A friend in academe writes:

Just a brief note and then I have to get to sleep-the thing to remember here is that one of the main legal basis for our intervention was not necessarily that Iraq had effective, combat ready WMDs but that they were preserving the capability of creating such in spite of this being a condition for ending Gulf War I. It is perfectly possible that Iraq destroyed all incriminating WMDs before or during the war, but this does not in any way mean that they were less guilty of all that the administration accused them of-being in breach of U.N. resolutions, developing programs to create such weapons, refusing to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors, etc.

Developing capabilities (many of which are dual use) is a different animal from having lots of usable weapons laying around and ready for us to hold up as exhibit A, yet the former is just as bad as the later (if not as useful for political purposes). I'm sure the administration is being extra careful in all of this, simply because they don't want to announce what all they have found until they have a fool-proof case (and given all of the hair splitters out there ready to jump on any misstep in presenting our case, no wonder the administration is taking its time).

A couple of links worth looking at...

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/rls/19723.htm

this State Department site details some of the evidence that we already had-and remember-Iraq had time to destroy much of this stuff or ship it off to Syria (and 50,000 liters of toxins can kill tens of millions but is pretty easy to hide in a California-sized country).

Again, even if we don't find anything, it is clear we are going to find lots of evidence of Iraq trying to develop such weapons-also, even if by some strange twist of fate Hussein actually did give up his programs, his legal obligation was to provide full and complete cooperation with the U.N. so that we would know he had disarmed-he never did this. This was not just about disarmament, but also about Iraq's obligation to the international community to not even try to pretend to have an ace in the hole (WMDs) but to be transparent in its disarmament-if for whatever reason Saddam didn't want to do this, even if he had disarmed, he was in violation of the original cease fire agreement and a legitimate military target.

Also-do take a look at this (it was on NRO-The Corner-you might have missed it)

In short we are finding evidence-but it is difficult, because many of the things that can make very nasty chem and bio weapons are dual use-so we don't know that this was what Sadaam was about-we just had his track record as a certified mass murderer who had tried very hard for a very long time to develop such weapons. What we did was both legal and right-having iron-clad proof that might be difficult by the very nature of the aggressiveness of our assault (the only way to have iron-clad proof that an enemy possesses such capabilities is when such an enemy drops a nuke or bio weapon on ones own people-if your unwilling to wait around for that kind of proof, get set to deal in ambiguity).

Pax (et bellum when necessary)

Discuss, class.

My Latest on Catholic Exchange

If you feel powerless, try this

Fulton Sheen Made the Same Observation

A Turkish Muslim who wrote me, wanting to convert to Christianity, also drove the point home. The obvious choice for him was Catholicism, he said, since Catholics honor Mary like Muslims do. Protestantism was out of the question. It will be interesting to see how Mariophobic Evangelicalism fares in its missionary work among Muslims. I wonder if Muslim devotion to Mary will make a dent where Catholics have no been able to?

Nobody's Seen it...

...but everybody's already certain they're going to hate "The Passion". I think I'll go see it before I form an opinion. Crazy, I know.

Gotta love it when orthodox Jew David Klinghoffer is saying, "um, Jews did have something to do with the condemnation of Christ, you know" and James Carroll is bending over backwards to pretend that the gospels are first drafts of Der Sturmer.

Favorite headline of the day

"Terror threat lowered to 'elevated'"

Oops!

Fr. Richard John Neuhaus recently wrote a piece on historian Eamon Duffy who, according to news reports published by allegedly reliable vendors of religious journalism, had become an atheist and said all sorts of loopy things. Poor Fr. Neuhaus, thinking that media reliably report facts. Turns out Duffy is no such animal but is a believing Catholic who is now contemplating suit against the folks (Frontline on PBS) who somehow managed to attribute somebody else's rather ridiculous atheist twaddle to him.

(Favorite quote: "[Duffy] said that he had almost begun to believe he had indeed uttered the heresies attributed to him. “Then the tape arrived. Half of me said, ‘Thanks be to God’. The other half said, ‘You bastards, you stupid bastards’.”)

First Things has naturally agreed to correct the record. Hard to blame them very much though. In a journal dedicated to commenting on news and current events, it's a bit hard to do your job when the news sources who are supposed to know what they are talking about deliver raw falsehood as fact. Reminds me of some comedy show (Saturday Night Live?) which years ago used to offer "corrections" for errors in last week's reporting like, "Our previous report which said that elementary school teachers are Nazi white supremacists who being indicted for conspiracy to commit cannibalism on kindergartners was in error. What we actually meant say was that was that elementary school teachers are being commended for their work in the recent bake sale fundraiser."

Oopsie! Can't expect 100% accuracy, can we?

Yesirree. American Catholic Culture is Desperately Hungry for Holy Bishops

Our failure to have them is exclusively the fault of the hierarchy itself. We laypeople play no role whatsoever in shouting down expressions of orthodox Catholic faith and morals from our bishops and priests. We want them to challenge our deranged sexual morality! We do nothing but call for them to boldly proclaim the gospel! And we continually lavish rewards of gratitude, honor, and respect on them for doing so in the most vocal and public way. No good priest or bishop is ever made to feel utterly alone and shouting into the wind by a room temperature laity oblivious to the Catholic teaching they try to faithfully proclaim. None is ever tempted to simply conform to the spirit of the Age shouted at them through the bullhorns of laity who have nothing but contempt for authentic Catholic teaching. Nope. Their sins are sui generis: failures entirely due to them and not due to us in the slightest!

Unfortunately the "Well, where are they?" problem continues to nag

Meanwhile, while these issues are being sorted out, we say, "Hey! Let's move on! We won! Next!"

My problem (and the Administration's): I'm inclined to think Iran's regime needs to go. But my trust in the justification for the last war is eroding and that makes me wonder how firm a case we have for this one. I am, so to speak, a green tree, inclined to side with the Bushies in the case against Iran. If I'm getting more and more dubious about the last war, how do they expect to sell the next one to the dry trees?

I've been reading P.G. Wodehouse lately

Hands down the funniest writer of English prose ever. Saw this and immediately thought, "Prince Bertie Wooster."

If you are looking for great hilarity in sparkling prose, try Wodehouse's Code of the Woosters or one of the hundred other brilliant books he managed to confect out of sheer farcical genius.

It's amazing, the Svengali-like power these people have over the Dems

Somehow, Dems go on believing that the Clintons care about somebody besides the Clintons and are continually surprised to discover that they don't. Like the weird allegiance of devils in Milton. Not based on love but on something else: the lust for power

So fun to torment humorless liberal fascists

Q: How many feminists does it take to change a light bulb?
A: THAT'S NOT FUNNY! I AM OUTRAGED! OUTRAGED!!!!!

Well *that's* a relief! We've found 2000 tons of WMDs at last!

Oh. Wait.

Speaking of the whole "The problem is that Catholics are too docile to Authority" thing...

Chris K. responds to a stupid post in one of Amy's comments boxes:

After all the discussion over this past year and all the background articles about parishioners defending an offending priest pastor I was kind of amazed by this critical summing up of the situation in #21:

"first, many catholics (particularly the more conservative ones) wouldn't dream of holding clerics accountable because they've been conditioned into a docile deference when it comes to their theological superiors. why do you think the sex crisis lasted as long as it did? why do you think many parents were incapable of believing that father would molest their sons and daughters?"

At a nearby parish a mother whose son, classified as a slow learner and emotional loner without a father and the mother herself pretty dependent, reported the son's molestation after he became so withdrawn...and the parish as a whole drove them out....to another state in fact. After an investigation and the priest's removal, the truth came out. But you see, the offending cleric was sooo compassionate and finally there was someone who was doing something with the young people. We see this pattern with most of these types who through their "winning" personalities completely bamboozle all the Oprah trained parishioners. It doesn't have much to do with clericalism which usually was a fear to offend a religious authority, but more with weak human desire, esp. since Vat II, for charismatic personalities who can "relate" to diversity and compassionate with all the hot button emotions. Look how the whole community was taken in by Shanley and let's not forget about our last president! Frankly, I think both laity and priests needed a strong dose of reality training these past decades - the laity so they don't treat the Church like some Disney world therapy session and the priests not to be so afraid of teaching outside the puritannical. Let's face it, no one could talk to their pastor much less bishop about sexual matters outside the confessional. If the subject came up some trite unworkable solution was handed out just to get it over with or the people are referred to the "experts". The American culture had its beginnings in such attitudes.

This pretty much rings true. In my experience, it's hasn't been "blind obedience to Catholic authority" but blind obedience to a particular charismatic personality (who is often at odds with the authoritative teaching of the Church) that is the trouble. Yes, there have been conservative Catholics I've known whose first rule in life is to never think ill of a priest even when trouble is staring them in the face. But far more often, what I've seen have been Catholics who just like Fr. Personality so much that they just can't stand those killjoys who insist on pointing out that Fr. Personality is preaching rank heresy or, in the case of Courageous Street Priest and Extended Middle Finger to Catholic Authority Paul Shanley, living gross immorality as well. I wish more Catholics *were* docile to genuine Catholic Authority. They might find the cojones to appeal to it against the force of some charming pervert or heretic that they really really like. Indeed, some of the toughest and most dedicated real reformers in the Church that I've known--fearless moms who aren't afraid to march into the bishop's office and respectfully but firmly give him hell when he's a doofus, have been conservative Catholics who are docile to true authority and therefore not craven before mere personalities. For "authority" is not, as most suppose, "raw power to dictate the shots". It is related rather to "authorship": the right of the writer to say what his work means. The author of the Catholic faith is Jesus Christ and the teaching and tradition of the Church is the way we know what the author has to say. Oddly, most lay Catholics aren't interested in that. They're interested, as Chris K points out, in what Fr. Personality has to say.

This article helpfully kills two birds with one stone

It makes the case for homeschooling better than a thousand blogs from me and...

It demonstrates once again that there just might be a problem in the culture of heavily Catholic Massachusetts that extends beyond a corrupt nucleus of ecclesiats.

Naw! Nothing here that suggests that the People of God are also implicated in a sexually deranged culture. It's all just the fault of priests and bishops. This is a population clearly "docile" to Catholic faith and morals. Indeed, it's that docility that's the problem! We laypeople have nothing to do with the Situation. We're just victims.

Latest research from the best moral theologian money can buy!

Heresy once again begins in the groin... and the wallet. Maybe the guy will do another paper on Matthew 6:24 and 1 Timothy 6:10.

"Whew! The Times Shot Itself in the Foot. So We Don't Look Like Stonewalling Screwups as Much"

It's not *that* complex Monsignor. Bishops lied to parents and victims and protected abusers for years. They should have the decency to volunteer to take an early retirement and go away (if the Pope is willing to let them) but, as far as I can tell, they don't. Rather like Howell Raines. However, like the readership of the New York Times, my tribe of laymen isn't all that upset. So just as people go on reading the Times when it is perfectly evident that their editorial standards are deeply compromised, so the vast bulk of laypeople go on neither rebuking their corrupt elders nor encouraging their good ones. As long as bishops affirm us in our okayness, don't trouble us about our sex lives, and act as sacramental dispensing machines, we're willing to overlook a few child rapes. What's more important? That, or the episcopal affirmation of the popularity of men like William Jefferson Clinton and Ted Kennedy with the room temperature Catholic rank and file? Better a bishop who would never think to challenge Catholic enthusiasm for such men and their policies than a "domineering" bishop who "imposes his beliefs on the People of God" like Fabian Bruskewitz. We laypeople have our standards, you know!

Very good interview with Fr. Paul Shaughnessy

He's the guy who wrote the "The Gay Priest Problem" for Catholic World Report, prophesying our present Troubles a year before the Scandal.

A reader writes:

I agree with your assessment of the Iraq war and its aftermath.

We went to war because conservatives decided that "the ends justify the means" -- the very same thing that liberals are typically accused of doing.

A very good article is on this page:

In my opinion, we have no one to blame but ourselves for the current mess in Iraq, which will only get worse.

Sheesh. We had good intelligence, before the war, that Iraq's WMD had been destroyed in the mid-'90s. The reports came from the exact same people that we trusted on reports about torture and despotism in Iraq, yet we refused to believe them when they said there were no WMD in Iraq.

It was all an excuse to simply show off our power, and maybe to grab some oil and influence. Unfortunately, it cost a few hundred American boys' lives.

Iraq will end up like Afghanistan, where we helped install a government that only controls the capital city, Kabul (and it needs thousands of U.S. troops to do that). The rest of the country is controlled by local bandits, warlords and tribal mullahs.

Oh, and democracy is wonderful there.

Did you know that one of the first laws passed by the so-called "national" parliament was a renaming of the country: "The Islamic Republic of Afghanistan"?

This was immediately followed by the enactment of a complete prohibition on Christian evangelization.

Flash forward to two years from today.

I will make a prediction that the situation in Afghanistan will be the same, if not worse, and that Iraq will be identical, if not worse.

In fact, it already is starting to look worse. The mullahs seem to have much more influence in Iraq than they have in Afghanistan.

Actually, Iraq seems to be on the road to becoming the next Iran.

Yes, the people of Iraq didn't rise up to defend Sadaam, but I hope everyone noticed that over ONE MILLION citizens of Iraq joined a march called by Shiite muslim leaders demanding immediate U.S. withdrawal.

What happens when these same leaders call for a guerrilla war against the American forces? What happens when we face a huge uprising by the Iraqi people? I have little doubt that it will eventually come.

What happens if, during George's upcoming election campaign, U.S. troops start having to face something that looks like the Palestinian Infitada, only on a larger scale?

Are we prepared to be bogged down in Iraq, for years to come, fighting a religious war?

History will not judge this whole adventure very kindly.

It is one of the most stupid things we have ever done as a nation.

I get so frustrated with the misplaced gloating by conservative commentators about our "victory" in Iraq. There are some conservative blogs and other commentators that I used to enjoy, that now I cannot even bring myself to look at. They are so worshipful of "Pope George" (and his pals) that they refuse to admit obvious facts about the war and everything that has happened afterward.

Are they just being deliberately blind? Yes, we won a *military* victory against some weak and poorly trained foreign soldiers. However, does it look like this victory actually "won" us anything? No WMD. No CBW. No Sadaam. Nothing. On the other hand, we just planted the seeds for a new fundamentalist Islamic dictatorship hostile to the U.S.A.! Yay!!!

I am not any sort of liberal, but I refuse to be wilfully deaf, dumb and blind.

A very bad precedent has been set by this war. I am angry and annoyed that more conservatives have not spoken the truth, as you repeatedly have.

When history is written, years from now, this war will be the one major black mark on the Bush presidency.

I'm not sure how close this reader and I are really tracking. I'm not prepared to say the Iraq war aftermath is proving to be a failure. I asked if we have a game plan there cuz I want to know, not because I wanted to rhetorically suggest the war was a failure. However, there *are* troubling signs that things are not going according to plan, and conservatives who backed this war need to deal with that, not say things like "Victory has proven the war was just!" or "You antiwar types are sore losers!" or some of the other helpful suggestions I receive from people who seem to forget that I supported the war. I'm not nearly as ready as this writer is to call the war "stupid". But I do think that prudence dictates an ongoing assessment of what the war has accomplished. So far, it has accomplished nothing in getting rid of the declared threat: WMDs because we aren't finding them. In addition, it appears to be helping the Iraqis to get in touch with their Inner Foaming Bronze Age Fanatics. Since one of the criteria of Just War is "Will the outcome be better than if the war had not been fought?" a prudent person would appear to be justified in doing post-game analyses to discover if that question is being answered in the affirmative. The "War's over! Let's move on!" crowd seems to be singularly uninterested in that and some of them are remarkably eager to label anybody who asks the question an antiwar liberal loser sorehead. Actually, I'm just a Catholic who think Just War theory goes on mattering and that victory is not the sure gauge of the justice of a war. At this point, I have questions and doubts, not answers or certainty. What bothers me is that some of the pro-war types wish to shout down the questions. Not a healthy sign.

Glad we Have Modern Science to Figure These Things Out

In other news, Modern Science has figured out that the sky is blue and grass is green.

"Although it looks premeditated, it doesn’t look like it was an act of terrorism."

Uh-huh. Like the guy who shot up an El Al ticket counter on July 4th, and whose room was plastered with Quran verses wasn't a terrorist. When they instantly say that, my first thought is, for some reason, "The guy was a terrorist."

Looks like my Qantas flight to Australia next year won't be crowded. There's a silver lining to everything, I guess. Seriously though, God grant healing to the flight attendants and repentance to this guy through Christ our Lord.

Clerics Fill Void With De Facto Courts, While Moving Against Western Influences

Um, are those "western influences" they are moving against things like pluralism, the dignity of the human person (especially women), and freedom or are they things like "democracy, whiskey, sexy"? In Islamic countries, it's often hard for them to distinguish the one group from the other.

Is there a game plan here for the US? The Iraqis seem to be rather eager to be rid of us so they can institute something that looks a great deal like sharia. I kinda thought the goal was to reduce the Bronze Age Fanaticism and intolerance of Islamofascism, not give it a new breeding ground.

I hope Congress responds to his suggestion by saying "You better put some ice on that."

Icons are cool

If you want to know more about the Art and Spirituality of Icons, check out Fr. Brendan McAnerny's work and have him to your parish to give a workshop. He's a fabulous teacher and his icons are gorgeous.

If you live in the Seattle area and are looking for a great Young Adult Catholic group...

Please join us this Wednesday May 28th at 7:30pm in at Blessed Sacrament Church for an evening of Taize Prayer in front of the Blessed Sacrament; where our voices lifted together in beautiful and simple communal melody and phrase is the prayer.
**************

SPECIAL EVENTS
Mexican Fiesta!
Pan De Vida and the Young Adult Community invites everyone to a Mexican Fiesta! Saturday, June 7th, in the Parish Hall; doors open at 6:30pm. This Parish Party Event is Pan De Vida's way of thanking everyone for your prayers and support of their ministry to orphan children in Tecate, Mexico.

Everyone is invited for fabulous music, great food, dancing, and fun!

A Free-Will offering will be accepted; all proceeds to benefit the Blessed Sacrament Restoration Project & Capital Campaign.

***
St. Peregrine Novena: June 9th-17th
Have you or a loved one experienced the painful affects of Cancer, AIDS, or other terminal illness? Blessed Sacrament Parish would like to invite you, your friends and family to the remarkable and grace filled Annual City-Wide Novena Event to Saint Peregrine, the patron saint of Cancer, AIDS, and other terminal illness; held at Blessed Sacrament Parish. This year, the Novena begins with our very own Fr. Reginald Martin, OP. with liturgical and Mass participation from members of our own parish and surrounding parishes. Please come and participate in this holy Novena Event and pray for your and other special and remarkable intentions.

It takes the help of many volunteers to make this event possible and we are in need of volunteers for all tasks. If you are able and interested in volunteering to help with this event and/or serving as a future Saint Peregrine Novena Committee member, please contact Angela Kim (see below).
**************

MINISTRY & SERVICE
Young Adult Choir Music Ministry
Whether you have choral and other music experience, or simply desire to make a joyful sound, this is a most blessed opportunity to be lifted up, lift up others, and build a lasting music ministry through an enriching and edifying music ensemble experience. Please answer the call to Discipleship as One Body in Christ and come and see!

Rehearsals are every Tuesday from 7:30pm to 9:30pm in the Church. Don't be late! ^.^

To learn more about the Choir and the commitment therein, please contact Angela Kim (see below).
***
Alter Server Training
Have you considered being a cup bearer, alter server, eucharistic minister, and/or reader? With the recent changes in liturgical norms, now is a most appropriate and obvious time to learn about the Mass more indepth and become involved. Blessed Sacrament is seeking generous and willing individuals to give of their time and talents, and learn and apprentice to serve and/or read at Daily and Sunday Masses. Please consider becoming involved for you are needed.

For further information, please see below.
**************

INFORMATION/INQUIRY
If you are in your 20's, 30's, up to early 40's, you are a Young Adult in the worldwide Catholic Church. Married with or without children, Couples, and Single, the Young Adult Community at Blessed Sacrament is not a "group" but a community whose focus and desire is to lift up the entire Mystical Body and Church as One Body Christ through Prayer, Education, Service, and Fellowship.

Unless otherwise noted, Young Adult Community
sponsored events are inclusive and all are always welcome.

For further event information and/or to learn more about the
Young Adult Community at Blessed Sacrament Parish,
please contact Angela Kim at blessedsacrament@yahoo.com.

Blessed Sacrament Parish is located at:
5050 8th Ave NE, Seattle, WA 98105.
Off of I-5 and 50th Street in the University District.
**************
May the Lord's peace and joy be with you!

What's with the celeb fascination with outre forms of Judaism?

First, Madonna's little kaballah fashion craze, now Whitney Houston? Do any celebs ever convert to just workaday Judaism or Christianity, or does it always have to be unbelievably esoteric stuff that nobody's ever heard of? Is there some celeb handbook that advises celebs in choosing a remote and inaccessible religious tradition so as to keep clear of the common herd?

Saw "Dune" the other day

Got it on DVD from the library. I'm a sucker for sci-fi, even (sometimes especially) bad sci-fi. I loved, f'rinstance, the Queen of Outer Space, which should be part of every film lover's library of deliciously dreadful movies. But Dune is one of those films the falls through the cracks. Too good to deliciously dreadful, too boring, talky and expository to be enjoyable. It was just a yawn. I gave up and went to bed halfway through. One proud alma mater note: Kyle MacLachlan, who played Paul Atreides, is a graduate of the University of Washington Professional Actor Training Program. He later burst on the stage of public consciousness as Fred Flintstone's evil boss in The Flintstones.

Lay vs. Clergy Perceptions of the Scandal

I've been arguing for several days that one of the things Catholics are going to have to face is that we pretty much have the bishops that we've been content to settle for. I'm not saying that to excuse the bishops who have lied to and betrayed their flocks. Nor am I saying it to somehow suggest that victims of this betrayal (particularly kids and the families who trust their bishops to *do* something), had it coming. Rather, I'm pointing out what seems to me to be the obvious fact that bishops are not grown in hydroponics tanks, but are the products of their culture and reflect, in a peculiar way, what the culture values most. We American prize very highly religious figures who will not "impose their values on us", will not interfere with our sex lives, and will reassure us that everything is just fine. What a shock! That just what our bishops have turned out to be: men who made reassuring noises to wounded families and then sent them away with the impression that some action would be taken. Then they turned to the abusive priests and made similar reassuring noises. Everyone went away *feeling* good. And the bishop went away feeling good too, because everybody liked him. Taking actual action was more difficult, so he just put that part off, since religion in America is supposed to be about feeling fine. And when the doo doo hit the fan last year, the bishops just kept up the pattern: they lied in court and pretended they'd never heard of the troubles they'd promised to do something about. In other words, they reliably took the path of least resistance. Where they wicked for doing so? Sure. Were they basically being the sort of men we've demanded bishops be for about 40 years? Sure. And is there much of a serious demand from the laity that they be terribly different men.

Nope. Not really. We're more or less content. Not happy, mind you. But content enough that we don't really intend to do much beside bitch in some comments boxes (a minority of us that is). Mostly we aren't thinking about it all that much.

Now the interesting thing about this observation is that the people who are most critical of it are the ordained folk that read my blog. Many laypeople both here and elsewhere tend to agree with me. I suspect that is because laypeople like me feel more free to say the truth: that many lay Catholics live their faith at room temperature. Ordained folk are in an awkward position. They can't point to this fact too strenuously because somebody will say they are trying to shift the blame away from the ordained office which is, after all, inhabited by a lot of corrupt idiots. Far be it from me to take from them that honor. You priestly readers of my blog are more than welcome to assign the immediate blame for the Situation to the people who perpetrated it: the corrupt and cowardly bishops who shielded evil men from the consequences of their actions and endangered the lives and souls of Christ's most precious children. All I'm saying, as a layman, is don't deny me the chance to point out that us laypeople too have wielded our little tridents in this tragedy and have lionized men like Paul Shanley and other authors of our morally deranged American Catholic culture. As a layman, I feel no shyness at all about pointing that out.

I cannot, as has been repeatedly noted, do a lot to change the workings of the Church's bureaucratic machinery. But I can do something to call laypeople (including me, who desperately needs it) to holiness. Please don't clericalize the Situation to the degree that laypeople have no hand, by their prayers, penance and good works, to effect the reform that the Holy Spirit intends. We've got a role to play too.

Hey! Good news! Scott Hahn Named to Cardinal Pio Laghi Chair at the Josephinum

I'm tickled to hear it! There's an interview with him at Zenit too.

When Scripture says...

"Thou art my King and my God,
who ordainest victories for Jacob.
Through thee we push down our foes;
through thy name we tread down our assailants.
For not in my bow do I trust,
nor can my sword save me.
But thou hast saved us from our foes,
and hast put to confusion those who hate us." (Ps 44:4-7)

...many conservative Catholics mumble the antiphon at Mass and let the words roll off them like water off a duck's back. It's just "biblical language". It doesn't actually *mean* anything. But when the Pope says, "Rely on Divine Providence, Not Military Force", many shriek about how hopelessly naive and out of touch such a notion is. Trust God, not arms? Ridiculous! Pacifism! We need to get back to Old Fashioned Darwinian Catholic teaching and remember that guns, not the power of God, is what makes the *real* world go round! As our Lord said, "The strong survive and the weak perish."

Clues to the clueless: There is no Catholic teaching more old-fashioned than the text of Scripture, which basically says exactly the same thing the Pope said here. First rule of Catholic faith: There is something in the Tradition to offend everybody, even many "faithful conservative Catholics". Nobody is immune from the Scandal of the Gospel.

John Granger (author of the Hidden Key to Harry Potter) posted this in a comments box below (on one of the Harry Potter threads):

A helpful distinction that may clear some of the smoke and heat from these exchanges is the one between incantational and invocational magic. Revealed traditions all condemn invocational magic; the Faustian bargain is a bad deal necessarily because the principalities and powers 'called in' (hence 'invocational') always have their own agenda. No one that I know thinks invocational magic a good idea, in real life or in literature - outside of say, Faust, where the consequences are evident.

Incantational magic, however, 'singing along with' or 'harmonizing' contranaturalism, is the foundation of Christian faith. It only appears in literature as abacadabra spells, the Lives of the Saints, and the Book of Acts (the miracles of our Savior cannot be called incantational because He is the music or Word with Whom we strive to sing). Only our ability as images of God for such harmonization (by means of our receptivity to God's graces and the mysteries of the Church) make our hope of Theosis possible.

It is important to note that all the magic in Harry Potter is incantational and that it is never invocational. Rowling is in the tradition of Shakespeare, Lewis, and Tolkien among others (see Stanton Linden's 'Darke Hieroglyphicks' for many more)in this usage of magic as metaphor for human spiritual capacity not an aberrant New Ager out to seduce our children.

C.S. Lewis makes this distinction in Prince Caspian when the Prince chooses to blow the horn-gift of Aslan for help. This incantation in obedience to divine direction is in contrast to the the dwarf who tries to invoke the White Witch. No one is left in doubt as to which is the greater magic and which is a dangerous error.

If this example is not direct enough, I suggest that the occasion when our Lord Himself was accused by Pharisees of 'casting out devils by the Prince of Devils' is cause for reflection. How absurd to accuse the Word creating all things (including the demonic realm) of needing to invoke that realm. Are those condemning the literary usage of incantational magic as invocational magic (sorcery) making a similar error? I think so.

I want my dog to bark at strangers coming to my house. I get a little tired of his barking at the mailman, my friend. I think those concerned with the occult do us a real service by keeping the real dangers of the occult before us. But when they bark at Harry Potter, I wonder if they do not diminish their message in the minds of those capable to distinguish between occult and edifying usage of magic in literature.

Rowling, to risk stating the obvious, is an English writer writing within the tradition of English Greats, and, specifically, the Inkling stream of that tradition. If you doubt this, pick up this month's First Things and read Rodney Delasanta's 'Hume, Austen, and First Impressions'. Austen is Rowling's favorite author and, mirabile dictu, she like Rowling is revealed to be writing a book contra mundum and contra the way the world thinks. It is one of the greater ironies of our time that Christians are condemning a Christian artist for writing edifying literature - because of Gothic elements that are ancillary to her themes.

Discuss, class.

"I'm for gun control, he's against it. I'm against capital punishment, he supports it. I'm for the right to abortion -- even though I'm a Catholic -- and he's against it."

Canadian PM Jean Chretien, who was elected by a majority (including a majority of Catholics), helpfully illustrating that the majority of Catholics are pretty much content with the bold Catholic leadership they have. I'd love to locate the problem in the North American Church exclusively in the leadership. But the reality is, we have the leaders we've demanded for the past 40 years of so (basically since the Humanae Vitae Truce of 1968). Men who will affirm us in our okayness, not bother us about our sex lives, and who will make it their Number 1 mission to "keep everybody in the conversation." Oopsie daisy, now and then some kids get raped and we'll get a bit upset about that. But if they have a meeting in Dallas and grovel a bit, we'll let bygones be bygones and get back to sex lives and other pursuits unencumbered by anything approaching deference to Catholic teaching.

No. That's not true of every single Catholics (especially the switched-on people who read and write in comments boxes). But of the vast bulk of room temperature Catholics who don't get passionate? Yeah, it's pretty much the case. We have the bishops we are content with. Not *perfectly* content, of course. But not discontent enough to really do something. Not discontent enough to make life unpleasant for them. Not discontent enough to storm heaven with prayers for a holy and responsible leadership. Not discontent enough to want them to bother us with teaching that discomfits us.

The NY Times Returns to Knee-Jerk Evangelical Bashing

Given the choice between Foaming Bronze Age Fanatics and Evangelicals, the NY Times reliably portrays the latter as the greater danger. How this thesis will sell to the people living on the south end of Manhattan who witnessed recent unpleasantnesses is unclear.

For my part, I think the Evangelical critique of Islam is a bit unnuanced, but serviceable for missionaries. Christians, who even as variegated Protestants are the beneficiaries of the Seven Ecumenical Councils, tend to forget that a magisterial faith is the exception, not the rule in human religious affairs (Catholics constantly forget this) and that Islam is therefore basically whatever the majority of Muslims with the money and firepower to realize their vision proclaim it to be. The violent texts emphasized by the Evangelicals in the story exist and can be used to justify all manner of violence. Historically, Islam has done so. But to then go on and say, "In the Bible there are no words from Jesus saying we should kill innocent people" is a bit disingenuous. True, the gospels don't record Jesus commanding the death of the innocent, but Joshua, Judges and Psalm 137 certainly do, which is a hoary old problem of biblical interpretation. And medieval Christians, reading these texts, had little trouble deducing from them moral lessons like "Kill all! God will know his own!"

My point? "Islam" exists on a spectrum. I'm all for conversion of Muslims to Jesus Christ. But given that a billion Muslims are not going to convert anytime soon, it's also wise to encourage within Islam those virtues which do exist there (courtesy, hospitality, honor, respect for family and children) while discouraging the destructive pathologies that have been enshrined as holy writ (since Islam is, at the end of the day, a human invention, not divine revelation). To simply declare Islam "evil" carte blanche and then make false comparisons between the intrinsically evil nature of the Koran and the allegedly bloodless Christian scriptures is not going to do much beside make Muslims roll their eyes.

However, these things are minor cavils. The Evangelical missionaries are, largely spot on. The fact is, violence is close to the heart of the way Islam is lived in most places. It doesn't *have* to be. But it is. And, frankly, Islam is unbelievably thin-skinned and demanding that everybody knuckle under to its sensitivities in a way that Christians are not. The most revealing things in the article were not the remarks of the Evangelicals, but of the Muslims who feel so threatened. I have Evangelicals and Fundamentalists tell me every other day that my religion is evil and that the Eucharist I adore is an idol or a death cookie or whatnot. Guess what? I survive. I don't feel the impulse to burn them to death or kill their families or launch a jihad or fly a plane into Jerry Falwell's church. Indeed, Muslim imams throughout the Middle East routinely bash Christians and Jews in unbelievably ugly terms and I don't think a fitting response would be to blow up the Kaaba. But let a Christian wear a cross or bring a Bible to most Islamic countries and he should fear for his life. That's the story that the NY Times somehow neglected to mention in this piece. Islam needs to grow up and deal with diversity. Presently its best minds are on the cutting edge of the 9th century.

Was this really necessary?

The Orange County Register has a quote from the brother of the priest who jumped to his death yesterday:

In a statement read by his brother John, of Costa Mesa, the Widera family said Siegfried Widera "was not a threat to society as various government agencies have reported to the news media. With his death, he will now be judged by our almighty creator and not by manipulative public opinion or self-serving lawyers."

And one blogger felt compelled to reply:

Hey, John, my condolences, but you are wrong on the point of who was going to judge him -- it would be an impartial jury. Your statement seems a little self-serving on its own.

Heartless. Has anybody ever heard of grief? Of a brother's love? Of the fact that people in shock and grief and anger and helplessness over the self-destruction of a loved one aren't always going to line up with the "Hang 'em high!" crowd and will, surprise!, say that the one they loved had some good qualities and wasn't just a monster? Yeah, yeah, I know. "What about the grief of the victims? Huh? What about them? Huh? Huh?" Thanks for demonstrating so cleanly that a hell of a lot more people than the jury not only will judge him but have judged him. Indeed, they've even judged the grieving brother as "self-serving" because he had hopes for his brother and was distraught that those hopes were smashed to pieces. Some compassion.

I've had family members and friends self-destruct (or give a damn good college try) while I looked on helpless to do anything. They've caused terrible damage to themselves and the people around them. They've run afoul of the law and wound up in jail. Guess what? I still loved them and grieved for them, even while I was conscious that they were sinning. God, who takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, does the same, I fancy. And should their sin have been of the nature of Widera's sin--that is, the sin that present culture declares to be for all intents and purposes unredeemable and unforgivable--I would have gone on grieving for them, perhaps all the more since their chances of receiving any serious charity from the Righteous was nil. Should they be immune from the law? Obviously not. But to call a brother's grief-stricken words of rage and agony "self-serving" is just bloody heartless. The guy lost his brother. Can he have the space to grieve without the tender pastoral ministrations of the worlds Inspector Javerts?

When Judging is a Virtue

From this past weekend on Catholic Exchange.

When James "I'll Challenge Any Catholic with a Pulse to a Debate!" White Decides You are Kooks Who Don't Represent Catholic Faith Anymore

....perhaps that should be a clue that it's time to stop calling yourself Catholic Apologetics International. If you are jumping up and down, waving your arms and shouting, "Me! Me! Debate me!" and he still doesn't call on you, that might suggest that, along with the overwhelming majority of Catholics, James recognizes that debating you and winning would mean he gets the "I Debated Kooks Who Believe the Earth Doesn't Rotate and Think Holocaust-Denying Journals are Highly Prestigious and Credible" Award. Not something the Great Man wants on his resume, I would think.

If only rabbis could marry, this would never happen!

Amy's having an interesting discussion of "Self-Mortification and Religion"

One of the commenters writes something I've heard many times:

i think the reason the institutionalized church didn't come down harder on such self-mortification is because it essentially makes people docile toward authority (they're not worthy), and any docility toward authority works in the favor of a centralized hierarchy whose leaders aren't accountable to those below.

Chesterton heard it a lot too. Here's his reply (from St. Thomas Aquinas: The Dumb Ox):

I think it well to interpose this chapter, though its scope may seem more vague than the rest; because there is a sort of big blunder about St. Thomas and his creed, which is an obstacle for most modern people in even beginning to understand them. It arises roughly thus. St. Thomas, like other monks, and especially other saints, lived a life of renunciation and austerity; his fasts, for instance, being in marked contrast to the luxury in which he might have lived if he chose. This element stands high in his religion, as a manner of asserting the will against the power of nature, of thanking the Redeemer by partially sharing his sufferings, of making a man ready for anything as a missionary or martyr, and similar ideals. These happen to be rare in the modern industrial society of the West, outside his communion; and it is therefore assumed that they are the whole meaning of that communion. Because it is uncommon for an alderman to fast for forty days, or a politician to take a Trappist vow of silence, or a man about town to live a life of strict celibacy, the average outsider is convinced, not only that Catholicism is nothing except asceticism, but that asceticism is nothing except pessimism. He is so obliging as to explain to Catholics why they hold this heroic virtue in respect; and is ever ready to point out that the philosophy behind it is an Oriental hatred of anything connected with Nature, and a purely Schopenhauerian disgust with the Will to Live. I read in a "high-class" review of Miss Rebecca West's book on St.. Augustine, the astounding statement that the Catholic Church regards sex as having the nature of sin. How marriage can be a sacrament if sex is a sin, or why it is the Catholics who are in favour of birth and their foes who are in favour of birth-control, I will leave the critic to worry out for himself. My concern is not with that part of the argument; but with another.

The ordinary modern critic, seeing this ascetic ideal in an authoritative Church, and not seeing it in most other inhabitants of Brixton or Brighton, is apt to say, "This is the result of Authority; it would be better to have Religion without Authority." But in truth, a wider experience outside Brixton or Brighton would reveal the mistake. It is rare to find a fasting alderman or a Trappist politician, but it is still more rare to see nuns suspended in the air on hooks or spikes; it is unusual for a Catholic Evidence Guild orator in Hyde Park to begin his speech by gashing himself all over with knives; a stranger calling at an ordinary presbytery will seldom find the parish priest lying on the floor with a fire lighted on his chest and scorching him while he utters spiritual ejaculations. Yet all these things are done all over Asia, for instance, by voluntary enthusiasts acting solely on the great impulse of Religion; of Religion, in their case, not commonly imposed by any immediate Authority; and certainly not imposed by this particular Authority. In short, a real knowledge of mankind will tell anybody that Religion is a very terrible thing; that it is truly a raging fire, and that Authority is often quite as much needed to restrain it as to impose it. Asceticism, or the war with the appetites, is itself an appetite. It can never be eliminated from among the strange ambitions of Man. But it can be kept in some reasonable control; and it is indulged in much saner proportion under Catholic Authority than in Pagan or Puritan anarchy. Meanwhile, the whole of this ideal, though an essential part of Catholic idealism when it is understood, is in some ways entirely a side issue. It is not the primary principle of Catholic philosophy; it is only a particular deduction from Catholic ethics. And when we begin to talk about primary philosophy, we realise the full and flat contradiction between the monk fasting and the fakir hanging himself on hooks.

There's something very weird about a Christian simultaneously believing that his Lord fasted for 40 days in the wilderness and believing that self-mortification is a weird and alien thing imposed on Catholics by the Evil Church Hierarchy[TM]. Any stigma to beat a dogma, I guess.

More Evangelicals Mistaking the Bible for a Foreign Policy Manual

"If they do anything other than make Jerusalem the capital of Israel, they would be messing with the word and the power of God."

Must be nice to be so sure of just what God is saying.

Greeley Gets Shrill and Irrational

Point 1: Bush should have been able to instantly undo the screwed up military and intelligence apparatus bequeathed him by the Greatest Presidential Rapist of the 20th Century.

Point 2: Bush should have instantly produced bin Laden's head on a platter (instead of buried under Tora Bora, which is his current location).

Point 3: With that, international terrorism should have been done for.

Point 4: Awww. Just forget the first three ridiculous demands. I'm an old yellow dog Catholic labor Democrat and I loathe Republicans from patrician stock who went to Ivy League schools. That's what I'm really trying to say.

An Interesting New Catholic Evangelization Initiative

Just in case some of my readers are interested in doing more than complaining about the Church.

International Congress for the New Evangelisation and city mission in Vienna

From May 23rd to June 1st 2003 the first International Congress for the New Evangelisation takes place in Vienna, Austria. This is a completely new initiative of the Catholic Church. During these ten days church in Vienna will be on the streets and out in public to invite people to think about faith and church. It is an initiative of the four Cardinals of Vienna, Paris, Lisbon and Brussels. This international Congress moves from one capital to another in Europe.

For this event Kerygma Teams is partnering up with the Franciscan University of Steubenville. Before and during the mission a team of about 35 people will be spreading the message of Jesus Christ in Vienna.

Freedom - Night of Mercy is the English speaking event at the City Mission. It will take place in front of the United Nations buildings in Vienna.
_____

Kerygma Teams News C 2003 Kerygma Teams
Kerygma Teams is a ministry of Youth With A Mission, E-mail: info@kteams.org, Web: http://kteams.org

The interesting thing to me is that last line. The idea of YWAM doing evangelization for the Catholic Church is evidence of remarkable progress in the relationship between Catholics and other Christians.

Be afraid! Be very afraid!

At Heathrow Airport today, an individual later discovered to be a public school teacher was arrested trying to board a flight while in possession of a compass, a protractor, and a graphical calculator. Authorities believe he is a member of the notorious al-Gebra movement. He is being charged with carrying instruments of math instruction.

"Mahony is putting a severe strain on satirists."

Believing More in Caesar Than in Hell

Peter Isely, Milwaukee coordinator of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, said it was a shame Widera could not stand trial.

"This man unfortunately leaves behind him countless and countless lives destroyed and families ruined," said Isely. "If he had been brought to justice, it would have shown these victims and families that there was some consequence."

I find this quote chilling. A man with multiple mortal sins is dead by his own hand and all this person can do is say it was a shame he could not stand trial so there would be "consequences". I understand perfectly well that victims need to see justice, don't get me wrong. But there's something here that bothers me. Apparently, the guy doesn't believe there will be consequences for the priest's sin and suicide. He doesn't believe in the judgement of God, only the judgment of Caesar. And he seems to me to believe, finally, that the only really satisfactory "consequences" are the ones victims get to inflict on victimizers, not the consequences God inflicts. Worst of all, there's no hint of the hope of mercy for this wretched sinner, just disappointment that he wasn't made to suffer according to earthly specification alloyed with no fear at all of what terrors may have engulfed his soul at the instant of his death.

It is a fearful thing to have lost our belief in hell. It leaves us unable to pray that our worst enemies escape it. When purely secular justice is all that fills our field of vision, we can walk away from a tragedy like this, filled with disappointment that the quarry got away and we did not get our pound of flesh, not pleading with God that this miserable soul will, somehow, find salvation. May God have mercy on this priest and on all those most in need of His mercy.

Victor Lams is My Hero

Proof that I Don't Control All the Content at Catholic Exchange

I think Fr. Aguilar is all wet in charging Harry Potter with gnosticism, but we at CE like diversity of opinion.

And now I'm off to Lopez Island!

Tra la! See you Tuesday!

Mark Windsor wants to change the world!

You can help him do it by going here and joining in a discussion of *practical* things you can do to work for healing in the Church.

You find the darnedest things on the Internet

Message to All "Harry Potter is Satanic" folks:

It's really lookin' like you don't know what you're talking about:

When Bloomsbury Publishing announced on 15 January that the long awaited Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix would be released on June 21, they released a teaser excerpt on their web site to excite the fans.

"Dumbledore lowered his hands and surveyed Harry through his half-moon glasses. 'It is time,' he said, 'for me to tell you what I should have told you five years ago, Harry. Please sit down. I am going to tell you everything.'"

John Granger, author of The Hidden Key to Harry Potter (Zossima Press, 2003), simply nodded his head when he learned of the excerpt. It didn't come as a surprise to him; he'd predicted the 'Dumbledore Reveals All' conference last Spring. "The patterns and themes of the books as Rowling has organized them almost require that Harry learn of his destiny as Heir of Gryffindor in Book 5 and that Dumbledore departs from the scene," he explains matter-of-factly.

It's not that Granger isn't very excited about the new book's release. He and his seven children have been waiting impatiently alongside the rest of the reading world for the last two years in anticipation of it's arrival. What makes this Latin teacher and Orthodox Christian different from your common Potter maniac is his education in Classics and the Great Books, a background he has in common with Joanne Rowling, author of the Potter series.

Both Granger and Rowling, for example, have honors degrees from prestigious Universities in Classical Languages (Granger from the University of Chicago and Rowling from the University of Exeter). Both have a love of 19th Century English novels (Rowling claims Austen as her favorite before Dickens, Granger Dickens before Austen) and admire the works of the Inklings. Granger lives for the monthly C. S. Lewis Society meeting in Port Townsend and Rowling has said she cannot sit in the same room with one of Lewis' Narnia books without reading it.

Little wonder, then, that Granger understands things about the books most can't; their eyeglasses have the same prescription. Unlike most of her fans, he gets all the allusions to classical and medieval literature and philosophy. He understands the characters' names and the meaning of the Latin spells. Perhaps he is even able to see the patterns and themes well enough to see where the series is headed.

Professor Scott Moore of Baylor University's Philosophy Department and Great Books program thinks so. "One of the most interesting aspects of The Hidden Key is Granger's bold "prediction" of what will happen in the final three volumes of the Potter series. While predicting in print what an author will write is an endeavor practically destined for failure and ridicule, Granger offers some intriguing speculations, and I, for one, wouldn't be surprised if he's gotten quite a lot right."

But what has the fan web sites and reviewers agog after reading pre-publication copies and from excerpts that have appeared in 'CSL' the Bulletin of the NY C. S. Lewis Society and on the UK George MacDonald internet site is not Granger's predictions of what is coming in the series. It is his conclusion after analyzing the books within the English 'Greats' traditions that has tongues wagging.

Granger thinks Harry Potter is a Christian.

Richard Abanes, author of Harry Potter and the Bible: The Menace behind the Magick, couldn't disagree more. This full time Potter basher disagrees with Granger on most points and feels he has made "factual errors" in his interpretation. A host of literary authorities and Christians think it is Abanes that needs to go back to school.

"The Hidden Key to Harry Potter is a jazzy, gutsy exposition of the secret Christian symbolism that pervades J.K. Rowling's brilliant series' writes Stratford Caldecott, Malven College, Oxford, and head of the Chesterton Institute for Faith & Culture. " John Granger shows that Rowling, far from being an agent for the occult, belongs firmly in the Inklings tradition of C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien."

Prof. Dr John Warwick Montgomery, Christian apologist, author, and dean of Inkling literary criticism goes a step further. "John Granger's Hidden Key to Harry Potter is the only comprehensive attempt to analyze the genuinely Christian elements in J. K. Rowling's immensely impactive series. Granger will be thought by some to be overstating the case, but everyone else seems to be understating it. The issue, as Granger makes clear, is not the doctrinal precision of Rowling's personal beliefs, but the themes and corresponding values which her books convey. The HIDDEN KEY is 'must' reading for Potterites, whatever their religious orientation."

Frederica Mathewes-Green, author of Facing East and The Illumined Heart, says, "The Hidden Key to Harry Potter captures the reader by stages: its theses that Harry is a Christian hero and that Rowling is underestimated and misunderstood seem at first surprising, then engaging, and finally persuasive. I invite readers to go on a journey into Harry Potter's world and see things they never recognized before."

Nimbus 2003 (www.hp2003.org), the first International Harry Potter Conference, has invited Granger to be a featured speaker at their meeting in Orlando, FL, July 17-20. The Latin, Greek, and Logic teacher has become one of the premiere Harry Potter authorities worldwide. He is the Barnes & Noble University Harry Potter on-line professor.

Is it possible that all the book burning and Deuteronomy citing Christians have been wrong? Granger says 'yes' and 'no'.

"Certainly their intentions are on target', he says. "The occult is very real and dangerous - and invocational sorcery is forbidden by revealed scripture in all orthodox traditions, not just Christianity. Fortunately there is no invocation of spirits in Harry Potter; it's all incantation, which, of course, is a literary parallel to God's creative powers by His Word. The magic is a part of her critique of modern naturalism."

Granger believes the structure of each book as a hero's journey ending with Harry's figurative death and resurrection and the prevalence of Christological symbols (he explains the eight major ones in Hidden Key) make the Christian meaning of the series almost explicit. His exposition of the four major themes, the alchemical backdrop to each book and the series as a whole, and the iconographic use of characters as symbols of the soul's faculties is compelling reading. If Rowling is not a Christian writer, she sure has gone to a lot of trouble to pretend to be.

And how did everyone miss this but Mr. Granger? He thinks the repetition of stories in the media of her having been on welfare obscured her intelligence in most people's minds; the reaction of fundamentalists, too, made it difficult to think of them as Christian books. That she hasn't said she is writing Christian fiction hasn't helped either.

She has said, though, that if she discussed her faith publicly all her fans, "ages 10 to 60", would know what the story is about and how it will end. John Granger didn't need this confession of faith to figure it out, it seems, to the enlightenment and delight of parents and Potter fans everywhere.

The Hidden Key to Harry Potter (Zossima Press, 2003), paperback, 384 pages, is $18.95 and is available in bookstores, via Amazon.com, and directly from the publisher with free shipping (www.zossima.com).

Rowling loves the Chronicles of Narnia. Sounds like a satanic hag to me. Meanwhile the literary experts who know all about the evils of Harry Potter have never even heard of Phillip Pullman. Another triumph for Christian ability to strain at gnats and swallow camels.

Sheesh! "Abuse of Children! Abuse of Children!" Yadda yadda! Can't People Find Something Else to Talk About? Let's move on!

No, that's not Bp. McCormack trying to deflect your attention from his responsibility for Paul Shanley. That's the National Catholic Reporter fretting that a far more popular and culturally approved form of child abuse is getting too much attention from all you mono-browed prolifers with your one issue focus on abortion. We need to remember that pro-abort politicians can be terrific dancers and bon vivants, so we should just shut up, get over it, and talk about something else.

Still More Good News!

Academic ninnies offended by Cardinal's "pro-family thing".

It's a fine thing when the gospel pisses off the right people.

More good news!

A bishop refuses to be part of the Democratic Party at prayer.

Kevin Miller has some interesting thoughts on the relations between the "particular Church" (i.e. the diocese or eparchy) and the Universal Church

For those of you struggling with ecclesiology questions, this is a useful contribution.

Speaking of cultural phenoms

Two reviews of the Matrix.

Hidden Key to Harry Potter Reviewed in the Journal of Religion and Public Life

Hidden Key author John Granger sends along the following response to the review:

Dear Paul Bube,

Thank you for the thoughtful and generous review of The Hidden Key to Harry Potter in 'The Journal of Religion and Popular Culture'. It is certainly the best to have appeared thus far and I am grateful for the care with which you wrote it.

You asked several questions within the review which only I can answer. I risk being tacky by answering them as well as I can below. My comments follow your paragraphs and my asterisks ***.

[1] Granger argues that the "hidden key" to J. K. Rowling's Harry Potter books is the recognition that they are "profoundly Christian books - drawing on classical philosophy, medieval and patristic theology, and the esoteric symbolist tradition of East and West" (xiii). Granger contends that both negative and positive reactions to the Harry Potter novels fail to see their mythopoetic which draws upon medieval literary motifs, from alchemy to King Arthur, in order to "'baptize the imagination' and prepare our hearts and minds for the conscious pursuit of the greater life in Jesus Christ" (140). Stated simply, for Granger, Rowling should be understood in the context of the Inklings - the fellowship of mid-20th century Christian writers in Britain that included C. S. Lewis and J. R. R. Tolkien (xi).

***An excellent summary!

[2] Granger's interpretation relies heavily upon reading the magical objects, creatures, and fantastic names in Rowling's works through the lens of medieval symbolism and etymologies. Thus, the name "Dumbledore" means "white bumblebee" which in turn represents "pure soul" (92, 98); "Hermione" is derived from Hermes - patron god of alchemists (98); "Gryffyndor" means "Golden Griffin" - the Griffin symbolizes Christ (127); the philosopher's stone is the alchemist symbol of Christ, the by-product of a purified soul (136); and the phoenix represents "death, resurrection and eternal life" (130). Granger's entire sixteenth chapter argues - somewhat convolutedly - that the name "Harry Potter" represents "son of God," i.e., the average Christian. This derivation comes from reading "Harry" with a Cockney accent as "Heir-y" (252) and tying "Potter" to the biblical image of God as the potter who molds God's people (253-55)!

***Given the Dickensian cryptonyms JKR gives each of her characters, that Harry's name is not meaningful would be more of a stretch than even my strained efforts here. If you do not like the Potter allusion from scripture (and please do a web search for 'Potter's House' if you do not think this usage is a commonplace in Evangelical usage), you might prefer that 'Potter' is a patrynomic pun; Potter is both a reference to God the Father, shaper of human vessels, and to Harry's biological daddy (Potter is consonant with the Latin 'Pater', both daddy and 'Pater noster'). Given the predominance of the theme of Harry's coming to resemble his father (see especially the end of HP3) and coming into his inheritance, Heir-y Pater seems wonderfully clever to me rather than convoluted as well as being in keeping with JKR's traditionalism. See Leon Podles book on the relationship of biological and heavenly fathers in the human religious experience for more on this theme.

[3] Although sometimes guilty of "over reading" the symbols in Harry Potter, Granger makes a credible case that Rowling carries on the Inkling tradition of Tolkien and Lewis, particularly the latter, who, according to Granger, is one of Rowling's favorite authors (x). Like these authors, Rowling employs mythological motifs and symbols in creating tales profoundly concerned with personal virtue, the meaning of life and death, and the ultimate battle between good and evil. In short, Granger argues Rowling creates "detailed little worlds which serve a mythological function in a profane culture" (153, Granger's italics). Granger notes how ironic it is that some Christian fundamentalists believe that Rowling is presenting a literal picture of magic, and is thus supporting Satanism. He perceptively maintains that fundamentalists' literalism is a mirror of a modern, reductionistic scientism incapable of recognizing the reality to which symbols point (see 188). Stated bluntly, "if a Christian isn't a symbolist, he or she cannot be a Christian" (143).

***You are wonderful to have sifted this point out and highlighted it. Other than the argument I make in the epilogue about the absurdity of a reductionist interpretation of Rowling's books (to which you point hopefully in your conclusion!), to assert that JKR is a symbolist contra mundum and raise the level of discussion were my chief points in writing. [The italicized portion is a reference to Eliade, whom I had just cited in the text.]

[4] Hidden Key grew out of a series of four lectures and does not fully integrate their disparate aims. Part of Granger's argument attempts to explain the popularity of the Harry Potter books. A second part tries to demonstrate how the series continues the Inkling tradition. A third part provides a book-by-book analysis of the hidden Christian meanings in the Harry Potter novels. The last part indulges in the sort of Pottermania typically found at a Harry Potter fan web ite, predicting what will happen in the final three novels (of seven planned). Interestingly, in an appendix that surveys books about Harry Potter, Granger admits that his book is flawed as a result of maintaining the organization of his lectures (356). Given his admission, one wonders why he did not make appropriate revisions.

***Friends paid for the book being published and we hoped to get it out in time for Christmas sales, 2002 (which hope was in vain; the book did not come out until February of this year). This rush gave me less than five weeks to write out my lecture notes and not enough time to re-organize and re-write. God willing, there will be a second edition in which I can make the corrections you suggest (fans, in contrast, are most upset by my uniform misspelling of Gryffindor and, of course, love the predictions). Thank you for noting my awareness of the book's failing in this regard; no one else has been either this careful a reader or charitable enough to mention it.

[5] In spite of several genuine insights into the religious meaning of the Harry Potter series, Hidden Key is not an academic treatise. Too often, Granger borders on near adulation of Rowling's skills as a writer and a modern-day Inkling. Granger's prose is generally clear, but frequently falls into a chatty style that detracts from the serious issues at hand. In addition, there are a few irritating misspellings, e.g., "tete-e-tete" for tête-à-tête, and "book of Revelations" for "book of Revelation," along with an idiosyncratic listing of related readings in Appendices B and C that ignores the convention of alphabetizing by author's last name (and omits some authors mentioned within the text).

***It is intentionally not an academic treatise (see the epilogue) and excessively adulatory; it was written in response to Richard Abanes' pseudo scholastic and remarkably harsh reproof of JKR and the Potter books and in anticipation of the reductionist dissection of the books entirely out of sympathy with the texts (which are critiques of this perspective) that are now coming from the ivory tower. For the irritating misspellings and ignored conventions, I can only blush, apologize, and promise to correct them in a second edition should there be one.

[6] Even with its flaws, Granger's book is one of the first that recognizes that Rowling is writing about profound themes that are on a par with those found in Tolkien and Lewis. To that extent, Granger has raised the level of discussion about the Harry Potter books that - one hopes - will invite academic reflection on their religious significance.

***Raising the level of discussion was my main hope and I am delighted you think I reached that goal. Thank you again for the generous and insightful review!

Gratefully,

John Granger

www.zossima.com

Famine: Not Trendy This Year

Hate: (pronunciation: hayt). v. to not give an award; n. the state of not giving an award

To use "hate" in a sentence: "Not giving me an award is not a family value!"

St. Joan of Arc parish: Museum of Trendiness

Pretty Scarce again today

Gotta crank out another bible study and then tomorrow we're off to glorious Lopez Island for our annual Shea Memorial Day Campout! Whatever you're doing this weekend won't be as fun!

To those whom I am abandoning in mid-argument: hold that thought! Particularly on the "leaving the Church" question. No time right now, but I'll try to return to it in the future.

A reader writes:

There has been much talk about an impending "general indult" allowing priests worldwide to celebrate the Tridentine Mass. I've participated in said Masses about two dozen times in my life and find them to be profound and inspiring. My parish is a Novus Ordo parish, very faithful to the GIRM, and I find the liturgy to be beautiful as well. We have the Tridentine Mass on rare occassions with Bshps. Meeking or Perry; one of priests will also, on occassion, celebrate the N.O. in Latin. My query is thus: what are the prospects of the Tridentine being celebrated in the vernacular? This would get rid of the whiners who state that they can't follow the old liturgy. It might also allow a greater number of people to appreciate the beauty of the Tridentine. For me the wonder of the Tridentine can be found more in the actions of the priest rather than the Latin tongue.

I pretty much track with this. I have no problem with either liturgy, as long as they are celebrated well. A vernacular Tridentine rite would sit fine with me.

Yay! Another Homeschool Kid Beats the Pants Off Public School Kids!

As the father of homeschooled kids, allow me to mention that Jesus was homeschooled. :)

Weirdos from another planet

That's Calvin's summation of the critters he meets when he sails to Mars in a cardboard box with Hobbes. "We're normal Earthlings. They're weirdos from another planet!"

NY Times reporters have similar reactions to people who disagree with them.

What's especially fun about New York liberalism is its sheer provincial inability to imagine that anyone could possibly disagree with it. It's as insular as the most beetle-browed peasant in a village on a Russian steppe in the 12th century.

Lane Core Demonstrates the Truth of the Old Adage

"Scratch an Atheist--even one as sophisticated and intelligent as Christopher Hitchens--find a Fundamentalist"

A quick web search would have revealed that vernacular translations (such as these Old English texts) preceded, and were approved by, the Catholic Church centuries before the King James Version. What the Church got its knickers in a twist about was not vernacular translations but unauthorized translations, much like the Crown did when it published the "Authorized Version" and much like modern mainstream Protestants do when the version of Scripture is a bit of quackery like the JW New World Translation. There were, in fact, gobs of vernacular translations of Scripture all over Europe long before the Reformation because there was no particular urge to keep people away from the Bible. What changed things was the invention of the printing press, which made possible what the Internet has exponentially increased: the AIWAK (Any Idiot with a Keyboard) Syndrome and the possibility for quacks to do what they liked with the text of Scripture. Catholics overreacted and sinned, it's true (egregiously in the case of Wycliffe and others). But it's just not the case that the Church sought to keep Scripture from being read or heard. That is a Protestant creation myth. The reality (duh) is that the Medieval period is steeped in biblical thought, imagery and ideas because the Bible was The Text that dominated everybody's thinking. You don't get a culture completely soaked in Scriptural thought and imagery by keeping the Bible away from everybody. It's amazing that's not yet obvious, even to somebody as bright as Hitchens.

Don't Mess Wid Da Monk!

Speaking of Addiction to the Drug of Wrath

The Lidless Eyes at Novus Ordo Watch detect EEEEEvil at work in JPII's allowance of a Latin Mass:

Vatican Announces Traditional Mass in St. Mary Major for May 24. And what will the Mass be offered for? True Peace? Conversion of Sinners? End to Abortion? Conversion of Russia? No! Instead, in honor of John Paul II! By the way, why won't the Pope himself come? (It seems he won't.) We thought he was so traditional-Mass-friendly!

Like the apostle said, "Wrath is impatient and unkind; wrath is quick to suspect evil and to believe the worst; it is both arrogant and rude, and addicted to being so. Wrath insists on its own way; it is irritable and resentful; it rejoices at wrong, and loves to chew the cud of bitterness and hope that the worst is true of an enemy. Wrath suspects all bad things, believes all bad things, hopes all bad things, relishes all bad things. So bitterness, suspicion, wrath abide, these three; but the greatest of these is wrath."

"We're powerless! Nothing we do can change anything!"

Well, not exactly. Just got this from a reader who was one of the people who actually tried to *do* something about Abp. Flynn's announced award to a St. Joan of Arc ninny:

May 20, 2003

Dear Martin,

Thank you for your e-mail of May 20, 2003 regarding the Catholic Spirit article that listed Ms. Kathy Itzin as one of the recipients of this year's "Excellent Religious Educators Award." Yours was one of many letters and emails I received on this matter.

In fact, Ms. Itzin will not be among this year's recipients of this prestigious award. She is being notified of that decision.

As always, I appreciate your interest in matters relating to our faith and to this Archdiocese. Thank you for your prayers on my behalf and know that you are in my prayers as well.

With every good wish, I remain

Sincerely yours in Christ,

Most Reverend Harry J. Flynn, D.D.
Archbishop of Saint Paul and Minneapolis

What morals can we derive from this instructive vignette?

A) "The bishops" are not a Borglike monolith of imperturbable and Olympian bureaucrats unable to hear and understand the cries of the laity. It turns out that they are individuals and some of them (in fact, it would appear most of them) are not the bishop of Dallas. If that gives you a sense of relief, then your charity is still functional. If you are disappointed to hear that and vaguely and perversely hope that you can charge "the bishops" with all being Grahmann, then I suggest that the medicine of "righteous anger" (use only under the Divine Physician's supervision) is becoming the addictive drug of Wrath and that you are playing with a mortal sin.

B) It turns out that we're not as helpless as we tell ourselves we are. Indeed, it turns out that bishops, who are remarkably like human beings, do tend to respond to the application of pressure from lots of people and don't always hole up in some Tower of Detached Clericalism. That is, in fact, the central lesson to learn from the Truce of 1968, when the bishops, responding to popular pressure, began the long slow process of self-castration to make themselves into the nice guy ciphers who would not challenge our cries for Imperial Autonomy, who would only say warm and fuzzy things to abusive priests and their victims, and who would always take the path of least resistance in the face of serious defiance of the gospel. They are, by and large exactly what the American Church (that'd be us) wanted--though the American Church didn't quite foresee all the price tags that would come with that. But the central point is: the record from 1968 on suggests that the bishops comply with the consistent message their flock sends them.

C) Therefore, my suggestion is "Reward right action. Protest wrong action." Abp. Flynn should be rewarded with a lot of emails and phone calls praising him for doing the Right Thing. Those who took action to contact Abp. Flynn should also be praise and their example followed. Those who sat on their hands, did nothing, mewled again about the Pope not fixing it all, protested their impotence, etc. should learn from morals A and B above. The fact that the laity cannot depose bishops does not mean that our options are exhausted and there's nothing we can do. It's up to us to remake the culture of the Church. We will have good bishop when we get serious about wanting them.

Each Diocese is Fully Church

A bit of theological trivia for you. Just as Jesus is fully present in each host, so the Church is fully present in each diocese in union with a bishop. What this means, practically speaking, is that the full resources necessary to the healthy functioning of each diocese are present in that diocese. All the charisms are there, because a diocese is not a "fragment" of the Church anymore than a piece of the Host is a "fragment" of Christ. The whole Church is there, fully present in each local diocese. That's a point of revelation that may come in useful as we meditate on how we can contribute to the healing of the Church.

By the way, it's been a while, but the mention of charisms brings them to mind again: check out the work of the phenomenally good and important St. Catherine of Siena Institute, particularly their "Called and Gifted" workshop. If you are called, you are gifted and if you are gifted, you have been called. Now the task is to discern what your call and your gifts are.

A Grateful Nation Cries with One Voice

"Leave! We've got a corrupt crime syndicate government, aspiring network of Foaming Bronze Age Fanatics and vendetta system we need to erect and you Yankees are slowing us down!"

US Phasing in Bill of Rights Slowly in Iraq

Second Amendment still some time from implementation. First amendment subject to veto in case of free exercise of Bronze Age Fanaticism.

Bp. Grahmann Berates His Stone-Throwing Flock

Hey! I'm all for forgiveness and second chances. But there is the little fact that this guy was not only involved in a violation of chastity, but in a credible charge of *rape*. The issue, Bp. Grahmann, is your failure to do a serious background check on the guy. For some reason, that makes Frisco parishioners feel jerked around and held in contempt. Lectures like this only help to further degrade what trust they might still have been able to muster. A word to the not so wise: this reaction from a reader is pretty much what you can expect, Bp. Grahmann, for your fine effort in the DMN:

What could one possibly say that could be bad enough about this piece by Bishop Grahmann in the Dallas Morning News? The Bishop's decisions flowed from the purest evangelical motivations, but, sadly, are being obstructed by a mob of unconverted, judgmental, stone-lugging Laity. Not a WORD about the fact that the good people of Saint Francis Parish were already deeply suspicious of the Diocese because their previous pastor was unceremoniously yanked without even the chance to say good-bye, let alone an explanation, despite their repeated entreaties over months. Not a syllable about the fact that this was a situation in which a rape allegation had been raised, in court, only to be dismissed because it was brought too late.

Talk about not 'getting it.' There's a major credibility problem here, and the Bishop can write with all of the Olympean detachment of which he is capable... but at the end of the day, this is NOT the fault of the pitchfork-waving, stone-carrying Laity. The Catholic Faithful are not unwashed peasants. They are good people who love their families and their parish, and neither the diocese nor the Bishop have earned much trust in the last few decades. Charles Grahmann does not understand that; he did not understand it at the close of the Kos trial, when the jury, in a statement read by the Judge, rebuked him for unforthcoming testimony, and clearly, to judge from this condescending article, he doesn't understand it now.

As you know, I'm not a zero tolerance guy. I think zero tolerance policies are usually both stupid and contrary to the gospel. If it were shown that the priest was truly penitent (and that would include fessing up to rape if he had, in fact, done it and taking the consequences in civil law) and that he had exercised his ministry thereafter with real integrity, I'd be willing to have him as my parish priest with a 20 year record of penitent holiness. However, none of that side of things seems to have been really considered by Bp. Grahmann in the curiously lackadaisical approach to a background check that the Dallas Diocese fumbled around with. The rape charge was dropped, not because it was disproven, but because the statute of limitations passed. If he did it, then he's been lying (and, of course, we have no way of telling if he's lying or not.) Yes, I'm told by the bishop his record is great. That's what Bp. Grahmann said about Fr. Patrick Lynch too! So, as a parent in the Frisco parish, what would I have to think?: "They yanked our priest without explanation and stuck in a guy who might be a rapist and now they are saying 'Trust us or you are judgmental schmucks.' Well, call me a judgmental schmuck but I'm curiously ill at ease having my teenage daughter in a confessional with somebody who might be a rapist." And now, instead of saying, "I handled that pretty badly" the good bishop is chewing out fearful and angry parishioners for their failure to find his idiocy congenial. What does this man suppose people are made of? I hope the people of Frisco make life a living hell for Bp. Grahmann till their shouts knock the wax out of his ears.

Thank God for rigid, religiously motivated minorities

Though, truth to tell, I miss ol' Jack Kevorkian. He was the *creepiest* poster boy for euthanasia imaginable: a man who liked to photograph the eyes of people at the instant of death, a man who killed people who weren't sick and then removed their kidneys for display at press conferences and said, "First come, first serve!". Yessir, that's the face I want *everybody* to remember when they start saying euthanasia sounds like a great idea.

I'm getting correspondence suggesting I'm "anti-Israel" cuz I think Evangelicals are rather over-confident about "third Temples"

As I say, I think Jews are entitled to a homeland--not unlike Palestinians. Catholic tradition is rather friendly toward the idea that nations have a right to live someplace. That said, I am highly skeptical of Christian eschatological schemes which claim to read out of the Old or New Testaments some sort of prognostication about rebuilt Temples, red heifers and all the rest of it. It's as dangerous to imply that everything Israel does has the Divine Kiss of Approval Because they Are Chosen as it is to be uncritical of Palestinian suicide bombers. The notion that to criticize wacky Evangelical scenarios for Third Temples is tantamount to saying "Let the Jews be slaughtered!" is opaque to me. My tendency is to view the peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians as I view peace negotiations between Serbs and Croats: God is no less or more involved.

Oh, and by the way, in New Testament thought, the third temple is already here: it's the Body of Christ. That is why some of the Fathers speculated that the mark of anti-christ would be the promise to rebuild the temple. Dunno if the Fathers will turn out to be right or not. But from a Catholic perspective, the re-establishment of the Temple would be rather pointless since the Sacrifice which temple worship prefigured--the Paschal offering of Christ as priest and victim--makes the levitical sacrificial system obsolete. That's what the whole letter to the Hebrews is about. It's supremely weird to me to see Evangelicals--who routinely fret about Catholics trying to be justified by works--striving to re-establish precisely the system of works that Paul insists are powerless to save. It's even weirder to hear myself saying, as a Catholic to Bible-believin' Evangelicals, "Oh, if you would only read your Bibles!"

Oh, the times they are a changin'. ;)

"I'm.. a victim... too!"

This is not a good article to read the day you find out your employer can't afford to keep up your dental insurance (four kids, 80-100 teeth, lotsa cavities), you are scrambling to make ends meet and figure out how the hell you will afford 5 different necessities and pay the bills, and you have way the hell too much stuff to write for a rather meager salary cobbled together from a half time job and whatever work you can scrape together elsewhere. Meanwhile, crooked jerks like this are going to be millionaires. Oh well, at least it's a comfort to know my taxes go to pay Clinton's retirement.

When Evangelicals Mistake Scripture for a Manual on Foreign Policy

"We may have disagreements about who [the Messiah] is," Mr. van de Hoeven said, "but He is not coming back to a mosque but to a third temple."

He is? That's news to the Catholic eschatological tradition, as far as I know. I know of nothing in Catholic eschatology that speaks of "the Jews rebuilding their temple on Jerusalem's Temple Mount, replacing the Muslim Dome of the Rock."

Don't get me wrong. Jews have the right to a homeland, like any nation. But the theology at work here is waaaaaay more confident about what God thinks of the details of Israeli domestic policy than I am. Most people think that Catholic teaching is constantly trying to force people to think things they don't believe. Mainly, however, as here, it is much more in the business of urging people not to be so cocksure about things we don't really know. Why, you could start a war or something!

Catholic World News' Blog Wins the Prize!

....for the most maddening, useless and irritating technology. It's frustrating. They have terrific writers and really interesting tidbits. But the technology they use makes it impossible to link to the specific tidbit you want. All you can do is post the link to the main site, (like so) and then say, "Scroll down to 'Fierce Dignity'". The only other thing you can do is cut and paste the whole thing, (like so):

Fierce Dignity
I've got just what you want for that hostile, confused, Walkman-wearing fifteen-year-old boy in your family: an ethics textbook for Catholic high school students authored by Fr. William J. O'Malley, S.J., and all-too-appropriately titled Building Your Own Conscience. A verbatim excerpt (page 68):


> The following song, I Am What I Am," by Jerry Herman, from La Cage aux
> Folles is sung by an aging transvestite in a gay night club. The man he has
> lived with for twenty years has, on a drunken spree, fathered a son whom
> the two have raised as self-sacrificingly as any regular parents. Now the
> boy is engaged and wants to bring his intended and her straight-laced
> parents to meet his father -- but not his "mother." Before, the song has
> been sung in quick tempo mockery. Now it is sung slowly and with fierce
> dignity.
>
> I am what I am..., etc.
>
> The singer has come through a hell he did not himself choose and, at least
> according to his lights, has made the best of it. His situation is extreme
> and dramatic, and yet each of us is born into a family, a point in history,
> we did not choose. Each of us has been affected by others' choices and
> others' treatment of us. Can you face the fact that the singer is gay and
> see something that the song says to you?
>
> What are the things about yourself that simply can't be changed? What are
> the things that can be changed? How? When?

Should you have any lingering doubts about how this book will be used by those dedicated bachelors in your school's Religious Studies department, your mind can be put at rest. Building Your Own Conscience has the imprimatur (1991) from the Most Rev. Charles V. Grahmann, D.D., Bishop of Dallas.

There are no links to individual blog entries, no comments, no ways reach the bloggers, and perhaps most maddening of all, the blogs change for each day, so if I want my reference to their blog to make sense for more than 24 hours, I not only have to give you the link, I also have to specify which *day* you need to click on, as well as tell you to scroll down to such and such an entry.

Dom! Get useable software!

Workload.... Crushing... Must... Distract...Readers!

Tons of stuff to do in the next few days and not much time to blog. So, my solution is: get you guys to argue among yourselves! And happily I have just the topic. A few days ago, I posted this in response to people who are muttering in vaguely threatening tones and asked them to articulate clearly what, precisely, they were going to do in response to lousy bishops in the Church. The normally spot-on Greg Krehbiel disagreed with me and claims that there are times when it's okay to leave the Church:

I usually agree with Mark, but I don't buy this (what appears to be) absolutist position on staying in the church. The unity of the church is important, but it isn't the sine qua non of following Jesus. Sure, there are passages in Scripture about loving the church, but there are also passages about doing the right thing in opposition to the whole world, if necessary. No single moral command is absolute in this way. Sin confuses things, and we have to choose between divided and confusing loyalties. There are few bright-line tests in a world of shadows.

Imagine the contrary. Imagine that we had to stay in the church no matter how abusive and wicked the bishops and priests became. Imagine that we had to go to mass to hear heresy, or to participate in non-Christian worship. Imagine that we had to tithe to a church that used our money to fund its abusive policies. That's precisely what abusive and wicked leaders would want us to believe, and natural law (if nothing else) proves beyond any reasonable doubt that we can't behave that way. You can't put the fox in charge of the hen house.

So, since the "you must stay no matter what" position is clearly wrong, I conclude that there comes a point when we have to leave. I don't know what that point is, and I hope I never have to make that judgment. Things aren't bad in Laurel, Maryland. I have a very good pastor and a couple very good priests. (It used to be a few, but then the bishop transferred one of them. Grrrrr.) Even the music is getting better.

But I know it's not that way in many places. Useless, liberal bishops still dull the senses with the banal, then fill sleeping brains with modernist goo. And the other bishops (including the pope) sit by and do nothing. They should be publicly rebuking these wolves in frilly episcopal dresses, but they are asleep on their watch.

Oh, how Aslan will roar against these useless shepherds!

And yet, I hope that change is coming. It seems to me that the younger priests are more orthodox, and that the generation of those who tested the Lord in the wilderness are dying out.

I have hope for the church. God will not finally abandon her, and I see positive signs, so I agree with Mark's conclusion. "The only way out is through.

I think Greg is dead wrong for a very simple reason: I can see zero basis in either Scripture or Tradition for the idea that it is ever right to break communion with the Church. Are there excuses? Sure. Are there things that mitigate culpability such as lack of knowledge or lack of freedom? Granted. But I cannot see *anywhere* in Scripture or Tradition that gives an inch of room to the idea that it's okay to leave the Church. That does not, as my previous blog made clear, mean we are to just sit there and shut up while bad bishops (or bad laymen) corrupt the Church. But I simply do not see any option whatever for bugging out, hiving off and starting something else.

Discuss, class.

Fr. Rob Johansen Agrees that We Pretty Much Have the Shepherds We've Asked For

He also offers a concrete suggestion for helping to support a positive Catholic "point of light" in the culture: help support Leonardo DeFillipis' film on the life of Therese.

South Park pro-life?

I saw the strangest thing last night. I was flipping through the channels on TV, and came to South Park, that gross-out kid cartoon. I've seen it a couple of times, but don't watch it. However, it was showing Larry King interviewing Christopher Reeve. Christopher Reeve was claiming that stem cell research was helping him to be able to move his hands. Larry King asked him how it could help him. As a demonstration, Reeve picked up a fetus, broke it's neck apart, and sucked the fetus's blood, then he wiggled his hands to show an improvement. A short time later, two of the little foul-mouthed kids were walking past a crowd where Christopher Reeve was proclaiming that stem cells would help him walk. Again he took a fetus, broke its neck apart and sucked the blood. He then stood up to wild cheers. An announcer or reporter said something like "a lot of celebrities have spoken out against stem cell research, but this will cause a lot of second thoughts." One of the kids walking by says "but . ." and the other kid says something like "don't say it.... let it go."

I'm tempted to think there's a pro-lifer among the writers, but my general reaction is "nah, there's GOT to be another explanation."

Dunno. Don't have a TV and wouldn't watch the show if I did. My impression of the show is that it loves to blaspheme whatever's sacred and there is nothing more sacred to the manufacturers of TeeVee culture than the sacrament of abortion, so maybe the South Park guys were just "pushing the envelope" or something. Anybody see it?

Sick and Tired of Miniscule Profits?

Why not be Alanis Morrisette and generate whiny music about how hard your life is and how screwed up you are? People will lionize you as the Voice of a Generation. You'll get to tour and have brow-furrowed profiles of your poetic genius on E!

You will need to think about what sort of eating disorder or substance abuse you'll need to cultivate though.

The Atheist Superstition: Everything's an Accident!

(Except for the piece of meat behind my eyeballs. That's totally reliable--as long as it thinks atheistic thoughts.)

"If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms.” - JBS Haldane

Walk Like an Egyptian

....terrorist.

Federal Investigators Converge on John Cleese

Remember when Rush Limbaugh Personally Urged Tim McVeigh to Blow up the OKC Fed Building?

...at least, according to the Al Gore pick for the Greatest President of the 20th Century? Now, however, the guys in Hollywood who bankrolled Clinton assure us that their filmic uber-violence cannot possibly have any inspirational effects for the deranged.

St. Francis of Assisi Parish in Frisco begins to grasp...

...we get the pastors we are willing to settle for. I don't expect they will have their pastor long. It's an open question whether the rest of the American Church will figure this out. Our bishops were not grown hydroponically. They reflect what we wanted: nice guy ciphers who wouldn't trouble us about our sex lives or "impose their beliefs" on us. We'll get better when we get serious about wanting better. That will take more than angry messages in cyberspace.

The WaPo asks the musical question...

"Well? Where are they?"

Remember just two months ago when the Pope was an absolute idiot?

Amy Skewers the Da Vinci Code

Stupid lit for stupid people. For my take on what you should do when somebody suddenly announces that they've found the "Real Jesus" (O! The Awful Truth!) go here.

John Betts is Back on the Air

That silence you hear...

is the sound of money not falling in the collection plates of Dallas parishes.

You'd think that the diocese that gave us both Rudy Kos *and* the big bishop sex abuse confab would get a frickin' clue.

Some of you may remember St. Joan of Arc Parish

aka "Home of the Smug, Self-Satisfied, Suburban Uber-Flakes". Naturally, one of their teachers is getting an award from the bishop and Catholic Parents Online is not staying quiet about it.

Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis
226 Summit Avenue
Saint Paul, MN 55102
(651)291-4400

May 18, 2003

Dear Archbishop Flynn,

Just today, CPO has been informed of some alarming news. We tell you this before you unknowingly become part of a serious scandal which is scheduled to take place in 3 days!

In the most recent issue of the "Catholic Spirit", an article entitled,"Excellent Religious Educators Honored", reports that this Wednesday,May 21st, you will be presenting awards to 12 parish or school catechists and six parish or school catechetical leaders. See this:

Archbishop Flynn, one of the awards is set to go to Kathy Itzin, a religious education teacher from St. Joan of Arc parish, who has publicly described her experience of raising children with her same-sex partner as "very rewarding and fulfilling" - (see "CPCSM" link below).

Kathy Itzin is well known for her work with "Rainbow Families, which isone of the largest regional lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender parent organizations in the country" - see this:

She is also a former Board member of the "Catholic Pastoral Committee on Sexual Minorities". Ms. Itzin and her "partner" are highlighted on the "CPCSM" website as panelists at a Speakers' Series Event on "GLBT" Parents. Included in the "CPCSM" story is the following:

"Eleven years ago, they adopted Annie, an African-American child from Texas, when she was only five days old. Wanting to provide Annie with a dark-complexioned sibling and always having wanted a biological child of their own, they next decided that Kathy would bear a child and carefully chose a Black male donor from Panama..." for the complete story see this:

Archbishop Flynn, as our shepherd we pray that God will give you the wisdom and courage to stop this scandal - we ask that He hold you up with His grace as you proclaim the Truth... in season and out of season!

Sincerely in His love,
Colleen Perfect, President
Catholic Parents OnLine

You might want to consider letting Abp. Flynn know your opinion too. As I say, we have the pastoral care we've been willing to settle for.

Allegedly Catholic Students Shocked that Catholic College Hosts Catholic Speaker

"Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, 'This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?'” (John 6:60)

A reader writes below, concerning the "Bush made a mistake in good faith" argument (being put forward by those scrambling to justify the war in the absence of any WMDs

The good faith mistake hypothesis doesn't work either. To continue the housewife analogy...The housewife still commits murder, even if mistaken, when she is being informed by others that her information is faulty, that there is still time to call 911, and nonlethal options rreamin open.

Here, the Pope, for one, and most of the rest of the world was telling us that the there was no threat of imminent use and there was no evidence that such use would be "lasting grave and certain" as required by the Catechism. The UN weapons inspectors were on scene. We had a pefectly operating aerial and space based survellance sytems over Iraq which would have provided more than enough notice of imminent use. The US refused to invoke the international version of 911, because the vast majority of Security council members wouldn't have agreed that an "emergency" existed. The presence of weapons inspectors, sanctions, and US military buildup in the region, more agressive enforcement of "no-fly zones" are "nonlethal" alternatives which weren't fully exploited.

We can't now, after the fact, claim "oopsie, we bombed the crap out of a country and killed large numbers of its citizens" but we were acting in "good faith."

Next country to invoke the "good faith" doctrine--North Korea, which will launch a premptive nuclear strike againt the US and Japan on the "good faith" belief we are about to attack them.

The problem with the Lepanto Group and many (but not all) who supported the war, is that they did so by rejecting the teachings of the Pope. He was ridiculed as an out of touch old man, being advised by a bunch of anti American curial lackeys.

George Bush didn't need to follow the Catechism in deciding to go to war with Iraq. Catholics need to apply the Catechism to the war in evaluating whether it was just, according to Catholic principles. That requires at least imminent use of weapons of mass destruction resulting in damage witch is "lasting grave and certain." So far, the Pope is accurate in observing that there is no evidence that such conditions existed.

Discuss, class.

Another Lefty wets herself

They're just so fun when they have hysterics!

"There! That oughtta hold the little b******s!"

That remark, famously made by a children's radio show host who thought he was off the air, came to mind as I discovered my blog, Catholic Light and Extreme Catholic were apparently part of some curious experiment hosted by Raving Atheist to show that atheists could be full of sweetness and light too. I'm not sure what occasioned the experiment. Maybe he was stung by den Beste's remarks about his "evangelical" atheism and wanted to show that he is not the obnoxious guy his blog constantly reveals him to be. I dunno. Anyway, he urged atheists to go out and say a kind word to three theists of their choice. Lucky us, we got brief one line notes from somebody named Rumblefish on what swell blogs we had. I felt affirmed in my okayness. Then Rumblefish scurried back to the safety of the lab, promptly proclaiming his need for a shower. Okay. I'm sold. You like me! You really like me! Atheists clearly have Christians whupped in the unconditional love department. ;)

Check out my latest on Catholic Exchange

A reader responds to my question...

...how we get these eminently practical ideas for reforrm off the pages of a blog and into the hands of people who can do something about them:

Here is one way.

There are many seminaries in America. Some of these seminaries are also priories or monsteries. So there are hundreds or even thousands of postulants, novices, seminarians, active priests, and retired priests who live, work, or hang out at American seminaries.

Some of them must read your blog.

Remember the "visitation of seminaries" that the Vatican promised? Well someday soon that will happen. What if someone reading your blog resolved to tell one anecdote to the visitor? What if someone reading your blog could tell the visitor about the do-it-yourself Masses in Los Angeles, or the widespread general absolution in Seattle, or the St Sebastian's Angels story in Dallas?

The advantage of this method is that we _know_ the visitors will report back to the Vatican.

Continuing Joy in Dallas Over the Deft Ministry of Bp. Grahmann

Good Lord! Two "Toldjas" in One Day?

Read about it on my blog months ago:

From April 29 2002: "And, When People Keep Connecting the Dots
The final ploy of the "Defend Dissident Sexuality at All Costs" crowd will be "What's so bad about sex with children anyway? We need to revisit these irrational taboos, etc." Don't think it can happen? Reeeaaally?"

Read about it in the press today.

Show me culture that despises virginity and I'll show you culture that despises children.

Apropos "If Something Isn't Done about Lousy Bishops, I'll..."

a reader sends this along:

From St. Francis de Sales, "The Love of God" - a moving piece on anger

Self-love often deceives us and leads us away, gratifying its own passions under the name of zeal. Zeal has once made use of anger, and now anger in its turn uses the name of zeal, in order to keep its shameful disorder covered under this. And mark that I say it makes use of the name of zeal; for it can make no use of zeal itself, since it is the property of all virtues, but especially of Charity, whereof zeal is a dependence, to be so good that none can abuse them.

A notorious sinner, once went and threw himself at the feet of a good and worthy priest, protesting with much submission, that he came to find a cure for his disease, that is, to receive the holy absolution of his faults. A certain monk called Demophilus, considering that, in his opinion, this poor penitent came too nigh the holy altar, fell into so violent a fit of anger, that throwing himself upon him, he kicked and pushed him thence with his feet, railing at the good priest in an outrageous sort, who according to his duty had mildly received this poor penitent. And then running up to the altar he took off the holy things which were there, and carried them away, lest, as he would have men think, the place should have been profaned by the sinner's approach.

Now having finished this fair exploit of zeal, he stayed not yet there, but made a great rejoicing about the matter to the great St. Denis the Areopagite in a letter which he wrote about it, to which he received an excellent answer, worthy of the apostolical spirit wherewith that great disciple of St. Paul was animated. For he made him clearly see that his zeal had been at once indiscreet, imprudent and impudent; because though the zeal for the honour due unto holy things were good and laudable, yet was it practised against all reason, without any consideration or judgment, since he had employed kicks, outrages, railing and reproaches, in a place, under circumstances, and against persons, whom and which he ought to have honoured, loved and respected; so that the zeal could not be good, being practised with such great disorder.

But in this same answer, that great saint recounts another admirable example of a great zeal, proceeding from a very good soul, which was however spoilt and vitiated by the excess of anger which it had stirred up.

A pagan had led astray and made return to idolatry a Christian of Candia, recently converted to the faith. Carpus, a man eminent for purity and sanctity of life, who, as is very probable, was the bishop of Candia, conceived such an anger at it as he had never before entertained, and let himself be so far carried away with this passion, that having risen at midnight to pray according to his custom, he concluded with himself that it was not reasonable that the wicked men should any longer live, with great indignation beseeching the divine justice to strike down at once with his thunderbolts these two sinners together, the pagan seducer and the Christian seduced. But hear, Theotimus, how God corrected the bitterness of the passion which carried the poor Carpus beyond himself. First he made him, as another St. Stephen, see the heavens open, and our Saviour Jesus Christ seated upon a great throne, surrounded with a multitude of angels, who attended him in human form; then he saw below, the earth gaping as a horrid and vast gulf; and the two erring ones, to whom he had wished so much evil, he saw upon the very brink of this precipice, trembling and well-nigh paralysed with fear, as being about to fall down it; on the one side they were drawn by a multitude of serpents, which rising out of the gulf, wrapped themselves about their legs, and with their tails gradually moved and provoked them to their fall; on the other side, certain men pushed and beat them to make them tumble in, so that they seemed on the point of being swallowed up in this abyss. Now consider, my Theotimus, the violence of the passion of Carpus: for as he himself afterwards recounted to St. Denis, he never thought of contemplating our Saviour and the angels, who showed themselves in the heavens, such pleasure did he take in seeing below them the frightful distress of those two miserable wretches. His only trouble was that they were so long perishing, and thereupon he endeavoured himself to precipitate them down; and seeing he could not do it quite at once he was angry, and began to curse them, until at length, lifting up his eyes to heaven, he saw the sweet and most pitiful Saviour, who, moved by an extreme pity and compassion at what was happening, arising from his throne and descending to the place where the two miserable beings were, stretched out to them his helping hand, while the angels also, some on one side some on another, caught hold of them to hinder them from falling into that dreadful gulf ; and, at last the amiable and mild Jesus, turning himself to the wrathful Carpus: - Nay, Carpus, said he, henceforth wreak your anger on me: for I am ready to suffer once more to save men and it would be a joy to me to do so, if it could be without sin on man's part: at any rate, think which would be the better for thee, to be in that gulf with the serpents, or to live with angels who are such great friends of men. Theotimus, the holy man Carpus had just reason to enter into zeal concerning these two men, and his zeal had but rightly raised his anger against them, but anger being once moved left reason and zeal behind, transgressing all the terms and limits of holy love and consesequently of zeal, which is its fervour: anger had changed the hatred of sin into the hatred of the sinner, and most sweet charity into an outrageous cruelty.

Thus there are persons who think one cannot be very zealous unless one is very angry, thinking that unless they spoil all they can manage nothing, whereas on the contrary true zeal most rarely makes use of anger; for as we never apply the lancet to the sick save when it cannot possibly be helped, so holy zeal does not employ anger save in extreme necessities.

NRO Offers One Possible Answer to the "Well? Where are They?" Question

I'm willing to give this a bit of credence. Dictators typically cut themselves off from reality because they surround themselves with people who never tell them troubling things.

Still, there was that "If you could only see what crosses my desk every day" remark from the White House guy. And I tend to distrust "king's evil ministers, not the king" explanations.

End Times Watch: I (partly) agree with Greeley

One of the things I had a difficult time impressing on Kiwis was the degree to which 9/11 was *the* watershed moment in American history since Vietnam. Euros (and Kiwis, despite their geographic location, are Euros), just don't get how traumatizing that event was for a nation that has not been attacked on its own soil since 1814.

If something isn't done about these lousy bishops, I'll....

You'll what? It's a question worth asking yourself. You'll turn your back on Jesus Christ in the Eucharist? You may, but you'll be sinning to do it. You'll withhold your tithe? Fine. Just don't withhold it from the alien, the orphan, and the widow. You'll get really really really angry? Okay. And after that, what?

One of the realities of life, it seems to me, is that God puts us in seemingly impossible situations ("Here, have the Mosaic Law. Be sure you obey it all. Oh, and by the way, it's impossible to obey it all. Deal with that for a few centuries.") so that we can somehow muddle through to some sort of paradigm shift, as Paul did when he realized the Law had been given to show we couldn't keep it and to point us to Christ. I have no idea what the paradigm shift will be with the Situation, but I do know in my bones that we can neither simply tolerate lousy bishops nor just walk away from the Church, which is necessarily hierarchical. The only way out is through.

Not terribly comforting, but there you are. Personally, I think an attentive reading of the prophets is in order. They too were stuck in a world of corrupt hierarchy. They neither applied for citizenship in Assyria, nor just sat there and said nothing. They raged, but they insisted on raging in *hope* and they never concluded that the corruption of the Davidic monarchy spelled the negation of the promises to David and his son, the Messiah. Something similar is required of us in this hour, I think.

A reader writes:

Mark, with regard to the question about the wholesale canning of bishops, I think there is a common-sense way of proceeding.

First, part of the problem certainly seems to be consultation -- the current system of promoting bishops is incestuous and perpetuates the problem. I would like to see a group of people quietly identified who could serve as consultants on episcopal promotions. People like Fr Joseph Fessio, Helen Hull Hitchcock, Fr Jerry Pokorsky, Dr Germain Grisez, Mother Assumpta Long, Sister Bernadette Counihan, Fr Kenneth Baker, Dr Scott Hahn, and others, people who have been around the block a few times and whose orthodox credentials are established. These folks know good priests.

Then, one important consideration has to be, Where does one start?? There's no need to set up the straw man of picturing the defenestration of the whole USCCB. As we are all aware, we have a number of spectacularly compromised bishops currently occupying sees. Start with them. A nice sit-down; "Your Excellency, remember that instruction you sent out about how the conditions for Perpetual Exposition of the Eucharist do not exist anywhere in your diocese? And the $100,000.00 settlement for sexual harassment paid out to the guy who was your public info officer? Well..." And the next chat, "Your Excellency, you know all that nasty publicity about how you contributed to the problem in Boston as personnel director? And helped keep Shanley in circulation? And six months AFTER these scandals broke into the public forum you chose to appoint as pastor a guy who had molested a teenager and had a police record? And then pointed out that the teenager was eighteen, so the assignment was okay since the diocesan policy on sexual abuse of minors wasn't violated?? Well..." "Hey, your Excellency, remember that AIDS info program that has eighth graders in your schools learning about anal sex and bestiality in Catholic school classrooms? And how unreceptive you were to the parental complaints...?" "You know, it's garnered a great deal of attention that your Excellency came down very hard on a priest who blew the whistle on active homosexuality in the ranks after being assigned to work with three homosexual pastors..." "Hey, your Eminence, I understand your Archdiocese still has a float in the Gay Pride Parade! " "Your Excellency, explain to me how it can be that a priest who grabbed at a man's genitals in the course of praying for the healing of a back ache is still rector of your cathedral?" "Um, do you remember when your Excellency said that you hadn't called the cops on a recidivist pedophile because you thought priests weren't civilly or criminally liable for assaulting kids...?"

One could have a bunch of those chats, as you know. And say, "I really require your resignation of your See for the good of the Church." Those chats, coupled with the rather large number of foreseeable retirements coming up soon --a record number, I think -- would account for a large number of vacant sees. A start. Do you really think that, faced with a chat like that based on his record, most of those guys could resist? And for those that did, it is time to use the Authority.

Then what you've got is a set of orthodox new bishops installed in a good number of sees all over the country. Be sure that they all know each other, encourage them to support each other, see that you offer them all the support they need. They will then help you identify candidates for further sees when God in His wisdom summons their occupants Home for consultations -- these new guys already know a bunch of fine priests, plus you'll still have the services of your consultants. And they'll be a breath of fresh air in the USCCB (until there are enough of them to shut it down for good!!).

I just don't see why this is an insuperable challenge.

I forget who it was who pointed out that the Episcopate in our country is a "corrupt institution," defined as an institution incapable of self-reform. As things stand now, we have a largely incestuous system of promotion from within which is perpetuating the problem. For details about how it works, consult Fr Thomas Reese's book, "Archbishop." Clearly, the decision has been made that everyone is going to sit tight, hold his breath and wait until the storm passes. Meanwhile, the appointments of bishops slouch on as before (by the way, remember that Cardinal Law is still on the Congregation for Bishops, the body that recommends episcopal appointments to the Pope!). I cannot see why anyone would suggest that it is a good thing that these assignments continue being made as before, that this system doesn't need a few volts-- it is astonishing that, quite apart from the sexual abuse scandal, there has never to my knowledge been so much as a hint -- a HINT -- from our hierarchy that we're living in anything but a great age of Renewal.

What to do with the "canned bishops" afterwards? I have said this before: it is more important to be a Christian than a bishop. If one is ordained, there will always be a place in the Church to which one can repair and, by dint of patient, quiet, faithful work, rebuild the shattered pieces of one's ministry and reputation. Not to realize this is evidence of breathtaking personal impoverishment. But most of them won't step down in disgrace; they'll simply step down.

And, Mark, as far as the danger of schism goes: there are millions of Catholics in this country fed spiritual poison on a regular basis through a variety of our institutions who think they're getting "Catholicism." As a Priest, I have had couples come to me for a blessing because they were about to go to a fertility clinic for procedures which are immoral and forbidden; I've counseled Catholic women who had just realized (from the media) that sterilization is forbidden ("But, Father, it was a Catholic hospital!"), dealt with several couples who'd been counseled by priests to abort a 'defective fetus,' had people come to me to see about regularizing their marriages whom I recognized from the communion line. In the diocese next to mine, whose seminary we share, there is a layman taking the seminary and diocese to court (a "consumer fraud" case) because he plopped down good money for a course in Catholic Theology and ended up, over his objections, being taught methods in Moral Theology which were EXPLICITLY rejected by John Paul II in Veritatis Splendor in 1992 -- TEN YEARS AGO. Two weeks ago a bright high school kid in my parish was on the phone looking for research info on monasticism. In the course of it I mentioned that mediaeval monks lived in dormitories and he said, "Oh, yeah, the Brother told us, with the old monks and young ones mixed together because back then the Church had a hangup about homosexuality." Yeah. Way back then. Needless to say, he is a Catholic school student.

If these steps were taken openly and honestly and a rupture were provoked, at least people could find out that something is terribly wrong and, if they wish, choose the new religion. But I think the danger of schism would be very much minimized if it were clear why this was being done. The danger I see in the avoidance of schism at all costs is that genuine Catholicism is being eroded by what is really institutionalism: we have secularized "catholic" colleges owned by a handful of incognito nuns, secularized "catholic" hospitals dispensing immoral and degrading contraceptive services, secularized "catholic" universities through which one can pass without once taking a course in Catholic Theology...

"Yeah, we had a Catholic Theology course," the young man said to me. "Have you ever heard of Matthew Fox?" True quote.

Next question: how do we get these eminently practical ideas off the pages of a blog and into the hands of people who can do something about them? It's one thing for the mice to say, "One of us should put a bell on the cat's collar so we hear him coming." It's another thing to actually make the plan a reality. So: c'mon people. We've got some intelligent, articulate, motivated and even ecclesially connected readers here. Use this space to discuss how these ideas might actually be implemented in real life, not just talked about in cyber-space.

Another inspiring story of Bp. Grahmann's Pastoral Greatness

Different kinds of intelligence

It's a commonplace that actors are dumb bunnies when they start talking about politics. However, I'm fascinated to note that actors (and indeed, artists in general) are often unable to talk very brilliantly even about their own work. I was reminded of this last night as I watched all the fun "How We Made This Movie" stuff on the DVD of "Forrest Gump" that I got from the library. I think "Forrest Gump" is an absolutely brilliant piece of work and I think Tom Hanks is one of the greatest actors in the world. But when Hanks *talks* about Forrest Gump he's remarkably pedestrian in his insights. He doesn't know how to articulate the sheer genius of what he does. Then again, people who *can* articulate insightfully about what he does (and what the film does) are typically people who could never have played Forrest Gump in a million years. I dunno, maybe those who can't teach, do. I think Plato talks somewhere about this odd disconnect between what the artist does and what the artist is able to understand of what he does. Can anybody remember where?

When Miracles Happen to Small Groups...

...such as the apostles on Easter, congenital skeptics complain that they never happen in front of large crowds. When they happen in front of large crowds, congenital skeptics say it was mass hallucination. Moral: congenital skeptics have a dogma against miracles that is bulletproof against any sort of human evidence. Skeptics are fond of saying that people of faith have some weird psychologically disordered "need to believe". Someone should do a study of congenital skeptics to find out the roots of their far more mysterious and disordered need to disbelieve the testimony of 70,000 eyewitnesses. A disturbing psychological phenomenon suggesting the patient has difficulty forming normal relationships of trust. Therapy may help.

Any one who likes... may call my belief in God merely mystical; the phrase is not worth fighting about. But my belief that miracles have happened in human history is not a mystical belief at all; I believe in them upon human evidences as I do in the discovery of America. Upon this point there is a simple logical fact that only requires to be stated and cleared up. Somehow or other an extraordinary idea has arisen that the disbelievers in miracles consider them coldly and fairly, while believers in miracles accept them only in connection with some dogma. The fact is quite the other way. The believers in miracles accept them (rightly or wrongly) because they have evidence for them. The disbelievers in miracles deny them (rightly or wrongly) because they have a doctrine against them. The open, obvious, democratic thing is to believe an old apple-woman when she bears testimony to a miracle, just as you believe an old apple-woman when she bears testimony to a murder. The plain, popular course is to trust the peasant's word about the ghost exactly as far as you trust the peasant's word about the landlord. Being a peasant he will probably have a great deal of healthy agnosticism about both. Still you could fill the British Museum with evidence uttered by the peasant, and given in favour of the ghost. If it comes to human testimony there is a choking cataract of human testimony in favour of the supernatural. If you reject it, you can only mean one of two things. You reject the peasant's story about the ghost either because the man is a peasant or because the story is a ghost story. That is, you either deny the main principle of democracy, or you affirm the main principle of materialism -- the abstract impossibility of miracle. You have a perfect right to do so; but in that case you are the dogmatist. It is we Christians who accept all actual evidence -- it is you rationalists who refuse actual evidence being constrained to do so by your creed. But I am not constrained by any creed in the matter, and looking impartially into certain miracles of mediaeval and modern times, I have come to the conclusion that they occurred. All argument against these plain facts is always argument in a circle. If I say, "Mediaeval documents attest certain miracles as much as they attest certain battles," they answer, "But mediaevals were superstitious"; if I want to know in what they were superstitious, the only ultimate answer is that they believed in the miracles. If I say "a peasant saw a ghost," I am told, "But peasants are so credulous." If I ask, "Why credulous?" the only answer is -- that they see ghosts. Iceland is impossible because only stupid sailors have seen it; and the sailors are only stupid because they say they have seen Iceland. - G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy

Jeremy Lott Reviewing Yet Another Form of Fiction that Evangelicals Don't Seem to Be Able to Write

It takes a Catholic to give you flying Bible pages, sexually charged juridical parables, and creative swearing along with devout Christian faith.

Bp. Grahmann's Oddly Selective Vigilance

Father a kid by a nun and be accused of rape? No problem! Background checks are optional! Criticize Grahmann's scandalous leadership: under the microscope you go!

Inside the Vatican on the Latin Indult rumors

What will separate serious Traditionalists from the Reaction Lidless Eye crowd will be the reaction to this should it come. Serious Traditionalists will respond with some charity, class and grace. Lidless Eyes will scream that it's all a ruse perpetrated by the evil modernist Pope for some nefarious purpose or other, etc. Like I say, some people *like* being angry. Anger has it's dark pleasures. Like all habitual sin, it is, as Frederick Buechner once said, a craving for salt in a man dying of thirst.

Toldja

Read about it on my blog months ago.

Read about it in the BBC today

Cardinal Maida Does the Right Thing. Aging Dissident Geezer Whines

Refreshing!

A reader writes concerning the alleged historical precedent for Popes kicking out bushels of bad bishops...

I'm not totally up on my history but I also believe there is little precedent for it. Here is a link for the Cath Encyc art on Theodosius, the Emperor who helped Greg Nazianzen wrap up Arian mess.

See especially this note:

"As soon as he came to Constantinople Theodosius began expelling the Arians, who had hitherto been in possession. The Aryan bishop, Demophilus, left the city (Socr., V, 7; Soz., VII, 5), St. Gregory of Nazianzus undertook the administration of the diocese. In January, 381, the prefect had orders to close all Arian chapels in the city and to expel those who served them. The same severe measures were ordered throughout Theodosius's dominion, not only against Arians, but also in the case of Manichaeans and all other heretics. However Sozomen says that the emperor 'made severe punishment by his laws, but did not carry them out, for he did not wish to punish, but only to frighten his subjects, that they might think as he did about Divine things, And he praised those who were converted of their own accord' (H. E., VII, 12)."

This is just on the fly - lots more stuff on the popes of the day, Nazianzen, Athanasius, etc., that I'm not even referencing or remembering. But, really, if the pope (then) didn't just yank bishes out of their sees over **doctrinal error**, why is he (today) going to yank them out over disciplinary matters?

This will be corrected as bishes are replaced, but I absolutely believe that the Holy Father is permitting the American Church to suffer a difficult time (and, from the long view of history, I have a hard time calling it more than that, though of course individuals have suffered terribly). I think if he looks at the Church in, say, East Timor, Somalia, the Sudan, China, etc., and then in the US, he's not going to feel very motivated to use the extreme of his administrative power to correct a problem in a whiny rich country that was of our own making. IMVHO.

Just Got This from a Friend

We just saw "Matrix Reloaded" at Microsoft, as a "morale event". It is pretty fun -- more of the same as the original (which I only saw for the first time on Sunday). More fights, more bullets, more swirling black leather trench coats.

Differences from the first: no icky gross-out scenes (no more pale pod people with wires sticking out of them. Ewww.). Also waaaay more sex: I really don't think I'll bring my bigger kids. It's rated R for some pretty extended sex scenes with cheesy pulsing musical accompaniment.

The best parts: There's a terrific 20-minute car chase scene with cars, machine guns, explosions, 18-wheelers, more explosions, more bullets, motorcycles, on the LA freeway. There's also a great 5-minute kung fu scene with Keanu vs. multiple Smiths. There's a very oily French villian who is waaaay over the top in stereotyping American's ideas of French to the point of absurdity. Are the French now eclipsing Germans and Brits as the preferred movie villains? (Oh -- and if anyone finds out his cheesecake recipe, please let me know.) Plus the delicious pleasure of hearing Agent Smith roll "Missterr Annnnderrsonn" around in his mouth like a prize port.

The disappointments: Trinity looks gaunt -- bulimic even. She was fine in the first one, but she didn't need to diet. Now I don't see how Keanu avoids scratching himself on her cheek ridges. And the plot kind of loses it at the end -- the last 15 minutes are pretty cheesy, to be honest. Either really predictable, or suprising in a "they can't be serious!" way. And the final scene is just jaw-droppingly "Huh? That's it???" They also shouldn't have pushed the uber-deep plot-within-the-plot twists so far -- they tried for profound, but almost turned into a parody. Also, they should know better than to keep the Morpheus guy from making "Let's boogie!" speeches to a crowd of ravers -- he's so much better when he plays it cool with shades up close.

But if you liked the first one, you'll like this. The look is great, the action is wonderful, the one-liners are fun. It's a fun couple hours on the big screen -- good summer movie fare.

"I don't see how Keanu avoids scratching himself on her cheek ridges." What's this guy doing working for Microsoft? He could be writing film reviews for the Seattle Times!

Some years ago...

First Things published a piece (later expanded into a book) called How the News Makes us Dumb. The thesis is simply that lots of information does not impart wisdom, and that the great vacuum cleaner maw of the news requires something--anything--so that media outlets will have something to chatter about and keep at bay the test pattern that would otherwise fill the screen . He's right, of course. Is 99% of what was printed in the July 18, 1977 issue of the New York Times of any importance whatsoever or remembered by anyone today? Nah. I think of that when I read headlines like this. Does anybody in the world really need to know who this woman is? Reading this sort of piece just makes you a more stupid, nosy and salacious person. It is total junk info.

The Nightingale Alliance Seems to be Doing Good Work

Chewing things over with Rod

Rod replies to my comments on his piece:

I think, Mark, you're parsing things too finely. In the context of this article, it seems to me that my meaning of "the Church" as a stand-in for the hierarchy of the Church is clear. Calling "the Times" arrogant is not meant to judge the character of everyone who is part of the Times (I have a friend who is a very fine reporter there), only its management -- which is what the entire column was about, leadership.

I know we're not going to agree on this, but it *is* arrogant to sit in faraway Rome, to have the power to do something about the terrible bishop situation here in Dallas (and there in [you name it], and to not lift a finger. You know, as if it were none of their business, and the problems will sort themselves out in time. Read Barbara Tuchman's "The March of Folly" (from which I quoted in today's column) to see where that kind of arrogant abstraction will get you.

We've been around on this before, of course. As you know, there are bishops I'd like to see go (your own, among them). But for various reasons, I'm open, as many of my readers are not, to thinking that what I'd prefer may not be the best idea. I continue to disbelieve the Holy Father is "doing nothing" and believe instead that the something he is doing (forcing the American Church to endure the cross its made for itself) is simply not to our taste (including mine, in many cases).

However, in addition to that, other questions arise. One thing that gives me pause is the repeated assurances I hear from folks like Patrick Sweeney that "to intervene" [by which he means "to can a bunch of bishops" which is the only sort of intervention many of my readers countenance] is "consistent with the history of the Church". Perhaps there are some historians of the Church out there who can tell me how accurate this really is.

If, as we are led to believe "2/3s" of the American bishops have done things like appoint men like Fr. Child out of Wedlock to some parish (or, as we know, done much much worse things) then my immediate question is "where is history consistent with the Pope removing and replacing 2/3 of the episopacy of a nation?" The expectation that this will be done and that this is the historic norm for the papacy seems to me to be wildly improbable, but I have no idea of the historical reality, so I could be all wet. Any historians out there?

The New York Daily News sez...

The Grey Lady refused to cover the Holocaust while it was happening. That would be the "paper of record" that wrings its hands about Pius XII's alleged "silence." And, of course, this is the paper that has never returned Walter Duranty's Pulitzer. So the Blair Debacle is only "a", not "the", low point in its 152 year history. Although the Blair debacle is a hiccup compared the Catholic scandals, printing good solid lies about the death of millions and helping to ensure the West's acquiescence to those deaths is, in my estimation, comparable in gravity to the moral failure of some American bishops.

The American Prospect Drums its Fingers and Says....

"Well? Where are they?"

I note as well that the rationale for the war seems to shifting (once again) to "Operation Iraqi Freedom". Memo to those with TV-induced attention spans: we did not fight this war to liberate Iraq, just as we are not fighting other wars with other easily defeatable despotisms (Saudi Arabia anyone?) because we give a rip about suffering foreigners. We fought because (we were told) there were WMDs by the bushel in Iraq. So. I'm waiting. Where are they? I'm not as ready as the author of this piece to call Bush a liar. But I'm rather put off by the ease with which apologists for the war shift rationales for the war. If one doesn't work, there's always another one. As a Catholic, used to hearing an ever-changing kaleidoscope of claims that the Catholic Church is evil because it's unbiblical/too biblical/too masculine/too feminine/always changing/never changing/too authoritarian/not authoritarian enough/too rationalist/too mystical etc. ad nauseam, I've grown to have a quick and congenital suspicion of people who appear to have made up their minds about something in advance of and in the teeth of whatever evidence is out there. So my suspicions are only piqued when last month I was assured there was 3 WMDs in every garage and mosque in Iraq, and now there aren't any, but that's okay because we were really fighting to liberate Iraq. That looks very much like an attempt to cope with a growing body of evidence that we fought an unjust aggressive war against a country that did not pose an imminent threat to us. Happily, in this case, the ruler of that country was an evil monster that it's hard to feel bad about destroying. But it sets rather troubling precedents that one can hardly blame other defenseless countries for fretting about. Oh, I know. We're Americans and therefore, by definition, good. But still there's that troubling passage in Romans 3:23 which allied with our overwhelming technological capacity to do whatever the hell we feel like does give me, as a Christian, some pause.

The Romans 3:23 Effect

The biblical teaching that "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" is one of those teaching that does not affirm us in our okayness very much. It's something that utopians like to forget in their deathless faith in the perfectibility of man. One excellent way to forget it is to focus with righteous rectitude on the evils of others while focusing on the nobility of oneself. The NY Times, parent of the Boston Globe, scourge of fallen bishops and corrupt Enron execs, is now learning the reality that Romans 3:23 is not meant vindictively, but is simply a cold, sober description of the Real World, including at the offices of the Times. The lesson *we* need to take away from this is not, "Ha! Gotcha!" but "[insert my name here] has sinned and fallen short of the glory of God". It's just a matter of when, not if, our failings and corruption will be shown up in broad daylight, you know.

Thinking of the Church in Light of Biblical Revelation

Like Dom, I think Rod got carried away in writing, "There's a world of difference between Times Square and St. Peter's Square, but they are alike in one way: Both are headquarters to institutions of enormous reach, influence and – it goes with the territory – arrogance." There is no divine revelation concerning the true nature of the NY Times. It's just a human machine for getting news out and subject to the normal vicissitudes of human flummery. However, there *is* divine revelation concerning the Church (and please, before the screaming starts, I mean "the Church"--the body of Christ, not just Roman See or Bp. Grahmann). Yes, it is a communion of sinners of which every member is guilty of sin worthy of eternal damnation--apart from grace. However, because of that grace it is also "holy" in the words of the Creed, or in Paul's description, "without spot or wrinkle or any such thing."

This is hard for us to grasp, but it is the essence of Paul's way of doing moral exhortation. To a Corinthian Church every bit as morally messed up as the Diocese of Dallas, Paul writes, in exasperation, "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God." (1 Cor 6:9-11). In short, his moral exhortation is "Become what you are!"

For this reason, I think it is a fundamental mistake to speak of the Church as an "institution... of arrogance." It invites a conception of the Church that is fundamentally false to biblical revelation. Are some churchmen arrogant? Without question. Do "structures of arrogance" exist in the way the hierarchy does business. I think so. But to describe the Church itself as "arrogant" seems to me to contradict revelation.

I also, by the way, am skeptical that this shows the arrogance of St. Peter's square, particularly in light of Ut Unum Sint and the Holy Father's strong tendency to *not* micromanage the affairs of his brother bishops. Not telling people what to do is not typically a sign of arrogance. And arrogance is not, in any case, a trait I find very easy to associate with a man like John Paul.

The Times has its Dallas Moment

It would be nice to see somebody who "takes full responsibility" then actually go on to take full responsibility (Bp. Grahmann, you reading this?). Raines' "I loved not wisely but too well" thing was oddly uncontrite.

They're tunnelling under your house! They're taking over the world!

Something for the Worry Wart in your life to be paranoid about.

Ick.

Greg Krehbiel writes

Can you imagine letting your kid do something like this?

Of course you can't, sensible reader, because to you, the concept of "letting your kid" do something makes sense. Those words register in your mind as a real concept. But to a large number of parents, that concept is meaningless. They don't raise their kids (or, heaven forbid, train or educate them), they sortof passively observe as their kids grow -- like weeds in the neighbors yard -- something you can't control.

Bp. Grahmann Continues to Rack up...

applause and accolades.

Hitchens on How the Truth of Romans 3:23 Fouls Up Reconstruction in Iraq

No. He doesn't really cite Romans 3:23, but it's still true.

Wick Allison Weighs in on Bp. Grahmann's Continuing Boffo Job

|

Kevin Jones Thinks Bush is Blasphemous

Scroll down to "Bush the Blasphemous and his Messianistic Nationalism"

I think Bush is, well, typically American. This sort of rhetoric goes all the way back to the desire of Pilgrims to make America a city on a Hill (thereby arrogating to the US the role of the Church). Not for nothing does Chesterton call the US a nation with the soul of a Church. American politicians have a long history of casting the US in Messianic language. ("We fight in honorable fashion for the good of mankind, fearless of the future, unheeding of our individual fates. With unflinching hearts and undiminished eyes, we stand at Armageddon, and we battle for the Lord." - Theodore Roosevelt. Dittos Lincoln's characterization of America, not Jesus Christ, as the "last, best hope of mankind".)

This does, however, prompt a thought. Like Calvinists who never ever ever, in my experience, think that they might be among the un-elect, it never seems to occur to American patriots that, when Antichrist comes, he will *of course* look like a terrific thing, proposing happiness that nobody in their right mind would oppose. Most Christians seem to think he will wear a black cape and shout, "Minions of Evil! Now is our Hour!" to the tune of "Night on Bald Mountain". You'll be able to spot him by the big E for "Evil" he wears on his chest. Is it really so far-fetched to think that rhetoric like Bush's (or to be completely politically balanced, Clinton's "New Covenant") would not be instead be used (thus securing the Christian vote)?

No. I'm not saying Bush or Clinton are antichrist. I'm pointing to the fact that American culture tends to adopt messianic language about itself while resolutely directing our attention to purely earthly goods and discouraging contemplation of eternal ones. A culture formed along those lines is an excellent flock for the rule of antichrist. They will eagerly want what he will have to sell and will hate people who try to assert that eternal goods are superior to temporal ones. The greatest human conflicts are not usually between Good and Evil. They are usually ocassioned when the Good becomes the enemy of the Best. America is good. It is not the Best. The kingdom of God is the best.

Yoiks! Readers object!

"How can you say the bishops have a sense of responsibility! etc. etc."

I was not really trying to paint the American bishops as paragons of responsibility. My point was that the NY Times Troika were even *more* pathetic. Sort of like saying "Irish cooking is like English cooking, except without all the spices."

Busy tomorrow, so not much blogging

I'll check in, but it's crunch time in the Hebrews bible study writing department for the next few weeks. Meanwhile check out Catholic Exchange's study of John (written by Scott Hahn and yer humble scribe) . It is, ahem, a very fine one if I do say so myself. And it's (mostly) free.

First, the Catholic Church. Now, the Grey Lady

Being a firm believer in the superstition that bad things always come in threes, I would like to start a pool to bet on what will be the third trusted cultural institution to implode in a dramatic and messy way. Said institution has to be trusted to be *good*, of course, so no fair nominating icons of evil like the New York Yankees [ducking]. So what will it be? "Julia Child Busted in Duck a l'Orange" Scandal? "Pavarotti Caught in Karaoke Scam"? "Dick Van Dyke Confesses: I Always Hated Mary Tyler Moore and I'm Glad I Killed Her!" "US Marines Surrender to French Forces". Feel free to posit your own scandal.

More odors wafting from Dallas

The thing I don't get is why "the Los Angeles County child-support department recently urged her to settle the matter for $1,000 and to sign two documents: one agreeing not to accuse the church further and the other stating that Monsignor Villaroya is not the boy's father" if she's got a thingamabob from the priest stating, ""I will be giving the amount of $150 or more monthly to my son Jonathan and ... I will help too in his studies." and signed "Ernesto C. Villaroya, father."

Maybe one of you legal types can explain this to me. Do we have anything here beyond a he said/she said thing? It all stinks, of course. But I'm not sure how to sort it out. (Ah! It's a great day to be Catholic!)

A glowing sign of the health of our Republic

Even if the Dems *weren't* a pack of whining ciphers, I think it's a very good sign that most Americans have more important things to think about than these guys.

A proposal

Everytime you pray a prayer for victory of US troops against Bronze Age thugs, offer two prayers for the equally courageous apostles to the Islamic world.

Yet another study shows reality of post-abortion trauma

"Shut up!" explain pro-abortion zealots.

Case in point

This guy would benefit much more from the way the Pope interacts with human beings than from having his Mom called a "towelhead." Without a lot of pushing, many Muslims in the Mushy Middle would like to draw closer to the West (and some are even very curious about Christ. I've corresponded with them.) But guess what? If you create the unbreakable conviction in the Islamic world that the Church is simply one more instrument of policy for the United States, you inevitably give the impression to the Mushy Middle that bin Laden is right to regard this as "Crusades Redux". And oddly enough, when people feel their homeland or their people threatened by an ancient enemy, they tend to hunker down and cease their religious questing.

The proof of this is seen in the book of Hebrews. This was not written to *potential* converts, it was written to converts--specifically Jewish converts (and very likely converts living in the Holy Land). Oddly, when tensions began to heat up between Romans and Jews, Jewish converts began to wonder if they were traitors to their people and to feel a strong pull back to temple worship. Hebrews was written largely to persuade them they hadn't made a horrible mistake. Muslims, curious about and sympathetic to Christianity would feel those misgivings in spades if the Pope were to follow the demands of comments box denizens clamoring for him to shout "Deus Volt!"

So Am I Saying Bronze Age Thugs Shouldn't be Challenged?

No. I'm saying that there are smart and stupid ways of challenging the Bronze Age Thugs at the darkest end of the Islamic spectrum. The stupid way is for the leaders of the Catholic Church to do as faux valiant comment box writers demand and engage in Narcissistic Political Theatre the way comments box writers do. The net effect of this approach will be to get the missionaries who are quietly at work in Islamic lands killed and to polarize the huge mushy middle in the Islamic world. That may make brave comments box writers feel really good about themselves (especially since they will be safe at their computers while people are dying). But it will not only make conversions less likely, but will drive more mushy Muslims toward bin Ladenite types.

The smart way is for the Church to affirm what can be affirmed in common, not piss off the great mushy middle in Islam, and do what can be done to foster conversion and keep violence to a minimum. In short, more or less what JPII is attempting at present. Ultimately, the solution to the problem of Islam is conversion away from Islam to Christ. That outcome is made much less likely if missionaries adopt the mentality of swaggering beer bellies in comments boxes and start labeling a billion people "towelheads".

Mark, please, that I am talking about the Church, not the US. The US should continue to prosecute the War on Terror with full vigor. Caesar has his place too.

St. Wayne Newton, ora pro nobis

Actually, this sounds kinda fun. The Lidless Eyes over at Novus Ordo Watch are, of course, in high dudgeon ("The perversity and wickedness and absurdity of the Novus Ordo Religion knows no bounds!"). But then all forms of human merriment cause their sphincters to slam shut.

NY Times Management: Like American Catholic Bishops Except Without the Sense of Responsibility

For all their slowness to criticize themselves in any meaningful way, at least the American bishops were capable of mustering this back in Dallas:

The Penance that is necessary here is not the obligation of the Church at large in the United States, but the responsibility of the Bishops ourselves.

We are the ones, whether through ignorance or lack of vigilance, or ? God forbid ? with knowledge, who allowed priest abusers to remain in ministry and reassigned them to communities where they continued to abuse.

We are the ones who chose not to report the criminal actions of priests to the authorities, because the law did not require this.

We are the ones who worried more about the possibility of scandal than in bringing about the kind of openness that helps prevent abuse.

And we are the ones who, at times, responded to victims and their families as adversaries and not as suffering members of the Church.

Compare and contrast this with Arthur Sulzberger's noble words on his profound sense of responsibility for making sure his newspaper prints something related to reality:

"Maybe this crystallizes a little that we can find better ways to build lines of communication across what is, to be fair, a massive newsroom," said Mr. Sulzberger, the publisher. But Mr. Sulzberger emphasized that as The New York Times continues to examine how its employees and readers were betrayed, there will be no newsroom search for scapegoats. "The person who did this is Jayson Blair," he said. "Let's not begin to demonize our executives — either the desk editors or the executive editor or, dare I say, the publisher."

For some reason, this attitude has been as successful at placating staffers at the NY Times as Cardinal Law's policies were at mollifying "troublemaking" parents who disliked having their children raped. Clues to the clueless. You're not a scapegoat when you are actually responsible for the screwup.

The natural question that arises, of course, after the Jayson Blair Debacle at the NY Times is, "How many other reporters get away with similar stuff?"

Read it here on May 8

Read it on Lucianne.com on May 13:

The Larger Question: The editor-in-chief of the New York Times, one Howell Raines, now famously has said that no paper can protect itself against a liar. This would indicate that the filters, checks and balances that Big Media spoke so high-mindedly about when the Internet took off, offer no protection whatsoever. If that's true - what has been their gripe with Matt Drudge all these years? They said he has no filters, checks or balances. Well, clearly neither do they. We'll take his truth rate over theirs 24/7. Here, Richard Cohen points to another blind spot at the Times: Strangulating political correctness.

"We've got to say how peaceful they are, or they'll kill us"

Both Evangelical missionaries in Islamic lands and the Vatican tend to take the same tack toward Foaming Bronze Age Fanatics: try not to piss them off unnecessarily since they tend to kill innocent people with little provocation.

Plump, comfortable suburban people with absolutely nothing to lose and with an itch to pass judgment on others like to fill up comments boxes as they sit at their computers, drinking their lattes and remarking on what a miserable cowardly son of a bitch this Pope is for not summoning a Crusade against Islam. For some reason, they don't get equally irate at Evangelical missionaries, who also do what they can to avoid sending Bronze Age Fanatics out on Jihad unnecessarily. Me: while I'd like to see somewhat less chumminess with thugs like Arafat (just as I'd like to see a little more critical thought about Israel), I tend to think that people like JPII and the Evangelical missionaries are generally wise not to go around endangering the lives of innocents for whom they are responsible by engaging in the sort of bravado that comes so easily to people in comments boxes, who like to compliment themselves on their courage when the gravest danger they face is obesity. Both Evangelical missionaries and the Catholic Church have no divisions, as Stalin famously said. Thus, they are not in a position to pull Islamic noses and demand that others die so that they can satisfy the demands of a few strident cyber-critics for some really cool political theatre contra Islam. Pissing off a billion people (or at least bravely swearing that you aren't afraid to do that in a comments box that nobody but a few other plump latte drinkers will read) may seem, to those drunk on their own rectitude, to be the height of courage--like William Shatner singing, "The Impossible Dream". But, in the real world, the cautious stance of the Vatican, like the cautious stance of Evangelicals on the ground in the Land of Foaming Bronze Age Fanatics, while leaving some things to be desired, is probably saving quite a few lives both now, and in the future. Is it a perfect policy? No. Is it the complete act of prostitution that some plump Pope-hating suburbanites decree it to be? Nope. It is, like most things in this world, a crappy choice among a menu of crappy choices. That's what you have when you are largely powerless in world of evil powers, many of whom hold hostage souls for which you are responsible. Far better to pray for the Holy Father, than to bitch at him about such matters, I think. Likewise pray for the courageous Evangelical missionaries, who are actually doing something about the gospel and not just sitting there, complaining in comments boxes about how badly somebody else is doing their work for the gospel while contributing not a syllable toward the building up of the Body of Christ.

Madonna Gets Religion

I certainly hope Madonna internalizes something besides the worship of Madonna from this latest fad in the ever-changing kaleidoscope of new identities and personas. It would be a step, however meager, from her almost total self-absorption if she did. But one gets the impression that this is simply the latest fashion accessory, as much in the service of her rapacious ego as everything that has gone before.

"All said and done, my friends, it will be an ill day for us if what most humans mean by “Religion” ever vanishes from the Earth. It can still send us the truly delicious sins. Nowhere do we tempt so successfully as on the very steps of the altar." - Uncle Screwtape