Angels In The Whirlwind

Culture War

2012-02-12T22:54:00.001-05:00

Following along with the most recent battle in the culture war of Obama vs. the Catholic Church, here are two good articles, one and two, that explain why Obama's 'accommodation' has been rejected by the bishops and others. A quote from the first article:

It is morally obtuse for the administration to suggest (as it does) that this is a meaningful accommodation of religious liberty because the insurance company will be the one to inform the employee that she is entitled to the embryo-destroying “five day after pill” pursuant to the insurance contract purchased by the religious employer. It does not matter who explains the terms of the policy purchased by the religiously affiliated or observant employer. What matters is what services the policy covers.

A quote from the second article explains that many institutions (such as the Archdiocese of NY) self-insure.

Third, this does nothing to protect churches and other institutions like EWTN that are self-insured. The whole point of the compromise is to stick the burden on the insurer. Well, for many dioceses and folks like EWTN, they are the insurers — so they are still being forced to directly provide the coverage that violates their religion. Ironically, many of these institutions self-insure precisely in order to avoid state-law requirements to provide these drugs. So the president, whether intentionally or not, is eliminating the safety valve that works in many states to protect religious institutions. Thanks for that “compromise.”

162 Reasons To Marry

2012-02-09T18:13:00.000-05:00

From Family Research Council, read them here.

Obama Strong on Defense

2012-02-09T17:57:00.000-05:00

Slack-jawed and awed by a marshmallow gun, President Obama said he will deploy hundreds of these to crsis areas around the globe. They will replace the Soldiers and Marines who would ususally keep the world safe for democracy.

Nagasaki Martyrs

2012-02-08T21:21:00.001-05:00

Among the 26 martyrs was Saint Paul Miki who, while hanging on the cross, said “After Christ's example, I forgive my persecutors. I do not hate them. I ask God to have pity on all, and I hope my blood will fall on my fellow men as a fruitful rain.”

Charles Murray in the WSJ

2012-02-06T14:54:00.000-05:00

Charles Murray is in the news again because of his new book, Coming Apart. This article gives a taste of the book I'm guessing. A couple interesting quotes are below.

In explaining the growing gap between what he calls the new upper class and the new lower class Murray writes,

As I've argued in much of my previous work, I think that the reforms of the 1960s jump-started the deterioration. Changes in social policy during the 1960s made it economically more feasible to have a child without having a husband if you were a woman or to get along without a job if you were a man; safer to commit crimes without suffering consequences; and easier to let the government deal with problems in your community that you and your neighbors formerly had to take care of.

In talking about religious affiliation and its decline among the new lower class (i.e. Fishtown in this article) he says,

Whatever your personal religious views, you need to realize that about half of American philanthropy, volunteering and associational memberships is directly church-related, and that religious Americans also account for much more nonreligious social capital than their secular neighbors. In that context, it is worrisome for the culture that the U.S. as a whole has become markedly more secular since 1960, and especially worrisome that Fishtown has become much more secular than Belmont. It runs against the prevailing narrative of secular elites versus a working class still clinging to religion, but the evidence from the General Social Survey, the most widely used database on American attitudes and values, does not leave much room for argument.

His discussion of a remedy to the growing gap between the classes is directed toward the upper classes:

Life sequestered from anybody not like yourself tends to be self-limiting. Places to live in which the people around you have no problems that need cooperative solutions tend to be sterile. America outside the enclaves of the new upper class is still a wonderful place, filled with smart, interesting, entertaining people. If you're not part of that America, you've stripped yourself of much of what makes being American special.

Such priorities can be expressed in any number of familiar decisions: the neighborhood where you buy your next home, the next school that you choose for your children, what you tell them about the value and virtues of physical labor and military service, whether you become an active member of a religious congregation (and what kind you choose) and whether you become involved in the life of your community at a more meaningful level than charity events.

In conclusion Mr. Murray kind of plays devil's advocate to his own proposal and says, "We're supposed to trust that large numbers of parents will spontaneously, voluntarily make the right choice for the country by making the right choice for themselves and their children?" His answer to this is yes.

Maybe that's his Libertarian side coming through--you don't need a lot of directives, plans and legislation; just leave people alone and good people will do the right thing. The problem is that they don't, that the road to hell is often paved with the good intentions of good people and, anyway, there are plenty of bad people out there promoting bad things that destroy the efforts of the good people.

Hosana-Tabor vs. EEOC

2012-02-01T10:01:00.002-05:00

Here's a good article, an old one, I stumbled across that clearly explains what was at issue in the now-decided religious liberty case, Hosana-Tabor vs. EEOC. And here is the article that states Obama called Archbishop Dolan to tell him of the HHS decision. I didn't read this anywhere else. The article also states that Obama had assured Dolan in a previous meeting that Dolan would be happy with the results of the conscience rights decision. Obama certainly has a strange take on life as the president of the U.S. Seems it's always opposite day for him!
For another perspective on the matter, read Fr. Rutler's parish notes.

March for Life 2012

2012-01-26T01:32:00.001-05:00

Homily of Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan

7:30 a.m., Monday, January 23, 2012

Closing Mass of the National Prayer Vigil for Life

Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception

You have just spent the night in your mother’s homes!

You have “kept vigil” that cherished tradition so frequently found in the Bible, and now we commence this somber anniversary her in our Mother’s home, our National Shrine, in the best possible way, through the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

I welcome all of you!
I whisper “good morning” to so many of you who have kept vigil here for the noble cause of life;
I thank you for the radiant inspiration you give all of us.

That radiant inspiration we need indeed as we persevere in this now two-score years of promoting a recovery of the culture of life gravely threatened by unlimited abortion.

Simply put, we are often tempted to give up hope that we can even turn it around.

In this morning’s Gospel, Jesus mentions some mysterious “unforgiveable sin against the Holy Spirit.” What is it?

Wise men and women, saints and scholars, tell us that Jesus is teaching that, really, the only unforgiveable sin…is to believe that there is any sin which cannot be forgiven, that God’s mercy is limited.

Nope! God’s mercy, God’s grace, God’s power is unlimited! There is no evil, no horror, no sin that is exempt from the healing rays of His grace.

Not even the horrors of the culture of death!

From a human point of view, we may be tempted to surrender;

When our government places conception, pregnancy and birth under the “Center for Disease Control”;

When chemically blocking conception or aborting the baby in the womb is considered a “right” to be subsidized by others who abhor it;

When the ability of feeding, housing, and healing the struggling of the world is curtailed and impeded if one does not also help women abort their babies;

One can hardly be faulted for being tempted to the “sin against the Holy Spirit” and just consider all as lost.

Not us! Not for thousands who have stayed up all night in prayer in this, the home of a pregnant woman;

Not for hundreds of thousands who will march today with the words of “We Shall Overcome” ringing in our ears;

Not for those of us who whisper “Thanks be to God” as we behold untold numbers of young people with passion for the Culture of Life, those of us old enough to recall thirty-nine years ago when sophisticated voices told us that the “pro-life movement” was just a momentary fad that would soon crash upon the shores of a “brave new world.” We veterans who now smile as the pro-life cause is acknowledged as today’s premiere civil rights movement still, in spite of editorial pages and chic tsk-tsk the most pivotal, burning issue on the campaign trail.

Yes, like David in our reading from God’s word this morning, the pro-life movement has been dismissed by the Goliath of the well-oiled, well-inked, glitterati-crowded pro-abortion one…. But, Goliath the Giant didn’t win, did he? Trusting, shrewd,
Faithful, confident, energetic little David did!

Thank you, David…for the radiant inspiration you give us!

Here is Cardinal Di Nardo's homily from the Sunday evening before the March.

". . . an unprecedented line in the sand."

2012-01-24T23:36:00.000-05:00

Just last Friday, the Obama administration rendered its decision on religious organizations receiving a wider exemption regarding coverage of sterilization and contraception in health care plans. They won't. Archbishop Dolan has responded with this article in the Wall Street Journal and has also commented that "never has the federal government forced individuals and organizations to go out into the marketplace and buy a product that violates their conscience."

Some related articles can be found here and here. Archbishop Dolan offers this video as well.

The New Evangelization

2012-01-05T12:04:00.000-05:00

If you're a Catholic, you're probably familiar with the phrase by now. In this Zenit article, Father Cantalamessa gives a readable account of the whys and wherefors of the new evangelization called for by Pope Benedict. This article is actually the fourth in a series of Advent reflections which I only followed sketchily, but since this one helps put the others in better context, it will be worthwhile to read the others as well.

The previous evangelizations pertained to the Graeco-Roman world, the barbarian world and the new world. The current wave, says Father Cantalamessa (and the Pope, of course), is directed "to the western world that has been secularized and in some respects is post-Christian. This analysis, which already appeared in the writings of Blessed John Paul II, has become explicit in the teaching of the Holy Father Benedict XVI."

Fr. Cantalamessa says that the western world is characterized by "scientism, secularism, and rationalism -- the three mindsets that lead to a common result, relativism."

I've only highlighted a few opening paragraphs of the article.

Manifest Your Power, O God

2012-01-04T17:09:00.000-05:00

Pope Benedict's Christmas Eve homily can be read here. The Pope describes how we can approach God, by leaving our own "enlightened" reason behind.

Today, anyone wishing to enter the Church of Jesus’ Nativity in Bethlehem will find that the doorway five and a half metres high, through which emperors and caliphs used to enter the building, is now largely walled up. Only a low opening of one and a half metres has remained. The intention was probably to provide the church with better protection from attack, but above all to prevent people from entering God’s house on horseback. Anyone wishing to enter the place of Jesus’ birth has to bend down. It seems to me that a deeper truth is revealed here, which should touch our hearts on this holy night: if we want to find the God who appeared as a child, then we must dismount from the high horse of our "enlightened" reason.

The Pope also expresses some of the human doubts we may give in to in the face of a world that seems unable to resolve its conflicts and recognize the dignity of the person. Benedict speaks of the "oppressors’ rods and bloodstained cloaks" and says:

we cry out to the Lord: O mighty God, you have appeared as a child and you have revealed yourself to us as the One who loves us, the One through whom love will triumph. And you have shown us that we must be peacemakers with you. We love your childish estate, your powerlessness, but we suffer from the continuing presence of violence in the world, and so we also ask you: manifest your power, O God. In this time of ours, in this world of ours, cause the oppressors’ rods, the cloaks rolled in blood and the footgear of battle to be burned, so that your peace may triumph in this world of ours.

Chastity

2011-12-13T12:07:00.003-05:00

This piece is directed to young people, but it's such a concise explanation of chastity that it's good reading for any age group.
Here are a couple quotes:

Sexual intercourse, despite what the media would indicate, is not an indoor sport. It is the ULTIMATE expression of love between a husband and wife. Sexual intercourse, despite what the media would indicate, is not merely a physical act.

Because of the sacredness of marriage, because of the sacredness of our bodies, and because of the sacredness of our sexuality, any misuse of sex is tragic and detrimental to our spiritual lives. As Catholics we are called to be an example to others in the world.

This is essentially the message of the Generation Life missionaries, some of whom are now in the diocese of New York.

A related article is this one by John Garvey president of Catholic University of America in which he reiterates the reasons for his decision to institute single sex dorms on CUA's campus

Christians Most Persecuted Religious Group

2011-12-13T11:56:00.001-05:00

That's what Zenit reports in this article. According to participants at the International Conference on the Freedom of Religion and Discrimination Against Christians, there are two reasons for this: "the loss of Christian roots and European secularism where secular authorities are increasingly marginalizing religion from public life; and Islamic radicalism, exacerbated by aggressive missionary work by representatives of different non-Christian sects, and distortions of Christian teaching."
The Obama administration is signalling that it is not much interested in protecting Christians around the world because the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom does not have the support of the Obama administration and will likely not exist past this week. The article explains:

The USCIRF is an independent, bipartisan U.S. federal government commission. Its Commissioners are appointed by the U.S. president and the leadership of both political parties in the Senate and the House of Representatives. USCIRF's principal responsibilities are to review the facts and circumstances of violations of religious freedom internationally and to make policy recommendations to the President, the Secretary of State and Congress.

But despite its irreplaceable value, the organization may well be shut down on Dec. 16. Two continuing congressional resolutions had temporarily extended its life which had been threatened by budget cuts. But now a re-authorization bill has had a "hold" placed on it by Senate majority whip, Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.), according to CNS News.

As the Archbishop of Miami points out here, pro-life Catholics have most certainly "been played" by Obama, but I think that goes for all Catholics and Christian denominations as well. Obama must be not only our most pro-abortion president, but also our most doggedly ~~anti-Christian~~ secular president.

Sister Valsa John

2011-12-01T19:58:00.000-05:00

This article appeared several days ago in Zenit. The murder of this nun didn't happen in some long ago time. It was just last week in India that she was "hacked to death." Maoist extremists have been targeted as possibly responsible or, alternatively, a 'mafia' that controls the coal mining interests. Rest in peace.

"Being Human In An Age of Unbelief"

2011-11-23T11:47:00.000-05:00

Here is a great lecture given at the University of Pennsylvania by the new archbishop of Philadelphia, Archbishop Charles Chaput. He pretty much leaves no stone unturned. Basically, he's talking about what it means to create a culture of life in the broadest sense of that phrase and not just with respect to the lives of the unborn. Chaput's lecture helps to understand why the battle is so pitched at this point in time and why the stakes are so high. The battle comes down to the nuts and bolts of what we believe the human person is, where he came from and what we believe to be true about him. That's why BOTH sides --the culture of life vs. the culture of death, the moral relativists vs. the believers in objective Truth, the culture of belief vs. the "culture of unbelief" (Chaput's phrase, see below)-- are in full battle mode.

So, to arms! Here are a few quotes:

When Christians and other people of good will talk about "the dignity of the human person" and "the sanctity of human life," they're putting into words what we all instinctively know – and have known for a very long time. Something elevated and sacred in men and women demands our special respect. When we violate that human dignity, we do evil. When we serve it, we do good. And therein lies one of many ironies. We live in a society that speaks persuasively about protecting the environment and rescuing species on the brink of extinction. But then it tolerates the killing of unborn children and the abuse of human fetal tissue as lab material.

There's a proverb worth remembering here: "To a man with a hammer, every problem is a nail." If modern man is scientific man, technology is his hammer. But every problem isn't a nail. Knowledge without the virtues of wisdom, prudence, and, above all, humility to guide it is not just unhelpful. It's dangerous.

Science involves the study of the material world. But human beings are more than the sum of their material processes. Trying to explain the human person with thinking that excludes the reality of the spiritual, the dignity of the religious, and the possibility of God simply cripples both the scientist and the subject being studied – man himself. To put it another way, we can destroy what we mean by humanity while claiming, and even intending, to serve it.

Most of us here tonight believe that we have basic rights that come with the special dignity of being human. These rights are inherent to human nature. They're part of who we are. Nobody can take them away. But if there is no Creator, and nothing fundamental and unchangeable about human nature, and if "nature's God" is kicked out of the conversation, then our rights become the product of social convention. And social conventions can change. So can the definition of who is and who isn't "human."

The irony is that modern liberal democracy needs religion more than religion needs modern liberal democracy. American public life needs a framework friendly to religious belief because it can't support its moral claims about freedom and rights with secular arguments alone. In fact, to the degree that it encourages a culture of unbelief, liberal democracy undermines its own grounding. It causes its own decline by destroying the public square's moral coherence.

Christophobia

2011-11-14T11:31:00.000-05:00

This article is a good follow-up to the previous one. It's about Tim Tebow and the controversy about his public displays of faith. I've been hearing about it on sports radio, but George Weigl does a much better job of sorting out the issue.

Religious Liberty

2011-11-14T11:24:00.000-05:00

I thought this Zenit article contained a good summary of some of the infringements on religious liberty going around. In particular, the article summarizes six problem areas since June of 2011 as noted by Archbishop Dolan, president of the USCCB.

In his letter, dated Sept. 29, Archbishop Dolan listed six major problems regarding religious liberty in the period since June.
-- Federal Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) regulations that oblige all private health insurance plans to cover contraception and sterilization. This will oblige church employers to sponsor and pay for services they oppose.
-- The HHS request regarding refugees that Archbishop Gomez referred to.
-- The U.S. Agency for International Development is increasingly requiring condom distribution in HIV prevention programs, as well as requiring contraception within international relief and development programs.
-- The Justice Department's attack on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). In July, the Department started filing briefs actively attacking DOMA's constitutionality, claiming that supporters of the law could only have been motivated by bias and prejudice.
-- The Justice Department recently attacked what is known as "ministerial exception," a constitutional doctrine long accepted by courts that allows churches to make employment decisions concerning persons working in a ministerial capacity.
-- A new law in New York State allowing same-sex marriage with only a very narrow religious exemption.

Note also the comments regarding the so-called problem at Catholic University (CUA) regarding a Muslim student being discriminated against. Even the attorney who's filing charges against CUA on this and the suppposed illegality of single sex dorms admits that no complaint whatsoever was filed by any student!

Parents' Rights

2011-10-21T11:27:00.002-04:00

In light of the new sex education mandate in the New York City public schools, Robert George has written this in an op-ed piece in the New York Times. (By the way, a middle schooler in New York City is a sixth, seventh or eighth grader.) Among other problems, this mandate victimizes most those parents who don't want their kids to participate in this so-called 'education,' but who can't afford private school. Mr. George writes:

But beyond rival moral visions, the new policy raises a deeper issue: Should the government force parents — at least those not rich enough to afford private schooling — to send their children to classes that may contradict their moral and religious values on matters of intimacy and personal conduct?

The right to parent is rather like the right to exercise one’s religion. Like parental duties, religious duties are serious and highly personal. This is why, absent the most serious reasons, it would be a grave violation of individual rights if the state prevented people from honoring what they regarded as their religious obligations. To subject children to indoctrination in deeply personal matters against their parents’ consciences is no less a violation than forcing Muslim parents to send their children to a Catholic Mass.

More on Same Sex "Marriage" in New York State

2011-10-19T16:52:00.001-04:00

Several sources are reporting on the four New York state senators who delivered the vote on same sex 'marriage' for Governor Cuomo here in New York state. It seems that they're receiving some handsome campaign funding from Republicans who want to send the message that the Republican party supports same-sex 'marriage.'

The four wayward senators are Mark J. Grisanti of Buffalo, James S. Alesi of Rochester, Stephen M. Saland of Poughkeepsie and Roy J. McDonald of Saratoga County. Their mentors in the Republican party are gay rights activist Tim Gill along with Paul E. Singer, Daniel S. Loeb and our own Mayor Bloomberg.

Allen West on Fatherhood and Black Family

2011-10-14T12:11:00.001-04:00

Marriage and Race; Marriage and Prison

2011-10-03T15:06:00.001-04:00

I've just read a couple of articles that mention marriage and its significance in two different contexts. One of the articles is in the current issue of National Review and the other is an old clipping that I had squirreled away in a folder. Taking the latter first, the author is George Gilder writing in the Wall Street Journal in 1995. He's drawing a connection between a book that he wrote, Visible Man: A True Story of Post Racist America, and a book that Dinesh D'Souza wrote, The End of Racism. Apparently, both writers come to the conclusion that white racism was not a "significant problem" for blacks in recent American history.

What Gilder says is a problem for blacks is the fact that young black men are not socialized through marriage. To quote: "The key problem of the underclass--the crucible of crime, the source of violence, the root of poverty--is the utter failure of socialization of young men through marriage. The problem resides in the nexus of men and marriage." Gilder goes on to point out that attempts to address the problems of the underclass all focus on the women! That leaves the men to indulge in being "predators" rather than "providers," and, in many cases to languish in prison. He gives the statistic that 40% of young black males between ages 17 and 35 are in prison or on probation.

Writing some 15 years later, Mitch Pearlstein says that research shows that married men are less likely than single men to break the law. He isn't concerned with race. Some of his statistics:

Across the country, studies consistently show that more than 40 percent of low-income men who father a child out of wedlock have already been in jail or prison by the time their first son or daughter is born.

One in four black men born between 1975 and 1979 had experienced imprisonment by 2009. The comparable ratio for white men was one in 19. The chance of having been imprisoned for black men in this cohort who had not graduated from high school was two in three.

As of 2000, about 25 percent of black men between the ages of 22 and 30 were married. Among incarcerated black men, the marriage rate was less than half of that, 11 percent.

With praises for the book, he references The Case for Marriage, citing a study which showed that marriage was a significant factor in the lives of those men who "reduced" their criminal activity. Pearlstein is looking for solutions, especially in the area of hiring and jobs, so that criminals can get back on their feet without being condemned forever by their past records. That makes sense--save as many as you can--but we also have to tackle the root of the problem which, whether pertaining to black or white, is a welfare society, a feminized society, a libertine society that has permitted the so-called wonders and privileges of sexual liberation, secularism and feminism to trump the institution of marriage.

SFC Alwyn Cashe

2011-09-26T11:20:00.004-04:00

Along with the more familiar definition of the word "amazing" as 'very surprising, wonderful, astonishing, astounding,' my dictionary gives several archaic senses for the word amazement. They are 'overwhelming fear, bewilderment, stupefaction.' Put these all together and such is the feeling when reading the account of SFC Cashe's courage and determination back in 2005 in Iraq. SFC Cashe died of his burn wounds about a month after being injured. R.I.P. What a legacy of bravery to leave behind.

Archbishop Dolan to Barack Obama

2011-09-23T11:26:00.000-04:00

Our archbishop is defending the faith as he again speaks up, this time to Barack Obama regarding his position on DOMA. Dolan made this defense in his capacity as president of the USCCB. Some are calling it a "remarkable" letter with a "stepped up" tone of urgency. Dolan's letter can be read here. Dolan takes the president to task for his attempt to characterize those who support traditional marriage as bigots.

That is why it is particularly upsetting, Mr. President, when your Administration, through the various court documents, pronouncements and policies identified in the attached analysis, attributes to those who support DOMA a motivation rooted in prejudice and bias. It is especially wrong and unfair to equate opposition to redefining marriage with either intentional or willfully ignorant racial discrimination, as your Administration insists on doing.

Our federal government should not be presuming ill intent or moral blindness on the part of the overwhelming majority of its citizens, millions of whom have gone to the polls to directly support DOMAs in their states and have thereby endorsed marriage as the union of man and woman. Nor should a policy disagreement over the meaning of marriage be treated by federal officials as a federal offense—but this will happen if the Justice Department‟s latest constitutional theory prevails in court. The Administration‟s failure to change course on this matter will, as the attached analysis indicates, precipitate a national conflict between Church and State of enormous proportions and to the detriment of both institutions.

Thanks, Mrs. Scaraffia

2011-09-22T20:14:00.003-04:00

In the wake of Mayor Bloomberg's misguided push for mandatory sex education in the public schools, an Italian journalist summarizes the problem nicely.

"It is not clear why public institutions in the West continue to have such magical trust in the effectiveness of sex education, especially when young people in those countries continue to have precocious, unprotected sex, leading to an increase of disease, pregnancy and abortion."

She points out the importance of family and Catholic teaching in the matter of educating about sex.

"For the Catholic Church, she said, sexual activity is an important part of human and spiritual maturity and properly belongs only to marriage and the formation of a family. The church teaches respect for one's own body, which means giving importance and weight to the acts that are done with it, not just taking into consideration the possibility of enjoyment or narcissistic gratification."

Tenth Anniversary of 9/11

2011-09-11T23:59:00.003-04:00

Watch This Short Video on America's Form of Government

2011-09-06T15:58:00.004-04:00

More on How Gay "Marriage" Happened in New York state

2011-08-03T10:32:00.002-04:00

Here is another article, also from New Yorker's Family Research Foundation, that gives more explanation about how the same-sex "marriage" vote in New York was basically bought and sold and passed under questionable (illegal?) conditions. Republicans were instrumental in passing this bill. The author mentions the groundwork that was laid by Republican donors in collusion (shall we say) with Andrew Cuomo.

The battle really began back some months ago when Steve Cohen and other top staff members from Governor Andrew Cuomo’s administration met with wealthy Republican financial contributors in New York City. The governor’s staff proposed that they should work with the governor to see that homosexual “marriage” legislation was passed into law. It didn’t take long for those liberal-leaning Republican Wall Street financiers to get on board with the governor. Billionaire Paul Singer (whose son is living in a gay-lifestyle), and hedge fund managers Cliff Asness and Daniel Loeb were influential in passing same-sex “marriage” legislation. They wrote six-figure checks, totaling over one million dollars, to fund the public relations campaign for gay “marriage”. This level of support did not go unnoticed by Republicans who normally sought campaign funding from these same sources.

He mentions the "letter of necessity" that Cuomo used to circumvent consideration of the bill in the Assembly.

To get a vote this quickly, the governor had to send a letter of necessity to the Assembly, declaring that this legislation was critical to the state, and necessary, such that there was no time for it to go through the normal legislative process.

Once the bill was in the Senate, the governor went to work again.

The Senate leadership and the governor’s staff made an agreement not to permit the same-sex “marriage” legislation to be laid aside or discussed. This blocked any debate and expedited the process. The governor wanted to have the vote pass in a manner that would allow for maximum coverage in that evening’s 11:00 PM newscasts. His staff was in full force on the Senate floor, working with various leaders, expediting the process to make the 11:00 o’clock deadline. It is highly unethical for the executive branch of government to be involved in the operation of the legislative branch.

Senators were locked into the chamber and lobbyists were locked out.

Senators were locked in the chamber so they could not disappear for the vote and be marked absent – or in Albany lingo ‘take a walk’. This is the first time I have seen senators locked in the chamber, forcing them to vote. Again, this seemed to be part of a broader effort to lock down the needed votes, and not let any peel away from taking a difficult vote.

The author makes clear that Republicans could have stopped this bill.

The Republican Party controls the state senate, giving them the authority to determine what to do with the legislation. They did not have to bring the legislation to the floor. The Senate Republican Conference could have stopped same-sex “marriage” in New York State, but they failed to do so. Twenty-nine Republicans voted against the bill on the floor, but it is not clear that they did all they could to keep it from coming to the floor in conference. It only takes seventeen senators in conference to hold a bill.

How "Gay" Marriage Happened . . .

2011-08-03T09:43:00.001-04:00

Here is a good discussion of the vote on same sex "marriage" in New York state this past June 24th. It's written by the Rev. Jason McGuire of New Yorker's Family Research Foundation. He singles out a few cowran tim'rous beasties, but to tell the truth, it sounds like all the Republicans had panic in their breasties.

The Senate GOP convinced itself that it was in their best interest to bring same-sex “marriage” to the floor for passage. They believe this action will remove the issue from the 2012 elections. Senate leadership, working with their Republican conference, devised a plan whereby they would permit a few votes to peel away causing the measure to ultimately pass, while allowing the majority of Republicans to maintain public positions of opposition. Republicans think this will protect their slim majority and allow their conference to return to power in 2013 and beyond. They are mistaken.

Besides the State Republican Chairman, Ed Cox, and Dean Skelos who allowed the vote, there was Mayor Bloomberg.

When the Republicans were conferencing this issue, they allowed gay “marriage” supporter and major financial donor, NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg, into the meeting. We now know that other wealthy and liberal GOP donors reached out to the party’s leadership with promises of support in exchange for a vote on homosexual “marriage”. This should be understood as quid pro quo, an illegal action of exchanging one’s vote for some personal gain, but this is just the way corrupt and compromising elected officials get things done on Planet Albany.

When the decision was made to bring the bill to the floor for a vote, Republican leadership conspired with Governor Cuomo and Senate Democrats to hold no debate on the bill. They actually shut down Sen. Diaz (D-Bronx), the lone voice defending the family that night, while allowing openly-gay lawmaker Sen. Duane (D-Manhattan) to go on virtually unchecked.

The timing of the bill’s passage was designed to coincide with the 11 o’clock newscasts allowing Governor Cuomo maximum coverage.

Republicans, thy wee-bit housie, too, in ruin! Unfortunately, these beasties are taking us down with them.

From Archbishop Dolan's Blog

2011-07-20T17:26:00.001-04:00

Just to keep current, I wanted to post a few quotes from Archbishop Dolan's "Afterthoughts" about same sex marriage. Although some might be saying that Dolan should have/could have done more (note here the suggestion that Cuomo be given a "public rebuke" by the bishops of New York), Dolan points out that legalizing same sex relationships has less to do with homosexuals wanting to marry and more to do with the homosexual lobbyists' desire to chip away at religious freedom, challenge the Church (Catholic, of course) and define away traditional marriage and existing sexual norms (such as they are at this point).

If the experience of those few other states and countries where this is already law is any indication, the churches, and believers, will soon be harassed, threatened, and hauled into court for their conviction that marriage is between one man, one woman, forever, bringing children into the world.

the problem is not homophobia but theophobia — a hatred by some of God, faith, religion, and the Church.

And now we ring the steeple bell again at this latest dilution of the authentic understanding of marriage, worried that the next step will be another redefinition to justify multiple partners and infidelity. If you think I’m exaggerating, within days of the passage of this bill, one major newspaper ran a flattering profile of a proponent of what was called “nonmonogamy.” Apparently, “nonmonogamy” is the idea that society is unrealistic to think that one man and one woman should remain faithful in marriage, and that openness to some infidelity should be the norm!

Sexual Liberationist Ideology

2011-07-06T19:19:00.001-04:00

The term is not mine, but it's certainly an accurate and useful one. Prof. Robert George uses it in this article which discusses the implications of legalizing same-sex marriage in New York state.

The vote in New York to redefine marriage advances the cause of loosening norms of sexual ethics, and promoting as innocent — and even “liberating” — forms of sexual conduct that were traditionally regarded in the West and many other places as beneath the dignity of human beings as free and rational creatures.

Prof. George discusses the meaning of marriage in New York by saying,

What New York now offers its citizens is “marriage” in name only. In reality, it doesn’t give marriage to same-sex partners — the nature of marriage makes that impossible, just as it makes it impossible to offer marriage to parties of three or more persons in polyamorous sexual partnerships. Rather, it takes away the legal recognition of marriage — a comprehensive union of persons ordered to having and rearing a family.

He goes on to explain how sexual norms will erode further.

Because these domestic partnerships are not actually marriages, despite the appropriation of the label; there is no intelligible basis in them for the norms of monogamy, exclusivity, and the pledge of permanence that structure and help to define marriage as historically understood in our law and culture.

Prof. George's remarks put in perspective the New York Times article I referenced here. In fact George cites the article himself and concludes
On sexual-liberationist premises, there is no reason (apart from the subjective tastes of this or that particular set of partners) for “marriages” to be monogamous and demand sexual fidelity.

There's much more good reading in this piece. The culture wars continue.

Statement of Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio of Brooklyn on Same Sex Marriage

2011-07-06T11:44:00.001-04:00

I have been meaning to post this since reading it last week. Highlights are mine.

Today, Governor Andrew Cuomo and the state legislature have deconstructed the single most important institution in human history. Republicans and Democrats alike succumbed to powerful political elites and have passed legislation that will undermine our families and as a consequence, our society.

With this vote, Governor Cuomo has opened a new front in the culture wars that are tearing at the fabric of our nation. At a time when so many New Yorkers are struggling to stay in their homes and find jobs, we should be working together to solve these problems. However, the politicians have curried favor with wealthy donors who are proponents of a divisive agenda in order to advance their own careers and futures.

What is needed in our state is leadership and not political gamesmanship.

In light of these disturbing developments and in protest for this decision, I have asked all Catholic schools to refuse any distinction or honors bestowed upon them this year by the governor or any member of the legislature who voted to support this legislation. Furthermore, I have asked all pastors and principals to not invite any state legislator to speak or be present at any parish or school celebration.

The above request is intended as a protest of the corrupt political process in New York State. More than half of all New Yorkers oppose this legislation. Yet, the governor and the state legislature have demonized people of faith, whether they be Muslims, Jews, or Christians, and identified them as bigots and prejudiced, and voted in favor of same-sex “marriage.” It is mystifying that this bill would be passed on the last day of an extended session under the cover of darkness.

This issue has been framed as upholding marriage equality. This is not the case since one of the principal purposes of marriage is to bring new life into the world. This cannot happen in same-sex marriage. It is not a civil rights issue, but rather a human rights issue upholding the age-old understanding of marriage. Our political leaders do not believe their own rhetoric. If they did, how in good conscience could they carve out any exemption for institutions that would be proponents of bigotry and prejudice?

Republicans and Democrats equally share responsibility for this ruinous legislation and we as Catholics should hold all accountable for their actions.

Beatification for the Ulma Family

2011-07-05T19:30:00.002-04:00

I'm very late with this. For several years, maybe 7 or 8, I've saved a newspaper clipping about Jozef and Wiktoria Ulma from the village of Markowa in Poland. They and their seven children, the seventh being Wiktoria's unborn child in the womb, were murdered by the Nazis for harboring Jews. The clipping I saved was brief in content, no more than a paragraph, but it left such an impression that it's never seemed quite right to throw it away.

It would have been bad enough for the husband and wife to have been shot, but seven young children from ages 7 to 18 months? How can one even begin to understand what it means to do that? The unspeakably inhumane actions of the Germans are spelled out further in this Zenit article from earlier this year. The beatification of the Ulma Family was, I believe, carried out in May of this year.

Same Sex Marriage

2011-07-05T16:48:00.002-04:00

In another mind-twisting game to convince us that black is really white, this article wants us to accept the "finding" that gay promiscuity is healthy for relationships and "some gay men and lesbians argue that, as a result, they have stronger, longer-lasting and more honest relationships. And while that may sound counterintuitive, some experts say boundary-challenging gay relationships represent an evolution in marriage — one that might point the way for the survival of the institution."

If you're still reading after that, the article goes on to say that while straight people might call having various partners "cheating," gays view this kind of activity in a positive light. The thinking seems to be that traditional marriage is in trouble (can't imagine why) and the more evolved thinking of gay people can help provide a cure. This sounds like some variation of the Stockholm Syndrome where victims begin to identify their persecutors as their saviors. Gays and lesbians, so deeply involved in the negativity and counter-intuitiveness of promiscuous relationships begin to define them as positive in order to survive. An indication of all this openess has to offer is reflected in the fact that no one interviewed for the article would give their name!

None of this is news in the gay community, but few will speak publicly about it. Of the dozen people in open relationships contacted for this column, no one would agree to use his or her full name, citing privacy concerns. They also worried that discussing the subject could undermine the legal fight for same-sex marriage.

A good antidote is to read "A New Movement For Marriage" and Maggie Gallagher's article following the passage of same sex marriage in New York.

This was sent out last week by Catholic Advocacy Network

2011-07-01T21:43:00.001-04:00

A Message to Catholic New Yorkers from the Bishops of New York State

We bishops share with so many of you deep disappointment in the presumption of our state’s elected officials in the radical redefinition of marriage. Yet we are heartened by the vigor with which so many faithful Catholic New Yorkers fought to preserve the true meaning of marriage.

Many surely believed that Catholics would simply shrug their shoulders and go along with this radical act of social engineering. Yet you did not do that. Together with people of other faith traditions, you spoke out. Thousands of you, by phone, email, letter or in-person visits to your legislators, and through social media like Facebook and Twitter, as well as hand-signed petitions in the back of your church, let you convictions be known.

We are grateful to you, as we are to the many legislators in the state Senate and Assembly who voted to reject this bill. We know the pressure that was brought to bear on them, and we admire their courage and yours in attempting to defend marriage and protect religious freedom. Their integrity and yours was called into question by many. Both you and they were accused of bigotry for simply defending the timeless understanding of marriage.

The proponents of so-called “same-sex marriage” portrayed their cause as a matter of “civil rights.” Redefining marriage has nothing to do with civil rights. The Catholic Church has a proud history in this country’s civil rights movement for African-Americans. However, this situation is in no way analogous. In the first case, a race of people was shamefully made to endure hundreds of years of slavery and systemic persecution and discrimination. Today’s debate focuses on a small group of persons, whose human rights must always be respected and defended by us all, but who claim a civil right to redefine marriage for all of society based on a private and personal preference.

As so many of you have let us know, this is not just a “Catholic issue.” Yet for us Catholics, there is particular disappointment with those elected officials who publicly profess fidelity to our Catholic religion but whose public stance is at odds with a fundamental teaching of that faith. The definition of marriage resides in the plan of God for humankind. It is at the very least presumptuous for the state to attempt to redefine it.

From this sad moment in our state’s history, let it be our prayer that we witness a new appreciation for authentic marriage as understood by our Catholic faith and revealed to us by God through nature. We have seen so many threats to marriage in recent years, from widespread cohabitation, to infidelity, to exploding out-of-wedlock birth rates, to pornography and other addictions that undermine family and married life. Sadly, we have even seen rates of Catholic marriages plunge over the last four decades by nearly 60 percent. And now we see the state presume to alter what God already has defined and common sense can recognize as right and true.

While our culture seems to have lost a basic understanding of marriage, we Catholics must not. We must be models of what is good, holy and sacred about authentic sacramental marriage. Let this moment where marriage is being attacked from without become a moment of renewal from within – in our Church, in our communities and in our families – where marriage is indelibly marked by fidelity, sacrifice and the mutual love of husband and wife leading to children.

The Church does not seek to be at odds with the society and culture. The Church welcomes the opportunity to be part of the public dialogue and listens respectfully to all positions. But the Church cannot do otherwise than stand against the claims of any culture and any society that attempts to define a relationship into being what it is not. To that extent we members of the Catholic Church are called to be in opposition to the prevailing culture. And sadly we are called to do so again. We know well that marriage always has been, is now and always will be the life-long, life-giving union of one man and one woman. No act of government can change that reality. With respect for the dignity of every person, we proclaim this truth and we will be faithful to its meaning and to its observance in all that we say and do.

--The Catholic Bishops of New York State

June 24, 2011

Feast of the Birthday of St. John the Baptist

Same Sex Marriage in New York

2011-06-22T19:14:00.002-04:00

What was supposed to be decided on Monday is still undecided. The battle to pass a same sex marriage bill is just that, a battle. Here are comments from Ed Mechmann's blog about what's happening in Albany. He is referring to the saints JohnFisher and Thomas More when he mentions the "great witnesses for truth."

As we recall the memory of these great witnesses for the truth, powerful men are in Albany redefining marriage, and threatening the liberty of the Church. They sit behind closed doors, making a mockery of democracy with their secret political deals, not disclosing even the language of the bill they will soon foist upon us. That bill will certainly threaten the liberty of the Church to fulfill her apostolic mission, even as it redefines the family and the nature of every marriage. A few people stand in their way. A few brave legislators have resisted the inducements, threats and pressures, and are defending the truth. Ordinary people of all faiths have sacrificed to go to Albany to give witness to their belief in the sanctity of authentic marriage, and to their fears of religious persecution. They were met with derisory anti-religious chants.

This calls to mind the way Obama, Pelosi and Reid forced the health care bill through. Andrew Cuomo, another Faux Catholic, is following in their example. Here is Archbishop Dolan's blog with his message about marriage.

Book Review--Unnatural Selection

2011-06-22T14:55:00.002-04:00

This review of the book Unnatural Selection covers some unpleasant territory and shows the cruel irony of what the ill-fated feminist movement has delivered to women and girls, namely, more ways to be an oppressed group. To quote:

In the mid-1970s, amniocentesis, which reveals the sex of a baby in utero, became available in developing countries. Originally meant to test for fetal abnormalities, by the 1980s it was known as the "sex test" in India and other places where parents put a premium on sons. When amnio was replaced by the cheaper and less invasive ultrasound, it meant that most couples who wanted a baby boy could know ahead of time if they were going to have one and, if they were not, do something about it.

The book explores how sex selection, by means of abortion, has skewed the male-female ratio in some countries, especially India and China. The resulting shortage of women not only fuels the practice of abortion but also turns women into a commodity to be bought and sold. Again, from the review:

The economist Gary Becker has noted that when women become scarce, their value increases, and he sees this as a positive development. But as Ms. Hvistendahl demonstrates, "this assessment is true only in the crudest sense." A 17-year-old girl in a developing country is in no position to capture her own value. Instead, a young woman may well become chattel, providing income either for their families or for pimps. As Columbia economics professor Lena Edlund observes: "The greatest danger associated with prenatal sex determination is the propagation of a female underclass," that a small but still significant group of the world's women will end up being stolen or sold from their homes and forced into prostitution or marriage.

In a screwy twist of logic, the author of the book (a woman, no surprise) worries that this shortage of women might endanger the sacred cow of abortion that feminists champion.

This is a very interesting review and makes a number of good points, most all of which were accounted for and predicted in Pope Paul VI's Humanae Vitae.

Single Sex Dorms at CUA

2011-06-18T16:54:00.001-04:00

Having a special interest in what goes on at The Catholic University of America (CUA), it was especially exciting to read that CUA will be phasing in single sex dormitories this fall.   President Garvey laid out his thinking on the matter in this op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal.

One sassy coed, a CUA alum, bragged that she had hooked up to her heart's content, that single sex dorms won't change a thing. A coed from some other university lapsed into political correctness saying that  "choice" is important.   Fortunately, what these girls think doesn't matter. President Garvey did not say that a questionnaire will be sent around to see how students like the new arrangement. No university-wide study is being planned to ask for feedback. No one is suggesting that input from students will help Mr. Garvey decide how he'll implement the phasing-in process.    The grown-ups are in charge of the university as they should be.

I don’t believe any parent honestly wants to send their high school senior off to four years of partying and casual sex, but with little support from the popular culture, and far too little from our churches, parents acquiesce to the culture’s insistence that sex and alcohol are obligatory rites of passage for college students. When the president of a university--and how fitting that it should be The Catholic University of America--steps forward with real leadership, the message resonates.

You can read more here about President Garvey's idea of a university and the relation between intellect and virtue that he discusses briefly in the Wall Street Journal article.

Friendship

2011-06-08T10:18:00.005-04:00

I've read bits and pieces of what Pope Benedict has been saying about the digital age, but here is a more complete statement that I ran across. He talks about a " . . . . fundamental desire of people to communicate and to relate to each other. This desire for communication and friendship is rooted in our very nature as human beings and cannot be adequately understood as a response to technical innovations."

On the subject of friendship, here are a couple excerpts:

The concept of friendship has enjoyed a renewed prominence in the vocabulary of the new digital social networks that have emerged in the last few years. The concept is one of the noblest achievements of human culture. It is in and through our friendships that we grow and develop as humans. For this reason, true friendship has always been seen as one of the greatest goods any human person can experience. We should be careful, therefore, never to trivialize the concept or the experience of friendship.

Friendship is a great human good, but it would be emptied of its ultimate value if it were to be understood as an end in itself. Friends should support and encourage each other in developing their gifts and talents and in putting them at the service of the human community.

The Pope is never trivial, even when talking about Facebook or Twitter. He manages to go from cyberspace to the early Church and pull it all together.

Remembering on Memorial Day

2011-05-27T10:56:00.000-04:00

Here is a good article from Blackfive for Memorial Day reading. It's from 2004. Note the quote from the fallen Major's letters where he says how much he "loved serving under George Bush." Note also how the reporters following turned tail and ran without covering the story.

Priest Abuse Scandal and John Jay College Study, II

2011-05-23T11:54:00.000-04:00

Others agree with me about homosexuality being among the root causes of the scandal despite what the John Jay report says. As Bill Donohue comments, The report “says that 81 percent of the victims were male and 78 percent were post-pubescent,” he reiterated. “Since 100 percent of the abusers were male, that's called homosexuality, not pedophilia or heterosexuality.”

Here is an article from Catholic New York with some additional points from the study.

A Faux Catholic

2011-05-23T11:37:00.001-04:00

Just a brief thought on the newly-resigned, fired really, ambassador to Malta, Doug Kmiec. He's crazy!
Despite the fact that he was sent packing for spending too much time writing about inter-faith concerns and that he was told to leave and not let the door hit him on the way out, Kmiec still waxes poetic about Obama.

“The President’s open affirmation of the significance of Divine grace in our hectic, information-overloaded existence is reminiscent of the message of hope and social justice that brought me to his side in 2008 to help him win the Catholic vote,” Kmiec observed.

Affirmation of Divine grace? Obama doesn't even go to church (except on Easter during the years when he's President). What could possibly make a seemingly sane, self-proclaimed pro-life Catholic attorney and professor like Kmiec make such a ridiculous remark?

Priest Abuse Scandal and John Jay College Study

2011-05-20T16:08:00.000-04:00

Regarding the John Jay College study , Archbishop Dolan made the point up front in his statement that the Catholic Church is the only professional agency to commission a study that looks into the whys and wherefores of sexual abuse of minors.   The prevalence of sexual abuse in families, schools and other institutions of our society certainly doesn't absolve priests of their wrongdoing, but the fact that the media continually points the finger at the Catholic Church suggests they are overlooking the log in their own eye. Dolan seems to be unflagging in his reminders to the public at large that the Church has dealt with and is dealing with the abuse scandal.

Back in 2004, the equally unflagging Catholic League reported that less than 2% of priests have been accused of abusing minors while 2% of athletic coaches nationwide have records of sexual abuse. The rate of sexual abuse among Protestant clergy is 2%-3%.   This report also cites the 2004 Hofstra University study on sexual abuse by Carol Shakeshaft who comments that sexual abuse is 100 times more likely in the public schools than in the Church.   Why don't we ever hear about that? This article and this one point out the media bias in reporting.

The John Jay College study (this is apparently the second part, the first having been released in 2004) concludes that there was no one specific cause of abuse in the Catholic Church, not celibacy, not homosexuality. Rather, the social changes of the 60s and 70s affected priests in much the same way the rest of society was afffected.  Seems to me that begs the question, doesn't it?

The sexual revolution of the 60s certainly didn't advocate celibacy so that can't be considered a factor, but the 60s did promote a libertine lifestyle and a sexual freedom that, with very little stretch of the imagination, could easily have influenced the acceptance of homosexuals into the seminaries.  Reading the report might disabuse me of my own conviction that homosexuality, as endorsed and promoted by the social revolution of the 60s and then adopted by liberal factions within the Church in the post-Vatican II days, lies somewhere at the bottom of the priest abuse scandal. By the way, most studies report that 80%-90% of victims in the case of the Church were adolescent boys, not girls, not young children.

The College Racket

2011-05-19T03:48:00.002-04:00

I can find almost nothing positive to say about the modern-day state of affairs concerning going to college except that I think our family will, mercifully, emerge relatively unscathed from the whole business. If I had it to do over again, I might have tried harder to buck the system and suggest to my kids that they look for a job or apply to one of the local city colleges and be done with it. I might even have caved in to the idea of the "gap year," that prerogative of the upper-middle class whereby parents pay--not as much as they've been paying for private school and not as much as they would be paying for college--so that their young 'uns can go out into the world and have an "experience."

I read somewhere that America's love affair with college will end when parents and kids begin to see that four years of higher education doesn't pay off economically. Maybe that's beginning to happen. In this Pew Research Center study, 57% of those surveyed say that higher education doesn't provide good value for the money. Then again, 94% of parents surveyed say they "expect" their children to go to college. Of course that begs the question of whether or not they want their kids to go to college (as well as whether or not the kids want to go). Among those surveyed who have not gone on to college, 57% say they prefer to be working and making money. Makes sense. Surprisingly, this study claims that most Americans do not go to college. Obviously, there are many angles and avenues to explore on the subject and the aforementioned study probes more deeply than I've done here.

Though most parents expect their children to attend college, colleges are now scrambling to adjust to the coming decline in applicants. We parents who went through the boom (when the children of us baby-boomers applied to college) are now to witness the bust that we've been promised. The number of high school graduates is going to slump beginning about now until the year 2019. Just as they did back in the 70s, colleges are thinking up new ways to fill their classrooms and dormitories. This time around, the targeted populations will be transfer students from community colleges, international students and the newly-invented minority that has become popular in the last few years, the first-generation college student. What next.

Catholics at Commencement

2011-05-18T19:23:00.001-04:00

Fortunately Bill Donohue refuted the charges made by certain Catholic professors that House Speaker John Boehner was not Catholic enough to deliver the commencement address at Catholic University of America's (CUA) Saturday graduation. Victor Nakas was the CUA spokesman who, in my opinion, gave too mild of a statement regarding the selection of Boehner to give the address. Pooh on diversity in the Catholic community! CUA is supposed to be shoring up its Catholic identity and standing up for Catholic orthodoxy in higher education. Why not just let these pseudo-Catholics have it?!

Naturally, some of these faux Catholics who protested Boehner's presence are affiliated in various ways with Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, a group that could more accurately be named Catholics-In-Name-Only in Alliance for the Good of Liberals and Progessives! (Funny, no?)

Do You Do the Dougie?

2011-05-09T18:27:00.006-04:00

If she's not digging up the White House lawn or dreaming up new dietary requirements for families across the country, Michelle is doin' the Dougie! She loves Beyonce, her favorite performer on the entire planet! And she loves "moving." I wonder why Jackie Kennedy, of whom our current First Lady is supposedly the reincarnation, never got down with America's kids and did the frug or the Wah Watusi in one of her Oleg Cassini dresses. Can you imagine? Watching Michelle pander to pop culture makes me long for the days of Laura Bush in a sensible suit.

View more videos at: http://nbcwashington.com/?__source=embedCode.

O death, where is thy sting?

2011-05-07T09:39:00.006-04:00

A little late, perhaps, but it is Easter for another five weeks or so. This is an Easter sermon of St. John Chrysostom (chrysostomos meaning 'golden-mouthed'), Archbishop of Constantinople in the 4th C.

Is there anyone who is a devout lover of God? Let them enjoy this beautiful bright festival! Is there anyone who is a grateful servant? Let them rejoice and enter into the joy of their Lord!

Are there any weary with fasting? Let them now receive their wages! If any have toiled from the first hour, let them receive their due reward; if any have come after the third hour, let him with gratitude join in the Feast! And he that arrived after the sixth hour, let him not doubt; for he too shall sustain no loss. And if any delayed until the ninth hour, let him not hesitate; but let him come too. And he who arrived only at the eleventh hour, let him not be afraid by reason of his delay.

For the Lord is gracious and receives the last even as the first. He gives rest to him that comes at the eleventh hour, as well as to him that toiled from the first. To this one He gives, and upon another He bestows. He accepts the works as He greets the endeavor. The deed He honors and the intention He commends.

Let us all enter into the joy of the Lord! First and last alike receive your reward; rich and poor, rejoice together! Sober and slothful, celebrate the day!

You that have kept the fast, and you that have not, rejoice today for the Table is richly laden! Feast royally on it, the calf is a fatted one. Let no one go away hungry. Partake, all, of the cup of faith. Enjoy all the riches of His goodness!

Let no one grieve at his poverty, for the universal kingdom has been revealed. Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen from the grave. Let no one fear death, for the Death of Our Saviour has set us free. He has destroyed it by enduring it. He destroyed Hades when He descended into it. He put it into an uproar even as it tasted of His flesh. Isaiah foretold this when he said, “You, O Hell, have been troubled by encountering Him below.”

Hell was in an uproar because it was done away with. It was in an uproar because it is mocked. It was in an uproar, for it is destroyed. It is in an uproar, for it is annihilated. It is in an uproar, for it is now made captive. Hell took a body, and discovered God. It took earth, and encountered Heaven. It took what it saw, and was overcome by what it did not see.

O death, where is thy sting? O Hades, where is thy victory?

Christ is Risen, and you, O death, are annihilated! Christ is Risen, and the evil ones are cast down! Christ is Risen, and the angels rejoice! Christ is Risen, and life is liberated! Christ is Risen, and the tomb is emptied of its dead; for Christ having risen from the dead, is become the first-fruits of those who have fallen asleep.

To Him be Glory and Power forever and ever. Amen!

Catholic Ambassador Resigns

2011-04-18T23:29:00.003-04:00

I've wondered from time to time whatever happened to Doug Kmiec, the supposedly pro-life Catholic Pepperdine law professor who campaigned hard back in 2008 to convince Catholics and Americans in general that Obama's presidency would be consistent with the Catholic Church's position on abortion. It's hard to believe that a scholar of Kmiec's stature would be gullible enough to be such a useful idiot. Yet, that's what Kmiec did, fawning over Obama in the process and receiving for his efforts, the ambassadorship to the very Catholic country of Malta, a position from which Kmiec has just resigned. Apparently, Barack has had his fill of Kmiec who must no longer be of any use to the administration on rounding up Catholics for Obama. American Papist blog has a thorough account of the matter.

Catholics Address Spiritual Roots of Overeating

2011-04-11T14:44:00.004-04:00

With all the hand-wringing in the White House over obesity and diet, here is one diet solution that makes sense. The program is called Light Weigh.

I view it as vindication of my own views which are based on limited information, anecdotal evidence and scant background knowledge, none of which have stopped me from long being a proponent of the view that, in general, weight problems can usually be traced to eating problems, or, in a word, gluttony.

Gluttony has, might we say, two possible sources, the first one stemming from a lack of interest in and awareness about food (as in what's a fat vs. a carbohydrate or what sausages are made of) and the other stemming from a desire for food that has nothing to do with being hungry. It's this latter type of gluttony that a parishoner in Eagle River, Alaska addresses in Light Weigh. Among other things, her program helps people identify "stomach hunger versus heart hunger" and the program incorporates the teachings of St. Ignatius and St. Therese of Lisieux. Moderation and prayer are important and no foods are denied.

This second type of gluttony is one that I think we all struggle with, whether we happen to be fatties or not. Think about any one of those open houses you've attended where refreshments were served. Ever notice the rush to the food table? I do it myself precisely to see what's there and to make sure that I get what I want. (I am not, however, a hard-core glutton who stands and eats at the serving table.) At an all-you-can-eat buffet, watch diners load up their plates with every kind of meat, potato and vegetable, a jumbled heap of protein, fat and carbs that common sense tells us will be sickening.

I still remember being bitterly taken to task by my older sister for taking the last pork chop at dinner one night. She called out to the table, but really to my parents, that I had already gotten two pork chops and now I was going after more than my share! I ate the third, escaping the justice that my sister expected to be meted out to me by my parents showing that their love for us was equal, that I was no more deserving than she. Sounds silly, but it really isn't. That's why I always had to count out the strawberries for my kids, in front of them, so that there were no arguments over who got more. Or, more to the point, who mom loved more and so gave the greater portion to.

I'm not suggesting, nor do I necessarily think the Light Weigh program is suggesting, that if we take three pork chops or race to the dessert buffet we have lost faith in God. I think it just means that, in that moment when we reach for too much, we're responding to our baser instincts and we are, for that moment, reducing ourselves to mere material beings who have lost sight about the sort of happiness we'll get from a piece of chocolate cake.

First Things

2011-01-31T12:46:00.004-05:00

Five years of a magazine subscription means that it's time to cull through all the back issues, re-read the favorites, toss the unwanteds and pass along the ones worth-reading all in order to create a few inches of shelf space for the new magazine subscriptions.

First Things is the late Fr. Richard John Neuhaus's creation that deals with religion in public life. It's difficult to throw the magazine away since every issue is chock full of pithy, cerebral articles by heavy-weight thinkers in theology, economics, literature, Judaic studies, jurisprudence and more. There are articles by Nobel prize winners and judges and of course, there was the entertaining (and easier to read) "The Public Square" by Fr. Neuhaus in the back of every issue. However, the purging must be done, and, it's done with some relief as I confess to a certain impatience with the publication, a certain difficulty with it and even a feeling of opprobrium when each issue shows up in the mailbox. To put it bluntly, the fact is that I can't understand the majority of the articles. I get a good start with something like, "Theology After Isaac Newton", thinking that it should be really engaging, but by the third paragraph, I'm lost. Nonetheless, there are several articles that I did actually read from beginning to end--and understood ---so here's a compendium of First Things Articles To Be Remembered.

China's Catholic Moment 2009

An Apology For Democratic Capitalism 2009

The Sixties, Again and Again 2008

Children's Books, Lost and Found 2008

How Pedophilia Lost Its Cool 2008

The Vindication of Humanae Vitae 2008

What Marriage Is --And What It Isn't

What Really Happened At Vatican II 2008

December 2007 (Review of Marriage and Caste in America by Kay Hymowitz)

October 2007 (Review of The Bottom Billion by Paul Collier)

As I cull through a few more stacks, the compendium may grow.

Chris Christie and Teachers' Union Fracas

2010-11-22T20:13:00.002-05:00

Pope Benedict Comments on Condoms

2010-11-21T13:46:00.008-05:00

As early as Saturday afternoon CBS News was reporting that the Pope, in a Vatican letter, had approved the use of condoms. Surprise.

American Papist usually has the best coverage of such matters and points out that the Pope's comment about condoms is, first of all, part of a book-length interview to be considered within a larger context, and, second, that the Italian news media leaked portions of the interview.

It seems that the Pope didn't approve the use of condoms either in general or as a way to combat AIDS and he didn't make his remarks as part of official Church teaching. Instead he was responding to the interviewer's comments about AIDS in Africa. The Pope was re-stating that the Catholic Church helps those who suffer from AIDS "up close and concretely." He pointed out that the Church " does not speak from the tribunal of the newspapers, but helps her brothers and sisters where they are actually suffering." Naturally, CBS News didn't report any of that. Nor did they report the Pope's remarks on how the use of condoms feeds into the root problems of sex divorced from love and the "banalization of sexuality."

Here is the relevant passage and what the Pope actually said in the interview:

On the occasion of your trip to Africa in March 2009, the Vatican’s policy on AIDs once again became the target of media criticism.Twenty-five percent of all AIDs victims around the world today are treated in Catholic facilities. In some countries, such as Lesotho, for example, the statistic is 40 percent. In Africa you stated that the Church’s traditional teaching has proven to be the only sure way to stop the spread of HIV. Critics, including critics from the Church’s own ranks, object that it is madness to forbid a high-risk population to use condoms.

The media coverage completely ignored the rest of the trip to Africa on account of a single statement. Someone had asked me whythe Catholic Church adopts an unrealistic and ineffective position on AIDs. At that point, I really felt that I was being provoked, because the Church does
more than anyone else. And I stand by that claim. Because she is the only institution that assists people up close and concretely, with prevention, education, help, counsel, and accompaniment. And because she is second to none in treating so many AIDs victims, especially children with AIDs.

I had the chance to visit one of these wards and to speak with the patients. That was the real answer: The Church does more than anyone else, because she does not speak from the tribunal of the newspapers, but helps her brothers and sisters where they are actually suffering. In my remarks I was not making a general statement about the condom issue, but merely said, and this is what caused such great offense, that we cannot solve the problem by distributing condoms. Much more needs to be done. We must stand close to the people, we must guide and help them; and we must do this both before and after they contract the disease.

As a matter of fact, you know, people can get condoms when they want them anyway. But this just goes to show that condoms alone do not resolve the question itself. More needs to happen. Meanwhile, the secular realm itself has developed the so-called ABC Theory: Abstinence-Be Faithful-Condom, where the condom is understood only as a last resort, when the other two points fail to work. This means that the sheer fixation on the condom implies a banalization
of sexuality, which, after all, is precisely the dangerous source of the attitude of no longer seeing sexuality as the expression of love, but only a sort of drug that people administer to themselves. This is why the fight against the banalization of sexuality is also a part of the struggle to ensure that sexuality is treated as a positive value and to enable it to have a positive effect on the whole of man’s being.

There may be a basis in the case ofsome individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of
responsibility, on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants. But it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection. That can really lie only in a humanization of sexuality.

Are you saying, then, that the Catholic Church is actually not opposed in principle to the use of condoms?

She of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution, but, in this or that case, there can be nonetheless, in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality.

Still, as one clever reader points out, one wishes the Pope had just responded to that last question with a simple 'no.' But Pope Benedict isn't a simple person and these aren't simple times, so we're once again left to slug this out with the mainstream media and other Catholic bashers.

The International Baccalaureate--Infiltrating?

2010-11-20T17:09:00.010-05:00

I certainly had no intention of rushing to the defense of the International Baccalaureate (IB) program when I read this article on the website of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (C-Fam), but it was a poor editorial choice for a worthy organization and the IB, though flawed and left-wing, deserves a better shot.

C-Fam is active at the United Nations with its mission of promoting a "proper understanding of international law, protecting national sovereignty and the dignity of the human person." I am familiar with their work just as I am familiar with the IB curriculum. Consequently when C-Fam linked the IB and the UN to the "biggest educational scam perpetrated on American schools today" I couldn't help but take notice.

The problem as C-Fam reports it seems to be that the IB is trying to work its way into American public schools in order to disseminate its UN, internationalist, socialist, left-wing ideas while masquerading as legit education. Leading the charge is a Long Island parent, Lisa McLoughlin, who has her own website, Truth About International Baccalaureate.

One has to wonder just how much the IB's admittedly secular, multi-cultural curriculum differs from what passes for education in many of today's American public schools. (I'm thinking of the young man in California who was told to remove the American flag from his bicycle. I doubt if either the UN or the IB was behind that.) Even if it were the case that the IB and the UN are in collusion to wreak (further) havoc on American public education, both C-Fam and Ms. McLoughlin have been sidetracked from the underlying problem by attacking the IB rather than the American public education bureaucracy.

Among the innumberable ills of our public education system is that it is essentially a government monopoly that dictates to America's parents what their children will be taught and penalizes those of us who choose to opt out of the system by denying us the opportunity to use our tax dollars toward the education of our choice. For those public schools out there that are choosing to adopt the IB curriculum, the decision lies at the feet of America's educators, themselves in many cases so steeped in the culture of relativism, secularism, and multi-culturalism that they no longer know enough or care enough to provide curriculums that teach American history, American exceptionalism, Judeo-Christian ideals and the nuts and bolts of the three Rs. Even if the IB and the UN were beating down the door, these educators have the choice to just say no.

Given that there are so many truly nefarious things that the United Nations promotes and that C-Fam reports on so well, this detour to the IB curriculum is a distraction. Parents like Lisa McLoughlin would do more good by devoting their efforts to exposing the public schools for the failures that they are and crusading for school vouchers, tax incentives for home schoolers and an end to teachers' unions.

(By the way, the IB curriculum is a bona fide school curriculum whose students fare quite well academically. When my own kids took math, chemistry and physics in college, their freshman year college material was largely review. The preparation they had from their IB math and science courses was not the exception. Their IB history and English courses emphasized reading, writing and research. By 10th grade most IB students are accustomed to writing 1200-word essays on a regular basis. In foreign language exams from French to Chinese, IB students are able to score competitively on internationally normed tests. Subjects like anthropology, philosophy, economics and psychology are all taught at a challenging level.)

Catholicity in Higher Education

2010-11-20T16:40:00.006-05:00

Oy vey ist mir. It's another Catholic-bashing article from Inside Higher Ed!

The article begins with a false premise that sets up an opposition between Catholic teaching and academic freedom by asking "whether allegiance to church orthodoxy trumps the free spirit of inquiry celebrated in academe."

One has to wonder first of all at the bold claim that there exists a "free spirit of inquiry" on today's campuses. But, more to the point, Catholic orthodoxy by its nature never "trumps free inquiry." It promotes it.

Here are three things Pope Benedict XVI said in his 2008 address to Catholic educators at Catholic University of America:

"I wish to reaffirm the great value of academic freedom. In virtue of this freedom you are called to search for the truth wherever careful analysis of evidence leads you."

"God's desire to make himself known, and the innate desire of all human beings to know the truth, provide the context for human inquiry into the meaning of life."

And the Pope also said:

"[Catholic educators]have the duty and privilege to ensure that students receive instruction in Catholic doctrine and practice. This requires that public witness to the way of Christ, as found in the Gospel and upheld by the Church's Magisterium, shapes all aspects of an institution's life, both inside and outside the classroom."

What this article should have been about is first, the fact that many Catholic colleges and universities are not ensuring that their students receive Catholic-inspired instruction, and, lamentably, many so-called Catholic colleges actually prevent Catholic teaching from shaping their institutions.

Secondly, there is in fact a conflict over academic freedom that warrants discussion though it isn't the conflict that the author sets up. The conflict is between on the one hand, the secular, relativism of academia which denies that truth exists,and, on the other hand, the Catholic Church's teaching which avers that truth does exist, that we are each called to search for it using our intellect as inspired by our faith in God and guided by Catholic teaching. The secularism and relativism of today's culture is the road block, placed intentionally, that "trumps the free spirit of inquiry" and denies us the freedom to search for the truth.

Two Reasons To Elect A Republican Next Time

2010-11-10T19:10:00.016-05:00

One can only ask what in the WORLD Secretary of State Clinton had in mind when she donned this outfit during her visit to Australia. Maybe the former First Lady was feeling like a pumpkin and wanted to dress like one? For insightful commentary on Hillary's look, go here.

Meanwhile, in Indonesia, the president makes a point as our current First Lady of fashion strikes a masculine pose and furrows her brow, probably in an effort to keep her headscarf aloft and out of her eyes so that she won't trip over her "soopah-size" green pants suit as it puddles around her ankles. Then again, it looks like maybe the problem is that this threesome is standing around shoeless! For more on Michelle's fashion savvy, go here.

Speaking of, Where Are The Men. . . . . . .

2010-11-02T19:53:00.003-04:00

We can read more about men and manliness in two new books, Manthropology and Is There Anything Good About Men? humorously reviewed in this Wall Street Journal article.

Here we can see two men, the Bushes, pere et fils, at the World Series Game in Texas.

HollaBack!

2010-10-28T21:09:00.006-04:00

HollaBack! Another mailing from my alma mater Barnard College and its Barnard Center for Research on Women. I flipped the post card over to see phrases like "combat street harrassment" and "ending sexual harrassment." I flipped back to the front of the card to see an angry (or was she hurt) looking young gal holding up her hand as if to say stop . . . or hollaback?

When I actually read the text, the fog lifted at once. No, it's not an obscure word from some Spanish dialect. HollaBack! is about "feminist responses to street harassment." It's about creating safe transit and safe communities by ending sexual assault. It's about getting tough and street-wise. It's about women fighting! We're fighting back. We're HOLLERING back. I finally got it. Forty plus years into the feminist movement and according to the Barnard Center for Research on Women, we lady-folk are still victims. Society still doesn't treat us properly. The feminist movement may be gulping for air, but it hasn't breathed its last. And to prove it, we're going to finally make streets safe for women by using "technology, mapping and community organizing." Heaven help us.

Back in 1971, when the Center was founded, who would have thought that years down the road Barnard would be sending its alums mailings about hollering back, polyphonic feminism, erotohistoriography, economic and sexual justice and other such topics covered by 'sexuality scholars' and those whose area of expertise is 'gender/sexuality/queer studies.'

I'm often told that the current crop of Barnard undergrads is interested mostly in being good students and getting a sound education. Perhaps at this point the Women's Center is an afterthought, a 70s hold-over, a campus anomaly. I certainly hope so, and, in fairness, it should be added that not every mailing from Barnard is about reproductive justice (their term) and feminist art. The campus is also host to Bach concerts and back in February there was a lecture about raising happy and moral children.

Tax Eaters vs. Tax Payers

2010-10-23T15:58:00.003-04:00

There is a new book by Steven Malanga called Shakedown: The Continuing Conspiracy Against the American Taxpayer. Read about it here and watch below.

The End of Men?

2010-10-13T10:55:00.006-04:00

A few months ago, OrignalMetalChik asked where are the men, the real men, that is. Only slightly more dramatic, Brian Caulfield, in the Winter 2010 issue of The Human Life Review, asks if it's the end of men. Thank goodness, he does predict their return.

Caulfield gives some of the factors contributing to the demise of fatherhood and manhood in our society (the Supreme Court decision of Roe v. Wade which left men with "no enforceable rights in the continued life of the child in the womb that they helped to create " and in vitro fertilization and donor conceived babies, methods that allow women to "start their pregnancy in a Petri dish" without ever having to deal with a living, breathing man and creating children whose biological father is a mere cipher.)

Caulfield cites the damage the de-masculinization of society has already done. Children in homes without fathers are five times more likely to be poor and 54% more likely to be poorer than their fathers. Child abuse is more prevalent in single parent homes than those where a child is raised by both biological parents.
Infant-mortality rates are almost twice as high for infants of unmarried mothers, and being raised without a father increases the likelihood of teen pregnancy and dropping out of school.

The mainstream media has, naturally, willingly reinforced the image of men as weak and silly creatures further fueling the damage done by a culture that has been swept along by the damnable women's movement of the 70s and the sexual revolution of the 60s.

However, Caulfied gives some indicators of how manliness is hopefully on the upswing again, citing in particular Pope John Paul II's Theology of the Body, the Pope's teaching and reflection on human sexuality. As Caulfied puts it, the Pope "draws energy from the very sexual revolution that it seeks to correct. Like a transformer station that takes raw energy and converts it into streams of electricity that are useful to a household, the pope takes the sexual energy unleashed in the 1960s, draws out the positive trends, and adds the tempering perspective . . . of the Christian tradition."

If you can't find this article on line, which I couldn't, you can certainly read more along these lines at Caulfield's website Fathers for Good of which he is the editor. Current wisdom has tried, lamentably with considerable success, to hammer into us that there is no difference between male and female despite appearances, experience and overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Thus, it's uplifting to be reminded that current wisdom is wrong, that "gender" is not a state of mind or an accident of environment, that the complementarity of the sexes is directed by God. As Caulfield writes,

"Men and women togther, equal in dignity and value, yet different in nature and capacities: This is the great model that John Paul sketched in his theology that placed the ensouled human body at the nexus of all history. "

Saints and Heroes

2010-09-23T23:36:00.008-04:00

Another beatification? Another saint? No sooner has one luminary of the Church been beatified--John Henry Newman--than another comes around. Having just returned from Our Saviour parish after the dedication of a new shrine (the first in the U.S.!) to the recently beatified Cardinal Newman, I chanced to read about the impending beatification of an Italian girl named Chiara Badano who liked to skate, dance and play tennis. What would there be about a seemingly normal teen that could possibly warrant her beatification?

At 17, Chiara was diagnosed with bone cancer and underwent chemotherapy, hospitalizations, unsuccessful surgery resulting in an inability to walk and, finally, months of pain before her untimely demise. On the one hand, there's the intellectual giant John Henry Newman and on the other a teen suffering from cancer, and both may be destined for sainthood. Hmm. There are, apparently, many ways to be "images of Christ." Chiara, with a devotion to and love of Christ, consciously decided, according to an incident related by her mother, to take up her cross and fully embrace her suffering as she prepared to "meet Jesus." Chiara died "happy" just a few weeks shy of her nineteenth birthday with the instruction to her mother that she repeat three times that Chiara is now "seeing Jesus." There is more about Chiara's beatification here.

At the same time, there was awarded the other day a Medal of Honor to Chief Master Sergeant Richard L. Etchberger for his heroism in Laos in March of 1968. With his crew lying dead and wounded around him, he "single-handedly held off the enemy with an M-16, while simultaneously directing air strikes into the area and calling for air rescue." As if that wasn't enough, he then proceeded, in the line of enemy fire, to lift not one, but three of his wounded crew into helicopter slings. Need it be said that as Etchberger was himself lifted into the helicopter, he was fatally wounded.

At first glance, Chiara and Chief Etchberger seem to have about as much in common as do Chiara and Blessed John Henry Newman. But reading the story of the Italian teen on one day called to mind reading the story of the soldier from just days before. Here are unusually courageous acts from otherwise usual people as they are confronted with danger, death and pain. They show a virtuous spirit that, once triggered, indomitably persists in being virtuous not only once or for a moment, but repeatedly and regardless of the last moment. Here are two who gave a somewhat unfathomable and conscious "yes" to personal sacrifice, the possibility of which, as a soldier, Etchberger was certainly quite aware and something Chiara certainly understood as her disease advanced.

Some time ago, I heard a talk by a rabbi who spoke, among other things, about the death of his parents in a concentration camp. The details of his story are a bit fuzzy now, but while his parents were carted off to a hideous end, his own boyhood was spared due to the heroic acts of some courageous individuals who looked after him. The rabbi gazed out at those of us in the audience and anticipated, as he probably had many times before, the questions that were on our minds, namely, Are you bitter, angry, vengeful? Are you guilt-ridden over your own survival? and Why are you so calm and reasonable?

To the unasked questions, the rabbi answered very matter of factly that he had learned quite early in life that human beings are--as he waved one hand to one side--capable of great evil and--as he gestured with his other hand to his other side--capable of great good. It's not pleasant to dwell on the suffering of a dying girl, the thoughts of a soldier under enemy fire, or the fears of those hiding a young Jewish boy orphaned by the Nazis. But it is pleasant after a fashion to dwell on their actions in the face of fear and danger as a reminder of the capability for great good that was placed within all of us.

College for Free Condoms

2010-09-23T12:01:00.004-04:00

If college is indeed four years of partying as some recent books are saying, Drew University in Madison, NJ gives further proof that the college years provide for far more than just the refinement of the intellect.

At Drew, students are complaining because condoms are no longer distributed for free by the university's health office. Poor lambs. Resident assistants in the dormitories are now keepers of the condoms, and students who want condoms must go and ask for them. Such a hassle.

The fuss at Drew is not, oddly enough, over whether or not the college should dispense condoms. The issue is not even about the condoms being free. Rather, the brouhaha is over how the free condoms are being dispensed! At Drew, in the affluent suburb of Madison, parents who are spending just under $40,000 on tuition can certainly provide their young scholars with an allowance big enough to buy condoms. But money isn't the issue at all here. Values is the issue and therein lies at least some of the problem that plagues college life today.

The headline of the Star Ledger article would do all parents and students a greater service if it read, Why is a college promoting sexual activity among unmarried, still-financially dependent 18 to 22 year olds? And why do colleges provide contraceptives, abortion referrals, sex fairs, and, for that matter, co-ed dorms? If parents are suckers about anything, as some of the recent books suggest, we are suckers not to ask these questions when we make the rounds of college visits with our kids.

Alveda King and Restoring Honor Rally

2010-09-20T21:50:00.003-04:00

Hopefully, Alveda King, niece of Martin Luther King, Jr. will become more of a household name now that Glenn Beck included her in his Restoring Honor Rally back on August 28th. Alveda King travels wherever Priests for Life sends her to carry her message on the "evil twins" of abortion and racism. As a Pastoral Associate for African-American Outreach of Priests for Life, King spreads the under-reported news that while blacks comprise only 12% of the general population, they have 35% of the abortions. King is one of the few in the pro-life movement to point out that a disproportionate percentage of abortion clinics are found in minority neighborhoods, supposedly to "serve" the poor. But, as King points out, "you don't serve the poor by taking their money to terminate their children."

Alveda King offends liberal, establishment blacks, or the Black Mafia as writer Lloyd Marcus calls them, because she doesn't deliver the required blacks-as-victims rhetoric. In her open letter of 2008 to the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC), King doesn't promote green jobs, free rides to community colleges or more government hand-outs. She talks about strengthening the black family, promoting marriage and family values. She reminds America's African-American leaders that the core mission of black civil rights groups is to ensure the equality of rights for all persons without recourse to violence or hatred. And, again, to the CBC, she addresses the issue of reparations saying,

the battle against oppression and segregation was not white versus black, but right versus wrong. There are no separate races divided by skin color. It was not whites who did this to blacks, it was Southern racists who even took us into a war where 300,000 whites gave their lives to end slavery. A political party based on abolition was formed by whites to free the slaves.

Hardly words that Maxine Waters, Al Sharpton, or, for that matter, Barack Obama, want to hear.

Alveda King offends white feminists when she says,

The abortion movement in this country was started by Margaret Sanger, the founder of an organization known today as Planned Parenthood. Ms. Sanger was quite open that she wanted "more children from the fit, less from the unfit." The unfit, she made clear, were blacks and poor whites. She had no qualms about speaking to as many as 12 Ku Klux Klan meetings. As I discuss in the new film, "Maafa 21: Black Genocide in 21st Century America" (produced byLifeDynamicsInc.), she targeted blacks in her eugenics-based campaigns.

And, Alveda King speaks out in a way that liberals find intolerable. When she invokes the dream of her Uncle Martin, and asks, How can the dream survive if we murder the children? she unsettles those who have whitewashed MLK, Jr. as little more than a "man of peace," a secular, kindly figure who wanted nothing more than a big group hug for the world. Columnist Johnathan Capehart scolds Ms. King for being a political opportunist at the Beck rally and "besmirching" her uncle's legacy. And columnist Bonnie Erbe is offended because Alveda King has dared to equate the pro-life movement with the civil rights movement and abortion with racism.

Erbe writes that she "supports abortion rights but I'm not sure I would go so far as to call it a human rights issue." Really? Highly doubtful considering that the operative mantra of the pro-abortion (reproductive rights) movement, the feminist (women's rights) movement, the homosexual (gay rights) movement has been to paint their respective causes as human rights violations and to create their movements in the image of the Civil Rights movement of the 60s.

Several years ago Alveda King spoke on the Barnard College campus at the request of the Columbia University pro-life student group. King arrived on a warm fall day in October wheeling her suitcase in front of her, having just come from another lecture tour. She has no entourage, no glamour, no flash and she gives her presentation by herself. Critics like Erbe and Capehart who desperately attempt to discredit King by saying she feeds on and distorts her uncle's legacy should attend one of her talks and note that there is humility in her presentation, not braggadoccio and that her message about the black experience in America, though not what the mainstream media wants to hear, is first-hand and true. Alveda King is tireless in her efforts to spread her message and Glen Beck deserves credit for supporting her.

College or No College?

2010-09-20T19:37:00.007-04:00

There may be a new trend in the world of higher education. It's now becoming fashionable to say that college is a farce! Here is a review of several new books that points out how college is little more than four years of partying, that college is a rip-off and that we parents are all suckers for buying into the belief that our kids need four more years of classroom learning. The reviewer doesn't give these books very high marks, and they do sound a bit slap-dash, but most parents who've been through the college admissions process with their kids don't need these books to know that the path to college comes with a high price tag, both in terms of time and money not to mention everyone's emotional well-being. At the end of the day, college isn't always the best choice for every high school teen.

The number of kids who both genuinely aspire to the life of the mind after high school and who are qualified to do so must be a very small percentage of all graduating high school seniors, but we'd never know it because college has become de rigeur, the automatic next stop-over for all kids of 18, regardless of their strengths or interests. While I do know of a handful of teens who actively orchestrated their own college search, it is largely parents, college counselors and college admissions officers who fuel the college frenzy and perpetuate the myth that college is the only and best alternative after high school.

Popular belief says that college graduates have better earning power than those without a four-year degree, but Charles Murray gives a good explanation in this short article of why a college degree may not add up to higher earning power, depending on the individual.

And for those college students who ultimately may be good college material, he offers some pithy advice.

One of the best things we could do to improve the college experience for students and faculty alike is to persuade a new generation of high school graduates that they ought to get the hell out of the educational system for a few years and thereby learn something about themselves.

CatholicVote.Org

2010-09-10T19:23:00.002-04:00

Here is CatholicVote.Org's new ad.

More on DADT

2010-09-02T12:59:00.005-04:00

The Obama administration's drive to repeal the law barring homosexuals from serving in the military (mis-named 'Don't Ask Don't Tell') has continued apace through the summer. As always, Family Research Council (FRC) and the Center for Military Readiness (CMR) continue to spell out the real picture. CMR reports that the CBS poll showing 75% of Americans support repeal of the law is erroneous. FRC president Tony Perkins points out that,

"The survey currently being conducted by the Department of Defense assumes the repeal of the current law and asks service personnel only their views of how to implement such a plan. The survey does not address the much more profound and pertinent question of whether or not repeal should go forward.

FRC reminds readers over and over again that the real agenda behind the repeal of the law is, ultimately, the redefinition of marriage in our culture and the normalization of same sex marriage. From its report called Mission Compromised they point out that,

radical “gay rights” advocates/activists want to use the military to advance an agenda for the full acceptance of homosexuality in society at large.

Most disappointing is when members of the military offer themselves up like so many of Lenin's useful idiots and pander to the political elites and activists who are portraying open homosexuality as yet one more right that we all have to recognize. Back in May, this statement was released by military bloggers, and the Atlantic Monthly published this interview with Blackfive's Jim Hanson in June.

Judging by what Hanson says about military bloggers as a voting bloc, their narrow focus and their supposed acceptance of homosexuality in general seems to prevent them from realizing just how they are being used to further the social goals of liberals in Congress and homosexual lobbying groups. In the interview, Hanson says,

But the dialogue is good, because most of us agree that it's a generational thing now. Because of the ubiquity of gay people in our society, the young troops don't care, its very much "don't ask, don't care." This will be a non-issue once the policy goes into place. The young troops say, "Who cares? If
you didn't notice, there are people shooting at us. We've got other concerns."

Because gays are "ubiquitous" (which they're not) in society, it follows that they should serve in the military? Don't ask, don't care? Equally illogical, Hanson has the law already repealed when it still has not been voted on. As for his labelling the Obama administration's demand for repeal of the 1993 law as good dialogue, it's difficult to see it as good let alone even dialogue when Obama is ignoring the advice of the generals and feeding soldiers a questionnaire that pre-supposes repeal of the law.

It remains to be seen what Hanson's open-minded, gay-friendly young troops will think when they wind up on the receiving end of harrassment charges because they've failed to be sensitive to gay needs, they've rebuffed the advances of a gay soldier or superior, or they've expressed discomfort or concern over the gay 'family' next door, or sharing showers and sleeping quarters with homosexuals.

How Hanson and other military bloggers don't see this is disturbing.

OrignalMetalChik Asks "Where Are The Men?"

2010-08-03T11:05:00.006-04:00

Sarah Palin says that Obama has no cojones, but OrignalMetalChik offers an explanation as to why even our nation's leader is an unmanly men. The reason is feminism. You are not watching the wrong video as you hear OriginalMetalChik talking about the problem of illegals in Arizona. She begins there and warms to her thesis. Who is OrignalMetalChik? I don't know, but here she is.

America For Me

2010-07-06T11:17:00.003-04:00

Only a few days late for the July 4th holiday, here is a poem not so often quoted, but one that I find appealing for celebrating what is unique to the United States. The poem was written by Henry Van Dyke,but I was introduced to it by the children's author, Jean Fritz, who writes books about Americans and American history. Fritz grew up in China as the daughter of missionaries, and her autobiography, the name of which escapes me at the moment, is a touching and poignant account of her life there. In the book, she tells how, as a young girl, she found herself reciting this poem to herself, out loud, as her ship pulled into port on one of her visits back home to the U.S. , the "blessed Land of Room Enough."

America For Me

'TIS fine to see the Old World and travel up and down
Among the famous palaces and cities of renown,
To admire the crumbly castles and the statues and kings
But now I think I've had enough of antiquated things.

So it's home again, and home again, America for me!
My heart is turning home again and there I long to be,
In the land of youth and freedom, beyond the ocean bars,
Where the air is full of sunlight and the flag is full of stars.

Oh, London is a man's town, there's power in the air;
And Paris is a woman's town, with flowers in her hair;
And it's sweet to dream in Venice, and it's great to study Rome;
But when it comes to living there is no place like home.

I like the German fir-woods in green battalions drilled;
I like the gardens of Versailles with flashing foutains filled;
But, oh, to take your hand, my dear, and ramble for a day
In the friendly western woodland where Nature has her sway!

I know that Europe's wonderful, yet something seems to lack!
The Past is too much with her, and the people looking back.
But the glory of the Present is to make the Future free--
We love our land for what she is and what she is to be.

Oh, it's home again, and home again, America for me!
I want a ship that's westward bound to plough the rolling sea,
To the blessed Land of Room Enough, beyond the ocean bars,
Where the air is full of sunlight and the flag is full of stars.

Henry Van Dyke

Year For Priests

2010-06-11T17:37:00.007-04:00

The Year for Priests draws to a close today. Coincidentally, I came across an address that New York City’s own Archbishop Dolan gave in Ireland about two weeks ago in which he discussed the priesthood and mentioned a famous priest and saint, Father Maximilian Kolbe.

When the Nazi commandant of Auschwitz snickered, “Who is the Polish swine,” at the prisoner who had raised his hand asking to take the place of the married man and father who had been chosen at random to be executed, the “Polish swine” did not reply, “I am Maximilian Kolbe,” nor “I am prisoner number 1408,” nor “I am a friend and would like to take his place in execution.” No. He simply replied, “I am a Catholic priest.”

I read about Fr. Kolbe late one night about ten years ago. The more I read, the colder and darker the night became and the more incredulous I grew at what I was reading. I thought, rather arrogantly, that, certainly, if this story were true I would have heard of it before! Fr. Kolbe's story is, of course, completely true.

As Dolan says in the short passage above , Fr. Kolbe, a Roman Catholic, Polish priest and a prisoner at Auschwitz, was among those rounded up to be starved to death as punishment for a prisoner having attempted to escape from the camp. As lots were drawn, a man was chosen who had still enough hope and humanity left in him to exclaim that he had a wife and family to care for, that he couldn’t die, that he had responsibilities. Fr. Kolbe stepped forward to take the man’s place. One may go on to read the account of how Fr. Kolbe ministered to all those in the starvation cell, how they sang and prayed and how Kolbe was finally put to death with an injection. Another powerful punch to the account of Fr. Kolbe's sacrifice is that the man whose place he took, Franciszek Gajowniczek, did survive Auschwitz, was reunited with his wife and lived to be 94 years old.

My disbelief of ten years ago about Fr. Kolbe, resurfaced recently when, just after reading Archbishop Dolan's address, another Polish priest was in the news. Do Polish Catholic priests have a lock on sacrifice and suffering?Father Jerzy Popieluszko whose affiliation with the Solidarity movement in Poland earned him the hatred of the communists, was apparently inspired by Kolbe’s lesson of “spiritual freedom amidst physical enslavement.” I read these words about Fr. Popieluszko here from Fr. Rosica.

Father Popieluszko was neither a social nor a political activist, but a Catholic priest faithful to the Gospel. He wasn't a forceful speaker, but someone of deep conviction and integrity. His sanctity lay in fundamental righteousness that gave people hope even in horrendous situations. On Oct. 19, 1984, the young priest was kidnapped by security agents on his way back to Warsaw after a visit to a parish in the neighboring town of Bydgoszcz. He was savagely beaten until he lost consciousness, and his body was tied up in such a way that he would strangle himself by moving. His weighted body was then thrown into a deep reservoir. His killers carried out their task with unprecedented brutality, which shows their hatred of the faith that the priest embodied. Jerzy's driver, who managed to escape, told what had happened to the press. On Oct. 30, Popieluszko's bound and gagged body was found in the freezing waters of a reservoir near Wloclawek. Fr. Jerzy's brutal murder was widely believed to have hastened the collapse of communist rule in Poland.

How to comprehend such deep suffering and sacrifice. Speaking for all priests in this Year For Priests, Archbishop Dolan said:

In answer to a literal life-or-death question, Maximilian Kolbe identified himself as a priest. Priesthood is not, first and foremost, something we do,but someone we are.

Obama At The 2010 West Point Graduation

2010-06-08T15:35:00.004-04:00

As a friend pointed out to me years ago, New York City is such a deeply blue place (and liberals are so parochial) that almost invariably, even the most casual acquaintances assume that you are as far left as they are! Thus, when friends or others heard that Barack Obama spoke at our son's graduation, they assumed that we, like they, felt whelmed with this good fortune.

Obama had plenty of support among the thousands at West Point's Michie Stadium on May 22nd, and the cadets would certainly render only respect to their Commander in Chief, but many among us discussed how we would stand for Obama out of respect for the office of the President, but we would be hard pressed to applaud, and, indeed, there was little call for applause.

For starters, Obama's speech went on too long, especially as we assume it was his late arrival that set the whole ceremony back by almost 20 minutes. While one can probably find the speech somewhere on the internet, it's hardly worth the time. After briefly recognizing the graduating class and pandering to the feminists by crowing about the fact that the two top-ranked cadets in the class were females, Obama launched into what was essentially a campaign speech and worse. In front of 1,000 soon-to-be newly-commissioned 2nd Lieutenants, Obama proceeded to talk about the importance of everything but soldiering. He waxed on about diplomacy, internationalism and the contribution that all Americans need to make to the world's future. If I'm not mistaken, he even covered the environment.

Obama, so out of touch and disdainful of all things military and manly, couldn't have provided a lower point to the day, but then again, the day offered so much more to celebrate than Obama's presence that his contribution or lack thereof faded quickly.

The speech that did leave an impression was given the night before graduation by Chief of Staff of the Army, General Casey. I know that Casey came under fire for his politically correct comment about diversity back during the Fort Hood shootings, but Casey's speech to the cadets at the graduation dinner seemed heartfelt and to the point. He spoke directly to them and he did know that they had been at West Point not to become Peace Corps volunteers or to further women's rights, but to practice the profession of arms. He did mention the words "warrior ethos." He did circulate among the cadets beforehand and his speech lasted all of about 15 minutes.

There were many such memorable moments to this wonderful graduation week.

Sign The Petition

2010-05-26T08:34:00.002-04:00

Blackfive Sells Out To Political Correctness

2010-05-13T13:46:00.005-04:00

Over at Blackfive, milbloggers are falling all over themselves in their rush to show how open-minded they are about sexuality, gender issues and how much they love the god of equality. Not only are they eager to hop on the political correctness bandwagon, but, in a notably uncourageous and unmanly way, they are calling a retreat before the battle is lost.

In the current debate over the repeal of the 1993 law erroneously called Don't Ask Don't Tell (DADT), Congress is supposed to be waiting for a report from the military before taking a vote on the issue of gays openly serving in the military. Not content to wait for the democratic process to take its course, however, certain Congressmen feel it is their prerogative to make unilateral decisions before all the information is in.

The milbloggers remind me of a bunch of scared schoolboys who are terrified of getting beat up by the bullying left-wingers waiting for them in the schoolyard. Hence, they are ever so thoughtful in their request:

We ask Congress to withhold action until this [the military's research and report] is finished, but no longer. We urge Congress to listen to the service chiefs and act in accordance with the recommendations of that study.

The US Military is professional and ready to adapt to the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell without compromising its mission. Echoing Sec. Def. Gates and ADM Mullen, we welcome open and honorable service, regardless of sexual orientation.

Meanwhile, Congress in the person of Sen. Carl Levin (D-Michigan) shows no such restraint as he prepares to attach an amendment to the upcoming Defense Authorization Bill that will either place a moratorium on the 1993 law (mis-labeled Don't Ask Don't Tell) or repeal it entirely. The Center for Military Readiness (CMR) continues to provide insightful coverage of this issue. Or, read their policy paper which describes in detail some of the consequences of gays openly serving. As CMR points out,

Military men and women are about to be used in an involuntary social experiment, paying a high and possibly irrevocable price for the president’s political promises to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered activists of the LGBT Left.

Responsible congressmen and senators of both parties should step forward to clarify the situation and to reaffirm support for the 1993 law.

Dolan Announces National Prayer Campaign for Life

2010-05-10T22:29:00.001-04:00

Our own Archbishop Timothy Dolan introduced a National Prayer Campaign For Life on May 3rd upon the 10th anniversary of the passing of John Cardinal O’Connor. Inspiration for this campaign comes from both Cardinal O'Connor, a passionate champion of the unborn and the founder of the Sisters of Life, as well as from Pope John Paul II. Sister Lucy of the Sisters of Life writes,

Please join us in praying this prayer every day and give it to others–we are hoping that it spreads throughout our nation so that a Culture of Life may be fully restored!

Eternal Father, Source of Life,
strengthen us with your Holy Spirit
to receive the abundance of life you have promised.
Open our hearts to see and desire
the beauty of your plan for life and love.
Make our love generous and self-giving so that we may be blessed with joy.
Grant us great trust in your mercy.
Forgive us for not receiving your gift of life
and heal us from the effects of the culture of death.
Instill in us and all people reverence for every human life.
Inspire and protect our efforts on behalf of those most vulnerable
especially the unborn, the sick and the elderly.
We ask this in the Name of Jesus,
who by His Cross makes all things new. Amen.
Our Lady of Guadalupe, pray for us.

Read more about the campaign at http://www.nationalprayerforlife.org/

National Day of Prayer

2010-05-06T23:46:00.007-04:00

Today was the 2010 National Day of Prayer, a good time to reflect on St. Paul's admonition to "Pray without ceasing," and, of course, just a good time to pray. Despite the current administration's lip-service to the contrary, one thing we as a nation can be pretty sure of is that our current president isn't praying either today or any other day. It is certainly no surprise that Obama didn't make much of the National Day of Prayer, but Obama's disaffection for the ceremony is a telling reminder of his earth-bound secularism and his disregard for faithful obedience to God as the way to determine truth and right behavior.

Pope John Paul II writes in Evangelium Vitae that certain situations require prayer and fasting:

Jesus himself has shown us by his own example that prayer and fasting are the first and most effective weapons against the forces of evil (cf. Mt 4:1-11). As he taught his disciples, some demons cannot be driven out except in this way (cf. Mk 9:29). Let us therefore discover anew the humility and the courage to pray and fast so that power from on high will break down the walls of lies and deceit.

The present would seem to be one of those times when a highly effective weapon against the forces of evil is needed. Pray without ceasing.

Join The Margarita Challenge

2010-05-05T11:28:00.005-04:00

Sign the petition at My Food My Choice to protest Mayor Bloomberg's attempt to regulate salt, yes salt, in New York City's restaurants.

I will admit that I voted for Bloomberg, but only once.

President Bush After 9/11

2010-05-05T09:08:00.004-04:00

A friend sent this to me recently. I know that baseball fans have quite a way to go before kicking into World Series mode, but this video shows an American spirit that has been flaccid if not just plain absent in the last few years. Here, President Bush throws out the first pitch at Yankee Stadium a month or so after 9/11 as the crowd gives voice to the American spirit that we hopefully still have in us. As he reflects on the experience and walks out onto the mound, Bush shows how a real American president should act.

Does Obama Have A Jewish Problem?

2010-04-30T18:59:00.010-04:00

I bumped into two articles today that raised the issue of Obama and his possible Jewish problem. In the first from Newsmax, there is the interesting datum that of the 78% of Jewish voters who helped catapult Obama into the White House, only 42% of those voters would today vote for him again.

Would that were really so. However, I tend to think those Jewish voters are much like the 54% of Catholic voters whose political identity trumps their faith when it comes down to making a choice between the sacred and the profane. The profane seems to win every time. .

Speaking of which, the second article I bumped into is from Commentary magazine where editor John Podhoretz scrutinizes Obama's testiness with Netanyahu and attributes it to real dislike of the Jewish state (and perhaps all things Jewish?).

Gianna Beretta Molla

2010-04-29T18:10:00.005-04:00

The story of Gianna Beretta Molla, canonized a saint by the Roman Catholic Church in 2004, was puzzling to me when I read it several years ago. I wasn't a Catholic at the time and the whole process of sainthood was mystifying to begin with, but even more so in the case of Gianna, a 20th Century female, a mother and a doctor. Gianna Molla died in 1962 after refusing an abortion knowing that carrying her fourth pregnancy to term would likely save her child’s life, but would result in her own death. And I had thought saints were men who all lived in the Middle Ages.

The reason I mention her now is because a Catholic women's health care center has recently opened here in New York City, and it is named after Gianna Molla. Gianna- The Health Care Center for Women, the first authentically Catholic women's health center in this area, is dedicated to following Catholic teachings in all aspects of providing health care to women of any faith. You can read more about the center here.

One does not become a saint overnight in the Catholic Church. The process by which sainthood is conferred is lengthy and many-layered, initiated by a bishop who seeks the beatification of some individual who first and foremost must have exhibited the Christian virtues of faith, hope and charity as well as the cardinal virtues of prudence, justice, fortitude and temperance. At later steps of the process, the individual to be granted sainthood must have at least two miracles attributed to them. Gianna Molla, for all intents and purposes a regular person, met all these requirements. Surely an amazing story. Read more about her here.

Catholic Malta

2010-04-27T09:39:00.004-04:00

Speaking of anniversaries and individuals named Paul, the occasion for the Pope's recent visit to Malta was to commemorate the 1,950th anniversary of St. Paul's shipwreck along the coast of the island. This became somewhat belatedly clear to me upon reading the text of an address Pope Benedict gave after his return from Malta.

Re-reading the account of St. Paul's Maltese shipwreck in the Acts of the Apostles (ch.27, 28), I was reminded that this was the occasion when a snake took hold of Paul's hand and the island natives assumed that the snake's attraction to Paul marked him as an evil demon who must be killed. A bit of turnabout occurred when Paul merely shook off the snake and showed no sign of suffering its venom. The island natives then decided that Paul must be a god. Fickle folk.

Malta is a tiny island nation that remains staunchly Roman Catholic and staunchly pro-life even in the face of bullying from the United Nations and the international community (which now, regrettably, includes us in the person of Barack Obama). The Pope noted this in his address.

From that shipwreck, or better, from Paul's subsequent sojourn in Malta, was born a fervent and solid Christian community, which after 2,000 years is still faithful to the Gospel and makes an effort to combine it with the complex questions of the contemporary age. This, naturally, is not always easy, nor is it taken for granted, but the Maltese know how to find in the Christian vision the answer to the new challenges. A sign of this, for example, is the fact of having kept firm their profound respect for unborn life and for the sacredness of marriage, choosing not to introduce abortion and divorce in the country's juridical system.

In light of the Pope's praise and support for Catholic Malta, one wonders what nefarious deeds our current ambassador to Malta, Doug Kmiec, must have to engage in as the Catholic and supposedly pro-life ambassador who must do Obama's bidding. Kmiec you will recall is the self-proclaimed Roman Catholic pro-life law professor who advocated that Catholics could in good conscience vote for pro-abortion Barack Obama. Like other Catholics in the public eye who have sold their souls in exchange for political power and the chance to obsequiously worship at Obama's anti-Catholic feet, Kmiec was rewarded with an ambassadorship to, of course, a deeply Catholic country.

There are likely few coincidences in the places that the Pope chooses to visit, and, with friends like Barack Obama and Ambassador Kmiec, I would imagine that the Maltese more than welcomed the presence of Pope Benedict.

On the 18th of April in seventy-five . . . . .

2010-04-18T22:52:00.010-04:00

Today is the 235th anniversary of Paul Revere's ride. It is worth re-reading Henry Wadsworth Longfellow's story poem which commemorates a fateful moment in American history, one that set in motion the upheaval of war leading to a unique experiment in government, the American constitutional republic. Longfellow paints that moment as a clatter of horses' hooves arising out of a gloomy silence, and he portrays the daring person in that moment as eagerly poised, to the point of impatience, to get on with the business of making history.

We certainly need the clatter and spark of those hurrying hoofbeats now to "kindle the land , into flame with its heat." Hopefully, we are and will continue to replicate the colonial patriots' "cry of defiance, but not of fear" in the face of those who prefer a secular, utilitarian state run by a heavy-handed and long-armed government as opposed to a country governed by the rule of law and grounded in moral, Christian law.

Paul Revere's Ride
Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

Listen my children and you shall hear
Of the midnight ride of Paul Revere,
On the eighteenth of April, in Seventy-five;
Hardly a man is now alive
Who remembers that famous day and year.
He said to his friend, "If the British march
By land or sea from the town to-night,
Hang a lantern aloft in the belfry arch
Of the North Church tower as a signal light,--
One if by land, and two if by sea;
And I on the opposite shore will be,
Ready to ride and spread the alarm
Through every Middlesex village and farm,
For the country folk to be up and to arm."

Then he said "Good-night!" and with muffled oar
Silently rowed to the Charlestown shore,
Just as the moon rose over the bay,
Where swinging wide at her moorings lay
The Somerset, British man-of-war;
A phantom ship, with each mast and spar
Across the moon like a prison bar,
And a huge black hulk, that was magnified
By its own reflection in the tide.

Meanwhile, his friend through alley and street
Wanders and watches, with eager ears,
Till in the silence around him he hears
The muster of men at the barrack door,
The sound of arms, and the tramp of feet,
And the measured tread of the grenadiers,
Marching down to their boats on the shore.

Then he climbed the tower of the Old North Church,
By the wooden stairs, with stealthy tread,
To the belfry chamber overhead,
And startled the pigeons from their perch
On the sombre rafters, that round him made
Masses and moving shapes of shade,--
By the trembling ladder, steep and tall,
To the highest window in the wall,
Where he paused to listen and look down
A moment on the roofs of the town
And the moonlight flowing over all.

Beneath, in the churchyard, lay the dead,
In their night encampment on the hill,
Wrapped in silence so deep and still
That he could hear, like a sentinel's tread,
The watchful night-wind, as it went
Creeping along from tent to tent,
And seeming to whisper, "All is well!"
A moment only he feels the spell
Of the place and the hour, and the secret dread
Of the lonely belfry and the dead;
For suddenly all his thoughts are bent
On a shadowy something far away,
Where the river widens to meet the bay,--
A line of black that bends and floats
On the rising tide like a bridge of boats.

Meanwhile, impatient to mount and ride,
Booted and spurred, with a heavy stride
On the opposite shore walked Paul Revere.
Now he patted his horse's side,
Now he gazed at the landscape far and near,
Then, impetuous, stamped the earth,
And turned and tightened his saddle girth;
But mostly he watched with eager search
The belfry tower of the Old North Church,
As it rose above the graves on the hill,
Lonely and spectral and sombre and still.
And lo! as he looks, on the belfry's height
A glimmer, and then a gleam of light!
He springs to the saddle, the bridle he turns,
But lingers and gazes, till full on his sight
A second lamp in the belfry burns.

A hurry of hoofs in a village street,
A shape in the moonlight, a bulk in the dark,
And beneath, from the pebbles, in passing, a spark
Struck out by a steed flying fearless and fleet;
That was all! And yet, through the gloom and the light,
The fate of a nation was riding that night;
And the spark struck out by that steed, in his flight,
Kindled the land into flame with its heat.
He has left the village and mounted the steep,
And beneath him, tranquil and broad and deep,
Is the Mystic, meeting the ocean tides;
And under the alders that skirt its edge,
Now soft on the sand, now loud on the ledge,
Is heard the tramp of his steed as he rides.

It was twelve by the village clock
When he crossed the bridge into Medford town.
He heard the crowing of the cock,
And the barking of the farmer's dog,
And felt the damp of the river fog,
That rises after the sun goes down.

It was one by the village clock,
When he galloped into Lexington.
He saw the gilded weathercock
Swim in the moonlight as he passed,
And the meeting-house windows, black and bare,
Gaze at him with a spectral glare,
As if they already stood aghast
At the bloody work they would look upon.

It was two by the village clock,
When he came to the bridge in Concord town.
He heard the bleating of the flock,
And the twitter of birds among the trees,
And felt the breath of the morning breeze
Blowing over the meadow brown.
And one was safe and asleep in his bed
Who at the bridge would be first to fall,
Who that day would be lying dead,
Pierced by a British musket ball.

You know the rest. In the books you have read
How the British Regulars fired and fled,---
How the farmers gave them ball for ball,
>From behind each fence and farmyard wall,
Chasing the redcoats down the lane,
Then crossing the fields to emerge again
Under the trees at the turn of the road,
And only pausing to fire and load.

So through the night rode Paul Revere;
And so through the night went his cry of alarm
To every Middlesex village and farm,---
A cry of defiance, and not of fear,
A voice in the darkness, a knock at the door,
And a word that shall echo for evermore!
For, borne on the night-wind of the Past,
Through all our history, to the last,
In the hour of darkness and peril and need,
The people will waken and listen to hear
The hurrying hoof-beats of that steed,
And the midnight message of Paul Revere.

Inside Higher Ed's Obam-Education

2010-04-13T12:01:00.007-04:00

I like to read Inside Higher Ed (IHE) though at this point I have no idea why. I suppose it's because I spent so much time in higher education, languishing in a doctoral program in linguistics, teaching as an adjunct at various colleges and then actually holding a full-time job in a real university. (The university was real, but the job, director of an academic skills center, was a dismal sort of joke.) Not surprisingly, IHE is left-leaning in nature, but their articles are very often informative and usually tolerable.

However, ever since Obama's presidential campaign, IHE has given readers an unrelenting slog of tedious pieces about Obama's support for community colleges and his plans for higher education. Today's article, one more in the onslaught, I found to be more readable, maybe because Obama's agenda is now out in the open. The writer tries hard to present Obama's heavy boot as pressing down on college leaders in an enlightened and lofty way, but it's pretty clear that Obama cares as much about quality and excellence in education as he does about quality and excellence in health care, that is, not at all.

Obama wants government-regulated education just as he wants government-regulated health care, a government-mandated-European-style military and government-regulated banks and business. He wants to run everything, and some in higher education are recognizing that. As the president of the American Council on Education said at this week's Higher Learning Commission meeting,

"To the extent that federal policy makers are now willing to bail out banks and other financial institutions, and to take major equity positions in our auto makers, because those companies are too big to fail, then I believe it’s wise for us to assume they will have little reservation about regulating higher education now that they know it is too important to fail."

Yes, too important to fail because, like health care, it's another part of the fiber of American life that Obama knows he must control in order to fully accomplish his version of transformative change in our culture. The writer goes ahead though and promotes the fiction that Obama merely longs for the elixir of education to unlock the doors to opportunity for all. As the writer tells us, Obama is going to be demanding accountability from institutions of higher learning. Is he ever! It's not hard to imagine what those demands will be--more diversity requirements, less religion, more departments of African-American studies, fewer courses on Western Civilization, more trumped-up and padded majors leading to jobs in Obama's new world of medical care, fewer entrance and exit requirements, and more and more and more four-year degrees that will reveal very little learning or intellectual development of any kind took place in Obama's education factories.

The article cites "pressure to measure student learning" as an idea being touted by Obama's advisers. In my experience "pressure to measure student learning" combined with an enjoinder to show progress and not lower quality means that standardized testing procedures are tossed out and students are evaluated according to different learning styles. Teachers are trained to use methods and projects that will appeal to a diverse learning community with careful attention given to the visual learner and the experiential learner. The old methods are eschewed as cumbersome and limiting and teachers are encouraged (well, Obama will just pass a law) to dispense with memorization, listening to lectures, reading entire books and writing in grammatical English. The quality and direction of government-regulated Obam-education looks murky indeed.

The worst part of the article is the author's thinly-disguised and peevish Bush-bashing. He interprets for us readers that college leaders see the Obama administration as valuing higher education more than Bush who didn't "like" higher education, and the writer notes that Obama is expecting "more" from higher education than did the Bush administration. What a crock.

Would that we could pass this all off lightly, but unfortunately, as with health care, the long arms of Obama and his comrades continue to boldly move their steamroller over us. Therefore, all hands on deck! Man your battlestations! And do so winsomely!

The Manhattan Declaration

2010-04-12T15:06:00.006-04:00

I received an e-mail from the Manhattan Declaration a while ago--well, not just me of course, but me and all those who signed their petition-- in which they write about their new website and the fortuitousness of their formation precisely at a time when such an organization is sorely needed, referring to the unwelcome passage of Obama's punitive healthcare package. They write,

We are reminded by this legislation that we must redouble our efforts. We must equip ourselves to defend winsomely the truth in the public square.

Defend "winsomely"? I had to look that one up. To me 'winsome' always brought to mind a pretty, innocent lass or a longing, kind of lonely look. Lo and behold, the Manhattan Declaration founders are reminding us to defend the truth cheerfully,without rancor, to be happy soldiers while battling the lies and moral depravity of the progressives and liberals who have slipped into power with the help of society's useful idiots.

Oops. Now that hardly sounds cheerful, but I'm feeling a blow to the ego by discovering that I never knew what the word 'winsome' meant in the first place, and, I'm also a bit piqued at being reminded that I need to be cheery not only when discussing the spring weather but also when confronted with the worldview of liberal friends, family and neighbors. Alas. It may be too late for the latter in some cases.

Easter

2010-04-10T23:43:00.003-04:00

From the Church of Our Saviour here in NYC, Father Rutler writes this week that "The joy of Easter is more than happiness, since happiness is a feeling while joy is a fact. Happiness comes from impressions, while joy comes from comprehension."

He also comments on the large numbers of people who attended Easter services this year at Our Saviour.

"This Holy Week our parish attracted the largest throngs I can remember, people often standing outside on Park Avenue unable to get in. In part, I think it was a response to the unprofessional and even hysterical calumnies of some journalists against St. Peter's successor, Benedict XVI. Mostly it was a response to Christ among us. The Pope said on Easter: "Joy cannot be commanded. It can only be given. The risen Lord gives us joy: true life. We are already held forever in the love of the One to whom all power in heaven and on earth has been given.” "

Resurrexit Sicut Dixit

2010-04-04T01:06:00.003-04:00

Gays Openly Serving in the Military

2010-03-26T13:51:00.004-04:00

The issue of gays openly serving in the military continues to percolate. Over at the Center for Military Readiness (CMR), they are asking whether we will now have a European-style military given the passage of our new, European-style health care. In a report that makes for very interesting reading, General John Sheehan offered testimony on March 18th at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing which kind of took the wind out of the sails of his interrogator's attempts to minimize and normalize an openly gay military.

Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-MI) asked whether the general had discussed the issue [of gays in the military] with them. “Did they tell you that they had unit cohesion or morale problems?” Much to Levin’s surprise, Sheehan answered “Yes” and proceeded to provide details.

Just as Obamacare is less about health care reform and more about a socialist-type direction for the United States, gay activists and their enablers in our society seem to welcome a de-fanged and soft military after the fashion of those in Europe. The particular case discussed in this report is the Dutch army. The report goes on,

The hearing transcript reveals that Gen. Sheehan's most insightful points about military culture went right over the head of Senator Levin and others present at the hearing. When Dutch officials decided to embrace peacekeeping as the primary mission of their military, embracing unionism and social goals more suited to a civilian institution, combat effectiveness suffered. Then and now, this issue is all about priorities.

Gen. Sheehan warned against a similar transformation of America’s military. “Our enemies, especially the extremists, do not care how enlightened or progressive our culture may be. The only thing that matters is the effectiveness on the battlefield.”

The Dutch ambassador countered General Sheehan's remarks by "expressing pride" in his country's gays and lesbians who serve. I hear similar comments about the wonderful things gays have contributed to the U.S. military, comments which are similarly completely irrelevant. The military doesn't exist to promote the self-esteem or success of any one individual much less some group that has decided they are due for recognition.

CMR continues to keep the priorities straight by constantly reminding that the question is not whether we are proud that some specific-identity group is serving in the military but whether or not their service is an improvement or a setback for the success of a strong U.S. military. This report drives home the point that the United States should not prioritize social engineering in its military as many European countries have done.

Iraq Vets for Congress and Combat Veterans for Congress

2010-03-25T16:14:00.005-04:00

Fighting back seems to be the order of the day after Obama bullied Americans and imposed on us his health care bill. (Or as Sen. Baucus called it, the bill that will address the "mal-distribution of income in America.") Among the various groups that are organizing, there is the Senate Conservatives Fund here with a petition pledge to vote only for those candidates who will repeal the health care bill. Hugh Hewitt continues to promote the National Republican Congressional Committee here , which appears to have a similar goal. Just today I got a call from the Republican National Committee asking for money to take back the Congress, but Michael Steele fails to impress and has not been that much of a friend to conservatives.

There are two other groups that are keeping tabs on up-and-coming contenders for congressional seats. They are Iraq Veterans for Congress and Combat Veterans for Congress. While I don't know their views on health care, it's certainly worth keeping an eye on these candidates for the same reasons that I wrote about concerning Allen Griffith and Lt. Col. Allen West (who is endorsed by both veterans groups). At American Thinker, Alan Fraser summarizes here a Harris Poll which reveals that Americans have the most confidence in leaders who come from the military. It's also noteworthy that all the veterans are Republicans, as will be anyone else in Congress who will work to repeal this wealth re-distribution, that is, health care bill.

As Hugh Hewitt and Erick Ericson constantly remind their audiences, even if these candidates aren't in our districts, we can support them by donating to their campaigns.

Prayer and Sacrifice to Defeat ObamaCare

2010-03-21T20:02:00.003-04:00

Yesterday, the Sisters of Life sent out an e-mail to those of us on their list, inviting any and all of us to join them in prayer and fasting concerning Obama's health care bill. In the words of Mother Agnes Mary, the Sisters will be praying through the night "begging the Lord of Life to protect our nation from the onslaught of abortion and from the marginalizing of Christians in the public square by denying us the right to act on our conscience." She concludes her letter by writing, "May we support the weak, encourage the faint-hearted, and console the sorrowing by our prayers and sacrifices. May the Lord of all be glorified."

Help TALKPAC Stop Obamacare

2010-03-20T19:57:00.000-04:00

"Bishop Prays for Demise of Health Care Bill"

2010-03-19T09:36:00.008-04:00

Zenit.org, the Vatican news agency, isn't usually the source of a good laugh, but I thought one of their recent headlines was uncharacteristically humorous: Bishop Prays for Demise of Health Care Bill .

The title of the article is suggesting that while Obama and Pelosi are praying for 216 votes to pass their health care bill, Bishop Loverde in the nearby Archdiocese of Arlington, VA, is praying for 215 votes to defeat it.

The mental image of Obama and Pelosi stopping off to pray to God for passage of their bill as they bully and bribe their way through the halls of Congress is kind of funny-- for a moment. It's also a bit tongue-in-cheek of the Zenit writer to suggest that Bishop Loverde is urging us to pray for 215 votes.

Rather, as the article adopts a more serious tone, Bishop Loverde urges us to pray for a conversion of hearts and minds and that means we are to pray for the Obamas and Pelosis, the renegade nuns who support Obama's bill, the Doug Kmiecs, the Joe Bidens and all those Obama Catholics who voted to put this callow, unprincipled man into the office of president. The bishop says, " Through our fasting and prayers, we ask the Lord to lead the hearts and minds of our nation's leaders as they make crucial decisions concerning the protection of life."

The bishop is reminding us to pray for our enemies! I confess to stumbling over Obama's name when I do attempt to include the likes of our president in my prayers, but the bishop's statement is also a reminder that God does hear us and he does answer prayer. Kind of ironic that, in yesterday's Bible reading, Moses reminds us of that. After the Israelites erected the Golden Calf, God told Moses that He had had enough of this "stiff-necked" people and that He intended to let His anger "burn hot against them" and "consume them." But Moses confronted God and interceded on behalf of his fellow wanderers, and God changed his mind.

In the present situation, I'm inclined to pray that God would consume most of Congress along with President Obama as quickly as possible, but that's not the idea here. Our own New York Archdiocese has all the information one needs to follow the true Catholic position on the health care issue including this prayer:

That Congress will act to ensure that needed health care reform will truly protect the life, dignity and health care of all and that we will raise our voices to protect the unborn and the most vulnerable and to preserve our freedom of conscience. We pray to the Lord.

2010-03-15T15:47:00.004-04:00

Archbishop Chaput of Denver is again in the news, this time on the health care issue and the support that some supposedly Catholic groups are giving to the Senate version of the bill. The Archbishop makes three points about what he calls a "bad bill that will result in bad law."

First, the Catholic bishops of the United States have pressed for real national health-care reform in this country for more than half a century. They began long before either political party or the public media found it convenient. That commitment hasn’t changed. Nor will it.

Second, the bishops have tried earnestly for more than seven months to work with elected officials to craft reform that would serve all Americans in a manner respecting minimum moral standards. The failure of their effort has one source. It comes entirely from the stubbornness and evasions of certain key congressional leaders, and the unwillingness of the White House to honor promises made by the president last September.

Third, the health-care reform debate has never been merely a matter of party politics. Nor is it now. Democratic Congressman Bart Stupak and a number of his Democratic colleagues have shown extraordinary character in pushing for good health-care reform while resisting attempts to poison it with abortion-related entitlements and other bad ideas that have nothing to do with real “health care.” Many Republicans share the goal of decent health-care reform, even if their solutions would differ dramatically. To put it another way, few persons seriously oppose making adequate health services available for all Americans. But God, or the devil, is in the details -- and by that measure, the current Senate version of health-care reform is not merely defective, but also a dangerous mistake.

To those "Catholic" groups who support the bill, the Archbishop says:

Groups, trade associations and publications describing themselves as “Catholic” or “prolife” that endorse the Senate version – whatever their intentions – are doing a serious disservice to the nation and to the Church, undermining the witness of the Catholic community; and ensuring the failure of genuine, ethical health-care reform. By their public actions, they create confusion at exactly the moment Catholics need to think clearly about the remaining issues in the health-care debate. They also provide the illusion of moral cover for an unethical piece of legislation.

Archbishop Chaput concludes his column by advising us not to be "misled," and says, "In its current content, the Senate version of health-care legislation is not “reform.” Catholics and other persons of good will concerned about the foundations of human dignity should oppose it."

Stand With Stupak

2010-03-15T15:28:00.003-04:00

At this point in the health care debate, I don't know if I correctly understand where Rep. Bart Stupak stands, but I do like the video that CatholicVoteAction.org helped put together.

Dr. Daines and Sugar and Salt

2010-03-14T19:09:00.005-04:00

Who knew that Dr. Richard Daines is a New York state health commissioner. I certainly didn't until I received one of those 'government' e-mails from him on March 12th, via Governor Paterson's office. Dr. Daines agrees with First Lady Michelle about fat people, namely, he doesn't like 'em and he doesn't want 'em around!

Dr. Daines says that fat people are just too darn expensive (to the tune of $7.6 billion a year), and, therefore, he urges us New Yorkers to support Governor Paterson's proposed tax on soft drinks (not fruit juice, mind you, just soft drinks). Dr. Daines goes on to explain to us numbskulls that, "many New Yorkers don’t realize that sixty percent of us are obese or overweight."

Us? Speak for yourself, doc. I'm neither obese nor overweight. I am also not fat, pudgy, tubby or chubby.

However, even non-fatties like me are targets for our nation's diet police. Redstate.com reported last week that New York Assemblyman Felix Ortiz (a Democrat from Brooklyn) along with New York City's Mayor Bloomberg now want to ban salt. A good response can be found at My Food My Choice. As the website says, such a ban is "not based on sound science, but on political science and alarmism." They also have a petition to protect New York City's '"diverse cuisine."

Women and Girls at the United Nations

2010-03-12T10:02:00.007-05:00

The 54th Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) at the United Nations winds up this week. The theme of the conference this year is supposed to be an examination of the Millenium Development Goals as well as a review of the Beijing Conference on Women, but apparently the conference has concerned itself largely with matters of maternal mortality and the role of women at the UN.

The maternal mortality issue at the UN often becomes a way to promote abortion, with feminist groups advancing the (specious) argument that women, especially in Third World countries, die in childbirth because they don't have access to legal abortions. In actuality, women from these countries report that what they need is potable water, better sanitation, more medical facilities and the means to travel to those facilities, not more access to abortion. The CSW conference, like most of what goes on at the UN, appears innocent enough on the surface, but scratch around a bit and deception and spin abound.

I've been following some of the reports from the conference through the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, C-Fam. Their report about the Girl Scouts is particularly disheartening. C-Fam reports that the Girl Scouts hosted a side event at the conference where they distributed the International Planned Parenthood Foundation (IPPF) brochure called 'Healthy, Happy and Hot.' Take a look at it here.

The brochure is directed at youth and seems to be mostly about living with HIV/Aids (as if every young person is plagued by the disease?), but the IPPF also sees fit to include pretty explicit instructions on how young people can enjoy sex. In addition, they have a direct message to young people on how to keep parents out of the picture in areas having nothing to do with HIV/Aids.

Many communities have centres that offer youth-friendly health services. These are places where you can access information and health services to help you take care of your sexual health, like STI tests and advice on condoms and contraceptives. They often have hours that are convenient for young people, and staff who understand young people,will not judge you and will treat you with respect. You should find out whether there any centres near to you where you can go without needing the permission of your parents or guardians.

To those readers who support the work of Planned Parenthood, consider if you would whether the organization's stated goal of being "a leading advocate of sexual and reproductive health and rights for all" should include advising young people on how to have sex and how to keep their parents out of the picture. Planned Parenthood and its parent organization, IPPF, have ignominious roots anyway with eugenicist Margaret Sanger (and here and here) as their inspiration. But, even ignoring that, how do women and mothers rationalize Planned Parenthood's world-wide promotion of abortion (under the euphemism of 'reproductive rights') and their indoctrination of young people about sex and their supposed sexual 'rights.'

Last year I had the privilege of attending the CSW conference, which included going to a side event where I sat next to a group of Girl Scouts in attendance as part of the audience. One of the girls, clearly intent on being assertive and engaging as a professional female should be, introduced herself to me and shook my hand. As the workshop unfolded and we heard about every form of lesbian, gay, bi-sexual and trans-gender problem around the world, I couldn't help but wonder if these obviously eager and well-mannered teen-age girls from the mid-West knew what they were getting into.

This year I had the pleasure of hearing about the CSW conference from a group of students from Christendom College who, with C-Fam, have been working at the conference this year to support family and the dignity of life, something sorely needed at the United Nations.

Archbishop Chaput on Church and State

2010-03-10T10:21:00.008-05:00

Back in November of 2009 when Rep. Patrick Kennedy challenged the American bishops regarding their stance on abortion coverage in Obama's health care takeover, Kennedy's bishop, Rev. Thomas Tobin, responded with a few words about the role of faith in the life of a public servant. Bishop Tobin was very clear that a politican's first obligation is to his faith (the 1:20 mark on the video to be exact).

Just recently, on March 1, Archbishop Chaput of Denver, spoke on the subject again at Houston Baptist University. Chaput clarifies a bit of history on this point by unraveling how, in 1960, John F. Kennedy, the first Catholic to run for president of the United States, distorted the matter of separation between church and state and helped set the ground work for the Patrick Kennedys, the Ted Kennedys, the Pelosis, Bidens, Cuomos, Sebeliuses and all the other Catholics in public office today who sacrifice the teachings of their faith for worldly, political gain.

Chaput notes that, contrary to the impression many have and that Kennedy's speech then promoted, our Constitution doesn't call for a separation of church and state.

Early in his remarks, Kennedy said: "I believe in an America where the
separation of Church and state is absolute." Given the distrust historically shown to Catholics in this country, his words were shrewdly chosen. The trouble is, the Constitution doesn't say that. The Founders and Framers didn't believe that. And the history of the United States contradicts that. Unlike revolutionary leaders in Europe, the American Founders looked quite favorably on religion.

It wasn't until a Supreme Court decision arose in 1947 that the now, oft-quoted letter in which Thomas Jefferson used the phrase came to light.

Thus, the modern, drastic sense of the "separation of Church and state" had little force in American consciousness until Justice Hugo Black excavated it from a private letter President Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1802 to the Danbury Baptist Association.4 Justice Black then used Jefferson's phrase in the Supreme Court's Everson v. Board of Education decision in 1947.

But there's more. Chaput explains that in 1948 Catholic bishops wrote a response, a rebuttal really, to the Court's decision. The bishops explained,

"It would be an utter distortion of American history and law" to force the nation's public institutions into an "indifference to religion and the exclusion of cooperation between religion and government . . ." They rejected Justice Black's harsh new sense of the separation of Church and state as a "shibboleth of doctrinaire secularism."5 And the bishops argued their case from the facts of American history.

But there's still more. To make matters worse, Kennedy quoted the bishops' letter, but not the part about the importance of faith in public life!

I'm inclined to rant on about the irony and injustice of JFK, a Catholic, helping to bring about the secularization of our culture, especially our political culture. It's so satisfying to point the finger at others. However, reading all the way to the end of the Archbishop's speech, he reminds all Christians that, " Our job is to love God, preach Jesus Christ, serve and defend God's people, and sanctify the world as his agents."

How to carry out this job is a little thorny at times, especially when encountering a culture that on the surface seems so satisfied with relativism, spiritualism, multiculturalism and all the other isms that have replaced Christian faith. Here are Archbishop Chaput's words given at the end of his speech as he enjoins us to rebuild the Christian principles our country was founded on.

May God grant us the grace to love each other, support each other and live wholly for each other in Jesus Christ—so that we might work together in renewing the nation that has served human freedom so well.

More on Women in the Military

2010-03-03T18:55:00.007-05:00

I came across this radio interview with host Jim Hanson of Blackfive and Genevieve Chase who is one of the founders of American Women Veterans. Her organization is advocating for a re-evaluation of policy concerning women in the military so that official regulations reflect the reality of how women are currently serving. Apparently, women are already finding themselves 'outside the wire' in vulnerable situations where they are drawn into combat situations (think Jessica Lynch in 2003?). Commanding officers are then in the unenviable and difficult position of having to explain why women are in places where they technically should not be.

Chase's group is not promoting the entrance of women into combat roles and Chase herself is skeptical about the recently-lifted restriction against women serving on submarines (although her skepticism seems based more on the fact that the women who will be selected to serve aren't experienced enough and less skeptical about the fact that they're female). She claims only to want policy that recognizes how women are performing in and contributing to the military today. But, she gets caught up in the current cultural obsession with individual rights trumping the common good. She uses that familiar "I don't care if you're black, yellow, white or female, if you're qualified physically and you want to be a soldier, you should be able to serve."

The military exists to serve the larger society, not to satisfy the dreams and goals of its individual citizens. It is an institution with a specific mission and responsibility. It should accept those most qualified to carry out the mission of the institution and those who will permit the institution to operate responsibly.

I'm reluctantly yielding to the notion that there are valuable ways women can contribute to the military (see here), but I'm not convinced that it can be done without feminizing the military in ways that will compromise its quality.

First Lady Targets Fat

2010-02-27T17:19:00.007-05:00

Are you fat? Worse yet, are your kids fat? If so, Michelle Obama finds you and your family to be something of a pox on the country's image.

According to the First Lady, we need "nationwide support" to get our "kids on track" and put an end to "food deserts" (whatever they are). We are a nation of "families in isolation" unable to "make desired changes" for healthy living because we lack the proper "tools." According to Mrs. Obama, we are not only fat, we're just plain stupid!

First Lady Michelle is the latest incarnation of her husband's nanny state and she's now on the warpath to get all of us hapless and hopeless families moving. That's the name of her initiative--Let's Move. She's a veritable foghorn of dire predictions and threatening news as she blasts us for being blubbery, dumb and incompetent. However, she assures us that she and her husband's government programs are there to fill the gap.

I have trouble believing that the First Lady knows how to boil water let alone plan an entire meal, and the sight of her digging up the White House lawn in J. Crew outfits leaves me wondering how she squares farming with her fancy Princeton degree and her law background. I can't help but think Mrs. Obama curses the darkness as she watches her husband appoint one person after another as his Czars and relegates her to the vegetable patch. Once the Obamas are out of the White House, my guess is that Michelle will leave the trowel and spade on the White House lawn and will run for senator from Illinois as quickly as possible. Until then, she's out there to save us all from our big, fat stupid selves.

Penn Wants To Welcome Gays

2010-02-26T17:12:00.005-05:00

Why is the University of Pennsylvania reaching out to its admitted applicants who are gay? Their dean of admissions says that the university wants to reach out and enroll gays in the same way that they reach out to Blacks or to students with a particular interest. "We are speaking to students on [sic] the areas that they are most interested in," says the dean. What about the students who are interested in being heterosexual? Or being Christian? What about the students who are interested in classical music or cross-country skiing?

Colleges have wooed older students, non-traditional students, Blacks, Hispanics, females, first-generation college go-ers and Native Americans (have I forgotten anyone?). Now that there are virtually no 'underserved' groups left to recruit--except white, upper-middle class teen-age boys who work hard and like sports---Penn has invented one and wants to be "pro-active" for those "who are looking for a gay-friendly campus." Will we soon have the other Ivies out-doing Penn by flying gay and lesbian high school students to their campuses for gay visit days? Will colleges send their directors of LGBT services out to high school college fairs? Will we see adjusted admissions standards for gays? Special scholarships? Certainly, gay housing accommodations are in order.

Reaching out to gays is most likely a marketing tool for Penn, but their out-reach will probably be more effective in balkanizing the university community than anything else. Celebrating diversity usually divides rather than unites. When I was at Barnard College in the 70s there was BOSS, the Barnard Organization of Soul Sisters. The Black students lived together on one floor which happened one year to be the floor directly above me. When a decidedly White, blonde student on my floor went upstairs to ask the Soul Sisters to turn down their music, the Sisters reportedly flew off the handle and gave our White sister a talking-to. I don't think I ever sat next to, talked to, rode the elevator with or made even the remotest acquaintance of a single one of the Soul Sisters during my four years at Barnard.

Penn's approach is being praised by the chairman of the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgendered Caucus of the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers (oh,you didn't know there was such a group?). And, a group called Campus Pride will soon "be asking the Common Application to add a sexual orientation question so that colleges can refine recruiting techniques and also consider the diversity of their applicant pools in the same way they do now based on race and ethnicity, gender, geography and academics."

In the meantime, what is a white, heterosexual college applicant to do?

Catholics and Catholic Converts

2010-02-23T15:54:00.007-05:00

The 2010 Annuario Pontificio reports that in 2008, the year for which there appear to be the latest figures, there was a 1.7% increase in the number of Catholics worldwide, causing our number to grow to 1.66 billion baptized Catholics or 17.40% of the world's entire popluation (which stands at 6.7 billion).

While the number of bishops is up by a little over 1%, the number of priests grew by a percentage slightly less than that, and the number of women religious actually fell by almost 8%. However, as Pope Benedict has said, we don't need a lot of priests, we need good priests, and the same would most certainly apply to women religious. With orders like the Sisters of Life and the Dominican Sisters of Mary, there's no need to fret over a lack of faithful--and good--women being called to various orders.

It's no surprise that most of this increase in the Catholic faithful comes not from our own shores, but from Africa, Asia and Oceania. However, there will be at least some new Catholics from the U.S. entering the flock of Peter. Many soon-to-be Catholics are now entering the final stages of their preparation for acceptance into the Catholic Church through the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults (RCIA). The RCIA process is a year of study and discernment for those wishing to be baptized and/or confirmed as Catholics and culminates in the Easter Vigil when those who were previously catechumens (never baptized) or candidates (already having had a Christian baptism) become full-fledged members of the Catholic Church. Or, almost full-fledged. The newly-baptized are called neophytes and all the just-initated next go through a period of Mystagogy. Earlier this week, I read that the bishops here in the U.S. called on all Catholics to welcome newcomers into the Church by giving consideration to ten different points.

Having gone through the RCIA process myself, I heartily endorse the bishops' entreaty that current Catholics should welcome the new ones. The whole RCIA process, apparently a well-intentioned attempt to mimic the induction of pagans and idol-worshipers into the 1st Century Christian church, was one I found a bit off-putting. We catechumens and candidates were often paraded about the sanctuary like so much inventory as we were put through our paces. Given the catechesis of many Catholics in the wake of Vatican II, I often felt that the entire congregation should be joining me in instruction in the faith. Instead, here we stood, making public declarations about our intentions and, most troublesome to me, being led out of Mass after the homily. This was presumably to make us yearn for the day when we would be sufficiently prepared to stay and participate in the sacrament of the Eucharist. I must admit that being denied the opportunity of sitting through the Mass never called forth a yearning in me. First of all, I had already sat through many Catholic Masses. Besides, I wasn't a pagan. I was already a Christian! Yet, each week, we stood in front of the entire congregation before filing out behind our 'teacher' who took us upstairs and out of sight.

I hope the bishops will continue to educate Catholics about the RCIA process. There is certainly a need for it. On my way home one Sunday, after again standing to face the priest and then being herded out of the Mass along with my fellow students, I ran into a neighbor and fellow congregant, a Catholic by birth, who said to me, "By the way, what are you all doing standing up there anyway?"

As the bishops explain, the journey of inquiry that the catechumens and candidates undertake is an example for all Catholics to re-discover and re-commit to the teachings of their Catholic faith. I was often gently reminded that I was providing this wonderful example whenever I ventured to whine to my RCIA leaders about traipsing around in front of the congregation. I always felt that being praised as an example to other Catholics was a bit of a mixed message. We uninitiated were not sufficiently Catholic to witness the liturgy of the Eucharist, but we were simultaneously inspiring enough to be an example of faith to others? Never made sense to me. Rather, it seems that the responsibility for instructing the many poorly-catechized Catholics in their faith is something that the hierarchy of the Church should address, which, I suppose, is what the bishops are doing with their aforementioned list.

The Sacred Meets The Profane

2010-02-19T20:28:00.007-05:00

Oprah Winfrey recently interviewed several members of the Dominican Sisters of Mary, Mother of the Eucharist, a growing order near Ann Arbor, Michigan. You can read a bit about the show here and watch one of the segments below.

I'm not an Oprah follower (no TV in our household), but I do know enough about her show to have been curious as to how the splashy, pop-culture-queen Oprah would present the Sisters. I have to admit that the segment is pretty good! After all, who among us does know much about the life of the religious? Hearing these young women explain why they left the secular world to join a religious community is eye-opening and inspirational. Yes, Oprah had to sensationalize her questions about their vows of chastity, poverty and obedience, but the Sisters' answers are so articulate and thoughtful that it's easy to overlook Oprah's media hype. Oprah devoted a lot of time to the Sisters and the show's correspondent traveled to the Michigan convent and spent some time there.

LGBT Law in the Military--Bad Law and Bad News

2010-02-18T17:09:00.004-05:00

The matter of gays serving openly in the military lingers on as a very troubling issue. Dick Cheney is now on board with his recent remarks that, "Twenty years ago, the military were strong advocates of 'don't ask, don't tell.' I think things have changed significantly since then ... I think the society has moved on. I think it's partly a generational question. When the chiefs come forward and say, 'We think we can do it,' then it strikes me that it's -- it's time to reconsider the policy. And I think Admiral Mullen said that."

The chiefs haven't actually come forward to say that, and Mullen's comments, as already noted, were his personal opinion not his opinion about what was best for the military. As for society having 'moved on,' what evidence is there that it's been for the better?

Cheney notes that views about gays are generational. Yes, I've noticed too that there's a tolerance, even a disinterested acceptance of homosexuality among the younger generations, but that only suggests to me that relativism, secularism and gay lobbies have successfully brainwashed whole segments of our culture, including, apparently, people supposedly as distinguished and smart as Dick Cheney. Just because the kids think being gay is not a big deal doesn't make it so, and that's especially true when it comes to gays in the military, an institution about which most of us, including young people, know very little.

The Center for Military Readiness held a news conference today on the question of how gays in the military would improve military readiness. As one of their policy papers explains, a Democrat from Pennsylvania, Rep. Patrick Murphy, is sponsoring H.R. 1283, legislation that would repeal Section 654, Title 10, U.S.C. (commonly, though erroneously, known as 'don't ask, don't tell') and would "replace it with an open-ended, radical “LGBT Law” that would forbid discrimination based on “homosexuality or bisexuality, whether the orientation is real or perceived.”"

This same policy paper contains charts showing the consequences that will arise if such a law is passed--how this social engineering project places fabricated rights above the needs of the military, the potential increase in sexual harrassment to include not only male/female harrassment, but male/male and female/female harrassment as well as demands for PC diversity training just to mention a few. As the charts show, open homosexuality in the military can only lead down a black hole--"Military Reputation and Recruiting Rates Down" and "Military Culture Irrevocably Degraded."

Unfortunately, we have a president who places his liberal social ideology above the best interests of the military, along with a culture so steeped in narcissistic self-involvement that its citizens have little motivation (and perhaps now lack the ability) to consider the greater good as opposed to what's good 'for me.' The Center for Military Readiness is rightly examining the issue of gays in the military in terms of the former.

The Mount Vernon Statement

2010-02-18T00:18:00.003-05:00

First there was the Manhattan Declaration and now there's The Mount Vernon Statement.

Over 100 conservative leaders signed the statement yesterday saying they 'recommit' themselves to the ideas of the Founding Fathers including those stated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. There's nothing bad about the document, but it seems a bit redundant. After all, we already have the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, and we already know that the founding principles are under attack by progressives and liberals. The statement is also kind of vague: "If we are to succeed in the critical political and policy battles ahead, we must be certain of our purpose." Which critical battles? Which purpose?

There's a preachy tone to the statement as well with: "We must begin by retaking and resolutely defending the high ground of America’s founding principles." Why? Because the conservative leaders say so? I think this is the objection of Ann Kane in her American Thinker piece. The notion of a conservative establishment is as troubling to her as that of a liberal establishment.

While there's no particular reason to compare the two, The Mount Vernon Statement lacks for me some of the punch of the Manhattan Declaration. The latter defines the culture wars in our society, draws a line in the sand and calls on Christians to defend their beliefs in the public square. I'm not sure exactly what the Mount Vernon Statement does.

Women in the Military

2010-02-17T15:55:00.005-05:00

An article in the Times advocating women in combat units in the military prompted Blackfive's Uncle Jimbo to emphatically disagree. Rather strange that he opposes women serving in combat units, but finds the idea of gays serving openly to be acceptable. (He does acknowledge the irony.)

Catherine Ross, the female civil affairs sergeant who authored the Times article strikes that whiny, let-me-play-too tone as to why women serving alongside men in combat is no problem. After all, it wasn't a problem for her she says. When she had to share a container (hardly combat) with three male soldiers, they were, in her words, "perfect gentlemen." And if they hadn't been? I imagine that Ross would have been quick to file a sexual harrassment suit and seek redress for the wrongs committed against her person.

This article boils down to a few loosely connected thoughts on the part of a somewhat smug female who seems to place a lesser value on her innate feminine qualities and a greater value on her ability to be just like a man. Ross expresses the perverse twist of the feminist agenda which is not and never was a celebration of being female. Rather, it's an agenda fueled by women who covet entry into a man's world----but only on a woman's terms.

Far more interesting than Ross's article are the comments posted by readers of the Blackfive article. There is another set of comments here. As one reader comments:

I have an image of an interview with Navy Secretary John Lehman. I'll paraphrase: "Surely there are a few women who can run and jump and carry as much weight as men. Maybe 1 percent. But they are freaks. And we're not building a Navy on freaks." There are plenty of places for women in the military. We bring talents and a unique skill set to many different jobs. But battlefields and combat should not be on the list. I think they should interview every man who has been in combat and ask him "Would you want your daughter to experience what you experienced?" Bet I know the 99% answer.

Team Rubicon

2010-02-17T10:29:00.007-05:00

I have been meaning to again mention Team Rubicon which I wrote about here. Team Rubicon is the privately-organized relief effort that was conceived of and created by Jake Woods, a former Marine, who recruited retired military personnel, firemen and doctors and went into Haiti before the larger and more cumbersome relief organizations could get there.

To my surprise, Jake Woods is all of 26 years old.

He was interviewed on the Hugh Hewitt show a couple weeks ago. Hear what a former Marine, a former college football player and a person of (Christian) faith can do with an idea and some hard work.

Team Rubicon now has a website , and a documentary about the group is in the works as well.