Oh, we just have to preserve abortion!! Yes we must!!

Hysteria beginning to reign in SD as Election Day nears. Here's a lovely gem from Ruth Marcus at the WaPo:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/10/AR20061010012...

My comments in bold

At the Sioux Falls headquarters of the campaign to repeal Referred Law 6 -- better known as the South Dakota abortion ban -- is a handlettered sign that sums up the opponents' case: "This law simply goes too far." Yes, it does. Oh, but partial-birth abortion doesn't "go too far"? Injecting the mother's womb with saline to burn the baby, when it can feel pain, doesn't go to far? But I worry that those fighting to undo the abortion ban have, with the best of intentions, also gone too far in conceding the moral terrain of the abortion debate. Um, what moral terrain? Last time I checked, one side wants to save babies. The other wants to kill them.




The South Dakota statute is chilling in its remorseless reach. The sole exception to the criminal prohibition on abortions -- doctors would face up to five years in prison for performing them -- is to save the life of the mother. Rape or incest victims, and women whose health would be jeopardized by carrying a pregnancy to term, get no leeway under the statute, passed overwhelmingly in February by the state legislature. Exactly how is it the fault of the baby that the mother was raped or a victim of incest? As tragic as these circumstances are, two wrongs don't make a right. Sorry.

On one level, then, it's little wonder, especially in conservative South Dakota, that the effort to repeal the law -- it's on the November ballot -- has focused on its inflexibility. After all, exceptions for pregnancies that result from rape or incest are a staple of even the most conservative politicians' political platforms -- President Bush, for one; John Thune, South Dakota's Republican senator, for another. Federal law requires Medicaid funding for abortions in cases of rape or incest. Well that's something we need to change. Why are my tax dollars funding abortions for poor people? Down with that!

Given that consensus, it's alarming that the vote on repealing the law may be so close. An independent poll in July found 47 percent of voters opposed, 39 percent in favor. But a more recent poll, commissioned by an antiabortion group, showed the gap much narrower, 47 to 44 percent. Four of the eight Republican state senators who had opposed the ban were ousted in primary elections. That's right, SD voters, show them what for!

So if the campaign against the law echoes the rhetoric usually employed by antiabortion forces, that may be smart politics, at least in the short term. "South Dakotans agree: honor and protect human life, reduce the number of abortions," opens a new television ad by the South Dakota Campaign for Healthy Families. (If you're confused about which side they're on, this is the group opposing the ban.) Um, let's reduce the number of abortions by: 1) not having pre-marital sex! 2) promoting a moral lifestyle, like no sex before you're married! 3) if you don't want kids, don't have sex. No form of birth control, except abstinence, is 100%.

Here's the problem, though, with this apologetic approach: What happens next? The decision to submit the ban to voters, rather than challenge the law in court, where it would almost certainly be overturned, carries twin risks -- failure and success.

If the repeal campaign fails, that could incite antiabortion forces elsewhere, not that they need much prodding. Oh my gosh! And we have more babies being born in America! The Louisiana legislature passed -- and the Democratic governor signed -- a similar statute this year, to take effect if Roe v. Wade is overturned. Mississippi came close to enacting a South Dakota-like ban; Ohio could be poised to do so in a lame-duck session. Ooooh what a scary Halloween tale! More babies, which means more citizens, which means more money going into Social Security and all those things liberals love.

But if, as is more likely, voters reject the law, what happens if and when antiabortion forces come back with a version more palatable to South Dakotans? The July poll showing 47 percent of voters opposed to the ban found that 59 percent would support it with exceptions for rape and incest.

"I've spent a great deal of time and thought wondering if it would have been wiser to write in the exceptions," House Majority Leader Larry Rhoden told the Associated Press. Next time around, I fear, Rhoden and his colleagues will. And then where will we be? I'll tell you. We'll be a better place. Yay SD!

Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, dismisses that worry as "hypothetical," saying that "once the people of South Dakota have spoken, elected officials are going to sit up and take notice." Perhaps, but the history of antiabortion forces hasn't exactly been that they give up easily. No, because when we're saving lives, we tend to keep on trying.

And this is the flaw inherent in the South Dakota strategy. It abandons what for me is the essential question of the abortion rights debate: Who gets to decide? Easy: God. Instead, it silently concedes that this is a matter that can be determined by a legislative majority considering a more situational question: What excuse is good enough -- or, more precisely, what excuse does government deem good enough? Once the argument is framed in those terms, the right to choose as a bedrock guarantee starts to crumble. There is no right to abortion. Say it with me now. There are no 'penumbras,' no 'shadows of penumbras,' no 'emanations.' I don't care what Warren, Burger, et al. said in Roe. They do not exist!! You have no right to kill your unborn child. Period. The baby has rights, deal with it. It is another human being. If you don't believe me, go look at an ultrasound picture. What is that in the womb? A bug? Hello...

Why does this matter? Because contraceptives fail -- and not only in ways that can be remedied by resorting to emergency contraception (not that abortion opponents want to make access to Plan B any easier). Because even the most wanted pregnancies produce tragic genetic anomalies. Oh dude do not even get me started on this! Who are you to play God? Why do you get to decide if the baby's life is worth living?! EGODS! That argument is what makes me the most angry of all. This woman proibably would have aborted me, because you know, I have "tragic genetic anomalies." Because people, teenagers especially, take stupid risks that result in unwanted pregnancies. Well then they learn to live with the consequences, don't they? If you are goin g to engage in adult activities, then you have to carry adult responsibility. Have fun.

Pregnant women in these circumstances face a difficult -- and, yes, even tragic -- decision. But it's a choice that should be theirs, not one that's up for majority vote. Um no. Sorry. Since whne is murder a choice that "should be theirs"?

And so I hope the advocates of repeal succeed in overturning the abortion ban. But after that, they will need to figure out how to argue against the next law -- one that, under the terms they have tacitly accepted, doesn't "go too far." Oh for the love of all things Holy. This woman needs a reality check. Or a kick in the pants.

"Christ has no body now but yours"

Good prayer from Scott Hahn's new book (see below posts) that I'd forgotten about. David Parkes, a Catholic Irish Tenor, has set this to much on one of his recordings (which are great things):

Christ has no body now but yours,
No hands, no feet on Earth but yours,
Yours are the eyes with which He looks
Compassion on this world,
Yours are the feet with which He walks to do good,
Yours are the hands, with which He blesses all the world.

Homeschooling Dads

From Catholic Exchange:

http://www.catholicexchange.com/vm/index.asp?vm_id=121&art_id=34643

Incidentially, this is part of the their new Homeschooling portal, so I'll probably have more stuff from there as I peruse it. But I really liked this one.

Catholics in America

From First Things :


http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0608/articles/bottum.html

Good article (thus far) on Catholics in America. When I've finished it I'll post more thoughts.

Rob Dreher's Amish column

Very Good stuff....

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/columnists/all/stories/DN-amish_06edi.ART.State.Edition1.3dce193.html

bookshelf

I just finished Scott Hahn's new book, "Ordinary Work, Extraordinary Grace: My spiritual journey with Opus Dei," which was awesome. It makes me want to join the chapter here in Columbus! Since David is in Opus Dei I thought it would be a good read (with the added bonus that he bought it for me...he's so nice to me), and it is. It gives you background, but not too much, on the organization's founding and takes you through what it means to live according to Opus Dei's principles. It's a lot like St.Therese's "Little Way," and in fact St. Josemaria used her book when he was first training the members. Definitely a good read, very interesting, as are all his books. And a welcome antidote to the DVC nonsense about the prefecture!

More on the Amish from Rob...

over on , here is Rob's take on the Amish, again. As always, very thoughtful:

I see that John Podhoretz is taking some unfair abuse in one of the comboxes below for his reflection on hate and the Amish situation. I find a lot to agree with in John's post, the substance of which is here:


All the same, this story disturbs me deeply — because there can be no question that anger can be as righteous as forgiveness. I'm not sure I would want to be someone who succeeded in rising above hatred of those who murder children. Does this mean that those who harbor hatred of child killers have somehow achieved a higher level of Godliness than those who succeed in banishing such hatred from their hearts? That seems to be a necessary corollary of the idea that it is heroic to "instruct the young not to hate," and that seems very wrong to me.


That's a serious moral point, and deserves to be taken seriously. As Christians, we are commanded not to hate by Christ -- a command that we obviously cannot expect non-Christians to obey. Beyond that, though, I've had to deal in my own life with the practical value of forgiveness. What I'm going to say here is imprecise, and my own thoughts are not conclusive, because I'm still working my way through it. But here goes.

My anger over the abuse of children by Catholic priests and the cover-up of these actions by bishops and their staffs was bottomless. And justified, considering the crime. The more I learned, the deeper my anger grew, and it was hard for me to grasp why more good people weren't as angry as I was. I thought then and I think now that they ought to have been. And I hated, and do hate, the bulls**t line from so many clerics about forgiveness -- not because it is untrue, but because so many of them clearly mean it in a self-serving, cheap-grace way.

But anger, and hatred, has a way of distorting your vision, and poisoning everything it touches. You start to let go of the anger, and you wonder if perhaps you are compromising with evil. But what we don't often consider is whether or not we are compromising with evil in a more subtle way by holding on to the anger. I personally could not find a way to get out from under the anger I had over the injustices perpetrated against children and their families by pederast priests and bishops who protected them -- and it has had a devastating effect on my own spiritual condition (more on which later).

Forgiveness is in some sense irrational. But look, who do we admire now, the black radicals who took up weapons to fight against the very real injustices and cruelties waged by whites against blacks, or Martin Luther King, who refused to hate those who hated him? Why do we admire him, and not those who returned hate for hate? Is it because King's actions represented the conquest of evil, a denial of its power. King never said that racism wasn't evil, but he refused to allow his own humanity to be violated by it. I don't know how he found the strength to do so, but he did, and our country rightly reveres him today.

If you didn't see it, take a look at this incredible series of stories by a Lutheran pastor who served time in a communist prison in Romania, and who bore witness to a love that passes all understanding as Orthodox prisoners forgave their tormentors, and treated them with love. I don't know how they did it, but I know that I want to be like them. I want to be like Corrie ten Boom's sister, who begged her in the concentration camp, where the ten Boom's had been sent for hiding Jews, not to hate their Nazi tormentors. I want to be able to say, if ever in that position, "Forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do." And to mean it.

Let me be even more personal: if one of my children were murdered as those Amish children were, I would either have to learn how to forgive, or blow my own head off in grief. Those are the stakes. Forgiveness, and refusing hatred of the detestable, is irrational, as John Podhoretz understands. It is also the most sane thing in the world. There's a paradox with which we all struggle.

B XVI still going to Turkey...

B XVI still going to Turkey...
brave man...

Pope Benedict’s trip to Turkey on track.
Preparations for Pope Benedict XVI’s first visit to Turkey at the end of November are going ahead despite a series of security issues, according to Vatican authorities. On 3 October, the Turkish press printed a message from Al Qaeda threatening any Muslims who play host to the pope in Turkey, including state authorities. On the same day, a Turkish national flying from Tirana in Albania to Istanbul hijacked the plane and demanded that it land in Italy so he could deliver a letter to the pope, sparking fears of a terrorist attack. After the plane landed safely in Brindisi, the man was found to be unarmed and is thought to have been trying to enlist the pope’s help to avoid national service in Turkey. A Christian convert, the man said he did not want to fight in a Muslim army.
The incidents follow the pope’s speech at the university of Regensburg on a trip to Bavaria on 12 September in which he quoted a 14th-century orthodox Christian emperor saying the prophet Muhammed had brought the world only “evil and inhuman” things, causing widespread outrage across the Muslim world. The pope subsequently apologized for the upset.

The last pope, John Paul II, was shot four times on 13 May 1981 by a Turkish national in St Peter’s Square. His would-be assassin, Ali Agca, has warned the current pope not to make the trip to Turkey, which is currently scheduled from 28 November until 1 December. Turkey’s population is 98 per cent Muslim, with a 100,000-strong Christian community as well as orthodox Armenians and Jews making up the remaining two per cent. Membership negotiations with the country’s government for entry into the European Union began in October 2005.

(h/t: Wanted in Rome)

Beautiful column

October Saints...

Ode to St. Francis and October
Appropriate on his feast day:

http://www.catholicexchange.com/vm/index.asp?art_id=34457&vm_id=2&action_type=get_results&quiz_id=1158&typeid=1&answer=4013&submit1=submit

and

And my patron saint...
October 1st is the feast day of St. Therese of Lisieux (my patron saint). This is another good article:

http://www.catholicexchange.com/vm/index.asp?vm_id=2&art_id=34579

Crunchy Cons and food

Some Crunchy Con-ness re: food
From the Immaculate Directions blog

Quote from Karen

This quote comes from Karen LH on the CrunchyCon blog. I think she packed a lot of meaning into a few words.

- Don't make food more important than financial prudence. So eat simply and don't waste.

- Don't make food more important than people. So be courteous and eat what's put in front of you, with gratitude. Give to the poor.

- Don't make food more important than God. So fast periodically.

- And, I guess, don't make food into something that it's not. Don't use it to try to fill an emotional hole.

Odd...

There were several articles in today's papers re: Ohio's RU 486 ban/restrictions being struck down by the 6th Circut. And all these stories (or most of them) were on the same page as the obits.

I find that interesting, don't you?

Spiritual books

What I've been reading here lately:

--Love and Responsibility by JPII: I figure it's a good time to really crack down on this, now that I'm in a new relationship. :) It's slow going since JPII is known for his dense trains of thought, but it's coming! Really! I'll post more as I go through, as well as any obeservations that strike me. But the first one is: those who say the Church is against sex have never read JPII or BXVI. Never, never, never.

Emily the Cruncy Con...

One of the books I've enjoyed reading lately is Crunchy Cons by Rob Dreher that came out...oh...sometime in the spring, I think? Or late winter? I was still living at home when it came out, so it must have been before March of this year. Anyway, the book talks about living a truly conservative/ sacramental life, including things like:

--organic food and supporting local farmers

--homeschooling

--the practice of faith

--loving the "permanent" things, like God

--devotion to classical music, literature, the good stuff, and not kulturesmog (h/t Rob)

Anyway, I was reading it, and while I don't agree with everything it certainly sounds like a nice way to live for me. Thankfully David is on board, too, so it looks like we might just be a nice little Crunchy Con couple. Who knew?

Today I discovered Rob Dreher's blog at

http://www.beliefnet.com/blogs/crunchycon

so be sure to read it if you're at all incliend. There are great links to homeschooling, food, and other websites to help investigate or start the crunchy con life. Yeah, OK, it might be a little weird, but read the stuff before you judge it!

B XVI and Islam

I've been doing a lot of blogging on this on my other blog because I can "live blog" there during the day...to read it, go to

www.360.yahoo.com/emdeardo

Have fun!

ESCR encore

How many times are we going to do this? A lot....

In one of the weekend papers (I believe the Cincinnati Enquirer ) there was an article about a 27 year old man who went to D.C. to lobby for additional federal funding of ESCR. Of course, as we know, it didn't work, but still he's hoping for it, although he didn't seem all that bitter in the article. I forget the exact details, but I believe he has leukemia and then kidney problems, so he used cells from his sister and such to keep him alive. He has no idea when the cancer will come back, but it's a pretty certain guess that it will come back.

Like I said, I'm not totally heartless. We're really not, those of us that don't support ESCR. But can't we focus on adult funding, which has actually shown results? And doesn't have moral/ethical qualms attached to it? Why is this so hard? I would never, ever support ESCR, as we know. It goes against my moral beliefs, my religious beliefs, everything. I don't care how big the cells are, we were all exactly that size once. How quickly we forget.

Enough for now, b/c we've covered this other places. But it's amazing how often it just pops up.

The Religious Left??? Um....

So here in Ohio we've got a Religious Left revival going on. A PAC called "We Believe Ohio," made up of left-leaning pastors and their ilk, is starting to get "energized," like the Religious Right, and get involved in political issues. Their big things? Anti-war and anti-poverty. There are just a few--a few, mind you--problems with their approach.

In no particular order:
1) Um, anti-war is great, but that's not something that the Bible condones. Yes, Jesus speaks about forgiveness, but that doesn't mean that we just get kicked around. The Bible, and a few denominations, Catholics included, believe in "Just War" theory. Yeah, war is, in the words of the CCC "the total absence of God's love." But sometimes the defense of innocent people justifies war. Where would these people have been during WWII? The Civil War? Hello? Most religious people in the past have been for war (see the Civil War and the abolitionist movement) once it is clear that it's the only way to go.

2) Anti-Poverty. Also great. I think we can all agree on that. But, um, aren't there more important things? Doesn't the bible (i.e, Paul's 2nd letter to the Thessalonians) speak of the "teach a man to fish" maxim? We can't just expect the government, or the church, or whoever, to constantly provide for people. That's not in the Bible and it's not approved by the Bible. Sure, we are to be charitable. But charitable doesn't mean handouts, handouts, handouts.

3) You cannot be really religious and be pro-choice, pro-euthanasia, and all the other anti-life positions the Left takes. It is impossible. "Thou Shalt Not Kill" is a commandment , not a suggestion. We are not to take innocent life. (This is not contradicting point #1 because in war you try not to take innocent life, unless you're a terrorist, in which case you don't care.) How can we speak of protecting others if we don't protect babies? If we don't protect the elderly and the sick? Huh? If we don't value the life God has created?

I'm sorry, but as long as the Left holds positions that are clearly the antithesis of what the Bible and Christianity say, then the Religiou Left is about as credible as Elmo and Oscar the Grouch (and that's probably an insult to them.).

The Religious Left??? Um....

So here in Ohio we've got a Religious Left revival going on. A PAC called "We Believe Ohio," made up of left-leaning pastors and their ilk, is starting to get "energized," like the Religious Right, and get involved in political issues. Their big things? Anti-war and anti-poverty. There are just a few--a few, mind you--problems with their approach.

In no particular order:
1) Um, anti-war is great, but that's not something that the Bible condones. Yes, Jesus speaks about forgiveness, but that doesn't mean that we just get kicked around. The Bible, and a few denominations, Catholics included, believe in "Just War" theory. Yeah, war is, in the words of the CCC "the total absence of God's love." But sometimes the defense of innocent people justifies war. Where would these people have been during WWII? The Civil War? Hello? Most religious people in the past have been for war (see the Civil War and the abolitionist movement) once it is clear that it's the only way to go.

2) Anti-Poverty. Also great. I think we can all agree on that. But, um, aren't there more important things? Doesn't the bible (i.e, Paul's 2nd letter to the Thessalonians) speak of the "teach a man to fish" maxim? We can't just expect the government, or the church, or whoever, to constantly provide for people. That's not in the Bible and it's not approved by the Bible. Sure, we are to be charitable. But charitable doesn't mean handouts, handouts, handouts.

3) You cannot be really religious and be pro-choice, pro-euthanasia, and all the other anti-life positions the Left takes. It is impossible. "Thou Shalt Not Kill" is a commandment , not a suggestion. We are not to take innocent life. (This is not contradicting point #1 because in war you try not to take innocent life, unless you're a terrorist, in which case you don't care.) How can we speak of protecting others if we don't protect babies? If we don't protect the elderly and the sick? Huh? If we don't value the life God has created?

I'm sorry, but as long as the Left holds positions that are clearly the antithesis of what the Bible and Christianity say, then the Religiou Left is about as credible as Elmo and Oscar the Grouch (and that's probably an insult to them.).

Happy Assumption!

Hope you all had an excellent HDOO today--great weather here in Ohio, perfect for the day. :)

we're back!

All right, the computer is fixed and we now resume regularly scheduled blogging...

So what's going on in the Catholic world of late? well, B XVI is calling for Peace in the Middle East, as has most every Pope before him since Israel was established in 1946. Let me tell you, I'm all about peace, but at the same time, the "peace" and "cease-fire" agreements we've had before don't really seem to be doing the trick. Is it ever just time to let the aggression out and see where we go? Do Israel's actions fall under "Just War" theory? (which, btw, I am so glad we have) I don't really know. Any thoughts would be appreciated...

More Catholic women "ordained" on a cruise ship in Pittsburgh. They always say that they're following the early church, but I gotta ask, what early church? The Early Church was extremely obedient to the apostles/disciples/bishops. This isn't exactly what I call being obedient. If you want to serve God in an official capacity as a woman, be a nun . But this is old hat, so we'll move on.

Not much else on the horizon of late, but I'm sure, with election season moving into high gear, there will be much, much more. And you'll be able to read all about it here...

housekeeping

Hi all, no I haven't forgotten about you, my computer's been down. The modem got fried during a thunderstorm, so I'm sending it off to Apple today to be fixed...I should have it back in about a week. But until then, blogging will be light, if not non-existent. If you want some insights, though, check out my Yahoo! blog or Bucket of parts (http://bucketofparts.blogspot.com).

Stem cell veto

Again, hurrah for the stem cell veto! Regular readers of this blog know that I've covered this material before, but I will (briefly) say it again: the fact that science can do something does not mean that it should do something. I would not, when I had CF, have taken anything from ESCR. I'm not going to take the life of someone else to save my own. Where does the self-preservation instinct end? When G.W. vetoed the bill he was surrounded by "snowflake" babies and their families. These are babies who would have been the "clumps of cells", left frozen in fertility clinics, if they had not been adopted and brought to birth by their parents. They are the fulfilment of their embryonic lives. They're real people . All of us were once clumps of cells, as the proponents can so blithely put it. But now we're bigger. :)

Some today have argued that the true pro-life position is the position for ESCR becaues it helps all the 'poor, suffering,' (insert soggy euphemism here) in the U.S. Um, ESCR hasn't done anything yet, for anyone. Adult stem cells, on the other hand, have. I'm all about stem cell research...but let's use adults, not babies who have no say, please. We don't have a right to kill them. It's not our call. Let direct scientific dollars to places that we know real theraupetic potential lies, like ASCR. It's a good first veto for G.W. (now if only he could extent this newfound power to other places...hmmm...)

New D.C. Archbishop!

My cousin was officially installed as D.C.'s new Archbishop in a 3 hour ceremony at the Basilica last week. The WaPo had a nice article and a good photo slide show, so if you're interersted, here are links:

article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/22/AR2006062201792.html

Photo show link in the article.


Good stuff...wonder if he'll be made a Cardinal? That would just be too cool. :)

Just when I thought we were done

with DVC, it turns out...no. But this is a good article from Monday's USA Today . Entitled "A green light for blasphemy", here it is:

When The Da Vinci Code hit theaters last month, like other Christians around the world I faced a dilemma: to go and see it, or not. At first I considered arguments in favor? mostly so that I could be in the loop culturally, and because the story and settings are so intriguing. But then I started thinking more seriously about what my small vote, my "yea" or "nay" to The Da Vinci Code, would say.
INDEX:Read other stories in the series

I finally made up my mind between innings in our church softball league.

"I'm not going to see that? no way," Brian Williams, the first baseman for our opponents, the Oakland Christian Church team from Oakland Township, Mich., told me as he pounded his mitt getting ready for a new batter. "That's blasphemy, pure and simple. I don't want any part of it."

Brian's matter-of-fact resolve helped me form my own decision. I also passed on the movie. It wasn't because I was worried that seeing Dan Brown's yarn depicted on the big screen would make me question my faith. It wasn't because, by most critics' accounts, Code isn't that good a movie. Nor did I avoid the film because I'd already read a borrowed copy of the book a couple of years ago.

In the end, my reasoning was much more visceral: I just didn't want to be a party? especially a paying party? to what I consider blasphemy. I didn't want to give money, time or any other homage to a film that is not merely heretical but also attacks my faith at its foundational levels and seems fully intent on reshaping how the world views Christ.

The 'B' word

I may eventually forgive Ron Howard and Tom Hanks, two of my Hollywood favorites, for their decisions to direct and star in the movie. I don't for a minute dispute Dan Brown's right to write The Da Vinci Code or to contribute to the theological trend du jour, which seeks to scramble orthodox ideas about Jesus and about Christianity's beginnings. And, true, I almost was seduced by the evangelical leaders who said that I should go see this movie because it would be a convenient way into a discussion of Christianity with non-believers who also had seen it.

But instead, I ended up being much more impressed by the spine displayed by the Catholic Church on this issue: Don't go see it because it is blasphemy, some Vatican officials and church groups have suggested.

Blasphemy is something that no one talks about anymore because it's now considered a backward concern in our relentlessly secularizing Western culture. Basically, blasphemy is demeaning the sacred or the supernatural through speech or action. It was considered such a serious sin that, according to the Book of Jude, the archangel Michael refused to badmouth even the devil. Nor did the ancient Greeks and Romans take it lightly when someone defamed their pantheon.

Nowadays, however, blasphemy is a cottage industry in American entertainment and letters. Whether it's the Code's professor Sir Leigh Teabing, or Madonna in her blood-red shirt pinned to a huge crucifix to kick off her latest concert tour, or even Hollywood's cynical attempts to cash in on The Passion of the Christ with tasteless TV dramas such as The Book of Daniel, Christianity has become a permissible whipping boy. Rather than some kind of new pinnacle of cultural enlightenment and progress, this trend is only another troubling indicator of the disregard for the Judeo-Christian underpinnings of Western society.

'A flaming contradiction'

But that doesn't mean Christians have to take it lying down in the name of a misplaced tolerance and sophistication. If someone came into your home, looked through your family heirlooms and then told wild fabrications about your Aunt Martha and your Uncle Herman, would you welcome it as great entertainment and a saucy enhancement of the family legacy? or would you kick that person out on his rear?

Or if a major motion picture were based on the premise that the iconic emancipator, Abraham Lincoln, secretly was a slave-owning megalomaniac, would you eagerly line up to see it because you owe the other side a look at its interpretation of our 16th president?

That's basically what the Code does. It's "a flaming contradiction to what the Gospels say about Jesus, undermining his deity and his ministry, relegating his significance to the earthbound," as the Rev. Daniel Lewis, my pastor at Troy (Mich.) Christian Chapel, puts it.

Christians are used to the idea of both dishing it out and taking it. The Gospel is a watershed manifesto. Its assertions inevitably divide people. The cross, ultimately, will either offend you? or beckon you.

It's fine if The Da Vinci Code wants to give everyone an alternative view. But Christians don't have to bankroll it.

Dale Buss is a journalist and author in Rochester Hills, Mich. A paperback version of his book, Family Man: The Biography of Dr. James Dobson, will be published this fall.

"Heartbreaking"

One of the last posts on the Episcopalians...but here are two articles from Wednesday's Dispatch about the gay bishops decision.

From "Limits on gay bishops rejected":

"[T]he Epicopal Church continued to anger conservatives yesterday by refusing a request to stop electing gay bishops. The move, certain to further alientate the U.S. church from overseas Anglican leaders, prompted the outgoing head of the church to call a special session [Wednesday] in the last-ditch effort at compromise. 'Obviously, it's not over until it's over, but every indication is that the Episcopal Church intends to continue on its revolutionary course, one that it out of the Christian mainstream,' said Peter Frank, spokesman for Bishop Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh, a leader of the conservative wing of the church. 'It's heartbreaking.'...Leaders of the worldwide group have warned of a break-up unless progressive Episcopalians back away from their acceptance of gay diocesan leaders and same-sex blessing ceremonies....'What I'm seeing here is teh Holy Spirit moving us in new directions,' said the Rev. Heather Buchanan Wiseman, of Cincinnati, a deputy for the Diocese of Southern Ohio. 'It's kind of exciting, it's scary, it's new,' she said....Wiseman said...many leaders think [the church] shouldn't have to sacrifice the dignity of homosexual members in the process...Bishops, however, were unwilling to let the convention adjourn without weighing in on the church's response to the crisis that erupted in 2003 with the consecration of Bishop V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire, an openly gay man...Officials have apologized for the fallout but not for choosing Robinson...The presiding bishop-elect, Rt. Rev. Katherine Jefferts Schori of Neveda, is viewed as a liberal on sexuality issues. She voted in favor of Robinson and has backed same-sex unions in her diocese...she said...people of all races, creeds and orientations are "fully part" of God's creation...'This is not your grandmother's church anymore.' For Mike Wernick, president of the Episcopal gay advocacy group Integrity-central Ohio, yesterday's developments offer hope...'In my opionion, when Jesus came, Jesus came to expand God's circle. He came to make it so there would be no one left on the outside.'"

Man, these libs!! Come on! "No one left on the outside"? Who said they couldn't be in the Church? They just can't be bishops, or whatever. Women can't be priests. Hello! There are just some things you can't do within a church. If you don't like it, find somewhere else to go. Sheesh. But don't try to change everything and mangle the Bible in the process by giving me this touchy feely stuff. It's not going to fly.

The next article's headline says it all: "'Restraint' urged in allowing gay bishops." Well what the heck does that mean?? Are they allowed or not?? "We're again quite in a muddle," Bishop Duncan says in the article. A muddle indeed....

Popcorn time: Cars

Haven't had a popcorn in awhile, so here you go ( a change from the Episcopalians!)

Saw Cars on Father's Day with my dad, brother and sister with a relatively good crowd of folks, mostly parents with small kiddies but a lot of adults and teens, too, given that this is Pixar. Contrary to some reviewers, I thought it was equal to Pixar's previous efforts and outshone Lassiter's last directorial works, the Toy Story films (I'm sorry, I've just never been that big a fan). The film revolves around Lightening McQueen (Owen Wilson), a hot shot race car who wants to win the "Piston Cup" and is heading to the final race in L.A. to decide the winner. On the way, Mac, his faithful carrier, accidentially loses him, and Lightening ends up in Radiator Springs, an all-but-deserted town along the fabled Route 66 (the shots of Rt. 66 are awesome, by the way, as is all the background work. Just amazing. No one does sunsets like Pixar). There he's forced into labor by the town sherrif after breaking the laws. He ends up meeting Doc (Paul Newman), Sally (Bonnie Hunt, as a really sexy Porsche) and the town's other colorful characters, like Italians Luigi and Guido, a hippie VW van, a real SUV, Sarge, and the tow trucks, whose name I'm forgetting. Of course Lightening has a lesson to learn from these guys and it's fun to watch him learn it. I liked it, but I think my dad liked it a lot more--he did his really loud laugh thing a couple times. :) Good music, good animation, great voices. Highly enjoyable, so go see it, and stay till the end because there's more animation.

Internal fall-out with Bishop Schori

From Tuesday's Dispatch :

"The first woman chosen to lead the Episcopal Church faced a conservative backlash yesterday when the diocese said it would seek leadership elsewhere...The Diocese of Forth Worth told the church's General Convention...that it was appealing to the leaders of sister Anglican churches abroad for immediate oversight and pastoral care...JEffertss Schore called Fort Worth's actions 'understandable.' When asked what she might do, she said, 'try to build relationships.' Forth Worth, San Joaquin, Calif., and Quincy, Ill., are the only dioceses in the denomination that don't ordain women. Resistance to female clergy is more prevalent in other parts of the 77-million member Anglican Communion (emphasis mine). ..Forth Worth now argues that an entire diocese can seek spiritual leadership from other Anglican Churches."

Well it's this a nice kettle of fish...in the words of columnist Damian Thompson, who had a column about this issue in the UK Telegraph :

The lowest common denomminator of any mainstream Christian Church is that its ministers accept the validity of each another's orders and therefore sacraments: that is the essence of "communion." Now that Anglicanism encompasses women and gay bishops (and, come to think of it, gay women bishops), roughly two thirds of its provinces do not recognise the minsitry and bishops ordained by the other third. This is not a Church: it is an ecclesiastical car crash."

More from the Episcopalians...

From various and sundry...

"Supporters in Greater Cincinnati and Northern Kentucky say Jefferts Schroi's election to the church's top post is a sign that the 221-year old denomination is "embracing equality." ...'I was pleased about the choice, though I know it's going to be trouble,' said Jane Beuteel, of Park Hills...Many of [the ECUSA's] provinces opposed the EC's decision 30 years ago to ordain women priests, and the consecration of an openly gay bishop in 2003...'I think they've lost touch with the mission of the church and with the grassroots,' [Cynthia Burst, spokeswoman for the American Anglican Council] said. 'Your average mom or pop in the pews does not embrace the view of the Bible, Jesus and sexuality as represented by the national convention.'" (hat tip: Cincy Enquirer)

And from the youth side of the convention....(also from Cincy)

"..For these teenagers, gay rights are worth fighting for, and a woman presiding over a major denomination should have happened years ago... 'there have been so many advances in the church with women and with homosexuality, but if they're not open now, we'll just be taking steps backwards,' said 15-year old Kathleen Darger of Crystal Lake, Ill. 'The way we were raised was not be racist or prejudiced against others. But when older people were growing up, it was a lot different for them.'...'Modern times come with modern adaptations,' said 15-year old Brooke Heinichen, of Cincinnati, who spoke during the mock committee meeting.

Whoa! Hold the horses!
Back up here. If this is the way Episcopal teens feel then they better never cross paths with a lot of Catholic teens while they're in town. The Columbus Diocese has a very strong youth contingent that believes strongly in traditional Catholic doctrine, and there are plenty of folks my age who feel the same way. It's not about being ' prejudiced' or 'racist.' I think it's safe to say that none of us are that. That's just not Christian. But at the same time, that doesn't mean, 'Well then do whatever you want! It's all OK!' because that's not what Jesus taught, either.

One of the things that gets me about the whole homosexuality argument is the 'well it's biological so it's OK.' I once defeated this argument to rather dramatic effect in a room full of men (my age, don't worry), by saying, "OK, so I'm a heterosexual female. You are heterosexual men. We were all born this way. So why aren't we all upstairs in some massive group orgy or something?" Needless to say, this shut them up for a bit. :) But levity aside, it's true! You don't see me, or the vast majority of people, just having random sex or engaging in all sorts of urges when we have them. Plenty of things are 'biological' that aren't OK, either morally or physically or socially. It's not about being prejudiced or not. It's about doing what the Bible says, what's actually Christian thought. It's not about being touchy-feely and trying to make everyone happy. That's not our goal. Or if it's the goal of the Episcopal Church, it's not going to exist for another 200 years, let alone the century. I guarantee it.

For the Love of All Things Holy-- 1

OK, I'm really, really glad I am not a Presbyterian:
From the Washington Times :

At some Presbyterian churches the Holy Trinity -- "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" -- will be out. "Mother, Child and Womb" is in.
Delegates to the national assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) voted yesterday to "receive" a policy paper on sex-inclusive language for the Trinity, a step short of approving it. Church officials are enabled to propose "experimental liturgies" with "alternative phrasings" for the Trinity, but congregations won't be required to use them.
Besides "Mother, Child and Womb" and "Rock, Redeemer, Friend," options include:
• "Lover, Beloved, Love"
• "Creator, Savior, Sanctifier"
• "King of Glory, Prince of Peace, Spirit of Love"
"This does not alter the church's theological position, but provides an educational resource to enhance the spiritual life of our membership," legislative committee chairman Nancy Olthoff, an Iowa laywoman, said during yesterday's debate on the changes.
The assembly narrowly defeated a conservative bid to send the paper back for further study, which would have killed it.
A panel that worked on the issue since 2000 said the classical language for the Trinity still should be used, but Presbyterians should seek "fresh ways to speak of the mystery of the triune God" to "expand the church's vocabulary of praise and wonder."
The language used for hundreds of years to describe the Father and Son "has been used to support the idea that God is male and that men are superior to women," the panel said.

Give. Me. A. Break.

Cousin heads to D.C.

Yesterday was Archbishop McCarrick's last day in D.C., so bring on my cousin...

From the WaPo:

In May, Pope Benedict XVI picked Bishop Donald W. Wuerl of Pittsburgh to replace McCarrick, overseeing an archdiocese of 560,000 Catholics and 115 parochial schools in the District and Maryland. Wuerl, scheduled to arrive in Washington today, will deliver his first Mass as archbishop Sunday at St. Matthew's Cathedral in Northwest Washington. McCarrick said he is confident that Wuerl will have no trouble picking up where he is leaving off.

"Whatever good I had, he's going to double it, and whatever stupidity I have had, he's not going to have," McCarrick said.

As priests and prelates donned their robes in the sacristy before the Mass, McCarrick leaned casually against an altar where his vestments had been carefully placed and chatted about his plans for the future. He will continue to serve the church, he said, traveling extensively on church business over the next several months to Rome, Moscow and possibly the Middle East. He'll split his time between Washington and New Jersey, where he lived for many years, and hopes to catch up on his reading, fishing and napping. But much of his time will be spent praying and preparing for what he says is his final journey.

"I'm going to get ready to go home," he said.

Compact and energetic, with lively hazel eyes, McCarrick looked ready for anything yesterday as he strode across the polished floor of the basilica toward the dais. He paused several times as some in the audience reached out to touch him and whisper their thanks. He nodded to some and gave a jaunty wave to others as he mounted the steps to the throne one last time.

The Mass marked the end of an era for a religious leader who has been beloved but also unafraid to take controversial stands. In the final days of his tenure, McCarrick was a vocal supporter of a Senate bill to allow thousands of illegal immigrants to become U.S. citizens. His longstanding work with the Latino immigrant community has drawn a mix of criticism and admiration, as was his decision to oppose conservative church leaders who said in 2004 they would bar Democratic presidential nominee John F. Kerry from taking communion because of Kerry's abortion rights advocacy.

It would have been hard to find critics of McCarrick yesterday among the hundreds gathered beneath the gilded dome of the basilica to hear his final words. There were no long goodbyes or lengthy speeches. McCarrick briefly thanked his fellow clergymen and women and D.C. Mayor Anthony A. Williams for coming. Then he thanked those who had come from far and wide to see him.

"Most of all, I thank God for you -- God's people here in Washington," McCarrick said.

True to form, McCarrick delivered a simple message for a town that often seems to thrive on complexity.

"In humility, we always find hope. Hope is impossible without humility," McCarrick said. "Because to have confidence in someone else, we must be humble."

As McCarrick delivered his final words, the audience began to clap. Moments later, McCarrick, with a lei of gold and white flowers around his neck, walked down the steps of the dais for the last time and turned to wave to the people he will miss the most.


Can't wait to see my cousin over there...it'll be a good thing for the people of Washington, although we'll miss him in Pittsburgh!

The Episcopalians vote

Once again, why I am glad to be a Catholic...

So the Episcopalians have chosen their new leader, for a 9 year term (anyone want to explain to me why 9 years? Why not 10? or 8? Or something else random???) and it's the first woman, Katherine Scori. But apparently she's on the liberal end of the spectrum, the conservatives aren't happy, and the Anglican Communion, who doesn't even ordain women as bishops (nor do all the dioceses of the Episcopalian Church USA). So between the failure to act on the Windsor report and the fact that they've got a new female head of church who is in favor of same-sex "blessings" (what the heck is that??), things do not look like they are going the right direction for Episcopal reconcilation. In fact, new Presiding Bishop Schori is against the Windsor Report's recommendations. But I could be wrong. They've still got a few days left, I think. But the election of this new leader isn't going to sit well with Canterbury, or the conversative bishops around the country. The fall out should be interesting...

It's already interesting, as amatter of fact. The Archbishop of Canterbury, in a statement, says he sends his best wishes and prayers to Bishop Scori, who will bring unique gifts, etc., etc. to the position. He does mention that her election will bring (i'm paraphrasing) a new "wrinkle", to to speak, to the issues the two churches are having (for more, check out Amy Welborn's Open Book blog). So hmmm.

New words

So I guess we are gonna have some new Mass dialogue, once Rome approves our new changes, and I for one think it'll be better. I mean, if you're going to have a Latin translation, have a real Latin translation, please! Don't just try to make it an approximation!

As a fun point of movie trivia: watch Gone With the Wind --just the beginning, when the family is at prayer. Mrs. O'Hara says the Confeiteor the 'old' way, which is to say the way we're soon going to be saying it. Interesting...

Changes to the Mass?

The U.S. Catholic bishops will be taking up the idea of changing (well, OK, adjusting) the English translation we say at Mass to a more accurate reflection of the Latin. Several countries, including England and Australia, have already adopted these new translations. For example, instead of "The Lord be with you/ and also with you" it would be "The Lord be with you/And with your spirit", which is closer to the Latin "Et tum spiritu" (forgive the spelling). I actually think this is a good idea and would love to have Latin Mass, since I was born after Vatican II and missed it. I love all that old stuff. :) The only problem it'll cause is with the Mass settings, and since I'm in choir that means we'll have to learn some new stuff, since the new language probably won't fit with the old stuff everyone knows. But oh well. I'm sure with some tweaking we can still keep the "Celtic Mass" and the "Mass of Creation."

More on this when they have their conferene later this summer...for more, check out the WaPo (www.washingtonpost.com) religion section.

An "American Genocide"

is what Rep. Brinkman of the Cincinnati area called abortion in America yesterday during House hearings on his bill that would ban all abortions in Ohio. I thought I'd do a little press round-up of the coverage from today's Ohio papers, with, of course, commentary throughout, as warranted:

From the Plain Dealer :
"One abortion-rights ( gotta love that jargon! ) supporter countered [an earlier woman's testimony] with her own harrowing tale of life before Roe . Bill opponent Taba Aleem told lawmakers about her illegal abortion performed in 1968 by an Akron factory worker who demanded sex before using a coat hanger and a piece of rubber tubing. She asked lawmakers to vote the bill down, saying she was speaking "for the poor women and African-American women" with "limited financial means." ( OK, so we solve poverty by killing our babies? Ehhh?? Seems rather, um, barbaric to me. If you can't afford to get pregnant, then don't!)
Said Gary Dougherty, the executive director of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of Ohio in his testimony: "laws that criminalize abortion are bad for women's health, bad medicine and bad public policy." ( well, geez. I guess being vacuumed out of the womb is good prenatal health, though.

From the Dispatch :
This bit talks about a woman who runs a pro-life organization and how the tide has turned on abortion politics:

" 'I used to walk thesehalls and people would hide,' Folger said of the Statehouse. 'But they realized: Guess what, it turns out there are more of us then there are of them - not to mention the fact that our folkds have been having children whole the other side has been aborting them.'
The remark drew loud groans from many of the 160 people who packed the third-floor hearing room, where women outnumbered men about 2-1...House Bill 228, which opponents say is dangerous to women's health and imposes a particular religious view, would bad all abortions in Ohio... ( so it's a particular relgious view to say that we shouldn't kill kids? Yeah, I would kind of hope we could all be in agreement on that. Apparently not. )

Dayton Daily News :
"Gary Daughtery, executive director for Planned Parenthood Affiliates of Ohio, said: 'banning abortions will not stop abortion.' Instead, it'll lead to unsafe illegal abortions that put women's health at risk, he said. ( When things are banned, you generally see a decline in usage. I'm sure that a ban would drastically reduce the number of abortions in the U.S. How many women wouldn't have sex so casually if they knew that they couldn't have an abortion? How many young girls would practice abstinence instead? As for putting women's health at risk, don't tell me that an abortion is a safe proceedure for the mother. It's a major medical procedure, which carries inherent risks. So let's not act like this is akin to a teeth-cleaning, shall we?

From the Enquirer of Cincinnati:

(Remember Ms. Aleem from the P-D? She shows up a lot in these stories...here she is again...)

"Aleem, who was 20 at the time [of her abortion], said she was not ready to be a mother and felt this procedure was her only choice." ( Methinks she made the choice around the time she had sex...but that's just me )

"Dr. John Willke of Cincinnati who helped found the Right to Life movement in the early 1970s, said life begins at conception. To a lawmaker's question about supporting single mothers, Willke said poverty cannot be solved "by killing the children of the poor." (Amen!)

"Kathy Helmbock of Oakley, a member of NOW since 1972, testified that "abortion should be safe, legal and rare." ( OK, I don't get that. Good medical procedures are never called this. You don't hear anyone saying appendectonmies or tonsillectomies should be "safe, legal and rare." If it's truly safe and beneficial, then it should be legal. If it's not- and abortion isn't- then it should be illegal, therefore also making it rare, since illegality tends to make things rare. )

From the Blade , one of my favorite papers! (ha, ha)
A great quote: "The United States Supreme Court decision in Roe V. Wade began the American genocide of some 40 million lives." --Rep. Tom Brinkman.

An exchange from Pastor Russell Johnson, who compared abortion to the Holocaust, and Rep. Redfern (also chair of the ODP...how exactly does that work?):

" 'Are you trying to equate members of this standing committee to those who allowed the Holocaust to occur?' asked state Rep. Chris Redfern (D., Catawba Island), chairman of the Ohio Democratic Party.
'I believe that God will hold us accountable for standing on behalf of the least of these little children,' said Mr. Johnson."

And more from Ms. Aleem of Akron..."'I didn't feel I had a choice.'" See above....

The Canton Repository has an exchange on rape:

" Most of testimony covered territory familiar to both opponents and proponents of abortion. John Willke, a Cincinnati doctor and former National Right to Life president, said he saw no reason to permit abortion in cases of rape.

'I don't see killing a baby for the crime of his father,' Willke said."

"Nationally, about 32,000 rape victims become pregnant each year and forcing the women to carry the [baby] deepens and prolongs their trauma, said Corrina Lohse of the Cleveland Rape Crisis Center.

'We believe choice was taken away from the survivor when she was raped,' Lohse said."

All right, I'll give her that. She sure didn't have much choice. But why compound a sin with another? One crime for another? It's certainly not the baby's fault. And with the evidence we have of the psychological trauma of abortion, why would any woman want to compound the mental agony?

Finally, the Akron Beacon Journal weighs in, with more from Ms. Aleem...

"Aleem and her allies fear her story will be repeated in the future for the state's girls and women if the legislation, sponsored by State Rep. Tom Brinkman becomes law.
Abortion opponents disagree. 'We don't want any exceptions,' Brinkman said. 'Women deserve better than abortions.'
....

Taba Aleem doesn't want a return to [days of abortions in back rooms with unsterile conditions]. She has four grown children and is a director at Planned Parenthood forr Summit, Medina and Portage counties. "

Well isn't that nice. One of the other articles I read said that she also went to college, something she "wouldn't have been able to do" as a single mother. Well, as Mother Teresa said, "It is a crime that a child must die so you may live as you wish."

Indeed.

Episcopalians in town

The Espiscopalians are having their 2006 convetion here in Columbus, so there's been a lot of buzz in the Dispatch , especially regarding potential schism and how they're going to deal with the homosexual issue. Apparently they're having alot of trouble with this, which, as you know, I also don't get. If you're Protestant, and the Bible alone is your only authority, as Luther said, then isn't it pretty clear? I dunno. But more on this as it develops....

The Coalition for what ?

it's another abortion day at the Statehouse...

In House is considering a bill that would ban all abortions (sort of like SD's ban). Now it probably won't go anywhere, but it's summer time, it's quiet, and this spices things up for us (at least a bit). So anyway, we had, of course, a bunch of people (I think 50 witnesses for each side) come to testify at the House today, and that included one of my "favorite" anti-life groups: the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice.

OK now here's what I don't get. If you're "religious", then how do you can you be for abortion? I just don't get it. There's that whole thing about "thou shalt not kill", "children are a blessing from the Lord," etc. , etc. etc. But it's OK to kill them? These little human beings that God knew in their mother's womb before they were born? (Psalms) How can you be for their slaughter?

I 've read a lot of different Christian churches positions on abortion, and it usually goes something like, "While we do not condone the practices of abortion we realize that it may be admissable in certain cases, yada yada yada." But then they're against the death penalty!

Don't get me wrong. I'm against the death penalty, too. But I'm also against abortion. How can you be for the killing of innocents but against the punshiment of people who, let's face it, 99.9% aren't good citizens to begin with. So hmmm. Explain that one to me. But, like most liberal causes, there is no logic. It's just ridiculous and irrational. Par for the course.

Pentecost

Happy Pentecost, y'all!

Today I had a very different Mass experience than normal. I was at Children's for the Children's Miracle Network Telethon, which raises money for the hospital every year, and I was on it due to my transplant last year. It was really cool, btw, but afterwards we went to Mass at the Chapel with the fantastic Fr. Mark.

Now I love Fr. Mark. He is the best chaplain one could ask for at Children's, and he has been phenomenal for my family (for more, see my other blog!). He is just phenomenal. I've never, however, been to one of his Masses, since everytime I'm in I'm usually hooked up to all sorts of fun machinery, so I didn't travel well. But today I got to go.

He had a big bowl of red candy (since it's Pentecost) on the altar, which was cool- he used it for the homily, and talked about how each one represented something different. Twizzlers, how we're all intertwined; Big Red gum, how sometimes we need that long-lasting faith; Tootsie pops, for the sweet surprises of faith, and cinnamon, because sometimes we need that fun taste. :) It was a great homily. The chapel was totally packed, every seat filled, and some of the awesome 5T and 4AE nurses--like Rita!-- where there, and Michelle, the awesome nurse would could get me off the evil BIPAP after my transplant (go to Bucket of parts-- bucketofparts.blogspot.com -- for more on all this!). It was awesome, with kids running around and a few patients but not too many. One of the pulmonologists was even there. It was a lot of fun, with applause and laughter and all sorts of good stuff. We even sang "happy birthday" to the birthday people before Mass, and offered our own intentions before, which was great. I got to do the first reading with all the big words, and my dad did the second. It was a lot of fun, especially with the little kids who reaallly wanted some of that candy! The atmosphere was just perfect for Pentecost, very celebratory and fun. It's nice to be there when you don't have to be there, you know?

More editorials

So my last post went a little long and I was unable to blog about the next lovely letter to the editor (LTE) in the Blade . This one deals with the constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, and centers on the idea that two-parent families are best for kids. Then it goes this way:

--"we could go ahead and allow gay marriage but simply prohibit gay couples for raising children.
--"shouldn't we also ban single-parent households?"
--"why don't we amend the Constitution to ban divorce, since it is one of the leading causes of single-parent households?"

Oh sheesh. Come on. Well, if you're Catholic, then yeah, you should be raising kids in a two-parent house b/c that's the way you get them! Single-parent households aren't the way to go, neither is divorce. Kids needs two parents. Why mess with thousands of years of something that's worked? You need that female/male exposure. The Church is, one occasion, right about these things (OK, so I think they're right about most everything, but y'know)....

From the editorial pages...

One of the great parts about my job is that I get to read all the major state papers every morning. Occasionally they have stuff that I feel compelled to blog about, so I clip them and save them for later. Here's today's round-up (these are a few days old...I've been sitting on them):

From the Akron Beacon Journal : "Abortion is a matter of belief"
....we do not know when life begins and [I] am impressed that another physician admits this belief as a fact. I disagree with his conclusion that this fact makes aboriton unjustified.
From their religious and other life experiences, people believe differently about whem life begins. This belief can vary from the time of conception to anywhere up to the time of birth.
Also, the public has never come to a universal agreement on the question of if or when an abortion can be done. Since it is a fact that we do not know when life beings, one must make one's own descisions from one's own beliefs whether one has had an abortion or not.
Abortion is an emotionally disturbing and traumatic event. It is a decision not to be taken lightly. However, the procedure should be available to those women who would find continuing a pregnancy an overwhleming problem.


Well isn't that just peachy? Let's debunk here. First, we don't know when life begins. Well, OK. I guess you can have a point. I'm Catholic so we say conception. But if you don't buy that, or want to be medical, then let's look at is. It is when the heart starts beating? Well that happens pretty early on in fetal development. Brain functions? We know babies in utero can feel pain and they move around, so obviously there's some brain function going on. Babies have bodies, obviously, because they're born with one. Lungs are developed around what? 7 months or so? What is the exact criteria for life that an unborn child doesn't posses? Speech? Well there are plenty of people who can't talk. Higher brain function? Same thing. Are these people not human? I don't want to get into that, because some people (amazingly, horrifyingly) will say that they actually aren't. But really, when does life begin, if not at conception?

When I was in college I took a class called Psychology of Religion. There we learned about Paschal's wager, which basically said that it's better to believe in God just in case he actually does exist than to not believe in God and find out later that He does exist. It's sort of hedging your cosmic bets. So if we don't know when life begins, then shouldn't we be too cautious rather than not cautious enough? That seems to make sense to me.

As for "the public has never come to a universal agreement on the question of if or when an abortion can be done", if that was criteria for deciding anything, then nothing would get done! I work in politics, and I know! Geez! Enough of us can agree on enough that we should be able to move on. This is a democracy. Not everyone has to be in agreeement. We have majority rules in America, for better or worse. And the majority of the American people are against some, if not all, abortions. The AMA even says that partial-birth abortion is never medically necessary. So what else is this guy looking for? Americans don't all agree on capital punishment, either, but the last time I checked we still had it.

The movies I have seen....

time for some popcorns...

Since I'm not seeing DVC (!), that doesn't mean I haven't been haunting the loca theater...

-- Mission: Impossible III : OK, I'll admit I don't really have a strong memory of the last two (probably b/c I was on dates when I saw them...heh heh) but this one I thought was pretty good. Not a lot of plot, other than stop the bad guy, save the world, on a crazy romp that takes us to Berlin, the Vatican (see I can tie this all in!), and Beijing. Tom Cruise plays Ethan Hunt who is engaged (and eventually marries in the film) a nice nurse who thinks he works for the Va DOT. Yeah, right. Keri Russell, Ving Rhames, Joanthan Rhys-Jones and Phillip Seymour Hoffman also co-star, with hoffman being a fantastic villian. Good movie if you just want to follow a loose plot and watch things blow up; it's like one long Alias episode, which makes sense since J.J. Abrahms, the creator of the show, is the movie's director.

-- X-Men: The Last Stand : But is it really? Just as good as the other two, with a few too many characters and waay overbearing music. But other than that, a good movie w/ a high body count (but mostly vaporizations, so don't freak). Hugh Jackman, Halle Berry, Patrick Stewart (yay!), Anna Paquin and everyone's favorite mutant/wizard/etc. Ian McKellan are back to fight another day. The scenes on Alcatraz a pretty cool and the movie's very well-paced.

More to come as I see them: Cars (yay Pixar!), Superman Returns , The Devil Wears Prada and possibly The Lake House and Click .

DVC in USA Today

USA Today had a whole section of their editorial page devoted to DVC responses from around the country. I didn't want to make my last post too long, so here are some of the wonderful things the nation's editorial pages are saying...

From Newsday :

The (movie) critics hated DVC, and many churches have boycotted it - but audiences flocked to see it...To put it bluntly, for all its flaws, Code has one saving grace. It's About Something. It's not car chases in Los Angeles, or guys chasing after girls in Manhattan. It's about Christianity, whcich has dominated the past 2,000 years of Western Civilization."

Oh, and gee, the Passion was about the same thing. But somehow I don't recall Newsday saying it was good b/c it was "about something."

Jay Ambrose, a columnist for Scripps-Howard, compares DVC to "Raiders of the Lost Ark" saying that it's "another thrilled with religious overtones but not a single theological thought anyone should take seriously."

You're right Jay, they shouldn't. But some do. Just ask enough Catholics who have had people ask them "Is this stuff true?!" And it really doesn't matter. If this was a movie about Jews or Muslims, people would be mad.

Saul Rosenthal in The Rocky Mountain News writes, "...those who think that thoughtful Catholics and Protestants will abandon their respective churches or ask that the Gospels be revised after seeing DVC are also wrong. Let's give people more credit. They know it's a movie. "

Um, no Saul, they don't. Because people who read the book thought a lot of it was real. And that's because, as Alan Cochrum, a mebmer of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram said, "Dan Brown didn't use his turn signal...There are unwritten rules for how you treat history in fiction, and our boy Dan broke them...here's a suggestion for future authors: if you like to jerk chains when it comes to history and religion, at least use your literary turn signal. People might be a lot less likely to learn on the horn when your book suddenly takes a corner or two on the wheels."

Thank you, Alan! Thank you!

From the editorial pages: DVC

I keep telling myself that I'm not going to waste any more brain power on DVC, but the media just won't let me keep my own promise...sigh....

Here's a letter from the Toledo Blade :

I have not seen the movie The Da Vinci Code nor read the book, and I don't intend to. This much I have in common with many of the protesters.
Why is it that the religious of the world think everyone else must be "portected" from "deviant" ideas whether fact or fiction? If their teachings are correct can't we see it?
In the less tolerant countries of the world "protection" takes the form of bombings, shootings, and kidnappings. Here in the enlightened USA the "protection" is only protests, demonstrations, and boycotts. So far.

Well, jiminy frost!
Like I said in my last post, if this were about Jews or Muslims, there wouldn't be any discussion about being "enlightened" or "tolerant." Why do Christians, and Catholics especially, have to be tolerant of other people always trashing their faith? Why can't we protest and stand up for it, as is our right? Huh? Why do we just have to sit quietly and be "tolerant"? I don't think so. I'm sick of it. That's a weak argument and it's just not fair to us. We have a voice, too, and when our views are being smashed and defamed on movie screens around the world, that's not cool. We just have to be tolerant of it, hmm? No. I don't think so. We're not going to burn things and kill people a la the Muslim world over a cartoon. But we are going to protest and tell you what's what. Because it's just dumb.

No, no, more no

For those that have asked:

1) Have I seen DVC? No
2) Will I see DVC? No.
3) Will I read DVC? No.
4) Wait, so you haven't read it? No. I have read it--exactly three pages. The first page which is emblazoned with the word "FACT" and then procedes to give you ones that um, aren't, and the first two pages of the novel, which was just horrifically bad writing. I'm sorry, but this was the kind of stuff people wrote in my ENGL 210 Creative Writing class and we all thought, hmmm, how late were you up last night trying to throw this together? I was not impressed. DVC doesn't sell because of it's style, it sells because it's bashing the Church and Christianity in general.

And I'm sick of the people who say it's fiction, so what's the big deal? Well let's see. Let's write a book saying the Holocaust never happened, but let's call it 'fiction'. Let's write an inflammtory book about the Propher Mohammed and call it 'fiction.' You don't think the Anti-Defamation League and Muslim/Islamic groups wouldn't be all over them? Fiction doesn't get you anywhere. Plenty of stuff can be fictious and just plain bigoted. That's what DVC is. It's a bunch of anti-Catholic, anti-Christian diatribe that takes the Church for a ride. Not cool, and not fair. At all. And honestly, I don't even understand how Christians of any stripe can see it, given that it presents the premise that Jesus wasn't even divine. Even the heretics of the Early Church didn't go that far!

We are not being "mean"

Last week, Equality Ohio, the GLBT lobbying group here, held it's first "lobby day" at the Statehouse to try to bring more attention to the whole GLBT issues thing and essentially - I am not kidding - to make sure that lawmakers "get to know" some people who are, actually, gay (or whatever). I suppose this is in an attempt to try to get lawmakers to back off on some of the "anti-gay" bills that we've been hearing here, but I don't know how well it worked.

First of all, it's not lawmakers trying to be "mean", as one parent said (not about lawmakers, but people in general, because the law lets them be "mean"). It's about good societal policy. And Christians (which most of these "mean" lawmakers are) are supposed to treat everyone with love and respect. But that doesn't mean that we can just gloss over what they do. We're called to love everyone, but St. Paul and the Gospels are kinda clear on how you just can't say "well I'm supposed to love you, so do whatever!"

That's what really get me about these liberal Christian denominations, like the United Church of Christ. I'm sorry, but (everyone in unison!) Jesus didn't come to Earth for us all to hold hands and sing Kumbaya!! I'm sorry! The Gospel of Matthew is full of places where Jesus says "I have not come to bring peace, but the sword" and the section about dividing brother against brother, father against son, etc. How many times do we read about the people saying "this teaching is hard", or whatever? Christianity isn't meant to be easy. It's meant to be hard. And yeah there are certain things we can't do. But we've been through all this before, here. This is just a rehash. It's a lot easier to say we're "mean" than to say we actually have a point, but that's not acknowledged, either. Because we're mean. So there.

deep thoughts on bumper stickers (or not...)

Today's round-up of weird bumper stickers:

--Seen in the statehouse garage: "My voice, my vote" on a NARAL sticker. Um, not so much. There's another "voice" there, too, but we like to forget about that one.

--On I-70: "I love God...I just hate his fans." Well, hmm. Isn't there scripture about (paraphrasing here) "how can love God, who you cannot see, if you cannot love your neighbors, who you do see?" Hmmm. Or, um, "love one another"? I don't know. I mean, I get the point, it's about religious "extremists" or "fundamentalists", or (horrors!) the "religious right." But I think it would be better to not try to express political points more complicated than "vote Democrat, it's easier than working" or whatever on a bumper sticker. Especially when it comes to the central tenents of Christianity....

Still working on the paper...so there was a lot more to read than I originally thought...

My Cousin the Archbishop!

My cousin (not like really close, 3rd or 4th, but whatever) has just been named Archbishop of D.C., replacing Cardinal McCarrick (woohoo!). Bishop Wuerl of Pittsburgh is a great guy, a JPII man (huzzah!) and will do great things for the D.C. kids who could use, um, a hand, shall we say, getting in line with what the Church teaches. This is really, really cool. Chances are also very high that he will be named a Cardinal, since the archbishop of D.C. is usually made a cardinal. Too bad he's American and therefore, I am 99.9% sure he will never be Pope, but how cool would that be?? :)

Working on it...

I've begun researching for my first post in the Christians and contraception "series", but as usual I am finding a wealth of things of th subject that require reading and consideration. So I will hopefully be able to work on it tomorrow and have something written up.

If you're interested in checking out some sources ahead of time, this is what I'm currently looking at:

-- Humanae Vitae
-- Love and Responsibility by JP the Great
-- Gauidum et Spes (Vatican II constitution)
--CCC passages
--Scott Hahn-- First Comes Loves , Rome, Sweet Home and Swear to God , his book on the sacraments.
--Thomas Howard, On Being Catholic

There may be more...I'm also going to consult BXVI's encyclical, because I'm sure I remember something there. We'll see. But it is coming!!

Abortion and contraception, part one

OK I know I've talked about this before but I've decided it is time to go in-depth about it. Today I was at a NARAL and Planned Parenthood press conference at work, due to the fact that one of the D senators is introducting a bill that is sort of like their greatest hits-- "scientifically accurate" sex ed, emergency contraception (EC) on demand, forcing pharmacists to provide EC even if it's against their moral values, stuff like that. It's a winner. The sponsor is, of course, a Catholic woman, which just irritates me even more. They say that having EC and more contraceptive options will reduce "unwanted" pregnancies and abortions. Well sure, because we're getting "rid of the problem" before it's really become "a problem", right? There's no talk or morality, personal responsibility, etc. As Andrea said, "it's not like a baby jumps out at you from the bushes!" Until 1930, every Christian denomination was against the use of birth control?

What happened? Why isn't that the case today? Why is the Church so "old-fashioned" about birth control? Can we blame all this on Martin Luther (actually, in a way, you could...)? These and other things are topics I'll be discussing as we go through this. I think it's time for some clear discussion and explanation of the history of birth control and Christianity. Now this will , by no means, be exhaustive, so if you have something to contribute, feel free to post as we go along.

I'm thinking the series will go like this:

1) The Church and birth control
2) Christian denominations and birth control
3) What happened after 1930?
4) What Christians believe today
5) How this can all be traced to the Reformation
6) My will be done, or God's will be done?
7) Contraception and abortion

That's at least the rough outline. I'll probably post Part II: The Church and Birth Control tomorrow or Friday, so stay tuned. Any ideas, send to catholicpostergirl@yahoo.com

Ryan's First Communion

I can hardly believe that my godson is old enough to receive Eucharist, but here we were, last Sunday, watching him go to Mass with us, like normal, except this time he got up and received Jesus, instead of sitting in the pew moving his legs so we could all get by. On Saturday he and my cousin Courtney both made their first communions, and what a party it was. Lots of fun (too many games of Sardines), but awesome. It's great to know that Ryan and I can share this now, too. He's such a good kid. He had to receive First Confession first, and I was thinking, what does a seven year old have to confess? Probably just the "norm"--I fought with my brother, I disobeyed my mom, I told a lie. Stuff like that. At least I hope it's stuff like that! I don't want to think about it getting any more serious!

While we're on the subject...

OK, so bishops that don't like to be in vogue with church teaching....why do some of them hang out with Sr. Helen Prejean, of Dead Man Walking fame?

Let me clear something up. I'm against the death penalty, which drives my conservative friends NUTS. Apparently I am deviating fromt he Sacred Scripture of the Republican Party, but they can live with it, y'all. I'm pro-life all the way b/c I hate inconsistencies.

But these bishops don't see a problem, apparently. I'm sick of hearing people praise Sr. Prejean, without mentioning that she's pro-choice. I was reading an article in Ligourian that mentioned she's good friends with Justice Ginsberg. She's a pro-choice nun, and yet no one ever mentions that. That is a HUGE inconsistency for someone who's supposted to be all pro-innocent life. What is more innocent than a baby? But this doesn't make anyone else upset....sigh.

Immigration, part trois

It never ends, does it? Every time I think it's done, it's not. So here we go again.

So how did yesterday's "Day without Immigrants" affect you? I'll tell you how it affected me--not a whit. My day was not impacted at all. According to my office mates, it would've been had I visited a Chipotle, but I didn't, so therefore no impact in my day.

you know what really gets me mad about this whole argument? The idea that we who oppose illegal immigration are somehow anti-immigrant. Now obviously I cannot speak for all of us, and there are, surely, people who are anti-immigration, no matter how foreign that idea is to me. But we're not anti-immigration. We're anti- illegal immigration. We're against people coming into our country by way of breaking our laws and then wanting to be good citizens. Um, hello? If you want that, then come legally. Come like the immigrants did in the 19th and early 20th century. Don't sneak over the wall. Come the right way, and we'll take you in happily. America is a big tent. But we don't think too kindly of those who come in illegally and then demand all sorts of things. And yes, these are demands . There's no other word for them. Let's be real. They want acceptance, they want health care, they want citizenship, they want schooling for their kids. They're marching with wrong-way American flags and chanting "yes we can." Well, we don't doubt that. But do it legally!

And the whole national anthem thing? That is probably one of the worst PR moves of the century. You want to be an America? Learn the National Anthem in English! Can you imagine an Arab immigrant in Europe, say, learing the Marsellaise (French National Anthem) in Arabic? Not so much. Would not fly. At all. And yet....

Let's call a spade a spade. They are illegal immigrants. The crime is inherent in the name. I am sympathetic to the idea of coming for a better life. But you're not making your life better by sneaking into a country. I'm sorry.

And the bishops who are against the law? I wish they'd actually study it and then talk. If they were only so vocal about, say, abortion! You know, things the Church can actually speak with authority and intelligence on! What an idea! But that's for another post....sigh. I wish Church leaders would speak up consistently, and not only when precious liberal matters are being discussed.

Bookshelf update

Currently I'm reading God's Invisible Hand by Cardinal Francis Arinze. It's actually b unch of interviews with Irish journalist Gerard O' Connor, which makes for interesting and quick reading. It's really, really good so far, and it's good to keep tabs on him...he was considered papabile in the last conclave, and was ecstatic when B XVI was elected. My kind of Cardinal (as opposed to, say, McCarrick, Mahoney, Rigali.....grrr)! Ignatius publishes the book, so you can it at their website or most Catholic bookstores (if you're in Columbus, both the Cathedral Book Shop and Catholica in Westerville have it.). I'm also going to be reading Ramesh Ponnuru's (of National Review fame) new book, The Party of Death as soon as I can get a copy...you know how I feel about anything related to abortion policy. :)

"Why has it been wasted?"

The above is from "Strange Things, Mystifying" from Jesus Christ, Superstar . Judas sings it to Mary Magdalene after she's anoited Jesus with her perfumed oil:

Why has it been wasted?
We could've raised, maybe,
300 silver pieces or more.
People who are hungry
People who are starving
Matter more
Than your
Feet and hair!

That was my reaction when I read that the Cleveland Diocese was sued by a alleged abuse victim (I always say alleged, like alleged rape victim or whatever, until it's been proven) for $45,000 in a defamation suit. The article in today's Cleveland Plain Dealer reads, in part:

"{name] accuses Pilla [the old bishop], Mulica and diocesean officials of ruining his life, but thinks the settlement money will be therapeutic. He plans to buy a sailboat, take a long trip and write a book about his experiences ." (emphasis mine)

Um. OK. Glad to know the good people of Cleveland's offetory money is going to buy sailboats. I know that sounds harsh, but the alleged incident with a priest (who is now dead, I believe) happened in 1981--twenty-five years ago. The money is from a libel case that the family brought against the Diocese for remarks Bishop Pilla made in 2002. But either way, $45,000 is a lot of money that "could have been saved for the poor."

Triduum Wrap-up

I hope all of you had a blessed and joyous Easter! I know I did. If I had to name this season I'd call it the "Year of the Giggles" because it certainly was, at least for me. I was giggling or "awww"ing or seeing soemthing precious at every Mass...I'm sure my fellow choir members were thinking I'd gone 'round the bend, or something.

Some examples:

Holy Thursday : The Washing of the Feet is always interesting, just to see who gets picked, and there were a lot of little kids (or littler people) this year...RCIC kids, some of the 8th graders who are going to be confirmed. That was nice to see, as opposed to most of the adults. My parents were both up there, too, so the usual humor/pride mix that results when your family members are involved in Mass was there, too. There were so many kids, at all the Triduum Masses, and that made me happy. But kids love Holy Thursday because it's not that much longer than a normal Mass, but it's got all this awesome stuff--the feet washing, the Transfer of the Host, etc. (for those of you not in the loop: The Transfer of the Host occurs at the end of Holy Thursday Mass. The priest dons a cope (like a little cape thing) and carries the ciborium holding enough consecrated hosts for Good Friday service, since it's not a Mass. His hands are wrapped in the cope so he's not directly touching it. There's a procession with candles and beaucoup de incense, which the older adults seem to always grumble about but the kids like. So they watch the procession go around the church with everyong singing Tantum Ergo Sacramentum , which is only sung once a year...their eyes look like saucers. I love it. )

Good Friday : OK, no giggling at Good Friday because it's, well Good Friday. But it was a great service (FYI, it is the only time you can actually call a Catholic Mass a "Service", because it's not a Mass due to the fact that there's no consecration of the Eucharist). I love Good Friday, although it's my personal opinion that every lector who reads the First Reading (Isaiah 52-53) should have to watch Sir Lawrence Olivier deliver those lines in Jesus of Nazareth because he is just The Man.

Holy Saturday : Had about 15 people come into the Church, so that was nice. One was a family, which is also nice. One little girl, who I was near, watched her father come into the Church, and after he was confirmed she ran up to him and gave him a big hug, which of course made me go 'awww'. It was really cute. The "Hallelujah Chorus" went swimmingly, thank you. :)

So all in all a good triduum. I always love those Masses, even more than Christmas, and I always feel kind of relieved/bummed when it's over (relieved b/c I don't have to sing that much for the rest of the year, bummed because it's over). But I'm sure next year will come soon enough...

Immigration part deux

Story time, Kats and Kittens...

Once upon a time there were a few families that lived in Europe. Two lived in Italy, one lived in Germany, and one was a misplaced Irish family who fled Ireland during the Potato Famine to live in neighboring Scotland, who hadn't their devotion to the spud and therefore had other things to eat. In the early part of the twentieth century, all four families decided to immigrate to America.

It wasn't easy. There was the long boat crossing, which was expensive, especially considering they were treated like chattel. They couldn't all come at once--in some of the families the boys came first to find work and would send for their parents and sisters later, when they had the money for the passage. This could take years. But eventually all four families ended up in America--the Italians on Mulberry Street in New York, and the Germans and the Irish, somewhere else. All four eventually ended up in Pittsburgh, where the Irish/Scottish daughter married the German son and the daughter and son of the two Italian families married. They had children, and eventually two of those children got married and produced.... moi .

Yes friends, like the rest of you, I am an immigrant. But do you see the difference between the above story and the stories we're hearing today at these rallies, attending by thousands across the country? I sure do. My relatives, and probably yours, went through Ellis Island. They came here legally, worked hard, learned English (!), put up with all kinds of crap because they were Catholic, and some of them were Irish , God forbid. But they got married and produced American citizens who knew English and married other American citizens who produced more citizens...until I am the third generation born here. I've completed college. My brother's in college. My grandfather is a composer and a retired school orchestra teacher. My grandma raised 8 kids on one salary. My dad's father sold insurance to Italians in Pittsburgh. We all did pretty well for ourselves. None of us are on the dole, at least.

Yet these people, these "undocumented workers', say that we're anti-immigrant now. Wrong. We're anti- illegal immigrant. There's a big difference. My relatives didn't try to sneak in Boston Harbor and work under the radar. They did it the right way. There's a right and a wrong way to do this. If you want to be a citizen, do it properly. And don't say that you don't have time. Thousands of my countrymen from Ireland managed to immigrate here during the famine and they knew about not having time. They gnawed on quadruple-boiled bones to keep hunger at bay and ate grass until their mouths were green and still they starved.

We are a nation of immigrants, this is true. But the older ones assimilated. They became part of our fabric. They didn't try for multi-lingual signs, multiple options on the ATMs, and force us to accomodate them .

We are to show them justice and mercy and compassion. But at the same time we cannot advocate the reckless breaking of our laws. What's the point of having laws if we don't enforce them? And how can these people be good citizens if they're breaking the laws of their new country right off the bat?

Bookshelf and popcorn

All right, time for a book 'n movie round-up:

books :

St. Therese of Lisieux, story of a Soul or L'Historie d'Ame , as the French would say...the autobiography of my patron saint, so it's very bizarre that I haven't read this earlier. that's probably due ot the fact that this is a hard book, surprisingly, to find in mainstream bookstores, but I finally found a copy at a local Catholic bookshop that was produced by a Carmelite house here in the U.S.

The book isn't one book, it's actually three manuscripts in one: Manuscript A is the story of her life, as written for Mother Agnes, prioress of the Carmel for a time and Therese's older sister and "little mother" Pauline. Manuscript B talks about her vocation-- "my vocation is love!"-- and was written for her oldest sister, Marie, who was also in Carmel. The final part, Mauscript C, was written on prayer and her "little way" for Mother Marie de Gonzagua, who became prioress again after Pauline. All three together present a vivid portrait of a saint and her "little way", which is, unsurprisingly, filled with the profound spiritual insight that made Pope John Pual II proclaim her a Doctor of the Church in 2000 (I think it was that year, anyway). Definitely, definitely worth reading this.

In conjunction with that, I've also been reading (but haven't finished) St. Therese of Lisieux: Her family, her God, her message by Fr. Bernard Bro, a leading expert in Theresian theology. It's a fascinating look at the forces that shaped her life and her spitirtuality and I'm really enjoying it so far.

Movies :

The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe is now on DVD. If you're a fan, get the two disc set because it's awesome. The film looks great on DVD transfer and is even better than I remember. Read my review in the December archieves if you haven't and then run to Best Buy to get this puppy. It's awesome.

King Kong :Didn't see it in the theater but bought it on DVD. It's good, a little long in parts (I thought that some of the scenes on Skull Island could have been shortened or cut, esp. the ones with the gross bugs), but the acting is pretty good (especially Naomi Watts, who is essentially acting against a green screen the whole time) and some of th CGI effects just take your breath away. I did find the Central Park scene a little hokey (tell me again how Kong is supported on that ice?) but I loved the sunset scene. It's worth watching if you haven't seen it but it's not this great Oscar worthy film that you must see (the idea, if true, that Naomi watts was miffed because she didn't get an Oscar nomination for her role is nuts, because her acting was good, but definitely not Best Actress worthy).

A Catholic American or an American Catholic?

Little story before we start...

I was sitting around with a bunch of my friends one night last year, discussing the potential pool of Republican 2008 Presidential candidates. A lot of them voiced support for Rudy, which is well-deserved, even today, given that he was mayor of New York City, a city that is sapphire in its blueness, and did one hell of a job. But I wasn't about to get on the Rudy bandwagon.

"He's pro-choice," I said.

"But he's good on terrorism and national security. He's a shoo-in," one of my best friends added.

"Yeah, but he's pro-choice."

"So? That's minor."

"He won't get out of the primary, for starters," I said. "And I can't vote for a pro-choicer. I'll vote for a pro-life Democrat before I vote for a pro-choice Republican."

Most of the people in the room looked at me like I was crazy. Winning is, in the political life, first and foremost in the mind. With winning you get to set the agenda. But I wasn't about to let the agenda be set by someone who doesn't agree with me on key moral issues. He might win, but it wasn't with my vote.

All of this came to the surface lately after I finished reading Father Neuhaus' new book Catholic Matters (I posted a review of it in another post). He asks an intriguing question: Are we, as Americans, Catholic Americans or American Catholics? Which comes first in our allegiance?

As I thought about this, I realized that I consider myself a Catholic American. My faith is probably, if I had to say, more important that my citizenship. Don't get me wrong. I am proud to be an American, glad for the freedoms and privileges I enjoy and can say, without reservation, that I consider the U.S. the best country in the world (sorry to my foreign readers :) ). But my country isn't going with me when I die. I don't have to stand in judgement before George Washington, and Abe Lincoln didn't die to save my soul. I love America, but she can make mistakes--she's run by faliable humans. But with Catholicism, that doesn't happen. "The gates of Hell will not prevail against it." I can put more stock in those beliefs than in others. And when it comes to what my party believes and what my Church teaches, I'm going to side with the Church. Of course one does not have to accept everything that comes out of a bishop's mouth, so I put my faith in Rome, the Magesterium and the catechism. Thank God we have B XVI in charge.

This is a difficult thing to think about. It isn't often that one has to make this distinction, but when you have to, I'd make it a Catholic American over an American Catholic. God has to come first, right? Isn't that what He tells us?

I'm sure I'll have more thoughts about this...but this is what I've got for now.

No luck with the Chinese...yet...

From cna.com:

Taipei, April 4 (CNA) The Vatican and China did not engage in any official talks on establishing diplomatic relations during their latest contact, a Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) official said Tuesday.

According to Wang Yu-yuan, director-general of the MOFA's Department of European Affairs, high-ranking Vatican officials have promised to inform Taiwan if the Holy See starts talks on establishing diplomatic ties with Beijing.

The Vatican -- the only European country to maintain diplomatic relations with Taiwan -- has been trying to improve its relations with China and has maintained on-and-off contact with Beijing, Wang noted.

Wang said freedom of religion has been the main problem hampering the establishment of Vatican-China diplomatic relations because the Vatican is concerned about the rights of Catholics in China, which does not recognize the authority of bishops and other officials appointed by the Catholic church.

Wang said that since 1992, the Vatican has mentioned plans to "move its embassy" from Taipei to Beijing and that China has put forth several conditions on the establishment of diplomatic ties with the Vatican, including that it must not interfere with China's internal affairs and must sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan.

The matter is at a standstill because the Vatican has refused to compromise on some of these conditions, Wang said.

On reports that the pope is planning to visit Asia, Wang said he had not heard of any such plans.

The Liturgy is not a time for self-expression....

says the vatican. Huzzah! I love Cardinal Arinze more and more, let me tell you. There's a bit from totalcatholic.com that I've posted below, but I've always thought this.

The way I see it, the Mass is like a play, right? There's a script, and the players all have their parts. It's like when you go to theater to see Macbeth ...it's the same every time. You know what to expect going in. It's not like on day you're going to go and find out, "hey, in our version, Duncan lives and Lady MacBeth bakes brownies for everyone!" No. The Mass is the same way. You go in, you know what's going to happen.

Regular readers of this space are aware of my ongoing frustration with the visiting priest at our parish who fills in for our pastor from time to time since we only have one priest. And he likes to change all sorts of things, like God isn't "father", he's "God" in th Doxology, and Jesus wants to preserve us from "undue" anxiety....hmmmm. What exactly is "due" anxiety? And if you're still having a problem with calling God "father" then I think you've gotta get on board with that pretty quick. So let's just have Mass the way we're supposed to have it, huh? Thank you.


From totalcatholic.com....
Signs are growing that Pope Benedict XVI intends to bring the liturgy back to a more traditional form after a top Vatican official protested the use of “Do-it-Yourself” services. In a keynote speech delivered at Westminster Cathedral recently, Cardinal Francis Arinze, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments, also said that individual priests should not add to or subtract from the approved rites, mentioning the practice of playing background music in particular as one practice that should stop. “The Mass is the most solemn action of the sacred liturgy, which is itself the public worship of the Church,” the cardinal said. "'Liturgy', says Pope John Paul II, 'is never anyone's private property, be it of the celebrant or of the community in which the mysteries are celebrated. Priests who faithfully celebrate Mass according to the liturgical norms, and communities which conform to those norms, quietly but eloquently demonstrate their love for the Church'. “It follows that individuals, whether they be priests or lay faithful, are not free to add or subtract any details in the approved rites of the celebration of the Holy Eucharist. A do-it-yourself mentality, an attitude of nobody-will-tell-me-what-to-do, or a defiant sting of if-you-do-not-like-my-Mass-you-can-go-to-another-parish, is not only against sound theology and ecclesiology, but also offends against common sense. Unfortunately, sometimes common sense is not very common, when we see a priest ignoring liturgical rules and installing creativity, in his case personal idiosyncrasy, as the guide to the celebration of Holy Mass. Our faith guides us and our love of Jesus and of his Church safeguards us from taking such unwholesome liberties. Aware that we are only ministers, not masters of the mysteries of Christ.” The cardinal's comments come a week after proposals were announced by a Vatican commission to outlaw the use of drums and electric guitars from church services. The commission outlined 50 proposals on reforming the liturgy, with Vatican insiders saying that the commission also proposed to increase the use of Latin during Mass. But Fr Tom Jordon from the National Conference of Priests, said he was unaware of any deviation from the Rubrics provided by the Roman Missal in the nation's churches but added that since Vatican II in was inevitable that the personality of priests shone through during Mass.

Cleveland's new top dog

More on Cleveland's new bishop:

Bishop Richard Lennon, from Boston, was introduced Tuesday by retiring Bishop Anthony Pilla.

Lennon, 59, was ordained in 1973 in Boston and became an auxiliary bishop in 2001.

He made national headlines when he temporarily took control of the Boston Diocese. That came after Cardinal Bernard Law quit in 2002 amid the priest sex-abuse scandal.
What Should Bishop Accomplish In Cleveland?
Lennon said he will use the same healing and straightforward approach in dealing with all the issues in Cleveland.

He said the global settlement of more than 500 cases involving the church was the only logical and human approach.

"To try and handle each separate case individually would have kept it going for months, if not years. And that was not helpful to the victims, the church, it wasn't helpful to anyone," Lennon said.

Lennon becomes the 10th bishop in the Diocese of Cleveland.

He got the call from the pope two weeks ago and said he never hesitated to say yes.

He takes over for Pilla, who announced his retirement in January.

Cleveland area Catholics say that Pilla's shoes will be tough to fill, but they have high hopes for Lennon's leadership, and think that his experience with the Boston diocese during difficult times is also important.

There's only one problem Clevelanders have with the Boston native: he's a self-admitted die-hard Red Sox fan.

"I will try to be as supportive of the Indians as possible but I must be honest, Red Sox fans, I mean, they're diehards. I mean we waited how many years?," he joked.

Lennon will be installed on May 15 at 3 p.m.

SNAP doesn't like him, which means I do, because I've done some research on them and they didn't like B XVi's election and support (and are supported byh )Voice of the Faithful, which is a lefty group out of Boston. So I wish him good luck in Cleveland and hope he does well.

One year later...

Today, as I'm sure we're all aware, marks the first anniversary of JP The Great's death. I was convinced that the world would never know as great a Pope as he was, and I still share that sentiment, but the election of B XVI and the first year of his papacy have done a lot to soothe the huge hole his death left.

I had lived my entire life under his papacy. All of my cousins (I think, except for one, possibly) were born under this papacy. My parents were married with him as Pope. His reign marked (almost) all of the major events of my life. To lose him was indescribable.

But I have loved B XVI and knew, from the moment he was elected, that he would be a good Pope. Who else could best continue JP II's legacy, and leave one of his own. His first encyclical clearly spells out the Church's teaching on so many things, not just love (as one would guess from the title).

He was a saintly man, a wonderful Pope, and I still miss him. He really was like a father to so many of us. But B XVI is doing a great job and I'm glad that the cardinals elected him. I cannot imagine what it would be like to not have him as a Pope.