Blogger is being maddeningly slow, so I'm outta here for the day

However, I leave you with reader John Farrell's "Sonnet 30":

Mother and Father of the Year!

Cardinal Maida Drives Some Michiganders Crazy

Jacob Michael Looks at Bob Sungenis' "Ph.D."

So what's wrong with your academic advisor on your "religious studies" doctoral dissertation being a hypnotherapist with a specialization in past life regressions? And just because your supervising professor on religious studies is an expert in physics who was also your co-author for Galileo Was Wrong, why should that queer the pitch? And just because Calamus is not a recognised university within any jurisdiction of the world--why should that hinder us from awarding Sungenis the title of "Ph.D"?

Public Service Announcement for Upcoming Conference: “Healing the Culture: A New Beginning”

Healing the Culture: A New Beginning is an exciting, major pro-life conference coming soon to this area! The conference features Father Robert Spitzer, President of Gonzaga University and host of the internationally acclaimed, pro-life program, "The Life Principles.” Speakers will also include Camille De Blasi Pauley – President of Healing the Culture, and Rabbi Daniel Lapin – nationally syndicated conservative radio talk show host.

Come join us for 2 days of pro-life education and networking in beautiful Vancouver, British Columbia. It’s all coming up on November 16, 17, and 18.

For more information and to register, go to 2006prolifeconference.com… that’s www.2006prolifeconference.com. or call (425) 481-6563.

Canadian Priest Begs to Be Defrocked

Ed Peters weighs in.

Sullivan Continues to be Maddening

As an opponent of torture, I owe Andrew Sullivan a debt of gratitude for his insistence on keeping this fundamental issue of civilized morality in the forefront of public awareness despite all the attempts of Administration shills to pooh pooh it away. He has probably done more than any other public figure to keep this a live issue before a consequentialist public that doesn't much care and for that he should be commended.

At the same time, Sullivan's attempts to dispense with all orthodoxy that get in the way of his comfort as "Christianism" and his drive to replace the Church with some sort of weak tea Episcopalianism compounded of a Doubting Jesus, gay enthusiasm, whatever Bart Ehrman said last week, gay enthusiasm, cheerleading against sleazy Republicans, and gay enthusiasm is really irritating. He is forever presenting us with the True Jesus[TM] who main qualification is that he is nothing like any Jesus a conservative would ever speak of. The problem is, when you calibrate your True Jesus based on making him the Opposite of the Conservative Jesus, instead of making him the Jesus of Scripture and Tradition, you wind up creating another fantasy figure. It's true that the Enthusiastic Republican Jesus is a creature of wishful and even idolatrous imagination and political mendacity:



But creating Not-Republican-But-Weak-Tea-Episcopalian-Self-Doubting-Jesus is just as much an act of idolatry. So, for instance, when Sullivan declares

There lies the difference between Christianism and Christianity, between what these fundamentalists preach and what Jesus actually taught. Be not afraid, Jesus told us - always.

He is hampered by the fact that the real Jesus actually said (at times):

But I will warn you whom to fear: fear him who, after he has killed, has power to cast into hell; yes, I tell you, fear him! (Luke 12:5)

Sullivan is, like his Mirror Universe opposite Sean Hannity, a tribal Catholic whose allegiance to the Church is familial, not doctrinal. Tribal Catholics tend to know what they know of the faith, not through careful study, but through a sort of osmosis that takes popular anecdotes and confuses them with Bible stories or (in this case) takes a phrase popularized by Pope John Paul II and makes it "what Jesus *always* said". It's quite true that John Paul's watchword was "Be not afraid!" and that it was a fine watchword for the time and place in which he found himself. But it simply is not the case that Jesus told us "always" to be not afraid.

Similarly, Sullivan's itch to refashion Jesus as The Opposite of Whatever Those Evil Righties Say is on display here, again leading him to ignore the biblical Jesus in favor of Opposite Jesus:

The message of the Gospels seems to me to be constantly returning to this theme: those who set themselves up as arbiters of moral correctness, the men of the book, the Pharisees, are often the furthest from God. [Actually, Jesus' complaint is that they are *not* "men of the book" because they have subverted the teaching of Moses by elevating their own traditions above the letter and spirit of the law. Note, for instance, this passage from Mark 7: And the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, "Why do your disciples not live according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with hands defiled?" 6 And he said to them, "Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, 'This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; 7 in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.' 8 You leave the commandment of God, and hold fast the tradition of men." 9 And he said to them, "You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God, in order to keep your tradition! 10 For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother'; and, 'He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him surely die'; 11 but you say, 'If a man tells his father or his mother, What you would have gained from me is Corban' (that is, given to God) -- 12 then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother, 13 thus making void the word of God through your tradition which you hand on. And many such things you do."] Rules can only go so far; love does the rest. And the rest is by far the most important part. Jesus of Nazareth constantly tells his fellow human beings to let go of law and let love happen: [Actually, Jesus of Nazareth does not regard the Law as the opposite of love. He regards love as the fulfillment of the Law. To Jews worried that the gospels was an invitation to "let go of the Law", Jesus replied (Matthew 5), "Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them. 18 For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. 19 Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.] to let go of the pursuit of certainty, [Sullivan's emphasis on the gospel of doubt is one of the clearest examples of his muddy thinking. Yes, the gospel encourages us to be doubtful about doubtful things. There is no gospel political program, no official Christian way to do art, philosophy or science. But that does not mean that everything is up in the air. Jesus commands neither doubt nor certitude, but faith. "Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side; do not be faithless, but believing." And Jesus, make no mistake, teaches that we are to extend that to the teaching of the Church, including the teaching about homosexual practice, which is the core of his objection to "Christianism". That's why Jesus says to his designated successors, "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me." (Luke 10:16). So while it's quite true that when some partisan hack tells you that Jesus wants you to vote for him because he will uphold the teaching of the Bible about gun control, capital gains taxes, and Strength Through Torture we are looking at political pandering and a bogus attempt to use the Faith as a political lever, it does not follow that everybody who believes the Faith teaches something definite is a "Christianist"] to let go of possessions, to let go of pride, to let go of reputation and ambition, [to let go the disordered demands of what Paul calls "the flesh"], to let go also of obsessing about laws and doctrines. [The person who has no interest at all in laws and doctrines is perhaps not the best person to adjudicate who is "obsessing" about them, just as the person who is petrified of Marian devotion is probably not the person to determine that Catholics honor Mary "too much" and the teatotaler is unlikely to know who drinks "too much."] This letting go is what the fundamentalist fears the most. [No. It is what human beings fear the most, Andrew Sullivan included.] To him, it implies chaos, disorder, anarchy. To Jesus, it is the beginning of wisdom, and the prerequisite of love. [Actually, for Jesus, the fear of the Lord, not "doubt" is the beginning of wisdom.]

The reader who sent in the initial alert about the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence in the San Francisco Church writes:

Just wanted to thank you and confirm that your blog entry made all the difference. It was something the diocese would tolerate, but not if it was brought to light. This really highlights the "power of the (your) blog." I'll let you know whether the current event really gets shelved. There will likely be protests if it is.

Thank you so very much.

P.S. Check out the kids cool halloween party

Sinite Parvulos - Ad Me Venire.

I hope they don't disparage the memory of "women religious" in front of the kids.

Folks, this was accomplished because *you* guys took the time to do something about it. Pay thyselves on the back for a job well done!

Scrat is the single greatest animated character in all CGI films to date

So imagine my joy at discovering this treasure

Scrat - No time for nuts
Uploaded by sabo-tage

Courtesy of the glorious WebElves.

And courtesy of Sydney, we have these!:









What joy!

The Text of Fr. Bernhard Blankenhorn's Talk for the Chesterton Society on line now!

I promised I'd get back to this today, so here I am

Squiboda radiates his customary contempt for me as he writes:

Oh the irony!!! Mark quotes from Jimmy's combox without addressing the actual post that combox sprouts from.

Isn't Jimmy the ultimate torture apologist? Let's look at some of his quotes in that post:

"The truth is that at this point we don't have a good definition for torture--one that will allow it to be distinguished from other uses of the infliction of pain (mental or physical) to ensure compliance with various goals--and so at present moral theologians have the liberty to hash out the question until the issue matures to the point that, should it be warranted, an official response would make sense."

"We do, after all, need a sensible way to distinguish torture from the efforts of the state to deter crime by putting people in prison (something that is not pleasant and thus involves a form of pain) or the efforts of parents to keep their four-year olds from rushing out into the street by giving them a swat on the fanny (ditto on the pain)."

That's everything every combox torture apologist has ever written in Mark's combox. So how come Jimmy hasn't been labeled by Mark?

Perhaps Jimmy doesn't have a dictionary handy? Maybe he actually is ignoring Mark's handy dandy "definitions" because he doesn't WANT torture to be defined.

If you read closely, Jimmy is also saying that there are torture apologists throughout the Vatican and especially in the CDF.

So why isn't Mark putting his finger in Jimmy's chest and accusing him of being a torture apologist and/or trying his best to ignore Mark's clear definitons of torture?

Most likely because Mark knows Jimmy would pin his ears back with one hand while continuing to blog with the other. No name calling, no getting his panties in a bunch, no being a blowhard. Jimmy is a pro.

Therein lies the difference between Mark Shea and Jimmy Akin...

Squiboda appears to have either not followed the discussion very carefully, to have ignored what I have said in the past, to have ignored Jimmy's post, or perhaps all three. Indeed, in his zeal to condemn me he managed to write:

Mark has consistently labeled anyone who disagrees with him in any way as a torture apologist.

and when I pointed out to him that this is, in fact, a lie, he replied:

I missed the part where you explained why Jimmy Akin isn't a torture apologist. Did you get a free pass on that because I lied about something?

obliging me to point out the following:

Here's the deal. When you categorically declare that "Mark has consistently labeled anyone who disagrees with him in any way as a torture apologist" and I fail to say that Jimmy (and Dave, for that matter, as well as others who have disagreed with me) are torture apologists, it is not incumbent upon me to explain why I failed to live up to your slander. It is incumbent upon you to explain how you can categorically declare that "Mark has consistently labeled anyone who disagrees with him in any way as a torture apologist".

To his credit, Squiboda took responsibility for the lie and apologized. He then asked:

So how come Jimmy Akin isn't a torture apologist?

And I replied:

Because he's basically answering the question "Has the Church ever issued a definition of which acts constitute torture and which do not?" The answer to that question is "No" and I don't think it's at all problematic for Jimmy to state that fact. What the Church has said is "Torture is intrinsically immoral." It has not provided a taxonomy of definitions about every conceivable permutation of moral acts that might constitute torture.

I will discuss this question in more detail on Monday.

Thanks for acknowledging your false charge and apologizing. I appreciate it.

Evidently, however, this was not enough. Or Squiboda's ingrained contempt for me just got the better of him again. Or both. At any rate, he replied:

You are most certainly welcome for accepting my apology Mark. If you think your explanation of Jimmy Akin's explanations makes sense, why don't you take a poll.

I apologized, maybe it's time you did too. If you continue to make excuses, you won't have much of a base to take polls from.

You need a whole weekend to respond to Jimmy Akins posts in order to show that he is saying the same thing you are?

Wouldn't it be cool if Jimmy Akin did a post where he admitted that he was saying the same thing as Mark Shea? I would pay big bucks to read that article!

The trouble with ingrained contempt is that it hurries you past the plain sense of words in the search for their most damning sense. This, I am afraid, is what Squib has done in his reading of both Jimmy and me. Somehow, he's persuaded himself that I said, "Jimmy Akin's posts are saying the same thing I am." Actually, it would be much nearer the mark to say "Jimmy is scarcely talking about the same thing as me at all." That's why I have no big issue with Jimmy's posts.

Jimmy, as even a cursory reading of his post will show, is focusing on the question of whether the Church has answered the question "What is the definition of torture?" Note that he focuses on whether a dubium has been submitted to the Church and whether Catholic theologians have taken up the project in any focused way. The answer to those questions, as I could have told you, is "No." But since this blog has never ever asserted that the term "torture" has been given a rigorous definition by the Church, that's not particularly germane to the discussion. Jimmy, in short, is answering a question I have never bothered to ask because I already knew the answer. And his answer is 100% accurate. The mystery of why it took "all weekend" for me to respond to Squib's devastating reply is not hard to seek: I have a life. When I say "See you Monday" on my last Friday post that means it's pretty likely I'm gonna be busy on the weekend.

One of the many mysteries of this discussion for me is how so many people seem to think I believe that all forms of coercion are torture and that I am mortally opposed to ever trying to distinguish them. I have said again and again (including in the article that began this entire conversation) that it is perfectly reasonable to try to distinguish legitimate forms of coercion from torture. Precisely what I object to is the attempt by torture apologists (see, for instance, Linda Chavez' sleight of hand in my article) to hopelessly blur the distinctions between the two so that torture gets called "aggressive interrogation" and is impossible to distinguish from legitimate interrogation. This is the real goal of all those people who insist on finding it perpetually impossible to know what torture is, who never seem to get around to figuring out that even waterboarding, cold cells, and Palestinian hanging are what any sane person would call torture, and who cannot even get it through their heads that the Church really does teach that torture is intrinsically immoral, no matter how many times you point them to a Magisterial document or three that says it is.

So Jimmy's perfectly right. We do need to distinguish legitimate forms of coercion from torture. I am not such a moral imbecile as to think handcuffing a prisoner or forcing him to put his hands on his head is torture. I leave that to the moral imbeciles who want to pretend that it is impossible to ever know whether an act is torture or not. And though I haven't asked him, I suspect Jimmy too would not find it hard to distinguish between handcuffing a prisoner and subjecting him to hypothermia.

Here's the thing: It's not really the *job* of the Church to define every possible permutation of what could be an act of torture, just as it's not up to the Church to define every conceivable way in which an employer might cheat his workers. The Church tells us that two of the sins that cry out to heaven for vengeance are oppression of the poor (Ex. 2.23), and defrauding the laborer of his wages (James 5.4). It does not give us a complete catalog of the almost infinite number of way to commit these sins. But lack of this catalog does not allow us to say that these sins do not cry out to heaven for vengeance.

In *exactly* the same way, when the Church declares (as She does) that torture is immoral we cannot, as Dave Armstrong wrong-headedly says, declare "I can't discuss whether "torture" is immoral without knowing exactly how one is defining that term (it being a fine line in many cases)."

The simple fact is, you *can* and indeed *must* declare that torture is intrinsically immoral. This does not forbid you from trying to define what torture is, nor from trying to distinguish it from legitimate acts of coercion (or, if it comes to that, from *all* acts of coercion since not all torture is done to coerce. Sometimes it's just done for fun.)

This is why, you see, all the "I'm desperate to have a definition of torture" stuff is so counter productive when the subject is the question "Is torture intrinsically immoral?" As I was at pains to remind Dave, when the question is "Is torture intrinsically immoral?" the answer is simple: yes or no? The Church has answered it for us and the answer is "Yes". That's the teaching of Veritatis Splendor, expanding on the teaching of the Council. It really is a no-brainer. Torture is intrinsically immoral.

Dave has made repeated demands to know why I think the Coalition for Fog is at war with this simple point. And given that he has read their site and their repeated sneers and smears aimed at those who accept this rather obvious teaching, I don't know what else to add that will convince him. It could be that he simply doesn't fully grasp what "intrinsically immoral" means. If not, I will tell him: It means there is no circumstance--ever--which renders such an act justifiable. When applied to the act of torture, this means that there is no circumstance--ever--that renders torture justifiable. The Coalition's appeals to Fr. Harrison essentially boil down to an attempt to say that John Paul is wrong. Here's how it works:

John Paul says, in a section completely devoted to describing just what he means by "intrinsically immoral" that torture is intrinsically immoral. What does the term "intrinsically immoral acts" mean, Holy Father? Why, it means

acts which per se and in themselves, independently of circumstances, are always seriously wrong by reason of their object

Golly, that's a big problem if your country is engaging in torture such as waterboarding, cold cells and Palestinian hanging, your President has lyingly said, "We do not torture" and you want to make excuses for that and neutralize Catholic opposition to this crime against God and man. What to do? Find Fr. Brian Harrison, who dislikes all this modernist Vatican II stuff and who describes Joseph Ratzinger has a "weak reed" and a liberal. Fr. Harrison very reliably tells us that John Paul "brands" torture (note loaded and hostile language) as intrinsically immoral and declares

My understanding would be that, given the present status question is, the moral legitimacy of torture under the aforesaid desperate circumstances, while certainly not affirmed by the magisterium, remains open at present to legitimate discussion by Catholic theologians.

This is *precisely* like getting ahold of, say, Richard McBrien or Daniel Maguire and having them explain that, in the case of the desperate circumstance of incest or rape, abortion, while certainly not affirmed by the magisterium, remains open at present to legitimate discussion by Catholic theologians. The purpose is to say the Old Guy in Rome doesn't have to be listened to when he says abortion (and torture) are intrinsically immoral. That's the goal of the Coalition. Frosting on that argument is provided by the reliable Chris Fotos, who does his Catholics for a Free Choice imitation by pointing to the credentials of the theologian who is deconstructing magisterial teaching and saying, "Who is Mark Shea compared to the credentialed awesomeness of Daniel Maguire and Richard McBrien Fr. Brian Harrison?"

The real question however, remains carefully unaddressed: Who is Fr. Brian Harrison compared to Pope John Paul II? For like it or not, John Paul II says that torture, like abortion, is intrinsically immoral and that there are therefore absolutely no "desperate circumstance" that legitimates either act. That's what "intrinsically immoral" means.

Assuming we are now on the same page and that the Coalition has either abandoned its derisive rhetoric about Veritatis Splendor 80 as a "fundamentalist proof text" or else, failing that, has fallen silent as the rest of the Catholics in the room at last recognize that the Coalition is peddaling dissent just as much as Catholics for a Free Choice, let us turn to the question of defining torture. No. I don't mean to repeat myself yet again. Instead, what I want to point out is that the whole sudden need to define torture is driven by one thing and one thing only: the Administration's need to cloud the issue, not our need to know what torture is.

Why? Because we already had perfectly workable guidelines that the military and police employed for decades without massive bafflement over whether handcuffing somebody was tantamount to beating them with a rubber hose. Periodically, folks like the Coalition will point out that American troops have used torture. Yes. And they have been properly prosecuted when caught doing so. So the point is what? That the Army regulations were just a sham? And the torture apologist say *I* hold the military in contempt! On the contrary, I hold the military in high regard, not only for maintaining a code of honor in dealing with prisoners, but for successfully resisting this Administration evil attempts to loosen perfectly functional regulations so as to make it easier for the Administration to order the military to torture prisoners as it has already authorized (and continues to authorize) the CIA to do so.

It is, therefore, perfectly legitimate to distinguish torture from legitimate coercion. The military has done so for decades. So have the police. That's because, until the Bush Administration insisted on "going to the Dark Side" in the words of our Vice Glorious leader, the standard for prisoner treatment was the same as the Catechisms: treat prisoners humanely and with respect. But once the Bushies became enamored of the idea of Strength Through Torture, their apologists had to find a way to justify it. And so the sudden baffling fog descended and everybody started asking about the exact, precisely, technical difference between torture and more "aggressive interrogation."

Which is my point: It is not legitimate to *pretend* to try to distinguish between torture and coercion while in reality trying to confuse them to the point that nobody can tell whether handcuffing and waterboarding are distinguishable. This is the goal of those who demand definition yet accept none: not even those in use by professional interrogators for the past 60 years. Such attempts to generate fog and confusion are simply attempts to make excuses for what is going on, right now, at the hands of the Bush Administration. One need not have a definition of every conceivable act of human degradation to be able to know that some acts are torture. The Administration and its apologists are past masters at euphemism, so that Khmer Rouge tactic of waterboarding becomes the friendly horseplay called "dunking" and cold cells where men die of hypothermia are dubbed "discomfort".

Jimmy, coming late to the conversation and trying to do his job as a specifically Catholic apologist answered the question about a torture definition in a perfectly honorable way: he tried to address the question of whether Mother Church has given a wire-drawn definition of torture. No, She has not, he concluded. And he's perfectly right. Unlike some of his more polemical readers, he did not conclude from this that it is impossible to define torture in any way, nor did he conclude that because every possible permutation of torture has not been defined, therefore no obvious act of torture can ever be named as torture. Jimmy, being indeed a true pro, knows that this is not so and so does not draw the conclusions that a guy like Squiboda does.

However, many torture apologists are all too eager to overlook the obvious in a rush to justify the inexcusable. So, to recap, the obvious is this:

Torture is intrinsically immoral. The United States of America has engaged in and continues to engage in acts which no reasonable person can deny are torture. Men have (repeatedly) died from such acts. The United States has now passed legislation which effectively disengages the US from the obligation to abide by the Geneva Convention by giving the guy ordering the torture the final authority to define what is and is not torture. I have named three acts which any sane person (except George W. Bush) recognizes as torture: waterboarding (which the Veep himself boast about while denying he is doing so), cold cells and Palestinian hanging. The President has lied by declaring "We do not torture" while authorizing these and other intrinsically immoral acts and continuing to do so. And most depressing of all, Christians, including not a few Catholics, make every excuse they possibly can for it and attack those who protest it as Torture Pharisees, liars, enemies of America and even enemies of God (if one takes seriously the full meaning of "selling one's soul").

Way to go, Team!

Stimulus.

Response:

Got a response from the Archdiocese! Here's the text:

"Permission to use Ellard Hall should not have been given to the group. The Archdiocese of San Francisco has directed the parish to end the arrangement immediately. For years the group has directed contempt and ridicule at Catholic faith and practices. The particular targets of the group's derision are women in religious communities, for whom Catholics, and many non-Catholics, have a special reverence and respect."

Well done, folks!

StrongBad's Missing Halloween!

Those Who Do Not Learn from History are Condemned to Repeat it - George Santayana

New Jersey Rejects Abstinence Funding

New Jersey will not accept federal abstinence dollars since doing so requires teachers to say that sex within marriage is best, the Kaiser Network reported.

America: The Happy Land of Upside Down where the government is conscience-stricken at the thought that marriage is the best place for sex and a Catholic is told that he has "sold his soul" by opposing torture.

A friend sends along the...

Priests for Life Voter's Guide.

Haven't had time to read it myself, so I can neither affirm nor deny what they say. The main thing in the equation that has changed for me since the last election is that the contest is not longer between one party that is zealous committed to the intrinsic moral evil of abortion vs. a party that doesn't give a rip but is willing to exploit pro-lifers by pretending to care every election cycle. Under those circumstances, I could vote for the GOP because I prefer a party that is largely passive and cynically exploitive about abortion to a party filled with gibbering foaming fanatics who are bound and determined to expand the murder of babies as far as they possibly can.

This year, however, (and probably for many years to come thanks to this mendacious Administration and its lackeys), the choice is now between a party dedicated to the intrinsically immoral thing called abortion and a party dedicated to the intrinsically immoral thing called torture. I do not see how a Christian can vote for any candidate who supports either. So I will be voting for candidates who reject both or, failing that, I will register my vote with the Lord of All Nations at in the Eucharist Adoration Chapel.

More Rave Reviews for "Grace Before Meals"

A PBS (!) show wherein a Tae-Kwan-Do-instructor-turned-priest (!) talks about the goodness of family embodied in sharing meals together. Very Crunchy as well as very Catholic (not to mention human).

Join the South Dakota Novena Against Abortion!

Chris Burgwald writes:

I'm hoping you might plug the novena our diocese is encouraging for the successful passage of our state's abortion ban. The novena began yesterday, Sunday the 29th, and concludes on Monday, the 6th. You can find more information and the text of the novena at the website for the Campaign to Affirm HB 1215.

Dwight Longenecker on Converts and Keyholes

Scott Adams must Read Comboxes

Interesting piece in Christianity Today on the enduring influence of Fra Angelico

By the way, if you are interested in the arts and the creative process *and* in the attempt to reflect on such matters from a Christian perspective, you can hardly do better than to read Dorothy L. Sayers The Mind of the Maker. Her basic thesis is that, though Christian artist have been *making* art for centuries, very little has been done to try to understand the creative process from a Trinitarian perspective, so she attempts to do so. She does so because the human ability to create is a profound reflection of the creative Trinitarian God in whose image man is. A terrific book.

Help Maureen Wittmann Help Sophia Institute Press

A reader asks:

My family was just wondering about umbilical stem cell research vs. embryonic stem cell research. Isn't there enough umbilical stem cell matter available to eliminate the need for embryonic stem cell research? I know you might not be the expert on this but maybe you could send me to a reliable source for this.

Right. You can get stem cells from umbilical cord blood. However, that means denying the abortion industry a chance for monstrously huge profits from recycling aborted babies.

In short, what is driving ESCR is $$$$$$.

"Canadian" = "Fanatical Christian"! Who knew?

Fr. Rob writes:

This past weekend I gave a little talk to my parishioners on "Making Political Decisions" as a Catholic, by way of introducing Bp. Olmsted's "Catholics In the Public Square". I have posted it at Thrown Back with some remarks about the circumstances of my talk.

Also, you may have seen that, after intruding himself into the Missouri stem-cell debate, Michael J. Fox admitted on "This Week" that he hadn't even read the initiative in question. Revealing, yet again, why we should ignore celebrities who comment on politics and morality. I have a few comments on that as well.

The Michael J. Fox thing reminds me of something I've been thinking for a while, which is that the Left's tendency to use victims as human shields for genuinely morally objectionable idea is something that can ultimately only end in a sort of backlash of heartlessness. The backlash will not be justified, anymore than the use of victims as human shields, but it will be a perfectly predictable, almost mathematical, example of social dynamics as the drunk that is humanity gets up after falling off the horse on one side and proceeds to fall off the horse on the other.

I'm sorry Fox has Parkinson's. I'm sorry my Grandma had it. I'm sorry I'm at risk for it. But chopping up babies is not the answer and a good percentage of people still retain the awareness that this is so. In fact, a good percentage of people know that what drives ESCR is $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ and not a single proven cure for anything. But the Pusher of ESCR are hoping to silence all opposition with the sad spectacle of a sick man. Sad spectacle of victims, put forward to ram some immorality down people throats tends to generate anger, because everybody recognizes the cheap emotional manipulation at work. Most people are polite and say nothing for a long time. But let the anger build up long enough and sooner or later a tipping point is reached. Then you start to get people beginning to make fun of the emotional manipulation. But it doesn't stop there. They go on to make fun of the victim himself (because it feels liberating and transgressive). Eventually, it becomes hip and transgressive for the powerful to frankly exult in mocking the powerless. Something in the human soul is numbed and even killed as the impulse that originally drove satire to laugh at the foibles of the corrupt powerful is perverted to laugh at the weak and suffering as "losers". Exhibit A:



I've never much cared for South Park, because while most people are chattering about "South Park Conservatism" I've long has the sense that it's really just nihlistic libertarian contempt for anything that interferes with the Imperial Autonomous Self. Somebody explain to me what is funny about this?

Defeat Murder Inc.

The effort to ban abortion in South Dakota is being dwarfed by the$8,000,000 PLANNED PARENTHOOD is pouring into this state. Polls say that as of right now the November 7 referendum to ban abortion in SouthDakota is losing by 3 percentage points. Fourty percent of all the media time between now and election day has been purchased by the PRO-ABORTS.

In an attempt to counter this media blitz, a wonderful PRO-LIFE individual has offered a matching challenge grant of $250,000. What this means is that anything you give in the next week will be matched dollar for dollar up to a total of $250.000. Media time is cheap in South Dakota. Your gift of $150 when matched will buy two 30 second ads on GOOD MORNING AMERICA. Your gift of $300 when matched will pay for two 30 second ads during the NFL football game the Sunday before election day. For more information on how to donate, visit www.VoteYesforLife.com or call 888-855-4580.

If you wish to write a check, make it payable to
VOTE YES FOR LIFE and send it today to
P.O.Box 461,
Sioux Falls, South Dakota 57101.

YOU WILL BE GLAD YOU DID. DONATE TODAY!!!!

If we are successful, this could be the first step in REVERSING ROE v WADE. And please pray incessantly between now and election day for the success of this courageous effort. Thank You!

Jack Ames
Director,
Defend Life
410-337-3721
www.defendlife.org

If only Episcopal Priests...

could marry!

Once again, the curse of sexual perversion and abuse finds its root in the monstrous discipline of celibacy. Read all about it here.

Interesting Interview with Pitta Jixxon on Kiwi National Radio

He's always struck me as a basically nice guy. This interview reinforces that impression.

The World Series of Catholic Theologians Championship poll is up and people are now voting

We're down to two worthy thinkers: Joseph Ratzinger and Hans Urs von Balthasar.

Bp. Bruskewitz Has Some Interesting Remarks

Where I am Tomorrow

If you live in the Seattle area or, more specifically, over on the Peninsula, here's my calendar for tomorrow:

October 28 9:30 AM-2:00 PM Our Lady Star of the Sea. Bremerton, WA. Topics: 101 Reasons not to be Catholic, Behold your Mother, and This is My Body. Contact: David Bauld

Till Monday, Ciao!

I love letters like this

I was reading about purgtory so as to better grasp what Catholics believe.

I grew up Catholic and have spend the last twenty years as a non denominational Christian.

Recently as a member of CBS, Community Bible Study, I met a woman searching God and through this process has come to doubt Catholicism. I am answering questions about Mary and Purgatory for her. To freshen up, I read yours and a few other articles this morning.

I am sorry, not trying to be critical, but the biblical quotes provided to support Purgatory are so far fetched to perceive this non biblical event that I find it impossible that anyone who has studied the basis of the scripture could come to this belief.

I pray that you would study farther and deeper about what you have written. Scripture is supported strongly. The Covenant of God is a weave of perfection through the bible until you add historical documents such as the Catholic's did. I have spent this year in constant prayer, meditation, theological and self improvement studies. I pray for you and all Catholics that these deceiving beliefs will come into the light and Satan will lose many from his hand as knowledge brings salvation to many. God loves to verify Himself! My mother, step-father and grandmother are still Catholic and I will continue to teach and plant seeds.

Millions of Catholics, when on a journey to find a deeper relationship with God, come to a non denominational or Baptist church and live the rest of their lives in a Joy from Jesus in the beauty and light of His perfect Words

Does anybody really think that first paragraph was even slightly honest? "I want to know what you believe, you lie-blinded heretic." Some research.

Still, I will simply point out to the reader that they begin with a man-made tradition of sola scriptura as their basis, so it's not surprising that they are unaware of how revelation is actually transmitted to us. Happily, even they don't *really* believe in the Bible alone. They rely on some very important chunks of sacred tradition and would be much worse off if they did not. They simply don't see that if they treated the piece of sacred tradition they accept in the same way as they treated the bits they don't, they would be deep in outer space. I would like to invite the reader to settle the question, "Why do I borrow some pieces of extrabiblical tradition from the Catholic Church, but not all of it?" To that end, I invite them to read my book By What Authority?: An Evangelical Discovers Catholic Tradition. There's no real point talking about Purgatory until you've disabused yourself of the false notion that Christian faith is "based on" Scripture. It's not. It's based on apostolic tradition, both written and unwritten. If you don't know that, you don't really know what you are talking about in doctrinal disputes, because you will inevitably contradict yourself in your rush to contradict the Catholic Church.

Vice Glorious Leader Dick Cheney tests the American Public to See Just How Many Lies He Can Tell Before Anybody Notices

An astonishing triple play from the White House:

WASHINGTON - The White House said Friday that Vice President Dick Cheney was not talking about a torture technique known as "water boarding" when he said dunking terrorism suspects in water during questioning was a "no-brainer."

Human rights groups said Cheney's comments amounted to an endorsement of water boarding, in which the victim believes he is about to drown.

"You know as a matter of common sense that the vice president of the United States is not going to be talking about water boarding. Never would, never does, never will," presidential spokesman Tony Snow said. "You think Dick Cheney's going to slip up on something like this? No, come on."

So, you see, friendly horseplay called "dunking people in water" is "aggressive interrogation". But it's not waterboarding or simulated drowning. And "dunking" (which is not waterboard and is *certainly* not torture) works. So critics of waterboarding torture dunking are wrong to say that torture doesn't work. And besides, the Vice Glorious Leader was most certainly not talking about waterboarding or torture. He was talking about "dunking". Totally different thing. And if you suggest that the Vice Glorious Leader is perhaps the most mendacious person in public life since Bill Clinton, you hate America.

Sad to see Tony Snow morph into Comical Ali just to save this lying rat's ass. Sadder still to have to read the inevitable justifications for this disgusting pastische of lies which will doubtless appear in the attached combox.

A reader writes concerning the Torture arguments:

It's hard to keep the players straight without a scorecard.

I wonder if we could set up a web page where people would go put their names down under the various positions they hold.

"Torture is..."

"a) intrinsically immoral, and must never be done"
"b) intrinsically immoral, and must sometimes be done"
"c) not intrinsically immoral, and may sometimes be done"
"d) not really *defined*, is it, and if we can't define a thing, we can't discuss it, which I am aware of but certain 'apologists,' who seem not to understand how civilized conversations occur, are not, making discussing these things exquisitely difficult, but it is a difficulty I endure, because I understand how to discuss things in a proper fashion, and have no little experience in doing so, and I regret that not everyone whose arguments I have vitiated appreciates this, although for those rare few who do show an awareness of custom and a sense of decorum, which is chiefly shown by either agreeing with me or expressing warm appreciation for the tone with which I write, I am most grateful."

In addition, for those who are willing to agree that, whatever torture is, it's intrinsically immoral, there are various secondary questions like "What is torture?" and "When O when will Mark Shea define torture for us a fourth time because we didn't like the first three definitions he offered?" There's also the "When is Shea going to admit that torture *works* (despite the fact that Shea has repeatedly said "Even when torture works, it doesn't work because it's a Faustian bargain like abortion, which also "works" but at the cost of both the individual and national soul."

I am happy to report that a genuinely *new* contribution was made to the discussion yesterday by a guy named "John" over at Jimmy Akins' blog. I reprint the relevant part here:

But for a church where our main symbol is Christ crucified on the cross, and a church that has always supported the death penalty until lately from some of the liberal wings of the church-how can Mark Shea speak out as the moral authority of the church? Without torture-would we not have any martyrs? Are you saying that God did not allow this torture for a reason?

Now *that* is creative thinking.

Anyway, the state of the game at present (as near as I can tell is this):

The Church says torture is intrinsically immoral. Some people don't want to accept this. Such people search for excuses like "Fr. Harrison disagrees!" or emit put downs like "fundamentalist proof text" to show that simply accepting the language of the Magisterium is dumb. I think accepting the language of the Magisterium is smart. Therefore, I take it as a starting point in my thinking that torture is intrinsically immoral and regard those who reject this proposition as being just about as reliable as those who labor with might and main to reject the Church's teaching on abortion.

Now, some people accept the church's teaching and then proceed to the question, "But what is torture?" (a reasonable question). Among those who do are the honest and the dishonest. The honest ask because they want an answer. The dishonest ask because they don't want an answer. The *really* dishonest ask and are answered three different times:

Def 1: Check the dictionary. It defines what "torture" means. This is rejected as hopelessly fuzzy.

Def 2: Check the regulations for treatment of prisoners that have been used by the military and police for the past 50 years. Again, my readers find themselves helpless to have the slightest inkling of what "torture" could possibly mean.

Def 3: Try the Interrogator's Golden Rule of "If you'd call it "torture" if it were done to you or a friend, then it's torture. Still the cry goes up that all is mist and fog and I will not clearly define torture.

After the third reasonable definition, I think it is incumbent on the person who is allegedly baffled about defining torture to change the terms of the discussion by admitting that their goal is not to define torture but to keep from defining it. Granting that obvious fact, I think the question then becomes "Why?"

I've seen two basic reasons emerge: 1) a sort of wrong headed traditionalism that simply is suspicious of John Paul as a "liberal" and 2) a more political desire to make excuses for the policy of our present Administration. I think Fr. Harrison's arguments are pretty clear artifacts of the former and that Kevin Miller has shown quite nicely why his argument is all wet. I think the Coalition for Fog's motivations tend to lie more with the latter and simply find Harrison's argument a good excuse (since almost any will do, including calling people who accept Veritatis Splendor "Pharisees", "jerkwads" and "liars"). I could be wrong, but that is the impression I have formed. What I do know is that every argument of the Coalition is calculated to keep Catholics from seriously *applying* the clear teaching of the Magisterium to the actual, intrinsically immoral acts our State has committed and is continuing to commit.

At any rate, once it becomes obvious that some folk simply aren't interested in definitions of torture, I think it's time to point out that this, in part, is why the whole "What is torture?" question is wrong-headed from the start. For, as I have said, "Don't torture" is not the be all and end all of the Church's teaching. The positive command is that prisoners must be treated humanely. If you are trying to treat prisoners humanely, you will not find yourself accidently torturing them, or asking whether dragging them around on a leash naked is "humane" just so long as you don't set the dogs on them too.

At this point we are confronted with the raw impulse to sheer consequentialism. One reader, for instance, loves to talk about "two minutes of discomfort as a small price to pay" (as though waterboarding consists of one friendly bit of "dunking" horseplay, after which the victim (who in ever case, we know to be guilty of something beforehand) comes up spluttering and laughing, "Okay guys! I give!". Of course, what we are really talking about is days, weeks, even months of abuse and torture which has, in several cases, led to death.

Meanwhile another reader, in an easy-to-misunderstand post (and *very* angry when his easy-to-misrewad post is misread) writes of our Vice Glorious Leader's boasts about waterboarding Khalid Sheik Mohammed:

Can we now, at long last, put the Shea/Comerford "torture never, ever works" myth to rest? Pretty please?

C.S. Lewis was wrong. Screwtape's strategy may have been "to get a man's soul and give him *nothing* in return," but so what? Everybody wants something for nothing. It's no different with Satan. Deals with the Devil usually do have a short-term payoff. If they didn't, no one would ever make them.

My sincere apologies for misreading the post initially, K.

There are two basic responses here. First of all, it is wonderful how credulous some readers can be when our Vice Glorious Leader speaks. First he tells us we tortured Mohammed and it worked. In the next breath, he denies it was torture. *And* we are to accept his denial while still facing the cold hard fact that "torture works". Marvelously Orwellian. It never seems to occur to my reader that if the Vice Glorious Leader is lying about torture, he might be lying about its efficacy. At least one other source, without the proven track record of mendacity, gives a rather different account of the efficacy of our torture of Mohammed.

However, prescinding from the fact that Cheney is a proven liar, I would just like to say that, for my part, I have never said that torture never works. I do agree with Mr. Comerford (again, the only person I know with actual *experience* in the matter everybody is such an expert in) that torture is very likely not to work and that you will mostly get from the victim whatever they think you want to hear. But I'm willing to grant our Vice Glorious Leader's boast that torture "dunking" and other forms of friendly horseplay such as cold cells, Palestinian hanging, and threatening to murder the victim's seven- and nine-year old children may well "work". Mainly, however, I have said that, in the Faustian tradition, it doesn't work even when it works, just as abortion doesn't work even when it works. Abortion solves an immediate problem at the cost of the individual and national soul. So does torture. That's nature of doing intrinsically immoral things that good may come of it. It's always a Faustian bargain.

I have no particular difficulty with a black Jesus

... just as I have no particular difficult with the Euro Jesus of some particularly gooey forms of Euro piety, nor with a Madonna and Child with Japanese features. Christian art has *always* portrayed our Lord according to local ethnicities. The earliest images we have of him are as a beardless Roman shepherd.

However, I do find it tedious to have Jesus' story subsumed by tiresome little homilies about multiculturalism. They do not express the story in a new way. They simply graft on to it a lecture about racism that is quite foreign to the story. It's just dumb to say Jesus was born in a manger because discriminatory lodging laws in Bethlehem denied his mother a bed at an inn. It's stupid, in a nation of dark-skinned people, for Nicodemus to say, "Can we believe that this dark-skinned Nazarene is really Him?" American forms of racism just can't be mapped to antiquity that way and the project comes off as ham-handed and peculiarly provincial.

Mystery email

I've been meaning to ask about this for some time. Every morning, a certain percentage of my mail is from total strangers and consists of a couple of random words in the header followed by various snippets of word salad made out of various texts that make a sort of weirdly evocative free verse. Here's one I grab at random from my mail before deleting it:

Are you missing the English weather yet !
Rush Limbaugh accused Michael J.
Funnily enough, we were actually just talking about partnerships with firms in the US this lunchtime.
Curious what part of the country you've chosen?
Now you son of bitch, get on with it in the proper region. And thanks for spamming this post with your own brand of ill-educated guff.
This one is straight from the source and will walk you through setting.
So I see it as an indirect advertisement after all the more you click on the sponsered links the more money they make off of the advertizers on the page.
It can also be used to check for the existence of subroutines. Absolutely no chance. THANK YOU FOR YOUR EARLY REPLY. Go and do a bit of research. I'm expelling solid wasted quite nicely, thanks.
Fox appears in a TV commercial supporting the Missouri Stem Cell Initiative. I appreciate your interest in my dirt road, but really, it's rather peachy these days.
I laughed so hard at this work of art that makes the point so well. in Ogden, UT along with the blue ribbon I got.
Apparantly Michael J.
FOR THE STAINLESS STEEL CANDLE HOLDER AND THE VASE. Forget the standard answers about RSS readers and such, read this article for some interesting solutions. WE HOPE TO COOPERATION WITH YOUR CO.
See the full text of the Drudge Report exclusive below. During the Clinton Administration I had an extremely good and well paying job. We must have that drink before you go.
Any pictures of the seat would be expceptionally usefull, plus any and all information you could send me. So I see it as an indirect advertisement after all the more you click on the sponsered links the more money they make off of the advertizers on the page. But, such is life in the world of online publishing these days.
How long will the podcast experiment take?
Fox did, but more on that later. FOR THE STAINLESS STEEL CANDLE HOLDER AND THE VASE.
Only completely wrong on two out of your three claims John. Were they just being sarcastic? This is a powerful political ad that some say hits below the belt. THANK YOU FOR YOUR EARLY REPLY.
Ever heard of a Buckminster Fullerene?

All this is mysteriously titled "Jew freelance". Every email is unique.

I presume such emails are caused by a virus or something, since there is always a gif file attached. But my virus software doesn't delete them and they don't appear to infect my machine.

I guess I'm wondering "What are they and what's the point?"

Anyone?

Ladies and Gentleman, I give you the inimitable Dale Price!

Somebody get that guy to *publish*!

Sandra Miesel, Fearless Vampire Hunter

Sandra will be interviewed next Monday, 30 October, at 6 PM EST on CATHOLIC ANSWERS LIVE. The subject is witchcraft and witch hunting.

Scott Hahn: Albino Assassin

Scott's written a nifty little book called Ordinary Work, Extraordinary Grace: My Spiritual Journey in Opus Dei.

I have various friends (like Scott) who are members of OD but I've never been a member myself and so have not known much about it experientially. Scott's book is a nice intro that give people a sense of the Opus Dei emphasis on finding God in the ordinary and, in particular, in the ordinary work of layfolk as we go about our daily jobs. As a devotee of the St. Catherine of Siena Institute, I am all about laypeople living out their lay vocations, so I have a natural affinity for OD's emphasis on the laity taking their proper place in the world and not falling into a clericalist mindset that supposes Catholic life begins and ends with clergy and religous.

The book will not be much help for those seeking salacious details about assassins, conspiracies, and curtain-gliding spies (but of course that's what you'd expect from someone with MK-Ultra Clearance levels within the Secret Brotherhood). But on the whole, it's a good snapshot of how a typical OD guy views life from within the OD tradition.

For further info, the OD guys have set up a little weblink about the book here. If you click on it, your computer will do a little retina scan of you (it won't hurt) and download all your personal information to the Very Large Array of computer banks in the basement of St. Peter's. Standard procedure. Nothing to worry about.

A reader writes:

You probably will blog on this today, but just in case, I wanted to pass this along. Via Lileks, I read the transcript of Hugh Hewitt's interview with Andrew Sullivan about his new book. At one point in the interview (or "Inquisition" as AS put it) I read the following:

=====

HH: No, I just was asking…for your self-identification as a Catholic, which leads me to my next question. Do you consider yourself under the authority of Benedict, or before him, John Paul II?

AS: What do you mean under the authority? I’m not legally under his authority, no.

HH: No, under a moral authority.

AS: As I say in the book, I am obliged, as all Catholics are, to take his teachings extremely seriously. But the truth of the Church is based on three things, and you’re not a Catholic, so you may not know this. But the Second Council said quite clearly that the authority that we are under as Catholics is both the Pope, secondly tradition and scripture, and third, what Catholics call the Sensus Fidelium, which is the sense of the faithful, the experience of faith in everyday life. It’s the tripartheid way in which Catholics understand their faith. And you’re not a Catholic, are you.

=====

OK, maybe I'm not up to speed on Vatican II, but if I had coffee in my mouth, it would be painting the computer screen of the laptop at that point. I am familiar with Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Magesterium — but "Sensus Fidelium?" Is this a common concept used to try to get the Church to "keep up with the times?" It sounds like a big fat key to relativism, but I'm curious about your thoughts.

Actually, there is such a thing as the sensus fidelium. Andy, true to form, treats it as a sort of running public opinion poll that get 1/3 of the vote in deciding what Catholics believe this week. Here is what the sensus fidei actually is, courtesy of Lumen Gentium:

12. The holy People of God shares also in Christ's prophetic office: it spreads abroad a living witness to him, especially by a life of faith and love and by offering to God a sacrifice of praise, the fruit of lips praising his name (cf. Heb. 13:15). The whole body of the faithful who have an anointing that comes from the holy one (cf. 1 Jn. 2:20 and 27) cannot err in matters of belief. This characteristic is shown in the supernatural appreciation of the faith (sensus fidei) of the whole people, when, "from the bishops to the last of the faithful"[8] they manifest a universal consent in matters of faith and morals. By this appreciation of the faith, aroused and sustained by the Spirit of truth, the People of God, guided by the sacred teaching authority (magisterium), and obeying it, receives not the mere word of men, but truly the word of God (cf. 1 Th. 2:13), the faith once for all delivered to the saints (cf. Jude 3). The People unfailingly adheres to this faith, penetrates it more deeply with right judgment, and applies it more fully in daily life.

It should be noted that the "faithful" include, not just Andrew Sullivan and those on the TIME editorial board who agree with him about gay marriage, but the whole body of the faithful, throughout time and space, in union with the Magisterium that is graced to articulate and develop our understanding of the deposit of faith. So it's not quite as simple as polling American Catholics to see what they think of gay marriage or contraception and then adjusting the doctrine accordingly.

Interestingly, Hewitt is dead wrong in his question about the the authority of Peter. Precisely what it is *not* is a "moral" authority. Peter does not command our obedience because he is a good man. He commands our obedience because he is the Rock upon which Christ has chosen to build his Church. Dittos for our bishops. The notion that bishops wield "moral" authority is nonsense. They wield spiritual authority that is quite apart from whether they are good men or not. A Catholic's duty is to obey the teaching of the Church, whether it is articulated by John Paul the Great or Alexander VI, precisely because that teaching does not in the least depend for its truth on whether the teacher who teaches it is a saint or a sinner bound for perdition. It depends on the Holy Spirit, not men.

Michael J. Embryo on ESCR



All human beings are equal, but movie stars are more equal than others.

I'll be doing a radio gig tomorrow morning at 11:00 AM-Noon PDT

The show is called "Sound Insight" and is hosted by a friend of mine named Dr. Tom Curran, a Catholic evangelist/speaker who lives here in the Seattle area and who does phenomenal work.

You can listen on-line to KBLE 1050 AM here.

"It is terrible to contemplate how few politicians are hanged." - G.K. Chesterton

Vice-Glorious Leader Dick Cheney celebrates torture by calling it something else:

Q: I've had people call and say, please, let the Vice President know that if it takes dunking a terrorist in water, we're all for it, if it saves American lives. Again, this debate seems a little silly given the threat we face, would you agree?

Permit me to interrupt with a visual aid. "Dunking people in water" evokes pool parties, bobbing for apples, friendly horseplay with your teenage pals in far-off summers of golden youth. What it refers to, in *this* conversation, is this (image courtesy of a Cambodian Museum display about the horrors of life under the Khmer Rouge):



In short, it's a euphemism for what plain speakers of English call "torture" and what those familiar with Catholic teaching call "intrinsically immoral". Our Vice-Glorious Leader responds:

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I do agree. And I think the terrorist threat, for example, with respect to our ability to interrogate high value detainees like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, that's been a very important tool that we've had to be able to secure the nation. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed provided us with enormously valuable information about how many there are, about how they plan, what their training processes are and so forth, we've learned a lot. We need to be able to continue that. ...

Q Would you agree a dunk in water is a no-brainer if it can save lives?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: It's a no-brainer for me, but for a while there, I was criticized as being the Vice President "for torture." We don't torture. That's not what we're involved in. We live up to our obligations in international treaties that we're party to and so forth. But the fact is, you can have a fairly robust interrogation program without torture, and we need to be able to do that.

Just remember: Khmer Rouge-style torture worked on Khalid Sheik Mohammed. But we don't torture. Our Glorious Leaders say so and they don't lie or anything.

I will not shed a tear if this bunch winds up arraigned for war crimes.

Except for my country, that has such men leading it.

After a pause, Sungenis Resumes Jew-Baiting Kookiness

Always a healthy sign when your "news sources" include National Vanguard White Supremacists and various conspiracy nuts.

Unleash the Power of the Blog!

A reader from San Francisco writes:

The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence now use Most Holy Redeemer Parish Hall (beneath the church) for their monthly Revival Bingo.

Here's the listing for the next event. (scroll down to graphic)

Here's an article describing the fun, including prizes of porn dvd's and sex toys.

Here's the Sisters' own description with graphics.

And here's some info on "Peaches Christ", guest host for the "Bare Chest Bingo" event on November 2nd. (Read her/his bio, s/he is a direct descendant of Christ)

All to take place in the same building where the Body of Christ is reserved.

The pastor is the chancellor of the archdiocese, Fr. Stephen Meriwether.

In addition to emailing Fr. Meriwether with your well-deserved protests, don't forget to CC Archbishop George Niederauer and Bishop John Wester as well as Bishop Ignatius Wang. There is simply no excuse for this revolting sacrilege.

The Parousians are Contacting Me!

Representatives of this advanced alien civilization have made contact with me from their secret base in the swamps of Louisiana. They inform me that the gutsy Parousian Emily Byers has written another gutsy Parousian Emily Byers editorial that is pissing of various pro-death powers and principalities who are trying make life hard for her in retaliation. If you go to the Reveille and post message of support on their message board, you'll be doing a good thing for a good gal and supporting freedom of speech in the bargain.

Christians Who Cheer-Led for War Seem Strangely Uninterested in Massive Damage Inflicted on Iraqi Christianity

Reason #9348574393745945673459 to Homeschool

Arguments Against Atheism We Could Do Without

Somebody named Henry Gee argues against Richard Dawkins with a good solid piece of anti-rational sentimentality of the "If you believe Santa exists, then he does" variety.

There's just one problem with this argument: it's garbage. If you believe with all your heart that Santa exists, guess what? He still doesn't exist. Arguments for theism that proceed from warm sentiments about The Miracle of a Child's Heart and so forth are sentimental junk. They show that the author is aware that Dawkins is weirdly inhuman, smashing a child's fantasy world out of some sick need to be a shrill atheistic bag lady screaming at the traffic. But they do nothing to advance the actual arguments for theism which, contra Gee, are not based on faith, but on reason and knowable without revelation.

#1 LIBERAL ARTS COLLEGE IN U.S. SEEKS FULL-TIME CATHOLIC CHAPLAIN

Williams College, located in the beautiful Berkshire Mountains of Western Massachusetts, is currently conducting a national search to hire a full-time Catholic Chaplain to begin working by July 1, 2007. Williams is eager to hire a Catholic priest, but is also considering lay people for the chaplain's position. Applications for the Catholic Chaplain position are due by NOVEMBER 15, 2006. The college's official job posting and information about how to apply are available here.

The Catholic Chaplain at Williams has an incredible opportunity to positively influence some of the best and brightest college students in America. Williams is one of the top liberal arts colleges in the nation. U.S. News & World Report has ranked Williams as the #1 liberal arts college in America for the past four years, and has ranked it as #1 in academic reputation for the past sixteen years.

Williams students go on to become leaders throughout society - in business, law, politics, the arts, academia, and even the Church. The college's many distinguished alumni include: Fr. Michael Scanlan, Chancellor of the Franciscan University of Steubenville; Steve Case, founder of American Online (AOL); Bill Bennett, former U.S. Secretary of Education; Arthur Levitt, former Chairman of the Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC); George Steinbrenner, owner of the New York Yankees; Steven Sondheim, award-winning Broadway composer and lyricist; and Rep. Mark Udall, U.S. Congressman from Utah. Other Williams alumni have distinguished themselves by pursuing vocations as professors at Catholic universities, priests, seminarians, nuns, campus ministers, and theology doctoral students.

Williams has a student body of about 2,100 undergraduates. Approximately, 20% to 25% of these students self-identify themselves as Catholics when they start college. The Catholic Chaplain at Williams has an incredible opportunity to help these students live, learn, and deepen their faith. Since these students will go on to positions of leadership and influence, the Catholic Chaplain can have an enormous impact in renewing society and the Church.

The vibrancy of Catholic life at Williams has increased during the past decade. Papal biographer George Weigel noted this renewal in his recent book Letters to a Young Catholic. The result has been a tremendous number of vocations for a small, secular college. Recent Williams graduates include three lay campus ministers, one Franciscan brother, and one seminarian for the Archdiocese of Boston. Last year, two students attended a priesthood discernment retreat for the Diocese of Springfield and a number of female students attended retreats with the Sisters of Life and Little Sisters of the Poor.

Help the many Catholic students at Williams keep and deepen their faith. Please spread the word about the Catholic Chaplain position at Williams so that smart, vibrant, faithful priests and lay people will apply for it.

More Killjoy Research from the World of Science

Turns out vampires don't exist. Should we be relieved or infuriated that somebody actually bothered to prove this? What's next? A Leprechaun-Existence Probability Survey?

I need to figure out how to turn this blog into some useless study of something and get grant monies from some science foundation.

This is a Job for Professor Charles Xavier

The Super Mutants are here!

Stories the MSM Is Neglecting to Tell

A reader writes:

The latest news on Pope Benedict's speech on faith and reason has reaped some fabulous fruit. Islam's best and brightest scholars are rallying behind the Pope and have issued a declaration to this effect. (No doubt you've been overwhelmed by all the media coverage.) They are eager for dialogue and it looks as if real progress will be made in Vatican-Islam relations.

For more info, go here, here, and here.

In addition, Stratford Caldecott (a very nice man whom I had the pleasure of meeting at last year's Chesterton Conference) weighs in on the Open Letter from the Islamic Scholars.

One of the funnier things to happen this year

...was when somebody contacted Catholic Answers, demanding that I be thrown off the their Speaker's Bureau because I had dared to suggest that the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki fit the definition of a war crime. After all my other shocking America-hatred, what with opposing our Glorious Leaders' push for torture and all, you'd think that readers would finally get the message that when it comes to supporting the demands of the Fatherland vs. the teaching of Holy Church, I'm gonna side with Holy Church every time.

Anyway, somebody from Catholic Answers called to try to figure out what was going on. We had quite a lovely chat, in which we explored the various nuances of what I actually thought. I turned out I thought that the Church should be obeyed, even when it conflicts with American policy and conservative dogmas. The funniest and most surreal part (and one which made us both laugh) was the moment when we explored the question of whether there might be any conceivable situation in which nukes would be justified and I jokingly said that "In a perfect world, I suppose there is a situation in which you could justly incinerate 30,000 human beings." The sheer weirdness of that stays with me as a sample of the bizarre lengths to which Justifiers of All Things American will go when confronted with the fact that the Church and conservative dogmas and mythos are not always on the same page.

I'm reminded of that as I consider the various quotes one finds in this Register editorial from last year:

After Hiroshima

Aug. 21, 2005

Nuclear effects of the atomic bomb lingered in Japan for years.

Do Hiroshima and Nagasaki's effects on our logic linger in America?

We at the Register were startled by the number of angry letters - a few of them canceling subscriptions - that we received in response to Catherine and Michael Pakaluks' column calling America's use of the atomic bomb 60 years ago "Our National Sin."

After all, the Church's position on this matter is clear.

Pope Paul VI called America's use of the atomic bomb "butchery of untold magnitude." Pope John Paul II called it "a self-destruction of mankind" and named Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Auschwitz as places marked by man's sin that should now be places of pilgrimage.

The Second Vatican Council condemned our nation's use of the atomic bomb. The Catechism repeats its denunciation verbatim in No. 2314: "Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation."

No matter how vicious the Japanese war tactics were, and they were cruel and brutal, America crossed a line we never should have crossed.

Though we were surprised at the intensity of readers' response, we can understand the concern that many letters expressed. The Church's condemnation of the bomb is severe and unsettling. It could seem that, by calling our use of the atomic bomb a "crime against God and man" and comparing Hiroshima and Nagasaki to Auschwitz, the Church is making America's position in World War II the moral equivalent of our enemies'.

Nothing could be farther from the truth.

American sacrifices in World War II are not in the least impugned by the judgment that our president was wrong to use of the atomic bomb. Without America's contribution to the war, the world would be a very different, and much darker, place. Pope John Paul II himself said he was "personally grateful for what America did for the world in the darkest days of the 20th century."

We can be proud that Americans sacrifice a great deal of money - and many of our troops sacrifice their lives - to lend a helping hand to our enemies when our battles are over. We did so in Japan, and we do so today in Iraq.

We would also point out that the U.S. military today champions the principle that we must do everything possible to spare civilian lives in wartime. Our country is a pioneer in the creation of accurate weapons technology that has greatly reduced the threat to civilians.

So, if our military no longer advocates, nor practices, the Hiroshima doctrine, isn't it time for Catholic Americans to own up to the evils in our past, and learn from them?

Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen in his series of talks titled "What Now America?" said that, by our tacit refusal to recognize the evil of the atomic bomb, Americans became susceptible to a new notion of freedom - one divorced from morality.

"When, I wonder, did we in America ever get into this idea that freedom means having no boundaries and no limits?" he asked. "I think it began on the 6th of August 1945 at 8:15 am when we dropped the bomb on Hiroshima. ... Somehow or other, from that day on in our American life, we say we want no limits and no boundaries."

Shortly before becoming Pope Benedict XVI, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger said much the same thing.

"There no longer exists a knowing how to do separated from a being able to do, because it would be against freedom, which is the absolute supreme value," he said in his talks about the crisis facing Europe. He put this misunderstanding of freedom at the heart of the use of the atomic bomb, and of many contemporary problems.

"Man knows how to clone men, and so he does it," he said. "Man knows how to use men as a store of organs for other men, and so he does it; he does it because this seems to be a requirement of his freedom. Man knows how to build atomic bombs and so he makes them, being, as a matter of principle, also disposed to use them. In the end, terrorism is also based on this modality of man's self-authorization, and not on the teachings of the Koran."

America's greatest gift to the world, in World War II and in our founding documents, is our strong re-affirmation that freedom comes from God and that the state cannot take it away.

We can only continue to give the gift of freedom to the world if we recognize that the same God who made us free taught us that there are boundaries to that freedom - boundaries we must never cross.

I await with eagerness the day Catholic Answers is told they must not quote Vatican II, Fulton Sheen or Joseph Ratzinger either, due to their un-American notions that nuking cities is a war crime.

Till that time, I am happy to report I remain on CA's Speaker's Bureau.

Maria Cantwell, Female Pro-Woman Senator of the Woman!

Helps staffer avoid garnishment for child support when he worked for her campaign.

More reasons to vote Third Party!

Science Giveth and Science Taketh Away

Recent "scientific" prophecies of our imminent evolution into Eloi and Morlocks are greatly exaggerated.

This Warms the Cockles of my Heart

Reader Sydney Carton writes me (a couple of days ago):

On your day off from blogging, I thought I'd try to get involved in a thread over at Michelle Malkin's Hot Air blog. The thread involved a video clip of waterboarding, and I tried to make the case that waterboarding is torture. Once I started down that road, other commentors abandoned all pretense that waterboarding isn't torture, and started advocating for direct, full on torture (along with other horrible things). Instead of denial tactics ("oh, waterboarding isn't torture!") or arguments as to why waterboarding might be different from torture, the thread quickly developed into arguments that torture SHOULD be used. I tried to educate them as to certain moral principles, trying to avoid mentioning Catholic terms or its specific teaching, so as to keep it purely rational and avoid people responding in tribal ways ("oh, I'm not Catholic" etc). And certain people seemed to sense a glimmer of the truth of what I was saying. But I don't know how successful I was. Take a look.

The conversation veered off into why the principle of dual effect applied to the killing of innocent civilians, but not to torture. My reply, had I not been interrupted from work, would've been that torture is objectively evil and that the principle of dual effect doesn't apply in that case. But I'm not sure if that's right or not. I don't think that dual effect can exist for torture, because I can't figure out how it would work in practice (it seems impossible to intend to avoid torture but engage in it to get information, wheras it's very easy to avoid killing civilians while trying to kill the enemy and innocents happen to get caught in the middle). Anyway, if you could illuminate that for me, that'd be great. It'd help me for when I try to do this again. And perhaps give me a thumbs-up for my (small) efforts to help the Right step away from performing or condoning objectively evil things.

First off, well done! It's a joyous thing to see Catholics going out into the wide world and planting seeds. I'm proud of you! Button-busting proud!

As to your questions: I discussed (sort of) the whole killing vs. torture thing here.

The main thing though, is not to get diverted into the typical discussion of "Just how close to torture can we tiptoe before its really, actually, technically, precisely torture?" Such questions are, from a Christian perspective, idiotic nonsense and almost the essence of a Pharisaic approach to discipleship. The disciple of Christ is not asking how close he can get to sinning without crossing the line. He is asking "How do I obey the positive teaching of Christ to the fullest?" In this case, the positive teaching of the Church is not hard to find:

2313 Non-combatants, wounded soldiers, and prisoners must be respected and treated humanely.

If we are seriously trying to treat prisoners humanely, we are not engaged in a hair-splitting legalistic pursuit of the question "How much waterboarding is too much?" or "If I drag a man around on a leash naked, but don't kick him, is that technically torture?"

The really difficult part of all these discussions is the deeply rooted supposition that, at the end of the day, Sin is a *necessity* in the sense of a positive thing. As Malkin's readers clearly show, they believe that torture is essentially wrong but right, wrong but practical, wrong but able to Get the Job Done. The Church stops at "wrong" and says "If it's wrong (and that's what "intrinsically immoral" means) then it is not only *not* necessary to winning, it is actually detrimental to winning--even if it helps you win." Like the other intrinsic evil of abortion, it may "do the job" (or not), but it's always going to be a Faustian bargain. Far wiser is to embrace the counter-intuitive road of treating prisoners humanely (i.e., trusting God) than to trust in sin to save us.

Again, well done!

Wheeeeee!!! I get to go to the dentist today!

Blogging will be a bit less today accordingly.

Finally getting back to the torture discussion

Last week I made noises about responding to Chris Blosser's latest post on torture. Then life (and Blogger) got in the way. Now Dave Armstrong has weighed in too, as well as various and sundry others.

With these various other folks in play, I find my task simpler and more complicated. Simpler in the sense that others are now making points better than I am and more complicated in that the number of people to respond to is getting to be more than I can do given my limited amount of time.

One interesting phenomenon that I have touched on (insufficiently) in the past come to the fore courtesy of Dave Armstrong's replies to some of the more virulent Coalition for Fog types out there. What I mean is this: there is an interesting discussion to be had about the relationship of the Church's developed teaching on torture (i.e. it's intrinsically immoral) with the Church past though and practice. The same can be said for the Church's developed teaching on slavery and various other morail issues (including, even, abortion). The telling thing is how little actual interest the Coalition for Fog types have in actually engaging that question. That's because the mission is not finding out how to understand and obey the Church's moral teaching on torture. The mission is *refuting* that clearly stated moral teaching.

Armstrong's goal is to *understand* what the Pope is up to in Veritatis Splendor. He, like many folk, has difficulties reconciling past and present Catholic attitudes and actions with what John Paul has said. But he is not driven by an agenda to try to liquidate John Paul's teaching. And so, when he voices his difficulties, he is surprised to find members of the Coalition for Fog attempting to use him as a cheerleader for their "Ignore JPII" agenda. The results are amusing:

Is this "us vs. them" mentality necessary? My aim (like Fr. Harrison's) is to present what I believe to be the most reasonable harmonization of Catholic past and present and consistent development of doctrine, not to join in some frenzied crusade against Mark Shea.

I simply made some observations about conduct that I felt were necessary. But I have also consistently stated that both sides in this debate have been guilty of personal attack and less-than-stellar conversational ethics.

At the Coalition for Fog blog, after giving me misery for making a statement on such things, you stated (i.e., if you are this same "Jeff"):

"Here's my idea. Don't use a lot of invective against people. But if you do for some reason, try rational discussion with them if they present themselves with rational discussion. Try repeatedly to forgive and start over afresh without bearing grudges.

"Overlook insults and pettinesses. When you don't manage to do this, pick yourself up and try again. . . . Just smile and take it like a big boy. Change the conversation, ask them what they had for dinner, or ask after their ideas instead of yours.

"Remember that many people (not all) who hang around cyberspace have loneliness or other problems. Be a friend, be kind, show them Christ. Okay, no one's perfect, but when you slip up, don't justify it. Look for failures in yourself, rather than in others. No, ignore and explain away what seem like MANIFEST failures in others. When someone slangs you, make a friend of them if you can.

"Why this should be controversial--at least as something we should be trying damned hard to do--I don't know. It seems like Christian Spirituality 101 to me."

http://www.blogger.com/ comment.g...069650931622816

But now it seems you have flunked Spirituality 101 also, judging by your comments above:

"Does anyone notice how appallingly arrogant Kevin Miller is? I mean, he makes no argument whatsoever! Far above argument he is, that man."

"He simply makes a series of utterly unsupported assertions, as if they are clear to the merest imbecile!"

"Absolutely zero attempt to prove his point. But why use reasoning when haughty condescension will do the trick?"

"What caused these folks to lose their minds?"

"No need for faulty reasoning if you leave the reasoning out altogether."

". . . sterile, exclamatory kindergarten nonsense . . ."

C'mon, Jeff. Please follow your own advice (and biblical injunctions).

"And now Dave Armstrong, . . . thinks the Miller/Shea reading is a crock."

I never stated such a thing. Again, why is it necessary to indulge in such divisive invective? To be frank, I haven't even followed this debate very closely (as always, I'm doing many other things, including lengthy discussions on the problem of evil).

I was simply giving my opinions (as I'm always quite willing to do!), without claiming to be any sort of expert. I found Fr. Harrison's reasoning impressive. But I don't deny that there may be reasonable analysis from the "other" side. I was quite impressed with both Scott Carson's argument and demeanor, as you can see from my paper.

This illustrates something of the difficulty of having a conversation about this in a time of charged political allegiances. On September 10, 2001 it would have been possible to have an abstract discussion about, say, Islamic-Catholic relations or the place of torture in the life of the modern state. Current events make that hard because some people have vested interests in scoring political points and making excuss for the acts of the current political Top Dogs. Armstrong, as far as I can tell, is not among them, so he finds himself a bit non-plussed by those who are all about winning a political fight against the teaching of John Paul rather than having an actual balanced discussion of the Magisterium.

As to Armstrong's, McIlhenny's (and by extension Fr. Harrison's) argument itself, I don't have much to add to what Scott Carson and Michael Liccione have to say.

It appears to me that three views are possible of the developed teaching of the Church:

There is no real contradiction between the developed teaching of Veritatis Splendor and previous thought and practice.

There is a real contradiction and John Paul is wrong.

There is a real contradiction and previous thought and practice is wrong.

I think it obvious there is a real contradiction between John Paul and previous thought and practice.

The question then becomes "Is there a contradiction in infallible Church teaching?" And that becomes much less clear. As we have already seen, Church practice is precisely what is *not* protected by infallibility. Church teaching is. The attempt to make previous juridical acts and prudential judgements based on previous generation's best understandings of faith and morals is not sufficient basis to reject the Church's developed teaching. Scott Carson puts it:

It is worth noting at this point that the premise claiming that earlier "popes and councils" actually "sanctioned" torture is in itself hopelessly vague, even independently of its use in this particular argument. We are not told who these popes were, or which councils, or the circumstances under which they are being said to have "sanctioned" torture, or even what the alleged sanctions were other than threats of excommunication for "heresy". It ought to go without saying that this kind of premise is utterly useless if for no other reason than its manifestly controversial nature.

Even putting aside the difficulty of this particular premise, however, it is perhaps even more important to note that the language of Veritatis Splendor is as unambiguous in its condemnation of torture as the interpretation of earlier history regarding the alleged "sanctioning" of torture is ambiguous. So there is one point on which Shawn is quite right: either there has been a mistaken prudential judgment made somewhere, or the indefectibility of the Ordinary Magisterium is on the line.

Here it is essential to see that the judgment of Veritatis Splendor, that torture is per se immoral (or, "intrinsically evil", as Shawn puts it), is not a prudential judgment, but a judgment about matters of faith and morals, the very domain in which the Ordinary Magisterium is regarded by faithful Catholics as indefectible. The judgments of earlier "popes and councils", however, to the effect that the use of torture is the correct way to safeguard the common good, are clearly matters of prudential judgment, matters in which the Ordinary Magisterium is not regarded as indefectible.

So what Shawn has shown, if anything, is that if we are to regard the Church's Ordinary Magisterium as indefectible, we must take Veritatis Splendor to reflect the infallible teaching on the moral status of torture, and we must regard the actions of earlier "popes and councils" who threatened folks with excommunication for not using torture as misguided attempts to safeguard the common good. This is not what he intended to show, however, which is why I regard the argument as "uncharacteristic"--I think he is usually a little more careful than this, and his arguments are often sound as well as valid.

This pretty well sums up my point (though I would say that Veritatis Splendor, Gaudium et Spes and the various other texts the Catechism points us to are, technically speaking, authoritative but not infallible definitions of torture). The sotto voce idea at work among the Coalition for Fog types is, at the end of the day, that we can basically ignore John Paul when he says that torture is intrinsically immoral. Somehow, the text magically *stops* saying torture is intrinsically immoral if you can find five old texts and two modern theologians who dislike or don't understand why it says that.

But this is not, in fact, how the text is to be dealt with. It is to be read for what it says and it says that, among other things, torture is intrinsically immoral. Reconciling it with past teaching is perfectly legit, but not at the cost of essentially denying it says what it says. In short, I think Veritatis Splendor's description of torture as intrinsically immoral is, quite simply, to be accepted, not wriggled out of, as the Coalition seeks to do.

Armstrong, it is worth noting again, does not seem to me to be engaged in this project of simply trying to ignore John Paul. I think he misunderstands me to some degree, given that he seems to be under the impression I think the Magisterial teaching is infallibly defined, and given that he seems to be under the impression that the argument is about what acts constitute torture. That's not what the discusssion, at least with Coalition types, is about. The discussion is not about defining torture (when we are talking about Veritatis Splendor). It is an argument rather between those who say "Assuming we all agree that X is torture, X is *always* wrong by its nature" and those who say, "Assuming X is torture, X is sometimes (such as when the Bush Administration wants to do it) OK." The Church's teaching is that torture is *always* wrong. Always. Without exception or excuse.

No. VS is not an infallible definition. It is, however, an authoritative teaching. That it is a recent development is of absolutely no consequence to our obligation to obey it. That it presents difficulties to Fr. Harrison is of absolutely no consequence in our obligation to obey it. That other issues, like slavery, present difficulties to Cardinal Dulles, is of absolutely no consequence to our obligation to obey it. But this, in the end, is all the Coalition has going for it as it labors to persuade, if not other Catholics, at least each other that those who advocate obedience to the Magisterium are idiots who have failed to split the difference between past practice and present teaching.

That is why I get angry at the alleged Catholics of the Coalition who are, just like Catholics for a Free Choice, laboring to persuade Catholics to ignore that teaching using much the same sort of rhetorical trickery. Just as Catholics for a Free Choice uses the sleight of hand stunt of asking if the Church has ever infallibly defined when a human person comes into existence (it hasn't) and chatter about Thomas' theories of ensoulment on the 40th day in order to justify ignoring the Church's clear teaching about the dignity of human life from conception to natural death, so the Coalition is engaged in the project of asking what the exact, super duper precise fine-tuned definition of torture is, and point to earlier prudential judgments in order to, by similarl sleight of hand, persuade us to ignore the Church's clear, developed teaching about the obligation to treat prisoners with respect for their human dignity.

It's an easy mistake for newcomers to the discussion to get drawn into such Coalition for Fog tactics as endless attempt to explain away Veritatis Splendor 80 or to endless try to fog the discussion with questions of just how long you can hold a man under water before it's really, technically, exactly, precisely torture. But what it comes back to is not all this pettifogging but a much more positive demand from Holy Mother Church.

Simply put, tthere is more to the torture discussion than "What's the exact, precise, wiredrawn, micromillimeter line between legitimate coercion and prisoner abuse/torture?" The expectation of the Church is not that the disciple of Christ will seek to get as close to torturing somebody as possible without technically doing it. That is the mind of the scribe and Pharisee at work (and, indeed, to say that is a real insult to most of the scribes and Pharisees). The mind of Christ asks, "How do we treat our prisoners with respect (while still, of course, honoring our obligation to the common good by getting from them the information necessary?"

As I have repeatedly pointed out, the only actual person I have met (cyberly-speaking) with actual experience with interrogation, both in the military and the police, is Richard Comerford, who bangs away on the fact that torture, in addition to being intrinsically immoral, is also stupid because it fails to get you the info you want. It has other counter-productive results as well.

But in a culture that thrives on image and feeling, it *feels* like brutal realism. Far more realistic, in fact, than the gospel. And that is ultimately what I'm trying to get at. If our Faith is true, then it is *true*. It conforms to and describes reality. And when a big loud dominating cultural voice shouts to the contrary and urges us to do what the Church loudly and clearly declares is "intrinsically immoral" we had better be damned sure we know what we are talking about if we dare to insouciantly tell the Church she is wrong. Because, in her authoritative teaching, she has a disturbing habit of being shown to be right, often after the fact and often after a great many people have died and/or sent themselves to hell in the effort to disprove her.

The Church is already looking pretty damned prescient in her refusal to catch war fever from the Administration in 2003. The lunacy of that same group of people, and its supporters, now telling the Church she doesn't know what she's talking about when she teaches that torture is intrinsically immoral seems to me to be a living laboratory demonstration of how many people are willing to learn from the proverb "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

New StrongBad Email!

"Christianism Watch" Watch

Sullivan goes off his meds and sees something sinister in James Dobson asking people to pray about the election. I think the whole "Theocrats are Tunnelling Under Your House!" thing just jumped the shark.

The Brilliant Architects of Our War on Terror...

...continue to bear out the wisdom of Uncle Screwtape: "Ah, but to get a man's soul and give him *nothing* in return! That is what really gladdens the heart of our Father Below."

Yeah. Torture. It's hard-headed practical realism.

An Evangelical Reader writes:

Initial disclosure: I was raised evangelical (PCA) and am still. Due to recent marriage and a move, I've been looking for a new church for several months, and am becoming increasingly disgusted by the state of Protestantism. There's nothing like church-shopping to open your eyes....

I've been reading your blog fairly consistently for some time, and am finding myself intellectually attracted to the truth claims of Catholicism. There are many questions that this gradual process has sparked, but one in particular confounds me. During your discussion of torture, you mentioned that not all Magisterial teachings of the Church are infallible. My understanding had been that the "Magisterium" was defined as "the infallible teaching of the Church."

If some Magisterial teaching of the Church can be error (i.e., that part of it not designated as infallible), what is the responsibility of an individual Catholic to look behind the teaching to determine whether it's error? What responsibility does an individual Catholic have to keep themselves from following erroneous teachings within the Magisterium?

I must confess that the safety offered by resting decisions about doctrine in the Church, and not me, is quite attractive (and, at the end of the day, the only thing that really makes sense in the context of tens of thousands of denominations all preaching a little differently). But this particular question undermines that.

This question isn't meant as any kind of accusatory, nit-picking, fault-finding Protestant anti-Catholicism. It's a genuine question for which I haven't been able to figure out an answer. And I certainly understand if you don't have time to respond or post about it. Thanks for all the time and effort you put into your blog.

Thanks for your thoughtful note. Your questions are good and reasonable ones and they do you credit. Here, for what little they are worth, are my replies (subject to correction by wiser heads).

The Magisterium refers to the teaching office of the Church. Here's the Catechism with the very basic picture:

The Magisterium of the Church

85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."47 This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

86 "Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith."48

87 Mindful of Christ's words to his apostles: "He who hears you, hears me",49 the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms.

The dogmas of the faith

88 The Church's Magisterium exercises the authority it holds from Christ to the fullest extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes, in a form obliging the Christian people to an irrevocable adherence of faith, truths contained in divine Revelation or also when it proposes, in a definitive way, truths having a necessary connection with these.

89 There is an organic connection between our spiritual life and the dogmas. Dogmas are lights along the path of faith; they illuminate it and make it secure. Conversely, if our life is upright, our intellect and heart will be open to welcome the light shed by the dogmas of faith.50

90 The mutual connections between dogmas, and their coherence, can be found in the whole of the Revelation of the mystery of Christ.51 "In Catholic doctrine there exists an order or hierarchy of truths, since they vary in their relation to the foundation of the Christian faith."52

Note that dogmas are the "fullest" exercise of the Magisterium's office. In other words, the Magisterium exercises its authority to other degrees as well. That's because the Church does not operate by the rule "That which is not compulsory is forbidden." On the rare ocassions the Church makes an infallible definition we are absolutely bound to give it the assent of Faith. But it does not follow that non-infallible teachings are just up for grabs and we are free to reject them. On the contrary, *whenever* the Church teaches "the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms." At the same time, the faithful have to recognize that, sometimes, the teaching of the Church, while binding, is still in the process of development.

So, for instance, in recent years the question has arisen "Why not have women priests?" The normative and binding teaching of the Church has always been that only men can be ordained priests. In the 90s, the issue became so pressing that Pope John Paul was moved to reiterate the Church's teaching in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. The effect of the letter was essentially to say that the Church has no authority to ordain women, not that the Church *forbids* women's ordination. In short, John Paul said, "We can't put in what God left out. If Jesus and the apostles didn't ordain women, we can't either, just as we can't use wine to baptise or consecrate water as the blood of Christ."

But that's as far as it went. A fully developed theology *for* a male-only priesthood is still to be fully articulated. Essentially, OS was a negative statement rather than a positive one, describing why we can't do something rather than describing why we must do the other thing.

I sometimes make reference to what I call "Minimum Daily Adult Requirement" Catholicism. This is the attitude which looks at Magisterial teaching with a lawyerly eye and scrutinizes it for loopholes rather than saying "Unless there is an *extremely* good reason, I'm going to try to frame my judgements and my actions in obedience to Church teaching, as best I can." That, in the end, is my basic approach to all Church teaching. It essentially eliminates the fuss about what, precisely, is infallible and what is not. The approach is, essentially, the same one we take with our mother and is, not surprisingly, how the Church describes the obedience of the disciple as well:

THE CHURCH, MOTHER AND TEACHER

2030 It is in the Church, in communion with all the baptized, that the Christian fulfills his vocation. From the Church he receives the Word of God containing the teachings of "the law of Christ."72 From the Church he receives the grace of the sacraments that sustains him on the "way." From the Church he learns the example of holiness and recognizes its model and source in the all-holy Virgin Mary; he discerns it in the authentic witness of those who live it; he discovers it in the spiritual tradition and long history of the saints who have gone before him and whom the liturgy celebrates in the rhythms of the sanctoral cycle.

2031 The moral life is spiritual worship. We "present [our] bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God,"73 within the Body of Christ that we form and in communion with the offering of his Eucharist. In the liturgy and the celebration of the sacraments, prayer and teaching are conjoined with the grace of Christ to enlighten and nourish Christian activity. As does the whole of the Christian life, the moral life finds its source and summit in the Eucharistic sacrifice.

* I. MORAL LIFE AND THE MAGISTERIUM OF THE CHURCH

2032 The Church, the "pillar and bulwark of the truth," "has received this solemn command of Christ from the apostles to announce the saving truth."74 "To the Church belongs the right always and everywhere to announce moral principles, including those pertaining to the social order, and to make judgments on any human affairs to the extent that they are required by the fundamental rights of the human person or the salvation of souls."75

2033 The Magisterium of the Pastors of the Church in moral matters is ordinarily exercised in catechesis and preaching, with the help of the works of theologians and spiritual authors. Thus from generation to generation, under the aegis and vigilance of the pastors, the "deposit" of Christian moral teaching has been handed on, a deposit composed of a characteristic body of rules, commandments, and virtues proceeding from faith in Christ and animated by charity. Alongside the Creed and the Our Father, the basis for this catechesis has traditionally been the Decalogue which sets out the principles of moral life valid for all men.

2034 The Roman Pontiff and the bishops are "authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach the faith to the people entrusted to them, the faith to be believed and put into practice."76 The ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Pope and the bishops in communion with him teach the faithful the truth to believe, the charity to practice, the beatitude to hope for.

2035 The supreme degree of participation in the authority of Christ is ensured by the charism of infallibility. This infallibility extends as far as does the deposit of divine Revelation; it also extends to all those elements of doctrine, including morals, without which the saving truths of the faith cannot be preserved, explained, or observed.77

2036 The authority of the Magisterium extends also to the specific precepts of the natural law, because their observance, demanded by the Creator, is necessary for salvation. In recalling the prescriptions of the natural law, the Magisterium of the Church exercises an essential part of its prophetic office of proclaiming to men what they truly are and reminding them of what they should be before God.78

2037 The law of God entrusted to the Church is taught to the faithful as the way of life and truth. The faithful therefore have the right to be instructed in the divine saving precepts that purify judgment and, with grace, heal wounded human reason.79 They have the duty of observing the constitutions and decrees conveyed by the legitimate authority of the Church. Even if they concern disciplinary matters, these determinations call for docility in charity.

2038 In the work of teaching and applying Christian morality, the Church needs the dedication of pastors, the knowledge of theologians, and the contribution of all Christians and men of good will. Faith and the practice of the Gospel provide each person with an experience of life "in Christ," who enlightens him and makes him able to evaluate the divine and human realities according to the Spirit of God.80 Thus the Holy Spirit can use the humblest to enlighten the learned and those in the highest positions.

2039 Ministries should be exercised in a spirit of fraternal service and dedication to the Church, in the name of the Lord.81 At the same time the conscience of each person should avoid confining itself to individualistic considerations in its moral judgments of the person's own acts. As far as possible conscience should take account of the good of all, as expressed in the moral law, natural and revealed, and consequently in the law of the Church and in the authoritative teaching of the Magisterium on moral questions. Personal conscience and reason should not be set in opposition to the moral law or the Magisterium of the Church.

2040 Thus a true filial spirit toward the Church can develop among Christians. It is the normal flowering of the baptismal grace which has begotten us in the womb of the Church and made us members of the Body of Christ. In her motherly care, the Church grants us the mercy of God which prevails over all our sins and is especially at work in the sacrament of reconciliation. With a mother's foresight, she also lavishes on us day after day in her liturgy the nourishment of the Word and Eucharist of the Lord.

One of the things the Church is constantly doing is developing its understanding of its own teaching. The curious thing is that the process of development of doctrine is protected by infallibility, but not the Church's implementation of its own teaching. The classic illustration of this is Peter, who infallibly articulated the Church's teaching of Justification by Grace at the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15, and then went on to completely ignore it when he got to Antioch and started avoiding eating with Gentiles (Galatians 2). This pattern has repeated many times in the life of the Church, such as after Nicaea, when the Church condemn Arianism and then a huge portion of the hierarchy promptly became Arian and semi-Arian.

Similarly, you can watch the Church struggle for a *looong* time, trying to figure out how to reconcile the seemingly contradictory portions of its tradition and reflecting its divided mind in the actions of its members. Is slavery acceptable or sinful? Is torture sometimes justified or always wrong? Should we always be pacifists (as was the rule in the early centuries) or is there room for just war? How can God be both one and three? How can God be sovereign and we still have free will? How can all have sinned and Mary be sinless? And so on. As I will show in a later post, what the Church is graced to do is not blunder when it sits down to clearly articulate what she believes. She is not, however, graced to never make a mistake in applying what she understands of the present state of a doctrinal or moral question to current events. And so, those with specialized knowledge can and should bring that knowledge to bear to help the Mother navigate the turbulent waters of the world, even as they listen to her wisdom and bring it to bear on their own thinking.

So, for instance, somebody with a specialized knowledge of genetics or human development can make a real contribution to the Church's understanding of human embryology. The Church can grow in understanding beyond, say, St. Thomas who knew nothing of how the human organism developed from egg to infant. But such specialized knowledge must also be informed by the Church's teaching, which has always said that the human person is sacred and inviolable from conception to natural death.

In the end, our task as disciples is to Listen to Mother. As a general rule, the dnager is not going to be that Mother is going to go around commanding us to do something crazy. Even a cursory reading of most teaching documents will show you that the Church's besetting problem is not a tendency to fly off the handle and embark on mad and immoral schemes. That is more the province of, for instance, the present Administration, or the prophets of Strength Through Abortion, or the various other hasty Theories of Everything that sweep over the face of modernity like gusts of madness.

NY Times Gives a Reliably Enthusiastic Review of Culture of Death Advertisement

The World of Good Keeps Turning!

SSPX and Protestant Fundamentalists Make Strange Bedfellows

That's because the SSPX is just another sort of Protestant Fundamentalism.

Scenes from the Carthaginian Side of the Clash of Civilizations

"I am furious and very hurt," the woman told the Cambridge Evening News. "Imagine my horror when I discovered that my baby was incinerated in the same furnace as the hospital rubbish."

So much of the West's alleged moral sense is, at the end of the day, purely aesthetic. Aborting the baby was okay. But subjecting mum to a *picture in her mind* of burning it was "bad".

This again, is why I think Eve Tushnet's observation about Abu Ghraib was so wise. Postmodern Rightists and other Makers of Fine Distinctions babble on for ours about various euphemisms for genuine torture and invent justifications for acts that are far more ugly and degrading than the stuff from Abu Ghraib. They imagine they are having a morally serious conversation as they speculate about whether waterboarding "crosses the line" into torture if it causes "discomfort" but not actual pain or organ damage. And since neither "walking the dog" (dragging a naked man around on a leash) nor making human pyramids out of naked men, nor hooding them and forcing them to stand on a box with electric wires attached causes any pain or organ damage either, it is all so easily dismissible as mere "psychological tactics" etc.

Until you *see* it. And you know you are looking at evil.

Jimmy Akin Makes a Special Appeal

Howdy, folks!

I am going to be (apparently, all by my lonesome) representing the Catholic faith at this year's Christian bloggers' convention, GodBlogCon 2006.

Major speakers at the event will be Hugh Hewitt and La Shawn Barber.

The conference is being put on at Biola University in La Mirada, California (in the Los Angeles area). The folks putting it on seem to be very Catholic-friendly Evangelicals, but they have gotten a late start in including Catholics in the event. (They got an earlier start including Orthodox bloggers, but better late than never, eh?)

I generally seek to avoid asking things of other bloggers for myself, but if there were a significant Catholic turnout at the event, it could convince the organizers of the need to do more in this area in the future, so I was wondering if you might consider blogging about it for the benefit of any of your readers who are within spitting distance of Los Angeles.

I will be participating in panels at 9 a.m. on Friday morning and 10:30 a.m. on Saturday morning, but Catholics showing up any time during the event would be most welcome.

The official site for the convention is: www.godblogcon.com

And here is a recent post on it from my own site with more information.

Thanks for your consideration, and God bless you!

Jimmy Akin

Cardinal Dulles Offers His Take on Forgiveness

Jeremy Lott has fun at Charlie Curran's expense

A reader wants to know

When will you all take your families here too??

Answer: when there is more evidence for its reality than the word of one bishop and the extreme credulity of Spirit Daily.

Medjugorge may be legit for all I know. But I think the sensible thing to do is wait till the Church makes the call. There's lots of places to go pray that don't involve stampeding into a hasty judgment call in advance of the Church. For instance, the tabernacle at my parish.

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

Reader John J. Simmins for Governor of Maryland!

He writes:

I think you might be interested in this latest entry into the Maryland Governor's race:

Me.

I am running as the only 100% pro-life candidate for Governor in the state of Maryland. As a late entry and a write in candidate, I could use all the help I can in getting the word out. If the spirit moves you, please publicize my efforts. If it doesn't, then don't expect an invite to the swearing in! Here is my website:

http://www.write-ingov.com


Peace!

John J. Simmins

Er, thanks for your prayers anyhow

A reader writes:

Mark, I want to tell you that I and at least 3 other people have continued to pray for you ever since your last e-mail to me. We know that the religious spirit you have only comes out with prayer and fasting, but I and the others have a more powerful Holy Spirit than yours. But we can't force you to accept Jesus as savior and stop your non-born-again Christian untruths. I also talked to George Gardner, probably the most evil person in this country in the '80s and '90s, a number of times before he finally died and went to his ultimate destination. I feel--change that--I know, I am talking to the same type of religious spirit when I write you. He spread his evil by only baptizing aborted babies, not as much speaking, you spread the religious stuff by internet to much more. You are going to be more responsible than he was to God. We all continue to pray that you have a Damascus road experience before it it too late, just like George and I discussed 5 or 6 times before he died. In addition to your hurting catholics by telling them they are ok, you are possibly going to be in the middle of persecution of the born-again Christians that is coming, as exemplified by catholic Georgetown not allowing Christian ministries on campus, because just like Georgetown people doing the persecution can say they are doing the right thing, being catholic is better, you are superior. We will continue to pray for a Damascus Road experience for you, and love you but despise your sin. AMEN

Hmm... likened to an abortion supporter as "probably the most evil man" in the country, declared to be indiscriminately "telling catholics they are ok", found to be a Future Persecutor...

What can you do when you are tried and executed by people with Infallible Prophetic Knowledge?

Speaking of which...

The transcript of Dawkins doing his johnny-one-note routine and getting trounced in an argument can be found here and here.

Quinn gets off to a wobbly start (I empathize. You have to speak quickly on radio and tv and without talking points in front of you). But he makes his points very effectively and Dawkins is too dumb to even know he's made a fool of himself. Money quote:

Quinn: OK, what part of us allows us to have free will?

Dawkins: Free will is a very difficult philosophical question, and it is not one that has anything to do with religion, contrary to what Mr. Quinn says.

Quinn: It has an awful lot to do with religion, because if there is no God, there is no free will, because we are completely phenomena.

Dawkins: Who says there is no free will if there is no God? That is a ridiculous thing to say.

Quinn: William Provine for one, whom you quote in your book. I have a quote here from him. Other scientists as well believe the same thing, that everything that goes on in our heads is a product of genes, entity, environment and chemical reactions, that there is no room for free will.

And Richard, if you haven't got to grips with that, you seriously need to, because many of your colleagues have, and they deny outright the existence of free will, and they are hardened materialists like yourself.

Tubridy: OK, Richard Dawkins, your rebuke to that note if you wish.

Dawkins: I am not interested in free will.

Except, Dick, your whole argument depends on free will, because there is no point in your trying to moralize or persuade without it.

The Battle of the New Atheism

Several folk have written me about this piece, which I found mostly funny, illustrating as it does the old maxim, "Scratch an atheist, find a fundamentalist." I was reminded of (if memory serves) Fr. Richard John Neuhaus' anecdote about some guy at an atheist convention who sat in the audience, hunched over and busily crossing out "In God We Trust" on the money in his wallet. That's what the Great Legacy of Atheistic Humanism is reduced to?

In the same way, what cracked me up was the author's own growing sense of jittery epiphany that, at the end of the day, he's wandered into a nest of mutually excommunicating loonies who are every bit as doctrinaire and narrow as the Fundies they loathe. You come away with the sense that the atheist being profile are just members of particularly strict Fundamentalist Protestant sects that have just jettisoned a little bit more Catholic doctrine than previous Fundamentalist Protestant sects. And best of all, they layered the fatuous self-descriptor "Bright" on top of themselves, just as former Protestant sects might have dubbed themselves "The Illumined" or "The Truly Chosen Seventh Seed in the Spirit Peculiar Baptists". It's too deliciously and unconsciously funny.

How to rescue your progressive credibility

"However, after Mr Cobb clarified that by 'get rid of' he had meant 'abort', not 'put in an institution', he was applauded for his sensitivity in the face of this intensely difficult, profoundly personal, and fundamentally non-other-regarding decision."

"No other person would have any right whatsoever to judge a parent who took such a tragically necessary step for the benefit of their disabled child," said a press release from Australian Democrats Senator Lynn Allison yesterday.

My Latest on Catholic Exchange

Blogger has been maddening the last day or so. Today I am attempting to plow through all the mail that has backed up in my box. If I have not addressed something you are dying to hear about, bear with me. I can only post when Blogger allows me to. If the system cooperates, I'll get to it. If not, well... I'm trying.

When the Left Was Becoming a Parody of Itself...

God sent Rush Limbaugh.

Now that the Right has become a parody of itself, God has sent Stephen Colbert.

“Language has always been important in politics, but language is incredibly important to the present political struggle,” Colbert says. “Because if you can establish an atmosphere in which information doesn’t mean anything, then there is no objective reality. The first show we did, a year ago, was our thesis statement: What you wish to be true is all that matters, regardless of the facts. Of course, at the time, we thought we were being farcical.”

A fitting epitaph for the Postmodern Right and its justifications for torture.

A reader sends along...

a post from his brother, a Marine LC stationed in Anbar province in Iraq.

God bless him and watch over him and his family!

Under the Tusken Sun



Clear evidence of cinema's power to touch the human heart.

Blogger has been screwy all day

This is the first time I've been able to post since my last post. I will try posting more later when they get their act together.

Stephen Baldwin: A Portrait in Zeal Without Knowledge

The Gnostics are Back and Do They Smell Nice!

Thunder, Perfect Mind is a gnostic text. It is also (I'm not making this up) a perfume ad for Prada:

Over the past two decades, multiple analyses and studies have provided
convincing evidence that using oral contraceptives increases the risk of
breast cancer.

Contraception: The Gift that Keeps on Taking.

Why Jesus Commands us to forgive unconditionally

"I survived, and I'm free from the pain because I have forgiven the Nazis. All victims, regardless of who victimizes them, feel angry, hurt, hopeless, helpless and tremendously powerless. I discovered I had the power to forgive. No one could give me that power, and no one could take it away."

She's mistaken, of course, that no one can give that power. In fact, it must be given by God, whether we realize it or not. But he is eager to give it and not very fussy about getting the credit for giving it. But for all that divine eagerness, it remains the most scandalous, difficult--and liberating--teaching in the world: "When you stand to pray, forgive anyone against whom you have a grievance, so that your heavenly Father may in turn forgive you your transgressions." - Mark 11:25

What if the Main Danger is Overestimation of Threats, Not Underestimation?

A reader writes:

I usually would not ask you to settle an argument in your comboxes, but on your entry regarding the play, "The Pope and the Witch" one commentor is suggesting that we should not protest. Citing beatitudes, that Jesus did not protest tax collectors, etc. I am unaware of any Catholic teaching one way or the other regarding this and was wondering if you would comment on protest in general as I (and I imagine others) have run into this before regarding the DaVinci Code, et al. The other objection I hear often (though not really addressed in the combox) is that one should not call attention to the offense through protest. "Don't give it publicity!" they might say.

Protest is a perfectly legitimate activity for Catholics. Jesus protested against the scribes and Pharisees in Matthew 23. Rerum Novarum taught that strikes were a legitimate form of protest for oppressed workers. John Paul II supported the Solidarity protests in Poland. Protesting may or may not be prudent in a particular situation. So it is worth asking if a protest will draw attention to something that might sink without a ripple if Christians had not made such a fuss about it. It is also worth asking if protest is legitimate at times. But there is absolutely nothing in the Christian tradition that says protest is somehow inherently wrong, or a refusal to turn the other cheek.

Prayer Request

String Theory: The Front Line of Materialism's Last Gasp

Problem: the Universe is so fantastically fine-tuned and such an obvious work of odds-defying art that common sense kicks in for the non-dogmatic and they naturally infer the existence of God.

Solution: Invent the multi-verse!: An infinite number of universes of which ours happens to be the lucky one that works. Prop up with String Theory. Hope people buy it. Pretend this is not faith-based science.

A reader asks what I think of this blog entry and the article it cites

I guess my response is: the subtitle of the blog sums up the problem: "Speak Victorian. Think Pagan". Unfortunately, I think a great many of the pundits and Big Thinkers on the war are doing essentially this: including not a few of the Catholics ones. Consequently, they often tend to fulfil the words of Chesterton, who notes that revolutionaries often understand what's wrong, but they very often propose remedies more deadly than the disease. It's true that our leaders are fools for refusing to clearly understand the religious motivations of our enemies. But it's crazy to argue that what we need to do is become a more brutal and immoral people in order to win and that "Victory forgives" (which being translated, mean "Might makes right"). This is simply an old variation on the devil's promise of salvation through sin. The weird thing is that, in wartime, such counsels sound like hard-headed realism. And nobody has been offering such counsels more than the allegedly hard-headed realists who got us and Iraq into this quagmire and whose sole counsels have been to embrace more and more immoral brutality, and to piss more and more on ius in bello teaching. From torture advocacy to eager counsels to shoot surrendering combatants rather than taking them prisoner (which Peters has urged) to the various "keep our options open" murmuring about use of nukes, these immoral fools have simultaneously made important contributions to the biggest debacle of our generation, while still yammering on as though anybody who doesn't listen to their essentially pagan arguments about the need to embrace a nihlistic, Darwinian pagan approach to war is a sucker and a dolt.

Sorry, but they've completely lost my trust.

No Blogging Today Due to Ragemonkey Invasion

Fr. Shane Tharp, Co-Perpetrator of the Catholic Ragemonkey Blog and Mirror Universe Evil Twin, has arrived in Seattle and I shall be conducting the Nickel Tour today. Agenda Items: Pike Place Market, Science Fiction Museum, and (perhaps) Aquarium or Pacific Science Center.

Back tomorrow.

Blogger is being a pain...

and I have stuff I have to get done. So I will see y'all Monday!

Parishioner at St. Narcissus Writes the Usual Article

She's about spirituality, not church. She had already departed from church doctrine on premarital sex, birth control, homosexuality, priests marrying, and abortion, among other things. She vowed to do some church "shopping." (One is reminded of what vows used to mean: "As God is my witness, I will never be hungry again!" or "I call heaven and earth as witness! I shall see this struggle through till victory or death!" In our time, people vow to shop.) She concentrated on visiting churches, rather than get bogged down reading mind-numbing comparisons and explanations of religions (because, in the words of Theologian Barbie, "Thinking is hard!").

She wanted a faith that is culturally diverse, guilt-free and non-judgmental. She kept her mind open. And (in a significant contribution to the literature of unconscious humor), she tells us she "definitely didn't want to frequent a place run by flakes or spiritual snobs." Her search became a "swirl" of salons with spiritual themes: mysticism, The DaVinci Code, dreams, meditation, and The Passion of the Christ. She began asking questions she never had the forethought or audacity to ask before: Who is divine to me? Is Christianity based on a belief (in Jesus' resurrection) that I just couldn't accept? Where does the Bible fit into my beliefs? Will I go to hell for all of this questioning? Result: she wound up at the Sacred Center for Spiritual Living, a New Thought Church located in New York City.

The Prophet Chesterton speaks:

There are two ways of getting home; and one of them is to stay there. The other is to walk round the whole world till we come back to the same place; and I tried to trace such a journey in a story I once wrote. It is, however, a relief to turn from that topic to another story that I never wrote. Like every book I never wrote, it is by far the best book I have ever written. It is only too probable that I shall never write it, so I will use it symbolically here; for it was a symbol of the same truth. I conceived it as a romance of those vast valleys with sloping sides, like those along which the ancient White Horses of Wessex are scrawled along the flanks of the hills. It concerned some boy whose farm or cottage stood on such a slope, and who went on his travels to find something, such as the effigy and grave of some giant; and when he was far enough from home he looked back and saw that his own farm and kitchen-garden, shining flat on the hill-side like the colours and quarterings of a shield, were but parts of some such gigantic figure, on which he had always lived, but which was too large and too close to be seen. That, I think, is a true picture of the progress of any really independent intelligence today

[T]he next best thing to being really inside Christendom is to be really outside it. And a particular point of it is that the popular critics of Christianity are not really outside it. They are on a debatable ground, in every sense of the term. They are doubtful in their very doubts. Their criticism has taken on a curious tone; as of a random and illiterate heckling. ... [T]hat marks their mood about the whole religious tradition they are in a state of reaction against it. It is well with the boy when he lives on his father's land; and well with him again when he is far enough from it to look back on it and see it as a whole. But these people have got into an intermediate state, have fallen into an intervening valley from which they can see neither the heights beyond them nor the heights behind. They cannot get out of the penumbra of Christian controversy. They cannot be Christians and they can not leave off being Anti-Christians. Their whole atmosphere is the atmosphere of a reaction: sulks, perversity, petty criticism. They still live in the shadow of the faith and have lost the light of the faith.

Now the best relation to our spiritual home is to be near enough to love it. But the next best is to be far enough away not to hate it. It is the contention of these pages that while the best judge of Christianity is a Christian, the next best judge would be something more like a Confucian. The worst judge of all is the man now most ready with his judgements; the ill-educated Christian turning gradually into the ill-tempered agnostic, entangled in the end of a feud of which he never understood the beginning, blighted with a sort of hereditary boredom with he knows not what, and already weary of hearing what he has never heard. He does not judge Christianity calmly as a Confucian would; he does not judge it as he would judge Confucianism. He cannot by an effort of fancy set the Catholic Church thousands of miles away in strange skies of morning and judge it as impartially as a Chinese pagoda... It would be better to see the whole thing as a remote Asiatic cult; the mitres of its bishops as the towering head dresses of mysterious bonzes; its pastoral staffs as the sticks twisted like serpents carried in some Asiatic procession; to see the prayer book as fantastic as the prayer-wheel and the Cross as crooked as the Swastika. Then at least we should not lose our temper as some of the sceptical critics seem to lose their temper, not to mention their wits. Their anti-clericalism has become an atmosphere, an atmosphere of negation and hostility from which they cannot escape. Compared with that, it would be better to see the whole thing as something belonging to another continent, or to another planet. It would be more philosophical to stare indifferently at bonzes than to be perpetually and pointlessly grumbling at bishops. It would be better to walk past a church as if it were a pagoda than to stand permanently in the porch, impotent either to go inside and help or to go outside and forget. For those in whom a mere reaction has thus become an obsession, I do seriously recommend the imaginative effort of conceiving the Twelve Apostles as Chinamen. In other words, I recommend these critics to try to do as much justice to Christian saints as if they were Pagan sages.

Well, yes. Or it could just be that we are All Alone

I know this is a notion repugnant to the spirit of the age. Indeed, the only thing the "We Are All Alone" hypothesis has going for it is that all the evidence we possess is in favor of it and there is no actual evidence against it. But this is small beer when we are talking about something that challenges the hearts and imaginations of men. Given a choice between the heart and the reason, man goes with his heart every time. It's an admirable romantic quality. But it does lead to big blunders now and then. One of them may well be the supposition that it's just a matter of time before we make First Contact. My bet is we never will.

Fr. Rob is On the Air!

Wine-bibbing, gun-toting Michigan priest teaches kids about ballistic missiles and holds forth on his blog. Listen up or take a dirt nap with the clay pigeons. I know whereof I speak!

The First Fourteen Days of Life

The more you know, the less simple it becomes to wave of those worthless little clusters of cells.

Friends Don't Let Politicos Do Literary Analogies

Rick Santorum tries to relate our Adventure in Iraq to the Lord of the Rings with cringe-making results.

Stephen Colbert provides much-needed analysis of Santorum's curious thought processes:

New York Court to Catholic Charities: You Have No King But Caesar

Dole out the contraceptives or be destroyed.

I wonder how long it will be before exactly the same thing is commanded concerning gay marriage and abortion?

An Unexpected Blessing

From PBS, no less.

German Homeschoolers Arrested

Thanks God I'm an American.

If you are interested in astronomy, this is for you

Very cool!

Oh, and there are some cool plug-ins here.

How Good and Pleasant When Brothers Dwell Together In Unity!

The Master of Sleazy Equivocation feels deep call to deep from the Deep Moral Thinkers of Right Wing Torture Apologetics. Something within him stirs in recognition and he must speak!

It's so good to see these articulate exponents of the Culture of Death reach across the aisle and agree on something.

The World Series of Catholic Theologians Reaches the Conference Semi-Finals!

Where but in the Catholic blogosphere could you find this sort of thing?

For those interested in Fr. Bernhard's talk at Chesterton last night…

He will be posting the text of the talk on the Blessed Sacrament's website soon. If I find out the URL, I'll let you know. But keep checking in case I missed it. Great talk!

Attention Seattleites! Cardinal Dulles will be Speaking at Seattle U October 24!

Sheik Converts to Christianity, Gets Thrown in Muslim Dungeon for "Blaspheming Islam"

As ever, the reaction of the MSM will be, "Fortunately, he's just a Christian, so it's no big deal. Probably had it coming."

In other "No Big Deal" headlines an Italian photojournalist was kidnapped by Bronze Age Thugs in Afghanistan, who demanded the return of a Christian convert who had been granted asylum in Italy, so they can kill him.

It's a good thing this stuff isn't happening to people who really matter, like Paris Hilton or the cast of American Idol.

Reason #98457395873209586725545857394 to Homeschool

Your kids won't visit Murder Inc. for a lesson in "social activism".

The World of Good Continues to Turn

More Blasphemy Chic

A reader sends the following along:

A blasphemous play called "The Pope and the Witch" is scheduled to stage at the University of Minnesota and I am asking you to protest immediately because press reports say it stars a…

Drug-addict, paranoid Pope called John Paul II
The Pope figure is afflicted by “a crucifixion stroke,” a mockery of the Crucifixion of Our Lord Jesus Christ

The play’s author, a radical communist, encourages students to think that Catholic doctrine on abortion causes poverty and hunger

This is public sacrilege! Click here to protest now. Your signature will make an impact.

You see, according to The New York Times: “The witch, in nun's habit, turns up as an aide to the doctor summoned to treat the pope, and before long the Holy Father is seized with a paralytic affliction that, among other names, is known as ‘a crucifixion stroke,’ leaving him with his arms outstretched.”

The Yale Herald further states: “The blasphemy aspect of the production adds another layer of prickly humor…”

To make matters worse, university president Robert H. Bruininks attempts to justify the offensive production as an expression of academic freedom.

Sorry. By my book, blasphemy is not academic freedom!

Please SIGN YOUR INSTANT E-PROTEST to the University of Minnesota’s president. Demand an apology. Demand that "The Pope and the Witch" be cancelled.

How to be more effective: After you sign your e-protest, give his office a call. Be polite and firm. Tell him how you feel. This play is anti-Catholic bigotry, not academic freedom. It is a slap in the face to anyone who believes in Christ and His Church. Ask him to have the play cancelled immediately.

Please call today: 612-626-1616.

Do protests really work? Yes, they do. We stopped two blasphemies with peaceful protest recently – The Da Vinci Code movie at Saint Francis College and offensive cartoons against the Virgin Mary in the student paper of the University of Virginia. So let’s stop this blasphemy too.

Thank you for your love for Jesus and Mary.

John E. Ritchie
TFP Student Action Director
www.tfp.org/sa

A reader writes:

Your comment boxes are beginning to resemble a Dali painting once again.

Torture, murder of the innocent and laissez faire warfare: good. Harry Potter: Evil.

Good to see that some folks have their priorities in order.

Beliefnet Asked For My Response to Rod Dreher's Recent Conversion to Orthodoxy

Here it is.

The Seattle Chesterton Society Resumes Its Fun and Informative work tonight

The first meeting of the year is this evening, Thursday, October 19, at 7:30 PM, in the Falcon Lounge at Seattle Pacific University. I cordially invite your attendance!

Our guest speaker for this evening is the Rev. Bernhard Blankenhorn, O.P., who will address the Society on the topic of "Christianity and Other Religions: Making Sense of Absolute Truth Claims in a Multi-religious World."

How is it possible for Christians to assert dogmas — especially the most ancient dogmas shared by Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants — as absolute, timeless truths, without becoming intolerant or dismissive of other religions and their truth claims? Can there even be such things as absolute religious truths? This evening, Dominican friar and theologian Fr. Bernhard Blankenhorn will speak to this crucial issue for evangelization and the credibility of the Gospel among non-believers, drawing on the theological wisdom of the Church Fathers and of his fellow Dominican friar, St. Thomas Aquinas.

As always, we will offer free pizza and "soft" beverages following the question period. Please join us!

Speaking of which: More Science in the Service of Atheist Agitprop!

He is approached by Olivia, a reporter covering religious affairs for The Times, sister paper of The Sunday Times.

She is writing a story about cosmology and the meaning of existence to commemorate the work of Albert Einstein and his special theory of relativity.

Olivia, who will be played by Lina Patel, is a science sceptic, believing that science holds few answers to the big questions of life.

However, her interview with Hawking leads to more than she had bargained for, including a whirlwind journey through time and space, back to the origins of it all — the big bang.

Right. Because the British press is just *teeming* with Fundamentalist obscurantists calling for the banning of science and a return to the simple truths of six day creationism. Boy, are those Fleet Street yokels in for a shock when they discover the universe is actually much older than 6,000 years. Their simple concepts of a loving God, of Mount Purgatory, and of the Celestial Rose will be blown to smithereens when this hard-headed Man of Science shows them the real score.

More Fun with Scientific Prophecy!

I love this stuff. And people even believe it!

Everything is under Control

...and if it's not, more intrinsically immoral brutality toward prisoners and even innocents will fix it, ably supported by the "all's fair in war" dictum that trumps all moral considerations ("I doubt if many posting here have ever been on the front line with their buddy just getting his head blown off.") That, you see, is realism, not like the theological theories of those cloud-dwellers who write abstractions for the Catechism. Weenies like John Paul II never had to live under Hitler or Stalin and know nothing about the brutal realities of war. Now, of course, when the only person in my comboxes who actually has experience with interrogation of prisoners says, "I have been wounded by gun fire, high explosive and cold steel - I take these matters very seriously. For all of that I respectfully say to you that in my opinion torture and any inhumane treatment of prisoners are serious violations of the 5th Commandment and are also counter productive in terms of collecting actionable intelligence", well, what does *he* know? Laptop bombardiers, cyber-politik strategists and Nietzschean moralists are not going to let the testimony of an actual combat veteran get in the way of their pleas to ignore the Church's teaching!Nope. They've heard of a *movie* about Iwo Jima, and that establishes with certainty that our fundamental choice is between victory or grave sin, so we need to just get with it and sin gravely. People who think *God* might save you in a fight for your life are just kidding themselves. People who think it preferable to die honorably than to murder innocent people are hopelessly out of touch with reality. When push comes to shove, we must revert to raw Darwinian categories and forget all that crap about good vs. evil. If murdering a city full of civilians was good enough for Bomber Harris, it's good enough for us! If torturing a bunch of prisoners was done 60 years ago, then the teaching of the Church be damned. Let's do it again!

That seems to be the message that is jelling out there in not a few of the comboxes that are still struggling to avoid the Church's actual teaching on torture. Condensed to chemical purity, I would sum this doctrine up as "Trust in Fear, Not in Christ."

Wish I could say I'm not getting that distinct message, but I can't.

Former WA Gov. Booth Gardner labors to remind us the when it comes killing innocent people, nobody champions death like a Democrat

Death is the sole core value of the Left. It's like an addiction. And so the Dems find themselves paralyzed in being a serious party of opposition, because they have embraced cosmic despair, which is eating them from the inside out like a cancer. The only thing they have left is the commitment to death. Even the hunger for power is no longer a match for it. Given the choice of abandoning abortion and euthanasia and winning, they cling to death. They're only remaining constituency is those (like so many of the postmodern pagans in Washington) who likewise share their belief in cosmic futility and the hope for swift, sweet death and a sacrifice-free existence of minor pleasures.

Dumb Christians on the March!

The Harry-and-Satan theory picked up steam several years ago when the satirical tabloid The Onion ran a story headlined "Harry Potter Books Spark Rise In Satanism Among Children." (The article reported that since 1995, applicants to Satan worship had increased from 100,000 to 14 million children and young adults.) The story was excerpted in e-mail chain letters forwarded by folks who didn't get the joke--and the next thing you knew the Internet was loaded with rebuttals by angry Wiccans, Harry Potter fans and truth-squad Web sites like snopes.com.

Some Christians seem bound and determined to persuade the world that the Church is an island of irrelevance in an ocean of despair.

Gay Black Shorts on the March!

You probably thought the Boy Scouts and Cub Scouts were a private organization that could decide for themselves how they wanted to form boys to adhere to what moral code they thought best.

How dumb you are! No, the purpose of *every* organization, public and private, is to proclaim the limitless glories of homosexuality and to bow down in worship before this, the source and summit of all that is noble, good, shining, true, and glorious! Those who will not join the orgy of celebration shall be CRUSHED!

Tolerance is insufficient! You. Must. Approve! You. Must. Celebrate!

Boortz says he wasn't given talking points

Glad to hear it. The one time the White House contacted me and asked me to sit in on a phone call (during the ramp up to war in 2003), that's exactly what I was given--and then told to spread around what I'd been told without saying where I'd heard it. My task, in short, was to be a little instrument of policy in the blogosphere. (I neglected to do so, which is probably why I didn't wind up on future White House calls). But that's how I know they do such stuff. I'll take Boortz' word for it. But my own experience teaches me that the White House has been quite savvy in mobilizing media, including the blogosphere.

Hey Kids! It's the "Margaret Sanger at the Ku Klux Klan Rally Art Contest"!

Use your gift of creativity to paper over the racist convictions of America's Golden Girl of Abortion!

Here's another fun game: Who Said It?: Tom Metzger, leader of White Aryan Resistance or Margaret Sanger, Visionary Feminist Hero and Mother of Planned Parenthood?

Here's a couple of sample quotes:

“Negroes and Southern Europeans are mentally inferior to native born Americans”

“More children from the fit, less from the unfit."

"Colored people are like human weeds and are to be exterminated."

In case you were wondering, these are all from Sanger.

Sullivan Drives Me Crazy

One of the few people on the Right to seriously critique our torture policies...

...but utterly crazy-making with his ill-informed babble about "Christianism" and related obsessions.

Jeremy Lott wrote the book on hypocrisy...

...so he's just the guy to write this editorial.

Cool Announcement!

One thing I have desired of the Lord, that will I seek after; that I may dwell in the house of the Lord all the days of my life, to behold the beauty of the Lord and to inquire in his temple.

Ps. 27.4


The Most Reverend Robert J. Baker, Bishop of Charleston, through the imposition of hands and the invocation of the Holy Spirit, will ordain Dwight Longenecker to the Sacred Priesthood of Christ's One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church Thursday, the fourteenth day of December 2006 at seven o'clock in the evening.

St Mary's Church,
338 West Washington Street
Greenville, South Carolina

A reception will follow in Gallivan Hall

For reserved seats at the Ordination please reply to

12 Terra Lane, Greenville, SC, 29615

or by email to dlongenecker@charter.net

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Fr. Dwight's first Mass of Thanksgiving
Will be celebrated
At St Joseph's Catholic School
100 St Joseph's Drive
Greenville, South Carolina

At 7.00pm on 15 December 2006

A reception will follow the first Mass in the school Gymnasium

Gifts should be made in the form of donations to St Joseph's Catholic School Chapel Fund

I'm Doing a Radio Gig from 10:00 AM to Noon (Pacific) Today

You can stream it here.

It's the KBLE Fall Share-a-thon! As a supporter of Catholic radio, this is my chance to give back a bit. Listen in, phone in, and keep Catholic radio on the air in the most unchurched city in the most unchurched state in the nation!

Phone 1-800-949-1050 then tell a friend!

And don't forget you can donate on-line!

This is going to eat up most of my blog time, so I will have to blog again tomorrow as I have work to do this afternoon.

Like they know

Here is the Prophet Chesterton on such parlor games (from the Introduction to The Napoleon of Notting Hill):

The human race, to which so many of my readers belong, has been playing at children's games from the beginning, and will probably do it till the end, which is a nuisance for the few people who grow up. And one of the games to which it is most attached is called, "Keep to-morrow dark," and which is also named (by the rustics in Shropshire, I have no doubt) "Cheat the Prophet." The players listen very carefully and respectfully to all that the clever men have to say about what is to happen in the next generation. The players then wait until all the clever men are dead, and bury them nicely. They then go and do something else. That is all. For a race of simple tastes, however, it is great fun.

The Struggle to Pretend the Magisterium Does not Teach What it Teaches Continues

An encyclical is a formal teaching document of the Church. When it teaches something, what it means is "This is what the Church teaches." So, for instance, when an encyclical teaches that physical or mental torture are intrinsically immoral acts (Veritatis Splendor 80), that mean "The teaching of the Magisterium is that physical or mental torture are intrinsically immoral acts.

Now, there are all sorts of way to respond to the teaching of the Magisterium in an encyclical. You can say, "One priest I know, who is really smart, thinks the Church is wrong to say this, because it's a new development, and if new, therefore, false."

The answer to this is that the job of a Pope, not your favorite priest, after all, is to referee what is and is not a legitimate development of doctrine. It would appear the Pope disagrees since, in fact, he chose to teach that torture is intrinsically immoral.

Another ploy is to say, "The Church also said that slavery is intrinsically immoral, but a Cardinal I know can't figure out why John Paul would have said that. Therefore, we can also conclude that John Paul's teaching about torture is also safely ignorable. He was basically wrong to call it intrinsically immoral. Because 'intrinsically immoral' means 'unjustifiable for any reason'. But we very much want to say that that it *can* be justified in some cases, so let's conclude that he simply can't have said what he appears to have said."

The answer to this is that it is not our job to tell the Pope which parts of his teaching are erroneous or ignorable. Our job is to say, "Amen!" when Mother Church teaches (as she does) that physical and mental torture are intrinsically immoral. You can, if you like, wait around for some future clarification from the Church which will reassure you that torture is okay if your Glorious Leaders say so. But I suspect you will have a long wait. Saying that a good cardinal can't figure out why the Pope taught this is an interesting bulletin on the Cardinal's ability to trace the logic of John Paul's thinking, but it is useless in giving us a license to dispense ourselves from obeying the conclusion of that thinking.

Still another ploy is the "but it's just in one document" feint. Apparently, some Catholics think that the Magisterium is obliged to build up a pile of paper before we have to bother taking it seriously. Unfortunately for them, this is not so. When the Magisterium teaches something, that is what the Magisterium teaches, even if it has never taught on the subject before. This is why we are bound to pay attention to the Church's teaching on stem cell research, even though it has only addressed the issue recently. This was also why Catholics were bound to listen to the (then brand new) social teaching of Rerum Novarum a hundred years ago. Nobody said, "But there's only *one* social encyclical, so we can ignore it."

Tomorrow, I will try to carve out a bit of time to respond to Against the Grain's latest torture post. Till then, ciao!

The new law is something of a compromise as it protects detainees from abuses including rape, torture, and practices deemed cruel and inhuman.

Deemed, that is, by President Bush, who is the sole arbiter of what is and is not torture under the new law. That would be the same President Bush who oversaw the CIA's program of tortures such as waterboarding, cold cells and Palestinian hanging, and then assured us that he has never authorized torture. That would be the program of torture that we are simultaneously assured "worked" with Khalid Sheik Mohammed, yet which never occurred, according to the one man in the country who shall henceforth decide what is and is not torture.

So torture is now the law of the land, but it's not torture because our Glorious Leader says it isn't.

But don't worry. Only *liberals* go for Orwellian redefinitions of reality in the service of their grip on power. Not conservatives. Nothing to worry about here. Move along.

Colbert Continues to Amuse

Talk Radio is Largely Past Its Sell-by Date

The fiction of talk radio, at its zenith, was that it gave people whose voice was largely ignored by the MSM a chance to "talk back" and say what ordinary people were really thinking. I say "fiction" because radio is not libertarian. It is controlled by the guy behind the mike and his sponsors and was never a free-for-all for listeners. Still, does anybody believe that this concern for "the voice of the Little Guy" is still the case, when talk radio pundits are now called to the White House to receive talking points and marching orders when they dare get out of line? This particular cultural phenomenon, which really was an expression of grass roots frustration with the political and media powers-that-be of the late 80s and early 90s, has largely morphed into another organ of Party Control and Propaganda.

A reader writes:

I am a practising Catholic and for about 6 months I have researching my faith and its believes by listening to and reading books by catholic apologist.I believe I can now defend my faith and its believes fairly good but certain scripture verses sometimes can cause me more headaches then others. I was wondering if you could help me better explain Romans 10: 9 that if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him , you will be saved.

I Do not want to get into verse exchanging with my fellow Protestants to defend my position. The gospels I believe clearly tear apart the faith alone theory but Paul and his writings like the verse above can cause headaches. Any help will be greatly appreciated.

The trick is to remember that Paul was writing 1500 years before there were any Protestants. His purpose is not to provide proof texts for people whose theories will not arise for 15 centuries, but to speak to the Churches of his day and get across the basics of the Faith. Because of this, we have to remember that Paul and all the NT writers will sometimes use a sort of shorthand when they write and expect us to fill in the blanks with our common sense. So when Paul tells us "All have sinned" for instance, he does not laboriously explain that, of course, Jesus and Mary are exempt from this general formulation. When he tells us that God has handed all over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on all, he does not laboriously spell out that this does not necessarily mean that every last human being is going to be saved. And when he speaks of "confessing Jesus" he does not laboriously explain that means the profession of faith that goes with baptism. After all, why should he? Back in Romans 6, he made it about as clear as he possibly could that the normative means of receiving salvation is through baptism. Unless we take Paul to mysteriously be saying, "Forget all that stuff I just wrote about baptism just now and instead just 'ask Jesus into your heart as your personal Lord and Savior'" (a phrase that never appears in Scripture by the way).

"If only congressmen could marry..."

Charlotte Allen reviews the wasted opportunity of "Deliver Us From Evil".

Sin makes you stupid, and despite all, it is a sin to hate the Church, as distinct from hating the sins of her members. The problem is, the folk most likely to put together films on the Scandal are people who flat out hate the Church. Indeed, some folk actually hat