The Doors, the Doors!

In the Catholic Byzantine rite, immediately before the priest consecrates the offering, the deacon proclaims, "The doors, the doors! Let us attend in wisdom!" With those words, the doors of the iconostasis are shut. The closing of the doors not only transforms the altar area into an image of Mary’s virginal womb, so that the presence of Jesus might enter into the Bride of the Christ as He did two millenia ago, it also serves a rather practical purpose. It keeps the riff-raff out. 

 Riff-raff are always trying to get in, as any good bishop knows. Take St. Ambrose, for instance. Though Emperor Theodosious and St. Ambrose, the great bishop who taught St. Augustine, were on close terms, St. Ambrose had strict standards. Now, keep in mind that Theodosius was a good Catholic. He had called the second council of Constantinople in order to solve the problem Arian heresy. He was responsible for obliterating the last traces of pagan worship, destroying pagan temples and holy places with such fervor that the pagans themselves resorted to the sword. He took to the field of battle and resoundingly defeated these Italian troops, thus finally making the Roman empire a Christian empire. Yet, when, in 390, the Emperor Theodosius slaughtered 7000 Thessalonicans in revenge for a riot they had instigated, St. Ambrose refused to allow the ruler of the whole Roman empire, the ruler of the entire known civilized world, to step foot into a church until he had confessed his sin and performed eight months penance. It didn’t matter how staunch a supporter of Christian Faith the Emperor might be. He had sinned. He could not profane the holy places by his presence until his sins were forgiven. 

Keeping the riff-raff out is just good practice. Even today, tourists are denied entrance to the great basilicas of Rome if they are clothed in an all too unconcerned fashion. There are standards. 

 Thus, it is somewhat puzzling to read Cardinal George’s latest missive to the people of Illinois. 

"Should Catholic ’pro-choice’ politicians receive Holy Communion? Objectively, no; but subjectively a politician may have convinced himself he is in good conscience. The burden of helping politicians form their consciences falls back upon their pastors. Such a conversation about personal conversion is hard to have in the midst of the pressures of electioneering. As the conversations, both public and private, go on, however, "pro-choice" politicians will inevitably find themselves ever more estranged from their own community of faith. This is tragic, not only for politicians, most of whom went into public service for generous motives, but for the faith community itself.

Should a minister of Holy Communion give a ‘pro-choice’ politician the Body of the Lord? If a voting record is evidence of ‘manifest and obstinate’ sin, no. The objection is raised that voting for abortion isn’t the only political sin, even though abortion and euthanasia are the moral bottom line. Nevertheless, a firm case can be made that refusing Communion, after pastoral counseling and discussion, is a necessary response to the present scandal. Some bishops have made that case. If I haven’t made it in this Archdiocese, it’s primarily because I believe it would turn the reception of Holy Communion into a circus here. Who should be excluded? Is a special list to be published or will the Communion minister make the determination, supposing that a particular politician is even recognized by the minister. Will the media be invited in to watch a confused or disobedient minister give the Eucharist to a politician making a point? What happens next?" 

The answer is obvious. Every Catholic Church has men who volunteer to be ushers. In America, the usher holds a largely ceremonial post with few duties. American ushers do, however, have one distinctly odd habit, a distorted throw-back to the original function of the usher, or door-warden. 

 For obscure reasons, American ushers in some churches think they have a right to tell people when they can walk up to receive the Eucharist. That is, they position themselves at the rear of the communion line in such a way that the faithful are deterred from standing up and approaching the Eucharist until such time as the usher deems that they may approach. 

Now, from a sacramental point of view, it is not at all obvious why this would be the case. What amazing spiritual insight do ushers possess that tells them the people in the front of the congregation will always be prepared to come forward to meet God well before anyone in the back of the congregation is ready to receive? Clearly the European-style rush of uninhibited congregants towards the altar offends the American sense of assembly-line order, so ushers take it upon themselves to transform this most intimate encounter with Christ into something less spontaneous and more… well… strait-jacketed. Though the ushers thereby violate the sacramental rights of the people to come forward when they are ready, it accords with everyone's over-inflated sense of social decorum, so the practice is well-tolerated, even actively encouraged. 

 But, though the current practice is rather a violation of the congregants' rights, the ushers' instincts are right. The door-wardens of the early Church did something very much akin to what ushers do now, the difference being that the door-wardens would not let anyone into the physical building unless they were known to and approved by the wardens. If you were unknown to the wardens, you had to present a letter from your priest or bishop testifying to the fact that you were a Catholic in good standing with the Church. Only then could you enter and prepare yourself for attendance at the sacred duties of the Mass. When the deacon cried out, "The doors, the doors!", the altar servers would swing the doors of the iconostasis shut, while at the same time, the door wardens would swing the outer doors of the Church shut. God was coming. "Holy things for the holy!" the priest cried, for only holy congregants could stand the presence of the living God. Penitents and pagans had to remain outside. 

Cardinal George can solve his problem right now, today, simply by re-constituting the ancient office of door warden. He acknowledges that no one who supports abortion should receive the Eucharist. He acknowledges that every minister of the Eucharist has the duty to refuse such individuals the Body and Blood of Christ. He has only to solve the problem of how to prevent a circus during Mass. 

Simple. Don’t let the riff-raff in. Keep pro-abortion politicians and the media on the street. They can film and demonstrate all they want out there. By this very action, we remind the world that human beings are a sacramental people – that means that external created reality always reflects the internal spiritual disposition. A pagan or sinner who approaches to profane the holy now encounters the reality. The doors that lead to holiness are closed. The only thing that will open those doors is a penitent heart.

The Power of Grace

In years gone by, anarchists held strong sway in the political tradition. They held that no law was just, no law should be imposed. There are few who still hold to this. Or, rather, there are few who hold to it in an obvious way. But anarchism is alive and well, and in a most surprising place.

Luther, the man who started the Reformation, famously denied that reason was anything except the whore of the devil. Not only is faith alone all we need to deal with the world, everything else is a positive enemy to faith. Unfortunately, in order to reach this conclusion, Luther had to twist Scripture. He could not do it within the apostolic tradition, so he had to leave that tradition behind and declare it also an enemy to faith. Thus was born the doctrine of "sola scriptura" - Scripture is all we need.

As even Protestants themselves admit, Protestant insistence on "sola scriptura" makes everyone their own Pope. What they fail to realize is this: sola scriptura also renders moral relativism an absolute necessity. After all, Scripture defines moral existence, moral reality. What better definition of relativism could be devised than saying that everyone creates their own "spirit-led" interpretation of reality? As history has shown, "sola scriptura" is nothing but a series of practical experiments in relativism. It could not last long unchallenged.

Sinful man, in the form of those who denied God's existence, soon began defining their own reality within the confines of Protestant dialogue. The atheists responded by embracing the Protestant ethic of moral relativism, but they were thereby forced to argue that the Protestants got part of the argument backwards. Faith is the opiate of the masses - reason alone is the thing.

If we accept the moral relativism of sola scriptura, the atheists' conclusion is hard to avoid. Atheism's insistence on reason alone is simply an attempt to systematize the experiments in relativism according to the only measure that sola scriptura allows: the human mind. But here is the irony. This sole standard of measurement is, as we saw above, also denied by Protestants - reason is the whore of the devil, remember?

Here's the remarkable conclusion. Oddly enough, the atheist version of moral relativism is a wild attempt to retain and return to at least some absolute standard. Secular atheists recognize that you can't throw away Scripture and rationality simultaneously or all you have left is anarchy. Put another way, if you embrace both Protestant positions, you must necessarily enter into Luther's wars of the Reformation. Luther and the other reformers were too stupid to realize that.

It's hard to believe, but there it is. Secular atheism is actually a kind of conservative movement, in one sense at least - it attempts to conserve some absolute, some last court of appeal. The evangelicals who oppose them do so not out of logical consistency (the hobgoblin of little minds, according to them), but out of a wild chaos, a howling wilderness in which nothing is absolute except the culture their fathers came from.

The evangelical/fundamentalist/Protestant ethos is not based in logic, for it specifically denies logic. It is not based in moral absolutes, because anyone can interpret Scripture as they wish, and who can deny the correctness of a sola scriptura interpretation? Rather, their ethos is based in the remnants of Catholic culture they have managed to maintain and hand down from generation to generation, a dwindling store of cultural imperatives which cannot be justified in Scripture and which they refuse to acknowledge as Tradition.

Thus, we have the trinity of positions we see today. Those of the Protestant tradition essentially claim culture as their absolute standard, the gold standard against which everything is measured. Those of the secular atheist tradition claim faulty human reason as their absolute. Those of the Catholic tradition claim the fullness of divine revelation, both spoken and written, as the only True Absolute.

If you want to understand the power of grace, think on this. You might assume that reason alone is better than anarchy under any conditions. You would be wrong. Today's secular atheists show us exactly the kind of depths unaided human reason attains. Homosexuality, abortion, euthanasia, the drug culture - it's not a pretty sight. Protestantism shows us what grace-fueled anarchy looks like, and it's a darned sight better, though still not perfect. They embrace contraception but condemn its daughter, abortion. They embrace divorce but condemn its daughter, euthanasia, the deliberate killing of the lonely and despondent. They embrace the Ten Commandments but make no mention of the Sermon on the Mount.

So, we are in a fight between the anarchists and the rationalists. As a Catholic, I am in the distinctly odd position of backing the anarchists. But, as a Catholic I have no choice. I have to support the Spirit, wherever grace is poured out.

The Vatican Rag

It all seems oddly familiar: a statement from the Vatican, a source who insists that the words of the statement should be published far and wide, and then a sudden retraction. Cast your mind back ten months and you will recall this exact chain of events, but the famous name involved was Mel Gibson’s, not Senator John Kerry.

In that instance, Peggy Noonan of the Wall Street Journal, Reuters and the National Catholic Reporter all reported the same thing. They had been told the Holy Father had seen Gibson’s Passion and had said, "It is as it was." While Cindy Wooden of Catholic News Service (CNS) became the first journalist to report otherwise, the New York Times quickly weighed in, confirming that the words had been said. But Wooden reported the very next day with a quote from the same archbishop interviewed by the NYT, that the words had NOT been said.

The incredible mix-up lasted for weeks, ending only with a Vatican official lamely making statements that implied his e-mails had been spoofed, the words fabricated. When questioned on how this was possible, the door closed. No more statements issued forth.

Now, we are faced with a similar controversy, but this time the stakes are much higher. Marc Balistrieri, the canon lawyer who started the heresy lawsuit against John Kerry, asked the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith two questions. Father Augustine DiNoia, formerly the head theological advisor for the USCCB and a frequent lecturer at Franciscan University’s summer conferences, directed a Washington D.C. theologian to answer the questions. While neither the questions nor the answers mentioned Senator John Kerry by name, the answers clearly indicated that people who held Senator John Kerry’s position on abortion were material heretics subject to automatic excommunication. Worse, if such people had been formally instructed by their bishops without recanting, they were formal heretics.

When Balistrieri asked for permission to make the answers public, he was granted this permission by both the CDF and the theologian in question. He subsequently made the document public on EWTN and dozens of news outlets picked the story up from there. Remarkably, it was again Cindy Wooden of CNS who was the first to trumpet bad news: Fr. DiNoia suddenly claimed he had never been in contact with Balistrieri.

This was rather a remarkable turn-around, given that the answers – the contents of which the CDF has never questioned – explicitly says Fr. DiNoia was the man who asked that Balistrieri’s questions be answered. Given the alacrity with which Balistrieri’s questions were answered, a speed virtually unknown to Rome, and given the explicit reference to the good priest in the answer itself, Fr. DiNoia's position seems even less believable then the "e-mail fabrication" position taken with Noonan ten months ago.

What’s going on?

The answer might be found in the personalities involved. Fr. DiNoia is a very orthodox priest with very orthodox opinions, but he was also the head theological advisor for the USCCB from July 1993 to February 2001 . That means he lived in Washington DC for nearly a decade and was intimately acquainted with all the bishops in the New York to DC corridor, including the head of the Boston archdiocese. It is, perhaps, an indication of his attachment to that region to recall that the man he commissioned to answer the questions was not a Roman theologian, but a citizen of Washington DC – that is, he was undoubtedly a friend whom Fr. DiNoia could count on to provide a profoundly orthodox answer.

The friend provided precisely the answer Fr. DiNoia expected. Unfortunately, Fr. DiNoia has lived in Rome since 2001. Rome is not exactly up-to-date on the latest news. He was unaccountably unaware of the Kerry heresy lawsuit. The theologian he commissioned may or may not have been unaware of the lawsuit – if he was, he must have assumed Fr. DiNoia was informed. In any case, when the answer became public (after Balistrieri cleared publication with both the CDF and the theologian), it is unquestionable that stuff hit the fan and Boston’s archbishop hit the phone.

Fr. DiNoia’s answer could be seen as meddling with the internal affairs of the archdiocese of Boston. That’s the kind of thing that can get a priest in extremely hot water, even if he is a high muckety-muck in the CDF. If the archbishop chose to paint the CDF response that way, he would certainly have generated the kind of response we’ve seen from Fr. DiNoia – backpedaling that would do a circus clown proud.

Not to harp on a subject, but this gets tiresome after awhile. As has been noted before, Fr. DiNoia is a tremendously orthodox priest. Unfortunately, he is caught in a battle of bishops, and this is the kind of thing that will grind nearly any priest to shreds.

Now that the CDF is officially backing off the correct position, it may be worthwhile to recall the last time bishops got involved in US politics when an intrinsically evil agenda was being promoted. We have only to read the testimony of Joseph Califano Jr., LBJ’s representative to the USCCB. When LBJ wanted to promote birth control in 1965, the USCCB agreed to allow him to do it, as long as he used a different phrase. Birth control is intrinsically evil, after all. They agreed on the phrase, "the population problem."

Now, that phrase is essentially heresy. After all, what is a population problem but too many people? And what are people but images of God? So what were the bishops saying, "It is permissible to talk about the problem of having too many images of God in the world. It is permissible to work on reducing that problem." Very nice sentiment. Not exactly Mother Theresa’s sentiment, is it? "Children are like flowers. How can you say we have too many flowers?"

Thus, as a result of this agreement, we were treated to the June 22, 1965 spectacle of Boston’s Cardinal John Cushing, "I could not in conscience approve the legislation [supporting legalization of contraception, but] I will make no effort to impose my opinion upon others… I do not see where I have an obligation to impose my religious beliefs on people who just do not accept the same faith as I do." This statement is rank material heresy. No one uttered a peep. Now we know why.

But, of course, it is all of a piece. This was the same set of bishops who allowed their liturgy directors to get rid of statues and images of saints. The proliferation of sacred images is confusing to the people, just as the proliferation of images of God is problematic to US foreign policy. They allowed the tabernacle to be moved away from the center of worship, they introduced the experiment of a children’s liturgy. Dumbing down the Faith is easier when the shepherds who guard the Faith have already been dumbed down by the culture they live in.

As Califano says, "Those were the days when you could sit down with the bishops; they were sensitive to the separation of church and state in the wake of the cliffhanger election of the first Catholic president, John F. Kennedy. The bishops and the laity accepted the assertion of the Jesuit theologian Gustave Weigel, in his widely reported 1960 lecture at Catholic University, that 'the Roman Catholic Church would not attempt to interfere in the political activities of a Catholic president, nor would a Catholic president be bound by Catholic morality in deciding public issues.' "

Now, Gustave Weigel was himself proclaiming a heretical position, but the USCCB sat still for it because the USCCB was… what? The charitable explanation is that the bishops of the USCCB were not well-formed in the Faith. That is the best one can say.

And what is the best one can say about this situation? Well, we now have part of the answer from Boston. This suit is viewed in certain circles as an action that has to be quashed in any way possible. Lay people cannot be permitted to make bishops look bad (as if they needed the help). If Balistrieri is not stopped, this kind of thing will proliferate beyond all bounds. As I've noted here before, there are certain circles who are deathly afraid of this.

Rome is not monolithic. Pressure is being brought to bear at the highest levels. Kerry and the bishops that are not opposed to him barely escaped checkmate this time, but the mills of God are grinding. Let’s see how much longer he and his companions can escape the wheels.

Update to Kerry's Heresy

I was recently asked this question:

So as I understand it Kerry has already excommunicated HIMSELF by his vocal, public and longstanding support and pledges of future support for abortion rights.

What remains is an public acknowledgment of that fact. So if a reporter asks Bishop O'Mally the right question such as, "Has John Kerry excommunicated himself according to canon law?" All the bishop has to do is answer "YES".

Correct?

That's how I read it. If O'Malley says ANYTHING else, he is admitting that neither he nor his predecessor ever had formal interview with Senator Kerry to apprise him of his danger. Thus, O'Malley would be publicly admitting to being in violation of canon 386 himself, since canon 386 requires him to teach the faithful under his care the morals of the faith, frequently and in person. I don't know if O'Malley is a canon lawyer (most bishops are), but he would be a real foolish man not to be talking to one right now.

O'Malley has GOT to be sweating bullets, hoping no one asks that question for a couple of reasons. First, the answer places him squarely under the judgement of canon 386. Second, the only reason any other bishop has leeway on giving Kerry the Eucharist right now is that Kerry's own bishop hasn't publicly pronounced on the matter, so they may entertain doubt as to whether or not O'Malley has done his job. Those who think he has must deny Kerry, those who think O'Malley hasn't done his job might give the Eucharist on the grounds that Kerry's archbishop is incompetent and Kerry is too ignorant to figure it out on his own.

But once O'Malley publicly answers that question with a "yes," EVERY OTHER BISHOP MUST DENY KERRY THE EUCHARIST.

If any bishops refuse to follow that judgment, they are now at odds with the presiding bishop and arguably in formal schism.

These next few days are absolutely ticklish for O'Malley and for Kerry's presidential bid. This news is, no lie, the October surprise that kills Kerry's bid. All that needs happen now is for local news media to be apprised of the situation.

The Kerry Heresy

"Consequently, if a Catholic publicly and obstinately supports the civil right to abortion, knowing that the Church teaches officially against that legislation, he or she commits that heresy envisioned by Can. 751 of the Code. Provided that the presumptions of knowledge of the law and penalty (Can. 15, s. 2) and imputability (Can. 1321, s. 3) are not rebutted in the external forum, one is automatically excommunicated according to Can. 1364, s. 1."

Rome has spoken, the matter is nearly closed. As those who obtain their news from sources other than the MSM know, Marc Balestrieri, a lay canon lawyer, initiated a formal charge of heresy against Senator Kerry in the spring of this year. For having the hubris to do so, he was fired from his job by Cardinal Mahoney of Los Angeles, who is apparently not averse to profaning the Eucharist as long as the political situation is not disturbed. In August, the lawyer in question took his case to Rome, proposing two formal dubiums (questions). The paragraph above is Rome's official response.

With that response, there is now no question that Senator Kerry is a material heretic, as this forum and dozens of others have pointed out for quite some time. All that now needs to be demonstrated is that Senator Kerry was formally made aware of the gravity of his stance on abortion and he refused the instruction. With that demonstration, Senator Kerry is formally a heretic.

Now, keep in mind that this was not rocket science. A lay person was forced to bring this suit (something only possible with the 1983 update to canon law) precisely because American bishops have been largely too lazy and too ignorant to take it upon themselves to touch the matter. But much more needs to be pointed out.

With Rome's pronouncement in hand, the canonical trial under Archbishop O'Malley is pretty much pro forma. After all, it is Archbishop O'Malley's duty as bishop to teach the Faith, especially public unrepentant sinners like Senator Kerry. So, either O'Malley admits malfeasance by pointing out that he failed to instruct Senator Kerry or he admits that he informed Kerry and is forced, by the canonical trial, to formally declare Senator Kerry a heretic and an excommunicate.

Now, one wonders why something so obvious to Rome (it only took 11 days for Rome to rule on the matter, which is equivalent to less than five minutes in American time), was so obscure to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB)? Of course, there can be but one explanation - the USCCB has been dancing around the problem of schism so hard that it felt it couldn't deal with the doctrinal issue at all. They permitted the Eucharist to be profaned by a heretic because they feared schism. They didn't have the guts to teach the Faith. That's one explanation. The other is that the vast majority of American bishops are as stupid as rocks and/or as ignorant as the unwashed savage, because they couldn't figure out in months what it took Rome only days to pronounce on.

It's hard to know which explanation is more charitable. Is it better to assume most of America's bishops are mental incompetents or spiritual cowards? Given the speed of the Roman response, it's hard to see what other alternatives are available.

In any case, Rome has probably headed off formal schism for the moment. If the USCCB has demonstrated anything, it is precisely that only a handful of bishops have any backbone. Thankfully, the bishops with backbone are the orthodox ones who have already cut Kerry off from communion. The rest are jellyfish. Now that Rome has provided the blueprints for how the case under O'Malley is to proceed, the good archbishop would have to be enormously incompetent to hand down any verdict other than "heretic;" indeed, he would be proclaiming himself incompetent on a number of fronts. Thus, within scant weeks, all the bishops, all the Catholics in the United States, will be back in full communion. The possibility that an orthodox bishop would pronounce someone like Cardinal Mahoney out of communion with the Church is very likely closed, barring acts of the greatest stupidity on the part of the Los Angeles bishop and his kind.

Kerry can't afford to change his stance - it would kill what little hope he has for the Presidency. Thus, Kerry is as good as condemned. Cardinal Mahoney, Father Greeley and the rest have had all their normal avenues for confusing the issue cut off. Archbishop O'Malley must either proclaim himself an incompetent shepherd or Senator Kerry a heretic. Senator Kennedy and company will follow on immediately, with Frances Kissling and her ilk undoubtedly waiting in the wings.

There's a lesson in all of this. Like God Himself, Rome will not intrude into our lives unless we petition. She respects the principle of subsidiarity, the exercise of free will. Even though John Paul II reformed canon law so that lay people could do an end-run around heretical bishops, he did not force anyone's hand. Like God in the Garden of Eden, he made sure everyone knew the rules, then sat back and waited for us to decide what we wanted to do. He's had to wait 20 years for anyone to pick up on the hint.

We lay people are slow and stupid, but we have finally got the message, Holy Father.

Now, let's clean house.

The Knife Fight

Jared Olar just returned this to my attention, so it's time to analyze it. An article in the September 28th edition of The Australian indicates that Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh and Henry Lincoln, the authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail, are suing Dan Brown for copyright infringement. They accuse Danny Boy of having stolen their whole jigsaw puzzle plot. It should be an absolutely easy case for them to win. But that’s not the funny part of this whole escapade. The lawsuit is hilarious primarily because their greed has forced everyone involved in this farce to show their hands.

You see, while fiction is subject to copyright law, facts are not. If I wrote a novel based on the James Bond character created by Ian Fleming, for instance, I would be violating Ian Fleming’s copyright, and his estate could sue me for copyright infringement. However, if I wrote a story about the life of William Jefferson Clinton, former President Clinton could not sue me for copyright infringement. I might get sued for libel (the written version of slander) if I mis-stated the facts, but that is about it. He cannot copyright the facts concerning his own life.

Now, let’s say you took existing information or discovered new factual evidence and provided a totally novel interpretation of the facts of his life, thereby completely explaining why Slick Willy has women problems and feels our pain. You wrote an outstanding article or book concerning this idea, but it failed to gain wide circulation. I saw your theory and based my biography of Clinton on your interpretation without giving you any credit. Have I violated your copyright?

Not at all. I am a plagiarist, but I haven’t violated your copyright because you have no copyright on facts
either. All you’ve done is come up with a new theory that covers the facts – and I stole it without accreditation. But I don’t need to accredit you. After all, I could have looked at the facts myself and independently arrived at the same conclusion through simple logical analysis, and you would have a hard time proving otherwise.

In any case, while I may be dead guilty of plagiarism, and you may well be able to prove it, the most you can do is (justifiably) ruin my sterling reputation by proving I’m a plagiarist. You can’t recover monetary damages from me for plagiarism because plagiarism is only a crime when I’m stealing fictional material or lifting direct and lengthy quotes from your factual material without in any way acknowledging that you wrote it. Plagiarism is not a crime if I’m stealing facts. It may not be wise, but it isn’t a crime. That’s why journalists get fired for plagiarism, but they rarely get sued for it, while novelists and playwrights sue for plagiarism but only as the basis for proving copyright infringement.

But Baigent isn’t suing for plagiarism. He’s suing for copyright infringement. He's not alleging that Brown lifted whole passages of his book verbatim. Instead, he's suing on the bases that that Brown stole his "jigsaw puzzle," his plot. By the very fact that both sides are gearing up for litigation, both sides implicitly acknowledge that they wrote works of pure fiction. Baigent is suing because Brown stole his fictional plot-line and used it in his own work of fiction. Ah, how the worm turns! Brown amassed a reputed 140 billion English pounds by repeating over and over, "Why are you upset at my book? It’s just fiction." All those quotes will now come back to him and render his bank account like unto the vast sandy expanses of the Sahara.

But it's hard to feel any sympathy. After all, ultimately, these guys all still won. You can’t un-buy the book. Now it’s just a question of how the thieves divvy up the swag. Ah, well. The book was amusing. The knife-fight will be too.

The Village Idiot

Research is moving forward to create cloned children out of left-over body parts from aborted babies and 'spare' IVF embryos according to a recent article from the National Post. To those who have been following the reproductive technologies, this is not news.

Chimeras, human-animal hybrids, have been created in the lab for years. Human DNA has been injected into cow, pig and monkey ova and allowed to grow into embryos before being destroyed. Ova have been harvested from the ovaries of aborted girls, artificially brought to maturity and inseminated. While some countries outlaw this, others (Canada, for instance) permit it as part of what is known as "therapeutic cloning." The phrase seems something of a misnomer, given no known therapy uses the cells these techniques generate.

Meanwhile, we see Senator Kerry insist "that some of the most pioneering cures and treatments are right at our fingertips, but because of the stem cell ban, they remain beyond our reach." Now, we could write many different essays with the kind of breath-taking assertion Senator Kerry brings forward. We could point out that stem cell research actually began under the current adminstration, that private funding is doing just fine, or that embryonic stem cell research shows embryonic stem cells don’t work. We could even talk about the fact that adult stem cells, cells which generate no moral objections from anyone, are actually the only useful kind of stem cell, something no one in the press or on Senator Kerry’s staff seems willing to admit.

But let’s ignore all that and study a different aspect of this issue. Specifically, there was in Senator Kerry’s remarks a certain resonance that almost sounded pro-life. Think about it. "The most pioneering cures and treatments [could be ours]…" Where have you heard that before? Pro-life supporters have been using that argument for thirty years, but in an entirely different context.

"Perhaps we have aborted the person who will cure [AIDS, cancer, muscular dystrophy, heart disease]." Remember that phrase? The argument is so old, and so roundly ignored by abortion supporters, that it seems quaint to even bring it up. But the force of the argument was not ignored. Our wily opponents were taking notes. Look what they are willing to do instead.

Today, instead of saving the child in the womb, they will abort that child, culture the ova they harvest from the dead child’s sexual organs, mature that ova in the laboratory, combine it with DNA from someone else’s skin cells, mix them together in the lab, grow it into an embryo, implant the embryo into a surrogate mother or an artificial womb and then bring that child out into the world, so that child can save the world from cancer. Or perhaps they plan on using the resulting embryonic stem cells to culture the tissue that they use to incubate the anti-virus cure that solves AIDS. It’s hard to know, really. The advances of science quite take one’s breath away.

Now, unenlightened savages such as myself look at all of this and think, "That seems an awful lot of work. Couldn’t we just help the mother of that child give birth to her instead of aborting her? Couldn’t we give her the support she needs to raise that girl, help her grow to womanhood, let her conceive a child with her husband and let the couple raise that child themselves? If you wanted the child’s stem cells, you could get them from the umbilical cord at birth, from the skin at two years of age, a small bit of fat in the adolescent years, a nasal cell biopsy from the young adult as part of the vaccination regimen prior to that summer youth hostel vacation in Europe. You get your cells, everyone gets to live. Wouldn’t that be simpler?"

Of course it would be simpler. But it wouldn’t be right. You see, it’s not that these people want to get into our bedrooms. Rather, they want to take over our job in the bedroom, relieve us of the responsibility, control the ultimate means of production, as it were. If we can’t be convinced that we have to get licenses from the government before we can receive permission to have children, then it is the duty of the leadership in this country to find a way to make children without involving parents at all. "Let the citizens disport themselves however they please in the bedroom, but for God’s sake, leave the baby-making to us!" cry our most advanced scientists and social progressives.

That’s why I read with enormous delight Katha Politt’s incoherent racisms on CBSNews.com. We can’t vote for Bush. He might appoint an Hispanic to the Supreme Court… A Catholic Hispanic… An orthodox Catholic Hispanic... "I can hear it now: How can we deny Torquemada the American dream?"

Now, we will ignore the fact that cloning is against Catholic principles, so the re-emergence of Torquemada as a contemporary justice of the peace would be entirely due not to JP II, who abhors such biological manipulations, but to people very much like Katha Politt. There is no little irony in the fact that Senator Kerry’s supporters are much more likely to bring Torquemada back from the grave than are the men and women surrounding George W. Bush. The irony is in no way mitigated when one considers that Kerry purports to be the Catholic in the group. Given the evidence, there are undoubtedly some who suspect the Kerry candidacy is but a devious papal scheme to clone the original Spanish inquisition back into existence.

If so, we need only consider way in which children will soon be made, and know that Hillary Rodham Clinton, the smartest woman in the world, had long since warned us of the possibility. Once we consider the surgical equipment, the medical training, the personnel, the money, the resources involved in all the complex steps required to do things the right way instead of the old way, we can see that she was absolutely right.

It takes a village to make a child.

Meet My Wives

In A Deafening Silence I discussed the unusually low amount of support rank-and-file Christians seem to have for outlawing homosexual marriages. While state initiatives in Missouri and Louisiana have overwhelmingly trounced the idea, US Congressmen are not hearing much from their constituents on the matter.

Now, USA Today has weighed in on the subject, or at least, weighed in on one aspect of the subject. The October 4, 2004 issue saw an article by Jonathan Turley, Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington Law School, in which he defended the idea that polygamy, polyandry and group marriage would soon have to be legalized.

Now, this is not news for anyone following the subject. His opinion precisely matches that of Justice Scalia in his dissent from the majority in Lawrence vs. Stenburg, the case that legalized sodomy in Texas. Numerous others have commented on the logical silliness of allowing sodomy while outlawing polygamy. But that isn’t the point I want to drive home here. The point that should be made now is precisely the same point made in "Silence." From a logical perspective, it is unlikely that this drive towards polygamy can be stopped. After all, who is left to oppose it?

Clearly, Mormons have a vested interest in remaining silent on the issue. While their faith now outlaws polygamy, this doctrinal position was taken up only after immense political, and even military, pressure was placed upon Mormon communities to conform to the larger Christian community. But Mormons are not the only ones who have no interest in fighting polygamy.

Muslims won’t lift a hand to stop its legalization – legal polygamy is part of sharia law, after all. Orthodox Jews are not opposed to polygamy either. "In the Middle Ages, Rabbenu Gershom of Mainz, known as the Light of the Diaspora, pronounced a herem (ban) on polygamy and, incidetnally, also on divorce without the wife’s consent… but this does not alter the fundamental fact that [Talmudic] laws of marriage and divorce recognize the validity of polygamy" (Adin Steinsaltz, The Essential Talmud, p. 133). The historical evidence seems to indicate that, like American Mormons, medieval Jews faced the same pressure from the surrounding Christian community to renounce their polygamous ways and resolved the issue in a very similar way.

But what of Christians themselves? When Philip of Hesse asked Martin Luther for advice concerning how to deal with his mistress, Luther advised Philip to marry her. Philip objected – he was already married. Luther replied that this was no obstacle. Nothing in Scripture expressly required a lay person to have only one wife.

"I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture. If a man wishes to marry more than one wife he should be asked whether he is satisfied in his conscience that he may do so in accordance with the word of God. In such a case the civil authority has nothing to do in the matter."

However, Luther recommended that Philip should keep his second marriage a secret to avoid public scandal. Five other Lutheran theologians signed the letter advocating polygamy, including Melancthon and Bucer. Some groups of early Anabaptists, such as those in Munster, practiced polygamy.

Henry VIII almost certainly practiced polygamy. Historians agree that Henry had secretly married Ann Boleyn in 1532, well before he decreed his own marriage to Catherine of Aragon annulled in 1533. At least two American Anglican ministers defended the practice as well, Reverend Mr. Michael Smith, an 18th century rector of Prince Frederick’s Parish in South Carolina, and Reverend Mr Martin Madan, an Anglican priest associated with the Methodist Revival. Both argued, like Luther, that it was better to enter into polygamy then to divorce the first wife and throw her into an uncaring world. All three appealed to the example of the Old Testament patriarchs and the fact that Scripture only restricts bishops to one wife, it is silent in regards to the laity. (1 Timothy 3:2). Even as recently as 1998, Wisconsin Lutheran Synod scholars have noted that the insistence on monogamy was questionable both on Scriptural grounds and on the difficulties it caused to missionary efforts in polygamous societies, which comprise about 70% of the world’s population.

It is impossible cultures that embraced homosexual marriage. It is easy to find cultures that permit polygamy. The silence from the viewers’ gallery will again be deafening. This will all weigh in the coming arguments and the court decisions which will soon follow.

The irony is rich. Despite their pretended insistence on Scripture alone, the Protestant "reformers" took with them much that Catholic Faith taught. Whether Protestant, evangelical or fundamentalist, every Christian today owes the core of his belief to Catholic Faith, a Catholicism that is unpolished and poorly ordered, but Catholic nonetheless. The opposition to polygamy in this country is unquestionably a vestige of Catholic belief, carried - unquestioned - by Protestants for generations, but now coming under scrutiny by secular atheists.

Protestants will discover, to their horror, that they hold to monogamy for no particular Scriptural reason. Like the fight over gay marriage, which consists largely of non-Catholic Christians saying, "It will harm marriage – we can’t really explain how, but it will!" the fight over monogamy will demonstrate just how poor a faith without reason is. Catholics can appeal not only to Scripture, but also to the natural law, to millennia of divine tradition, to the divine authority of the Magisterium, the teaching office of the Church. Non-Catholic Christians have nothing to appeal to but Scripture, and Scripture says nothing in particular in opposition to polygamy.

Appeals to "faith alone" no longer work in this culture, a culture that holds there is but one God and Materialistic Reason is His Name. The atheists of the Enlightenment are playing on their home court, while "faith alone" Christians have thrown away their defense with their opening statement of belief. Only an understanding of the world that embraces both Fides et Ratio, faith and reason together, can hope to defeat the atheist scourge. In short, unless America becomes Catholic, the laws against polygamy cannot hope to stand.

Do YOU Believe in Miracles?

I have on this blog excoriated the bishops in general and the USCCB in particular for their lack of backbone when it comes to various doctrinal issues.

Today, I am happy to report that the USCCB has actually taught Catholic doctrine, and done so in opposition to the position of a major Catholic university and hospital.

As Jill Stanek has reported, at least two Catholic hospitals have a policy of inducing early labor when a child is found to be anencephalic. They erroneously claimed this was not an abortion, just early labor, done in order to prevent mental suffering to the mother.

This position is, of course, stupid and the purest barnyard excrement, but it is endorsed by several well-known pagan ethicists who also happen to be ordained Catholic priests. These priests claimed they were acting in full accord with USCCB directives.

They lie, of course.

The USCCB statement on anencephaly can be found at EWTN.
Jill Stanek's commentary on Loyola's attempt to spin the issue can be found here.

Man, just when you think the bishops are past all hope, grace shines forth and they demonstrate they are not yet all theologically insane. God bless the USCCB for this accuracy. Some may say that, like the faithful steward of last week's Gospel, they should not expect praise for doing that which they are supposed to do anyway, yet it's nice to get an "attaboy!" even so.

Attaboy, USCCB. See? Teaching doctrine ain't that hard, is it? Do some more - you may grow to like it.

The Muslim Problem

In 1967 and 1968, Japan, Europe and America were aflame with violence. From the London School of Economics, to the Sorbonne, from Japan to Rome and in dozens of cities across the United States, tens of thousands of students staged protests and sit-ins throughout the countries of the First World. While dozens of books with varying theories concerning the causes of this conflagration have been written, most agree implicitly or explicitly on one thing: post-war fecundity, the unusually high world-wide population of young people following World War II, was the fuel for the fire. 

The irony is rather interesting. In the mid to late 1800’s, Darwin and Galton together created the science of eugenics. Darwin’s evolution theory was popular for essentially one reason: it was developed against the backdrop of an English industrial revolution that itself had created soaring urban population densities, population densities with resulting problems of crime, housing and sanitation never before seen in the modern area. Darwin and Galton seemed to be describing the roots of a problem that no one knew how to address. Darwin described how dense populations worked, Galton came up with the term "eugenics" to describe a theoretical solution to the problem dense populations posed, and the American, Margaret Sanger, provided the practical solution: contraception. 

Though nearly two millenia of Christian opposed contraception, socialist fear-mongers used the threat of overpopulation as a bogeyman to argue against the capitalist state. They eventually won out. Fueled by two world wars and the capitulation of the Anglican Church in 1930, contraception quickly gained social acceptance across all strata of European and American society. As several Catholic popes predicted, this destroyed Christian culture. You see, increasingly affluent adults began to realize that they need not ever take on the responsibility and discomfort of raising children, so they stopped doing so. 

Today, every First World country is experiencing a birth dearth. There are no longer enough native births in any First World country to maintain national economies, much less national social support systems. The only thing that will keep the social support systems in these countries from melting down is immigration: massive immigration. European immigrants arrive primarily from Muslim North Africa. 

This does not bode well for the maintenance of European culture. This short history just goes to show that there is no one so parochial, so provincial in outlook, as an urban intellectual. Industrialization always brings high urban populations, which populations in turn bring the urban intelligentsia to the (shocking) realization that their intellects are not up to the task of solving the problems high populations pose. "If we can’t solve these problems, no one can," they conclude. Thus, their local problem is soon described, by common agreement among urban intellectuals, as a world-threatening problem. It would be comical if their solution were not so blood-thirsty. They always eventually solve their difficulties by getting rid of people. They haven’t the imagination to come up with anything else. It is no wonder that the intellectual’s favorite thought experiment involves seven people stranded at sea in a lifeboat built for six. They will happily spend weeks discussing who shall be thrown off (hint: it’s never them). 

 "This little jaunt through history is all well and good," you may be thinking, "but the article is entitled, ‘The Muslim Problem’ and so far, not a word has been said about Muslims." So, let’s say a word or two. Many people, including myself, have been concerned about the massive Moslem immigration into Europe. America is beginning to face the consequences of European Islamicization as she finds fewer and fewer allies there for Middle East adventures. America needs to get used to that. France, Germany, even England, will become less and less amenable to American policy if only because their politicians will become more and more interested in placating the Muslim vote – at least for the short period of time remaining before the major political figures of Europe are themselves Muslim. 

Many people have been describing this problem, but few see any solution. While I do not pose a solution, I do pose a relevant series of questions. Are Muslim intellectuals capable of avoiding the intellectual hubris that post-Christian atheist intellectuals have repeatedly fallen into? To what extent will the Muslims hollow themselves out, following the example of the European Christians? It’s too early to tell, but there are signs of hope. Iraq is, of course, fighting for its cultural life. If democracy and its woes is successfully introduced, traditional Islam in the land of Abraham will be rendered untenable. Neighboring Iran is on the very brink of revolution, as mobs of young people stage violent riots that are violently put down across the breadth of that nation. To the southwest, the House of Saud has never been particularly stable and nothing seems likely to increase its stability in the near future. It is doubtful they would have survived this long without American and European assistance. 

Christianity created the science that led to the Industrial Revolution. That revolution created the carrot of affluence and the stick of "overpopulation" that drives the contraceptive philosophy, a philosophy that destroys the ability to live the Christian life. Christian bishops, by and large, were not up to the task of removing the love of affluence or the fear that large populations would take the affluence money away. So, we in the West need to answer one question. What is inherent to Islam that will create the same kind of carrot and stick for Moslems? 

The varying flavors of Islam and the complete lack of central authority already guarantees that, when the right levers are found, the mullahs will be completely unable to pull their adherents back into line. Christian bishops may not be particularly competent, but the history of Islam demonstrates the mullahs are rarely any more competent. After all, if they were, there would not be so many variants of Islam. Whatever one may say about Christianity, we didn’t invent the term "assassin," nor does the act figure so prominently in Christian history as it does in the history of Islam. Just as Jerusalem was once the land of the Jews and the Christians, but will soon be the land of the Muslims (the demographics are inexorable), so Mecca and Medina may well find itself in the hands of secular atheists within a few generations, even as Europe and Indonesia become hotbeds of militant Islam. As recent events demonstrate, Islam is a tinderbox quite ready to eat itself up if only the right match can be found. It’s time we begin looking for the match.

The Whirlwind

Florida hurricanes have delivered two body blows, an uppercut and a vicious right hook, transforming the Sunshine State into an awesome example of what a whirlwind can do. Catholics in America should take careful note.

It has long been the contention of pro-life supporters that geographical location cannot define personhood. A child is a child no matter where that child is located. It cannot be the case that the individual in question becomes a child when she is outside the womb, but remains only a tissue-mass when she is inside the womb.

The USCCB, however, finds the geographical argument compelling in another context, however. Apparently, geographical location does define heresy. For example, John Kerry, Frances Kissling, Ted Kennedy and all the rest may be Catholics in good standing when they step on a plane in Boston, but they are not Catholics in good standing when they step off that same plane in St. Louis. Heresy is diocese-specific.

The idea is ludicrous. Objectively speaking, Kerry and company are in a state of grace and prepared to receive the Eucharist or they are not. If they are prepared, then every bishop who refuses them the Eucharist is committing a grave sin by denying them the Body and Blood of Christ. If they are not prepared, every bishop who administers the Eucharist to them is committing a grave sin by knowingly participating in the profanation of the Eucharist. It is not possible that Cardinal Mahoney and Archbishop Burke are both right, the USCCB blather about "pastoral reasons" and "judgment" notwithstanding. So, why did the USCCB bother to make such an obviously silly theological statement? Because we have been concentrating on the recipients of the Eucharist and not on the consecrated men who administer Him. The bishops would prefer we keep doing that.

You see, what is true for Kerry is also true for the bishops. If Kerry’s public and vociferous support of abortion is sufficient for a bishop to refuse the Eucharist to Kerry, then that same bishop must also refuse the Eucharist to any consecrated man who administers the sacrament to Kerry. After all, Kerry’s stand is public. He is a notorious public sinner whose notorious public sins put him out of communion with the Church. Both the bishop who denies and the bishop who administers know Kerry’s stand because he has trumpeted it from the rooftops. Thus, at least one of these two bishops is likewise a public sinner: he trumpets his own sin from the rooftops either in opposition to Kerry or while standing beside him. In the eyes of each bishop, the other bishop has to be a notorious public sinner as well.

But a bishop refusing another bishop the Eucharist? With that act, we would move from informal schism to formal schism. Now we can understand the USCCB statement. This theologically ludicrous statement is a last-ditch attempt to avoid formal schism, and the bishops are only just managing to get away with it, mostly because the vast majority of adult Catholics don’t know the Faith well enough to think the consequences through. Fortunately for the USCCB, the bishops in question don’t often celebrate Mass together so it won't become publicly obvious, and they are all wise enough not to point out how close we are to a formal schism.

It’s quite a poser. Both sets of bishops could argue that they have a duty to instruct their fellow bishops, and won’t withhold the Eucharist until they have at least warned their erring brethren. But once the erring brethren have been warned and still refuse to change their minds, then what? Some consecrated man with the fullness of orders has to be denied the Eucharist. And it is pretty obvious which group will get Rome’s support.

You cannot publicly and vociferously support legal abortion and be in communion with the Church. Now, the bishop who first announces that he cannot give Jesus to his fellow bishops because they profane the Eucharist will hardly be looked on with great love by Rome. Formal schisms are terrible things. But, on the other hand, Rome can hardly disagree with such a bishop by arguing that the USCCB’s ruling is (theo)logically coherent. It manifestly isn’t. Worse, Rome has no other basis upon which to dispute the justice of such a decision. She would have to go along with the formal break. The Catholic Church in America is hanging by the merest thread, dependent upon the willingness of every single bishop to remain quiet, to refrain from pronouncing the final, damning words that severs the erring bishops from communion with the Church. Once those words are pronounced, we will have created another Protestant Church.

Undoubtedly, the USCCB is praying the whole issue will just curl up and die after the campaign. That’s why certain bishops have insisted on refraining from judgment until after the elections. Contrary to popular belief, it may very well be the case that these bishops do not give a damn about the elections. They are undoubtedly much more worried about the impending schism the elections have forced out into the open.

The bishops have one hope. They hope the heat and emotions the elections generate can be tamed, cooled, brought to a lower flame by the simple fact that the electoral decision has been made. That’s why this decision on Kerry and the Eucharist is being postponed until after the election. Concerns about the election are outweighed by their concern that the Church will almost certainly schism if they decide the issue prior to the election.

Are the bishops right? Will the issue go away after the elections are decided? Not likely. This issue has been building for decades, as pro-abortion Catholic politicians become increasingly strident and orthodox Catholics become increasingly frustrated with the inaction of the vast majority of the bishops. Senator Kerry’s publicly strident embrace of heresy, the most vociferous to date, has finally forced some American bishops to act and has forced all American Catholics to the banks of the Rubicon. If Caesar had only brought elephants with him, the comparison would be complete.

You see, this particular elephant has been in the sanctuary for over thirty years. Now that everyone admits it is there, it would take a Houdini, a Copperfield, to make it disappear. Orthodox Catholics have had as much as they are going to take. They are laying canonical lawsuits. They are forcing the bishops to choose sides. The 2004 elections are just the last step in a process that won't die and won't be ratcheted down. The orthodox will not let it go away. Erring bishops can retire, they can die or they can reform. Whatever they choose to do, they need to do it quickly. These bishops sowed to the wind. The whirlwind is coming.

Christian Liberty - Take Two

Your comments on this endeavor are greatly appreciated.

While I am no expert in economics, I must say that the idea of a VAT or flat tax seems to be a bigger hindrance to the poor than a help, which is why I like fairtax.org - it is the only form of sales tax which would not tax the poor proportionately more than the rich. Certainly the income tax is a violation of constitutional rights against self-incrimination and subsidiarity. I don't generally like taxes on stock holdings and capital gains, as the economists I read always argue these are drags on economic growth.

That having been said, however, I readily admit that I know little about distributism and need to learn more in order to determine if it should be added to the platform.

This platform should appeal to Keyes, given how strong a Catholic Keyes is. However, as has been pointed out, it is not a platform that will attract the masses. Campaigning on a plank that outlaws contraception, IVF, etc. while also increasing the difficulty of getting a divorce is not likely to be widely accepted in this society. But remember, this platform is meant to be a bully pulpit more than a means of winning against enormous odds. We have enough parties willing to compromise on moral issues.

So, the new edition of the platform is at http://bridegroompress.com/catalog/article_info.php?articles_id=95
Please take a look and comment either here or there, as you please. As more remarks are made, more changes will be made.

The Two-Front War

On December 11, 1941, the United States began fighting a two-front war. Historians have argued about the real reasons for Hitler’s declaration for years. Given his theories on race, he had little reason to throw his lot in with the Japanese. But, whatever his reasons, we found ourselves defending the West Coast from attack while parrying military thrusts that emanated from the heart of Europe.

It is sixty years later, and America again finds itself fighting a two-front war. This time, we are defending against the West Coast and parrying military thrusts from the heart of the Middle East. The correspondences may be only skin-deep, but they are interesting.

Japan/Hollywood and Hitler/Islam
Just as Germany seemed to have little ideological reason for joining in with Japan, so Islam seems to have little ideological reason to join in with Hollywood. Just as Germany and Japan could give each other little real military assistance, so Hollywood and Islam have few spheres in which they can coordinate attacks.

What they can, however, they do. Fortunately, there are also some differences. Japanese and German forces never attacked one another, for instance. The same cannot be said of Islam and Hollywood.

Hollywood and the MainStream Media (MSM) send out regular, authentic memos from Very Reliable Sources that Islam is a religion of peace. When events conspire to present another side to the story, the pundits are quick to explain it away as part of the struggle for the soul of Islam:

One group, the so-called moderates, wanted to embrace the society in all its modernity; the other, the "conservatives," wanted to hold it at arm's length and use their mosque as a refuge from modernity. In many respects, this intra-Islam contest sounds not unlike those now going on within Catholicism, within the Episcopal Church or among the other varieties of Protestantism.

The suggestions of sinister activities and affiliations; of adherence to an oppressive, excessively rigid, fundamentalist theology; of rules that exclude those who dare to dissent--all these charges have been leveled at, for example, the Catholic organization Opus Dei.

"We can’t expect anything else from religious fanatics," is the MSM’s unspoken implication. Of course, there is no record of Opus Dei members, or any Christian, for that matter, committing a suicide bombing or holding elementary school children hostage with high explosives, but this is a trivial complaint. The point is that all the bad aspects of Islam find their origin in people who take religion seriously as a model for life, while all good Moslems, like the people of Hollywood, refuse to believe their holy scripture really means what it says.

Similarly, Islam takes issue with some of Hollywood’s values, but not all of them. Islam doesn’t like women dressed immodestly, for instance, but it has no serious objection to prostitution or the larger idea that women are essentially sex toys. The major parting of the ways comes in Hollywood’s assertion that everyone is a sex toy – Islam insists that role belongs exclusively to the fairer sex.

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend," intones the Arab, and the point continues to hold true today. Christianity and a seriously Christian president are the targets of their joint assaults. Neither Islam nor Hollywood will relent in their attacks.

When George W. Bush told a crowd that former President Clinton was entering heart surgery and prayers were in order, the AP deliberately lied about the incident, saying the crowd booed at the mention of Clinton’s name. CBS publicizes obviously false documents maligning President Bush. The MSM deliberately falsify the words of Cardinal Ratzinger and proclaim Catholics have the Vatican’s permission to vote for pro-abort politicians. Three courts insist it is perfectly legal to kill children as they are being born, while a fourth tells the original Roe, of Roe V. Wade, that she has no right to attempt to stop the killing.

The Point of Agreement
The message is clear. Christians must be silenced, for their message endangers our lifestyle. The lifestyle is simple. Men and women, but especially women, must remain in subjugation to Hollywood sex-toy culture, even if it kills them. On that last point, Islam and Hollywood agree. And that is the point of nexus between the two cultures.

You see, the Hollywood culture insists that it need not change it’s sexual habits, rather, the world needs to find a way to cure the diseases its sexual fundamentalism creates and promulgates. Even if the world fails in fulfilling its necessary duties towards the sexually profligate, the mere threat of disease should not reduce the level of our promiscuity. Sex is worth dying for. The suicide bombers, who are promised six dozen ever-virgin, large-eyed women and a smaller contingent of sexually active young boys upon entry into heaven, wholeheartedly agree. Sex is worth dying for.

People serious about Christianity are serious threats to both Islam and Hollywood. Serious Christians don’t live or die for sex, they live and die for Christ. They are fundamentalists.

Fundamentalism finds its origin in the idea that absolute truths exist and they affect how we live. As a friend of mine pointed out, there’s nothing intrinsically wrong with fundamentalism. The word simply means that your life is built on absolutes that are fundamental to human existence. In that sense, everyone is a fundamentalist.

Problems only enter in if the fundamental truths your life is built on don’t happen to be true.

Is George Bush Jewish?

In 1905, the Russian secret police released an earth-shattering document. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion was promulgated throughout Europe. It purported to be the transcript of a meeting between Jewish leaders in which they plotted to take over the world and subjugate the goyim, the Gentiles, to their rapacious rule.

By 1920, the document was demonstrated to be a forgery, yet many people throughout the world continued to believe it. "The document may be a forgery, but the attitudes it reports concerning Jewish leaders is absolutely accurate," went the logic. Indeed, Henry Ford continued to publicize the document as substantially accurate through 1927. The Nazis used it as a justification for their anti-Semitic policies. The substantial truth of the document is commonly accepted by Middle-Eastern Arabs even today.

Telling these people the document is a forgery makes no difference at all. They live near Jews. They work beside Jews every day. They know what Jews are like. The document is forged but you must believe what the document says. Listen to me. I know.

Take another example. As anyone who has read The Da Vinci Code knows, the same thing happened with Dan Brown's novel. Sure, his facts are completely wrong - he doesn't get one statement of historical fact correct in his book. But even though he got every fact wrong, forged and invented all the evidence, none of that matters.
We know what those damned papists are like. We've had their ilk infesting this country since the beginning. The novel's description of the Catholic attitude is substantially accurate. The facts in the novel are forged but you must believe what the novel says. Listen to me. I know.

Now for today's headlines. Sure, says Killian's 86-year old former secretary, those documents are forgeries. He never would have typed them himself and my typewriter could not produce these documents. Even if they could, the language is wrong and the format is wrong - I was his secretary and I never would have formatted them that way, but...

But what?

...but the content is substantially correct.

Like the Arabs who live near Jews, like the non-Catholics who live near Catholics, I know the principle people involved. The documents are forged, but the CBS interpretation of the document is true. The documents are forged but you must believe what the documents say. Listen to me. I know.

Faith may be the evidence of things not seen, but faith is based on facts, not forgeries. What the media don't understand is precisely that faith is never a blind leap. If I order a Big Mac from McDonald's, I have made an act of faith. I believe I will get something I want to eat. That act of faith is based on facts: the fact that this is a restaurant, that it has a menu of food items, that people are waiting to take my order, and that it is in business today - a testament to the fact that others have eaten here and been satisfied with the food. These facts all point to the idea that I, too, might be able to get good food here.

Do I know I will? Not with absolute certainty. The cooks might be new today, they might be having a bad day, it may be that my tastes do not match those of other people - I might not like the food. I won't know I do until I bite into the sandwich. The "thing not seen" is that first taste, but I only got to the point of tasting because the preponderance of evidence pointed that way.

If I walked into a hardware store, saw everyone buying tools, nuts, bolts, heard the clerk telling someone how to install a kitchen sink and then asked that clerk for a hamburger, large fries and strawberry milkshake, THAT would be an act of blind faith. I would have absolutely no facts to support my belief that the clerk will feed me. If, in fact, he DOES give me what I ask for, that would be a miracle. No religious believer operates on blind faith. We all operate on informed faith: facts which require us to logically hypothesize that something more is coming our way, something we can prepare for if only we stay in close touch with reality.

The MainStream Media doesn't understand the difference between faith and blind faith. It is deeply ironic that when the MSM gets religion, they push the blind faith version. "Believe us, even if we have no case. Believe us because we tell you that you should."

They think this will work because they think that's how people get duped into religion. As Stalin said, keep repeating the lie until everyone is forced to conclude that it is true. And he must be right. Look how well it worked for the Soviet Union.

The Christian Liberty Party

The inadequacies of America's two major political parties have been apparent for quite some time. Recent conversations have brought to the surface an idea that had been bubbling in my mind for quite some time. What would it look like to have a political party whose platform was formed entirely by Catholic principles? How appealing would such a party be? Political parties built somewhat along these lines have long been important factors in the elections of other nations. However, due to the peculiarly Protestant character of this nation, a nation whose people have long advocated the separation of faith and reason, church and state, America has never been able to form such a party. Now that America is on the verge of no longer being a majority Protestant country, the cultural forces which prevented the union of faith and reason might finally be open to the possibility of uniting the two.

While I do not believe a Catholic political party would ever command a majority of the American voters, the formation of such a party would serve two very salutory purposes: (1) it would be a wonderful platform for educating people concerning Catholic principles (2) like the Green party or the Naderites, it could form a strong and clear-cut vote to court. The political power of the Catholic voice and vision could very well be magnified by this party. Below is my attempt to summarize what such a party platform would look like. I am interested in having this platform streamlined and clarified, so that it might become the basis for fielding candidates in the next election cycle.

Preamble
Whereas every human person is created in the image and likeness of God, every person must be treated with the honor and dignity due to the divine image.

Whereas God is the formal cause, and human beings the instrumental cause of every human person’s creation, it follows that every human person comes into existence within the context of the family. The family is the basic and most important social unit. The parents, being the instrumental cause of the child’s existence, bear the primary responsibilities towards the child.

Whereas, the most important social unit is the family, the primary purpose of every society is to assist parents in their most important work: that of raising their own children. All social policy must be built in accordance with this principle.

Consequently, any action or condition which disrupts the harmony between the spouses or between parents and children is to be assiduously avoided, every action or condition which enhances the harmony between spouses and between parents and children is to be encouraged.

The nation’s first duty is to protect the family against attack. After the family is secure from attack, all remaining national resources are to be directed towards supporting the family in its work.

ATTACKS ON THE FAMILY

Marriage
Whereas marriage is a covenant between one man and one woman, and cannot be otherwise, all forms of homosexual marriage and/or civil union, and all variations, such as (but not limited to) polyandry, polygamy, fornication, adultery, bestiality, necrophilia, sado-masochism and pedophilia are universally condemned in all their forms. Prompt medical treatment for those afflicted with these maladies should be encouraged.

Artificial procreation
Whereas every person has a right to come into existence with the dignity proper to the divine image, and

Whereas the very definition of “person” presupposes that the created being under consideration is in a special relationship with God and

Whereas parents do not have a right to children, rather, children are a gift made in the divine image all forms of in vitro fertilization, human embryonic cloning, and surrogate motherhood are universally condemned in all their forms.

Whereas the very ability to be conceived is itself a gift of life which derives directly from the Giver of Life, respect proper to the divine image must be given. The artificial creation of human concepti for any purpose whatsoever is universally condemned in all its forms. Bans on embryonic research modelled on those already implemented in other countries should immediately be enacted. All medical treatments derived from the destruction of the human child are condemned.

Artificial sterility
Whereas the use of contraception treats both the spouse and possible children as dangers to the family instead of divine images who are to be protected and cherished, contraception disrupts the marital bond and the parent-child relationship. It is universally condemned in all its forms and the Comstock laws should be re-instated with all speed. Likewise, the fruit of contraception, that is, the practice of elective abortion, whether by surgical or chemical means, is universally condemned in all its forms.

Euthanasia
Whereas the person is an image of God and must be treated with the respect due the divine image, euthanasia is universally condemned in all its forms.

SUPPORT FOR THE FAMILY

Medical care
Whereas advancement in medical care is an important aspect for the maintenance of the family, stem cell research through the use of umbilical cord blood and other adult stem cell sources should be vigorously pursued.

Education
Whereas the parents are the primary educators of their own children and their decisions concerning the education of their own children are to be treated with the greatest respect and care, school vouchers are to be supported.

Economic Matters
Whereas the equitable financial support for the family is of premium importance within society, the following initiatives are to be supported:

• The implementation of a national sales tax according to the principles espoused at www.fairtax.org
• The rights of the worker to a just wage for his work and a just price for goods and services, keeping in mind that it is not the role of the government to determine these but rather to assure that the common agreement between worker and employer is adhered to,
• The right of the worker to unionize is to be always respected,
• The right of every adult to own property and use it as s/he sees fit in the support and maintenance of the family is to be always respected,
• The nation must display a preferential option for supporting families in poverty, providing assistance so as to assure both the dignity and the integrity of all its members. This assistance will take the form of providing conditions well-suited for the establishment of private initiatives dedicated to dealing with the problems of the poor.
  

Immigration
Whereas the nation has a duty to protect the families already within its borders, while simultaneously having a duty to respect the families of other nations, immigration laws must reflect these twin duties. The family being the seedbed of a well-structured society, it is in the national interest to promote the well-being of the family in every nation, so that our economic and political relations remain stable and fruitful. Thus, it is not desirable for any country to structure its immigration laws so as to skim off the most industrious, successful or desirable families from other countries for assimilation into itself. Such practices unjustly injure other countries, thereby destabilizing international relations and leading directly to conflict. Similarly, while the nation has a right to self-protection, the processes by which this right is defended must not unduly impede the right of parents to seek out better conditions for themselves and their children.

War
Whereas the nation has a duty to protect the families who have chosen to live within its borders from foreign assault, the right of every nation to declare and wage war for just cause, after all other avenues of redress have been exhausted, cannot be denied. However, the waging of war cannot target families or the larger civilian population, but only those members of the nations who are duly designated combatants.

Death Penalty
Whereas the nation has a duty to protect the families within its borders from internal assault, the right of every nation to impose just penalties upon criminals, including the death penalty, cannot be denied. However, justice likewise demands that the death penalty only be imposed when all other avenues for maintaining the security of the nation’s inhabitants are clearly inadequate and the identity of the criminal can be established with certainty. While progress has been made in assuring the certain identity of dangerous criminals, the necessary certainty is not in all cases achieved. Furthermore, given the resources of American society, life-long imprisonment in solitary confinement is, in almost all cases, sufficient to sequester the danger to the family that dangerous, unrepentant criminals represent. As a result, the death penalty in America is to be used with extreme infrequency, if at all.

Separation of Church and State
Whereas the family has both spiritual and physical needs that must be met, the state has a duty to make sure that these needs are met. Consequently, since the state has only the power to assure the satisfaction of physical requirements, while the church has the ability to assure the satisfaction of both physical and spiritual requirements, the nation is at all times to honor the importance of religious expression in the public sphere.

Thus, insofar as the tenets of any religion do not violate the principles set forth above, the state may not infringe on the expression of that religion. As the foregoing principles make clear, the doctrine of the separation of Church and state, as currently implemented by the judiciary and the legislative system, is a violation of the Constitution and of America's founding principles. Consequently, a clarification of the proper boundaries of state interference is required. Just as the full exercise of the ancient Aztec religion is properly outlawed today due to its improper use of the human person (e.g., human sacrifice), so any religion which violates the principles set forth above thereby violates the dignity of the human person. Such violations of the human person may never be permitted, since these attack the family, the state, the proper exercise of religion and the safety of the world itself. Admittedly, careful nuance is to be observed in the application of these principles so as to encourage the freedom of the human person while curbing or extinguishing that same person's tendency towards license.

------------------------------------------
This is the beginning of an outline. I will entertain all suggestions for improving this outline, and keep an updated version here.

Bush and the National Guard

Jared Olar sent me a link on this subject that is quite revealing. It seems that the 60 Minutes memos were forged. The documents, which supposedly were produced in the early 70's, were created using a proportionally spaced, kerned, superscripted font with left-right apostrophe marks on 8.5x11 paper. Unfortunately for the forgers, such fonts were not available to anyone but professional typsetters in the early 70's. Also, the National Guard used 8x10 paper at that time, not 8.5x11.

The Memos
Nearly all typewriters available throughout the 1970's and early 80's were monospaced - every letter takes up as much space as every other letter. In proportionally-spaced fonts, different letters take up different amounts of pre-defined space, depending on their actual widths. So a proportionally-spaced 'i' would take up less space then a proportionally-spaced 'm'. While there were a few proportionally-spaced font balls available for very high end models, these models were never used by the National Guard. The memos are written in proportionally-spaced fonts that were unavailable to the 1970's National Guard.

Worse, the fonts in the memo were kerned. Kerning is a process of setting individual letters very close to each other - each letter is permitted to infringe on the predefined space assigned to the letter preceding it. Kerning allows words to be written in even less space than a proportionally-spaced font allows, and it eases the ability to read. Computer-based software packages automatically kern, but typewriters, even the most high-end typewriters, are completely incapable of it. The fonts in the "1970's" memos are kerned.

Likewise, no typewriter in the world has ever used left and right apostrophe marks - that feature only became available to the masses through the magic of word processors. But word processors didn't appear until long after Lt. Colonel Killian's death. Yet left apostrophes appear on the memos.

Finally, no typewriter in the world is capable of changing font size and superscripting the "th" in a number - "187th" for instance - yet exactly this kind of font size change and superscripting occurs in the memos. Why? Because Bill Gates made Microsoft Word so smart, it insists that it knows what you want to do even when you don't want to do it. It takes quite a bit of patience to fool MS Word into not automatically reducing and superscripting the "th" in the numerical example given above.

The forger was obviously not a patient (wo)man, nor was s/he someone who took the time to think through how best to commit the forgery.

The AWOL Charge
But wasn't Bush AWOL? No. One of the members of Bush's own squadron points out what today's journalists don't know: when a war ends, the US armed forces always immediately begin a draw-down. This affects everything involving personnel positioning and treatment.

First, the National Guard has an entirely different culture than the Air Force. Much more laxity is permitted because National Guard commanders realize their men have dual commitments that full-time servicemen don't. So, for example, physicals are only scheduled during an officer's birth month because the medical office is generally not open. Meetings are often missed and are made up on a catch-as-catch-can basis. Men who transfer to other units on a temporary basis due to civilian job or life situations (a common situation) are shoved into desk jobs and ignored by their temporary commanders, as the unit commanders don't see any point in unit training with someone who will only be with them a short time.

Secondly, once hundreds of pilots begin returning from war, part-time pilots are often released from what would otherwise be binding commitments. It is not at all uncommon for the armed forces to release men from commitments in order to accomplish the reduction in force (RIF) that Congress routinely requires after an armed conflict ends. Speaking from personal experience, a friend of mine who attended the Naval Academy in the late 1980's was released from virtually his entire post-graduation commitment precisely because of the post-Cold War RIF. He got four years of free Naval Academy schooling because he happened to graduate at the right time.

So, the whole George Bush/National Guard debate is based on forgeries and lack of understanding of the 1970's military situation. 60 Minutes started this conversation in order to knock down George Bush. Once the forgery news hits the airwaves, it will make Kerry look like an even bigger liar than he already is. Spread the word...

Interdict

On June 20, 2004, Catholic dioceses in America followed the example of so many fractured Protestant denominations and began to break off communion with one another. It is now possible for a Catholic to be given the Eucharist in one diocese and simultaneously be denied the Eucharist in the diocese next door. Catholics in America no longer share full communion. Remarkably, the USCCB gave its blessing to this informal but very real schism. Why?

According to the popular catchphrase, "The Eucharist is not the appropriate place for political battles." It is a sentiment as clear and concise as it is wrong.

The Eucharist's Proper Place
A moment’s thought demonstrates that the Eucharist is at the center of every political battle. It cannot be otherwise. Christ entered the world to heal both its politicians and its politics. He intends to heal the whole of creation, Democrat and Republican. Thus, the Eucharist lies at the heart of every true political battle.
Now, that having been said, we know that we are not to use Him as a tool. The Eucharist is not to be used to hold up the importance of man-made law. We do not use His divine Personhood to accomplish purely political ends. But we do require man-made law to conform to the Eucharist. A partisan political battle is sometimes necessary to assure the Eucharist remains above everything else. In that situation, the Eucharist is not only appropriately placed in the center of the political battle, but bishops, cardinals and lay faithful are required to wage the ensuing Eucharistic political battle.

Let’s take a case in point. When Henry VIII broke from the Catholic Church and set himself up as the head of his own Church, everyone expected England to be placed under interdict. An interdict is an ecclesiastical penalty directed against an entire country. It closes all the churches, prohibits the celebrations of the sacraments, and causes the population of Catholic faithful to become so incensed that the ruler whose actions warranted the interdict generally either retreats from his stated intentions or is overthrown.

Henry’s break with the Pope risked interdict. He avoided it only by taking the initiative. Before the interdict could be pronounced, he ferociously attacked every orthodox member of the Church he could find, thereby removing the core of dissent in England. Fortunately for him, most English bishops were cowards who, prefering heresy to martyrdom, fulfilled St. John Chrysostom’s famous dictum, "The floor of hell is paved with the skulls of bishops." They did not want to the Eucharist involved in politics. Thus, Henry’s troops had only to publicly murder several hundred lay people and execute the members of several monasteries and convents in order to extinguish the English desire for orthodoxy. Interdict was rendered useless in restoring the True Faith to England precisely because Henry had wiped out the True Faith first.

Correlations between Henry’s era and today are not original to me, but few have pointed out the way King Henry avoided what would otherwise have been unavoidable. For restrictions on the Eucharist, the Mass, the sacraments, to be really effective, you must first have an informed, orthodox population who understands what is being lost.

Applying Interdict
Now, we should note a few things. Interdict applies to whole towns, provinces and countries. It cuts off not only the ruler who breaks with the Church, but also the lay faithful under his rule, even model Catholics, even living saints. Popes and bishops have used the interdict and excommunication for the whole of the Church’s history. It is still a perfectly valid ecclesial penalty in canon law. Thus, contrary to popular opinion, having a confrontation at the altar rail is not an unusual situation in Church history. Many a consecrated man fought with a recalcitrant sinner while holding the sacred body and blood of Christ in his hands. That’s why a man is consecrated, after all. He is empowered to wage precisely this kind of battle.

Christ Himself is witness to this connection between the Eucharist and politics. The very establishment of the Eucharist was deeply political. Christ was crucified precisely because He had become a political liability in an area where people held politics in higher esteem than holiness. He told us we are to render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and unto God’s the things that are God’s. The Eucharist has never belonged to Caesar. We are not to give Him to anyone who esteems Caesar higher than Christ.

God imposed the first interdict in the Garden of Eden. Because Adam, the eldest of our race, sinned, we all suffered a loss of grace. But even as He lifted the interdict through His crucifixion, He imposed a second and different interdict on anyone who denied the divine Person Who existed in the flesh at the moment of conception. The witnesses of the crucifixion might have shared His bloodline and the promises of the Old Covenant, but they could not share in the Eucharist until they accepted that conception was the point at which the divine Person entered creation and that we are made in His image and likeness. In short, they had to repent of their sins and be baptized.

The original system of Temple sacrifice brought actual graces to the people of the divine covenant, graces that would help bring acceptance of the Messiah to the world. But the tearing of the veil at His death, the destruction of the Temple forty years after His death, this was the second interdict. The veil was torn while the Body and Blood hung on the Cross, the Temple was destroyed in the midst of a horrible bloodbath wreaked by Roman troops upon the rebellious and the innocent alike, a political bloodbath that imposed a divine interdict.

Thus, when a bishop says the Eucharist is not the place for political battles, he admits at least one of two things: he is ignorant of theology and history, or the people in his diocese are. Either way, it is not a strong commentary on him.

Caesaro-Papism

Several items:

1) On July 26th, 2004, in a case in Kansas, a federal judge has ruled that health care and social workers are not obliged to report underage sex to the authorities. The ruling violates a 1982 state law stating that sex involving a minor is illegal, even if it involves two underage children. Abortion providers can now legally conspire to promote child abuse. This is very convenient, as they already do this. Now they don't have to worry about prosecution.

2) On August 24th, 2004, the lawyers for the USCCB have decided that the Catholic Answers voting guide might be dangerous: the Church might lose her tax-exempt status if she promotes it. The USCCB's own voting guide, roundly criticized for listing such a mish-mash of voting issues in a very morally confusing fashion, has been pulled and cannot even be found on the USCCB's own website anymore.

3) On August 26th, 2004, federal district Judge Richard Casey found "that the testimony at trial and before Congress establishes that D&X [partial-birth abortion] is a gruesome, brutal, barbaric, and uncivilized medical procedure… credible evidence [exists] that [such] abortions subject fetuses to severe pain. Notwithstanding this evidence, some of Plaintiffs' experts testified that fetal pain does not concern them, and that some do not convey to their patients that their fetuses may undergo severe pain during a D&X [partial-birth abortion]."
However, all that having been said, Judge Casey also insisted that partial-birth abortion had to remain legal as long as any medical doctor felt such a procedure was necessary to protect a woman’s health.

4) A few days later, Cardinal McCarrick, the man who is supposed to head up the commission investigating the dispensing of the Eucharist to pro-abortion heretics, told an Italian newspaper that "questions tied to peace and social justice, as well as aid for the poor," should have equal footing with the question of abortion.

5) The Knights of Columbus, which has historically worked very closely with the USCCB, refuses to kick out members of their organization who support and/or promote legal abortion.

I've spent a long time thinking about the confluence of these facts. To be honest, I cannot think clearly about them. Every time another incident is added to the list, my sadness increases and I cannot get beyond it. The law in this country has become a whore. But that's not the worst of it.

Caesaro-Papism is a malady that has afflicted the Eastern Orthodox churches ever since they broke away. Indeed, one could argue that this is the major cause for the schism between East and West. It's a long word that means one thing: the bishops of the East spend more time listening to their political leaders, their Caesars, then they do to the Vicar of Christ. They treat Caesar as if he were Pope. As a result of their millenia-long fascination with the political culture and their resulting tin ear for theology, the Eastern churches now permit divorce (up to four times) and contraception.

Horses have blinders on them for a single reason: it keeps them from becoming distracted by the things going on around them. Instead of startling and rearing at every passing disturbance, the horse with blinders can focus on his task: pulling the load, running the race, focussing on the finish.

Historically, bishops have almost always needed blinders too. It is very easy to mistake the policy of a local ruler for a universally good theological idea. One of the Pope's major tasks has always been to reign the bishops in, help them ignore the cultural fancies of the day and focus entirely on Christ.

Different popes have had different levels of success at this. Except for John Fisher, all of the bishops of Henry VIII's England, for example, managed to throw off their blinders and follow Henry as he schismed from Rome and established a new church. When bishops lose their focus, the Church is grievously wounded.

Abraham pleaded with God to save Sodom and Gomorrah if ten righteous men could be found. We have a half-dozen good bishops in America. Can we find four more?