Orthos Logos

Our Bloody Media

2006-07-25T05:31:00.000-07:00

David Warren makes a strong point in re: media coverage of civilian deaths in the present Mid-East conflict:

It will not do for journalists to justify behaviour by the standards of the pack. It will not do for them to assume that only soldiers must answer difficult moral questions. In this case, they must ask or be asked: Who benefits from such reporting?

For the answer is obviously, Hezbollah. The very reason they take such trouble to assure a high body-count among non-combatants -- by for instance preventing civilians from fleeing the territory they control -- is to use their corpses as a weapon against Israel. The Western and Arab media oblige, by building this body-count into a drumbeat against Israel’s attempts to take the battle to the enemy.

Let me sharpen this point further. The value of civilian corpses to Hezbollah, and allied terrorist forces, depends on the media’s willingness to make an issue of them -- thereby inferentially blaming Israel for disasters that Hezbollah’s methods have contrived. Quite plainly: the more obsessively the media focuses upon this body-count, the higher it is going to be.

Yet another illustration of the consequences of ideas or the lack thereof. Our mindlessness has casualties.

One Nation Under God

2006-07-24T05:26:00.000-07:00

Some would deny it, and foist their denial on the Constitution. The House is taking steps to prevent this:

Jul 19, 2006 (AP)— The House, citing the nation's religious origins, voted Wednesday to protect the Pledge of Allegiance from federal judges who might try to stop schoolchildren and others from reciting it because of the phrase "under God."

. . .

The pledge bill would deny jurisdiction to federal courts, and appellate jurisdiction to the Supreme Court, to decide questions pertaining to the interpretation or constitutionality of the pledge. State courts could still decide whether the pledge is valid within the state.

Opponents are arguing -- what else? -- that the bill is itself unconstitutional. Perhaps they have a point in terms of usage: that word can mean pretty much anything one wants it to mean; it has been watered down to a mere rhetorical trope. But here is what the Constitution actually says, for those interested:

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

Those invoking separation of powers have no case, as that doctrine is balanced by checks and balances, and Congress has one heck of a mighty check when it comes to the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction! This may seem passing strange, but only because Congress has been asleep at the wheel for so long, allowing the Court to usurp so much power that no one remembers that the overwhelming majority of cases it decides could be stripped from the federal courts altogether by a mere congressional majority -- not even a constitutional amendment.

Of course, the SC is so bloated with power it could rule that the Congressional act is invalid, not for stripping the SC of power (and no bias of course), but for having improper motives: the infamous Lemon Test may strike again! (For those not in the know: any law passed for religious motives, and with which the Court disagrees, can be ruled in violation of the first amendment. In this case, if historical accuracy about our nation's relationship to God is deemed a religious purpose -- and how can it not be since the Court's doctrine presupposes the opposite relation to God? -- this otherwise valid law could be ruled null and void.) Only an all out war between Congress and the Court could tame it now, unless the justices decide prudently to back down, or to revert to the Constitution voluntarily.

What can States Do?

2006-06-20T04:47:00.000-07:00

. . . about abortion, that is, the Supreme Court apparently having stripped them of all power over the matter?

The state of Louisiana thinks otherwise, as NRO reports:

Led by women with the courage to share their stories of profound grief and medical trauma that they suffered after they chose the “choice,” Louisiana has passed legislation to outlaw the human-rights violation known as abortion on demand. Governor Kathleen Blanco, a woman and a Democrat, signed the bill into law on Sunday. But the legislation has confounded abortion-industry lawyers who will not be able to follow their usual pattern of challenging the law in federal court the minute the ink on the governor’s signature is dry.

That’s because the bill, La. S.B. 33 by Senator Ben Nevers, has a Post-Roe Activation clause, meaning that the law goes into effect only when “[a]ny decision of the United States Supreme Court. . .reverses, in whole or in part, Roe v. Wade,. . .thereby restoring to the state of Louisiana the authority to prohibit abortion.”

What will this accomplish? The law was the reult of full hearings in which the legislature acted as if it were making law. The justification for Roe, if we can call it that, depends in part on the lie that the nation is willing to follow the Court's lead on this -- that the Court is mercifully providing much-needed unity on an issue that Americans just can't resolve on their own. Continued public debate on the issue is interpreted in the Orwellian light of providing further evidence that such unity is needed. Rather than admitting failure, the court insists that its stubbornness will eventually make us one again. As the piece argues,

PRA [post-Roe-activation] legislation allows state legislators to act with the goal of creating an environment that reveals a growing political will to appoint and confirm that fifth Justice [who will vote against Roe]. Imagine the scenario of state after state holding committee hearings to consider what legalized abortion has done to the very women that were alleged to have been its biggest beneficiaries. Imagine the people in state after state standing up to proclaim that abortion is a crime against humanity that we will no longer endure. When a Supreme Court vacancy opens, the president and Senate would not have to read the tea leaves; rather, they could just look at the numbers of states who have enacted legislation evidencing their desire to restore the Declaration’s mandate to protect the inalienable right to life.

States have governmental authority if they are willing to yield it. They serve as one of the checks in our system of checks and balances. They can put real pressure on the Court to desist in its usurpation of state police power. Who knows, perhaps they could even swing a justice before another one drops dead or retires.

Bureaucracy of Death

2006-06-19T05:58:00.000-07:00

June 12, 2006
BY CORRINE OLSON

SIOUX FALLS ARGUS LEADER
SIOUX FALLS, S.D. -- The Internal Revenue Service is warning religious leaders in South Dakota that their churches' tax-exempt status could be jeopardized if they campaign against a challenge to a law that bans nearly all abortions in the state, a proposal that could be on the November ballot.

Compare Warren's point about regulation and the death of manhood. Also, Tocqueville's insight that bureaucracy excels not at doing but preventing; not at fructifying but at preventing things from being born . . .

Newspaper accounts from across the nation show some examples of that IRS interest:

An Episcopal church in Pasadena, Calif., was audited after a rector gave a sermon titled "If Jesus debated Senator Kerry and President Bush" and discussed the war in Iraq and abortion rights.

A complaint was filed against a Boston church where the pastor introduced Sen. John Kerry as the "next president of the United States." The church's lawyer argued the introduction was not intended as an endorsement.

An Ohio church had a complaint filed against it because it invited the Republican gubernatorial candidate to speak, but not the Democratic candidate. The complaint said the Democrat was not invited because he opposed a ban on same-sex marriage.

In New York, a group called Catholics for Free Choice filed a complaint against Priests for Life, saying that via e-mail and a blog the anti-abortion group said it would campaign for "pro-life" candidates in the 2006 elections. The IRS also got complaints that said churches gave political parties their membership directories.

Some religious leaders' increased involvement in the last election campaign made some people uneasy. Conservative religious groups were credited with helping Bush's campaign by telling voters that he shared their Christian values.

Civilizational Collapse

2006-06-19T05:10:00.000-07:00

Society depends on common action, which presupposes common ideas. Not just any ideas, of course -- collective stupidity is not less stupid for being collective. But something must hold us together if we are to rise above anarchy.

Everywhere you look there are signs of social decay. David Warren is a great commentator on these signs. He explains, for instance, the cause of division between left and right:

The constant ambition is to deprive the individual of the freedom and security that only the state can assure, while making him a ward of the state in his private behaviour. To do this effectively, the entire moral order of a society must be systematically destroyed. In particular, the seemingly impregnable institution of the family must be undermined and subverted, and likewise religious and independent social institutions -- for it is from these a society acquires its moral backbone. Break them, and the citizen becomes a kind of jelly to be fit into any desired new mould.

There are those who relish this, and those who accede to it out of temptation (undermining the family = sexual titillation). Warren finds the deepest cause of this in a kind of perverse sexuality:

The reasons for this go deeper than public policy, to the profound narcissism that has taken over the “liberal” mind. I am not suggesting the average liberal is a criminal. He hasn’t the guts for that. But in the phantasia of his consciousness he is attracted almost sexually to the idea of “transgression”; to soiling the respectable. This is why, for the Left, “free speech” usually comes down to protecting pornographers; whereas for the Right, it is usually a matter of protecting the right to voice an opinion in good conscience.

An interesting question for me is whether the bottom motive is really transgressive or nihilistic. The point, Warren perceptively argues, is to submerge the indivdiual into the state -- and why? The desire is part and parcel of the Enlightenment: human life must be rationalized. But the human spirit stands in the way. Men are not cogs in a machine to be programmed so as to solve all problems. So they must be tamed. Fascinating, that this project to eviscerate the human soul could become pseudo-erotic in character, so that the path to nothingness would seem exciting, liberating, pleasurable! Quite a nut to crack here.

In any case, those on the right have some sense of what's coming and resist it, to some degree.

This does not make it seem promising to be 'conservative' today -- a sign of Warren's precision. A case in point:

the feminist movement succeeded in de-legitimizing the male sex, and we now have a public system of misandry. It has been stripping our whole society of the masculine protections we need to survive in a cruel world. It has been stunting the growth of boys in playground and schoolroom, and thus depriving women of their supply of grown-up men. And in return for the elimination of a few petty injustices, feminism has sent men and women, by their millions, via an earthly into a perpetual hell.

And yet this man-hating movement could be over-rated. For feminism is itself only part of something larger: the self-destruction of a wonderfully paternal social order, that brought the world the highest civilization it had ever seen. “It’s just our castles burning.”

Lest we think the fault is in us alone, Warren has this to say about the global situation and civilizational decline:

But no reason to think it is because the great mass of Muslims have been seized by religious enthusiasm. On the contrary, I have the strongest possible hunch, from everything I know about the current Muslim East, that the opposite is true. The world of Islam is suffering a crisis of belief, parallel to that in the West, though so different in its outward expressions that we do not recognize it. Indeed, the failure of what we fondly call “moderate Muslims” to stand against the fanatic tide, is among the leading indicators that the “mainstream” of Islam has hollowed out. . . .

We don’t see this possibility because our eyes are trained upon what is typical of the crack-up of a Christian society -- absurd parodies of old Christian doctrines, such as tolerance for anything at home, and surrender-pacifism abroad. But the same planetary loss of faith, infecting the Muslim world, produces instead absurd parodies of old Islamic doctrines, such as Talibanism at home and gratuitous terrorism abroad. In other words, both civilizations are entering their “second childhood” of senile dementia, but each in his characteristic way.

So that a better way to phrase the question, “Who will win this clash of civilizations?” might be, "Which one is collapsing faster?"

What to do as the world threatens to collapse all around you? Here is an offering by our president:

Complaining that television and radio shows in recent years have "too often pushed the bounds of decency," President Bush signed legislation yesterday to escalate dramatically the penalties against broadcasters who violate federal standards.

"The language is becoming coarser during the times when it's more likely children will be watching television," Bush said, citing a study of nighttime programming. "It's a bad trend, a bad sign." He noted that complaints to regulators have exploded since he took office. "People are saying, 'We're tired of it, and we expect the government to do something about it.' "

I would not lump this with the banning of smoking in bars. I would not suggest that Warren's point about the correlation between regulation and the diminishment of man applies to censorship (as regulation). No, such regulation attempts to defend the turf of the family, the ability to raise children in decency and thus to make them that much freer of the seductive power of the annihilating state Warren describes. Problem is the government action cannot and will not go far enough:

Broadcasters and free-speech advocates argue that the legislation attacks expression and unfairly targets broadcast networks while cable and satellite programming remains beyond the reach of federal regulation. The main television networks and affiliates recently sued to challenge the government's power to regulate on-air content.

The National Association of Broadcasters yesterday released the same statement it issued when the legislation passed, calling "responsible self-regulation" the preferred path and asserting that any rules "should be applied equally" to cable and satellite outlets.

Self-regulation is of course a lark, but the initial point is fair: this will not affect most media. It is not for that reason worthless. It makes a point. One could even argue that its very inconsistency is a virtue, since part of the soulless order of modern society is the idea that all legislation must be uniform. Contradiction within the soul is a disease, but contradiction in social order can be better than conformity to a base standard. I support what the president is doing but I take little hope from it in itself.

The virtue of hope comprises Warren's topic in my final quotation:

It follows, that Father’s Day is a day on which men should renew hope. Why? Because there is always hope of recovery, while we breathe, and our society still exists. Fathers, take your lumps and get on with it: for so long as a man would rather be a man, he isn’t beaten yet.

Amen.

I'm Still Alive

2006-06-04T19:50:00.000-07:00

But is Eddie Vedder? Haven't heard from him lately either.

More soon.

You Have to Read It to Believe It

2006-02-20T04:28:00.000-08:00

"The Rev. Donna Schaper is senior minister of Judson Memorial Church in Manhattan." She wants us to know that she murdered a baby, and that's OK.

I had an abortion 19 years ago. I am not bragging, nor am I apologizing. . . . I also find the very intimidation that I experience in telling my story to be the reason I must speak. Why would I be afraid? Because anti-abortion people like to punish people into their version of morality. . . . I happen to agree that abortion is a form of murder. . . . I know I murdered the life within me. I could have loved that life but chose not to.

The 'minister' wants us to know that any reference to her own conscience is merely an attempt to oppress her by denying her the constitutional right to murder. (N.B. the court in Roe acknowledged that, if the baby is a person, there can be no right to kill him or her. Our justices are not quite this confused.)

Exodus aside, the good minister has ample authority for saying 'thou shalt go ahead and kill when thou dost feel that is it the right decision for thee'.

I did what I think men do all the time when they take us to war: They choose violence because, although they believe it is bad, it is still better than the alternatives. The "just war" theory assumes that human beings get caught in terrible choices all the time. This freedom is not just for men; it is for women also.

Forget for a minute that, since 1920, men have been constitutionally incapable of 'taking us into war' without the cooperation of the fairer sex. Forget also little things involved in this decision like public authority and the duty to protect nations. Our minister discovers her own license to kill in what she calls 'maturity' (which used to be called 'immaturity', but nevermind):

When I made my choice to end life, I was behaving as an adult. . . . I behaved as an adult who is also a sexual being. Things happen sexually between people that are not always controllable. The unprotected sex I had with my husband while nursing our twins had a consequence that neither of us desired. . . . Because women are mature sexual beings who make choices, birth control and abortion are positive moral forces in history. They allow sex to be both procreational and recreational, for men and for women.

The fate of nations is as nothing compared to the good of unfettered sexual recreation.

The dear minister is 58. Apparently, her generation raised adolescence to the status of beatitude. I permit myself to hold out for something more, even if in the minister's eyes it makes me a chauvinist . . .

Follow France

2006-02-18T20:51:00.000-08:00

Never thought I'd say it, but lookie here:

French Government Report Says No to Homosexual “Marriage”

By John-Henry Westen

PARIS, February 16, 2006

A government commission set up at the request of the President of the French National Assembly has concluded that homosexual ‘marriage’ and adoption by homosexual couples, and medically assisted procreation for homosexual couples should not be permitted by law. The decisive factor to the report's conclusions, after an investigation of more than a year, was the commission’s decision to act “to affirm and protect children’s rights and the primacy of those rights over adults’ aspirations.”

. . .

The Mission considered demands for marriage to be made available to same-sex couples, and was of the view that it “is not possible to think about marriage separately from filiation: the two questions are closely connected, in that marriage is organized around the child.” Said the report: “ Marriage is not merely the contractual recognition of the love between a couple; it is a framework that imposes rights and duties, and that is designed to provide for the care and harmonious development of the child. Foreign examples demonstrate this: countries that have made marriage available to same-sex couples have all, simultaneously or subsequently, authorized adoption by those couples and developed systems for assisted procreation or surrogate gestation, to enable those couples to have children.”

The report stated: “It would in fact be incoherent, if couples were regarded as equal, to remove the prohibition on marriage and preserve it for filiation.”

Summing up its decision process on the matter, the Information Mission says, “Making marriage available to same-sex couples therefore presupposes that they will also be given the right to adopt and receive medical assistance for procreation, and even the right to use surrogate mothers, because such couples are not fertile. The Mission is divided on this subject. It considered the consequences for the child’s development and the construction of his or her identity of creating a fictitious filiation by law – two fathers, or two mothers – which is biologically neither real nor plausible. Diametrically opposed representations were made by the people heard on this point, and they failed to persuade a majority of the Mission to support recognizing a right to a child or a right to marriage, for same-sex couples. A majority of the Mission does not wish to question the fundamental principles of the law of filiation, which are based on the tripartite unit of ‘a father, a mother, a child’, citing the principle of caution. For that reason, that majority also, logically, chose to deny access to marriage to same-sex couples.”

Extraordinary Minister Shortage

2006-02-18T20:27:00.000-08:00

The most hilarious thing I've read in some time . . .

A Little Slow on the Draw . . .

2006-02-16T19:59:00.000-08:00

. . . but check out this post from Phil.

Under the opposite heading (no puns intended): Phil, any musings on the Cheney incident?

A Spiritual Diary

2006-02-16T19:51:00.000-08:00

Check this out, and the whole blog with it.

Winston Churchill on tobacco!

2006-02-10T08:00:00.000-08:00

I have been enjoying Churchill's book "Amid these Storms" (Charles Scribner's Sons 1932). Here is a passage from an essay entitled "A Second Choice" -- on chance and foresight.

If we look back on our past life we shall see that one of its most usual experiences is that we have been helped by our mistakes and injured by our most sagacious decisions. I suppose if I had to relive my life I ought to eschew the habit of smoking. Look at all the money I have wasted on tobacco. Think of it all invested and mounting up at compound interest year after year. I remember my father in his most sparkling mood, his eye gleaming through the haze of his cigarette, saying, ' Why begin ? if you want to have an eye that is true, and a hand that does not quiver, if you want never to ask yourself a question as you ride at a fence, don't smoke.'

But consider! How can I tell that the soothing influence of tobacco upon my nervous system may not have enabled me to comport myself with calm and with courtesy in some awkward personal encounter or negotiation, or carried me serenely through some critical hours of anxious waiting? how can I tell that my temper would have been as sweet or my companionship as agreeable if I had abjured from my youth the goddess Nicotine? Now that I think of it, if I had not turned back to get that matchbox at Flanders, might I not just have walked into the shell which pitched so harmlessly a hundred yards ahead?

Constitutional Rumblings

2006-01-29T13:41:00.000-08:00

States Step Up Fight on Abortion

Anticipating a more conservative Supreme Court, lawmakers are proposing bans in hope of forcing the justices to revisit Roe vs. Wade.

By P.J. Huffstutter and Stephanie Simon

Times Staff Writers

January 22, 2006

INDIANAPOLIS — Taking direct aim at Roe vs. Wade, lawmakers from several states are proposing broad restrictions on abortion, with the goal of forcing the U.S. Supreme Court — once it has a second new justice — to revisit the landmark ruling issued 33 years ago today.

The bill under consideration in Indiana would ban all abortions, except when continuing the pregnancy would threaten the woman's life or put her physical health in danger of "substantial permanent impairment." Similar legislation is pending in Ohio, Georgia and Tennessee.

. . .

Republican Rep. Troy Woodruff, serving his first term in the Indiana Legislature, wrote House Bill 1096 knowing it would conflict with Roe vs. Wade.

That was precisely his point: He wants his ban appealed to the Supreme Court, in hopes that the justices will overturn Roe and give states the power to make abortion a crime. "On an issue that's this personal, it should be decided as local as possible," he said. "We either want these procedures, or we don't…. And I don't."

The debate unfolds as the Senate prepares to vote on Supreme Court nominee Samuel A. Alito Jr., a federal appellate judge. As a Reagan administration lawyer, Alito laid out a plan to overturn Roe vs. Wade. In his confirmation hearings this month, he declined to call the case "settled law," suggesting that he might be willing to reverse or modify it.

. . .

Louisiana sets out that "the unborn child is a human being from the time of conception." The Nebraska Legislature has said that it "expressly deplore[s] the destruction of unborn human lives." Pennsylvania seeks "to extend to the unborn the equal protection of the laws." Utah, Missouri and Illinois are among several other states with similar language in their constitutions or statutes.

Such statements are merely philosophical; they don't have the force of law. But at least a dozen states have criminal laws banning abortion. They can't be enforced as long as Roe vs. Wade remains binding. In theory, though, they could take effect immediately upon a reversal, subjecting abortion providers to penalties ranging from 12 months' hard labor in Alabama to 20 years' imprisonment in Rhode Island.

"What the public doesn't realize is that the building blocks are already in place to re-criminalize abortion if Roe is overturned," said Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights in New York.

She and other abortion rights activists predict that abortion would remain legal on the East and West coasts and in a few states in between — among them Iowa, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada and New Mexico. They expect that at least 19 states across the Midwest and South would ban abortion.

. . .

About half of all pregnancies in the U.S. are unplanned, and nearly half of those end in abortion, according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, a research group that supports abortion rights.

The nation's abortion rate has been falling since the early 1980s. Currently, about 1 million abortions are performed each year in the U.S. Few are done to preserve the woman's life or physical health; overwhelmingly, women say they seek abortions because they're not prepared emotionally or financially to raise a child.

Guarding the Flock

2006-01-29T07:38:00.000-08:00

Want to know what a bishop sounds like?

National Catholic Register
INPERSON INTERVIEW 1/27/2006

Are Safe Environment Programs Safe?

by MARY ANN SULLIVAN

Jan. 15-21, 2006

Bishop Robert Vasa wants kids to be safe.

But the Baker, Ore., bishop is not ready to institute programs in his diocese that pretend to protect children against sexual abuse. He says he is not convinced that the so-called "safe-environment" programs that exist are good for children.

He's assisting the Catholic Medical Association in an evaluation of such programs. (See story, page 2.) He discussed his concerns with Register correspondent Mary Ann Sullivan.

. . .

Have you selected a safe-environment program for the Diocese of Baker yet?

. . .

I haven't found a safe-environment program for children to be suitable yet. It gets into the whole issue of whether we should be doing this at all. The whole approach is backwards. Which 7-, 8- or 9-year-old kid is capable of protecting himself and not having a lapse of judgment about who can and who cannot be trusted?

What we are saying to them with these programs is, "You are responsible for keeping yourself safe." But safety is not the children's responsibility. They are incapable of resisting the attack of an abductor. They can maybe begin to avoid dangerous situations, but they can have a lapse in judgment as kids do.

It's the parents who are responsible. If we don't first inform and instruct parents to take seriously their responsibility to supervise and monitor their own kids, we are setting ourselves up for kids who are vulnerable. Parents might think because their child went through safe-environment training, they know how to protect themselves.

Experts with whom I've spoken in the psychiatric field say kids don't have abstract thinking mechanisms. It's not appropriate to try to force them to think abstractly about who is a good person and who is a bad person. They don't have the capacity to make those kinds of discernments, and to expect them to think beyond their comprehension is fruitless. It probably makes us feel good, but it's not good for the children.

There was a line in The Chronicles of Narnia: At the end of the seven-book series, two kids were sick and were given medicine that didn't taste good and didn't do any good. But it made the parents feel good. It's the same thing with these safe-environment programs. We have kids and we think they need this to keep them safe. We don't know if it is good or bad. We know it's kind of horrendous, but we think it's doing good and so we keep imposing it on them. But, we shouldn't jump to the conclusion that doing something is better than doing nothing.

Charity vs. Progress

2006-01-27T06:10:00.000-08:00

The Holy Father, in his first encycical, has this to say regarding certain errors of modern political philosophy and theology:

b) Love—caritas—will always prove necessary, even in the most just society. There is no ordering of the State so just that it can eliminate the need for a service of love. Whoever wants to eliminate love is preparing to eliminate man as such. There will always be suffering which cries out for consolation and help. There will always be loneliness. There will always be situations of material need where help in the form of concrete love of neighbour is indispensable.[20] 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. The Church is one of those living forces: she is alive with the love enkindled by the Spirit of Christ. This love does not simply offer people material help, but refreshment and care for their souls, something which often is even more necessary than material support. 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.

. . .

b) Christian charitable activity must be independent of parties and ideologies. It is not a means of changing the world ideologically, and it is not at the service of worldly stratagems, but it is a way of making present here and now the love which man always needs. The modern age, particularly from the nineteenth century on, has been dominated by various versions of a philosophy of progress whose most radical form is Marxism. Part of Marxist strategy is the theory of impoverishment: in a situation of unjust power, it is claimed, anyone who engages in charitable initiatives is actually serving that unjust system, making it appear at least to some extent tolerable. This in turn slows down a potential revolution and thus blocks the struggle for a better world. Seen in this way, charity is rejected and attacked as a means of preserving the status quo. What we have here, though, is really an inhuman philosophy. People of the present are sacrificed to the moloch of the future—a future whose effective realization is at best doubtful. One does not make the world more human by refusing to act humanely here and now. We contribute to a better world only by personally doing good now, with full commitment and wherever we have the opportunity, independently of partisan strategies and programmes. The Christian's programme —the programme of the Good Samaritan, the programme of Jesus—is “a heart which sees”. This heart sees where love is needed and acts accordingly. Obviously when charitable activity is carried out by the Church as a communitarian initiative, the spontaneity of individuals must be combined with planning, foresight and cooperation with other similar institutions.

. . .

33. With regard to the personnel who carry out the Church's charitable activity on the practical level, the essential has already been said: they must not be inspired by ideologies aimed at improving the world, but should rather be guided by the faith which works through love (cf. Gal 5:6). Consequently, more than anything, they must be persons moved by Christ's love, persons whose hearts Christ has conquered with his love, awakening within them a love of neighbour. The criterion inspiring their activity should be Saint Paul's statement in the Second Letter to the Corinthians: “the love of Christ urges us on” (5:14). The consciousness that, in Christ, God has given himself for us, even unto death, must inspire us to live no longer for ourselves but for him, and, with him, for others. Whoever loves Christ loves the Church, and desires the Church to be increasingly the image and instrument of the love which flows from Christ. The personnel of every Catholic charitable organization want to work with the Church and therefore with the Bishop, so that the love of God can spread throughout the world. By their sharing in the Church's practice of love, they wish to be witnesses of God and of Christ, and they wish for this very reason freely to do good to all.

Religious Freedom

2006-01-25T10:18:00.000-08:00

James Schall gives us this interesting summary of the Holy Father's recent statements on religious liberty:

In the December 22 address to the Roman Curia, the Pope gave a summary of the efforts to properly relate religion to civil society. Surprisingly, he concluded that "People came to realize that the American Revolution was offering a model of a modern State that differed from the theological model with radical tendencies that had emerged during the second phase of the French Revolution" (OR, 4 January 2006). The Church and state have different purposes, but they need not be hostile to one another in principle.

The Pope is quite concerned that religious freedom not only be practiced and permitted legally, but that it is understood correctly. He can identify those modern political states that prohibit or severely restrict religious freedom. He knows there are Catholic martyrs almost daily in some part of the world. He knows that what he says may make it worse for some of his flock in intolerant and oppressive states–which he usually hesitates to mention by name. To avoid justifying such states, "it was necessary to give a new definition to the relationship between the Church and the modern State that would make room impartially for citizens of various religions and ideologies, merely assuming responsibility for an orderly and tolerant coexistence, among them and for the freedom to practice their own religion." This coexistence did not imply agreement of doctrine or practice, but it did focus on the person and his own responsibilities to know the truth in freedom.

But if this coexistence is based on dogmatic skepticism, on the belief that truth could not be known, it was no longer religious freedom as the Pope understands it.

If religious freedom were to be considered an expression of the human inability to discover the truth and thus become a canonization of relativism, then this social and historical necessity is raised inappropriately to the metaphysical level and thus stripped of its true meaning. Consequently, it cannot be accepted by those who believe that the human person is capable of knowing the truth about God and, on the basis of the inner dignity of the truth, is bound to this knowledge. It is quite different, on the other hand, to perceive religious freedom as a need that derives from human coexistence, or indeed, as an intrinsic consequence of the truth that cannot be externally imposed but that the person must adopt only through the process of conviction (OR, 4 January 2006).

This theme of the intolerance in a democracy based in theoretic skepticism was already spelled out by John Paul II in Centesimus Annus, Evangelium Vitae, and Veritatis Splendor. In the above passage, the Pope indicates that the grounding of political religious freedom is not doctrine, which must be pursued in dialogue and freedom of discussion, but in the nature of a person to inquire freely what this truth is.

Canada Watch

2006-01-23T20:35:00.000-08:00

For once, this column brings good news:

Canadians elect a Conservative minority

CTV.ca News Staff

Conservative Leader Stephen Harper has won a minority government on Monday, putting an end to more than 12 years of Liberal rule.

. . .

Harper, Canada's next prime minister, has been re-elected in the Alberta riding of Calgary Southwest. The Conservatives dominated in the West, and took most seats in the Prairies, as expected.

But it was in battleground Ontario where the Conservatives made a big breakthrough, with most of the polls showing they're on track to take a dozen or more seats than the 24 they won in 2004.

. . .

In Quebec, the Conservatives seem to be making crucial gains in the province that shut them out in 2004.

Early results indicate the Tories are elected in eight ridings, while the Liberals are tied with the same number, and an independent candidate has secured one seat.

. . .

Martin ended up in the fight of his political life against Harper. His Liberals took a pounding in the polls with voters upset over allegations of government scandal and a rash of urban gun violence, including a brazen Boxing Day shootout that killed a 15-year-old bystander in downtown Toronto.

Harper capitalized on those concerns, promising to get tough on corruption and to crack down on gun crime with mandatory minimum sentences.

Just before the New Year, the RCMP announced an investigation into an income trust announcement by the Liberals. That's when the Grits dropped sharply in the polls and the Conservatives rose -- at one point leading the Liberals by 18 points in a Strategic Counsel survey.

In the end, Harper succeeded in convincing voters that it was, in fact, time for change.

Before the election, David Warren put it into perspective:

I’ve heard from so many of these people, who will not vote for the Conservatives tomorrow, because they are disappointed, even disgusted, by the Conservatives’ attempts to distance themselves, or by a local candidate’s “progressive” posturing. Most often, it is the Conservative commitment to the status quo on abortion that is costing them a crucial swing vote.

But the best is often the enemy of the good. Real policy options are not on the table in this election, and we must therefore choose among the modest goods that are available. That is in fact sound Christian doctrine. And once it is understood, I consider it our moral duty to assist in removing the Liberals from power, and replacing them with something a little better. That is the primary thing, tomorrow, and it means, unambiguously, voting Conservative.

I would vote for my local Conservative if he had two heads and five elbows and was married to a same-sex yeti in Tibet. And I would vote for him with a clean conscience.

Looks like Canada's conscience just got a bit cleaner. Cheers to them! And may it be followed by a genuine amendment of life.

A Must Read

2006-01-16T20:46:00.000-08:00

By Mark Steyn.

A tiny sample:

This ought to be the left's issue. I'm a conservative--I'm not entirely on board with the Islamist program when it comes to beheading sodomites and so on, but I agree Britney Spears dresses like a slut: I'm with Mullah Omar on that one. Why then, if your big thing is feminism or abortion or gay marriage, are you so certain that the cult of tolerance will prevail once the biggest demographic in your society is cheerfully intolerant? Who, after all, are going to be the first victims of the West's collapsed birthrates? Even if one were to take the optimistic view that Europe will be able to resist the creeping imposition of Sharia currently engulfing Nigeria, it remains the case that the Muslim world is not notable for setting much store by "a woman's right to choose," in any sense.

I watched that big abortion rally in Washington in 2004, where Ashley Judd and Gloria Steinem were cheered by women waving "Keep your Bush off my bush" placards, and I thought it was the equivalent of a White Russian tea party in 1917. By prioritizing a "woman's right to choose," Western women are delivering their societies into the hands of fellows far more patriarchal than a 1950s sitcom dad. If any of those women marching for their "reproductive rights" still have babies, they might like to ponder demographic realities: A little girl born today will be unlikely, at the age of 40, to be free to prance around demonstrations in Eurabian Paris or Amsterdam chanting "Hands off my bush!"

The Parallel Church

2006-01-15T11:29:00.000-08:00

Here is an article to inform the mind and turn the stomach. The headline reads:

Catholic group requests church where all Masses are in Latin

Although the plan would allow Diocese of Buffalo to save a church from closing, the issue is not without controversy

A Catholic group wants to rescue a Catholic church and might possibly be refused? How could this be? Are they heritics? Closet Satanists? Would that they were. Then they would stand a better chance than these poor folks, who have the misfortune of belonging to the most hated group within the Church today -- traditional Catholics!

Then again, the reporter himself has since insisted that there is doubt about the validity of the traditional sacraments despite the indult. He would not publish a correction to his artcile, anyhow. So the slander is being promulgated, whatever the cause.

Each Sunday, a small group of Catholics worships at a Tridentine Mass spoken and chanted entirely in Latin - the way of Catholicism for centuries prior to the late 1960s.
The lay group of traditionalists has quietly bounced among various city churches over the past 15 years. Now, group members believe they are large and stable enough to support a church of their own.

They think they can save a city parish destined for closure when the Diocese of Buffalo begins consolidating churches within the next year or two.

The unusual request would allow the diocese to save at least one of its many architecturally significant churches - and stave off criticism from city officials and residents who worry several big empty church buildings will be left behind in a diocesan downsizing.

But the scenario is also fraught with thorny church politics.

Some worry about a "parallel church" developing if a building is set aside for the traditional Latin Mass - a concern voiced by some clergy and liturgists since Pope John Paul II allowed the reintroduction of the Latin Mass in the late 1980s.

Who are these clergy and liturgists? Whence their fears? Are they among those who teach (as I've heard taught) that the Mass was originally in English anyhow, that Latin was only a 'mistake' the Church made for an odd millenium or so? No, I'm afraid the fears are echoed by those who ought to possess a bit more knowledge than that.

The bishop, too, expressed concerns during the meeting about a parallel church that could cause confusion among Catholics.

The bishop is worried about a 'parallel church'! But wait, it gets better.

The traditional Mass . . . [is] a whole different approach to the celebration of liturgy," said Monsignor Anthony F. Sherman, associate director of the Secretariat for the Liturgy at the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

. . .

A separate congregation presumably would offer baptisms, first Holy Communion and marriage, among other sacraments. But the highest levels of the Vatican bureaucracy have yet to spell out clearly whether sacraments conducted in the old form are valid.

"That's somewhat of a hazy issue right now," said Sherman.

Let's get this straight. According to the good bishop, "the way of Catholicism for centuries prior to the late 1960s" if resurrected would constitute a 'parallel church'. According to associate director of the Secretariat for the Liturgy at the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, "the way of Catholicism for centuries prior to the late 1960s" constitutes "a whole different approach to the celebration of liturgy", and indeed to the sacraments in general. So much so, that he soberly hesitates to say whether "the way of Catholicism for centuries prior to the late 1960s" is even valid any longer.

Sometimes traditionalists are accused of having schismatic tendencies. But notice who has displaced "the way of Catholicism for centuries prior to the late 1960s" with a 'parallel church'. And by whose authority was an ostensibly new church founded?

I would recommend the rest of the article, which contains more juicy bits such as this:

Proponents of the traditional Mass tend to lean conservative on social issues such as promoting pro-life causes and condemning birth control and same-sex marriage.

Apparently this distinguishes them from members of the 'parallel church' founded by . . . whom?

I'll take my Church from Jesus Christ, who Himself lived "centuries prior to the late 1960s".

Update I have since heard a possible explanation of Monsignor Sherman's remarks: because of the reporter's ignorance, there may have been confusion as to whether the subject was the indult or the SSPX. This would make his comment much more understandable, if nonetheless regrettable.

Vote Dishrag!

2006-01-11T03:53:00.000-08:00

David Warren reports on some interesting, and hopeful, developments in Canadian politics. Yes, you read that right!

Actual Harm

2006-01-09T04:18:00.000-08:00

David Warren paints a frightening picture of our friendly neighbor to the North, in which we can see our own possible future:

We had further confirmation of our new constitutional order just before Christmas, when the most significant question of public policy to arise since the beginning of the election campaign was briefly aired. This was the far-reaching decision of the Supreme Court to legalize group fornication in “swingers clubs”.

The significance of the decision was spelled out in the majority opinion, written by Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin. She declared a new principle of Canadian law, that would obviate all previous principles. Henceforth, the argument that an act could be considered criminal because it did moral harm to individual persons, or to society as a whole -- would be inadmissible. “Actual” harm to persons would have to be shown. And since the most obvious example of this -- the spread of sexual infections from the public acceptance of libertine behaviour -- was pointedly overlooked, the concept of physical harm was itself made vague.

. . .

Consider: this is a decision that will be invoked by lawyers to stop any municipality in Canada from preventing a “swingers club”, or other lewd establishment, from opening in any neighbourhood at all. It makes arranging public orgies into a conventional commercial proposition. It will put knowledge of this in reach of our children, and make them eligible for legal participation from the age of consent, which is fourteen. And henceforth, no one has a right to do anything about that.

This is how many of our own citizens want it to be. As we watch our civilizations decay, we may need to coin a phrase for the 'inactual harm' of twiddling our thumbs the meanwhile.

What Was Saddam Up To?

2006-01-08T03:58:00.000-08:00

Don't believe the word on the street . . .

Saddam's Terror Training Camps

What the documents captured from the former Iraqi regime reveal--and why they should all be made public.

by Stephen F. Hayes

THE FORMER IRAQI REGIME OF Saddam Hussein trained thousands of radical Islamic terrorists from the region at camps in Iraq over the four years immediately preceding the U.S. invasion, according to documents and photographs recovered by the U.S. military in postwar Iraq. The existence and character of these documents has been confirmed to THE WEEKLY STANDARD by eleven U.S. government officials.

Read on.

Courts Run Wild

2006-01-07T06:02:00.000-08:00

A few illustrations of courts that have, or are about to, run amok over law and order:

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. Jan 5, 2006 — The Florida Supreme Court struck down a statewide voucher system Thursday that allowed children to attend private schools at taxpayer expense a program Gov. Jeb Bush considered one of his proudest achievements.

It was the nation's first statewide voucher program.

In a 5-2 ruling, the high court said the program undermines the public schools and violates the Florida Constitution's requirement of a uniform system of free public education.

. . .

[Governor Jeb] Bush said he will look for ways to continue the voucher programs, such as finding private money, changing state law or amending the Florida Constitution.

"I don't think any option should be taken off the table," the governor said. "School choice is as American as apple pie in my opinion. … The world is made richer and fuller and more vibrant when you have choices."

Under the 1999 law, students at public schools that earn a failing grade from the state in two out of four years were eligible for vouchers to attend private schools.

Chief Justice Barbara Pariente said the program "diverts public dollars into separate private systems parallel to and in competition with the free public schools," which are the sole means set out in the state constitution for educating Florida children.

Good for Jeb. He doesn't seem to realize, though, that uniformity is more important than knowledge, virtue, the continuation of our civilization, etc.

And here is a judicial hijacking waiting to happen:

January 4, 2006

Supporters of same-sex marriage filed suit with the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court yesterday to try to disqualify a proposed ballot question asking voters to ban gay matrimony starting in 2008.

In the lawsuit, Advocates & Defenders contends that Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly ignored a provision in the state constitution that prevents ballot initiatives that seek to reverse a judicial decision. The SJC legalized gay marriage in Massachusetts in November 2003.

''This proposed antigay, antimarriage amendment is meant squarely and solely to reverse that decision," GLAD's legal director, Gary Buseck, said yesterday.

David Guarino, a Reilly spokesman, issued a statement saying that GLAD's legal theory is flawed because the proposed amendment would not overturn the SJC's ruling and invalidate thousands of gay marriages that have already taken place. Rather, it would change the constitution so that no more such marriages could take place if the measure passed.

Not seeing the difference means believing that the proper task of courts is legislating or determining policy instead of applying the law.

On a related note, we have this:

Few priests sign name to ban gay marriage
Friday, December 30, 2005

Despite the leadership of the Roman Catholic Church urging support for a petition against same-sex marriage, only 20 percent of priests who work in the Springfield diocese signed the petition, according to a Web site tracking the issue.

Of the 154 active local priests, 31, or 20 percent, signed the petition that seeks to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Information about petition signers was gathered from the Web site of the pro-gay marriage organization, knowthyneighbor.org.

Leaders of the organization said their Web site's petition database contains all the names accepted by the Massachusetts Secretary of State's office, which certified the petition.

. . .

The Rev. James J. Scahill, the East Longmeadow priest who has been outspoken critic of the church's leadership, said the clergy's lack of support for the petition reflects the refusal of priests to back an anti-gay measure. He said some of the priests are gay.

He said priests' refusal to sign the petition is an acknowledgment that same-sex unions are among people willing to make public commitments of genuine love.

We get the judicial activism we deserve, I think.

It is Zarqawi

2006-01-06T04:36:00.000-08:00

More death in Iraq. But note the effect this is having:

Insurgents Kill 140 as Iraq Clashes Escalate

5 U.S. Troops Among Dead

By Nelson Hernandez and Saad Sarhan
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, January 6, 2006; A01

BAGHDAD, Jan. 5 -- The residents of Ramadi had had enough. As they frantically searched the city's hospital for relatives killed and wounded in bomb blasts at a police recruiting station Thursday, they did something they had never publicly done: They blamed al Qaeda in Iraq, the insurgent movement led by Abu Musab Zarqawi.

"Neither the Americans nor the Shiites have any benefit in doing this. It is Zarqawi," said Khalid Saadi, 42, who came to the hospital looking for his brother, Muhammed. Saadi said he hoped that sympathies in the city, considered a hotbed of support for the Sunni Arab insurgency, would turn against Zarqawi's faction.

. . .

Some of those killed were tribal leaders who had come to supervise the recruitment of residents into the country's police force, said Majeed Tikriti, a doctor in Ramadi's hospital. Local leaders have repeatedly demanded that U.S. and Iraqi authorities allow men from Ramadi to serve in Iraq's armed forces. They had argued that only locally recruited soldiers could bring a measure of control to the city of 400,000 on the Euphrates River, which is considered one of the key centers of the Sunni-led insurgency.

Though U.S. and Iraqi authorities have been reluctant to allow this, on the grounds that locally recruited soldiers are vulnerable to coercion by insurgents, they have relented in recent weeks. Pool said in the statement that since recruiting began Monday, recruiters have screened 600 applicants who met basic requirements to join the police.

The Ramadi residents responded to the attack with fury. Nearly everyone at the scene said they believed it had been ordered by Zarqawi's al Qaeda in Iraq, considered the most ruthless and best-organized faction in the insurgent movement.

"People in this city helped Zarqawi a lot, and I hope this would make them change their minds," said Saad Abid Ali, a captain in the Iraqi army hit by shrapnel in the legs.

Another group of people beat a doctor in the hospital after he told an Iraqi journalist that U.S. forces were to blame for the attacks.

Does Legal Reform Approach?

2006-01-06T04:22:00.000-08:00

Democrats to delay vote on Alito by one week

Senators' strategy would slow confirmation process of high court nominee

The Associated Press
Updated: 4:57 p.m. ET Jan. 5, 2006

WASHINGTON - Senate Democrats plan to delay the Judiciary Committee’s vote on Samuel Alito’s nomination to the Supreme Court for at least a week, slowing what could have been a quick confirmation process for President Bush’s pick to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.

Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter had hoped to hold a committee vote on Alito’s nomination on Jan. 17, a little over a week from the Monday start of the federal appellate judge’s confirmation hearings.

But Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid told Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., on Thursday that Democrats will invoke their right to hold the Alito committee vote over for one week, Senate leadership aides told The Associated Press.

. . .

Democrats have said repeatedly they aren’t planning to filibuster Alito, although they also have refused to promise to refrain from the stalling tactic on the federal appellate judge.

“I don’t think it’s wise for members to try and outline a strategy other than to make sure these hearings are comprehensive and they’re done with dignity and respect for the nominee,” said Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, one of the Senate’s leading liberals. “The future will take care of itself.”

. . .

Republicans say they’re ready to fight if Democrats try a partisan filibuster, including the so-called nuclear option, which would let the GOP ban judicial filibusters. “I will use all the tools I have to simply get an up-or-down vote on the floor of the Senate for the president’s judicial nominees,” Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said last month.

But experts said Democrats are not yet in a position to filibuster Alito, even if they wanted to.

A Sealed Case

2006-01-06T04:03:00.000-08:00

Taranto quotes from an interview of "Rosa Brooks, a professor who teaches constitutional law at the University of Virginia Law School and columnist for the Los Angeles Times", by Hugh Hewitt.

Brooks: I think it seems to me that the NSA surveillance program on its face violates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and--

Hewitt: Now, you have read United States v. United States District Court, right?

Brooks: Uh, Hugh, you're pushing me here.

Hewitt: It's--

Brooks: Refresh my memory.

Hewitt: United States v. United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, in which the United States Supreme Court specifically says, Justice Powell writing, we are not going to consider whether or not the president can, in fact, conduct surveillance of this sort.

Brooks: What sort?

Hewitt: Foreign agents communicating with their agents in the United States, even if those latter are citizens.

Brooks: OK.

Hewitt: So they specifically reserved the question to one side, and the foreign intelligence surveillance court appeals board, in In Re Sealed Case No. 2 [link in PDF], also said no, the president has the authority to do this. So given that the federal authority--

Brooks: Well, you know, Hugh, I mean, you've got the case law at your fingertips, and I'm not going to challenge you on it, because I don't.

In trying to scare Bush, she has proved scary all right. Maybe with the help of a Vermont judge she can lock him up for 60 days plus rehab.

It Just Corrodes Your Soul

2006-01-06T03:51:00.000-08:00

Burlington, Vermont -- January 4, 2005

There was outrage Wednesday when a Vermont judge handed out a 60-day jail sentence to a man who raped a little girl many, many times over a four-year span starting when she was seven.

The judge said he no longer believes in punishment and is more concerned about rehabilitation.

Prosecutors argued that confessed child-rapist Mark Hulett, 34, of Williston deserved at least eight years behind bars for repeatedly raping a littler girl countless times starting when she was seven.

But Judge Edward Cashman disagreed explaining that he no longer believes that punishment works.

"The one message I want to get through is that anger doesn't solve anything. It just corrodes your soul," said Judge Edward Cashman speaking to a packed Burlington courtroom. Most of the on-lookers were related to a young girl who was repeatedly raped by Mark Hulett who was in court to be sentenced.

The sex abuse started when the girl was seven and ended when she was ten. Prosecutors were seeking a sentence of eight to twenty years in prison, in part, as punishment.

. . .

But Judge Cashman explained that he is more concerned that Hulett receive sex offender treatment as rehabilitation. But under Department of Corrections classification, Hulett is considered a low-risk for re-offense so he does not qualify for in-prison treatment.So the judge sentenced him to just 60 days in prison and then Hulett must complete sex treatment when he gets out or face a possible life sentence.

Thanks to James Taranto for pointing out this madness. Nothing that an impeachment, new legislation, retrail, and execution couldn't fix . . .

Canada Watch

2006-01-04T21:36:00.000-08:00

From the 50th Anniversary issue of National Review (December 19, 2005):

Here is a news item from the Friendly Giant to Our North — a country large and consequential enough, you would think, that a person who had once served as its minister of defense and deputy prime minister would be possessed of more than the average endowment of gravitas. Think again. Paul Hellyer, who held those positions under Prime Ministers Lester Pearson and Pierre Trudeau, recently told an audience at the University of Toronto that George W. Bush is planning for an intergalactic war against space aliens — you know, the ones in UFOs, which vessels are, averred the former SecDef and Deputy PM, “as real as the airplanes that fly over your head.” Warming to his theme, Hellyer accused the Bush administration of planning a forward base on the moon, the better to counterattack the extraterrestrials. “The time has come,” he concluded, “to lift the veil of secrecy, and let the truth emerge, so there can be a real and informed debate, about one of the most important problems facing our planet today.” The speech received a standing ovation. So now we know: Hatred of George W. Bush, in combination with the enervating effects of living in the world’s most boring country, can send you barking mad.

Intervention Part VII

2006-01-03T04:58:00.000-08:00

By popular demand, I continue my column analyzing the Ottaviani critique of the Novus Ordo Mass.

IV THE ESSENCE

We now pass on to the essence of the Sacrifice.

The mystery of the Cross is no longer explicitly expressed. It is only there obscurely, veiled, imperceptible for the people. And for these reasons:

1. The sense given in the Novus Ordo to the so-called "prex Eucharistica" is: "that the whole congregation of the faithful may be united to Christ in proclaiming the great wonders of God and in offering sacrifice" (No. 54. the end)

Which sacrifice is referred to? Who is the offerer? No answer is given to either of these questions. The initial definition of the "prex Eucharistica" is as follows: "The centre and culminating point of the whole celebration now has a beginning, namely the Eucharistic Prayer, a prayer of thanksgiving and of sanctification" (No. 54, pr.). The effects thus replace the causes, of which not one single word is said. The explicit mention of the object of the offering, which was found in the "Suscipe", has not been replaced by anything. The change in formulation reveals the change in doctrine.

In case the thread is getting lost here, the 'Suscipe' in the traditional Mass is as follows:

Accept, O Holy Father, Almighty and Eternal God, this spotless host, which I, Thine unworthy servant, offer to Thee, my living and true God, to atone for my numberless sins, offenses, and negligences; on behalf of all here present and likewise for all faithful Christians living and dead, that it may profit me and them as a means of salvation to life everlasting. Amen.

This clear statement of the nature and purpose of the Holy Sacrifice, which is indeed "the centre and culminating point of the whole celebration", along with several other prayers mentioned in our previous posts, has been replaced with this:

Pray, brethren, that our sacrifice may be acceptable to God, the almighty Father.

Nothing wrong with this. In fact, the same prayer (identical in Latin, subtly altered in the ICEL 'translation'*) appears in the traditional Mass -- after all the other Offertory prayers that have been suppressed. The question is, why suppress prayers that explain so beautifully what it is we are about to do as a Church, especially when that is the most important thing human beings are given to do in this vale of tears? Could someone give me a single worthy motive for this, or explain how it constitutes 'reform' to cast Christians further into the dark about what they are doing at Mass?

* The new 'translation' has 'our sacrifice' where the Latin reads 'my sacrifice and yours', thus erasing the distinction between priest and people and obscuring the individual encounter of the soul with Christ, which is lost in the group-think praxis of the Novus Ordo today.

It is these little details -- which can be found in virtually every prayer of the official Enlgish translation of the Novus Ordo Mass -- which make it abundantly clear that the dominant figures behind liturgical 'reform' are in fact heretics, despite their being unable to destroy the *validity of the Holy Mass.

2. The reason for this non-explicitness concerning the Sacrifice is quite simply that the Real Presence has been removed from the central position which it occupied so resplendently in the former Eucharistic liturgy. There is but a single reference to the Real Presence, (a quotation - a footnote - from the Council of Trent) and again the context is that of "nourishment" (no. 241, note 63)

The Real and permanent Presence of Christ, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, in the transubstantiated Species is never alluded to. The very word transubstantiation is totally ignored.

The suppression of the invocation to the Third Person of the Most Holy Trinity ("Veni Sanctificator") that He may descend upon the oblations, as once before into the womb of the Most Blessed Virgin to accomplish the miracle of the divine Presence, is yet one more instance of the systematic and tacit negation of the Real Presence.

That prayer is simply:

Come, O Sanctifier, Almighty and Eternal God, and bless this sacrifice prepared for the glory of Thy Holy Name.

Soon afterwards comes a petition to the Holy Trinity, quoted earlier, which is also suppressed.

Note, too, the suppressions:

of the genuflections (no more than three remain to the priest, and one, with certain exceptions, to the people, at the Consecration;

of the purification of the priest's fingers in the chalice;

of the preservation from all profane contact of the priest's fingers after the Consecration;

of the purification of the vessels, which need not be immediate, nor made on the corporal;

of the pall protecting the chalice;

of the internal gilding of sacred vessels;

of the consecration of movable altars;

of the sacred stone and relics in the movable altar or upon the "table" - "when celebration does not occur in sacred precincts" (this distinction leads straight to "Eucharistic suppers" in private houses);

of the three altar-cloths, reduced to one only;

of thanksgiving kneeling (replaced by a thanksgiving, seated, on the part of the priest and people, a logical enough complement to Communion standing);

of all the former prescriptions in the case of the consecrated Host falling, which are now reduced to a single, casual direction: "reventur accipiatur" (no. 239)

All these things only serve to emphasise how outrageously faith in the dogma of the Real Presence is implicitly repudiated.

One could add dozens of examples of how faith in the Real Presence has been lost. The synod of bishops was quite occupied with this recently, but few wanted to admit the simple cause, which Pope Benedict himself recognizes quite clearly: the liturgy of the Holy Church itself has drastically reduced signs of reverence for the Blessed Sacrament, and the people have responded quite naturally by losing their consciousness of this sacred mystery. As this Intervention shows, this tendency was written in to the Novus Ordo and evident in it from the beginning. To laud the 'reform of the liturgy' as the bishops did while lamenting loss of Eucharistic faith is the height of self-contradiciton.

3. The function assigned to the altar (no. 262). The altar is almost always called 'table', "The altar or table of the Lord, which is the centre of the whole Eucharistic liturgy" (no. 49, cf. 262). It is laid down that the altar must be detached from the walls so that it is possible to walk round it and celebration may be facing the people (no. 262); also that the altar must be the centre of the assembly of the faithful so that their attention is drawn spontaneously towards it (ibid). But a comparison of no. 262 and 276 would seem to suggest that the reservation of the Blessed Sacrament on this altar is excluded. This will mark an irreparable dichotomy between the presence, in the celebrant, of the eternal High Priest and that same presence brought about sacramentally. Before, they were 'one and the same presence'.

In many ways, this is the most important flaw in the new rubrics, which try to separate the celebration (conducted on the altar) from its result (the bringing of Christ into the world physically) by demanding that the altar be separated from the Tabernacle where Christ's Body and Blood are reserved. Formerly, the High Altar was 'against the wall' and centered, with the Tabernacle -- usually ornately decorated -- permanently fixed on it. From the moment one enters a traditionally designed church, one's attention is focused on the altar/Tabernacle, and remains there through all prayers and throughout the Mass. The priest had no choice but to face the altar/Tabernacle ('with his back to the people' in the vulgar phrase) so that all present were oriented toward Christ the whole time. The purpose of the Mass -- to make Christ and His Sacrifice present to his faithful people -- was impossible to ignore, no matter how unschooled one might have been in Catholic doctrine.

Today, by contrast, all focus is on the altar which by law must stand alone, away from the Blessed Sacrament it exists to bring forth. Even when the Tabernacle is visible at all, and not in a broom closet as it was in the church I grew up in, it is ignored throughout the Mass and even by most faithful as they enter the church and pray -- they ridiculously bow to the altar while ignoring the Real Presence of Christ among them! During Mass all eyes will focus on the priest himself and whatever laypeople are strutting around the sanctuary doing this and that, facing the people and show-boating in various ways. The result is obviously to eradicate any awareness of the actual purpose of Mass and its connection to the Most Blessed Sacrament and therfore to the sanctification of our lives.

I'm well aware that despite these massive flaws, many Novus Ordo Catholics remain devout and orthodox in their beliefs, and even receive many graces from the Mass in full consciousness of what it actually is. My point is that, having been hijacked by heterodox thieves, the Mass is currently conduced in such a way as to tend to prevent any of this from happening. (This is less the case where significant efforts are made to celebrate the N.O. in a traditional way, but such cases are in my experience rare and usually bring down the wrath of bishops and the lay committees they cater to. Besides which, as this letter shows, these efforts go against the spirit of the N.O. which was from the beginning heterodox.) Novus Ordo Catholics who are devout and orthodox are swimming against the stream, not only in the world (which must hate true Christians) but also in the Church itself -- whose m.o. is literally scandalous.

Feed My Sheep

2006-01-02T04:54:00.000-08:00

USCCB reclassifies gay Western "Brokeback Mountain" after complaints

Washington DC, Dec. 16, 2005 (CNA) - "Brokeback Mountain," originally rated L (limited adult audience) by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, has been reclassified as an O (morally offensive) after several pro-family organizations expressed concern for what they saw as an implicit endorsement of the USCCB film critic to the controversial gay western.

Brokeback Mountain is the story of two sheep-herding cowboys in Wyoming who begin a homosexual relationship on the range in the 1960s, and continue their affair even after they marry women.

. . .

In the original comment posted on the USCCB's website, the reviewer wrote that the Catholic Church "makes a distinction between homosexual orientation and activity," and that "Ennis and Jack's continuing physical relationship is morally problematic."

"While the actions taken by Ennis and Jack cannot be endorsed, the universal themes of love and loss ring true," said the original USCCB's review, which also called the movie "a serious contemplation of loneliness and connection."

"Looked at from the point of view of the need for love which everyone feels but few people can articulate, the plight of these guys is easy to understand while their way of dealing with it is likely to surprise and shock an audience," the original USCCB review said.

. . .

After several pro-life and pro-family websites strongly criticized the original review, the USCCB decided on Friday to change its classification, while still providing a very positive description of the film.

The new review is certainly quite sophisticated. A sample:

Use of the film as an advocacy vehicle to promote a morally objectionable message that homosexuality is equivalent to and as acceptable as heterosexuality does a disservice to its genuine complexity. While the actions taken by Ennis and Jack cannot be endorsed, the universal themes of love and loss ring true. The film creates characters of flesh and blood - not just the protagonists, but the wives, girlfriends, parents, and children -- who give the film its artful substance.

However, the physicality of the men’s relationship and the film’s inherent sanctioning of their affair necessitate an O rating.

The film contains tacit approval of same-sex relationships, adultery . . .

(Emphasis added.)

What complexity? The (new) review explains it thus:

The Catholic Church’s teaching on homosexuality is unambiguous. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church says, homosexual acts are “intrinsically disordered" and the inclination itself is “objectively disordered.” At the same time, homosexually inclined persons “must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity” (#2357 and #2358).

As a result, Ennis and Jack’s physical relationship cannot be condoned. Of course, just as offensive from a Catholic perspective is the adulterous nature of their affair. And, in this regard, the film doesn't whitewash the pain Jack and Ennis cause their families, showing how selfish their trysts are, particularly when a befuddled Alma is left alone with the children. Both women are played with tremendous sympathy, but especially Alma.

So, apparently, a film that endorses homosexual relationships and adultery does in its 'complexity' depict the selfishness and destructiveness of those deeds. And just as apparently, the most important thing about the film from the USCCB's eyes is that very complexity which allows the film, ringing true, to juxtapose symptoms of objective disorder with tacit approval. In response to those too dull to understand such complexity, further clarification was needed.

"Feed my sheep" indeed.

Ottaviani Intervention Part VI

2005-12-30T12:41:00.000-08:00

After a short hiatus for holiday travels (during which I suffered from a particularly bad Christmas liturgy, I'm afraid -- though the Lord blessed me in various other respects) I return to my reading of the Ottaviani Intervention (the entire text of which can be found here).

SUPPRESSION OF GREAT PRAYERS
In the preparation of the offering, a similar equivocation results from the suppression of two great prayers. The "Deus qui humanae substantiae dignitatem mirabiliter condidisti et mirabilius reformasti" was a reference to man's former condition of innocence and to his present one of being ransomed by the Blood of Christ: a recapitulation of the whole economy of the Sacrifice, from Adam to the present moment. The final propitiatory offering of the chalice, that it might ascend "cum adore suavitatis", into the presence of the divine majesty, whose clemency was implored, admirably reaffirmed this plan. By suppressing the continual reference of the Eucharistic prayers to God, there is no longer any clear distinction between divine and human sacrifice.

The argument needs no commentary. The prayers referred to are these:

O God, + Who established the nature of man in wondrous dignity, and still more admirably restored it, grant that by the mystery signified in the mingling of this water and wine, may we come to share in His Divinity, who humbled himself to share in our humanity, Jesus Christ, Thy Son, our Lord, Who liveth and reigneth with Thee in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God, world without end. Amen.

We offer unto Thee, O Lord, the chalice of salvation, humbly begging of Thy mercy that it may arise before Thy divine Majesty, with a pleasing fragrance, for our salvation and for that of the whole world.

"cum adore suavitatis" should be "cum odore suavitatis", "with a pleasing fragrance".

Having removed the keystone, the reformers have had to put up scaffolding; suppressing real ends, they had to substitute fictitious ends of their own; leading to gestures intended to stress the union of priest and faithful, and of the faithful among themselves; offerings for the poor and for the church superimposed upon the Offering of the Host to be immolated. There is a danger that the uniqueness of this offer will become blurred, so that participation in the immolation of the Victim comes to resemble a philanthropical meeting, or a charity banquet.

Some examples of what the Novus Ordo places in stead of these prayers:

Blessed are you, Lord, God of all creation. Through your goodness we have this bread to offer, which earth has given and human hands have made. It will become for us the bread of life.

By the mystery of this water and wine may we come to share in the divinity of Christ, who humbled himself to share in our humanity.

Blessed are you, Lord, God of all creation. Through your goodness we have this wine to offer, fruit of the vine and work of human hands. It will become our spiritual drink.

Lord God, we ask you to receive us and be pleased with the sacrifice we offer you with humble and contrite hearts.

Lord, wash away my iniquity; cleanse me from my sin.

N.B. that the prayer "Lord God, we ask you to receive . . ." is simply a mistranslation of the Latin, which remains the same in both Masses:

In a humble spirit and with a contrite heart, may we be accepted by Thee, O Lord, and may our sacrifice so be offered in Thy sight this day as to please Thee, O Lord God.

Apparently some peple are aginst the solemn tone, as well as stressing the divine element in the economy of salvation.

Intervention Part V

2005-12-19T05:52:00.000-08:00

The letter continues,

III PRESENTATION OF THE ENDS

We now come to the ends of the Mass.

1. Ultimate End. This is that of the Sacrifice of praise to the Most Holy Trinity according to the explicit declaration of Christ in the primary purpose of His very Incarnation: "Coming into the world he saith: 'sacrifice and oblation thou wouldst not but a body thou hast fitted me' ". (Ps. XXXIX, 7-9 in Heb. X, 5).

The letter to the Hebrews continues:

10:9. Then said I: Behold, I come to do thy will, O God: He taketh away the first, that he may establish that which followeth.
Tunc dixit ecce venio ut faciam Deus voluntatem tuam aufert primum ut sequens statuat

10:10. In the which will, we are sanctified by the oblation of the body of Jesus Christ once.
In qua voluntate sanctificati sumus per oblationem corporis Christi Iesu in semel

10:11. And every priest indeed standeth daily ministering and often offering the same sacrifices which can never take away sins.
Et omnis quidem sacerdos praesto est cotidie ministrans et easdem saepe offerens hostias quae numquam possunt auferre peccata

10:12. But this man, offering one sacrifice for sins, for ever sitteth on the right hand of God,
Hic autem unam pro peccatis offerens hostiam in sempiternum sedit in dextera Dei

10:13. From henceforth expecting until his enemies be made his footstool.
De cetero expectans donec ponantur inimici eius scabillum pedum eius

10:14. For by one oblation he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
Una enim oblatione consummavit in sempiternum sanctificatos

The point, if I understand it, is that Christ's one Sacrifice on the Cross was efficacious for the redemption of all sins. The Holy Sacrafice of the Mass is a re-presentation -- a making present -- of that one Sacrifice, not a new Sacrafice. And the letter authors tie this in to the essence of the Mass being 'a sacrifice of praise' on the part of us, the people, since we are brought through the Mass into communion with the one efficacious Sacrifice, through an act of will by which we offer our hearts to the Lord who died to save us. This could probably be stated much better, since it is something I have experienced more than analyzed in speech. Any suggestions?

This end has disappeared: from the Offertory, with the disappearance of the prayer "Suscipe, Sancta Trinitas", from the end of the Mass with the omission of the "Placet tibi Sancta Trinitas", and from the Preface, which on Sunday will no longer be that of the Most Holy Trinity, as this Preface will be reserved only to the Feast of the Trinity, and so in future will be heard but once a year.

I reproduce these prayers for you:

Accept, most Holy Trinity, this offering which we are making to Thee in remembrance of the passion, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ, Our Lord; and in honor of blessed Mary, ever Virgin, Blessed John the Baptist, the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, and of (name of the Saints whose relics are in the Altar) and of all the Saints; that it may add to their honor and aid our salvation; and may they deign to intercede in heaven for us who honor their memory here on earth. Through the same Christ our Lord.

May the tribute of my worship be pleasing to Thee, most Holy Trinity, and grant that the sacrifice which I, all unworthy, have offered up in the presence of Thy Majesty, may be acceptable to Thee, and through Thy mercy obtain forgiveness for me and all for whom I have offered it. Through Christ our Lord. Amen.

It is indeed fitting and right, our duty and our salvation, always and everywhere to give thanks to Thee, Lord, Holy Father, almighty and eternal God, Who together with Thine only-begotten Son and the Holy Ghost art one God, one Lord: Not in the oneness of a single person, but in the Trinity of one substance. For what we believe from Thy revelation concerning Thy glory, that also we believe of Thy Son and of the Holy Ghost without difference or separation. So that in confessing the true and everlasting Godhead, distinction in persons, unity in essence, and equality in majesty may be adored. Which the Angels and Archangels, Cherubim also and the Seraphim do praise: who cease not daily to cry out, with one voice saying:

Holy, holy, holy Lord God of Hosts. Heaven and earth are filled with Thy glory. Hosanna in the highest. Blessed is He Who comes in the Name of the Lord. Hosanna in the highest.

The significance of dropping or de-emphasizing these prayers does seem clear.

2. Ordinary End. This is the propitiatory Sacrifice. It too has been deviated from; for instead of putting the stress on the remission of sins of the living and the dead, it lays emphasis on the nourishment and sanctification of those present (No. 54). Christ certainly instituted the Sacrament of the Last Supper putting Himself in the state of Victim in order that we might be united to Him in this state but his self- immolation precedes the eating of the Victim, and has an antecedent and full redemptive value (the application of the bloody immolation). This is borne out by the fact that the faithful present are not bound to communicate, sacramentally.

Try explaining this one at a typical Mass today, when everyone herd-like rushes to take Communion -- in the most irreverent manner -- from one of the near-dozen 'Eurcharistic ministers' who are strategically placed throughout the church. *Not going to Communion becomes a physical difficulty as the stream carries you forward, as well as an embarassment as no one grasps why one would refrain. The result is obivously unworthy reception on the part of millions and millions of souls, with the consequent dangers to their salvation (sacrilege). All for forgetting what the Mass is foremost for.

3. Immanent End. Whatever the nature of the Sacrifice, it is absolutely necessary that it be pleasing and acceptable to God. After the Fall no sacrifice can claim to be acceptable in its own right other than the Sacrifice of Christ. The Novus Ordo changes the nature of the offering turning it into a sort of exchange of gifts between man and God: man brings the bread, and God turns it into the "bread of life"; man brings the wine, and God turns it into a "spiritual drink".

"Thou are blessed Lord God of the Universe because from thy generosity we have received the bread (or wine) which we offer thee, the fruit of the earth (or vine) and of man's labour. May it become for us the bread of life (or spiritual drink)".

There is no need to comment on the utter indeterminateness of the formulae "bread of life" and "spiritual drink", which might mean anything. The same capital equivocation is repeated here, as in the definition of the Mass: there, Christ is present only spiritually among His own: here, bread and wine are only "spiritually" (not substantially) changed.

I also find these new prayers to be wimpy in the extreme. Compare what the traditional Mass has to say at this point:

Accept, O Holy Father, Almighty and eternal God, this spotless host, which I, Thine unworthy servant, offer to Thee, my living and true God, to atone for my numberless sins, offenses and negligences; on behalf of all here present and likewise for all faithful Christians living and dead, that it may profit me and them as a means of salvation to life everlasting. Amen.

O God, + Who established the nature of man in wondrous dignity, and still more admirably restored it, grant that by the mystery signified in the mingling of this water and wine, may we come to share in His Divinity, who humbled himself to share in our humanity, Jesus Christ, Thy Son, our Lord, Who liveth and reigneth with Thee in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God, world without end. Amen.

We offer unto Thee, O Lord, the chalice of salvation, humbly begging of Thy mercy that it may arise before Thy divine Majesty, with a pleasing fragrance, for our salvation and for that of the whole world.

In a humble spirit and with a contrite heart, may we be accepted by Thee, O Lord, and may our sacrifice so be offered in Thy sight this day as to please Thee, who art our Lord and our God.

Come, O Sanctifier, Almighty and Eternal God, and bless, + this sacrifice prepared for the glory of Thy holy Name.

I wash my hands among the innocent, and I go around Thy altar, O Lord, that I may hear the voice of praise, and tell of all Thy wondrous works. O Lord, I have loved the beauty of Thy house and the place where Thy glory dwelleth. Take not away my soul, O God with the wicked: nor my life with men of blood. On their hands are crimes, and their right hands are full of bribes. But as for me I have walked in my innocence; redeem me, and have mercy on me. My foot has stood in the right ways in the churches I will bless Thee, O Lord. Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost. As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.

A slightly different emphasis, no?

Intervention Part IV

2005-12-19T04:23:00.000-08:00

The letter continues . . .

II DEFINITION OF THE MASS

Let us begin with the definition of the Mass given in No. 7 of the "Institutio Generalis" at the beginning of the second chapter on the Novus Ordo: "De structura Missae":

"The Lord's Supper or Mass is a sacred meeting or assembly of the People of God, met together under the presidency of the priest, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord. Thus the promise of Christ, "where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them", is eminently true of the local community in the Church (Mt. XVIII, 20)".

The definition of the Mass is thus limited to that of the "supper", and this term is found constantly repeated (nos. 8, 48, 55d, 56). This supper is further characterised as an assembly presided over by the priest and held as a memorial of the Lord, recalling what He did on the first Maundy Thursday. None of this in the very least implies either the Real Presence, or the reality of sacrifice, or the Sacramental function of the consecrating priest, or the intrinsic value of the Eucharistic Sacrifice independently of the people's presence. It does not, in a word, imply any of the essential dogmatic values of the Mass which together provide its true definition. Here, the deliberate omission of these dogmatic values amounts to their having been superseded and therefore, at least in practice, to their denial.

In the second part of this paragraph 7 it is asserted, aggravating the already serious equivocation, that there holds good, "eminently", for this assembly Christ's promise that "Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them" (Matt. XVIII, 20). This promise which refers only to the spiritual presence of Christ with His grace, is thus put on the same qualitative plane, save for the greater intensity, as the substantial and physical reality of the Sacramental Eucharistic Presence.

N.B. that, during the the delay this letter prompted, this paragraph was removed and replaced with an orthodox definition of the Mass. But at the same time the Mass to which it was originally affixed went forward. At least two things follow: 1) the actual, heterodox motives behind the redaction of the Roman rite Mass were simply obscured, rather than rejecting a Mass that had been designed for reasons contrary to the Catholic faith; 2) everyone who shared these heterodox views knew that they lay behind the actual changes in the Mass, whatever anyone said; these folks were therefore encouraged to believe they had only met a temporary setback and could confidently proceed with their revolution until the real 'spirit of Vatican II' was vindicated. They are still waiting; they are still imposing their heterodox practices on millions of Catholics everywhere; they are still justifying their sacrileges by saying 'We are the Church' and reducing the Mass to a 'supper' constituted by a Christ who is merely derivative of the gathering of the faithful, NOT (in their minds and in their practices) present in the person of the priest representing apostolic authority and making Christ physically present in the Blessed Sacrament. These latter, vital truths are still being ignored or drastically downplayed until the time when the Church 'evolves' beyond having to waste time on them, and those who, like Pope Benedict, are striving to renew the Church's belief in them are facing widespread and massive resistance on the part of the corrupt Church hierarchy . . .

In no. 8 a subdivision of the Mass into "liturgy of the word" and Eucharistic liturgy immediately follows, with the affirmation that in the Mass is made ready "the table of God's word" as well as "the Body of Christ", so that the faithful "may be built up and refreshed"; an altogether improper assimilation of the two parts of the liturgy, as though between two points of equal symbolic value. More will be said about this point later.

I await more detail on this point. A greater emphasis on Scripture reading and so forth in the first part of the liturgy is certainly a showpiece of the Novus Ordo. Its result has certainly not been any greater understanding of Scripture on the part of Catholics. As for any theological problems with the emphasis, I'll see what this letter has to say later on.

This Mass is designated by a great many different expressions, all acceptable relatively, all unacceptable if employed, as they are, separately in an absolute sense.

We cite a few: The Action of the People of God; The Lord's Supper or Mass, the Pascal Banquet; The Common Participation of the Lord's Table; The Eucharistic Prayer; The Liturgy of the Word and the Eucharistic Liturgy.

As is only too evident, the emphasis is obsessively placed upon the supper and the memorial instead of upon the unbloody renewal of the Sacrifice of Calvary. The formula "The Memorial of the Passion and Resurrection of the Lord", besides, is inexact, the Mass being the memorial of the Sacrifice alone, in itself redemptive, while the Resurrection is the consequent fruit of it.

I was not aware of this point. Just after the consecration, the traditional Mass does have this prayer:

Wherefore, O Lord, we, Thy servants, as also Thy holy people, calling to mind the blessed passion of the same Christ, Thy Son, Our Lord, His Resurrection from the grave, and His glorious Ascension into heaven, offer up to Thy most excellent Majesty, of Thine own gifts bestowed upon us, a Victim + which is pure, a Victim + which is holy, a Victim + which is stainless, the holy bread + of life eternal and the Chalice + of eternal salvation.

In this prayer one can see the emphasis on Christ as Victim, though His Victomhood gains its ultimate significance only from his Resurrection and Ascension in which we also share in the Blessed Sacrament. Surely it is essential to the Mass that it remembers all these things and that it looks forward to the second coming of Christ. All these things are better attested to in the prayers of the traditional Mass anyhow.

We shall later see how, in the very consecratory formula, and throughout the Novus Ordo, such equivocations are renewed and reiterated.

Intervention Part III

2005-12-18T15:08:00.000-08:00

Our series continues -- though we will be interrupted as I travel for Christmas.

The letter goes on,

REJECTED BY SYNOD

Since the "normative" Mass (New Mass), now reintroduced and imposed as the Novus Ordo Missae (New Order of the Mass), was in substance rejected by the Synod of Bishops, was never submitted to the collegial judgement of the Episcopal Conferences, nor have the people - least of all in mission lands - ever asked for any reform of Holy Mass whatsoever, one fails to comprehend the motives behind the new legislation which overthrows a tradition unchanged in the Church since the 4th and 5th centuries, as the Apostolic Constitution itself acknowledges. As no popular demand exists to support this reform, it appears devoid of any logical grounds to justify it and makes it acceptable to the Catholic people.

An interesting fact about Thomistic thought -- and the mind the Church in general -- is that custom can, under certain conditions, supercede or even alter the law. Most crucially, when human law is unjust -- when it contradicts natural and/or divine law -- disobedience becomes an option (weighing its consequences prudently). When this exception becomes the norm -- when a law is genuinely outdated but the authorities refuse to retract it -- custom becomes a way of repealing it from below, so to speak. This may sound revolutionary, and in certain cases it may justify something like revolution. But in this case consider the light it sheds on the theft of our liturgy, which was perpetrated by elites in whose minds the liturgy had to be dumbed down for the masses. Quite serious and devout people still raise this objection to the traditional rite: it is too complicated for folks to understand, hence the predominance of alternative prayers while Mass was being said, etc. Well, if editing out some of the Mass's most sublime prayers and translating away most of its reverence was supposed to make it clearer to the people, that seems to have failed dismally. The truths the Mass is meant to convey are if anything *less understood by the people today than ever before. The lengths to which the celebrants go to make the Mass accessible convince many attendees to conclude that nothing is being offered to them but what they already know and believe. There is nothing to aspire to, nothing to struggle with, nothing therefore to love outside of oneself.

Some see this as progress; I see it as a lie. Faith is a struggle for us, a spiritual combat, and Mass should fortify us for this combat, not convince us we're OK as we are. When Mass was profound it may have posed more of a difficulty for those attending; but it is wrong to conclude they therefore wanted to destroy it and make it easy. As a muscle-bound character in the GI Joe comics I used to read always said, "Who ever said life was supposed to be easy?" The Mass should convey hard as well as comforting truths: e.g., salvation is not a cakewalk. This is not elitism but just the opposite: it is tending the Lord's sheep as He commanded the Church to do.

The Vatican Council did indeed express a desire (para. 50 Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium) for the various parts of the Mass to be reordered "ut singularum partium propria ratio nec non mutua connexio clarius pateant." We shall see how the Ordo recently promulgated corresponds with this original intention.

Paragraph 50 reads:

50. The rite of the Mass is to be revised in such a way that the intrinsic nature and purpose of its several parts, as also the connection between them, may be more clearly manifested, and that devout and active participation by the faithful may be more easily achieved.

For this purpose the rites are to be simplified, due care being taken to preserve their substance; elements which, with the passage of time, came to be duplicated, or were added with but little advantage, are now to be discarded; other elements which have suffered injury through accidents of history are now to be restored to the vigor which they had in the days of the holy Fathers, as may seem useful or necessary.

What this really means is an interesting question. That the current radical redaction of the Mass goes far beyond simplification and clarification into downright tampering with the Mass as it was handed down organically from the holy Fathers to the Council Fathers, appears to be a theme of this letter.

For my part, I would also flag the problem that what tradition has passed on is clear and obvious; what the early Church Fathers did during Mass is more a matter of guesswork. It is imprudent to place too much stress on the latter element, regardless of whether it should even be a significant consideration. As for the word 'discarded', it does make me wince in this context . . .

An attentive examination of the Novus Ordo reveals changes of such magnitude as to justify in themselves the judgement already made with regard to the "normative" Mass. Both have in many points every possibility of satisfying the most Modernist of Protestants.

Looks like some interesting analysis ahead. Stay tuned . . .

Intervention Part II

2005-12-17T07:18:00.000-08:00

The next part of the letter begins the analysis of the Novus Ordo over against the Mass of the ages:

I HISTORY OF THE CHANGE

In October 1967, the Episcopal Synod called in Rome was required to pass judgement on the experimental celebration of a so-called "normative Mass" (New Mass), devised by the Consilium ad exsequendam Constitutionem de Sacra Liturgia. This Mass aroused the most serious misgivings. The voting showed considerable opposition (43 non placet), very many substantial reservations (62 juxta modum), and 4 abstentions out of 187 voters. The international press spoke of a "refusal" of the proposed "normative Mass" (New Mass) on the part of the Synod. Progressively-inclined papers made no mention of it. In the Novus Ordo Missae lately promulgated by the Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum, we once again find this "normative Mass" (New Mass), identical in substance, nor does it appear that in the intervening period the Episcopal Conference, at least as such, were ever asked to give their views about it.

What could have been driving the New Mass forward, if not consensus on the part of Church leaders? Perhaps the notion of 'progress', inevitable, unquestionable, unthinking progress?

In the Apostolic Constitution, it is stated that the ancient Missal promulgated by St. Pius V, 13th July 1570, but going back in great part to St. Gregory the Great and still remoter antiquity, was for four centuries the norm for the celebration of the Holy Sacrifice for priests of the Latin rite, and that, taken to every part of the world, "it has moreover been an abundant source of spiritual nourishment to many holy people in their devotion to God".

I remember a recent convert to Catholicism complaining about a TLM he had been to, that was not using the same readings as the Novus Ordo, which he described as being the same everywhere he went -- hence more in line with the Catholic faith. Aside from only mentioning places w/in the US -- what universality! -- and glossing over all the permutations in the liturgy introduced by the new rubrics and the new 'spirit' that allows rubrics to be broken, he also missed another element of Catholicism that used to be obvious from the Mass itself, but no longer is now that we use an 'updated' version: the communion of saints. What is more Catholic, a Mass that sounds pretty much the same anywhere you go north of Mexico, or a Mass that is by and large identical to the one whose readings were arranged by St. Jerome 1600 years ago, whose language has not changed in 1800 years at least, and whose prayers were cherished and incorporated into the hearts of countless men and women we now know to be with God in Heaven? Looking at it in this light -- the light of faith -- the answer seems obvious.

Yet, the present reform, putting it definitely out of use, was claimed to be necessary since "from that time the study of the Sacred Liturgy has become more widespread and intensive among Christians".

This bit of snobbery is pretty rich, considering the opposition to the New Mass from the Church hierarchy itself. Of couse, it is the typical progressive intellectual claptrap: 'study' has 'shown' that formerly all the world was mad, and my crackpot ideas are the only logical option hereon in.

This assertion seems to us to embody a serious equivocation. For the desire of the people was expressed, if at all, when - thanks to Pius X - they began to discover the true and everlasting treasures of the liturgy. The people never on any account asked for the liturgy to be changed, or mutilated so as to understand it better. They asked for a better understanding of the changeless liturgy, and one which they would never have wanted changed.

The Roman Missal of St. Pius V was religiously venerated and most dear to Catholics, both priests and laity. One fails to see how its use, together with suitable catechesis, could have hindered a fuller participation in, and great knowledge of the Sacred Liturgy, nor why, when its many outstanding virtues are recognised, this should not have been considered worthy to continue to foster the liturgical piety of Christians.

Could not have said it better myself!

Ottaviani Intervention

2005-12-15T13:12:00.000-08:00

Thought I would try something new to get the blog going a bit. Sorry for my absence, by the way. These are busy times and I only blog when a) a bloggable thought occurs to me, b) I have a few mintues. For the time being, cutting and pasting is the high point for this tanless blogger.

Which gave me the idea of reproducing interesting documents here with commentary on a somewhat regular basis. We'll see if I rise to regularity. For starters, I just ran into this very interesting piece written in 1969. You can read the whole thing here.

The background is that Pope Paul VI was about ready to release the Novus Ordo Missae, the hacked-up rump of the Roman Rite that is currently the norm for Latin rite Catholics (often in poor translation to boot). Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci presented the pope with the following letter, including a detailed analysis and critique of the New Mass as a threat to the Catholic faith. The effect, sadly, was but to delay the issuance of the Mass by about two years, with revisions only to its rubrics (including the subtraction of blatantly heretical statements). Thus does the Holy Ghost prevent the Church from falling into absolute error. But, as an Advent prayer has it, God's people are "fallen indeed, but striving to rise" above the consequences of poor judgment.

I want to present this document a bit at a time and reflect a little on the credibility of its claims in light of 34 years of experience.

Rome, September 25th, 1969

Most Holy Father,

Having carefully examined, and presented for the scrutiny of others, the Novus Ordo Missae prepared by the experts of the Consilium ad exequendam Constitutionem de Sacra Liturgia, and after lengthy prayer and reflection, we feel it to be our bounden duty in the sight of God and towards Your Holiness, to put before you the following considerations:

1. The accompanying critical study of the Novus Ordo Missae, the work of a group of theologians, liturgists and pastors of souls, shows quite clearly in spite of its brevity that if we consider the innovations implied or taken for granted which may of course be evaluated in different ways, the Novus Ordo represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent. The "canons" of the rite definitively fixed at that time provided an insurmountable barrier to any heresy directed against the integrity of the Mystery.

Heresy is not a word we like to use much today. The Church used to place combating heresy among its chief duties. Man being what he is, he is in constant need of correction, restraint, reminding, etc. so as not to stray off the right path. The 'spirit of Vatican II', however, made this seem a thing of the past. The Church was now to be open, inclusive, positive in its relation to non-members, lapsed members, and bad members. A liturgy designed to reinforce Church teaching became an embarassment to some, who did not want to exclude those formerly known as heretics or schismatics from the sense of community with which they wanted to replace communion. So indeed, the new liturgy has caused some to remark that 'hey, there's really nothing that bad about Catholicism, looks just like my Baptist service', etc. As for its other effects, read on . . .

2. The pastoral reasons adduced to support such a grave break with tradition, even if such reasons could be regarded as holding good in the face of doctrinal considerations, do not seem to us sufficient. The innovations in the Novus Ordo and the fact that all that is of perennial value finds only a minor place, if it subsists at all, could well turn into a certainty the suspicions already prevalent, alas, in many circles, that truths which have always been believed by the Christian people, can be changed or ignored without infidelity to that sacred deposit of doctrine to which the Catholic faith is bound for ever. Recent reforms have amply demonstrated that fresh changes in the liturgy could lead to nothing but complete bewilderment on the part of the faithful who are already showing signs of restiveness and of an indubitable lessening of faith.

Lex orandi, lex credendi. A drastic revision to our worship implies a drastic revision in our faith. To argue that the same faith needed a new mode of presentation (the presumption behind the 'pastoral concerns' shibboleth *still invoked by wayward bishops) is specious in the extreme. It implies the Church lacked all judgment and taste for century upon century, that what Catholics once did was the result of a faulty mentality that has now blissfully dissolved. If that is so, the Church is not the Church at all. A Church that only matured in the 1960s is a thing of naught.

Amongst the best of the clergy the practical result is an agonising crisis of conscience of which innumerable instances come to our notice daily.

On this score, I have heard of priests who were told they were not permitted to offer the traditional Mass on pain of mortal sin. Turned out to be a lie, but it was part of the vilification of the 'old Mass' without which this novus ordo could never have become so unquestioningly accepted. Also here I think of the diminishment of the role of the priest that comes from a diminishment in focus on the Real Presence, transubstantiation, Eucharistic adoration, etc. A pastor whose flock wants to circle around itself rather than following the directions of its true Shepherd is in a sorry condition.

3. We are certain that these considerations, which can only reach Your Holiness by the living voice of both shepherds and flock, cannot but find an echo in Your paternal heart, always so profoundly solicitous for the spiritual needs of the children of the Church. It has always been the case that when a law meant for the good of subjects proves to be on the contrary harmful, those subjects have the right, nay the duty of asking with filial trust for the abrogation of that law.

Therefore we most earnestly beseech Your Holiness, at a time of such painful divisions and ever-increasing perils for the purity of the Faith and the unity of the church, lamented by You our common Father, not to deprive us of the possibility of continuing to have recourse to the fruitful integrity of that Missale Romanum of St. Pius V, so highly praised by Your Holiness and so deeply loved and venerated by the whole Catholic world.

This appeal is still being made, and has not yet been answered in any adequate way. More from this document next time I can steal a few minutes . . .

Check this Out

2005-12-12T20:42:00.000-08:00

The Democrats show their true colors . . .

Hat tip: James Taranto.

Understanding the Other Side

2005-12-09T04:36:00.000-08:00

By James Taranto:

"Conservative columnist Ann Coulter gave up trying to finish a speech at the University of Connecticut on Wednesday night when boos and jeers from the audience became overwhelming," the Associated Press reports:

Coulter's appearance prompted protests from several groups, including Students Against Hate and the Puerto Rican/Latin American Cultural Center. They criticized her for spreading a message of hate and intolerance.

Nearly 100 students gathered inside the Student Union for a rally against Coulter. About a half-dozen people held protest signs outside the auditorium. . . .

Last April, the president of the University of St. Thomas in Minnesota denounced a speech on the campus by Coulter, calling it hateful. In October 2004, University of Arizona police arrested two men who ran on stage and threw custard pies at Coulter; one of the pies glanced off her shoulder. . . .

Eric Knudsen, a 19-year-old sophomore journalism and social welfare major at UConn, didn't attend the speech.

"We encourage diverse opinion at UConn, but this is blatant hate speech," said Knudsen, head of Students Against Hate.

In case you don't speak Liberalese, here's Knudsen's comment translated into English: We encourage diverse opinion at UConn, as long as it is exactly the same as our own opinion. And by the way, what the heck is a "social welfare major"?

These people have gone over to the other side, i.e., to the Canadian side of things.

Hatred blinds U.S. to truth

2005-11-21T09:56:00.000-08:00

TorontoSun.com - Toronto And GTA - Hatred blinds U.S. to truth: Journalist

If we stop trying to figure out the other side, we've given up. The person on the other side is not evil -- they just have a different perspective.

So says journalist Chris Matthews. Oh? And what is the principal difference between saying that the "person on the other side" (is this his euphamism for "enemy," or what?) has a "different perspective" rather than saying "evil"? I mean, by saying that the "other side" is evil, doesn't that presuppose an understanding of evil ergo an understanding of the "other side"? Ah. Mr. Matthews must not believe in such categories. How subtle of him -- as subtle as mold on bread.

The Wiser Way

2005-11-12T20:27:00.000-08:00

Inside the Vatican has this interview with Cardinal Francis Arinze, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship. Of late, Cardinal Arinze has made comments tending to discourage those praying for a more generous dispensation for the traditional Mass. In this interview, he backpedals just a bit:

ARINZE: To begin with, it is not within the competence of this Congregation to handle requests for the Mass of the Tridentine rite. The Holy Father has set up a special commission known as the Ecclesia Dei commission and it looks into that for groups that want it.

It is the Ecclesia Dei commission that examines that, Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos is the President of that Commission. If there are any suggestions along those lines, he would bring them to the Holy Father.

Priests and bishops have to ask themselves when some of our Catholics are asking for the Tridentine Mass, could it be that we should examine how we celebrate Mass? Could it be that they have seen many abuses? And they are sick and tired, and therefore they say, "Look, we have had enough of this. Let’s go back to how it was 50 years ago." Could it be?

Unfortunately, what some don't know is that even when there was the Tridentine Mass there were abuses. Many Catholics did not know, because they did not know Latin! So when the priest garbled the words, they were not aware of this.

Hmm. Cold comfort, that. With all due respect, the Cardinal does not appear to have come to grips with the issues meditated by the recent episcopal synod. When asked about the controversy over denying 'pro-choice' politicians Holy Communion, quoth he,

My reply, "Do you really need a cardinal from the Vatican to answer that question?" Can a child having made his First Communion not answer that question? Is it really so complicated? The child will give the correct answer immediately, unless he is conditioned by political correctness. It is a pity, cardinals have to be asked such questions.

Well, now. When asked about deficiencies in the Church's liturgy, such as the utter lack of Gregorian chant throughout the United States, he was less direct:

ARINZE: For music in the liturgy, we should start by saying that Gregorian music is the Church's precious heritage. It should stay. It should not be banished. If therefore in a particular diocese or country, no one hears Gregorian music anymore, then somebody has made a mistake somewhere.

But, the Church is not saying that everything should be Gregorian music. There is room for music which respects that language, that culture, that people. There is room for that too, and the present books say that is a matter for the Bishops Conference, because it generally goes beyond the boundaries of one diocese.

. . .

The judgment would be left to the bishops of the area. It is wiser that way.

It is wiser to leave these things to men who know less than "a child having made his First Communion"?

One thing in this interview heartened me. When asked about the possibility of "tougher action", Cardinal Arinze did not deny that any is on the way. Instead, he replied, "Many people would want it. Obviously, there are some major areas the Holy Father decides."

Thank God. As ITV said in a prior message,

In this context, there is one thing the Catholic faithful of the world need to do, immediately and urgently: they must pray for Pope Benedict. Pray for his intentions. Pray that he be granted the prudence, wisdom, and courage to cleanse the Church as she urgently needs to be cleansed. And let him know you are praying for him. He needs your prayers and support.

Another Try

2005-11-12T18:11:00.000-08:00

Judiciary panel backs ban on gay marriage
By Associated Press | November 10, 2005

WASHINGTON -- A conservative push to ban gay marriage through a constitutional amendment gained renewed momentum Wednesday after a Senate panel led by Kansas Republican Sam Brownback narrowly approved the measure.

The ''Marriage Protection Amendment" would define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, effectively rescinding the Massachusetts law that made gay marriage legal last year.

. . .

While a similar effort led by President Bush failed in both chambers of Congress last year, conservative lawmakers are pushing for another vote to head off any decision in the federal courts that could legalize gay marriage.

In a 5-4 vote along party lines, Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., cast the deciding vote allowing the amendment to pass to the full Judiciary Committee and a likely vote in the Senate next year. . . .

The measure would need to be approved by two-thirds of those voting in the House and Senate and then be ratified by at least 38 state legislatures. . . .

Nineteen states have already passed a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, with Texas voters being the latest to take that step on Tuesday.

Voters in five other states will consider similar constitutional amendments next year.

A Tale of Two Democracies

2005-11-12T06:33:00.000-08:00

David Warren paints an interesting contrast between the voiolence in Iraq and in France. Check the whole thing out, but here's the conclusion:

But the key difference between the two countries -- redounding to the credit of Iraq -- is in the public theatre. Iraqis are openly talking about their problems, and how they might be solved. The key problem of fanatical Islam, and its unquenchable thirst for human blood, is an open topic. You may see this wherever you look in Iraqi media -- the optimistic spirit of a young democracy.

Turning the pages of Le Monde, and Le Figaro, you will see the opposite. You will see, to often comical extreme, the “culture of taboo and avoidance”, in which the realities of Islam and demography are ignored, and euphemisms are uneasily employed to mask even the fact that the rioters are Muslim.

Interview with Cardinal Darío Castrillón Hoyos . . .

2005-11-11T04:58:00.000-08:00

. . . President of Ecclesia Dei, concerning the SSPX and the traditional Mass ("the Mass of Pius V").

A few highlights from this recent interview, which follows a meeting between Pope Benedict and the Superior General of the Saint Pius X Fraternity:

CASTRILLÓN HOYOS: Unfortunately Monsignor Lefebvre went ahead with [the episcopal consecrations of 1988] and hence the situation of separation came about, even if it was not a formal schism.

. . .

in 2001, there was, however, rapprochement with the Brazilian group close to the Fraternity, the one now headed by Monsignor Fernando Arêas Rifan, who was elected in 2002 by the Holy See as bishop and titular of the personal apostolic administration of San Giovanni Maria Vianney in Campos.

. . .

CASTRILLÓN HOYOS: Yes, the Campos solution was a delicate moment. Because the Fraternity was annoyed. Whereas for me it was something providential because it showed a possible way for a wider solution of the question.

. . .

the Saint Pius X Fraternity is a priestly body composed of priests validly ordained even if in an illegal way.

. . .

CASTRILLÓN HOYOS: Monsignor Fellay, but this was known even beforehand, was able to express his fears on the state of the Catholic Church in the light of the abuses, not only liturgical, that have occurred since Vatican Council II. I believe that critical contributions of that sort that can come from the Fraternity can be a treasure for the Church, when expressed under the charisma of Peter and in charity among brethren. In the Church in fact we are all free to formulate critical observations on what doesn’t concern dogma and the essential discipline of the Church itself. On that subject I can testify that Cardinal Ratzinger was already fully convinced of the need for theological dialogue on the difficult points. In full unity there is more light to be found for studying these sensitive points.

After the audience an authoritative cardinal suggested that the Fraternity should recognize the legitimacy of the present Pontiff.

CASTRILLÓN HOYOS: Unfortunately that is proof that within the Church, even at high levels, there is not always full knowledge of the Fraternity. The Fraternity has always recognized in John Paul II, and now in Benedict XVI, the legitimate successor of Saint Peter. That is not a problem. That then there are traditionalist groups that don’t recognize the last popes, the so-called “empty throne” people, is another question that doesn’t concern the Saint Pius X Fraternity.

It is known that the Saint Pius X Fraternity is asking the Holy See for a liberalization of the so-called Tridentine mass and a declaration affirming that this liturgy has never been abolished.

CASTRILLÓN HOYOS: The mass of Saint Pius V has never been abolished. As for liberalization, I remember that under the pontificate of John Paul II there was a meeting of all the department heads of the Roman Curia, in which the vast majority were not against such a request. It would be dangerous to create opposition between the old rite and the new. The liturgy cannot be a battlefield. As priest, as cardinal and as Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy, I feel great pain in seeing the unacceptable language at times used of the wish of Jesus to give his own body and blood, and to entrust them to his Church. And this is true of some spokesmen of the Saint Pius X Fraternity, but not only them.

Are many bishops against?

CASTRILLÓN HOYOS: At times the pastoral anxiety of a bishop leads him to think that granting permission to celebrate the Tridentine mass in his diocese may create confusion among the people of God. And when believers who ask for this type of celebration are very few, the perplexity can be understood. Whereas when it’s a more substantial group wanting the mass, it’s up to the Pontifical Commission «Ecclesia Dei» to remind the bishop, honestly and kindly, that the wish of Peter’s Successor is of be generous in responding in favor of these believers. And I see with joy that, day after day, there are ever more who so respond.

You are well acquainted with the traditionalist world. How do you judge the personal piety of the priests who belong to it?

CASTRILLÓN HOYOS: Many traditionalist priests I have known have made an excellent impression on me: they have a sincere love for the mystery. Unfortunately there can also be fanatics who are bound to the old liturgy as one can be bound to a mathematical formula of which one doesn’t even understand the value in depth.

Do you think they represent the legacy of a past in any case on the way to extinction?

CASTRILLÓN HOYOS: At the World Day of Youth in Cologne there was a considerable group of young people attached to the traditional mass. The echoes have been positive. And it shows how short-sighted it is to consider the traditionalist phenomenon as on the way to exhaustion. Not least because in the traditionalist world, in proportion, the number of priestly vocations is decidedly superior to that of many diocese in the Church.

Miers Withdraws

2005-10-27T10:04:00.000-07:00

Bush Abandons Push for Miers Nomination.

Bush, after weeks of insisting he did not want Miers to withdraw, blamed the Senate for her demise.
"It is clear that senators would not be satisfied until they gained access to internal documents concerning advice provided during her tenure at the White House _ disclosures that would undermine a president's ability to receive candid counsel," the president said shortly before leaving for Florida to assess hurricane damage.

This is exactly what Krauthammer predicted would happen, interestingly enough. (Rf. Saving Face by Charles Krauthammer).

Finally, light at the end of this tunnel. A way out: irreconcilable differences over documents.
For a nominee who, unlike John Roberts, has practically no previous record on constitutional issues, such documentation is essential for the Senate to judge her thinking and legal acumen. But there is no way that any president would release this kind of information -- ``policy documents'' and ``legal analysis'' -- from such a close confidante. It would forever undermine the ability of any president to get unguarded advice.
Which creates a classic conflict, not of personality, not of competence, not of ideology, but of simple constitutional prerogatives: The Senate cannot confirm her unless it has this information. And the White House cannot allow release of this information lest it jeopardize executive privilege.
Hence the perfectly honorable way to solve the conundrum: Miers withdraws out of respect for both the Senate and the executive's prerogatives, the Senate expresses appreciation for this gracious acknowledgment of its needs and responsibilities, and the White House accepts her decision with the deepest regret and with gratitude for Miers' putting preservation of executive prerogative above personal ambition.

A Bishop Speaks Out . . .

2005-10-26T04:39:00.000-07:00

. . . against his fellow bishops:

The Charter for the Protection of Children has been interpreted to include mandatory “safe-environment training” for all children of or connected with the Church. In the diocese, we have indicated that such training must be made available to all children under our supervision in our Catholic schools but have not taken on the nearly impossible task of assuming responsibility for every [Catholic] child in the diocese.

As a result of this discrepancy between a new interpretation of the charter and our diocesan policy, the annual charter audit will undoubtedly find the Diocese of Baker, and me as bishop, “Not in Compliance” and will issue a “Required Action,” which I am prepared, at this point, to ignore. I say this not because I resist efforts to protect children, but rather precisely the opposite. There are a series of questions that I believe need to be answered before I could mandate such a diocesan-wide program of “safe-environment training.”

A few such questions follow: Are such programs effective? Do such programs impose an unduly burdensome responsibility on very young children to protect themselves rather than insisting that parents take such training and take on the primary responsibility for protecting their children? Where do these programs come from? Is it true that Planned Parenthood has a hand or at least huge influence on many of them? Is it true that other groups, actively promoting early sexual activity for children, promote these programs in association with their own perverse agendas? Do such programs involve, even tangentially, the sexualization of children, which is precisely a part of the societal evil we are striving to combat? Does such a program invade the Church-guaranteed-right of parents over the education of their children in sexual matters? Do I have the right to mandate such programs and demand that parents sign a document proving that they choose to exercise their right not to have their child involved? Do such programs introduce children to sex-related issues at age-inappropriate times? Would such programs generate a fruitful spiritual harvest? Would unsatisfactory answers to any of the questions above give sufficient reason to resist such programs?

There are many concerned parents who have indicated to me that the answers to all of these questions are unsatisfactory. If this is true, do these multiple problematic answers provide sufficient reason to resist the charter interpretation? At very least, even the possible unsatisfactory answers to any of the questions above leaves me unwilling and possibly even unable to expose the children of the diocese to harm under the guise of trying to protect them from harm. I pray that, in this, I am neither wrong-headed nor wrong.

Funny how the Bishop's Conference didn't think of these questions. Where does their treasure lie?

A Controversial Act

2005-10-25T04:39:00.000-07:00

More brilliance from David Warren, speaking of the rumor that Pope Benedict intends to beatify Henry Cardinal Newman:

He is still invoked as a “Father of Vatican II”, though it is hard to imagine that Newman would wish to own much that came out of that particular revolution. He was, signally, a man of ideas, of universal truths. Such that, wherever today in the English-speaking world Catholicism is being practised with fidelity to its teachings, Newman’s presence is honoured and enjoyed. And where it is being practised as a mere ethnicity -- Catholics like our [Canadian] prime minister, or our premier, who think they are Catholic because their parents were, but themselves disregard all Catholic teaching -- Newman is either absent, or felt as an embarrassing or quaint old family portrait on the wall.

It follows that Newman’s beatification would be a controversial act. I suspect previous Popes did not think of it, for they were unwilling to face the wrath of Anglican and other ecumenists. But I also suspect Pope Benedict has the courage to do it -- and thereby move decisively beyond an era in which Catholics have been in the habit of apologizing for themselves. Newman was himself a man who did not hesitate to seek converts; who did not rank the need for diplomacy above the need for Christ. Though a true modern in his language, he was not “modern” in a key sense of that word -- for we often use it unconsciously as a synonym for “pusillanimous”.

. . .

In my view, “mainstream” Protestantism, and the matching “mainstream” Catholicism are dead forces in the English-speaking world. They have degenerated into what I dismissed as “ethnic” above; they are the defunct tribal standards of the white middle class (or lower, in the case of many tribal Catholics). Traditional Catholicism, and the Evangelical movement, are the living forces. The latter is much larger, but I think Evangelicals are moving in a consistently Catholic direction over time. Such that Newman is now often respectfully read, in Evangelical circles.

Launching a New Verb

2005-10-18T14:47:00.000-07:00

David Warren weighs in with another brilliant piece.

I have decided to launch a verb, “to verdonk”. It is needed for a new, and soon to be growing political phenomenon. I would define “verdonking” as a bold though hopeless attempt to square a sociological circle. The verdonker wants to be tough, and is prepared to be tough, in defence of what she believes to be motherhood and apple pie. She is going to defend her society, legally, from a challenge to its underpinnings. But those underpinnings are not, ultimately, legal.

His referent is "Rita Verdonk, 'Minister of Integration' in the Netherlands", whose wit he thus recounts:

Mrs Verdonk, who had already introduced various measures, some subtle some not, to curb Muslim immigration, announced to the Dutch Parliament that the right/libertarian governing coalition was looking for ways to ban the burkha, and other distinctive forms of Muslim apparel, wherever possible.

With a candour that would shock almost any Canadian, she admitted that it wouldn’t be easy, given previous Dutch “human rights” legislation. But she was confident she could find public health and safety grounds . . .

In addition to the immigration legislation, she was already known for her remark: “The time for cosy tea-drinking with Muslim groups is over.” And for several others, to the effect that, given a Muslim propensity to offer critiques of Dutch society, the non-Muslim Dutch should feel equally free to critique Islamic manners and morals.

. . .

Leading representatives of the Muslim community had demanded a meeting with the minister, plus apologies and what have you. But at the meeting, they refused to shake the lady’s hand. (This Muslim habit is not, incidentally, meant to show disrespect for women; it is meant as a gallantry, against taking the liberty of touching them.)

So Mrs Verdonk (using the Western formulary) tells them she has nothing to discuss with men who won’t shake her hand, and walks away.

That is wit well employed, as is Warren's.

The Big Question Answered?

2005-10-18T14:23:00.000-07:00

Tuesday, October 18, 2005

In 1989, U.S. Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers was asked to fill out a questionnaire for the Texans United for Life Political Action Committee. Here is the survey and Miers' responses:

. . .

CANDIDATE QUESTIONNAIRE, DALLAS CITY ELECTIONS, 1989

1. If Congress passes a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution that would prohibit abortion except when it was necessary to prevent the death of the mother, would you actively support its ratification by the Texas Legislature?

Miers' answer: Yes

2. If the Supreme Court returns to the States the right to restrict abortion, would you actively support legislation that would reinstate our 1973 abortion law that prohibited all abortions except those necessary to prevent the death of the mother?

Miers' answer: Yes

3. Will you oppose the use of public monies for abortion except where necessary to prevent the death of the mother?

Miers' answer: Yes

4. Will you oppose the use of City funds or facilities by any persons, groups, clinics or organizations to promote, encourage or provide referrals for abortions?

Miers' answer: Yes

5. Will you vote against the appointment of pro-abortion persons to City Boards or Committees that deal with health issues? (To the extent Pro-Life views are relevant.)

Miers' answer: Yes

N.B. this does not give us her views on the constitutionality of abortion, even at the time, though it strongly suggests what they were. Also there is a question of the time that has intervened, not to mention the influence of being a SC nominee and/or justice. This will certainly make the confirmation hearings interesting!

P.S. Publius has more and better on this: here and here.

What Will Kofi Say?

2005-10-17T20:45:00.000-07:00

Philippines using UN funds to promote Natural Family Planning
Manila, Oct. 17, 2005 (CNA) - The Fides news agency is reporting that the President of the Philippines, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, has announced to the UN General Assembly that her government will use the money it receives from the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) to promote natural family planning methods.

The decision, which Arroyo previously announced during a meeting on inter-religious dialogue, contrasts with the great majority of other countries, which use the UNFPA funds to promote contraception and abortion.

How about that? Using the Population Fund to promote . . . population! Instead of depopulation . . . Watch for the official reprimand.

Missouri's Roe

2005-10-17T10:22:00.000-07:00

Justice Thomas blocks abortion order
By Robert Patrick
ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
10/15/2005

After a frenzied day of appeals, Missouri officials won a last-minute stay Friday night from the U.S. Supreme Court that blocked a federal judge's order that would have required corrections officials to take an inmate to a St. Louis abortion clinic today.

Religious Test

2005-10-15T06:15:00.000-07:00

Ross Douthat calls our attention to a potential parallel (sad if true) between Bush and his critics:

Evangelical Christians get a lot of bad press in bien pensant circles - whether it's the infamous Washington Post story a decade or so back that called them "poor, uneducated, and easily led," or more recently, folks like Thomas Frank implying that they're, well, poor, uneducated, and easily led. The Harriet Miers nomination represents an interesting test case of this theory, since here we have a conservative President, beloved by evangelicals, behaving as if his co-religionists are simpletons, or at least political naifs.

. . . the Miers nomination offers a useful chance for evangelicals to prove that they are not, in fact, just easily-manipulated stooges of a cynical GOP establishment. And so far, it seems, your Christian-on-the-street is passing the test with flying colors - a recent AP-Ipsos poll found that evangelical support for Miers is about half as strong as what Roberts enjoyed at a similar point after his nomination.

Unfortunately, the same can't be said for most of America's evangelical leadership. While nearly every prominent conservative has at least expressed a scintilla of doubt about the wisdom of the Miers nomination, folks like Rick Warren, James Dobson, Richard Land, Chuck Colson - and, of course, Hugh Hewitt - all seem to have swallowed the White House's weird identity-politics argument hook, line and sinker.

James Taranto notes the same thing, but cites some counter-examples:

"Jimmy Carter was an evangelical Christian from Georgia, and what did that do for us?" asks conservative lawyer Mark Smith in the Washington Times. And while some "religious right" leaders, such as James Dobson and Pat Robertson, have lined up behind the nomination, others remain skeptical:

Tony Perkins, Family Research Council: "We are the last people on earth to object to the news that she is a committed Christian; the Good News is, above all, great news for her. And we reiterate, this fact about her is neither grounds for objection nor a fit object for examination by the Senate. By the same token, this fact is not grounds for certifying her to us or to the public. It's not just that religious conviction is an unreliable indicator of a judicial philosophy (though it clearly is), it's that inferences drawn from an individual's religious affiliation have no place in decisions to nominate or confirm a judicial appointee."

Stephen Crampton, American Family Association: "Merely being an evangelical Christian does not automatically qualify one for any position. Specific knowledge and skills are required for almost any job, and sitting on the highest court in the land is not just any job. Dr. Dobson's endorsement, while admittedly weighty, was predicated upon the private assurances of Ms. Miers' friends and colleagues, and her church affiliation. While these may be important factors, they do not provide assurance that she possesses the necessary skills and knowledge for the job, and they do not settle for most of us the question of her judicial philosophy."

Mark Sutherland, National Policy Center (link in PDF): "The President has made it a key selling point that she is a 'born-again Christian.' This is wonderful, and speaks highly of her as a person. But this fact does not give us any insight into her judicial philosophy, her constitutional interpretation, or how she would perform as a judge. While I could worship with her, study the Bible with her, and spend eternity with her, it does not mean I want her sitting on SCOTUS."

Some have also noted the hypocrasy of objecting to the "religious test" when liberals question a nominee's faith, then appealing to religion to sooth the anxieties of conservatives. I'm not so worried about that -- were religion a fair measure of judicial behavior it would have to be taken into account, rules or no rules to the contrary. The thing is nowadays you can never tell how or to what degree a candidate adheres to her professed faith, or how she will translate it into the tangled web of Supreme Court precedents.

Excelsior!

2005-10-14T21:12:00.000-07:00

I am slow to catch on to things. Some of you have known this for a while, but I have to register my excitement: Phil is back! And he is in top form. As proof, see here and here and here, not to mention here. Enjoy!

An Honest Day's Pay

2005-10-14T20:22:00.000-07:00

Any of our readers who find themselves in the vicinity of Las Vegas and in need of paid employment might drop in on a temp agency called Labor Express. They have some openings in unskilled outdoor work at six dollars an hour. The work is quite grueling: You have to walk up and down toting heavy signs in noonday temperatures of over a hundred degrees. Still, if you need the money, you might give it a try. But who is the unscrupulous employer taking advantage of minimum-wage labor like this? Why, it’s the United Food and Commercial Workers labor union. They need people to man picket lines at a neighborhood Wal-Mart store. For six dollars an hour. Holding up signs. In the noonday heat. This particular Wal-Mart store has a pay scale starting at $6.75 an hour, and the place is air-conditioned. So if do you take that picketing job, you might want to break from work for a few minutes to dodge inside the store and fill out a job application . . .

From the October 10 issue of National Review

Interesting Letter

2005-10-13T20:39:00.000-07:00

What's Al Qaeda thinking about these days? David Warren discusses an intercepted letter from Ayman al-Zawahiri, one of their bright boys. The plan goes something like this:

First, through both direct terror attacks and the exploitation of international anti-Americanism -- two aspects of a single jihad -- get U.S. forces out of Iraq. That is the immediate priority.

Second, when Americans and allies go, leaving the Iraqi government in disarray, let the Mujahedin physically establish the caliphate over as much Iraqi territory as they can seize, ruling on the Afghan Taliban model. Most importantly, leave no quarter for any kind of "secular" government to function in the intervening spaces.

Third, extend the jihad through the region, particularly in the direction of Egypt, via the Levant -- Assad's Syria, the ayatollahs' Iran, and Saudi Arabia becoming targets only in a later consolidation of power, and being allies of convenience meanwhile. Nor should Israel be a primary target, until her turn comes.

That happens in the glorious fourth stage -- as far ahead as the Mujahedin can foresee -- in which the caliphate having erected itself as a Muslim superpower, Israel disappears in nuclear cinders. They await further instructions from Allah after that.

Contingency and Design

2005-10-13T04:35:00.000-07:00

I've raised some theological questions about evolution here before.

A major part of the answer I was seeking has to do with the relation between continguency and Providence. A fine article by Stephen Barr just appeared in First Things on this topic (October issue, not yet available online). A spinoff from that is available here. Very much worth looking at.

Being Spoiled

2005-10-12T10:11:00.000-07:00

An interesting feature of the Eucharistic synod going on in Rome right now is the broadcasting of testemonies from prelates around the world. Here's an article that contains some fascinating examples, such as the following:

Cardinal Telesphore Placidus Toppo of India has attributed to the Eucharist, celebrated with great participation, “one of the best success stories of the Catholic Church's mission. In just 130 years, [my] archdiocese of Ranchi has given birth to 12 dioceses, and produced 23 bishops, hundreds of priests, and thousands of religious.”

The Eucharist, he explained, has an extraordinarily liberating effect:

“Our Christian tribals today have full confidence that Jesus' saving death and resurrection has stripped the sovereignties and ruling forces of the universe and destroyed their power (Col 2:14-15). In this faith experience of our people, the Eucharist has brought about a paradigm shift from their former blood-sacrifices with which they tried to placate so called evil spirits, and reoriented them to the new and eternal covenant established in Jesus Christ.”

And also this:

Bishop Lucian Muresan, president of the Romanian bishops’ conference, stunned and moved his hearers with an account of a Eucharist of martyrs:

“In our country, Romania, the communists tried to give man material bread alone, and wanted to chase ‘the bread of God’ from society and from the heart of the human person. Now, we realize that, outlawing our Greek Catholic Church, they were very afraid of the God present in the Eucharist.

“The priests we imprisoned for the only reason that they were Catholic so that they could not celebrate or speak about God. Even the lay persons who participated in the Holy Masses clandestinely celebrated suffered the same [fate]. In the famous period of ‘re-education’ and ‘brainwashing’ in the Romanian prisons, to compromise priests, to ridicule the Eucharist and to destroy human dignity, the persecutors made them celebrate with excrements, but never managed to take away their faith.

“Instead how many Masses have there been, clandestinely celebrated in a spoon rather than the chalice and with wine made from grapes found in the street; how many rosaries made by a thread with pieces of bread; how many humiliations, when during winters at minus 30 degrees they were undressed for body searches; how many days spent in the famous ‘black room,’ as the punishment for having been found in prayer? No one will ever know, ever. These modern martyrs of the 20th century offered all their suffering to the Lord for dignity and human freedom.

“Today, we live the freedom of the sons of God truly hungry for the eucharistic bread. I confirm this affirmation with the participation in the divine liturgy of 80% of our faithful; with vocations to the priestly and religious life that are not lacking; with so many people of great intellect who are so close to the Church.”

What light does this shed on the problems of AmeriChurch? Perhaps it boils down to being spoiled.

Precedent v. US Constitution

2005-10-02T20:26:00.000-07:00

From an e-mail conversation:

C. C. Eaton:

I was chatting with a fellow on the Internet, and we spoke briefly about Hillary's vote on Roberts and why she voted the way she did. In her statement she indicated her reasons why she would not vote for Roberts; I want to quote a portion of the statement for you here:

In one memo, for example, Judge Roberts argued that Congress has the power to deny the Supreme Court the right to hear appeals from lower courts of constitutional claims involving flag burning, abortion, and other matters. He wrote that the United States would be far better off with fifty different interpretations on the right to choose than with what he called the "judicial excesses embodied in Roe v. Wade." The idea that the Supreme Court could be denied the right to rule on constitutional claims had been so long decided that even the most conservative of Judge Roberts's Justice Department colleagues strongly disagreed with him.

This is a particularly interesting issue, since it would seem that the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court would pertain to the non-discretionary cases that are identified in Article II, Section 2 of the US Constitution>.

This idea of the Congress being able deny the Supreme Court its jurisdiction in discretionary cases is therefore the issue, and it would seem that Hillary does not have it right in her assessment, at least factually, and we also get a sense of what she's really bothered by here. At any rate, this brief gloss has opened up some thoughts about the possibility of enacting legislation to serve just this end, that is, the restoration of "politics" or the "fifty different interpretations" at the expense of Supreme Court power.

Paleface:

It's interesting the way she 'refutes' the claim, which is based on a simple reading of the Constitution as you point out. "The idea that the Supreme Court could be denied the right to rule on constitutional claims had been so long decided . . .". Her framework is common law -- judges make law (or in the classical view find it) when trying cases, and must respect the precedents set by others while finding wiggle room to add their own slant to things. On this view, the inaction of Congress on this matter for 200+ years, and the unchallenged assertion of the Court of power over any issue it wants to adjudicate, eradicate the actual text of the Constitution. In his book Justice Scalia argues that it is illegitimate to apply common law practices (following and adapting precedent) to constitutional interpretation, since the Constitution was written to be a kind of supreme statutory check on the powers of government, including needless to say the courts. Prior practice and opinions can be illuminating to the judge but they cannot be binding. If Roberts is seriously disposed to buck precedent on the basis of the text of the Constitution (which he seemed to deny in the hearings) that would be something to celebrate. As you imply, Congress could and should also push the point by seeking to employ its atrophied powers at long last.

Bill Bennett

2005-10-01T06:22:00.000-07:00

He seems magnetized when it comes to trouble of this sort, but sticking up for morality will do that to you in an age of decadence.

For those who have not heard the comments in question, see here. (CNN had a recording of the original, but they seem to have taken it off the web.) Those condemning him have every reason to do so, since his statement points to their complicity in a sort of partial genocide. As James Taranto says,

whereas Bennett rejects the idea of reducing crime by aborting black babies, Levitt and Donohue [in the book he was discussing on the air] argue that that is exactly what has happened over the past three decades, as a result of liberal policies. If they are right, there is, to say the least, a fundamental tension between blacks and pro-abortion feminists, two of the core components of the Democratic coalition. No wonder Bennett's comments have caused such discomfort on the left.

So why do we see this as a sign of political correctness's decline? Well, in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, we kept hearing from our liberal friends that what this country needs is an honest discussion of race. Of course, liberals who call for a discussion of race never actually want it to be honest. Rather, they want to engage in the old familiar ritual in which blacks air their grievances, white liberals trumpet their moral superiority, the rest of us shut up and listen, and dissenters are shamed and silenced . . .

Our sense, however, is that this old ritual no longer has the same power it once did, and that as a result, liberals actually are getting the honest discussion about race that they have long demanded. If so, their worst fears are coming true.

Let's hope so. When one reflects on Bennett's remarks, their implications for liberal social policy, and the knee-jerk response by our totalitarian-leftist super-class, one cannot help relishing the abortion of the latter's shadow of moral authority.

"How ridiculous! How asinine! How insane can one be?", asked Rush, a former Black Panther.

Exactly.

Stunning Pull

2005-09-29T20:33:00.000-07:00

Priest pulled after refusing to support anti-gay marriage push
September 29, 2005

WESTBOROUGH, Mass. --The pastor of a Roman Catholic church was temporarily pulled from the pulpit after he refused to support a petition drive against gay marriage by the state's bishops.

The Rev. George Lange of St. Luke the Evangelist church in Westborough was replaced last weekend by Worcester Bishop Robert McManus, who led the Saturday evening Mass and the Sunday morning Mass.

The move came after Lange and his associate pastor, the Rev. Stephen Labaire, posted an item in the Sept. 11 church bulletin stating their opposition to a proposed Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. The state's four Catholic bishops are leading a signature drive to get the amendment on a ballot in the 2008 election.

The bulletin item read: "The priests of this parish do not feel that they can support this amendment. They do not see any value to it and they see it as an attack upon certain people in our parish, namely those who are gay."

. . .

parishioner Cindy Hodgdon said her church leaders' "hands were slapped very publicly."

"Bishop McManus told us that Father George 'made a mistake' and 'should not have done that,'" she said.

"Everybody was stunned," said parishioner Rob Wilson. "It was a rather stunning homily."

Yahoo! the Eager Deceiver

2005-09-27T04:36:00.000-07:00

Is this a glimpse into our future?

Would-be webloggers living under repressive regimes from China to Iran can now download an online handbook on how to become a successful "cyber-dissident".

. . .

The handbook's publication comes two weeks after Reporters Without Borders launched a furious assault on Yahoo! after its Hong Kong subsidiary passed on technical information to Chinese police that saw a Chinese journalist jailed for ten years for passing sensitive information abroad.

"We already knew that Yahoo! collaborates enthusiastically with the Chinese regime in questions of censorship, and now we know it is a Chinese police informant as well," the organisation said.

The handbook, which is available in Chinese, Arabic, Persian, English and French, says that China has quickly become the "world champion" in internet censorship - with the help of major US corporations eager for a share of its burgeoning internet market.

Who Are We?

2005-09-18T04:36:00.000-07:00

David Frum asks this question in the September 12 National Review:

The Islamic extremists speak for deeply humiliated people. They say: “We may be poor, we may be backward, we may lack technology and lose wars. We may no longer write anything the world cares to read or produce anything the world cares to buy, except for the oil under our soil that your geologists found and for which your engineers developed a use. But none of that matters. We have the truth — and you do not.” Those who define Western society by all that we do not believe: Don’t they rather agree with these Islamic extremists? “Yes, we are rich, we are advanced, we have technology, and we win wars. The whole world wants to have what we have. But you are right: We have no truths to offer, only doubts and guilt.” The debate over same-sex marriage perfectly exemplifies this bizarre tacit agreement.

. . .

Back in 2001, back when the liberal hawks were arguing that the War on Terror was a war of enlightened liberalism against religious obscurantism, I wondered: Would anybody point out that enlightened liberalism itself rested on a religious foundation? And that when severed from that religious foundation, enlightened liberalism might discover that it had severed itself from the strength it needed to survive in a world of harsh competing systems of belief? Quickly it became apparent that while many might think so, few cared or dared to say so.

And of course the situation in Europe is even worse. Now, as Europeans struggle to find the words to justify their self-defense — as they scramble to persuade themselves that they are worth defending — they must wake up to this hard thought: National survival in the age of terror is not just a matter of intelligence operations and security measures. It’s not just a job for armies and police. National survival depends on the willingness and ability of the targets of terrorism to assert and defend a national identity: an identity that is more than a catalogue of self-doubts and self-criticisms, an identity that is more than a statement of disagreements and diversities — an identity that can say, in English, in French, in German, on behalf of the nations of the Atlantic community on both sides of the ocean, This is who we are — and we are prepared to fight for it.

Checks and Balances

2005-09-08T19:14:00.000-07:00

A beautiful illustration of the old cliche at work.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger announced Wednesday he will veto a bill that would have made California the first state to legalize same-sex marriage through its elected lawmakers.

Schwarzenegger said the legislation, approved Tuesday by lawmakers, would conflict with the intent of voters when they approved an initiative five years ago. Proposition 22 was placed on the ballot to prevent California from recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other states or countries.

"We cannot have a system where the people vote and the Legislature derails that vote," the governor's press secretary, Margita Thompson, said in a statement. "Out of respect for the will of the people, the governor will veto (the bill)."

On the disappointing side, the Governator was also quoted as saying "the debate over same-sex marriage should be decided by voters or the courts" (emphasis added).

The courts clearly have nothing to do with it, by right. In fact, "a lower court ruling earlier this year . . . overturned Proposition 22 and a 1978 law that first formally defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman". Thankfully, Arnold is giving the benefit of the doubt to the voters until the highest court subverts their will.

Douay-Rheims Bible

2005-09-05T17:02:00.000-07:00

I found this very nice summation of the Douay-Rheims Bible (in its defense, I'd add) while searching through the USENET archives (Rf. Google Groups). The following was posted to alt.religion.apologetics (Mar 21 2002, 7:28 am), among others, by a fellow named TDP. That's really the best I can offer by way of citation.

--

The Douay-Rheims Bible is a scrupulously faithful translation into English of the Latin Vulgate Bible which St. Jerome (342-420) translated into Latin from the original languages. The Vulgate quickly became the Bible universally used in the Latin Rite (by far the largest rite of the Catholic Church).

St. Jerome, who was one of the four great Western Fathers of the Church, was a man raised up by God to translate the Holy Bible into the common Latin tongue of his day. He knew Latin and Greek perfectly; he also knew Hebrew nearly as well. He was 1500 years closer to the original languages than any scholar today, which would make him a better judge of the exact meaning of any Greek or Hebrew word in the Scriptures. Besides being a towering linguistic genius, he was also a great saint, and he had access to ancient Hebrew and Greek manuscripts of the 2nd and 3rd centuries which have since perished and are no longer available to scholars today. St. Jerome's translation, moreover, was a careful, word-for-word rendering of the original texts into latin.

The Latin Vulgate Bible has been read and honored by the Western Church for fifteen-hundred years! It was declared by the Council of Trent to be the official Latin version of the ,. Hear what the Sacred Council decreed: "Moreover, the same Holy Council . . . ordains and declares that the old Latin Vulgate Edition, which, in use for so many hundred years, has been approved by the Church, be in public lectures, disputatious, sermons and expositions held as authentic, and so no one dare or presume under any pretext whatsoever to reject it." (Fourth Session, April 8, 1546). As Pope Pius XII stated in his 1943 encyclical letter Divino Afflante Spiritu, this means the Vulgate is "free from any error whatsoever in matters of faith and morals." and the Douay-Rheims bible is a faithful, word-for-word translation of the Latin Vulgate Bible of St. Jerome.

In their translation, the Douay-Rheims translators took great pains to translate exactly. Contrary to the procedure of the modern Bible translators, when a passage seemed strange and unintelligible they left it alone, even if obscure, and "let the chips fall as they may." The modern Bible translators, on the other hand, will often look at an obscure passage, decide what they think it means, then translate in
words that bring out that meaning. The result is that the English is usually (not always!) easier to understand, but it is not necessarily what the Bible says; rather, it is their interpretation and understanding of what the Bible says. Moreover, the Holy Ghost may have hidden several additional meanings in the passage. Those meanings may well be completely translated out!

Sometimes the question is raised: Why translate from a translation (the Latin Vulgate) rather than from the original Greek and Hebrew? This question was also raised in the 16th century when the Douay-Rheims translators (Fr. Gregory Martin and his assistants) first published the Rheims New Testament. They gave ten reasons, ending up by stating that the Latin Vulgate "is not onely better then al other Latin translations, but then the Greke text itselfe, in those places where they disagree." (Preface to the Rheims New Testament, 1582). They state that the Vulgate is "more pure then the Hebrew or Greke now extant" and that "the same Latin hath bene barre better conserved from corruptions." (Preface to the Douay Old Testament, 1609).

The present Bible is the Challoner revision (1749-1752) of the Douay-Rheims Bible. Catholics owe the saintly Bishop Richard Challoner (1691-1781) a great debt of gratitude for undertaking this work. Challoner was one of those courageous priests who traveled around offering Mass secretly for small groups during the religious persecutions in England. Such Catholics needed a Bible, and had needed one for 100 years. The Douay-Rheims Bible had been printed a few times on the Continent but had never really spread to England. Some Catholics in England were even reading the King James version--a situation which Bishop Challoner knew had to be rectified.

Some of the passages in the original Douay-Rheims Bible were needlessly obscure. As an extreme example, Ephesians 6:12 read, "For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood: but against Princes and Potestats, against the rectors of the world of this darkenes, against the spirituals of wickednes in the celestials." The spellings were archaic, and the verses were not set off by new lines for clarity. Challoner rectified these problems, checking carefully against the Clementine Vulgate and the original-language texts. On the whole, Bishop Challoner's revisions were minor. He replaced certain anglicized Latin words and archaic words and expressions, rearranged the word order of the sentences, and yet maintained the overall word-for-word accuracy of the 16th/17th-century Douay-Rheims Bible.

The Challoner revision of the Douay-Rheims Bible was a godsend. It became the standard Catholic Bible in English until the mid-20th century (when the Confranternity Bible was published). It continued to be called the "Douay-Rheims" because of its similarity to the original Douay-Rheims Bible. The great work English Versions of the Bible, by Frs. Pope and Bullough, states that English-speaking Catholics the world over owe Dr. Challoner an immense debt of gratitude, for he provided them for the first time in history with a portable, cheap and readable version of the Bible, which has stood the test of 200 years of use. Moreover, it is more accurate than any modern Bible because it is based on ancient texts, no longer extant, which were "captured" and "frozen," so to speak, by St. Jerome (342-420) in his Latin Vulgate.The Douay-Rheims is thus the most reliable English-language Bible there is. We look forward to the day when the Christian world will rediscover this fact and come to a renewed appreciation of the monumental work of St. Jerome, of the Douay-Rheims translators and of Bishop Richard Challoner--men who were raised up by God to make the Bible available to the English-speaking world.

Hurricane Katrina

2005-09-03T10:07:00.000-07:00

I have so far read two outstanding articles on Hurricane Katrina, and the human aspects of the story that deserve more attention than the facts of the storm itself. The first by Peggy Noonan's article: "Hurricane Katrina: The good, the bad, the let's-shoot-them-now" and David Warren's article "New Orleans." I heartily recommend both!

I especially enjoyed this passage from Warren (who puts his finger on the issue of founding a city that does it justice):

In the first place, the site of each city made sense to its founders, and from there on, it becomes almost a "life issue". The memory of the city, and the character it inspires, are more than the sum of its parts. It grows, and trades, and dominates its hinterland, as a man dominates a farm. From that mysterious and positive moment of conception, a great city is a living being, endowed with a soul. Material considerations must yield to the spiritual and moral ones, in keeping it alive.

Crescite et multiplicamini

2005-09-01T05:30:00.000-07:00

Pope tells Catholics to multiply

Genesis 1:28

Pope Benedict XVI told Catholics to have more babies "for the good of society," saying that some countries were being sapped of energy because of low birth rates.

"Having children is a gift that brings life and well-being to society," he told about 15,000 people at his weekly audience in the Vatican, to which he arrived by helicopter from his summer residence southeast of Rome.

He said the decline in the number of births "deprives some nations of freshness and energy and of hopes for the future incarnate in children."

The pope also spoke of "the security, the stability and the force of a numerous family."

Although the Vatican bans all forms of articial contraception, this is widely ignored even in predominantly Catholic countries such as Italy and Spain, which have some of the lowest birth rates in the world.

The pontiff regretted that God is "unhappily often excluded or ignored" in many societies.

"A sound society certainly is born out of the commitment of all of its members, but it also has a need of the blessing and support of God," he said.

Kennedy and Kyoto

2005-08-31T07:12:00.000-07:00

“For They That Sow the Wind Shall Reap the Whirlwind” by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

His premise:

As Hurricane Katrina dismantles Mississippi’s Gulf Coast, it’s worth recalling the central role that Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour played in derailing the Kyoto Protocol and kiboshing President Bush’s iron-clad campaign promise to regulate CO2.

His conclusion: ... Governor Barbour is indirectly responsible for Hurricane Katrina, and only Kyoto can save us now.

The responses to his blog are more interesting than the blog itself. Enjoy the field trip, if you can stomach it!

The Lysistrata Project

2005-08-31T05:20:00.000-07:00

I decided to look over the assorted reports about Cindy Sheehan this morning, and was interested in the many comparisons I found (via Google) between Sheehan and Lysistrata. Lysistrata is the comedy by Aristophanes about the Athenian women, lead by the remarkable Lysistrata, who wished to end the Peloponnesian War. The Athenian women pursued this goal by locking themselves into the Acropolis, and by going on a "sex strike" in order to force the end of the war. (The ultimatum seems to be that the Athenian men must lay down their swords in order to pick up their swords, so to speak; although, we must note that most of the Athenian men, husbands and fathers, are away in military service.) The Google query and the subsequent results appear to demonstrate that there is something strikingly similar about the aims of Lysistrata, the Athenian women and Sheehan - surely quite obviously on the surface. We must take seriously the possibility that Aristophanes's wisdom can provide much matter for reflection on the present.

As an aside, it is amazing what can be found on the WWW, particularly when it comes to associations and causes. Look at this "cause" for example: The Lysistrata Project, Theater Artists Against War, Anti-War, Stop the War on Iraq, Sharron Bower, Kathy Blume. It would seem that these women have read Aristophanes's comedy as a support for their cause, which is really quite amazing. (In part, because they seem to presume that Aristophanes elected the Athenian women as his spokesman in his comedy.) How else are we to read this? "Antiwar activism got a feminist edge. The Lysistrata Project saw 1,029 productions of Aristophanes' hilarious, bawdy comedy performed all over the world on March 3..." Now I think it is safe to say these women almost rival the laughable aspects of Aristophanes's comedy, but they do so only in a qualified way. (They are reflections, seemingly willingly, of the Athenian women in the Lysistrata.)

Regarding Sheehan, it does seem striking that the main contention at present about Sheehan is that she dishonors her son by her speech and actions. I would ask, is it even remotely clear that this woman has some notion of nobility whatsoever? Surely the accusation presupposes an opinion about what is noble, but the picture of Sheehan seems to admit of no such thing, that is, it admits of no such thing outside of her concern with survival (or preservation). At any rate, Mark Steyn has put his finger on the issue, I think, when he identifies those among the anti-war movement who are willing to see American soldiers as children:

Ever since America’s all-adult, all-volunteer army went into Iraq, the anti-war crowd have made a sustained effort to characterise them as ‘children’. If a 13-year-old wants to have an abortion, that’s her decision and her parents shouldn’t get a look-in. If a 21-year-old wants to drop to the Oval Office shagpile and chow down on Bill Clinton, she’s a grown woman and free to do what she wants. But, if a 22- or 25- or 37-year old is serving his country overseas, he’s a wee ‘child’ who isn’t really old enough to know what he’s doing.

Progress

2005-08-28T05:15:00.000-07:00

We can always look to Canada for progress -- in this case, progress from the murder of unborn babies to the legalized abuse of born ones:

Woman raised in homosexual household speaks against same-sex marriage

Ottawa, Aug. 26, 2005 (CNA) - A Canadian woman who grew up in a homosexual household in Toronto in the 60s and 70s says same-sex marriage does not respect or protect the rights and best interests of children.

Dawn Stefanowicz said as a child she was at high risk of exposure to contagious STDs due to sexual molestation, her father's high-risk sexual behaviors, and multiple partners.

. . .

Stefanowicz, who cared deeply for her father, noted that growing up in a gay household exposed her to "bathhouse sex, cross-dressing, sodomy, pornography, gay nudity, lesbianism, bisexuality, minor recruitment, voyeurism, and exhibitionism.” In addition, she said, "Sadomasochism was alluded to and aspects demonstrated. Alcohol and drugs were often contributing factors to lower inhibitions in my father's relationships."

After two decades of exposure to these behaviors, she became insecure, depressed, suicidal and confused over her own sexuality.

. . .

“Children need consistent appropriate boundaries and secure expressions of emotional intimacy that are not sexualized in the home and community,” she wrote.

In addition, legalized same-sex marriage will provide “a direct legal entranceway of indoctrination, desensitization, personal and political recruitment of our vulnerable children by some gay activists within our schools while silencing all students who oppose the gay agenda.

Check out her complete statement.

More Exact

2005-08-28T04:47:00.000-07:00

Concerned Catholic kindly posts some selections I took from Vatican documents on the liturgy -- one can, I think, see the direction things are headed by observing the greater specificity of each succeeding paper.

What about the facts on the ground? The other day I overheard two priests from a liturgically liberal (academic) chapel talking. "Going to be here Sunday?", one asked. "No", the other replied. "Too bad", says the first, "We're being more exact about ordinary and extraordinary Eucharistic ministers." He did not sound pleased, but I could not suppress my joy. We'll have to see where this goes . . .

The Present Norm

2005-08-27T19:00:00.000-07:00

"Rome has changed its stance after decades." On my understanding, the idea that Pope Paul VI's "new Mass" suppressed the "old Mass" is an opinion long dominant in the Church, though strongly denied by solid Catholics such as the present Holy Father. The Vatican never officially spoke on this, however. According to this information from a blogger named Papabile, that may be changing. Someone wrote to Cardinal Dario Castrillón Hoyos asking for the lifting of restrictions on the old Mass. In response, the Cardinal's office said:

While it is true that the use of the prior edition of the Roman Missal was not abrogated or suppressed, its use still constitutes an exception to the present norm established for the Roman Rite by Pope Paul VI on 3 April 1969.

It is not suppressed, but it is not the present norm. What about when the 60s are finally over?

Oremus.

New Exhibit at the London Zoo

2005-08-27T11:01:00.000-07:00

Our good friend, ConcernedCatholic (link to his blog: Culture, Politics, and the Catholic Faith) has observed through second hand reports the recent spectacle at the London Zoo, which has added a new display: Homo sapiens! See the news article here: Humans Are Ones on Display at London Zoo. CC properly emphasizes from the news article the purpose of this new display: "Seeing people in a different environment, among other animals . . . teaches members of the public that the human is just another primate." I do wonder if saying that the human being is "just another primate" logically follows from the fashionable notion that human beings were at one time just primates, and accidentally diverged from primates at some point in history. Whether this distinction is necessary, it seems to at least to press us to consider those "accidental accretions," (namely speech and reason) however acquired, in terms of education today. However, even this question misses the point, I would think, since it is clearly an error to suggest that men are simply primates. We do not visit the zoo because we believe the animals in the zoo constitute a living extension of the human family, any more than we "refer" to the lives of apes because we think doing so will provide some insight into our condition or guidance for our actions. Differently stated, how often are those who believe that we are primates spotted having dinner with their pilous cousins from the jungle. What then can we say about this "lesson" on display at the London Zoo? Let us consider the following, directly from the mouth of one of the participants:

Tom Mahoney, 26, decided to participate after his friend sent him an e-mail about the contest as a joke. Anything that draws attention to apes, he said, has his support.

"A lot of people think humans are above other animals," he told The Associated Press. "When they see humans as animals, here, it kind of reminds us that we're not that special."

A remarkable feat, no doubt, to parade around a zoo exhibit, scantily clad, in order to teach people that there is little that is special about being human. It is all a little too special if you ask me. Anyway, I refer everyone to CC's thoughts on this subject. In addition, let us with a degree of wonder proper to this subject repeat the child's question on seeing the new exhibit: "Why are there people in there?" Perhaps because they feel they belong there.

International Scene

2005-08-25T21:19:00.000-07:00

Colombian president pledges not to approve legalization of abortion
Bogotá, Aug. 25, 2005 (CNA) - President Álvaro Uríbe Velez of Colombia has promised Church leaders in his country he has sent a letter to the country’s congressional body urging lawmakers not to pass a proposed law that would legalize abortion.

The vice president of the Colombian Bishops’ Conference, Bishop Ivan Antonio Marin, said, “The President is going to make known a letter he sent to Congress regarding the opposition to abortion. The President ordered the letter be publicly disclosed.”

Congressman Jose Luis Arcila proposed a bill that would have changed Colombian law to allow for abortion in cases of rape, artificial insemination or in the case of “non-consenting implantation of a fertilized egg.”

Priest fined for calling anthropologist “pro-abortion”
Brasilia, Aug. 25, 2005 (CNA) - A panel of judges in Brasilia has ordered a Catholic priest to pay a fine for using the word “pro-abortion” to describe anthropologist Debora Diniz Rodrigues, a renowned defender of abortion and director of the Institute on Bioethics, Human Rights and Gender.

Last week judges in Brasilia ordered Father Luiz Carlos Lodi da Cruz, president of the Pro-life Association of Anapolis, to pay a fine of $3,000 for damages against Diniz.

The judges also ordered Father Lodi to refrain from using the word “pro-abortion” to describe those who defend abortion. Upon hearing the sentence, the Brazilian priest wondered aloud “what adjective should be used then to describe someone who defends abortion, since certainly one who defends divorce is not offended by being called pro-divorce nor is a supporter of Communism by being called a communist.”

“The judges failed to indicate which word in our language is acceptable, and has the same meaning but is non-offensive, for describing someone who openly defends abortion.” Father Lodi said.

An appeals court rejected a motion by Father Lodi to have the sentence struck down, and his only recourse now is to appeal to the country’s Supreme Court.

Where's My Share?

2005-08-25T11:51:00.000-07:00

Mr. Eaton brought to my attention the worth of our blog, now reckoned at about 4k. Who's doing the counting, and why? Very peculiar stuff. . . .

Irony and Hope

2005-08-24T05:05:00.000-07:00

David Warren notes some changes in tone and implication, as compared to John Paul II, in the Holy Father's recent address to German Muslims.

Most obviously, the implied "apology for the Crusades" has been rephrased. It now includes an accusation as well as a mea culpa. It politely reminds a Muslim reader that Christians were not alone in committing atrocities, in the Holy Land or anywhere, in past centuries. I think it tells the Catholic reader, as subtly, that we have done with making gratuitous apologies for distant historical events.

Pope Benedict's words were as follows:

Past experience teaches us that, unfortunately, relations between Christians and Muslims have not always been marked by mutual respect and understanding. How many pages of history record battles and wars that have been waged, with both sides invoking the Name of God, as if fighting and killing, the enemy could be pleasing to him. The recollection of these sad events should fill us with shame, for we know only too well what atrocities have been committed in the name of religion.

Is he splitting things down the middle, or just leaving proportions of blame unspoken? Warren also reads the Pope as not-so-subtly suggesting a Christian interpretation of Islam as the only hope for our future. In Benedict's words,

The dignity of the person and the defence of the rights which that dignity confers must represent the goal of every social endeavour and of every effort to bring it to fruition. This message is conveyed to us unmistakably by the quiet but clear voice of conscience. It is a message which must be heeded and communicated to others: should it ever cease to find an echo in peoples' hearts, the world would be exposed to the darkness of a new barbarism.

One thing I found interesting was the Pope's claim that "all of us, as Christians and Muslims, are believers", an explicit abandonment of the term 'infidel' as applied to Muslims. He further stated,

The lessons of the past must help us to avoid repeating the same mistakes. We must seek paths of reconciliation and learn to live with respect for each other's identity. The defence of religious freedom, in this sense, is a permanent imperative, and respect for minorities is a clear sign of true civilization.

I see two salient features in this paragraph, seeming to point in two different directions. One, respect for Muslim identity (as opposed to respect for Muslim humanity despite their false religious identity) seems to bespeak a toleration taken to the point of relativism, something the Holy Father is clearly set against. Two, the appeal to experience and qualifier "in this sense" suggests that the "permanent imperative" to respect the Muslim identity is not some categorical imperative, but a prudential requirement of the times, and perhaps for all forseeable times, given that the lack of tolerance in the past led to certain problems and would likely do so again.

In any case, Pope Benedict cited a passage of Vatican II referring to respect for Muslims because "they worship the one God living and subsistent, merciful and almighty, creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to humanity and to whose decrees, even the hidden ones, they seek to submit themselves whole-heartedly, just as Abraham, to whom the Islamic faith readily relates itself, submitted to God...." For this reason, we must "together maintain and promote social justice and moral values as well as peace and freedom for all people".

The optimism of these statements seems to exhibit a prudence that partakes of both irony and hope. As the West takes the idea of toleration to decadent extremes and the Muslims in their fanaticism advance, the Church continues to articulate the true grounds of earthly as well as heavenly order.

No More than That

2005-08-19T20:18:00.000-07:00

The New Testament dictum of rendering to Caesar and to God implied not merely that revelation was not designed to replace or destroy the things of Caesar but that the knowledge of what is politics will be a constitutive part of fully understanding what is revelation, a knowledge (politics) found only vaguely or indirectly in the sources of revelation. Revelation, in this sense, presupposes political philosophy and is incomplete without it. Revelation at its highest human intelligibility requires the "queen of the social sciences" to be just that but no more than that.

James V. Schall, Reason, Revelation, and the Foundations of Political Philosophy

Recess is Over!

2005-08-18T20:48:00.000-07:00

Let's hope John Roberts does as well in his field as John Bolton is doing in his . . .

Funding of Palestinian Propaganda By U.N. ‘Unacceptable,’ Bolton Says

By JACOB GERSHMAN Staff Reporter of the Sun

The United Nations’ funding of a Palestinian Arab propaganda campaign timed to coincide with Israel’s pullout from the Gaza Strip has increased tensions between the U.N. and American officials.

America’s newly installed ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, labeled “inappropriate and unacceptable” the United Nations Development Program financing of materials bearing the slogan “Today Gaza, Tomorrow the West Bank and Jerusalem.”

Mr. Bolton said yesterday that the UNDP had failed to explain why it funneled money to the Palestinian Authority to back the production of banners, bumper stickers, mugs, and T-shirts bearing the provocative slogan as well as UNDP logos.

. . .

The slogan, which suggests forthcoming Palestinian Arab triumphs in the disputed territories of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, has become a defining message for the Palestinian Arab government during the Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and some areas of the West Bank. The slogan appears to have been adopted not only by senior members of the Palestinian Authority but by Hamas officials as well.

Hamas’s top official,Khaled Meshaal, yesterday echoed the theme of the slogan in comments to reporters, Reuters reported. “Gaza is the first liberation, then comes the West Bank, then every inch of Palestinian land,” Mr. Meshaal said. “We are at the beginning of the road, and we have not and will not give up our weapons.The battle is not over.”

. . .

UNDP officials have argued that it isn’t their role to weigh in on the merits of geopolitical claims. Specifically, they have said that the Palestinian Authority had the freedom to develop a campaign without review from the UNDP, which funded the production of the materials through its Program of Assistance to the Palestinian People. The head of the Palestinian program, Timothy Rothermel, was quoted by Fox News as saying that the slogan is “consistent with the relevant U.N. resolutions and Security Council resolutions about the status of Palestine.”

Hat tip: James Taranto

Obesity, Profundity, Fecundity

2005-08-18T10:50:00.000-07:00

four of my heroes are Aristotle, Aquinas, Samuel Johnson, and Chesterton, each of whom, with the exception of Aristotle, was probably obese, by current government standards. So I consider this anti-obese movement to be a direct attack on sanity and the huge bodies that proclaimed it! Chesterton always laughed at his size and probably died relatively young as did Aquinas. But how he or Aquinas could have done more than he did is beyond me.

James Schall, from an interview well worth reading.

Moral Authority

2005-08-17T10:15:00.000-07:00

Mark Steyn casts some "rare shafts of light on the sewers of transnationalism" -- worth a read!

Me, Meme?

2005-08-12T20:42:00.000-07:00

Usually aint my cup of tea, but New Victorian has graciously hit me with one of those meme-thingies. Though I will not go all the way with it, in terms of spreading the virus, I will try to respond to the first two inquiries in a way that's not too boring for blogdom.

This is the "Hefty Books" meme.

1. Name your three biggest non-reference books (excluding the Bible and text books).

I'm with NV on this one -- "The Complete Shakespeare", Yale edition in my case. Nice to have in a way, and got it in a bargain rack for $30. But I only had to slog through one play in this thing -- leaning over the 50 lb spread and squinting to make out the text, flipping to obscure locations to find the explanatory notes, the bulk of which are picayune -- before I implemented the policy of going to a used book store and buying a smaller edition when I actually want to read the Bard. Best Shakespeare buy: an old Everyman edition, pocket size, of all the History Plays and the Sonnets, with thin but sturdy paper, clear print, and a handy glossary of obscure words in the back. Cost me $1 at a flea market . . . .

I don't know if I'd consider any other non-reference books of mine 'hefty'. My recently purchased Encyclopedia of Saints (OSV) is fairly large, as are my Eerdmans early Church Fathers editions of Augustine and Crysostum and some Ecumenical Councils. None of these things is massive. All are boxed and sitting several states away in my brother's garage until he visits me at my new place . . . .

2. Name your three biggest reference books.

My biggest is Webster's Encyclopedic Dictionary of you-know-which language. It has a lexicon and some color maps in the back and other glitzy junk that might have some value, but it cannot stack up against the antique (late 19th century) Websters my parents inherited from one of my ancestors. That thing is printed on the thinnest (yet strong) paper in the world, and must be 2-3,000 pages long. It doesn't even have the pretentious title 'Encyclopedic', but it is infinitely meatier than mine. Almost every other word is illustrated with a small, attractive ink drawing of the thing it refers to, and every one has full etymology and samples of exemplary literary usage (not first usages as in the OED). That old book is hefty in more than one sense. As with the Everyman above, it lays to rest any notion of progress in society, at least in recent centuries . . . .

My Oxford-Duden is pretty big. That name should reveal to die Kennende what the thing is, though my German has deteriorated so much in past years that I'm 80% sure I butchered the two little words I chose to use. (The dictionary is in my office and cannot help me at this late hour.)

I also have a French-English dictionary -- the publisher eludes me at the moment -- which is old and pretty heavy. It is solidly built, thicker than heck though not particularly tall or wide, and has a pink section in the middle with Latin phrases and their French equivalents. I could ask for a wider selection of sayings, but the thing is large on quality as well as possessing noticable mass.

The heftiest book I consult regularly is the Summa Theologica, in an old Benziger Brothers edition split into three volumes of 1,000 oversize pages each. It is a beautiful piece of work, but unfortunately does not belong to me, but to my school's library. I would like to rescue one from a dusty rack one day, but thus far have had no luck in locating a neglected specimen. (Well, the library copies I've used are probably not taken out every day either. But with me they have had a temporary loving home.) On that day I will have to do this meme over again.

3. Tag three others.

Think I'll pass. But anyone who would like to compare the girth of their library to mine is welcome to leave comments!

Saving Souls, UN Style

2005-08-10T21:36:00.000-07:00

This is a cautionary tale of sorts. What happens when you let pacifism and progressivism into the Catholic mind? For one thing, the UN at World Youth Day. As flocks of young souls come thirsting for the truth, they "will be encouraged to attend a pavilion where the [UN's] MDGs are promoted and lauded by Herfkens and other representatives." What, pray tell, are these things?

Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) . . . ostensibly are about the environment, helping women and children, and eliminating world poverty by 2015-- goals which fit well with Christian morality.

Never mind that the poor will always be with us. Attempting to end world poverty through viciously secular international bureaucracy is an eminently Christian thing to do.

Therefore it is no surprise that WYD Germany is partnering with the UN Millennium Campaign in Germany for its opening ceremonies. Added incentives for the partnership include a video address to the WYD pilgrims gathered in Bonn for the opening ceremonies on August 15 by none other than UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, and a massive fireworks display.

Who could be surprised! How better to please the Lord than by honoring the scandal-ridden, incompetent leader of the world's decadentura, with fireworks to boot! There is only one hitch:

Annan strongly supports population control, abortion, same-sex marriage, which are completely at odds with Catholic teaching.

Oops. Wasn't expecting that one. But there's more:

Also, pro-abortion groups and individuals are using the MDGs to push for global access to abortion under the auspices of "gender equity," "reducing child mortality," and "improving maternal health."

Moreover, the agenda of the UN itself on the matter is troublesome. Annan appointed pro-abortion Eveline Herfkens as the Executive Coordinator for the Millennium Campaign in October 2002. Prior to this appointment, Herfkens served as the Netherlands Minister for Development Cooperation (between 1998 to 2002). During this time, she supported the notorious proposal of an abortionist who wished to circumvent laws prohibiting abortion in various countries by performing abortions on a ship after taking women of the targeted countries into international waters.

Herfkens is to address the WYD pilgrims at the opening ceremony on August 15 in Bonn along with federal and state representatives.

Oh well, all a matter of saving souls I guess.

A Woman of the Eucharist

2005-08-08T21:02:00.000-07:00

What must Mary have felt as she heard from the mouth of Peter, John, James and the other Apostles the words spoken at the Last Supper: “This is my body which is given for you” (Lk 22:19)? The body given up for us and made present under sacramental signs was the same body which she had conceived in her womb! For Mary, receiving the Eucharist must have somehow meant welcoming once more into her womb that heart which had beat in unison with hers and reliving what she had experienced at the foot of the Cross.

John Paul II, Ecclesia de Eucharistia

Truth and Timeliness

2005-08-08T06:35:00.000-07:00

To begin with, only truth can be timely. Only truth can correspond to chances and dangers of any given epoch -- correspond as both affirmation and corrective.

On the other hand, the fullness of truth can never be grasped by a neutral and indifferent mind, but only by a mind seeking the answer to a serious and urgent existential problem. But this urgency can only be aroused by an immediately experienced, real situation, of the individual and the community.

Josef Pieper, The Silence of St. Thomas

Red Cross Adding to Crucifixion

2005-08-07T11:42:00.000-07:00

Given their name, it is ironic that this particular organization would so publicly drive another nail in. But they have:

Man Fired By American Red Cross For Not Celebrating Homosexuality

8/4/2005

By Lindsey Douthit

The American Red Cross fired an employee, Michael Hartman, for expressing his disagreement with homosexuality.

It is important to realize that this is not a case of a man being persecuted for not promoting the homosexual agenda -- though it is close to that. As a Red Cross employee, he received an e-mail encouraging all employees to 'observe' gay pride month. He chose courageously to register his disagreement with the celebration of sexual perversity; and though he was careful to point out that he respected homosexuals as people, he did not shy away from criticizing their chosen way of life and citing Scripture in that regard. After a period of rough treatment, he was dismissed from the Red Cross.

He plans to seek help from Christian legal groups such as the Alliance Defense Fund.

Unfortunately, Hartman's legal options may be limited, as the Red Cross is a privately funded organization and may therefore exert its own prerogative in these matters.

I wouldn't call that unfortunate, exactly. In the current climate, it is a blessing to have private organizations outside the reach of the law when it comes to these things. It is crucial to good citizenship to be aware of the nature of such organizations, however. One would like to think of the Red Cross as a worthy charity anyone can proudly support. I would hate to have to renounce all ties to them, but such moves may be necessary on the part of Christian civil society if we are to reclaim our culture.

The Red Cross even has its own body of Corporate Diversity committees that oversees the implementation of a "diversity code" for the organization. Employees must participate in "diversity training" seminars, and they are subject to the "diversity vision" of the Red Cross that includes "sexual orientation" on the list of "communities we serve."

. . .

It is important that Christians are alerted to this unfortunate situation. Many Christians give money or support to the American Red Cross without ever realizing that the organization openly promotes homosexuality.

In the words of Michael Hartman, "If the public knew what was going on within the Red Cross I have no doubt their unselfish support would screech to a halt."

Self-Improvement

2005-08-07T04:42:00.000-07:00

David warren has been brilliant as ever lately; check out all of his recent columns. But I couldn't resist quoting this digression in full:

On the subject of drinking, yet another long-term, in-depth study, this one of 7,000 persons by Australian National University’s Centre for Mental Health Research, has shown that people who drink (specifically, alcohol) are smarter and healthier than people who don't.

Also, I should think: wiser, kinder, prettier, happier, and better. But the study was restricted to drivelling tests of verbal reasoning, short-term memory, and the like. Unsurprisingly, teetotallers appeared to be more likely than certified alcoholics to achieve the lowest scores.

In a concession to the idiot lobby, the study specifies that the correct, “moderate” amounts are 14 to 28 "standard drinks" per week for men, 7 to 14 for women. (My standard drink would be a triple whisky.) But if you can get the results shown, from just a moderate infusion of alcohol, think what you could get from serious imbibing.

A similarly large study, flagged in Nature magazine about 1995, showed that cigarette smokers scored 5 points higher than non-smokers on I.Q. tests. This suggests another route to self-improvement.

An Outrageous Answer

2005-08-06T21:23:00.000-07:00

When Thomas . . . ranged himself on the side of the pagan Aristotle against the traditional philosophico-theological trends (an undertaking requiring great boldness), he did this not from a spirit of opposition to traditional doctrines or from a mania for innovations, but rather because his intrepid approach to truth recognized the voice of reality in Aristotle's work. This same intrepidity made him ask, in his Commentary on the Book of Job, whether Job's bold conversation with the Lord God did not violate reverence -- to which he gave the almost outrageous answer: truth does not change according to the standing of the person to whom it is addressed; he who speaks truthfully is invulnerable, no matter who may be his adversary.

Josef Pieper, The Silence of St. Thomas

Changing the Rules?

2005-08-05T07:06:00.000-07:00

Blair Announces New Measures Against Terrorism

Friday, August 05, 2005

LONDON — Prime Minister Tony Blair on Friday announced new deportation measures against people who foster hatred and advocate violence following last month's transportation attacks that killed 52 people and four suspected homicide bombers.

Clerics who preach hate and Web sites or book shops that sponsor violence would be targeted. Foreign nationals could be deported under the new measures.

Blair said his government was prepared to amend human rights legislation if necessary if legal challenges arose from the new deportation measures.

Britain's ability to deport foreign nationals has been hampered by human rights legislation. As a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights, Britain is not allowed to deport people to a country where they may face torture or death.

Traditionally, Britain has not been hampered by a Court that can overrule Parliament -- classically it is said that Parliament can do anything it likes short of making a man a woman or a woman a man (and these days it could certainly do even that). That power was beginning to erode precisely because of European integration, which officially subjected Britain to written codes of human rights to be imposed by courts (British or European). It will be interesting to see whether the response to these attacks forces any kind of decision about whether to continue down that path toward oblivion.

Morality Alive?

2005-08-04T21:55:00.000-07:00

This article, in the current (August 8) edition of National Review (link requires subscription) is a gas! Anthony Danials (aka Theodore Dalrymple, if I'm spelling that right) is speaking of Live 8:

Prima facie, the spectacle of superannuated rock stars setting themselves up as the moral instructors of the world is a rather odd one: only slightly less odd than that they should be taken at their own estimate. Their profession, after all, has not been a byword for restraint, good sense, or selflessness; nor have the practical effects of their artistic productions been always beneficial. A prison officer in England, himself of Jamaican origin, once told me that if he played baroque music to the prisoners in his charge they became calm, mild-mannered, and reasonable, while if he allowed them to play rock music they became agitated, aggressive, and violent. Have not these same musicians therefore the inescapable moral duty to maintain their silence and do all in their power to prevent the further dissemination of their music, which has hitherto seeped into the atmosphere like a poison gas?

He is always a great writer, but it doesn't get much better than that. The lesson of the piece is one Rousseau told in Emile, though one wonders if his own progeny have ever thought of it: namely, that attention to distant moral quandries very often masks slovenliness in those moral concerns that are much more in one's power: he mentions family, and also hints at the ordering of the soul. Though he mocks the mockable, there is something to be chewed on here for all of us, at least for me anyhow. Well worth grabbing it off the newsstand or library rack if you don't get it in the mail.

Jurisprudence

2005-08-04T10:35:00.000-07:00

The Constitution does not speak of freedom of contract. It speaks of liberty and prohibits the deprivation of liberty without due process of law. In prohibiting that deprivation, the Constitution does not recognize an absolute and uncontrollable liberty. Liberty in each of its phases has its history and connotation. But the liberty safeguarded is liberty in a social organization which requires the protection of law against the evils which menace the health, safety, morals, and welfare of the people. Liberty under the Constitution is thus necessarily subject to the restraints of due process, and regulation which is reasonable in relation to its subject and is adopted in the interests of the community is due process.

Justice Hughes, West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish (1937)

If applied accross the board, these words would show that our Constitution requires neither unadulterated capitalism, nor a judicially enforced regime bent on the degradation of human life.

CBC News: Albertan ordered to pay ex-wife $200 a month for pet support

2005-08-02T15:25:00.000-07:00

CBC News: Albertan ordered to pay ex-wife $200 a month for pet support.

NB, this is an older story that I encountered recently in a odd local publication entitled "Coffee News." Note the idea of progress here, which is implicit in the decision, from the issue of "child care" to "pet care." Progress in this example is only possible by means of an abstraction from the essential differences between child and, say, a dog in the family. (Do we see ourselves as "parents" of a pet, or masters?) And do we really need to ask? This is the character of decadence:

The result is a whole new branch of litigation and legal websites dedicated to fighting for the rights of a pet in the event of a divorce.

Dignum et Justum Est

2005-07-10T05:46:00.000-07:00

Can it be that liturgical reform is on its way? Many have been praying for this, and Adoremus Bulletin has a report that gives hope:

In early June, the Holy See made public the Lineamenta, or working outline, for the tenth world Synod of Bishops that will take place in October 2005.

The topic of the Synod is the Eucharist. The Lineamenta reviews essential teaching on the Eucharist, drawing on the encyclical Ecclesia de Eucharistia, with liberal quotations of the early Church fathers and the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

The Preface explains the reason for selecting the Eucharist as a topic for the Synod so soon after the encyclical. "The Church is undeniably experiencing a certain 'Eucharistic need' based ... on a Eucharistic practice which calls for a renewed attitude of love that is expressed in acts of faith [in Christ]".

The Preface also asks that "all in the Church" be invited to "enter into discussion". Questions for reflection are appended at the end of the document's seven chapters for this purpose. It seems likely that diocesan bishops will arrange means to receive people's responses by the end of this year.

Promising statements they quote include these:

Chapter Four, "The Liturgy of the Eucharist", is a descriptive guide to the Mass. In this chapter's section on "Holy Communion", the document stresses that one does not take Communion, but receives it, "an act symbolizing the Sacrament's meaning: a Gift received with adoration". [§44]

Sections on "Preparation for Communion" [§41] and "Holy Communion" [§ 43] also strongly emphasize the necessary disposition of the communicant before receiving:

41. ... Grave sins required a canonical penance. The insistence by many Church Fathers on the necessity of a worthy reception of communion proves that the call for the forgiveness of sins, even in the epiclesis after the consecration, is not an invitation addressed to those guilty of grave sin to approach the Eucharist without the foreseen penitence. Even though a person can truly participate at Mass without receiving communion, the integrating but non essential part of the sacrifice, full participation in the Body of Christ should only be done by those who are properly disposed....

I have not read the whole document, and will not have the opportunity to do so very soon, but I also noted the following statement:

The Orientation of Prayer

53. The cosmic conception of salvation which “is visited from on high” (Lk 1:78), inspired the apostolic tradition of orientating Christian buildings and the altar towards the East, so as to celebrate the Eucharist facing the Lord, a custom still followed in the Eastern Churches. “It is not a question, as is often claimed, of presiding at the celebration with the back turned to the people, but rather of guiding the people in pilgrimage toward the Kingdom, invoked in prayer until the return of the Lord”.193

In the Roman rite, the separate locations of the ambo and altar provide a natural variation in focus and attention for the liturgical actions done in these places. The same is true in Eucharistic worship outside of Mass; the faithful, upon entering the Church, turn their eyes toward the monstrance, where the Blessed Sacrament is exposed.

This is suggestive of ad orientum posture, but remains a bit mysterious in its precise implications for reform. As is the following, modifying the implication that Communion should be received, not taken:

44. Ancient sources indicate that communion was not taken but received, an act symbolizing the Sacrament’s meaning, that is, a Gift received with adoration. In the Latin rite, where provision is made for communion under two species, Catholic teaching is to be followed.169 In the rites of the Eastern Churches the tradition established in the canons is to be observed.170

There is much to say about this beautiful document -- I am especially happy about the stress laid on the necessary conjunction of adoration and Communion (their supposed incompatibility being the excuse for so many liturgical aberrations). But I have to say that it seems to me that, when it comes to implementation, anything less than crystal clear commandment is going to fall on deaf ears.

As evidence, consider this article on the revision of the bastardized English translation of the Mass that the US Bishops are currently holding up. I am not going to quote this article for fear of throwing all charity to the wind. All I can say is that I am disgusted that our good shepherds -- including ones who are supposed to be 'conservative' -- are still using the term 'pastoral' as an acid to corrode all reverence and piety and hold on to the empty and stultifying inventions of blasphemous hippies. OK, I am going to quote it to show you what I mean:

Just before a vote was taken on the entire proposal, Cardinal George again intervened: . . . "if the translations given us by ICEL, even though perhaps in some ways, marginally perhaps, are more accurate, we make the decision that we would prefer to keep the present translations for pastoral reasons, well that’s a legitimate concern."

I confess it's hard for me to imagine reform without strong disciplinary action from Rome, one that may well result in a lot of well-deserved consternation on this continent -- so be it!

Masculine Modernity

2005-07-10T05:06:00.000-07:00

As it happens, the June issue of Crisis -- which half-way into it is phenomenal -- has some excellent observations that might explain what it could mean to call our current social arrangements hyper-masculine (though I maintain that misses the mark for reasons mentioned before). To begin with, there's an article by Anthony Esolen -- probably the finest feature length writer Crisis has right now, and always a joy to read -- on "the Catholic town". Says Esolen,

The ghost of Marley says that in life his spirit never went forth among his fellow men. Nor do we go forth: We go away. We cut our ties. At night we abandon the cities where we work, and in the day we abandon the splotches of houses where we sleep, corrupting at once what used to be a city and what used to be a village or farmland or forest. We divorce at will; we retain the “right” to sever the child from the womb; we are in sexual matters exactly what Scrooge was in financial, acknowledging no duty to our fellow man to keep our habits charitable and clean. My countrymen are perhaps more than any other generation supinely dependent upon others for food, clothing, and shelter, yet in their hearts they repeat the delusion of Satan at the bottom of the world, saying, “I am my own, I am my own.”

Where can we find the wild sprouts of life in this culture of loneliness? The kingdom of God, says Jesus, is like a mustard seed. Think of the small, the local, the boy at Scrooge’s keyhole, singing “God Rest Ye Merry, Gentlemen.” At one’s feet is the seedling, the dandelion muscling up through the blacktop. At one’s feet is a home, and children, and a neighbor; a stream to love, a patch of grass, a steeple and bell to toll one’s hours, the first and the last.

That is the genius of the much-misunderstood “Catholic social teaching,” our best chance to recover the human—the farm, the village, the city neighborhood—from the cold and gray, the horrible “right” to be one’s own. It is not a political program for massive transfers of wealth. Such a thing would be but a bureau of the Culture of Loneliness, some Department of Church Affairs. “Man is a political animal,” says Aristotle, the philosopher upon whose insights Thomas Aquinas built his teachings regarding the state; but we should remember what he meant by it. “Man,” he says, “is that living creature who may best attain his end—practical and intellectual virtue—in the context of a polis.” And a polis, says he, must be small enough for its people to know everyone in it, if not by sight then by reputation or by family. Such people, to see and hear and jostle against, make claims upon us that are immediate and bodily. That is why we, like Scrooge, want them far away.

Jesus was born in a stable in Bethlehem, not in some legal polygon, some fiction on a map or in a tax code. A truly Catholic social teaching must be incarnational: It begins from the premise that we belong to one another in small and intimate ways. We are Bob Cratchit’s keeper on this street, in this neighborhood, in this town. We hear a lad singing through the door left ajar. We throw snowballs at the neighborhood boys. We see laundry on the line, in all shapes and sizes and colors, and can guess whose caboose fits where. We know the whiff of the neighbor’s favorite cigar. We let the men be men, the women be women, the children be children, that it may be all the more gladsome when men and women and children come together. We laugh in humility, “Well, who would want to be alone, anyway!”

What follows is a truly illuminating picture (based on three actual photographs that reveal the soul of the place) of a town in Pennsylvania that was once Catholic. A beautiful article.

In light of this, it's interesting to ponder the special angle on the evil of abortion highlighted in another article by Erika Bachiochi, a self-professed feminist who once supported abortion because she thought it was good for women:

While some men lament the choices of their wives or girlfriends (husbands and boyfriends, after all, have no legal rights in the abortion decision), other men serve as the catalysts behind such choices. Nearly 40 percent of post-abortive women in one study reported that partners pressured them into having the abortions. Indeed, in her study of the data, Emory University professor Elizabeth Fox-Genovese reports that “the most enthusiastic fans of abortion have been men—at least until they have children of their own.”

So while “pro-choice” feminists hail abortion as the symbol of women’s sexual freedom and equality, the ordinary young woman may find no such liberation when she has sex with her date, thinking, as women are prone to do, that sex will bind the two emotionally. Instead, when he doesn’t share the depth of her feelings and then hands her $400 for the abortion when she becomes pregnant, it’s not only her heart that’s broken. She alone has to live with the possible short-term and long-term medical consequences of the abortion for the rest of her life. For many women, “reproductive freedom” has meant that women continue to negotiate all that comes with reproduction while men enjoy the freedom of sex without consequences.

The victimization felt by such a large majority of women who undergo abortions, though not appreciated or even recognized by today’s “pro-choice” feminist, was acutely foreseen by an earlier generation of feminists. America’s pioneering feminists, who fought for the right to vote and fair treatment in the workplace, were uniformly against abortion because they recognized it as an attack on women as women—those uniquely endowed with the ability to bear children. While these pioneering feminists endured the painstaking fight to change male-dominated political and economic institutions, the “pro-choice” feminists of the 1970s and today instead sought to change the very nature of women, convincing many of them that, if they’re to be equal to men, they must simply become like men.

. . .

we’ve gotten used to not having to change much in our market-driven society to allow women to enter our colleges and workplaces on an equal footing with men. We’re not interested in ensuring women the capacity to act in society—to have a place in society—if they aren’t aping men. We can’t afford to do the much more difficult work of creating environments that welcome women who have children—which, of course, is the great majority of women. Instead, we’ll just continue to tell women what Roe told them a generation before. You choose: your baby or yourself, your baby or your future, your baby or your success; this is a man’s world, and you better become like a man—that is, not pregnant—if you want to succeed.

It’s no surprise that more than 30 years after the second wave—the abortion wave—of the women’s movement, studies show that women are still perplexed about how to combine career and family. Abortion usurped a pioneering feminism that sought to influence society to recognize the distinct dignity of women. In so doing, it forestalled solutions to the question of how women could fulfill their unique role as mothers while participating in the wider society.

Esolen is wonderful at describing the havoc wrecked by modernity on the souls of men and boys; Bachiochi describes in painful detail the damage abortion does to women. Both point to the possibility of a world in which, however imperfectly, the common good is approximated by the willingness to be who one is, which forecolses making choices in fancied isolation. When women are pressured into "aping" men, we get not a magnification of masculinity, but a crowd of amorphous individuals with no purpose -- feminite or masculine -- to render life's struggles meaningful. Let's hope both authors are indicative of an increased awareness of this moral catastrophe.

Dead Air

2005-07-08T20:17:00.000-07:00

Sorry for this. I've been on the road, and will be on the road some more. (Mr. Eaton has no such excuse, though!)

At the moment I am perusing one of many tantalizing articles over at Ignatius Insight (on the side-bar). This is another one by Father Schall, exploring an address by then-Cardinal Ratzinger regarding recent developments in left thought. I'm finding it very insightful. A couple of samples:

One of the standard questions hovering about the intellectual world since the crisis of Marxism has been, “Where does the intellectual left go next, especially if it refuses to consider orthodoxy?” The obvious, most likely answer, I think, is that it goes in the direction of ecology and environmentalism insofar as these all-embracing systems provide an apparently plausible, natural justification to reduce the relative importance of man’s individual dignity in the name of a planetary or worldly, if not cosmic, “good.” This postulated inner-worldly transcendent good is proposed in the name of the on-going cycles of nature and of the good of the living “species” within it. This higher “good” becomes the criterion by which we judge how many people we can have in each country or on the earth, how long they can live and under what conditions, what they can or cannot consume, what their relation is to the state. Indeed, it is not the state but the world state which—since it is said to have the exclusive responsibility to look out for the distant future—can control the present in its name. “Progress” is replaced as an ideal by “stability.” This simultaneous relativizing of the dignity of the human person and of the consequent justification for the vast expansion of the state has provided a handy way to replace or rather incorporate the Marxist ideology that formerly justified these inner-worldly goals with a new more comprehensive ideology that explains what is happening in a different manner.

. . .

Ratzinger next comments on what everyone has observed, namely, that liberation theology suddenly fell into disrepute because the world realized that the Marxist systems in fact produced neither redemption nor liberation but tyranny. But Ratzinger adds, in a passage that seems to me very perceptive,

[that] the non-fulfillment of this [Marxist-liberationist] hope brought a great disillusionment with it which is still far from being assimilated. Therefore, it seems probable to me that new forms of the Marxist conception of the world will appear in the future. For the moment, we cannot be but perplexed: the failure of the only scientifically based system for solving human problems could only justify nihilism or, in any case, total relativism.

That is, the results in the West and too often in Marxist countries was not natural law or Christianity but relativism.

See what I mean?

Regarding the London attacks: I am not following things closely enough to comment in detail. Other than revulsion and mourning at the bloodshed, my initial response is to wonder whether Al Quaeda is not showing its weakness here. September 11 was a staggering blow, Madrid was a surgical strike, but these kind of attacks will never do anything but tick Westerners off and incite them to work harder at the eradication of terror groups. Am I right about this?

In any case, I'm with Phil: let's fly the Union Jack!

John Paul II

2005-06-18T10:44:00.000-07:00

I'm no expert on the theology of John Paul II; I have yet to read most of his writings, though I am working on it. So this is something of a plea for help from those more knowledgeable. I'm just looking through an article on that subject by David Schindler at Crisis magazine. I'm about halfway through this thing (yes, I save my most polished thoughts for this blog . . . ) and have run into a couple of problems. First, Schindler ("dean and Gagnon professor of fundamental theology at the John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family at the Catholic University of America and the editor of the Catholic review Communio") has this to say about John Paul's ecclesiology:

Recuperating a rightful understanding of Mary within the reality of the Church was crucial for John Paul II’s sense of how a one-sided notion of the Church, as a hierarchical and clerical institution (Vatican I), was to be integrated into a notion of the Church as communio, a communion of persons (Vatican II), in a way that neither weakened the importance of the Petrine institution nor reduced the “People of God” to a democratic congregation. . . . he identified a mutual priority of the Marian dimension of the Church in relation to the Petrine, and of the Petrine in relation to the Marian.

Hmm. A mutual priority? I do not understand the terminology. Nor do I see the propriety in reducing an entire Church council to a "one-sided notion" of any sort. Is this a fair description of JPII's thought? Is it sensible at all?

Then there is this more sociological question:

We should acknowledge, in light of John Paul II’s emphasis on recovering the dignity of women in the way indicated here, that he has been criticized for the lack of a corresponding treatment of the dignity of men. In response, we should say that, just as the pope thought that the Petrine dimension was conceived in a one-sided (fragmented) fashion in the modern Church (Vatican I) and needed integration with the Marian dimension for there to be an adequate ecclesial communio, so did he judge that the masculine dimension had been emphasized in one-sided fashion in modern culture, and thus needed integration with the feminine for there to be an adequate domestic communion of persons.

More accusations of one-sidedness, this time not blasphemous. BUT I find this hard to swallow. Modern society is too masculine? I suppose I can see why superficially it might appear so. Judged by every other period in history, our age would seem dead set on inducing women to act like men and forcing nature to bend or break whenever she (heh) made this inconvenient. But if everyone thinks they can get in on the man game, does this mean everyone is manly?

It would be fairer to say, I think, that everyone's buying because the currency has been debased. There is hardly even a concept of masculinity left, other than the caracatures we all know. To many, male pride seems akin to white pride, something that demonsrates complicity with past oppression.

If anything today appears 'masculine' it would be science, which powerfully placates the monsters that threaten us. But it does so in the name of comfort and pleasure, not duty and virtue. I don't believe for a second that femininity is reducible to the former pair, but this paradigm has created an environment in which the masculine virtues are less often needed and still more rarely wanted. Of course they are needed, but the modern eye does not see this clearly. I for one can think of nothing that would be more helpful to Christendom now than renewed attention to the nature and principles of Christian manhood.

Could anyone comment on the accuracy of Schindler's reading of JPII on these points?

The Collapse of Canadian Civilization

2005-06-17T04:48:00.000-07:00

For a detailed account of how Canadian social order is falling apart, check out the David Warren link on the sidebar: his columns in the last month or so cover much of it. Here is one specific result:

No guarantee to protect religious groups under Canadian same-sex marriage bill

Ottawa, Jun. 14, 2005 (CNA) - Canadian Justice Minister Irwin Cotler said last week that he cannot guarantee full protection to religious organizations that refuse to marry homosexuals under the Liberal government’s same-sex marriage legislation, reported the Canadian Press.

Churches will not be forced to perform same-sex weddings, but it's beyond his legal reach to protect provincial marriage commissioners or religious organizations who turn away same-sex couples, Cotler said June 8.

. . .

"Faith-based groups are not all that confident if their rights are going to be left up to the courts," said Derek Rogusky, spokesman for Focus on the Family Canada, reportedly said.

Equality protections tend to trump religious freedoms in court battles over homosexual rights, he pointed out.

Seeing No Basis

2005-06-17T04:30:00.000-07:00

New Jersey court rules against same-sex marriage

Newark, Jun. 14 (CWNews.com) - A New Jersey appeals court on Tuesday ruled that the state constitution does not include same-sex couples in its definition of marriage.

. . .

In the dissenting opinion, Judge Donald Collester wrote that the right to marry is "effectively meaningless unless it includes the freedom to marry a person of one's choice." He added, "I see no basis in the history of marriage to justify a definition which denies plaintiffs the right to enter into lawful marriage in this state with the person of their choice."

Then again, hard to see anything with your eyes closed . . .

2005-06-17T04:25:00.000-07:00

Federal study confirms abstinence education effective

Washington, DC, Jun. 15 (LifesiteNews.com/CWN) - A new study released on Tuesday by the Department of Health and Human Services reveals that abstinence education works. According to the interim report, teens who participated in abstinence programs had an increased awareness of the potential consequences of sexual activity before marriage, thought more highly of abstinent behaviors, and had less favorable opinions about sexual activity before marriage than did students who were not in abstinence programs.

Always nice to see the obvious proved through social studies . . . .

More Attentive than Realized . . .

2005-06-17T04:21:00.000-07:00

Italian referendum raises question about legal abortion

Rome, Jun. 16 (CWNews.com) - An Italian government minister has observed that the June 12-13 referendum vote upholding restrictions on artificial reproduction could pave the way for a reconsideration of legal abortion in the country.

Regional-affairs minister Enrico La Loggia told the daily newspaper La Stampa that the results of the referendum-- in which nearly 75 percent of the eligible voters followed the Italian bishops' recommendation and did not cast a ballot-- demonstrated that the Italian people are "more attentive to the principles of the Catholic tradition" than political leaders had realized.

The failure of the referendum left in place a new national law restricting in vitro fertilization. One provision of that law, which was challenged by the referendum, affirmed the rights of the human embryo. That passage of the law appears to clash directly with the law allowing legal abortion. "The principles that are being affirmed today, regarding the protection of life, must be taken into account," La Loggia said.

Portentious?

2005-06-16T09:32:00.000-07:00

They've had a lot of good articles on the liturgy over at Ignatius Insight, most recently this one by James Schall. They are the Holy Father's official publisher statesside. . .

Verbal Precision

2005-06-10T03:50:00.000-07:00

Court upholds ruling on partial-birth abortion ban

Richmond, Jun. 07 (LifesiteNews.com/CWN) - The 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals, by a vote of 2-1, has upheld a ruling by US District Judge Richard L. Williams of Richmond that declares a Virginia law banning a type of late-term abortion as unconstitutional due to its lack of an exception to protect a woman's health.

The law, passed by the 2003 Virginia General Assembly, was challenged by the pro-abortion Center for Reproductive Rights. It called for a ban on partial birth abortion, in which the child is partially delivered before being killed. The Virginia statute called it "partial-birth infanticide."

Judge Williams immediately blocked enforcement of the Virginia law on July 1, 2003, the day it went into effect, calling it a "no-brain case."

That's exactly right: the baby's brain is sucked out by the 'doctor' in this particular ritual.

Pravda (For Real)!

2005-06-10T03:37:00.000-07:00

Russian health officials debunk “safe-sex” myth and promote abstinence in Moscow

Rome, Jun. 09, 2005 (CNA) - In an about-face, health officials in Moscow have acknowledged that “safe-sex does not exist” and are opting for abstinence-based education for young people.

“One should propagandize total abstinence before marriage,” Ludmila Stebenkova of Moscow's parliamentary committee for health care told the Pravda news service.

Stebenkova, who is in charge of health care for the 12 million inhabitants of Moscow, believes that “the safe sex propaganda in the USA, for example, has resulted in the dissolution of morals. Sexually transmitted diseases started progressing there. That is why the US government assigns huge money to promote the value of innocence and virginity. It is coming into fashion.”

. . .

Stebenkova criticized government funded “safe-sex programs” as nothing more than opportunities for certain agencies to steal money from the state coffers. She pointed to the recent case of the Ukraine, where $2.6 million was set aside for the purchasing of condoms and $300,000 for training in how to use them. “Could someone tell me what kind of class on how to put on condoms could cost $300,000?” she wondered. Ukraine officials eventually canceled the program.

Stebenkova said her committee intends to spend $900,000 on educational programs, television ads and billboards with the slogans, “Healthy Family, Defense against AIDS” and “Safe-sex does not exist.”

. . .

Stebenvoka said she will not be deterred by organizations “that represent an ideology in decline. They simply have to spend the money donated by (George) Soros and his other patrons,” she said, in a reference to international funds that are sent to Russia for promoting the use of condoms.

Russia seems to have pulled well ahead of Montana of late . . .