Many of us hope and pray that someday -- perhaps not many years hence -- the United States Supreme Court will overturn its execrable Roe v. Wade, and with it, Doe v. Bolton and the whole body of "law" that came as a result.
This is why so many voted for George W. Bush, despite many other flaws in the man -- including not being 100% prolife (he supports allowing abortionists to kill unborn children when their fathers were rapists or a close relative).
The reality is, the odds are not good that the Court will overturn Roe.
"Wait a minute -- how can you say that? We got Roberts, we have Alito on the way -- all we need is one more vote!"
Well, there are a lot of assumptions in that statement, and assumptions are not facts.
The fact is, we all hope Chief Justice Roberts will vote to overturn Roe -- and Alito with him, if confirmed. And, we have some reason to hope for that. But it is far from certain.
Let's focus on facts, shall we?
What do we have that supports the hope that Roberts will vote right? We have glints -- he's a practicing Catholic, attending the "right" parish, his wife was active in a prolife organization, he worked for the Reagan Administration, and in that capacity, wrote briefs that were promising, and his overall judicial philosophy would seem to point in that direction.
But really, we have only inferences. They are promising, but that's it.
Meanwhile, we do have facts -- real facts -- that count the other way:
Roberts said, over and over, he'd set aside his own, personal views; he said his political advocacy was a different time and circumstance; he said he was just that: an advocate; and his own views are just that: his own. We know that while he mostly behaved as a conservative in his Reagan-era and law-firm work, he occasionally helped the other side. And, we know -- we heard him say this -- that he felt bound to respect precedent. No, that doesn't preclude him overturning Roe, but it at least raises the possibility that he would! (Put it this way: suppose he ends up upholding Roe: will you be able to say he misled us? NO.)
I must also point out that Roberts said nice things about the "right of privacy," and even about the cases originating the very problematic formulation of the same.
He even said that he would be willing to uphold a precedent, even if he believed the original decision was wrongly decided.
Consider whose protege he is: Rehnquist. Rehnquist did, indeed, vote to overturn Roe. But he also voted to uphold Miranda, a decision he vigorously opposed earlier on. It had become, I believe his reasoning was, too ingrained.
Does any of this "prove" how Roberts will vote? Certainly not. My point is, you can't rule it out. You can't seriously argue there isn't basis for some chance Roberts votes the other way.
So, let's express it in terms of odds. Are the odds 100% Roberts strikes down Roe? Clearly not. How high are the odds? Given that we have nothing concrete that he would (unlike Jones, or even Alito), I put him at 70%.
Now, let's consider Alito.
We have more reason to be hopeful here. He actually has ruled on the subject, and in one case, taken a more "prolife" position. His mother says, "of course he's prolife"; again, he's a Catholic; however, he splits his time between a "good" parish and allegedly a "not so good" parish. We have documents where he seems to advocate overturning Roe, identifying himself in that camp.
On the other hand...he is disclaiming those statements, to the dismay of some; he says, again, his personal views will be left out; he, too, seems to indicate some "respect" for the "privacy right," although he may yet say welcome things in his hearings. Jurisprudentially, he's supposed to be just like Scalia, but that's suggestive, not proof.
Finally, he has voted in several cases to uphold pro-abortion precedent. This doesn't mean he's a bad person; but it remains part of the record. It may be discountable; but it also could actually prove a forecast -- you can't rule it out.
About both these men and their "don't worry about me" statements thus far. We're often told to discount that, because "that's what they have to say -- it doesn't mean anything."
Well, aren't they supposed to be honorable men? I consider myself an honorable man: and were I meeting with Senators and addressing myself to the public, I wouldn't feel very honorable considering my own words, my own reassurances, meaningless as I said them. I would feel some duty to do as I said I would do. And I take such comments -- if they mean them -- as an indication that Roberts and Alito would at least have some reluctance to overturn any precedent, Roe included.
So, given some additional positive signs about Alito, I'd put him at 80%.
Now, as it stands, that only gives four votes to strike down Roe -- we must have a fifth.
(Here we get lots of wishful thinking: "maybe Anthony Kennedy will see the light" or "be influenced by the new justices"; maybe Bush will name someone really tough on the third go-round: Jones or Brown! "Maybe" is a laughably weak argument. Maybe I'll be mistaken for Brad Pitt this evening, when I make the rounds at some meetings. Wouldn't bet on it, however.)
Let's be realistic. First, we don't know that Bush will get a third pick. He may; but no basis for assuming it.
If he does, there really is no basis for expecting anyone more "hard core" than Alito. After all, he didn't want to name Alito; he wanted Meirs; in short, he wanted someone, like Roberts, for whom there was no clear evidence of being anti-Roe. He named Alito because circumstances, and his own weakness, forced him to do so. Unless such circumstances reoccur (and assuming the next pick comes with the GOP being as strong in the Senate, which it may not be), it seems to me far more likely he'll revert to form.
And you can't rule out that he'll name someone worse. After all, we really don't know how Meirs would have been; the more we learned, the more troubling she looked. If Roberts was a 70%, Alito an 80%, Meirs looked no better than a 50%, given her seemingly pro-abortion speech that came out. Given Bush continually threatening to nominate Gonzales, and the presence on his lists of other folks who give little hope of being votes against Roe, you have to be a Pollyanna to rule out a genuinely bad nominee. You're asserting he'll be 3-for-3, which even Reagan was not. Even giving Reagan a pass for Kennedy, he was 2-for-3.
So, let's be positive, and assume Bush names someone as good as Roberts. That's another 70-percenter.
Now, let's put it all together:
70% x 80% x 70% equals what? 39.2%!
Okay, let's say I'm being too cautious. Let's make Roberts 80%, Alito 90%; but then I'm going to hold back on Unknown Nominee #3, and keep him or her at 70%. That brings us to: 50.4% (slightly better than a flip of a coin).
Okay, let's be generous: Roberts is 80%, Alito 90%, mystery nominee is inbetween, 85% -- that yields overall probability of 63.2%, which sounds a lot better, but note the assumptions we made to get here -- principally, we're assuming all three, roughly as good.
One fact is unassailable: Bush has made three nominees to the Supreme Court; one is promising, but about whom we have no solid, positive evidence (Roberts); one is more promising, but still not certain (Alito); and one was a true mystery, about whom we became truly alarmed just before she was withdrawn. If you peg both Roberts and Alito at 90% (how can you put them higher?), factor in Miers as someone Bush did nominate, at 50%, that puts us back at 40%.
Bottom line: we can hope; but based on what we know, the odds are long that we'll see Roe overturned by Bush nominees.
P.S. Perhaps you think my reasoning is too negative. "What does it take to be rated 100%"? The point is, no one can be 100%!
For any nominee to be 100% certain to vote to overturn Roe, the matter has to be predetermined! Even if the individual him- or herself predetermined it, that would still not justify calling it absolutely certain. However slim the chances, in such a circumstance, that the justice would vote other than his own determination, you have to allow for the possibility -- so the most you could assert would be a 99% chance; and that is the very absolute best-case scenario, in a world in which the future is not predetermined.
So you work backward from 99%. What if we were discussing Edith Jones, who has made it clear what she thinks of "privacy" law and of Roe. Even Jones, speaking candidly, would, I feel sure, say that she couldn't and wouldn't rule out upholding Roe. High probability, but not certain. Where would you put her? I'd say 95%; there has to be at least some chance the legal case, then presented, would indicate a result other than what we expect and hope for.
That's Edith Jones; not Alito; not Roberts. In the latter two cases, you have to acknowledge, I believe, some very real indicators, real evidence, telling against an anti-Roe decision.
Fact is, if anything, I may be overoptimistic about even these two relatively known quantities. Recall a fair number of folks analyzing Roberts history, statements, etc., and predicting flat-out he wouldn't overturn Roe.
Monday, December 05, 2005
Sunday, December 04, 2005
How would you like this across the street from you?
Be sure to click on one of the video links. In my opinion, the first one is better.
(Hattip to Domenico Bettinelli.)
(Hattip to Domenico Bettinelli.)
Scary Baby Jesus
Why is the Infant Lord angry? Find out here. (Hint: be sure to run the cursor over il Bambino's face.)
(Hattip to the Shrine of the Holy Whapping, which linked to Going Jesus.)
(Hattip to the Shrine of the Holy Whapping, which linked to Going Jesus.)
Go to the desert (Sunday homily)
Go out into the desert, away from the city. Away from the shopping mall. Away from TV and the Internet. As you get farther away, you find your cell phone loses its signal.
Now, its quiet and empty. There’s nobody around. What do you do?
When the TV and the Internet aren’t blaring at you; when your family, your boss, your teacher, your coworkers, your friends, aren’t talking to you; and you don’t have anyone to talk to…
Whom do you talk to?
John the Baptist went out into the desert because he was hungry and thirsty—not for the noise and the stuff of the city—but for God. John found God in the desert—and so will you.
You and I find God when we’re hungry and thirsty. St. Augustine once said, God has gifts to give us, but our hands are full—we can’t receive them. Sometimes we need them to be empty, so we can receive his gifts.
Sometimes we need to be hungry and thirsty. This is the wisdom of the Church’s ancient tradition of fasting and self-denial—during Lent, on Fridays, giving up meat—no, it’s not mandatory any longer, but the Church still recommends doing without meat as a form of penance, which we are obliged to do, every Friday, to recall what Jesus did for us.
This is why we fast from all food—even gum and mints!—for an hour before receiving the Eucharist (which means about when we leave home, so it’s not that hard). But if we are a little hungry when we come to receive the Eucharist, that’s our bodies teaching our souls.
The desert means realizing how small we really are—we sometimes fool ourselves and think we’re in control, but we’re not—and how big the world around us really is; and that God is even bigger. The desert teaches us to admit we need to rely on him.
But we get busy and focus on the ordinary things of life, and—we don’t mean to do it, but God can get pushed to the periphery. But if we get in the habit of thinking we can do it without relying on him, we live a shadow-life.
We’re like a radio: well made, all the parts fit together, and work—but if not turned on, what’s its purpose? Only when we’re turned on, and tuned in to God, will we make beautiful music that will fill the room and touch others.
So—how do you and I “go to the desert”?
Go on retreat. If you haven’t ever gone on retreat, or its been awhile, go! An annual retreat may be hard to do, hard to schedule, but it helps us deepen our life. A couple of months ago, I went on retreat with some men of the parish, for a weekend. It was hard for me to fit it in; it was hard for them. But we have to make it happen.
If you’ve never gone on retreat, and you don’t know what to do, give me a call, I’ll help you! Don’t worry—nothing bad will happen to you! A silent retreat can be a daunting thing; it can feel odd sitting across from someone at a lunch table, and not talking. But in that silence, there’s a lot of conversation with God.
You and I can go to the desert every day in prayer. We have lots of priorities in our lives. If you’re married, your spouse certainly should be a priority. Your children, certainly, deserve your time and attention. Work, school; they all demand our attention, rightly so. It’s hard. It happens to me. I spend a lot of time in the office, every week. Doing paperwork isn’t one of my favorite things; but our staff is glad I show up to sign paychecks! Aren’t you glad I paid the gas bill this month. These things are important, but they aren’t why I became a priest.
We need time every day to be alone with God—alone means being alone! The good news is, we get all the benefit! God needs nothing from us; God gives himself to us in that prayer.
You and I go to the desert when we go to the sacrament of reconciliation. In the confessional is a fountain of grace, and we can drink from it all we want, and it’s free! Always available! We have confessions on Wednesday evenings down in the chapel, on Saturday mornings, and always by appointment. Call me, call Father Ang, we’ll be happy to meet with you. (Although at 3 AM, I may not be quite so happy!)
Sometimes people say, “I only go when I commit a really big sin.” That’s like saying, I only take a shower when I’m really dirty—how about a shower every few months—how does that sound? Instead, go often, and grow deeper in the Lord.
You and I go to the desert in our acts of penance and self-denial.
One way we can go to the desert—and this is hard for me!—is by silencing our tongue. Saying less means we hear more.
And we can go to the desert anytime we want by meeting Jesus in our chapel. Our Lord is always available, waiting for us: 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year! We never close! And an extra day in leap years!
John went to the desert and he found his calling, what God had for him. He found a deeper, richer life. That’s why he ate locusts—the ordinary things didn’t matter to him. He hungered for more.
And people saw that! And they wanted what he had.
Think about it. Here’s this crackpot—and you know that’s what they said! Here’s this fellow, eating locusts—that’s pretty odd! Wearing camel’s hair—that’s odd! But the Gospel said, “all the inhabitants of Jerusalem” came out to see him! Imagine some fellow outside New York City doing something like this—and all eight million folks come out from the city to see him?
Maybe they came out just to see; but it says they repented of their sins. They were changed!
They came out to have what he had—and they will do the same for you and me!
People will notice. They watch, they want to see if we’re genuine. But if they see that we are, that we’re really committed, they’ll come to us as they did to John the Baptist.
You and I live in the best-fed society in human history, yet people are hungry for the truth—starving!—for what has meaning, for what will last!
And you and I have it! If they see it in us, they will want it.
Come to the desert.
(Note: for this homily, I didn't have a text, but rather, notes, on which I expanded. This is approximately what I preached.)
Now, its quiet and empty. There’s nobody around. What do you do?
When the TV and the Internet aren’t blaring at you; when your family, your boss, your teacher, your coworkers, your friends, aren’t talking to you; and you don’t have anyone to talk to…
Whom do you talk to?
John the Baptist went out into the desert because he was hungry and thirsty—not for the noise and the stuff of the city—but for God. John found God in the desert—and so will you.
You and I find God when we’re hungry and thirsty. St. Augustine once said, God has gifts to give us, but our hands are full—we can’t receive them. Sometimes we need them to be empty, so we can receive his gifts.
Sometimes we need to be hungry and thirsty. This is the wisdom of the Church’s ancient tradition of fasting and self-denial—during Lent, on Fridays, giving up meat—no, it’s not mandatory any longer, but the Church still recommends doing without meat as a form of penance, which we are obliged to do, every Friday, to recall what Jesus did for us.
This is why we fast from all food—even gum and mints!—for an hour before receiving the Eucharist (which means about when we leave home, so it’s not that hard). But if we are a little hungry when we come to receive the Eucharist, that’s our bodies teaching our souls.
The desert means realizing how small we really are—we sometimes fool ourselves and think we’re in control, but we’re not—and how big the world around us really is; and that God is even bigger. The desert teaches us to admit we need to rely on him.
But we get busy and focus on the ordinary things of life, and—we don’t mean to do it, but God can get pushed to the periphery. But if we get in the habit of thinking we can do it without relying on him, we live a shadow-life.
We’re like a radio: well made, all the parts fit together, and work—but if not turned on, what’s its purpose? Only when we’re turned on, and tuned in to God, will we make beautiful music that will fill the room and touch others.
So—how do you and I “go to the desert”?
Go on retreat. If you haven’t ever gone on retreat, or its been awhile, go! An annual retreat may be hard to do, hard to schedule, but it helps us deepen our life. A couple of months ago, I went on retreat with some men of the parish, for a weekend. It was hard for me to fit it in; it was hard for them. But we have to make it happen.
If you’ve never gone on retreat, and you don’t know what to do, give me a call, I’ll help you! Don’t worry—nothing bad will happen to you! A silent retreat can be a daunting thing; it can feel odd sitting across from someone at a lunch table, and not talking. But in that silence, there’s a lot of conversation with God.
You and I can go to the desert every day in prayer. We have lots of priorities in our lives. If you’re married, your spouse certainly should be a priority. Your children, certainly, deserve your time and attention. Work, school; they all demand our attention, rightly so. It’s hard. It happens to me. I spend a lot of time in the office, every week. Doing paperwork isn’t one of my favorite things; but our staff is glad I show up to sign paychecks! Aren’t you glad I paid the gas bill this month. These things are important, but they aren’t why I became a priest.
We need time every day to be alone with God—alone means being alone! The good news is, we get all the benefit! God needs nothing from us; God gives himself to us in that prayer.
You and I go to the desert when we go to the sacrament of reconciliation. In the confessional is a fountain of grace, and we can drink from it all we want, and it’s free! Always available! We have confessions on Wednesday evenings down in the chapel, on Saturday mornings, and always by appointment. Call me, call Father Ang, we’ll be happy to meet with you. (Although at 3 AM, I may not be quite so happy!)
Sometimes people say, “I only go when I commit a really big sin.” That’s like saying, I only take a shower when I’m really dirty—how about a shower every few months—how does that sound? Instead, go often, and grow deeper in the Lord.
You and I go to the desert in our acts of penance and self-denial.
One way we can go to the desert—and this is hard for me!—is by silencing our tongue. Saying less means we hear more.
And we can go to the desert anytime we want by meeting Jesus in our chapel. Our Lord is always available, waiting for us: 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year! We never close! And an extra day in leap years!
John went to the desert and he found his calling, what God had for him. He found a deeper, richer life. That’s why he ate locusts—the ordinary things didn’t matter to him. He hungered for more.
And people saw that! And they wanted what he had.
Think about it. Here’s this crackpot—and you know that’s what they said! Here’s this fellow, eating locusts—that’s pretty odd! Wearing camel’s hair—that’s odd! But the Gospel said, “all the inhabitants of Jerusalem” came out to see him! Imagine some fellow outside New York City doing something like this—and all eight million folks come out from the city to see him?
Maybe they came out just to see; but it says they repented of their sins. They were changed!
They came out to have what he had—and they will do the same for you and me!
People will notice. They watch, they want to see if we’re genuine. But if they see that we are, that we’re really committed, they’ll come to us as they did to John the Baptist.
You and I live in the best-fed society in human history, yet people are hungry for the truth—starving!—for what has meaning, for what will last!
And you and I have it! If they see it in us, they will want it.
Come to the desert.
(Note: for this homily, I didn't have a text, but rather, notes, on which I expanded. This is approximately what I preached.)
Thursday, December 01, 2005
Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy
I'm blogging from a conference with old, political friends from my days in D.C., and making friends with new folks.
Because I don't want Hilary Clinton to discover the actual membership of The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy, I prefer not disclose my location.
Back to the parish on Saturday.
Because I don't want Hilary Clinton to discover the actual membership of The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy, I prefer not disclose my location.
Back to the parish on Saturday.
Monday, November 28, 2005
Harry Potter & the Goblet of Fire
I saw the new Harry Potter movie today. Liked it. It may be the best of the series.
I have to say, this may be the best series of movies -- ever! I mean this: think of movies with sequels/prequels; they tend to be uneven. Think of the Star Wars series, or Indiana Jones, or the Godfather. The Lord of the Rings trilogy would win "best series," except it was three movies; this is four and counting. All goes to show the fluidity of a word like "best."
I won't be spoiling it for anyone to note the quasi-religious qualities of the movie. The gothic architecture, the graveyard sans crosses or angels or Madonnas, the non-chapel chapel, the candlelight, the ritual, and so forth. It's very striking to note a world in which Christianity is but a faint shadow. It certainly fits the England in which it is set, from what we hear. It reminds me of the term Flannery O'Connor used to use, of her beloved Southland: "Christ-haunted."
I don't say this to attack J.K. Rowling; as I haven't read any of her books, for all I know, the books reflect more explicit Christianity, which the moviemakers edit out. For that matter, she writes her novels as she wishes, not as I might wish.
As it is, she always gives a strong endorsement for character and virtue. She usually puts some striking wisdom on the lips of Dumbledore, and this one was no exception: "Dark days lie ahead, Harry -- and we will soon find ourselves forced to choose between what is easy, and what is right."
I seem to recall some criticism of her works, along the lines of claiming that her heroes and heroines did things the villains did -- as if to say, one couldn't tell them apart. Again--I haven't read the books, but, from the movies, I find that odd.
I have to say, this may be the best series of movies -- ever! I mean this: think of movies with sequels/prequels; they tend to be uneven. Think of the Star Wars series, or Indiana Jones, or the Godfather. The Lord of the Rings trilogy would win "best series," except it was three movies; this is four and counting. All goes to show the fluidity of a word like "best."
I won't be spoiling it for anyone to note the quasi-religious qualities of the movie. The gothic architecture, the graveyard sans crosses or angels or Madonnas, the non-chapel chapel, the candlelight, the ritual, and so forth. It's very striking to note a world in which Christianity is but a faint shadow. It certainly fits the England in which it is set, from what we hear. It reminds me of the term Flannery O'Connor used to use, of her beloved Southland: "Christ-haunted."
I don't say this to attack J.K. Rowling; as I haven't read any of her books, for all I know, the books reflect more explicit Christianity, which the moviemakers edit out. For that matter, she writes her novels as she wishes, not as I might wish.
As it is, she always gives a strong endorsement for character and virtue. She usually puts some striking wisdom on the lips of Dumbledore, and this one was no exception: "Dark days lie ahead, Harry -- and we will soon find ourselves forced to choose between what is easy, and what is right."
I seem to recall some criticism of her works, along the lines of claiming that her heroes and heroines did things the villains did -- as if to say, one couldn't tell them apart. Again--I haven't read the books, but, from the movies, I find that odd.
Can anyone explain this?
There's one sentence in this overall, strange story, that really jumps out. Rather than highlight it, let's see if it has the same effect on you as it did me.
From the Sunday Times -- Britain -- November 27, 2005:
MoD probe into naked marines’ initiation fight
By David Sanderson
AN INVESTIGATION has been launched by the Ministry of Defence after the publication of a video apparently showing a violent initiation ceremony for Royal Marine recruits.
In the film, naked marines are shown reportedly cheering as two new recruits are ordered to fight each other. The incident is said to have taken place last May at Bickleigh barracks near Plymouth, which is home to 42 Commando.
A spokesman for the ministry said: “Bullying and harassment are not widespread within the armed forces. Behaviour of this kind will not be tolerated.”
According to one commando reportedly in attendance, the man orchestrating the fight had taken 12 recruits fresh from a 32-week training course to a barbecue with about 40 other marines. Having forced them to swallow raw eggs and chunks of lard he allegedly ordered the recruits to strip naked and run around the field.
After changing into a surgeon’s outfit with mask and cap, he and another marine, dressed in a St Trinian’s schoolgirl uniform with wig and short skirt, supervised the fight. Naked marines are seen watching as the two men hit each other with large mats fixed to their arms. It is understood the most senior soldiers present were a corporal and a lance corporal.
(Credit due to Discussion about 09/11/2001, Politics and Other Explorations)
From the Sunday Times -- Britain -- November 27, 2005:
MoD probe into naked marines’ initiation fight
By David Sanderson
AN INVESTIGATION has been launched by the Ministry of Defence after the publication of a video apparently showing a violent initiation ceremony for Royal Marine recruits.
In the film, naked marines are shown reportedly cheering as two new recruits are ordered to fight each other. The incident is said to have taken place last May at Bickleigh barracks near Plymouth, which is home to 42 Commando.
A spokesman for the ministry said: “Bullying and harassment are not widespread within the armed forces. Behaviour of this kind will not be tolerated.”
According to one commando reportedly in attendance, the man orchestrating the fight had taken 12 recruits fresh from a 32-week training course to a barbecue with about 40 other marines. Having forced them to swallow raw eggs and chunks of lard he allegedly ordered the recruits to strip naked and run around the field.
After changing into a surgeon’s outfit with mask and cap, he and another marine, dressed in a St Trinian’s schoolgirl uniform with wig and short skirt, supervised the fight. Naked marines are seen watching as the two men hit each other with large mats fixed to their arms. It is understood the most senior soldiers present were a corporal and a lance corporal.
(Credit due to Discussion about 09/11/2001, Politics and Other Explorations)
Sunday, November 27, 2005
'Lord, make us turn to you' (Sunday homily)
Jesus is coming.
He came on Christmas, 20 centuries ago. He will come at the end of time. We just heard him say that. And so he says, “Watch!”
In between his coming as a child, and his final coming as Judge, he comes as a Savior and Redeemer; he comes as a Shepherd of his Flock.
Jesus comes to us constantly in our lives. He’s here now—always!
If we wonder where Jesus is, ask him to help you see.
Perhaps we want what the first reading asked for: “Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down,with the mountains quaking before you”—then we’d believe!
then we’d get our act together!
Then perhaps politicians would stop wasting tax money building their own petty kingdoms;perhaps then folks in Columbus would be concerned, not only about jobs in the big cities, but in places like Piqua, too? Then nations that sit on top of the pile would change their ways, their trade laws and trade barriers, so that poor nations of the world could prosper, too?
“Oh, that Christ would rend the heavens and come!”
Then, perhaps, our drowsing conscience would wake up: this society, the most well-off in history! And yet it has no room! No room for more life, more children, larger families; no room for unborn children who are inconvenient, who are disabled, who are imperfect.
Yet, paradoxically, we have room for a “fertility” industry, creating babies in laboratories; but no room for the “surplus embryos”—tiny human beings!—created to meet human needs, then, cast aside, unneeded: and these unborn, tiny human beings
are being destroyed—now!—as raw material for research. When you hear about “embryonic stem-cell research,” that’s what they’re talking about.
What you don’t hear is that there are alternate ways to do this very same research,
without destroying life.
Meanwhile, we do have room for an entertainment culture and businesses that sell products to us, as they congratulate our worst qualities, and mock our best values.
If you turn on the TV, or the Internet, how long before you see advertising from companies like Abercrombie, or a network like MTV; or prime-time shows, or soap operas; that despise decency; that ridicule morality?
There’s not even time to talk about some of the music that is degrading.
How do I say this? You know what Santa says: “Ho, ho, ho”? That means something very different and very ugly, when it comes to a lot of the music pitched to kids.
We have room for this massive, kid-targeting industry: bad enough these companies
pick our children’s pockets; but along the way, they steal their innocence, too.
They lie to our young people about their worth, and what their inner life is really all about.
“Oh, that Jesus would rend the heavens and come!”
No. The Lord is here already; and always.
Why does Our Lord delay his coming? Because he’s waiting for us!
What did we hear St. Paul say a moment ago? “Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ”! “…[I]n him you were enriched in every way,
with all discourse and all knowledge…so that you are not lacking in any spiritual gift as you wait for the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
“He will keep you firm to the end, irreproachable on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.”
The Prophet Isaiah said, Lord, help us do and be what is right! Have mercy! And St. Paul answers: He has! He’s here—in you!
Whatever help we might want God to send, to help us change ourselves, and our world—
It’s here already! Whatever the world needs, so it can see Jesus: it’s all here, already—in us!
The power and gifts we need are here. We call them Sacraments; we call them Grace: when Jesus baptizes us; when he confirms us; when he bathes us in his mercy
in the Sacrament of Confession; when he feeds us with his own Body and Blood!
When he empowers us in our vocation in life, when he stands with us in times of sickness and crisis.
Jesus is already, in our midst, in us! How much the world believes that depends on how much you and I believe it—and live accordingly.
You and I come to this sacred moment, the Mass, not by human will, but by Divine Appointment. He brought us here, because He is here. This is the moment—right now!—
to say to him:
“Lord, make us turn to you; let us see your face and we shall be saved.”
He came on Christmas, 20 centuries ago. He will come at the end of time. We just heard him say that. And so he says, “Watch!”
In between his coming as a child, and his final coming as Judge, he comes as a Savior and Redeemer; he comes as a Shepherd of his Flock.
Jesus comes to us constantly in our lives. He’s here now—always!
If we wonder where Jesus is, ask him to help you see.
Perhaps we want what the first reading asked for: “Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down,with the mountains quaking before you”—then we’d believe!
then we’d get our act together!
Then perhaps politicians would stop wasting tax money building their own petty kingdoms;perhaps then folks in Columbus would be concerned, not only about jobs in the big cities, but in places like Piqua, too? Then nations that sit on top of the pile would change their ways, their trade laws and trade barriers, so that poor nations of the world could prosper, too?
“Oh, that Christ would rend the heavens and come!”
Then, perhaps, our drowsing conscience would wake up: this society, the most well-off in history! And yet it has no room! No room for more life, more children, larger families; no room for unborn children who are inconvenient, who are disabled, who are imperfect.
Yet, paradoxically, we have room for a “fertility” industry, creating babies in laboratories; but no room for the “surplus embryos”—tiny human beings!—created to meet human needs, then, cast aside, unneeded: and these unborn, tiny human beings
are being destroyed—now!—as raw material for research. When you hear about “embryonic stem-cell research,” that’s what they’re talking about.
What you don’t hear is that there are alternate ways to do this very same research,
without destroying life.
Meanwhile, we do have room for an entertainment culture and businesses that sell products to us, as they congratulate our worst qualities, and mock our best values.
If you turn on the TV, or the Internet, how long before you see advertising from companies like Abercrombie, or a network like MTV; or prime-time shows, or soap operas; that despise decency; that ridicule morality?
There’s not even time to talk about some of the music that is degrading.
How do I say this? You know what Santa says: “Ho, ho, ho”? That means something very different and very ugly, when it comes to a lot of the music pitched to kids.
We have room for this massive, kid-targeting industry: bad enough these companies
pick our children’s pockets; but along the way, they steal their innocence, too.
They lie to our young people about their worth, and what their inner life is really all about.
“Oh, that Jesus would rend the heavens and come!”
No. The Lord is here already; and always.
Why does Our Lord delay his coming? Because he’s waiting for us!
What did we hear St. Paul say a moment ago? “Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ”! “…[I]n him you were enriched in every way,
with all discourse and all knowledge…so that you are not lacking in any spiritual gift as you wait for the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
“He will keep you firm to the end, irreproachable on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.”
The Prophet Isaiah said, Lord, help us do and be what is right! Have mercy! And St. Paul answers: He has! He’s here—in you!
Whatever help we might want God to send, to help us change ourselves, and our world—
It’s here already! Whatever the world needs, so it can see Jesus: it’s all here, already—in us!
The power and gifts we need are here. We call them Sacraments; we call them Grace: when Jesus baptizes us; when he confirms us; when he bathes us in his mercy
in the Sacrament of Confession; when he feeds us with his own Body and Blood!
When he empowers us in our vocation in life, when he stands with us in times of sickness and crisis.
Jesus is already, in our midst, in us! How much the world believes that depends on how much you and I believe it—and live accordingly.
You and I come to this sacred moment, the Mass, not by human will, but by Divine Appointment. He brought us here, because He is here. This is the moment—right now!—
to say to him:
“Lord, make us turn to you; let us see your face and we shall be saved.”
Saturday, November 26, 2005
Veni, Domine!
The time of coming is upon us again; the time to be aware just how near our immanent-yet-supra-Cosmic Lord and Savior is, truly and always. This is the time to realize that the Eschaton is less than a hairsbreadth away. "Come, Lord Jesus, and do not delay," we pray in First Vespers--and while we are tempted to think of Christmas, the focus more is on his ultimate coming: at the end of time (which can be at any moment), or at the end of our lives -- again, at any time.
But we are called, likewise, to consider that the Eschaton -- that is, ultimate reality -- is always immanently here, although we remain unaware. The Eucharist is the "portal": the appearances of bread and wine are the barest film of temporal reality separating us from complete Reality, where the Trinity is encountered, and the Incarnate One reigns in his proper glory.
My thoughts turn to this, as I observe the Holy Father celebrate First Vespers, from St. Peter's Basilica (taped from earlier).
My prayer for my parishioners, and for you, is that Advent will be a time to nourish longing in your heart for the One who is to come.
(For those who pay attention to such things, I invite you to notice the picture of the pope above: his vestment does not seem to conform to the super-punctilious interpretations offered of "Advent purple v. Lent purple": it would seem to be the redder, Lenten purple, would it not?)
Wednesday, November 23, 2005
About that 'Gay Seminarian' Instruction
I was going to post some thoughts; then I read what Amy Wellborn wrote, and I don't have much to add. See it here.
Monday, November 21, 2005
'My top 10 greatest influences, outside of God & my family members'
Rich Leonardi "tagged" me. Ok, I'll play.
These are not in order:
1. C.S. Lewis: I began reading C.S. Lewis in my 20s, when I was a fired-up Pentecostal. It was, to quote Hugh Hefner (an unlikely person for me to quote, but fair is fair), like oxygen to a suffocating man. Not only did Lewis help cure me of my anti-Catholicism, and awaken me to the depths of Christianity beyond the power of a conversion experience -- and thus help lead me to the "checkmate" moment that brought me back to Holy Mother Church, but also, he contributed a good deal to my thinking and understanding of the Faith, on which I draw frequently to this day.
2. Pope John Paul: not literally the only pope I'd known, when he died, but pretty close. A constant inspiration to me, before I returned to the Faith, as a Catholic layman, as a seminarian, and as a priest. A mystical encounter with Christ.
3. St. Augustine: when I read The Confessions, I knew a kindred soul.
4. St. Thomas Aquinas: where St. Augustine spoke to my heart, St. Thomas spoke to my mind, and affirmed for me not only the power of Christianity, but to the brilliance of Catholic Christianity.
5. My former boss when I worked for the National Right to Work Committee. My friend to this day -- one I see and talk to too infrequently -- taught me many wise things about many things; I am drawing on that wisdom now as a pastor.
6. An associate with whom I still do political work: one of the most brilliant -- and enjoyable -- people I've ever known.
7. Bill W.: the founder of Alcoholics Anonymous. No, I'm not an alcoholic, but alcoholism touched my life through others. Someone observed -- I can't recall who -- that the Twelve Steps are the 20th century's great contribution to spirituality. I believe that.
8. The priest who invited me to consider the priesthood: in addition to helping me come to be a priest, he also helped me on a personal level.
9. William F. Buckley: I started reading National Review in college, and under his -- and President Ronald Reagan's -- influence, I went from being a ho-hum Republican to being a Conservative.
10. St. Martin de Porres: he is my patron saint, and I am convinced his prayers and influence have been great on my life, although I cannot prove it.
Next in line:
my guardian angel
Ronald Reagan
Ayn Rand
William Shakespeare
Frank Capra
James Brooks
J.R.R. Tolkien
Now, I guess I'm supposed to "tag" someone. OK: how about Fr. Jim Tucker at Dappled Things, and the Darwins at DarwinCatholic. If they don't read this, they're off the hook.
These are not in order:
1. C.S. Lewis: I began reading C.S. Lewis in my 20s, when I was a fired-up Pentecostal. It was, to quote Hugh Hefner (an unlikely person for me to quote, but fair is fair), like oxygen to a suffocating man. Not only did Lewis help cure me of my anti-Catholicism, and awaken me to the depths of Christianity beyond the power of a conversion experience -- and thus help lead me to the "checkmate" moment that brought me back to Holy Mother Church, but also, he contributed a good deal to my thinking and understanding of the Faith, on which I draw frequently to this day.
2. Pope John Paul: not literally the only pope I'd known, when he died, but pretty close. A constant inspiration to me, before I returned to the Faith, as a Catholic layman, as a seminarian, and as a priest. A mystical encounter with Christ.
3. St. Augustine: when I read The Confessions, I knew a kindred soul.
4. St. Thomas Aquinas: where St. Augustine spoke to my heart, St. Thomas spoke to my mind, and affirmed for me not only the power of Christianity, but to the brilliance of Catholic Christianity.
5. My former boss when I worked for the National Right to Work Committee. My friend to this day -- one I see and talk to too infrequently -- taught me many wise things about many things; I am drawing on that wisdom now as a pastor.
6. An associate with whom I still do political work: one of the most brilliant -- and enjoyable -- people I've ever known.
7. Bill W.: the founder of Alcoholics Anonymous. No, I'm not an alcoholic, but alcoholism touched my life through others. Someone observed -- I can't recall who -- that the Twelve Steps are the 20th century's great contribution to spirituality. I believe that.
8. The priest who invited me to consider the priesthood: in addition to helping me come to be a priest, he also helped me on a personal level.
9. William F. Buckley: I started reading National Review in college, and under his -- and President Ronald Reagan's -- influence, I went from being a ho-hum Republican to being a Conservative.
10. St. Martin de Porres: he is my patron saint, and I am convinced his prayers and influence have been great on my life, although I cannot prove it.
Next in line:
my guardian angel
Ronald Reagan
Ayn Rand
William Shakespeare
Frank Capra
James Brooks
J.R.R. Tolkien
Now, I guess I'm supposed to "tag" someone. OK: how about Fr. Jim Tucker at Dappled Things, and the Darwins at DarwinCatholic. If they don't read this, they're off the hook.
Sunday, November 20, 2005
Christ the King Homily
Who is this Jesus?
You come to church, turn on TV,
go to the Internet, a bookstore,
and everybody
has something to say about Jesus.
Only it’s pretty confusing.
Did he really live? Or was he made up?
I heard the Church invented it all.
Who is this Jesus?
Anyway, I can live my life without Jesus.
I work, and go to school,
and deal with my friends and family.
I don’t need people pushing Jesus in my face!
I can make my own choices.
What’s wrong with me,
the way I am? I’m fine!
Oh.
Well, yeah—there is that.
I don’t know why I keep doing that.
Oh God! I don’t want
anyone to know I did that!
OK, so there’s a part of us
that’s not so good.
This is how it is.
What are you going to do?
People do rotten stuff;
they go to war and kill;
poor people suffer and die.
That’s how it is;
what are you going to do?
Change the world?
I can’t even change me!
God—are you there?
What do you say to this?
Do you care?
What are you going to do?
If I think you’re talking to me,
how do I know that’s You—
not just me, talking to myself?
Is there any hope for us, God?
If only you’d come—here—among us.
We could see you—
touch you—know you’re real.
Does being human have any meaning—
or are we just a blip?
You did come? You became human?
Just like me?
Wow—that’s pretty cool!
Wait a minute, God—
I sin all the time;
please tell me you didn’t.
Please tell me that somebody
can live a human life
without all the ugliness!
OK...so you became human,
like me;
but you lived each day
choosing what’s right.
Yeah—I bet you did get a lot of flak.
That must have been pretty hard.
I can see how some
might actually hate you:
See you as a threat.
So—they really had to shut you up,
didn’t they?
You let them kill you—
I don’t know why you did that.
You’re God—how can they kill you?
Only—you were human—
so you really did die.
For real! Wow!
Why’d you do that, God?
To pay for our sins?
You could have done it lots of other ways—
why suffer? Why die?
“Because we do”?
Yeah—I remember
when my mom died of cancer.
That was pretty rough—
for her and for all of us.
But that’s true—
she did talk a lot about your Cross, then.
I guess I’ve had some of those moments, too;
nice to know you’ve been there!
So—everything that happens to us,
happened to you?
All the ugliness? All the hatred?
All the horrors?
And you chose that?!?
God—how did you survive that?
How did that not totally mess you up?
How could you not,
just, wipe us out, instead?
How can you love us that much?
So you came back—after dying?
You overcame death and evil—
it didn’t overwhelm You!
There is hope!
Your body came back to life, too?
You didn’t just leave
your body behind, after that?
Wait a minute, God—
are you telling me you’re still human?
You still have flesh-and-blood,
feelings, thoughts—
just like me?
You’re going to be human forever?
That’s really awesome!
You must really believe in us, God!
I heard you left after that, God—
after you rose from the dead,
you hung around awhile—
but then you left again.
Why’d you leave?
OK—you’re in heaven, running things;
but we need you here, too—
more than ever!
Oh yeah—that power of yours!
That’s here?
You gave it to us?
Your Power—your Holy Spirit—
is in your Church, your people?
That’s why the Church goes on, despite us!
That’s how the pope can speak for you?
That’s how all those people became saints!
Wait a minute: You’re plan…
is to turn us…into YOU?
I don’t really understand that, but—WOW!
Still…Jesus:
our world…people need a lot of help!
That’s my job?
We’re supposed to change the world?
Can I have some
of that power of yours, Jesus?
Oh—baptism, OK;
Yeah, I can go to confession—
like taking a shower!
When I got confirmed—
your Holy Spirit!
And you feed us
with your Body and Blood?
You give us power in our path in life:
I could get married
and you would create
new life through me!
or I could be a priest,
or a deacon, for your People—
and I’d help create life that way!
Now that I think about it,
you really are doing a lot in the world—
only we have to look for it—
listen for your voice.
Thank you Jesus—
I’m really glad I know
who you are, now.
You come to church, turn on TV,
go to the Internet, a bookstore,
and everybody
has something to say about Jesus.
Only it’s pretty confusing.
Did he really live? Or was he made up?
I heard the Church invented it all.
Who is this Jesus?
Anyway, I can live my life without Jesus.
I work, and go to school,
and deal with my friends and family.
I don’t need people pushing Jesus in my face!
I can make my own choices.
What’s wrong with me,
the way I am? I’m fine!
Oh.
Well, yeah—there is that.
I don’t know why I keep doing that.
Oh God! I don’t want
anyone to know I did that!
OK, so there’s a part of us
that’s not so good.
This is how it is.
What are you going to do?
People do rotten stuff;
they go to war and kill;
poor people suffer and die.
That’s how it is;
what are you going to do?
Change the world?
I can’t even change me!
God—are you there?
What do you say to this?
Do you care?
What are you going to do?
If I think you’re talking to me,
how do I know that’s You—
not just me, talking to myself?
Is there any hope for us, God?
If only you’d come—here—among us.
We could see you—
touch you—know you’re real.
Does being human have any meaning—
or are we just a blip?
You did come? You became human?
Just like me?
Wow—that’s pretty cool!
Wait a minute, God—
I sin all the time;
please tell me you didn’t.
Please tell me that somebody
can live a human life
without all the ugliness!
OK...so you became human,
like me;
but you lived each day
choosing what’s right.
Yeah—I bet you did get a lot of flak.
That must have been pretty hard.
I can see how some
might actually hate you:
See you as a threat.
So—they really had to shut you up,
didn’t they?
You let them kill you—
I don’t know why you did that.
You’re God—how can they kill you?
Only—you were human—
so you really did die.
For real! Wow!
Why’d you do that, God?
To pay for our sins?
You could have done it lots of other ways—
why suffer? Why die?
“Because we do”?
Yeah—I remember
when my mom died of cancer.
That was pretty rough—
for her and for all of us.
But that’s true—
she did talk a lot about your Cross, then.
I guess I’ve had some of those moments, too;
nice to know you’ve been there!
So—everything that happens to us,
happened to you?
All the ugliness? All the hatred?
All the horrors?
And you chose that?!?
God—how did you survive that?
How did that not totally mess you up?
How could you not,
just, wipe us out, instead?
How can you love us that much?
So you came back—after dying?
You overcame death and evil—
it didn’t overwhelm You!
There is hope!
Your body came back to life, too?
You didn’t just leave
your body behind, after that?
Wait a minute, God—
are you telling me you’re still human?
You still have flesh-and-blood,
feelings, thoughts—
just like me?
You’re going to be human forever?
That’s really awesome!
You must really believe in us, God!
I heard you left after that, God—
after you rose from the dead,
you hung around awhile—
but then you left again.
Why’d you leave?
OK—you’re in heaven, running things;
but we need you here, too—
more than ever!
Oh yeah—that power of yours!
That’s here?
You gave it to us?
Your Power—your Holy Spirit—
is in your Church, your people?
That’s why the Church goes on, despite us!
That’s how the pope can speak for you?
That’s how all those people became saints!
Wait a minute: You’re plan…
is to turn us…into YOU?
I don’t really understand that, but—WOW!
Still…Jesus:
our world…people need a lot of help!
That’s my job?
We’re supposed to change the world?
Can I have some
of that power of yours, Jesus?
Oh—baptism, OK;
Yeah, I can go to confession—
like taking a shower!
When I got confirmed—
your Holy Spirit!
And you feed us
with your Body and Blood?
You give us power in our path in life:
I could get married
and you would create
new life through me!
or I could be a priest,
or a deacon, for your People—
and I’d help create life that way!
Now that I think about it,
you really are doing a lot in the world—
only we have to look for it—
listen for your voice.
Thank you Jesus—
I’m really glad I know
who you are, now.
Friday, November 18, 2005
Who watches this moronic stuff?
I have been watching "Matrix Reloaded," which is mildly diverting entertainment. But then comes ads for "Sex and the City"--and the banality of it reminds me of another popular show, "Desperate Housewives."
Who watches this stuff?
Who watches this stuff?
Good enough for Keanu Reeves...
I have to admit, I don't look as good in my cassock as Keanu Reeves...too much beer and pizza and other "Thomistic appreciation of creation" . . .
Update: here's the poster, which a poster mentions in the comments. What do you think?
Abandoning Iraq Would be Immoral
Rep. John Murtha made news this week calling for the U.S. to pull out of Iraq. The Democrats are on an all-out offensive against President Bush regarding the war: they are accusing him of lying to them and the nation about the threat from Iraq prior to the war, and challenging his management of the war.I'm no military expert, but the war seems to be going significantly better than about a year ago. This time last year, it seemed only the Kurds were allied with us; now, it appears we have the Kurds, and the Shi'ites, and a growing number of Sunnis are turning against the terrorists. Last year, we hoped we could cultivate a constituency for a democratic, rights-based government; now, it appears all three major groups are entering into the political process. Last year, the administration said the enemy were nothing more than "Ba'athist dead-enders" and that seemed dubious; this year, that explanation is actually plausible.
With all that, I really don't know; but things do seem to be moving in a good direction now; yet members of Congress are now turning against the war. "Time to pull out!"
One of the more loathsome arguments for this is to point to the American war dead. That's not a moral argument, but a political one. Every lost American life is something to grieve; but no moreso than the loss of Iraqi lives.
The war, once begun, must be resolved the right way--bringing peace and justice to Iraq. This country launched this war--rightly or wrongly--and it is this country's moral obligation to stay committed until Iraq is stable and able to stand on its own. If that means more casualties for our armed forces, then that is the consequence of our national policy, and demanded by national honor.
In case anyone wants to make insinuations: I have never voted for President George W. Bush (I voted third-party); I did not agree with his decision to launch this war.
But we're at war now, and the people of Iraq are depending on us.
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
Why not fight for Oil?
While visiting National Review Online, I read a review of the current film Jarhead--and the cliche argument pops up: "We shouldn't fight a war for oil!"
To which I respond: why not?
Now, I'd rather not have war for any reason. But wars come. Why is it so awful to fight for oil?
Let us consider: what would happen if a head of state withheld a big chunk of the world's oil from the market? Answer? A lot of human suffering. A lot of awful things would happen.
In the old (American) West, water was often a scare resource, and people fought over control and/or access to it. Rationally -- in such a situation -- if people are going to fight over anything, fighting over having water makes a lot of sense. Put it another way: if someone stands between you and water, your choices are fight . . . or die.
Oil, like it or not, has a similar role to play in the world economy. If someone actually threatens the supply of oil, the choices are nearly the same: fight -- or die.
Now -- it happens to be rather unlikely that anyone, sitting on a lot of oil, would refuse to sell it. My point was that oil matters. A great deal.
Yet, following upon that last thought, let us recall the world situation in 1990. Saddam Hussein seized control of Kuwait, and was in a position -- if he chose -- to seize the Saudi oil fields. In a stroke, Saddam could have controlled something like 60% of the world's oil sources.
Yes, he would have sold his oil. We would have had oil to buy. But consider: what would the next chapter have been? If a U.S.-led coalition had not ejected Saddam from Kuwait, and he did invade Saudi Arabia, would that coalition have ejected him from there? Or acquisced? How do you suppose this plays out? Do you get a good feeling contemplating that alternate history? (He was pursuing biological and nuclear weapons; and he used chemical weapons freely.)
None of us knows what that alternate reality would be. But is it really so unreasonable for us to think it would have been significantly worse than what did happen? If the thought of that alternate reality chills you, then why is fighting to prevent that so unthinkable?
To which I respond: why not?
Now, I'd rather not have war for any reason. But wars come. Why is it so awful to fight for oil?
Let us consider: what would happen if a head of state withheld a big chunk of the world's oil from the market? Answer? A lot of human suffering. A lot of awful things would happen.
In the old (American) West, water was often a scare resource, and people fought over control and/or access to it. Rationally -- in such a situation -- if people are going to fight over anything, fighting over having water makes a lot of sense. Put it another way: if someone stands between you and water, your choices are fight . . . or die.
Oil, like it or not, has a similar role to play in the world economy. If someone actually threatens the supply of oil, the choices are nearly the same: fight -- or die.
Now -- it happens to be rather unlikely that anyone, sitting on a lot of oil, would refuse to sell it. My point was that oil matters. A great deal.
Yet, following upon that last thought, let us recall the world situation in 1990. Saddam Hussein seized control of Kuwait, and was in a position -- if he chose -- to seize the Saudi oil fields. In a stroke, Saddam could have controlled something like 60% of the world's oil sources.
Yes, he would have sold his oil. We would have had oil to buy. But consider: what would the next chapter have been? If a U.S.-led coalition had not ejected Saddam from Kuwait, and he did invade Saudi Arabia, would that coalition have ejected him from there? Or acquisced? How do you suppose this plays out? Do you get a good feeling contemplating that alternate history? (He was pursuing biological and nuclear weapons; and he used chemical weapons freely.)
None of us knows what that alternate reality would be. But is it really so unreasonable for us to think it would have been significantly worse than what did happen? If the thought of that alternate reality chills you, then why is fighting to prevent that so unthinkable?
Monday, November 14, 2005
Good-Bad Monday Night Television
I'm watching one of my favorite movies: "Dude, Where's My Car?" Go ahead -- have at me.
Sunday, November 13, 2005
The turn of the tide
Watching "The Wizard of Oz," I can't help noticing both the quality, and the optimism, of the production. The dialogue is effortlessly, casually, scintillating. This wasn't supposed to be a high-brow production; yet the scripting is first-rate, economical, clever and humorous.
The movie reflects, also, an optimism about the future, and a confidence about the culture that it represented. It is produced by a society that -- without any aggression or threat -- believed itself to be humane, sophisticated and accomplished. It looked forward to the future to come.
The film is utterly unapologetic about advocating virtue and opposing vice. No falderall about "respecting alternate points of view" -- it believes virtue is something everyone wants to acquire -- and should!
There is an innocence about the film: the filmmaker feels no need to depict sexual tension between, say, the Tin-Man and Dorothy -- or, for that matter, the Lion!
Here's what I think: I believe our American culture was on a rising trajectory, until the 60s -- then it hit the skids. We've had some upticks since then; we've had some good moments in music, a few bright spots in literature, and our film industry is still capable of great things (and awful things) -- but I think our culture, as a whole, reflecting the society -- has not yet gotten back to where it was.
I may simply be reflexively nostalgic. I may be wrong. I am not fatalistic -- I don't buy the "inexorable decline" way of thinking -- I have no idea what lies ahead (I veer between optimism and pessimism and am not insightful enough to know which is more probable).
But I do find old movies an eye-opener. Do you?
The movie reflects, also, an optimism about the future, and a confidence about the culture that it represented. It is produced by a society that -- without any aggression or threat -- believed itself to be humane, sophisticated and accomplished. It looked forward to the future to come.
The film is utterly unapologetic about advocating virtue and opposing vice. No falderall about "respecting alternate points of view" -- it believes virtue is something everyone wants to acquire -- and should!
There is an innocence about the film: the filmmaker feels no need to depict sexual tension between, say, the Tin-Man and Dorothy -- or, for that matter, the Lion!
Here's what I think: I believe our American culture was on a rising trajectory, until the 60s -- then it hit the skids. We've had some upticks since then; we've had some good moments in music, a few bright spots in literature, and our film industry is still capable of great things (and awful things) -- but I think our culture, as a whole, reflecting the society -- has not yet gotten back to where it was.
I may simply be reflexively nostalgic. I may be wrong. I am not fatalistic -- I don't buy the "inexorable decline" way of thinking -- I have no idea what lies ahead (I veer between optimism and pessimism and am not insightful enough to know which is more probable).
But I do find old movies an eye-opener. Do you?
Good Sunday Night Television
I chanced upon "The Wizard of Oz" just now on WGN. I haven't watched this movie for awhile, as I watched it, I don't know how many times, when I was a boy (to all you younger bloggers -- there was a day when all we had was five, or even four channels! Egad!)
What a masterpiece!
What a masterpiece!
Bad Sunday Night Television
I thought I missed "The West Wing," due to an organizational meeting with parents and young people to begin laying the foundation for our youth ministry. (Our new youth minister did a great job. I hired him.) Ah, but it turns out "West Wing" was pre-empted by "Penn & Teller" -- as talented as they are, they hate God and love to show off their hate, so . . . I am not sorry to miss them.
Oh joy! -- I made it home in time for part two of "Catagory 7: the End of the World."
It's not quite as bad (hence good) as last week, but still pretty bad. Let's review...
Some thugs, hired by a flaked-out flunky of a televangelist, kidnap a bunch of kids. The kids see the face of one of the thugs, so they decide to waste them all. So they chase them around. They capture one of them (one of the girls! Girls can never run in TV shows -- they always get caught, because instead of running, they stand still and scream uncontrollably). Now, in case you forgot, their plan was to...kill them all. So what do they do with the girl? They drag her off and lock her in a closet. Naturally.
Tornadoes appear all over Washington -- we get to see the White House turned into splinters. The villain, naturally, gets sucked up into the vortex and disappears. (Yay!)
We never see the President; but a Senator -- a Senator! seems to be the only one running things. Along with some computer nerds in some warehouse somewhere. They tell the Senator -- we have to turn off all the power! He says (I kid you not): "our best option is to call the Department of Energy"! Hahahahahaha!
Now, it really gets good. Folks are driving all over town, while the worst storm in the history of the world is hitting. They're talking on their cell phones!!! Everything is being destroyed, right and left -- but not the cellular towers!
A couple of the computer nerds drive off to southeast Washington. To cut off the power. (Turns out the storms are caused by too much heat, generated by too much power-generation. Nasty global warming!) So if only they can sabotage a substation...they can save Washington D.C.!
Now . . . think about this: the worst storm in history -- and the whole city's power stays on the whole time!--unless our heroes (and heroines) go turn off the power!!!
Wow! I hope the Emmy nominating committee was watching this!
P.S. Doggone computer nerds actually saved Washington! I was really looking forward to total destruction!!! What a gyp!
Oh joy! -- I made it home in time for part two of "Catagory 7: the End of the World."
It's not quite as bad (hence good) as last week, but still pretty bad. Let's review...
Some thugs, hired by a flaked-out flunky of a televangelist, kidnap a bunch of kids. The kids see the face of one of the thugs, so they decide to waste them all. So they chase them around. They capture one of them (one of the girls! Girls can never run in TV shows -- they always get caught, because instead of running, they stand still and scream uncontrollably). Now, in case you forgot, their plan was to...kill them all. So what do they do with the girl? They drag her off and lock her in a closet. Naturally.
Tornadoes appear all over Washington -- we get to see the White House turned into splinters. The villain, naturally, gets sucked up into the vortex and disappears. (Yay!)
We never see the President; but a Senator -- a Senator! seems to be the only one running things. Along with some computer nerds in some warehouse somewhere. They tell the Senator -- we have to turn off all the power! He says (I kid you not): "our best option is to call the Department of Energy"! Hahahahahaha!
Now, it really gets good. Folks are driving all over town, while the worst storm in the history of the world is hitting. They're talking on their cell phones!!! Everything is being destroyed, right and left -- but not the cellular towers!
A couple of the computer nerds drive off to southeast Washington. To cut off the power. (Turns out the storms are caused by too much heat, generated by too much power-generation. Nasty global warming!) So if only they can sabotage a substation...they can save Washington D.C.!
Now . . . think about this: the worst storm in history -- and the whole city's power stays on the whole time!--unless our heroes (and heroines) go turn off the power!!!
Wow! I hope the Emmy nominating committee was watching this!
P.S. Doggone computer nerds actually saved Washington! I was really looking forward to total destruction!!! What a gyp!
Saturday, November 12, 2005
Will you pass the test? (Sunday homily)
Who here is in school, now?
Any grade?
OK—who here was ever in school,
once upon a time?
Let’s see if you agree with me:
One of the most dread,
stomach-churning experiences
you can have is the mother of all nightmares:
The test, the quiz, you aren’t ready for!
Maybe it’s that dirty trick, “the pop quiz”;
Or it could be the test
you just totally forgot about—
you know that awful feeling—
maybe it hits you as you walk into class.
Or maybe it’s the test
you we’re going to study for,
Friday afternoon…make that Saturday morning…
okay, Saturday night; then, after Mass,
Okay, after the football game…
then you stay up late—
and you fall asleep! Oops!
It’s an awful feeling, isn’t it?
Our Scriptures talk about passing the test:
The first reading
describes wives who “pass the test”;
St. Paul talks about being “sober and alert”
for the test when Jesus returns
at the end of time;
and the Gospel describes the test itself.
So—if all this talk of tests
is making you feel awful…
Relax! I’ve got Good News!
Good News: are you ready?
Everyone here can pass the test!
Isn’t that Good News?
So, don’t be afraid of “the test.”
You can pass it—everyone can!
Yes, the test can come at any moment:
So St. Paul says, the Lord will come
like a thief at night”—like a “pop quiz”!
So what’s the test? How do we pass it?
For that, we look at the Gospel.
Now, I want to pause,
and correct a mistaken assumption
about this Gospel story.
Here it is:
When the Gospel talks about “talents”—
it doesn’t mean what you may think it means.
It’s referring to money!
Not ability! Money!
A “talent” was a unit of money,
perhaps $1,000 in today’s terms.
So we could translate it:
To one, he gave $5,000,
to another, $2,000, to another, $1,000.
Now: the Lord’s “test” was not,
how much money did you earn;
it’s not really about money at all!
The money—the $5,000, $2,000, $1,000—
stands for something else:
something everyone gets some of—
and that’s FAITH.
So the test is not about ability,
or how much you have,
versus you, or you, or you;
All that matters is whether you do anything!
What matters is whether you use—
you “spend”—those “faith-dollars,”
or whether you bury your faith
and never act on it.
And that’s why everyone can pass the Lord’s test.
That doesn’t mean everyone will pass;
We could stand before the Lord,
and hear those awful words—
“you wicked, lazy servant!”—
because we buried the faith
Christ put into our hearts.
Sometimes we put off acting on faith;
we let someone else in our family do it for us.
We find excuses—“someone else got more”—
or, “I was afraid.”
You may not believe you have much faith:
maybe you didn’t even get $1,000.
Maybe you got $100; $10; $1—maybe only a penny!
Whatever faith you do have—
and everyone gets some—
Spend it! Put it out there—
and watch it grow!
The “worthy wife” in the first reading
passes the test because she acts on her faith:
she makes a difference in her own home,
and in the lives of the poor and needy.
That passage is a symbol of us, the Church—
we, the Church, are the Bride of Christ—
and Christ, the Bridegroom,
entrusts his Heart to his Church!
Here he is: in this church, always here:
The Eucharist is the Heart
of his Body, the Church!
He doesn’t ask us to be smart
and explain his mystery;
he doesn’t ask us to pay
cash-money for his gifts;
He asks only faith!
Our second-graders are preparing
for their first communion;
and while they will learn things
along the way,
what Jesus asks of them
is not knowledge—head-faith,
but heart-faith: desire—longing!
So—2nd graders—
don’t worry about what you know;
focus on that longing—
that hunger and thirst for Jesus!
“For to everyone who has, more will be given,
and he will grow rich;
but from the one who has not, even what he has
will be taken away”—because it was left unused.
So when the Lord comes—
and he can come at any time—
he won’t ask us what we know;
how much money we have;
how smart or talented we are.
He’ll say: I gave you faith;
maybe it was only a single spark.
What did you do with it?
That’s the only test
we ever have to pass with the Lord.
Any grade?
OK—who here was ever in school,
once upon a time?
Let’s see if you agree with me:
One of the most dread,
stomach-churning experiences
you can have is the mother of all nightmares:
The test, the quiz, you aren’t ready for!
Maybe it’s that dirty trick, “the pop quiz”;
Or it could be the test
you just totally forgot about—
you know that awful feeling—
maybe it hits you as you walk into class.
Or maybe it’s the test
you we’re going to study for,
Friday afternoon…make that Saturday morning…
okay, Saturday night; then, after Mass,
Okay, after the football game…
then you stay up late—
and you fall asleep! Oops!
It’s an awful feeling, isn’t it?
Our Scriptures talk about passing the test:
The first reading
describes wives who “pass the test”;
St. Paul talks about being “sober and alert”
for the test when Jesus returns
at the end of time;
and the Gospel describes the test itself.
So—if all this talk of tests
is making you feel awful…
Relax! I’ve got Good News!
Good News: are you ready?
Everyone here can pass the test!
Isn’t that Good News?
So, don’t be afraid of “the test.”
You can pass it—everyone can!
Yes, the test can come at any moment:
So St. Paul says, the Lord will come
like a thief at night”—like a “pop quiz”!
So what’s the test? How do we pass it?
For that, we look at the Gospel.
Now, I want to pause,
and correct a mistaken assumption
about this Gospel story.
Here it is:
When the Gospel talks about “talents”—
it doesn’t mean what you may think it means.
It’s referring to money!
Not ability! Money!
A “talent” was a unit of money,
perhaps $1,000 in today’s terms.
So we could translate it:
To one, he gave $5,000,
to another, $2,000, to another, $1,000.
Now: the Lord’s “test” was not,
how much money did you earn;
it’s not really about money at all!
The money—the $5,000, $2,000, $1,000—
stands for something else:
something everyone gets some of—
and that’s FAITH.
So the test is not about ability,
or how much you have,
versus you, or you, or you;
All that matters is whether you do anything!
What matters is whether you use—
you “spend”—those “faith-dollars,”
or whether you bury your faith
and never act on it.
And that’s why everyone can pass the Lord’s test.
That doesn’t mean everyone will pass;
We could stand before the Lord,
and hear those awful words—
“you wicked, lazy servant!”—
because we buried the faith
Christ put into our hearts.
Sometimes we put off acting on faith;
we let someone else in our family do it for us.
We find excuses—“someone else got more”—
or, “I was afraid.”
You may not believe you have much faith:
maybe you didn’t even get $1,000.
Maybe you got $100; $10; $1—maybe only a penny!
Whatever faith you do have—
and everyone gets some—
Spend it! Put it out there—
and watch it grow!
The “worthy wife” in the first reading
passes the test because she acts on her faith:
she makes a difference in her own home,
and in the lives of the poor and needy.
That passage is a symbol of us, the Church—
we, the Church, are the Bride of Christ—
and Christ, the Bridegroom,
entrusts his Heart to his Church!
Here he is: in this church, always here:
The Eucharist is the Heart
of his Body, the Church!
He doesn’t ask us to be smart
and explain his mystery;
he doesn’t ask us to pay
cash-money for his gifts;
He asks only faith!
Our second-graders are preparing
for their first communion;
and while they will learn things
along the way,
what Jesus asks of them
is not knowledge—head-faith,
but heart-faith: desire—longing!
So—2nd graders—
don’t worry about what you know;
focus on that longing—
that hunger and thirst for Jesus!
“For to everyone who has, more will be given,
and he will grow rich;
but from the one who has not, even what he has
will be taken away”—because it was left unused.
So when the Lord comes—
and he can come at any time—
he won’t ask us what we know;
how much money we have;
how smart or talented we are.
He’ll say: I gave you faith;
maybe it was only a single spark.
What did you do with it?
That’s the only test
we ever have to pass with the Lord.
What do we expect of our priests?
I visited Rich Leonardi's blog, Ten Reasons, yesterday and today, and read his post -- and the comments that followed -- concerning plans being made in the Archdiocese of Cincinnati to deal with an expected shortfall of priests in the next few years.
I made a few comments there; but some thoughts arose I decided to post here.
A lot of assumptions about dealing with this problem -- and it is real -- should be examined openly. And they basically come down to:
Just what do we expect from a parish priest? What do others expect from him?
Some may think the priest doesn't have that much to do from Sunday to Sunday; because that's all they expect of him, is Sunday Mass.
Some see no reason a priest shouldn't celebrate Mass four, five, six, or more times on a Sunday, "if that's what it takes." A friend says, repeatedly: "that's what you do"--as if that's all there is to it.
Some actually do begrudge a priest having time to himself, time to recreate, as if he's being selfish.
When I was in the seminary, I remember a weekend we had a group of men visiting for a retreat (I'll be vague about the details to protect those involved). It was Friday night, around 9 or 10 PM. I was in the student lounge, watching TV -- yes, I was indeed relaxing.
One of the men in the group came in, sat down nearby. We chatted briefly. An initial comment from him: "it must be nice." The meaning was unmistakable: too much leisure.
And I've encountered that attitude several times, as a priest. The folks who object to me sleeping late on days when I can, don't have any comment about the nights when I'm in the hospital till 4 AM.
And it's not just the duration, but the intensity--some of the things you deal with can be terribly draining: such as having two people, dying, in two different cities, one 30 miles away, one 80, both begging for you to come; meanwhile, you have needs in your own parish to attend to, including a parishioner who is dying.
(This happened to me recently. I ended up having a funeral in my own parish, and one in Cincinnati, several days apart. Meanwhile, the person dying in Dayton seems to have recovered. I spent a good deal of time on the phone, trying to assess. I spent a good deal of time second-guessing, agonizing, and bathing it all in prayer.
Meanwhile, I have any number of needs in the parish that won't go away, while I'm trying to be a priest for these other folks.)
Another aspect I'd cite -- in the way of expectations -- is that sometimes folks don't understand why the priest can't just "drop everything" when they stop by. Sometimes, I do indeed drop everything, either because the need is obvious, or simply because I want to be generous.
But that means some things wait on my desk, unattended to, such as:
* vocations promotions (I have ideas yet to implement)
* server training
* a weekly Bible study I want to start
* organizing my office (I'm still working out of boxes).
* fundraising (our parish has a tight budget)
* long-term planning
* scheduling evenings to meet with extraordinary ministers of holy communion, readers, servers, sacristans, etc., to encourage and thank them, and to provide some further liturgical and theological formation
* thank you letters to any number of folks for any number of kindnesses, either to me, or the parish
I don't paint this picture to complain, or to elicit sympathy; only to give folks, who make assessments of priests "from the outside," an opportunity to consider their priests' situation more from his perspective.
We all hear complaints about priests who say "no" to this or that request. Perhaps some of this gives insight into why they might do that.
I feel a great privilege and am awed to experience Christ acting, mysteriously, through my ministry. I realize such events drive me where I need to be: on my knees in prayer.
But let me share something St. Charles Borromeo said -- it appeared in the Office of Readings last week:
"Are you in charge of a parish? If so, do not neglect the parish of your own soul, do not give yourself to others so completely that you have nothing left for yourself. You have to be mindful of your people without being forgetful of yourself."
I'm not complaining; I love my priesthood. But do you want to help priests? Try being understanding. Give 'em a break.
I made a few comments there; but some thoughts arose I decided to post here.
A lot of assumptions about dealing with this problem -- and it is real -- should be examined openly. And they basically come down to:
Just what do we expect from a parish priest? What do others expect from him?
Some may think the priest doesn't have that much to do from Sunday to Sunday; because that's all they expect of him, is Sunday Mass.
Some see no reason a priest shouldn't celebrate Mass four, five, six, or more times on a Sunday, "if that's what it takes." A friend says, repeatedly: "that's what you do"--as if that's all there is to it.
Some actually do begrudge a priest having time to himself, time to recreate, as if he's being selfish.
When I was in the seminary, I remember a weekend we had a group of men visiting for a retreat (I'll be vague about the details to protect those involved). It was Friday night, around 9 or 10 PM. I was in the student lounge, watching TV -- yes, I was indeed relaxing.
One of the men in the group came in, sat down nearby. We chatted briefly. An initial comment from him: "it must be nice." The meaning was unmistakable: too much leisure.
And I've encountered that attitude several times, as a priest. The folks who object to me sleeping late on days when I can, don't have any comment about the nights when I'm in the hospital till 4 AM.
And it's not just the duration, but the intensity--some of the things you deal with can be terribly draining: such as having two people, dying, in two different cities, one 30 miles away, one 80, both begging for you to come; meanwhile, you have needs in your own parish to attend to, including a parishioner who is dying.
(This happened to me recently. I ended up having a funeral in my own parish, and one in Cincinnati, several days apart. Meanwhile, the person dying in Dayton seems to have recovered. I spent a good deal of time on the phone, trying to assess. I spent a good deal of time second-guessing, agonizing, and bathing it all in prayer.
Meanwhile, I have any number of needs in the parish that won't go away, while I'm trying to be a priest for these other folks.)
Another aspect I'd cite -- in the way of expectations -- is that sometimes folks don't understand why the priest can't just "drop everything" when they stop by. Sometimes, I do indeed drop everything, either because the need is obvious, or simply because I want to be generous.
But that means some things wait on my desk, unattended to, such as:
* vocations promotions (I have ideas yet to implement)
* server training
* a weekly Bible study I want to start
* organizing my office (I'm still working out of boxes).
* fundraising (our parish has a tight budget)
* long-term planning
* scheduling evenings to meet with extraordinary ministers of holy communion, readers, servers, sacristans, etc., to encourage and thank them, and to provide some further liturgical and theological formation
* thank you letters to any number of folks for any number of kindnesses, either to me, or the parish
I don't paint this picture to complain, or to elicit sympathy; only to give folks, who make assessments of priests "from the outside," an opportunity to consider their priests' situation more from his perspective.
We all hear complaints about priests who say "no" to this or that request. Perhaps some of this gives insight into why they might do that.
I feel a great privilege and am awed to experience Christ acting, mysteriously, through my ministry. I realize such events drive me where I need to be: on my knees in prayer.
But let me share something St. Charles Borromeo said -- it appeared in the Office of Readings last week:
"Are you in charge of a parish? If so, do not neglect the parish of your own soul, do not give yourself to others so completely that you have nothing left for yourself. You have to be mindful of your people without being forgetful of yourself."
I'm not complaining; I love my priesthood. But do you want to help priests? Try being understanding. Give 'em a break.
Friday, November 11, 2005
A particularly stupid (and hence improbable) "lie"
The Democrats think they have a winning argument: President Bush lied about the weapons of mass destruction, so as to start a war he wanted to start.
What an incredibly stupid idea. However much a dolt one thinks Bush was, he's not that stupid.
Consider this: suppose Bush did lie; then he knows that once the Americans go in, they will not find any WMDs! In short, he knows his lie would be exposed!
What an incredibly stupid idea. However much a dolt one thinks Bush was, he's not that stupid.
Consider this: suppose Bush did lie; then he knows that once the Americans go in, they will not find any WMDs! In short, he knows his lie would be exposed!
A particularly stupid war
Today is Veteran's Day, and others have paid better tribute. I want to note, approvingly, the decision a half-century ago to change the day to Veteran's Day from Armistice Day.
Armistice Day has a somewhat romantic history: the guns fell silent at the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month. If you surf around, you'll see quotations from "Flander's Fields" and suchlike.
Yes, a cessation of war is something to celebrate; but I am glad we don't labor under the burden of the propaganda that once prevailed about the First World War. Not to put too fine a point on it: it was a remarkably stupid war. I can't go "rah rah" over it; not one bit.
The change to Veteran's Day seems fitting, and it makes the day far more meaningful. It is, curiously, the last national holiday that floats through the week. As I recall, there was an attempt to shift it to Monday, but that didn't fly.
Armistice Day has a somewhat romantic history: the guns fell silent at the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month. If you surf around, you'll see quotations from "Flander's Fields" and suchlike.
Yes, a cessation of war is something to celebrate; but I am glad we don't labor under the burden of the propaganda that once prevailed about the First World War. Not to put too fine a point on it: it was a remarkably stupid war. I can't go "rah rah" over it; not one bit.
The change to Veteran's Day seems fitting, and it makes the day far more meaningful. It is, curiously, the last national holiday that floats through the week. As I recall, there was an attempt to shift it to Monday, but that didn't fly.
Tuesday, November 08, 2005
Monday, November 07, 2005
Isn't this called Modernism?
Reading this report at Pontifications, I was struck by this account, by Rev. Robert Sanders, an Episcopal priest, of the problem in the Episcopal Church (I am sure he would agree it is a problem in many other places as well--and I will say, it shows up in the Catholic Church, too):
I first became aware that something was wrong with the Episcopal Church when I went to seminary in 1973. Some of my professors taught a theology and a way of interpreting Scripture that denied the miraculous, including the fact that Jesus bodily rose from the dead. I could see at once that this teaching would seriously undermine the power of the gospel. I decided to get to the bottom of it and in 1979 went to graduate school and earned a Ph.D. in systematic theology. While in graduate school, I discovered that a powerful false teaching had invaded the churches since the early 1800’s. Only in recent decades has it made its way into the Episcopal Church.
This false teaching does not deny the authority of Scripture, or Creeds, or Prayer Book. Rather its partisans revise them from a perspective alien to the Christian faith. Among other things a number of revisionists deny the miraculous, including the virgin birth and the bodily resurrection. Others accept the miraculous, but conceive of God in mystical categories and thereby deny God the Word as the concrete, objective, verbal, and eternal revelation of God. ...
(snip)
I was only one of a number of writers who clearly documented the false teaching, heresy, and apostasy found among a goodly number of priests, bishops, and seminary professors within the Episcopal Church. At the same time, I attempted to settle my differences with the revisionists....
(snip)
At no point, ever, did I have any sustained engagement with those who disagreed with me. They simply did not want to talk. They were quite apt at producing trivial arguments, but once they encountered someone who could make sense of Scripture, tradition, and have reasoning powers, they simply walked away.
All my individual efforts at resolving these differences failed. Finally, about the year 2001, it became clear to me that one aspect of revisionist teaching is that language, logic, Scripture, words, doctrine, are not persuasive. Revisionists tend to believe that God is a mystical unknown and that language and doctrine are secondary. One of my most important analyses of this understanding was eventually published in Christianity Today.
The results of that insight, that doctrine and language are secondary, ultimately means that “dialogue” is impossible with revisionists. All we can do with them is share feelings and opinions. At that point I realized that my differences with revisionists could not be resolved. We live in two completely different worlds, theoretically and practically. (Emphasis added.)
I first became aware that something was wrong with the Episcopal Church when I went to seminary in 1973. Some of my professors taught a theology and a way of interpreting Scripture that denied the miraculous, including the fact that Jesus bodily rose from the dead. I could see at once that this teaching would seriously undermine the power of the gospel. I decided to get to the bottom of it and in 1979 went to graduate school and earned a Ph.D. in systematic theology. While in graduate school, I discovered that a powerful false teaching had invaded the churches since the early 1800’s. Only in recent decades has it made its way into the Episcopal Church.
This false teaching does not deny the authority of Scripture, or Creeds, or Prayer Book. Rather its partisans revise them from a perspective alien to the Christian faith. Among other things a number of revisionists deny the miraculous, including the virgin birth and the bodily resurrection. Others accept the miraculous, but conceive of God in mystical categories and thereby deny God the Word as the concrete, objective, verbal, and eternal revelation of God. ...
(snip)
I was only one of a number of writers who clearly documented the false teaching, heresy, and apostasy found among a goodly number of priests, bishops, and seminary professors within the Episcopal Church. At the same time, I attempted to settle my differences with the revisionists....
(snip)
At no point, ever, did I have any sustained engagement with those who disagreed with me. They simply did not want to talk. They were quite apt at producing trivial arguments, but once they encountered someone who could make sense of Scripture, tradition, and have reasoning powers, they simply walked away.
All my individual efforts at resolving these differences failed. Finally, about the year 2001, it became clear to me that one aspect of revisionist teaching is that language, logic, Scripture, words, doctrine, are not persuasive. Revisionists tend to believe that God is a mystical unknown and that language and doctrine are secondary. One of my most important analyses of this understanding was eventually published in Christianity Today.
The results of that insight, that doctrine and language are secondary, ultimately means that “dialogue” is impossible with revisionists. All we can do with them is share feelings and opinions. At that point I realized that my differences with revisionists could not be resolved. We live in two completely different worlds, theoretically and practically. (Emphasis added.)
Sam Adams Does the Right Thing
On another thread, I mentioned my unhappiness that, several years ago, Sam Adams Beer allowed itself to be associated with some nasty, on-air behavior that was insulting to Catholics. And I said I'd never heard the company acknowledge error.
I wrote a letter (actually, I had written twice before, but got no response), giving the company another chance. The company seems to have someone on-the-ball checking email: I got a prompt and pointed reply, which follows:
Dear Fr. Fox,
Thank you for sharing with us your concerns about the "Opie & AnthonyShow" in 2002. We are grateful that you took the time to share them and have given us the opportunity to respond to you personally.The Boston Beer Company has formally apologized for our association with that incident. Shortly after the radio show aired three years ago, we ran a public apology in major Boston and New York newspapers, on our website and individually to those offended by the incident.
Our association with the show was a lapse in judgment, and we regret it. While not an acceptable excuse, I want you to know that we had no warning that a place of worship would be part of the show. Everyone associated with The Boston Beer Company has worked very hard over the last 20 years to build a good company with world-class products and a quality reputation. Your feedback, along with other feedback we receive, is continuously used as we strive to protect and improve our reputation. As a result of the incident, we changed our policy and controls on radio station activities, and significantly decreased our radio spending. We also worked hard with affected groups to apologize and make amends including the Archdioceses of New York and Boston.Shortly after the incident in 2002, we received word that they were satisfied with our apology. Boston Beer is a company that cares deeply about its customers and its reputation with them. We regret that this incident has damaged our relationship with you, and I hope that, over time, we will earn your respect again. Please accept our apology, and again, thank you for taking the time to let us know how you feel. I hope you will continue to do so in the future.
Sincerely,
Michelle Sullivan
I'm glad to publish this letter, and say I find it more than satisfactory. I wrote back to Michelle Sullivan saying so.
I wrote a letter (actually, I had written twice before, but got no response), giving the company another chance. The company seems to have someone on-the-ball checking email: I got a prompt and pointed reply, which follows:
Dear Fr. Fox,
Thank you for sharing with us your concerns about the "Opie & AnthonyShow" in 2002. We are grateful that you took the time to share them and have given us the opportunity to respond to you personally.The Boston Beer Company has formally apologized for our association with that incident. Shortly after the radio show aired three years ago, we ran a public apology in major Boston and New York newspapers, on our website and individually to those offended by the incident.
Our association with the show was a lapse in judgment, and we regret it. While not an acceptable excuse, I want you to know that we had no warning that a place of worship would be part of the show. Everyone associated with The Boston Beer Company has worked very hard over the last 20 years to build a good company with world-class products and a quality reputation. Your feedback, along with other feedback we receive, is continuously used as we strive to protect and improve our reputation. As a result of the incident, we changed our policy and controls on radio station activities, and significantly decreased our radio spending. We also worked hard with affected groups to apologize and make amends including the Archdioceses of New York and Boston.Shortly after the incident in 2002, we received word that they were satisfied with our apology. Boston Beer is a company that cares deeply about its customers and its reputation with them. We regret that this incident has damaged our relationship with you, and I hope that, over time, we will earn your respect again. Please accept our apology, and again, thank you for taking the time to let us know how you feel. I hope you will continue to do so in the future.
Sincerely,
Michelle Sullivan
I'm glad to publish this letter, and say I find it more than satisfactory. I wrote back to Michelle Sullivan saying so.
Sunday, November 06, 2005
Bad Sunday Night Television (reprise)
This may be my first regular feature.
Tonight, it's "Category 7: the End of the World."
Now--who can resist a title like that?
I couldn't. The first few minutes center on Paris, France--clearly marked out for destruction. Who doesn't like that idea? Then we have the first stereotype: an earnest expert whom the powerful scoff at. Well, we know they'll die--and sure enough, one of them does, pretty quick. In the meantime, we learn how "thin" the expert's evidence is: why, a whole spate of cities in the U.S. have been plastered--but why worry?
Meanwhile, folks are having a time on the streets of Paris, while Armageddon brews in the sky--but why worry?
After Paris gets stomped, we cut back to D.C. An officious bureaucrat declares: "sorry, vacations are cancelled." Oh, what dialogue!
This is pretty entertaining, actually--I've been laughing pretty hard.
For a funny review, see this.
Update: just when you think, it couldn't get better, it did! KILLER FROGS! And not just killer frogs, but exotic, poisonous KILLER FROGS! At a political wine-and-cheese party! The frogs on display (oh, the oppression!) begin jumping out of the cases, and leap at the guests!! The hapless victims fall to floor, quivering and foaming at the mouth!
Is this great television or what?!?
Tonight, it's "Category 7: the End of the World."
Now--who can resist a title like that?
I couldn't. The first few minutes center on Paris, France--clearly marked out for destruction. Who doesn't like that idea? Then we have the first stereotype: an earnest expert whom the powerful scoff at. Well, we know they'll die--and sure enough, one of them does, pretty quick. In the meantime, we learn how "thin" the expert's evidence is: why, a whole spate of cities in the U.S. have been plastered--but why worry?
Meanwhile, folks are having a time on the streets of Paris, while Armageddon brews in the sky--but why worry?
After Paris gets stomped, we cut back to D.C. An officious bureaucrat declares: "sorry, vacations are cancelled." Oh, what dialogue!
This is pretty entertaining, actually--I've been laughing pretty hard.
For a funny review, see this.
Update: just when you think, it couldn't get better, it did! KILLER FROGS! And not just killer frogs, but exotic, poisonous KILLER FROGS! At a political wine-and-cheese party! The frogs on display (oh, the oppression!) begin jumping out of the cases, and leap at the guests!! The hapless victims fall to floor, quivering and foaming at the mouth!
Is this great television or what?!?
Time for a picture
...and if you think this picture has nothing in common with the previous two posts, you need to re-read your Thomas Aquinas.
Grace, Devotions, Indulgences etc.
(I'm taking a risk talking about this subject for two reasons, because I want to keep this simple, and someone is bound to find fault, and because this is a subject I enjoy and can go on and on about -- but here goes...)
We often talk about grace, either not being clear about what grace is, or we talk about graces, different sorts of grace, different means or characteristics of grace -- and lose sight of the big picture.
So a few key ideas:
Although we talk about different sorts of grace, essentially grace is one reality, which we experience in a variety of ways. What is grace? Grace is a sharing in God's own life; St. Thomas Aquinas said, profoundly, "Grace is God's eternal love, acting in time."
Here's what the Catechism of the Catholic Church has, in its glossary:
GRACE: The free and undeserved gift that God gives us to respond to our vocation to become his adopted children. As sanctifying grace, God shares his divine life and friendship with us in a habitual gift, a stable and supernatural disposition that enables the soul to live with God, to act by his love. As actual grace, God gives us the help to conform our lives to his will. Sacramental grace and special graces (charisms, the grace of one's state of life) are gifts of the Holy Spirit to help us live out our Christian vocation (1996, 2000; cf. 654).
(On the distinction between "habitual" or sanctifying grace, and actual grace, I'll say more below.)
In my experience, I cannot, at present, think of an instance where what one says about grace cannot be said about the Holy Spirit, even though there is legitimate reason, in refined theology, to distinguish them, insofar as we understand grace as a created reality, and an effect; yet it equally important to understand grace as sharing God's own life, as the Catechism says.
Perhaps a helpful analogy would be the incarnation: In the Incarnate One, we recognize both uncreated God, and a created human being, united to the Divine Person. God's purpose in the Incarnation is the same as his purpose in sharing grace: to divinize us! To make us partakers of the divine nature, as our very first pope, Peter, wrote in Scripture.
Therefore, in the end, the distinctions disappear: grace, accomplishing its end, will unite us, not with some created reality, but with the Triune God himself! Update: I ought to added "merely," in the blue-highlighted text, because our union with the Trinity will include union with the "created reality" of the Son's human nature.
We look for grace, we pray for it, we hunger for it--thank God! (Hint: that seeking, desring, it itself grace at work!) We seek God's grace through various prayers, devotions and practices.
But the fact remains, grace is, essentially, one--and grace is more abundant, infinitely moreso, than water in the oceans, and air in the sky.
So don't fall into the thinking that we have to "hunt" for grace, or, God forbid, work for it!
So what about devotions, practices, not to mention the normal means of grace?
As Catholics, we believe the Lord instituted the sacraments as normal means of grace, for our sake -- they teach us about him, and conform well to our needs -- beginning with baptism. But to cite St. Thomas Aquinas again, while God certainly works in the sacraments, he is not limited to them. So any discussion of other ways to grow in grace presuppose living the life of a Christian -- receiving the sacraments in faith.
So then come various devotions, and there is no end to the list of them. Do we receive grace in them? Sure (I assume we're talking about legitimate, well-attested devotions, rooted in sound tradition). Is one better than the other? I have no authority to say that! I can think of particular devotions (which I won't name, because I don't want irate devotees to come after me), that hold no attraction for me. But if they draw you into God's presence? Wonderful!
But if a devotion becomes a drudge, a burden -- I'm not saying don't do it; but I'd say, step back and ask yourself if something is wrong with that picture.
May I point out that all devotions, indeed, the sacraments themselves! exist for our benefit; not the other way around! After all, God had no need to come to earth -- he did it, as we profess: "for us men, and for our salvation..."
Certain devotions are connected, or promoted, in relation to specific graces, or promises: I think of First Friday, First Saturday, and scapulars, among others.
I think if you look very closely at these devotions, which I applaud, you'll see that all these promises, or hopes, are premised -- as indicated earlier -- on living the life of a Christian, fortified by the sacraments. These devotions are helps -- there's no gift or grace they bring that we cannot find apart from them. (This is true even of the sacraments: while they are normal means of grace, God can and does save souls apart from the sacraments.) As I said in a recent homily: God commands us, he doesn't command himself.
So for heaven's sake -- don't worry! I think St. Magaret Mary, and the Blessed Mother, do not want the devotions associated with them to become a chore, and for folks to fret because they omitted something: "will I get the grace?" Brother, sister, if you can ask the question, you've got the grace!
In the confessional, I often say this: it is not God's agenda to induce anxiety and fear in us. I mean: if grace prompts us to be fearful or anxious, it is to lead us to the next step, conversion: confess sin, change direction. And that means not anxiety but peace. I also say this: you would not be in the confessional without God's grace already at work--your presence here is a certain sign of God's love and care for you.
(This seems to be news to some folks when they hear it, so let me say it again: grace precedes the first moment of conversion in our hearts; i.e., it would be heresy to say, we convert, then grace is working in our lives; rather, grace must be active in order for us even to consider conversion. This is what we call the "grace of conversion.")
I'm not saying be passive and presumptuous, but I am saying, be hopeful and confident. Ours is a God of salvation, not hide-and-seek: it was God who, after Adam sinned, came into the garden and called out, "Adam, where are you?"
A word about indulgences (I wish I'd run this last Monday on "Reformation Day"!)...
An indulgence, to speak simply, is a means of grace: it is one more way God, through his Church, helps us to salvation. No indulgence is, strictly speaking, "necessary": that is to say, everything we can gain via an indulgence, we can gain without one.
Like the sacraments themselves, indulgences exist, not for God's sake, but for ours -- they're designed to fit our needs and dispositions.
Just what is an indulgence? It is a spiritual benefit (the remission of any penalties or purification associated with purgatory) which God gives in relation to our doing some particular good work: a prayer, or a pilgrimage, or such.
What actually "gains" the indulgence? Nota bene: not the work per se, but faith--which is proved by noting that the spiritual benefit can be obtained without the indulgence!
Now, our Protestant sisters and brothers say, "then omit the works and stick to the faith!" To which I respond, from Sacred Scripture: "Indeed someone might say, 'You have faith and I have works.' Demonstrate your faith to me without works, and I will demonstrate my faith to you from my works" (James 2:18). Put it another way--God understands we human beings need to be doing something. And he knows it helps if we have a "buy-in"--as opposed to being passive, inert recipients. But grace precedes.
In the case of indulgences, let us be clear about something. An indulgence is not salvation -- indulgences are gifts for the saved! I.e., the remission of penalty is not for anyone in hell, but for anyone undergoing purification in "purgatory," the foyer of heaven. No one goes through this purification who is not saved.
An indulgence is essentially an answer to prayer! We pray to assist someone's purification, and indubitably, that prayer is answered! (The very term, "indulgence," reveals what it is: a gift.)
Another thing: an indulgence is not a "get out of jail free" card! I confess, I have described it this way, but this is misleading. Why?
Because here is what happens in us to allow the indulgenced "work" to be effective: CONVERSION! Look carefully at each and every indulgence: it speaks of confession of sin, conversion of heart, faith in Christ, reception of him in the Eucharist. (Obviously, this prior sentence presupposes...GRACE.)
Guess what? If you do those things, without ever seeking any particular indulgence, whaddya think? Think you might be fully purified in this life, and thus have no need of final purification at the gate of heaven? I think, YES! The point of the various indulgences is the same as the various devotions -- they are helps to us to find our way to what we fundamentally need: conversion through the grace of Christ, that we might fully partake in God's life. It really is that simple.
Am I speaking against, or discouraging, indulgences? Not at all. But I think any experience of them needs to be grounded in a right understanding of grace, what an indulgence is (and is not), and what is truly "necessary." Recall Our Lord's words to Martha: "only one thing is necessary, and Mary has chosen the better part." Being in relationship with Jesus is the "better part," the one thing necessary, from which all else flows, including each and every grace there is.
A word about habitual or sanctifying grace, and actual grace(s). Actual graces are those ways God prompts and helps us, whether or not we have sanctifying, habitual, or indwelling grace, which is the grace that justifies us, the grace of salvation. (I am aware of various distinctions we can make with all these terms; I am simply trying to simplify this matter.)
The distinction is valid, insofar as it helps us to see that while everyone whatsoever receives actual graces, that doesn't mean everyone receives, or rather, has, habitual grace; though we believe God is eager to give the saving grace to anyone and everyone, and we hope and pray, that that is what will happen. It may, but we don't know; we don't presume all are saved, but we also don't presume that anyone, but the devil and his cohorts, is in hell. Or, to say it another way, sanctifying grace is available and offered to all; that doesn't mean all respond to it, or persevere in it.
Hence, the grace that precedes conversion is an actual grace, leading to habitual grace. While I won't deny the validity of making distinctions, in the end, one must remember that grace, at its source, is One, namely God himself, as he acts for our salvation and pours himself into our lives.
We often talk about grace, either not being clear about what grace is, or we talk about graces, different sorts of grace, different means or characteristics of grace -- and lose sight of the big picture.
So a few key ideas:
Although we talk about different sorts of grace, essentially grace is one reality, which we experience in a variety of ways. What is grace? Grace is a sharing in God's own life; St. Thomas Aquinas said, profoundly, "Grace is God's eternal love, acting in time."
Here's what the Catechism of the Catholic Church has, in its glossary:
GRACE: The free and undeserved gift that God gives us to respond to our vocation to become his adopted children. As sanctifying grace, God shares his divine life and friendship with us in a habitual gift, a stable and supernatural disposition that enables the soul to live with God, to act by his love. As actual grace, God gives us the help to conform our lives to his will. Sacramental grace and special graces (charisms, the grace of one's state of life) are gifts of the Holy Spirit to help us live out our Christian vocation (1996, 2000; cf. 654).
(On the distinction between "habitual" or sanctifying grace, and actual grace, I'll say more below.)
In my experience, I cannot, at present, think of an instance where what one says about grace cannot be said about the Holy Spirit, even though there is legitimate reason, in refined theology, to distinguish them, insofar as we understand grace as a created reality, and an effect; yet it equally important to understand grace as sharing God's own life, as the Catechism says.
Perhaps a helpful analogy would be the incarnation: In the Incarnate One, we recognize both uncreated God, and a created human being, united to the Divine Person. God's purpose in the Incarnation is the same as his purpose in sharing grace: to divinize us! To make us partakers of the divine nature, as our very first pope, Peter, wrote in Scripture.
Therefore, in the end, the distinctions disappear: grace, accomplishing its end, will unite us, not with some created reality, but with the Triune God himself! Update: I ought to added "merely," in the blue-highlighted text, because our union with the Trinity will include union with the "created reality" of the Son's human nature.
We look for grace, we pray for it, we hunger for it--thank God! (Hint: that seeking, desring, it itself grace at work!) We seek God's grace through various prayers, devotions and practices.
But the fact remains, grace is, essentially, one--and grace is more abundant, infinitely moreso, than water in the oceans, and air in the sky.
So don't fall into the thinking that we have to "hunt" for grace, or, God forbid, work for it!
So what about devotions, practices, not to mention the normal means of grace?
As Catholics, we believe the Lord instituted the sacraments as normal means of grace, for our sake -- they teach us about him, and conform well to our needs -- beginning with baptism. But to cite St. Thomas Aquinas again, while God certainly works in the sacraments, he is not limited to them. So any discussion of other ways to grow in grace presuppose living the life of a Christian -- receiving the sacraments in faith.
So then come various devotions, and there is no end to the list of them. Do we receive grace in them? Sure (I assume we're talking about legitimate, well-attested devotions, rooted in sound tradition). Is one better than the other? I have no authority to say that! I can think of particular devotions (which I won't name, because I don't want irate devotees to come after me), that hold no attraction for me. But if they draw you into God's presence? Wonderful!
But if a devotion becomes a drudge, a burden -- I'm not saying don't do it; but I'd say, step back and ask yourself if something is wrong with that picture.
May I point out that all devotions, indeed, the sacraments themselves! exist for our benefit; not the other way around! After all, God had no need to come to earth -- he did it, as we profess: "for us men, and for our salvation..."
Certain devotions are connected, or promoted, in relation to specific graces, or promises: I think of First Friday, First Saturday, and scapulars, among others.
I think if you look very closely at these devotions, which I applaud, you'll see that all these promises, or hopes, are premised -- as indicated earlier -- on living the life of a Christian, fortified by the sacraments. These devotions are helps -- there's no gift or grace they bring that we cannot find apart from them. (This is true even of the sacraments: while they are normal means of grace, God can and does save souls apart from the sacraments.) As I said in a recent homily: God commands us, he doesn't command himself.
So for heaven's sake -- don't worry! I think St. Magaret Mary, and the Blessed Mother, do not want the devotions associated with them to become a chore, and for folks to fret because they omitted something: "will I get the grace?" Brother, sister, if you can ask the question, you've got the grace!
In the confessional, I often say this: it is not God's agenda to induce anxiety and fear in us. I mean: if grace prompts us to be fearful or anxious, it is to lead us to the next step, conversion: confess sin, change direction. And that means not anxiety but peace. I also say this: you would not be in the confessional without God's grace already at work--your presence here is a certain sign of God's love and care for you.
(This seems to be news to some folks when they hear it, so let me say it again: grace precedes the first moment of conversion in our hearts; i.e., it would be heresy to say, we convert, then grace is working in our lives; rather, grace must be active in order for us even to consider conversion. This is what we call the "grace of conversion.")
I'm not saying be passive and presumptuous, but I am saying, be hopeful and confident. Ours is a God of salvation, not hide-and-seek: it was God who, after Adam sinned, came into the garden and called out, "Adam, where are you?"
A word about indulgences (I wish I'd run this last Monday on "Reformation Day"!)...
An indulgence, to speak simply, is a means of grace: it is one more way God, through his Church, helps us to salvation. No indulgence is, strictly speaking, "necessary": that is to say, everything we can gain via an indulgence, we can gain without one.
Like the sacraments themselves, indulgences exist, not for God's sake, but for ours -- they're designed to fit our needs and dispositions.
Just what is an indulgence? It is a spiritual benefit (the remission of any penalties or purification associated with purgatory) which God gives in relation to our doing some particular good work: a prayer, or a pilgrimage, or such.
What actually "gains" the indulgence? Nota bene: not the work per se, but faith--which is proved by noting that the spiritual benefit can be obtained without the indulgence!
Now, our Protestant sisters and brothers say, "then omit the works and stick to the faith!" To which I respond, from Sacred Scripture: "Indeed someone might say, 'You have faith and I have works.' Demonstrate your faith to me without works, and I will demonstrate my faith to you from my works" (James 2:18). Put it another way--God understands we human beings need to be doing something. And he knows it helps if we have a "buy-in"--as opposed to being passive, inert recipients. But grace precedes.
In the case of indulgences, let us be clear about something. An indulgence is not salvation -- indulgences are gifts for the saved! I.e., the remission of penalty is not for anyone in hell, but for anyone undergoing purification in "purgatory," the foyer of heaven. No one goes through this purification who is not saved.
An indulgence is essentially an answer to prayer! We pray to assist someone's purification, and indubitably, that prayer is answered! (The very term, "indulgence," reveals what it is: a gift.)
Another thing: an indulgence is not a "get out of jail free" card! I confess, I have described it this way, but this is misleading. Why?
Because here is what happens in us to allow the indulgenced "work" to be effective: CONVERSION! Look carefully at each and every indulgence: it speaks of confession of sin, conversion of heart, faith in Christ, reception of him in the Eucharist. (Obviously, this prior sentence presupposes...GRACE.)
Guess what? If you do those things, without ever seeking any particular indulgence, whaddya think? Think you might be fully purified in this life, and thus have no need of final purification at the gate of heaven? I think, YES! The point of the various indulgences is the same as the various devotions -- they are helps to us to find our way to what we fundamentally need: conversion through the grace of Christ, that we might fully partake in God's life. It really is that simple.
Am I speaking against, or discouraging, indulgences? Not at all. But I think any experience of them needs to be grounded in a right understanding of grace, what an indulgence is (and is not), and what is truly "necessary." Recall Our Lord's words to Martha: "only one thing is necessary, and Mary has chosen the better part." Being in relationship with Jesus is the "better part," the one thing necessary, from which all else flows, including each and every grace there is.
A word about habitual or sanctifying grace, and actual grace(s). Actual graces are those ways God prompts and helps us, whether or not we have sanctifying, habitual, or indwelling grace, which is the grace that justifies us, the grace of salvation. (I am aware of various distinctions we can make with all these terms; I am simply trying to simplify this matter.)
The distinction is valid, insofar as it helps us to see that while everyone whatsoever receives actual graces, that doesn't mean everyone receives, or rather, has, habitual grace; though we believe God is eager to give the saving grace to anyone and everyone, and we hope and pray, that that is what will happen. It may, but we don't know; we don't presume all are saved, but we also don't presume that anyone, but the devil and his cohorts, is in hell. Or, to say it another way, sanctifying grace is available and offered to all; that doesn't mean all respond to it, or persevere in it.
Hence, the grace that precedes conversion is an actual grace, leading to habitual grace. While I won't deny the validity of making distinctions, in the end, one must remember that grace, at its source, is One, namely God himself, as he acts for our salvation and pours himself into our lives.
Saturday, November 05, 2005
Get filled up! 5 minutes a day (Sunday homily)
Our first reading raises the question:
What is true wisdom-
and who is truly wise?
When I was kid,
there was a TV show called “Kung Fu.”
It was about a fellow
who wandered all over,
and basically, some bad guys
always tried to jump him,
and he ended up wiping the floor with them,
using “Kung Fu”—martial arts.
It was the same story every week:
can you see how this
would appeal to a 10-year old boy?
But while you waited for the showdown,
there would be flashbacks,
to when our hero was himself a boy:
and he was being trained by this old man,
who would give him lectures about “wisdom”
that never made a lot of sense:
“Ah, grasshopper,” he said:
“can you snatch a cloud
down from the sky?
Can you snatch this pebble
from my hand?
No? Ah—that is wisdom…”
Sometimes that’s what
we think wisdom is:
Beyond our reach,
a mystery we can’t penetrate.
But what do the Scriptures say?
“Resplendent and unfading is wisdom,
and she is readily perceived
by those who love her,
and found by those who seek her.”
True wisdom is a “mystery”:
But when we say something is a “mystery,”
That doesn’t mean
we can’t say anything about it;
it means, we can never
say everything about it.
See the difference?
The mystery of God’s Wisdom
is like a water-fountain:
Drink all you want;
there will always be more.
Now, we look at the Gospel passage,
and the Lord himself
teaches us about wisdom:
He shows us five foolish virgins,
and five wise ones.
What’s the difference?
The foolish brought no oil with them;
but the wise had an extra store
of oil for their lamps.
Now—let’s focus on those lamps, and the oil.
The lamps are their lives—
remember what Our Lord himself said:
“Let your light shine” before humanity.
But what keeps the lamps lit? The oil.
So: what is that oil?
Well, it can’t be ordinary, natural oil—
because then, the difference
between the wise and the foolish,
is just a matter of time:
sooner or later,
everyone’s oil would run out.
That also means the oil
is not something we go and “buy.”
The five foolish tried that—
and it didn’t work!
So what is that oil?
Maybe you recall a story
from the Old Testament,
the prophet Elijah
visits a family during a famine:
and there was a miracle:
the mother’s supply of grain and oil
miraculously did not run out:
when she went back
to the bottle of oil, she found more.
The oil in the lamps of the wise
does not come from ourselves;
it does not come from our efforts—
we don’t buy or earn it—
it is a gift from God.
The Oil in the Gospel is the same
as the Wisdom in the first reading!
It is the Life of God Himself:
the Holy Spirit.
When did you or I ever “buy” the Holy Spirit?
We don’t earn God’s indwelling Spirit
by good works;
it’s the other way around:
The more we open ourselves
to the Spirit in our lives,
the brighter the lamp of our lives will burn!
And that’s why it doesn’t matter
how long we wait for the Lord:
the lamp of our lives will burn bright
with the Flame of God’s Fire!
Wisdom is God’s Holy Spirit,
aflame in our hearts:
The Holy Spirit doesn’t play
“snatch-the-pebble” with us.
This Divine Wisdom is readily available
for those who seek it.
There’s only one way
to fill our lamps with this Oil:
Prayer—time with the Lord—
this is how we allow God to fill us up.
The tank of my car will run out,
unless I stop for a fill-up.
It’s just something we need to do.
Are you stopping
to fill up with the Spirit of God?
This is a reason to be faithful at Mass,
a reason to bring your kids to Mass—
don’t worry about what anyone says:
they need to learn where to fill up as well.
Beyond the duty of Mass
on Sundays and holy days,
is the opportunity
for daily Mass. More “fill-ups.”
For those who can’t do that,
we have our chapel.
Open all night, all day, every day:
Jesus waits there to fill you up.
If we can’t do that,
we can pray where we are.
The rosary, time with scripture
or other reading,
Time when the noise is turned off,
the door is closed,
time to be filled up.
Just five minutes a day
of real quiet and peace—
with the Lord—will make a revolution!
And yet how many of us
never do that for ourselves!
I challenge our younger parishioners:
Make sure you get quiet time
to fill your lamps!
If we seek from God
the Oil of his Holy Spirit,
He’ll keep our light burning,
to find our way,
especially when all other lights go out!
And that, grasshopper, is Wisdom!
What is true wisdom-
and who is truly wise?
When I was kid,
there was a TV show called “Kung Fu.”
It was about a fellow
who wandered all over,
and basically, some bad guys
always tried to jump him,
and he ended up wiping the floor with them,
using “Kung Fu”—martial arts.
It was the same story every week:
can you see how this
would appeal to a 10-year old boy?
But while you waited for the showdown,
there would be flashbacks,
to when our hero was himself a boy:
and he was being trained by this old man,
who would give him lectures about “wisdom”
that never made a lot of sense:
“Ah, grasshopper,” he said:
“can you snatch a cloud
down from the sky?
Can you snatch this pebble
from my hand?
No? Ah—that is wisdom…”
Sometimes that’s what
we think wisdom is:
Beyond our reach,
a mystery we can’t penetrate.
But what do the Scriptures say?
“Resplendent and unfading is wisdom,
and she is readily perceived
by those who love her,
and found by those who seek her.”
True wisdom is a “mystery”:
But when we say something is a “mystery,”
That doesn’t mean
we can’t say anything about it;
it means, we can never
say everything about it.
See the difference?
The mystery of God’s Wisdom
is like a water-fountain:
Drink all you want;
there will always be more.
Now, we look at the Gospel passage,
and the Lord himself
teaches us about wisdom:
He shows us five foolish virgins,
and five wise ones.
What’s the difference?
The foolish brought no oil with them;
but the wise had an extra store
of oil for their lamps.
Now—let’s focus on those lamps, and the oil.
The lamps are their lives—
remember what Our Lord himself said:
“Let your light shine” before humanity.
But what keeps the lamps lit? The oil.
So: what is that oil?
Well, it can’t be ordinary, natural oil—
because then, the difference
between the wise and the foolish,
is just a matter of time:
sooner or later,
everyone’s oil would run out.
That also means the oil
is not something we go and “buy.”
The five foolish tried that—
and it didn’t work!
So what is that oil?
Maybe you recall a story
from the Old Testament,
the prophet Elijah
visits a family during a famine:
and there was a miracle:
the mother’s supply of grain and oil
miraculously did not run out:
when she went back
to the bottle of oil, she found more.
The oil in the lamps of the wise
does not come from ourselves;
it does not come from our efforts—
we don’t buy or earn it—
it is a gift from God.
The Oil in the Gospel is the same
as the Wisdom in the first reading!
It is the Life of God Himself:
the Holy Spirit.
When did you or I ever “buy” the Holy Spirit?
We don’t earn God’s indwelling Spirit
by good works;
it’s the other way around:
The more we open ourselves
to the Spirit in our lives,
the brighter the lamp of our lives will burn!
And that’s why it doesn’t matter
how long we wait for the Lord:
the lamp of our lives will burn bright
with the Flame of God’s Fire!
Wisdom is God’s Holy Spirit,
aflame in our hearts:
The Holy Spirit doesn’t play
“snatch-the-pebble” with us.
This Divine Wisdom is readily available
for those who seek it.
There’s only one way
to fill our lamps with this Oil:
Prayer—time with the Lord—
this is how we allow God to fill us up.
The tank of my car will run out,
unless I stop for a fill-up.
It’s just something we need to do.
Are you stopping
to fill up with the Spirit of God?
This is a reason to be faithful at Mass,
a reason to bring your kids to Mass—
don’t worry about what anyone says:
they need to learn where to fill up as well.
Beyond the duty of Mass
on Sundays and holy days,
is the opportunity
for daily Mass. More “fill-ups.”
For those who can’t do that,
we have our chapel.
Open all night, all day, every day:
Jesus waits there to fill you up.
If we can’t do that,
we can pray where we are.
The rosary, time with scripture
or other reading,
Time when the noise is turned off,
the door is closed,
time to be filled up.
Just five minutes a day
of real quiet and peace—
with the Lord—will make a revolution!
And yet how many of us
never do that for ourselves!
I challenge our younger parishioners:
Make sure you get quiet time
to fill your lamps!
If we seek from God
the Oil of his Holy Spirit,
He’ll keep our light burning,
to find our way,
especially when all other lights go out!
And that, grasshopper, is Wisdom!
Friday, November 04, 2005
Stare Decisis is for suckas!*
I invite you to see this hilarious cartoon at Southern Appeal (thanks to Confirm Them for giving me a heads up.)
*TM Feddie at Southern Appeal
*TM Feddie at Southern Appeal
St. Charles, Pope Karol, pray for us!
Today we commemorate St. Charles Borromeo, and when I saw it yesterday, there was a sad reminder. It mentioned that today is the feast day of our holy father, Pope John Paul II.
Of course, John Paul -- Karol Wojtywa -- was our holy father when the ordo was published, about this time last year. Since then, we reluctantly allowed him to go to the Father's House.
As happy as I am with our present pope, I remain sad at the loss of Pope John Paul, truly great in my estimation. I miss him, and feel a great personal debt to him.
Thursday, November 03, 2005
Glorious St. Martin
Today is my feast day: St. Martin de Porres, whose name I am proud to bear.But not in the Archdiocese of Cincinnati. This happens to be the anniversary of the dedication of our cathedral -- and that takes precedence.
So I will keep my feast day next week. I am delighted that, by divine providence, my parents chose to entrust me to the care of St. Martin de Porres, and I consider it a light and pleasant task to make him better known. I am confident that St. Martin has prayed for me ever since my conception, so how can I be ungrateful?
Wednesday, November 02, 2005
What's Oliphant's point here?
Can someone explain this cartoon to me?I used to like Oliphant, even if he is a liberal; I think he's a good artist, and often clever. Sometimes I agree with him.
But...this cartoon. OK: he wants to say Alito is, what? A friendly Scalia? Is that it?
There's something off, something sinister, about this -- and I don't mean about Alito and Scalia.
All Souls Day Homily
Today, All Souls’ Day,
is a day of remembrance,
but also a day full of hope.
This time of year,
the Church bids us consider eternity.
Yesterday was the great feast of All Saints.
The saints give us hope—
We long to join their company;
And it is God’s will that we do so.
There are only two final destinations,
after this life:
Either we go to heaven—
and then we will be a saint—
Or we go to the other place.
What about purgatory?
Purgatory is not a destination—
No one spends eternity in purgatory.
It isn’t really a “place” at all,
but a process:
It’s a stopping point on the way.
Purgatory is the “mud room” of heaven;
It’s the saints’ finishing school.
Some tell me they’re a little afraid of purgatory—
They think of it in terms of punishment.
Our late, beloved holy father, John Paul,
taught us otherwise.
He said, before entering
the perfect glory of heaven,
“Every trace of attachment to evil
must be eliminated,
every imperfection of the soul corrected.
“Those who, after death,
exist in a state of purification,
are already in the love of Christ
who removes from them
the remnants of imperfection.”
They “are united both with the blessed
who already enjoy the fullness of eternal life,
and with us on this earth
on our way towards the Father's house.”
Now, that doesn’t sound so bad, does it?
Nothing to be afraid of.
We might wonder, is there pain in purgatory?
C.S. Lewis said this:
If there’s pain in purgatory,
it’s the pain of having Christ so near—
ah, but still something holds us back.
Because it’s the pain of healing,
Lewis said, it’s pain we’ll welcome.
The healing isn’t just about
those who have died;
It helps heal us, the living, as well.
Sometimes people die,
and maybe we have
unfinished business with them.
Or maybe we wonder—
what will become of them
in their moment of judgment?
We might fear for them.
But thanks be to God,
our ability to help them
doesn’t end at their death!
Now, I’m going to say something
a little mind-bending.
Think about this:
You and I live in time:
one day follows another,
Past to present to future—right?
But God doesn’t live in time—
Time in no way limits God.
So, I have a cousin,
who died at his own hand.
What did he believe or understand,
at that moment?
I don’t know.
But when I pray for him now,
That prayer can help him,
not just after he died,
But anywhere along the course of his life!
No, I can’t “go back in time”—but God can!
So all those people
you’ve ever worried about:
Pray for them now—
And who knows just where
along the course of their lives,
God may choose to apply your prayers?
When we remember the dead this time of year,
we remember that our existence, on earth,
is but one slice of reality.
Naturally, we think it’s the most important,
Or the most real, slice of life.
But it’s not.
We’re on our way to the most important,
most real, dimension of life:
Life after this life—
Not only life-after-death,
but life-after-resurrection!
There’s so much more still ahead!
And this is why Christ came,
Christ died, and rose for us:
To open the path and lead us there.
The prophet Daniel foresaw it;
St. Paul rejoices because the Holy Spirit,
poured into our hearts,
makes us long—thirst—pant!—
for this destiny!
In the Eucharist,
we get just a taste of this reality!
Christ leads us there—
there’s nothing to be afraid of.
(Readings: Dan 12:1-3; Ps 42; Rom 5:5-11; John 6:37-40)
is a day of remembrance,
but also a day full of hope.
This time of year,
the Church bids us consider eternity.
Yesterday was the great feast of All Saints.
The saints give us hope—
We long to join their company;
And it is God’s will that we do so.
There are only two final destinations,
after this life:
Either we go to heaven—
and then we will be a saint—
Or we go to the other place.
What about purgatory?
Purgatory is not a destination—
No one spends eternity in purgatory.
It isn’t really a “place” at all,
but a process:
It’s a stopping point on the way.
Purgatory is the “mud room” of heaven;
It’s the saints’ finishing school.
Some tell me they’re a little afraid of purgatory—
They think of it in terms of punishment.
Our late, beloved holy father, John Paul,
taught us otherwise.
He said, before entering
the perfect glory of heaven,
“Every trace of attachment to evil
must be eliminated,
every imperfection of the soul corrected.
“Those who, after death,
exist in a state of purification,
are already in the love of Christ
who removes from them
the remnants of imperfection.”
They “are united both with the blessed
who already enjoy the fullness of eternal life,
and with us on this earth
on our way towards the Father's house.”
Now, that doesn’t sound so bad, does it?
Nothing to be afraid of.
We might wonder, is there pain in purgatory?
C.S. Lewis said this:
If there’s pain in purgatory,
it’s the pain of having Christ so near—
ah, but still something holds us back.
Because it’s the pain of healing,
Lewis said, it’s pain we’ll welcome.
The healing isn’t just about
those who have died;
It helps heal us, the living, as well.
Sometimes people die,
and maybe we have
unfinished business with them.
Or maybe we wonder—
what will become of them
in their moment of judgment?
We might fear for them.
But thanks be to God,
our ability to help them
doesn’t end at their death!
Now, I’m going to say something
a little mind-bending.
Think about this:
You and I live in time:
one day follows another,
Past to present to future—right?
But God doesn’t live in time—
Time in no way limits God.
So, I have a cousin,
who died at his own hand.
What did he believe or understand,
at that moment?
I don’t know.
But when I pray for him now,
That prayer can help him,
not just after he died,
But anywhere along the course of his life!
No, I can’t “go back in time”—but God can!
So all those people
you’ve ever worried about:
Pray for them now—
And who knows just where
along the course of their lives,
God may choose to apply your prayers?
When we remember the dead this time of year,
we remember that our existence, on earth,
is but one slice of reality.
Naturally, we think it’s the most important,
Or the most real, slice of life.
But it’s not.
We’re on our way to the most important,
most real, dimension of life:
Life after this life—
Not only life-after-death,
but life-after-resurrection!
There’s so much more still ahead!
And this is why Christ came,
Christ died, and rose for us:
To open the path and lead us there.
The prophet Daniel foresaw it;
St. Paul rejoices because the Holy Spirit,
poured into our hearts,
makes us long—thirst—pant!—
for this destiny!
In the Eucharist,
we get just a taste of this reality!
Christ leads us there—
there’s nothing to be afraid of.
(Readings: Dan 12:1-3; Ps 42; Rom 5:5-11; John 6:37-40)
Tuesday, November 01, 2005
Omnium Sanctorum (homily)
St. Thomas Aquinas said somewhere
that so expansive, so complex,
is the goodness of God,
that only through the infinite variety
of his creatures
do all the various aspects of his goodness
become known to us.
And we see that in the saints.
For an example, consider our beautiful windows.
Different colors, different shapes,
the work of human artistry.
But what is their purpose?
To have light pass through them, of course:
Without light, our windows have no purpose.
So with the saints, and with us:
Our lives, made up of our individual gifts
and all that’s special about us,
have no purpose unless light—
the Light of Christ!—
shines through us!
For us in this church,
The Light streams in through these windows—
Even on a cloudy day!—
And reminds us of heaven, our true goal.
From the outside,
if we’re gathered here,
Light also streams out:
a sign of faith and hope to others,
beckoning them to join our fellowship.
This is the vocation
of the saints and our vocation:
To be like these stained-glass windows.
Beautiful; not all the same;
But each in its own way shining
with the light of Christ.
Recall the first reading:
“After this I had a vision
of a great multitude,
which no one could count,
from every nation, race, people, and tongue.
They stood before
the throne and before the Lamb,
wearing white robes
and holding palm branches in their hands.
They cried out in a loud voice:
’Salvation comes from our God,
who is seated on the throne,
and from the Lamb.’"
That’s us!
Now, in a moment, we will do this,
Right here, at this Mass!
The whole second part of Mass
is all about adoring Jesus,
the Lamb of God, with the angels and the saints!
And right before communion,
I’ll lift up the Body and Blood,
and I’ll say:
“Behold the Lamb of God,
who takes away the sins of the world;
happy are those who are called to his supper.”
At that moment, we here on earth,
in this parish,
Will truly be joined
with the saints and angels in glory,
Praising God for the salvation
that comes from the Lamb.
St. Bernard said,
“Calling the saints to mind…
arouses in us, above all else,
a longing to enjoy their company.”
That’s true—but already we are in their company—
And we long to be all the way there.
that so expansive, so complex,
is the goodness of God,
that only through the infinite variety
of his creatures
do all the various aspects of his goodness
become known to us.
And we see that in the saints.
For an example, consider our beautiful windows.
Different colors, different shapes,
the work of human artistry.
But what is their purpose?
To have light pass through them, of course:
Without light, our windows have no purpose.
So with the saints, and with us:
Our lives, made up of our individual gifts
and all that’s special about us,
have no purpose unless light—
the Light of Christ!—
shines through us!
For us in this church,
The Light streams in through these windows—
Even on a cloudy day!—
And reminds us of heaven, our true goal.
From the outside,
if we’re gathered here,
Light also streams out:
a sign of faith and hope to others,
beckoning them to join our fellowship.
This is the vocation
of the saints and our vocation:
To be like these stained-glass windows.
Beautiful; not all the same;
But each in its own way shining
with the light of Christ.
Recall the first reading:
“After this I had a vision
of a great multitude,
which no one could count,
from every nation, race, people, and tongue.
They stood before
the throne and before the Lamb,
wearing white robes
and holding palm branches in their hands.
They cried out in a loud voice:
’Salvation comes from our God,
who is seated on the throne,
and from the Lamb.’"
That’s us!
Now, in a moment, we will do this,
Right here, at this Mass!
The whole second part of Mass
is all about adoring Jesus,
the Lamb of God, with the angels and the saints!
And right before communion,
I’ll lift up the Body and Blood,
and I’ll say:
“Behold the Lamb of God,
who takes away the sins of the world;
happy are those who are called to his supper.”
At that moment, we here on earth,
in this parish,
Will truly be joined
with the saints and angels in glory,
Praising God for the salvation
that comes from the Lamb.
St. Bernard said,
“Calling the saints to mind…
arouses in us, above all else,
a longing to enjoy their company.”
That’s true—but already we are in their company—
And we long to be all the way there.
Monday, October 31, 2005
Former Pastor Found Not Guilty In Child Rape Case
(This story got a lot of coverage when Father Larger was accused; it's only fair that the acquittal get coverage, as well...)
A Tri-State priest accused of raping a young boy was acquitted Monday, News 5 reported.
Raymond Larger, convicted of sex charges two years ago, had been indicted on three counts of rape, two counts of sexual battery and one count of gross sexual imposition against a minor boy between 1995 and 1997.
Larger was a priest at St. James Church in White Oak at that time.
The 21-year-old man who accused Larger of molesting him is currently serving a sentence for breaking an entering. He testified all morning and most of the afternoon, but Judge Robert Ruehlman found that he contradicted himself several times in his account.
"There is so much doubt here, and before you can convict somebody, you've got to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt," Ruehlman said. "The testimony I've heard from this prosecuting witness does not come even close to that."
Ruehlman found the former pastor not guilty on all counts.
"I said that I was not guilty," Larger said. "It's a completely false accusation."
Christy Miller, of the Survivors Network of Those Abused By Priests, disagreed with Ruehlman's quick dismissal.
"When it comes to child sexual abuse, there are no witnesses," she said. "It does happen on a one-on-one basis."
After Larger was indicted in August, Cincinnati Archbishop Daniel E. Pilarczyk placed Larger on administrative leave and stripped him of his priestly duties for the second time.
"His position in the Archdiocese will be addressed when the pending civil suit has been resolved," a statement from Pilarczyk said Monday.
Pilarczyk had suspended Larger after he was arrested in July 2003 on suspicion of soliciting a male police officer for sex in a park in Dayton, Ohio. Larger, who was pastor of Our Lady of Visitation Church in Mack, pleaded no contest to two misdemeanor public indecency charges. He was fined $100, plus court costs, and placed on probation for one year, court records show.
Larger returned to active ministry in May 2004. He had been assigned to St. Peter in Chains Cathedral downtown.
A Tri-State priest accused of raping a young boy was acquitted Monday, News 5 reported.
Raymond Larger, convicted of sex charges two years ago, had been indicted on three counts of rape, two counts of sexual battery and one count of gross sexual imposition against a minor boy between 1995 and 1997.
Larger was a priest at St. James Church in White Oak at that time.
The 21-year-old man who accused Larger of molesting him is currently serving a sentence for breaking an entering. He testified all morning and most of the afternoon, but Judge Robert Ruehlman found that he contradicted himself several times in his account.
"There is so much doubt here, and before you can convict somebody, you've got to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt," Ruehlman said. "The testimony I've heard from this prosecuting witness does not come even close to that."
Ruehlman found the former pastor not guilty on all counts.
"I said that I was not guilty," Larger said. "It's a completely false accusation."
Christy Miller, of the Survivors Network of Those Abused By Priests, disagreed with Ruehlman's quick dismissal.
"When it comes to child sexual abuse, there are no witnesses," she said. "It does happen on a one-on-one basis."
After Larger was indicted in August, Cincinnati Archbishop Daniel E. Pilarczyk placed Larger on administrative leave and stripped him of his priestly duties for the second time.
"His position in the Archdiocese will be addressed when the pending civil suit has been resolved," a statement from Pilarczyk said Monday.
Pilarczyk had suspended Larger after he was arrested in July 2003 on suspicion of soliciting a male police officer for sex in a park in Dayton, Ohio. Larger, who was pastor of Our Lady of Visitation Church in Mack, pleaded no contest to two misdemeanor public indecency charges. He was fined $100, plus court costs, and placed on probation for one year, court records show.
Larger returned to active ministry in May 2004. He had been assigned to St. Peter in Chains Cathedral downtown.
Alito Papers Demanded by Senate
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Senate Democrats demanded release of previously secret papers, written by Supreme Court-nominee Samuel Alito, early in his career, that may shed light on his true views on matters likely to come before the High Court.
"The American people have a right to know," declared Sen. Charles Shumer (D-NY); "if Mr. Alito's papers can show, for example, how he views the Commerce Clause, and the rights of endangered species, then Mrs. Alito must release them. Just what was 'Furry's Adventure'? Did Furry enter into interstate commerce? The stakes are just too risky."
Mrs. Rose Alito, stood firm. "I intend to invoke maternal privilege. And as far as those pesky Senators are concerned, I just have one thing to say: 'Better not mess with Mamma!'"
Bill Clinton's hand in the Alito Nomination
Kathryn Jean Lopez, at National Review Online, observed: "I just noted Clinton's hand. Couldn't keep his hand off Alito's daughter..."
Dems dusting off original Bork playbook
As everyone pretty much admits openly, the big issue in a Supreme Court nomination is abortion: just listen to the interviews, and see how quickly it -- or "privacy" -- comes up.
Judge Alito's vote to uphold restrictions enacted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, in the case that eventually found its way to the High Court, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, will be "exhibit A" in the pro-aborts' complaints about him.
Less noticed is that he also voted to strike down a New Jersey law on partial-birth abortions (the argument in his defense is that he is a lower-court judge, bound by U.S. Supreme Court decisions); and he joined a decision that invalidated a stricter standard, enacted by Pennsylvania, deferring to the federal Secretary of Health and Human Services' interpretation of federal law in the matter. (The argument in his defense is that he was exercising judicial restraint in an area that belongs to the legislative arena, and in which federal authority legitimately trumps state action.)
Not being a lawyer, I won't attempt to parse these cases; but I'd say there could be reason for concern, on prolifers' part; on the other hand, it would be quite a stretch to expect a justice to ignore all other considerations in law and simply vote to block abortions. Call me a squish, but I don't want judges like that. They should act within the law.
But anyway, the pro-aborts won't say much about these other cases; it will be all-Casey.
But herewith a prediction: the main attack -- that is, the "cover story" -- won't be on abortion. It will come another way.
Why? Because unless I'm very mistaken, I expect Judge Alito will completely dodge any hint of how he'll vote on Roe--and since nothing has turned up, from his record, to reveal that, all the pro-aborts can point to is that he approved some rather modest restrictions, of the very sort that enjoy wide public support.
So the attack will come in a "Trojan Horse." If they can find a way to do it, they'll hit him with the Left's favorite attack: they'll slime him as "racially insensitive." (Recall they tried it on Roberts, but they couldn't make it stick.)
Also, expect the opposition to make something of Alito's vote to strike down the federal "Family Leave" Act. (Apparently, he did so on the basis that Congress trod on the authority and prerogatives of states, under the 11th Amendment.) In such circumstances, facts aren't what matter; what will matter is that the Left will scream that he's such a Neanderthal that he doesn't even think families should get unpaid leave from work in cases of illness or pregnancy!
And so it will go: mining his opinions for any basis to show how coolly, dispassionately, he watches widows and orphans marched to the workhouses, and minorities driven into ghettoes, etc.
In other words, stay tuned for the Left to run its original, classic "borking" play.
Judge Alito's vote to uphold restrictions enacted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, in the case that eventually found its way to the High Court, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, will be "exhibit A" in the pro-aborts' complaints about him.
Less noticed is that he also voted to strike down a New Jersey law on partial-birth abortions (the argument in his defense is that he is a lower-court judge, bound by U.S. Supreme Court decisions); and he joined a decision that invalidated a stricter standard, enacted by Pennsylvania, deferring to the federal Secretary of Health and Human Services' interpretation of federal law in the matter. (The argument in his defense is that he was exercising judicial restraint in an area that belongs to the legislative arena, and in which federal authority legitimately trumps state action.)
Not being a lawyer, I won't attempt to parse these cases; but I'd say there could be reason for concern, on prolifers' part; on the other hand, it would be quite a stretch to expect a justice to ignore all other considerations in law and simply vote to block abortions. Call me a squish, but I don't want judges like that. They should act within the law.
But anyway, the pro-aborts won't say much about these other cases; it will be all-Casey.
But herewith a prediction: the main attack -- that is, the "cover story" -- won't be on abortion. It will come another way.
Why? Because unless I'm very mistaken, I expect Judge Alito will completely dodge any hint of how he'll vote on Roe--and since nothing has turned up, from his record, to reveal that, all the pro-aborts can point to is that he approved some rather modest restrictions, of the very sort that enjoy wide public support.
So the attack will come in a "Trojan Horse." If they can find a way to do it, they'll hit him with the Left's favorite attack: they'll slime him as "racially insensitive." (Recall they tried it on Roberts, but they couldn't make it stick.)
Also, expect the opposition to make something of Alito's vote to strike down the federal "Family Leave" Act. (Apparently, he did so on the basis that Congress trod on the authority and prerogatives of states, under the 11th Amendment.) In such circumstances, facts aren't what matter; what will matter is that the Left will scream that he's such a Neanderthal that he doesn't even think families should get unpaid leave from work in cases of illness or pregnancy!
And so it will go: mining his opinions for any basis to show how coolly, dispassionately, he watches widows and orphans marched to the workhouses, and minorities driven into ghettoes, etc.
In other words, stay tuned for the Left to run its original, classic "borking" play.
Will 'Hail Mary' replace 'All rise'?
The Volokh Conspiracy notes, as many will, that confirmation of Alito would give the Supreme Court a Catholic majority. (Thanks to Fr. Jim Tucker for the heads up.)
Poor Jack Chick; I can't imagine what the old man's going through right now. And on "Reformation Day," of all days!
Poor Jack Chick; I can't imagine what the old man's going through right now. And on "Reformation Day," of all days!
Alito, Delighto
An excellent choice. Now we have a battle; but it's a battle for something we know is truly worthwhile.One piece of advice (as if the White House cares!):
Tell him to smile...all the time.
Sunday, October 30, 2005
Bad Sunday Night TV
Browsing for something to watch on TV, I came across this listing:
"The Final Conflict (1981): The 'Omen' Trilogy concludes as Satan's son (Sam Neill) eyes the presidency."
... like that hasn't happened before.
Several times.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)