Tennessee Catholic

I'm giving up the blog

2005-08-08T19:30:00.000-07:00

Folks, I've had a blast blogging-- the writing, visiting other blogs, investigating things, getting in fights-- all of it.

Problem is, it takes me away from the things that are really important: family, schooling the kids, prayer, eating, sleeping...

Thank you: all you who have visited, left comments, linked to me, argued or dialogued with me, and generally made this such fun.

I'll try finding a nice, wholesome hobby.

I hear body piercing is hot.

"The Passion of The Christ" as Street Theater

2005-08-07T18:52:00.000-07:00

The Archdiocese of Melbourne, Australia, under Archbishop George Pell, is sending feelers to Mel Gibson to see if he is willing to produce a Stations of the Cross reenactment in the streets of Melbourne as part of their bid to host World Youth Day in 2008.

World Youth Day is essentially a mammoth, revival/gathering of Catholic young folk. It amounts to a week long rally at which the Pope usually turns up, and has varied in size over the past decade anywhere from four hundred thousand to five million Catholic kids. It has taken place recently at Cologne, Toronto, and Rome. Cities vying to host the event often do so under some influential bishop who puts together a bid with all the arm twisting and blue sky promising associated with cities trying to host the Olympics or a major party political convention.

And for anyone not familiar with them, the Stations of the Cross is a ceremonial meditation on Christ's final three hours of life as Pilate sentenced him to be Crucified. Traditionally, it includes fourteen stations, usually in the form of artistic representations permanently placed at intervals around the inside walls of most Catholic Churches. On the Fridays of the liturgical season of Lent, parish priests or deacons will lead a procession around the side aisles of the parish church, stopping at each station to lead prayers and songs specifically associated with a specific events from the moment Jesus was sentenced to die to His burial in the tomb.

In some places, the Stations are done outside. Each year in Rome, the Pope has traditionally led a Stations ceremony around the coliseum where so many early Christians died for the Faith. In Jerusalem, the Stations are done on the "Via Dolorosa", the street believed to be the same one that Christ struggled up from the ancient Roman fortress Antonia to the hillock known at Golgotha or Calvary.

To be done theatrically by a producer believed to have made the best and most controversial Christian movie of all time would be an incredible pageant.

It would also be a lightning rod, of course. Everyone who despised Gibson's movie will despise the Melbourne event. They will predict anti-Jewish pogroms, anti-Christian terrorism, or both.

And Gibson might not even do it. Or Melbourne might not win the bid for World Youth Day.

But it would still be an incredible thing to imagine. More incredible to see.

Teaching the Bible in Public Schools

2005-08-04T09:38:00.000-07:00

The Odessa, Texas, School Board has made waves by approving a plan to allow an elective course on the Bible to be taught at the local high school.

We can thank the New York Times for attracting national attention to this news item. I found out about it by way of Tom Carter, who brought the issue to my attention through this post on his excellent blog.

The NYT, of course, cast the whole thing in the lurid colors of slack-jawed yokels reintroducing creation history and using urban legends as evidence of the Bible inerrancy.

At first, I was appalled that a public school board anywhere would flaunt the constitutional separation of church and state in such a clumsy, heavy-handed manner.

Then I remembered that it was viewing it all through the eye of the NYT, so I took a second look.

It turns out that all the accusations of creation science and the use of urban legends as biblical proofs come from opponents of the course. Which include militantly atheistic outfits such as Americans United for the Separation of Church and State.

I located the outfit which created the course. They are the The National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools. I was able to access their site yesterday, though not today. I suspect the NYT article has caused them to crash their server.

The syllabus for the course (the contents page, at least) says nothing about that. Rather, it appears that the course is teaching the history of the early Jews and Christians rather than any creationist nonsense. This, all liberal protestations aside, would be a wholly appropriate course, even in a public school, since it would instruct students about the Judeo-Christian roots of our society-- those roots which have had the single, most profound effect on the moral and cultural structure of Western Civilization.

I haven't seen the detailed syllabus. It costs $150. But then, the NYT wasn't willing to spring for the actual syllabus, either. The NYT relied exclusively on the opinions of various opponents of the new course.

The NYT can afford $150 to get real information rather than second hand gossip, for crying out loud.

I can hear the screams now

2005-08-02T16:23:00.000-07:00

According to SFGate, President Bush has personally endorsed the teaching of intelligent design theory alongside evolution in public schools.

It isn't a directive; it's the President's personal opinion.

But sectarians will now be screaming about how the president is a creationist who obviously has a brain the size of a pea and should be impeached for breaching the separation of church and state and so on...and so forth...ad nauseum.

And nobody will notice (well, almost nobody) that creationism is not the same thing as intelligent design.

And nobody (well, almost nobody) will catch the following lie in the news coverage:

"The theory of intelligent design says life on earth is too complex to have developed through evolution, implying that a higher power must have had a hand in creation."

That isn't so. The theory of intelligent design does allow for the idea of life on earth to develop through evolution, but it also says that this evolution could not have been through the random mutation of organisms. Rather, it says that evolution was providentially guided by the hand of God.

Wheels in wheels on Vatican/Israeli relations

2005-08-02T00:05:00.000-07:00

Jacob Copper at Vatican Watcher has one of the better Catholic blogs on the internet. This week, he has been aggregating stories on the recent diplomatic sparks between the Vatican and the state of Israel: Here, here, here and here.

In brief, there is a lot more to the whole affair than Israel feeling left out by Vatican statements regarding terrorist violence. What Israel is trying to do is force the Vatican to back them unconditionally in their ongoing struggle with the Palestinians, and they are threatening both the Catholic Church's position among various Christian Communities in the Holy Land as well as the progress made as a whole between the Church and Judaism itself. Also, they are purposely taking advantage of the change in Papal leadership to improve their chances of gaining an advantage.

The Israelis and the prelates in Rome are all big boys, and I really can't say any foul balls have been thrown here. The Israelis do need to realize something, however.

The Vatican doesn't back anyone unconditionally, and they never have.

The Crusades

2005-07-30T23:24:00.000-07:00

A friend of mine, Dennis, just drew my attention to a web-site on the Crusades.

The Crusades have been a sore point with me. When I was a kid, the consensus among most educated Americans was that these wars were a legitimate effort by Christian Europe to liberate the Holy Land from the Moslems who had recently barred Christian pilgrims from visiting the sacred sites. Though only one Crusade was an unqualified success, and most were disasters, the Crusades were regarded as a noble, even heroic enterprise.

Over the last generation, the conventional view of the Crusades came into disrepute. Secularists portrayed the Crusaders as bloodthirsty mercenaries, bringing death and misery to Moslems, Byzantines, Jews and anyone else who stood between them and the wealth of peaceful, idyllic, twelfth-century Islam.

Some Evangelical Protestant and Orthodox Christian controversialists leapt upon the bandwagon (unlikely bed-fellows with the secular humanist crowd) And emphasized the sack of Constantinople during the Fourth Crusade as evidence of the hypocrisy of the Catholic Church for calling a Crusade against the Moslems and then attacking the Orthodox Christians.

In my mind, and I've said this before, the Crusades are the only reason that we all don't speak Arabic right now and pray five times daily while facing toward Mecca.

But that Constantinople business really has troubled me. The sack of that city by Crusaders in 1204 did play a role in the collapse of the Byzantine empire, dated to the final conquest of Constantinople, now Istanbul, by the Moslems in 1453. In turn, this led to a Moslem foothold in Europe that steadily advanced until stopped by the decisive Catholic victory at the Battle of Vienna in 1683. Since then, Moslems have maintained a presence in the Balkans and turned Istanbul into a major Moslem capital on the European continent.

Byzantium might have lasted longer or never fallen at all had the Crusaders not sacked its capital. Alternatively, it might have fallen sooner had the Crusaders not given Islam the fight of its life for two centuries in the Holy Land. The balance of good and bad of the Crusades with respect to the venerable Eastern Roman Empire will simply never be known. However, the notion that an enterprise called by a pope could have resulted directly in the fall of a Christian capital does call into question the credentials of the See of Peter as a force for good in the High Middle Ages. How can an enterprise instituted by the Pope possibly go so bad?

As it happens, that isn't exactly the way it was.

At the Crusades Information page my friend Dennis directed me to, there is a quick guide to each major Crusade. The infamous Fourth Crusade is discussed there. Some interesting details:

--The Pope (Innocent III) might have called for the Crusade, but he withdrew his support and excommunicated the Crusaders long before they reached Constantinople. You see, they had already sacked another city which was under Papal protection.

--After the Crusaders had been excommunicated, they had actually been hired as mercenaries by a claimant to the imperial thrown of Byzantium to place him in power.

--After they placed the new emperor (Alexius IV) on his thrown, the new ruler of Byzantium broke his deal, paying the newly excommunicated mercenaries only half the bounty promised them and refusing to join them on the campaign they still hoped (so optimistically!) to stage in the Holy Land.

--That's when they sacked Constantinople.

Now, it isn't like that makes it all better. But it does make it clear that what these guys did was not done in the name of the Church.

Sparks between the Vatican and Israel

2005-07-28T15:54:00.000-07:00

Sorry for my lack of recent posts. I've been busy.

In Drudge, today. I saw a story titled Vatican Denounces Some Israeli Retaliation. Not good, although it may be overblown.

First off, this is the same Vatican that clearly denounced the Iraq War. In general, they denounce anything that involves killing people.

Second, the denunciation was implied, not official. It was part of a reply to a complaint by Israeli diplomats for not including a recent terror attack on Israel in a statement condemning bombings in Egypt, Britain, Iraq, etc. Specifically, the Vatican press office said: "It's not always possible to immediately follow every attack against Israel with a public statement of condemnation... for various reasons, among them the fact that the attacks against Israel sometimes were followed by immediate Israeli reactions not always compatible with the rules of international law."

According to the AP report, this "had an unusually blistering tone for the Holy See."

If that is blistering, then you can blister me all day and I'd never notice it.

I think the AP is trying to stir up trouble in a delicate area.

Now, I wouldn't have made the same call the Vatican did. If the Israelis felt left out, the Vatican should have apologized, condemned the terror attacks against that country, and kept the issue of retaliation wholly separate. Failing that, they should have remained silent. The actions of terrorists fall under a different category from the actions of a democratic government.

I'd say that what came out of the press office was clumsy, maybe even petty. But no more anti-Israeli than was the Vatican's specific and official condemnation of the Iraq War anti-American.

That didn't take to long

2005-07-21T00:22:00.000-07:00

At Relapsed Catholic I found a piece discussing how opponents of Judge John Roberts appointment to the Supreme Court are already trying to use his Catholicism against him. I predicted this would happen yesterday. God bless the Catholic League for being on the spot.

More Madness in L.A.

2005-07-20T21:18:00.000-07:00

Cardinal Roger Mahony of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles has just ordained a self-avowed homosexual to the permanent deaconate. Whether or not this person, Deacon Eric Stoltz, is sexually active is unknown. However, Stoltz is open and aggressive in promoting homosexual rights from the pulpit.

Is this a test of B16's willingness to crack down on Church modernists; or merely a sign of Mahony's contempt for Church teachings and discipline?

The more I hear about him, the better Roberts sounds

2005-07-20T09:11:00.000-07:00

My initial take on President Bush's Supreme Court nominee can be found on my other site here.

A good background, including John Roberts' Catholicism and pro-life connections can be found here.

Promising discussion threads can be found here and here.

One group that just can't wait to start smearing him is discussed here.

My take: the Dems will fight him all-out, and they will use every trick in the book, both clean and dirty. He will be called all sorts of names and accused of all sorts of crimes. People will appear from nowhere claiming he performed wicked acts either with them or upon them. Why? Because Roe v. Wade is to the Democrats what slavery once was to the South. Abortion is the single issue, dirty though it is, upon which all the influence of the Democratic Party rests-- in which the Dems are wholly invested-- around which every other issue revolves, either directly or indirectly.

Prediction: if Roberts is confirmed, and if some nut doesn't shoot him before he is sworn in, there will be seccession talk in the blue states. That's how big this will be to the Democrats, the liberals, and the secularits.

Other factors: libertarian-conservatives (a.k.a. South Park Conservatives) will be sorely tempted to abandon the president with regard to Roberts. So will the "moderate Republicans". So what gives us hope? South Park types have no representation in the Senate. Also, "Moderate Republicans" (McCain, Voinovich and friends-- and Oh, how I like using quotation marks around the word "moderate".) are still suffering such a backlash from their appeals court compromise that McCain pledged about at least a week ago to support the president on his Supreme Court nominee, no matter who the person may be.

But here is the truly scary part: the nomination will hinge on whether McCain keeps his promise.

An interesting Zenit piece on terrorism

2005-07-19T16:32:00.000-07:00

I take a look at it on my other site here.

The dilemma of Mormonism

2005-07-18T10:24:00.000-07:00

Disclaimer: I like Mormons. Collectively, they are probably some of the best people I know. My brother-in-law is Mormon. He is also a good husband and father with well educated, polite children whose prospects for worldly success are rather good. In the service, my second in command was a Mormon, a fine officer, and a gentleman. In college, my favorite professor was a Mormon (teaching anthropology at Notre Dame, no less). So don't get me wrong, I think Mormons are great people.

Having said that, they have one seriously weird religion.

At Relapsed Catholic, this morning, I picked up on a story of an Australian geneticist (who happens to be Mormon) in trouble with the LDS for publishing a book which outlines the genetic impossibility of the Mormon account of American Indians being descendents of the lost tribe of Israel.

Most Mormons are well educated. The familial and church discipline which are part of Mormon culture tends to result in worldly success and high educational standards in that community, and more especially among Mormons living outside Utah who (I suspect) feel the need to prove themselves "normal" while living among a large, secular population which views LDS beliefs and practices in a vague sense of disdain.

My point is this: most Mormons are smart enough to know that there is no way the book of Mormon can stand up to scientific, linguistic, historical, or even literary analysis. And yet they are willing to suspend their disbelief to remain in good standing with their church.

Why?

My theory is that most Mormons like the value set which promotes a wholesome family life, are willing to accept the theology of multiple deities (which makes a certain sort of sense, as long as you ignore the way it flatly contradicts everything in the Bible), and are willing to simply ignore the bogus salvation history.

I don't mean they contradict, argue against, or create scandal about their salvation history. They simply think about and talk about it as little as possible. That's the reason the Australian geneticist in the story above is getting the hammer dropped on him. He might have had the intellectual courage to say: "This belief can't be so." But he did not have the ability which most Mormons have developed of ignoring their temptation to pry into things and simply leave the topic alone.

This sounds dysfunctional, but it isn't. It is no more dysfunctional than teens who ignore the cursing of their peers or the idiosyncrasies of their siblings so they can be accepted in their group. It is no different from the laborer in the non-union shop who ignores the absence of collective bargaining because the pension plan he anticipates really is a good one. It's no different from the wife who ignores her husband's weekend withdrawal because he really does bust his hump all week long. These situations are all far from perfect, but they are tolerable and worth the reward.

To Mormons, the odd belief system and unbelievable salvation history are tolerable because they have a church home which puts families first and, with it's mission program, challenges every single LDS member right down to his toenails.

Catholics take note. The sex abuse scandal has been bad. If we want to participate in the recovery of our Church, we need to think about promoting the authentic, Christian family and challenging ourselves and each other to get out of our comfort zones-- to invest our egos in our Church.

A good problem to have

2005-07-17T20:27:00.000-07:00

Sometime during the wacky years following Vatican II, it became very chic to start using "earthen vessels" -- ceramic chalices and patens -- to hold the Blessed Sacrament during Mass. This practice, in addition to being ugly as sin and subversive to the doctrine of Transubstantiation, were never really a condoned practice.

About two years ago, the Vatican finally coaxed the bishops in the United States to uniformly return to the use of sacred vessels made from gold and silver.

Now, parishes are forced to deal with the very real problem of what to do with the ceramic and glass vessels.

Well, at least I resemble a Catholic

2005-07-14T11:28:00.000-07:00

I found a neat quiz at Quiz Farm today. I answered a set of questions and was told which theologian I most closely resemble. I scored as St. Anselm.

St. Anselm was, to quote Quiz Farm: "the outstanding theologian of the medieval period. He sees man's primary problem as having failed to render unto God what we owe him, so God becomes man in Christ and gives God what he is due." According to Quiz Farm, I should read "Cur Deus Homo".

Anselm

100%

Karl Barth

87%

Augustine

73%

John Calvin

67%

Jonathan Edwards

60%

Friedrich Schleiermacher

47%

Martin Luther

33%

Jürgen Moltmann

33%

Paul Tillich

27%

Charles Finney

20%

Which theologian are you?
created with QuizFarm.com

The Vatican re-enters the evolution fray

2005-07-14T04:37:00.000-07:00

Secular humanists are calling down thunder upon Cardinal Christoph Schonborn and his boss, B16, for Schonborn's reiteration of the Catholic interpretation of evolution, specifically, that the process is guided at every step by the hand of God.

Andrew Sullivan hyperventilates that he "...expected reactionary radicalism from Benedict. But this kind of stupidity?" Elsewhere, he alternates between charging that Benedict wants to "rush back to the Middle Ages" and "return to the 19th century"

Sigh. The least Sullivan could do would be to choose a century to accuse Benedict of living in and then stick to it.

Benedict hasn't taken the Church back one month, let alone half a millennium. Schonborn's statement, presumably made with papal approval, merely reiterates some of the points made by Pius XII in Humani Generis and endorsed by every pontiff thereafter, including JPII.

Sullivan's chief complaint is that Benedict refuses, as head of the Catholic Church on earth, to be an agnostic like Sullivan himself.

No, fictional witchcraft doesn't cut it either.

2005-07-13T10:16:00.000-07:00

For years, Christians have argued back and forth about Harry Potter.

Some say, "It encourages reading."

Others say, "It encourages involvement in the occult."

It tend to side with the others. I've never read any Harry Potter books. I haven't let my kids read them, either. In my mind, it creates a sense of moral confusion for Christian children to have heroes, fictional or not, who practice arts specifically condemned both by the Bible and by the Church.

"John: how can you condemn a book you've never read?"

I rely on authorities whom my experience tells me I can trust on this matter. Besides, would I need to read the Koran before saying that it, too, contradicted Christian teaching?

"You watched Bewitched when you were a kid. Didn't you? Did your parents mind?"

I did watch that show. So did my parents. Maybe that was a mistake. Maybe that was part of the cultural desensitizing which eventually led to the widespread practice of the occult in our neo-pagan culture.

"John, you're being a prude."

On this issue: yes. And, as it happens, so is the Pope.

For more on the concept of the moral confusion created by modern children's literature, I recommend the book: A Landscape with Dragons: the Battle for your Child's Mind, by Michael O'Brien. For a briefer version of the theme explored in O'Brien's book, try his essay here.

On the Purpose of Boycotts

2005-07-11T07:19:00.000-07:00

Terry Mattingly just published an interesting story on the question of whether the great Southern Baptist/Disney boycott ever really accomplished anything.

I tend to side with the Baptists on this one. Sure, the boycott did just about nothing to hurt Disney economically. And there is no evidence that Disney has altered its policies one bit. Indeed, the boycott might have boosted the Magic Kingdom's profits just a little bit by helping them loosen the "strictly for kids" image which may have hampered the entertainment giant for years.

At the same time, the boycott played a major role in helping me realize that when it comes to children's' entertainment, I just can't trust anyone. That is, the boycott was an effective educational tool for other people-- mostly Christians-- who have been trying to preserve traditional values in this pornographic era we live in. I never took part in the boycott. But because of it, I now prescreen even Disney videos before I let my children watch them. Further, it is through the process of explaining to my children why there are certain videos-- even Disney videos-- that they can't watch, that they have learned the important lesson that just because something is on television does not necessarily mean that it is good or true.

Taking a Break

2005-07-01T04:35:00.000-07:00

I'll resume blogging on Monday, July 11.

Homosexual Marriage in Spain

2005-06-30T07:24:00.000-07:00

This one got by me.

Last week, as the matter was coming up for consideration by the Spanish Parliament, Spaniards took to the streets by the hundreds of thousands to protest the prospect of legalizing homosexual marriage. The fact that the protests took place at all was seen as a sign of a resurgent Catholic consciousness among the people of Spain. And it seemed to be crowned with a victory as the Spanish Senate voted against the idea of gay marriages.

Alas, the Spanish Senate is an advisory body only.

The Socialist-dominated Congress of Deputies just passed the act.

See here for a news report-- along with the obligatory photo of two Spanish men smooching. Muy Macho!

Sex Abuse and Praise for the Traditional Confessional

2005-06-29T18:50:00.000-07:00

I just finished one of those very informative sort of books which, though you can find no fault with it, leaves you wanting to go jump off a bridge.

The book was Predators: Pedophiles, Rapists, and other Sex Offenders, by Anna C. Salter, 2003. The sub-subtitle reads: Who They Are, How They Operate, and How We Can Protect Ourselves and Our Children.

Awkward packaging, yes; but still a well written and informative book. The story, in a nutshell, is that they (sexual predators) can be anyone (although they do gravitate towards certain professions); that they are experts at preparing their victims and at deceiving both their victims and those who would protect the innocent; that they rarely are punished and that their punishment does not deter them; that they generally cannot be rehabilitated; and that anyone who thinks they can consistently identify a sex offender is self-deluded-- including the experts.

Priests are brought up, though not especially emphasized. That is, this is not a "slam the Catholic priesthood" book. Sex offenders may seek out the priesthood in a conscious effort to find victims, or they may run to the priesthood to escape their inner hell and fail in the self-reform effort. Or, they may enter the priesthood before fully developing whatever form of sexual deviancy they later exhibit. Church hierarchy and seminary formation teams are powerless at identifying these people because, to put it simply, a time and effort which sexual predators spend honing the techniques of deceit makes the seminary gate keepers little more than sheep among wolves in dealing with them.

Salter notes that parents and other adults responsible for children will never consistently succeed in identifying those who will harm their kids. There are certain indicators, yes, but none that are fool-proof. Besides, true predators already know most of the indicators and have attended to them already.

Salter's primary conclusion: if parents want to eliminate risk, then they simply should never place their child in a situation where they can be alone with any one adult except their own spouses.

That's impossible, of course. So Salter's secondary conclusion is that when the parent makes the decision that the child either needs to be given that independence which all kids need as they mature, or if trusting others is an absolute necessity, then the parent must do a risk assessment each and every time.

This all leaves me staring at the confessional of our church. My wife and I and my two older children go to confession about once a month. You walk in a room, you close the heavy, semi-soundproof door, and there you are, alone, with the priest.

I trust my parish priests. Both priests I confess to literally know every bad thing I've done in the last ten years or so, and then some. They have never revealed my sins. They have never so much as acted as if they had heard my sins. I trust them with more than my life. I trust them with my most shameful secrets and with helping me in the task of working out my salvation in fear and trembling, as St. Paul describes it.

But that room-- that confessional-- and my child, alone, with an adult male who has no conventional family life. And the knowledge that a true predator can operate giving no sign of the fiend hidden within. These all make for a long night wondering: what if my trust is misplaced?

Deep breath. Shift gears.

The modern, face to face confession is a fairly recent innovation. I remember being introduced to it in 1977 as one of many changes made in the fifteen years or so following Vatican II. The idea behind confessing face to face was to build trust and intimacy between priest and penitent. Me: I never liked it. I always preferred the old custom of confessing from behind a screen. I never liked having to have someone look at me while I described my sins. But even when given the option of going behind the screen, I have usually gone face to face anyway. Why? I suppose it is a sort of "gut check" for me; answering the question of whether I have the nerve to look a man in the eye while revealing things which are sinful, embarrasing, occassionally shameful. When face to face is available, going behind a screen seems almost wimpy to me-- like closing my eyes at a horror movie or screaming on a roller coaster.

But in the old fashion confessional-- the type used until 1976, there wasn't merely a screen separating priest and penitent. There was a wall. Not only could the priest not see you, but it was impossible to come into physical contact. More than that, it was a public space, for the confessional was composed of adjoining booths separated by that partition and screen and sitting in the middle of the Church. And more than that, both booths were too small for more than one person to enter, and it was impossible to enter without everybody outside knowing somebody was inside. How? The doors didn't go all the way to the floor! It was like a dressing room at the department store. You had privacy, but at the same time you were observable.

The story, as I heard it, was that St. Charles Borromeo himself invented the confession booth for the specific purpose not merely of providing anonymity and comfort to the penitent, but also to preclude any notion of sexual misconduct taking place in the context of the Sacrament of Confession.

Maybe this is an idea worth resurrecting. I'd sure like it. Not just for myself, but so that I don't have to worry about my kids.

This makes sense...

2005-06-27T10:17:00.000-07:00

...If you are schizoid.

Yesterday, the Supremes ruled that the Ten Commandments could not be displayed in a Kentucky Courthouse.

Today, they ruled the Commandments could be displayed at the Texas State Capital.

Sandra Day O'Connor played a decisive role by voting against the Kentucky display and in favor of the Texas monument.

Apparently, the Kentucky version seemed to endorse the Commandments along with their religious implications, while the Texas tablets merely acknowledged them and their role in shaping western legal concepts.

It does make sense. You just have to think about it to figure it out.

I guess this is good news... kind of. Especially if you are one of the lawyers who gets to work out a bunch of new cases in light of these rulings.

Does this mean the Alabama monument can go back up?

See story here.

China, Taiwan, and the Church: folks are starting to notice.

2005-06-27T07:22:00.000-07:00

This morning, I noticed a story on Drudge regarding possible Chinese plans to invade Taiwan within two years, and a story on Get Religion about the possibility of the Vatican compromising with China regarding the naming of bishops and Church recognition of Taiwan.

Yesterday, on my other site, I noted the recent hysteria over Chinese capital investments in the United States the similarity between these stories and others of Japanese investments fifteen years ago, and generally pooh-poohed them. Now I'm starting to wonder if the coordination between business, culture, government, and the military in China doesn't make their threat somewhat more serious than the simple economic threat once posed by Japan.

In any event, the Chinese want the Church to remove its recognition of Taiwanese sovereignty and compromise on the Church's authority in naming bishops. The Vatican, meanwhile, has indicated a possible willingness to make these compromises (Who? Cardinal Soldano?). It would be a grave mistake, both in the moral and in the strategic sense if such compromises were made. An act which the Vatican might see as a means of seeking harmony would, to the Chinese, be nothing more than victory in an intermediate step toward their long range goals of removing all barriers to an invasion of Taiwan and to a complete nationalization of the Catholic Church in China, making it nothing more than an supplement to Communist thought control-- a true "opiate of the masses" sedating Chinese Christians against the pain of Communist totalitarianism.

Don't do it, Your Holiness!

Along with Rick Santorum, a REAL Catholic politician

2005-06-27T06:27:00.000-07:00

See this piece on Jeb Bush by the Curt Jester. That is one Catholic pol I would vote for to become president.

Good Profile of Fr. Joseph Fessio

2005-06-25T19:57:00.000-07:00

Good profile on the man rumored to replace Archbishop William Levada at the Archdiocese of San Francisco, and who otherwise may be the most influential priest in the U.S.

It discusses his role in founding Ignatius Press, his relationship with B-16, his dismissal from the St. Ignatius Institute at USF, his banishment from San Francisco, and his resurfacing at Ave Maria University.

I only wish there had been some discussion of the rumors of financial mismanagement which have touched upon him at the St. Ignatius institute and Ave Maria.

I found the profile on a U.K. website called the Tablet by way of the Curt Jester. According to the comments on the Curt Jester post, it was apparently a surprise that the Tablet wrote so favorably about an orthodox priest.

Actually, I think better of Tom Cruise over this.

2005-06-25T12:36:00.000-07:00

No, not over him being a Scientologist;

Or making fun of movie stars who take antidepressants;

Or wanting to get married for the third time;

Or not behaving like a cool, suave, has-an-Oscar-in-every-room type star anymore;

No. What I like is the fact that he has gotten rid of his publicist, which I think is the real reason he has received so much bad press lately. He always has, apparently, had an off-the-wall streak to him. Now he just doesn't have anybody covering it up.

Which makes him one of the first stars in a long time to really get real.

And the next time we hear about him doing something completely boorish, we need to remember that most of the stars do something like that from time to time. But Cruise is now living under the microscope created by all the folks in the Hollywood publicity machine who will be very, very happy to make an example of someone who doesn't want to play the game by the rules they make.

Pius XII, Nazi Gold, and Jewish Art

2005-06-23T12:52:00.000-07:00

I found myself entering a response today to a comment on another entry in which I ran out of allowed characters and could not post the entire response. That's the first time that's ever happened to me, and probably is a sign that I rant too much.

Since I took the topic so seriously, however, I figured I would write about it here.

Commenting on a post I had made in defense of Pius XII's role during WWII, a reader asked: "Does this mean there isn't any truth to the charges of Nazi gold or Jewish-owned artwork that were found in the Church's possession? Did that pope really not do poorly by the Jews?"

A good general commentary (from the Catholic perspective) on Pius XII and the Jewish people can be found here.

The gist of the "Nazi Gold" rumors is that the Vatican helped former fascist leaders (Nazi sympathizers) from Yugoslavia escape the Communists by running to South America after WWII; and that the Vatican either held onto or transported their wealth after them. What looks like a good, neutral compendium of the charges and counter charges can be found here. My take is that there is no compelling evidence that the Vatican is "hiding Nazi gold", and even if there was good evidence, the Vatican has always made it known that as the war ended, they were just as concerned to help former Nazi sympathizers from eastern Europe escape Stalin or Tito's form of justice as they were to help Jews escape Hitler's vision of racial purity. Could some corrupt Cardinal have gotten sticky fingers, been too anxious to help former Axis allies with whom he sympathized, or been all too ready to establish a slush fund for his directorate? All that is possible, though I would be surprised if those specific charges proved true.

Regarding looted artwork: I wouldn't be the least surprised if much of the priceless works found in the Vatican Museum and Library were, at sometime, stolen; and that some of it might have been stolen from Jewish people or synagogues. I can imagine some medieval baron sacking a synagogue on some pretext and his descendants bequeathing whatever treasure he took to a local monastery. The local monastery then would have promised to say Masses daily for the soul of Baron Synagogue Sacker under the pretext that he went to confession before his death, was sorry for every bad thing he ever did, escaped Hell, and now needed spiritual help to get out of Purgatory and into Heaven. In all honesty, it probably would never have occurred to anyone that sacking a synagogue would have been a serious sin. Later, when the Vikings or Moors or Hugenots or Communists or whomever posed a threat, the treasures got shipped off to the mother house in Italy. Later still, when the religious order needed to liquidate assets for whatever reason, the treasures went to the Vatican.

All of this is quite unsavory. My ancestors were peasants from the upper Rhineland. I imagine they would have sacked a synagogue in a heartbeat had they the chance. For whatever thefts, murders, and other outrages have ever been committed against the Jews in Christ's name by my ancestors or co-religionists, for what it's worth, I am sorry.

Of course, my apologies mean very little since I neither committed such acts myself, nor have I benefited from them, nor do I personally know or know of anybody related to me who actually did such a thing.

I remember visiting the Vatican Library Art Museum with my parents when I was a child. I recall seeing a beautiful menorah along with some remnant of an ancient copy of the Torah and some Hebrew (along with some Greek, Roman, and Byzantine) relinquaries for holding the bones of the dead. I recall seeing similar exhibits of other items which, at some point, almost certainly had to have been removed from their original locations over someone else's wishes, at the British National Museum, the Chicago Natural History Museum, and a few other places. Indeed, I suspect that almost every major museum of artwork or antiquities has stolen property in it.

I remember (also as a child) touring an Anglican Cathedral somewhere in northern England. A pious old catholic gentleman asked the tour guide whether the Anglican Church ever had any intention of returning that grand old building to the Catholics.

The tour guide was very patient indeed as he explained that Her Majesty, the queen, had no intention of returning such property and in any event, he didn't really think that His Holiness, the pope, expected her to.

If I were in charge of the collection at the Vatican Library Museum, would I send all the certainly, likely or possibly once-stolen property back to, say, the Patriarch of the Orthodox Church, or the Cairo Museum, or the Synagogue of Rome?

No. I would see all the material as having been entrusted to me, whether it's original provenance was legitimate or not, and I would not break up the collection. No curator would.

Do I think there are other treasures, known to be stolen and known to still be sought, hidden somewhere deep in the bowels of St. Peter's?

I'd sure be surprised. And if anybody knew of specific items, I'd sure like to know.

Victories in Europe

2005-06-22T13:57:00.000-07:00

Over the last month, at least three major moral victories have been won for the supposedly moribund Catholic Church in Europe.

First was the unexpected defeat of the European Constitution, which would have completed the total secularization of Europe by formalizing an institution which would have taken the place for the ancient concept of Christendom with the important exception that it purposely excluded Christ.

Second was the defeat of the referendum in Italy which would have mainstreamed the practice of in vitro fertilization in that country.

Third came the unexpectedly strong protest this week against homosexual marriage in Madrid, Spain.

If previous reports were to be believed, the European Constitution and the IVF referendum were supposed to be a sure thing and the populations of Italy and Spain were supposedly to apathetic regarding the Catholic faith to care one way or another about those issues.

All this could be nothing more than a hiccup in the course of European history. On the other hand, we could be witnessing a major change in the tide.

In any event: rumors concerning the death of Christianity in Europe may just turn out to be premature.

I thought of a great title for a movie about Michael Schiavo...

2005-06-22T09:23:00.000-07:00

...but "The Jerk" was already taken.

Here is the story on the wonderful, classy, reconciliation promoting, absolutely non-self-serving memorial he had placed over his wife's grave.

For the record

2005-06-22T06:49:00.000-07:00

Inasmuch as Israel is the only stable democracy in the Middle East, since their country has been targeted by waves of terrorist violence which Americans are all too quick to forget, since the Jewish people have taken more grief than any people should be allowed to put up with, and since I, like the late JPII, regard the Jewish people as my elder brothers in faith:

HT: Esther at Outside the Blogway

Oh, Hogwash!

2005-06-21T08:18:00.000-07:00

According to an Yahoo news report found on Drudge, religious fundamentalist groups are successfully intimidating Bible Belt theater owners from showing IMAX movies which somehow reference Darwin's Theory of Evolution.

Actual religious groups aren't named.

Only one incident is documented, and the details are hazy.

However, the movies and their producers are named and discussed and interviewed.

Folks: there is no campaign out there to suppress IMAX movies. I consider this news report nothing more than a propaganda piece to promote the movies in question. The real message of the story is: "Tick off the Christians by watching these movies!"

I happen to subscribe to the theory of evolution, or at least a modified, providentially-guided version of it. Despite my geology degree in 1984, I suppose that qualifies me as an ignorant fundamentalist.

I get pretty irritated when people with a religious faith in secularism use science to bait Christians.

Pius XII and the Nazi's

2005-06-21T07:42:00.000-07:00

Vatican Watcher has an excellent update on the latest developments in that controversy.

I noted the developments in very brief form earlier. VW fleshes it out nicely.

Nothing strikes me as a better recent example of injustice to the memory of a good man than the libels which have been heaped upon Pius XII.

I don't think it has a thing to do with justice for the Jewish people. It has everything to do with slamming the Catholic Church at every possible opportunity.

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

AND FOR THE RECORD: I do greatly admire the Jewish people, support the state of Israel, and side with the government of Israel in their continued dispute with the terrorist-dominated Palestinian Authority.

More on the Romanian Exorcism

2005-06-20T14:17:00.000-07:00

Jacob at Vatican Watcher has a good update.

Vacation Bible School

2005-06-20T04:50:00.000-07:00

Mt six-year-old daughter is going off to VBS this week at our parish. She has been there two previous summers, from 8:30 to 12:30 every day for a week, and has always enjoyed it.

But Catholics always have a problem with VBS. They never can quite get into the swing of it.

Our parish used to use a canned curriculum by a solid, Catholic educational company. It was all very reverent, serious, informative, and boring.

Kids were returning home with red marks on their foreheads where they would fall asleep and bang their heads on the classroom tables. And what were they doing at tables in the first place? This was supposed to be an educational day camp, not a CCD supplement.

So our people tried to adapt materials from other programs to make an ad-hoc VBS. Most of the material was adapted from our annual Advent Fair, held every fall on the second Sunday after Thanksgiving. But they didn't adapt the materials very much. Last year, my kid brought home an advent wreath made out of bottle caps and a paper plate in June.

So this year, our director of religious education took a big breath and purchased a canned, Evangelical program.

Let's face it, the Evangelical Christians really know how to do VBS right.

I'm wondering which day this week my daughter will come home and ask me if I've accepted Jesus as my own, personal Lord and Savior?

Sin City

2005-06-19T18:23:00.000-07:00

As I've mentioned a few times, I don't get cable TV.

And every time I feel the urge to get cable, I see something or hear about something which makes me back off.

I was getting my truck serviced Friday, sitting in the dealership customer lounge and reading Time Magazine's Gitmo Report (What's the big deal?) while half watching the College World Series game on ESPN (Go Vols! Does anybody know if they won?).

That's when a commercial came on. It featured two young women at a luxury hotel dressed for a business trip. The more assertive woman was introducing herself and her friend to a couple gentlemen. The scene was repeated again, and again, and again with the same two women at different locations and with different men. At first, you thought they were business networking, except the more assertive woman was using different names for herself and her friend each time. Once she bobbled the name she was obviously trying to make up. Later, she introduced herself as Lucy and the other woman as Ethyl-- to her friend's chagrin. In each scene, her clothing became more festive, and you eventually realized they were in Las Vegas. But the meaning of the series of scenes doesn't really dawn on you until the tag-line comes up.

"Las Vegas: what happens here, stays here."

The young women were repeatedly seeking anonymous sexual encounters.

It was funny. It really was funny. I wasn't outraged until I thought about it.

A few minutes later, another commercial came on. A young slacker is hanging out in a trashed house. He hears a car pull into the driveway and immediately goes into a comically fast cleanup mode. As the parents come through the door, he has just finished the living room. He has just concealed the remains of a forbidden party the night before.

Son: "Hi, dad. Hi, mom."

Dad: "Hi son! So...what've you been up to?"

Son (conscious that the kitchen is still trashed): "Nothing... What have you been up to?"

Dad: "Um... nothing."

The parents exchange worried looks while heading upstairs.

Again, you don't understand the sequence until the tag-line appears.

"Las Vegas: what happens here, stays here."

The worried looks the parents exchanged was not over what their son might have been up to, but over what suspicions he harbored regarding their conduct: some behavior they obviously would not want slacker-boy to emulate. Something besides gambling, since he would have known they were in Las Vegas.

I laughed before I realized that this was some seriously corrupt stuff I was seeing.

Of course, the add campaign I've been describing has apparently been on TV since late 2003. Most people who read this blog have almost certainly seen the adds, have been seeing them for months, and are wondering why I am so uptight about it.

The reason I am uptight about it? I've had no clue about the campaign until last Friday. Everyone else has already been de-sensitized to it.

I Confess

2005-06-19T17:23:00.000-07:00

After reading this story, my first thought was: "I'm sure glad that priest wasn't Catholic."

Of course, that's no consolation to the dead nun, whom he crucified in some bizarre form of exorcism. I'm sure it's no consolation to her family and friends, either.

For the record, I've read the guidelines to the Catholic rite of exorcism. Crucifying victims of possession isn't part of the procedure.

My take: the guy might have been a priest, but I suspect he was really a cult leader underneath. I don't mean that the Romanian Orthodox Church is a cult. I mean his monastery either was a cult or becoming a cult under his spiritual leadership.

I won't even start on the visual similarity between the priest and Charles Manson.

My only hope is that the authorities can root this thing out without dumping on the Christian faith itself.

Sin and the BVM

2005-06-19T14:58:00.000-07:00

I was meditating yesterday on how to explain Catholic admiration for and devotion to the Blessed Virgin.

I've got a BVM (Blessed Virgin Mary) statue in my front garden which I tell people is good for warding off Jehovah's Witnesses. I try to pray the Rosary daily, and I even wear the Brown Scapular of Our Lady of Mount Carmel under my shirt (Most people, when they see it, treat it with that sort of silent discretion one might demonstrate with a lady whose slip is showing.) Me, I know the Brown Scapular is no free ticket to Heaven; or even to Purgatory, for that matter, although I do hope it gets me brownie points (HA HA, Ha Ha, ha...heh...oh, never mind.)

I, personally, wear the Scapular because it reminds me of who I am: a servant of Jesus Christ who reveres His mother and who needs to try to live up to that role.

But how does one explain Marian devotion in general?

Anti-Catholics have a simple explanation: idolatry.

The Church's explanation is that as Christ's mother, Mary is in a unique position to act as mediator between us and her Son, someone who can intercede on our behalf, an advocate for each of us individually and collectively for all humanity in the Heavenly Court.

But why does she appeal to us?

Many women identify with her as a fellow woman and mother.

Some are attracted to Mary as someone who is both fully human and only human, with whom they identify far more easily than with Christ, God the Son, fully God and fully human: dual states existing within a hypostatic union: a technical term for a belief which we affirm without really understanding in the least.

Others attempt to relate to Mary on that level, but are brought up short by the doctrine of her Immaculate Conception. If she was created without the stain of original sin, then not only did she not sin, but she experienced no concupiscence: no irrational attraction to sin. The only attraction she might ever have had toward so much as a sinful thought would have taken place wholly on the rational level. And of any rational temptation she ever experienced: we know she dismissed it. She was spared any inner battles with hidden desires.

In short: she had it easy.

Or did she?

Last night, as I meditated on my relationship with the BVM, a thought came to me as if from nowhere. It was either inspiration or just a dumb idea from nowhere. It was this:

Q: Why do we sin?

A: Out of a twisted notion of good.

Q: What is this twisted notion of good?

A: That it is good to gain pleasure and avoid pain.

Q: It is obvious that sin helps us gain pleasure. How does it help us avoid pain?

A: Hatred dulls our sense of injury. Lust dulls our loneliness. Gluttony dulls our poverty, and so forth.

Q: And what of Mary?

A: As she observed, watching the temple leaders convict her Son and watching the Romans condemn Him, torture Him, and kill Him in the most agonizing manner... she had no remedy. She could not retreat into hatred, condoling herself by despising Judas, Ciaphas, Pilate, or the others. She could only stand there and experience pure, unadulterated pain as she watched her son, whom she loved in a wholly unselfish manner, die the death reserved for slaves, foreigners, and perverts. The pain she experienced, even if it were not on behalf of God's Son, would still have been the most intense emotional pain any person ever had experienced because she had no sinful inclinations with which to sedate her feelings. She could not even escape through death. She lived a martyrdom more painful than the physical martyrdoms later experienced by her Son's apostles.

She did not have it easy. She truly was the queen of martyrs.

Terri Shiavo might be dead...

2005-06-17T21:39:00.000-07:00

...but her case just got resurrected.

After the autopsy, an anti-Schiavo

2005-06-16T15:20:00.000-07:00

Drudge picked up a USA Today story about a husband desperately trying to keep his apparently brain-dead wife alive on a respirator long enough for her to deliver their unborn child at a gestational age great enough for the baby to survive outside its mother's womb.

I use the word "apparently" to modify the term "brain dead" because I simply don't trust the MSM to use expressions such as "brain dead", "permanent vegetative state", or even "coma" with any accuracy anymore.

It does appear hopeless that the woman might survive. The odds seem slim that the baby will survive. At the same time, I find a strange, grace-filled consolation in the fact that on the day after the Shiavo autopsy is released, we find an example of a man fighting to preserve the lives of those he loves in a near death situation.

It's as if God Himself would like to remind us that good can be manifested in such tragedies as well as evil.

Big Mistake in the Shiavo Case

2005-06-16T09:59:00.000-07:00

When Michael Shiavo refused permission for anyone to examine his dead wife's body except the local medical examiner-- a closed autopsy-- and when he then ordered the body cremated; he created a big opening for perpetual questions to be raised.

Prediction: Terri's original illness will now become the topic of permanent controversy, somewhat like John Kennedy and the Grassy Knoll.

I will not say anything against Michael in the way of murder conspiracy theories. I have no evidence. Nobody has produced any evidence. To speculate further on this issue would be to indulge in that species of lying known as detraction.

Note: I did engage in such speculation when Terri was still alive. I believe such speculation was warranted then though not now because when Terri remained alive, there was still some possibility of gaining useful information from her and possibly improving her condition and her ability to communicate through physical therapy. Now that Terri is dead and her poor body reduced to ashes, the ability to achieve any good from such speculation is now decreased to a point approaching zero.

For the sake of rational discourse, we can only assume at this point that Michael did sincerely have the best interests of his wife, Terri, at heart.

However: when Michael, under the likely advice of his legal counsel, retained complete control over the handling of Terri's body and then had it destroyed through cremation, he made it impossible for the case ever to be fully closed.

Had the handling of the body been conducted openly, perhaps with an examination done by a pathologist agreed upon both by Michael and Terri's parents, or even a joint autopsy performed by an examiner approved by each side, there is a chance that those who still suspect physical abuse as the cause of Terri's brain damage might now end their speculations.

Questions will now dog this case forever.

Interesting thoughts on this case can be found on both sides at The Anchoress Online and at Tom Carter's Notes.

I guess Rowan Williams doesn't like blogs

2005-06-16T00:08:00.000-07:00

The Archbishop of Cantibury weighed in on the subject of internet media today.

According to the London Times Online, Archbishop Williams described the internet as: "a free-for-all that was 'close to that of unpoliced conversation.'"

Kind of like the Lambeth Conference.

Abortion Clinic Horror

2005-06-15T17:56:00.000-07:00

If this is true, then it ranks right up there with the feminist who hailed abortion as a fitting sacrifice to the Goddess Artemis.

Caution: WorldNetDaily does have the habit of publishing material they wish was true rather than what they can confirm.

I wonder if the authorities will nail this guy on a cannibalism charge?

Terri Schiavo

2005-06-15T17:51:00.000-07:00

So, other than being judicially murdered, there is no evidence of foul play.

Those Crazy Monks!

2005-06-15T09:19:00.000-07:00

I read an article three years ago by Terry Mattingly describing how rivalry between Orthodox and Catholic monks at the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem contributed to the fiasco of that holy shrine being occupied by Palestinian fighters during the the period of the last Israeli assault upon the Intifada.

Mattingly, and Antiochan Orthodox Christian, tended to take the Orthodox version of events at face value. In this version, the Franciscan priests in the Catholic monastery not only let the PLO fighters into the church, but sent them into the spaces reserved for the Orthodox monks while keeping the Catholic spaces intact.

I gave Mattingly a pass on that. First, I would not expect a member of one of the Eastern Orthodox Churches to diss fellow Orthodox Christians. I make allowances for personal loyalty. Second, the stunt which Mattingly described the Catholic clerics pulling was exactly the sort of fruity behavior I might expect of at least some Franciscan communities.

Here's the surprising part: It's been going on for centuries!

I've just finished reading a book titled Hell Riders: the True Story of the Charge of the Light Brigade, which I discuss on my other site, and which begins its story in the little town of Bethlehem, where the monks apparently had continual troubles honoring the King of Peace through their example.

In fact, it was Orthodox and Catholic clergy and religious rioting at the Bethlehem Church which started the Crimean War in 1854. I'm not kidding.

Apparently, a dispute erupted between Catholic and Orthodox monks at the jointly occupied Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem in 1852. The Catholics placed an ornamental, silver star at the space considered the precise spot where Jesus was born, and the Orthodox monks who controlled the sanctuary had it removed. A riot broke out in which, according to reports, crucifixes and candlesticks were taken up as cudgels. Later, when the Catholics laid hands on a sanctuary key, they replaced the silver star and the rioting escalated until monks started getting killed.

Grotesque, to say the least.

The Tsar of Russia, of all people, intervened as "Protector of the Orthodox Church" and invaded the Ottoman Empire (which controlled the Holy Land at that time) with the idea of restoring order to Bethlehem and other holy sites.

This was bogus. The Tsar's real objective was Istanbul and the straits of the Bosporus, which would give the Russian Black Sea Fleet free access to the Mediterranean which it would need if Russia was to maintain military parity with France and England.

The French and English understood this, and caring not one bit for the issue of whether Orthodox or Catholic churchmen controlled the holy places of Judea, they came to the defense of the Ottoman Empire.

Except they didn't care about the Ottoman Empire, either. They largely ignored the Russian invasion force attacking Turkey through the Balkans, and instead launched a campaign against the Russian Black Sea Fleet base at Sevastopol. On the Crimean Peninsula. In the northern part of the Black Sea.

Thus began the Crimean War, leading to the battle of Balaklava, remembered for the famous "Charge of the Light Brigade."

Conclusion: Monks fighting in Bethlehem = "Half a league, Half a league, half a league onward..."

Mind boggling.

Catholicism versus Communism

2005-06-14T10:59:00.000-07:00

Some time ago we learned that the plot to kill JPII did, indeed, come from behind the Iron Curtain.

Now we learn that the original source of the Pius XII/Hitler libel was Radio Moscow.

Stalin is said to have contemptuously asked: "How many divisions does the Pope have?"

It turns out the Communists were far more fearful of the Vatican than they ever let on.

And the Vatican played a bigger role in toppling European Communism than anyone ever expected.

HT: Relapsed Catholic.

I hate to admit it...

2005-06-13T11:47:00.001-07:00

...But Doug Giles has a point.

Giles is what you might call a "South Park Evangelical" who ministers to young Christians and seekers using the brash style and language otherwise associated with radio shock jocks. I actually agree with the vast majority of what he has to say, and only take umbrage at the less-than-charitable language he uses which sometimes seems more like an affectation than an authentic voice.

I took exception over his criticism, today, of the Catholic Church's handling of the priest sex abuse scandal. In truth, however, I have no real complaint against what he says. I only took umbrage because the criticism came from an outsider who looks upon Catholicism as "The Roman Church" rather than "The Church". He is right, though, when he points out that it was the Catholic hierarchy that permitted a climate in which the abuse could take place and then allowed the abuse to be perpetuated rather than stamp it out as ruthlessly as such crime and sinfulness deserves to be crushed.

This is the second time today, however, in which I noticed a non-Catholic bringing up the "old news" of the sex scandal. I wonder who is stirring the pot again? Fr. Cozzens?

Must research.

Pedophilia and the Confessional

2005-06-13T08:52:00.000-07:00

Terry Mattingly published an interesting article which was in the newspapers last Saturday and made the internet this morning. Mattingly cites the latest bombshell by Father Donald "Gay Subculture in the Seminaries" Cozzens, who described how homosexual seminarians sometimes confess their inclinations as a sin and effectively check seminary rectors who might otherwise pursue the question of whether they are at risk for becoming future sexual abusers.

You see: canon law states that not only is anything revealed within the confessional a secret to be kept exclusively between the penitent, the priest, and the Lord; but the person who hears the confession is not permitted to take any action whatsoever based on secrets revealed in the confessional.

For the moment, I will ignore the question of why seminary rectors can't be a lot more proactive by questioning all seminarians thoroughly or by looking at other danger signs besides what a seminarian might admit during the Sacrament of Reconciliation. The fact is, people do sometimes try to use the confessional to relieve themselves of guilt for crimes commited which they have no real intention of giving up themselves or their sinful practices.

I recall reading a Time Magazine article some years ago in which an incarcerated priest convicted of sexual abuse described how he would travel to other dioceses to confess his crimes sacramentally in the knowledge that the priest to whom he confessed would not reveal what he had done to the authorities. As a result, the sacrament of confession becomes not a means of grace, but a facilitator for sexual dysfunction and crime.

In the old days-- I mean the really old days, I recall tales of Irish priests in northern Europe carrying guides to penance designed exclusively to break converted barbarians of their old, homicidal habits. For instance, a confessed murder might incur an automatic penance of ten years of fasting, sack-cloth and ashes, before the penitent could return to the sacraments and consider himself a candidate once more for salvation.

Penances since the days of Visigoths and Vikings have become far less stringent-- usually nominal in nature-- and automatic penances no longer are practiced. Further (someone correct me if I am wrong) a penitent seeking absolution can actually reject an assigned penance and ask for a milder one if he believes he is being asked to do something too difficult.

But I wonder if such practices, so trusting in the efficacy of true repentance in each sinner, is effective given the issue of sexual abuse and the priesthood. I wonder if the time has not come for a required penance of surrender to civil authorities might not be called for by penitents who confess sins such as-- say-- illegal drug smuggling and distribution, organized crime involvement, murder, or sexual abuse?

Modernity has brought with it a new form of barbarism. Should the Church respond to barbarism as did the Irish priests of old who helped tame Europe in that continent's darkest hour?

Takin' a Break

2005-06-05T20:57:00.000-07:00

I'll resume on Monday, June 13.

I don't believe in the culture of grievance...

2005-06-04T18:04:00.000-07:00

But Penn and Teller's obscene abuse of the memory of Mother Theresa is seriously offensive.

The Catholic League has picked up on the incident, and calls have already begun to boycott Viacom.

This is ironic for me. A few days ago, I posted on an effort by One Million Dad's to boycott Ford Motors for that company's support for domestic partner health benefits and their homoerotic advertising. Although a couple commenters assumed I supported the boycott, I was really quite ambivalent about it. I found the conflict interesting, but if Ford wanted to be extra nice to gay people and sell them cars, it was really no skin off my nose.

Now someone is calling for a boycott I can sink my teeth into. I feel a great respect and admiration for Mother Theresa; and I do take Penn and Teller's behavior personally.

The ironic part? I can't boycott Viacom. I don't get cable.

Why would he ask this?

2005-06-04T11:54:00.000-07:00

According to a news report, the late JPII asked that all his private notes be burned. Meanwhile, the pontiff's former secretary, Archbishop Stanislaw Dziwisz, has refused. According to Dziwisz: "Nothing is fit for burning, everything should be preserved and kept for history, for the future generations - every single sentence."

Why would the Pope ask such a thing to be destroyed?

I must admit now, while loving His Holiness, this is the most wonderful field for completely absurd speculation I have ever heard of. And absurd speculation is what I do best!

"Someone remind me why I gave Mahoney a Cardinal's hat?"

"Memo to self: Visit Billy Graham and accept Jesus before it's too late."

"To Do: (1) Pay off former Nazi's; (2) Redesignate CDF as 'Grand Inquisition'; (3) Get diamond studs for bedroom slippers"

What is far more likely is that there will be spiritual speculations in there which JPII decided never to publish and which non-Catholics, dissenting Catholics, or schismatics will want to leap upon to say "See? In his heart, JPII would have approved of.... (fill in your favorite heresy here). Or, possibly, there will be fodder for ambitious Cardinals to use against each other ("Ha Ha! Arinze-- you actually flirted with that idea? You'll never be pope now!").

Or maybe it's just old fashioned humility.

Me, I like to gleefully imagine worst case scenarios.

"Must explore link between Blessed Virgin and Babylonian Cults."

"Next Encyclical: Ecclesio Orthodoxio Delenda Est."

"Shopping List: Beer, Twister Game, Lava Lamp"

Endless possibilities. Now that we know the notes exist, we need to get them published so that I can stop imagining.

You know it will be about seventy volumes.

"Touchy" issues at Southern Cal

2005-06-03T12:59:00.000-07:00

This and this look bad both for Cardinal Mahoney and the accused priest, the chaplain at the University of Southern California. Of course, I doubt the Cardinal will really be hurt (in career terms) by the incident. He sometimes seems to be impregnable in his position as chief server in the American Catholic Cafeteria.

HT: Roman Catholic Blog.

One more for the "Dems pretending to be Christian" file

2005-06-02T09:05:00.000-07:00

Whenever I see a Democratic politician mangling the Bible, I don't know whether to be irritated on God's behalf, or gleeful over the pure silliness.

Here is John Kerry trying to talk Bible to Red State voters last Friday.

I'll never look at a Jag or Landrover the same again

2005-06-02T05:08:00.000-07:00

According to BoycottFord.com, the Ford Motor Corporation, which owns Jaguar and Land Rover, will donate up to $1,000 to GLAAD (The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) for every Jag or Land Rover they sell. GLAAD confirms this on their site.

The BoycottFord site has considerably more to share regarding Ford Motor Company--much of which leaves me feeling the need for a shower. Ford has merged with several foreign companies, and now sells Mazda, Jaguar, Land Rover, and Volvo in addition to the Mercury, Lincoln, and Ford brands. Along with the special favors granted to homosexual employees in the form of spousal benefits for domestic partners and sponsorship of gay and lesbian pride celebrations, Ford also has begun marketing initiatives directed toward the homosexual community. Many of their adds are distinctly homoerotic.

Now, I'm quite sure that none of this was the idea of the suits in Detroit. Rather, I suspect it has to do with relationships with the unions and with the European communities in which this multinational outfit does business. Nevertheless, Ford has chosen which side it is taking in the culture wars and now has to deal with it.

I suspect that if BoycottFord wins this battle, it won't be because members of OneMillionDads refuse to buy any Ford brands, but because people in general will stop buying Jags and Land Rovers after those vehicles become stereotyped.

"I don't want to buy that. People will think I'm gay!"

BoycottFord.com is an initiative by One Million Dads.com, itself a project of the American Family Association. The boycott initiative is being circulated aggressively. I received an e-mail about it yesterday and heard about it on the radio this morning. I am quite sure the Homosexual community will respond just as strongly.

As for me, I quit buying Fords after they sold me my second lemon twenty years ago.

There's going to be fireworks this summer, and not just on the Fourth of July.

Schismatics ready their response

2005-06-01T06:59:00.000-07:00

Michelle Arnold at JimmyAkin.org recently blogged on a "Rad-Trad" response to the election of B16. In the Rad-Trad piece, I see somewhat more than the simple rantings of someone determined to dislike the modern papacy at all costs. Rather, I see a conscious, pre-emptive response to the overtures by our new pontiff to those who have separated from the Church in the name of the Tridentine Mass.

Sad.

One Reason I Like the Irish...

2005-06-01T06:48:00.000-07:00

Is because they don't get offended by stuff like this.

HT: Relapsed Catholic.

Jeb Bush wins another one for the Culture of Life

2005-06-01T06:27:00.000-07:00

See the post here at my other blog.

Thank God for the Church of England

2005-05-31T10:04:00.000-07:00

Whenever I get depressed over the priest sex scandal, Catholic pro-abort politicians, or the apparent weakness of the American Bishops as a community, I have the Church of England and it's Episcopal expression in the United States to remind me that it's good to be a Catholic. Here is their latest, courtesy of Get Religion.

I don't know if the Archbishop of Cantibury, Rowan Williams, is incredibly cynical or pitifuly naive.

But I do know what Homer Simpson said to Bart: "Remember, son: other peoples' misfortunes are our source of self- esteem."

Dang. I'll have to take that one to confession.

Head Games

2005-05-31T08:03:00.000-07:00

The Curt Jester performs an interesting experiment here. Read the story in full and you'll understand.

Good news in Iran

2005-05-31T07:41:00.000-07:00

According to the Dhimmi Watch story here, an Iranian man was just acquitted of the capital crime of apostasy (In Islam, abandonment of the faith). The judge's statement seems to indicate that his ruling was directed by someone above him in the mullah-ocracy.

This is probably the Iranian way of saying: "See, we really are reasonable and nobody needs to bomb us because of our nukes."

Whether an empty gesture or a sign that reason has arrived in that land, it does indicate something other than utter fanaticism at the top.

P.S.: Sorry for this weekend's unannounced absence. I've been celebrating Memorial Day with family in Mississippi.

By the Way: Hello

2005-05-26T09:40:00.000-07:00

Although I started this blog last night, I've actually been blogging at another site, Tennessee Rants, for several months. My two big interests, however, are religion and politics. Most of the folks who came to my other blog were interested in one or the other, but rarely in both. So, my original blog will now be devoted to news and politics; while this blog will concentrate on faith and culture.

I enjoy comments, so feel free to post them; even when they are critical. Just keep it clean and be respectful of each other.

Welcome.

One More for the "Thank God I Homeschool" File

2005-05-26T05:58:00.001-07:00

Michelle Malkin discusses a new book which may be appearing in school libraries and the juvenile literature section of public libraries soon.

What were these publishers thinking?

Upgrading

2005-05-26T04:40:00.000-07:00

To improve the quality of this blog, commenting and trackback by Haloscan and hit counting and analysis by StatCounter have been added.

Men with targets on them

2005-05-25T21:00:00.000-07:00

Two priests esteemed for their fidelity to the magisterium have been the center of rumor and accusation for the past week. One is Fr. Joseph Fessio, founder of Ave Maria University in Florida. The other is Fr. Marcial Maciel, founder of the Legion of Christ.

Fr. Fessio might be thought of as the last of the true Jesuits. Having been fired from the Ignatius Institute at the Jesuit run University of San Francisco, he was briefly assigned as a hospital chaplain in the Bay area before being released to concentrate on Ave Maria University. The Administration at USF first claimed that Fessio's Ignatius institute was a redundancy, and then accused him of financial mismanagement. The accusations followed him to Florida, where he has been accused of facilitating the fraudulent distribution of government financial aid. I cannot vouch for the truth or untruth of the stories. I do know that Fr. Fessio embarrassed the Jesuits in California by his orthodoxy, by his remarkable obedience during his banishment from USF, and by his founding of a new university which is a living rebuke to what many Jesuit run institutions have become. Adding insult to injury, stories have circulated that he has been picked to succeed Archbishop William Levada as head of the Archdiocese of San Francisco, of such unfortunate memory for him. Because of this, many progressive (heterodox?) Catholics dislike him intensely.

Fr. Maciel might be thought of as the founder of the "new" Jesuits. That is, his Legion of Christ order of priests has gone far in picking up where the Jesuits left off around the middle of the twentieth century. They are a teaching order, intensely orthodox, loyal to the Pope, and pushy in their tactics. Maciel, meanwhile, has been accused of pedophilia involving young seminary students. These charges have dogged him since he founded his order in Mexico, where he survived an investigation the 1950s. The investigation was recently reopened, and now a bizarre series of contradictory reports concerning whether or not he has been cleared this week have been surfacing. First he was cleared. Then his "clearance" was a ruse by the LC. Then it was verified, and now it is being called a trick by Cardinal Angelo Sodano, the Vatican's Secretary of State and friend to Fr. Maciel.

The evil stories surrounding one or both these priests might be true. Then again, we may be witnessing the personal calvaries of two living saints. Only time will tell.