Shooting Shea's Own

Mark Shea recently expressed frustration about the Catholic outcry over Christopher West's appearance on ABC's Nightline. In that 7-minute video, Chris said some amazingly silly things.

But Mark, relying on imprimaturs and his own sense of things, responded by saying, "Why do we Catholics so often bayonet our own troops?"

In fact, Mark did exactly this to me ago during the Da Vinci Code flap a few years ago. In the course of those discussions, I pointed out that Carl Olsen and Sandra Miesel, both friends of Mark, were in error regarding their labelling of DVC as Gnostic. Subsequently, Mark not only wielded that "but we're on the side of the angels!" line like a sword, at least one Catholic magazine editor deliberately set me up so that Carl Olsen could beat me up in the pages of a Catholic magazine.

But, I'm not interested in re-hashing that old fight. What I am interested in is this idea of "shooting (or bayonetting) our own."

Consider: I am sure Mark Shea has said vitriolic things about Nancy Pelosi, Sam Brownback, Joe Biden, et. al. over the last few months.

Now, those people are all baptized Catholics. Why would Mark denigrate them? Why would he engage in "shooting our own"?

"Ah,"he may argue, "But they are NOT our own - they are flouting the teachings of the Church!" I agree. But a lot of people felt the same way about Christopher West. A lot of people feel that way about people Mark happens to like.

So, what's the difference between whaling on Nancy Pelosi and whaling on Sandra Miesel or Christopher West? They're all baptized Catholics!

When Mark rolled out his line on me, wasn't he shooting ME by using the line?

What was the difference between me and Sandra Miesel except Mark happened to like the latter's position (and the latter) more than the former's position?

This "bayonetting our own" line is just a variant of the old pro-abortion argument, "No one has a right to impose their morality on others." Well, what if my morality says I DO have that right? By telling me what to do, aren't you assuming that YOU have the right to force this arbitrary standard on me? If you REALLY felt that way, you would have to remain silent, recognizing that I may not share your sentiments.

So, if the argument is so stupid from a logical standpoint, why would anyone say it? Well, it serves three purposes:

• First, I get a chance to take the moral high ground - when I use the argument, I can pretend that I am serving a higher standard than grubby little you.
• Second, because you have just been "shamed" you will probably shut up. After all, how are you going to fight against these "higher morals" I have just revealed?
• Third, if I use that argument, I don't have to answer any of YOUR grubby little charges. I've attacked YOU, not your position.

It's pure ad hominem attack, and it's sleazy.

This "shooting our own" gambit accomplishes precisely the same objectives. Mark is really just demonizing his opponent as someone who doesn't understand the Faith, while he places himself in the moral high ground of someone who understands every aspect, and is capable of judging behaviour. Best of all, he doesn't have to address any of the arguments brought forward. Indeed, as he himself points out, he doesn't even have to read the book or hear the talk that's being attacked. He generally rolls this argument out when

• he doesn't have a counter-argument and
• the person he intends to demonize is attacking someone he likes, as opposed to someone he doesn't.

Now, does Mark Shea like Chris West?
Not necessarily, but he DOES like West's publisher.

In this case, Chris West is being published by Matt Pinto. Matt Pinto and Mark Shea go WAY back. In fact, Matt Pinto's Ascension Press, Tom Allen's Catholic Exchange (where Mark Shea is chief editor) and Alan Napleton's Catholic Marketing Network are all joined at the hip, from a business perspective. That is, they've done a fair bit of business together. Quite a lot, actually.

So, was Mark's defense of West a business decision? It doesn't have to be. People work together because they like each other and hold similar views. It could be Mark just wanted to cover Matt's back.

So, what Mark Shea really means here is, "I have some sympathy with the person being attacked or his position. I don't like the fact that you are engaging in a proxy attack on me by attacking my friend, who holds the same position." When seen in this light, the phrase "shooting our own" becomes La Cosa Nostra, to which those who Do Not Think Rightly are excluded.

The key question: who constitutes "our own"?

Different people are going to have different judgements about where, prudentially, the line should be drawn in various debates. I'm not saying there isn't an absolute standard. I'm just saying that a lot of us engage in self-serving spin, myself included.

So, the next time Mark Shea or any of his minions roll out that line about "let's not start shooting our own," ask them who they include in that "our own" category. And if you are included, ask them why they are attacking you by saying YOUR position is wrong.

If you aren't part of the group, why are they shooting you?

Because they don't like you as much as they like the other guy.

And they aren't honest enough to say it out loud.

Talking With An Obama Supporter

Barack Obama at Notre Dame: " ... [on abortion] I didn't change my position, but I did tell my staff to change the words on my website... that's when we discover at least the possibility of common ground.... [because we know] the views of the two camps are irreconcilable."

I sent the advertisements for my book, Debunking Obama's First 100 Days, to several thousand people a few days ago.

This was one response:

ObamaCatholic: Get a life!

Me: Feeling a little guilty, are we?

ObamaCatholic: No. Just tired of slander and gossip. Both are sinful behavior.

Me: Indeed. That's why everything about that bastard (and he is, you know - his mother wasn't married when she conceived him), is documented in the book.

ObamaCatholic: Wow! You leave me breathless. You have a great day!

Me: I'll have a great day the minute he leaves office. Until then, we all just pray for deliverance from evil.

ObamaCatholic: And I'll have a great day the minute you take me off your email list! Please do not reply. Thank you.

Me: I will make sure that I don't.

ObamaCatholic: You just did.

Me: Oh my heavens! But you Obama supporters are always interested in dialogue, right? So, being open-minded and willing to seek common ground, as you are, that isn't a problem.

As The One stated in his Notre Dame address, sure, our positions are irreconcilable - you think he's cool, I think he's a lying bastard - but that shouldn't prevent us from dialoguing and seeking common ground.

How about we agree that he's a really cool, lying bastard?
See?
I'm trying to be like you and engage in dialogue.
Except you didn't want dialogue.
Hmmm....

Contemplating it later, I reflected that, perhaps this could be another point for our dialogue? Our positions are irreconcilable - you don't want dialogue, I do - but we should seek common ground. How about I keep talking and you just shut up and listen?

Man!
No wonder it's so much fun being an ObamaCatholic!
I feel a pull to the Dark Side...

The Wedge

George Weigel is now insisting that Obama's speech is intended to separate Catholics from their bishops, driving a wedge between them. Weigel's concept is so popular, it has even hit the secular blogs. There's only one problem.

George Weigel is wrong.

Obama is not driving a wedge between Catholics and their bishops, rather, he's taking advantage of a pre-existing wedge between Catholics and their bishops, a wedge the bishops themselves created. Much as it pains me to agree with anyone from America magazine, Fr. Reese hit the nail on the head: no one is listening to the Catholic bishops, and they haven't been listening for a very long time.

But, Reese is also wrong - the bishops didn't lose their credibility during the sex abuse crisis. They lost it long before that crisis began. Indeed, part of the reason the bishops covered over the sex abuse crisis is precisely because most Catholics paid no attention to them as it was, and they couldn't afford to look like even greater idiots than they already had done.

As Joseph Bottum pointed out in his First Things article last week, the bishops stopped leading over 40 years ago. Today, as in the time of the Arian heresy, the faithful lead and the bishops follow as best they can. I go into much greater detail (if only because I have more space to explain it), in my book Designed to Fail: Catholic Education in America, but here's the thumbnail of the problem: when chemical contraception became possible, the American bishops became docile. They agreed to Lyndon Baines Johnson's suggestion that they shut the hell up on contraception in exchange for him conducting a war on poverty. So, while they were allowed to be in opposition to abortion, they would not speak a public word against the root cause of abortion, contraception. As I pointed out in 2004, they have kept that promise for over forty years, and still adhere to it today.

In fact, they liked LBJ's deal so much, many of them are still in the political tank. Out of over 200 bishops in the United States, less than 80 publicly made statements that were clearly in opposition to Obama's election. A different group of less than 80 bishops publicly made statements that were clearly in opposition to his speaking at Notre Dame. As CultureWarNotes.com points out, at least one bishop publicly came out in favor of Obama's Notre Dame speech.

Weigel could just as easily have argued that Obama is trying to drive a wedge between two groups of Catholic bishops, and he would have been just as right (or, in this case, just as wrong).

In fact, there is already a divide in this country, and it is due precisely to the American bishops themselves. The American Catholic bishops caved back in 1968. They stopped teaching the Faith in order to satisfy American politicians. When they stopped teaching Catholic doctrine in exchange for political favors, Catholics stopped listening to them.

Today, nobody really cares what America's Catholic bishops think. After all, how many Catholics in your parish have read any doctrinal encyclical from their own bishop within the last five years, apart from perhaps an instruction on how to avoid the swine flu? How many even know that their bishops produce doctrinal encyclicals?

And of those few faithful who have read those encyclicals, the writing generally hasn't improved their view of the bishops. What orthodox Catholic was not entirely ashamed of the USCCB's Always Our Children instruction on how to affirm homosexual identity? What of the frankly diosbedient attitude displayed in their instructions concerning Holy Thursday's liturgy? Or the most recent embarrassment, their attempt to instruct married couples in how to put spice back into their marriage? I literally know only a half-dozen people who have even visited the USCCB-sponsored website on marriage. Of those who have, everyone has been embarrassed by the juvenile attitude of some aspect of it.

The "Obama at Notre Dame" event will not drive a wedge between Catholics and their bishops, because the separations are already there, but it does highlight the problem bishops have in communicating with their flock. For instance, at least one Catholic friend of mine is of the opinion that some of the bishops who spoke against Obama at Notre Dame weren't really opposed, they were just jumping on the bandwagon because (a) they knew it would make no difference anyway - Obama and Jenkins would do what they wanted, and (b) it made them look good to the orthodox crowd in the diocese, the only ones who actually feel an obligation to pay any attention to the bishop. A bishop using this cynical ploy could then continue to allow abuses of the liturgy or silence on points of Catholic doctrine, while gaining points for orthodoxy in reference to Barack Obama's murderous attitude and legacy.

Is this really what is happening in certain dioceses?
I don't know.
But I will bet my whole bank account that if it is, you'll never hear George Weigel say it.

Update: A reader pointed out a very salient fact -
"I think the bishops' failure to teach goes a little further back that 1968. Try 1945. On March 10th of that year the 20th US Army Airforce attacked Tokyo with three hundred B-29's. The incendiaries they dropped started a fire storm that killed 100,000 people in six hours, the greatest loss of life in that time span in all of recorded history. Owing to the fact that all men of anything like military age were away, the victims were mostly women, children and the aged. The general who ordered the attack, Curtis E. Lemay admitted later that if Japan had won the war he would have been tried and executed as a war criminal. His candor was not reflected by a single American bishop. Granted, many historical elements contributed to this silence. Still, it's nothing to brag about."

I agree with the addendum. As I point out in the book, Catholic bishops in this country have had a long history of political collusion with the American (as opposed to the Catholic) concepts of various aspects of life, including ideas on how to handle:

• slavery (American bishops were silent while the Vatican opposed it),
• just war (see above),
• voting issues (American bishops emphasized individual conscience instead of informing yourself on Catholic teaching),
• contraception and abortion (see above and the book).

Shrink to Win Works

Peggy Noonan, bless her heart, doesn't get it.

She argues that the Republican party needs to become a "big tent" if it is to successfully combat the Democrats. She argues that kicking people out is no way to become popular. She is wrong in every respect.

"Shrink to Win" is a marvelously effective strategy, used constantly throughout history. Lenin followed this course when he named his party "the Bolsheviks", which means "the majority", even though they were NEVER a majority prior to their takeover of power. He wrote "Better Smaller, But Better" - a screed with insisted that a small party was more effective than a large one.

Hitler and Stalin did the same, restricting party membership for the same reason Lenin did - to maintain ideological purity. Napoleon pointed out that firmness of purpose is to numbers of troops as three is to one.

Every successful leader recognizes that force of purpose makes more difference than force of numbers. A small group of people with a single purpose accomplishes more than a large group of people whose motivations are diffused and obscure.

Barack Obama understands this. He has surrounded himself with fellow travelers, people who think exactly as he do on every issue. That's how he has managed to ram through so much in such a short period of time. He tells everyone what they want to hear, but he does only what he wants to do. He makes sure those in positions of power think exactly as he does.

The masses don't matter - they can be manipulated to run in any direction.
They won't buck the system because they rate their families, their obligations to relatives and friends, higher than they do the harm that would accrue to them by bucking the system. "If I just keep my head down, I can keep my family/friends/myself safe, and we can ride this out."

That kind of attitude is exactly what dictators love.
A dictator doesn't give a damn about family, friends, anyone. All of these are thrown overboard in pursuit of what matters: power.

Normal people protect people. That's their priority: saving people from immediate harm. Unfortunately, operating for the short term protection from harm often opens everyone up to long-term harm.

Dictators, on the other hand, protect power from entangling ties with people.
If everyone around you believes that power's the thing, then you will get and hold power.

Oh, yes, Peggy, Shrink to Win works.
Just look up.

Swine Flu - Something Smells

First, Mexico said over a hundred were dead.
Then the World Health Organization said 7.
But even as it revised the death figures down, it raised the pandemic rating UP.

Why?

Everyone agrees that there are no difference between the Mexican and US viral strains, but Mexicans are dying and being hospitalized, US patients aren't. If the strains aren't different, then there must be a difference in medical care, patient nutrition or some other aspect of immuno-competency. That is, the Mexicans are deficient in something that none of the US patients are deficient in. But no one is saying there ARE any such differences.

And if there were, what would the difference(s) be?

Everyone is saying that we have to quarantine now because it will otherwise enter the population and emerge much more virulent in a year or two.

That's just stupid.

No one has explained why a virus would get MORE virulent over time. Virii don't get more virulent over time. The idea that it would is completely counter to evolutionary theory.

Killing/incapacitating your host doesn't bode well for you, if you're a virus/bacteria. When the host dies, you die. The more virulent strains die with their hosts. The more incapacitating strains don't spread as efficiently because the host is flat on his back, vomiting into a bucket by himself. It's the weak strains that spread efficiently, not the virulent ones. And if the strains are virtually identical, then when a weaker, more efficiently spread virus gets fought off by a host, the host will be immune to the more virulent strain.

So, if this virus does anything, it will become adapted to the host, and thus LESS virulent over the next few months/years, not more virulent. That's how the Black Death disappeared, that's how a whole host of nasty diseases went away.

Strains always become less virulent over time unless you are attacking them, as with the MRSA bacteria. They get more virulent because we attack the bacteria with antibiotics until only the really virulent ones are left. But antibiotics don't work on virii because antibiotics attack cell membranes - that works great for cells like bacteria, but virii are just DNA strands. Antibiotics can't touch them.

So why is everyone worried about this thing getting more virulent?

The prevalence is microscopic, the flu isn't very virulent, it isn't going to get more virulent, and no one is interested in border control, although everyone seems interested in shutting down schools. Why is it that border control will NOT work and shutting down large public gatherings WILL work?

If wearing scarfs works, then have everyone at school wear scarfs. If it doesn't work, why are people being told it does?

What's the difference between the border around the mouth, around a school, around a church or around a country? Why are some kinds of border control encouraged, others not? And I'm asking this question as someone who has always opposed national border patrols. I don't see the logic in the arguments.

Very little of what I've heard in the news about this virus makes any sense. We've got enormous governmental response to essentially no serious numbers of cases. This whole thing smells to high heaven.

Not With a Whimper, But a Bang

As many commentators have noticed, Barack Hussein Obama is inflicting change upon the United States faster and harder than any previous president. We have seen alliances that were built up over decades being systematically attacked over the space of days, terrorists have become respected diplomats, economics has been turned on its head.

Today, we discover that Barack Obama has never called himself a constitutional law professor, that the members of the previous administration might be indicted for having prevented attacks on the United States, that terrorists aren't really terrorists no matter what the evidence says, and that anyone who accepts the Constitution at face value is a right-wing extremist/militiaman/terrorist.

Toto, I don't think we're in Kansas anymore.

I have argued over and over and over again that Barack Hussein Obama is implementing the same agenda used by his predecessors, men like Lenin, Stalin and Hitler. Revolutions work by changing the situation faster than anyone can follow. By the time you step back to take a breath, you're in a different world and there's nothing you can do about it. Rapid change instills learned helplessness in the people upon whom it is inflicted.


How quickly can massive change be implemented?French Revolution: Seven Years
1786 - Kingdom declared insolvent, new taxes proposed,
1789 - First Estates General since 1614, Declaration of Rights of Man
1790 - Monastic orders and vows suppressed, priests take oath of loyalty to the state, nobility abolished,
1791 - Constitution forced on the king,
1792 - King arrested
1793 - King and his wife were executed, Reign of Terror begins.

Bonaparte's Coup: Six Years
1793 - Drives British out during the siege of Toulon.
1795 - Successfully defends the Tuileries Palace against royalists.
1796 - Committee of Public Safety appoints him commander of the Army of Italy,
1797 - He forces Austria into peace negotiations,
1798 - Invades Egypt, Syria, Galilee,
1799 - Massacres prisoners, women and children of Jaffa, poisons his own ill soldiers to speed his retreat from Acre, returns to France, where he is ruler by the end of the year. He immediately launches pan-European war, makes alliance with the Muslims, and conquers most of Europe.

Russian Revolution (Lenin): Four Years
1914 - General strikes in St. Petersburg, WW I begins
1915 - The Great Retreat of the Russian army
1916 - Massive inflation and lack of goods, social upheaval
1917 - Massive strikes, Lenin returns to Russia and takes power, all ranks and titles are abolished,
1918 - Declaration of the Rights of People issued, the Tsar and his family are executed, secret police terror begins.

Russian Revolution (Stalin): Five Years
In his youth Stalin was a "Poet of Hope."
1924 - Lenin dies, Zinoviev, Kamenev and Stalin team against Trotsky,
1925 - Stalin has Kamenev demoted to a non-voting member of the Politburo,
1927 - Zinoviev is purged from the Central Committee,
1928 - Trotsky is exiled,
1929 - Stalin has supreme power, collectivisation introduced, 300,000 families deported. He will kill an additional 6 million in the next three years. By 1936, Stalin had executed all of his rivals after various show trials.
 
Nazi Revolution: Three to Ten Years
1923 - Beer Hall Putsch as Nazis attempt to overthrow government, height of German hyperinflation,
1924 - Hitler released from prison
1925 - Hitler builds up party and reorganizes SA, the terrorist brownshirts
1927 - 1st Nazi meeting in Berlin
1928 - Nazis receive less than 3% of the vote,
1929 - Rapid increase in unemployment
1930 - Weimar Republic falls, Nazis get 18.3% of the vote,
1931 - Hitler becomes a German citizen and runs for president
1932 - Beginning of economic recovery, Nazi party receives 37% of the vote, with Protestants in favor, Catholics opposed, 30% of workforce unemployed,
1933 - Hindenburg gives Hitler office of Chancellor; Dachau, Sachsenhausen, Buchenwald and Flossenberg along with lesser camps, are built. Over the next 10 years, there will be over 1000 camps.

Cuban Revolution: Three to Six Years
1952 - Batista takes power in Cuba
1953 - Fidel Castro leads assault on Moncada barracks,
1954 - Batista dissolves Parliament,
1955 - Fidel Castro is released from prison, meets the accomplished murderer Che Guevera in Mexico City,
1956 - Castro lands in Cuba
1957 - Attack on the Cuban Presidential Palace
1958 - Open war between Castro and Batista
1959 - Batista flees Cuba, Castro becomes Premier of Cuba, opposition newspapers shut down, KGB and Stasi train Cuban officials in secret police methods.


Everything can change in the space of just a few years, if the horse is whipped mercilessly enough. The one taking power needs a scapegoat. Lenin had the Tsar. Stalin had Trotsky and the kulaks. Hitler had the Jews. Cuba had the Americans. Barack Obama has George Bush and capitalism.

Why put the nation into trillions of dollars of debt? It makes sense if you want to break the piggy bank and fundamentally change the society. For Lenin and Hitler, the bank had already been broken when they got there. Stalin and Castro deliberately destroyed the economy in order to accomplish what they wanted. If Barack pushes a weak economy as hard as he can, it may well fail and allow him to really get to work.

Why release memos on waterboarding while redacting the information on the lives saved? This makes sense from a short-term political perspective. But it also makes sense if you want to discredit capitalism and its associated government so as to engender in people a desire for a different form of government.

Things are changing fast.
In four years, we will be living in a different country.

UPDATE:
Well, this essay was originally written about Obama, but Trump is doing the job just about as well. He's ratcheted the government debt to new and dizzying heights, with nary a whimper of concern from any of the usual suspects. Stir in Wuhan virus, and watch what bubbles out.

Why Liberal Talk Radio Fails

There are a lot of theories floating around about why liberal talk radio always fails.

People say liberals aren't interesting, liberals aren't funny, liberals scream too much, they act like the victim too often, etc.

While liberals certainly are and do all of these things, I don't think that's the reason.
The real reason liberal talk radio isn't successful is that liberals don't work for a living.

Think about it.

Of all the political persuasions, liberals are the largest group because they encompass both the wealthiest and the poorest among us. Liberal leaders are rich fat cats screaming about how they care about the poor while they simultaneously raise consumption taxes every chance they get. These kind of people watch television talking heads and read the New York Times. They are never in a car unless they are being chauffeured to the airport or the golf course. When they are in a car, they are on their cell phones schmoozing their next deal, they are most definitely not listening to the radio.

Welfare recipients don't listen to radio, they watch TV or play stupid video games.

The only people who listen to the radio are the people driving themselves, alone in a car, stuck in a traffic jam. By definition, that ain't rich people or welfare recipients.

It's working stiffs, grinding out their nine to five job and grinding out their one hour commute each way each day to make it a full-bodied ten-hour workday, five days a week.

These are the people who are working with their hands, people who have to keep their eyes on their work or on the road, but who want to occupy their minds while their hands and eyes stay busy. In a multi-media environment, radio is the only source of entertainment for blue-collar workers for most of the day. It's the only thing available for white collar workers at least two or three hours of the day.

People who work for a living aren't interested in George Soros, Barack Obama or Nancy Pelosi.
They want someone who understands what it means to gain your bread in the sweat of your brow.

That won't change any time soon.

Why Scientists Can't Be Trusted

Scientific American, a marvelous magazine in many respects, recently published an article which not only demonstrated the foolishness of one scientist, but highlighted the foolishness of specialists in general.

In it, Dr. Judith Rich Harris opines that parents don't matter when it comes to child-rearing. According to Harris, a child's peer group and teachers make a far larger impact on a child's life and habits than do parents. The most a parent contributes is a handful of DNA, most similarities between children and parents can be chalked up to this DNA contribution, and the actual lifestyle results are really not imparted by parents at all.

Now, it is clearly the case, as any parent can attest, that individual children have individual quirks of personality wholly unrelated to how they are raised. A father who gets on all fours and growls like a lion at his little girl will likely see the young lass scream and run away, while a father who does the same to his little boy will see the young lad scream and attack. Some children are born with naturally outgoing personalities, others are naturally introspective. Certainly it is not all nurture - nature plays its part.

But, to say that a child's peer group and teachers have more impact than his parents is missing the point. Who controls the child's access to other children his age? Who determines which teachers the child will be exposed to?

Who among us has not had a parent tell us, "Why don't you make friends with X? They're a wonderful family!" or "If I discover that you are hanging around with Y, you will be grounded until you are 18."

Similarly, are there no parents who have said, "That is the school for my child!" or "We're going to have to get you moved to a different teacher. This one is not helping you."

While Dr. Harris has some interesting observations, some of them even worthwhile, she doesn't appear to ever have been a parent herself. Even if we grant her thesis, even if we agree that teachers and other children more direct impact on a child's socialization outside the home than parents do, we still must acknowledge that those other people only have this influence because they are permitted to have it by the parents.

Parents are the guardians, the gatekeepers.
For this we were born, even if myopic scientists don't want to admit it.

Fr. Stanley Jaki

Father Stanley Jaki, Templeton Prize winner and one of the finest minds in the world, has passed away.

I had the honor of speaking with Father Jaki on several occasions, once even being blessed with the honor of doing a bit of research for him before one of his talks. His work is voluminous, marvelous, luminous. The world is richer for having had him here, and he will definitely be a man whose intercessions are powerful on earth. May God bless him richly in heaven.

Please, do an indulgence for him and/or for other souls in purgatory, to speed him on his way if he needs it.

Too Weird

Wow.
I'm speechless.

That's not easy to do.

I'm not even sure what to do with this piece (hat tip, Dawn Eden - you probably shouldn't look at it at work).

After reading (?) the article, I feel like I just watched Jerry Lewis meet the third Matrix movie.

You know, this is why Germany invaded France.
Three times.

Or maybe this is the result of being invaded three times by Germany.
I'm open to suggestions...

Jenkins, Fool for Obama

Some people didn't like the fact that I'm making fun of the Notre Dame situation.
This is my response.

XXXX, I understand your outrage, but consider the reality.

Fr. Jenkins invited Obama in order to hook up with power and prestige.

If he rescinds the invitation now...
not only will he humiliate himself,
not only will he humiliate Barack Obama,
but he will guarantee he never gets another powerful person speaking at his commencements again.

No one will risk the humiliating possibility of having THEIR invitation rescinded as well.

As for Barack, the man has no reason to gracefully cancel.
He's got the Catholic Church right where he wants it.
Even if Fr. Jenkins quietly asked Obama to back out, Obama is not going to do it.

If Jenkins doesn't rescind the invitation, Obama wins because he has publicly put ND in his corner.

If Jenkins rescinds, then Obama can paint Catholics as narrow-minded fools, and he wins again, because most adult Catholics will reject the title and hew all that more closely to Obama just to PROVE that they are not one of those reactionary, rigid orthodox Catholics.

The only way Jenkins is going to rescind that invitation is to have his direct superior
require him to do it under pain of obedience.

His superior doesn't have the guts.

Obama is going to speak and that can't be stopped.

So all that is left is to make Jenkins look like a fool.
That's why I posted today's "news story."

Hnoorary Doctorate in History

In a surprise move intended to placate Catholics on the far right, the University of Notre Dame has decided to award an honorary doctorate in history to the Right Reverend Bishop Williamson, of the Society of St. Pius X.

Bishop Williamson's award comes as a result of Fr. Jenkins hope to expand and invigorate on-campus dialogue with various groups that do not necessarily view the world through the same lenses the Vatican uses.

Unfortunately, many orthodox Catholics are now up in arms about this second invitation, but Fr. Jenkins, head of UD, refused to be dissuaded.

"We have invited the bishop and he's honored us by accepting," he said

The SSPX and the University announced today the president will speak at the May 17 Commencement ceremony, to take place in the Joyce Center. The Notre Dame appearance will be Bishop Williamson's first commencement address since he remarked publicly that he didn't think all that many Jews had actually been gassed.

Jenkins made it clear in an interview with The Observer Sunday the University does not "foresee circumstances" that would cause Notre Dame to rescind the invitation.

"Bishops with all sorts of views have come to Notre Dame for decades to speak to graduates about our nation and our world. They've given important addresses on international affairs, human rights, service, and we're delighted that Bishop Williamson is continuing that tradition," Jenkins said.

Some members of the Notre Dame community, and the larger national Catholic community have negatively responded to the announcement, launching new campaigns to stop the bishop from visiting the University because of his stances on issues regarding the destruction of the Jews.

Jenkins made clear the University is not honoring the president for his stances on these issues, but for his leadership.

"The invitation of Bishop Williamson to share a podium with President Obama as a Commencement speaker should in no way be taken as condoning or endorsing the positions of either one on specific issues regarding the protection of life, Jewish or Gentile," Jenkins said.

These "crucial differences" in positions on the protection of life are not being ignored in extending the invitation to the president, Jenkins said, but rather can be used as a catalyst for dialogue. "There isn't really any difference between their positions," said Jenkins, "The opportunity for continuing dialogue cannot be overlooked."

The Naked Truth

Hat tips to Marie Pitt-Payne, Dawn Eden, who notified me about this. Link is on CultureWarNotes.com

Recently, Joanna Krupa claimed that her topless poses were inspired by John Paul II's Theology of the Body audiences.

"I think worrying about going topless in a photo shoot or film is really ridiculous," Krupa told FOXNews.com in an exclusive interview. "And the fact is Pope John Paul said, since we were born naked, it is art, and it's just showing a beautiful body that God created."

Now, a lot of things could be said about this, the first being very straightforward - she isn't the only person to misunderstand the TOB audiences. Very well-known promoters of TOB have said extremely stupid things about it, including making recommendations about the use of public or semi-public nudity that are virtually indistinguishable from Joanna Krupa's. Statements averring that the saints lack clothes in heaven, that the Blessed Virgin herself is nude, are made with an air of assurance that the interlocuter seems to have acquired from the Pope himself.

It doesn't go without saying (or I wouldn't be writing this) that such statements make a complete hash of JP II's actual statements. Far from making any statement in support of the idea that the saints are nude or that we should be too, the Holy Father was quite clear on the need for modesty in dress in order to preserve chastity in spirit.

In fact, John Paul II reminds us that photography, especially television and film, tends to make the body an anonymous object (#5 of 15 April 1981 - The HumanBody: Subject of Works of Art, his first talk in the series concerning art and the human body)

Clearly, he was not too fond of any attempt at art, especially attempts at visual art, which depersonalized the subject. Anything which tends to make the person "an anonymous object" is inappropriate. His talk two weeks later, (29 April 1981 - Art Must Not Violate the Right to Privacy), begins with a very clear statement in the second article:

#2 At this point it is not possible to agree with the representatives of so-called naturalism.

Note that he entirely condemns naturalism, nudity, the idea that we are born naked, therefore the human body is beautiful and should remain unclothed in public or semi-public settings. Naturalists argue that anyone should be able to look at a living naked woman or naked man in front of them without lust.

Naturalists are wrong.

The Pope not only says he doesn't agree, he says it is impossible to agree with such a position. He goes on, in article #3, to discuss not only the problem of naturalism, but nudity in any setting whatsoever, including . The problem comes because we don't know how it will be received. We have to consider the possibilities:

#3 The [naked] human body... is a problem which is not only aesthetic, but also ethical. That "element of the gift" is ... suspended in the dimension of an unknown reception and an unforeseen response... [I]t may become an anonymous object of appropriation, an object of abuse. ... The truth about man... creates here precise limits which it is unlawful to exceed.

#4. These limits must be recognized and observed by the artist... [No one has] the right to demand, propose or bring it about that other people, invited, exhorted or admitted to see, to contemplate the image, should violate those limits...

Is it possible to use nakedness in art? The Holy Father comments on this in the very next article:

#5. ...[T]here are works of art whose subject is the human body in its nakedness. The contemplation of this makes it possible to concentrate, in a way, on the whole truth of man, on the dignity and the beauty... of his masculinity and femininity.... [which] leads the viewer, through the body, to the whole personal mystery of man. In contact with these works, where we do not feel drawn by their content to "looking lustfully"...

Art can be used to contemplate the human person as he stands before God. In this kind of artwork, the body is not changed into an object to be used or enjoyed. Instead, it represents an encounter with mankind.

6. Paul VI's Encyclical Humanae Vitae emphasizes the "need to create an atmosphere favorable to education in chastity" (n. 22). With this he intends to affirm that the way of living the human body in the whole truth of its masculinity and femininity must correspond to the dignity of this body and to its significance in building the communion of persons. 6 May 1981 - Ethical Responsibilities in Art

What does this all mean?

It means the art of the Sistine Chapel, the nude rendition of David, the multiple artistic representations of the Blessed Virgin Mary nursing the infant Jesus, these images are possible precisely because their subject is our relationship with God. Adam is naked on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel precisely because God sees him as he is, God reaches out to him.

It is to be noted that, while countless religious paintings represent naked bodies, none represent those bodies engaged in sexual conduct. Rather, in every case, the nakedness the artist renders for us highlights the person's relationship with God - the person who stands fully revealed before Him in the glory of virtue or fully revealed in the shame of sin.

We may indeed see Susannah at her bath with the lecherous elders looking on, but their very lechery highlights the fact that Susannah would sooner die than commit the sin of having sexual relations outside of marriage.

Truly, we are born into this world naked, but it is no less true that God Himself wove our first clothes of skin for us (Genesis 3:21).

Though we came into the world physically naked, we are not meant to be naked.

Adam and Eve were clothed with supernatural and preternatural grace.
When we lost the clothing of grace, God then gave us the clothing of skins.

No matter how you look at it, we need clothes.
Someone needs to look Joanna in the eye and let her know.

Something Wicked This Way Comes

Culture War Notes has two very odd stories today.

First, there is the rumor that Barack Obama is trying to silence Archbishop Burke. Burke has apparently been far too outspoken on the abortion front to make our fine feathered community organizer comfortable. His operatives are communicating with Rome, trying to find a way to keep Burke from speaking on the subject.

This is made all the more difficult by the fact that Archbishop Burke is scheduled to be the speaker at the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast on May 8, along with SCOTUS justice Antonin Scalia.

Now, we hear that Archbishop Burke is repudiating his very own videotaped words, a record he made specially for Randall Terry, one of the best-known abortion fighters in the nation.

Now, Archbishop Burke was not born yesterday. He knows full well who Randall Terry is, he knows how Mr. Terry operates, he knows that if he makes a video for Randall Terry, that video is going to be used and used widely, in every possible venue.

But now the archbishop is claiming he didn't know?

What could shut down a fearless man like Archbishop Burke?

I can think of only one other lion in the 20th century who voluntarily muzzled himself: Pope Pius XII.

What shut down Pope Pius XII?

I hope the comparison is wrong.

I'm Not Too Bright

In my book, Designed to Fail: Catholic Education in America, I discuss the rise of the corporation and the impact it had on the establishment of the school system.

Most people don't realize that the founding fathers of this country HATED corporations. Their fight was not just against Britain, but against the East India Company, the corporation that ran the economies of most of the British colonies. They knew that corporations were the bane of a free existence, so they destroyed every corporation in the nascent American states.

While I documented how the corporation affected the theology of American politics, it wasn't clear to me why the corporation should exist at all. What possible advantage would a government derive from allowing corporations to form, especially given the fact that these same corporations always tended to rival national governments in power?

The brilliant economist Walter Williams explains that in his March 18, 2009 column:

If a tax is levied on a corporation, and if it is to survive, it must raise the price of its product, or lower dividends or lay off workers. In each case, it is people, not some legal fiction called a corporation, who bear the burden of any tax levied on the corporation. An important subject area in economics called tax incidence says that the entity upon whom a tax is levied does not necessarily bear the burden of the tax. Some of the tax burden can be shifted to another party. That's precisely what corporations do and as such they are merely government tax collectors.(emphasis added - Read it all.).

Governments want corporations because, prior to the advent of the IRS, corporations were the prime means by which governments collected taxes. Even after the IRS and/or similar government entities are created, corporations serve as mini-Me versions of the IRS. Whatever tax is levied on a corporation will be passed on to the populace.

The funny thing is, I recognized this relationship when I was roughly 14 years old. I never saw the point of raising taxes on business, since I knew I would be paying the tax in the form of increased product prices. But I never made the final connection: corporations are just additional taxing agencies, additional internal revenue services for the government. They provide the fine-grained control over collection which permits the IRS to run without needing to audit more than one or two percent of the population.

Every corporation from which I make a purchase is an extension of the IRS into my life. Seen in this light, in a country where sales tax is applied, every bit of advertising is really a come-on to allow the government to eat another portion of my revenue, with the corporation as the government agent splitting the swag. I never thought of it this way until now.

Is Our Family Like God's Family?

I must confess something.

I sometimes use this blog as a way to remember an argument that comes up infrequently, but which requires me to document the answer whenever it DOES come up.

If I put it on the blog, it never disappears, and I can go search it later.

One such argument is the following, and it is extremely common among certain theologians and certain TOB promoters. I put it here for your edification and delight:

The comparison between father-mother-child and Father-Son-Spirit is specifically called absurd by Aquinas.

Summa Theologica, First Part, Question 93, Article 6

It would seem that the image of God is not only in man's mind.

Objection 2.

Further, it is written (Gen1:27) God created man to His own image, to the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. But the distinction of male and female is in the body. Therefore the image of God is also in the body, and not only in the mind.

I answer that, While in all creatures there is some kind of likeness to God, in the rational creature alone we find a likeness of image as we have explained above; but in other creatures we find a likeness by way of a trace.

Reply to Objection 2.

As Augustine says (De Trinitas, 12:5) some have thought that the image of God was not in man individually, but severally. They held that "the man represents the Person of the Father; those born of man denote the person of the Son; and that the woman is a third person in likeness to the Holy Ghost, since she so proceeded from man as not to be his son or daughter." All of this is manifestly absurd: [Aquinas doesn't mince words here] first, because it would follow that the Holy Ghost is the principle of the Son, as the woman is the principle of the man's offspring; secondly, because one man would be only the image of one Person; thirdly, because in that case Scripture should not have mentioned the image of God in man until after the birth of the offspring. Therefore we must understand that when Scripture had said to the image of God He created him, it added, male and female He created them, not to imply that the image of God came through the distinction of sex, but that the image of God is common to both sexes, since it is in the mind, wherein there is no distinction of sexes. [How many Theology of the Body promoters have said that the image of God is in the sex?] And so the Apostle (Col 3:10), after saying According to the image of Him that created him, added, Where there is neither male nor female.

Reply to Objection 3.

Although the image of God in man is not to be found in his bodily shape, yet because "the body of man alone among terrestrial animals is not inclined prone to the ground, but is adapted to look upward to heaven, for this reason we may rightly say that it is made to God's image and likeness, rather than the bodies of other animals," as Augustine remarks. But this is not to be understood as though the image of God were in man's body, but in the sense that the very shape of the human body represents the image of God in the soul by way of a trace. [Notice that: insofar as anything in the body images God, it does so by way of a trace]

Cassandra Comments

This commentary on the Connecticut trustee crisis appeared in the comments section of the Catholic Key blog. It is quite illuminating so I reproduce it in full here. I am unable to verify who Cassandra is, but her(?) facts appear to be correct:

I can certainly understand why people are upset, but this is only the fruits of the malfeasance of the bishops about which I won't detail because Google does not have enough storage for it.

However, I wouldn't be too quick to say it won't pass constitutional muster.

First, this was an existing law which dealt specially with the Roman Catholic Church. It is only being amended here. The CT bishops were happy to be treated special before. Note especially that in the deleted portion, there was already a requirement for a layman to be present in order for the corporate board to do business. The bishops had already sold the farm by agreeing to that precedent in the first place.

In fact, the farm was sold when the USCCB (NCCB) let Johnson amend the IRS tax code to stifle the voice of the Church through the 501 (3)(c) restrictions. The progressive bishops didn't care about it then, and it keeps a muzzle on the orthodox bishops today. (Johnson did this primarily to strike back at some protestant preachers who were embarrassing him over infidelities).

Second, the RCC is rather unique in how it structures itself. Other religious organizations, especially evangelicals, organize their ecclesial communities such that the laity do control the entity and do control the hiring of the pastors. A very good argument could be made that this is just treating the RCC equally under the law. One would have to take a look at the other sections of the corporate law to see how other religious organizations are treated. Why should the State treat the RCC differently? If the RCC doesn't like it, they don't have to form a corporation.

(Now, of course, the State should treat the One True Church with deference, but the American constitution doesn't agree. After the onslaught from the likes of John Courtney Murray, SJ and his religious liberty it will be impossible to even convince Catholics that the State should treat the Church specially. This problem goes way back and even Pope Leo XIII warned about it over a hundred years ago.)

Third, canon law establishes that the parish assets belong to the parish. If the bishop closes a parish, he cannot seize the money. The funds must be reserved for the care of the parish members, even if they are consolidated into another parish. (Boston got in trouble for this, I think). So even in RCC canon law, the State will find some justification for giving control of the parish assets to the parish.

The countering argument, of course, is that without control of the purse strings, there is no real control of the parish. This was why Archbishop Burke (and Rigali before him) had to crack down on St. Stanislaus (though St. Stan's had illicitly changed the bylaws removing archdiocesan control). But let's be serious. Have the bishops really shown themselves to properly administering parishes even according canon law? Of course, not. A wide variety of abuses are rampant. The USCCB bishops even admitted in Married Love (2006) that the laity don't know the Faith because they haven't been taught (while not taking responsibility for the lack of teaching). All around the bishops are going to have a tough time showing how they are going to be impeded from doing what they are not doing.

Fourth, 54% of Catholics just voted for a man who advocates infanticide. Do you really think in the midst of all the sex abuse, embezzlements (can you say Michael Jude Fay?), and parish closings that the bishops are going to convince a majority of Catholics that the laity shouldn't have control over the parish assets. The Diocese of Bridgeport punished Fr. Madden and the bookkeeping for hiring a private detective to uncover Fr. Fay. You think the State doesn't have a slam-dunk in getting Catholic lay support for this? That's not a legal defense directly, but it is a voting block that will be happy to get the control. If there's one thing that will bring back the missing 75% of Catholics who don't go to Mass on any given Sunday, it will be the chance to get control.

Nope, this is the fruits of the negligence of the USCCB for decades. It may not be right, but it is inevitable. In fact, I see in it a Judgment from God on the Church. I've been telling people this sort of thing has been coming.

Nobody believes Cassandra...

... [to objections that the RCC is being singled out]. Here are the CT religious corporate statutes online. I didn't see a presbyterian section. It's worth noting that for a presbyterian those boards of elders are laity in the congregation.

What really comes out from that section of the statutes, though, is that the State has been interpreting the individual religious situations in order to determine how corporate law will apply to them. The RCC is asking for State recognition and favored treatment (i.e. to act corporately) and the State is interpreting how the RCC situation should be applied to State corporation laws—just like the State has been in the past.

Again, I would point out that the existing law requires that laity be on the board and that a layman be present to create a quorum for business. The CT bishops have found this acceptable in the past in spite of the fact that this existing law is already contrary to the canonical authority of the bishop and pastor. Ironically, under the existing law, if the laity wanted to fight the authority of the bishop (and were unified enough) they simply don't show up for the board meetings and the board can't do business. Show me how that reflects the "Apostolic nature of the Catholic Church" (Bridgeport statement). The new changes only expand the "active participation" of the laity.

Again, I want to bring up the 501 (c)(3) issue. The IRS says if you want to enjoy special tax treatment, you have to keep your mouth shut concerning politicians. Yet the Church has a duty to speak out against evil. Pope Pius XII is condemned for (supposedly) being silent in regard to the leader of the National Socialist party, but the Church in Amercia is prohibited from condemning the leader of the Democratic party for support of infanticide. The USCCB accepts this infringement the Church's right and duty to proclaim the Truth and defends not it, saying that they "just form consciences". They sold the voice of the Church for a tax deduction. How is this CT bill really different in principle? The bishop and pastor can still preach and "form the consciences" of the local laity. Won't the laity willingly listen to the bishop's direction and seek to follow his lead if this is the Catholic way?

The State will be able to bring examples of organizations considered "Catholic" and yet not having diocesan control. The examples need not be about parishes, but will continue to erode the argument that bishops need fiscal control to "preach the gospel" (note that Sec. 33-280 talks about the purpose of property rights is to maintain religious worship, and educational and charitable institutions). The RCC will have to show how, in midst of the last 40-year emphasis on lay pastoral and finance councils, maintaining worship is really impeded by local fiscal control.

Let's look as some examples. In St. Paul, MN Archbishop Flynn and his vicar general as board members cooperated in the action of the Board of the University of St. Thomas in removing ex-officio positions from the Board just in time to prevent incoming Abp Nienstadt from being able to exercise control. After negotiations, but no board structure changes, Nienstadt continues to extend the Catholic moniker to the university.

EWTN is run by a lay board (an arrangement which was an end-run by Mother Angelica during a dispute with Cardinal Mahoney). Yet, EWTN has a wide international reputation for proclaiming the Gospel in the modern media. Catholics are able to assemble and preach without direct fiscal control of the local bishop.

In the Diocese of La Crosse, the diocesan attorney James Birnbaum (see more about him here and here) is defending the firing of a teacher at a Catholic school. The arguments he (and therefore the bishop by extension) presented to the Wisconsin Supreme Court (according to the La Crosse Tribune ) are supportive of the State separating the secular and religious activities of Catholic institutions:

"Birnbaum told the high court Tuesday that not all elementary Catholic school teachers should be exempted from anti-discrimination laws unless, like Ostlund, they taught a religion class daily, were involved in liturgical activities and incorporated religion in all subjects they taught."

The argument here is that the actual religious activity of the persons involved must be taken into consideration when applying State laws to Catholic institutions.

In California, the State imposed on Catholic Charities the requirement to provide insurance benefits for contraceptives to employees. The California bishops capitulated.

Archbishop Levada (now Cardinal and in charge of protecting doctrine as Prefect of the CDF!!) compromised with a San Francisco city ordinance that requires firms doing business with the city to extend benefits to "domestic partners". Levada allowed employees to designate any individual as the recipient of benefits, basically citing "social justice" motives.

The point I am trying to make with these examples (and I'm sure there are better ones) is that the actions of the USCCB bishops have been reinforcing that the USCCB (and therefore the RCC in the eyes of the American State) finds it acceptable to separate Catholic institutional actions into secular and regulate-able actions and religious actions.

Want the really bad news? Let's say this goes to the US Supreme Court. On the Court sit 4 members of the RCC. I don't see any way that these justices can hear this case without a conflict of interest. They'll have to recuse themselves, and there go the most "originist" and conservative members of the Court. Who's left to decide the case?

Finally, again, the CT bishops and the USCCB bishops are not going to get broad lay Catholic support for opposing this. 75% of Catholics don't show up for Mass on any given Sunday. Of the 25% that do show up, a great many have absorbed the "We are Church" theology. Recently some bishops have announced they are closing 25, 30, 40, even 50 percent of parishes in their dioceses. You expect those laity, some of whom are occupying closed churches in defiance, to oppose lay control over the parish facilities? I'll bet the bishops won't get more than 25% of lay support on the issue, and the State knows it. If 75% of Catholics will go along, how will the bishops argue that this is opposed to Church law? Are they going to stand up say 75% of Catholics don't understand the teachings of the Church? That will be a proud day for the Church! In the midst of the grotesque mismanagement of administrative (and spiritual) matters in the sexual abuse crisis, are bishops going to argue that lay Catholics need special Apostolic oversight to make a few local financial decisions? That lay Catholics aren't competent enough? The Media will have a field day. Need I speculate on how the influential "Catholic" members of Congress will weigh in?

Best case scenario, the State is forced to rewrite the entire chapter and apply the principle of local control to all religious societies. The principle is quite in accord with protestant theology and practice. What denomination is really going to squawk about it? Which one is going to make the case that Scripture demands that a central authority (read Apostolic authority) need be exercised over the administration of the local church buildings and funds?

This is, in fact, a marvelous opportunity for the USCCB to stand up and clearly teach on the Catholic principle of subsidiarity and how legitimate hierarchical authority is necessary for the care of the sheep. They could teach on the long Tradition of the Church in regard to Holy Orders and Apostolic authority. They could present a truly Catholic teaching on the relationship of the Church and State and how the State is obligated to accept correction by the Church on matters of morality. They could preach on the social Kingship of Christ. It could be an inspiring moment….

….but they won't. They'll hand it over to the lawyers, take an American law approach, and try to argue constitutional principles—principles written by Masons, deists and protestants. In the meantime, the State will bring in legions of Jesuit theologians, all in "good standing" with the Church, who will testify that this doesn't really conflict with dogmatic or doctrinal teachings of the Church.

More fruits of the Second Vatican Council and the progressive agenda.

A Civil Constitution

In 1790, the French Revolutionaries decided to destroy the power of the Catholic Church by forcing all religious and all ordained men to take a vow of allegiance to the state. Any religious, priest or bishop who refused to take the vow was either forced out of the country or into a grave. This naked attack on the Catholic Church was legislatively called "The Civil Constitution of the Clergy."

Read through the Civil Constitution and notice how many modern-day heretics draw on it for inspiration. It reads like a primer from Karl Rahner or Richard P. McBrien.

The legislation solved two problems at once.
First, it broke the power of the Catholic Church in France. The Church was never a big fan of mass murder or regicide, but that was no longer a problem, as their vows would require Church officials to be silent on these matters in the future.

Second, it allowed the state to acquire vast tracts of Church land. The Revolution was chronically short of money, and the land grab filled government coffers in a way few other actions could have done.

The action was not without a reaction. The Catholics of the French Vendee region were in open revolt by 1794, in no small part because of the havoc wreaked on their region by the Civil Constitution. The Revolution was largely an urban, and especially Parisian, phenomenon. Much of the Catholic countryside had no particular love for it.

The Revolutionaries responded by sending 13 columns of French troops into the Vendee. These "colonnes infernales" - columns from hell - killed every living person they encountered.

Why am I recalling this history?

Because Connecticut is making a power grab nearly identical to the Civil Constitution of the Clergy. It proposes to legislatively strip Connecticut's bishops of all governing authority over all Catholic parishes in the state. If it passes, each parish will be run by a corporate board. The only thing the bishop will be able to direct is the teaching of the Faith itself - exactly the single same loophole left open by the Civil Constitution.

When states are behind the fiscal 8-ball, the Church's property always looks mighty tasty.

Will its passage provoke outrage among Catholics?
Yes.

Will it provoke a similar response?
Do we want to find out?

Obama the Apostate

We already have the spectacle of numerous Muslims claiming that Barack Hussein Obama is, in fact, the first Muslim president. It's easy to argue that he isn't, but it's odd that Muslims don't seem willing to recognize this.

The more interesting problem is how he is dealing with charities.

In 361 AD, Julian the Apostate became emperor of Rome. He was called the Apostate because, while raised as a Christian, his hatred for all things Christian was apparent upon his ascension to the purple. He immediately removed all tax breaks and government subsidies which the Church had been given by Constantine, demanded full repayment of all moneys that had been donated, and instituted a system of government sponsored-charity that was intended to pull people away from the Catholic Church.

Julian understood that one major appeal Christians had towards pagans was precisely their charity. They would take care of anyone, anytime. If he wanted to break the back of the Catholic Church, he knew he would have to compete against that same Church's charity, and prove his own pagan government was superior to Christian love. His plan failed primarily because he was killed on the battlefield just two years after he gained the throne. There was not enough time to make any of his changes stick.

It is already established that Julian's plan does, indeed, work.
The larger the welfare state, the lower the religious sentiments of the public.

The best way to destroy American Christianity is to turn America into a welfare state.
It is interesting to see that Obama's tax plans are designed precisely to harm existing private welfare efforts, while expanding welfare government.

Julian the Apostate, please call your office.
The President is on the line.

Who Died and Made HIM Pope?

Bishop Williamson is an SSPX bishop who had been excommunicated for allowing himself to be ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre. He is also so badly informed about historical events that he claims the Holocaust did not happen.

Being ordained without papal permission is automatic excommunication.
Denying the Holocaust, on the other hand, is merely gross stupidity.
Being stupid is not a sin.

In order to assist with the regularization of the status of the SSPX, his excommunication was lifted by Pope Benedict XVI. Since stupidity is not a sin, his denial of the Holocaust is not really relevant to whether or not he is excommunicate.

Given the lifting of the excommunication, Bishop Williamson is a valid Catholic bishop who is suspended - he has no one under his authority.

Cardinal Mahoney has decided to bar Bishop Williamson from speaking anywhere in the Los Angeles Diocese. That is his right. No one can have a quarrel with that decision.

But in his decree barring Bishop Williamson, Cardinal Mahoney also took the trouble to state, "Holocaust deniers like Williamson will find no sympathetic ear or place of refuge in the Catholic Church, of which he is not — and may never become — a member."

That is OUTRAGEOUS.

Cardinal Mahoney is directly contradicting a papal directive. By his statement, Mahoney effectively denies that Williamson's excommunication has been lifted. He refuses to recognize Williamson's valid episcopal orders, when Williamson's reception of that sacrament is just as valid as Mahoney's own.

Bishop Williamson denied the reality of the Holocaust.
Through his decision to be ordained bishop, Bishop Williamson denied the authority of Rome.
Cardinal Mahoney's bombast essentially denies Rome's authority and verges on denying the reality of the sacrament Bishop Williamson received.

Exactly how is Cardinal Mahoney different than Bishop Williamson?