The Transient Hour

lol

2009-04-30T23:58:00.000-07:00

The two forces of Change meet head-to-head

2008-12-09T21:39:00.000-08:00

You haven't heard much from me on Global Warming in past months as the alarm had seemed to have blown over for the most part, and so I felt less obligated to point out the obvious holes. It seems in the past year, we have heard more prominent scientists "coming out" and making known their skepticism of the widely accepted theories behind global warming. We saw credible reports suggesting the next 10 years will actually see a decline in global temperatures, which have, thus far, proven to be on target, as many countries are experiencing cooler winters than in recent decades.

This all shifted mainstream terminology from "global warming" to "climate change." It is no longer warming that we should fear, but "change." The effect of Al Gore's computer generated horror film, "An Inconvenient Truth", seemed to be wearing thin. Finally, it appeared the environmental alarmism was fading away faster than the hole in the ozone layer. Until...

...Barack Obama was elected president. On this day, any hope gained by our society coming to its senses was crushed in the process of Obama and his far-left ideology coming into power. That night, my worries had little to do with Obama's positions on the environment. But, since then, having come to grips with the wide array of potential harm that could take place over the next 4-8 years, it's become apparent that Obama, the beacon of Hope and Change, will be pursuing costly and economy-crippling policies to combat the evil "climate change," regardless of weather the tides were shifting.

*Sigh*.... I guess there are more important things to worry about.

St. Andrew: a love for the Cross

2008-12-01T23:40:00.000-08:00

November 30th was the feast of St. Andrew. In reading about his life, I learned not only that he was believed to be the elder brother of St. Peter (I always pictured him as the younger brother), but that, when he caught sight of the cross upon which he would be martyred, he said the following:

"O Good cross! made beautiful by the limbs of Christ, so long desired, now so happily found! Receive me into thy arms and present me to my Master, that He Who redeemed me through thee may now accept me from thee."

Lives of the Saints continues:

Two whole days the martyr remained hanging on this cross alive, preaching, with outstretched arms from this chair of truth, to all who came near, and entreating them not to hinder his passion.

The Orphan Ride

2008-12-01T22:20:00.000-08:00

My friend Andrew and his brother Randall are about to embark on a remarkable journey around the world to raise money for a Catholic-run orphanage in Southern India. I met Andrew nearly a year ago when I was heading up the 40 Days for Life in Bellingham. He volunteered for a mind-boggling amount of hours, mainly in the wee-hours of night, which gave me more time to sleep, naturally making Andrew a good friend : )

I learned quickly that Andrew was an avid bicyclist when he asked if he could protest and pray at the abortion facility while using his bike trainer:

Today, I found out that he and his brother will be biking for 2+ years in 25+ countries, some 25 thousand miles across the world for the cause of Life in India. They're calling it The Orphan Ride. They will be donating two years of their time, money and God-given strength and giving 100% of the proceeds to the orphanage. Pretty cool.

Be sure to check out their website for more information, to follow their journey (beginning March 2009), and support their cause by donating, even if it's just a few dollars. Also, keep them in your prayers!

2008-12-01T21:05:00.000-08:00

This article title:

Reminded me of this t-shirt:

My friend, Tom Herring at the 2006 Walk for Life West Coast

"Behold, I make all things new." Rev. 21:5

2008-11-27T15:53:00.000-08:00

Since before my wife and I were married in August, our new parish in Bremerton, WA , Our Lady Star of the Sea, had been undergoing a well-needed restoration. We spent six months in "the desert," as our Pastor, Fr. Lappe put it, in the gym across the street, where Mass was celebrated daily during the restoration project. Most appropriately, on the feast of Christ the King, we returned from the desert to our newly restored parish, to give praise and thanksgiving to God and celebrate the Kingship of Our Lord, who reigns in heaven and on earth.

The church, as you'll see below has gone through its own time in the desert, or what I would term, "the 1970s.":

"What are those bird-like things hanging from the ceiling? And what place did they have in Sacred Architecture?" Good question. Your guess is as good as mine. Here's a more recent picture of what the church looked like prior to the restoration:

Perhaps one of the best decisions ever made when mapping out the restoration, was the removal of the rock wall behind the altar, on which one could almost imagine water trickling down:

And so, it was quite something on this feast of Christ the King, to witness a sort of transfiguring of the church. Such great care was taken to restore the beauty and sacredness of this relatively young church (originally dedicated in 1953). Really, the project even went beyond restoring the church to its original interior -- a simple 1950s design, not too different from the picture above. Opposed to locking the church architecture into some other era, I believe the new design is timeless:

I've put together a video of the Dedication Mass, with Bishop Joseph Tyson, below. These clips do not do justice to the beautiful liturgy of the feast. It was at the Dedication, I was reminded how the Sacred Liturgy is meant to incorporate our senses as a way of drawing us into worship. The smell of incense and oil; the sound of sacred music, bells and chant; and the sight of such beautiful art, and architecture -- all of which lift the soul heavenward. These are things we must truly cherish and work to preserve as Catholics.

I took some pictures which give a closer look at some of the changes made with this restoration. They can be seen here.

No Surprise: How Obama got elected

2008-11-18T19:17:00.000-08:00

USCCB addresses Obama's looming war on pre-born babies

2008-11-13T00:16:00.000-08:00

And forcefully so. We can all be pleased with the following statement, which makes clear the fundamental difference between president-elect Obama and Catholic teaching. Francis Cardinal George, President of the Conference of Catholic Bishops, writing on behalf of the US bishops to the incoming administration, first acknowledges that the Church and Obama share a common pursuit of economic justice, more affordable health care, better education, etc. Attention is demanded, however, by the crippling disparity of views on human life:

a) the Catholic Church, which regards human life from the moment of conception, made in the image and likeness of God, worthy of protection and the right to life

b) Obama who, while having determined the question of life's beginning as "above his pay grade", finds room in his pay grade to fight tirelessly for the "right" to kill those not yet born.

Statement of the President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

"If the Lord does not build the house, in vain do its builders labor; if the Lord does not watch over the city, in vain does the watchman keep vigil." (Psalm 127, vs. 1)

The Bishops of the Catholic Church in the United States welcome this moment of historic transition and look forward to working with President-elect Obama and the members of the new Congress for the common good of all. Because of the Church's history and the scope of her ministries in this country, we want to continue our work for economic justice and opportunity for all; our efforts to reform laws around immigration and the situation of the undocumented; our provision of better education and adequate health care for all, especially for women and children; our desire to safeguard religious freedom and foster peace at home and abroad. The Church is intent on doing good and will continue to cooperate gladly with the government and all others working for these goods.

The fundamental good is life itself, a gift from God and our parents. A good state protects the lives of all. Legal protection for those members of the human family waiting to be born in this country was removed when the Supreme Court decided Roe vs. Wade in 1973. This was bad law. The danger the Bishops see at this moment is that a bad court decision will be enshrined in bad legislation that is more radical than the 1973 Supreme Court decision itself.

In the last Congress, a Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) was introduced that would, if brought forward in the same form today, outlaw any "interference" in providing abortion at will. It would deprive the American people in all fifty states of the freedom they now have to enact modest restraints and regulations on the abortion industry. FOCA would coerce all Americans into subsidizing and promoting abortion with their tax dollars. It would counteract any and all sincere efforts by government and others of good will to reduce the number of abortions in our country.

Parental notification and informed consent precautions would be outlawed, as would be laws banning procedures such as partial-birth abortion and protecting infants born alive after a failed abortion. Abortion clinics would be deregulated. The Hyde Amendment restricting the federal funding of abortions would be abrogated. FOCA would have lethal consequences for prenatal human life.

FOCA would have an equally destructive effect on the freedom of conscience of doctors, nurses and health care workers whose personal convictions do not permit them to cooperate in the private killing of unborn children. It would threaten Catholic health care institutions and Catholic Charities. It would be an evil law that would further divide our country, and the Church should be intent on opposing evil.

On this issue, the legal protection of the unborn, the bishops are of one mind with Catholics and others of good will. They are also pastors who have listened to women whose lives have been diminished because they believed they had no choice but to abort a baby. Abortion is a medical procedure that kills, and the psychological and spiritual consequences are written in the sorrow and depression of many women and men. The bishops are single-minded because they are, first of all, single-hearted.

The recent election was principally decided out of concern for the economy, for the loss of jobs and homes and financial security for families, here and around the world. If the election is misinterpreted ideologically as a referendum on abortion, the unity desired by President-elect Obama and all Americans at this moment of crisis will be impossible to achieve. Abortion kills not only unborn children; it destroys constitutional order and the common good, which is assured only when the life of every human being is legally protected. Aggressively pro-abortion policies, legislation and executive orders will permanently alienate tens of millions of Americans, and would be seen by many as an attack on the free exercise of their religion.

This statement is written at the request and direction of all the Bishops, who also want to thank all those in politics who work with good will to protect the lives of the most vulnerable among us. Those in public life do so, sometimes, at the cost of great sacrifice to themselves and their families; and we are grateful. We express again our great desire to work with all those who cherish the common good of our nation. The common good is not the sum total of individual desires and interests; it is achieved in the working out of a common life based upon good reason and good will for all.

Our prayers accompany President-elect Obama and his family and those who are cooperating with him to assure a smooth transition in government. Many issues demand immediate attention on the part of our elected "watchman." (Psalm 127) May God bless him and our country.

This is an excellent statement put forth by our bishops, one to be commended for certain. However, I can't help but notice yet another disparity:

One the one hand, you have the USCCB forcefully condemning the pro-abortion policies of the incoming administration as gravely evil.
On the other, the USCCB has again failed to take action with regard to Catholic politicians who are pro-abortion and receiving Holy Communion, furthering the scandal, the sacrilege and the jeopardizing of these politicians' souls.

This inconsistency seems, to me, to do a great disservice both to our pre-born brethren and Our Lord, fully Present in the Eucharist. Words are imperitive to the spreading of the Gospel. But, words do not stick without our living by example. Killing an innocent baby is either gravely evil or it is not. Likewise, Jesus is either fully Present in the Eucharist or He is not. You can't have it both ways.

Tolerance

2008-11-11T20:26:00.000-08:00

Those who do not tolerate will be silenced, bullied, vilified, or... not tolerated. Hmmmm.

When the crowd, almost instinctively, stamped upon and trampled the Cross it nearly brought tears to my eyes. Christ continues to be beaten and spit upon even 2000 years after suffering the Way of the Cross. Those vile with hatred for the Cross, the triumph of Christianity, are no different from those who yelled "Crucify Him! Crucify Him!"

The Common Good

2008-11-11T00:42:00.000-08:00

According to Francis Cardinal George, "The common good can never be adequately incarnated in any society when those waiting to be born can be legally killed at choice."

Word has spread that the US bishops will indeed be addressing the matter of Catholic politicians who are pro-abortion. Please pray for a fruitful outcome.

1 in 4

2008-11-08T10:36:00.000-08:00

It doesn't necessarily sound like very much until you put it in perspective. Last Tuesday, 123 million Americans cast their ballots to decide the next President of the United States. Of that number, Catholics made up 1 in 4 voters, or more accurately, 27%, according to CNN exit polling.

Let's crunch some numbers.

27% of 123 million is 33 million. That's 33 million Catholics who voted in this election. Now how many Catholics voted for John McCain and how many voted for Barack Obama, you say? Well, again, looking at CNN's numbers:

45% of Catholics chose John McCain
54% of Catholics chose Barack Obama

That's 18 million Catholics who voted for the most pro-abortion candidate for the office of the presidency in our nation's history. How many votes was this election decided by?:

8 MILLION

That's right. President-elect, Barack Obama, has Catholics to thank for his new seat in the Oval Office. And surely, he will be thanking them when he signs the Freedom of Choice Act into law, repeals the Hyde Amendment, and reinstates foreign aid for the promotion of contraception and abortion in third world countries. Yup, Catholic voters have confirmed what the Democratic and Republican parties have known for years -- that is, they proved more concerned about the economy, health care or having the first black president than the 1.3 million babies legally dismembered with forceps in their mothers' wombs each year. Politicians can be rest assured abortion and human life are low-priority issues for Catholics who would much rather Washington take care of "more pressing" issues first.

What's more, is that our U.S. bishops have decided that discussing how to address Catholic politicians who are pro-abortion has been rendered a non-issue by the large number of courageous bishops who spoke out against the evil of abortion and made certain its precedence over other issues when deciding whom to vote for. That 18 million Catholic voters apparently missed the memo which declared the support of a staunch supporter of abortion over a strong pro-life candidate, both gravely immoral and the cooperation in evil, must leave the USCCB content with their handling of the matter. Clearly pro-abortion candidates have been more effective at getting their message across to Catholics than many of our priests and bishops.

Diogenes has three on-the-nose points:

Have prominent Catholic politicians ceased to be advocates of legal abortion? Not at all. This year's two most conspicuous offenders, Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi, will soon stand 2nd and 3rd in line for the nation's highest office. They continue to advance not only the 'culture of death' political agenda, but also a skewed quasi-Catholic theology to justify it.
Have the bishops reached agreement on how to handle the problem? Nope. Right through Election Day individual bishops were issuing their contrasting statements, drawing out different aspects of their malleable common statement, Faithful Citizenship. The most forthright bishops were acknowledging that an air-clearing discussion was overdue.
Have the media moved away from the issue, now that the campaign is over, so that the bishops can retreat into undisturbed silence, away from the glare of publicity? Bingo.

So you see, Catholics' role in any election is anything but insignificant. 1 out of every 4 votes can more than decide an election. 1 out of 4 can guarantee a landslide. Now if only our priests and bishops could convince more than half of Catholics that abortion is anything but insignificant.

Save the Liturgy, Save the World

2008-11-07T11:23:00.000-08:00

Two of my main interest interest have proved to be more closely linked than I could have ever imagined. The following article argues beautifully how building a Culture of Life is rooted primarily in restoring the sacred liturgy. As Deborah Morlani at the New Liturgical Movement puts it, "John Paul II taught that the root cause of the culture of death is a loss of the sense of God and, in the same vein, one will note that Pope Benedict XVI has been working quite intently to bring back the sense of transcendence and God-centredness within our liturgies; in short, to bring back a sense of God."

I hope the NLM will excuse me from posting the entire article on here, but it's really just too good to take snippets from.

The Sacred Liturgy: The Neglected Foundation to Building the Culture of Life

Many Mass-Going Catholics Support the Culture of Death

A recent survey from October 2008, sponsored by the Knights of Columbus and completed by the Marist College Institute for Public Opinion, found that 79% of Catholics who regularly attend Mass are supportive of abortion to some degree, varying from all cases to at least certain cases; this despite the Catholic teaching that the intentional killing of an unborn child by abortion is always evil and that there are no exceptions to this. What these surveys reveal is a fact that many faithful Catholics are already only too aware: that many of their fellow Catholics do not conform to Church teaching and support the culture of death to some degree, be it through contracepting, sterilization, abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, IVF, or so on. In looking at the results of these polls, not to mention years of personal experience, the question that comes to mind is this: how can Catholics who are going to Mass every week be living and thinking in such contrast to God's moral laws, as taught by the magisterium of the Church? The pro-life message is certainly “out there” and not unknown, so where is the deficiency that allows such a situation to exist and what can we do to address it? To answer these questions we need to consider the root of the problem and the font of Catholic life.

The Liturgy Is the Source and Summit From Which All Else Flows

The Church teaches us that the sacred liturgy is the centre, or font, from which all else flows within the Church; it refers to it as her source and summit. (Sacrosanctum Concilium para. 10) It is this tenet which allowed Pope Benedict XVI, while still a Cardinal, to note that “the Church stands and falls with the liturgy” for when one understands and accepts the central place which the liturgy holds within the life of the Church and her faithful, this clearly follows and should hopefully help us to appreciate the foundational place and importance of the liturgy in a variety of questions.

Returning to the question at hand then, it would not seem a stretch to suggest that an implication of this very centrality is that the culture of life itself also stands and falls with the liturgy. Why, we shall look at momentarily, but given our understanding that the liturgy is the summit from whence all else flows, and given the consideration of the impoverished, or "falling", state of the liturgy in so many parishes, it should perhaps come as little surprise that there would be a coinciding “falling” of the culture of life – to use the image of Ratzinger.

Putting Our Own House In Order: A More Serious Look at the the Liturgy by the Catholic Pro-life Movement

I would propose, particularly to those actively involved within the pro-life movement (of which all Catholics, clergy, laity, and religious, should consider themselves involved to some extent), that the sacred liturgy needs to be looked at much more seriously as a significant foundation and tool for beginning to build the culture of life among fellow Catholics. Pro-life homilies, pro-life prayer intentions and social activism generally are all important let’s be clear, but they don't address the deeper, foundational problem that lay at the root of this issue; namely, the lack of a sense of God that exists not only within our culture, but even within our parishes. Before we can ever hope to bring about a conversion of the culture to a culture of life – and we are speaking, not merely of the changing of laws, but ultimately of the need for conversion -- we must first put our own house in order. If we understand and accept the teaching of the Church as regards the central importance of the liturgy and its relationship to doctrine, then surely we must neither ignore the fact that deficiencies there will lead to deficiencies elsewhere, nor that it is also an important place to begin to assert the solution.

The Necessity of God-Centred Liturgies: Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, Lex Vivendi (The law of prayer is the law of belief is the law of living.)

In Evangelium Vitae, John Paul II taught that the root cause of the culture of death is a loss of the sense of God and, in the same vein, one will note that Pope Benedict XVI has been working quite intently to bring back the sense of transcendence and God-centredness within our liturgies; in short, to bring back a sense of God. So it is that a consistent theme emerges and also a consistent recognition of a problem within our churches today. The Holy Father knows well that if God is obscured within the sacred liturgy – the very place that is not only the source and summit of the Church, but also the heart, soul and primary point of contact for the faithful -- then it is likely to follow that God will be absent or obscured in the lives of the faithful as well. Consequently, this lack of sense of the Divine can lead to living a humanistic or self-centred existence which further leads to a lost sense of the sacredness of man; without a Creator, man becomes a mere organism in the vast universe of organisms that can be manipulated and used for any kind of fantasy by anyone who is stronger or more powerful.

It is well known that many parishes today have become more centred upon themselves as a community than being clearly centred upon God – what Ratzinger has called the “self-enclosed circle”. Many parishes are not following the authorized liturgical texts and rubrics -- often out of a misguided sense of "pastoral" creativity, or even simply out of ignorance. Nor do they sufficiently consider (let alone express) those elements which lend a sense of transcendence to the worship of God, particularly as expressed through the medium of beauty. To some these might seem rather unimportant surface considerations, but they are not. The sacred liturgy and doctrine are intertwined and the experiential dimension of the liturgy is a profound moment for catechesis and conversion. Accordingly, when there is problematic approach to the liturgy, and when unauthorized innovations are introduced, there can be a deficiency as well as a coinciding distortion of Catholic belief passed on to the faithful, as well as a loss in the power of the liturgy to move the human heart and mind towards God.

By contrast, the sacred liturgy, when celebrated well and focused on God, is where the building of the culture of life begins for within the liturgy one experiences and encounters the perfection of the culture of life from the giver of life Himself, God our Creator. It is through this deep encounter with God in the liturgy that we witness and learn a perfect love that is self-giving and self-sacrificing; from that flows the possibility of conversion of heart and the reciprocal love for God in giving of our lives to Him and His Church just as Christ gave His life for us, a sacrificial reality which is perpetuated upon our altars at every Mass. From that love for God and desire to serve Him naturally flows an ability to better move outside of ourselves and love our neighbour, seeing their lives as inherently of value. Therefore, if we are to build a culture of life within our parishes and serve as leaven for our culture, the sacred liturgy must be oriented to God in all things, both interiorly and exteriorly. The liturgy must be celebrated in accord with the authorized texts and rubrics so that we might avoid obscuring Catholic doctrine or falling into a subjectivist mentality. The ceremonies must be reverent and beautiful, speaking to the worship of the Lord and the sacredness of what occurs, moving and focusing us accordingly. Finally, there should be liturgical catechesis for the faithful to help them to understand the greater meaning, focus and sacrificial reality of the Mass, emphasizing its primary end as the worship of God through the sacrifice of the Cross, including through postures and gestures, signs and symbols.

Pope Benedict XVI Leads by Example

The Pope has consistently written of and witnessed to the importance of both interior and exterior dimensions which orient the sacred liturgy toward God. He has led by example in directing how certain exterior forms contribute to a God-centered liturgy, such as through the “Benedictine altar arrangement” with a central Crucifix; his celebration of Mass ad orientem in the Sistine Chapel; the use of beautiful sacred music and vestments within the liturgy; and finally, by re-introducing kneeling for Holy Communion in his own liturgies. Moreover, the Holy Father has emphasized the importance of interiorly directing our minds and hearts toward God through mystagogical catechesis (meaning the teaching of the mysteries of the Faith) so that we can more fully know God through beauty and the sacred mysteries experienced in the liturgy and further be drawn into a more profound encounter with the Divine which can lead to a deeper conversion.

In Conclusion

To conclude, let us recall the teaching of the Church about the centrality of the liturgy and how all flows from it. Let us also follow the example of the Holy Father in addressing any crisis among Catholics first in looking at the liturgy and never neglecting it as a central part of the solution. Indeed, everything that happens within the sacred liturgy matters and all that is done to lead the faithful closer to God will ultimately work toward building the culture of life, which will necessarily come through, not simply legal means, but conversion of heart and mind to God.

Postscript: Addressing Some Common Objections

As a postscript, it would seem important to address a few common objections that arise whenever there is an attempt to assert the central importance of the liturgy in all its forms and aspects.

One objection is summarized by the sentiment that "all that really matters at Mass is that Our Lord is present in the Eucharist. These other matters are ultimately no significant importance. They are simply nice-to-have’s or just a matter of taste.” This is a common objection that often comes up from many Catholics, and even some priests, when attempting to explain the importance of the sacred liturgy as though validity, sacramentality or Eucharistic piety is all that is of concern. Obviously they are of concern, but this view is not in accord with the Church's teaching and is based on what Ratzinger has called “abstract sacramental theology” and “reductionism”. Everything in the liturgy matters which is why the Church regulates it accordingly. In that regard, our focus cannot merely be upon validity or receiving and adoring the Blessed Sacrament, it must be deeper, and it must take more serious consideration of the Mass in all its aspects and dimensions and the implication of those aspects and dimensions. The teaching of the Church and the teaching of our Holy Father speak contrary to such an assertion.

A second objection is the suggestion that the liturgy really doesn't affect whether or not Catholics follow the Church's teachings on contraception, abortion, and so forth. This also does not follow, for if, as the Church teaches, the sacred liturgy is the source and the summit, the font, from which everything else flows, this clearly has the implication that what flows from the liturgy will also likely be manifest in the Catholic faithful who are present, for good or for ill. How could it have such importance and influence and not have such effects?

Another objection might be the suggestion that doctrinal catechesis through study, preaching and such methods is far more important in the building the culture of life than what goes on in the sacred liturgy, but this fails to consider some basic realities. First, liturgy and doctrine are inseparable; what goes on in the liturgy is catechetical in itself. It is an experiential form of catechesis, and accordingly, very powerful. Second, the liturgy is the first and primary source of catechesis as it is a living experience of the Catholic faith that draws one into an encounter with God. It is there that most Catholics come into the most prolonged and profound contact with their faith and it is through this means that they are most impacted and potentially moved, making them accordingly more disposed to receive more intellectual forms of catechesis. "By its nature, the liturgy can be pedagogically effective in helping the faithful to enter more deeply into the mystery being celebrated. That is why, in the Church's most ancient tradition, the process of Christian formation always had an experiential character."(Sacramentum Caritatis, para. 64)

A final objection might be that good liturgy doesn't guarantee that a Catholic will be pro-life and poor liturgy doesn't mean that a Catholic won't be pro-life. Of course this is true in point of fact, but while it may not be an absolute guarantee, and while exceptions can surely always be found, it does not change the fact of the central importance of the liturgy in Catholic life and faith, nor does it change the teaching of the Church on this matter.

Obamunism

2008-11-03T10:05:00.000-08:00

See more funny videos at Funny or Die

Abortion debate continued

2008-11-02T19:55:00.000-08:00

I've been keeping up with the debate from before, although it has broadened into a debate about abortion itself, as opposed to what Catholicism has to say about human life and voting.

The things people think and say about abortion, when a person deserves the right to live, and the value of life itself, never ceases to amaze me. Well reasoned and good sounding arguments for abortion exist. I have heard them before and been legitimately stumped. But the rationale of most people who defend killing an innocent baby is seldom based upon reason, but the lies about "choice" and a pre-20th century understanding about human development, which they have been sold their whole lives by way of public education and television.

UncleGeorge writes:

I say again (radio operator term meaning LISTEN UP!), this issue is purely voter bait.

The Mexico Supreme Court, that's right *Catholic* Mexico, decided this very August 28th, eight to three (!) to keep first trimester abortions legal in Mexico City. In their decision was a statement that a living, breathing, thinking and very human woman's RIGHTS OF PERSONAL CHOICE superceded "superstition."

Google it up and weep.

This is a dead horse. The United State Supreme Court did not make up any law, nor did they make law, with Roe v. Wade. They decided the right thing, the American way, the only way our beloved constitution allows and allows for a reason. This is a woman’s personal business. It is my belief that our constitution does, clearly, include personal privacy as a pillar against tyranny. That constitution, our system of government, has made us the envy of the civilized world.

I will err on the side of the constitution, and encourage you to as well.

Regards, Uncle

Even Ruth Bader Ginsburg admits that Roe vs. Wade was a bad court decision. To conclude that the Constitution provides a right to privacy is one thing, but to use it as the foundation for a Constitutional right for abortion is absurd. Roe vs. Wade purposefully dodges the question of whether the unborn are persons -- because there's no way a person's right to privacy could ever trump a person's right to life.

From the 14th Amendment: "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

Democat writes:

If it can't think, or feel, or perceive ANYTHING, it ISN'T a person!!! It may look like a little person, but until it can survive outside the womb it cannot be considered a viable human being. Of course the right to privacy would not trump the right of a person to live, but you're assuming a fetus IS a person. It's not. You're just projecting human qualities onto an object that has the same basic characteristics of a house plant. A house plant does not have a "right" to life and thus would NOT trump the right to privacy of it's owner. Same with a fetus and the woman's body that carries it. If you disagree, fine, then don't get an abortion. But don't try to make me conform to your shallow moralistic beliefs. This is yet another reason why I support Obama: he is personally against abortion, but doesn't try to force his beliefs down everyone else's throat.

Democat, you are making up your own definitions for what a person is, when as far as the law or the dictionary is concerned a person is a human being. We don't magically become human in the delivery room. Science says human life begins at conception. Those who oppose abortion need not project human qualities on the unborn. At the moment of fertilization, a new human being with its own unique DNA is created. Our genetic code is the quality human beings all have in common.

"It may look like a little person, but until it can survive outside the womb it cannot be considered a viable human being."

It may not be viable, but you grant that s/he is a human being -- that's all we need to know to grant it protection. There are numbers of human beings who can't survive on their own and rely completely on others. Should we kill them? Should our dependence on others determine our right to live?

Marchingon writes:

Say what you will--but when you're staring down the barrel of a gun and have no means to support another life outside of your obligations what is the alternative? Bringing someone in and being dirt poor, a drain on the system? Giving them away so they feel lost and abandoned? Or scheduling a doctor's visit? You act like it's an absolutely simple decision, like there is no guilt that haunts...but it's a choice made after sleepless nights and soul-searching for many people. I was raised Catholic and know God, but have made some tough choices and believe it is my right.

This is an issue that will forever have two sides and policy shouldn't dictate any more than it already does. Don't base who you would vote for on this--who would the best leader of this country be--honestly--who do you want to stand guard for the next four years? Who will make the best decisions for our future as a country? That's the real issue here!

"Bringing someone in and being dirt poor, a drain on the system? Giving them away so they feel lost and abandoned? Or scheduling a doctor's visit?"

marchingon, saying someone is "a drain on the system" is measuring the worth of a human being upon their contribution to society. Also, "scheduling a doctor's visit" is a euphemism for abortion.

I do not doubt the amount of pressure that a woman experiences when she finds out she's pregnant. My wife is pregnant and we're not exactly well-off economically. However, what matters in difficult decisions like these, is not doing that which is easiest or the best solution to our problems, but rather, doing that which is right and just. My question is: is it ever right and just to directly kill an innocent human being?

northpass writes:

Look all of you "right to lifers", abortion is a choice, not a mandate. Who in the helll are you to mandate what another woman should decide to do with the rest of her life. Ideally, you would be her friend and tell her before-hand not to have sex without protection, or don't have sex with that scumbag who simply wants to get his rocks off. asthila is obviously a Catholic nun and wants to quote scripture to you, but the fact is when you are getting it on, no scripture is going to come to mind unless you are having some incredible self esteem problems because mommy and daddy told you not to let anyone touch your @#%%^$ before you got married. The fact is, more women who get abortions do so because the prospect of bringing another life into this world would burden the entire population, much less the individual making the decision. The supporters of Right to Life fail to look at what typically happens to those fetuses once they reach 18 years of age. Abortion is an individual choice, not a mandate. Religion is the same.

Northpass, I laughed when you said I was a nun, but I'm actually a husband and father of a pre-born child, who thinks our baby should have an equal right to live in this country as you do. I do not consider my child a "choice" which I can keep or dismember at my or my wife's willing, any more than I would consider it and individual's "choice" to have a slave. Some choices are wrong. And the direct killing of an innocent human being is one of them. Period.

You should re-examine your ideology which sees some individuals as leeches on society. It is this kind of thinking that has led to many historical tragedies of genocide, as some members of society are deemed burdensome or "unwanted" and therefore permissible to kill.

Spread the wealth

2008-10-31T22:29:00.000-07:00

Debate: Catholics and voting

2008-10-30T19:05:00.000-07:00

I've spent the entire day at home to rest from a cold. Consequently, I've been sucked into a debate about the Church's teaching on abortion in the comments section of a letter to the editor my mom wrote. I thought I would share the fruits of my labor here, especially since I've been meaning to post something on this for a while (I have really long draft saved, and who knows if I will get around to finishing it before the election!).

The debate is between myself and "Billyin4C". He writes:

Kathy, how dare you presume to tell me what I should believe as a Catholic? This letter is incredibly offensive and one of the main reasons people are driven away from the church.

Not only are your assertions offensive, they are incorrect. John McCain is on record as saying "I would not support a repeal of Roe v. Wade" and when asked what he would do if one of his daughters sought an abortion, McCain replied, "It would be a family decision." It is interesting that now that he is on the national stage, his positions have suddenly aligned perfectly with christian republican base.

With regard to Obama's "pro-abortion" stance, you need only look at his social stance. The social program supported by Obama (including comprehensive sex education, financial aid to would-be single mothers, day-care programs, etc.) have been proven to reduce abortion.

How many abortions have been prevented by opposing Roe v. Wade? Zero.

My first response:

Billyin4C,

Kathy was merely stating as a matter of fact what the Catholic Church teaches about voting. She was not telling *you* what to believe, but stating what the Catholic Church believes. I'm afraid if you are so offended by what Kathy said, you need to take it up with the Catholic Church.

Kathy echoes what has been affirmed by over 50 US Bishops who have made statements recently saying that abortion and human life issues are paramount in this election (list of bishops).

Pope John Paul II wrote in His Apostolic Exhortation, "Christifideles laici":

the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights -- for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture -- is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination.

"How many abortions have been prevented by opposing Roe v. Wade? Zero."

Slavery existed in this country much longer than legalized abortion has. Try applying your same logic to the fight against slavery -- that is, how many slaves have been freed by opposing slavery legislatively? This is absurd.

The US Conference of Catholic Bishops make clear that opposing Roe v. Wade is imperative in the fight against abortion:

"Roe v. Wade is a clear case of an 'intrinsically unjust law' we are morally obliged to oppose (see Evangelium vitae, nos. 71-73). Reversing it is not a mere political tactic, but a moral imperative for Catholics and others who respect human life" (http://www.usccb.org/prolife/Rigali-Murphy-Joint-Statement.pdf).

Billyin4C:

"Slavery existed in this country much longer than legalized abortion has...how many slaves have been freed by opposing slavery legislatively?"

The problem is, overturning Roe v. Wade will not outlaw abortion.

Regardless, my point was this: There are real and effective ways to reduce the number of abortions right now. Barack Obama's social programs will set us in the right direction in this regard. John McCain will not.

To stick with your slavery analogy, consider Barack Obama an operator of the underground railroad. The underground railroad did not end slavery, but it was certainly a worthy way of rescuing people in an immediate fashion.

My second response:

"With regard to Obama's "pro-abortion" stance, you need only look at his social stance. The social program supported by Obama ... have been proven to reduce abortion."

Archbishop Chaput speaks directly to this illogical argument:

To suggest - as some Catholics do - that Senator Obama is this year's 'real' prolife candidate requires a peculiar kind of self-hypnosis, or moral confusion, or worse. To portray the 2008 Democratic Party presidential ticket as the preferred 'prolife' option is to subvert what the word 'prolife' means... [P]eople who claim that the abortion struggle is 'lost' as a matter of law, or that supporting an outspoken defender of legal abortion is somehow 'prolife,' are not just wrong; they're betraying the witness of every person who continues the work of defending the unborn child (full text).

George Weigel writes in Newsweek:

According to his own Web site, Obama supports the federal Freedom of Choice Act, which would eliminate all state and federal regulation of abortion (such as informed consent and parental notification in the case of minors seeking an abortion); these regulations have demonstrably reduced the absolute number of abortions in the jurisdictions in which they are in effect. FOCA would also eliminate, by federal statute, state laws providing "conscience clause" protection for pro-life doctors who decline to provide abortions. Obama supports federal funding for abortion, opposes the Hyde amendment (which restricts the use of taxpayer monies for abortion) and has pledged to repeal the "Mexico City policy" (bans federal foreign-aid funding for organizations that perform and promote abortion as a means of family planning). According to the pro-choice Web site RHRealityCheck.org, Obama also opposes continued federal funding for crisis pregnancy centers (full article).

"consider Barack Obama an operator of the underground railroad. The underground railroad did not end slavery, but it was certainly a worthy way of rescuing people in an immediate fashion."

No. As demonstrated in the points below, a more accurate analogy would be that Obama believes slavery is a fundamental right, will only nominate judges to the Supreme Court who believe slavery is a right provided by the Constitution, wants to eliminate any restrictions on slavery, will ensure federal funding for slavery and repeal any funding of anti-slavery organizations, but as an aside happens to have a social platform that may minimally reduce slavery, and is therefore the more "anti-slavery" candidate. This is backwards thinking.

Any potential reduction in abortions under an Obama administration will be completely counteracted by his staunch support of abortion rights and the Freedom of Choice Act, which, if enacted is estimated to increase abortions by 125,000 annually.

Billyin4C:

asthila,

Cut and paste all you want. All I can say is that I sincerely disagree with Archbishop Chaput. As I alluded to in a previous post, those who would protect against abortion but support the same policies of economic divergence, neglect of the poor, war, capital punishment, and corporate greed are not "pro-life," simply anti-abortion.

Abortion has become a very effective tool for rallying the moral majority to focus on a single issue and ignore the overwhelming inequalities and neglect of human life elsewhere. Voting republican is not a protection of human life.

My final response:

Billy,

To say someone is *simply* anti-abortion, completely downplays the gravity of abortion. 50 million unborn children aborted in this country since 1973, which is a drop in the bucket globally. As Bishop Martino of Scranton says, "No war, no natural disaster, no illness or disability has claimed so great a price." All other rights are undermined if the fundamental right to life is not protected.

It would be an understatement to suggest that Catholics are perfectly represented by one political party or candidate. Faithful citizenship requires that Catholics form their consciences in light of Church teaching. Consequently, I've quoted the overwhelming statements from the US bishops, and Church documents so that our political opinions are not confused with what the Catholic Church actually teaches.

Pray for our bishops

2008-10-24T18:15:00.000-07:00

That they continue to proclaim the truth, like Edward Cardinal Egan, Archbishop of New York:

It is high time to stop pretending that we do not know what this nation of ours is allowing—and approving—with the killing each year of more than 1,600,000 innocent human beings within their mothers. We know full well that to kill what is clearly seen to be an innocent human being or what cannot be proved to be other than an innocent human being is as wrong as wrong gets. Nor can we honorably cover our shame (1) by appealing to the thoughts of Aristotle or Aquinas on the subject, inasmuch as we are all well aware that their understanding of matters embryological was hopelessly mistaken [a reference to Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden], (2) by suggesting that "killing" and "choosing to kill" are somehow distinct ethically, morally or criminally, (3) by feigning ignorance of the meaning of "human being," "person," "living," and such, (4) by maintaining that among the acts covered by the right to privacy is the act of killing an innocent human being, and (5) by claiming that the being within the mother is "part" of the mother, so as to sustain the oft-repeated slogan that a mother may kill or authorize the killing of the being within her "because she is free to do as she wishes with her own body."

One day, please God, when the stranglehold on public opinion in the United States has been released by the extremists for whom abortion is the center of their political and moral life, our nation will, in my judgment, look back on what we have been doing to innocent human beings within their mothers as a crime no less heinous than what was approved by the Supreme Court in the "Dred Scott Case" in the 19th century, and no less heinous than what was perpetrated by Hitler and Stalin in the 20th. There is nothing at all complicated about the utter wrongness of abortion, and making it all seem complicated mitigates that wrongness not at all. On the contrary, it intensifies it.

Here is his entire message.

The Pope, Sarah Palin and the Media

2008-10-23T22:40:00.001-07:00

I stole this from The Corner:

So, Sarah Palin's advisors decide that it is time for her to meet a bunch of serious world leaders. They head to Europe, where, first up, she has an appointment with the Pope. The Pope and some of his Cardinals invite her for a boat ride on the Tiber. As they are sitting in the gondola talking, a wind starts up and blows the Pope's hat into the water. Palin looks around and realizes that no one is going to do anything about it, so she calmy rises, takes off her her high heels, and steps off the side of the boat. Instead of diving into the water, however, she walks across it, to the hat, picks it up and walks back across the water to the boat. She climbs in, hands the Pope his hat and continues discussing whatever it was they had been talking about. The Cardinals are open mouthed in astonishment at what they have just seen. The news media, in nearby boats are busy discussing among themselves how to report it. Headlines the next day at the New York Times, The Washington Post and the networks all blare: New Revelation: Sarah Palin Can't Swim.

2008-10-11T18:15:00.000-07:00

As important and relevant as the economy is in this year's election, I think it has resulted in a huge disservice to human life issues, and the entire "values" package which supposedly won a second term for President Bush. In fact, as I see it, this is perhaps the reason McCain has been struggling in the polls when their message has been diverted solely to the economy. Financial prosperity is undermined without the prosperity of life and liberty for the most vulnerable in society. Thank you Sarah Palin for bringing this back to our attention.

Psychologically immature

2008-10-11T17:30:00.000-07:00

Just a snippet from an encouraging article about today's seminarians in the UK. Tip of the hat to Fr. Z.

Until very recently, seminaries managed to screen out the more orthodox candidates. "Psychologically immature" was the code for "obedient to the Magisterium", and so effective was the process that dozens of vocations were successfully squashed.

Disturbing. Try to imagine the hundreds, possibly thousands of men called to holy orders by God who got the boot from seminaries and psychological evaluators for being orthodox.

The not-so "Extraordinary" Ministers of Holy Communion

2008-10-08T20:24:00.000-07:00

I've long been troubled by the common overuse of Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion (EMHC). Troubled so much that I have, in fact, stopped volunteering to be one. In reading George Weigel's wonderful book, "Courage to Be Catholic," I came across shared sentiments. As he writes below, there remains nothing "extraordinary" about an EMHC when 9/10 ministers are lay people.

I clearly understand the practical need for EMHC at large parishes, but find myself most irritated at what I would consider an abuse of this practice, where at a daily Mass of around 20 people, one or two EMHC are summoned as though it is entirely necessary to have Holy Communion under both Species (quite the contrary), or that Communion take less than 5 minutes.

I think priests could really narrow down their use of EMHC even in large parish settings, and use the opportunity to encourage more time for hymns and private devotion, especially at a time in which so few Catholics believe in the Real Presence. Perhaps it is an Efficiency-Complex we have as Americans, that leads us to believe we must make Sunday Mass an hour long or less. Thus we bring in the army of EMHC and create 20 different lines and pride ourselves on getting Communion through with in under 5 minutes. But have we considered the spiritual consequences?:

Diminished sense of reverence for the Real Presence, when Holy Communion is distributed by you, me and the other guy
Diminished sense of the role of the priest

Lastly, if going to Mass is the holiest thing we can do on earth, could we not spend five more minutes in prayer and thanksgiving for having received Jesus' precious Body and Blood? But alas, allow George Weigel to make the point much better than I ever could:

For more than twenty-five years, the Church has permitted lay people to assist in the distribution of communion as "extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist." "Extraordinary" in this context means "not the ordinary ministers of the Eucharist" -- yet that is precisely what lay people have become, while the priest has become the "extraordinary minister" in distributing the sacrament. What was originally intended as a practice to facilitate the distribution of holy communion at Masses with large congregations when only a few priests or deacons were available has now become the norm, and even parishes with several other priests and a deacon or two arrange their liturgy so that the priest celebrating Mass is the only priest involved in the distribution of communion. Lay people now ordinarily remove the pre-consecrated hosts from the tabernacle and return to the tabernacle those left over after communion -- a practice that is supposed to end in the near future, but whose ubiquity is not going to be significantly reversed without something more than a new set of rules from Rome.

That "something more" is a renewed and deepened understanding of the intimate relationship of the priest to the Eucharist. At the altar, the priest should be most transparently an alter Christus, "another Christ." When he speaks the words of eucharistic consecration, he speaks Christ's words of institution at the Last Supper. Similarly, when he offers the body and blood of Christ to his people, he is acting "in the person of Christ," feeding Christ's flock. It is imperative that this rich, sacramental iconography be a visible part of the Church's liturgy. Too frequently it is not, and that has contributed in subtle ways to the crisis of priestly identity in the United States.

When, Sunday after Sunday, nine of the ten people distributing communion at Mass are lay men or women, the signal is being sent that the Catholic community is feeding itself rather than being fed by its priests "in the person of Christ." The not unreasonable inference is then drawn that worship is something we do for each other and for ourselves rather than an obligation we owe to God, whose fulfillment is made possible by the grace of baptism. It is, finally, a short step from that inference to the breakdown of deep faith in the sacramental reality of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist, which recent surveys show is a major problem in the Church in the United States.

No serious person proposes a ban on the use of lay men and women as extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist; such a ban would be impractical, given high-density Mass attendance at large parishes, and it would be insulting to the many, many lay men and women who perform this role with reverence. At the same time, the Church must learn, and priests must learn, how to make it clear again that in the Eucharist, the center of Catholic life, the Church is being fed by Christ, in his word and in the person of his priest; the Church is not feeding itself, in some sort of liturgical picnic. Sustained and effective catechesis from the pulpit is one way to begin this small but not inconsequential facet of genuinely Catholic reform. So is a conscious decision, whenever possible, to have multiple priests and deacons distributing communion at Sunday Mass.

Ad hominem

2008-10-08T12:23:00.000-07:00

I'm starting to notice a theme here.

Sarah Palin brings up Barack Obama's devastating relationship with unrepentant domestic terrorist Bill Ayers. Conclusion? She's a racist.
John McCain and Republicans lay out the facts about the financial crisis, i.e., Pres. Bush, McCain, Republicans have for years been calling for more regulation and oversight of corrupt institutions Freddy Mac and Fannie Mae. Meanwhile, Democrats were taking thousands in campaign contributions from Fred and Fan and suggesting there was no crisis. Conclusion? Republicans are all racists and hate poor people.
John McCain provides great arguments during debate, but points and says "that one" in reference to Sen. Obama. Conclusion? He's a racist.

Ah yes, and there's the long circulated theory that if Sen. Obama loses this election it will be racially motivated.

From Wikipedia:

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.

It is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem as abusive, sexist, racist, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or attacking the person who proposed the argument (personal attack) in an attempt to discredit the argument. It is also used when an opponent is unable to find fault with an argument, yet for various reasons, the opponent disagrees with it.

Barack Obama vs. Human Life

2008-10-06T12:38:00.000-07:00

Since I was diagnosed with political fever a few months ago, I have been regularly following the campaign news, polling, listening to talk radio and reading conservative blogs. Today I came across a great post on the National Review's "The Corner" blog. Peter Kirsanow listed a number of questions he suggested be posed to Sen. Obama at Tuesday's town-hall debate between him and Sen. McCain. The following two stood out:

You've stated that determining when a baby gets human rights is "above [your] pay grade." Let's make it simple. Do you believe a baby is a human being? If not, why not? If you do, why wouldn't a baby be entitled to human rights? Is your uncertainty regarding this issue the reason you voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act?
While in the Illinois state legislature you voted "present" more than 130 times. Given your uncertainty as to when a baby is entitled to human rights, why didn't you simply vote "present" on the Born-Alive Act?

You can read the entire list of questions here. Of course, we know nothing of the sort will be brought up -- at least not in the aforementioned terms. Sen. Obama will get another free-pass on his frightening feelings toward the unborn and newly born.

What just happened?

2008-10-03T23:14:00.000-07:00

More from my new hero, John Peyton

2008-10-03T11:51:00.000-07:00

Embedding of this video was disabled, so you'll have to follow the link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDW_cZF1YOA