Since I've become a father, I've gotten ticked off about some things much more easily.

Like the fact far too many idiots still have legal custody of their children.

When you have the mindset that a child is a status accessory like a Lexus or an annual trip to Cozumel, bad things can happen. Take a look-see at the current condition of American society, for starters. When you're an eccentric reclusive multi-millionaire who sleeps in an oxygen chamber, has a chimp for a best friend, lives in a place called "Neverland" and spends millions to make molestation charges go away--well, worse things are in the offing.

Norm MacDonald said it best in a 1996 SNL News Update:

"And, yes, it is true, Michael Jackson is going to be a father. Already he has hired an entire staff of nannies, nurses and extra bodyguards, which hopefully will protect the child from Michael Jackson."

Apparently it's not working.

Life on the Catholic Fringe.

From Amy Welborn, a link to a story about a Catholic "sedevacantist" group, complete with a full-blown cult of personality. Interesting, weird and unnerving--the Branch Davidians with rosaries.

A splinter of this group, located at Mount St. Michael in Spokane, Washington, was featured in a 1995 This Rock magazine article about sedevacantism, and contained a few more details about "Bishop" Schuckardt. Apparently, Schuckardt called himself "Pope Hadrian VII," claiming to have been crowned by the Blessed Virgin herself in a vision.

Nice work if you can get it.

Sounds about right.

Subtle.

Elegant.

Understated.

Exfoliating.

Which Firearm are you? brought to you byStan Ryker

I have three theories regarding "deer."

1. They are mythological creatures, akin to griffons and sphinxes. They do not really exist, and therefore cannot be the targets of a successful hunt. Alas, this theory is subject to refutation on three grounds. One, the large number of vehicles sporting what appeared to be "deer" carcasses as I drove down I-75 yesterday. However, this could be explained by the fact that I was driving on minimal sleep and suffering from extreme "buck fever." The second argument is stronger: my father bagged a "deer" Friday afternoon. However, this is not conclusive, as the size of the creature in question prompted speculation that it might actually be a hitherto unknown breed of collie instead. Third, my brother claimed to have identified and shot at a "deer" late Saturday afternoon. Unfortunately, he missed. More on that later.

2. "Deer" exist, but unaccountably go extinct in every place I go hunting.

3. "Deer" exist, and are not "extinct" in my hunting grounds, but are actually more technologically advanced than mankind, having developed what are commonly referred to as "cloaking devices." These cloaking devices allow them to roam about at will, undetected and undetectable by hapless hunters equipped only with 4x40 scopes.

After careful consideration, I'm leaning toward number three.

I love animals. They're delicious!

I'm off [you knew that--ha, ha] for the next three days. I'll be joining 700,000 fellow Michiganders (including my father and brother) in a quest for deer.

Yep. Me and my 12 gauge. Canny sportsmanship at its finest. At least theoretically: I haven't bagged a buck yet (or a doe for that matter). In fact, I and my brother might have the only PETA-approved hunting expeditions on earth (we're tied at zero deer). IOW, in Michigan, "Wait'll next year!" applies to more than just the Detroit Lions. Anyway, it should be fun regardless of the number of antlered animal carcasses draped on my Buick for the ride home.

Say nice things to my hunting widow while I'm gone. She'd especially like your input on this tricky parenting/pastoral issue. For that matter, so would I.

Buck fever: Catch it! See you Sunday.

Bishops pass abuse policy.

I'm not so much interested in discussing the nuts and bolts of it. That's been done elsewhere. Short take: it's better than nothing, but I think the major flaw is a lack of mandatory reporting. That, and it doesn't say word one about dealing with bishops who don't hold up their end under the policy.

No, it was the vote--with seven dissents--that caught my attention. The quoted dissenter was Evansville's Bp. Gerald Gettlefinger, who complains that it doesn't allow for a rehabbed one-time offender to return to parish ministry. To which I can only say: Good. Cardinal George rightly notes that the faithful have no reason to trust the discretion of the bishop on this one. In reality, this is the only sensible pastoral decision. There's no way I would entrust her or her brother (due in March '03) to a maybe-rehabbed, maybe-not sex offender.

Moreover, I've questioned Bishop Gettlefinger's odd judgment in the past. This extends to the decisions made regarding retention of parish priests (scroll down to "Imprisoned for Receiving Child Pornography"). I have no cause to believe it's any better now. Now, I'd just like to know who the other dissenters and abstainers are.

Start Scanning The Apocalypse of St. John. Now.

Foreign Service officers dissing Europeans! Liberal Academics quoting Kipling! Next thing you know, a columnist from The Nation will be defending the U.S. war effort. Oh, wait....

This story (via Instapundit) is an eye-opener. The Kipling quote is from "Tommy," a superb poem about the abuse of British soldiers by the very people they were protecting. It is very apt. In fact, Kipling is getting more relevant by the hour. Here it is in full:

------
I went into a public-'ouse to get a pint o' beer,
The publican 'e up an' sez, "We serve no red-coats here."
The girls be'ind the bar they laughed an' giggled fit to die,
I outs into the street again an' to myself sez I:
O it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, go away";
But it's "Thank you, Mister Atkins", when the band begins to play,
The band begins to play, my boys, the band begins to play,
O it's "Thank you, Mister Atkins", when the band begins to play.

I went into a theatre as sober as could be,
They gave a drunk civilian room, but 'adn't none for me;
They sent me to the gallery or round the music-'alls,
But when it comes to fightin', Lord! they'll shove me in the stalls!
For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, wait outside";
But it's "Special train for Atkins" when the trooper's on the tide,
The troopship's on the tide, my boys, the troopship's on the tide,
O it's "Special train for Atkins" when the trooper's on the tide.

Yes, makin' mock o' uniforms that guard you while you sleep
Is cheaper than them uniforms, an' they're starvation cheap;
An' hustlin' drunken soldiers when they're goin' large a bit
Is five times better business than paradin' in full kit.
Then it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, 'ow's yer soul?"
But it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll,
The drums begin to roll, my boys, the drums begin to roll,
O it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll.

We aren't no thin red 'eroes, nor we aren't no blackguards too,
But single men in barricks, most remarkable like you;
An' if sometimes our conduck isn't all your fancy paints,
Why, single men in barricks don't grow into plaster saints;
While it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, fall be'ind",
But it's "Please to walk in front, sir", when there's trouble in the wind,
There's trouble in the wind, my boys, there's trouble in the wind,
O it's "Please to walk in front, sir", when there's trouble in the wind.

You talk o' better food for us, an' schools, an' fires, an' all:
We'll wait for extry rations if you treat us rational.
Don't mess about the cook-room slops, but prove it to our face
The Widow's Uniform is not the soldier-man's disgrace.
For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck him out, the brute!"
But it's "Saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot;
An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please;
An' Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool -- you bet that Tommy sees!
--------

And Sammy ain't a bloomin' fool, either.

Hilarity from the Onion.

Marxists' Apartment a Microcosm of Why Marxism Doesn't Work.

For me, the instant the fact that the Cold War was over (and the Good Guys had won) fully sunk in was when I saw Gorbachev's 1997 Pizza Hut ad. In 1990, he commanded the world's largest military force and nuclear arsenal, both aimed at the U.S.--which, in Marxist demonology, remains the embodiment of repressive, exploitative corporate evil. Seven years later, he's...pitching pizza...for an...American...corporation....What I still don't fully understand is why my head didn't explode right then and there.

Marxism and its true believers are increasingly just targets of mockery. The Onion piece is good evidence of that. In fact, mockery is probably the best weapon against the birkenstock bolshies and their gradually-slipping white-knuckle grip on the academy, culture, and media. Sorry, guys: you don't even inspire much anger anymore--just a derisive guffaw. That's starting to sink in everywhere now, and it has to sting. If nothing else, it's clear that the Marxist vision, with its mountain of skulls, sure doesn't inspire conversions: your average "peace" rally or National Council of Churches conclave smells like a Ben Gay factory exploded nearby. Reality will even reach their academic strongholds one day, right after "The Sixties People™" pass from the scene.

As Michael Ledeen would say: "Faster, please."

Think of it as pastoral outreach to the massage parlor community.

Dallas bishop Charles Grahmann refuses to remove priest who admitted to abusive behavior (registration required), despite a recommendation by his co-adjutor bishop. Moreover, the masseur in this case apparently has "issues":

"Father Alvarez acknowledged 'inappropriate contact' with the Houston-area man and was told to resume counseling about 'boundary issues' that he'd previously undergone voluntarily, diocesan Chancellor Mary Edlund said."

"Resume counselling." Oh, yeah, great idea. Especially since it worked so well the first time. Although I have to acknowledge that grabbing another man's privates after he's come to you for help certainly qualifies as a "boundary issue."

This is par for the course for the leadership in Dallas, who in April took a hard line against two priests who failed to implement background checks for church workers. Here's the tough talk about the two errant priests:

"'What I hope would happen would be that pastors realize that bishops couldn't be any more serious about wanting this policy followed," Sister Walsh said. "I think that's the message that comes from this ... we mean business.'"

Uh-huh. They sure do mean business. The bottom line? Priests who don't do background checks on the bookkeeper and maintenance man get fired, but one who fondles a vulnerable parishoner during "counselling" gets continued tenure and "counselling" about "boundary issues." Got it.

Let's see: looks like we can strike "appointment of co-adjutor bishop" from the rapidly-shrinking list of Ways To Make A Bishop Do His Damn Job.

Personal interlude.

These are the Official 2002 Price Family Christmas Photographs, heavy on the beautiful baby girl. Actually, both girls are beautiful, and I don't deserve either one.

I guess that's why it's called "grace."

[Update: I changed the link, which quickly went bad. Heather says this one might last longer.]

A little dinner music.

It took two thousand years, but someone finally figured out what the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass needed. The anamnesis of Jesus Christ, the re-presentation of Calvary--was missing something.

It wasn't enough that Jesus Christ, true God and true man, became present, body and blood, soul and divinity, during the liturgy. That the veil between heaven and earth was lifted, that the second person of the Holy Trinity, the redemptor mundi, deigned to visit His creatures, was insufficient. No sir! Something was still missing.




That something was musical accompaniment by an accordion and a triangle. Instead of being present at the food of the Cross, I felt like I was waiting for my order of fettucine alfredo. "Sir, your 'sacred meal' will be right up! But first, 'The Sounds of Venice!'" I also obtained a profound insight into the psychological utility of putting a severed horse's head under someone's bedsheet. Alas, I also recognized the daunting logistical difficulties in pulling off such an operation.


Nevertheless, it was a sign of great hope for Catholic liturgy. Yes, indeed: the sitar 'n cowbell crowd can rejoice that their hour is near.

Dennis Miller on George W. Bush and the End of the Wocka Wocka Porno Guitar Era.

Miller nukes Clinton and the liberal mindset on The Tonight Show. Here's a taste, but read the whole thing:

"Dennis Miller: “I want to congratulate my President. I think he had a great day. I think George Bush is a good man.”
[applause]
Leno: “Yeah? He did a fine job.”
Miller: “I think, I think he’s a good man and I think he’s done a fine job in these last two years. I don’t think he’s a great man but I would prefer that our President would be a good man because great men tend to believe they're great men and then they end up not being great men any more. I like Bush because he seems like a regular decent guy. And you know what? He’s a big picture guy. Which just shocks me. Because when he first came into the office I think many of us thought that he was the sort of guy who watched television one pixel at a time. But uh, shockingly he’s proven himself to be a big picture guy. I like his sense of humor. At least I hope it’s his sense of humor. I uh, sometimes think it’s Norm Crosby’s sense of humor. But uh, I think the thing I like most about him is that he’s not Clinton. I just think he’s a decent guy. I mean, you know...”
[applause]
Miller: “I’m telling ya when I watch those, the videotape of the retarded kids playing uh, tee-ball on the White House lawn, on the field that he built for them.
Leno: “Yeah.”
Miller: “And I juxtapose it with Clinton and the wocka-wocka porno guitar of the Clinton administration. I just like Bush, he makes me proud to be an American again. He’s just a decent guy.'"


If only more of Hollywood would wake up...

I'll bet you didn't know the NCCB had a Self-Parody Subcommittee.

Neither did I. But evidently it does, and one of its members issued a statement. (Thanks to Amy Welborn--scroll down to "The Buck Stops Where?").

Good Michigan Political News.

Looks like Republican Mike Cox won the attorney general race. If it holds up, and it should, that makes the first time since 1954 that a Republican has been Michigan's AG.

Cox was endorsed by Right to Life of Michigan, which had an excellent election cycle, governor's race notwithstanding.

The World's Greatest Hockey Team Gets Its Due.

The Detroit Red Wings meet the President. The Wings were impressed. In the local news broadcast, when asked whether he preferred visiting the White House during a Democratic or Republican administration, ever-diplomatic (scroll down to "Judge, Jury and Executioner") forward Darren McCarty said "Oh, Republican. Easy."

It fits. Violent reputation notwithstanding, hockey players have always been the most sensible of pro athletes, especially after September 11.

Finally, a parting thought for Colorado Avalanche fans: neener, neener, neener.

Thoughts on 24

Inspired by the NRO article. My television viewing has been on the decrease ever since our internet access began. Then came Maddie, and I've seen the spew from the receiver in a different light ever since. I'm much more inclined to keep it off now. Now, I've basically budgeted my limited viewing hours for a select few shows, VHS (and now DVD) rentals, and news/special event TV. Babylon 5 was a viewing staple until Sci-Fi decided to move it from 7pm to 5pm. Now I never see it, unless I happen to have the day off. [Sci-Fi was one of the easy compromise channels for Heather and me--B5 and the shaggy-mutt likeable Invisible Man were our equivalent of must-see TV]. Fortunately, the DVD revolution has not passed B5 by.

Last year, a new show entered the can't miss list--Fox's 24. For the unitiated, the premise behind the show is a "real time" telling of an action-thriller story based upon the exploits of Jack Bauer, an agent for a fictional federal "Counter Terrorism Unit." One minute of show time means Bauer has one less minute to foil the terrorist plots of his adversaries. The conceit is that it plays out during the course of a day, hence "24."

Bauer is superbly played by Kiefer Sutherland, who deserved, but did not get, the Best Actor Emmy last year. Instead, it went to Michael Chiklis (yes, a talented actor, but...) on a critics' favorite and wildly overrated sex-n-violence craptacular called "The Shield."

Last year's drama centered on an assassination attempt being made against U.S. Senator and Presidental candidate David Palmer, who is also well-portrayed by Dennis Haysbert. As the story unfolded, it was clear that the assassins were also going after Bauer, his wife and daughter. Added tension was provided by the fact that there was a mole inside CTU assisting the assassination plot. As it turned out, the assassins were genocidal Serb nationalists attempting to avenge an assassination attempt gone wrong against their leader, Victor Drazen, played by Dennis Hopper. The attempt killed Drazen's wife and daughter, but not Drazen himself, as originally had been thought. The attempt had been approved by Palmer's Committee, and carried out by Bauer--explaining the revenge targets. Ultimately, the plot was foiled by Bauer, who killed Drazen, but lost his pregnant wife, who was killed by the mole. The last episode was some of the best television I have ever seen, but the series as a whole was also markedly intelligent, with the exception of the ill-advised amnesia subplot (I refuse to say anything more about it). Villains made intelligent decisions, were often successful, good guy characters also made intelligent choices, etc., and Bauer....Well, Bauer was a revelation--an action hero forced to rely more upon smarts than bullets (although there were plenty of the latter), doing so while "on the clock." Plus, the moral quandries he was put into--ordered to shoot a co-worker by the original assassin, who could verify it through witnesses, he complied: though quick wits ensured she would survive, albeit with devastating consequences. Then he had to carjack an innocent waitress into helping him. And so on.

This year's edition ratchets up the moral stakes considerably: the opening story features a terrifying torture scene, carried out using a disturbingly efficient machine where the victim is strapped in, his feet and hands kept in bags of fluid to help facilitate the torture. The torturers are Asian, as is the victim. The victim finally breaks, and utters information to the torturers, one of whom runs quickly to another room. We learn then that the torturers are "the good guys," members of the South Korean military, who inform their American colleagues in the room that Middle Eastern terrorists have a nuclear weapon.

Which they intend to detonate in Los Angeles.

Today.

Ripped from tomorrow's headlines, eh? Palmer, now President, is informed, and calls the still-grieving Bauer back to duty. Bauer initially refuses, until he sees a young mother walking down the street with her happy toddler son. Then he goes back to work. A shooting and an implied beheading follow, plus there's an unnerving subplot involving a man of Arab descent who may (or may not) be a terrorist.

As I said, what makes this year's model of 24 compelling and disturbing is the moral questions it asks about the price we are willing to pay to win the war on terrorism. Do we condone invasions of other people's privacy--especially if they're of foreign origin? Torture? Illegal detention? Threats of nuclear annihilation against other nations that support the terrorists? Even the deliberate killing of admittedly rotten people unassociated with the terrorists, if it gives us an advantage? All this has occurred in the first two episodes of the season.

24 has given me considerable reason to think, and discomfort with the answers. The real world resonances can't be ignored. Start watching now--You can still catch up.

Good Catholic news. For a freaking change.

I was going to post excerpts from the excellent Flawed Expectations book. Frankly, however, I'm taking a break from this work. It's making me mad enough to want to hit things/dissenters with a shovel, which can't be good.

Instead, read this blogged essay by George Weigel over at Shawn McElhinney's site (archive function isn't working). Your urge to swing lawn implements should be minimal.

Paranoia the destroyer.

A commenter over at Mark's implied that I'm big on conspiracy theories. I can only think of one example of this, and it was at the other blog. It had to do with the radioactive freighter that was stopped on the anniversary of 9/11, and the odd absence of media coverage. I can't recall any other examples, to be honest. Perhaps my memory's bad.

Am I "conspiracy-minded"?

Or is that just what THEY want you to think?

Blogrolling, Part II.

Many (and belated) thanks, too, to Lane Core at The Blog from the Core for his comments on my Lidless Eye piece [hmm--Lidless Eyepiece...]. His blog is becoming a regular stop for me. I couldn't agree more with his commentary on the Reflections document. Take a look.

Blogrolling, Part I.

Thanks to Mark Shea for the kind reference. It is true, after all: except for the fillings, I am fully natural.

While you're here, take the comment boxes for a spin and make yourselves at home! Just make sure you drink the Budweiser. The Molson Export's mine...

Post-Election Musings.

Or, keep the Motrin coming.

First of all, it was much, much closer than the exit polls indicated. The Free Press (a/k/a Jen's Amen Corner) poll in particular was a star-struck cheerleading fantasy, projecting a sixteen point win. Looks like it will settle at 4-5 percent. The Detroit News exit poll said 8 percent, and appears a lot saner as a result.

The good news? The Republicans maintained control of the state Senate and House (take a look at the victorious candidate in District 88 and call your local postulator ASAP--if that ain't a miracle, I don't know what is!). It's not going to be easy for her to govern. All together now: Awww...

Unfortunately, the drool-catcher factor might cost the Republicans the attorney general seat, currently a dead heat. 27,000+ normally Republican votes went to the candidate for the always-relevant United States Taxpayers Party. That's the margin in this case. Way to go, guys! Just imagine--a Democrat could be enforcing the tax and property laws for the next four years. Looks like that protest vote really will pay off.

Emphasis on the word pay.

And now, time to take the Archdiocese of Detroit out behind the woodshed. Frankly, its handling of Granholm deserves an "F" grade. No unequivocal statements about Granholm, other than to describe her as "'a caring and loving person who tries to be as faithful as she can in her life.'" Well, that's sure going to sway the confused Catholic on this issue! "Even the Cardinal says she's doing the best she can...", followed by the sound of a Granholm chad being punched out.

Then there's the thoroughly clerical response to the priests' letter supporting Granholm on abortion. You don't answer a trumpet blast challenge with a tweet from a dog whistle. It was a public scandal demanding a public response from the Archdiocese. It never came. Handling it quietly in-house was a stupid, stupid idea. It's a different context, but see Boston, Archdiocese of. How many more Catholics did the silence of the Archdiocese sway to Granholm?

Finally, don't get me started on Catholic harassment of pro-life advocates (scroll down to the entries for 11/3). It doesn't get any worse than this: priests calling the police on people supporting Catholic beliefs. Some priests desperately need instruction and punitive discipline, but again, don't expect anything to come from the Archdiocese regarding this outrage.

In a closer-than-expected race, a determined effort to place Catholic consciences in turmoil would have made a difference, as it did with the Archdiocese's aggressive and vocal opposition to the assisted suicide proposal in 1998. The proposal was buried by a nearly 3 to 1 margin. In 2000, Archdiocese spokesman Ned McGrath rightly shrugged when told about opposition of Catholics to the voucher proposal backed by the Church: Unlike assisted suicide, vouchers were "not a Catechism issue," and Catholics could (and did) disagree in good conscience. Well, Ned, abortion sure is a Catechism issue, and one emphasized by the American bishops. Can you explain why the Archdiocese didn't do much about the election?

No effort to engage the Catholic conscience was made here, and the lingering question is, "Why not?" That question is going to echo for the next four years.

All is not quite lost in Michigan.

The Legislature is still solidly Republican, and looks to stay that way. If the GOP takes the Attorney General's office (and despite early returns, which are from overwhelmingly Democratic Detroit, the race is a dead heat), then Granholm's going to be awfully lonely in Lansing.

And her freedom of action will be very limited. She won't be able to govern at all without Republican cooperation, so she won't be able to do much on the abortion issue, apart from vetoes. Even then, she could get overridden.

And if she follows through on her promise to "tweak" the tax system that funds public education in the State....Can you say "one-termer"?

S**t.

Election Links.

1. National

NRO's The Corner has regular national updates.

Ditto The Weekly Standard, which is promising coverage and analysis as the returns come in.

Of course, the Drudge Report is a good one, but it was extremely difficult to access on Election Night 2000, due to web traffic volumes. The same could happen tonight. What's nice about Drudge is that he's not constrained from revealing exit poll numbers, which are usually very interesting.

Finally, there's the merry band of rebels over at Fox News, who ought to be encouraged as much as possible.

2. Michigan.

The Detroit News has solid coverage.

The National Right to Life Committee has helpful guidance, as does Right to Life of Michigan.

Finally, vote for this guy, not someone who, while personally opposed to racist violence, does not support laws which restrict lynching.

Oops. I meant "someone who, while personally opposed to abortion, does not support laws which restrict abortion."

Pardon the mistake.

"Lafayette, we are outta here!"

My wife is a French teacher, so I'll try to keep the lid on. Lunging forward...

Someone please remind me why tolerate these clowns, humoring them in their pretensions to international relevance. If there are a more duplicitous bunch of scheming crapweasels on the world stage, I haven't heard of them. France's record in the military/diplomatic arena since 1815 has been one of consistent miscalculation, a demonstration of preening arrogance wedded to boggling ineptitude. It is a litany of failure unmatched by any of the other major powers during the past two centuries, a history of never being both right and effective on a major international issue. Consider this list: Waterloo, the Franco-Prussian War, the First World War, the Spanish Civil War, appeasement of the totalitarians, the six-week collapse in 1940, Vietnam, the Suez, Algeria, withdrawal from NATO, the building of the Osirak reactor, the arming of various oppressive Arab regimes--you get my point. The only trust the French inspire is a firm faith that something is going to be screwed up beyond all recognition.

Now, in a strategy that reeks of "and maybe the horse will learn to sing," the French government wants to reform Saddam Hussein. Get him all gussied up with a real parliament and everything. In other words, we have a rabid wolverine on a fraying leash, and Chirac thinks the best solution is to send him to obedience school. During which time the Iraqis will allow the genially clueless UN weapons inspector/pushover Hans "Clouseau" Blix to inspect all of the pit toilets he wants.

Hoo, boy. In addition to being strong circumstantial evidence that they've started adding antifreeze to the champagne, it's also completely reckless. The only thing this will do is give Hussein the margin he needs to finish work on his bomb.

What's even more telling is that it is another example of a naive, arrogant Western politician who thinks he "knows" and "has an understanding" with a dictator. We've seen this before: Chamberlain at Munich, FDR with "Uncle Joe." In reality, Chirac knows squat about how to "handle" Hussein, and will do no better. He should be cut off at the knees for his pains.

Before we lose a city.

Newly-discovered blog.

It's a beaut: A Catholic Point of View. Magnificent artwork, constantly updated. There's no blog like it. Take a look.

Hire this man!

If you haven't seen it from Mark Shea's, I strongly recommend that you read this proposed political ad from fellow Michigander, Zach Frey. Zach's one of the handful of bloggers (along with Mark and Doug Sirman) that I've actually met in real life. He and his wife are fine folks and generous hosts, to boot. Plus, he gave me a lot of helpful technical blogging advice when I was just getting started, which I eventually implemented--more or less. Now you know who to blame...

Scroll down to take a look.

It reminds me of the sad joke: "A liberal is someone who believes it's OK for a teenager to have an abortion but not a cigarette."

Hear ye, hear ye.

I installed Haloscan's comment software during my break. Seems to work.

So far.

Getting Fitted for my "Lidless Eye."

Well, not really, but I've been thinking about part of Fr. Neuhaus' explanation of why Rome does not drop the hammer on the bishops. This paragraph is what I've been stewing over:

"There is an exaggerated fear in Rome of a formal schism in the Church in the U.S. It is thought a more direct or heavier hand might provoke that. As you know, many of the Lidless Eye People would welcome that. Rome would not, and I think for very good reasons."

I agree with the first sentence ("exaggerated fear"), even though I think the way he phrases it is very interesting ("formal schism"). Perhaps I'm reading too much into it, but the way it's phrased allows for an argument that sections of the Church in America are already in material schism. In any event, a formal schism isn't going to happen for any number of reasons, starting with a lack of intellectual leadership, along the lines of a Von Dollinger. No, most dissenters prefer to stay inside the Church, clogging the toilet and setting fire to the furniture, rather than leave. After all, that way you can pose as the brave free-thinker, challenging "the Inquisition" in the name of liberty, and earning secular kudos and regular media appearances. If you leave to join your fellow believers (?) in mainline Protestantism, you end up being just another Spong in the asylum, good for one article in go-blind typeface on page 38. See Fox, Matthew.

The last two sentences are what have gotten the synapses firing (Ed.: About time!). Why would a formal schism necessarily be a bad thing? Shortly after I read Fr. Neuhaus' discussion of the topic, I had the occasion to go book shopping at a local Catholic outlet. In the midst of policing my increasingly-mobile 14 month-old daughter ("What are you eating?!" has become a staple of my vocabulary), I came across and purchased this happy missive on the condition of Catholic religious education in the wake of the release of the Catechism in 1992. Prognosis: all the happy talk about the imminent demise of liberal Catholic dissent, and its replacement by vibrant orthodoxy, is so much whistling past the graveyard. The "Spirit of V2" crowd are firmly entrenched in diocesan bureaucracies, and are fiercely resisting authentic teaching, especially the Catechism. Flawed Expectations is painfully well-documented, and an instructive, infuriating read. I'll post nuggets later.

All of which brings me to the point: what would be so wrong with a few of the more "progressive" bishops filing out of the Church and taking the materially schismatic dissenters with them? I know that the Church would reject this on the basis that it has to care for all of its "sheep," especially the most wayward ("My, what long teeth you have!"). But isn't their presence inside the Church causing immeasurably more harm to the other sheep? Are the sheep edified by the abortion views of an Anthony Kosnik? Are the unrebuked tantrums of an Anne Doyle helpful to the Church's witness? Yesterday's first reading from Malachi is still echoing in my head, especially 2:7-8. How many are the dissenters causing to stumble? How many bitter ex-Catholic fundamentalists have they created?

The reason can't be a fear of the power of the dissenters. If so, I have a terse response: Look at the Old Catholics. Can you remember the last time you ran into one? Didn't think so. The course of a hypothetical "progressive" schism is pretty obvious: within a year of donning the fool's motley of liberal Protestantism, the schismatics would destroy the apostolic succession by conferring orders on women, and thereafter fragment into various increasingly radical bodies racing each other towards irrelevance, belting out "Sing a New Church" as they sprint along. Many of the disillusioned would return to the Church, chastened by the experience.

And what about the Catholic Church in America following such a schism? Ultimately, wouldn't the Church's evangelical witness, its witness to life, its doctrinal truths and authentic worship shine forth more brightly if the shadows cast by the dissenters were elsewhere? Sure seems like it would to me. Am I missing something?

I await any responses. Meanwhile, I'll be dispatching my Nazgul and summoning my legions of Easterlings, Haradrim and Corsairs...

The "religion of peace," near Ground Zero.

This is from reader Patrick Sweeney:

"I am a speaker for the Catholic Evidence Guild New York Chapter. The mission of the guild is public speaking on the Catholic faith.

We were only a mile away from the World Trade Center site. We were out on 10/5/2002. My topic on "Christianity and Islam" was interrupted by a Muslim who objected to the claim, which I would think was self-evident, that there was a religious motivation to the 9/11 attacks.

He said their cause was not Islam but "injustice". Since the 9/11 attackers were not Palestinian but Saudi Arabs, I wondered where there was injustice. The answer is a simple as "God has promised the world to Islam. Convert or die."

In the mind of the person I was speaking to "peace" was "the triumph of Islam" and "justice" was "law according to the Koran". The conclusion is there is no peace in New York without Islam's triumph here (not merely freedom of worship). There is no justice in New York without our rights defined according to the Koran.

I live next door to a Muslim and live among many Muslims and speak to them often about their faith. There’s an active Islamofascist movement in the United States--I may have even spoken to a member of a “cell” of them. But for me the long-term problem is that there’s a passive acceptance of them among the mainstream Muslims. It boils down to a question of a good end (the promised triumph of Islam) pursued with an evil means (war and terrorism). The history of Islam shows that military conquest is a laudatory and legitimate in their view.

The Islamofascist movements here and throughout the world are not fringe movements like the KKK or American neo-fascists but numerous, well-funded, and deadly. So for me, the question of whether Islam is a religion of peace is as irrelevant as the question of whether Hitler was a Christian or not in 1939. The war on terror must be fought and won."


--

Another Target for my Errant Catholic Correction Method!

Or ECCM for short. As my three devoted readers know, ECCM is a form of "repentence therapy" for morally obtuse Catholic clergy, whereby I "confront and chase [them] around the parish complex, brandishing a hockey stick and singing the Welsh war anthem 'Men of Harlech', all the while calling upon them to repent."

Looks like I'll have to extend repentance therapy to the laity now. Meet Anne Doyle, budding Unitarian, Granholm supporter, and the moral equivalent of anthrax for St. John Fisher Catholic Church in Auburn Hills. Ms. Doyle is another member of the legion of quasi-Catholic pew warmers who shriek like shrill hairdressers at the use of gender-specific language, but happily endorse the torn-limb-from-limb dismemberment of unborn or partially-born children. Ah, yes: the "Sixties People"TM, continuing to spread the gospel of unfettered self-determination, worshipping at the Church of Me and leaving a legacy of carnage and ruin in their wake.

The good news? The article indicates that Granholm had an 18 point lead over Posthumus among Catholic women in mid-October. That lead is now just 7 points. It's a start.

Meanwhile, it's been eight days without a public response from the Archdiocese to the Detroit 4.





--

The Boston Bunch.

To the tune of you-know-what:

Here's the story/
Of some lousy bishops/
Who were too busy covering up priestly faults/
They all were unconcerned/
'Bout being shepherds/
They had to save the vaults.

Here's the story/
Of a man named Bernard/
Who was supposed to watch over
This deeply sinful crew/
But he could not recall/
A single foul-up/
T'was nothing he could do.

Till the one day the ordained
Met all the lawyers/
And they learned "ain't no such
thing as a free lunch"/
In truth, they'd now have to pay the piper/
That's the way they all became the Boston Bunch.

The Boston Bunch/The Boston Bunch/
That's the way they became the Boston Bunch.

Interesting series on Iraq by the Detroit News.

Today's installment is about the Chaldean (Iraqi Catholic) community, focusing on a town in the no-fly zone. Emigration to southeastern Michigan has been steady since the 1960s. A worthwhile read.

A Memo to Our Consistently Uncurious Media re: James E. Carter.

Have any of you asked Mr. Carter (former President, current Nobel Peace Prize winner, and Victim of Rodent Harassment) his views lately? I haven't seen any recent interviews of him. Perhaps he is indisposed, having been accosted by a flying marmoset, harangued by a rappelling armadillo or otherwise aggrieved by some other kind of rogue mammal. If so, then your discretion is understandable.

Speaking of rogue mammals--once he recovers, could you please ask him whether he has any cause to believe that his 1994 "Habitat for Stalinists" program was, in hindsight, perhaps, ill-considered? Any regrets on his part? Even one?

I mean, just because the leadership of North Korea generally looks and dresses like unbalanced homeless people does not mean they will react with the same gratitude once you build them something. Even something as impressive as a nuclear reactor. And could you ask him to explain why we built a rogue nation two nuclear reactors as part of an overall plan to keep said nation from obtaining, um...nuclear weapons? Isn't that a little like building a would-be arsonist an oil refinery as part of therapy intended to keep him from burning down his neighbor's house?

Finally, could you ask him one more question: What the hell were you thinking? Maybe a little redundant, but essential.

Many thanks.

Move on, people, move on: No terror connection to see here.

Hmmm. John Allen Muhammad travelled a lot and flashed wads of cash while living out of a shelter. Sounds like the Hamburg cell living off German welfare and travelling to America, paying cash all the while, doesn't it?

Plus, the fact he's on the unstable side also fits the pattern: think Massaoui and Reid.

Meanwhile, our reliably uncurious media focuses on his army background (omitting the complete lack of sniper training) and can barely bring itself to mention his religious background and sympathy for the 9/11 attacks. Or the fascinating facts revealed by the local paper in Alabama.

There's a story here. But will anyone investigate it?


--

The Iraq-Al Qaeda Connection.

And those who are straining to deny it.

You know, the usual suspects, the guys with an unblemished record of failure in every major foreign policy issue during the past decade.



--

A salute.

A fine tribute to Paul Wellstone by Peggy Noonan.

It's good to see that civility in politics is not quite dead.



--

I didn't know the New Testament had an expiration date.

Or, "So that's the problem with the Reflections document."

From Leon Podles' contribution to today's Touchstone blog: [Savor the section in bold, why don't you?]

----Begin Quote------------

"In August 2002 a committee of US Conference of Catholic Bishops, co-chaired by William Cardinal Keeler of Baltimore, issued a report, Reflections on Covenant and Mission. It contained some odd statements about the relationship of Judaism and Christianity, and was attacked by some Catholics. The chief offending sentence stated that “targeting Jews for conversion to Christianity” is “no longer theologically acceptable in the Catholic Church.”

Cardinal Avery Dulles in America (10-21-2002) doesn’t like this sentence either. He does not see how it is consistent with statements in Paul and Hebrews.

Although Cardinal Keeler pointed out that Reflections document was unofficial, such unofficial documents have a way of being presented as official teaching. A draft of a report of a bishops’ committee, All Our Children, is always trotted out as the official teaching of the Catholic Church on homosexuality.

Three members of the Advisory Committee on Catholic-Jewish Relations for the Secretariat for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs (the committee that wrote the controversial report) responded in America to Dulles: Mary Boys, Philip Cunningham, and John Pawlikowski.

Boys, Cunningham, and Pawlikowski claim that “The magisterium can explicitly contradict an idea of an individual New Testament author because the Catholic tradition is one of commentary, not of sola scriptura (Scripture alone).”

The scriptures are a part of the tradition of the church, and must be understood within that tradition. But the doctrines propounded in the New Testament hold a special normative position within it and the tradition is not self-contradictory. Paul and the author of Hebrews are teaching doctrines closely related to the meaning of Christ; to say that the current magisterium can contradict them is to make Christianity an infinitely malleable religion. The opinion or idea in the New Testament that all salvation comes through Christ could also be contradicted by the magisterium; indeed, what idea in the New Testament could not be contradicted and an opposing idea substituted? The magisterium of the Catholic Church does not function like Mormon authority which receives fresh revelations that contradict previous ones.

The basis for the Reflections document is even more disturbing than any of the conclusions that it reaches about the evangelization of the Jews, and that a Roman Cardinal should seemingly accept the fallibility of New Testament doctrines about Christ is alarming."

----------End Quote-------

There's a word for the mentality of Boys, et al., and that word is "heresy." Some wag said the Reflections document isn't heretical--it's just a reflection on heresy. Now we know that the propounders have gone completely over the line into it. Podles' last sentence is dead on, and speaks horrible volumes about the present leadership of the Church (none of whom, it should be noted, publicly criticized the document).

Tragic political news.

Senator Paul Wellstone and his family died today in a plane crash.

He and all of his family and friends have my prayers.

Good political news.

Posthumus has significantly narrowed Granholm's lead.

Pro-lifers are given some credit, too.

Not buying it.

One of the Detroit 4 has apologized. [Thanks to Doug Sirman for the link.]

It's an impressive, thorough apology, but there's just one problem--it makes no sense.

Here's Father's reference to the article:

"There were many points (sentences and paragraphs) removed from the article."

Um, OK. Those must have been all the ones that said NOT! or PSYCH! It's hard to imagine even so liberal a paper as the Detroit Free Press doing an edit job that completely changed the tone of the offending letter. Especially since it was cast as a rebuttal to the commentary critical of Granholm. If it was so badly butchered, then Father should be sending the same letter to the Free Press.

And this response is insufficient in another way. The Archdiocese still hasn't responded to the scandal caused by it. E-mail responses to the disgruntled faithful of the internet does not repair the profound public damage caused by their published work. Public harm, public restitution.

Pius XII, the Shoah, and the "Jack Chick Effect."

An interesting article in the Weekly Standard, preparing for the release of the new Daniel Goldhagen book excoriating the Church for its role in the Holocaust.

The article handily points out a detailed rebuttal by Ronald Rychlak of Goldhagen's lengthy essay on the same subject in The New Republic. Also worthwhile is Rabbi Daniel Dalin's essay defending Pius XII.

What struck me most about the Standard piece is was the argument that Goldhagen's work will give cover to the screeds of Cornwell, Carroll, Wills, et al because they will appear moderate by comparison. This is an excellent point, and reminds me of Karl Keating's comment about the notorious fundamentalist pamphleteer, Jack Chick. Keating said that the real danger posed by Chick was not his laughably lurid Catholic-bashing propaganda. Rather, it was that it allowed other more sophisticated Catholic-haters to disavow Chick and claim the high ground. After all, it doesn't take much to look more dispassionate and objective than Chick--just more frequent breathing into a paper bag. Hence, the Jack Chick Effect. I can think of two examples of this being done by anti-Catholic internet-types, two individuals I simply refer to as the Pharisee and the Jester. [What, you think I'm going to give links?]

Indeed, there is a connection between the anti-Catholic Catholics like Cornwell and Company and the professional anti-Catholics like the Pharisee and the Jester. Indeed, the latter greatly enjoy the works of the former. I recall the Garry Wills Papal Sin book getting high praise from one of them, even though the review was very cursory (making me doubt the reviewer read the whole thing), omitting mention of sections which were uncongenial (or worse) to the reviewer's beliefs.

Now all these works are about to get another inadvertent boost from Goldhagen, thanks to the Jack Chick Effect. A regrettable development, indeed. Just don't be surprised if Goldhagen, too, gets respectful citations from the usual suspects. What's a little hyperbole and a bunch of errors among Catholic bashers?

The "Detroit 4", Four Days After.

Still no response from the Detroit Archdiocese to the Frs. Scissorhands.

I sincerely hope it's because a thorough and devastating response is in the works, and the local church doesn't want to rush it. I fear it is otherwise.

Compare and Contrast: Duties and Priorities.

In four parts [all emphasis in bold is mine].

1. From Living the Gospel of Life (1998):
"As bishops, we have the responsibility to call Americans to conversion, including political leaders, and especially those publicly identified as Catholic. As the Holy Father reminds us in The Splendor of the Truth (Veritatis Splendor): ". . . [It] is part of our pastoral ministry to see to it that [the Church's] moral teaching is faithfully handed down, and to have recourse to appropriate measures to ensure that the faithful are guarded from every doctrine and theory contrary to it." As chief teachers in the Church, we must therefore explain, persuade, correct and admonish those in leadership positions who contradict the Gospel of life through their actions and policies. Catholic public officials who disregard Church teaching on the inviolability of the human person indirectly collude in the taking of innocent life. A private call to conversion should always be the first step in dealing with these leaders. Through prayer, through patiently speaking the truth in love, and by the witness of our lives, we must strive always to open their hearts to the God-given dignity of the unborn and of all vulnerable persons. So also we must remind these leaders of their duty to exercise genuine moral leadership in society. They do this not by unthinking adherence to public opinion polls or by repeating empty pro-choice slogans, but by educating and sensitizing themselves and their constituents to the humanity of the unborn child. At the same time we need to redouble our efforts to evangelize and catechize our people on the dignity of life and the wrongness of abortion. Nonetheless, some Catholic officials may exclude themselves from the truth by refusing to open their minds to the Church's witness. In all cases, bishops have the duty and pastoral responsibility to continue to challenge those officials on the issue in question and persistently call them to a change of heart. As bishops we reflect particularly on the words of the Office of Readings:

Let us be neither dogs that do not bark nor silent onlookers nor paid servants who run away before the wolf. Instead, let us be careful shepherds watching over Christ's flock. Let us preach the whole of God's plan to the powerful and the humble, to rich and to poor, to men of every rank and age, as far as God gives us the strength, in season and out of season, as St. Gregory writes in his book of Pastoral Instruction."

2. From the Detroit Free Press, October 7, 2002 [emph. added]:

"He [Adam Cardinal Maida] has met Granholm, the state's attorney general and the Democratic candidate for governor, on a number of occasions during the last several years. Maida said that he found her 'a caring and loving person who tries to be as faithful as she can in her life.'

But they haven't spoken about the abortion issue, he said.

* * *

Granholm said Friday she is in sync with the vast majority of issues important to Catholics, even though she believes abortion is a matter of individual choice.

'A large majority of Catholics believe as I do,' she said Friday. 'This is a matter for a woman to decide in consultation with her spouse and her doctor.'"

3. And this is abortion, as depicted in Justice Kennedy's dissent in Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914 (2000), the ruling that struck down Nebraska's ban on partial-birth abortion:

"As described by Dr. Carhart, the D&E procedure requires the abortionist to use instruments to grasp a portion (such as a foot or hand) of a developed and living fetus and drag the grasped portion out of the uterus into the vagina. Id., at 61. Dr. Carhart uses the traction created by the opening between the uterus and vagina to dismember the fetus, tearing the grasped portion away from the remainder of the body. Ibid. The traction between the uterus and vagina is essential to the procedure because attempting to abort a fetus without using that traction is described by Dr. Carhart as "pulling the cat's tail" or "drag[ging] a string across the floor, you'll just keep dragging it. It's not until something grabs the other end that you are going to develop traction." Id., at 62. The fetus, in many cases, dies just as a human adult or child would: It bleeds to death as it is torn from limb from limb. Id., at 63. The fetus can be alive at the beginning of the dismemberment process and can survive for a time while its limbs are being torn off. Dr. Carhart agreed that "[w]hen you pull out a piece of the fetus, let's say, an arm or a leg and remove that, at the time just prior to removal of the portion of the fetus, ... the fetus [is] alive." Id., at 62. Dr. Carhart has observed fetal heartbeat via ultrasound with "extensive parts of the fetus removed," id., at 64, and testified that mere dismemberment of a limb does not always cause death because he knows of a physician who removed the arm of a fetus only to have the fetus go on to be born "as a living child with one arm." Id., at 63. At the conclusion of a D&E abortion no intact fetus remains. In Dr. Carhart's words, the abortionist is left with "a tray full of pieces." Id., at 125. [Please note that this procedure was NOT outlawed by the Nebraska ban. It remained, and remains, perfectly legal. Pray for Dr. Carhart that he, like Dr. Bernard Nathanson, will see the horror of his ways and repent.]

The other procedure implicated today is called "partial-birth abortion" or the D&X. The D&X can be used, as a general matter, after 19 weeks gestation because the fetus has become so developed that it may survive intact partial delivery from the uterus into the vagina. Id., at 61. In the D&X, the abortionist initiates the woman's natural delivery process by causing the cervix of the woman to be dilated, sometimes over a sequence of days. Id., at 492. The fetus' arms and legs are delivered outside the uterus while the fetus is alive; witnesses to the procedure report seeing the body of the fetus moving outside the woman's body. Brief for Petitioners 4. At this point, the abortion procedure has the appearance of a live birth. As stated by one group of physicians, "[a]s the physician manually performs breech extraction of the body of a live fetus, excepting the head, she continues in the apparent role of an obstetrician delivering a child." Brief for Association of American Physicians and Surgeons et al. as Amici Curiae 27. With only the head of the fetus remaining in utero, the abortionist tears open the skull. According to Dr. Martin Haskell, a leading proponent of the procedure, the appropriate instrument to be used at this stage of the abortion is a pair of scissors. M. Haskell, Dilation and Extraction for Late Second Trimester Abortion (1992), in 139 Cong. Rec. 8605 (1993). Witnesses report observing the portion of the fetus outside the woman react to the skull penetration. Brief for Petitioners 4. The abortionist then inserts a suction tube and vacuums out the developing brain and other matter found within the skull. The process of making the size of the fetus' head smaller is given the clinically neutral term "reduction procedure." 11 F. Supp. 2d 1099, 1106 (Neb. 1998). Brain death does not occur until after the skull invasion, and, according to Dr. Carhart, the heart of the fetus may continue to beat for minutes after the contents of the skull are vacuumed out. App. 58. The abortionist next completes the delivery of a dead fetus, intact except for the damage to the head and the missing contents of the skull."

4. Granholm is a supporter of partial-birth abortion ("[W]itnesses to the procedure report seeing the body of the fetus moving outside the woman's body").

Cardinal Maida, you might want to have that abortion talk with Ms. Granholm soon. I don't think she understands "the humanity of the unborn child" yet. Plus, the election's in three weeks.