Driving Out The Snakes

As It Is In Heaven

2009-07-16T20:05:00.000-05:00

The youth band at my parish plays a modified version of this Matt Maher song. I always find it very moving. The following video has some great images. Enjoy.

"Blatant Disregard for the Laws of Nature"

2009-06-17T20:10:00.002-05:00

"Archistrategos" is the pseudonym of a college student in the Philippines who writes the excellent blog Ecce Me, Quia Vocasti Me. As you might guess from the Latin ("Here I am, for you did call me,") he's a fervent Catholic. He also has an admirable way with words. For instance:

Some brief thoughts: one thing that has always annoyed me about people who claim abortion to be a 'right' is their seemingly blatant disregard for the laws of nature. When one has sex, the logical-- and natural, I may add-- outcome would be pregnancy, assuming that there is fertilization that occurs. Today, things are a lot easier, since the sexual revolution of the 1960s has irrevocably introduced the contraceptive mentality into our culture. Given these two basic facts-- what the hell is abortion necessary for, anyway? What the hell is it good for? What the hell is it for? If I may be so blunt, the answer is fairly obvious: that is, to guarantee a totally guiltless, totally free from consequence, and totally irresponsible, and immature lifestyle.

It goes on from there and gets even better. Read the rest.

Of Bride Wars and White Dresses

2009-06-14T14:46:00.006-05:00

Recently the Mrs. and I rented a movie called Bride Wars. Quick summary: two little girls vow to someday participate in each other's weddings which, for some reason I don't understand, simply must be held at the Plaza Hotel in New York. They grow up and circumstances force them to hold their ceremonies on the same date and time. They become bitter enemies. Hilarity follows.

The professional reviewers appear to have disliked Bride Wars. I thought it was mildly amusing, but I have a weird sense of humor. There are much worse movies you could watch. That's not my point; I just want to comment on one aspect of the film.

While there is no nudity or sexual activity, both the main characters are obviously living with their husbands-to-be while the weddings are being planned. "So what," you may say. Everyone lives together before marriage nowadays. Well, no, not everyone does. But obviously many people do.

Another case of Hollywood trying to pervert our culture? I don't think so. I think it is a case of Hollywood reflecting our culture. Cohabitation prior to marriage is now so common that it's unremarkable - even in a PG-rated film.

To me, it seemed a little strange to see these brides happily planning their elaborate weddings while already sharing a bed with their fiances, all the while seeing nothing ironic or unusual about it. The first part of the movie even shows both women impatiently waiting for proposals. Hello? You're already sleeping with him. Of course he's in no hurry to give you a ring.

A lot of sociological research suggests that couples who cohabit and then marry have higher divorce rates and unhappier relationships than those who don't. The reasons for this are debatable, and we've all known people who managed to make it work. Likewise many people who go through the right steps in the right order still end up in divorce court.

In any case, our culture seems to have turned a corner in its attitude about marriage. The push for same-sex marriage is succeeding because straight people have already redefined how family life is supposed to work, and not for the better. Having established - at least since the 1960s and maybe earlier - that marriage is nothing more than a contract between willing partners, and that it is perfectly acceptable for people to behave like families without any form of commitment, we now have no logical reason to restrict the arrangement to one man and one woman. Any combination will do.

Where this will lead us as a society is unclear; no culture has ever gone the places we are now going and lived to tell the tale. Maybe 21st century America will be the exception.

Or maybe not.

Conservatives: Fox News Is Not Your Friend

2009-05-31T19:20:00.001-05:00

I used to be an avid viewer of Fox News Channel. Lately, not so much. I'm not sure whether it is because they have changed, or because I've changed. In any case, plenty of people who consider themselves traditional family-values conservatives think of FNC as "their" network. They shouldn't. News Flash for conservatives: "Your" network is betraying you.

Here is the proof. Watch "On The Record" with Greta Van Susteren at 9:00 CT weeknights. Pay attention to the commercials. Usually in the second half you will see a lady dining in a nice restaurant with a boorish male who turns out to be her husband. He leaves her and she makes eyes with a handsome man at another table. It's an ad for AshleyMadison.com.

AshleyMadison.com is an online dating service for married people who want to have affairs - and is now a regular advertiser on the alleged "traditional values" TV network. Very strange, yes? Even stranger, less than a year ago a Fox news spokesman told ABC News that Fox would "never" air these ads. Something seems to have changed.

Three things come to mind about this. First, why are none of the conservative big guns telling Fox News that these ads are unacceptable? The only criticism I could find in a Google search was a Deroy Murdock column in Human Events. Murdock makes the excellent point that such things give the same-sex marriage proponents good reason to cry hypocrisy about those who defend traditional marriage. Could it be that the right-wing powerhouses are so dependent on Fox News Channel that they dare not complain?

Second, the decision to air these ads is clear proof that FNC is nothing more than a business whose goal is to make money. Roger Ailes identified a demographic that was underserved by other networks, and now he owns it. His primary goal is to sell advertising, not promote conservative causes. He and his boss Rupert Murdoch will gladly wreck marriages and destroy families if they can make a few bucks in the process.

Third, what does this tell us about Fox News Channel viewers? Advertisers run their spots where they think they will find a favorable audience. Is there any real difference in the ethical commitment of FNC viewers and, say, MSNBC viewers? I don't know. AshleyMadison.com obviously thinks the network has enough potential philanderers in the audience to justify advertising there.

Conclusion: AshleyMadison.com and the honchos of Fox News apparently believe their audience is a bunch of stupid, easily-manipulated sheep that can be led to slaughter without a peep. I'm beginning to think they may be right.

Fuzzy Thinking About Torture

2009-04-28T18:21:00.000-05:00

I like Patrick Buchanan and usually find myself agreeing with him on most political issues. His column this week about torture is therefore disappointing.

Buchanan first makes an eloquent case against torture:

Many contend that torture is inherently evil, morally outrageous and legally impermissible under both existing U.S. law and the Geneva Convention on prisoners of war.

Moreover, they argue, torture does not work.

Its harvest is hatred, deceptions and lies. And because it is cowardly and cruel, torture degrades those who do it, as well as those to whom it is done. It instills a spirit of revenge in its victims.

When the knowledge of torture is made public, as invariably it is, it besmirches America’s good name and serves as a recruiting poster for our enemies and a justification to use the same degrading methods on our men and women.

And it makes us no better than the Chinese communist brain-washers of the Korean War, the Japanese war criminals who tortured U.S. POWs and the jailers at the Hanoi Hilton who tortured Sen. John McCain.

Moreover, even if done in a few monitored cases, where it seems to be the only way to get immediate intelligence to save hundreds or thousands from imminent terror attack, down the chain of command they know it is being done. Thus, we get sadistic copycat conduct at Abu Ghraib by enlisted personnel to amuse themselves at midnight.

Unfortunately, Buchanan goes on to nullify everything he just said:

The morality of killing or inflicting severe pain depends, then, not only on the nature of the act, but on the circumstances and motive.
The Beltway Snipers deserved death sentences. The Navy Seal snipers who killed those three Somali pirates and saved Captain Richard Phillips deserve medals.

Consider now Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, mastermind of 9-11, which sent 3,000 Americans to horrible deaths, and who was behind, if he did not do it himself, the beheading of Danny Pearl.

Even many opponents against torture will concede we have the same right to execute Khalid Mohammed as we did Timothy McVeigh. But if we have a right to kill him, do we have no moral right to waterboard him for 20 minutes to force him to reveal plans and al-Qaida accomplices to save thousands of American lives?

Where to begin? First of all, we execute people only when their guilt has been determined by due process of law. Buchanan seems prepared to allow torture with little or no regard for whether the prisoner actually possesses the desired information.

Second, prisoners, even those under a death sentence, are to be treated humanely right up to the moment of their execution. A little odd, yes, but we do this because we are a civilized people with respect for life. We take it only under the gravest circumstances and with much reluctance.

Third, there is a difference between killing someone in self-defense vs killing a prisoner who is under your control. The civil law makes this distinction very clear. Why it should be fuzzy to an intelligent man like Buchanan is unclear.

Mark Shea has an excellent new column about the morality of torture. More comments here.

We're Better Than This

2009-04-26T19:12:00.003-05:00

I used to call myself a "conservative" in political matters. Now it appears I will have to give up that label. Why? Because I'm against torturing prisoners, a practice which is fast becoming a litmus test of true conservatism.

I would like to think that most conservatives would feel the same way if they would just get past their fear/anger and think about what they are saying. "Whatever it takes to protect Americans is ok with me" is a common feeling. Really? Whatever it takes?

Answer me this: Suppose the only way to get important information is to seize the young son of the suspect and crush his testicles? Not the suspect himself, mind you - I mean a child who has nothing to do with any crimes or terror. According to John Yoo, one of the Bush lawyers who wrote the recently-released torture memos, the president can do that and more. Is this really what you want to defend?

"But that's not what we're doing," you might say. Are you sure? According to Mr. Yoo, the Bush administration saw no legal impediments to it. And we now know that Bush, Cheney, and a whole host of lower officials lied about what they were doing to prisoners. What else did they allow that we don't know about yet?

"It's the only way we can get the info we need." Well, no, not according to an FBI agent who helped question Al Qaeda leaders and not according to the CIA Inspector General. Professional interrogators are near-unanimous about the uselessness of harsh techniques. It appears they were overruled by the political leadership.

The truth is that these "ticking bomb" scenarios everyone likes to talk about are nonexistent in the real world. They happen only on stupid TV shows like 24. Remember, too, that there is no way to be sure that the person you are interrogating possesses the information you seek.

For those who think torture is so hard to define, there is a simple solution. International law, all kinds of treaties and agreements, Catholic "Just War" doctrine, and the beliefs of just about every religion on the planet require that prisoners be treated humanely.

Now answer me this: if you put your prisoner through controlled drowning 183 times in a month, or you keep him naked in a cold cell for days on end, or you slam his head into a fake wall, or you put him in a box with insects, or you keep him awake for weeks at a time, are you treating him humanely? No, you're not. Still confused? You can always apply the Golden Rule. If it's torture when Al Qaeda does it to captured Americans, then it's also torture when we do it to them.

Shepherd Smith on Fox News said it very well, and is catching heat from his network's audience for it. "This is America. We do not (beep) torture." (The beep is an ugly word he should not have said on television. Video here.

Indeed, this is America. But we do torture. Or at least we did, and I'm not at all convinced that Obama will stop it from happening again. We're better than this! The fact that we don't do these things is what separates us from the people we are fighting! If we torture prisoners and ultimately prevail, what will we have become? Will the America that survives be the one we wanted to save?

I'm disgusted that so many people I respect are giving in to their fear and supporting this evil. And here is the worst part: evil never wins in the end. It turns around and bites the one who wields it. We're setting precedents that will come back to haunt us. Do not be surprised if someone you love finds himself on the waterboard. I give it ten years.

If I have to choose between 1) losing the war and 2) losing the war and losing my soul with it, I choose number one.

Make your choice now. Make the right one. Your eternity may depend on it.

Tea Party Madness

2009-04-15T18:34:00.001-05:00

Today so-called "Tea Parties" are being held around the country, with extensive coverage (some would say cheerleading) by Fox News. While I am totally in favor of lower taxes and smaller government, I have to say I am perplexed by the sudden urgency.

First, let us recall that the purpose of the original Boston Tea Party was to protest "Taxation Without Representation." Is that what is happening now? No. Today we have freely elected representatives. You may not like what they are doing, but it is not at all the same situation faced by the early colonists.

Second, why all the surprise and outrage now? Obama and the Democrats are doing exactly what they said they would do before the election. We had an election just a few months ago and our side was soundly trounced. Whining about it won't change anything. It is just as likely to annoy the very people whose minds need to be changed if we want the next election to turn out any differently.

Third, where was all this energy when Republicans were the ones spending like crazy and running up huge deficits? George W. Bush is the one who plunged us into what is now the second-most expensive war in American history without the slightest thought about how to pay for it. It was a GOP-controlled Congress that helped him do it. It was also the Bush Administration that launched the bailout rocket. Does anyone really think much would be different had McCain won in November?

Fourth, exactly what is it we want to accomplish? As noted above, electing more Republicans brings no assurance of fiscal discipline. In fact, I have yet to hear anyone present a coherent plan for actually cutting the size of government. Which departments will you disband? Whose benefit check do you want to take away? What oxes are you willing to gore? Without such specifics, it is hard to take these protests seriously.

Given all this, the only thing I can conclude is that the Tea Party people are simply folks who want to be angry. I say this as somebody who is sympathetic to the spirit of these events, but I think folks are going about it all wrong. All this anger isn't going to accomplish anything.

The Tea Party protests are also revealing in another way. How many of the folks who are now up in arms that millionaires might see their taxes raised have ever attended a pro-life event? Are lower taxes more important than stopping the slaughter of innocent children? To quite a few people, the answer appears to be "Yes." Sad but true.

Christ is Risen

2009-04-11T20:00:00.000-05:00

Let all Pious men and all lovers of God rejoice in the splendor of this feast; let the wise servants blissfully enter into the joy of their Lord; let those who have borne the burden of Lent now receive their pay, and those who have toiled since the first hour, let them now receive their due reward; let any who came after the third hour be grateful to join in the feast, and those who may have come after the sixth, let them not be afraid of being too late, for the Lord is gracious and He receives the last even as the first. He gives rest to him who comes on the eleventh hour as well as to him who has toiled since the first: yes, He has pity on the last and He serves the first; He rewards the one and is generous to the other; he repays the deed and praises the effort.

Come you all: enter into the joy of your Lord. You the first and you the last, receive alike your reward; you rich and you poor, dance together; you sober and you weaklings, celebrate the day; you who have kept the fast and you who have not, rejoice today. The table is richly loaded: enjoy its royal banquet. The calf is a fatted one: let no one go away hungry. All of you enjoy the banquet of faith; all of you receive the riches of his goodness.

Let no one grieve over his poverty, for the universal kingdom has been revealed; let no one weep over his sins, for pardon has shone from the grave; let no one fear death, for the death of our Savior has set us free: He has destroyed it by enduring it, He has despoiled Hades by going down into its kingdom, He has angered it by allowing it to taste of his flesh.

When Isaiah foresaw all this, he cried out: "O Hades, you have been angered by encountering Him in the nether world." Hades is angered because frustrated, it is angered because it has been mocked, it is angered because it has been destroyed, it is angered because it has been reduced to naught, it is angered because it is now captive. It seized a body, and lo! it discovered God; it seized earth, and, behold! it encountered heaven; it seized the visible, and was overcome by the invisible.

O death, where is your sting? O Hades, where is your victory? Christ is risen and life is freed, Christ is risen and the tomb is emptied of the dead: for Christ, being risen from the dead, has become the Leader and Reviver of those who had fallen asleep. To Him be glory and power for ever and ever. Amen.

---Easter homily of St. John Chrysostom (A.D. 347-407)

Celebrate His Death!

2009-04-10T10:18:00.003-05:00

Why do we do this every year? Why do we celebrate betrayal, abandonment, and brutality. Why do we attend this Good Friday’s party of violence?

Our celebration of Christ’s Passion on Good Friday is as perverse an event as any we might conjure. Or, it would be if we were to settle for watching from the crowd, coolly watching events as they unfold. It is not enough to observe. Not enough to stand behind the crowd not caring. Our apathy, our lack of passion for Christ’s suffering and death for us, that will make today’s celebration truly perverse.

Rejoice then with each rip in His flesh. Rejoice with each drop of blood. Rejoice at the anguish of his betrayal, at the sting of his abandonment. Rejoice that He freely accepted this pain for you, instead of you. Rejoice! Or, cry. Or laugh. Or love Him more. But do not fall into the loneliness of not caring—that Pit is a Darkness older than humanity, and It is desperately hungry for your soul.

Read the rest.

Darth Sebelius Appointed to Lead HHS

2009-03-15T16:45:00.004-05:00

President Obama has appointed yet another leading abortion advocate to be Secretary of Health and Human Services: Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius. His first nominee for the post, former Senator Tom Daschle, withdrew due to tax problems.

That Obama would put an abortion advocate in this post is no great surprise. Gov. Sebelius has a particularly ghastly record, however, having vetoed even the mildest of proposed restrictions on abortion. More important, she is a friend of, and beneficiary of campaign contributions from, the notorious late-term abortionist Dr. George Tiller. Watch the video at the link to learn more.

Catholics are doubly dismayed since Gov. Sebelius is - or at least calls herself - a Catholic. Last year Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City asked the governor, after several conversations in which he explained to her the error of her ways, to stop receiving communion in the Church. She ignored his initial private request and complied only after the Archbishop made his request publicly. She did finally comply, however, which is more than most pro-abortion Catholic politicians do.

Whatever her religious affiliation, Gov. Sebelius should not be head of HHS. I got into a discussion about this on another web site, which is unfortunately password-protected so I can't link to it here. Someone was arguing that Gov. Sebelius had actually reduced the number of abortions in Kansas, but still thought women should have a choice in the matter. Here is what I said:

All this talk of whether Sebelius has/will increase or decrease the number of abortions misses the point. Consider an example.

Suppose a person who is being considered for high office believes that it should be legal to kill, say, people with red hair. He has never personally killed any red-headed people. The office for which he is being considered is not related to criminal law and he will have no power to influence the laws against murder either way. Nonetheless, he holds very firmly that everyone should have the right to kill any redheads whom they deem annoying and inconvenient, without fear of prosecution. Should this person be appointed?

I say no. He should not be made dogcatcher, much less cabinet secretary. Why? Because it is obvious that something is deeply wrong with his moral compass. He does not comprehend that people with red hair are human and deserve the full protection of the law. That being the case, he cannot be trusted to make decisions that serve the common good. There is a strong chance he will use whatever power he is given toward evil ends. This is why Gov. Sebelius is unfit to lead HHS.

You can, of course, apply this logic to President Obama himself along with most of the people in his administration - and not a few Republicans, by the way. It is not a pleasant position in which we find ourselves, but here we are. Now is a good time to start praying for mercy. I think we're going to need it.

That's All The Lumber You Sent

2009-02-24T20:39:00.001-06:00

The lyrics of this Ceili Rain song make an excellent Ash Wednesday reflection.

Welcome to Lent. Make it a good one.

Said a friend to a friend one day:
Was a man who passed away
St. Peter met him at the gate
Pete said: "Walk with me if you will
I'll take you to the house you built"
Man said: "I can't wait!

Passed a mansion made of stone
But with each new house he's shown
They get smaller by degrees
Stopped in front of a two-room shack
Pete said: "Hope you're happy with that"
Man said: "How can this be?" -- Pete said:

"That's all the lumber -- that's all the lumber
That's all the lumber you sent.
Looks like the builder --
man, he's got your number
That's all the lumber you sent."

Man didn't know what to say
Poor guy was blown away
Said: "You mean this is what I deserve?
Pete said: "I'm afraid it's so
It's too late but now you know
Shoulda done better work

Man said: "You mean not lie and cheat
And helpin' old ladies 'cross the street?
Pete says: "Well, that's a start
Remember that man back in that great big house?
He found out early what it's all about
Built that place with his heart
-- as for you...

That's all the lumber -- that's all the lumber
That's all the lumber you sent
Looks like the builder --
man, he's got your number
That's all the lumber you sent

What if that man was me
And I failed that miserably
You're showin' me things I don't wanna see!

St. Peter if you can
Send me back to earth again
Is that somethin' you can do?
Pete said: "It ain't up to me
If it was I'd like to see
How you plan to improve.

Said "I'd love God and fellow man
Take a wife and make a stand
Be the given'est guy I can be
And when I get back to this neighborhood
There'd be a gigantic pile o' wood!
And I'd say: "What's this I see?" --
and you'll tell me

"All that's your lumber -- all that's your lumber
That's all the lumber you sent
Now the Big Boss will help you
hammer it all together --
That's all the lumber you sent."

Calm Down, He's Only Human

2009-01-22T19:20:00.001-06:00

During the presidential campaign, many conservatives laughed at the seemingly supernatural powers that Obama supporters saw in their candidate. Now those folks are doing essentially the same thing - working themselves into a frenzy over the massive, monstrous Change that Obama is about to unleash on us all.

For instance, a very intelligent and very conservative friend of mine is circulating this Dick Morris column to everyone he knows. Obama, according to Morris, is bent on nothing less than imposing "socialism" on America. We are going to become like Germany, France, the U.K. and even Sweden!

My response to this is simple: Chill out, people. Obama is only human. A very talented, intelligent, rhetorically gifted human, yes. A politically and theologically liberal human, yes. But still human. He cannot simply snap his fingers and force his will upon the rest of us.

Obama is, above all, a pragmatist. He will do many things we won't like, but nothing so dramatic as to risk his chance at re-election. To the extent he does the evil things some conservatives predict, it will be because he knows those policies have broad public support.

You can, of course, debate why the public supports leftist policies. A good part of the blame has to land on the backs of conservatives who failed to articulate a clear, consistent political philosophy. Over a period of years - and most especially in the last eight years under Bush - we gave Obama the ammunition he is about to use against us.

Rather than whine about it, I suggest we all examine the reasons we are in the predicament and consider how we can bring about the kind of change we want.

Imagine the Potential

2009-01-21T19:14:00.000-06:00

Click here if you don't see the video above.

Mary and the Ark

2008-12-27T17:23:00.005-06:00

Perhaps I was a bit hasty in my recent Notice to Protestants about Mary. In the Baptist Standard, of all places, you can now read how Mary is The Coming of the New Ark to Jerusalem. It is nice to see non-Catholics recognizing the Blessed Virgin as more than just a kind of talking incubator for Jesus.

Unfortunately the Baptist writer, Bill Crittenden, does not follow his comparison to its logical end. He recognizes that the original Ark was no mere box: It was a chest built of acacia wood, a material that was considered worthy of housing God, everlasting and with no defect. Hmmm, could the New Ark also have some of these qualities? Crittenden doesn't say.

The parallels between Mary and the Ark are nothing new. Athanasius saw it in the third century. Steve Ray has an excellent article on the subject. As Augustine said: The New Testament is hidden in the Old, and the Old Testament is revealed by the New.

O Come O Come Emmanuel

2008-12-24T09:48:00.002-06:00

Here is a nice video to close out your Advent. Merry Christmas to all!

Rick Warren, Inauguration and Gay Rights

2008-12-21T15:39:00.004-06:00

Gay rights activists are up in arms because Obama asked Rick Warren to offer an invocation at the presidential inauguration next month. Warren is unacceptable, in their view, because he supported the Proposition 8 drive to outlaw gay marriage in California. They feel betrayed because they thought Obama was devoted to their cause. They forget he is also a politician who is keenly interested in attracting more Christian voters to his cause. This was a chance to do so and also reinforce his image as a unifier. I do not think it indicates any sympathy on Obama's part for conservative Christian beliefs.

For his part, Rev. Warren is getting it from both sides. The gay-marriage advocates consider him a bigot while many on the right consider him a turncoat for daring to participate in the inauguration. Personally I don't see the problem. It is appropriate and fitting that Christians pray for our national leaders - whether we agree with their actions or not. Warren has made his disagreements with Obama about abortion and gay marriage crystal-clear. Presumably, his invocation will not ask God's blessing on those parts of the Obama agenda that conflict with Christian belief.

What's interesting to me is how the Proposition 8 defeat has so galvanized gay activists in the last few months. Any Christian who disagrees with gay marriage is now a de facto bigot. The anger is palpable, and it is leading to all kinds of intimidating and even violent rhetoric against people who gave even casual support to Proposition 8. The Mormon church is a particular target of gay wrath. Rick Warren also endorsed the proposition, but was by no means a leader or even particularly vocal about it. Indeed, he is regarded as far too soft on the culture-war issues by many conservative Christian activists. No matter - he made the wrong choice, and now he has to pay. To get a taste of it, read this post by a liberal who found himself sympathizing with Warren, and then read the comments that follow.

Al Mohler rightly points out that the angry response to Warren's presence at the inauguration will not be the end of this battle. Gay marriage is quickly becoming an issue where everyone will have to take a stand - and there is no middle ground. It's going to get ugly.

Rick Warren has just found himself in the midst of a whirlwind. We must pray that God will give him wisdom as he decides what to do -- and what to say -- as he stands in this whirlwind. But every evangelical Christian should watch this carefully, for the controversy over Rick Warren will not stop with the pastor from Saddleback. This whirlwind is coming for you and for your church. At some point, the cost of being "cool" will be the abandonment of biblical Christianity. We had better decide well in advance that this is a cost far too high to pay.

Amazing Grace

2008-12-13T14:35:00.003-06:00

Here is a stirring performance of Amazing Grace, including bagpipes.

The singers are a group called Il Divo. If it looks like they are in the Roman Colosseum, you're half right. They are in a Roman Colosseum, but in Pula, Croatia, not Rome. It's nice to see what was probably a place of martyrdom for some early Christians now put to much better use.

(Hat tip: Steve Ray)

Notice to Protestants

2008-12-08T12:35:00.003-06:00

In the month of December, it is okay to display statues of the Virgin Mary as part of a larger Nativity scene. During this time no one will think you are promoting idol-worship. Images of Mary and other Biblical figures may even serve as a source of inspiration during the holidays. Candles are optional.

Following the Christmas season, all such statues will once again become idolatrous and must be hidden from view for another year.

Thank you for your cooperation. That is all.

Pray For Obama

2008-11-04T20:45:00.004-06:00

Fox and MSNBC just called California for Obama, giving him the White House. If you just can't believe it, you're in good company. This is not what I wanted, either. For better or worse, though, the electoral process is what it is. We have to live with it.

Many of us prayed for a different outcome. Were our prayers ignored? No. God does not always give us what we want. He gives us what we need. The reasons may be beyond our comprehension right now, but we can trust that good will ultimately come from this apparent defeat.

What to do now? One word: pray. Specifically, pray for Barack Obama. When the Apostle Paul wrote in Romans 13 that "the powers that be are ordained of God," he was referring to the brutal empire that would ultimately have him beheaded. If that Caesar was ordained by God, then Obama is no less. I know it's hard to swallow this right now, but it's the truth.

Of course we can and should expect Obama to work within the Constitutional framework, and we don't have to roll over and accept everything he does. Yet he is ordained of God. The best thing we can do now is pray that God will change Obama's heart and give him the grace to lead with integrity and justice. Maybe he will surprise us.

Another thing to pray for is Obama's protection. With all due respect to the Secret Service, this president will have even more nutjobs than usual wanting to hurt him. Also pray for Michelle Obama and their two daughters. They will have their own challenges to face.

Easier said than done? Of course. Yet it's the right thing to do. Now is the time to start.

Election Day Thoughts

2008-11-04T12:09:00.005-06:00

I haven't written much about the presidential election because in my view it is largely irrelevant. We are in deep trouble whether McCain or Obama wins the White House. With Obama we will get massive federal spending, increased government control of the economy, unjust wars and counterproductive intervention abroad, abortion, gay marriage, and suppression of free speech. With McCain we will get massive federal spending, increased government control of the economy, unjust wars and counterproductive intervention abroad, abortion, gay marriage, and suppression of free speech. Pick your poison.

Obviously I would never vote for Obama, whose ghastly support for infanticide knows no bounds, but the idea of John McCain as the conservative opposition is simply laughable. Eight years ago, even those who are now his most fervent supporters chose George W. Bush over McCain because, they said then, McCain was a liberal in disguise. Has he changed since then? Of course not. So why does he deserve your vote now? Is Obama that much worse than Gore would have been?

Speaking of Bush, if you want to blame somebody for what we are about to endure, GWB ought to be in your crosshairs. He is the one who set the precedent that on all matters remotely related to national security, the President's word is supreme, all-powerful, and beyond appeal, up to including the power to secretly imprison and torture anyone he wishes. Some of us warned against this and were drowned out by so-called loyal conservatives. Now that same unlimited authority will belong to Obama. Do you have any doubt he will use it? Good job, guys.

I've been told I should bite my tongue and vote for McCain for the sole reason that he will give us pro-life Supreme Court justices, which Obama will surely not. This argument might make sense if McCain were actually pro-life, but he's not. This is the man who wanted to place pro-abortion Joe Lieberman or pro-abortion Tom Ridge a heartbeat away from the presidency, and would have done so had political reality permitted. Now ask yourself: if you are truly committed to a cause, and you are a 72-year-old cancer survivor, would you not make absolutely sure that your hand-picked successor was equally committed to that cause? Of course you would. Yet McCain picked Palin only under pressure from the religious right - pressure that we won't be able to exert once he is safely in office.

The fact that McCain would even consider Lieberman or Ridge tells you everything you need to know about the priority he places on life issues. He is pro-life only for those babies who are big enough to be seen on an ultrasound, and who had the good fortune not to be conceived as a result of rape or incest. He's happy to see smaller and even more defenseless children shredded alive in the cause of medical experimentation. He will even use your tax money to pay for it.

Clearly McCain is not someone who is deeply committed to protecting innocent life. Like most Republicans, he just goes through the motions in order to get pro-life people to vote for him. Even in the unlikely event he wanted to nominate a pro-life Supreme Court justice, the chance of such a person getting through the Democratic Senate is nil.

In one strange way we are probably better off with Obama. As noted above, we will have a liberal in the White House no matter who wins. If it's Obama, congressional Republicans will at least make a mild effort to show some backbone. With the help of Southern Democrats, they may be able to head off some of Obama's worst proposals. If McCain is president and pushes the very same plans in consulation with his Democratic buddies - which he will - the GOP will meekly fall in line just like they did with Bush. And you can see where that got us.

All that said, I think we'll be okay for the next four years. If Obama wins, he is smart enough not to overreach. If McCain wins, the Democratic Congress will restrain his worst impulses. Tough times are coming in either case, but the world will keep turning. The real threat we face is a long-term decline in public morality and values. Our problems are much more spiritual than political. No president will solve them.

Maybe McCain will pull an upset tonight. We'll know soon. Whichever of the two wins, they will have done so without the help of my vote. I made the mistake in 2004 of voting for what I thought was the lesser of two evils. I forgot that the lesser evil is still evil. I won't forget again.

"They Screamed At Us, They Spat On Us"

2008-10-28T18:33:00.002-05:00

So back in August, a feminist group in Neuquen, Argentina decided to hold a pro-abortion protest in front of the city's cathedral. Some Catholic youth, fearing their church would be desecrated, organized to defend it by surrounding the cathedral and peacefully praying. The following video shows what happened.

Here is a news story describing the event from a Catholic youth named Pablo.

“Everything lasted more or less an hour and forty minutes. It was terrible. They wouldn’t go away. They screamed at us, they spat on us, they threw cans and rocks, they tore up an Argentinean flag and burned it. We were only praying one Hail Mary after another, without stopping, praying for each one of them, praying for each aborted child, praying for our Church and her pastors, and also in reparation for the blasphemies,” Pablo said.

Despite the tension, “we felt an extraordinary peace, and all of us who were there agreed [it was] a peace that cannot come from anyone else besides our Lord and God. We felt his consolation in our souls.”

Asked if they felt tempted to respond to the aggressions with violence, Pablo responded that all the young people came with the intention of “resisting to the last drop of our blood. Some guys up in front became very upset, because they insulted the Virgin Mary, calling her a lesbian. You feel like doing everything, but we know that our testimony needs to be different, and the virtue of fortitude is more perfect when we resist than when we attack.”
According to Pablo, after that experience in Neuquen, the young people were more committed to “living life as it truly is: a battle, a war.” “I think it is time to wake up, we must be aware that if we don’t do it, nobody will. Nobody will bear witness to hope if we Catholics do not do it. The world is waiting, the world expects that we go out to find it and conquer it.”

Notice in the video how the first line of Christian defenders, those bearing the full brunt of the crowd's hatred and abuse, are all young men - and I do mean men, not boys, whatever their chronological age. This old-fashioned chivalry must have driven the radical feminists into even more of a frenzy.

Unless you hang out in front of abortion clinics, you don't see this sort of thing in the U.S. very often. Mark my words: you will, and maybe sooner than you think. American Christians are going to make some tough choices in the next few years. How many of us will have the courage shown by Pablo and the others in Neuquen on that night?

Centuries ago another Pablo - St. Paul - took full advantage of all the rights his Roman citizenship gave him to spread the Gospel truth and defend the helpless. Eventually he paid the price in blood. Yet he was not defeated; the empire that killed Paul fell even as Christianity thrived. The same will happen again, but not before some of us face the modern-day lions.

Bank Bailout: A Simple Explanation

2008-10-15T18:15:00.001-05:00

Since my day job involves writing about finance and economics, I usually stay away from those subjects here. However the following cartoon nails what just happened so precisely I have to share it with you. It's been making the rounds on Wall Street this week. Here is a link to the original.

Obamaphobia Takes Hold

2008-10-12T15:15:00.002-05:00

I have several friends and relatives who send me a steady stream of e-mails containing the latest news about the grave threat Barack Obama presents to America. Every time I get one of these, I wonder: what do they think they are accomplishing? They know there is the proverbial snowball's chance I will vote for Obama, and I am glad to tell anyone who will listen why I feel this way.

In this regard I have plenty of ammunition. For instance, Obama thinks it is fine if the law allows and/or encourages women to burn, dismember, and crush the skulls of their children, either before birth or shortly after. Against that, the fact that he used to hang out with terrorists or took donations from Fannie Mae is mere frosting on the cake.

The people who send me these e-mails know, on some level, that the "facts" they are trying to spread are not likely to change anyone's mind. So why do they do it? I suspect it is out of frustration. Time is running out and the polls suggest an increasing likelihood Obama will win. (Check out Dr. Steven Taylor's electoral college maps for evidence.) People are starting to face this reality and they don't like it. The crisis in the financial markets created a heightened sense of fear in the last few weeks, making the frustration on all sides even worse.

Personally, I think Obama's past associations with William Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, and others are fair game. These kind of things come out in all campaigns. It is remarkable, however, that none of it is new. All these things were brought out in the Democratic primary, thanks to Hillary Clinton, and McCain himself refused to use them - until now. Why? Because he's losing and he really has not much else to say. On the overriding issue of the moment, the economy, he and Obama are largely in agreement. Both voted to approve the Hank Paulson bank bailout plan and appear to have no problem with nationalized large chunks of American industry.

It is worth noting, too, that many of the people who are so angry at Obama right now are the same ones who stood behind George W. Bush while he abandoned all pretense of budgetary discipline and smaller government, launched a war of choice, tortured prisoners and shredded the Constitution in order to concentrate near-unlimited power in the Oval Office. In this he was aided and abetted by a Republican-controlled Congress for six years. Some of us warned that those powers would someday fall into less trustworthy hands. Now it is about to happen. Having made their bed, the Bush loyalists are now upset that they might have to lay in it.

There is also the race factor. For most of the campaign it was bottled up, but now the dogs are getting loose. Some of it is thinly-disguised and some is quite overt. McCain can try to calm the crowds, but they are having none of it. This has moved beyond his control. Not everyone who dislikes Obama has racist motives, but some do. I suspect it is a bigger number than any of us want to admit.

We are on very dangerous ground here. If some nutcase takes a shot at Obama, it's not hard to imagine mass violence in large cities - and maybe beyond. Likewise, if we get into another 2000-type Florida recount fiasco, tempers will flare no matter who comes out on top. For this reason, I hope that whoever wins does so by an electoral and popular landslide. A close election is the last thing we need right now.

Conclusion: I highly suggest everyone turn down the heat, and quickly. The United States is closer to a breakdown in civil order right now than any time since 1968. For my friends on the right who think there is still a chance for McCain to win if only enough people can be told about Obama's sordid background: You Are Wrong. In fact, the more you talk about these things the better Obama does in the polls. You are accomplishing the opposite of what you want, and you may be opening a Pandora's Box that is best kept closed. The best thing you can do right now is shut up.

Yes, I realize that Obama supporters are saying some pretty vile things too. The personal attacks on Sarah Palin have been particularly shameless, but the fact that they are doing this kind of thing does not mean you can do the same. Ever heard of turning the other cheek? Now is an excellent time to practice.

Palin on Roe

2008-10-02T12:38:00.004-05:00

I must confess I have been unable to force myself to watch the entirety of Sarah Palin's interview with Katie Couric. The parts I did see made me wince. So it was only today, via Rod Dreher, that I learned what she had to say about Roe vs Wade.

Keep in mind that, for social conservatives, the prime justification for having Palin on the ticket is that she is demonstrably and personally pro-life. For all McCain's faults, with Palin as VP we have a foot in the door at the White House, and maybe a chance to get one of our own in the big office someday. Right? Now read this:

Couric: Why, in your view, is Roe v. Wade a bad decision?

Sarah Palin: I think it should be a states' issue not a federal government-mandated, mandating yes or no on such an important issue. I'm, in that sense, a federalist, where I believe that states should have more say in the laws of their lands and individual areas. Now, foundationally, also, though, it's no secret that I'm pro-life that I believe in a culture of life is very important for this country. Personally that's what I would like to see further embraced by America.

Couric: Do you think there's an inherent right to privacy in the Constitution?

Palin: I do. Yeah, I do.

Couric: The cornerstone of Roe v. Wade.

Palin: I do. And I believe that individual states can best handle what the people within the different constituencies in the 50 states would like to see their will ushered in an issue like that.

OK. Palin sounds like someone who has the right instincts. She does not sound like someone who has wrestled with the philosophical and legal basis of her beliefs. There are two huge problems with what she said.

First, she says abortion should be up to the states. This line of reasoning was wrong when applied to slavery in the 19th century, and it's wrong now. Government at all levels must defend certain fundamental human rights. These include - as the Declaration of Independence says - life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Life is the foundation, and states have no right to take it away from innocent people. She is taking essentially the same position that Fred Thompson did in the GOP primary campaign. Plenty of us roundly criticized Thompson for it at the time. For the most part, Palin is now getting a pass.

Second, Palin thinks the Constitution contains a "right to privacy." Roe vs Wade notwithstanding, most legal scholars find no such thing and regard Roe's logic as laughable, even when they agree with its result. Yet we are told that Palin can be counted on to influence McCain's judicial appointments more in the conservative, originalist direction? I think not, if this interview reflects her judicial philosophy.

Abortion will almost certainly come up in tonight's debate, and I hope we hear something from Palin to clarify these remarks. Otherwise, I suspect a wave of buyer's remorse will sweep over the people who have so lionized her for the last month. The more we learn about Palin, the less she lives up to the reasons McCain supposedly picked her. This momentum needs to change, and it needs to happen fast, or else Obama will win in a rout.

The Value of Guilt

2008-09-28T12:28:00.000-05:00

Sage thoughts from my favorite Dominican blogger-priest, Fr. Phillip Neri Powell, O.P. He is discussing the guilt feelings of people who were involved in abortions, but the principle applies to all kinds of sin.

In my experience, people often express horrible guilt over sin. They are shocked when I exclaim, "Good! You should feel guilty! Do you know what that means?" They usually say, "That I'm a bad person, a terrible sinner?" I say, "Nope. Just the opposite. Guilt tells you that you have a correctly formed conscience and that though you have sinned, you are not fundamentally a bad person."

We have been told for too many years now that guilt is bad and we must do everything to expunge it from our consciousness. In the pursuit of a guilt-free life, we have not eliminated sin in practice but rather made sin rare by making most everything permissible and therefore no longer sinful. No sin, no guilt. But guilt is one way we know that we are good people. If you cannot feel guilt over deliberately and directly killing an innocent life, then something is very seriously wrong.