The Fifth Column

Copyright RIP

2012-01-24T09:52:00.000-08:00

ZDNet has an interesting article on the problems with trying to preserve copyright provoked, no doubt, by the recent SOPA/PIPA controversy.

As an author and publisher, I have some small interest in the problem.
Unfortunately, I think we are coming to the end of the copyright age.

The world has seen three great revolutions in the dissemination of knowledge:
1) the transition from oral to written language
2) the transition from written language to the printing press
3) the transition from the printing press to the Internet

Each transition changed the way authorship was viewed.

Socrates and Plato were famously placed on either side of the oral-written transition. Socrates wrote nothing, everything he taught was orally transmitted. It fell to Plato to make use of the new writing technology to record Socrates' thoughts. There was no such thing as copyright law.

Indeed, although the written word became a normal means of communication, copyright law did not naturally follow the development of writing. Literacy was self-controlling because it was a very expensive hobby in terms of training, material and technique. External controls were largely unnecessary.

As a result, most literate societies did not recognize copyright law or anything like it. Pretty much anyone who was literate could make copies of anything they could lay their hands on. When most literate people spent good portions of their time hand-copying works so as to make them available to other literate people, authorship was not highly prized and the concept of publishing was a non sequitor.

The Rise of the Author and His Copyright
It was only with the rapid dissemination of information and of literacy made possible by the printing press that ideas like authorship, publishing and copyright began to make a lot of sense. The printing press drove down the cost of literacy, placing it within reach of a much larger segment of the population.

The ability to rapidly spread printed works meant that literate people could actually take time to savor previously unknown authors. That is, it was actually possible for a staggeringly large number of authors to make names for themselves by their writings alone.

Both kings and the Church recognized that the ability to print material contained within it the ability to rapidly spread treasonous or unorthodox ideas. Furthermore, since printers required presses, it was fairly easy to find and regulate the spread of ideas at the point of production - at the printer. Thus, both kings and the Church had good reason to implement printing and copyright laws.

The printing press was invented in 1453.

By 1500, Pope Alexander VI had issued his first bull against the unlicensed printing of books, and the Index of Forbidden Books followed by 1559. Most European countries had instituted some kind of copyright law about the same time that the Pope was issuing his bull.

450 years later, the cost of printing and the dissemination of books had become so inexpensive, that the Church saw the handwriting on the wall. The Index was abolished June 14, 1966.

By 1966, the Church had realized there was no real way to control the production or the consumption of books. While the nihil obstat and imprimatur still remain as remnants of this attempt at content and production control, both are now pro forma exercises in marketing without any real expectations of doctrinal utility or applicability. The only reason a publisher seeks them today is to appeal to a certain niche market - they are now marketing tools.

The End of the Author and Copyright
It is interesting that the Index was abolished just thirty years before the next revolution in communications technology smashed the old printing model to smithereens. Today, the Internet makes the spread of ideas almost instantaneous. Whether for good or ill, however, there is no way to regulate the spread of ideas.

And when I say there is no way, I don't mean, "there is no good way."
I mean: There. Is. No. Way.
It cannot be done.

If it is in electronic format, anyone can copy anything for any reason anywhere.
Everyone with a PC, heck, everyone with a cell phone, can be a point of copy and redistribution.
Today, cell phones can carry 32 GB or more of memory - more than enough to hold several full-length movies. This capacity will only increase with time.

As a result, I strongly doubt that copyright law is very much longer for this world.

Laws against adultery and fornication fell when contraception made both so prevalent and so socially acceptable that it was no longer possible to maintain the facade that the laws served a purpose. If society embraces contraception, it cannot hold onto the idea that fornication or adultery should be outlawed. Indeed, it cannot hold onto the idea that homosexuality, necrophilia, bestiality or pedophilia should be outlawed. The first has already been legalized, the rest soon will be.

Similarly, if society embraces the rapid spread of ideas which computers make possible, it will no longer be able to hold onto the idea of copyright.

Computer geeks like to say "information wants to be free."

They are correct. People want information more than they want food. The Internet is turning large swaths of information into a commodity like electricity or running water. The best anyone can hope for is to meter usage (thus, the fee to connect to the Internet). Beyond that, I can no more control how you choose to use information than I can control how you use the electricity or water that is piped into your home.

If I can figure out a way to take tap water or my electrical outlet and turn what pours from it into cash, you cannot stop me. The same will be true for the Internet and the information that pours in through that portal. Information used to be attached to personalities, but that connection will only become more tenuous with time.

If the 1960's gave birth to the Free Love generation, the 2010's will give birth to the Free Information generation.

Copyright was fun while we had it, but it's gone now.

Good-bye.

It's Starting

2012-01-17T20:12:00.000-08:00

The Nuremberg Laws

The following month two measures were announced at the annual Party Rally in Nuremberg, becoming known as the Nuremberg Laws. Both measures were hastily improvised (there was even a shortage of drafting paper so that menu cards had to be used) and Jewish experts from the Ministry of the Interior were ordered to Nuremberg by plane.

The first law, The Law for the Protection of German Blood and German Honor, prohibited marriages and extra-marital intercourse between “Jews ” (the name was now officially used in place of “non-Aryans ”) and “Germans ” and also the employment of “German ” females under forty-five in Jewish households. The second law, The Reich Citizenship Law, stripped Jews of their German citizenship and introduced a new distinction between “Reich citizens ” and “nationals.”

The Nuremberg Laws by their general nature formalized the unofficial and particular measures taken against Jews up to 1935. The Nazi leaders made a point of stressing the consistency of this legislation with the Party program which demanded that Jews should be deprived of their rights as citizens.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

"Now, on the heels of the NDAA, a new bill is making its way through Congress: the Enemy Expatriation Act that would make the controversy about the NDAA null and void by simply stripping Americans of their American citizenship, should they be accused of associating with government-deemed terrorist organizations. "

Note: just "accused".
Not convicted.
Accused.

It doesn't take long to create a dictatorship.

Not long at all.

But For the Grace of God

2012-01-16T12:02:00.000-08:00

So, now that a most excellent time-line has been produced on the RCTV and Micheal Voris situation, the question naturally arises:

Is canon lawyer Ed Peters getting paid to lie
or
Is he doing it on his own time?

Of course, he insists that the opinions expressed on his blog are just his own personal opinions.

Uh-huh.

Look, as Ed knows, all employment in a diocese is at-will employment by the bishop (or archbishop, in this case). Bishop can fire, or cause to be fired, anyone he wants at any time. This is most especially true of the faculty at his own seminary. This is even more especially true of lay employees.

The whole point of having lay diocesan employees is to provide CYA for the ordained men. If anything bad happens in the parish or diocese, you fire the closest lay person and claim little to no knowledge of the requisite shenanigans. Failing that, you claim the lay employee acted without proper episcopal authority. Either way, if a lay person can take the fall, s/he does.

Like every lay employee, Ed knows how the game is played.
He loses his phoney-baloney job at Sacred Heart Seminary if he doesn't follow the archbishop's directives.
He is unlikely to get hired anywhere else if he has a reputation for not backing his own bishop's plays.

So, if the archbishop directs him to flay someone alive, Ed's personal opinion is suddenly and spontaneously likely to be very antagonistic towards the intended victim.

Now, any analysis of Ed's articles shows he's been actively trying to obfuscate the Voris/RCTV issue. Throughout the entire RCTV/Voris affair, he has worked hard to cover the bishop's... ahem... assets.
It's almost as if he had a hand in formulating the pronouncements, or was called in and given a heads-up that this was coming out, so he better have some good support for what the ordained men had decided to do.

After all, he spends his first whole post saying "this is a matter of canon law", an implicit appeal to his own authority as a canon lawyer. Appeals to authority, by the way, are the weakest of all logical arguments. That's the best he has to open with, which says something right there.

Even more informative is his "analysis" - he never bothers to define the most important phrase in the dispute "competent ecclesial authority."

Why not?

Well, Abraham Lincoln tells the story of the man who had a green stump in his field. It was too big to pull out, too wet to burn out and too blessed hard to split. So, he solved the problem by plowing around it and pretending it wasn't there.

Ed's in the same fix. If he defined "competent ecclesial authority", we would immediately realize that the Archbishop of Detroit, his employer, is not competent to strip RCTV of the word "Catholic". Ed can hardly point that out on his blog - he would have to look for a new job if he did - so he plows around it and hopes no one notices.

He essentially does the same thing in his second post. Even as he spends a lot of time pretending to discuss "competent ecclesial authority", you will notice that at NO POINT does he mention the fact that his boss is pronouncing on a business entity which is not in AOD diocese.

The Archbishop of Detroit trying to strip RCTV of the word "Catholic" is similar to the Archbishop of Detroit trying to strip Notre Dame of the word "Catholic."

At NO POINT does Ed mention the fact that in both cases, the archbishop of South Bend might (rightly) take issue with the attempt.

But, if cakes are to be taken, I think his third post is probably the piece de resistance. Ed goes on this extended tirade about the Internet... as if it matters. Ed might as well have created an extended soliliquy concerning the difficulty of controlling the flow of books into various bookstores around the diocese. It's about as pointless. He knows perfectly well that it is the location of the publisher that is at issue, not the method by which the content is distributed.

So why does an otherwise intelligent man do this?
Well, as Ed also knows, if you can't awe them with brilliance, baffle them with bull.

God bless the man's chutzpah, he actually sends people to look for a non-existent canon on Internet distribution in a wonderfully veiled attempt to appeal to his own authority, or better, that of his boss.
It's a marvelous case of misdirection, and my hat is off to him for thinking it up.

Actually, of course, the Internet doesn't present any more difficulties to canon law than book distribution does. The Church solved the question of producers versus distributors several hundred years ago. Canon law deals with who produces the material, and doesn't spend a lot of time with how it is distributed, if only because the Church recognizes that She has no stinkin' control over how it is distributed and never will.

This, of course, goes double for the Internet.

So, if I, while living in Dallas, wrote a completely heretical book called "Catholic Interpretations of Scripture", and had a publisher in Tuscaloosa publish it, and if the publisher's name was "Incredibly Orthodox Catholic Books", the bishop of Dallas would still have no right to attempt to strip the name "Catholic" from my publisher's business because the publisher is in Tuscaloosa, not Dallas.

Even if the book showed up in Dallas bookstores, and even if I live in Dallas diocese, it still gives the bishop of Dallas no authority over a business in Tuscaloosa. Bishop of Dallas may have an opinion, of course, and it's lovely if he does, but that and a dollar won't get him a cup of coffee at Starbucks, no matter how much his canon lawyers insist otherwise.

And, of course, NO ONE is saying that either Michael Voris or RCTV has taught anything heretical.
They apparently take issue with it because it is (a) true and (b) not nice.

Newsflash:
The Truth is not Nice.
The Truth will set you free.

Now, I'm sure Ed Peters is honest in the majority of his dealings, and many of them probably involve canon law. But in this particular case, he deliberately misrepresents the law in order to (a) make his bishop look good and (b) keep his job.

Either that, or he is a complete idiot.
And I'm far too charitable to think Ed Peters is at all stupid.

I actually feel sorry for the man - he's been dealt a completely rotten hand by his archbishop, and he has to publicly prostitute himself in order to keep his job and make his mortgage payments. All the other canon lawyers in the nation are looking at him, shaking their heads glumly and saying, "There but for the grace of God, go I." And the poor man KNOWS it.

Pray for him and his boss.

UPDATE:

Ed has taken another shot at the jurisdiction question, but again drives wide of the mark. I'm shocked, shocked, I tell you.

I'll ignore his repeated appeal to his own authority and cut straight to the meat.
Well, what passes for meat.
To be honest, I can't believe he even ran this one up the flagpole, but here it is:

"Is it seriously to be contended that a local Church has no authority over local Catholics writing, editing, producing, and promoting extensive media programming copiously labeled as “Catholic” this and “Catholic” that, if the registered owner of the enterprise happens, conveniently, not to be Catholic?"

Well, yeah, Ed, that happens all the time. For instance, let's say a Roman Catholic is hired to work for an Anglican organization that calls itself Catholic - Anglicans do that, you know. They call themselves Catholic.

Maybe we should whip them or something?
I don't know.
Ask your archbishop.
I'm sure he'll have an opinion.

Anyway, the local archbishop may have something to say to that local Roman Catholic, but he has NOTHING to say to the company he works for that calls itself Catholic. Archbishop can't very well tell the company to stop using the word "Catholic" as archbishop has no jurisdiction the Anglicans recognize, even if those Anglicans live in Detroit.

But it gets worse.

You see, the last I heard, it wasn't a sin for a Roman Catholic to work for an Anglican Catholic, so I can't imagine what archbishop would have to say to his Roman Catholic subject... Attaboy! perhaps?
A compliment on the tie he wore to work might be in order.
But, as long as he isn't writing heresy.... what would such an archbishop say to such a Catholic?
And why would an archbishop waste time on this problem when he's got so many pro-abort politicians and parish staff members he could be correcting?

Ed, I don't have to tell you that the Code says:

"Can. 216 Sincethey participate in the mission of the Church, all the Christian faithful havethe right to promote or sustain apostolic action even by their ownundertakings, according to their own state and condition. Nevertheless, noundertaking is to claim the name Catholic without the consent of competentecclesiastical authority."

Michael Voris didn't undertake to start RCTV, so he hasn't violated the canon.
South Bend has no complaints about RCTV, so they have obeyed their bishop and they're fine, too.
Which means Voris isn't working for a company that is under any bishop's jurisdictional ban.

Now, AOD is publicly ticked off at Voris, but that seems to be AOD's problem.
Unless AOD wants to pretend that it has power in South Bend?

Yeah, good luck with that.
Let me know how that works out.

By the way, has anyone else noticed how careful Ed was to stipulate that Fr. Pavone's organization was not technically under the bishop of Amarillo's full jurisdiction, but he keeps insisting that RCTV (whose connection to AOD via Voris is a lot more tenuous than Pavone's) is nevertheless under his own bishop's jurisdiction? I just find that incredibly humorous.

Anyway, Ed is still sad, because Ed still contemplates a terrible prospect.
Terrible, I tell you.

"For that matter, what if Brammer were to transfer his interest in RCTV to a non-Catholic, or to a conglomerate, maybe one overseas, or if he or another utilize(d) any of a half dozen id-masking options common in cyberspace?"

Oh, HORRORS!!!
Like that couldn't have been done a decade ago, or three decades ago or 50 years ago or even a century ago (apart from the ID-masking, which is no different from setting up a shell company).

How is any one of these, or even all of them together, a new problem, Ed?
Is canon law so fragile that it NEVER faced such a set of circumstances before?
Changed ownership of a company is a new one to you, is it?
Never heard of a shell company (Hint: it doesn't involve eggs. Really.)?

I averred before that Ed Peters is not a stupid man.
He obviously holds a somewhat lower opinion of the rest of us.

I would suggest to Ed that he get out more, but given how well his defense of AOD is going and how high unemployment is under this regime, that wouldn't be a nice thing to wish on anyone.

So, continue to pray for him.
The poor man seems to be running out of straws.

Bishop Ochoa's Honesty

2012-01-13T08:42:00.000-08:00

When Bishop Ochoa was named Bishop of Fresno on Dec 1, 2011, the clock started ticking.
He had 60 days to canonically take possession of his new see.

Can. 418 §1. Upon certain notice of transfer, a bishop must claim the diocese to which he has been transferred (ad quam) and take canonical possession of it within two months. On the day that he takes possession of the new diocese, however, the diocese from which he has been transferred (a qua) is vacant.

On January 11, 2012, Bishop Ochoa decided to use the few remaining days he has, and use the powers of the diocesan administrator (notice: he does not appear to have the powers of the Bishop of El Paso any longer), to lay a civil lawsuit against Father Michael Rodriguez for misappropriation of funds.

In point 6 of his lawsuit, Bishop Ochoa claims standing by claiming that he is the Bishop of El Paso.

Can. 418 §2. Upon certain notice of transfer until the canonical possession of the new diocese, a transferred bishop in the diocese from which he has been transferred:
1/ obtains the power of a diocesan administrator and is bound by the obligations of the same; all power of the vicar general and episcopal vicar ceases, without prejudice to ⇒ can. 409, §2;

In Father Michael Rodriguez' January 12, 2012 reply, Fr. Rodriguez states:

It is unfortunate that Bishop Armando Ochoa, Administrator of the Diocese of El Paso and no longer our bishop, (emphasis added) has decided to pursue legal action against me.

Now, since Bishop Ochoa has not yet formally taken possession of Fresno, the see of El Paso is not considered a vacant see. But, Father Rodriguez seems to have a point in saying that technically, Ochoa is no longer Bishop of El Paso.

And, if Father Rodriguez is correct, Bishop Ochoa may have mis-represented himself in a public lawsuit.

Worse, Ochoa may well lose standing as a claimant in the lawsuit within the next two weeks, since he will no longer be part of the diocese.

Once Ochoa has formally left, the only power in the diocese will be that of the diocesan administrator, as El Paso waits for a new bishop. What power does a diocesan administrator have?

Can. 428 §1. When a see is vacant, nothing is to be altered.
§2. Those who temporarily care for the governance of the diocese are forbidden to do anything which can be prejudicial in some way to the diocese or episcopal rights. They, and consequently all others, are specifically prohibited, whether personally or through another, from removing or destroying any documents of the diocesan curia or from changing anything in them.

Clearly, Ochoa wanted to pursue Father Rodriguez in the few days left to him. But is beginning a civil legal action prejudicial to the episcopal rights of the as-yet-unnamed incoming bishop? Does Ochoa have the canonical power to lay this lawsuit?

A fascinating problem in El Paso, no question of it.

Disrespect

2012-01-12T15:11:00.000-08:00

Now, I'm not a fan of desecrating corpses.

But consider two cases:

1) US Troops urinate on the bodies of their enemies.

Once.

2) The Department of Defense dumps the cremated bodies of our soldiers in a landfill.

For ten years.

Question
Guess which one "top US officials moved swiftly" to correct?

Update:

This is Allen West's take:

“I have sat back and assessed the incident with the video of our Marines urinating on Taliban corpses. I do not recall any self-righteous indignation when our Delta snipers Shugart and Gordon had their bodies dragged through Mogadishu. Neither do I recall media outrage and condemnation of our Blackwater security contractors being killed, their bodies burned, and hung from a bridge in Fallujah.

“All these over-emotional pundits and armchair quarterbacks need to chill. Does anyone remember the two Soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division who were beheaded and gutted in Iraq?

“The Marines were wrong. Give them a maximum punishment under field grade level Article 15 (non-judicial punishment), place a General Officer level letter of reprimand in their personnel file, and have them in full dress uniform stand before their Battalion, each personally apologize to God, Country, and Corps videotaped and conclude by singing the full US Marine Corps Hymn without a teleprompter.

“As for everyone else, unless you have been shot at by the Taliban, shut your mouth, war is hell.”

This is also why I like Allen West.

Are YOU a Real Catholic?

2012-01-10T12:16:00.000-08:00

Three cases:

1) About a decade ago, Bishop Bruskewitz excommunicated a whole bunch of people. Specifically he legislated that anyone who was a member of: Call to Action, Planned Parenthood, Catholics for Free Choice, Hemlock Society, the SSPX and the Freemasons was subject to automatic excommunication.

His decision was appealed to Rome and upheld (and this despite the fact that Rome has repeatedly held members of the SSPX as NOT being excommunicate).

Despite this confirmation of his authority, no other bishop has followed his lead, nor has any other American bishop publicly withheld the Eucharist from members of these groups.

Indeed, although Bruskewitz has publicly said he would refuse the Eucharist to pro-abortion politicians, other bishops have publicly disputed the wisdom of taking such a course of action.

2) The Bishop of Amarillo has asked his brother bishops not to provide any support for Fr. Frank Pavone's ministry.

Again, other bishops in the US have not only not supported Amarillo, they have actively come out and supported Pavone, despite the fact that the Bishop of Amarillo would appear to have pretty clear authority over Pavone (his very own diocesan priest) and Pavone's ministry, at least to the extent that Pavone is head of the organization and subject to episcopal authority.

3) Recently, the Archbishop of Detroit publicly states that he doesn't think Michael Voris' RealCatholicTV should be using the word "Catholic" in it's title.

Yet again, no other bishop has followed the good Archbishop's lead.

There may be a reason for this.

As the Archdiocese of Detroit (AOD) itself admits, it doesn't really have jurisdiction.

In 2006, Voris petitioned for diocesan approval of his media and his own non-profit organization (St. Michael's Media).

Apparently, AOD dillied, dallied, ooohhhed and ahhhhed so long that Voris got tired of it. By 2008, Voris had started working for a different organization (RealCatholicTV).

Now, St. Michael's Media provided RCTV with content and with Voris - but that's all it provided. RCTV is NOT the same as St. Michael's Media. In fact, RCTV isn't even domiciled in the same state, much less the same diocese. RCTV is a DBA for Greenstar Enterprises, a for-profit corporation headed by Marc Brammer who lives in South Bend, Indiana.

So, to sum up the business side:
St. Michael's Media is non-profit and based in Ferndale, Michigan.
Greenstar Enterprises, DBA RCTV, is for-profit and based in South Bend, Indiana.

These are two entirely different business entities,
in two entirely different dioceses
in two entirely different states.

And, as AOD admits, RCTV never attempted to get anything from AOD.
Which makes sense, since RCTV has NO relationship to St. Michael's Media and is not under AOD's jurisdiction to begin with.

In short, RCTV is really none of AOD's business.

So, to sum up the archbishop's case:
AOD ruled on a five-year old request initiated by a completely different business. The archbishop attempted to apply his rule to a business which has zero ties to AOD, which had never petitioned AOD for anything, and was never under AOD's jurisdiction.

Conclusion
What are good Catholics to make of this?

Well, I'm sure canon lawyers can blather on about what should or shouldn't happen, but the facts are these:

The Church has made no clear ruling on how to handle the Internet and it's work,
The Internet issue actually has little to nothing to do with RCTV and Voris in this instance,
The opinion of one Archbishop is interesting but irrelevant,
Because the Archbishop is apparently running his mouth about a business entity which is not under his jurisdiction.

Canon lawyers can write lots and lots of blog posts discussing the niceties of what the Church might eventually rule or even what they think the Church should eventually rule, but that and a dollar still won't get you coffee at Starbucks.

Now, if I were being cynical, given the facts on the ground, I would say Sacred Heart Seminary - which is, by purest coincidence, domiciled in AOD - and AOD's employee, canon lawyer Peters, seem to be very interested in brown-nosing AOD's archbishop by snarking about all kinds of nonsense which makes zero actual sense. Especially since Peters may well have contributed to AOD's weird decree.

But since I'm not that cynical, I would clearly never say such a thing.

Keep dancing, Ed.
I'm sure we're all entertained.

UPDATE:
You know, it occurs to me that there was a similar dust-up in South Bend a couple of years ago, involving the priestly president of Notre Dame and the gift of an honorary law degree to some baby-killing yokel or other. Seems to me a lot of bishops (that is, more than the one Archbishop we have here) also pronounced, without invitation, their public disgust about the situation in South Bend. And, as I recall, there were ZERO repercussions for ND's good Father Jenkins in that scenario.

Now, why would that be?

Well, because the bishop of South Bend chose not to impose any penalty on Father Jenkins.
No other bishop imposed any penalty because... wait for it... they had no jurisdiction to do so.
And, if I recall correctly, Rome said exactly nothing about any of it.

With RCTV, we have an organization which not only hasn't killed a baby, it hasn't even advocated the death of anyone's baby. RCTV hasn't disobeyed their own bishop. Instead, someone else's bishop is upset with them.

For people who blather about how you are supposed to obey your own bishop, RCTV has obeyed theirs, so what's your beef, exactly?

Having Sex With Dogs In Heaven

2012-01-09T10:23:00.000-08:00

"Is there sexual intercourse in Heaven? ... Intercourse on earth is a shadow or symbol of intercourse in Heaven. Could we speculate about what that could be? It could certainly be spiritual intercourse ... this spiritual intercourse would mean something more specific than universal charity. It would be special communion with the sexually complementary; something a man can have only with a woman and a woman only with a man ... The relationship may not extend to all persons of the opposite sex, at least not in the same way or degree. ... I think there must be some special "kindred souls" in Heaven that we are designed to feel a special sexual love for. ... But would it ever take the form of physical sexual intercourse? Since there are bodies in Heaven, able to eat and be touched, like Christ's resurrection body, there is the possibility of physical intercourse"

This is Peter Kreeft's opinion, and now that he has given up Catholicism in favor of Westianism, we should pay attention to what Kreeft has to say. This is the wave of the future, after all.

“Are there animals in Heaven? The simplest answer is: Why not? How irrational is the prejudice that would allow plants (green fields and flowers), but not animals into Heaven.” Regarding pets, he writes: “Would the same animals be in Heaven as on earth? ‘Is my dead cat in Heaven?’ Again, why not? God can raise up the very grass; why not cats? Though the blessed have better things to do than play with pets, the better does not exclude the lesser.”

So, the obvious question arises. Do we have sex with dogs in heaven?

"Wait!" I hear you cry, "That's disgusting!"

Oh, you unenlightened non-Westians who haven't entered the higher knowledge are all alike, aren't you? Always ready to condemn things you don't understand!

Don't mock the good Dr. Kreeft.

He recognizes there is no marriage and no procreation in heaven.

He simply argues that physical intercourse is a possibility.

Not a big stretch, right?

Obviously, physical intercourse with other "kindred souls" (plural) can only be possible in heaven, if there is no such thing as illicit sex in heaven. And there can be no illicit act in heaven, because everything in heaven is lawful.

Sex with one woman not your wife is not fornication, because there is no marriage in heaven.

Sex with multiple women isn't polygamy.

This is all holy, according to Kreeft, so this kind of polyamory is fine, perfectly licit, nothing wrong with it.

Now, part of Kreeft's argument rests on the obvious fact that we retain our bodies and therefore our genitalia. Obviously heavenly dogs would likewise retain their genitalia.

Another part of his argument is that sexual union is just a full participation in universal charity. You can't argue against charitable sex, right?

Of course, if sex is merely one great way to express universal charity, and if everything in heaven participates in the universal charity of God, then dogs would certainly participate in universal charity, right?

So, to paraphrase Dr. Peter Kreeft, "How irrational is the prejudice that would allow me to have sex with other men, women and children but not to have sex with dogs, cats and sheep?"

Simple.

Logical.

Inarguable.

Islam Rising

Is it just me, or, does Kreeft's heaven begin to approach the Muslim view of heaven?

Specifically, isn't it interesting how male Westians endorse boinking lots of heavenly women or engaging in some kind of group sex thing?

I mean, ladies, do you find it enticing to think that you can have sex with dozens, hundreds or thousands of men, women, dogs and cats in heaven?

Perhaps I'm prejudiced from excessive study of Islam and rejection of Westianism, but this is a pretty male version of heaven. I'm not sure women would really be "up" for it, if you get my drift.

Is their precedent for Kreeft's unique vision?

Well, yes, there is.

Back in the 8th and 9th century, Muslim armies were constantly besieging Christian Constantinople.

Now, it should be noted that Muslims hate iconography, the depiction of people in artwork. They see it as an offense against God.

So, it was no coincidence that during this very period, the Christian rulers of Constantinople fell into the heresy of iconoclasm. During this heresy, Byzantine Christians destroyed thousands of icons and statues of saints, the Blessed Virgin Mary and even a legendary statue of Jesus himself.

Monks, nuns and other religious who opposed this attack on sacred images were cruelly oppressed and tortured. Their tongues were torn out, their eyes were pierced or torn from their sockets. The iconoclasts beheaded - notice the beheading - the Patriarch himself for daring to oppose this wanton destruction.

"The iconoclast movement never spread to largely illiterate Western Europe; its madness consumed only the segment of Christendom that boasted the highest literacy rate. Artists fled for their lives from Byzantium, heading for the western court of Charlemagne whose largely illiterate courtiers welcomed them with open arms."

It is worthwhile to note that nearly all the heretics of Christianity were learned men. Martin Luther, who also adopted many of the Muslim views expressed by the Islamic armies besieging Europe, was not only an ordained Augustinian priest, he had a Ph.D. in theology. Luther was not unique in this - most heretics were priests or bishops.

Likewise, it is worthwhile to remember that the Christian faithful of Ephesus were the heroes of that Council. It was their prayers, their parades, their constant invocation of Mary, Mother of God that helped the bishops of that Council recognize that Archbishop Nestorius, the Archbishop of Constantinople, was a heretic for denying Mary's true maternity of God. For the whole of his life, even after being exiled to a monastery like Maciel, Archbishop Nestorius insisted that he was orthodox.

Dr. Peter Kreeft's teaching is not found in the writings of the Fathers or Doctors of the Church.

His is a teaching of Islam, not of Christianity.

Kreeft, of course, is now a valued instructor at the Theology of the Body Institute, along with Dr. Janet Smith and the notorious Chris West, all vigorously sponsored by Matt Pinto's Ascension Press.

This is where Westianism leads you.

Do you really want to go there?

UPDATE:
I had a further thought about this.

If we are supposed to have sex with everyone in heaven, will women, especially nuns, have to stay in Purgatory until they accept the idea?

Is morality on earth different than morality in heaven?

And what of the 144,000 virgins who sing the song to the Lamb in Revelations 14:1-4?
Is that verse just wrong, or are they singing because they are finally going to get laid?

"Krazy as a Kreeft" may become a watchword among Catholics.
Now I'm going to have to pull his endorsement of my TOB book, or write a disclaimer pointing out that he endorsed it before he went publicly insane.
This is depressing.

That's It For 2012

2012-01-03T20:37:00.000-08:00

Well, now that the 2012 Presidential election is over, we can look back with longing on what might have been.

Of course, no one wanted Obama.
Mitt Romney was just Barack in white face.
And Rick Santorum sold out a pro-life Republican (Toomey) to Arlen Specter, the pro-death convert to the Democrats, one of the slimiest pieces of trash in Congress. To add insult to injury, not only couldn't we trust Santorum to stand by his pro-life values when the going got rough, he also turned out to be the biggest idiot on the Republican stage when it comes to economic policy. With Ron Paul in the race, that said something.

Obama, Romney or Santorum.

Larry, Moe or Curly.

Was there any reason to vote in 2012?

Even now, years later, as we languish under Obama's iron fist, I'm still hard pressed to think of one.

It's just as well that we don't have to worry our pretty little heads about voting any more.

The choices had become a farce anyway.

The Betting Window Is Open

2011-12-26T09:28:00.000-08:00

Just three months after Bishop Ochoa, formerly of El Paso, publicly rebuked one of his own priests for daring to promulgate the Church's teaching on homosexuality, he finds himself moved to Fresno.

What a coincidence!

Those outside the Church and/or those not familiar with Church politics might say this move is a reward to Ochoa for his years of service. After all, Bishop Ochoa has old ties to California, having been consecrated by Cardinal Mahoney and serving as one of his auxiliaries for nearly a decade prior to his elevation to El Paso. Fresno is also a larger diocese than El Paso, so an argument can be made that Bishop Ochoa is finally being allowed to return to where his heart lies.

But is that really what is going on?

A bishop is generally moved to a new diocese because he is seen as having a set of skills which match the difficulties of the diocese to which he is being moved. That is, a bishop is generally placed in a diocese in such a way that he can make a difference.

Now, making a difference takes time. Bishop Ochoa, for instance, is replacing a man who reigned as Fresno's bishop for over twenty years. Ochoa himself reigned in El Paso from June 1996 to Dec 1, 2011, a period of over 15 years.

But Bishop Ochoa is now 68 years old, just a few months shy of his 69th birthday (April 3, 1943). If a bishop doesn't make any changes in his first year in a new diocese (and most don't), that leaves Ochoa with roughly five years to work before he has to hand in his resignation. That's not a lot of time to accomplish anything.

And it's not like he accomplished that much in El Paso:

During the eleven year span between 1999 and 2009, there were only two ordinations to the priesthood for the Diocese of El Paso.

A bishop whose lived example and teaching is such that he manages to lead only two men to the priesthood in a decade isn't typically rewarded with a larger see. So, why would Rome move what would appear to be a barely competent bishop to a see like Fresno?

There's a question, eh?

Typically, an incompetent bishop is allowed to quietly die in his own diocese so that, at least, he doesn't harm anyone else. Bishop Ochoa was not granted that grace.

And the good Bishop himself seems rather deeply ticked off about the move. After all, when was the last time you heard a departing bishop speak dismissively of the diocese he himself has headed for the last decade? Yet that's exactly what Bishop Ochoa did on his way out of El Paso:

Bishop Ochoa likes to snow ski, and cycle. On his days off he'll ride 40 miles a week. In addition, he's happy to leave some of the west Texas ways behind.

Bishop Ochoa: "After fifteen years, with all do (sic) respect, even though I have my Tony Lama boots and my Stetson hat, I'm never getting into country western or whatever they call it."

Hmmm... That's a little peevish from someone who is getting his heart's desire, isn't it?
Again we ask, is this a reward or a punishment and public disgrace?

Before you answer, notice how the chips fell - for there has been at least some (self-inflicted) collateral damage among other American bishops.

Fr. Michael Rodriguez, a diocesan priest of El Paso, had long fought against El Paso's City Council's attempt to impose homosexual "marriage" on the city against the express will of the voters. It is to be noted that many members of the City Council, including the mayor, claim to be "Catholic." An example of Father Michael's work can be seen here:

Of course, orthodox teaching could not be allowed to interfere with the City Council's work.
By August 2011, Bishop Ochoa publicly repudiated Magisterial Church teaching as a peculiar personal opinion of an outcast priest:

“I would like to state that previous columns claiming to speak for Catholic Doctrine were the personal opinions of individuals and do not necessarily express the belief of the Catholic Church,”

Worse (at least from Bishop Ochoa's point of view), the Magisterium was not in conformance with the bishop's expert interpretation of IRS regulations (while the bishop has no formal training in the tax code, he is a very quick study).

2011's summer discussion of homosexual marriage in El Paso became nationally known. As Catholic blogs quickly lined up to opine on the situation, RealCatholicTV stepped in to produce not one, but two videos highlighting the wonders of Catholic teaching under Bishop Ochoa's reign in El Paso.

Now, those two videos came out in late October.

Which was just in time for another amazing coincidence.

Just over a month after Voris' twin videos highlighted the barely credible competence of Bishop Ochoa in regards not just to Fr. Michael Rodriguez but also in regards to the gross heresy permitted at the Tepeyac Institute of El Paso, RealCatholicTV got its reward.

On December 23, 2011 the Archdiocese of Detroit decided to give a special Christmas present to RealCatholicTV - Archbishop Vigneron decreed that Voris' organization be stripped of the word "Catholic" for having failed to teach in a way Vigneron considered to be in conformance with Catholic Faith.

The problem, of course, is that RealCatholicTV is not Voris' organization. Although Voris lives in Detroit, the organization is actually based in South Bend diocese. Which means Archbishop Vigneron is not competent to make such a decree. And Bishop Kevin Rhoades, who is competent to make such a decree, has remained conspicuously silent.

So, it looks for all the world as if Bishop Ochoa were being moved out of El Paso for lack of competency in general and for failing to take a stand against homosexual marriage in particular. He would appear to be the laughingstock of the American episcopacy.

Archbishop Vigneron then attempted to punish some of the people responsible for highlighting Ochoa's incompetence, but instead apparently made himself look even more foolish than Ochoa, which at this point, took some real work.

In the combat between the bishops and the Holy Spirit, we make the score God 2, Bishops 0.

Hello America's bishops!
Would anyone else like to take sides on this one?
The betting window is open...

Postscript
Now, as a final aside, what lesson can the lay faithful take away from this?
The lesson, ladies and gentlemen, is this.
Keep your smart phones at hand.
Record homilies, liturgies, teachings - visual or just audio, whatever suits you.
Record everything.
Make copies of the good and of the bad and send those copies, with appropriate remarks, up the chain of command.

First, send a copy to the priest, thanking him for good teaching, asking him to explain less than good teaching.
If the teaching is good, copy the bishop - he should know who his good men are.

But if the teaching is confusing, and the priest does not respond appropriately within an appropriate time frame (say a month or so), then take copies of his (non) response and send both the original communications and the priest's response to the bishop, asking for the bishop to explain the confusing teaching.

If the bishop doesn't respond within a couple of months, or responds inappropriately, take it to the papal nuncio.
After that, take it to the appropriate congregation in Rome.

Record everything.
Did I mention you should record everything?
We want good priests, good teaching and good liturgy highlighted and properly rewarded.
We want confusing priests, teaching and liturgy highlighted and properly rewarded.
Record everything.
Hold fast to those recordings.

And pray for El Paso's new bishop, that he may have
the steely spine of the Spirit,
the loving heart of Christ, and
the mind of God the Father.

Obama's Obituary

2011-12-21T22:15:00.001-08:00

A thought from Vaclav Havel:

The post-totalitarian system touches people at every step, but it does so with its ideological gloves on. This is why life in the system is so thoroughly permeated with hypocrisy and lies: government by bureaucracy is called popular government; the working class is enslaved in the name of the working class; the complete degradation of the individual is presented as his ultimate liberation; depriving people of information is called making it available; the use of power to manipulate is called the public control of power, and the arbitrary abuse of power is called observing the legal code; the repression of culture is called its development; the expansion of imperial influence is presented as support for the oppressed; the lack of free expression becomes the highest form of freedom; farcical elections become the highest form of democracy; banning independent thought becomes the most scientific of world views; military occupation becomes fraternal assistance. Because the regime is captive to its own lies, it must falsify everything. It falsifies the past. It falsifies the present, and it falsifies the future. It falsifies statistics. It pretends not to possess an omnipotent and unprincipled police apparatus. It pretends to respect human rights. It pretends to persecute no one. It pretends to fear nothing. It pretends to pretend nothing.

What A Coincidence!

2011-11-30T20:02:00.001-08:00

One of the tenets of Muslim belief is that non-Muslims living within Muslim society must feel themselves oppressed. The infidel must be made to understand that he is a second-class citizen, inferior to the infinitely superior Muslim who is his overloard.

When the infidel pays the jizya tax, the Muslim who collects that tax is supposed to strike him on the back of the neck, to remind him that he is paying ransom for his life - he could very well be killed for refusing to convert to Islam.

All of this comes to mind every time I hear another story about the TSA and the way that new, Obama-ready organization intimidates and humiliates American air travellers.

In Muslim countries, external signs of other religions are forbidden.
Recently, of course, Obama tried to impose a 15-cent "Christmas tree tax" on every Christmas tree sale. When that didn't fly, Obama flew instead.

That's right, he flew into New York City on the same day that the Rockefeller Center did its annual tree-lighting ceremony. Obama's visit shut down the NYC traffic grid, making it impossible to get into or out of Rockefeller Center. It was, in the words of many New Yorkers, a nightmare.

Now, I'm sure this is also just a coincidence.
Just like the time back in September when Obama tried to stage an address to Congress at the same time a televised Republican debate was planned to take place.

I'm sure no one named Hussein has any intention of humiliating Christians.

It's just that the man is so incidental to so many important things, that he's become coincidental to everything.

Occupy Monasteries!

2011-11-26T14:27:00.001-08:00

You know, that would have been the title of the occupy movement 500 years ago.

Monasteries were immensely wealthy, they created, disseminated and advanced technology throughout the Middle Ages and right through into the Renaissance. They were the entrepreneurs of the ancients.

The Romans may have known about the water wheel, but they simply never employed it on the scale that Benedictine monasteries did. The horse collar, the three-field system, the iron plow, the mechanical clock, corned gunpowder and the gun, and a host of other inventions were developed or spread by monastic communities across Europe.

By the late middle ages, those same monastic communities were also incredibly wealthy by dint of generations of renting out the land that the monks had cleared. Today's modern corporations, the ones we complain about for their unparalleled greed, are matched in medieval times by the monastic orders, as no less a wag than Chaucer readily attests.

What Marx never understood is today accepted as a simple fact. The top 1% of any culture owns between 40% and 50% of the wealth of the culture they occupy. This was true during pagan Roman times, it was true during medieval European times and it is true today.

It is a constant of human history, not because the secret cabal of conspirators would have it so, but because that's how any human culture based on a monetary system seems to arrange itself.

Furthermore, as the total wealth of a culture increases, the possibility of greater wealth inequality expands.

Let us assume I have two dollars and you have ten dollars. The total system has only twelve dollars in it, and you have a wealth five times greater than mine.

But let us assume that we both work hard during the year and manage to expand our wealth so that I now have twenty dollars while you have 200 dollars. Now you have ten times as much wealth as I have, but I am not the worse off for it. Indeed, I am better off.

That's exactly what happens to the poor in any industrial society. They may not have much cash in hand. Perhaps their percentage share of the cash in hand has actually dropped as dramatically as my share did in the previous example. But these poor now have access to goods they didn't have before. They have access to automobiles, air conditioning, penicillin, laparoscopy, and really cheap computers. And, even as a poor person in that society, they have more money now than they did a generation previously.

So, even if their cash in hand cannot purchase them all the goods that are available, they now have a much wider choice of goods than their fathers did, and they definitely benefit from the fact that these goods exist. Food can be transported to them even if they don't personally own cars. A hospital may accept and treat them with new techniques even if they have not sufficient money to pay.

What was extraordinary luxury yesterday is simply to the lifestyle to be expected for even the poorest among us tomorrow. The prisoners we punish in our jails arguably live more richly than Henry VIII did at the height of his syphilitic reign.

And Henry, remember, was the one who crushed the English monastic system, giving away the lands and killing or exiling all the monks. By so doing, he killed the technological powerhouses of England.

In other words, Henry was the first Occupy protester.

The major difference is, he actually managed to make the Occupy movement permanent, at least in regard to the wealthy monastic communities of his age.

And England was the worse for it.

So, Occupiers, be careful what you wish for.
Like any good father, God often finds it useful to punish us by giving us exactly what we ask.

The Economics of Scripture

2011-11-26T08:26:00.001-08:00

Are the rich oppressing the poor in America?
The answer is not quite so clear as some people would have it.

Now, Scripture is quite clear-cut on the need to have a "preferential option for the poor". The problem, of course, is determining exactly what that phrase means. To people without a decent understanding of basic economics, things get pretty confused pretty quickly.

Interpreting Scripture is Tricky
To see why Scripture is being twisted today in the realm of economics, we should study another clear example of misinterpreted Scripture - the flat geocentric earth. As Templeton Prize winner Father Stanley Jaki liked to point out, Scripture literally describes a flat earth beneath a whirling firmament of planets and stars, complete with supporting pillars, a hemispherical sky with waters above, and doors that opened and closed to produce rain and drought.

Around 1611 AD, a man named Galileo used his improved telescope, along with work by a Polish canon lawyer (and probable priest) Copernicus, to point out that the Bible could not be taken literally in its description. Jesuit priests who had long studied astronomy greeted Galileo's evidence with tremendous enthusiasm, throwing parties for Galileo and heaping accolades on him.

But, secular university professors who envied Galileo's new-found fame, and who feared that his work would overthrow their own importance, conspired against him. Professor Columbe formed the League of the Dove and in 1614 paid off a priest, Tommaso Caccini to begin preaching against Galileo's theories at Mass. The priest essentially accused Galileo of perverting Scripture. This began the long conflict between the university professors and Galileo which ended in two different trials and Galileo being found "vehemently suspect of heresy."

Scripture says a lot of things, but we must recognize that when it comes to reconciling science with faith, there can be no contradiction between the two. If there appears to be a contradiction, we must interpret Scripture in such a way that it does not contradict the facts described by the other sciences. We must also recognize that dividing men and women up into the evil rich and the good poor is an essentially false view of the world:

“If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?” ― Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago: 1918-1956

When it comes to economics, Catholics might need to double-check their interpretations of Scripture against economic realities, and think about how best to interpret the Scriptures in light of our new knowledge. Wealth is no longer measured in gold coins. Money is now an electronic cipher, a twist of electrons in the bowels of a computer. Work and the fruits of honest work can now be disseminated in ways that simply weren't possible before.

Just as our understanding of what usury is has changed because money has changed, we have to understand the Scriptural commands about the poor in light of what wealth has morphed into.

Capitalism: Problem and Solution
Now, I have written endlessly against the problems entailed in capitalism. There's no question that pure capitalism, the mindless accumulation of wealth, necessarily directs itself to destroying families and human life in general.

But, that having been said, we must also recognize that capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than any other system on earth. And this isn't just a bromide on my part, but a cold, hard fact.

We can wail about the way corporations dispose of people, but we must recognize that corporations don't do any of that.

People do.

Corporations don't exist in any moral sense, corporations aren't morally responsible for anything. Only individual people exist in a moral sense, only individual people are morally responsible.

After World War II, the Catholic Church formally condemned the idea that any people, Germans, Jews, anyone, can carry a corporate guilt. The only corporate guilt that men carry is original sin. We carry that lack of grace only because our first father, Adam, incurred that debt of grace and passed that impoverishment onto us, his children.

There is no other corporate guilt.
There can be no other corporate guilt.

We can't hold "corporations" responsible for mis-treating the poor. If the poor aren't treated well, that's my fault. It's the fault of the Church of which I am a member. But I can't assign blame to a group of people, of whom, coincidentally, I never happen to be a part.

Christ commanded Christians to care for the poor - he didn't tell Caesar to do it, nor did he assign the task to the local fish-mongers' guild. Care for the poor is the Church's responsibility - the only morally existent corporation. Care for the poor is the Christian's concern - the individual's. Attacking the government for something we are supposed to be doing is the height of hypocrisy.

Caring for the Poor
Now, what constitutes caring for the poor?

That's where things get sticky.

Take the example of Norman Borlaug.

Norman Borlaug fed more poor people than any Christian church ever did. It is literally possible that he fed more poor people than even the Catholic Church ever did. But I'm unaware of him entering into any protests against the government or giving a lot of money to charity. From what I understand, for most of his life, he didn't have very much money to give. He just worked. But that was enough.

"Greedy" corporations, like ConAgra, Monsanto, and Dupont, took his work and made it economically feasible to disseminate throughout the world. If those corporations hadn't been rich, and if the shareholders and directors hadn't been elated at the increased wealth Borlaug's work promised, Borlaug's work would have withered and died on the vine, unheralded, unadvertised, unused.

Millions, possibly billions, would have either never been born, or having been born, would have died a terrible death of disease and starvation.

Now, did all those corporations and Borlaug himself - did they become wealthier as a result?
Why, yes.
Yes they did.
And doesn't Scripture tell us that a workman is worth his wage?

I didn't agree with the bank bailouts then and I don't now.
I think it prudentially a bad decision that prolongs a necessary agony.
But that's a prudential decision.
And the prudentials of economics, what constitutes a good economic decision that will benefit millions (while also, perhaps, massively benefitting a few), is not outlined in Scripture.

Scripture tells us only what the final outcome should be, it doesn't describe the methods in any great detail.

We can quote Scripture and attack the nasty corporations, and some of things employees of corporations do are quite nasty. For instance, chopping up babies to grab their stem cells will not win anyone awards for moral action on this blog. But we have to recognize that helping the poor in the long-term might mean that certain sectors of the economy (corporations, for instance) must accumulate massive amounts of wealth in order to have the bankroll necessary to disseminate and popularize truly deserving work.

Now, will those same wells of wealth also bankroll the dissemination of schlock, or really evil work?
Why, sure.

After all, the line between good and evil runs through the middle of every human heart.
Capitalism is designed to satisfy every heart's desire.
Whether that desire is good or bad, capitalism will try to slake the desire.

That's why we can look at capitalism, corporations, governments and find so much evil.
That's also why we can look at exactly the same troika and find so much good.

So, when we take righteous indignation at the corporations, even at corporations whose stock we don't happen to own, we should remember that we are really railing against our own inadequacies.
And it would help us realize this if we pointed this out in the essay somewhere.

You see, the problem lies not in the corporations, but in ourselves, that we are underlings.

Mexican Standoff

2011-11-22T09:45:00.001-08:00

This story is interesting.

It appears that the Obama administration is knowingly shipping a lot more guns to Mexico than previously reported in any Fast and Furious scandal.

From 2008 to 2009, when President Obama entered office, Defense Department expenditures to Mexicohave increased from $12 million to $34,000,000 and State Department expenditures increased from $7.2 million to $356 million.

As the article points out, a lot of this support is in the form of arms to the Mexican military and government. This despite the fact that soldiers and government officials are exiting into drug cartel ranks en masse, and taking their guns with them.

It's almost as if the Obama administration were trying to destabilize the Mexican government.

Of course, if that were to happen, as social conditions broke down, hundreds of thousands of Mexican citizens would flee Mexico, headed for safer locations.

Now, as the US economy has melted down, the number of illegals entering the country has dropped off.
Obama can't seem to get the economy going again - or, rather, seems interested in making sure the economy stays down for the count.

If you know the economy is in dire straits, why would you work to destabilize your neighbor's government?

So many questions, so few answers.

The Catholic Barnum and Bailey

2011-11-12T07:28:00.001-08:00

It appears that the Legionaries of Christ - a popular Catholic cult based on the work of a remarkably twisted, evil man - has a new contender for spiritual leader: Chris West.

The Legionaries of Christ is, of course, famous for being founded by Marcel Maciel, the man whose spirituality turned out to be based on having sex with anything that moved, and a few things that didn't.

Maciel is also notable for being one of only a handful of people who have been seriously reprimanded by the Pope himself, when Pope Benedict sent Maciel to perpetual occupation of a monastery cell. This allowed him to meditate on his sins and kept him away from other people's genitals. Blessed John Paul II would have done the same thing if only he hadn't been completely hoodwinked by Maciel and supporters. But even saints make mistakes sometimes.

And the idea that saints sometimes make mistakes is quite convenient for the members of the Legion, who still prefer to think of Maciel as a saint, rather than a monster.

Maciel was... well.... maybe not a saint, but at least saint-like, except for all those romps with all those girls and boys. Well, and the pregnancies. And the secret child support for the resulting progeny. And the larceny. Which we can overlook all of that, because he was just a wounded man, you see.

So Maciel is really a saint, just like Blessed John Paul II, because Blessed JP II liked Maciel right up until the end and you can always trust a saint, except when you can't. That should be proof enough for anyone!

Thus, it's no real surprise to see a Legionary priest compare Blessed Pope John Paul II to Maciel.

And it's no real surprise to see Chris West, who loves comparing John Paul II to Hugh Hefner, double down on the Legionary comparision. Chris generously points out that the LC cult could now hitch its wagon to his star, and help him promote the "theology of the body."

Now, sure, the LC wouldn't be promoting JP II's version, it would actually be promoting Chris West's version, and Chris's version is essentially heretical because it denies that Catholic virtue IS virtue.

But all of these persnickety details should slip right by the members of the Legion because they aren't really well-known for critical thinking when it comes to leadership.

Yep, that's EXACTLY who we want teaching Catholic theology, especially the theology of human love: untrained lay cult members who were spiritually formed by a sex maniac.

Of course, Chris was himself formed in a cult, a cult that had ALSO been suppressed (albeit, only by the local church), Chris has promoted other cult leaders in the past, Chris is surrounded by people who started or participated in other Catholic cults that the Church has expressed concern about, so it is hardly surprising that Chris now apparently wants to hitch his star to the Legion's cult.

Or vice versa.
Doesn't matter, really.
What matters is this.

Cults make TONS of money for the leaders.

Men like Chris West and his publisher, Matt Pinto.

So, if West can successfully promote himself into the leadership, or at least into a starring role in the Legion, everyone will make out like a bandit.

And John Paul II's minor work will be turned into a major spectacle.
Think Barnum and Bailey.

We Need New Rope

2011-11-07T20:52:00.000-08:00

So, now a white woman is accusing a powerful black man of sexual assault.

That's SUCH a shocker.

You know, if you're going to perform a hi-tech lynching, couldn't you at least use new rope?

Not that it matters.
Cain has this nomination just about sewed up.

Romney can't get off 25%, and when Santorum, Bachman and Perry throw in the towel, all those voters are going to Cain, not Romney.

That's Rich

2011-10-15T09:41:00.000-07:00

So, Father Pavone has chosen to ignore his own bishop's invitation to dialogue.
On the advice of his canon lawyer, apparently.

It's an interesting defense, but I found this passage particularly telling:

Fr. Deibel also accused Bishop Zurek of asking to meet one-on-one with Fr. Pavone and telling the priest to not write or speak of the meeting publicly.

“Then, the next day, before Father Frank even had an opportunity to respond, the bishop announced the meeting on the front page of the website of the Amarillo diocese,” Fr. Deibel said.

Oh, the humanity!

Father Pavone is upset, UPSET, I say, because the bishop told Father Pavone to shut up for once and let the bishop act as.... well.... the bishop.
Father Pavone, do you remember the bishop's role?
Head of the diocese, the decision-maker, the man who runs the show?
Any of that ring a bell?

It's like having your boss tell you not to talk to the press because higher management wants to do the talking.

How DARE higher management shut Father Pavone up!
How DARE Dad tell you - the subordinate, the child, the younger brother - to shut up while the man given the responsibility to run the diocese tells the world what HE feels needs to be said in this situation!

After all, when the bishop called Father Pavone back due to concerns about financial irregularities, we didn't hear a single word from Father Pavone about finances again.

No, not a single word from Father Pavone about money.

Instead, Father Pavone has spewed thousands of words, most of which boil down to "Give me all your money right now or the babies die!"

And notice the bishop merely said a meeting was to take place - he didn't say Father Pavone hadn't shown up until.... well... until Father Pavone didn't show up.

Given that this is an internal matter, and the bishop is supposed to be the head of the diocese, it is not entirely a surprise to find that the bishop feels its HIS responsibility to what degree the public is to be informed about the proceedings between a bishop and his own priest.

But Father Pavone is upset because HE didn't get a chance to advertise it first.

Man, who is running this inquiry?
The bishop or Father Pavone?
Obviously, Father Pavone wants the bishop to get his head screwed on straight before he, Father Pavone, can be expected to deign to meet with him.

What CAN the bishop be thinking?
Why, I'll bet the bishop didn't even donate to Priests for Life this year!
And after all those good-natured and generous reminders from Father Pavone!
Slacker.

UPDATE:
News from Amarillo about Fr. Pavone's finances.

UPDATE II:
Another Day, Another Appeal for MONEY

October 18, 2011

(Thank you for your support of Priests for Life. If you already responded to the following appeal online, I appreciate your support. This email is intended for those who did not respond when we sent it previously.)

Of course, you can dispel my fear that you might be taken in by these false accusations by clicking here and making as large a contribution to Priests for Life as you can … whether it be for $15, $150 or $15,000.

Pavone's Road

2011-10-09T20:03:00.000-07:00

They say the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

One has to wonder what Fr. Pavone's road is paved with.

A reader has brought to my attention several curious aspects of Fr. Pavone's "pro-life" work.

Exhibit 1:
Father Pavone's curious support for John McCain.

Does anyone remember how Fr. Pavone worked hard for John McCain's election, despite the fact that American Right To Life lamented McCain's serious pro-abortion bent?

Pro-abortion Republicans enthusiastically supported John McCain's presidential run.
So did Father Pavone.

Now, one may argue that McCain was not as reliably evil as Barack Obama - and that's a fair argument.
Personally, I wasn't able to stomach the thought of voting for McCain until August 2008, about the time Obama started favorably comparing himself to God and John McCain chose Sarah Palin as his running mate.

But Pavone was pushing for McCain way back in February 2008, when there were a lot more, a lot better choices than that particular man.

Why?

Exhibits 2, 3, 4

If you look at Schedule B on the following three Life Dynamics donation forms, you'll see that Priests For Life gave a total of $143, 410 to Life Dynamics over at least those three years. Possibly more was given in earlier years.

2007: $39,091

2008: $58,319

2009: $46,000

Total: $143,410

Life Dynamics has now produced a Youtube video in which Mark Crutcher, the non-Catholic founder of Life Dynamics, attacks a Catholic bishop.

Why is Father Pavone not publicly pointing out to Mr. Crutcher that his (Crutcher's) attacks on a Catholic bishop are not welcome?

Life Dynamics

Certainly Life Dynamics, although not a Catholic organization, has done excellent work in exposing the abortion industry. For instance, Life Dynamics was the first to publish tapes of phone calls between abortion providers and women pretending to be "underage." They did this 'way back in the 1990s. Indeed, Lila Rose's recent work in this area simply emulated, extended and perfected Life Dynamics idea with Youtube video stings.

In the same way, Crutcher's Lime 5 book was original and unprecedented in its revelations concerning Planned Parenthood's attempts to silence its victims.

But if donors wished to give money to Life Dynamics (which is also a 501(3)(c)), why wouldn't they do so directly?

To put it another way, how many Catholic donors realized that the money they gave to Priests for Life was actually being sent directly to some other organization?

Perhaps all the donors whose money was siphoned off like this are fine with it.

Or, perhaps, these donors expected the money they gave to Priests for Life to be used to support the pro-life work of ... oh, I don't know.... Catholic priests maybe....????

Like the money that was supposed to go to creating Father Pavone's seminary (but didn't) or the money donated to help Father Pavone found a religious order (but didn't), here's more money that ended up going to something the donors probably never even knew about.

How much money got thrown around like this?

Why does every story we hear about Father Pavone and his friends merely seem to confirm the perception that this man is not very responsible?

UPDATE:

If you pay Fr. Pavone enough, he won't be frightened.
But you have to pay him.
Right now.

October 11, 2011
DearSteve

...My only real fear rightnow is what might be going through your mind at this time regarding me andPriests for Life. That’s because of all the misinformation andoutright attacks on me and Priests for Life that are taking place rightnow.

All Ican tell you is that just about everything you’re reading or hearingis false. All of it.

Of course, you can dispel my fear that you might betaken in by these false accusations by clicking here and making as large a contribution to Priests for Life as youcan … whether it be for $15, $150 or $15,000.

Remember - you aren't really a committed pro-life person if you don't give Fr. Pavone money.
Right now.
Slacker.

Which is why I amcounting on you to click here and show the depth of your commitment to our fight to endlegalized abortion-on-demand inAmerica.

Remember, he's being persecuted.
Don't send antibiotics or bandages.
Send him money.
That will soothe his grievous injuries.
Small bills, unmarked.

It is especially important that you do asBishop Gries asks because there are people who call themselves“Catholic” who want to destroy Priests for Life. They arepart of what Pope Paul VI alluded to in 1972 when he said that “thesmoke of Satan has entered thetemple ofGod.”

In reality theseself-proclaimed “Catholics” are heralds of the culture ofdeath. And their strategy right now is to put out a constant drumbeatof lies and false accusations against Priests for Life in the hope thatunsuspecting people will begin to believe them and stop supporting Priestsfor Life.
But there’s a critical flaw in their plan:
YOU!
That’s because,through your prayers and financial contributions, you are the one whodictates the amount of work Priests for Life can do to endabortion.

Now, he CERTAINLY can't be calling his own bishop SATAN, right?
There's only one way to find out:

Click here and continue to support Priests for Life as faithfully and asgenerously as you always have … both spiritually with your prayersand financially with your dollars. It is critically important thatyou do.

UPDATE
Fr. Pavone is a No-Show with his Bishop.

The Taxman Cometh

2011-10-03T20:05:00.000-07:00

Well, here's an oddity.

As I was doing research for a class I'm teaching this quarter, I ran across an article on the accumulation of wealth in America.

The sociologist was trying to show that most of the wealth (stocks, land, etc) in the country was held by a very small subpopulation (top 1%).

Darned Plutocrats!

So, he built the first three columns of the two tables below: Total Net Worth and Financial Wealth.

As I studied the tables, I wondered how the amount of taxes paid by the top 1%, 20% and bottom 80% corresponded to Total Net Worth and Financial Wealth. So I added the last three columns to each table and did a quick Google to try to find the numbers.

I couldn't find the exact numbers, but I found some approximations.

I plugged the rough numbers into the appropriate slots in the left-most columns of each table.

That's why many of those cells are blank - I couldn't find all the data I wanted.

Now, there's a couple of interesting things here.

One:

The politicians and the pundits on both the left and the right seem to be misrepresenting the situation.

The left insists the rich don't pay enough.

The right insists the rich pay 'way more than their fair share.

But if you look at just these rough numbers, on a per dollar wealth/tax ratio, it looks like the current federal tax code is actually not that far off from essentially fair.

The top 20% own 85% of the wealth and pay about 87% of the taxes.
The bottom 80% own 15% of the wealth and pay about 15% of the taxes.
Yes, I know the percentages don't exactly add up correctly, but I'm working off other people's rounding errors, so we can only do ball-park work here.
But even so, you can't ask for much better than that.

Of course, these numbers only account for federal tax, not state, local or - worst of all - sales tax.

All of that would definitely affect the tables, and probably not in a good way for the poor.

But as far as the federal tax goes, it actually works.
Of course, we're not done yet.

Two:

At least as far as the federal tax goes, another interesting thing seems to be happening.

It looks like the MORE the rich pay in taxes:

(a) the WEALTHIER the rich get and

(b) the LESS the lower 80% share in the wealth.

Look at the table below.

In 1983, the top 1% owned roughly 34% of the country's wealth, but paid only 19% of the taxes.

In that same year, the bottom 80% owned nearly 19% of the country's wealth.

But, by 1989, when the federal taxes paid by the top 1% went up to 25%, the bottom 80% saw their share of the country's wealth drop to just 16.5%.

Today, the top 1% own nearly 35% of the country's wealth and pay 40% of the taxes.

Meanwhile, although the bottom 80% pay less taxes than they ever have, they also own less of the wealth than they ever have.

Now, call me crazy, but I find that somewhat counter-intuitive.

If you're rich, paying more taxes makes you richer.

If you're poor, paying less taxes makes you poorer.

Now, you could argue that I have it exactly backwards - the rich pay more because they are rich, and the poor pay less because they own less to tax.

Unfortunately, from the few numbers I've been able to find, that interpretation doesn't really fit.

For the 25 years covered in these tables, the rich have always owned between 33% and 38% of the country, but the actual percentage of taxes they pay has fluctuated anywhere between 19% and 40%.

There's no obvious correlation between the two. A low rate of taxation (the 19% in 1983) yields a wealth ownership for that top 1% that is not much different from a high rate of taxation (the current 40%).

That is, the percentage of wealth held by the top 1% doesn't really change regardless of how much you tax them.

Instead, what does change as a function of taxation on the rich is how much wealth the rest of the country has. The more taxes the wealthy pay, the less wealth everyone else has. I don't have all the numbers, but all the numbers I have show that effect.

It's almost like Reagan was right about this whole "trickle-down economics" thing.

It's also got very obvious repercussions for the political arguments over taxes that currently shake the airwaves.

It makes me yearn for a low rate of taxation on federal income and corporate tax... say something around 9% for each...

In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.7%. Table 1 and Figure 1 present further details drawn from the careful work of economist Edward N. Wolff at New York University (2010).

Table 1: Distribution of net worth and financial wealth
in the United States, 1983-2007

	Total Net Worth
	Top 1 percent	Next 19 percent	Bottom 80 percent	% Fed Tax Paid by Top 1%	% Fed Tax Paid by Top 25%	% Fed Tax Paid by Bottom 80%
1983	33.8%	47.5%	18.7%	~19%
1989	37.4%	46.2%	16.5%	~25%
1992	37.2%	46.6%	16.2%
1995	38.5%	45.4%	16.1%
1998	38.1%	45.3%	16.6%
2001	33.4%	51.0%	15.6%	~38%	~83%	~20%
2004	34.3%	50.3%	15.3%	~37%	~85%
2007	34.6%	50.5%	15.0%	40.42%	87%	~15%

	Financial Wealth
	Top 1 percent	Next 19 percent	Bottom 80 percent	% Fed Tax Paid by Top 1%	% Fed Tax Paid by Top 25%	% Fed Tax Paid Bottom 80%
1983	42.9%	48.4%	8.7%	~19%
1989	46.9%	46.5%	6.6%	~25%
1992	45.6%	46.7%	7.7%
1995	47.2%	45.9%	7.0%
1998	47.3%	43.6%	9.1%
2001	39.7%	51.5%	8.7%	~38%	~83%	~20%
2004	42.2%	50.3%	7.5%	~37%	~85%
2007	42.7%	50.3%	7.0%	40.42%	87%	~15%

Total assets are defined as the sum of: (1) the gross value of owner-occupied housing; (2) other real estate owned by the household; (3) cash and demand deposits; (4) time and savings deposits, certificates of deposit, and money market accounts; (5) government bonds, corporate bonds, foreign bonds, and other financial securities; (6) the cash surrender value of life insurance plans; (7) the cash surrender value of pension plans, including IRAs, Keogh, and 401(k) plans; (8) corporate stock and mutual funds; (9) net equity in unincorporated businesses; and (10) equity in trust funds.

Total liabilities are the sum of: (1) mortgage debt; (2) consumer debt, including auto loans; and (3) other debt. From Wolff (2004, 2007, & 2010).

Send in The Marines

2011-10-01T06:52:00.000-07:00

Hey, just call me Cassandra.
Quite a while ago, I predicted that Obama would try to suspend elections.

My prediction hasn't come entirely true.
So far, they're just floating the idea.

In order to actually suspend elections, they would need the military.
Historically, politics has never been something the American military has been interested in.

Changing that attitude would take a couple of decades of constant infiltration.
Besides, it would be kind of gay if the military were to change now.

We should get serious.
This is America.
Really, what are the odds?

Slouching Towards Honesty

2011-09-27T18:14:00.000-07:00

Father Pavone is beginning to sound like any of a number of Catholic bloggers who regularly beg for cash to feed themselves, their birds, their neighbor's cats, and what-have-you.

September 27, 2011
(Thank you for your support of Priests for Life. If you already responded to the following appeal online, I appreciate your support. This email is intended for those who did not respond when we sent it previously.)
Dear Steve and Veronica,
I sent you this urgent email because I have some important issues that concern you, me, our work together at Priests for Life, and the entire pro-life movement here in the United States.
In light of all that’s happened in the past couple weeks – and again, I’ll discuss this with you in just a moment – it is vital that you maintain your unconditional support for Priests for Life and the fight to end legalized abortion-on-demand in America.

Right now that means doing whatever is necessary to click here and send Priests for Life the largest gift you can possibly make today.

Not an hour from now. Not later this evening. Not tomorrow. But right now!

Notice that Father has finally taken the opportunity to clarify his bishop's motivations.

4. While Bishop Zurek wants to clear up any and all misunderstandings, he made it clear that he does not want the work of Priests for Life to be harmed.

Wow - that was generous of him.

It only took him to .... what? .... the fourth or fifth appeal for funds before he laid that out?

So, for all of you who are laying malicious allegations at the bishop's door, Father Pavone is saying you should stop.

According to Father Pavone, his bishop has no ulterior motives, just genuine concern about Father Pavone.

Now, Father Pavone has still NOT explained why anyone should trust him after he:

attempted to found a religious order that Rome herself ended up having to suppress,
collected money for a seminary he promised to build but never did,
collected money for seminarians who came to him to be formed, but with whom he almost never met,
collected money in July, August and September for a 501(c)(3) that turns out to have lost it's tax-free status in June.
has come up $1.4 million short despite having been given tens of millions by gullible donors.

I'm sure there's an excellent explanation for all that. I'm sure he can explain:

where the missing seminary money went,
why he let the tax-exempt status lapse,
why he didn't tell donors the truth about the seminary funds,
or tell his donors the truth about the missing tax-exempt status,
or even the truth about his rocky relationship with his own bishop.

And if you pay him enough money, maybe he'll tell you what all those explanations are.

But I doubt it.

UPDATE:
Oh, LOOK!
He's asking for money again today:

September 28, 2011

....As you can see,there is a lot of work for us to do. And it can’t possibly get done without your immediate helptoday! So please click here and provide as much financial support to Rachel’sVineyard as you possibly can.

His bishop obviously isn't back yet...

UPDATE II:
Oh, LOOK!
He's got his friend (Troy Newman, Operation Rescue) asking for money on his behalf:

September 29, 2011

That said …… I urge you in the strongest way I can to click here and send Priests for Life a much-neededcontribution!And please do thisRIGHT NOW … before you hit the “delete” buttonand go on to your next email.

And you know he's serious because the post was titled "It's About the Babies".
It's also about four major appeals for money in less than 2000 words.

Three days, three appeals for cash.

Update III:
Sigh.... At least they took the weekend off...

October 4, 2011That said …… I urge you in the strongest way I can to click here and send Priests for Life a much-neededcontribution!And please do thisRIGHT NOW … before you hit the “delete” buttonand go on to your next email.

Comparing Priests

2011-09-22T07:30:00.000-07:00

If you want to see another example of the useless dissonance that Father Pavone has caused, one has just come to hand.

Father Pavone is publicly fighting with his bishop over money.

Father Rodriguez is publicly fighting an entire town over sodomy.

But when his bishop punishes Fr. Rodriguez by removing the good priest to the farthest reaches of the diocese, when the parish Fr. Rodriguez administers is essentially shut down for three days (no Masses, no confessions, no substantive responses from the chancery office when parishioners call), when that parish - whose coffers have become full through his orthodoxy, his preaching, his administration of the Extraordinary Form Mass - when all of that is stripped away and he is required to move everything he owns with roughly 24 hours notice, Father Rodriguez responds by saying,

"I was ordained to the Catholic priesthood to offer sacrifice and teach the only truth which brings salvation and happiness. The priesthood is my greatest joy. In the present circumstances, I intend to try even harder to be a good, holy priest. Obedience to my bishop is essential to the priesthood."

Anyone who can look at Fr. Pavone, compare what he's said publicly to Fr. Rodriguez' public statements, and call Fr. Pavone's performance anything other than a disgusting travesty by a showboating, money-grubbing narcissist has me completely at a loss.

Fr. Rodriguez fought over doctrine, not money.
He did not fight his bishop - if he did, we have no public evidence of it.
He stuck to the fight that mattered - the dissemination of bad theology.
Father Rodriguez is a good and holy priest.
Father Pavone is not.

It saddens me to say that the Bishop of El Paso is morally in the wrong on this one.

The bishop has the legal and canonical right to move his priests wherever he wants for any reason he wants, but what he's doing - backing away from a fight through fear of the IRS - is simply wrong.

UPDATE:
Fr. Pavone NEVER disappoints.
He begs for money again today:

September 22, 2011
Dear Steve and Veronica,
Belowyou’ll find some updates about some of our recent Priests for Lifeactivity. Thank you for being involved.
We are working out allthe misunderstandings with my bishop here in Amarillo. As we do so,I’m amazed at how many people think they know more about thesituation than I do, and pontificate on blogs and websites all over theplace. If anything that anyone says raises questions in your mind, pleaseknow that you can get the updates and accurate information at www.priestsforlife.org/update.
I encourage you to get to know the presidential candidates bywatching tonight's debate on Fox News at 9 p.m. ET. We are to besmart, attentive, and informed, and we need to get to know the candidatesas far in advance as possible.
We are happy to bring yourattention to the fact that next month, our friend and colleague TeresaTomeo releases her newest book, “Extreme Makeover,” which talksabout women transformed by Christ, not conformed to the culture. Our ownExecutive Director, Janet Morana, is featured in the book. Janet and Teresaco-host the new EWTN series “The Catholic View for Women,”along with Astrid Bennett-Gutierrez, of Hispanics for Life.....

I aslo encourage you to do two things:
a) Keepfocused on the work and the projects, such as the developments I mentionbelow and will continue to update you about, and
b) Pleaseincrease your donations to Priests for Life so that despite the efforts ofour detractors to slow us down, we can speed up instead!
Onefinal word. One commentator was silly enough to state that Priests forLife, as my “baby,” had to be given for adoption or would die.I have news for that person: Priests for Life isn’t a baby anymore;it is an adult, and a highly respected one. People like Alveda King, ourfulltime priests, Janet Morana, Marie Smith, Bryan Kemper and others arefully engaged in the leadership of this family of ministries, and are fullyaccountable to and cooperative with Church authority, not only inindividual dioceses but at the level of the Vatican. Moreover, as werecently announced (but some bloggers apparently missed), we have formed anInternational Private Association of the Faithful in full accordance withChurch law.
So thanks for your support. Forward we go, tovictory for the unborn!

Fr. Frank Pavone
NationalDirector

Waiting for Pavone

2011-09-20T16:33:00.000-07:00

Some of the more unreflective Catholic bloggers on the Internet are calling for Catholics to sit out the fight between the Bishop of Amarillo and Fr. Frank Pavone, the head of Priests for Life.

"I can't choose sides," says the Catholic, "there aren't enough facts for me to decide who is right. I will show how virtuous I am and simply wait for Rome to rule."

This position is absolutely absurd.

Consider:

The bishop of Amarillo has asked all of his brother bishops in the United States to stop their support for Priests for Life until he gets the situation straightened out.

Father Pavone, on the other hand, has sent no less than three (3) mass e-mails blasting out asking... nay, demanding... that we, the lay faithful, give him money and give it RIGHT NOW.

So, if we sit back and "wait for Rome to respond," then we are refusing Father Pavone's three-fold demand.
If, on the other hand, we send money to Father Pavone, we are refusing to accept the bishop's judgement.

Do you hear the rooster crowing?

It doesn't matter that you don't have as much information as you would like to have.

By sitting idle, you have chosen a position.
By doing something, you have chosen a position.

Everyone in this fight has already chosen a position because the principles in this fight have, through their conflicting demands, forced each one of us into one corner or the other.

I'm not even going to ask that you choose.
You already have.

UPDATE:
Catholic Culture appears to agree with me.

SHOCK - Fr. Pavone Asks...

2011-09-19T21:05:00.000-07:00

For MORE MONEY!

And it's only Sept 19!
8:58 PM!
(Time stamps seem only appropriate, given how quickly the interval between appeals is shrinking):

September 19, 2011
(Thank you for your support of Priests for Life. If you already responded to the following appeal online, I appreciate your support. This email is intended for those who did not respond when we sent it previously.)

Dear Steve
I sent you this urgent email because I have some important issues that concern you, me, our work together at Priests for Life, and the entire pro-life movement here in the United States.
In light of all that’s happened in the past couple weeks – and again, I’ll discuss this with you in just a moment – it is vital that you maintain your unconditional support for Priests for Life and the fight to end legalized abortion-on-demand in America. Right now that means doing whatever is necessary to click here and send Priests for Life the largest gift you can possibly make today. Not an hour from now. Not later this evening. Not tomorrow. But right now!
Forgive me for being so blunt, but there’s a reason for it.

Let's see.... how many direct appeals for cash has Father Pavone and his minions made since Sept 9, when he got reeled back into Amarillo by the bishop for financial improprieties?

We're going to run out of fingers soon...

UPDATE:

Some people have asked how Fr. Pavone's situation differs from that of Fr. Corapi's.

Here's how.

Fr. Corapi was part of a religious community. Religious communities typically encourage all members of the community to pool resources. Indeed, it's not unusual for members to have to ask the head of the order permission even to have pocket money.

In Fr. Corapi's case, he has said (and no one has denied) that, although the rules indicated that all members were to contribute financially to the upkeep of the community, the original interpretation of the rules for his community was that each individual member was to financially support himself and contribute some of what he earned to the general funds. As far as we know, Corapi held to the letter of that law, even if evidence exists that holding to the full spirit of that law was not undertaken.

Now, we don't know exactly how the rule read, nor exactly what the original intrepretation of those rules were. But, when his superiors changed the interpretation, called Fr. Corapi back to live in community and demanded funds from him, they were conceivably acting within their rights, and certainly acting within the historic outlines of what religious communities typically do.

Fr. Pavone, on the other hand, is a diocesan priest. While the pastor of a parish has some freedom on how he spends funds, there are limits on that freedom. He can spend money any way he sees fit, up to a point. Typically, any purchase over a certain size has to be cleared through the chancery office (generally fifty or a hundred thousand - something like that). All books have to be well-kept, and dioceses typically order a full accounting of books every few years. In addition, it's almost always done at the end of a pastor's term in order to keep track of any possible fiscal malfeasance. The only lay advisory council any parish is required to have by canon law is a fiscal council to help oversee the books.

Now, Pavone is not running a parish, he's running a private corporation. Since the corporation was not started by the bishop, the corporation itself is not subject to the bishop's direct fiscal oversight. But, the bishop has not just a right, but a duty to make sure his priests are fiscally responsible. This is not just nosiness, it is a question of scandal on himself as bishop and on the diocese and the priesthood as a whole. Every priest is subject to a bishop somewhere.

Because the bishop has this duty, the bishop has every right to inquire about Fr. Pavone's handling of finances. In point of fact, because Pavone is running a private corporation, Pavone can spend the money any way he wants in any amount he wants and bishop has no legal oversight ability. However, he DOES have moral oversight ability.

If he doesn't like how the money is being spent or accounted for, he is well within his rights to assign to his priest such duties as will make it unlikely or impossible for the priest to continue to run his private little side business. This is especially true given that the diocesan priest's first duty is to do whatever his bishop directs him to do in reference to sacraments, the celebration of Mass and the care of souls within the diocese.

Furthermore, there is a sacramental bond between every bishop and his every priest. The sacrament of Holy Orders binds bishop and priest together in a father-son relationship.

If a 17-year old young man lived at home and owned his own car, but Dad was concerned about his driving, Dad might say to say, "Son, I'm concerned about your driving. Give me your car keys for a week." If the son complied and handed over the set of keys he normally used, but then used his spare set of keys to drive the car on whatever personal errands the son was interested in, Dad would be understandably upset.

Most people would recognize that the son's "obedience" was in word only - he hadn't obeyed the spirit of his father's directives, and so had sinned against the Decalogue. Since Dad didn't own the car, we might argue about what level of legal authority Dad had to ask for the keys, but no one would argue that he has moral authority to oversee his son's actions and a strong duty to act on his concerns. Obviously, the young man's teenage friends (fans) would be enraged by Dad's demands and argue that the son was really a responsible man who had done nothing wrong, but any mature adult would recognize the authority Dad had to make those demands.

Father Pavone has obeyed the letter of the bishop's directives, but that's about it.

Contrast this to Fr. Corapi, who at least had the integrity to say, "Rather than give you the car keys, I'm moving out on my own."

While the bishop has no legal authority over Pavone, he has moral authority that finds its source in the sacramental bond between bishop and priest. Pavone has a duty of respect to the bishop and a duty of respect to the sacrament whose marks he bears. By re-doubling his appeals for cash, he is flouting that sacrament, both in himself and in his bishop.

Corapi felt he needed to quit in order to continue his form of preaching.
Pavone feels he needs to keep asking for cash in order to continue his form of preaching.
Corapi had the integrity not to pretend to keep his vow - he openly broke with it.
Pavone pretends to keep his vow while actually breaking it.

So, Pavone is a money-grubbing worm in a way that Corapi never was precisely because he is a priest who has a duty to show respect and he's actually flouting that respect.
1) By refusing to provide timely information to the donors from whom he begged of the bishop's concerns,
2) By continuing to beg for cash at least three times in less than a week despite the bishop's well-known and public concern,
Pavone demonstrates his refusal to obey his bishop in more than minor ways.

Yes, he returned to Amarillo diocese, but he's clearly more interested in running his company than in listening to his bishop's concerns. That's a direct violation of the sacramental bond between himself and his bishop.

Now, Catholic apologists who make their living by begging for cash have given kind and gentle interpretations of Fr. Pavone's actions, lest they offend Pavone's large cult-like following and lose their own rice bowl.

But Corapi, perversely, showed more respect for the sacrament than Pavone has.

Corapi formally recognized that he was not being obedient in a way that Pavone has so far refused to acknowledge and in a way that Pavone's supporters have so far refused to admit.

Herpes: The New NFP?

2011-09-18T20:36:00.000-07:00

I teach a college class on contemporary ethics, in which we examine different ethical systems and the ways in which they affect decision making.

During the course of one discussion, a class exercise involved the consideration of a man with genital herpes who has not yet told his girlfriend of his affliction. His sister knows about her brother's situation. Since the brother's girlfriend is a friend of hers, she debates whether or not to inform the woman of the problem or whether she should rely on her brother to do so.

As we discussed the problem, it occurred to me that the situation with herpes is in nearly every respect identical to Natural Family Planning and periodic abstinence.

As the State of Illinois says, for instance,

The symptoms of recurrent episodes are usually milder than those of the first episode and typically last about a week. (emphasis added)

Odd... isn't that the amount of time an NFP couple typically abstains?

And what about this?

Avoid sexual contact from the time symptoms are first recognized until the sores are completely healed, that is, until scabs have fallen off and new skin has formed over the site of the lesion...

Not having sex is the best protection against herpes and other STDs. Having sex with only one uninfected partner who has sex with you is also safe.

That is, couples can have sexual relations for years without one partner transmitting the virus to the other, as long as the couple agrees to abstain from sex during those times when open sores are in evidence. If sex is put off until the sores heal, the virus is much less likely to be transmitted.

As it turns out, condoms prove only about a 30% protection against herpes.

Now, no one thinks that periodic abstinence is outrageous when it comes to herpes transmission.
But lots of people openly scoff at periodic abstinence when baby-making is involved.

It's almost as if they realize there's a major difference between opening a monthly discussion about trying to avoid a disease, versus opening a discussion each month about whether or not to welcome a child into your life.

Pavone's Third Appeal

2011-09-18T06:16:00.000-07:00

HE'S STILL ASKING FOR MONEY!

Tell me this man doesn't have a tin ear.

It's September 17, the bishop chastised him on September 9, and in the intervening eight days, he's sent out TWO, count 'em, TWO appeals for money even though he knows full well that his own bishop has serious concerns about his fiscal accountability!

This is unconscionable.

In the first e-mail, he and his staff lied to his donors.
Then, when he realized his donors knew what was going on and were angry at the bishop, he used his donors' anger to double down and appeal for more cash.

I'm sorry, but at this point, I firmly believe Fr. Pavone is a money-grubbing worm.
He's got ZERO business doing this until a little more clarity is brought to the situation.
The man should at least show a little respect for his bishop - no matter what else - and hold off on begging for funds for a few weeks. He's barely waited a few days.

Now, to be clear, I don't have a problem with lay people going after bishops on doctrinal issues. Everyone should go after bishops when they get doctrine wrong - lay people, priests, brother bishops, whoever. A person is only bound to follow a bishop insofar as he does not violate doctrine. Once he does, the duty to obey him is gone.

And on prudential issues, lay people can certainly make clear their disagreement with the bishop. They can even do it in a public way, if they want. That's the beautiful thing about being Catholic - there are some prudential issues on which good Catholics can disagree.

But when it comes to a priest disagreeing with his bishop, the priest has a duty to maintain his vow of obedience. He can still disagree, but he cannot do so publicly, even if the bishop is prudentially in the wrong. The priest has a duty not to undermine his bishop's authority, since the priest's authority flows from that of the bishop.

It doesn't matter whether the priest is heading a private corporation, occupying a political office or doing something that is under direct diocesan control - the man took a sacred vow to obey the bishop and uphold his authority, and he's bound by that vow. Even if his corporation is not bound by the vow, the man is.

Fr. Pavone is now directly undermining his own bishop's authority.
He is no better than Fr. Michael Pfleger in Chicago, or any other disobedient priest.

September 17, 2011
Dear Steve,
I sent you this urgent email because I have someimportant issues that concern you, me, our work together at Priests forLife, and the entire pro-life movement here in the United States.
In light ofall that’s happened in the past couple weeks – and again,I’ll discuss this with you in just a moment – it is vital thatyou maintain your unconditional support for Priests for Life and the fightto end legalized abortion-on-demand in America. Right now that means doing whatever is necessary to click here and send Priests for Life the largest gift you can possiblymake today. Not an hour from now. Not later this evening. Not tomorrow. But right now!
Forgive me forbeing so blunt, but there’s a reason for it.
Due to all themany and various means of getting information today, I have no idea whatyou may or may not have heard or read about me and my bishop, the MostReverend Patrick Zurek.
In any case, over-zealous members of anabortion-friendly news media, as well as enemies directly involved with theabortion industry, have spent the past week or so spreading a lot ofmisinformation and totally false allegations against me and Priests forLife.
I suspect they did so in the hope that you, as well as everyone elsewho makes our work possible, might pull back on your support … orabandon us completely.
In order to keep you from fallingvictim to their agenda, I decided the best course of action would be to goon the offensive and tell you everything that’s happened over thepast two weeks so that you will have no misgivings whatsoever in continuingto support Priests for Life as faithfully and as generously as you have inthe past.
You can also click here and watch a short YouTube message I recorded while herein Amarillo.
In any case, here’s the official position of the Amarillodiocese concerning me:

1.
1. I amnot suspended and I never was. You can call theAmarillo chancery if you feel like you need to. The number is 806– 383 – 2243. You’ll probably be connected toDeacon Floyd Ashley, the diocese’s Executive Assistant. He willconfirm what I just told you.

2.

2. I have not lost any ofmy priestly faculties. Again, Deacon Ashley will confirmthat.

3.

3. And I know this will be of great interest to you, Monsignor HaroldWaldow, the Vicar of Clergy for the Amarillo Diocese, has sent out a letterin which he states that I have not been “charged with anymalfeasance” nor even been “accused of any wrong doing with thefinancial matters of Priests for Life.”

4.

4. While Bishop Zurek wants to clear up any and all misunderstandings,he made it clear that he does not want the work of Priests for Lifeto be harmed.

5. For the time being,my ministry is restricted to the diocese of Amarillo and it will remainrestricted until Bishop Zurek and I can sit down and reach a mutualunderstanding on my dual role as both a priest in his diocese and a priestdedicated to pro-life work on a full-time basis.

There you have it. That’sit. That’s everything.
So for now I am here in Amarilloanxiously awaiting Bishop Zurek’s return from a trip he’dscheduled some time ago so we can have our meeting and I can get on withthe work of leading the People of Life to victory overabortion.
And in the end, that’s all I’m concernedwith.
Because no matter what happens to me personally,the fight against abortion must continue without pause and withoutinterruption.
But that fight is in real jeopardy now because of amisunderstanding between my bishop and me that someone leaked out to anews media filled with individuals who would like nothing better than tofracture the pro-life movement and bring Priests for Life down.
I’m writingto assure you that I am doing everything I can to keep that fromhappening.
Still, I’m not so naïve as to think that therewon’t be some fallout from this situation.
In spite of thefact that I am a member in good standing on the Vatican’s PontificalAcademy for Life; that 21 bishops and cardinals sit on the Priests for LifeEpiscopal Advisory Board; that dozens of outstanding and highly respectedpro-life leaders endorse Priests for Life’s ministry, the factremains that there are a great many pro-life individuals who will read theheadlines and think that I have been suspended or that Priests for Life hasbeen dissolved.
Again, neither situation is even remotely true.
But intoday’s world, more often than not, perception istruth.
And those heralds of the culture of death who seekto destroy Priests for Life and undermine the pro-life movement will use mycurrent situation to mislead people into thinking that they are wastingtheir precious pro-life dollars by entrusting them to Priests forLife.
I simply cannot afford for you to fall victim totheir lies and campaign of misinformation. So even though I am deeplygrateful for the outpouring of support that I continue to receive frompeople all across the country, and even from around the world… …the only support I’m interested in securing right now isyours! That’s because thereare literally millions of men and women here in the United States who shareour pro-life convictions to one degree or another.
Regrettably,however, only a small percentage of them have the same commitment anddedication as you do. These are the people who will read theheadlines and be fooled into thinking that they should hold off on givingany more financial support to Priests for Life until my situation isresolved.
But that’s precisely what the devil wants them to do.
After years ofextremely hard work and a lot of personal sacrifice on your part,we’ve got the abortion industry on the ropes! The polls showthis. The efforts in states all across the country show this.
Now isnot the time to restrict our work. It’s time to advanceit! Full speed ahead!
But we cannot possibly do that if youabandon Priests for Life in this its hour of greatest need.
So please click here right now and make as large a contribution to Priests for Lifeas you possibly can.
Please do this before you delete myemail and go on to your next one.
In asking you to trust me in thisway, I want to make it very clear to you that Priests for Life is abovereproach in its financial management and the stewardship of the monies ithas received from you and other dedicated pro-lifers.
And as relievedas I am to learn of Monsignor Waldow’s letter confirming that, I musttell you that I’m not in the least surprised.
That’sbecause I am painfully aware of the many sacrifices which you and othersupporters make to send Priests for Life the contributions that enable usto fulfill our pro-life mission. I would never betray the trust youhave put in me.
You have my word on that.
And if you haveany concerns about how your dollars are spent, call us up and ask. Come and visit our offices. Priests for Life is an open book and hasabsolutely nothing to hide.
Now let me address another important matter.
Due tothe serious ramifications of how some in the news media, as well as thoseworking to advance the abortion agenda, have used Bishop Zurek’sletter to attack me and Priests for Life, I felt it necessary to begin aprocess of appeal to the Vatican. This process aims tocorrect any mistaken decisions of the bishop in my regard and to protect mycommitment to full-time pro-life activity for my whole life.
I am extremelyconfident that the Vatican will resolve this matter in a just and equitablefashion. And you will be pleased to know that, based on thatconfidence …
… we are not currently making any changes inany positions at Priests for Life, or in any of our projects andplans.

In closing, let me assure you that Priests for Life willcontinue to be out front leading the fight against abortion.
I refuseto allow this current incident to deter me from giving everything I have tothe cause of life.
Our bishops correctly teach that theright to life is the fundamental right upon which all human rights arebased. Our nation’s founding documents insist that the first ofman’s inalienable rights, those that come to us from God alone, ishis RIGHT TO LIFE!!!
Knowing this, Priests for Life will continue tosupport our bishops here in the U.S. and act as a megaphone to help spreadtheir pro-life statements far and wide.
What’smore, Priests for Life will continue to serve dioceses – both clergyand laity – without asking for so much as a penny in compensation… no speakers fees, no reimbursements to cover travel expenses whenwe preach at parishes, no printing costs to help pay for the millions ofpieces of pro-life literature we provide for dioceses at no charge,nothing.
Our commitment to winning the fight against abortion remains firmand complete.
And we will not be deterred in the work God has called us tofulfill.
Again, though, in order to make good on that commitment, Priestsfor Life must have your financial help … especially now when somany false stories and news reports are out there damaging our reputationand our good name.
So if you haven’t already done so, please click here and make as large a contribution to Priests for Life as youpossibly can.
I cannot write to every American and tell them thetruth.
But I can write to you. And that’s what I’ve donetoday.
Like I said, as grateful as I am for all the support andencouragement I’ve received over the past several days, the onlyperson I’m interested in hearing from right now is you!
Bymaking a contribution to Priests for Life today, you’ll be telling methat you’re still with us.
And if ever I needed to hear thatfrom you, now is the time.
Finally, know that in anticipation of your receivingyour reply to this email, I am praying for you; especially at each Massthat I offer. Thank you again for your constancy and yourcommitment. May God bless you.
Sincerely,
Fr. FrankPavone

PS There is onemore thing I need you to do: PRAY! Pray for BishopZurek. Pray for me. Pray for all those who may be harmed as a result of thisminor misunderstanding … in particular, our unborn brothers andsisters. Thank you again for your friendship and trust. I donot know how I would ever survive trials such as these without you and dearfriends like you. God bless.

NOTE: If you preferto send a check, please make it out to Priests for Life and send it to usat PO Box 141172, Staten Island, NY 10314. If you have any questions, callus toll-free at 888-735-3448 x232.
If you do not wish to receive any emailsfrom us, let us know at unsubscribe@priestsforlife.org. However, unsubscribing will deprive you of someimportant and helpful information in the months to come, and therefore westrongly encourage you to stay on our list!

Clickhere to unsubscribe

Second-Guessing Bishops

2011-09-14T09:12:00.000-07:00

As you all know, I'm never averse to second-guessing a bishop.
That having been said, we have an obvious question:
Is the Bishop of Amarillo right to pull a successful pro-lifer off the front lines?

Well, keep in mind the Vatican had already shut down Missionaries for Life back in 2008 over precisely these kinds of issues.

But doesn't this harm the pro-life movement?

Speaking as an ex-atheist, I was arrested twice for blocking abortion clinic entrances while I was an atheist.
I was surrounded by Jesus freaks (active Catholics), and their freaky attachment to the Church is part of what woke me up to the larger problem: education.

As I realized that the abortion problem is a problem of education, I also started to recognize that the education isn't just one of biology, but of spirituality - that's what brought me back into the Church, that recognition. It was the Church's pro-life stance that converted me, so this is what I see as Fr. Pavone's problem.

A priest's ability to do ANYTHING flows from the sacraments.
If he doesn't honor his sacraments, he can't do any really effective work.

Part of a priest's sacrament is obedience - that's why Archbishop Fulton Sheen was placed in a small parish by his bishop for a year even after he graduated with highest honors from Louvain. Especially and precisely BECAUSE he passed with highest honors and was offered a professorship, Bishop shoved him in a nowhere parish in the worst part of the diocese. He gave Sheen absolutely zero reason to think his immense gifts would ever be effectively used.

Bishop was testing Sheen. He wanted to make sure Sheen was going to honor his sacrament before he allowed his spiritual son to be tempted with the ego-gratifying career that would certainly follow once Sheen was released to the world. Would Sheen break, despair, and give up some aspect of his priesthood in order to pursue fame and glory? After a year of testing, he hadn't done any of that. Sheen submitted with quiet good humor to whatever his bishop wanted, exactly as any excellent priest would.

One year later, Bishop released Sheen to Louvain and to the great honors that followed.

To the end of his life, Sheen appreciated that test of his soul and thought it a good thing the bishop had done it.

Pavone is failing the test Sheen passed.
Bishop is reigning Fr. Pavone in precisely to keep him from becoming Fr. Corapi.
I think Corapi kind of shook a lot of people, including bishops.
It's not a coincidence that this is happening AFTER Corapi, and didn't happen before Corapi.

As an aside, I've never seen a public episcopal letter with that level of opprobrium.
Ever.
Only a very angry, deeply concerned bishop would write such a thing and disseminate it to all of his brother bishops and to the world.

The fact that Priest for Life responded to the bishop's concerns by sending out yet another plea for money less than a week after the letter went public looks all the world like Fr. Pavone decided to stick his thumb in the bishop's eye.

Now, if a priest were to do that over doctrine, I could see why that might happen and wouldn't necessarily have a problem with it. I'm still not entirely sure about Corapi's situation precisely because I'm concerned that part of that situation is driven by a desire to grab Corapi's money. Corapi has framed it as a doctrinal dispute, and I'm not sure which side is telling the truth, so I pretty much withhold judgement against either side because there aren't enough facts.

But, Pavone's situation is entirely different.
Here, he's publicly disrespecting his bishop over money.
And nothing else.
You can see that from the timing of the "cash plea" letter.
Over money?

Yah, that's not right.

When Fr. Pfleger was rebuked by Cardinal George, Pfleger instantly realized he stepped over the line, and he shut up, at least for a few weeks.
When Fr. Corapi was reprimanded, Corapi recognized his vow to the bishop (in a kind of backwards way, but...) by stepping back from his priestly ministry, and he showed some abject public contrition afterwards in the way he handled talks and material sales.

But Fr. Pavone?

Fr. Pavone sends out a dishonest letter cadging for cache, a letter which fails to mention a very public rebuke he received from his own bishop, a rebuke which has very serious bearing on the content of the letter Pavone allowed to be distributed.

Corapi and Pfleger didn't deny their rebukes or attempt to hide them.
They discussed their problems openly.
Some would say far too openly.
But Pavone?

I don't generally side with bishops who go after orthodox priests, but this time... this time, I think the bishop is on to something.

The First Shall Be Last

2011-09-14T08:01:00.000-07:00

There's another book out on why being successful is bad for your health.

In other news, it was demonstrated that "alpha researchers" suffered undue stress when compared to "beta researchers."

While only comprising 10% of the researcher population, alpha researchers publish over 50% of the peer-reviewed articles and win the majority of Nobel prizes. In addition, they constantly publish mass market books in a wild attempt to gain name recognition and market share.

"Beta researchers", on the other hand, are content to teach community college classes, do little research and spend a lot of time fishing, boating and renting cabins in the Adirondacks with their families.

Research shows that the "betas" are much happier, have lower levels of cortisol, and eat fresh, stream-caught fish (with beneficial omega-3 fatty acids) more often then their "alpha" counterparts.

Unfortunately, related research has shown that "beta" researchers aren't interested enough in "alpha" showboating to point out to the alphas that alphas always die young, alone, and with festering boils. Alphas, on the other hand, appeared to be biologically unable to recognize the negative health effects of their own activities.

Like the deconstructivists who constantly write books explaining that communication between two people is basically impossible, alphas write books explaining why being "alpha" isn't a good idea. In America, the inevitable book chapters lamenting popular non-scientific irrational thinking are generally considered among the finest examples of irony in English literature.

Fr. Pavone Cadging for Cash?

2011-09-13T16:49:00.000-07:00

OK, I'm confused.

According to all the news stories, Fr. Frank Pavone has been suspended of all priestly faculties outside of the diocese of Amarillo by his own bishop while investigation of possible fiscal malfeasance proceeds.

This suspension was communicated by letter to ALL bishops in the United States on September 9, 2011.

So why did I just receive this in my e-mail inbox today (see below)?

Did someone in his own organization not get the memo?

Do these guys have ANY IDEA how stupid, larcenous, etc., such a letter appears to be at this juncture?

Exactly how tone-deaf is Fr. Pavone and Priests for Life?

And how is it, in this long, lugubrious letter, they forgot to mention that their founder is currently under investigation for what appears to be at least fiscal malfeasance, if not outright embezzlement?

It will be interesting to see which bloggers jump on Fr. Pavone in the same way they jumped on Fr. Corapi, nicht wahr?

Will anyone mention that both priests enjoyed enormous support from EWTN?

September 13, 2011

(Thank you for your support of Priests for Life. If you already responded to the following appeal online, I appreciate your support. This email is intended for those who did not respond when we sent it previously.)

Dear Steve and Veronica,I’m writing on behalf of Father Frank.My name is Jerry Horn and I am the Senior Vice President for Priests for Life.I’m glad Father asked me to write to you because I have a special favor that I need to ask of you. It’s a surprise for Father Frank.But before I get to that favor and surprise, let me tell you why Father asked me to send you this email.On Wednesday, October 5, Priests for Life will mark its 20th Anniversary with a Mass at the Cathedral of St. Mary of the Assumption in San Francisco. The Most Reverend George Niederauer, the Archbishop of San Francisco, has enthusiastically agreed be the main celebrant for the 6:00 p.m. Mass. His support reflects that of many bishops.Father Frank had intended to write to you himself and invite you to join us for the Mass, but time simply got away from him. In fact, he just finished taping the “Defending Life” series of TV shows at EWTN and is now at his diocese in Amarillo.So he asked me to write to you in his place.This email is your invitation to join Father Frank and staff for a special Anniversary Mass when we will thank God for the many blessings he has showered on Priests for Life’s ministry.
If you can be with us for the Mass and the reception to follow, click here. Please include your name and the number of people who will be coming with you.
There will be a small reception following the Mass … and it is at that reception that I hope to surprise Father Frank with a very special Anniversary gift.If you cannot be with us in person, then at least join us in spirit and ask God to continue to bless the work of Priests for Life and to guide Father Frank and the Pastoral Associates as they continue to lead the fight to end abortion. Without question, prayer is the most powerful weapon we have in that fight.And yet, it’s going to take more than just our prayers to win this battle. For as St. Augustine said: “Pray as though everything depended on God. Work as though everything depended on you.”So we pray. But we must also work.And no one is working harder to end legalized abortion-on-demand in America than Father Frank and the Priests for Life team. To a person, every one of us is on the road constantly preaching the Gospel of Life, building up the People of Life, and energizing all Americans to defend the youngest members of our human family; namely, our unborn brothers and sisters. But that work cannot continue without your loving and generous support … not only spiritually with your prayers, but also financially with your donations to Priests for Life.And that brings me to the special favor I have to ask of you. As you may have guessed, that favor is to help us surprise Father Frank with a check for $676,678 that Priests for Life needs to keep all of its important projects and programs going full-speed ahead.
To be part of that surprise 20^th Anniversary gift presentation, just click here and make as large a contribution to Priests for Life as you possibly can today.
The reason why I’m hoping that our check is for $676,678 is because that’s the amount Father Frank indicated he needed in a letter he sent to the entire Priests for Life family a few weeks; as well as the urgent email he sent to you not long ago.I’m not sure if you’ve already responded to that email or not, but even if you have, it’s critically important that help with another contribution for as much as you can possibly send so that we can present Father with as large a check as we can … but hopefully for the full $676,678 that he needs.And if you haven’t yet sent Father a reply to his email, then please decide to do so now as part of the special 20^th Anniversary gift the Priests for Life family is going to present to Father on October 5 in San Francisco.The reason I’m asking you to do this is because Father Frank really needs your help. As I mentioned a moment ago, after returning from three weeks of preaching pro-life missions, and then meetings at the Vatican, he raced down to Birmingham for ten grueling days of taping.I’m telling you this because I know how much you respect and trust Father Frank. Well, you aren’t alone.
No leader and no organization in the pro-life movement is more worthy and more deserving of your support than Father Frank and Priests for Life.
I know. I’ve been involved in the fight to end abortion since the early 1980s. For thirty years now it has been my honor to work with most of the great pro-life leaders – Judie Brown, Joe Scheidler, Melody Green, Mark Crutcher, Nellie Gray ... too many to mention all by name.They’re all great people and they’ve done fantastic work.Still, if I had to pick the one person best suited to lead our pro-life movement, it would be Father Frank. He is the most determined, most single-minded individual I have ever met in my life. He works 17- and 18-hour days. And he is consumed with the mission God has entrusted to him; namely:
To end abortion in America!

Not to limit abortion. Not to cut it back. Not to overturn Roe v. Wade. Not to make abortion illegal. But rather to make abortion unthinkable and to end all abortions in the U.S. ... and then throughout the world!Between you and me, that’s the reason why I work with him. He is relentless. He is never deterred. Never sidetracked. Never distracted. Always pressing forward. Moving here, then there. Energizing this priest. Reaching out to this victim of abortion. Converting that abortionist. Always preaching the Gospel of Life ... both in season and out of season. A man as dedicated as that deserves our full support. And that’s what he needs now.
So I’m writing to ask you to click here and help make the 20^th Anniversary of Priests for Life one that none of us will ever forget.
I’m doing so because, when all is said and done, the amount of preaching Father and the other Pastoral Associates are able to do is in your hands … yours and every other member of the Priests for Life family.That’s because no matter what plans and projects and programs Father Frank comes up with, they only go forward if there are dollars to fund them. And since it is you and other friends who provide those dollars, what Priests for Life is able to do to advance the cause of life is really up to you.That’s why Father Frank sent you his email ... and why I’m writing to you today.The best thing we can do to mark Priests for Life’s 20^th Anniversary and show Father Frank the depth of our commitment to the pro-life cause is to do all we can to keep Priests for Life fully funded and on the front lines of the fight to end abortion.That said …
… please click here and make as generous a contribution as you possibly can to Priests for Life!
I’m sure if you and I and every other member of our Priests for Life family gives as much as they can we can raise that $676,618.And if we do, then come this time next year, we will have grown the People of Life into such a powerful force that no one will dare ignore us or our cry to end abortion and stop the killing of our innocent unborn brothers and sisters.Together let’s use the occasion of Priests for Life’s 20^th Anniversary to re-dedicate ourselves to the cause of life. Let your prayers and your special Anniversary gift be a sign of your renewed commitment to the fight to end abortion and win for the youngest members of our human family their unalienable right to life!!!Make no mistake. The enemy is working furiously to keep abortion-on-demand the law of the land. Father Frank and the entire Priests for Life team are working even harder to thwart them. But it’s becoming more and more difficult as the economy continues to sap Priests for Life of the dollars we need to carry on the fight.A gift from you today would be a huge help and provide much relief.
So please take a moment right now to click here and send Priests for Life a special 20^thAnniversary gift that Father Frank will use to lead God’s people to victory over the powers of evil and the culture of death!
Thank you and may God truly bless you for your willingness to help defend and protect His defenseless, innocent unborn children.Sincerely yours in the Love of Christ,Jerry Horn, Senior Vice PresidentPriests for LifePS In addition to asking you to send a special 20^th Anniversary gift, I invite you to write Father Frank a short note telling him how he and Priests for Life have impacted you. Your note will be included in a booklet that we will present to Father at the reception following the Anniversary Mass … along with that $676,618 check. To send us your note, just click here and follow the instructions. I know Father would really appreciate hearing from you because you mean more to him than you know. The only thing I ask is that you send me your gift and note right away so that I’ll have them well before October 5. On behalf of Father Frank, thank you again for your help. I cannot overstate how urgently it’s needed right now. NOTE: If you prefer to send a check, please make it out to Priests for Life and send it to us at PO Box 141172, Staten Island, NY 10314. If you have any questions, call us toll-free at 888-735-3448 x232.If you do not wish to receive any emails from us, let us know at unsubscribe@priestsforlife.org. However, unsubscribing will deprive you of some important and helpful information in the months to come, and therefore we strongly encourage you to stay on our list!

The Attack of the Neo-Cons

2011-09-09T11:11:00.000-07:00

I have long had enormous respect for Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham, but that respect is turning south rather rapidly.

First, Ann Coulter not only chooses to headline a talk for sodomites (Republican sodomites, but sodomites nonetheless), she decides to become a member of their board of advisors.

Sad.

Then, Ann and Laura together decide to trash Sarah Palin.

Now, I don't mind that they don't think Palin can win the Presidency against Obama. To be honest, given how badly smeared she's been in the media, I'm not sure Palin should run for President right now. She's got to build trust with a lot of different constituencies that have been frightened off by the bellowing MSM beast.

But the attack A&L launched against Palin seemed quite over the top, and I couldn't figure out why they had gone ballistic.

What I now find is that this joint assault happens just a few days after Palin's Indianola speech.

This is fascinating, especially given A&L's major complaint about Palin.
According to them, Palin "isn't capable of digging deep" on policy.

Hmmm...
What odd timing for such a complaint...

For in her Indianola speech, Palin points out that the current political fight is not between Republicans and Democrats. The current fight is between, on the one hand, entrenched corporate interests and sitting political figures who constitute one incestuous block of power, and on the other, the small-business owners and normal main-street Americans who make up the portion of America that actually does some decent, honest work.

And it's not like there lacks concrete evidence for this contention. One need only look at the NYC 9/11 commemoration, which has banned the attendance of all the "little people" - like priests, ministers, firefighters and policeman - in order to make room for the important people. And why shouldn't they be banned? Slaves aren't welcomed as guests at their master's functions.

For someone who "isn't capable of digging deep" on policy, Palin's assessment of current policy is so accurate that even her mortal enemy, the New York Times, recognized and applauded her for it.

And we won't even mention all the other policy calls Palin has made (first to promulgate the death panels, major proponent of drilling, etc.), every one of which has turned out be dead-on accurate.

Indeed, Sarah Palin appears to be the only member of the political class who not only understands what current policy does, but is also willing to tell main-street Americans the unvarnished truth about it.

Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham seem unhappy about that.

Which makes me wonder why....

Why the Peace Corps Hates The Free Market

2011-07-30T10:18:00.000-07:00

I've been in a debate over at Sojourner's on the importance of helping the poor.

Now, I've got a small pamphlet on this theme, available for free download and free reproduction, but the debate got me thinking.

What, really, is the difference between a "social-justice" type who spends a couple of years in the Peace Corps, or who sends money overseas to help the poor and the CEOs of major corporations who send jobs overseas?

I mean, the "social-justice" types are always catewauling about how we should pay higher taxes in order to help the poor. But a lot of them seem upset that CEOs are sending jobs overseas.

Now, isn't the sending of a job overseas simply the imposition of a kind of tax?

I mean, what's the difference between the government taking half my salary in order to send it overseas and the CEO moving my job overseas?

Well, there is one difference.

The poor person overseas who gets the new job will probably start thinking of himself in a much different way than the poor person overseas who just gets a handout.

The one with a job begins to think he actually has self-worth, that he is actually contributing to society. He is actively supporting himself and his (perhaps extended) family. He might begin to consider that if he's worth something, he might have intrinsic rights that others don't have a right to quash or infringe on.

The person who just gets a handout doesn't have any of these thoughts.

Now, obviously the CEO does all this in order to be mean, and to increase his own profit margin.

But, isn't it the case that a lot of people involved in "social justice" do it in order to feel superior to the down-trodden? Don't they do it because the very fact that they are the "helper" and not the "helpee" necessarily makes them better than all those dark-skinned, infantile foreigners who could never make it without the help of the "social justice" type?

So, how much social justice is driven by "the white man's burden" concept Kipling so succinctly described?

The Peace Corps workers, the UN workers, steal jobs from the locals, the CEOs send jobs to the locals. I lose my job to a computer or an overseas worker - to me, it matters not which. Either way, I have to re-train in some other field.

If I am against shipping jobs overseas, then am I against technology in the workplace?

For a computer can often take my job at least as effectively as an Indonesian.

Forty years ago, we were angry at computers for taking jobs.

We got over it.

Why are we still angry at CEOs and Indonesians?

Why do we like the Peace Corps and higher taxes, which steal jobs and take my money, but get angry with CEOs, who move jobs and take my money?

Perhaps its because we can retrain for a new job, start earning again and keep our self-esteem, but we can't escape taxes except by losing our income and our self-esteem.

Peace Corps workers don't do things for money, don'cha know.

CEOs do things for money.

Yes, but if money is not meant to be the measure of our society, why are the Peace Corps workers so upset about what the CEO does for money? Wouldn't noticing that kind of thing be beneath them? By fixating on it, don't they just reinforce the idea that it really is all about the money?

Or is it more simple?

Perhaps Peace Corps workers just don't like the competition that CEOs present.

If You Show Me Yours...

2011-07-29T15:05:00.000-07:00

...I'll show you nothin'...

And you'll LIKE it.

He couldn't show us Osama's body.

Too dangerous.

Couldn't even show us pictures.

Far too dangerous.

Can't show us a budget plan.

Too dangerous.

Can't even show us the paper it's written on.

Far too dangerous.

Can't show us his law school grades.

Too dangerous.

Or his senior thesis.

Far too dangerous.

Can't show medical records.

Too dangerous.

What about his original application for a social security number?

From Connecticut.

(Connecticut?)

Nope.

Too dangerous.

Need a subpoena to look at his original birth certificate.

Too dangerous otherwise.

Hmmm....

I've got an idea.

How about we just show him the door?

Creation Ex Nihilo

2011-07-26T05:22:00.001-07:00

Marx famously thought that capitalism was the engine which drove the creation of class differences in society. Simply spread out the capital, he said, and the class differences would disappear.

Now, Marx was a raving lunatic, a man who never held a job in his life. He was a man who was, in fact, incapable of holding a job. His wife and whose wife and children nearly starved to death because of his incredible incompetence. But, as historians like to point out, personal peccadilloes really aren't relevant to the importance of a man's insights.

This is why no one listens to historians anymore.

In any case, as Lincoln might have said, but didn't, for the last forty years American government has been engaged in a great civil war, testing whether this economy, or any economy conceived on socialism can long endure. That is to say, it has been trying as hard as it can to "spread the wealth around a little bit", become Robin Hood, take from the rich and give to the poor, spend other people's money because they can't be trusted with it, etc.

As part of this important and selfless work, the government takes tax money and loans it to students so they can go to college. The selflessness of this generosity is enough to make one weep.

Unfortunately, as commentators are beginning to realize, the inherent generosity of an essentially socialistic program has actually helped to create the very classes that socialism is supposed to destroy.

...the tuition-scholarship relationship to the higher-versus-lower-school choice constitutes an allocation matrix that uniformly funnels wealthy applicants to the higher school, securing the attendant advantages, while people with less financial means divide between higher and lower. Multiply this out by tens of thousands of like decisions each year and the effect is large. The pricing structure of law schools thereby helps the wealthy in America further consolidate their grip on elite legal positions.

And, of course, tuition has been sky-rocketing precisely because federal aid is so ubiquitous. Indeed, the increase in college tuition tracks precisely with the increase in available federal college aid. These two numbers have tracked identically together for the last thirty-five years.

Now, this increase in federal aid has come at no small cost to the United States. In the last three years, the increase in aid has contributed no less than $504 billion to the US national debt. And that's just the last three years.

Worse, the increase in federal aid doesn't just create the very class differences that the program is meant to eradicate, it adds injury to insult. Because those student loans cannot be avoided apart from avoiding college entirely, nor can they be gotten rid of through normal relief mechanisms (e.g., Chapter 11), they constitute an enormous additional tax burden on the aspiring graduate.

To sum up: the federal college student loan program artificially raises college tuitions. Because of the radically increased tuition, poor students cannot possibly work enough to make up the tuition cost of a high-ranking school on their own. The enormous cost difference between the tuition of a "high-ranking" school versus a "low-ranking" school stratifies society into different educational classes based on wealth.

Those who take out the loans necessary to avoid being forced into a lower social class will now be TAXED AT A PREMIUM for daring to attempt to enter the upper class.

America, the society famous for having virtually no permanent social classes, has now got a government which creates permanent social classes out of nothing.

Well, that's not entirely true.

Those permanent social classes are created out of your tax dollars.

The government is now in the business of creating a class system, and the people who run the government are, of course, the upper class.

The Languages of God

2011-07-25T10:32:00.001-07:00

How many Americans realize that we're speaking God's language?

Now, I will concede a point early on and agree with the many people, especially the Extraordinary Form Catholics, who like to point out that Latin is the official language of the Catholic Church. In fact, the documents of Vatican II require that all priests be well-versed in Latin, a requirement bishops mostly honor by completely ignoring it:

13. Before beginning specifically ecclesiastical subjects, seminarians should be equipped with that humanistic and scientific training which young men in their own countries are wont to have as a foundation for higher studies. Moreover they are to acquire a knowledge of Latin which will enable them to understand and make use of the sources of so many sciences and of the documents of the Church. The study of the liturgical language proper to each rite should be considered necessary; a suitable knowledge of the languages of the Bible and of Tradition should be greatly encouraged.

Alright, now that we've taken care of that bit, let's think a bit more.

Latin isn't the only language that springs from the heart of the Church.

Take English, for example.

We are all familiar with modern English, but do you realize that modern English is an invention of the Catholic Church?

It is.

Modern English comes from early modern English, which is based on Middle English, which is based, in turn, on Old English. So, let's start there.

Old English was developed by Anglo-Saxons and used between about the mid 5th and the mid 12th centuries. It was the language used by the Catholic poet St. Caedmon and by the Venerable Bede, doctor of the Church, the man who wrote the first history (an ecclesiastical history, no less) of the English people. Old English eventually transforms into Middle English, which became popular between the 11th and 15th centuries. Middle English is, of course, famously the language of Chaucer.

After the invention of the printing press in 1453, by the Catholic printer Gutenburg, English began to standardize and became the essentially modern language we know today, with up to 60% of its vocabulary drawn from Old French. It is worth noting that the very earliest evidence we have of Gutenburg's skill - the first thing he apparently printed - were some letters of indulgence.

Where's the Catholic Church?

Now, when the Roman Empire made Catholicism the official religion of Empire in 391 AD, the pagan tribes in the surrounding areas began to be drawn to the new Faith. With the baptism of Clovis in 478 AD., France began it's process of Christianization, a process that was mostly complete by the end of the 8th century. By that time, England, too, was officially Christian.

Germany's evangelization began about the same time, but took quite a bit longer, but was essentially Christian by the year 1000. Scandinavia, Russia and Kiev would also see their rulers baptized by roughly that year.

So, all the countries whose language influenced the development of modern English were being evangelized while Old English was still alive. All these countries were Catholic by the time Middle English arrived on the scene around the year 1000. For almost 1000 years, the Catholic mindset marinated and developed the English language. Catholics invented both the printing press and most of the expressions of ideas those Catholic presses produced.

And Modern English is not alone in being a thousand-year work of the Church. In fact, there is no modern European language which can deny that it was essentially developed by Catholics.

The language that drives science, technology, commerce, economics, the great engines of our secular economy, is a language created by the Faith.

Keep that in mind the next time someone says, "We need to keep religion out of the classroom." or "We need to keep religion out of politics."

Yes, we could do that.

We could snuff the Faith out of our discourse entirely.

But in order to discuss the merits of the proposition, we would first have to dispense with using any modern European language to discuss the idea.

And that might hobble the discussion a bit, nicht wahr?

Very Polite Of Him

2011-07-22T21:29:00.001-07:00

Well, the attacks in Oslo appear to be by a native Norwegian.

It's odd how nice this guy has been in terms of helping out reporters.

A Facebook page matching his name and the photo given out by the police was set up just a few days ago. It listed his religion as Christian, politics as conservative. It said he enjoys hunting, the video games World of Warcraft and Modern Warfare 2, and books including Machiavelli’s “The Prince” and George Orwell’s “1984.”

It's just incredibly convenient.

Not only does he blow up Oslo with what were at least meant to be several bombs, he then travels to an island that holds hundreds of people. He's dressed as a police man and he has the only gun.

But before he does any of this, he takes the trouble to set up a Facebook page just a few days before, in which he carefully describes himself as a conservative Christian hunter who reads Machiavelli.

Man, if I were writing fiction, I couldn't get away with that story line.

I mean, who could?

Some Things Don't Change

2011-07-15T09:05:00.000-07:00

Some things don't change.

In late 1600's England

The Declaration of Indulgence and the Test Act
Charles II's proclamation in 1672, suspending by his royal prerogative the penal statutes against Nonconformists (known as the Declaration of Indulgence), was seen by many Members of Parliament as evidence of both the King's sympathy for Catholicism and his preference for absolutist rule.
Their opposition was so fierce that Charles II was forced to cancel it in 1673 and instead to agree to Parliament's Test Act. This required all those wishing to hold office to swear an oath to the King and the Protestant English Church and to sign a declaration denying the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation.
Charles II's younger brother and the heir to the throne James, Duke of York, made his Catholic faith publicly known later that year and resigned all his offices under the terms of the Test Act.

In late 1600's America:

The history of the Catholic Church in America, however, has much deeper and less triumphant roots. Most American Catholics are aware that the spirit of New England's North American settlements was hostile to Catholicism. But few are aware of the vigor and persistence with which that spirit was cultivated throughout the entire colonial period. Few Catholics realize that in all but three of the 13 original colonies, Catholics were the subject of penal measures of one kind or another during the colonial period. In most cases, the Catholic Church had been proscribed at an early date, as in Virginia where the act of 1642 proscribing Catholics and their priests set the tone for the remainder of the colonial period.

Even in the supposedly tolerant Maryland, the tables had turned against Catholics by the 1700s. By this time the penal code against Catholics included test oaths administered to keep Catholics out of office, legislation that barred Catholics from entering certain professions (such as Law), and measures had been enacted to make them incapable of inheriting or purchasing land. By 1718 the ballot had been denied to Catholics in Maryland, following the example of the other colonies, and parents could even be fined for sending children abroad to be educated as Catholics.

In the decade before the American Revolution, most inhabitants of the English colonies would have agreed with Samuel Adams when he said (in 1768): "I did verily believe, as I do still, that much more is to be dreaded from the growth of popery in America, than from the Stamp Act, or any other acts destructive of civil rights." (3)

In 21st Century New York:

The New York government’s recognition of “gay marriage” has caused a religious town clerk to resign because she cannot in good conscience sign marriage licenses for same-sex couples. Gov. Andrew Cuomo said that those who cannot recognize “gay marriages” should not hold those positions.
“When you enforce the laws of the state, you don't get to pick and choose the laws,” the governor said at a July 12 press conference. “You don't get to say, ‘I like this law and I'll enforce this law, or I don't like this law and I won't enforce this law’ -- you can't do that.”
“So if you can't enforce the law, then you shouldn't be in that position,” Cuomo said, according to the New York Daily News.

There's really no problem.

It's just that Catholics and other Christians aren't allowed to hold elective office.

That's all.

If they can't swear to the oath of office, then.... well, what else would you expect?

Bachmann and the Anti-Christ

2011-07-15T07:25:00.000-07:00

The Huffington Post and a few other Democrat outlets are trying to make political hay out of the fact that the Wisconsin Lutheran Synod - the faith to which Michelle Bachmann once belonged - formally teaches that the office of the papacy is the anti-Christ.

Not to split hairs, but I have had a Wisconsin Synod pastor specifically tell me that a distinction needs to be made - it isn't the individual pope that is the anti-Christ, but the office of the Pope (an understanding which is re-affirmed here). Lutherans, even Wisconsin Synod Lutherans, tend to like the Pope in general. Take, for instance, this eulogy to John Paul II, found on the wels.net website:

Four to five million people spent hours in line to file past his body and pay their last respects, and 1.1 billion people claimed him as their spiritual father. Catholic and non-Catholic, Christian and non-Christian alike sang his praises. Even English Prince Charles’s wedding was postponed one day for his funeral. Only a few detractors were to be found. The world had lost a truly great man.

I’m speaking of Pope John Paul II and the days following his death. Some clearly have overdone their adoration for him. A Mexican immigrant, after he had seen John Paul in person on one of the pope’s 104 trips abroad, said, “Holy God came to us today.” Similarly, a 44-year-old Ohio woman opined, “I don’t know if you’re going to get any closer to God on earth.” And one archbishop now has prayed, “From heaven may he look over us always and help us to cross the threshold of hope.”

That kind of awe begs questioning. However, much of the hundreds of tributes paid by religious and political dignitaries around the world were right on. This pope was a man of “transparent integrity,” “unselfish compassion,” “love and courage,” “friendship and understanding.” He was a champion of world peace, human freedom, morality, justice, and life. He loved the youth, the poor, the suffering. He is credited with helping cause the fall of communism, defending human rights, opposing anti-Semitism, serving the cause of Christian unity. He has been called “The Gladiator” and “The Great.”

All of this and more John Paul was and did.

If you want to read the WELS statement on the Anti-Christ and the papacy, it's right here. It's rather long, so I won't bother reproducing it in full in this essay. If you read through it, you'll discover that Lutherans aren't all that keen on the sacrifice of the Mass (it's "Baalitic") or the invocation of the saints, but it DOES acknowledge "...the bishop of Rome had the primacy by divine right...", which is rather heartening.

Now, Bachmann has apparently left her denomination. She could do little else, since denying that the Pope is the Anti-Christ - and she has emphatically denied that the Pope is the anti-Christ - has a specific repercussion in her denomination:

This teaching that the Papacy is the Antichrist is not a fundamental article of faith. . . . It is not an article on which saving faith rests, with which Christianity stands or falls. We cannot and do not deny the Christianity of a person who cannot see the truth that the Pope is the Antichrist.

Yet it is an important article and should not be side-stepped or slighted. It is clearly revealed in the divine word, and there is nothing needless and useless in the Bible; God wants us to know about the Antichrist. . . . This article is clearly expressed in the Lutheran Confessions; whoever denies it does not stand in one faith with his fathers; he is not a confessional Lutheran.

Now, was Bachmann aware of this teaching? WELS spokesman Joel Hochmuth

said in an interview the anti-papal doctrine is “not one of our driving views, and certainly not something that we preach from the pulpit.’"

Speaking as a former RCIA director, who brought dozens of Lutherans into the Church while I worked in Nebraska, I absolutely believe Hochmuth. I've had detailed discussion of the Lutheran and Catholic faith with probably dozens, if not hundreds, of Lutherans, and the only one who mentioned the "papal anti-christ" connection was one Wisconsin Synod pastor.

When I brought it up in discussions with non-ordained Lutherans, they were always uniformly unaware that their church taught such a thing. Indeed, several were aghast to discover it. Lutheran pastors may (or may not) believe this, but they certainly don't preach this, which is undoubtedly why Michelle Bachmann denied that her church taught such a thing way back in 2006 - she had no idea.

So, how does Bachmann's situation differ from that of Barack Obama?

Bachman was in a main-line Protestant community that embraced liturgy. The doctrine of a liturgical Christian community like Lutheranism, Anglicanism or even the true Church, Catholicism, are so wide-ranging and interconnected that it is literally impossible to learn all the teachings and their ramifications by simply listening to Sunday sermons.

In order to learn the doctrines of a liturgical faith, you have to sit down and study through the various pieces.

Obama, on the other hand, belonged to an essentially non-liturgical church, the United Church of Christ. Yes, they claim to have liturgy, but as they themselves point out, it's so amorphous that they themselves are hard-pressed to identify it.

A non-liturgical faith community is built much more strongly around the personal beliefs and charisma of a specific pastor than it is around a bedrock of specific doctrinal beliefs. Reverend Wright, Obama's pastor, was well-known for vocally preaching all kinds of racist, hate-filled vitriol. Indeed, that's how he got and maintained his position.

In direct contradiction to Bachmann's situation, Obama sat for 20 years, basking in the glow of that nonsense. He was married by the Reverend Wright, he had his children baptized by the Reverend Wright (although Obama was apparently never himself baptized), he named his book after one of Wright's sermon snippets.

Bachmann, on the other hand, was never formally or informally taught the WELS position, there is no indication that she heard it from the pulpit or even via hearsay, and WELS' teaching is hardly clear to someone who hasn't seriously studied it, since it obviously has some very nice things to say about various individual popes.

Furthermore, she's a LOT more honest than most cafeteria Catholic politicians. When she discovered her personal understanding differed from her confessional church, she left the church. Would that the Cuomo's, Pelosi's and Biden's of the world would do the same.

When all of this is combined with the fact that Wisconsin Synod Lutheran moral teachings (e.g., on stem cell research, homosexuality or abortion) are essentially identical to Catholic teaching while UCC positions are essentially identical to Planned Parenthood, the position a Catholic should take on all this is quite clear.

If you vote for Michelle Bachmann, you are voting in line with Catholic Faith.

If you vote for Barack Obama, you are enabling evil.

Any questions?

On Obedience

2011-07-11T12:09:00.000-07:00

St. John of The Cross:

‎"On the night of 2 December 1577, John was taken prisoner by his superiors in the calced Carmelites, who had launched a counter-program against John and Teresa's reforms. John had refused an order to return to his original house." "He managed to escape nine months later, on 15 August 1578, through a small window in a room adjoining his cell. (He had managed to pry the cell door off its hinges earlier that day)." St. John of the Cross disobeyed his superior's order because it was unjust, therefore, immoral. For disobeying he was imprisoned, but then escaped since he knew the actions of his superior was not God's will for his life."

St. Thomas Aquinas refused his parents will for his life.

On the other hand, Savonarola was excommunicated by Rome, then imprisoned and burned by a mob for refusing Rome's request that he come and explain himself. Martin Luther refused to obey as well.

So...

Where does Father Corapi fall in this spectrum?

I have no clue.

I don't really have any passionate attachment to Fr. Corapi, nor have I had any interest in his talks or work for years and years.

On the other hand, there's a lot of people who seem disproportionately angry with him. Passionately angry with him.

I Officially Don't Get It

1) I don't understand why SOLT would release an explicitly damaging statement about Corapi and then disappear for three weeks - it's almost like they want to make an accusation and then not answer for it. I find that very odd.

You can argue that Corapi is being irresponsible and I won't disagree, but I can't see how SOLT is acting in a responsible fashion either.

2) As for other commentators, like those who say that there MUST be a big file on Corapi because that's just how the Church works... well, tell it to Padre Pio, who was forbidden to say Mass publicly for ten years.

The Church may well have had a big file on him, but it must not have amounted to much, since he got canonized on the basis of that SAME big file.

3) So, why are so many people ticked at Corapi?

And why do all these people who are ticked at him seem to originate from groups that are used to working closely together? I mean, we've got Mark Shea (Ascension Press), who really needs rabies shots on this one, the NC Register (EWTN octopus) and Phil Lawler (CatholicCulture).

Apart from a wild attempt to grab part of Corapi's audience, what are their respective beefs, exactly?

This is primarily a dispute between a man, his religious order and his bishop, none of whom look particularly good in this go-around.

Why everyone is treating it like the end of the world is beyond me.

UPDATE:

Ah... the penny has dropped.

Or, in this case, several million dollars.

That may well be the motive behind all this brouhaha.

According to this story, SOLT needs money to pay off the rape victim created by another SOLT priest who was also into contract murder.

Conveniently, Corapi is a SOLT priest who happens to have a lot of money.

So, rob Peter to pay off Paul's victim.

That certainly makes a lot more sense than anything I've heard so far.

If it is true, Mark Shea, Fr. Longenecker and several other "Catholic" commentators should get down on their knees, apologize to Corapi and kiss his boots, begging forgiveness.

I'm still not saying I approve of Fr. Corapi's solution, but if that story is correct, the course he chose certainly makes a lot more sense. It also certainly puts Corapi a lot closer to St. John of the Cross (i.e., contending with venal superiors and illicit commands) than any of us might originally have guessed.

What Dolan Didn't Do

2011-07-08T20:18:00.001-07:00

Over at the Knights of Columbus news site, Headlinebistro, Kathryn Jean Lopez attempts a defense of Archbishop Dolan's work in regards to sodomite marriage.

And since when is the archbishop of New York a Third World potentate, whose will will be done owing to his mere presence? Anyone who thinks Andrew Cuomo would have made an about-face at the sight of Dolan skipped over the laughter and patronizing disdain in his recent conversation with Maureen Dowd.

The whole article was filled with questions like this.

Well, since Kathryn seems to like questions so much, here's a couple for her:

Why was Cuomo so happy-go-lucky, Kathryn?

Would a Catholic who had been interdicted or excommunicated be happy?

Why hasn't the good archbishop cut the divorced, co-habitating, pro-sodomy, public pro-abort off from the Eucharist, as is his duty?

~~Why has Archbishop Dolan not only NOT discussed these issues with Cuomo, but publicly expressed his happiness that he HAS NOT done so even when given the chance?~~

~~Joseph Zwilling, spokesman for the Archdiocese of New York, said the controversy did not arise during the governor’s “cordial” lunch with the bishops.~~

“Thank God it didn’t,” Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan told reporters after the meeting, “because it was a bit of a tempest in a teapot.”

Yes, I can see how flagrant public mortal sin is just a bit of a tempest in a teapot. That's a set of positions Cuomo took ENORMOUS leadership on. Thank God that Dolan's manly silence on little things like adultery and abortion obviously encouraged Cuomo to be absolutely instrumental in leading the charge to get the sodomite marriage legislation passed, right?

But Kathryn wasn't done:

And since when is the archbishop alone in this? What about the rest of us?

You know what, Kathryn?

I am truly SICK of hearing this gambit.

The archbishop has a duty to lead. If he ain't leading, there's no point crying about who ain't following. I was always under the impression that the bishops - by definition - consider us all SHEEP who follow their lead.

Isn't it odd how the bishops get so damned angry when we try to lead into places they don't want to go?

In fact, isn't it odd how they get nettled if we just ASK them why they aren't leading us into places they don't want to go?

What?

You don't remember anything like that?

How odd.

Think "priest abuse" or "vaccine waivers for Catholic school-kids" or "receiving Jesus on our knees" or "kneeling during the consecration" or "requesting the Tridentine Mass" or "washing only men's feet during the Mandatum" or "interdicting flagrant public sinners" or even "parents doing sacramental prep instead of parishes."

Has there been any upset about any of these issues?

Have any American bishops LED on these issues, instead of following cravenly behind whatever the liberal nutcases wanted?

Let's put this another way, Kathryn.

I'll use little words so you understand.

If Dolan isn't going to get on Cuomo's case for leading the charge on sodomite marriage or any other aspect of public sin, where in the name of heaven and earth do YOU get off screaming at US for NOT leading on these issues?

So, the orthodox laity get yelled at when they lead on something the bishops don't like (even though it is in perfect conformance with the Catholic Faith) and then people like you yell at us AGAIN when we notice the bishop hasn't done a whole lot of leading on issues he pretends to support? Is that how it's supposed to work?

"Shut up!" you scream, "Where were YOU when the bishop was hiding out on the West Coast?"

Why does this response remind me of nothing so much as the pro-abort who complains about how many children the pro-lifers haven't adopted this month?

Indeed, even if you have a legitimate beef against lay Catholics who notice how easily Archbishop Dolan rolled over (not that you do, but let's pretend for the sake of argument), then how do you explain the pro-abort, pro-sodomite factions who have been crowing over how easily the New York Catholic bishops rolled over?

It was befuddling to gay-rights advocates: The Catholic Church, arguably the only institution with the authority and reach to derail same-sex marriage, seemed to shrink from the fight.

As the marriage bill hurtled toward a vote, the head of the church in New York, Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan, left town to lead a meeting of bishops in Seattle. He did not travel to Albany or deliver a major speech in the final days of the session. And when he did issue a strongly worded critique of the legislation — he called it “immoral” and an “ominous threat” — it was over the phone to an Albany-area radio show.

Kathryn, that's the New York Times, sweetie. Do you understand that the New York Times is calling Dolan a coward?

Kathryn, Cuomo knew Dolan wouldn't say "boo", honey. Dolan hadn't shown backbone on things like cohabitation, being pro-abort or being pro-sodomite, so why would he show backbone on Cuomo's support for sodomite marriage? Indeed, one could argue that Cuomo made a backroom deal in which Dolan would leave town and avoid addressing ANY comments to the legislature in exchange for... what?

Well, I guess we'll just have to wait and find out, won't we?

This is not North Korea, as Archbishop Dolan now famously blogged. And Andrew Cuomo isn’t torturing anyone. But he, and everyone who voted to redefine marriage, is torturing the truth.

Oh, there's one last point, sweetie. If Cuomo is "torturing the truth" as you yourself aver, then Cuomo IS torturing someone. The truth is not a thing, He is a Person - Jesus Christ.

Catholics know that.

Why don't you?

Now, I understand that headlinebistro.com is run by the Knights of Columbus, and that the K of C has a history of retaining high-level members who support sodomy and abortion, but this column is a bit much even for you people, don't you think?

The only reason anyone would have to write such a bone-headed STUPID defense is if she has a favor she wants from the bishop and she's shining her nose in preparation for making the request.

So, put on your make-up, go on into his office and ask already.

Quit wasting our time with your blond-haired essays.

Fr. Corapi's Change of Life

2011-06-17T21:57:00.000-07:00

Well, it appears Fr. Corapi has left the priesthood.

For what it's worth, I've known people in similar situations and Fr. Corapi does accurately describe the process:

1. The identity of the accuser is not revealed. You can guess, but you don’t actually know. Nor are the exact allegations made known to you. Hence, you have an interesting situation of having to respond to an unknown accuser making unknown accusations (unknown to the accused and his counsel).
2. The persons chosen to investigate the allegations normally have no qualifications to do so. They certainly didn’t graduate from the FBI academy, nor do they have any other background to qualify them to interrogate or otherwise interview witnesses.
3. There are no set rules of evidence or norms of procedure.
4. You are for all practical purposes assumed guilty until you can prove you are innocent. This one is truly baffling. No civilized society operates that way. If you are accused of something you are considered innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
5. The accused and his counsel have no right to obtain and review any of the evidence against him.
6. The accused and his counsel are not provided the names of witnesses, nor are they permitted to cross-examine them.

What Fr. Corapi describes is the standard inquisitional process (i.e. the court process) used by the Church for at least 1000 years. Every one of those six points accurately describes how every Catholic inquisition has always been run, except he's supposed to have the opportunity to list his enemies, so that their testimony can be discounted. Apart from that, he's pretty accurately describing his situation.

The only people who are shocked by his description are those who don't know how the Inquisition works. Fr. Corapi is, or rather was, apparently one of those people. He isn't anymore, of course, but the process by which his illusions were stripped away was clearly unpleasant.

Ignorant people who claim Fr. Corapi is sliming his opponents simply don't understand how the process works. They mistake facts for caricatures.

Similarly, mean-spirited people claim Fr. Corapi shows a "snarling tone" towards bishops. Sorry, but I don't see that he does. Again, he simply and accurately describes the facts: the bishop has made up his mind. The bishop's time is valuable. So is yours. Arguing with, or complaining, to the bishop isn't going to change anything. These are irrefutable facts.

His solution is rather extreme, and I don't know that I would do the same thing in his position, but I certainly can understand why he chose this solution.

He's not leaving the Catholic Church, he's just leaving an absolutely untenable situation.
When Padre Pio was faced with a similar situation of baseless accusations, he simply accepted it: suspension for ten years.

Ten years of no public Mass, no hearing confession, no public preaching.

Until he was eventually exonerated when his accusers admitted they had lied.

Fr. Corapi is obviously not Padre Pio.

On the other hand, his solution does not indicate guilt.

It does indicate frustration - extreme frustration.

From an American perspective, understandable frustration.

Pray for all those in the situation.

UPDATE:

Some people have asked me whether this post constitutes support for Fr. Corapi.

No, it isn't meant to be support, exactly.

Fr. Corapi has long had financial dealings that I find distasteful. But, heck, I find the financial dealings of most of the well-known people involved in Catholic ministry distasteful: Pat Madrid, Mark Shea, Amy Welborn, Scott Hahn, Alan Napleton, Chris West, Fr. Corapi, etc., are all cut from basically the same cloth as Maciel when it comes to money.

They want it.

The Catholic Faith pays their mortgages.

Some are more sharks than others, but the differences between them are differences of degree, not really of kind.

Is Fr. Corapi going to lead a large number of Catholics away from the Faith?

Maybe... insofar as ANY public Catholic treats a situation badly, that Catholic is likely to lead people away from the Faith.

If you want the Faith pure, without this mess to deal with, read Catholics who are dead and whose writings are approved: the Fathers, Doctors and saints of the Church.

If you are going to dabble with the work of the living, then at some point, you'll face the dilemma Fr. Corapi poses.

To his credit, Corapi is not like Chris West, who is clearly teaching heresy, or Scott Hahn, who has clearly taught problematic things (the Holy Spirit is the feminine). He's more like Mark Shea or Amy Welborn or Matt Pinto or Alan Napleton - always looking to turn a buck.

I don't have a good answer as to whether he's right or wrong, good or bad, true or deceptive.

Wish I could be more help, but there you go.

All I can say is Fr. Corapi has not taken the course that saints before him have taken.

That is a legitimate cause for concern to any Catholic.