Mark Shea's Blog: So That No Thought of Mine, No Matter How Stupid, Should Ever Go Unpublished Again!

Tips are deeply appreciated! Yes! I do take Credit Cards!

Atom RSS Feed
















Franciscan Friars of the Assumption Province - Religious Vocations for Men





Little Way Web Store

Hard to find holy cards and photographs of St. Therese imported directly from her store in Lisieux. We specialize in carmelite spirituality and offer a wide selection of books and gifts about carmelite spirituality. This is the website you have been waiting for.

Gethsemane Garden Stones

Stations of the Cross Garden Stepping Stones transform your garden into a Prayer Garden


Check Out "Rock Solid"

Mark Shea's Podcast









































My Site (Mark-Shea.com)
Act One: Writing for Hollywood
AirMaria
American Chesterton Society
Ave Maria Singles
Catherine of Siena Institute
Catholic Educator's Resource Center
Catholic Exchange
Crossroads Initiative
Decent Films
Drudge Report
Exceptional Marriages
Gilbert Magazine
MercatorNet
Peter Kreeft
Mars Hill Review
St. Austin Review
St. Blog's Prayer Network
Star of the Sea: Catholic Resources from Paul Thigpen

Making Senses Out of Scripture: Reading the Bible as the First Christians Did
By What Authority?: An Evangelical Discovers Catholic Tradition
This Is My Body: An Evangelical Discovers the Real Presence
Making Senses Out of Scripture Tape Set
An Evangelical Discovers the Catholic Faith Tape Set
Shaken by Scandals: Catholics Speak Out About Priests' Sexual Abuse

<< # St. Blog's Parish ? >> Jimmy Akin: Defensor Fidei
David Alexander's Man with Black Hat: Zydeco Catholic
Mike Aquilina's Fathers of the Church
Rod Bennett: Tremendous Trifles
Domenico Bettinelli: Very Sensible Guy
Nancy Brown: Flying Stars
Elliot Bougis: Fides, Cogitatio, Actio
Chris Burgwald's Veritas
Cacciaguida: Defending the 12th Century Since the 14th
Catholic World News - Off the Record
Cosmos Liturgy Sex: That About Covers it All
Disputations: Dedicated to Arguing
Ross Douthat: The Atlantic's Most Sensible Writer
Michael Dubruiel's Annunciations: Sanity in Cyberspace
Envoy's Blog: A Banana Republic for Catholic Apologists
Dawn Eden: The Dawn Patrol
Get Religion: The Smartest Blog on the Web about Religion and Media
Dave Hartline: The Catholic Report
Heart, Mind and Strength: The Weblog of Exceptional Marriages and Other Fun Stuff
Intentional Disciples: The Group Blog of the St. Catherine of Siena Institute
Fr. Rob Johansen: Thrownback
Christopher Johnson: Midwest Conservative Journal
Daniel Larison: Eunomia
Fr. Dwight Longenecker: Standing on My Head
White Around the Collar
Mary's Aggies: Aggies for Mary
Mere Comments: Touchstone's blog
Mommentary: Elinor Dashwood's Sensible Blog
Barbara Nicolosi's Church of the Masses
On the Square: The First Things Blog
James Preece: Catholic and Loving it! (Not to be confused with another site of a similar name)
Dale Price: Dyspeptic Mutterings
Scott P. Richert is All About Catholicism
Scrappleface: As Funny as the Onion
The Shrine of the Holy Whapping: Fun Lovin' Catholic Nerds from Notre Dame
Southern Appeal: The Law with 11 Catholic Herbs and Spices
Andrew Sullivan: The 800 Pound Gorilla of the Blogosphere Who is Hopelessly Fuddled about Catholicism and Sex
Mark Sullivan: Irish Elk
Amy Welborn's Charlotte Was Both
What's Wrong with the World: Sane People in Insane Times
Eve Tushnet: Wide Ranging Mind
Daniel Vitz: Committed to an Institute
Vox Nova Blog: An Interest Catholic Group Blog
Zippy Catholic: Committed to Catholic Common Sense
etc

Email me!
Please Note: This Site Adheres to the Welborn Protocol: All correspondence is blogable unless you specifically request otherwise.

Please note that all entries in comments boxes are solely the responsibility of the person writing the comment. I take no responsibility for comments left on my blog, though I reserve the right to delete and/or ban commenters as I please.

Well, I'll be down in the Volcano Bunker for the rest of the day, stocking up on beans and bottled water in preparation for Nature's Fury

So that's it for today. But you can watch this nifty Volcanocam and bid us farewell as the titanic pyroclastic flow barrels toward our house like a freight train of death.

Farewell from the Pompeii of the Northwest!
posted by Mark at 1:36 PM

Feddie very kindly links to various stuff on my blog...

and elsewhere (including Catholic Outreach's nifty little book The Five Issues that Matter Most) and sez: "You cannot be a Catholic and a proabort."

One of his readers takes umbrage at this, so Feddie asks me what I think.

I answer that it depends on what is meant. It's legitimate, in rough everyday discourse to say, as Teacher, "You cannot be a Catholic and a proabort". That is, you cannot be a Catholic who is not endangering his or her immortal soul if, with full freedom and understanding of your act, you deliberately choose to support something that is directly repugnant to the law of God (such as the killing of innocent human beings in abortion).

But is is much more dicey to say this as Judge. That is, as teacher, we are presuming that the person being addressed has a full knowledge of what the Church teaches and why. But as judge, we have to be reluctant to therefore conclude "Joe voted for Congresscritter X, who supports abortion, therefore Joe made a free and conscious decision to support abortion, thereby deliberately involving himself in grave sin and he is now both no longer Catholic and no longer has the hope of heaven." For all we know, Joe may be one of those people on Leno who doesn't know who the Vice President is, and who votes Democrat because his father did. He may, in his own mind, be all about supporting his buddies in the labor union and never give any thought to abortion. Meanwhile, Maria may vote for her Hispanic Congresscritter because he's Hispanic too and has promised to take care of his own. She might be an immigrant working two jobs who would never dream of having an abortion herself and who naively assumes that a Hispanic Catholic politician is "a good Catholic boy" and would never dream he's on NARAL's roll of heros. So there may be varying degrees of culpability for an objectively evil act.

I think a better formulation (for anybody who really knows and understands the Church's teaching) is "*I* cannot be a Catholic and a pro-abort." Unless we know the degree of knowledge and freedom of another person (which, in an election, we seldom do) we can't really say what's going on with other people most of the time. And, in any case, I'm wary of declaring other people "not a Catholic". In the case of somebody like Kerry, who knows perfectly well what the Church's teaching is and ignores it, I think it's wiser to call him a bad Catholic, which he most certainly is, than "not a Catholic". The way you leave the Catholic Church is by renouncing your faith. You don't get out simply by being a notorious sinner.
posted by Mark at 1:23 PM

New Blog!
posted by Mark at 1:09 PM

A Dandy Fisk of James Carroll's Complaints About those who Blaspheme John Kerry

...who is, by the way, toast.
posted by Mark at 11:40 AM

Unleash the Power of the Blog!

A reader writes:

I just made a comment in your Terri Schiavo thread where I listed phone numbers to call in her ongoing defense by ordinary citizens. When I followed up with a call myself to the Dir. of Pub. Info for the Fla. supremes, they are now giving only an answering machine reply of "due to volume of calls" best way to comment is to e-mail or just leave message. I left a message anyway. But... when calling the Gov's office I was told that Gov. Bush is appealing the case to the Supreme Court. That's good. When I asked if they were receiving many calls, she said only 2 today so far!!

With the power of bloggers examining the Rathergate stuff and just today finding another flawed CBS report, can we, with your help again, unleash another "Power of the Blog" for Terri and get those calls going to Gov's office with accompanying horror reactions to Fla supremes. He needs our support for what he's still trying to do even during this trying time of emergencies in the state.

I must say that, despite my criticism of the Stupid Party for the tepidness about human life, Gov. Bush has really impressed me with his willingness to go the extra mile. I'd support him without hesitation if he ever makes a White House bid.

Note to the reader who sent this: Can you provide the number to call in the combox below?
posted by Mark at 11:32 AM

A reader writes

I've attached some links to various articles that describe the increasingly desperate and tenuous situation in Iraq. It seems clear, at least to me, that things are going very, very poorly over there. If you have other information, I'd be willing to listen.

Take this from a Wall Street Journal writer who is in Baghdad: "Despite President Bush's rosy assessments, Iraq remains a disaster. If under Saddam it was a 'potential' threat, under the Americans it has been transformed to 'imminent and active threat,' a foreign policy failure bound to haunt the United States for decades to come."

Later we read this: "I asked a 28-year-old engineer if he and his family would participate in the Iraqi elections since it was the first time Iraqis could to some degree elect a leadership. His response summed it all: "Go and vote and risk being blown into pieces or followed by the insurgents and murdered for cooperating with the Americans? For what? To practice democracy? Are you joking?"

Right now, I think it goes without saying that Iraq is a total mess. The question is what to do. Let's stop arguing about whether this war was just or not. Regardless of the answer to that question--and I believe reasonable arguments can be made on both sides of the issue--we need to face reality. Iraq is as of right now an international disaster. Is it, however, and irretrievable, international disaster? Arguments about this being like Germany after World War II might have made some sense initially. But I would venture to guess that the chaos there never came close to matching that in post-war Iraq. We need to face up to that. Analogies to Germany are not apt. As one of you put it to me, they are an unapt for more than just that. Germany is a western, European country. Iraq, obviously is not. I am increasingly less sanguine about the possibilities of democracy in the Middle East.

Second, don't we need to face up to the fact that many in the current administration had an incredibly naive view of what would occur in Iraq and the potential for democracy in the Middle East. Have these folks owned up to that? Will they? Why hasn't the president sent some heads rolling? Has Iraq made you question some of your assumptions?

Third, pointing this out is not to hope for defeat. Nor is it to believe that defeat is inevitable. In fact, it is to look at reality and say, "How the hell do we deal with it?" It's to say, "Look we are in a serious mess. We need to figure out how to get out of the mess [not out of Iraq] because we have a responsibility to the world and to Iraqi people."

Fourth, let's grant that it is very, very easy for us to pontificate and play arm-chair general or arm chair Secretary of Defense or armchair president. I don't have a clue about military tactics. I do know what I read from people on the ground in Iraq. And it ain't a pretty picture.

Fifth, can anyone tell me why so many on the right seem blind to the burgeoning failure in front of our eyes. It is interesting to see so few mentions in the Weekly Standard of how piss-poor things are going. It is not that they've failed to be critical at times. It's just that it seems that they are impervious to reality (or perhaps it is politics--we are in the last weeks of an election).

What, ultimately, are we to make of Iraq? Has the President failed to lead well on the war? Or am I just getting sucked into the MSM (mainstream media) view of the war? I know wars are messy and you cannot plan for all eventualities but could this war have been planned much better?

And what does this mean for the election. I deeply love and respect President Bush. I find him a fundamentally decent man. I think he is the best and last hope (at least for a long time) in getting people on the Supreme Court who will bury Roe v. Wade. I think many of his domestic policy initiatives will help to give the poor opportunities and help to build an ownership society as many are calling it. I like the fact that he was not afraid in his acceptance speech to talk about getting eligible but uninsured children onto the health care rolls. I like the fact that he wants to find ways to target government intervention to help lift those with few opportunities up into the river of opportunities. I also like the fact that he sees us in a war against militant Islam (though he uses the imprecise term "war on terror".). I respect that he believes in taking that fight to the Islamic fascists instead of waiting for them to attack us and then responding. I also admire his
constancy and how though I might not agree with him he sticks to his guns.

But I also know he is not perfect. And his failings on Iraq really worry me.

Now I cannot see how Kerry is an alternative for so many reasons not least of which is Iraq. I am still trying to make out what Kerry believes exactly with regard to Iraq. And I really cannot believe that in a post-9/11 world, 9/10 Democrats are what we need. And of course for me abortion trumps it all. I cannot vote for a man who would use our money to fund the intentional destruction of innocent human life, reinstate the funding to international organizations that promote abortion, or who can recognize that human life begins at conception but thinks that nothing ought be done to protect the human persons who exist in the womb. I cannot support a man who thinks that being pro-choice means the federal subsidization of something we can all agree is a morally contentious issue and an act fraught with great complexity, as he might say, and controversy. I cannot support an admitted war criminal or someone who brags about being a war hero. I can vote for a pair of candidates who
lecture us about two-Americas and yet are incapable of seeing the irony that they have more money than you and I will likely earn in our whole lives.

I don't really know what to say. On the one hand, I think we owe it to the Iraqis to try and rebuild the country. On the other, I don't see any way for this to end well and I think the country will dissolve into civil war to the point that we will cut our losses and leave. I think the human tendency to return to the old will probably assert itself (particularly under democratic rule) and the nation will vote itself an Islamic tyranny of some sort or other. But what do I know? I'm still trying to get a sense of what's happening over there and trying to parse my way through the various agendas of the leftist press (NY Times) and the flag-waving press (FOX). Sorry, I'm not much help.
posted by Mark at 11:23 AM

Justice Dept. Charges NY Times Reporter with Bringing Advocacy Journalism to a Whole New Level

This one will be extremely interesting to watch after Jayson Blair and Rathergate.
posted by Mark at 11:21 AM

I *love* it when Lefties are losing. They're just so funny!

Political scholar, social analyst and moral theologian Cameron Diaz warns of legalized rape if Oprah viewers don't vote.
posted by Mark at 11:18 AM

Heh Heh Heh

The Kerry campaign once again stumbles blindly into the Steubenville Zone and does what Lefties are practiced at--crushing free speech that tries to speak truth to power:

The day's most prickly moment surrounded one of this election year's hottest issues, and encapsulated the risky nature of an unscreened, unscripted town hall meeting. Franciscan University of Steubenville student Gabriel Hahn took his chance with the microphone to speak of the value of life, especially unborn life: "I'm asking you, Mr. Edwards--will you please stand up and fight for life? For everyone?" was all Gabriel got in before the microphone was yanked away from him. Senator Edwards said he respects Hahn for his view: "This is one of those issues on which good people have different views. And personally, I don't think it's the job of government to tell women what to do." Hahn was unmoved, "It's very kind of him to say he's respectful of my point of view, but I cannot respect the view of someone who would allow innocent children to be murdered."

I'm chatting with Scott tomorrow. I will pass on an "Attaboy" to Gabriel for his confrontation of the Talking Hairdo. He's his father's son.
posted by Mark at 11:07 AM

Ellen Goodman Does her Bit to Ram Abortion Down the Throats of Catholic Hospitals and All Conscientious Objectors

Refusing to kill a baby is exactly the same as having a superstition about blood tranfusions. Religious types are such pre-modern primitives, doncha know.
posted by Mark at 11:03 AM

Noah, Call your office

According to Nature (a real science journal, not some Scientific Creationism rag), we're all descended from one person in East Asia who lived roughly 1500 BC.

This raises more questions than it answers for me. I though Mitochondrial Eve lived 200,000 years ago in Africa. I thought Abraham, from whom the Jews are descended, lived 2000 BC. I thought Indians crossed the land bridge 10,000 years ago.

I don't get this at all. I hope Christians don't pounce on this article as "proof" of something.

Update: Well, it turns out that secular journalists pounced instead. Note the dogmatic and detailed headline: "We are all related to man who lived in Asia in 1,415BC". Yessirree, no "probably" or "evidence suggests" or "scientists theorize". Nope. This is a Scientific Fact.

Now when Bishop Ussher told us the creation of the world could be dated to October 23, 4004 BC at 9:00 in the morning, this was later derided as an example of the hubris of the human intellect brought low. But nobody derides this incredibly confident headline as hubris. Nope. We know for a fact that this theoretical man lived in 1415 BC. Not 1414 or 1416. 1415.

"Hypothesis… establishes itself by a cumulative process, or, to use proper language, if you make the same guess often enough it ceases to be a guess and becomes a Scientific Fact." - Mr. Enlightenment, in The Pilgrim's Regress by C.S. Lewis

Somebody should write a book chronicling the theories which were presented as Scientific Fact in the press and how they remained Scientific Fact in the popular imagination long after they'd been abandoned by the scientific community.
posted by Mark at 10:53 AM

Who knew there were so many Modern Major General parodies?

My readers send along the following pair, First Daniel Lanterman, on of my Protestant readers sends this:

Scene: a horde of heretics have descended on a cloud of converts, and are halted only by the approach of...well, you'll just have to imagine the musical background yourself.

Heretics:
For he is a Presbyterian!

Converts:
He is! Hurrah for the Presbyterian!

Presbyterian:
And it is, it is a glorious thing to be a Presbyterian!

Converts:
It is! Hurrah for the Presbyterian! Hurrah for the Presbyterian!

Presbyterian:
I am the very model of a modern Presbyterian,
I've information venerable, ancient, and sectarian,
I know that some have tried to make me turn Episcopalian,
But I find their theology is altogether alien...

I'm very well acquainted too with matters theological,
I even try to tease out passages deemed paradoxical,
I may not cross the Baptists on some matters theoretical,
But I need not share their fear of all substances intoxical!

Converts and Heretics:
But I need not share their fear of all substances intoxical,
But I need not share their fear of all substances intoxical,
But I need not share their fear of all substances intoxi-toxical!

Presbyterian:
I'm very good at mixing terms and angering the Lutherans,
I qualified for blacklisting by Methodistic Wesleyans,
In short, in matters venerable, ancient, and sectarian,
I am the very model of a modern Presbyterian!

Converts and Heretics:
In short, in matters venerable, ancient, and sectarian,
He is the very model of a modern Presbyterian!

Presbyterian:
I know our Bible history, King David and Jehoshaphat,
I recognize the difference between Sinai and Ararat,
I know the implications of a Samsonific donkey bat,
And like the judges know the tools to use if enemies are fat...

I can tell undoubted manuscripts from forgeries and heresies,
I know the Levite chorus from Davidic psalmic melodies,
And I can prove conclusively the Bible's more than fairy tales,
And quote the lines and sing the songs from every single Veggietales!

Converts and Heretics:
And quote the lines and sing the songs from every single Veggietales,
And quote the lines and sing the songs from every single Veggietales,
And quote the lines and sing the songs from every single Veggie-Veggietales!

Presbyterian:
Then I can clarify the politics of the Assyrians,
And understand the dreams of all the sleepless Babylonians,
In short, in matters venerable, ancient, and sectarian,
I am the very model of a modern Presbyterian!

Converts and Heretics:
In short, in matters venerable, ancient, and sectarian,
He is the very model of a modern Presbyterian!

Presbyterian:
In fact, when I know what is meant by "total" and "depravity",
When I have sworn off risking an Ecclesiastic vanity,
When I can treat Westminster West with due respect and gravity,
And when I know precisely how Arminians risk fantasy...

When I use the five points as less a tactic than a strategy,
When I can pour contempt on reconstructionist theonomy,
In short, when I've a smattering of scriptural reality,
You'll say a better Presbyterian has never lived so free!

Converts and Heretics:
You'll say a better Presbyterian has never lived so free,
You'll say a better Presbyterian has never lived so free,
You'll say a better Presbyterian has never lived so - lived so free!

Presbyterian:
For my catechismic knowledge, since I'm not a seminarian,
Hits up against the limits of my presupposed invariance,
But still, in matters venerable, ancient, and sectarian,
I am the very model of a modern Presbyterian!

Converts and Heretics:
In short, in matters venerable, ancient, and sectarian
He is the very model of a modern Presbyterian!

Then, the redoubtable Tom R adds:

I did this one a few years ago for a friend of a friend who tried to convert me to his own eclectic form of "Catholorthodoxy", constructed, so far as I could make it, by randomly alternating between RC and EO columns to select articles of doctrine. Some of these points are specific to the particular individual...

“We Are A Quite Pre-Modern Ecumenical Archpatriarch”
From “The Pirates of (First Rite) Penance”
(To the tune of “I Am The Very Model Of A Modern Major-General” by Gilbert and Sullivan)

We are a quite pre-modern Ecumenical Archpatriarch
We’ve hosted many barbecues in leafy Sherwood Forest Park
To pair Our friends and rellies up – and save them from the Forces Dark
We are a quite pre-modern Ecumenical Archpatriarch
[REFRAIN: To pair His friends and rellies up – and save them from the Forces Dark
He is a quite pre-modern Ecumenical Archpatriarch]

Our Medical Degree helps all to see We were ordained to rule
As also does the fact that We were Dux of Brisbane’s finest school
Our excellent TE Score’s undiminished by the fact that We
Received it from a College that’s now fallen in apostasy
[REFRAIN: His excellent TE Score’s undiminished by the fact that he
Received it from a College that’s now fallen in apostasy]

Too busy saving young and old from doctors who would take their lives,
We delegate Our household tasks to some less senior of Our wives
Though sometimes We do tell them Our decisions unilateral
Much rather would We feast upon their deep-fried penguin-batter roll
[REFRAIN: Though sometimes He does tell them His decisions unilateral
Much rather would He feast upon their deep-fried penguin-batter roll]

We drag Our Brothers off to Mass – they sing the hymns robotically
But nonetheless – We’re certain they’ll absorb the Faith osmotically
For only Pope and Emperor keep us Islamic terror-free
Which helps Us prove that Jansenism’s just a Catholic heresy
[REFRAIN: For only Pope and Emperor keep us Islamic terror-free
Which helps Him prove that Jansenism’s just a Catholic heresy]

We preach the Christian Gospel to each isolated western town
That children are God’s blessing (but abstain, to keep their numbers down)
You must keep ten Commandments OVERALL, to earn your place in heaven;
So if you don’t like One and Two – make up with strictness on Eleven
[REFRAIN: You must keep ten Commandments OVERALL, to earn your place in heaven;
So if you don’t like One and Two – make up with strictness on Eleven]

We surf the Web – and into many Ultramontane sites We delve
(That’s why We let Our Daughters go unveiled – until the age of twelve)
We’ve found that Medjugorjë is no legend – unlike Noah’s Ark
We are a quite pre-modern Ecumenical Archpatriarch
[REFRAIN: He’s found that Medjugorjë is no legend – unlike Noah’s Ark
He is a quite pre-modern Ecumenical Archpatriarch]

From Calvin to Muhammad, We’re not slow to spot affinities
Among those who won’t bow to Our preferred quasi-divinities
You never know – your prayer could have been answered by a saint you missed
Much safer to invoke the lot than be a strict monotheist
[REFRAIN: You never know – your prayer could have been answered by a saint you missed
Much safer to invoke the lot than be a strict monotheist]

We flee the Sun’s harsh rays, since these are products of atomic fission
We built the Great Glass Temple – as commanded by the Angel’s vision
We’ll hear no harsh word said against the Shepherd of St Peter’s flocks
Unless it’s ancient grievances nursed by the Eastern Orthodox
[REFRAIN: He’ll hear no harsh word said against the Shepherd of St Peter’s flocks
Unless it’s ancient grievances nursed by the Eastern Orthodox]

Since God makes known Objective Truth to everyone who’s capable
(But not through words – they’re too unclear, unless they’re in a Papal Bull)
To save Our flock from error – We’ve chopped pages out of Acts and Mark
We are a quite pre-modern Ecumenical Archpatriarch
[REFRAIN: To save His flock from error, He’s chopped pages out of Acts and Mark
He is a quite pre-modern Ecumenical Archpatriarch]

It's scary how talented my readers are.
posted by Mark at 10:47 AM

Jcecil writes, in part, about the papal knighthood flap:

[C]omparing Hunte to Bush is not accurate. Bush is not 100 percent consistent on the abortion issue, but he would limit the harm of legal abortion by confining already legal abortions to rape and incest. Hunte expanded abortion "rights" where they did not exist, and therefore was not limiting the harm.

The fact that Hunte was given the honor of papal knighthood - along with the fact that the Pope, himself, has given Communion to pro-choice European politicians - demonstrates that it is not the Vatican position that these guys should be sanctioned or denied Communion or excommunicated.

If Hunte expanded abortion rights, he did evil. And if he was given a knighthood in the full knowledge of that, then somebody at the Vatican did a bad thing too, IMO. But I think we both realize that the Stupid Party, while making noises for 25 years, has done very little to actually change anything. GOP president don't even like to show up at the Roe v. Wade Anniversary Marches and have always phoned it in. Some of this is due to Evil Party stonewalling of judicial nominees. But a great deal is due to the fact that the Stupid Party is not serious, and has a de facto willingness to support the abortion regime passively, while appearing not to in order to get the prolife vote. Catholics who care about life are forced to support it, basically because it's a choice between a party that doesn't much care and so will make a few token efforts and a party that is fanatically dedicated to the sacrament of abortion. Sometimes those are the choices life offers. And our refusal to simply shout "A pox on both your unclean houses" is called "constructive engagement."

Yet, curiously, many Christian Bush supporters (including some conservative Catholics) don't think of it as "making the best of a bad job and trying to give honor where honor is due". Instead, because Bush has made a few token efforts and speaks Christianese fluently, he frequently get treated like God's Anointed--even by some Catholics. For me, he's... better than Kerry. But that's not what I'd call a beatification.

As to your second point, I think you are stretching what could be a reasonable point (if you didn't stretch it). The knighthood has nothing to do with communion since the guy's an Anglican. It also has little to do with voting. I've never heard of Rome imposing "sanctions" on a politico (whatever that means). They've said that you can't vote for a politician if your reason for voting for him is to support something directly contrary to the law of God. In Hunte's case, there is still no evidence that the papal knighthood was bestowed with any knowledge of Hunte's support for abortion. For all we know, it was given to say "Thanks for the help rebuilding the orphanages after the hurricane."

So it still seems to me that folks are getting an awful lot of exercise leaping to conclusions, erecting double standards, and rushing into despair. They don't seem to be getting much exercise doing anything constructive.
posted by Mark at 10:04 AM

I've said it before and I'll say it again

Someday the Church's teaching will be condemned for condemning what some of the Church's bishops are now (rightly) condemned for having permitted and covered up.

Dawn Eden find the amazing assertion from Planned Parenthood that those "who uniformly condemn, on so-called "moral" grounds, all adolescent sexual activity-and, indeed, any non-marital, non-procreative sexual activity at any age-have ceded the moral ground by denying the realities of adolescent development, basic human needs and behavior, and healthy sexual expression."

Dawn adds "Note the 'at any age.' In other words, kids should be allowed to have
sex--with kids, with adults."

Show me a culture that despises virginity and I'll show you a culture that despises children.
posted by Mark at 9:49 AM

All my friends have forsaken me, and mine enemies have prevailed against me ; he whom I loved hath betrayed me : * Mine enemy sharpeneth his eyes upon me in fury ; he breaketh me with breach upon breach : and in my thirst doth give me vinegar to drink. - Good Friday Antiphon

Terri Schiavo and her family share in the Passion of our Lord.

Strengthen them with your power and love, O Crucified Master. And have mercy on all those who have so grievously sinned against them and you, Lord Jesus, in your distressing disguise.
posted by Mark at 9:34 AM

On this Feast of St. Jerome...

I offer Phyllis McGinley's tribute to the man who gives me greater hope of heaven than any other name in the roll. If *he* can make it, there's hope for me.

THE THUNDERER

God’s angry man, His crotchety scholar
Was Saint Jerome,
The great name-caller
Who cared not a dime
For the laws of Libel
And in his spare time
Translated the Bible.
Quick to disparage
All joys but learning
Jerome thought marriage
Better than burning;
But didn’t like woman’s
Painted cheeks;
Didn’t like Romans,
Didn’t like Greeks,
Hated Pagans
For their Pagan ways,
Yet doted on Cicero all of his days.
A born reformer, cross and gifted,
He scolded mankind
Sterner than Swift did;
Worked to save
The world from the heathen;
Fled to a cave
For peace to breathe in,
Promptly wherewith
For miles around
He filled the air with
Fury and sound.
In a mighty prose
For Almighty ends,
He thrust at his foes,
Quarreled with his friends,
And served his Master,
Though with complaint.
He wasn’t a plaster sort of a saint.
But he swelled men’s minds
With a Christian leaven.
It takes all kinds
to make a heaven.

posted by Mark at 9:26 AM

Krenn Resigns

What was the holdup? There are three things I do not understand, four that are too wonderful for me: the way of a ship on the sea, the way of a bird in the air, the way of a snake on a rock, and the way of a curial bureaucrat through the channels of ecclesial bureacracy.

Anyway, that's done. Hopeful they can find a good replacement for this guy. His flock needs it.
posted by Mark at 9:16 AM

First Agenda Item: Terri Schiavo

"I'd like to go over that 'Defender of the Alien, Orphan, and Widow' part of the Bible."
posted by Mark at 9:11 AM

The Shrine of the Holy Whapping has just won my undying respect

For this:

I am the Very Model of a Modern Vicar-General

from the Penzance Codex of St. Gilbertus of Sullivan
translated by Matthew of the Holy Whapping and Lauren of Cnytr
(revised ed.)

I am the very model of a modern vicar-general,
I've information liturgical, ecclesial and clerical,
I quote the Popes of Latium and councils ecumenical,
From Chalcedon to Vatican, with subjects esoterical.

I'm very well aquainted too in matters sacramentical,
I know the sin occasions both the distant and proximical:
About the Nicene Credo, I'm teeming with a lot of views:

(Views...views...views...ahahaaa!)

With many complex facts about the substance Homoousios!

Chorus of Seminarians: With many complex facts about the substance Homoousios,
With many complex facts about the substance Homoousios,
With many complex facts about the substance Homoousi-ousios!

I've very good recessional, antiphonical canticles,
I know the secret names of all the Jesuit conventicles,
In short in matters liturgical, ecclesial and clerical,
I am the very model of a modern vicar-general!

Chorus of Seminarians: In short in matters liturgical, ecclesial and clerical
He is the very model of a modern vicar-general!

I know salvation history, King David's and the Sampson locks,
I answer hard sed contras, and own a pair of scarlet socks.
Respondeo dicendum every Vatican concilius,
All liturgics I can celebrate in Romanist basilicas.

I can tell undoubted Augustines from Bossuets and Zwinglians,
I know a Sarum Epiklesis and excommunicate the Arians,
Then I can hum the Sanctus if I've heard the mode ex nihilo,
And sing in tono recto Pax Domini cum spiritu tuo!

Chorus of Seminarians: And sing in tono recto Pax Domini cum spiritu tuo,
And sing in tono recto Pax Domini cum spiritu tuo,
And sing in tono recto Pax Domini cum spiritu tuo!

Then I can write encyclicals in a monastical scriptorium,
And pontificate the meaning of St. Paddy's grand loriculum,
In short in matters liturgical, ecclesial and clerical
I am the very model of a modern vicar-general!

Chorus of Seminarians: In short in matters liturgical, ecclesial and clerical,
He is the very model of a modern vicar-general!
In short in matters liturgical, ecclesial and clerical
He is the very model of a modern vicar-general!

Beat that, Popcak!
posted by Mark at 4:10 PM

Bill Cork cracks me up

Just the other day, he's defending the notion that it's okay to dredge up a story of somebody's sins long after they have made reparation for them and display them for the delectation of people not affected by the sin. He boldly declares: "Instead of accusing journalists falsely for undermining the Sacrament of Reconciliation when they do their jobs, let's pray for the continued healing of the person who sinned, for their patient endurance of the consequences of their actions, and for ourselves, that their punishment serve as a warning to us."

So Secret Agent Man poses him a question in his combox:

Public shame isn't just directed towards embarrassing the sinner--it's a warning to others.

Perhaps, Bill, you might enlighten us on the application of this salutary principle to, say, the misfeasance of bishops. I'd be interested to hear your take on the Wanderer's treatment of episcopal defalcations. Is it on the same level, do you think, as the NCR's reporting on Deal Hudson?

and Bill, with a straight face, writes:

SAM, I do tend to think that the journalists at NCR (in distinction to the editorial staff) do a decent job of reporting (e.g., John Allen). The Wanderer, on the other hand, simply has an axe to grind and I do not see that its reporting is credible. I know of some egregious examples of imbalance and false reporting on their part that they never corrected. If a paper ever needed to read the Catechism about detraction ...

At this point, Dale Price remarks:

NCRep *doesn't* have an axe to grind? We aren't reading the same paper, evidently. The glee and detail with which Feuerherd presented the Hudson story says otherwise. Not to mention Tom Roberts' attempted justification for it. That, and it's pretty hard to imagine the Rep doing a breathless expose' on the two-faced career of Kerry adviser Robert Drinan, S.J.

and Secret Agent Man asks Bill:

The Wanderer, on the other hand, simply has an axe to grind and I do not see that its reporting is credible."

I agree with you and Dale -- NCR and TW are both grinding axes. But I take it from your answer that accurate public shaming of bishops is beneficial, inasmuch as it's a warning to sinners?

Bill's response to this?

The sound of crickets.

At least, till today, when Bill suddenly discovers that, while long atoned-for sins of Certain Sorts of People should be "part of the consequences of what he did, consequences that he'll never outrun", it is an altogether different matter when the press goes to work digging for dirt on an Archbishop. All of a sudden, it's not "journalists just doing their jobs" for Holy Purpose of letting a sinner's punishment serve as a warning to us. Nope, all of sudden it's what I was complaining about last week: detraction repackaged as news.

Now the funny thing is: I think what the Wanderer writer is doing is just as despicable as what the NCR people did. That is, I think detraction is detraction. Period.

Bill, in contrast, defends NCR's dumpster dive ("categorical difference") while raking the Wanderer over the coals. According to Bill, a reporter who publishes the repented and atoned-for sins of The Wrong Sort of Person is just doing his job, but a reporter who is searching around for information on sins which may never have been repented and atoned for is wicked if they do it to a cleric. And funniest of all, Bill anathematizes the double standards of his critics! Splendid! My eyes are wet with tears of laughter!

I think the conversation between Secret Agent Man and Bill will be hilarious--right up to the moment Bill suddenly explains "Shut up!" and bans Secret Agent Man for exposing the Chancery Officialdom biases of Ut Unum Sint. SAM's got his number.
posted by Mark at 3:05 PM

Rome Calls for Resignation of Bishop of Fatima and Fatima Shrine Rector Guerra

The interesting thing will be to see if the Doomsayers somehow manage to take this Answer to Their Prayers and turn it into another reason to complain. I hope they don't, but experience suggests they will.
posted by Mark at 2:52 PM

Why I have comment boxes and why I'm not ignoring you if I don't write you back

I got comboxes because I don't have time to answer the correpondence I have, much less deal with every remark every reader wants to make about what I've written or to argue with another reader.

So please don't feel bad if I don't reply the (very many) notes that are now flooding my email while the comboxes are down. I just don't have the time.
posted by Mark at 2:40 PM

Pro-Life Democrat Identified

Environmentalist groups move to have such living fossils declared an endangered species but fear there may not be a large enough breeding population to ensure the survival of this rare and beautiful creature, now hounded to near extinction by corporate destruction of its environment.
posted by Mark at 2:03 PM

More on the Papal Knighthood thingie

So now I'm told that whatshisface that got the papal knighthood is a heinous pro-abort because he once voted to allow abortion in cases of rape and incest. In other words, he'd be a garden variety Republican if he were an American. And *that* is why Combox Commandos are screaming for the Pope's blood and declaring the Church a lost cause? All while anointing George W. Bush--the guy who favors... abortion in cases of rape and incest and embryonic stem cell research to boot--God's Chosen President??



Weird. How come none of the people screaming about the papal knighthood scream when the Pope says something nice about about a garden variety Republican? Why no howls of protest when some Rape-and-Incest Republican gets some honor or other for defending human life?
posted by Mark at 1:43 PM

Dan Darling Provides Perspective on Iraq
posted by Mark at 1:38 PM

Cultural Catholicism

A reader writes from Rome:

I thought you might find this interesting. Yesterday, I went to Blockbuster (yes, they have them here) and bought "The Passion".

The girl at the counter gives me a book. It is the Guide to the Passion published by Ancora books. Inside, three articles about the movie (two pro, one con - one of the pros was Robert Royal's - the con was from America Magazine, the other pro was an Italian piece). It had a discussion of the Passion in the four Gospels, and the complete Gospel account from Mark. There was a biography and filmography of Mel Gibson, and another article about his freaky Catholicism. Finally, a discussion on anti-semitism, which consisted of the USCCB document and the Pope's prayer at the wailing wall.

Yep, everyone who buys the Passion in Italy gets a free Catholic book!

Gotta love it!

P.S. When the movie came out here (week of Easter) it had the full support of the Italian bishops, who put a lot of media resoures behind it. The show "In Sua Immagine", which is the Catholic show which appears every Saturday and Sunday on RAI 1 (the main television station) devoted a couple of episodes to it. They mostly skipped the "controversy" and kept to interviews with the actors, theologians, etc. The Italian Bishops definitely took advantage of the "evangelical moment". Italy was the top money-maker for it after the US.

P.P.S. Sadly, the German, French, and British bishops were even more weird about it than the Americans.

posted by Mark at 1:32 PM

Mark Windsor replies

Thanks to everyone for the comments about the closing of Vociferous Yawpings. I'd like to point out that there is a certain "last straw" effect going on here. The Combox Commandos, their dedication to their chosen profession, and their zeal to spill cyber-ink all over the blogosphere, were indeed that final straw. There are a variety of other reasons spanning family, available time, professional obligations, desire to work more in my parish, time, non-professional obligations, and time, that all contributed a share in the decision. The bottom line is that blogging wasn't so much fun anymore, and a large amount of my own personal enjoyment of blogs and blogging was sucked out of the process by the combox troops.

As I'm sure Mr. Shea here would agree, doing it right is a heck of a lot more work than any of us ever expected when we created yon blog in the first place. Honest to God, I don't know how the likes of Glenn Reynolds, Scott Ott or Andrew Sullivan, or our own Mark Shea or Amy Welborn, can manage to keep up as well as they do. (Be careful folks, the lot of them may be only one harsh comment away from raving lunacy...Ott might actually have crossed that line.) The sheer volume of what they write and link to is stunning. The bottom line is this: whether you enjoy this blog or any other, you really ought to drop the blogger a note once in a while to express an teensy-weensy bit of gratitude for what I promise you is a great deal more work than you realize. A single kind e-mail will keep the average blogger going for quite some time. Trust me on this.

Some people have asked that Yawpings stay open as an archive. This will be done, primarily because of the political platform stuff, but I can't say for how long. It will henceforth live at RC's whim and pleasure.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled blogger.

posted by Mark at 1:29 PM

More on the Faux Liberalism of ALA's Banned Books Week

Another reader sez:

I too think it is hogwash.

As I browsed their website I clicked on their Book Burning in the 21st Century section. The ALA lists the activity of several mostly Christian groups that have burned Harry Potter books, slashed homosexual books, and destroyed material that these groups did not like. Now this is a very idiotic way to deal with material with which one disagrees. However, I must point out one book burning event that the ALA failed to list; that is, the burning of Daniel Flynn's book "Cop Killer: How Mumia-Abu Jamal Conned Millions into Believing He was Framed" by radical leftists on the UC Berkeley campus.

The longer I watch the Left, the more convinced I am that it is profoundly hostile to freedom.
posted by Mark at 1:06 PM

Outsourcing Torture

Frustrated by the complete lock which the Evil Party has on the Culture of Death vote, the Stupid Party has finally found a way it can appeal to that part of the electorate which wants to do the work of Satan.

A reader writes:

Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert has introduced a bill entitled the "9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act of 2004," a/k/a HR 10.

Much of it does, indeed, implement the recommendations of the 9/11 commission.

However, it also does something that can only be described as moral evil: specifically, it seeks to enshrine a practice known to the CIA since the 1960s as "extraordinary rendition," which Representative Markey of Massachussetts has referred to as "outsourcing torture."

I would call your attention in particular to the language of sections 3032 and 3033, which I shall quote fairly liberally below. You can check this wording for yourself, here (search for HR 10).

Section 3032 makes it easier to deport a _suspected_ terrorist to a country that ordinarily uses torture, and places "the burden of proof ...on the applicant for withholding or deferral of removal under the Convention to establish by clear and convincing evidence that he or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal."

This section subverts our Constitutional and traditional obligation to assume innocence until guilt is proven, while placing the burden of proof upon someone who in all likelihood will not have the resources to do so.

Furthermore, subsection (b) of section 3032 states that "Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no court shall have jurisdiction to review the regulations adopted to implement this section, and nothing in this section shall be construed as providing any court jurisdiction to consider or review claims raised under the Convention or this section."

In other words, _no judicial remedy will be possible_ for such suspects.

Section 3033, while less heinous, is designed to make such deportations easier, expand the authority for doing so, and cloud the issues in a manner favorable to the Secretary of Homeland Security (to whom it transfers deportation authority, taking it from the Attorney-General).

Please go here and let your Representative know that, as a Christian and a patriot, you oppose the use of torture, and you oppose the passage of any bill with this wording.

All those discussions of torture on my blog, you see, were not just about some theory. Ideas have consequences. If the Right manages to push this through, they will have earned my contempt. I see no way a Catholic could possibly support such a heinous law.
posted by Mark at 11:34 AM

Various thoughts on Haloscan from readers

"The problem began within seconds of me posting my first ever blog comment to any blog."

"I think the problem is not with your template, but with your haloscan account. My first guess is that your problem is your popularity. You probably have far more comments in haloscan than anyone else."

"Maybe the Haloscan failure is a sign. :) We might all be happier with a
little less spleen in our lives."

"I think it is time for you to move to Movable type."

"Good luck with getting the Haloscan thing fixed.

I would add that the news and your commentary on your blog are quite valuable
in themselves, and it may be that the blog will be less stressful and
time-consuming for you without the comments element. And I say this as one who has
been a commenter."

Actually, the comboxes save me time. People talk to each other instead funneling comments through my email box.

posted by Mark at 11:24 AM

Various Muzzled Readers Respond to Bill Cork

One reader writes:

I take it that, for reasons I cannot fathom, Dr. Cork has no intention of acknowledging my letter in any way. Therefore, if you wish, you may blog my thoughts:

Dear Dr. Cork:

For various reasons, I am not at liberty to comment on the various blogs. However, I am a fan of yours especially. It's precisely for that reason that I'd like to express my concern about what you've been saying to and about Mr. Shea.

I honestly do not see how he's misrepresented your position; I truly think, rather, that you are misunderstanding his.

From what I can see after several careful readings of his article and posts and comments, he's affirming that sin has consequences that need to be borne. In particular, he seems to have approved of Fordham's firing of Deal Hudson, and, now, he seems to approve of the latter's departure from Crisis.

Mr. Shea's position seems, rather, to be that once a sin has been (apparently) repented and forgiven (i.e., through the Sacrament of Reconciliation) and due consequences (from the law, from one's employer, ...) have been borne, we ought not take it upon ourselves to impose further consequences in cases that aren't any of our business - as the Deal Hudson case seems not to have been NCR's business.

In that light, I think Mr. Shea's apparently genuine perplexity at your charges, and his statement that you are coming across as "heartless," are most understandable.

In brief, perhaps it would help clarify the matter if you could explain (1) whether NCR should have written its article - not whether Deal Hudson should have been prepared to accept that such an article might be written, but whether NCR should have written it - and (2) if so, how that view is to be interpreted in a way other than that in which Mr. Shea has (mis?)interpreted it, i.e., as the view that we should take it upon ourselves (heartlessly?) to impose consequences (when it is not our job to do so in a particular case) for repented/forgiven sins - not merely that Deal Hudson should have been prepared to accept such consequences should they arise.

Again, as a fan of your work and your blog, I ask you please to consider these questions, and (re)consider your words to and about Mr. Shea.

I do believe that he has done you a very serious injustice, and, like a commenter whom he deleted very quickly, I have in fact now lost virtually all of my respect for his judgment and integrity.

Meanwhile another reader writes:

I'm onto your tricks with Haloscan. Bill Cork got his knickers in a twist and banned you from his comments, so you've retaliated by incapacitating *all* comments. Sorta like the Chesterton story where Father Brown discovers that the general covered up the murder of his comrade by ordering a hopeles attack in which lots of the soldiers in his command were mowed down.

Seriously, though, I don't know who p**sed in Mr. Cork's cornflakes, but my own experience shows he's pretty quick to rule his commenters beyond the pale when they push back too vigorously against him. I got banned a couple of months ago when I tried to defend St. Pius X against the accusation of anti-semitism (arising out of his opposition to Zionism). He responded with snide comment that made no effort to address the merits of my argument, and when I tried to respond, I found that he had banned me, ensuring that his ad hominem remark would be the last word. I guess he thought my comment was the last straw, proving *I* was an anti-semite, and unworthy of being heard by decent people. His idea of tolerating diversity of opinions seems to be like that of elite universities, who think, for example, that criticism of affirmative action is racism and should be suppressed at all costs. I would have thought that we were all big boys in the blogosphere, not afraid to take hard blows as well as give them as long as we're all trying to pursue the truth. (See, e.g., your policy toward Joseph d'Hippolito.) In his case, I'd have been wrong.

And yet another beneficiary of the Spirit of Open Dialogue at Cork's blog writes:

Sorry to see the way Bill Cork is tarring and feathering you. I think you're absolutely right, and that he's an idiot. I'd weigh in in his comment boxes - except that, although when he first had them, he - despite previous disagreements between him and me - welcomed me into them, he then, just a week or two later I think, suddenly banned me because I'd mildly disagreed with something or another he'd said.

So I don't feel too terribly lonely.
posted by Mark at 10:54 AM

A reader writes:

The last week of September is Banned Books Week.

The ALA's definition of "banned", however is not the same as that of your average English-speaking American. The ALA considers the book banned if it has been removed from any facility for any ideological reason. Hence _Harry Potter_ is banned because Mrs Thudpucker in Flyspeck Wyoming objected to it and got it pulled from the shelves of the local library.

This, in my opinion, is bushwah. I assert that no book is banned if it's not illegal to print it or posses it. For every book on their "banned" list, I could order up a dozen copies and freely read them on the steps of the police station.

Not only is this bushwah: it is pernicious bushwah. This affected outrage at this straw-man threat to liberty leads people to believe that they are living with a boot on their collective neck. And since most -- if not all -- of the banned books are children's books 'banned' at the behest of parents, the kids get the idea that parents are oppressive. So it comes to pass that the librarians -- the defenders of liberty who have so bravely pointed out this heinous outrage -- get to stock (or not stock) the shelves with whatever they please. If any parent objects, he's a jack-booted thug.

With very few exceptions, I don't want any organizations telling the libraries and bookstores what they must or must not stock. And that includes the librarians themselves.

posted by Mark at 10:50 AM

A reader asks

The following quote appears in the New Yorker magazine profile of Teresa Heinz Kerry.

"In her early twenties, she ended an otherwise congenial romance when her suitor admitted that if he ever had to choose between saving her life and that of an unborn child he would, without hesitation, follow Church doctrine and let her die".

Could you comment on what "Church doctrine" actually is in this case?

Beats me. Must be another one of those dogmas promulgated by the Vatican 2 and Pope Pius XXIII.
posted by Mark at 10:48 AM

When I was a kid and they told us about the American Revolution...

...I was taught that a good part of the reason we won was because the wily American farmers with muskets could just pop out of nowhere, harrass the English, and then melt back into the mist. The English "played by the rules". We didn't.

Now, it appears exactly the same tactics are being employed (only against civilians as well as military) in Iraq. So why am I to think that things are going well there? 2,300 hundred attacks in the last month?

Dan Darling, if you're out there, can you blog some perspective on this?
posted by Mark at 10:38 AM

Austrian Emperor Karl I to be beatified

Lotsa yelling. Me: I don't know much about the guy. Nor, I'll wager, do many people outside Austria. I'll leave it to those guys to fight it out.
posted by Mark at 10:31 AM

Where Does John Kerry Stand on Terri Schiavo?

I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to figure out that Kerry is not particularly interested in keeping the Little People alive when they are of no use. The Dem party's devotion to the Sacrament of Abortion is attached, by unbreakable cords, to the rest of the agenda of the Culture of Death.
posted by Mark at 10:23 AM

A reader writes

Well, Jeremy Lott may have misrepresented your thoughts on the Deal Hudson deal (since when are you a "traditionalist"? I wondered...) But he has some good thoughts on a self-rightous column from the Vancouver Sun about how much more enlightened Canadians are when it comes to faith and politics (and "science")

Jeremy's a good guy. We've met once (and he's promised me a drink next time he's in Seattle). His take on my defense of the meaning of "We believe in the forgiveness of sins" didn't bother me all that much cuz I knew how what I wrote was going to look to a lot of people, particularly when it accidently came out the day Hudson got the boot. It was an understandable misunderstanding. And I could have been clearer about what I meant when I said NCR's behavior was a "satanic violation of the sacrament of reconciliation.

Jeremy thought that was waaaaaay over the top. But I still don't, probably due to the fact that I don't think the word "satanic" should denote something spectacularly and cinematically evil like "Night on Bald Mountain". I think the satanic is primarily discerned in fairly quiet corners and small but deeply sinister turnings of the heart that are scarcely noticed. NCR gave no evidence that Hudson's sin was ongoing. They gave every evidence that they were just dredging up a man's repented sins for the sole purpose of destroying him. If that's not an evil repudiation of the entire meaning of the sacrament of confession and "We believe in the forgiveness of sins" I don't know what is. Jeremy described it as mere pettiness. I'd say it's as petty as if somebody hocked a loogey in the baptismal, or played tiddly winks with the Eucharist, or mixed motor oil in the chrism as a practical joke, or showed contempt for any other sacrament. All these acts are, from a certain perspective, "petty". They do not involve Crimes Against Humanity and you couldn't even get arrested for any of them. But they betoken something that I believe has very ominous implications. Hence my deployment of the word "satanic."
posted by Mark at 10:06 AM

When Anti-Christ Comes, This is the Way in Which He Will Tag the Sheep for Later Slaughter

What? Are you expecting him to be Darth Vader with a big "I Am Evil" sign around his neck? He'll be Mr. Style and the stylish will pant with excitment just to be thought cool enough to be like him.
posted by Mark at 10:02 AM

A reader writes

While I sympathize with Mark Windsor, I'd like to discourage other members of St. Blog's from likewise leaving the building. Instead, I'd like to point to Flannery O'Connor's sentiment about pushing back ashard as you're being pushed. If no one pushes back, we all fallover. While pushing back can be done outside the public square, private resistance cannot wholely take the place of public witness.

Without a balancing resistance, we get results such as the Los Angeles County supervisors voting to avoid a law suit from the ACLU by redesigning the county seal so it does NOT display a cross. There will be instead a local mission building with no Christian insignia. That is rewriting history, and cutting your anchor rope, and should be resisted. And there are so many more examples.

We must remember that the American Revolution was not the French Revolution, and that the slogan "Freedom of Religion" is not synonymous with "Freedom from Religion" but merely bars the federal government from establishing a state religion, like the Church of England. We are not required by our Constitution to leave our religion at home. Our religion and our citizenship are complimentary, and our citizenship becomes airy vaporings without an anchor for natural rights.

Examining the American arm of the Catholic Church apart from political questions, Flannery O'Connor may still be used as a guide to keep the ship righted and afloat between the Scylla of the rigidly conservative and the Charybdis of the squishy progressive. For example, her (O'Connor's) response to Mary McCarthy's characterization of the utility of the Eucharist as a nice symbol in her (McCarthy's) writing: If it's just a symbol, then to hell with it!

And, of course, there's always Chesterton, and Lewis, and Newman, and many more.

But many people will never know of any of these folks, if St. Blog's leaves the sanctuary empty and echoing only with the vituperation of the ComBox Commandos.

posted by Mark at 9:57 AM

The English Translation of JPII's New Book is Out

HMS blog has the scoop.

Yesterday was the anniversary of his ordination as bishop (1958). So now you know.
posted by Mark at 9:47 AM

The Five Issues that Matter Most: Catholics and the Upcoming Election

The Five Issues That Matter Most was written to help Catholics understand the five key questions facing our world at this watershed moment in history. Building on the excellent work of Catholic Answers' Voters Guide for Serious Catholics, Catholic Outreach has created this new 96-page booklet to address the issues in greater depth, employing the same easy-to-read Q&A format that was so widely embraced in our previous book, A Guide to the Passion: 100 Questions About The Passion of the Christ.

In related news, George Barna is reporting a "seismic Catholic shift to Bush".

Kerry's toast.
posted by Mark at 9:34 AM

Frank Ponders Equality

I'm not so sure I agree with him about the list of things he says we have no choice over. People choose to be stupid everyday, for instance. And I remain unpersuaded that homosexuality is *always* something which involves no component of choice (the phrase "Gay until Graduation") belies this trope in some cases. But on the whole I would agree that there are vast tracts of our lives which are given, about which we have no choice, and which, to the empirical observer, seem to make dust and nonsense of the notion that we are all equal.

The real reason we believe in equality is not because it is empirically provable (quite the contrary) but because our culture still retain (for the time being) the mystical dogma, inherited from Christendom, that all are equal in the sight of God. When that dogma is rejected as mystical superstition along with all the other rejected dogmas, then we will make a full-throated return to "scientific racism", classification of people outside the womb as "less than fully human" and all the other sorts of evil which commitment to materialism breeds.

Here's a piece I wrote on this ages ago.
posted by Mark at 9:26 AM

Against the Grain

In which I attempt to explain why Catholic teaching is so irritating.
posted by Mark at 9:20 AM

Flummoxed by Haloscan

Everybody else's Haloscan works fine. Only mine doesn't. I've tried repeatedly to get it to work. I copied the code from the Haloscan site and deactivated the old code.

Nothing. Everytime I activate it, my site slows to a crawl and when it finally loads, the comments aren't there. I'd hoped that when the posts from two days ago were archived, it would fix itself. But no dice. I don't know what to do.

Then again, maybe folks would be happier without comments. I dunno.

Anyhow, I've done everything I know how. If some kindly soul can figure out what's wrong and lemme know, I will endeavor to fix it ASAP. Meanwhile, we're stuck with no comments.
posted by Mark at 1:21 AM

Still fiddling with the Haloscan stuff

I still like you, it's the technology that hates you. If the blog suddenly loads slow, it will probably mean I failed to get Haloscan to cooperate. In which case I will deactivate it again and try tomorrow.

Technology: Not the Enemy, but certainly a sympathizer.
posted by Mark at 1:38 PM

I've been saying this all along

There is no Magisterium in Islam. *And* it's a human invention. So the notion that Islam is *essentially* This or That is very problematic. Islam is indeed what its followers make it to be. There are few "pillars" that are non-negotiable. But the meaning of those pillars can vary widely. That is why it is as essential to change the hearts and minds in Islam and turn them toward more sane interpretations of their tradition as it is to destroy those who will not be turned. Islam has a billion adherents. It's not going away. So we'd better find some ways to help tame the tiger since the chances of killing it are low. Of course, conversion to the Faith is the best thing, but I live in the real world and also recognize that's not happening soon.
posted by Mark at 11:38 AM

Guilty, guilty, guilty!

Some guy got a papal knighthood (whatever that is) and it turns out he's a pro-abort politician in whatever island it is he comes from. Did JPII know this when the knighthood was given? Who knows? But since a) the award was given and b) somebody is (very rightly) asking that it be rescinded, the Combox Star Chamber has already seen enough and passed judgment. The Pope knew everything and is guilty of hypocrisy. What a horrible Pope he is! Guilty, guilty, guilty.

Me: I think the first comment in the thread pretty much sums up where the question still stands. If the Pope knowingly bestowed this honor on the guy, I'm disappointed. But the automatic presumption, "Of course he knew" is... more or less the average treatment I've come to expect of him in the blogosphere.

Indeed, I discover some had already passed sentence, not only on the Holy Father, but also on all us Silent Co-Conspirators in the Blogosphere who had not only not immediately called for his head on the basis of a couple of newspaper clippings, but had not even heard of the clippings. Carrie, for instance, informs us (on Monday) she carefully combed St. Blog's for *two days* and concluded that she was witnessing "omerta", the sinister Mafia conspiracy of honor among thieves (and her Combox Star Chamber agrees on this too). It couldn't just be that it was the weekend and a lot of people have lives and were, say, camping with their kids and not obsessing over conspiracies on the Internet. No. The failure of St. Blog's to immediately catch this story and leap to the worst possible conclusion is just one more evidence of how hopeless it all is.

Sheesh!
posted by Mark at 11:11 AM

Hell Outsourced

The dot.com crash hit everybody.
posted by Mark at 10:53 AM

Lefties are so *fun* when they are losing

You probably thought the reason Bush is leading in the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll is because more people said they preferred Bush to Kerry.

That's because you, my friend, are a stupid Red State minion who can't think and doesn't grasp the depths of the Conspiracy!

No, the *real* reason for these poll results is that Mr. Gallup is an Evangelical Christian.

MoveOn.org, you see, would not hesitate to manipulate the data to achieve desired results, so it stands to reason (at least to them) that everybody else would behave as they do. "To the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are corrupted and do not believe, nothing is pure. In fact, both their minds and consciences are corrupted." - Titus 1:15
posted by Mark at 10:31 AM

We Vote Pro-Life

Handy for checking up on the record of your Congresscritter and other governing class types.
posted by Mark at 10:24 AM

Remember: Christianity Makes Human Beings into Sheep

...but Science, liberated from the shackles of obscurantist superstition, will set us free from such exploitation.
posted by Mark at 10:21 AM

A happy confluence of correspondence

One reader asks:

Ok, why do so many Catholics believe that the following are the most important issues of our time?

1. Abortion
2. Euthanasia
3. Embryonic Stem Cell Research
4. Human Cloning
5. Homosexual "Marriage"

I hear a lot about the "degradation of family values," etc and it just doesn't make sense to me. Why is there no care about the Iraq War, which the Pope has spoke out against, why no mention of the degradation of family values when familes don't communicate or brush their elderly relative off without giving them the respect and care theyde serve, what about the environment (we're destroying God's creation here!)?

I just don't understand why so many Catholics are *so* focused on something the Bible speaks so little about when they're neglecting the things that the Bible talks about *all* the time, like charity and family.

... I just don't get it...

Thanks in advance for your time.

And Fr. Frank Pavone, in his most recent column, answers:

An honest look at what an abortion is, and at how many victims it claims, is enough to reveal that nothing outweighs its gravity among the many "life issues." Multiple Church documents have confirmed this insight, repeating over and over that the abortion tragedy demands urgent attention and priority.

While some have tried, shamelessly, to obscure and contradict this teaching, many are quite able to understand and accept it. Yet the truth is even deeper than the statement, "Being wrong on abortion outweighs being right on other issues."

The full truth is, if you are wrong on abortion, you can't be right on other issues.

To permit abortion, but then to cry out for the right to work, housing, education, health care, and so forth, is to say that these other rights belong to some people but not to all. They obviously do not belong to those who were snuffed out by abortion.

Therefore, these rights cannot be human rights, because you have already said that not all humans have a claim on them. This trivializes those other rights and puts them on an obscure and questionable foundation.

If you permit abortion, then, on what basis do you defend the other rights? Why do we care for the poor? Because they have a right to food, clothing, and shelter. But why do they have a right to those things? Because they have a right to live. Why are we concerned about unemployment? Because people have a right to make a living. Why do they have that right? Because they have a right to live. It all comes back to that foundational right. Abortion is not the only issue, but neither is the foundation of a house the only part of a house. Take it away, however, and see how well you can build the rest.

The reason that being wrong on abortion makes it impossible to be right on other issues is that the heart and soul of every "issue" is precisely the dignity of the human person, whose right to life is not under the dominion of any other person. A person's dignity comes from the fact that he or she is human, not that someone else decides to grant that right at some point in time. Any human right begins when human life begins; otherwise, it isn't a human right, but rather some kind of benefit bestowed for another reason.

Now if you can take the right to life away from some humans, as abortion does to the children in the womb, then obviously you can take away from those same humans all their other human rights, because none of those other rights made such a claim upon your respect that you had to let those people live to possess it.

This is why the Pope has said that when the right to life is not protected, cries for other human rights are "false and illusory." When one is wrong on abortion, one cannot be right on anything else.

Bottom line: the taking of innocent human life is a graver matter than the taking of gravely guilty human life. So the first four issues outweigh the death penalty (though I oppose the death penalty). Similarly, the deliberate taking of innocent human life is *always* gravely sinful. There is no conceivable justification for it. I, for one, have written plenty about the problems of squaring our policy in Iraq with the Church's just war teaching. But I also recognize the Catholics of good faith can disagree about what, in the end, comes down to a prudential judgment. There is *no* prudential judgment involved in the direct taking of innocent human life. It's evil. Period. And it kills 1.5 million people each year.

I'm not sure what is meant by the complaints about "degradation of family values". I think *anything* that harms the family is evil. Period. Gay marriage is not the only thing to harms the family. Rather, it's the final kick to the corpse of marriage that was killed by our embrace of insta no fault divorce and the Imperium of the Autonomous Self (courtesy of us heteros).

Finally, our care for creation is important, but creation, sacred as it is, is not *more* sacred than human beings. This now scandalous doctrine, which used to be a truism when people took seriously that we are made in the image and likeness of God, means that "the earth" is not more important than a single human life. That's not an excuse to rape the earth, of course. But it is a stern rebuke to the notion that "Nature" would be better off without the disease of homo sapiens that infests it.
posted by Mark at 9:48 AM

Vociferous Yawpings has Left the Building

Another soul find the relentless negativity of the blogosphere no substitute for th