The Black Madonna

Must be in the water

In one of his glib "You Don't Say" entries, James Taranto points to an article - at the Jerusalem Post, of all places - that claims that Benedict XVI's background is theological, not diplomatic. Buried at the bottom of the article (on page two in the web version) is this gem:

As a cardinal, Ratzinger expressed his reserve at the prospect of Turkey's entry into the European Union. Nevertheless, a papal trip to Turkey is planned for November 28 to December 1. Undoubtedly this pope feels a degree of diffidence with contemporary Islam while at the same time he is deeply aware of the necessity of engaging this world in dialogue.

The writer doesn't bother to explain why the pope would distrust Islam.

Ulead videostudio 8 pl crack

How can we Catholics fight the War on Terror?

The Holy Father is looking for ways.

By now you must have heard that Benedict "insulted Islam". But you probably haven't heard anyone ask why he did, nevermind gotten an answer to that question. Here's one:

I repeat the question I posed yesterday: what did the Pope intend to achieve by saying what he said? Tucked away in Jon Meacham’s predictable isn’t-there-enough-religious-anger critique for Newsweek lies this passage:

[W]hy did Benedict quote the emperor in the first place? The most likely answer is that, no matter what the Vatican says now, the pope believes in having what the Catholic theologian and papal biographer George Weigel calls “a hard-headed conversation” about the role of faith in the life of the world. “He knew exactly what he was doing,” says Weigel. “He is saying that irrational violence is displeasing to God. The question Benedict is putting on the table is: ‘Does a significant part of Islam have the capacity to be self-critical?’”

Precisely. And in choosing to do so in such blunt terms, he’s injected himself into the central cultural conflict of the age. For this week, at least, the papacy is relevant to non-Catholics (and many Catholics, too) in ways it hasn’t been in years. He’s risking life and limb, but it’s a brilliant political maneuver.

Remember that our dear Father Ratzinger was a theologian before he became the Vicar of Christ. And so while it is very possible for him to take the role of the pastoral shepherd and spiritual advisor (roles so preferred by John Paul the Great, many of us may have forgotten that's not always what a pope is about), Benedict is probably quite a bit more proficient in identifying the temporal needs of the physical church and her people right now.

John Paul - Great though he was - was no longer prepared to arm the Church to defend herself. The former anti-Nazi Polish partisan had guided us to the end of the Cold War, and upon the triumph of Our Lady of Victory, had turned his - and our - reflections inward. The champion of peace through strength began preaching the gospel of the strength of inner peace.

Benedict is not burdened by 25 years of the papacy growing to envelop him. He saw the devastation of 9/11, the bloody conflicts perpetuating the War on Terror, and the hopeful message of freedom offered by the President in his second inaugural as a member of the curia and not as a pontiff. He has watched as Islamic radicals have blown up mosques and burned churches. He may be willing to risk martyrdom, but may not be fond of the idea of allowing Islamofascism to establish an empire through which it can oppress - and more importantly, defile - the entire Church. And in order for him to justify the offering to Caesar what belongs to him, he has to clearly establish the credentials of the enemy as enemy of the whole Church and the freedom-loving States entrusted with the defense of Her people.

I suspect this is just a beginning.

UPDATES: Kathy is all over the story. (scroll back for earlier posts)

Rod Dreher takes on the Left, and it's sometimes non-reaction, sometimes anti-Catholic response.

Fr. Raymond J. de Souza defends the Holy Father.

On Gibson and anti-Semitism

Just to prove to our friends on the Left that TBR and TBM are not simply an organ of right-wing-never-does wrong propaganda (as The Ugly American jokes), and to rebut the inevitable anti-Catholic rhetoric (thanks heaps Dahvid), I must take note of a disgraceful episode Thursday night regarding Mel Gibson. Apparently, the actor/director got blinding drunk, got caught DUI, and during the arrest repeatedly spouted anti-Semitic remarks. I'll let others get more detailed, and for my part simply and completely repudiate all Gibson's insane nonsense.

Unfortunately, those of us - especially we Catholics - who defended Gibson in the past will be hurt by association here, regardless of what we say. His tirade makes it appear that all the evil designs that he denied while making The Passion of the Christ were actually true. He brings scandal to the Church, and our cries that Catholics aren't really secret anti-Semites - despite some terrible things we've been associated with in the past - will fall on even more deafened ears.

We can only repeat that this is not the case, renounce Gibson's drunken antics, and beg the forgiveness of the Jewish people for any real or perceived insults of the past.

Mind over water

Some of the faithful might discount this report as the deluded rationalization of an agnostic scientist.

Rare conditions could have conspired to create hard-to-see ice on the Sea of Galilee that a person could have walked on back when Jesus is said to have walked on water, a scientist said today.

The study, which examines a combination of favorable water and environmental conditions, proposes that Jesus could have walked on an isolated patch of floating ice on what is now known as Lake Kinneret in northern Israel.

Looking at temperature records of the Mediterranean Sea surface and using analytical ice and statistical models, scientists considered a small section of the cold freshwater surface of the lake. The area studied, about 10,000 square feet, was near salty springs that empty into it.

The results suggest temperatures dropped to 25 degrees Fahrenheit (-4 degrees Celsius) during one of the two cold periods 2,500 –1,500 years ago for up to two days, the same decades during which Jesus lived.

With such conditions, a floating patch of ice could develop above the plumes resulting from the salty springs along the lake's western shore in Tabgha. Tabgha is the town where many archeological findings related to Jesus have been found.

"We simply explain that unique freezing processes probably happened in that region only a handful of times during the last 12,000 years," said Doron Nof, a Florida State University Professor of Oceanography. "We leave to others the question of whether or not our research explains the biblical account."

I have a different thought: Oh, the power, majesty, and omniscience of the Lord, to synchronize even the time of His birth to stage an event that all Christianity would regard for two thousand years as an unexplainable miracle - until we were prepared to understand it. Surely this is continued proof of His Divinity.

Baby Jesus: 7, Tollgate Woods: 0

In a victory that makes me want to cheer, "Touchdown Jesus!", a Detroit family got their neighborhood association to retreat from a request to remove a nativity scene from the front yard of their home.

In the face of a deluge of support for the Samona family on Web sites and reaction from people throughout Metro Detroit, the United States and abroad, the (Tollgate Woods) homeowners association that sought to ban the nativity scene backed off.

Thanks and respects must go out to the Thomas More Law Center, that agreed to help the Samonas pro bono earlier in the week. No doubt the quick turnaround was orchestrated by the Center's deft use of old and new media to focus a withering torrent of criticism on the subdivision.

Hat tip: Best of the Web

The Death Merchants are now ready to start short-selling humanity.

Down Syndrome Now Detectable In 1st Trimester
Earlier Diagnosis Allows More Time for Decisions

Next stop, Dachau.

Conspiracy theory

Steve has information that John Roberts has been replaced by an alien robot. Though not quite so good looking as the others I've seen, I think it's probable he's actually a cylon.

The good news: Jimmy Akin says it's okay with God to "lock and load" on robots. The bad news: the theology gets murky if the robots have a soul, so we'd better send in Dean, since he's an orthodox atheist. Then again, even Dean might have a problem with the idea.

Hurricane Katrina: Blog for Relief Day Weekend

Bloggers around the country were inspired by a call from Hugh Hewitt to "set a day for a unified blog beg" to help those effected by Hurricane Katrina and the resulting floods. Blogging ecosystem tracker NZBear has risen to the occasion and organized the Hurricane Katrina: Blog for Relief Day Weekend fundraiser for Thursday September 1, 2005 through Monday September 5, 2005. As of this writing, over 300 500 600 800 blogs are participating from three eight 11 countries, and each blogger is encouraged to adopt a charity. Self-reported contributions reach well into the hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Over at The Black Republican, we've chosen to support the American Red Cross. But as a Catholic blog, it should be no surprise that The Black Madonna asks you to support Catholic Charities USA, which has dedicated a page just for information regarding their Katrina relief efforts.

As Hurricane Katrina continues to make her trek northward, Catholic Charities agencies from around the region, such as agencies in Florida and Baton Rouge, are poised to send technical assistance teams to help the local Catholic Charities in the impacted areas with their response efforts. Once the all clear is given that it is safe to return to those communities hit by the devastating hurricane, the damage and needs assessment will begin.

While local agencies along the Gulf Coast anticipate that they will be provide some type of emergency assistance in their communities, Catholic Charities' niche in disaster relief is to provide long-term recovery work. In fact, Catholic Charities agencies in Florida are still providing services to help people recover from last year's devastating hurricanes.

To help out Catholic Charities USA, please mail checks to:

Catholic Charities USA
2005 Hurricane Relief Fund
PO Box 25168
Alexandria, VA 22313-9788

or call (800) 919-9338. You can also use the link above to go directly to CatholicCharitiesUSA.org, where you can make a donation by credit card online.

If you'd rather donate to another organization, Glenn Reynolds has a comprehensive list of other charities you can choose from. If unable to provide financial assistance for Katrina victims, please consider giving blood at your local blood bank, or check with your local chapter of the St. Vincent de Paul Society.

Hugh Hewitt also made a specific plea for Catholics to support our sister parishes in the stricken area:

Longer term, I hope my own congregation finds a partner church with the idea of staying the rebuilding course with that church, offering much more personal care over the long haul, and that Catholic parishes from far off states do the same for Catholic parishes throughout the region, West LA synagogues for synagogues in the Gulf region hit by the storm, etc etc. The student body president of a Catholic high school wrote me last night to say that his school was hoping to partner with a Catholic high school they had identified but could not contact. From such connections long term commitments will spring.

This is a great idea, and I encourage my fellow Catholic bloggers to get out there and make some connections between parishes. Any parishes sending information to me about needing or offering help will certainly be introduced to one another.

One last request: pray for the people in the Gulf States. Pray the Holy Rosary, especially. Catholics around America and all over the world should be praying daily, offering the fear and suffering to Jesus and asking Our Lady for her intercession in this most desperate hour for so many. Hard work and money are needed more than I can express, but only through prayer can we be sure that God will provide for all those who need the most help, and that everyone can come through this disaster with faith, hope, and love in tact.

*Updated 7:30am, 9/1

A prayer for America

At the end of Mass today, the organist seemed like she didn't want to stop playing after the second verse of the recessional, even though the celebrant and the rest of the altar servers had gotten to the back of the church already. As I sang another stanza of the popular hymn, I choked up, guessing why she was so insistant we finish with the third verse.

O beautiful for heroes proved In liberating strife.
Who more than self the country loved
And mercy more than life!
America! America!
May God thy gold refine
Till all success be nobleness
And every gain divine!

Even if the war in Iraq didn't qualify as Just War (something I don't think can be determined with certitude), the continued presence of American troops in the country, defending her people from insurgent Ba'athists and foreign terrorists, is clearly an act of compassion and mercy at least as important as drawing out and eliminating the Islamofascist enemy we face and demoralizing his supporters.

Every death of one of our troops truly proves him a hero in liberating strife. The nobleness of this sacrifice will be proven in time, but it will all be for naught if we don't repel the naysayers and doombringers attempting to invalidate the successes and reverse the gains by encouraging the enemy to continue the conflict.

We must remind the Christians among those who waver in the face of the mounting losses that every death now is a martyrdom. For even those in Iraq who don't believe in helping the Iraqis (we should), even those who don't believe they are protecting America (they are), are staying and fighting to defend their brothers in arms.

No one has greater love than this, to lay down one's life for one's friends. - John 15:13

We must stay in the fight, stand true to our principles, and stand up for our friends. We must not lose heart now - as Jan Freeman tells us, when the late Ray Charles sang these words, America was already blessed.

God done shed his grace on thee
He crowned thy good, yes he did, with brotherhood
From sea to shining sea.

Sing it, Brother Ray.

Desecration

Michelle Malkin makes a great observation as she links to news that a vandal desecrated some crosses at the makeshift camp inhabited by Cindy Sheehan, the Gold Star Mother protesting the war outside President Bush's Texas home: what's more profane, the vandalism or the feigned indignation by the people who thought this was art?

The Party of the Poor

In his Best of the Web column today, James Taranto seems to tangentially make a point about Christianity that even some Catholics find especially vexing to comprehend. He quotes from the New Testament, which former Democratic Presidential nominee John Kerry has claimed to have read recently.

Six days before the Passover, Jesus arrived at Bethany, where Lazarus lived, whom Jesus had raised from the dead. Here a dinner was given in Jesus' honor. Martha served, while Lazarus was among those reclining at the table with him. Then Mary took about a pint of pure nard, an expensive perfume; she poured it on Jesus' feet and wiped his feet with her hair. And the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume.

But one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, who was later to betray him, objected, "Why wasn't this perfume sold and the money given to the poor? It was worth a year's wages." He did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it.

"Leave her alone," Jesus replied. "It was intended that she should save this perfume for the day of my burial. You will always have the poor among you, but you will not always have me."

Remember this passage when Democrats accuse Republicans of preferring to fight the Culture War rather than fight the "War on Poverty". One of those conflicts is permitted by the First, Ninth and Tenth Amendments, while the other is clearly unconstitutional to anyone who understands the concept of limited government.

And even a non-observant Jew can ponder that the New Testament might agree.

Comparative Religions 101

I get a daily email from OpinionJournal.com, informing me of the highlights of the offerings there for that day. In the Saturday edition this week, the subtitle of one of the articles caught my eye: "The Muslim holy book isn't just a 'bible'. It's far more sacred than that." I immediately became interested, because the comment seemed like a clear sacrilege. Is not Jesus The Word? Well, Kenneth L. Woodward explains why the statement - though provocative - is not inaccurate, and why the Newsweek Koran-flushing story was so important in the Islamic world.

The Quran is not "the Bible" of Muslims. It is infinitely more sacred than that. To use a Jewish analogy, it is more like the oral Torah first revealed on Mount Sinai, which was later passed on orally through the prophets and eventually written down on scrolls for all to read. Whereas Christians regard the Bible as written by human beings inspired by God, Muslims regard the Quran--the word means "The Recitation"--as the very words of God, revealed aurally to the Prophet Muhammad in Arabic. To hear those words recited is, for Muslims, to hear Allah. If, for Christians, Jesus is the logos or eternal Word of God made flesh, the Quran is the Word of God made book, and every Arabic syllable in it lives as the breath of the divine.

In short, what Christ is for Christians the Quran (in Arabic) is for Muslims: the living Word of God made present in this world. Moreover, to recite the suras or verses of the Quran, as devout Muslims do, is to breathe in the very words of Allah. Thus, recitation of the Quran is for Muslims much like what receiving the Eucharist is for Catholics--a very intimate ingestion of the divine itself. This, then, according to Newsweek's story--now retracted and "regretted" by the magazine's editor--is what some interrogators flushed down a toilet at Guantanamo Bay.

So perhaps rather than comparing the errors at Newsweek with those at CBS, we should say they were equal to the Catholic Church's problem with eBay. Still, I believe Muslims need to get a grip on themselves - Catholics didn't kill anyone over the eBay incident.

No good answers

A comment in response to a post at Catholics in the Public Square got me a little riled up, as someone tried to continue the confusion of Church doctrine on the death penalty with other life issues - while cruelly judging the intentions of another Catholic, to boot.

Too bad Jeb likes to execute people so much - compromises his culture of life, no?

Actually, no.

Some of us actually believe the death penalty supports the culture of life, by unambiguously proposing to execute those who hold life so cheap as to brutally take the life of an innocent. And thanks to Church teaching, there's nothing doctrinally incorrect with that opinion.

Canon law has always forbidden clerics to shed human blood and therefore capital punishment has always been the work of the officials of the State and not of the Church. Even in the case of heresy, of which so much is made by non-Catholic controversialists, the functions of ecclesiastics were restricted invariably to ascertaining the fact of heresy. The punishment, whether capital or other, was both prescribed and inflicted by civil government. The infliction of capital punishment is not contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church, and the power of the State to visit upon culprits the penalty of death derives much authority from revelation and from the writings of theologians. The advisabilty of exercising that power is, of course, an affair to be determined upon other and various considerations.

Even when the US Conference of Catholic Bishops issued a statement in opposition to the death penalty, they hedged. As Karl Keating put it:

Must Catholics adopt a particular view regarding the use (or non-use) of capital punishment? In short: no. They are free to endorse, as a political policy, the complete abolition of capital punishment, and they are free to endorse the use of capital punishment, even beyond the very narrow limits given in the prudential judgment in [the Catechism of the Catholic Church]. Contrary to what some people claim, there has been no revolution in Church teaching on the matter.

If the state were to prevent a woman from killing a baby in her womb, they would be preventing someone from committing a violent act against an innocent. People who support that woman's right to murder cannot make that claim, because no one has a right to murder.

On the contrary, people who support a murderer's right to life are protecting someone who is guilty from suffering punishment at the hands of the state, which IT has every right to do - provided all laws are followed, due process is respected, and careful adjudication is taken.

Someone who asks that the people of the state protect the life of the guilty like we protect the life of the innocent are asking the people to forgive. For forgiveness to be truly Christian, one must give it freely - it cannot be forced.

Ironically, these are exactly the circumstances when "I can't impose my beliefs on others" actually applies: you cannot compel a victim's family to forgive the murderer of their loved one. You cannot force the people of a state to forgive murderers and let them walk free.

We can pray that one day we'll all be Christian enough that it would happen without asking - or better yet, so Christian as to not have any murders to prosecute. Until then, I'll remain firmly on the fence on this one.

Political correctness gone mad or Prudent evangelism?

It was not long after I clicked the "Post" button on my last entry, when the thought popped into my head: "Oooh, I'd better change that to say, 'Say a prayer to Saint Agatha... for her intercession with Our Lord.'" A few minutes later, I wanted to smack myself for "being PC". A few minutes after that, I wondered if my justifiable caution isn't simply good evangelism. Now I'm just confused.

I remember a time, long ago, when my mother's prompting, "Say a prayer to Saint Jude," would bring a feeling of hope that some lost cause might yet have a happy ending. Now this kind of a phrase causes me anxiety that someone, somewhere might believe I'm raising a human being - saintly, residing with Jesus in heaven, a reasonable candidate for intercession - to the level of the Almighty.

Does anyone else have this problem? Am I being cautious for the sake of apologetics, or shamed into unnecessary apologies?

The presumption of atheism

One of the things you notice when you're a blogger or a blog-watcher is the prevalance of atheists in our midst here in the blogosphere. Someone should do a study on it, because I've read far more professions of atheism from bloggers than I have from people I've met in Real Life. Ironically, most if not many of those I've read tend conservative, refuting the lie that the next presidential administration rests on the back of the Religious Right.

I personally don't find the conservative tendancy of atheist bloggers suprising. Atheists tend to be rooted in some scientific method, and in both domestic policy and the War on Terror, Democrats preach the very definition of insanity: keep doing what doesn't work in the hope the next time things will change, despite all evidence to the contrary. But I do wince whenever I hear my blogger friends profess their atheism, because I've always found evidence to the contrary quite convincing.

In today's Taste page at OpinionJournal.com, Andrew Klavan does an excellent job defending his renounciation of atheism and describing this evidence.

The presumption of atheism seems to me to be at the heart of all scientific reasoning about religion. And as I'm someone who loves and believes in science, it was a major stumbling block for me most of my life. After all, why would anyone believe without proof in that for which there is no evidence in the first place?

It was in my re-reading of the Romantic poets William Blake and Samuel Taylor Coleridge that I felt this stumbling block dissolve. What finally occurred to me--what tipped the scales in favor of baptism--was that the presumption of atheism proceeds without respect for the human experience of God's presence. Thinkers like Prof. Flew dismiss this experience because they make the mistake of applying the scientific method of analysis, of taking things apart, to an inner life that can only be known as a whole.

Of course, the human mind can be deceived. But there are some matters in which internal human experience can neither be usefully dissected nor practically gainsaid. One may refuse to accept that there is a meaningful concept of God as one may refuse to accept that there is a meaningful concept of beauty or love. But what is such a refusal in balance with the kiss of your soul mate, or the playing of a Bach cantata, or the overwhelming awareness of God's guidance and care?

As Klavan goes on to say, "The burden of proof is all on atheism." So it is that I'll spend tonight singing from the church loft, welcoming my Lord back to his Incarnation. And as the sound of my own voice echoes back at me, while I marvel at the gifts He has given me and which I don't deserve, I'll still be waiting for my atheist friends to offer their evidence to the contrary.

Noncombatant in a War Zone

My diocesan newspaper's online site interviewed a military chaplain who is also one of our diocesan priests. The comments of Lt. Colonel Robert Cannon are inspirational and heartwarming, sounding the call of Iraqi liberation almost like he was a Republican political operative. But he also adds some flavor that make his perspective unique among the "in the war zone" commentaries I've read.

I have found some of the most outstanding, brilliant and dedicated human beings here in the middle of a war zone, half way around the world, willing to risk everything to give the Iraqi people an opportunity to have a future bright with the promise of freedom. They range from Department of State employees, to military members, to civilian contractors building bridges and infrastructure, to just ordinary, everyday people. They all have answered the call to do their part.

Indeed. Some of those extraordinary people are even military chaplains.

Our Lady of Victories

Pray for us.

(stovepipe hattip: Best of the Web)

UPDATE: Best of the Web has a followup, in the form of a comment, "from reader Richard Whitlock, a captain in the Texas Army National Guard".

I'm tired of people saying "hanging off of his gun" like it's dangling from a peashooter. The weapon system that the rosary is hanging off of is none other than a M242 25-millimeter Bushmaster, the primary direct-fire armament of the M2 Bradley, and it is technically a "cannon" and not a "gun."

In fact, the totally appalled lady you so hilariously quoted is totally missing the point in that the rosary was still hanging off the cannon, meaning the weapon hadn't been shot yet despite probably many chances to do so. The recoil from firing would have sent that rosary flying, meaning the photo shows that the careless/heartless/whatever soldier had actually decided to preserve life, not take it.

Onward Catholic Marchers!

Kathryn Jean Lopez at NRO passes on an email received from a party-crasher at a Kerry rally in Steubenville, Ohio. Apparently, either Kerry mistook the residents there for small-"c" catholics of his persuasion, or his staff doesn't know the difference. In any event, the students of Franciscan University gave him a big welcome.

Before Kerry arrived there was a huge pro-life march led by Franciscan University students, 500 strong. "You can't be Catholic and pro-abortion", read some of their signs. Students and members of local Catholic parishes were full of energy and FoxNews reported that this was the largest protest against Kerry outside of the Democratic Convention. Just picture 500 pro-lifers marching from their college campus to meet Kerry. Where else but in Steubenville, Ohio! Though the Franciscan University did not organize the event, it is well known for its orthodox Catholic education which encourages students to put their faith into action. These students simply cherish their Catholic faith and could not stand to let Kerry use their faith as a political prop.

According to a post at Catholic[?] Kerry Watch which also covered the rally, another one of the banners reportedly said, "Pontius Pilate was also personally opposed". Late tonight, I got a call from my uncle in California, whose daughter attends Franciscan University. If I can get a first-person inteview of my own, I'll post it here.

"...then the voter sins mortally."

This entry originally appeared in The Black Republican.

The Catholic television network EWTN has a voter guide explaining the "Moral Duties Concerning Voting". It's an impressive statement of principle for pro-life voters, especially in this age when cardinals and candidates alike are telling Catholics they may have "proportionate reasons" to vote for a Democrat. (hat tip: Bettnet.com)

I can't help but wonder if the course of the nation could have changed in the 19th century, if twenty years before Lincoln the churches in America had been told they should vote against slavery with the same principles.

UPDATE: I just found several posts in our archives that I'd forgotten touch on the capital punishment angle. Note how much more hawkish EWTN seems to be on this issue, compared with Lopez and Dulles.

ANOTHER UPDATE: "Pro-choice agnostic" John Rosenberg makes a similar argument as I do regarding preantebellum morality. When people who would otherwise support you start showing the yellow caution flag over your political contortionism, you're in trouble. (Hat tip: Catholic[?] Kerry Watch)

I'll see impeachment and raise you HERESY

This entry originally appeared in The Black Republican.

A Los Angeles canon lawyer has filed suit against John Kerry for heresy in ecclesiastical court.

Mr. Balestrieri said he filed the heresy charge - plus an additional complaint charging "harm" to himself as a result of Mr. Kerry's pronouncements on abortion and related issues - because canon law entitles Catholics to "possession of the faith unharmed."

"By spreading heresy, he is endangering not just mine by every Catholic's possession of the faith," he said.

"I am inviting all baptized Catholics who feel injured by Kerry to join the suit as third parties" by reading the document on the Web site and then sending a certified letter of agreement to the Boston Archdiocese.

"People are saying you can be pro-choice and be a good Christian, that it is not contrary to the faith to support aborted murder," Mr. Balestrieri said. "This is a life-threatening heresy."

"Bishops have had 31 years [since the Supreme Court made abortion an individual right] to do something on this matter, but they've done nothing," he said.

You can view the complaint and join the suit at De Fide.

(hat tip Mark Shea, good analysis by Fr. Rob Johansen)

Somebody get me a band-aid

This entry originally appeared in The Black Republican.

Regardless of your personal faith, you really should read this funny post and its comments.

According to the film, over half a million priests and nuns have left the church since the early '60s, a loss known among Catholics as "the bleeding."

If you're Catholic, you'll laugh. If you're not, you'll learn the one place you shouldn't get your information about Catholics: the mainstream press.

UPDATE: It just gets better. And in the comments:

What is next? The Bleeding 2: The Bloodening!

Posted by Chris at 02:02 AM

One man stands by his faith

This entry originally appeared in The Black Republican.

I'm tempted to move to St. Louis.

The definition of confused

This entry originally appeared in The Black Republican.

Thinking the two current occupants looked a little lonely, I went looking for appropriate links to add to our new St. Blog's blogroll. I found a quite entertaining site by Kathy Shaidle, Relapsed Catholic.

At one point on her current front page, Kathy comments that she'd changed her position on abortion - but then fails to say from what to what. Naturally, I went diving through the archives to satisfy my curiosity, and came up with this gem. Make sure to read the linked commentaries by some of her friends - they're dated by the onward march of the campaign, but still quite insightful and entertaining.

Kerry's last Catholic leg

This entry originally appeared in The Black Republican.

As I pointed out previously, John Kerry has defended his position on abortion and same-sex marriage by asking of his detractors, "Are they the same legislators who vote for the death penalty, which is in contravention of Catholic teaching?" As if this bait-and-switch weren't lame enough, I indicated at the time that Catholic theology is far from defining capital punishment as intrinsically evil.

Now at a timely moment, Kathryn Lopez at NRO has dredged up from the bowels of the Internet an April 2001 essay by Avery Cardinal Dulles that breaks down the issue in fascinating theological detail. (hat tip: Catholics for Bush)

Both Lopez and Dulles argue against the death penalty, even while acknowledging the authority of the State to enforce it. While neither goes to this level in the linked articles, both seem to make the case that a politician who favors the death penalty is far from disqualified from earning a Catholic's vote. In reading Dulles' arguments, I would go so far as to say a Catholic legislator is well within church doctrine to support the death penalty in a general sense, as long as he lobbies to build in safeguards to ensure it is applied fairly and to shy away from its use in all but the most egregious cases.

In an interesting detail I was unaware of until now, it appears even the National Conference of Catholic Bishops aren't as keen on denouncing capital punishment as I had been led to believe. Dulles points out in a footnote that there was more than a little dissent on the matter when they made their "statement" against the practice in 1980.

The statement was adopted by a vote of 145 to 31, with 41 bishops abstaining, the highest number of abstentions ever recorded. In addition, a number of bishops were absent from the meeting or did not officially abstain. Thus the statement did not receive the two�thirds majority of the entire membership then required for approval of official statements. But no bishop rose to make the point of order.

In any case, Dulles makes a strong stand that one's support for or against the death penalty - a criminal matter between the State and a capital defendant - clearly has no relation to one's support for or against the taking of an innocent life in abortion. The only question remains: when will our bishops stand up and defend the faith?

So... shall ye sew?

This entry originally appeared in The Black Republican.

I know I'm drifting off topic again, but this is getting aggravating for me. Besides, I don't have a Catholic-themed blog to vent on [Ed: Well... I do now], so I'll have to ask your indulgence while I get my frustrations out here. That said, it appears the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee is tripping over his confirmation stole again.

Mr. Kerry became combative when told that some conservatives were criticizing him for being a Roman Catholic who supported policies, like abortion rights and same-sex unions, that are at odds with Catholic teaching.

"Who are they?" he demanded of his questioner. "Name them. Are they the same legislators who vote for the death penalty, which is in contravention of Catholic teaching?"

He added: "I'm not a church spokesman. I'm a legislator running for president. My oath is to uphold the Constitution of the United States in my public life. My oath privately between me and God was defined in the Catholic church by Pius XXIII and Pope Paul VI in the Vatican II, which allows for freedom of conscience for Catholics with respect to these choices, and that is exactly where I am. And it is separate. Our constitution separates church and state, and they should be reminded of that."

Mr. Kerry apparently meant John XXIII, as there is no Pius XXIII.

This was brought to my attention by Steve, who asked in confusion, "Since I'm not a Catholic, how bad is what he says here?" My answer: Where do I begin?

There are several facets to Mr. Kerry's outburst that are revealing: his attitude toward episcopal authority, and toward his fellow Catholics, and his misunderstanding of what the Church teaches us with regard to the various issues he discusses. But he also appears to have misunderstood what his handlers have told him... I mean, what his catechism teacher and his spiritual advisors have taught him... about recent church history. Most importantly however, Mr. Kerry has revealed that he has spent many years (at least) away from any kind of immersion in Catholic culture.

It's one thing to have a difference of opinion on matters that are not central to dogma. It's another to intentionally misrepresent Church teaching, or to completely ignore it. Perhaps Mr. Kerry just misunderstands the difference between the Church's position on capital punishment and what it teaches about the issues of abortion and homosexuality. But the fact remains: capital punishment is legal according to Catholic doctrine, but opposed by Catholic bishops in the United States for humanitarian (and not strictly doctrinal) reasons. Meanwhile, abortion and homosexual acts are forbidden by the Church and all its bishops according to two thousand years of guidance under the Bishop of Rome. It is generally permissible to disagree with the bishops of the United States in the former case, but not with the pope and all the bishops in the latter two.

It should also be pointed out that even in the case of capital punishment, one might risk a decision by one's bishop that his support of the practice in his case is so extreme as to risk excommunication. And if such a decision were reached by a bishop, he would counsel the transgressor and warn him of the possible consequences. Such a warning would require the individual to rethink his position or submit himself to such a judgment by the episcopal authority. I have to stress that a Catholic would believe that the authority of the bishop in this kind of situation is binding and a Catholic would have to accede or admit that he is no longer a part of the Church. If the individual does not reform, excommunication ensures that he is deprived of eternal salvation. There is no debate.

Here is where Mr. Kerry does not take proper care to prudently make his case in the context of a faithful Catholic. He not only flaunts his willful disregard of episcopal authority, but to distract attention from his own "potential" transgressions, he accuses other Catholics of not being faithful to "Catholic teaching".

At this point, there could be little that Mr. Kerry would say that would make me think he is a mainstream Catholic. As if rising to the occasion, he actually does himself more harm by misstating the name of a previous pope. Make no mistake, for all you non-Catholics out there: this was no simple slip of the tongue. It is simply impossible for an adult Catholic to confuse "Pius the Twelfth" and "John the Twenty-Third". (I spell them out on purpose - say them out loud and try to get yourself confused.) More importantly, Pius XII was a controversial figure, having held the papacy during World War II. But John XXIII - the pope who called a revolutionary Church Council (Vatican II) - is beloved by Catholics the world over, and was beatified by Pope John Paul II (beatification is the step below sainthood). I can only imagine that any confusing of the two can only be achieved through years of avoiding serious discussion of all things Catholic.

UP
DATE: James Taranto coincidentally imitates us.

"There's a problem with John Kerry"

This entry originally appeared in The Black Republican.

I've discussed before how some of the principles upon which the Republican Party was founded have endured the test of time, and how we've outgrown some prejudices that ought never have been a part of the Party of Lincoln in the first place. One of these positions was the initial anti-Catholic stance of most Republicans early in our history. Thankfully, we have outgrown that, and in fact we have long since reversed the trend with more and more practicing Catholics moving from the Democrat Party.

Note my differentiation by saying: "practicing". A good deal of the "Catholic vote" is still going to the Democratic Party. The problem is those people aren't Catholics as anyone should define them. Unlike many other religious or social affiliations, there actually is a simple litmus test for being Catholic: one must be a member of the Body of Christ, and the outward symbol of that membership (if I dare call it a mere "symbol") is the reception of the Holy Eucharist. What is beyond the understanding of many once-a-week and twice-a-year Catholics is even some of them aren't Catholic either. Without this becoming a long theology lesson, suffice to say there's a lot of faith required behind that act, and a lot more action required behind that faith, before your card is punched.

Especially in America today, we Catholics don't spend a whole lot of time talking about this self-amputation of our members, primarily because it would require us to make judgements about the nature and character of the faith of our brothers. But the Church does have a mechanism to shield the faithful from the most egregious of our erstwhile brethren, lest they drag us down with them: excommunication. By saying publicly that someone is not worthy of receiving the Holy Eucharist at this moment because of the example of his words or actions, the Church can show the faithful a clearly negative example of what it means not to be in union with the Body of Christ.

Here's where we get back to politics. Any political party not run exclusively by practicing Catholics will have policy positions that may run counter to Catholic teachings. And for many years, the Democrat's concentration on social welfare seemed to be as close a fit as one could make with Catholic doctrine. But those days have come and gone. Liberation theology has been repudiated as a serious economic system, leaving bare many of the Democrats' social positions - abortion primary among them - as seriously anti-Catholic in nature. Not to be rebuffed so easily, many Catholic Democrats have insisted that Rome ignore their voting records and rhetoric, trying to separate their public acts from their "private beliefs". (Nevermind for now the hypocritical concept that one should advocate something they personally disagree with.) But recently, bishops and priests have become more vocal in stating that they may need to use excommunication to chastise Catholic politicians who advocate positions contrary to the teachings of Catholic doctrine.

For the fourth time in American history*, the presumptive Democratic nominee for President is Catholic (or, at least, he says he is). But John Kerry has suggested that his Catholic faith is his "bedrock of values, of sureness about who I am," even though he takes the standard anti-Catholic Democratic position on euthanasia, homosexual "rights", and (of course) abortion.

* In reverse order, the previous three Catholic nominees for president were: John Kennedy (1960), Al Smith (1928), and Charles O'Conor (1872).

EDIT: I added a line in the sixth paragraph that completes a thought I left floating in the wind.

"The Prince-As Bride"

This entry originally appeared in The Black Republican.