty which they have received from the Church, and no one having accepted this responsibility has the right to ignore the Church’s law in this regard;

2. Those whose unworthiness to receive Holy Communion is known publicly to the Church must be refused Holy Communion in order to prevent sacrilege and to prevent the Catholic in question from committing further grave sin through unworthy reception.

Earlier this month the forthright bishop informed his own Senator: “Your failure to reverse this vote [Obama's rescinding of the Mexico City Policy, which prevents US aid money from providing abortions overseas] will regrettably mean that you persist formally in cooperating with the evil brought about by this hideous and unnecessary policy,”
As #915 of theCode of Canon Law instructs: Eucharistic ministers are not to administer the Blessed Sacrament to Catholics "who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin."
Bishop Martino is far from alone, as former Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, in his 2004 message to the bishops of the United States stated:
Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person’s formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.

When it comes to the reception of the most holy Eucharist...should the congregation need to ask, "what is truth?" Or should truth be most manifestly obvious and reverence for that which we proclaim to be Christ's transubstantiated body and blood be maintained? If someone who public supported the tax payer's well-earned money being used to execute the children not wanted by a parent, the unborn through 'abortion,' received communion at Mass...would you want to receive from the hands (Eucharistic minister's, priests, etc.) that gave to this man, would you want to stand in line behind him, thinking: this man voted to use my money (from tax dollars) to kill children, to murder children...Scandal??? At the immediate judgement that follows death, if you are asked about standing their dumbly how will you respond...I didn't know what the truth was, honest...I just followed what my bishop said or didn't say...who am I to judge? I didn't know...Sorry...

One of my greatest fears

2009-03-02T05:15:00.000-08:00

Posted below is a headline from CNN. It has been rumored and alleged for some time that the Oh, Bama administration would do just this sort of violence to the conscience of individuals. Bush was polite and quiet as he left office, but he slipped in at least one good policy as he left. Can you imagine going to college then medical school and residency for about a decade or so then on just as you start your job you are handed a scalpel and told to murder someone you consider to be a living child. If this goes through...imagine all the people they would seriously have to lock up or force into retirement. Think of how long it will take to see a doctor next year if even 15% of doctors follow their consciences and refuse, resulting in an early retirement; or prosecution?. Could a Dr. 'More' refuse to cooperate and be subsequently be prosecuted for denying what is pragmatically sensible...Henry VIiI punished More for not going along with what he thought was morally tolerable. My God, this scares me. Just think of where the money to pay for much of this will come from as well...our taxes used to kill our own children.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Obama administration plans to reverse a regulation from late in the Bush administration allowing health-care workers to refuse to provide services based on moral objections, an official said Friday.

The rule protects the rights of health care providers who refuse to participate in certain procedures.

The Provider Refusal Rule was proposed by the Bush White House in August and enacted on January 20, the day President Barack Obama took office.

It expanded on a 30-year-old law establishing a "conscience clause" for "health-care professionals who don't want to perform abortions."

Under the rule, workers in health-care settings -- from doctors to janitors -- can refuse to provide services, information or advice to patients on subjects such as contraception, family planning, blood transfusions and even v

2009-02-24T12:09:00.000-08:00

One final post for the day! Angelo Scola went right to one of the central themes and missions of this blog in a recent essay in defense of Christians speaking out and applying their principles in the public square. I've made green one line that especially highlights one of my priorities in the caption below:

It seems to me that people often lose sight of the heart of the matter: every faith must always be subjected to a public cultural interpretation. It is an inevitable fact. On the one hand, this is because, as John Paul II wrote, "a faith that did not become cultural would not be fully welcomed, not entirely thought out, not faithfully lived." On the other, since the faith – Jewish and Christian – is the result of God's compromise with history, it inevitably has to do with the concreteness of life and death, of love and pain, of work and rest, and of civic action. For this reason, it is inevitably the object of different cultural interpretations, which can be in conflict with each other.

In this phase of "post-secularism," there are two cultural interpretations of Christianity in particular that are at odds with each other. Both seem reductive to me.

The first is the one that treats Christianity as a civil religion, as mere ethical cement, capable of acting as a social adhesive for our democracy and for the European democracies in grave distress. If such a position is plausible in those who do not believe, its structural insufficiency should be evident to those who do believe.

The other, more subtle interpretation is the one that tends to reduce Christianity to the proclamation of the pure, unadorned Cross, for the salvation of "everyone else.

Moloch has not died-An Escondido Priest's well-said letter

2009-02-24T12:04:00.000-08:00

http://www.catholicculture.org/news/features/index.cfm?recnum=60291

broken family, liturgically speaking

2009-02-24T11:02:00.000-08:00

I think it's fair to say that, liturgically speaking, I'm the product of a broken family. I was raised with the Novus Ordo, but have come to recognize it's failings. I attend the Tridentine Rite somewhat routinely, and my appreciation for this liturgical heritage goes beyond a mere fondness. It's very confusing for someone like myself no know of nothing but the new order and to suddenly discover the greater depth, mystery, symbolism, and reverence of Tridentine ways all of a sudden. It's like a parent you never met is suddenly introduced to you, I'm supposing. It's all the more frustrating to think that, perhaps, the parent you did know, the one that raised you, was not being fully truthful, fully revealing. Controversies over translation of lines like Pro Multis, for all or many did Christ shed his blood? That controversies that have stemmed from Vatican II's abuses, which I was wholly ignorant of for most of my life, are the parental equivalent of a divorced family with one parent hiding the other's existent, with no mention of their part in our shared past.

Archbishop Ranjith has been put to work on the task of restoration and reconciliation. Catholic Culture (a link is permanently posted toward the bottom of this blog) recently posted the following in an article:

The writings of Cardinal Antonelli, Archbishop Ranjith says, help the reader "to understand the complex inner workings of the liturgical reform prior to and immediately following the Council." The Vatican official concludes that implementation of the Council's suggested reforms often veered away from the actual intent of the Council fathers. As a result, Archbishop Ranjith concludes, the liturgy today is not a true realization of the vision put forward in the key liturgical document of Vatican II, Sacrosanctum Concilium (doc).

Specifically, Archbishop Ranjith writes:

Some practices which Sacrosanctum Concilium had never even contemplated were allowed into the Liturgy, like Mass versus populum, Holy Communion in the hand, altogether giving up on the Latin and Gregorian Chant in favor of the vernacular and songs and hymns without much space for God, and extension beyond any reasonable limits of the faculty to concelebrate at Holy Mass. There was also the gross misinterpretation of the principle of "active participation."

To conclude this post, I'll borrow/paraphrase from G.K. Chesterton: The man that makes the most progress is not the one who continues to just plod along...it is the one who realizes he took the wrong fork in the road and is first to turn back correct himself.

Oh, Bama's Department of Justice

2009-02-24T10:50:00.000-08:00

Family Research Council, FRC, recently sent out messages about David Ogden, a defense lawyer nominated to be second in command at the department of justice, DoJ. Apparently Ogden has a background working with the ACLU (an institution that once "kicked" me out of their DC HQ because I wore an Ashcroft pin and stood in the corner at their anti-Ashcroft press conference) in defending people being prosecuted for crimes involving pornographic images of children.

I Quote FRC's message:

In the brief he filed for the ACLU, Ogden said the videos were not child pornography at all. He argued that the children’s genitals were not clearly visible and that the videos should therefore be treated as just another art form with full protection by the First Amendment. Even more outrageous was Ogden’s claim that if the Nather tapes were child porn, then librarians everywhere would fear prosecution! Libraries had images of clothed minors, he argued, any of which could be subject to prosecution limited only by a subjective test of lasciviousness.

This argument was clearly absurd, and thankfully the court concluded it was also legally wrong. On June 9, 1994, the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment against Stephen Knox for violation of federal child pornography law.

President Obama has nominated David Ogden to a high-level position in his sub-cabinet -- not a position in agriculture or defense but the number two position at the Department of Justice, the Department charged with prosecuting adult and child pornography violations. The porn industry is so excited by the prospect of having one of their allies in this key position that they have not been able to contain themselves. XBiz, a leading “adult” newswire, called Ogden a “strong pick,” and porn attorney Colin Hardacre of Los Angeles said Ogden’s nomination is “a good sign for the adult industry.”

Oh, my! Oh, Bama!

Recent Headlines and Conclusions

2009-02-19T07:43:00.001-08:00

Below are various headlines pulled from catholicculture.org's recent daily updates. An explanation of what to make of these headlines is inserted in this bold type face.

JESUIT PROVINCE IN NORTHWESTERN US FILES FOR BANKRUPTCY FEBRUARY 18, 2009

-I can't help but recall the words of Fr. Ilo, "take all the money away, we're better off being a poor church." Don't forget the nature and purpose of mendicantism and the vow of poverty--If God continues to want your order's existence, then God will provide. Sometimes God calls the loan and it's time for foreclosure. There are orders that can hardly make room for all their recruits, the Jesuits have had empty, decrepit halls for quite some time. I recall the Ignatian retreat I made some years ago with the Jesuits at Santa Clara University. The freezers full of Hagen Daz bars (to which I had full access and took full advantage) were delightful, but hardly conducive to a disciplined, ascetic, prayerful life of service and poverty...let alone a disciplined retreat experience. The liturgical concepts of Form and Matter have long been misaligned with this order. Incidentally, this bankruptcy stems from sexual abuse lawsuits

MIXED RESPONSES AFTER CRUCIFIXES RETURN TO BOSTON COLLEGE CLASSROOMS FEBRUARY 12, 2009

Students, faculty members, and administrators at Jesuit-run Boston College are divided over the return of crucifixes to classrooms, Boston newspapers report. "The Christian art reflects our pride in and commitment to our religious heritage," Was this pride missing for a period of time? said Jack Dunn, the spokesman for a school that has been prominently identified with dissent from Church teaching on many recent occasions. But the head of the Slavic-language department said that the appearnce of religious symbol is is " contrary to the letter and spirt of open intellectual discourse that makes education worthwhile and distinguishes first-rate universities from mediocre and provincial ones." So censoring the history, heritage, and focus of Catholicism is somehow conducive to the open exchange of ideas and meaningful discussion? The chairman of the chemistry department agreed that it is "offensive." Would it be offensive to see the slain lord displayed in art anywhere, or only on the campus of Catholic institutions? Neither professor indicated a desire to leave the university. Who gives up tenure...you can say anything, do anything and face no real consequences. The only catch, your employers promote things which you find "offensive" and "contrary to...intellectual discourse." and makes you a proponent of a "mediocre" institution...Its seems these prof's are likely violating their own consciences for the sake of personal gain. Be honest! If it is truly offensive and truly a violation of what you believe, don't be a part of it.

FRENCH GROUP TO FILE CHARGES AGAINST BISHOP WILLIAMSON FEBRUARY 12, 2009

The International League Against Racism and Anti-Semitism will file charges against Bishop Richard Williamson for “contesting crimes against humanity.” The thought police strike again...funny parallel to the crucifixes at Boston College and open discussion of events/facts leading to mediocrity. The SSPX bishop questions evidence and says "I haven't seen the proof." For this he is on the verge of prosecution?

Congresswoman Finds Her Place?

2009-02-18T19:05:00.000-08:00

Is it the place of Congress members to apply their religion to how they think on domestic policy issues? As Archhbishop Chaput of Denver, CO unabashedly stated in Render Unto Caesar, if we believe, then we must act in accordance with what we believe. In other words, faith without works that are indicative of that faith is meaningless (a paraphrase of the Epistle of St. James as well).

On this very day, Congresswoman Pelosi of CA, home sweet leftist home, had the blessed opportunity to meet with his holiness, Pope Benedict XVI. The following was listed on the web:

The Pope regularly meets with visiting dignitaries after his Wednesday audience, and ordinarily no public statements are issued. But following his meeting with Pelosi, that meeting, the Vatican released this unusual public statement:

His Holiness took the opportunity to speak of the requirements of the natural moral law and the Church's consistent teaching on the dignity of human life from conception to natural death which enjoin all Catholics, and especially legislators, jurists and those responsible for the common good of society, to work in co-operation with all men and women of good will in creating a just system of laws capable of protecting human life at all stages of its development. (end quote)

Will Pelosi respond accordingly? Does the faith she claims to confess still bind her heart? Is her place in or out of the Body of Christ? Is her place in this world, the Civitas Humanum, or in the next, the Civitas Dei? Apparently her own bishop met with her about her startlingly false remarks on theology, history, and philosophy on Meet the Press...was he as direct?

The Way One Thinks

2009-02-18T04:53:00.000-08:00

In recent months, or is it years now? Sen. Obama, now Pres. Obama, quipped that knowing when life began was beyond his pay grade. A recent mock interview published by the Archbishop of Rhode Island led to a new reflection on Pres. Obama's thought process. Does the president give much thought to the life of the children cut short? Think back to the inaugural address as well, where it was declared that "whether or not it works" is the only standard by which to judge.

Abortion is possibly the one issue which holds the Republican party together-how many current republicans would completely jump ship if the party platform were to radically change on abortion? The way the President (Obama) thinks on this issue is best described as flippant, given the quip just mentioned. How does he think? What formed his thought process? Let's combine the inaugural address with the earlier quip of the tongue and describe the President's thought process as Pragmatic-Flippancy. If an issue is not of concern to him, then it can be deemed, "above my pay grade." If it is important to me and to my base...then pragmatism, results are the judging criteria, is what we use to measure the proper response and course of action.

One famous politician of old comes to mind when I think of utter pragmatism in politics. It has been said that this politician was the founding father of modern political science as a "science." That famous Italian monarchist...Niccolo Macciavelli. The one and only. Famous for one line above all else: The Ends Justify the Means. Not to dive into the nature and validity of teleological reasoning, but if results the only judge, then the ends justify the means.

England has two stand out politicians that are in stark contrast to Macciavelli and Obama, both were well-trained lawyers. Both were advisors and friends to the king. Both were named the Lord High Chancellor of the King's realm, both the highest legal authorities in all their lands with all to lose and nothing more to gain, but added wealth; at least in the earthly realm. Thomas Beckett and Thomas More both gave their lives for deciding that ends and means are important. Both lawyers stood firm, death before pragmatism.

The Archbishops article: http://thericatholic.com/stories/1894.html

A Sense of Place

2009-02-17T12:10:00.000-08:00

A sense of place is constantly in the process of formation; the way we think, the inheritance-s we have received from our forbears, the work we do, and the cities and elsewhere-s that we call home give us our sense of place.

This initial post is everyone's first insight into the agendas this blog is intended to vent, foment, and spread.

One guiding principle, which will be oft repeated:

Nothing is Neutral!

All decisions and propensities bespeak of something, none are neutral.