Growing Back Samson's Hair

Here's (for me, anyway) a new wrinkle on an old argument. It is often said that women civilize men. Dr. David Pence has written a book arguing no, they don't. Women domesticate men, he says. Men have to civilize themselves. He's not using "domesticated" in a perjorative since (not: "whipped"), but argues the distinction is vital and the two --domestication and civilization-- may occasionally come into conflict. In a short review of the book, Anthony Esolen of Mere Comments writes:

People used to know that when a man abandons his brothers for the comfort of hearth and home, he puts the tribe or the city at risk. Hence the ubiquitous legends of men who lose their strength when they fall to the lassitude of sexual pleasure: Troy had been better off had Paris never been born.

Hercules & Samson come to mind as well. Pence argues that there is a "missing icon" of manhood in our culture --the band of brothers willing to bear burdens in order to accomplish great tasks for the common good. I have to think this through, but I think he's put his finger here on what I call the feminization of culture. It's more the domestication of culture --no one can look beyond his own nose. Here's the interesting conclusion to Esolen's post:

Most men do still know better. But they have been domesticated too well; they are disunited and helpless; the locks of the fraternity have been shorn. Witness the vast nation of Canada, once a land of hardy farmers and pioneers, now about to suffer the imposition of marriage for the jaded denizens of postcivilized Toronto and Montreal. And they sit, these Canadian men, their natural inclination to band together to form and protect villages, towns, and cities, all but forgotten. There they sit, helpless as Samson, eyeless in Gaza at the mill with slaves. God help us, let that hair grow back.

Pray the Russians Go Along

B16 sent a message to Patriarch Bartholomew ("first among equals" of the Orthodox) pressing for ecumenical talks with the Orthodox, which broke off in 2001. Bartholomew, from past statements, I almost think would unify with Rome right now if he could. Some of his uniate churches are not at all on board, however. For some reason the Russians seem warm to B16 where they were downright rude to JPG. Maybe JPG will mastermind from heaven what he could not accomplish here. . . .Oremus.

South of the Border, Down Mexico Way

Two Iraqis were caught trying to enter the U.S. through Mexico today. Last week, Mexico arrested a man with links to the 9/11 attacks. No word on what he was doing, but he was in the Northern-most tip of Baja California.

Feeling comfortable?

Pelosi Bows to Her Masters

A bi-partisan group is moving to undo the disastrous Kelo decision. May it spark more realization that we need not bow to The Nine.


Gets it: House Judiciary Chairman James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis).Calling Kelo the next Dred Scot, he will introduce a bill saying that any state or locality attempting to sieze private property to build hotels, strip malls and the like will "lose any federal funds that would contribute in any way to the project the property would be taken for."


Gets it: Chief Democratic co-sponsor: John Conyers, Jr.



Seems like she gets it at first: Miss Nancy, who says:

When you withhold funds from enforcing a decision of the Supreme Court, you are in fact nullifying a decision of the Supreme Court.

Yes, exactly.

Oops. But then, doesn't get it after all: "This is in violation of the respect of separation of powers in our Constitution -- church and state as well."

Happy Birthday, Mr. Sowell

Here's a birthday column from one of my "most admired Americans." Hope his wife bakes him a great big chocolate cake or whatever he'd like.

All the dark and ominous times that this country and the world have passed through and overcome in the past 75 years make it hard to despair, even in the face of growing signs of internal degeneracy today. Pessimism, yes. Despair, not yet.

Bush Talks to the Brits

Thought you'd enjoy this interview the President gave to The [London] Times. Curtsy to ninme. From the interviewer's introduction:

In person Mr Bush is so far removed from the caricature of the dim, war-mongering Texas cowboy of global popular repute that it shakes one’s faith in the reliability of the modern media.

Does Anyone "Get" the Role of the Laity?

Here's a summary of the U.S. Bishops' latest initiative --asking Bush to take "bold action" at the G-8 Summit. Sigh. I'll take this occasion to step onto my role of the laity soap-box.

In 1985 Dinesh S'Souza wrote a blast at the USCC in Policy Review entitled "The Bishops as Pawns." Couldn't find the original article on-line, but here's the way D'Souza described it in an interview:

At the time, Catholic bishops were writing "pastoral letters as to why nuclear weapons were dangerous. I got my Dartmouth mind working -- wouldn't it be funny to call up these guys, 30 of them, and ask them some rather elementary questions?" He called them directly, quoting from one letter: " 'You write that the cost to make an MX missile is a waste of money. How much do you think it costs?' 'You say the MX missile takes the arms race to a new level. How many warheads are on an MX missile?' I got the most outrageous, wacky, uninformed answers. Obviously what was going on -- the bishops had nothing to do with this. They had a left-wing staff, at the U.S. Catholic Conference in D.C., writing all this stuff. Those guys were well-informed. But the bishops didn't have a clue."

D'Souza also got wacky answers when he asked the bishops questions referring to their pastoral on the economy such as, "What is a marginal tax rate?" Their answers revealed they were . . .shall we say. . . not experts on economic questions, either.

My point is not to bash the bishops, nor to take them to task for any particular policy position, but simply to respectfully suggest that the role of the pastor is to insist on the fundamental principles of Catholic social and moral teaching. Specific policy recommendations are properly the role of lay people who are expert in those fields. The bishops should let us duke it out.

To cite just one example, the Church insists on a "fundamental option for the poor." In other words, caring for the poor, widows and orphans is a non-negotiable principle of Christian life. The Gospel, however, leaves us with no prescription for how to accomplish this. Is it "Catholic" to support a broad welfare state that ensures a safety net for the poor? Is it "Catholic" to dedicate oneself to acts of service such as hospitals, soup kitchens and the like? Is it "Catholic" to work for what the President calls "an opportunity society" that stimulates initiative so that jobs are created and more and more people can break the cycle of poverty? Yes. If the first and third options seem opposed to one another, well, Jesus left it to us to figure out which way is really best or if some combination or balance can be struck. Figuring out how best to live out Christ's call in the world is precisely the mission of the laity.

When the bishops --and I sincerely believe they are making a good-faith effort to serve the Gospel when they issue these kinds of statements-- step in and impose one solution from on high, they are making a mistake that goes beyond the fact that (candidly) I often find myself opposed to their specific prescriptions. They are causing the following unintended consequences:

1. They violate an important principle of Catholic social thought, subsidiarity. This is the principle that local solutions are best. You always want solutions to be made at the level of authority that is closest to the actual problem.
2. They undermine their own teaching authority on matters of faith and morals. Remember this past election cycle when some left-wing group issued a press release arguing that John Kerry was the most Catholic member of Congress? We laughed, but judging solely by matching up votes with stands the bishops had taken, that was absolutely correct. The idea that being pro-life is a non-negotiable article of faith, whereas more than one position is possible on economic policy, was lost.
3. Most importantly for the point I am making, they usurp the role of the laity, which at worst drives some people out of the Church (people who confuse the bishops' policy recommendations with dogma) and at best enervates the kind of creative Christian thinking about problems that we urgently need in order to build a civilization of justice and love. Why should I try to tackle a problem a new way if the bishops have already told me the "Catholic" position?

The sudden emergence of a "Catholic vote" in the 2004 election proves the bishops still have a powerful voice, I think. Even though they didn't agree with one another about how to handle the communion/pro-choice politician issue, the very fact the subject came up and was publicly debated seems to have had a dramatic effect. Why dilute that voice making specific policy recommendations rather than articulating clearly and loudly what the framework for debate ought to be? We don't need to know what the bishops think our tax rate ought to be, no matter how sound their position, because their ordination gave them no economic charism. That is, my Ordinary has no power qua bishop to opine on tax matters (qua citizen he is of course entitled to say what he likes).

On the other hand, lay people do need the sacraments in order to be sanctified; they do need the witness of holy priests, and they do need to be taught the fundamental principles of Catholic social thought --and then unleashed to find the most effective and creative ways to apply them. Without at all intending it, I think the ultimate message of a statement like the one linked above is that our pastors don't much trust us --the laity-- to find Christian solutions to the problems we face. Yet if the "role of the laity" means anything, it is that God has called each one of us not only to personal holiness, but to use our talents and creativity and work to sanctify the world we live in. With complete respect, I wish the bishops would let us. Don't hand-feed us the solutions and initiatives we ourselves are called to contribute. Instead, challenge lay-people to realize their own missions within the world.

The Storied Journey of Faith

Amy Welborn, author of the Prove It! apologetics series, posted a surprising pet peeve yesterday. She doesn't like it when people compare the journey of faith to a story. She has a point --if you teach people that everyone has a personal story and each story is equally valid, well --that's just the sad ol' tale of relativism. Introduce people to the person, Jesus, she says.

I can't disagree with that in so far as it goes, but has she noticed that Jesus himself used a story to introduce himself? We know what the Church itself calls the story of salvation --salvation history-- through Scripture. We introduce people to the living Christ precisely by telling his story and showing how it is their own story. What Welborn objects to, it seems to me, is not story-telling itself, but the fact that not all stories are true. To win hearts, you have to tell a true story --and therein lies the challenge not only of apologists and preachers, but of artists and film-makers today.

Ethnomathematics

There used to be a joke about feminist math: it would have no subtraction or division, because women are uniters, not dividers, and they strive to be inclusive. Ha-ha, right? Then you won't want to read this from the W. Times Culture, etc. page today.

Now mathematics is being nudged into a specifically political direction by educators who call themselves 'critical theorists.' They advocate using mathematics as a tool to advance social justice. Social justice math relies on political and cultural relevance to guide math instruction. One of its precepts is 'ethnomathematics,' that is, the belief that different cultures have evolved different ways of using mathematics, and that students will learn best if taught in the ways that relate to their ancestral culture. ... The culturally attuned teacher will learn about the counting system of the ancient Mayans, ancient Africans, Papua New Guineans and other 'nonmainstream' cultures."

--Diane Ravitch, writing on "Ethnomathematics," June 20 in the Wall Street Journal

For example: Aztec Math: If the sun god requires 5000 human hearts per day to ensure a fertile growing season, how many Mayan captives must you take each month to guarantee a good harvest? (Don't forget to use the Mayan calendar).

JPG's Case Opens to Wild Applause

In case you missed it, the cause for the beatification of John Paul the Great opened Tuesday evening. This article gives a little flavor of the event.

Homily for Ss. Peter & Paul

Still missing from the Vatican site, but Zenit --bless 'em-- has their translation up in the Documents section.

One of the things I love about B16s preaching is that he often begins with the Old Testament. I recently picked up his book on the liturgy (for my mom, actually, who asked for it --but I found it so fascinating that I can't give it to her yet). He asks what liturgy is, and begins by talking about the purpose of the Exodus --which was not freedom per se, but the right to worship properly, which Pharoah would not grant. That leads him into the question of right worship.

Here he goes again. This time discussing Rome as the crossroads of civilization that would be the center of Peter & Paul's proclamation of the kingdom to all peoples. He said:

Also a part of the proclamation of the Old Covenant is, in fact, the mission to the whole world: The People of Israel were destined to be light to the Gentiles. The great psalm of the Passion, Psalm 21, whose first verse "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" Jesus pronounced on the cross, ended with the vision: "All the ends of the earth shall remember and turn to the Lord; and all the families of the nations shall worship before him" (Psalm 21:28). When Peter and Paul came to Rome the Lord, who invoked that psalm on the cross, was risen; this victory of God would now have to be proclaimed to all peoples, thus fulfilling the promise with which the psalm concluded.

He loves to draw the saints into his homilies, too. Peter & Paul were obviously going to figure prominently, but yesterday was the feast of St. Irenaeus, and he's brought in as well. Then the teacher comes out as he addresses the new archbishops who received the pallium, and he closes with a meaty reflection on the Gospel and its implications. You could do worse than learning something about the Old Testament, Tradition, the Gospel and your Mission in your weekly homily, no?

UPDATE: Here's the original Italian, if you like.

Learn Your Prayers in Latin Says B16

Here's something the Pope actually said about Latin --unlike the strange rumor that he's "bringing back" Latin to the Vatican (yeah, like he brought back the Mass). While presenting the compendium on the Catechism, he urged everyone to learn the main Catholic prayers in Latin as a way for us all to be able to pray together. According to this CNS report,

Pope Benedict reminded those gathered for the prayer service what he had said about Latin formulations when he presented the Latin edition of the "Catechism of the Catholic Church" to Pope John Paul in 1997: "Latin, for centuries the vehicle and instrument of Christian culture, guarantees not only continuity with our roots, but remains as relevant as ever for strengthening the bonds of the unity of the faith in the communion of the church."

Rome Round-Up

Here's John Allen's June 24th "Word from Rome." He tackles a number of interesting subjects: Spanish efforts to create a pro-family movement worthy of the name, dialogue with Islam, the state of Christians in Islam. And he addresses the question of the Pope's "creative minorities." What I like about his treatment is that he sees (and later, scroll down, Cardinal Scola sees) that the Pope does not mean to shrink the Church down to a small, pure band of brothers. What I don't like is that I don't think the Pope ever thought that (see my previous post on this subject).

Whole Lotta Nothing

RC2 about breaks out in hives every time someone says that Iraq and 9/11 have "nothing whatsoever to do with one another" --an argument I've had to face again as the usual suspects criticize the Prez's speech last night. Just for the record, Andrew McCarthy's NRO column today provides a long list of no connections whatsoever.

• Ahmed Hikmat Shakir — the Iraqi Intelligence operative who facilitated a 9/11 hijacker into Malaysia and was in attendance at the Kuala Lampur meeting with two of the hijackers, and other conspirators, at what is roundly acknowledged to be the initial 9/11 planning session in January 2000? Who was arrested after the 9/11 attacks in possession of contact information for several known terrorists? Who managed to make his way out of Jordanian custody over our objections after the 9/11 attacks because of special pleading by Saddam’s regime?
• Saddam's intelligence agency's efforts to recruit jihadists to bomb Radio Free Europe in
  Prague in the late 1990's?
• Mohammed Atta's unexplained visits to Prague in 2000, and his alleged visit there in April 2001 which — notwithstanding the 9/11 Commission's dismissal of it (based on interviewing exactly zero relevant witnesses) — the Czechs have not retracted?
• The Clinton Justice Department's allegation in a 1998 indictment (two months before the embassy bombings) against bin Laden, to wit: In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.
• Seized Iraq Intelligence Service records indicating that Saddam's henchmen regarded bin
  Laden as an asset as early as 1992?
• Saddam's hosting of al Qaeda No. 2, Ayman Zawahiri beginning in the early 1990’s, and reports of a large payment of money to Zawahiri in 1998?
• Saddam’s ten years of harboring of 1993 World Trade Center bomber Abdul Rahman Yasin?
• Iraqi Intelligence Service operatives being dispatched to meet with bin Laden in Afghanistan in 1998 (the year of bin Laden’s fatwa demanding the killing of all Americans, as well as the embassy bombings)?
• Saddam’s official press lionizing bin Laden as “an Arab and Islamic hero” following the 1998 embassy bombing attacks?
• The continued insistence of high-ranking Clinton administration officials to the 9/11
  Commission that the 1998 retaliatory strikes (after the embassy bombings) against a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory were justified because the factory was a chemical weapons hub tied to Iraq and bin Laden?
• Top Clinton administration counterterrorism official Richard Clarke’s assertions, based on intelligence reports in 1999, that Saddam had offered bin Laden asylum after the embassy bombings, and Clarke’s memo to then-National Security Adviser Sandy Berger,
  advising him not to fly U-2 missions against bin Laden in Afghanistan because he might be tipped off by Pakistani Intelligence, and “[a]rmed with that knowledge, old wily Usama will likely boogie to Baghdad”? (See 9/11 Commission Final Report, p. 134 & n.135.)
• Terror master Abu Musab Zarqawi's choice to boogie to Baghdad of all places when he needed surgery after fighting American forces in Afghanistan in 2001?
• Saddam's Intelligence Service running a training camp at Salman Pak, were terrorists were instructed in tactics for assassination, kidnapping and hijacking?

Then he cites former CIA honcho George Tenet's 2002 letter to Congress, which asserted a little nothing more:

• We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda going back a decade. Credible information indicates that Iraq and Al Qaeda have discussed safe haven and reciprocal nonaggression.
• Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of Al Qaeda members, including some that have been in Baghdad.
• We have credible reporting that Al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to Al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs.
• Iraq's increasing support to extremist Palestinians coupled with growing indications of relationship with Al Qaeda suggest that Baghdad's links to terrorists will increase, even absent U.S. military action.

As an aside, I sure would like to know what we actually bombed in Sudan in the 90s. At the time, most conservatives were screaming, "Wag the Dog!" and mocking Bubba for taking out a dangerous aspirin factory. But the Bushies seem to agree with the Clintons that it was a weapons facility --in which case we would owe ol' Bill an apology, wouldn't we?

One Reason Christianity Thrives Here

RightWingNews (curtsy to Powerline) posted an interview with Mark Steyn that one might call "wide-ranging." I would call it hops-all-over-the-map, but their exchange about why Christianity is dying in Europe and alive here caught my eye. He makes the Hugo Rahner, SJ point --that the death of religion in Europe has been the establishment of religion. Read the interview for more on that, and I'll just tantalize you with this quotation:

The other salient point is that obviously Europe does have a religion: radical secularism. The era of the state church has been replaced by an age in which the state itself is the church. European progressives still don't get this: they think the idea of a religion telling you how to live your life is primitive, but the government regulating every aspect of it is somehow advanced and enlightened.

RC2 Criticizes the Vatican

Not really. But I do wish they'd post the Pope's homilies and audience texts faster. He gave a great homily (judging from excerpts) for today's mass of Sts. Peter & Paul --in which he pushed pretty hard for unity with the Orthodox-- and it's not up yet. RC2 does not like to wait for her Wednesday/Sunday Pope fixes:

In this time of the world full of skepticism and doubts, but also rich in the desire for God, let us recognize anew our mission to witness Christ the Lord together, and on the base of that unity that he has given us, to help the world believe."

B16 & the visiting Orthodox Metropolitan prayed together at the crypt of St. Peter. How cool is that?

Establishment Clause for Dummies

Feast of Ss. Peter & Paul

Happy Feast Day!

A plenary indulgence may be won on June 29, the Feast of Sts. Peter and Paul, to anyone who makes devout use of a religious article blessed by a bishop and who also recites any approved profession of faith (e.g. the Apostles Creed), as long as the usual conditions are satisfied.*

The usual conditions being freedom from attachment to all sin, Confession w/n a week before or after today, Communion, & prayer for the intentions of the Pope. Don't miss yours.

*For my non-Catholic readers, relax: No money, goods, services or ecclesial offices are exchanged in procurement of this grace.

The "Me Great" Generation

Peggy Noonan effectively fisks self-aggrandizing politicians in Opinion Journal today --but whatever's in the water in Washington seems to have seeped into the whole nation's water supply. Some people claim their Catholic education scarred them because of mean confessors and ruler-wielding nuns. The Catholic girls' school memories that haunt me are of having to do "me booklets" for Religion class. Little booklets filled with collages and poetry celebrating the greatness of me --which we then had to present to the whole class. There was some variation on this exercise each year of high school. Shudder. I can honestly say I would have preferred to be beaten, but alas the Bernardine Sisters wanted us to feel good about ourselves.

Somewhere along the line we have lost the distinction between testimony and exhortation. Testimony can be a valuable rhetorical tool when used properly. Through it, a speaker can use a story as a means of illustrating a point he wishes to make. Or he can simply offer his own experience as an invitation to think about the world in a different way. But when testimony crosses the line from, "I had an interesting experience" into "I am great, and therefore you should be like me," the story loses its interest and effectiveness.

I hear exhortatory speeches all the time --and not just from politicians. A month or two ago I took my daughter to a fashion show aimed at promoting modesty to teens, and the guest of honor was a state Miss Pre-Teen (or some such title) pageant winner. Absolutely gorgeous little girl, with talent (dancing) and poise beyond her years. But she gave a speech which can be summed up, "Peers, if you work really hard at it, you too may some day be as fabulous as I!" I don't fault the girl for this, but somewhere along the line her mother or her coach or someone ought to have helped her re-work her presentation to be more modest. Her presentation would have been much more effective if she had simply given a witness to how she lived her life and what was important to her (her audience already admired her) rather than listing her own marvelous qualities.

After the show the other moms seemed to be cooing about how "darling" this girl was, so I felt like a mean ol' cynic for having that reaction. But if we want to know where these Washington blowhards come from, I think the answer is we're raising them.

Chinese Accept Vatican Appointee

I wonder what implications this has for the underground --Pope-loyal-- Church?

Here's the President's Speech

Well, here, actually. I love it/hate it when he tears up talking about the military --chokes me up too.

Devil's Advocate --Against John Paul the Great

I didn't think there could be a tougher mission than being the pope who follows John Paul the Great. But how'd you like to be this guy --whose job is to try to poke holes in the case for JPG's sanctity? I am surprised to find this role still exists, actually. I thought I remembered reading that JPG had abolished it. Guess not.

Who will his witnesses be? Christopher Hitchens and Andrew Sullivan?

Annals of Great Journalism

Via Powerline, here's the AP report on how President Bush's speech went tonight. Nevermind that he hasn't given it yet.

10 Commandments After Sleeping On It

All snide comments from me aside, what the Court really announced yesterday is that it finds no principle in such cases that a solid majority subscribes to. Which translates as: send us more cases.

In fairness, it must be admitted that conservatives on the court caused this problem in the first place. When the first freedom of religion cases wound their way to SCOTUS in the 1940s, "Liberals" on the court --such as William O. Douglas-- were prepared to completely do away with any reference to God in any form. To prevent this result, Justice Jackson and others came up with the concept of "secular purpose." Their intentions were good, but what they gave us was a Court that yesterday invented what I called the "hypocrisy clause" --you can post religious symbols if nobody believes in them. Of course, this was an example of conservatives making bad law trying to achieve a right result --or in other words, of right-wing judicial activism.

Of course, the Court erred grievously in taking up such questions in the first place. It is no business of the Federal Government what is on the walls or grounds of any state government building. The right answer to this question, ladies and gentlemen, is federalism. The problem here is not that the Court didn't find a good standard for judging what religious symbols offend the 1st amendment. The problem is that the Court thinks it should find a standard at all --and thanks to stare decisis-- "our" side is more or less stuck arguing "secular purpose." (We're fighting tooth and nail, Your Honors, but we don't really believe this stuff.)

Unsustainable Lack-of-Growth

Yet another curtsy ninme's way for this Mark Steyn column. Since Julian Simon's death, Steyn is the boldest secular writer to tackle the population implosion problem. . . .and so amusingly! Here's one horror of birth control and abortion I'd not yet heard about:

In East Germany, whose rural communities are dying, village sewer systems are having a tough time adjusting to the lack of use. Populations have fallen so dramatically that there are too few people flushing to keep the flow of waste moving. Traditionally, government infrastructure expenditure arises from increased demand. In this case, the sewer lines are having to be narrowed at great cost in order to cope with dramatically decreased demand.

Yikes! Read the. . .well, you know.

Kelo: Just Desserts

Check out ninme's funniest item of the day today. This revenge would be indeed sweet.

The Uselessness of Gossip About the Vatican, or What Is Sandro Magister Talking About?

The Catholic blogosphere has been chatting (hopefully or warily, depending on perspective) about a story originating with Italian journalist Sandro Magister saying that when the current Master of Ceremonies for Papal Masses retires, B16 will "restore" the Mass by using Latin. Here's the lede:

Pope Benedict XVI wants to restore the traditional ceremonial Mass in St. Peter's Basilica, with Latin instead of the vernacular and Gregorian chants.

Can you make any sense of that? Is it a misplaced participle, meaning to say the Pope will restore Latin & Gregorian Chant and get rid of the vernacular? Or are we supposed to think B16 likes Latin, but will ban Chant?

Furthermore, I have been to approximately 30 papal masses in my life, and except for those celebrated here in the States, the parts of the Mass were always in Latin. So this seems to me to be a non-story picked up by people who know nothing about mass at the Vatican and/or are desperate to paint Benedict as a troglodyte or source of controversy.

Fruitless vs. Fruitful Reform

Over at Dappled Things, Don Jim has an interesting post about authentic reform, with links to various items. What caught my eye, however, was this quasi-aphorism from Fr. himself:

When reform groups begin with an attitude of criticism and agitation, rather than love for and enchantment with the Church, they take on the sour and fruitless aspect that characterizes so many of them.

This is true whether reform comes from the right or the left. It is one thing to be passionate; still another to suck the energy and joy out of everything.

Catechism Compendium Released

Just the essentials, in dialogue form. Benedict presents it, here.

Learning to Take Orders, But Not Initiative or Responsibility

That's the way the people of Iraq grew up under Saddam Hussein, according to Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari. Read his op-ed in the Australian. Curtsy to Chrenkoff for that link, and this one --a Q& A session at the Council on Foreign Relations. (Blast from the past: it's moderated by Vin Weber). Among many interesting things in the Q&A session is this reminder of how much the Iraqis want to be free and sovereign.

One of the families in Iraq who came to vote was met by terrorists, who wanted to throw a grenade. One of the youths, Iraqi youths, jumped on the person who had the grenade. That person was martyred, and that family that came to vote continued to vote. They stayed where they were. They voted. They stood their ground. They stood fast. And this is the way that the Iraqi people show their determination and their courage and their stamina and their enthusiasm.

Kind of an interesting juxtaposition with Howard Dean criss-crossing the nation saying it's too hard for Americans to vote! While you're at it, read part 30 of Chrenkoff's goodnews from Iraq. There now. You don't have to feel so bad that your local tv station isn't carrying the President's speech.

Shelby Foote, RIP

WaPo obit here. Everyone knows him from Ken Burns' Civil War series, but real fans have actually read his civil war trilogy. Even after he became a "star," he stayed in Memphis, where he was known for eschewing society parties.

"Most people, if the truth be told, are gigantic bores," he once said. "There's no need to subject yourself to that kind of thing."

Foote's passing means the end of "the South," I think --or at least the Faulknerian South. I like to think that right about now--or at least after his wife has some masses said for him-- he'll be tossing back bourbons on some heavenly front porch with his ole buddy, Walker Percy.

Scalia's Dissent

in the Kentucky Commandments case is fantastic. He simply eviscerates the Court's argument, all the while defending the people from the arbitrary desires of our robed masters. For example:

What distinguishes the rule of law from the dictatorship of a shifting Supreme Court majority is the absolutely indispensable requirement that judicial opinions be grounded in consistently applied principle. That is what prevents judges from ruling now this way, now that--thumbs up or thumbs down--as their personal preferences dictate. Today's opinion forthrightly (or actually, somewhat less than forthrightly) admits that it does not rest upon consistently applied principle.

The first part of his dissent shows historically that the idea that government is supposed to be neutral as between religion and irreligion is preposterous on its face. He makes no effort to be complete, but he might have addressed a little something you hear from Con lawyers all the time. It's often claimed that the word God appears nowhere in the Constitution, as if this tells us something about the Founders' attitudes towards religion. But the statement itself is false. The founders signed it, "in the year of Our Lord, 1789." You might be tempted to dismiss this as a mere form, but it was a choice. Our Constitution was written after the French Revolution. The French Constitution begins "France is a secular state. . . " and ends, "in the first year of the Republic." The Founders --in deliberate contradistinction to the French-- signed, "in the year of our Lord 1789, and the independence of the Republic the 12th." (And in those two signings lies the difference between France & America, and the reason America cannot properly be considered a wholesale product of the Enlightenment. But don't get me started on that.) My point is only that the majority of the court does not understand that we are not France.

The Anchoress Likes Hitchens, Too

This time it's because he's defending smokers. He recently testified before the DC Council (which is considering banning smoking in all bars & restaurants). How can you not grudgingly admire a guy who says this to elected officials?

Noting that strip clubs are exempted from the smoking ban, Hitchens said to TAS, “I don’t know why these blue noses and puritans are trying to drive me into a life of debauchery."

or this:

Is it beyond the wit of this great city, this great country, this great culture, to find a place where people like myself can meet people to whom hospitality means, ‘This is my house but when you’re here this is your house and you can do as you please’? And that’s why we call it a hospitality industry in the first place.

or this:

the current version of prohibitionism is a left one. It’s phrased in what you’d have to describe as a liberal voice, but it has a fundamentally illiberal conclusion. And it believes everywhere should be a freakin’ cheerful Disneyland. I don’t want to live in a freakin’ cheerful Disneyland. I want to live in a
world with fearful anxiety and with all the things to combat it.

The Anchoress concludes: too bad he's so faith-phobic. Yes.

Thou Shalt Not Be Incoherent

That's the commandment the Supreme Court needs to follow. Taken together, their two 10 commandments decisions are simply incoherent. Read them for yourselves if you have the patience. Kentucky case here; Texas case here. The position of the Court seems to be that the Texas commandments can stand because the Texans didn't really mean anything by them, whereas in Kentucky, since they believe in the 10 Commandments, they must come down.

This is very helpful. Now, before we can know how if our displays in public buildings are constitutional, we have to read the minds of those doing the installations. Or maybe it means federal judges may only post on the walls of their courtrooms words they don't believe in. Call it the hypocrisy clause of the Consitution.

God save this honorable court.

Natural Law vs. "Jesus said so."

Is there anyone writing today who is better than J. Budziszewski (bud-i-shef'-ski) at explaining to a philosophically untrained audience what natural law is and how it applies? Witness this short article from Touchstone. Notice he is not making a religious argument, but a rational one. Note to social conservatives: "Jesus said so" is not persuasive to non-Christians. "The pope says so," even less so! If you want to influence the culture, you must master the natural law arguments as well. It's Thomas Aquinas' principle about knowing your audience: with Jews you can argue the scriptures, with Greeks you must use reason. Here's a teaser from the piece:

. . .let there be no mistake: When I say we aren’t designed for this, I’m also speaking of males. A woman may be more likely to cry the next morning; it’s not so easy to sleep with a man who won’t even call you back. But a man pays a price too. He probably thinks he can instrumentalize his relationships with women in general, yet remain capable of romantic intimacy when the right woman comes along. Sorry, fellow. That’s not how it works.
Sex is like applying adhesive tape; promiscuity is like ripping the tape off again. If you rip it off, rip it off, rip it off, eventually the tape can’t stick anymore. This probably contributes to an even wider social problem that might be called the Peter Pan syndrome. Men in their forties with children in their twenties talk like boys in their teens. “I still don’t feel like a grown-up,” they say. They don’t even call themselves men—just “guys.”
Now, in a roundabout sort of way, I’ve just introduced you to the concept of natural law.

Random Thought

Over coffee this morning a random thought occurred. Remember the Post take on the Billy Graham crusade? (In a nutshell: Billy Graham, good. Christianity in his retirement? Scary). Wait a minute, Billy Graham is the Post's idea of a good, non-scary Christian? Why can't Christians be more in his mold?

Why, President Bush converted while taking a walk on the beach with Billy Graham! The President is a Billy Graham Christian.

Susan Torres Update

Nice story in the W. Post this morning on the ongoing struggle to save this woman's child. Much as he hates the limelight, Jason Torres is grace itself under it.

Or Are They Just More Likely to Smoke?

Roman Catholic Blog links (scroll down, the permalink's not working for me) to a story on a recent government study of sexuality which concludes that homosexuals are 107% more likely than the rest of the population to have been arrested for illegal activity. The doctor flakking the study says it's been sitting on a shelf for a year because its conclusions are radioactive politically speaking.

For both homosexual men and lesbians, the percent who have been arrested is slightly more than double (22.8%) the number of heterosexuals who have been arrested(11%).

This was interesting news. But if you scroll down, you find that the study isolated the incidence of arrests in homosexuals and three other "anti-social" groups: those who use illicit drugs, those who engage in prostitution (as consumers or providers), and. . .wait for it. . . smokers.

Forget the homosexual hijinks, Honey, I am outraged that the govt. spent 13 million bucks on a study that puts smoking in the same category as prostitution! Therefore, as I read it (working from the summary, not the study itself), an equally valid conclusion might be that gays, hookers and drug users are no more troublesome to society than smokers are --judging from their arrest/"public disturbance" records. Hmmm.

Now He Knows What It's Really All About?

My uncle just sent me this sad news of the passing of a cultural icon:

It seems Larry LaPrise, the man who wrote "The Hokey Pokey" died peacefully at age 93. The most traumatic part for his family was getting him into the coffin. They put his left leg in. . . .
And then the trouble started.


Adds Uncle: Shut up. You know it's funny.

Larry LaPrise really did co-write the Hokey Pokey. He actually died several years ago at age 86, according to Google.

Christians Sighted in New York!

The Grey Lady is on the case. Interesting story, actually, on the rise of evangelicalism. The story makes it seem the rise is in contradistinction to Catholicism, but Catholicism is on the rise too.

Christian Science Monitor went to the crusade and actually spoke to some attendees.

Reversing Kelo

Someone wrote to Jonah Goldberg at the Corner with this idea.

"The quickest way to reverse Kelo is to find some conservative town in Utah somewhere to shut down an abortion clinic in order to make room for a Wal-Mart. Also, that would be the most fun way to get Kelo reversed."

We likes it.

Forgiveness is the Key to the Kingdom (Your Daily RQ)

Zenit.org recently published a two-part interview w/ Fr. Matthew Lamb on Cardinal Ratzinger's work of ecclesiology, Called to Communion: Understanding the Church Today. Link to it here via Insight Scoop (which has discovered the magic of linking to individual Zenit stories, unlike RC2). I found this fascinating:

Reflecting on the commission given to Peter he sees that he is commissioned to forgive sins. As he writes in "Called to Communion," it is a commission to dispense "the grace of forgiveness. It constitutes the Church. The Church is founded upon forgiveness. Peter himself is the personal embodiment of this truth, for he is permitted to be the bearer of the keys after having stumbled, confessed and received the grace of pardon."

You have, as they say, to read the whole thing, but I've never seen the sacraments of Eucharist and Confession so directly linked --and I am charmed by the idea that Peter is the keeper of the keys in a sense precisely because of his dramatic experience of failure --and of course, forgiveness.

Begging For Some Journalism

Over at Regime Change Iran, there's an open letter to Western journalists pleading that they for heavens sake ask some bloody questions.

What, and risk losing our credentials?(Remember this?)

Cognitive Dissonance

Guess who is a golf-playing, Bush-voting, dinner-cooking Christian?

Alice Cooper.

Chrenkoff links to the interview and adds:

"By the way, you have to be worried when a guy with too much mascara and a snake wrapped around his neck has a keener grasp of basic new millennium geopolitics than so many leading lights of the Democratic Party."

The Post Notices The Billy Graham Crusade

In the course of three days, some 500,000 people are expected to dedicate or re-dedicate their lives to Christ, and the Post writes the piece as if it were a non-phenomenon. Just an old-timer's valedictory, and the Post's lament that Graham's civility has given way to the hateful rants of the whacko protesters outside.

Hel-lo-o. It may well be Graham's valedictory, but you have to be willfully perverse to suggest that one weird family is the new mainstream Christianity versus the 500 thousand not-old people who are attending the event rather than protesting it. The author is smug in his rejection of the Phelps, but he accepts their characterization of the event, so who's the crazy one?

How do you cover an event with 100,000 people in attendance and not interview one of them? How does your editor let you?

2 False Alarms + A Real One, or 3 Cheers for the Police

Hubby on retreat since Thursday; he's the early riser (who usually turns off the alarm), so we've managed to accidentally trip the alarm a couple of times in his absence. Eldest Weed had dubbed this "The Weekend of False Alarms."

After Mass I took the kids for a Sunday doughnut, put the little guys down for naps and settled into a nice cup of joe (I've always wanted to call coffee "joe") and my preciouses (the papers).

Ding-dong. Some guy at the door --same haggard fellow I'd seen walking down the street with a gas can on the way home. Smiles as if he knows me, tells me his name with the evident expectation this will be his password to admission into our home.

Sorry, Sir, never heard of you says I. Sure you have he says --there's your daddy right behind you. (No one is with me). Poor man --doesn't seem to be stoned, but he is demented in some way. Says he lived here. Could be; the family name he gives rings a bell from neighborhood lore --parents who took in some 15 foster kids were here some 15-20 years ago.

He finally gets the idea that I am not letting him in the house, but he stays on the premises. Sets down his gas can, starts testing the doors of the neighbors' cars, keeps coming back to our place as home base. Eldest Weed & I say a Hail Mary for him. Call the cops and a nice officer runs him off. I say to EW, "He's coming right back as soon as the cop leaves."

Sure enough an hour later, I'm reading the papers and the alarm goes off. What the-? How the heck did this demented guy get the door open? Call the cops and go down to confront the guy --Sir, you have to get out of here RIGHT NOW. I am pushing the door shut and him out in one move.

Cops arrive and I watch from behind the door until the officer beckons me out. Two things, Ma'am, he says. First, we're going to file an emergency medical directive so we can take him to the hospital and get him some help. Sorry I didn't do it earlier --I hoped he would leave after a good talking to, but he has a fixation with your house.

Don't worry, I say, I can see he means no harm, but I can't have an unstable guy around --I've got little kids.

I understand, Ma'am. And, Ma'am --one more thing.

Yes, Officer?

"Nice job with the house." (We recently got rid of the awful Pepto-Bismol pink trim the house came with).

Your local police. For all your safety and ego needs.

"We Shall All Soon Reap What the Ignorant Are Now Sowing"

VDH on the Durbin affair. In the print version, it ran with the official cartoonist of Wheat & Weeds' take on it in glorious visual dominance on the page ("Apology Accepted"). What could be better than finishing my morning meditation, then enjoying VDH & Sam together w/ my morning coffee?


While you're at it, enjoy this column from another great writer --William Murchison. (His lead articles in Human Life Review each quarter are absolutely elegant.) Murchison manages to debunk recent polls showing falling approval of the President, arguing they tell us nothing about the presidency and some things perhaps we'd rather not know about the American people. In just 800 words. Plus, you gotta love anyone who can pull off using the expression "for the nonce."

Time-Waster Personality Test

Here are my results. Find yours if you care to at the link below. (Vast feelings of failure.All this work and I turn out to be a Spielberg movie?)

What Classic Movie Are You?
personality tests by similarminds.com

"Approach the Cross as a Sail Catches the Wind"

An image worth meditating on from Fr. Cantalamessa. Zenit.org has the whole thing.

We can approach the cross the way the sail does the wind. If the wind catches
the sail on the appropriate side, the sail fills up and the wind carries the
boat over the waves. If, however, the sail tangled, the wind breaks the mast and
everything capsizes. Well carried, the cross leads us forward; badly carried, it
crushes us.

Where in the World is WaPo's Billy Graham Coverage?

Pop Quiz: Where in this morning's Washington Post will you find coverage of an important 3-day gathering of some 100,000 evangelicals with America's most influential Christian preacher --the "pastor to Presidents?"

A. Front page, above the fold

B. Front page, below the fold

C. Buried deep in the "A" section.

D. In the Metro section's Saturday "Religion" page.

E. Nowhere.

At least there's plenty of as-if-it-were-legit coverage of the sham election in Iran.

"Red on Red Fighting"

Caught a few moments of the John Batchelor Show (ABC radio) on the way home last night. Never quite know what to make of him. He plays eerie bumper music and invites knowledgeable-sounding guests with gnostic knowledge of all things military and Middle Eastern who say things you don't hear anywhere else. I never know if I am listening to conspiracy theories or information.

Nevertheless, since the items I've noticed have usually panned out once the MSM got around to covering his stories, I pass this along for what it's worth. Guest John Loftus said yesterday that we are seeing an upswing in attacks on our soldiers in Iraq because of recent infighting between Saddam loyalists and al-Qaeda fighters. He says that--particularly near the Syrian border-- the native Iraqis are tired of al-Qaeda targeting Iraqi citizens and there have been several incidents of Iraqi insurgents turning their fire on the al-Qaeda guys. Their message: "Hey, if you're going to kill people, let it be Americans." Kind of a good news/bad news scenario, right? Make of it what you will.

Has anyone seen that story anywhere else?

UPDATE: ninme writes me that she's seen it, too, so it must be true! And here's a NYT story of "red-on-red."

Cardinal Danielou's Profession

Over at Pontifications, whose author just announced last month his conversion to Catholicism after much anguish over the state of the Episcopal Church, there is a simply marvelous little apologetic from Cardinal Danielou. Must-read when you're in the mood for it.

Indiana Graham & The Last Crusade

Actually, I guess Billy Graham is from North Carolina.

What's being billed as his last crusade began this evening in New York. The Weed household is innocent of cable tv (I would like to say this is to protect the kids from harmful influences, but it's really to protect Mrs. Easily-Mesmerized from couch-potato-dom), so I went to my folks' place tonight (they were out) to try to catch the crusade. Am I crazy or didn't they broadcast them when I was a kid? So where was it? The closest I could come was Sean Hannity doing his schtick on-site (at least he ran a nice interview with the Rev. Billy).

Justin Torres gives a nice overview of Rev. Graham's career here. Everyone should try to catch at least a few moments listening to our nation's greatest preacher say good-bye.

Is it just me or is it strange that the crusade was not promoted in NY/NJ Catholic parishes as in previous years? Nor is there any official Catholic presence --though one was invited. I make no accusations one way or the other, knowing no particulars. But it seems ---especially in light of Graham's deeply gracious comments at John Paul's passing-- a little strange. For the record, although altar calls aren't the Catholic way, the crusade's policy is to pass the names of Catholics making the altar call to diocesan officials for follow-up.

At any rate, more than 100,000 people are there tonight. (Yes, Maureen Dowd, 100,000 evangelicals are in your city. Can't you just feel the shudder?)

B16 Visits the Italian President

Zadok the Roman has cool pictures of the Pope's arrival (he was given a mounted escort with some 30 cavalrymen!). Anyone know why he rides in an open car? Is he bullet-proof? Anyway, he gave a nice little speech about the role of government , its relationship to the Church, and the mission of the Italian people. Not sure what the last little bit is about --there must be some issue about Italian schools.

Gotta Love That UN "Dialogue"

A pal & I used to run a little Catholic women's group that was able to send three delegates to the U.N.'s Beijing conference on women. It would take more energy than I have at present to recount The Horror! The Horror! of it, but I can pass along one detail. The open formal sessions were scripted and platitudinous; the real meat of the conference took place behind the scenes in working groups. Our delegate/spies reported that the UN allowed only delegates to attend these working sessions --not their translators. And no official translation was provided.


That was the main UN strategy for getting nations to accept the European & American (this was during the Clinton Administration) program of sexual license: by simply not explaining to non-English speakers the innocuous-sounding English codewords. (For example: gender equality did not mean equal rights for women, but promotion of five alleged genders --now I think the UN is up to nine, although I couldn't guess what they are). So much for "dialogue."


Nice to see that some things remain constant in life. They're up to their old tricks.

Race To The Bottom

Remember the old days when Academics were too snobby to pay attention to pop culture?


Sigh. Neither do I.

Still, this has to be some kind of low, right? The Chronicle of Higher Education is calling for papers on the hermeneutics of Brad Pitt. Curtsy to Ignatius Insight (which asks the ontological question: can Brad Pitt act?) for pointing the way to this post, so I can continue to feel secure in my choice not to go on for a doctorate.

Crusaders Defended Against Islam --And Mostly Lost

You can never have too many reminders what the Crusades really were, says I. Curtsy to Mere Comments for the link.

Christians: Rage Against the Dying of the Light

While Terri Schiavo was dehydrating, a commonplace remark from callers to our local talk radio station was along the lines of: what are these nutty Christians complaining about --aren't they the ones who think death takes them to God? This post from Mere Comments explains the problem with that argument. Money quote: "If the culture of death ever seduces Western Christianity, it will not be because it redefined 'personhood.' It will be because it twists Christian piety to embrace death as a morally neutral 'stairway to heaven.' "

Cardinal Sin, RIP

While I was out I missed the passing of Cardinal Jaime Sin. This is a pretty good obit, although it emphasizes his political achievements and not his outspoken defense of Christianity and the culture of life. Many moons ago when I worked as a lobbyist, one of the British bishops had to resign when it was revealed he'd sired a child. It was reported that he went to missions in the Philippines to atone, and wound up in the Cardinal's confessional where he knelt and said, "Bless me, Sin, for I have fathered."

Forgive me. My old boss used to love that joke.

Holy Tsunami, Batman! UN Aid Is Not Much Aid!

In case VDH didn't satisfy your taste for pith and vinegar this afternoon, try Mark Steyn's column from the Spectator taking apart the UN effort to provide Tsunami relief. Commenting on the Left's opposition to actually doing anything, he writes:

Getting things done requires ships and transport planes and the like, and most
Western countries lack the will to maintain armed forces capable of long-range
projection. So, when disaster strikes, they can mail a cheque and hold a press
conference and form a post-modern ‘Task Force’ which doesn’t have any forces and
doesn’t perform any tasks. In extreme circumstances, they can stage an all-star
pop concert. And, because this is all most of the Western world is now capable
of, ‘taking action’ means little more than taking the approved forms of
inaction.

VDH Friday

I think his column today ends on too sour a note --I don't think the country has turned on the war. Support for it has ebbed and flowed with news cycles, and there's no reason to think that if the Administration defended the war against the current MSM badnewsathon, support wouldn't increase again. And recent polling shows no one is buying the Gitmo-as-Gulag spin.

He provides his usual weekly reality check, nonetheless. Loved this:

When Western liberals today talk of a mythical period in the days after 9/11 of
"unity" and "European solidarity" what they really remember is a Golden Age of
Victimhood, or about four weeks before the strikes against the Taliban
commenced. Then for a precious moment at last the United States was a real
victim, apparently weak and vulnerable, and suffering cosmic justice from a
suddenly empowered other. Oh, to return to the days before Iraq and Afghanistan,
when we were hurt, introspective, and pitied, and had not yet "lashed out."

The Professor on Kelo

An excellent column on Kelo from Prof. Bainbridge.

Pack The Court!

Know what our robed masters did today? Eradicated the distinction between public and private property. Not directly of course, but the ultimate meaning of the Kelo decision is that there is not a dime's worth of difference between the two, and the government can take your property any ol' time it sees fit. Just wait till you see the big trucks that get driven through their wide definition of "public use" in the Takings Clause of the 5th amendment. (Be sure to read the dissents from O'Conner & Thomas).

People, this grows tiresome.

• The first amendment reads in part: "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." But SCOTUS upheld McCain-Feingold, which is precisely and by definition an abridgment of political speech and press.
• The 5th amendment reads in part: ". . .nor shall any person . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." As of today, SCOTUS declares that any person may be deprived of property with compensation as the gov. sees fit for any dang reason the government chooses.

The examples of court excess are numerous of course,, but I single these out because here we have cases where the Court's decisions are diametrically opposed to explicit language in the Bill of Rights. Note to social conservatives: will you finally see the folly of trying to protect the culture through amendments to the Constitution? It won't work because even if you manage against all odds to pass the amendment, your amendment will only mean what 5 members of the court SAY it means. If they say "Marriage in the U.S. shall be between a man and a woman" means that a man can marry a man who feels like a woman inside (psychological "health" being, thanks to Doe v. Bolton, already a catch-all term), that's what it will mean. If Kelo teaches us anything, it is that the Court has given up even the pretense that it gives a fig what the Constitution says.

Only two things will help. Good judges (& RC2 is in no mood to hear Bill Kristol's gossip about the Prez offering us Alberto Gonzalez). And chief executives and legislatures who understand that they are co-equal branches of the government, not subservient to the courts.

We have two examples in history of the two other branches putting the Court in its place. There was Lincoln refusing to enforce Dred Scott. (He argued that the decision was binding only on Dred Scott himself, but did not set precedent, and he sent word to federal marshalls not to enforce the new "law"). And we have the example of Roosevelt & Congress pushing through the New Deal. Congress did its part by continuing to pass legislation it wanted even after the Court had continually struck similar legislation down, until public outcry began to turn in favor of Roosevelt's court-packing plan. Then the Court "magically" found reason to find the New Deal legislation acceptable.

This is not my coming-out party as a New Deal flak; I am simply saying that the New Deal represents a good political model for the proper use of executive and legislative power against judicial supremacy. Until Congress & The President grow spines and challenge the Court's power, there is no law that can be passed which is powerful enough to overcome Justice Kennedy's private opinion on any subject.

Read Roosevelt's fireside chat on court-packing and see if you don't see history repeating itself, especially towards the end when he discusses in several paragraphs the problem with constitutional amendment as a way to solve anything. Read the whole thing, please, but the money quote is: "Even if an amendment were passed, and even if in the years to come it were to be ratified, its meaning would depend upon the kind of justices who would be sitting on the Supreme Court bench. For an amendment, like the rest of the Constitution, is what the justices say it is rather than what its framers or you might hope it is."

UPDATE: Click on "Shaky Ground" for an artistic rendering of the Kelo decision. While you're at it, check out "Apology Accepted" and "Sitting Down on the Job." Plus ninme links to various comments on the decision --including the funny one addressed to Leftists: "While you were out protesting the Patriot Act, the government took your house."

Pray This Pans Out?

Adult stem cells found to have the same characteristics as embryonic ones in a new study. Sounds pretty cool, except that --as with fetal tissue before them-- the rapid cell division of embryonic stem cells has so far proven to be negative --scientists can't control their growth, with freakish results when they are transplanted into actual subjects. Nevertheless, it can only be a good thing if a consensus develops we don't need embryonic stem cells.

Relics of the Magi & Prayer for JP II's Intercession

The relics are held by tradition to be in Cologne, site of the upcoming 20th World Youth Day. Did you know? Here is what JPG said about it.


Also, the process for JPG's beatification opens officially June 28th. The postulator for his cause is asking for the faithful to pray for his intercession (a miracle will be needed before he can be canonized). Here's the prayer:

O Blessed Trinity, We thank you for having graced the Church with Pope John Paul II and for allowing the tenderness of your Fatherly care, the glory of the cross of Christ, and the splendor of the Holy Spirit, to shine through him. Trusting fully in Your infinite mercy and in the maternal intercession of Mary, he has given us a living image of Jesus the Good Shepherd, and has shown us that holiness is the necessary measure of ordinary Christian life and is the way of achieving eternal communion with you. Grant us, by his intercession, and according to Your will, the graces we implore, hoping that he will soon be numbered among your saints. Amen.

Speaking of PapaRatzi

Here's the Angelus from yesterday. Very simple: an exhortation to make charity concrete through service to the neediest --and a wish for us all to have great summer vacations.

"I feel less alone when I read the books of Ratzinger."

So sayeth the great (atheist) Oriana Fallaci, a journalist still worthy of the name (by which I mean she asks questions). Thanks to Prof. Bainbridge for the tip-off to this terrific short interview with her in today's Opinion Journal.

June 23 Tomatoes

Let the record show that I plucked the first home-grown tomatoes of summer this morning. In your face, July tomato-harvesters!

We'll Talk Thursday

Off to a conference (nearby, but all day) for the next two days --plus house guests in the evening, so. . . .

Check Zenit on Wednesday for B16's audience, and click on the links at right to find things of interest in politics, religion and the arts.

Movement Members, Start Saving Your Euros

. . .or will the lire be back by then? We went to the 1998 one; it was a terrific experience. (Will Msgr. Albacete's Joie de Times Square be invited, do you think?)

Benedict XVI to Meet With Movements in '06VATICAN CITY, JUNE 20, 2005 (Zenit.org).- Benedict XVI will meet with ecclesial movements on the solemnity of Pentecost in 2006, Vatican sources told ZENIT. During a meeting with representatives of the Pontifical Council for the Laity, the Pope expressed his interest in holding a meeting similar to that of May 30, 1998, which gathered new ecclesial movements for the first time around Pope John Paul II, according to sources. Next year's meeting will not be "an identical copy" of the 1998 event, which took place in St. Peter's Square and attracted more than 100,000 people, said the Vatican sources. This Saturday a meeting is scheduled in the Pontifical Council for the Laity with representatives of the ecclesial movements and communities, to discuss aspects of and preparations for the 2006 event. At the end of last year, the Pontifical Council for the Laity published a 300-page "List of International Associations of the Faithful," which includes 123 associations that enjoy ecclesial recognition.

The Long-Awaited RC2 Review of Revenge of the Sith

Father's Day gift --thanks to an obliging friend who took in the baby for 2 hours-- was a family outing to see the final Star Wars installment (Spousal Unit's achilles heel is his weakness for Star Wars).

My expectations were very low (I like acting, and George Lucas couldn't care less) and maybe that explains my reaction, but --it's not so bad! The special effects carry it of course --it's George Lucas. Take out the battle scenes and the 2 hour flick would be down to about half an hour, probably. But give the man credit, the effects are stunning. And Hayden Christiansen's acting is indeed improved, his range now stretching from A to say, E.

A nice surprise, however, is that Lucas manages a terrific evocation of the seduction of evil. I could hardly have asked for a better portrait of it to discuss with my kids. Ian McDarmid's Sith Lord/Chancellor Palpatine behaves just like the serpent in the garden.

The object of Palpatine's seduction, Anakin Skywalker, has a good heart and youthful idealism, and Palpatine insinuates himself by praising these, just as Satan makes pals with Eve. Having once established a friendship (Anakin says to him more than he ought, just as Eve engages Satan more than she should), Palpatine manipulates Anakin's pride, turning his idealism into a reason to doubt the good: everyone knows you are the best, and if the Jedi are so good, why do they stand in your way? Why are they hiding the full truth from you? (Devil to Eve: "God knows well the moment you eat of the tree of knowledge, your eyes will be opened.") He doesn't do it all at once --just an idle thought or question planted here and there.

The ultimate temptation is even the same. The serpent tempted Eve with the power over life and death, and so Palpatine tempts Anakin --with the power to prevent his dark visions about his wife from coming true. How beguiling is the serpent's whisper: "God doesn't have your best interests at heart; sieze the moment, you yourself make things the way they ought to be!"

Of course, Anakin is blinded to the fact that the vision he's had is probably planted by the devil himself. And once doubt in the Good is planted, it is hard for him to see where truth lies; he sees conspiracy everywhere, and every incident can be read from two perspectives. (Palpatine's version of things is like blog comments pages!)

Once he falls, his every subsequent act hardens him in his choice and puts him increasingly under the Evil One's spell. [Spoiler coming]. In a singularly well-observed detail, after Obi-Wan has defeated Anakin and left him for dead, the Evil One rescues him and his deformed body is transformed through machinery into the Darth Vader we all know and love. Awakening from his surgery, and unaware of what has transpired, his first thoughts are of the wife he sold his soul to save. "Where's Padme?" he asks. Comes the answer (false!): "It seems that in your anger, you killed her."

Thus we see how utter is the Dark Lord's contempt for his apprentice. He lures him with a promise that he has no intention of fulfilling, and then snatches it out of reach, devastating his dreams and leaving him utterly devastated with guilt, as the seal of his future depravity.

Isn't that just the devil's way with us? He tempts us to do what we ought not, and the instant we do, he turns on us with the weapons of despair and guilt, making us feel the world has ended, it's all our fault, and there's no going back. No one laughs at our depravity more than the evil one, because he hates us, and guilt itself can often keep us marching further down the same dark path.

Well, I don't want to overdo it. It's not a great movie; the limitations of the script that all the other critics have mocked are definitely there. But I felt I had to give credit where it's due --there's food for thought amongst the SummerMovie stomp-n-chomp.

Oh, and the anti-Bush stuff? Lucas may think it's there, but it isn't.

Ever Heard of a Recess Appointment?

Bob Novak has a column in the W. Post (not yet posted, however) this morning about Chris Dodd's "clever" obfuscation over the Bolton nomination. It escapes me what's so clever about it. Isn't it predictable that the instant the Senate goes into recess, the Prez will just name him the interim ambassador --which would allow him to serve to the end of the Bush term? Can anyone come up with a reasonable explanation of why the Dems are going to the mat on this? They look like idiots.

NYT Thinks I'm Crazy

You, too. (It'll cost you 4 bucks to read the whole thing, but the lede is free.)

Jacob Sullum points out the Times thinks gambling, drinking and promiscuity "used to be" considered sins and fasting was once considered pious. Then (he's quoting the Times itself), "as science gradually displaced religion, such behavior was increasingly seen in secular, diagnostic terms."

Get it? Fasting is anorexia and religious rituals are obsessive-compulsive disorder. Yes, the Times actually said this.

I love it when the Times explains it all to me. I guess if you never leave the rarified air of Manhattan it's easy to believe everyone but you is crazy. When I used to vacation with my fussy widower aunts there each summer, one of them used to comment occasionally on the weird things we'd see walking down the street, "The things you see when you don't have a gun." It was hilarious coming from her.

Senator from al-Inois

Can you stand another anti-Durbin polemic? Here's Mark Steyn's. No new info., but the writing!

See, This Is Why Nobody Trusts Psychotherapists

The Washington Post Magazine's cover story (for Father's Day, predictably --has everyone else noted that every year on this day all the features are about perversions of fatherhood? It should be renamed Freaky Fathers day) is about a single psychotherapist taking her two children to meet their sperm donor.

"Do you know your donor lives in California?" she would ask them when a television program mentioned something about the state. . . . .

On Father's Day, she made it a habit to gather her children and say: "Let's send lots of hugs and kisses to your donor. Let's send our love." Her children, as she recounts, happily chimed in: "Thank you, donor. We love you."

All together now: Eeeeew!

But wait, there's more. Lest you doubt the Church's view that sperm donation represents an unacceptable objectification of the human person, the mom speaks of her delight in reading the donor catalog:

"Selecting a donor was empowering," she remembers. "Suddenly I had my pick of these incredible male specimens. I was the one with the power to accept or reject. I loved looking at those donor profiles; I mean, I could have any of these guys."

Yeah, without all of that tiresome human interaction you psychotherapists are supposed to be expert at. More:

The souvenirs have arrived --silver sperm pins. "Oh, cool, I got a sperm, I got a sperm," Aaron says. "Sperm for everyone," Rubino says.

The donor wants the kids to call him "Dad," but makes it clear he'll never have a traditional family. He's an "ahtist," don't you know --he needs solitude. The mother says she'd be lying if she said she didn't dream of a fairy tale ending where they become a family. Of her kids she says, "They couldn't stand letting him go. I can see the looks on all of our faces during that week --the happiness."
So she ends up changing her custody agreement should she die, changes their middle names to his, and thinks about moving to be near "Donor". . .so they can live like a normal family --you know, a divorced one.

Oh, they love to run stories like this one celebrating the alternative life --two adult lives here of astonishing self-absorbtion. Nevertheless, for anyone with "ears to hear," the deep yearning for the intimacy of a family that exists in all of these people's hearts cries out. Particularly and heartbreakingly from the children.

Good Medicine

When RC2 was a wee pro-life lobbyist many moons ago children, The Lancet was a reliable source of medical news. (Yes, your mommy is that old.) Its descent into anti-smoking thuggery and other means of frightening small children has been rapid and sad. (Note to the editors: See, you people are the reason otherwise sane persons increasingly give credence to internet theories about vaccines, hormones in the water, brain cancer from cell phones, etc. You have corrupted "real science," so they look elsewhere for the truth. PC = the death of reason, because everything we hear from any source is now just propaganda). Here, some Nobel-prize winners strike a blow for medicine and scientific truth: The Lancet is a rag! Curtsy to The Corner.

Fr. Sings-the-Mass On Sunday's Readings

RC2 is charmed all over again each time she hears the name of the preacher for the Papal Household, Fr. Cantalamessa. Here's an interesting commentary he did on tomorrow's readings. Happy Father's Day!

Have No Fear!
The Gospel's dominant theme this Sunday is that Christ frees us from fear. Like illnesses, fears can be acute or chronic. Acute fears are determined by a situation of extraordinary danger. If I am about to be run over by a car, or begin to notice that the earth is moving under my feet because of an earthquake, I am gripped by acute fears. As they arise unexpectedly and without warning, so they disappear as soon as the danger is over, leaving perhaps only a bad memory. They do not depend on us and are natural. More dangerous are chronic fears, those that live with us, which we carry from our birth or childhood, which become part of our being, and which sometimes we end up being attached to.


Fear is not an evil in itself. It is often the occasion to reveal unsuspected courage and strength. Only someone who knows fear knows what courage is. Fear can really become an evil that consumes and does not allow one to live, rather than being a stimulus to react and a spring for action, it can become an excuse for inaction, something that paralyzes. When it is turned into anxiety: Jesus named man's most common anxieties: "'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 'What shall we wear?'" (Matthew 6:31). Anxiety has become the illness of the century, and it is one of the main causes for the multiplication of heart attacks.

[Fear is not an evil in itself? That bears reflection. Evil is the absence of some good; isn't fear in some sense an absence of trust? He's saying not necessarily. But then what is it?]

We live in anxiety, and that is why we do not live! Anxiety is an irrational fear of an unknown object. To always be afraid of everything, to systematically expect the worst and to always live in a palpitation. If there is no danger, anxiety invents it; if it exists, anxiety magnifies it. The anxious person suffers evils twice over: first in the anticipation and then in the reality. What Jesus condemns in the Gospel is not simple fear so much or just concern for tomorrow, but precisely this anxiety and disquiet. "Do not be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow will be anxious for itself. Let the day's own trouble be sufficient for the day," he said.


But let's stop describing our fears of different sorts and let's try, instead, to see what remedy the Gospel offers us to overcome our fears. The remedy is summarized in one word: to trust God, to believe in Providence and in the heavenly Father's love. The real root of all fears is that of finding oneself alone, like that continuous fear of the child of being abandoned.

[Emphasis mine. Isn't that cool? I think this is why we crave intimacy --intimacy is proof we aren't alone. And it's why Confession is so consoling --because to kneel down and tell all the things we normally keep hidden is an intense experience of being fully known, without pretense, by the Beloved.]


And Jesus assures us precisely about this: that we will not be abandoned. "For my father and my mother have forsaken me, but the Lord will take me up," says Psalm (27:10). Even if all were to abandon us, the Lord would not. His love is stronger than all.


We cannot leave the topic of fear, however, on this point. It would be less than close to reality. Jesus wants to free us from fears and he always frees us. But he does not have only one way to do so; he has two: he either takes away the fear from our hearts or he helps us to live with it in a new way, more freely, making of it an occasion of grace for ourselves and for others.


He himself wished to live this experience. It is written that, in the Garden of Olives "he began to feel sadness and anxiety." The original text even suggests the idea of a solitary terror, as of someone who feels removed from human association, in an immense solitude. And he wished to experience this precisely to redeem this aspect of the human condition also. Since that day, living in union with him, fear, especially fear of death, has the power to uplift us instead of depressing us, of making us more attentive to others, more understanding, and in a word, more human.


[Italian original published in Famiglia Cristiana; translation by ZENIT]

Hugh Hewitt Agrees: Censure Durbin

Here's his lengthy post rounding up what people have said. Includes links to a new blog dedicated to the censure movement.

Sing It, Sister

A writer to the W. Post captures exactly something RC2 and Spousal Unit gripe about almost every morning! I say it's because reporters know nothing. He says it's because there's no news, so they have to fill the front page with features. At any rate, the whole stinkin' Washington Post is written like society pages. No offense meant to my own sex, but it's a paper written for women (the kind who "lunch") and men who wish they were women.

Here are the lead-ins to the six stories on the front page of the June 13 edition of The Post:

"Soul Khalil woke with a start. Her split-level home in Burke was shuddering. . . . "

"A hard rain had fallen most of the night. Xu Juxian, a wiry farmer's wife. . . ."

"Ellen Saracini lost her husband. . . ."

"Like the summer love of your youth, the Washington Nationals. . . ."

"The fourth-grade girl with shoulder-length cornrows looked out. . . ."

"Minutes before showtime, the man in charge sits in a VIP reception area above the stage, sipping a Grey Goose on the rocks. . . ."

Okay, at the risk of revealing myself as a former J-school cranky pants, what happened to the traditional, who-what-where-when-why-how lead? Are your reporters no longer taught to follow that approach? Have your editors abandoned it in favor of irritating, essay-style reportage in hope of attracting a younger demographic? Are you trying to make the paper longer to sell more ad space? Where's the news in all that verbiage?

When I pick up The Post I read the first paragraph or two of a story, then decide whether I need to keep reading or whether I've learned enough to move on to the next item. I'm sure I'm not the only person who does this. I don't think most people read the newspaper in its entirety every morning, and eliminating the traditional, just-the-facts lead makes this quick-scan approach impossible.

I mean no disrespect to the individuals profiled in these stories, some of whom have suffered terribly. But writing every single piece on your front page in a style once reserved for soft-news stories diminishes rather than enhances its effect. If I want to read a well-told tale with interesting characters engaged in cosmic struggles, I'll pick up Shakespeare or Dostevski. When I pick up The Post I'd like a little less infotainment blah-de-blah and more straight news with my morning coffee. --March Dodge, Chevy Chase

Yes! Oh, Yes! It heightens the humor of this, which is spot on (read the stories).

Child Sacrifice in London, Or Why Evangelization Is Still Urgent

Hey, we're all going to the same place --just taking different paths to get there, right?

Censure Durbin

Sen. Durbin's comments were brought to mind as I read this article by Kenneth Anderson in last week's Weekly Standard. It's about Amnesty International's comparing Gitmo to the gulags, which is of course where Durbin got the idea. I don't have much respect for AI, so didn't pay much attention at the time (Another over-the-top accusation? Snore.).

However: Did you know that all the nasty things the AI peeps said about us were not in their report! They had nothing whatsoever to accuse us of, they just wanted to make headlines. You really must read the whole thing for the factual analysis, but Anderson makes the important point that Amnesty International does not believe what it says. His evidence? Their behavior. If they really believed Gitmo was a Gulag and the US was in the business of "disappearing" people (as they also claimed in their press conference), then they ought be calling for sanctions against the U.S., our ouster from Nato, the UN, etc.

But that's not what AI and other human rights groups do; au contraire, they have a whole agenda they expect to be enacted with the US as their knight in shining armor. Their position is, please report to the Hague, but only after you've cleaned the whole world up for us, please. Very reasonably, Anderson concludes:

these human rights organizations, whether Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch, simply indulge themselves in rhetorical overkill. They do not mean what they say. Amnesty instinctively recognized this by putting its nonsensical charges in its press releases and not in its report. Human Rights Watch announces this horrific moral equivalence--then it calls merely for a special counsel to investigate further. Neither group means what it said, even though, like clockwork, letters to the editor will be received next week insisting that they really, really did. We, for our part, instinctively know better.
We also know that it is suicidally irresponsible for groups that depend on the moral force of their pronouncements to habitually say things they don't actually mean. Rhetorical inflation is a dangerous indulgence for the human rights movement. And it is a bad thing for the cause of human rights.

(this gets back to what I said a few posts ago about the argument ad Hitleram raising Hitler, not lowering Bush).

Ok. So now Durbin is sticking to his story (though slightly backtracking by issuing the requisite non-apology apology), and I'm thinking, this guy obviously does not mean what he says. If he did, he'd be calling for Bush and others to be impeached, etc. Which means that --like AI-- he engaged in sweeping rhetorical excess. Hmm. A Senator indulging in sweeping rhetorical excess that results in real damage to others. Where have I read about this in history?

Everything these days is called McCarthyism, but Durbin's comments actually are. The proper response is not his resignation, but a Senate censure (a la McCarthy). That way he not only pays the political price (probably his seat) for so irresponsibly running his mouth, but we force his Democratic colleagues to distance themselves from his remarks (or not, but at least they would be on record in an up or down vote for America to see who agrees with Durbin).

This would be a dynamite issue for Frist if he really wants to be President. Sigh. Where oh where are the Republicans who now how to fight politically?

(Here's a little Senate history; scroll past expulsion stuff to censure. I am off to send this idea to more influential bloggers to see if we can start a bandwagon.)