Some people say I'm hard on Catholic schools, so I'd like to correct that impression.
Our President, Barack Hussein Obama...
Our vice President, Joe Biden...
Our Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi...
...all went to Catholic parochial schools.
Of course, the Vatican has specifically chastised our President for his violently pro-death stance.
Bishops have forbidden Joe Biden reception of the Eucharist because of his violently pro-death stance.
The entire USCCB has chastised Nancy Pelosi for her complete ignorance of the Faith.
And nearly 30% of our violently pro-death Congress is Catholic.
But lets not dwell on picayune facts.
This being Catholic schools week and all, I would like to recommend to everyone the Catholic parochial school.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Play By the Rules
Bad News:
A CIA station chief is accused of multiple rapes of Muslim women.
Good News:
The CIA station chief recently converted to the Religion of Peace.
Simple Resolution:
Given that:
a) Muslims would like the whole world ruled by sharia law,
b) According to sharia law, it isn't rape unless four Muslim men witnessed the actual penetration
then...
... in keeping with the dictates of multiculturalism, we should simply stone the women to death for having had sex outside of marriage.
That's what they would do in Saudi Arabia.
Case closed.
Simple, n'est ce pas?
A CIA station chief is accused of multiple rapes of Muslim women.
Good News:
The CIA station chief recently converted to the Religion of Peace.
Simple Resolution:
Given that:
a) Muslims would like the whole world ruled by sharia law,
b) According to sharia law, it isn't rape unless four Muslim men witnessed the actual penetration
then...
... in keeping with the dictates of multiculturalism, we should simply stone the women to death for having had sex outside of marriage.
That's what they would do in Saudi Arabia.
Case closed.
Simple, n'est ce pas?
Friday, January 23, 2009
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Why Republicans Will Lose in 2010, 2012, 2014, etc.
The Democrats have an economy that is being trumpeted as the worst EVER.
Whether or not this is true, and to what extent it is true, doesn't matter.
Because most people believe it, the government has warrant to spend trillions and trillions of dollars in the next few years.
All of that money will go into pork for Democrat districts.
They'll use that money to buy votes, just like FDR did.
And, like FDR, they will succeed in buying votes.
Everyone assumes Obama wants the economy to improve, and perhaps he does.
But he has a Republican president to blame economic failures on for the next four years, i.e., lots of deniability.
So - as long as he has the warrant to throw money around - does it really harm him if the economy tanks? I don't see how it does. In fact, you could easily argue that he can profit as much from a deeply damaged economy as he does from a recovering one. It all depends on how good he is at spin - and we've seen how good he is at spin.
And speaking of a tanking economy, he will not only have the ability to throw trillions around to buy votes, he will also have the ability to nationalize health care as a way of reducing social security, medicare, medicaid and general health expenditures.
Despite Democrat Party Platform protests to the contrary, everyone with a brain knows the government health care and social security programs are due to go bust during this first term of Obama's presidency. Social Security can't afford to keep the Baby Boomers alive. One or the other has to die, and it won't be the government program.
Now, old people vote more reliably than any other bloc, which is why Social Security hasn't been repaired or replaced yet. Everyone is afraid to touch it.
As far as a secular humanist is concerned, there is really only one logical way out.
When Stalin was faced with the fact that his economic policies didn't work, that there would be far more demand than a socialist economy could possibly supply, he solved the problem by creating the Gulag system. A large segment of the population was placed in prison camps where their ability to consume could be very tightly regulated so as to assure the supply didn't fall too far behind the curve. Sure, a lot of people died as a result, but the economy didn't crash, which was all he cared about. Can't make a nationalized economy without breaking a few eggs.
National Health Care is the 21st century version of the Soviet gulag. When there are too many old people consuming too many resources, you don't arrest them and throw them into prison.
No, you throw them into a hospital room and make sure they don't walk out again. The ability of sick people to consume far outweighs their ability to produce, so they have to die. In a socially acceptable way, of course.
"National Health Care" is the phrase the Ministry of Truth comes up with in order to make sure everyone gets the kind of health care they deserve. That's how they'll sell it to the old people who vote. And with trillions behind it, it will sell.
It is coming.
And if THAT doesn't work, there's always the FDR/Stalin solution - internment camps.
UPDATE:
Dick Morris appears to agree with me on the way the health care will go.
Whether or not this is true, and to what extent it is true, doesn't matter.
Because most people believe it, the government has warrant to spend trillions and trillions of dollars in the next few years.
All of that money will go into pork for Democrat districts.
They'll use that money to buy votes, just like FDR did.
And, like FDR, they will succeed in buying votes.
Everyone assumes Obama wants the economy to improve, and perhaps he does.
But he has a Republican president to blame economic failures on for the next four years, i.e., lots of deniability.
So - as long as he has the warrant to throw money around - does it really harm him if the economy tanks? I don't see how it does. In fact, you could easily argue that he can profit as much from a deeply damaged economy as he does from a recovering one. It all depends on how good he is at spin - and we've seen how good he is at spin.
And speaking of a tanking economy, he will not only have the ability to throw trillions around to buy votes, he will also have the ability to nationalize health care as a way of reducing social security, medicare, medicaid and general health expenditures.
Despite Democrat Party Platform protests to the contrary, everyone with a brain knows the government health care and social security programs are due to go bust during this first term of Obama's presidency. Social Security can't afford to keep the Baby Boomers alive. One or the other has to die, and it won't be the government program.
Now, old people vote more reliably than any other bloc, which is why Social Security hasn't been repaired or replaced yet. Everyone is afraid to touch it.
As far as a secular humanist is concerned, there is really only one logical way out.
When Stalin was faced with the fact that his economic policies didn't work, that there would be far more demand than a socialist economy could possibly supply, he solved the problem by creating the Gulag system. A large segment of the population was placed in prison camps where their ability to consume could be very tightly regulated so as to assure the supply didn't fall too far behind the curve. Sure, a lot of people died as a result, but the economy didn't crash, which was all he cared about. Can't make a nationalized economy without breaking a few eggs.
National Health Care is the 21st century version of the Soviet gulag. When there are too many old people consuming too many resources, you don't arrest them and throw them into prison.
No, you throw them into a hospital room and make sure they don't walk out again. The ability of sick people to consume far outweighs their ability to produce, so they have to die. In a socially acceptable way, of course.
"National Health Care" is the phrase the Ministry of Truth comes up with in order to make sure everyone gets the kind of health care they deserve. That's how they'll sell it to the old people who vote. And with trillions behind it, it will sell.
It is coming.
And if THAT doesn't work, there's always the FDR/Stalin solution - internment camps.
UPDATE:
Dick Morris appears to agree with me on the way the health care will go.
A Pauline Epiphany
I teach RCIA - that's a major part of my job.
RCIA candidates and catechumens always have one question: why is God so mean and angry in the Old Testament, but kind and gentle in the New?
My standard explanation goes thus:
When I was young, my parents put me in the corner. If you asked me, at five years old, why they did that, the answer would have been obvious - they hate me and are angry with me.
Now that I'm 45 and putting my own children in the corner, I realize that it isn't about anger. In fact, what the kids do is sometimes so funny it's hard to stop laughing. But I can't allow them to think such behaviour is acceptable, or they'll have real trouble as adults. So, even as I'm putting a frown over my grin, they are getting dissuaded from their actions.
The people of the Old Testament did not have the fullness of grace made available to us through the Incarnation. As a result, the Old Testament is written by the spiritual equivalent of a five- year old having a bad hair day.
And as I was giving this explanation, I realized something. The difference really IS in attitude.
Look at St. Paul for instance: scourged, beaten with an iron rod, stoned (possibly even to a near-death experience, since he talks about being caught up into the third heaven), and ultimately beheaded, he was treated as badly as any Old Testament prophet you care to name. Yet not once did he claim that God was pouring out wrath upon him. Instead, he kept insisting that God is love.
Indeed, the pre-eminent promoter of this "God is Love" philosophy, St. John, was boiled alive in oil and survived, yet his three letters are all about ... God is Love.
Is it a coincidence that the same John who wrote those letters is ALSO the John who recorded - uniquely recorded - that Jesus not only cleansed the Temple, but braided a whip of cords first in order to improve the experience for the people being thrown out?
Try this on for size.
Read any of the Gospels and pretend that God may not be love. Look for signs of love in the things Jesus says and does. If love means being nice, Jesus ain't love.
He calls the Pharisees and Sadducees every name in the book, including references to their burning in hell. He calls one woman a dog. He beats people with a whip. Even the apostles are essentially treated as dimwitted rubes most of the time.
In short, Jesus in the New Testament really doesn't act much differently than God does in the Old Testament. The apostles are certainly not treated any more kindly than the prophets were. The only difference between the two testaments is this: God dies in the second one.
We all agree that the God of the New Testament is Love, and are all concerned that the God of the Old Testament is Not.
We don't understand His Love until He dies for us.
Once we see that, everything falls into place.
We start to understand that the bad things which happen to us are not His doing, but ours.
We begin to realize that He's been trying to keep us out of both the frying pan and the fire, and we just won't accept it. We insist on abusing ourselves and each other instead.
It isn't that the God of the Old Testament hates us or is angry with us.
It's that we hate us and are angry with ourselves.
As John Paul II pointed out, God revealed man to himself.
This is how we know God is love.
RCIA candidates and catechumens always have one question: why is God so mean and angry in the Old Testament, but kind and gentle in the New?
My standard explanation goes thus:
When I was young, my parents put me in the corner. If you asked me, at five years old, why they did that, the answer would have been obvious - they hate me and are angry with me.
Now that I'm 45 and putting my own children in the corner, I realize that it isn't about anger. In fact, what the kids do is sometimes so funny it's hard to stop laughing. But I can't allow them to think such behaviour is acceptable, or they'll have real trouble as adults. So, even as I'm putting a frown over my grin, they are getting dissuaded from their actions.
The people of the Old Testament did not have the fullness of grace made available to us through the Incarnation. As a result, the Old Testament is written by the spiritual equivalent of a five- year old having a bad hair day.
And as I was giving this explanation, I realized something. The difference really IS in attitude.
Look at St. Paul for instance: scourged, beaten with an iron rod, stoned (possibly even to a near-death experience, since he talks about being caught up into the third heaven), and ultimately beheaded, he was treated as badly as any Old Testament prophet you care to name. Yet not once did he claim that God was pouring out wrath upon him. Instead, he kept insisting that God is love.
Indeed, the pre-eminent promoter of this "God is Love" philosophy, St. John, was boiled alive in oil and survived, yet his three letters are all about ... God is Love.
Is it a coincidence that the same John who wrote those letters is ALSO the John who recorded - uniquely recorded - that Jesus not only cleansed the Temple, but braided a whip of cords first in order to improve the experience for the people being thrown out?
Try this on for size.
Read any of the Gospels and pretend that God may not be love. Look for signs of love in the things Jesus says and does. If love means being nice, Jesus ain't love.
He calls the Pharisees and Sadducees every name in the book, including references to their burning in hell. He calls one woman a dog. He beats people with a whip. Even the apostles are essentially treated as dimwitted rubes most of the time.
In short, Jesus in the New Testament really doesn't act much differently than God does in the Old Testament. The apostles are certainly not treated any more kindly than the prophets were. The only difference between the two testaments is this: God dies in the second one.
We all agree that the God of the New Testament is Love, and are all concerned that the God of the Old Testament is Not.
We don't understand His Love until He dies for us.
Once we see that, everything falls into place.
We start to understand that the bad things which happen to us are not His doing, but ours.
We begin to realize that He's been trying to keep us out of both the frying pan and the fire, and we just won't accept it. We insist on abusing ourselves and each other instead.
It isn't that the God of the Old Testament hates us or is angry with us.
It's that we hate us and are angry with ourselves.
As John Paul II pointed out, God revealed man to himself.
This is how we know God is love.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Kennedy Needs Prayers
Most of you will remember that shortly after receiving the Eucharist at one of Pope Benedict's United States Masses, Senator Kennedy was diagnosed with terminal brain cancer.
He has now collapsed.
1 Corinthians 11 - If you eat and drink the body and blood without discernment, you eat and drink judgement on yourself. That is why many of you are sick and some have died.
He has now collapsed.
1 Corinthians 11 - If you eat and drink the body and blood without discernment, you eat and drink judgement on yourself. That is why many of you are sick and some have died.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Children Really Are Protected
I've decided that all of the children's safety programs should be referred to using this generic phrase, as the acronym is so marvelously descriptive.
But, after seeing several articles last week on CultureWarNotes.com about the probable triumph of legal polygamy in Canada, it got me to thinking.
We all know how this progression has worked and where it is going.
First, contraceptives were legalized in Christian denominations, beginning in 1930. By 1936, it was legal to advertise them.
As a natural consequence of legal contraceptives, abortion was, less than 30 years later, legalized.
Once contraception and abortion were in place, no-fault divorce was easy to legalize and family breakdown began in earnest.
With the contraception, abortion and the breakdown of the family proceeding apace, it became very easy to argue that homosexuality was a private affair that the state had no right to forbid. Adultery is no longer a big deal, the culture was already sexualizing children, sex is about pleasure, not procreation, so sodomy is easy to go along with.
By 2003, thirty years after RvW, Texas sodomy laws were struck down, and with them, all sodomy laws across the nation.
It is 2009, and Canada is set to legalize polygamy. The United States can't be too far behind. Certainly by 2020 there should be a test case in the courts, and legalization should follow no later than 2025. To be honest, I rather think polygamy will be legal before the 2016 elections, assuming we are still having elections in 2016.
So, sometime between 2012 and 2025, we will have only pedophilia and bestiality as loves that dare not speak their name. There's not much hope of either remaining illegal much past 2030.
So, here's my question.
Given that the whole CRAP system was developed by the United States bishops in order to comply with the law of the land, what will they do when those laws are knocked flat in the next twenty years?
Having workshops explaining why not to have sex with children will soon be like having workshops on why married couples should use NFP - quaint. No one will be prosecuted for having sex with children, so no one will pay much attention to the facilitators or the workshops.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying anyone pays attention to them now - people only go to the blasted things in order to keep their paychecks. But the motivation for ignoring the speaker will be quite different.
Indeed, it is quite possible that parishes would be violating the law if they dismissed someone for this version of free love and personal expression.
So, what will the bishops do when - WHEN - this happens?
Will we look on these pedophilia workshops with the same smug superciliousness that we view the 1940's warnings against "mixed marriages" (i.e., marriages between Catholics and non-Catholics)?
"How silly those old people were back in that unenlightened age!" we'll exclaim to one another, as the old fogeys fruitlessly warn us about the error of following this path.
We won't argue with them, of course. Why should we? The national health care plan will be clearing their kind away. Their mouths will be shut soon enough.
And we'll remember 2009 as the year of our salvation.
But, after seeing several articles last week on CultureWarNotes.com about the probable triumph of legal polygamy in Canada, it got me to thinking.
We all know how this progression has worked and where it is going.
First, contraceptives were legalized in Christian denominations, beginning in 1930. By 1936, it was legal to advertise them.
As a natural consequence of legal contraceptives, abortion was, less than 30 years later, legalized.
Once contraception and abortion were in place, no-fault divorce was easy to legalize and family breakdown began in earnest.
With the contraception, abortion and the breakdown of the family proceeding apace, it became very easy to argue that homosexuality was a private affair that the state had no right to forbid. Adultery is no longer a big deal, the culture was already sexualizing children, sex is about pleasure, not procreation, so sodomy is easy to go along with.
By 2003, thirty years after RvW, Texas sodomy laws were struck down, and with them, all sodomy laws across the nation.
It is 2009, and Canada is set to legalize polygamy. The United States can't be too far behind. Certainly by 2020 there should be a test case in the courts, and legalization should follow no later than 2025. To be honest, I rather think polygamy will be legal before the 2016 elections, assuming we are still having elections in 2016.
So, sometime between 2012 and 2025, we will have only pedophilia and bestiality as loves that dare not speak their name. There's not much hope of either remaining illegal much past 2030.
So, here's my question.
Given that the whole CRAP system was developed by the United States bishops in order to comply with the law of the land, what will they do when those laws are knocked flat in the next twenty years?
Having workshops explaining why not to have sex with children will soon be like having workshops on why married couples should use NFP - quaint. No one will be prosecuted for having sex with children, so no one will pay much attention to the facilitators or the workshops.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying anyone pays attention to them now - people only go to the blasted things in order to keep their paychecks. But the motivation for ignoring the speaker will be quite different.
Indeed, it is quite possible that parishes would be violating the law if they dismissed someone for this version of free love and personal expression.
So, what will the bishops do when - WHEN - this happens?
Will we look on these pedophilia workshops with the same smug superciliousness that we view the 1940's warnings against "mixed marriages" (i.e., marriages between Catholics and non-Catholics)?
"How silly those old people were back in that unenlightened age!" we'll exclaim to one another, as the old fogeys fruitlessly warn us about the error of following this path.
We won't argue with them, of course. Why should we? The national health care plan will be clearing their kind away. Their mouths will be shut soon enough.
And we'll remember 2009 as the year of our salvation.
Plenty of Room in the Back of the Bus
Look through the roster for all the inauguration prayers.
Evangelicals (four versions)? Check.
Jews (three varieties)? Check.
Sodomites? Check.
Muslim Terrorists? Check.
Catholics? ....
Catholics?!? ...
Bueller?
Anyone?
Doug Kmiec, please call your office...
Schmuck.
UPDATE:
Good news!
The terrorist is an ex-Catholic...
Evangelicals (four versions)? Check.
Jews (three varieties)? Check.
Sodomites? Check.
Muslim Terrorists? Check.
Catholics? ....
Catholics?!? ...
Bueller?
Anyone?
Doug Kmiec, please call your office...
Schmuck.
UPDATE:
Good news!
The terrorist is an ex-Catholic...
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Goodbye, Yellow Brick School
CultureWarNotes.com has a link to a New York Times story about the coming extinction of Catholic schools - something prophesied on this blog several times in the last three years, pointed out in my book in October, 2005. Just a few months ago, I pointed out that this process would speed up as a result of the huge economic downturn.
University of Notre Dame, always on the cutting edge, managed to pull together a task force report on this coming extinction just one short year after my book was published.
In the NY Times story, we see this marvelous quote from a Catholic parent, "The world can change, but if you got your school, your church, your sports all within a couple of blocks, you’re safe."
From a philosophical perspective, i.e., one lists items from the least important to the most important, this man got it exactly right. As I pointed out in my book, Designed to Fail: Catholic Education in America, the parish community is important primarily because it can field a sports team via the parish school.
If you lose the sports team, you've lost the raison d'etre for the school. Without a school, of what use is a parish church?
Yes, that's what I call the fullness of the Catholic Faith!
I also love the statement that starts page 2: "The goal set by the bishops in 1884 — “every Catholic child in a Catholic school” — was never quite met. But by 1965, roughly half of all Catholic children in America attended Catholic elementary schools, according to the National Catholic Educational Association."
Now, notice. In 1965 - well before the huge apostasy from religious orders in the early 70's - the school system managed to get 50% of Catholic children into its gaping maw. And that's when the schools were free to attend, mind you. Even for free, about 50% of Catholic parents weren't that interested.
But according to the article, what caused the loss? Well, loss of religious orders, increased costs, poorer parishioners - everything but the schools themselves.
And how will they fix the schools?
"What most proposals have in common is broadening the base of financial support. Some call for including all Catholics in the diocese; others focus on wealthy philanthropists; some use marketing campaigns aimed at filling empty seats with children, Catholic or not."
Here's a thought: how about filling the schools by implementing Magisterial documents on how a school is to be run, e.g., no non-Catholic teachers, baptized and unbaptized students separated from each other in the classroom, boys and girls separated from each other during class instruction, Catholic Faith suffusing every subject, not just the religion classes, etc.?
It's sheer craziness on my part, I'll admit, but - to repeat a question I raise in the book - of what use is it to run a school that isn't actually Catholic? If you wish to argue that it is a spiritual work of mercy to instruct the ignorant, I will not disagree, but I'm pretty sure the Church means we are to instruct those who are ignorant of the Faith.
It's not at all clear that the Church has anymore competence - or any more reason - to teach, say, chemistry, than any biological parent does, for instance. It's a lot easier to justify Catholic hospitals (care for the sick), clothing stores (clothe the naked), prison ministries, even a chain of diocesan Catholic restaurants, than it is to justify a charter school that doesn't even have a crucifix on the wall.
The Catholic school system is going away.
Only God can stop that, and I doubt He's that interested in supporting a school that only violates the teachings of His Church.
University of Notre Dame, always on the cutting edge, managed to pull together a task force report on this coming extinction just one short year after my book was published.
In the NY Times story, we see this marvelous quote from a Catholic parent, "The world can change, but if you got your school, your church, your sports all within a couple of blocks, you’re safe."
From a philosophical perspective, i.e., one lists items from the least important to the most important, this man got it exactly right. As I pointed out in my book, Designed to Fail: Catholic Education in America, the parish community is important primarily because it can field a sports team via the parish school.
If you lose the sports team, you've lost the raison d'etre for the school. Without a school, of what use is a parish church?
Yes, that's what I call the fullness of the Catholic Faith!
I also love the statement that starts page 2: "The goal set by the bishops in 1884 — “every Catholic child in a Catholic school” — was never quite met. But by 1965, roughly half of all Catholic children in America attended Catholic elementary schools, according to the National Catholic Educational Association."
Now, notice. In 1965 - well before the huge apostasy from religious orders in the early 70's - the school system managed to get 50% of Catholic children into its gaping maw. And that's when the schools were free to attend, mind you. Even for free, about 50% of Catholic parents weren't that interested.
But according to the article, what caused the loss? Well, loss of religious orders, increased costs, poorer parishioners - everything but the schools themselves.
And how will they fix the schools?
"What most proposals have in common is broadening the base of financial support. Some call for including all Catholics in the diocese; others focus on wealthy philanthropists; some use marketing campaigns aimed at filling empty seats with children, Catholic or not."
Here's a thought: how about filling the schools by implementing Magisterial documents on how a school is to be run, e.g., no non-Catholic teachers, baptized and unbaptized students separated from each other in the classroom, boys and girls separated from each other during class instruction, Catholic Faith suffusing every subject, not just the religion classes, etc.?
It's sheer craziness on my part, I'll admit, but - to repeat a question I raise in the book - of what use is it to run a school that isn't actually Catholic? If you wish to argue that it is a spiritual work of mercy to instruct the ignorant, I will not disagree, but I'm pretty sure the Church means we are to instruct those who are ignorant of the Faith.
It's not at all clear that the Church has anymore competence - or any more reason - to teach, say, chemistry, than any biological parent does, for instance. It's a lot easier to justify Catholic hospitals (care for the sick), clothing stores (clothe the naked), prison ministries, even a chain of diocesan Catholic restaurants, than it is to justify a charter school that doesn't even have a crucifix on the wall.
The Catholic school system is going away.
Only God can stop that, and I doubt He's that interested in supporting a school that only violates the teachings of His Church.
Saturday, January 17, 2009
President for Life
There is a hope, of course, that Barack Hussein is just a pansy who will let Nancy rule.
But, the more I see, the less I think we'll have to bother our poor little heads about voting in 2012.
It's so much easier when one party takes care of everything.
Everything.
Normally, we count on legislation morasses to stop excesses from crystallizing into laws.
But, like Hitler's brownshirts, Obama has a grass-roots network that can put pressure on any legislator, anytime.
The legislature may find itself becoming nothing but a rubber-stamp.
In short, Nancy may be baring her teeth now, but if Barack Hussein is really serious about being a socialist, she'll be the first one up against the wall when the revolution comes.
While BHO is clearly insane (cf. his willingness to kill infants, for instance), it's very hard to know exactly how insane he is until he gets into office and we see how he wields power.
We all continue to hope against hope that he's either a pansy or a blowhard.
But FDR is his idol and that's a problem.
After all, FDR single-handedly created the industrial-military complex and he is still the only President who ever set up internment camps for ordinary non-combatant American citizens.
But, the more I see, the less I think we'll have to bother our poor little heads about voting in 2012.
It's so much easier when one party takes care of everything.
Everything.
Normally, we count on legislation morasses to stop excesses from crystallizing into laws.
But, like Hitler's brownshirts, Obama has a grass-roots network that can put pressure on any legislator, anytime.
The legislature may find itself becoming nothing but a rubber-stamp.
In short, Nancy may be baring her teeth now, but if Barack Hussein is really serious about being a socialist, she'll be the first one up against the wall when the revolution comes.
While BHO is clearly insane (cf. his willingness to kill infants, for instance), it's very hard to know exactly how insane he is until he gets into office and we see how he wields power.
We all continue to hope against hope that he's either a pansy or a blowhard.
But FDR is his idol and that's a problem.
After all, FDR single-handedly created the industrial-military complex and he is still the only President who ever set up internment camps for ordinary non-combatant American citizens.
Friday, January 09, 2009
Pansy for President?
I can't decide whether to laugh or cry.
On the one hand, I have written long and, I hope, powerfully, about the incipient dangers of a Barack Hussein Obama presidency. If he is really the socialist he claims to be, then the nation will become another Cuba, Nazi Germany or USSR within eight years.
But what if he's just a pansy?
What if he is the typical ivory-tower blowhard, the kind of prof who talks a big game in front of the freshman class, but turns out to be unable to hold his own even in a debate with a lowly graduate student, much less one of his own peers?
As Mark Steyn recently pointed out on the Laura Ingraham Show, B. Hussein has chosen an interminable number of former Clinton appointees for his cabinet. He most recently began fishing for a surgeon general among the Hollywood elite, in the form of Dr. Gupta. It is indeed as if he doesn't himself know anyone of consequence, so he has to steal names out of other people's little black books. He even went to the trouble of violating the Constitution in order to get Hillary into Secretary of State (no, I don't think she'll even take the fig leaf of a pay cut).
So, will Barack Obama turn out to be a President who continues his Illinois Senate habit of simply voting "present" (he spent his entire US Senate career running for President, so he didn't have time to pick up any habit of responsibility there. And that assumes the US Senate is known for instilling responsibility in its members, which is an assertion whose truth value lacks only evidence).
The man isn't even sworn in yet, and already Congress is beating him into the ground. Apparently, he spent his honeymoon on the election - it doesn't look like he's going to get one on Capitol Hill.
And if Nancy Pelosi continues to rough him up, can Hillary be far behind? And Bill in the background, egging her on? Between the two ladies in drag, he'll be ... pretty whipped...
Won't it be fun to have a man who makes Jimmy Carter look like a tower of strength?
A punching bag for his own party...
What will he be for the world?
And Joe Biden has his back.
God help us.
Nancy Pelosi may end up being the second woman President after all.
On the one hand, I have written long and, I hope, powerfully, about the incipient dangers of a Barack Hussein Obama presidency. If he is really the socialist he claims to be, then the nation will become another Cuba, Nazi Germany or USSR within eight years.
But what if he's just a pansy?
What if he is the typical ivory-tower blowhard, the kind of prof who talks a big game in front of the freshman class, but turns out to be unable to hold his own even in a debate with a lowly graduate student, much less one of his own peers?
As Mark Steyn recently pointed out on the Laura Ingraham Show, B. Hussein has chosen an interminable number of former Clinton appointees for his cabinet. He most recently began fishing for a surgeon general among the Hollywood elite, in the form of Dr. Gupta. It is indeed as if he doesn't himself know anyone of consequence, so he has to steal names out of other people's little black books. He even went to the trouble of violating the Constitution in order to get Hillary into Secretary of State (no, I don't think she'll even take the fig leaf of a pay cut).
So, will Barack Obama turn out to be a President who continues his Illinois Senate habit of simply voting "present" (he spent his entire US Senate career running for President, so he didn't have time to pick up any habit of responsibility there. And that assumes the US Senate is known for instilling responsibility in its members, which is an assertion whose truth value lacks only evidence).
The man isn't even sworn in yet, and already Congress is beating him into the ground. Apparently, he spent his honeymoon on the election - it doesn't look like he's going to get one on Capitol Hill.
And if Nancy Pelosi continues to rough him up, can Hillary be far behind? And Bill in the background, egging her on? Between the two ladies in drag, he'll be ... pretty whipped...
Won't it be fun to have a man who makes Jimmy Carter look like a tower of strength?
A punching bag for his own party...
What will he be for the world?
And Joe Biden has his back.
God help us.
Nancy Pelosi may end up being the second woman President after all.
Thursday, January 08, 2009
Horror
Some people have no idea how nasty contraceptives can be.
One of the primary inventors of the contraceptive pill would like to illuminate the situation.
The article speaks for itself.
One of the primary inventors of the contraceptive pill would like to illuminate the situation.
The article speaks for itself.
Saturday, January 03, 2009
Catholic Drudge Report
Yes, there's always a contender - Spirit Daily, a good news-site, has long been considered the Catholic version of the Drudge Report. It's designed to reach an audience with an interest in apparitions, ghosts, apocalyptic and other end-times prophecies, etc.
But there is another kid on the block, now.
It is culturewarnotes.com.
This site seems to be more interested in main-stream Catholicism. You won't find anything about the latest Marian apparition or the ghost in the hospital corridor, but you will see headlines concerning the interaction between faith and reason, science and religion, and theology in the public sphere (such as it is).
For instance, did you know about the scientific study that shows Catholics experience less pain and suffering than non-Catholics in certain situations?
Or that archaeologists think they may have found King Solomon's copper mines?
Did anyone link together the fact that Barack Obama has not said a public word in condemnation of his violently anti-Semitic political supporters, Hamas? (That was the top story at culturewarnotes.com last week)
It might be worth checking out.
But there is another kid on the block, now.
It is culturewarnotes.com.
This site seems to be more interested in main-stream Catholicism. You won't find anything about the latest Marian apparition or the ghost in the hospital corridor, but you will see headlines concerning the interaction between faith and reason, science and religion, and theology in the public sphere (such as it is).
For instance, did you know about the scientific study that shows Catholics experience less pain and suffering than non-Catholics in certain situations?
Or that archaeologists think they may have found King Solomon's copper mines?
Did anyone link together the fact that Barack Obama has not said a public word in condemnation of his violently anti-Semitic political supporters, Hamas? (That was the top story at culturewarnotes.com last week)
It might be worth checking out.
The Palin Slayer
Why would ANYONE appoint Caroline Kennedy a senator?
Apart from possessing a famous last name, she has absolutely no experience, no ability to articulate clearly, and no understanding of the state she is supposed to represent.
So what is her major qualification?
Forbes tells us, "...she is the only one on that list (as one imagines it) who is not a political hack."
In short, it seems clear that this mother of three is qualified to be the next senator for New York precisely because she is an elitist, pro-abortion mother of three who has no obvious qualifications at all.
Sarah Palin rocked everyone's world - the Democrats are mortally afraid of this woman, and they know Barack Obama has all sorts of potential to actually be as incompetent as he certainly appears to be at this point.
Given the economy, the Hamas-Israel situation, the abject socialism of the messiah, and his plain inexperience, Obama is by no means a shoe-in for 2012. No one wishes to discuss this publicly, but it's at the back of everyone's mind.
The Democrats need someone who can slay Sarah Palin, and Barack Obama may well be thoroughly damaged goods by 2012.
So, Caroline Kennedy is their answer.
Burnish her in the Senate over the course of four years, shine her up in front of all the aging hippies from the sixtes (the over-sixty group votes more consistently in an election than any other and always has) and they think they can prep her for the White House.
What grey-haired, flatulent hippy wouldn't want a Kennedy back in the Oval Office?
Those were the best years of their lives (which says a lot about their lives, but I digress).
And, sadly enough, Caroline Kennedy really is the best they can do.
Apart from possessing a famous last name, she has absolutely no experience, no ability to articulate clearly, and no understanding of the state she is supposed to represent.
So what is her major qualification?
Forbes tells us, "...she is the only one on that list (as one imagines it) who is not a political hack."
In short, it seems clear that this mother of three is qualified to be the next senator for New York precisely because she is an elitist, pro-abortion mother of three who has no obvious qualifications at all.
Sarah Palin rocked everyone's world - the Democrats are mortally afraid of this woman, and they know Barack Obama has all sorts of potential to actually be as incompetent as he certainly appears to be at this point.
Given the economy, the Hamas-Israel situation, the abject socialism of the messiah, and his plain inexperience, Obama is by no means a shoe-in for 2012. No one wishes to discuss this publicly, but it's at the back of everyone's mind.
The Democrats need someone who can slay Sarah Palin, and Barack Obama may well be thoroughly damaged goods by 2012.
So, Caroline Kennedy is their answer.
Burnish her in the Senate over the course of four years, shine her up in front of all the aging hippies from the sixtes (the over-sixty group votes more consistently in an election than any other and always has) and they think they can prep her for the White House.
What grey-haired, flatulent hippy wouldn't want a Kennedy back in the Oval Office?
Those were the best years of their lives (which says a lot about their lives, but I digress).
And, sadly enough, Caroline Kennedy really is the best they can do.
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
The Ax Gets Laid
This is easily the worst set of "scientific" reasoning I've seen in the last year.
First, we are told, based on the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health that virginity pledges don't work. Two groups of teens matched for religious views were divided into two groups - pledge-takers and non-pledge-takers. They were checked five years later to see how much effect the pledge had.
After all, altar calls don't work.
We've known for decades that the Protestant altar call, a once-saved, always-saved, spur-of-the-moment decision to give your life to Christ, doesn't stand the test of time. Ecclesial communities, fundamentalist and/or evangelical Christian groups who depend on them to run up membership always find that they have "converted" thousands of people in the course of a year, but none of them actually stick. The number of regular attendees simply doesn't increase.
So, the belief that a one-time virginity pledge is going to make a huge difference is really based on a flawed Protestant understanding of the human person.
But the "scientists" who ran the study had larger ideological axes to grind. The purpose of the study was to promote contraception, and darned if they didn't find out that pledge-takers were less likely to use contraception. Here's their worry:
Yet the training which caused them to take the pledge lightly, even though the pledge was very heavily emphasized, caused them to disregard contraceptive use?
How does that work?
Did the teens disregard the pledge because it WAS heavily promoted, but they disregarded birth control because it WAS NOT heavily promoted? They paid attention to the negative birth control part of the lesson, but dozed during the positive virginity pledge part? Every day?
Isn't it a lot more likely that these kids had a pretty negative view of contraception even before the training, which is why they took the pledge? Isn't it possible they saw what contraception was doing to the marriages their own parents were involved in and didn't really like the results?
But, no, we aren't allowed to walk down that road. It must have been the TRAINING that created such negative attitudes. Kids don't know nothin' unless we teach them:
Wouldn't it be safe to conclude that contraceptives are as useless as virginity pledges?
Not if you have an ax, I suppose.
UPDATE:
Here's a story about a researcher who looked at the VERY SAME DATA and came to dramatically different conclusions...
Update Two:
Another interesting take on the study from the Wall Street Journal (hat tip to Jordanes). It includes this observation:
When EITHER of the two study cohorts are compared to the general teen population, we find that BOTH conservative, religious cohorts acted more responsibly towards their own sexuality than did the non-religious, non-conservative teens who were left out by the researchers.
So, my original point holds: the virginity pledge is almost identical to an altar call.
But what no one noticed - except, apparently, for me - was that contraceptive use has ZERO effect on either pregnancy rates or STD rates.
Contraceptives are as useless as the virginity pledge.
Your live your worldview.
Seen in this light, condoms are really just the secular form of the altar call - it's a one-time decision that doesn't affect outcome.
First, we are told, based on the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health that virginity pledges don't work. Two groups of teens matched for religious views were divided into two groups - pledge-takers and non-pledge-takers. They were checked five years later to see how much effect the pledge had.
Both groups lost their virginity at an average age of 21, had about three lifetime partners, and had similar rates of STDs. "And the majority were having premarital sex, over 50 percent," says Rosenbaum. Overall, roughly 75 percent of pledgers and non-pledgers were sexually active, and about one in five was married.In short, virginity pledges - the teen sex version of the altar call conversion - don't seem to work. For a Catholic, this should not be a surprise. Why should such a pledge work?
After all, altar calls don't work.
We've known for decades that the Protestant altar call, a once-saved, always-saved, spur-of-the-moment decision to give your life to Christ, doesn't stand the test of time. Ecclesial communities, fundamentalist and/or evangelical Christian groups who depend on them to run up membership always find that they have "converted" thousands of people in the course of a year, but none of them actually stick. The number of regular attendees simply doesn't increase.
So, the belief that a one-time virginity pledge is going to make a huge difference is really based on a flawed Protestant understanding of the human person.
But the "scientists" who ran the study had larger ideological axes to grind. The purpose of the study was to promote contraception, and darned if they didn't find out that pledge-takers were less likely to use contraception. Here's their worry:
Rosenbaum is concerned that abstinence-only sex education programs that promote virginity pledges may also promote a negative view of condoms and birth control. The result may be teens and young adults who are less likely than their peers to protect themselves from sexually transmitted diseases and unplanned pregnancies.Ok, I don't get it. The teens in question apparently didn't remember that they took a pledge, or didn't put much weight on that pledge later in life, according to the article.
Yet the training which caused them to take the pledge lightly, even though the pledge was very heavily emphasized, caused them to disregard contraceptive use?
How does that work?
Did the teens disregard the pledge because it WAS heavily promoted, but they disregarded birth control because it WAS NOT heavily promoted? They paid attention to the negative birth control part of the lesson, but dozed during the positive virginity pledge part? Every day?
Isn't it a lot more likely that these kids had a pretty negative view of contraception even before the training, which is why they took the pledge? Isn't it possible they saw what contraception was doing to the marriages their own parents were involved in and didn't really like the results?
But, no, we aren't allowed to walk down that road. It must have been the TRAINING that created such negative attitudes. Kids don't know nothin' unless we teach them:
"Studies find that kids in abstinence-only programs have negative, biased views about whether condoms work," she says. Since such programs promote abstinence only they tend to give only the disadvantages of birth control, she says. Teens learn condoms don't protect you completely from human papillomavirus (HPV) and herpes, which is true, but they may not realize that they protect against all the "fluid-based STDs," she says. "People end up thinking you may as well not bother using birth control or condoms."Well, yeah. And they would have good reason to think that using birth control or condoms is not worth the bother. Here's the kicker, hidden in the last sentence, fourth paragraph from the bottom:
The new study does not suggest that virginity pledges are harmful, says Andrew Goldstein, M.D., an obstetrician and gynecologist at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, because they were not associated with an increase in STDs or unplanned pregnancies.So, if the young people who were NOT using contraception had the same rate of STDs and unplanned pregnancies as the young people who WERE using contraception, what does that say about contraception?
Wouldn't it be safe to conclude that contraceptives are as useless as virginity pledges?
Not if you have an ax, I suppose.
UPDATE:
Here's a story about a researcher who looked at the VERY SAME DATA and came to dramatically different conclusions...
Update Two:
Another interesting take on the study from the Wall Street Journal (hat tip to Jordanes). It includes this observation:
Most parents appreciate that a pledge of virginity -- a one-time event that might be made at an emotional moment in a teen's life -- is not some talisman that will magically shield their sons and daughters from the strong and normal desires that grow as they discover their sexuality.It also points out a radically important aspect of the study that I failed to notice: since the two cohorts being studied were matched for religious and conservative views, a large chunk of the teen population available to the study was left out of the analysis. To be precise, the kind of activity engaged in by non-religious, non-conservative teens was ignored.
When EITHER of the two study cohorts are compared to the general teen population, we find that BOTH conservative, religious cohorts acted more responsibly towards their own sexuality than did the non-religious, non-conservative teens who were left out by the researchers.
So, my original point holds: the virginity pledge is almost identical to an altar call.
But what no one noticed - except, apparently, for me - was that contraceptive use has ZERO effect on either pregnancy rates or STD rates.
Contraceptives are as useless as the virginity pledge.
Your live your worldview.
Seen in this light, condoms are really just the secular form of the altar call - it's a one-time decision that doesn't affect outcome.
A Question on Civil Rights
Question: What is a good response to someone who says, you are violating my civil rights? (on the marriage issue)I know Catholics view it as a Holy Sacrament. But what do you say when you are talking to someone who is not Catholic, or not religious?
Answer: The person who makes this assertion is playing you for a fool.
A civil right is a right or power which can be exercised under civil law, a right or rights belonging to a person by reason of citizenship.
If there is a God, then civil rights flow from the fact that the person is made in the image and likeness of God. That is, civil law is required to recognize the divine origin of the person. Refusal to do so is a violation of the person by the civil law, because the civil law is refusing to recognize the nature of both God and man.
In this scheme of things, which you and I accept, the divine law exists first, civil law imitates the divine law, and our rights are reflections of the divine law.
BUT, if there is no God, then civil rights flow from whatever society deems is right. There is no divine law, so civil rights are whatever the strongest group of people say they are.
According to this scheme of things, since California has said marriage is between one man and one woman, the person who tries to impose a different (homosexual) definition on the people of California is violating the civil rights of everyone in California.
The Trick: You and I understand the connection between civil law and divine law because we believe in God - we insist that civil law reflect divine law. But the people who are demanding the right to marry their horse DO NOT believe in God. What they are doing is using a phrase, "civil rights" and implying that we should grant them something that is antithetical to what civil rights are.
Everyone who is of appropriate age and sound in mind has the right to enter into marriage with a member of the opposite sex.
No one has a right to contract marriage with an animal, a corpse, an underage person, a person of the same sex or an inanimate object.
Thus, it is absurd for someone to claim that we are violating their civil rights when we forbid them from marrying and/or consummating marriage with a child, a corpse, an animal, an inanimate object or a member of the same sex. No one has a divine right to do these things, so no one can have a civil right to do these things.
And if they don't believe in God, then they have no reason to complain either, since the law is whatever the majority says it is. In this scheme, human beings have no rights simply because they are human beings - they only have rights if they can wrest those rights away and only for so long as they can keep them wrested away.
No matter how they structure the argument, they cannot claim that anyone is violating their civil rights. The only persons who can make this claim are the atheists in Massachusetts, where homosexual marriage is legal. They can accurately claim that anyone who tries to change the current law there is trying to violate their civil rights.
Yes, that's true.
But that doesn't mean it's a bad thing.
After all, the homosexual atheists who got the law passed violated all of OUR civil rights when they militated for their point of view. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
They had no compunctions about violating civil rights, so according to their lights, they would be hypocrites to chastise us for doing the same.
Saturday, December 27, 2008
Obama Supporters Vow Vengeance on Israel
Barack Obama supporters have been raining rockets down on Israel for several days. Showing their usual incompetence, they caused quite a bit of damage to property, but created only a few casualties, mostly injuring their own supporters.
When Israel retaliated to the Gaza Strip's de facto declaration of war by destroying the bases from which Obama's supporters operated, the Obama-ites vowed to unleash hell upon Israel.
During the run up to the election, Mr. Obama sought the support of America's Jewish population by strenuously condeming Hamas, going so far as to fire an advisor who was caught meeting with them, although he did keep money they donated to his campaign.
However, the summary of reaction from Reuters demonstrates that he has maintained a studious silence on the most recent violence. The election is over, after all.
The former senator from Illinios is well-known for taking private stands that differ from public pronouncements, as his discussion with Canada about NAFTA demonstrated.
But since he is the messiah, Americans can be sure that this will all blow over soon.
Possibly into millions of small, radioactive shards that used to be Israel's Jewish and Christian citizens.
When Israel retaliated to the Gaza Strip's de facto declaration of war by destroying the bases from which Obama's supporters operated, the Obama-ites vowed to unleash hell upon Israel.
During the run up to the election, Mr. Obama sought the support of America's Jewish population by strenuously condeming Hamas, going so far as to fire an advisor who was caught meeting with them, although he did keep money they donated to his campaign.
However, the summary of reaction from Reuters demonstrates that he has maintained a studious silence on the most recent violence. The election is over, after all.
The former senator from Illinios is well-known for taking private stands that differ from public pronouncements, as his discussion with Canada about NAFTA demonstrated.
But since he is the messiah, Americans can be sure that this will all blow over soon.
Possibly into millions of small, radioactive shards that used to be Israel's Jewish and Christian citizens.
Friday, December 12, 2008
Ice Cube Children
In the interests of full disclosure, I should mention that back in the summer of fall of 2006, I got an article published in National Bioethical Quarterly (or whatever the heck the name is), the journal of the National Catholic Bioethics Center. In it, I argued in favor of embryo adoption.
What is embryo adoption?
In vitro fertilization techniques tend to produce a lot more embryos than can be used. The "extra" children are placed in nitrogen freezers, often-times abandoned or forgotten. The question is, can those children be adopted by Christian couples, placed in the womb and rescued from the freezer?
The Vatican has just issued a new document, Dignatas Personae, answers that question, along with many others.
The document bans the practice of embryo adoption.
I was really hoping for a different ruling, but there it is.
I was wrong.
Now, that having been said, the document DOES distinguish between using embryos to "treat infertility" and the adoption of embryos (DP #19).
The first, using the abandoned children to treat infertility, is clearly banned outright, because it uses "the same reasons" that cause heterologous procreation and surrogate motherhood to be banned.
The adoption of embryos is not treated nearly as harshly. First, the document takes time to praise the intentions - something infertility treatment doesn't get. In fact, none of the other banned technologies in the document get that kind of praise. So the intentions are recognized as different and praiseworthy, which is rather an important distinction.
Then the document takes pains to point out that the problems involved in embryo adoption are not "the same reasons" but instead are "problems not dissimilar to those mentioned above." The fact that the document took the trouble to distinguish one from the other indicates nuance on Rome's part. It holds out room for further nuance at some later date - a bit of wiggle room not afforded any of the other banned technologies listed in the document.
However, even though this nuance is present, it is equally clear that embryo adoption is currently banned by this document, if for no other reason than this: the little bit of wiggle room provided is severely proscribed by the closing blanket phrase, "[this] represent[s] a situation of injustice which in fact cannot be resolved."
That's kind of plain language. :/
So I would very much disagree with the reaction of Father Thomas Williams LC that in "no way can it be read as a definitive negative judgment."
That is just stupid.
Fr. Williams goes on to say, "if a couple came to him seeking advice about embryo adoption, "I would say that while the document expresses strong reservations, there are also a number of very faithful, orthodox moral theologians who don't have a problem with it. Lacking a more definitive statement, it could be acceptable."
Again, that is willful stupidity.
I have to say it is stupid, because the alternative is to call Father Williams a liar.
Clearly, the document has given a negative judgment on embryo adoption.
Clearly, no one may counsel someone to use embryo adoption, pending further clarification from Rome, which won't be coming for at least a couple of decades.
Embryo adoption may not have the same absolute prohibition language associated with it that the other practices do, but the blanket conclusion is pretty darned clear.
True, Rome appears to have left herself some wiggle room in re embryo adoption, possibly on the outside chance a new technology is found that will permit these children to be rescued, but She also pretty clearly doesn't see anything likely to work sitting on the near horizon, as the blanket conclusion indicates.
I would LOVE to be able to say that embryo adoption is acceptable, since I have publicly already argued that way.
But there's no way I can point at this document and say that.
It just isn't there.
Rome left an escape hatch - in that sense, yeah, it's not definitive - but that escape hatch is currently and firmly closed.
How can I say this?
Because a very similar thing happened with the use of form criticism and historical-critical method to interpret the Scriptures.
Back in the 1893', Leo XIII issued Providentissimus Deus, an encyclical that categorically banned the use of methods of "higher criticism" because these depended solely on textual analysis of medieval copies of the ancient copies, which was essentially crap (cf. #17).
By the time of Divino Afflante Spiritus, the encyclical on Scripture given in 1943, that categorical ban went away because (a) textual analysis had gotten a lot better, no longer depending solely on the texts and (b) there were actually some really ancient texts, i.e., the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Nag Hammadi finds, etc. which provided something ancient enough to justify using textual analyses.
In short, the Church's teaching didn't change, the underlying technology, the discoveries and the substrate of human knowledge changed.
It is STILL forbidden to use historical critical method if that means using late 1800's techniques on medieval copies. And it will always be forbidden to use embryo adoption if we are using early 21st century knowledge and approach.
It is possible that a similar kind of development may one day be possible with the children trapped in the nitrogen freezers. Perhaps, for instance, some whiz-bang technology can one day be developed which reduces the death rates on thawing to near zero, for instance. If that were to happen, Rome might (or might not) take a different view of the matter.
But for right now, it ain't licit, and there ain't no way to slice that ice in order to pretend that it is.
What is embryo adoption?
In vitro fertilization techniques tend to produce a lot more embryos than can be used. The "extra" children are placed in nitrogen freezers, often-times abandoned or forgotten. The question is, can those children be adopted by Christian couples, placed in the womb and rescued from the freezer?
The Vatican has just issued a new document, Dignatas Personae, answers that question, along with many others.
The document bans the practice of embryo adoption.
I was really hoping for a different ruling, but there it is.
I was wrong.
Now, that having been said, the document DOES distinguish between using embryos to "treat infertility" and the adoption of embryos (DP #19).
The first, using the abandoned children to treat infertility, is clearly banned outright, because it uses "the same reasons" that cause heterologous procreation and surrogate motherhood to be banned.
The adoption of embryos is not treated nearly as harshly. First, the document takes time to praise the intentions - something infertility treatment doesn't get. In fact, none of the other banned technologies in the document get that kind of praise. So the intentions are recognized as different and praiseworthy, which is rather an important distinction.
Then the document takes pains to point out that the problems involved in embryo adoption are not "the same reasons" but instead are "problems not dissimilar to those mentioned above." The fact that the document took the trouble to distinguish one from the other indicates nuance on Rome's part. It holds out room for further nuance at some later date - a bit of wiggle room not afforded any of the other banned technologies listed in the document.
However, even though this nuance is present, it is equally clear that embryo adoption is currently banned by this document, if for no other reason than this: the little bit of wiggle room provided is severely proscribed by the closing blanket phrase, "[this] represent[s] a situation of injustice which in fact cannot be resolved."
That's kind of plain language. :/
So I would very much disagree with the reaction of Father Thomas Williams LC that in "no way can it be read as a definitive negative judgment."
That is just stupid.
Fr. Williams goes on to say, "if a couple came to him seeking advice about embryo adoption, "I would say that while the document expresses strong reservations, there are also a number of very faithful, orthodox moral theologians who don't have a problem with it. Lacking a more definitive statement, it could be acceptable."
Again, that is willful stupidity.
I have to say it is stupid, because the alternative is to call Father Williams a liar.
Clearly, the document has given a negative judgment on embryo adoption.
Clearly, no one may counsel someone to use embryo adoption, pending further clarification from Rome, which won't be coming for at least a couple of decades.
Embryo adoption may not have the same absolute prohibition language associated with it that the other practices do, but the blanket conclusion is pretty darned clear.
True, Rome appears to have left herself some wiggle room in re embryo adoption, possibly on the outside chance a new technology is found that will permit these children to be rescued, but She also pretty clearly doesn't see anything likely to work sitting on the near horizon, as the blanket conclusion indicates.
I would LOVE to be able to say that embryo adoption is acceptable, since I have publicly already argued that way.
But there's no way I can point at this document and say that.
It just isn't there.
Rome left an escape hatch - in that sense, yeah, it's not definitive - but that escape hatch is currently and firmly closed.
How can I say this?
Because a very similar thing happened with the use of form criticism and historical-critical method to interpret the Scriptures.
Back in the 1893', Leo XIII issued Providentissimus Deus, an encyclical that categorically banned the use of methods of "higher criticism" because these depended solely on textual analysis of medieval copies of the ancient copies, which was essentially crap (cf. #17).
By the time of Divino Afflante Spiritus, the encyclical on Scripture given in 1943, that categorical ban went away because (a) textual analysis had gotten a lot better, no longer depending solely on the texts and (b) there were actually some really ancient texts, i.e., the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Nag Hammadi finds, etc. which provided something ancient enough to justify using textual analyses.
In short, the Church's teaching didn't change, the underlying technology, the discoveries and the substrate of human knowledge changed.
It is STILL forbidden to use historical critical method if that means using late 1800's techniques on medieval copies. And it will always be forbidden to use embryo adoption if we are using early 21st century knowledge and approach.
It is possible that a similar kind of development may one day be possible with the children trapped in the nitrogen freezers. Perhaps, for instance, some whiz-bang technology can one day be developed which reduces the death rates on thawing to near zero, for instance. If that were to happen, Rome might (or might not) take a different view of the matter.
But for right now, it ain't licit, and there ain't no way to slice that ice in order to pretend that it is.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
To the Manor Born
Is Barack Obama a natural born citizen?
Donofrio says no, as does Wrotnowski, and their argument is both quite clear and quite clearly supported by the legal history.
According to their argument, you are a citizen if any ONE of the following conditions pertain:
a) you were born of US parents or
b) you were born on US soil or
c) you were naturalized as a citizen.
However, none of these by themselves make you a "natural born citizen."
According to the definition of "natural born citizen" as understood by the Founding Fathers, as used in the Constitution and as understood by the framers of the 14th Amendment, you are a "natural born citizen" ONLY IF BOTH of the following conditions obtain:
(a) you were born of US parents AND
(b) you were born on US soil.
If either condition fails, they you are a citizen, but not a natural born citizen.
If this is so, how did George Washington or any of the other Founders win eligibility?
For the first several decades, US citizens were eligible for the Presidency only if they were residents of the United States for the 14 years preceding the ratification of the Constitution.
Since the Constitution was ratified on March 4, 1789, that meant you had to have resided in the United States. i.e., owed it your sole authority to the United States, from March 4, 1775 onwards. This was two months before the Second Continental Congress convened in May, 10 1775. It was the night General John Thomas emplaced the cannons from Fort Ticonderoga on Dorchester Heights, the hills overlooking South Boston. This maneuver forced the British to evacuate their positions two weeks later; an event still celebrated as Evacuation Day.
In short, you had to have been there at the beginning of the Revolution.
This is rather like the rule for holding the office of Apostle - only those who had "accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went among us, beginning from the baptism of John..." were eligible for that office. Even today, bishops are considered apostolic successors holding apostolic authority, but are not considered apostles themselves, since they do not fulfill all the conditions.
So, while senators and congressmen can be nothing more than citizens, the line of succession which is the Presidency must have an unbroken connection to the land both through location of birth and fealty of blood. The President's parents can be naturalized citizens, but the President himself (or herself) must be part of the unbroken line.
Given the strong Biblical background of the Constitutional Framers, and the legal documentation brought forward in both Donofrio's post and the comments subsequent to the post, I find the case quite compelling.
Which would mean that neither Barack Obama nor John McCain are eligible for the Presidency.
And, assuming the Supreme Court is willing to follow precedent instead of popular opinion, it also means we get Nancy Pelosi as President pro tem.
Sigh.
Update:
Diane West has joined the fray on a separate issue, the question of Barack Hussein Obama's birth certificate. This question - which has essentially nothing to do with the Donofrio assertions - has been raised by Philip Berg, Dr. Alan Keyes and several others.
In short, BHO's eligibility is being questioned on two completely separate grounds:
1) Was he born in the United States? That is, did he fulfill the "soil" requirement? (Berg, Keyes, et. al.)
2) Assuming he was born in the US, but given his father's British nationality, can he be considered a "natural born citizen"? That is, did he fulfill the "blood" requirement? (Donofrio, Wrotnowski).
The second question has essentially no case law on the issue, because it only really becomes an issue when the office of President is at stake. It does, however, engage quite a lot of discussion among the Founding Fathers as they considered exactly how to phrase the qualifications for President.
UPDATE
Now one of Barack's own cabinet members is saying BHO is an immigrant.
Donofrio says no, as does Wrotnowski, and their argument is both quite clear and quite clearly supported by the legal history.
According to their argument, you are a citizen if any ONE of the following conditions pertain:
a) you were born of US parents or
b) you were born on US soil or
c) you were naturalized as a citizen.
However, none of these by themselves make you a "natural born citizen."
According to the definition of "natural born citizen" as understood by the Founding Fathers, as used in the Constitution and as understood by the framers of the 14th Amendment, you are a "natural born citizen" ONLY IF BOTH of the following conditions obtain:
(a) you were born of US parents AND
(b) you were born on US soil.
If either condition fails, they you are a citizen, but not a natural born citizen.
If this is so, how did George Washington or any of the other Founders win eligibility?
For the first several decades, US citizens were eligible for the Presidency only if they were residents of the United States for the 14 years preceding the ratification of the Constitution.
Since the Constitution was ratified on March 4, 1789, that meant you had to have resided in the United States. i.e., owed it your sole authority to the United States, from March 4, 1775 onwards. This was two months before the Second Continental Congress convened in May, 10 1775. It was the night General John Thomas emplaced the cannons from Fort Ticonderoga on Dorchester Heights, the hills overlooking South Boston. This maneuver forced the British to evacuate their positions two weeks later; an event still celebrated as Evacuation Day.
In short, you had to have been there at the beginning of the Revolution.
This is rather like the rule for holding the office of Apostle - only those who had "accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went among us, beginning from the baptism of John..." were eligible for that office. Even today, bishops are considered apostolic successors holding apostolic authority, but are not considered apostles themselves, since they do not fulfill all the conditions.
So, while senators and congressmen can be nothing more than citizens, the line of succession which is the Presidency must have an unbroken connection to the land both through location of birth and fealty of blood. The President's parents can be naturalized citizens, but the President himself (or herself) must be part of the unbroken line.
Given the strong Biblical background of the Constitutional Framers, and the legal documentation brought forward in both Donofrio's post and the comments subsequent to the post, I find the case quite compelling.
Which would mean that neither Barack Obama nor John McCain are eligible for the Presidency.
And, assuming the Supreme Court is willing to follow precedent instead of popular opinion, it also means we get Nancy Pelosi as President pro tem.
Sigh.
Update:
Diane West has joined the fray on a separate issue, the question of Barack Hussein Obama's birth certificate. This question - which has essentially nothing to do with the Donofrio assertions - has been raised by Philip Berg, Dr. Alan Keyes and several others.
In short, BHO's eligibility is being questioned on two completely separate grounds:
1) Was he born in the United States? That is, did he fulfill the "soil" requirement? (Berg, Keyes, et. al.)
2) Assuming he was born in the US, but given his father's British nationality, can he be considered a "natural born citizen"? That is, did he fulfill the "blood" requirement? (Donofrio, Wrotnowski).
The second question has essentially no case law on the issue, because it only really becomes an issue when the office of President is at stake. It does, however, engage quite a lot of discussion among the Founding Fathers as they considered exactly how to phrase the qualifications for President.
UPDATE
Now one of Barack's own cabinet members is saying BHO is an immigrant.
Tuesday, December 09, 2008
The Triple Crowned
Well, as you probably know by now, Barack Obama learned how to run a state-wide campaign at the knee of Governor Rod Blagojevich.
Both men were, of course, excellent friends with convicted Syrian immigrant Tony Rezko.
Barack grew up in the Daley machine.
The Feds are tearing down portions of the Daley machine.
Can Barack get all the necessary paper shredded before the Good Governor sings?
Can the Good Governor avoid a knife in the ribs long enough to finish his song?
This Advent, we watch the story of the three crowned men - the Good Governor, the Man with Sharp Elbows and the One - unfold before our eyes.
Stay tuned...
UPDATE:
Here's a shocker.
Here's another.
Notice in this second link that it is actually a search of the news website: in the lower left-hand corner, there is a link to a story filed on Nov.5
But when you click on the link, the story has mysteriously disappeared.
They scrubbed the site, but not the search engine.
How sad.
Barack Hussein Obama a LIAR?
Heaven forfend!
News organizations covering up his lies?
I'm SHOCKED!
I blame George Bush.
And Karl Rove.
Heck, I blame Dick Cheney as well.
Why not?
Emanuel told the New Yorker earlier this year that he and Obama "participated in a small group that met weekly when Rod was running for governor. We basically laid out the general election, Barack and I and these two."He endorsed the Good Governor in 2002 and during the beginning of his presidential run in 2006.
Both men were, of course, excellent friends with convicted Syrian immigrant Tony Rezko.
Rezko raised or contributed over a quarter of a million dollars to Obama during eight years that Obama was running for or holding his state senate and U. S. Senate positions. Moreover, during his 2004 campaign for the U. S. Senate, Obama spoke with now convicted felon, and then Obama fundraiser and finance guy, Rezko, almost daily.Illinois Congressman Rahm Emanuel, David Axelrod, Forrest Claypool and Barack Obama got the Good Governor elected. Which is only fair, as Mayor Daley helped Rahm Emanuel get elected, and everyone knows the Good Governor was Daley's boy.
Barack grew up in the Daley machine.
The Feds are tearing down portions of the Daley machine.
Can Barack get all the necessary paper shredded before the Good Governor sings?
Can the Good Governor avoid a knife in the ribs long enough to finish his song?
This Advent, we watch the story of the three crowned men - the Good Governor, the Man with Sharp Elbows and the One - unfold before our eyes.
Stay tuned...
UPDATE:
Here's a shocker.
Here's another.
Notice in this second link that it is actually a search of the news website: in the lower left-hand corner, there is a link to a story filed on Nov.5
Who will fill Obama's senate seat? : News : KHQA
Nov 5, 2008 ... Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich and Barack Obama will meet this afternoon in Chicago to discuss filling Obama's seat in the US Senate.
www.connecttristates.com/news/news_story.aspx?id=217582 -Similar pages
But when you click on the link, the story has mysteriously disappeared.
They scrubbed the site, but not the search engine.
How sad.
Barack Hussein Obama a LIAR?
Heaven forfend!
News organizations covering up his lies?
I'm SHOCKED!
I blame George Bush.
And Karl Rove.
Heck, I blame Dick Cheney as well.
Why not?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)