X. Zach Lee

A Tourist and a Cad

2010-04-03T06:47:00.000-05:00

Strolling through the streets of Rome,
His intellect felt right at home.
And with each hallowed church he passed,
His eyes God's beauty found at last.

Admidst the glorious grandeur there,
He sniffed the power of Peter's chair.
And the severed vision that he'd known--
Its solas left him all alone.

He mused: I almost understand
How the ancient Church could tempt a man
To leave the faith of his younger days
And huddle 'neath this Mother's gaze.

But when he ventured out to see
The basilica of Saint Anthony,
He shrank in horror from the sight
Of simple folks and their folksy rites.

They had the gall to bow the knee
At the pickled tongue of dear Anthony.
Such marvels vexed his erudition.
Oh! churlish, crass, common superstition!

For how could Rome's brilliance dwell beside
Fetish for morsels of saints who died?
Remember, said He who made body and soul:
Beloved, thy faith has made thee whole.

Frightening Honesty from the Party of Death

2010-03-13T07:50:00.004-06:00

National Review Online quotes pro-life Democrat Bart Stupak on the House Democrat Leadership's attempts to sway him into voting for their Healthcare Bill sans the "Stupak amendment" (which upholds the current and long-standing restrictions on federal funding of abortion):

Stupak notes that his negotiations with House Democratic leaders in recent days have been revealing. “I really believe that the Democratic leadership is simply unwilling to change its stance,” he says. “Their position says that women, especially those without means available, should have their abortions covered.” The arguments they have made to him in recent deliberations, he adds, “are a pretty sad commentary on the state of the Democratic party.”

What are Democratic leaders saying? “If you pass the Stupak amendment, more children will be born, and therefore it will cost us millions more. That’s one of the arguments I’ve been hearing,” Stupak says. “Money is their hang-up. Is this how we now value life in America? If money is the issue — come on, we can find room in the budget. This is life we’re talking about.”

They don't call 'em the "Party of Death" for nothing, you know.

Totus Tuus, My Dear TOTUS

2010-02-27T08:49:00.002-06:00

If Rome really were the Church, how would you know it?

2010-02-17T10:52:00.001-06:00

Over at Called to Communion, Tim Troutman recalls a tough question that Bryan Cross once posed to a Reformed Christian:

“If Rome really were the Church, and you, as a Reformer, were actually in schism, how would you know it?” The Reformers have no answer except, “I would know it because Rome would be faithful to the Scriptures and I would be unfaithful.” But as [Reformed theologian Keith] Mathison stated, any appeal to Scripture is an appeal to private interpretation of Scripture. Therefore, the answer is really, “I would know it because Rome would agree with me.”

I think it's a very good question -- and one that would be difficult for a Reformed person to answer without devolving into "I'm right because I'm right" argumentation. In a future post, I'll attempt to take up the mirror-image of this question, which might be posed to a Catholic.

Ash Wednesday

2010-02-17T06:00:00.003-06:00

"Remember, O man, that dust thou art, and into dust thou shalt return" (cf. Gen 3:19)

Over the weekend, Mrs. Lee and I were discussing the curious and quite amazing fact that we were both life-long Christians, in our late twenties, college-educated (I, with a degree in Religious Studies), married, and parents three times over before we had any clue what Ash Wednesday was. Yes, we had seen it arrive every year on our calendars for as long as we could remember, but we gave it little thought and assumed it was one of those minor, modern, manufactured "holidays" akin to Boxing Day, Secretaries Day, or Arbor Day. In fact, I even remember thinking that it was probably a sub-holiday of Arbor Day -- meant for those with a particular devotion to the White Ash tree (Fraxinus americana - photo by Willow, Wikipedia).

We certainly had no inkling that Ash Wednesday was a Christian holy day dating from, at latest, the 8th century -- nor that many of our friends (both Protestant and, especially, Catholic) would be going to church on that day to receive ashes and thus begin the ancient pre-Easter period of penitence known as Lent. I suppose our striking lack of such basic knowledge was emblematic of the a-historical bent of the American Evangelicalism in which we were reared. Not that there weren't some powerful historical elements present in the faiths of our youth, but Christian history was rarely, if ever, mentioned or celebrated. In any case, our family is now Catholic, we finally know what Ash Wednesday is, and it has become a treasured and anticipated day for all of us.

A very blessed Ash Wednesday and Lent to you all.

Missing R.J.N. on the First Things 20th Anniversary

2010-02-16T20:19:00.001-06:00

Today's mail brought the latest volume of First Things -- as it happens, the 20th Anniversary issue. It's been a little over a year since Fr. Richard John Neuhaus, founder and editor of First Things, passed away, and this issue, a sort of "greatest hits" issue that includes his classic 2002 essay "How I Became the Catholic I Was", reminds me of how much I miss him. A Christian thinker and writer of exceptional grace, wit, and charity, Neuhaus' death left a vacuum that will not soon be filled. The following passage, in particular, exemplifies his style and substance:

To use the language of old eucharistic controversies, finitum capax infiniti—the finite is capable of the infinite. Put differently, there is no access to the infinite except through the finite. Or yet again, God's investment in the finite can be trusted infinitely. Although Lutheran theology discarded the phrase, it is the ex opere operato conviction evident in Luther's ultimate defiance of Satan's every temptation by playing the trump card, "I am baptized!" Ex opere operato is the sacramental enactment of sola gratia. It is uncompromisingly objective. By it morbid introspection, the delusions of religious enthusiasm, and the endlessly clever postulations of the theological imagination are called to order by truth that is answerable to no higher truth; for it is Christ, who is the Truth, who speaks in the voice of his Church—"I baptize you . . . ," "I forgive you your sins . . . ," "This is my body . . ."

Video from Sisters' Appearance on Oprah

2010-02-16T14:39:00.000-06:00

A follow-up to my post from several days ago regarding the appearance on Oprah of The Dominican Sisters of Mary, Mother of the Eucharist. The sisters were wonderful! With a few minor exceptions, Oprah and her assistant were very gracious in the questions they asked. All segments featuring the sisters are available at Dave Armstrong's Biblical Evidence. The following segment is my favorite:

He Loved Us, and So He Chose Us.

2010-02-14T16:12:00.004-06:00

Several years ago, I happened upon the great, but I think under-appreciated spiritual classic, All for Jesus, by the English priest and hymn-writer Father Frederick William Faber (1814-1863). The following passage from this treatise is one of the most powerful things I have ever read in any book:

What a wonder it is that God should love men. Intrinsically what is there in them to love? If we compare our own natural gifts with those of an angel, how miserable we appear! If we consider how much more faithfully the beasts answer the end of their creation than we do, of what shall we be proud? Moreover, God has tried men over and over again, and they have always failed Him, and failed Him with every circumstance of unamiable selfishness which can be conceived. There was first of all, Paradise and the Fall. Every one knows what came of it. God was matched against an apple, and the apple carried it. . . Then here is the world since the Crucifixion. To look at it you would say that our dearest Lord's Passion had been a simple failure. So little is the face of the world, or the tone of the world, or the ways of the world changed. . . Then here are we Christians, a most unsatisfactory sight indeed! How do we treat our sacraments? How many of us are serving our Crucified Lord generously and out of love?

Verily, God's love of men is a simple wonder. Yet how He must love them, seeing that He became not an angel for angels, but He did become a man for men! There is no other account of the matter, than the Scripture account of it. It is simply one of the mysteries of the character of God . . . But it is a greater wonder still that He lets men love Him. Where are the words to tell the privilege which it is to love the incomprehensibly beautiful, infinitely good, and immensely holy God? One would have thought such love as ours would be but an insolent profanation; and that were we allowed to be before God with such instinctive love as that of the patient cattle or the drinking birds, it would have been honour enough for us. Yet if, by permission of His inexhaustible compassions we might love Him, then surely it must be by blood, and pain, and suffering, and shame, and penance, and the costly offerings of a terrific austerity and an appalling self-sacrifice. Ah! dearest Lord God! and so, in truth, it is; but the blood and the pain, the suffering and the shame, are not ours, but His own! He weeps that we may smile; He bleeds that we may be whole; He is put to shame, that we may be glad and joyful; He is afraid, and anxious, and heavy, and sweating blood, that we may be at ease about our past sins, drinking in the sunshine of the earth, familiar with God, and sweetly confident about eternity.

So far does He go, that not only may we love Him most earnestly, but He has arranged all things to entice us into love. He coins our very desires into worship; and He lets us love Him, and glorify Him, and earn glory for ourselves by what would almost provoke a smile from an unbeliever, it looks so like a mere make-believe, the artifice of a good-natured father, a very child's play of love. If all this on earth, what will He be, what will He do in heaven? Isaias and St. Paul have both told us how useless the enquiry is. We must have other eyes to see it with, other ears to hear it with, and a far other range of thought to compass it and take it in. And will all this one day be ours? By the Blood of our sweet Jesus, we trust undoubtingly it will. And whatever have we done for it? Where is the proportion between it and our deserts? There is none, none, none. It is all because of Jesus. Jesus is the secret of everything. Jesus is the interpretation of all the secrets of God. What a religion is this! and what a God! Oh let it be told to every inhabitant of the earth that it is not as he thought it must be. We may all love God as much as ever we please, and in as many ways as we can think of. Would that angels might proclaim it every hour of the day and night, with the sound of the trumpet, to all the dwellings in the four quarters of the world! If, when they hear it, they neglect their worldly interests, and become like the men of Galilee, gazers into heaven, it is only what we might expect. Infinite permission to love! Infinite permission to love! There is the creature's charter. The blood of a God bought it. What a religion! What a God!

Do wonders end here? No! there is a greater still. It was passing wonder that God should love men. It was more marvellous that He should let men love Him. But man can outdo God; for his is the greatest wonder of all; it is that he does not love God when he may. This is hardly to be believed, though we see it. Oh, if we were not hardened by custom to this fact, it would breed in us some such horror as a cruel and savage parricide would do. It would take our breath away. We should not know what to make of it. Belief in it would only grow slowly into us, and would stupify us as it grew. But to forget God is the order of things, and we hardly notice the phenomenon at all. Alas, if we could see it altogether as faith would have us see it, we should long for tears of blood to wash away our infamy! And what can be said to make men love God, which is one half as strong as what God has actually done for them? His mercy is so eloquent, His bounty so touching, His indulgence so persuasive, that if He has failed to win, why need men trouble themselves to proclaim His love? This is what St. Paul must have meant when he talked about the foolishness of preaching. Christ crucified was Himself the sermon and the preacher, what need of more? It was foolishness. Only in His love again God let us do this; we are always meeting love and running against it at every turn; He allowed us to take the words of His covenant into our mouths, and show our little love of Him by telling others His great love of us. And He showed His love again by letting the conquest of the world depend upon this foolishness of preaching.

But you and I love Him! Well! and this is another wonder; for how come we to do so, when so many more around us do not? It is simply His own gift, simply grace. Here is Jesus again. He taught us how to love, and seeing what unapt pupils we were, He took some of His own love out of His Sacred Heart, and put it into ours, that we might love God with it. And all our share in the matter is that we have left the lamp untrimmed, and caused the fire to burn far duller than it did before. It almost seems as if He purposely chose those who were least capable of loving Him. You and I must surely feel this. We could point to scores who do not love Him; and yet are a thousand times nobler and more generous of heart than we are, and would have made far finer characters. How miserable we are! Why did not God call other souls out of nothing that would have loved Him gloriously, and not been the mean things that we are? He loved us, our souls, ourselves. He chose us with an eternal choice, gave us an eternal preference, and loved us with an everlasting love. Why? There is no answering the question. Simply, He loved us, and so He chose us.

The entire book is available for free at Google Books. As we approach the holy season of Lent, let us meditate on the unimaginable love that God has shown -- and continues to show -- for us.

Be My Methodius. . .

2010-02-12T15:16:00.000-06:00

With characteristic wit, Leon Suprenant reminds us that it's not St. Valentine's feast day that the Church commemorates on February 14th:

"Very few of us will walk up to someone on Sunday and greet him or her with the words, 'Happy St. Cyril’s Day,' or even 'Happy Cyril’s Day.' And surely no one will ask their sweetheart to 'Be my Methodius.'

And yet, on February 14th, the universal Church commemorates Sts. Cyril and Methodius, not St. Valentine, notwithstanding the latter’s larger-than-life appeal. (Of course, when saint days fall on Sunday, the saint's feast is superseded by the Sunday, so this year February 14th is actually the 6th Sunday in Ordinary Time.)

Sts. Cyril and Methodius, brothers from what in biblical times was known as Thessalonica, were ninth-century missionaries to the Slavic people in Eastern Europe. Not only did they learn the oral language of the people, but they developed an alphabet and written language so that the Bible and liturgical texts could be translated into the living language of the people. They were truly remarkable men of God.

"Be my Methodius." I love that. Maybe I'll try it on Mrs. Lee this weekend. On a related note, the Diversity Committee at my office left a little box of conversation hearts on each employee's desk overnight -- along with a note detailing the legendary biographical details of the third century Catholic priest, St. Valentine. In general, I dislike the exaltation of diversity as a virtue, but if there's going to be a Diversity Committee, at least they are behaving in an equal opportunity fashion.

American Papist on Hannity

2010-02-06T08:30:00.006-06:00

Last night, Brent Bozell (Media Research Center) and Thomas Peters (American Papist) appeared on Fox News' Hannity program to discuss the Harry Knox controversy. Knox, the gay-rights activist whom President Obama appointed to his Advisory Council on Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships, has a history of making anti-Christian -- and, in particular, anti-Catholic -- statements. For example, last March Knox said the following:

"The Pope's statement that condoms don't help control the spread of HIV, but rather condoms increase infection rates, is hurting people in the name of Jesus."

When given a chance to retract the comment this past Tuesday, Knox obstinately stood by it. Considering that this miserable fellow continues to make such bigoted and inflammatory public statements while serving at the pleasure of the President, should we not conclude that the President himself takes pleasure in such bigotry?

Dominican Sisters to Appear on Oprah

2010-02-04T11:43:00.002-06:00

According to the American Papist, some of the Dominican Sisters of Mary, Mother of the Eucharist will appear on the Oprah Winfrey show next Tuesday, February 9th. This amazing community of women religious, located in Ann Arbor, MI, is a testament to the difference that faithfulness, orthodoxy, and tradition can make.

It's no secret that vocations to the religious life have taken a devastating hit in the last few decades -- so much so that many religious communities resemble sparsely-populated retirement homes, filled silver-haired sirens perpetually sporting their "recreation clothes". Yet this community of Dominican sisters is growing so fast (nearly 100 new vocations since 1997) that their "vocations crisis" consists in trying to ensure that their infrastructure keeps up with the overwhelming influx of holy, intelligent, beautiful young women seeking to consecrate their lives to Christ. What's their secret?

An unwavering fidelity to Christ, a humble obedience to His Church, a burning devotion to evangelization and mission work, and a dedication to living the religious life as it was meant to be lived -- in community, in poverty, proudly wearing the habit! It's a thing of beauty, and it's precisely the kind of thing that is attractive to young Catholics who are serious about their faith.

No one wants to join a lukewarm religious community of aging liberal social workers in polyester pantsuits! No young woman wants to dedicate her life to that -- and no one does! Young people want to dedicate themselves to spiritual greatness, and these Dominican Sisters have it. Let us pray for them (and Oprah, and her audience) as they appear on Oprah next week. Oh, and please pray for one of my daughter's best friends, who will enter the community as a postulant next fall. We're all very proud of her and know that she will make an excellent addition to the Dominican Sisters.

Think Brett Favre is Amazing? Check Out Herschel!

2010-02-02T21:23:00.000-06:00

Herschel Walker, the greatest college football player of all time, has to be one of the most amazing athletes ever created by the good God. The NFL decided he was too old years ago, but, to my eyes, he looks like he could still play. At the age of 47, he has undertaken a new career as an "ultimate fighter". I rather dislike this pseudo-sport (it strikes me as lacking the skill and class of boxing), but this clip of Herschel's first contest serves as further evidence of his continued status as a world-class athlete.

Skills aside, just look at the guy. Ripped to shreds -- impressive! (h/t: Georgia Sports Blog)

C.S. Lewis Crypto-Catholic?

2010-02-02T15:57:00.000-06:00

Had he lived to see the Anglican Church's modern abandonment of historic Christianity, would C.S. Lewis have felt compelled to become a Catholic? It's an interesting question, the end-game of which is purely hypothetical.

Over at Canterbury Tales, Taylor Marshall examines some of the very Catholic views that Lewis held. His view of the Eucharistic Real Presence and Baptismal Regeneration were very close to what the Catholic Church teaches, he regularly frequented the Confessional, and he wrote with striking specificity of his belief in Purgatory:

"Our souls demand Purgatory, don't they? Would it not break the heart if God said to us, 'It is true, my son, that your breath smells and your rags drip with mud and slime, but we are charitable here and no one will upbraid you with these things, nor draw away from you. Enter into the joy'? Should we not reply, 'With submission, sir, and if there is no objection, I'd rather be cleaned first.' 'It may hurt, you know' - 'Even so, sir.'

I assume that the process of purification will normally involve suffering. Partly from tradition; partly because most real good that has been done me in this life has involved it. But I don't think the suffering is the purpose of the purgation. I can well believe that people neither much worse nor much better than I will suffer less than I or more. . . . The treatment given will be the one required, whether it hurts little or much.

My favorite image on this matter comes from the dentist's chair. I hope that when the tooth of life is drawn and I am 'coming round',' a voice will say, 'Rinse your mouth out with this.' This will be Purgatory. The rinsing may take longer than I can now imagine. The taste of this may be more fiery and astringent than my present sensibility could endure. But . . . it will [not] be disgusting and unhallowed."

Of course, despite the best efforts of his dear friend J.R.R. Tolkein (left) and others, Lewis never sought communion with the Catholic Church. In fact, he had some very serious objections to it. But one cannot help but wonder, given the distinctively Catholic trend of his beliefs on many aspects of the faith and his devotion to historic Christian orthodoxy, if there is any life boat -- other than the barque of Peter -- into which Lewis might have clambered when the Anglican ship went down in heterodoxy?

For a fuller treatment of this engaging topic, I highly recommend Joseph Pearce's excellent book, C.S. Lewis and the Catholic Church.

Tom Brown on Nehemiah and Perspicuity

2010-02-01T16:26:00.000-06:00

Over at Called to Communion, Tom Brown reflects on his personal reading of Nehemiah -- and on how Nehemiah 8, in particular, seems to contradict the Protestant notion of Scriptural perspicuity:

"The people in Nehemiah 8 were competent, capable of hearing with understanding. The people were listening carefully; the ears of all were attentive. They listened with worshipful hearts, crying 'Amen!' and falling on their faces upon seeing the Scripture. In short, we have an ideal setting for an audience to be able to understand the Scripture that was read to them. And yet Ezra and the teachers were needed to give the meaning of the text 'so that the people understood the reading.' These faithful listeners’ qualities of being competent, attentive, and worshipful were not independently adequate to understand Scripture."

It's a short reflection, to be sure, but one that, when taken with other Scriptures (such as Acts 8, wherein the Ethiopian eunuch tells St. Philip: "And how can I [understand the Scriptures], unless some man shew me?"), with a basic application of reason, and with the empirical data of Protestant history (with its ever-expanding multifariousness of contradictory notions regarding what the Scriptures mean) establishes an overwhelming case that God gave us a Church to authoritatively guide us in our understanding of the Scriptures.

Why authoritatively? Because unless the guidance is authoritative, it could be wrong. In fact, the law of averages tells us that, more times than not, it will be wrong! An experience from my own life may be instructive. I was reared in the Presbyterian Church in America, a vibrant, godly Protestant denomination that was founded a few short years prior to my birth. As good Presbyterians are wont to do, my folks had me baptized, by sprinkling, when I was an infant. To their minds (and later to mine), my baptism was a sign and seal of the covenant, but the sacrament itself did not regenerate my soul in any way. Fast forward to my late teens, when I first met my future wife.

She, being reared in one of the offshoots of the Campbellite movement, had been taught that the waters of baptism actually effect in the soul of the baptized the regeneration that they symbolize. Additionally, she was taught that baptism must be offered only to mature believers -- and that it must be administered only by full bodily immersion. Rarely having been exposed to the doctrines of non-Presbyterian Protestants, I was dumbfounded by her seemingly strange beliefs regarding baptism, but I was prepared to observe a "different strokes" approach. Her unique set of beliefs, however, would not allow her to take such a laissez faire approach with me. You see, her faith taught that the baptism-by-sprinkling that I received as an infant was not a true baptism -- and not being truly baptized, I was not truly saved.

Hours and hours of Bible study, reflection, consultation, prayer, and discussion followed. I thought my Presbyterian teachings on baptism were well-supported by Scripture, but I was distressed to find myself concluding that her sect's teachings seemed to have even greater biblical support! How could the Scriptures support mutually-exclusive conclusions on such a vital issue? Is sprinkling okay -- or not? Is infant baptism acceptable -- or isn't it? Is baptism necessary for salvation -- or is it something less? Never being able to reach a firm, satisfying conclusion, I decided to cover my bases and reluctantly agreed to be "re-baptized" at her church. I didn't realize it at the time, but I was in the position of the Ethiopian eunuch -- I had an authority gap. It would take me almost ten years to realize that I, too, needed a successor of St. Philip to authoritatively "shew me" the meaning of the Scriptures and the fullness of the faith that can only be found in the Catholic Church.

Alito to Obama: YOU LIE!

2010-01-27T22:12:00.000-06:00

I was aghast that President Obama attempted to shame the justices of the Supreme Court during his never-ending State of the Union marathon. What arrogance, gall, and rudeness! Those kinds of tactics might have gone over in shady Chicago, but he's playing with the big boys now, where a certain level of decorum is expected. I loved it that, as the One disparaged the justices for their ruling last week, Justice Alito was unmoved, vigorously shaking his head and mouthing the words "not true". It was the polite, civilized analog to Joe Wilson's famous "You Lie!" from Obama's last address to the joint session -- and the perfect foil for the President's immature display of partisanship.

Justices Roberts & Alito Give Stare Decisis the Smackdown

2010-01-27T13:35:00.000-06:00

This warms the cockles of my heart. In a separate concurrence with last week's 5-4 Supreme Court ruling that cut the legs out from under the McCain-Feingold prohibitions on free speech, Justices Roberts and Alito made a point of rejecting the uncritical application of stare decisis (the legal principle whereby judges refuse to contradict past judicial precedent) to future cases that appear before the court. Fr. Z gives the details.

This statement is particularly important to those of us who hope that the Court will one day overturn its hideous 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade. You may remember that, during both Roberts' and Alito's confirmation hearings, Democrats zealously attempted to pressure both men into essentially swearing that they would uphold Roe v. Wade based on the principle of stare decisis. Both future justices nimbly avoided painting themselves into any corners on that point, and this opinion from Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission should give us great hope for their mindset and rulings going forward.

On the topic of stare decisis, I thought I'd share this cartoon, which I first came across back in 2005, during the time that Roberts was going through his confirmation hearings.

Time to Adjust the Expectations, I'd Say

2010-01-27T11:51:00.000-06:00

Over at Hot Air, Ed Morrissey has been diligently cataloging the lamestream media's unflappable sense of shock that the almost unbroken string of bad economic news continues . . . you know, in an almost unbroken string:

"Reuters falls back on its favorite adverb when delivering bad economic news, in one of the most expected events in economic journalism: 'Sales of newly built U.S. single-family homes fell unexpectedly in December, data showed on Wednesday, the latest indication that the government-led housing recovery might be losing some steam.'

How “unexpected” could this possibly be? In the last four weeks. we’ve learned that:

US “unexpectedly” lost 85,000 jobs in December
Overall home sales “unexpectedly” dropped 16% in November
Foreclosures rose “unexpectedly”
New housing starts fell “unexpectedly” in December
Builder sentiment “unexpectedly” fell this month
Home resales “unexpectedly” plunged in December faster than ever before

Honestly, considering all of these other indicators, a rise in new-home sales would have been flabbergasting."

A's Prospect Trades Bat for Collar

2010-01-25T13:00:00.000-06:00

As reported at American Papist and elsewhere, Oakland A's minor leaguer Grant Desme -- a 24 year-old speed-power threat, who in 2009 was the only player in the minor leagues to steal 30 bases and hit 30 homers -- announced last Friday that he's retiring from baseball to follow God's call to the Catholic priesthood. Desme noted that he'd been wrestling with the decision for many months: "I love the game, but I'm going to aspire to higher things." Well done.

Dash Evil Thoughts Upon Christ, as Upon a Rock

2010-01-21T09:00:00.000-06:00

As part of my morning prayers, I'm reading through Dwight Longenecker's insightful book Listen, My Son: St. Benedict for Fathers. Fr. Longenecker (although he wasn't a priest when he wrote this book -- more on that later) takes the classic Rule of St. Benedict, written in the mid-sixth century to regulate monastic life, and breaks it into bite-sized pieces. He organizes these selections into four months' worth of daily readings and appends his own reflections that make St. Benedict's words about monastic life applicable to family life. As the title indicates, it's particularly aimed at fathers, who, in a sense, are the abbots of their homes. (having its etymological roots in the Aramaic term abba, meaning papa or daddy, an "abbot" is meant to be the father of the monks under his authority).

In yesterday's reading, St. Benedict employs amazing imagery to guide us in how to handle evil thoughts that enter our minds. He writes:

". . . dash the evil thoughts that invade one's heart immediately upon Christ, as upon a rock, and . . . reveal them to one's spiritual father."

What powerful and effective imagery that is for me! As sinful people, we are constantly buffeted by evil thoughts -- desires, ideas, temptations to oppose God's will. In St. Benedict's metaphor, not only is Christ there to help me resist such thoughts or forgive me if I fail to resist them, but He is the very means by which I may shatter and utterly detroy such thoughts as soon as they enter my mind! Christus vincit, Christus regnat, Christus imperat!

Fr. Longenecker elaborates:

"This is actually a very dynamic and positive way to deal with evil thoughts. If we ignore them they keep nagging at us; if we try to suppress them they only get stronger. Evil thoughts are a corruption of the imagination, so we should use the same faculty -- the imagination -- to visualize those idols being smashed on the rock of Christ."

And let us not forget the second part of St. Benedict's admonition: "reveal them to one's spiritual father." For Protestants, that would be someone in a relationship of accountability. For Catholics like myself, that would be one's confessor. If I may say so, in my short time as a Catholic, I have found the sacrament of Confession to be such a profound joy and help -- albeit a somewhat scary joy and help -- in my relationship with Christ that I hardly see how I ever got by without it. And the absolution is nice, too.

Now, a bit about Fr. Dwight Longenecker. He graduated from the ultra-fundamentalist Bob Jones University in Greenville, SC, went on to study theology at Oxford University in England, was thereafter ordained as an Anglican priest, and served as a parson in the English countryside. Along the way, he got married and had four children. In the mid-nineties he and his entire family were received into the Catholic Church. For the next ten years, he built a career as a popular free-lance writer until, in 2006, he was ordained a Catholic priest under the pastoral provision for married former Anglican clergy. In addition to his duties as a school chaplain, Fr. Longenecker now serves (with fellow convert Fr. Jay Scott Newman) as a priest at the the gorgeous St. Mary's in Greenville. He also runs an outstanding blog, Standing on My Head.

Got Hardihood?

2010-01-20T11:38:00.000-06:00

Some good questions over at The Art of Manliness to determine whether one possesses the quality of hardihood. To my mind, hardihood seems much like the cardinal virtue of fortitude -- with perhaps the added requirement that the man exhibiting hardihood relish the idea and reality of courageous exploits.

Have I “stout and persistent courage” or am I only courageous under excitement or stimulation of some kind?
Do I have to screw up my courage to meet difficult situations?
Am I conscious of being mentally and physically rugged?
Do I challenge hardships or do I try to avoid hardships and difficulties by following “the line of least resistance?”
Do I hesitate about trying out my powers in unused directions that demand fortitude or courage?
Have I the courage to blaze new lines of action when success seems reasonably certain or do I wait until others have occupied the “strategic positions?”
Does the element of personal risk in sports, travel, adventures or vocations count greatly with me?
Does that which is unknown or untried affright or allure me?
As a child, did heroic deeds thrill me and was it my ambition to emulate them or was I an afraid to-dive youngster?
Am I attracted or repelled by the hazardousness of life-saving callings?
Am I resolute and clear-headed in the presence of imminent danger or do I quail or become panic-stricken?
As boy or man, have I ever shown individual heroism or is my bravery always of the mass or mob kind?
Do I struggle to master matters that test all of my resources?
Can I stand and profit by severe criticism when I have been or seem to have been at fault?
Do I, if necessary, court severe discipline as a preparatory course for a desired vocation or do I pamper myself and like to be coddled by others?
Do I strive for personal efficiency, grasp at opportunities and recognize my right to advancement?
Do I rebound quickly from defeat?
Am I indifferent to supercilious fault-finding?
Do I enjoy being in contests of fortitude and endurance and in intellectual combats?
If I were a candidate for some elective office would defeat dishearten me or should I reckon each successive defeat as preparation for final victory?
When confronted with unexpected difficulties in anything that I have undertaken, is my first impulse, or reaction, the desire to back down or to go ahead with greater energy than before?
Do I stand by the presumption that I am to succeed, even when things look blackest?
Have I a persistent resolution when once a careful judgment has been made?
In making purchases—whether of neckties or machinery equipments—do I inspect the goods under consideration and form independent opinion of their merits or am I influenced unconsciously in my decisions by what I think the salesman may think of me?
Do I sometimes accept less than I know I should for services rendered because I lack the stamina to stand up for my rights?

I think my answers to many of these questions fall short, and others are of such a hypothetical nature that it's impossible for me to predict how I would behave or feel. Of course certain aspects of hardihood, such as "standing up for one's rights", can run contrary to other Christian virtues and must be exercised with caution and moderation. All in all, however, hardihood strikes me as an eminently enjoyable word to write and say -- and an admirable quality for a man to cultivate in himself and his sons.

RTS Student Jeremy Tate on the Authority of Divine Love

2010-01-20T11:00:00.000-06:00

Over at Called to Communion, Reformed Theological Seminary student Jeremy Tate, who will receive his graduate degree this spring -- and will be received into the Catholic Church next month -- offers a brief guest essay in response to the question, “What is it, most fundamentally, that still divides Catholics and Protestants?” Jeremy's essay, entitled "The Authority of Divine Love", is an exercise in Christian charity and honesty. I encourage you to read the whole thing, but here are my favorite exerpts:

The fundamental disagreement that underlies all other Catholic-Protestant disagreements can be pinpointed, specifically, in the Catholic Church’s claim of authority. Disbelief in the unique authority of the Roman Catholic Church has become one of the only beliefs shared by all Protestants. Every other Catholic teaching, from baptismal regeneration to purgatory, is affirmed somewhere in Protestantism. This belief, or rather disbelief, stands alone, as the most unifying tenet of Protestant theology. .

How can Protestants and Catholics move towards unity? First, Catholics must ask Protestants for forgiveness. . . As a student of the Reformation, and now as one coming into the Catholic Church, I have no problem conceding that in part, the Reformation was a response to serious sin and often heinous abuses of the Catholic Church. As seen in the sex scandal over the past decade, the Catholic Church continues to struggle with grave sin. For this reason, Catholics must ask Protestants for forgiveness for the sin of misrepresenting to the world the loving authority of God.

In response Protestants must forgive, seventy times seven. Then, Protestants must ask questions, each of which, when answered, will be a step towards unity. From a Protestant perspective, these questions are not safe to ask. They are not new questions either. Some of the greatest and most influential Protestant theologians in history, such as John Henry Newman and G.K. Chesterton, wrestled with these questions and found their answer in the Church they had previously condemned. For years I believed that the Catholic Church would eventually die out. . . I did not know of, nor see, the army of passionate, Christ centered, scripturally knowledgeable believers, who had converted to the Catholic Church after facing these questions.

First, Protestants must ask questions about the promises of Scripture and the character of God. Most importantly, did Jesus himself found a Church? I believe the answer is yes and I know many of my Reformed friends would agree. Clearly, Christ is very busy in the gospels, teaching, training, appointing, delegating authority, and setting up a visible entity, with twelve visible leaders. This entity, Jesus calls the Church. If it is true that Christ himself founded a Church, then it must also be true that for a Church to be “a Church”, it must, by definition, have divine origins. If Jesus founded a single Church and made a promise that it would be indestructible (Matt 16:18), can we trust Him? I do not know of any Protestant denomination that claims to have been personally founded by Jesus. The Catholic Church makes this claim. If Jesus did not found the Catholic Church, who did? Every single Protestant denomination or theological tradition has a man or a few men standing at its inception. Standing in the place only Jesus can stand. Calvin’s Reformed Church, Knox’s Presbyterianism, Wesley’s Methodism, William Miller’s Adventism, Luther’s Lutheranism, all have men as their founders. Who founded the Catholic Church?

Second, Protestants must ask how denominationalism reflects God’s love as our Father. If I met ten children with the same dad, none of whom would eat meals or worship together, I would be inclined to think that the children had a bad father. When I was doing a Pastoral internship for the Presbyterian Church in America, in New York City, I had several well educated New Yorkers, ask me, “Which Christianity are you selling?” One unbeliever, in a conversation I’ll never forget, put it to me this way, “You tell me the Bible teaches this, the Jehovah Witness at my door tells me it means that, and the ten other Churches on my block have ten more views…my take…the Bible must be an unintelligible book.” Although few Protestants want to preach to the unbelieving world that the Bible is unintelligible, that is the message being preached every time a Church splits. My hope, my prayer, is that this week of prayer for Church unity will be accompanied by the voices of Catholic Christians asking for forgiveness – asking for forgiveness for failing to accurately display authority as love in reflection of our Heavenly Father. My prayer is that Protestants would forgive and then reconsider the bold claims of the Catholic Church.

"MLK" the Holiday for All its Worth!

2010-01-19T15:13:00.000-06:00

My buddy Leon Suprenant offers a well-balanced take on MLK Day over at his new blog Catholic Hour. He offers four reasons why, despite the lefty/PC associations of the holiday, he will continue to enjoy it:

(1) Hello! It’s a holiday! Who wants to look a gift day off in the mouth? While it’s not a Sunday, it’s still a fitting day for worship, rest, and relationship-building within the family. So this can be a really great day if we use it well.

(2) Okay, MLK was not a saint, but neither were most of our Founding Fathers, yet we rightly revere them for their role in the formation of our country. MLK did some courageous things that have had a lasting impact on our culture. The day gives us a chance to consider this impact and to see how much farther we need to travel to overcome racial divisions.

(3) Even as we celebrate MLK Monday, we still must not lose sight of the holiday par excellence: Sunday, the Lord’s Day. MLK Day is all day, not just 45 min. or an hour. So, too, our Sunday observance should be all day. How often do we forget that keeping the Lord’s Day holy goes beyond simply “getting to Mass,” important as that is? For more on that subject, click here. MLK Day and all secular holidays can teach us how to "rest" in the deepest sense, which could carry into the way we look at Sundays and other holy days.

(4) Despite my sons’ African-American roots, I’ve been pleasantly surprised by how little racism I’ve encountered. Sure, there’s the occasional ignorant comment, but for the most part—thanks in large part to MLK—my boys aren’t subjected to the bigotry that existed even in my youth. This day gives me, and all of us, a chance to reflect on the greater spiritual reality that nobody has to sit on the back of the bus, that nobody is a second-class citizen in the eyes of God. As St. Paul wrote: "For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:27-28).

So let’s stay on message and “MLK” the holiday for all it’s worth!

Be sure to read the whole thing here.

Brad Paisley in Wichita

2010-01-18T21:54:00.000-06:00

Weekend before last, the missus and I made the trip to Wichita to see Brad Paisley at the new Intrust Bank Arena. This was the first concert either of us had been to in years (we're old before our time), and we didn't realize that this was the very first event ever held at Intrust Arena. We liked Wichita and the arena -- except for the cramped seating (don't they realize that not everyone is 5'5", 125 lbs?) -- but we really, really loved Brad Paisley.

Growing up in the South, I was a huge country music fan as a young kid. The older I got, however, the more the demographics of my town changed. By middle school, most of my friends were yankee transplants, and, as the song goes, country just wasn't cool anymore. I guess it was always in my blood, though, as over the last few years, I've become more and more of a country (and especially bluegrass) enthusiast. I particularly like Alison Krauss, George Strait, Darius Rucker, and Brad Paisley -- all of whom represent more of the "traditionalist" wing of country music (although Brad rocks out from time to time).

I knew that Paisley, in addition to being a singer, was a competent guitarist, but, seeing him in concert, I was honestly blown away by his skills. That dude can play! It's not too often that the guy singing the song is also laying down the guitar solos, but Paisley pulls it off flawlessly. One of the highlights of the show was his rendition of "I'm Still a Guy". You gotta love these lyrics:

When you see a deer you see Bambi, and I see antlers up on the wall.

When you see a lake you think picnics, and I see a large mouth up under that log.

You're probably thinkin' that you're gonna change me. In some ways well maybe you might.

Scrub me down, dress me up, oh but no matter what remember I'm still a guy.

When you see a priceless French painting, and I see a drunk naked girl.

You think that riding a wild bull sounds crazy, and I'd like to give it a whirl.

Well love makes a man do some things he ain't proud of and in a weak moment I might

walk your sissy dog, hold your purse at the mall but remember I'm still a guy.

I'll pour out my heart, hold your hand in the car, write a love song that makes you cry.

Then turn right around knock some jerk to the ground 'cause he copped feel as you walked by.

I can hear you now talkin' to your friends sayin', "Yeah girls he's come a long way

from draggin' his knuckles and carryin'a club and buildin' a fire in a cave."

But when you say a back rub means only a back rub then you swat my hand when I try.

Well now what can I say at the end of the day,"Honey, I'm still a guy."

These days there's dudes gettin' facials, manicured, waxed and botoxed.

With deep spray-on tans and creamy lotiony hands you can't grip a tackle box.

Yeah, with all of these men linin' up to get neutered it's hip now to be feminized.

I don't highlight my hair, I've still got a pair.Yeah, honey I'm still a guy.

Oh my eyebrows ain't plucked there's a gun in my truck. Oh thank god, I'm still a guy.

Here's the video from the title track of his latest album, American Saturday Night. I really like the concept of the video -- a feel-good video for a feel-good song.

Unintended Consequences

2010-01-18T10:23:00.000-06:00

Pat Robertson: Earthquake Due to Haiti's Pact with Devil

2010-01-13T15:24:00.000-06:00

What a sad, sad ignorant man Pat Robertson can be. Here's the latest example of his idiocy. According to Rev. Pat, yesterday's tragic earthquake occurred because Haiti "swore a pact to the devil", and, as a result, "they have been cursed." Can't this guy shut his pie hole for once?

Go to Breitbart to view the video.

Utter Devastation in Haiti

2010-01-13T14:20:00.000-06:00

Experts are estimating death tolls of up to 500,000 after the massive earthquake (7.0 on the Richter scale) that rocked Haiti yesterday. Over at First Things, The Anchoress has a must-read post, in which she chronicles the latest details and provides links for those wishing to help the rescue and recovery effort by means of charitable donations. She also notes that the second Psalm in today's Divine Office couldn't be more on-point:

The earth moved and shook,
at the coming of his anger the roots of the mountains rocked
and were shaken…but the Lord was my support.
He led me to the open spaces,
he was my deliverance, for he held me in favour.

The people of Haiti need our prayers. Let's lift them up.

Those Crappy Crappers

2010-01-05T14:38:00.000-06:00

Toilets are not a pleasant subject, but economist Jeffrey A. Tucker, writing over at the Mises Institute, describes in disgusting detail why Federal government has made sure that we can never entirely forget about them:

The true origin of the mess was . . . back in 1994, when Congress passed the Energy Policy and Conservation Act. This act, passed during an environmentalist hysteria, mandated that all toilets sold in the United States use no more than 1.6 gallons of water per flush. This was a devastating setback in the progress of civilization. . . The result is an entire society of poorly working toilets and a life of adjustment to the omnipresence of human feces, all in a short 15 years. Thanks so much, Congress! . . [Prior to 1994], it was just assumed that toilet manufacturers cared nothing at all about wasting water. Surely there was no rationale at all for why they consumed five gallons per flush as opposed to 1.6 gallons. This is just capitalist excess and down with it!

Well, think again: there was wisdom in those old designs. The environmentalists didn't account for the present reality in which people typically flush twice, three times, or even four times during a single toilet event. Whether or not this ends up using more or less in the long run is entirely an empirical question, but let us just suppose that the new microtanks do indeed save water. In the same way, letting people die of infections conserves antibiotics, not brushing teeth conserves toothpaste, and not using anesthesia during surgery conserves needles and syringes. Here is the truth that environmentalists do not face: Sometimes conserving is not a good idea. There are some life activities that cry out for the expenditure of resources, even in the most generous possible way. I would count waste disposal as one of those.

I am firmly in the, ahem, bowels of Mr. Tucker's camp. I recently moved into my first home of post-1994 vintage, and dealing with the puny 1.6 gallon toilets that came with the house was a nightmare. I was employing the plunger at least once every day! (and not solely due to my own "toilet events", to use Tucker's term) I finally broke down, did some online research, and settled on a replacement toilet (the Toto Drake) that has been great (at least for a 1.6 gallon model), but it's been alot of expense and disgusting work to carry out the replacements, and I still have one more to go. It's maddening that in the "Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave", we can't use whatever dad-blamed plumbing fixtures we want.

It may seem like a small thing, but the same principle is at work in the bailouts, in public ownership of the car makers, in healthcare, in cap-and-trade, and in every arena where government inserts its meddling fingers. When the guys with the guns start calling the shots because they "know better", efficiency and freedom are compromised, prosperity is reduced, and civilization suffers a setback.

How the Puritans Stole Christmas

2010-01-05T11:20:00.000-06:00

It's Twelfth Night, which means it's time for Jay Anderson to post his delightful poem, "How the Puritans Stole Christmas". Here's a taste:

Every High-Church Anglican and Catholic
Living in Jolly Olde England
Liked Christmas a lot...

But the Puritans,
Who were infected with Calvinism,
Did NOT!
The Puritans hated Christmas!
The whole Christmas season!
Now, please don't ask why. No one quite knows the reason.
It could be that their round heads weren't screwed on just right.
It could be, perhaps, their predestinarian arses were too tight.
But I think that the most likely reason of all
Was a distaste for mince pies - shaped like a manger-bed in a stall.

Be sure to read the whole thing here.

Jay's poem details the distressing series of historical events whereby the Puritans successfully banned the celebration of Christmas in 17th century England and America. The Puritans despised Christmas because of its perceived status as a Catholic vestige--and because of their own gnostic loathing of merriment. Even long after statutory prohibitions were overturned, the Puritan hatred of Christmas persisted in America's New England states. As recently as 1870, Boston public schools held classes on Christmas Day, and punishments were exacted on children who absented themselves to observe the holy day.

Brother Andre One Step Closer to Canonization

2009-12-19T15:17:00.000-06:00

Blessed Brother Andre Bessette, CSC, is one step closer to canonization due to this morning's announcement from the Vatican that Pope Benedict XVI has confirmed as scientifically inexplicable a miraculous healing due to Brother Andre's intercession. More on this later, as Brother Andre has a remarkable story -- and I happen to one of his closest living relatives.

Walkin' in a Winter Wonderland!

2009-12-19T12:37:00.000-06:00

Injured . . . Injured bad.

2009-12-18T12:09:00.001-06:00

This commercial has had my household in stitches for several days:

Even the Monks Will Cry Out

2009-12-18T12:07:00.000-06:00

Fun stuff . . .

#1 Worst Christmas Song: "The Christmas Shoes"

2009-12-15T09:50:00.000-06:00

Over at Reepicheep, Tony is reviewing some of the great hymns of the Advent season--well, actually he's only reviewed Christmas hymns so far. :)

I'm going to play the other side of the coin and review some of the very worst Christmas tunes. Laura the Crazy Mama had a poll up on this very topic. First in her poll--and first on my list--is NewSong's "The Christmas Shoes". It's one of those horribly manipulative songs that's expressly engineered to bring the listener to tears. In my experience, however, this little diddy more often inspires derisive laughter or groans of anguish (depending on the number of times to which one has been subjected to the song). Allow me to walk you through the lyrics:

It was almost Christmas time
There I stood in another line

The singer has a real issue with rhyming. Here's the first instance: time does not rhyme with line.

Trying to buy that last gift or two
Not really in the Christmas mood

Again, two does not rhyme with mood. Did this person finish third grade?

Standing right in front of me
Was a little boy waiting anxiously
Pacing around like little boys do

Are little boys really known to "pace around"? And is the boy standing in line or pacing? At very least, this little fellow is in danger of losing his place in line, methinks.

And in his hands he held
A pair of shoes.

Here we go.

And his clothes were worn and old
He was dirty from head to toe

First, old definitely does not rhyme with toe. Sigh. Second, does this boy's family not have access to a bathtub? We find out later that his Momma is a former Gorgeous Lady of Wrestling star who is home dying of some mysterious illness. Does this self-same home not contain indoor plumbing? Can the able-bodied Daddy not ensure that the child bathes regularly?

And when it came his time to pay
I couldn't believe what I heard him say.

Oh, I see. So this kid is one of those annoying customers who wants to bring the gears of capitalism to a grinding halt by chatting it up with the store clerk. I can't stand those people. All the poor clerk wants to do is get through his shift, and all the boy's fellow shoppers want to do is get through the infernal line and get home, but this little urchin wants to regale them with his sad-sap autobiography.

And is the singer serious that he "couldn't believe" the boy's tale of woe? Has he never heard of women in their 40's dying of illnesses? Sad, yes. Unbelievable, no.

"Sir, I wanna buy these shoes for my Momma please.
It's Christmas Eve and these shoes are just her size."

What gives? Does Momma wear an unusual or hard-to-find size? The boy acts as though it's a noteworthy achievement to have found a pair of shoes that are "just her size". My theory is that Momma is a hulking professional wrestler and is dying from the side effects of steroid abuse. And why does the kid feel compelled to remind the store clerk that "it's Christmas Eve"? Is he under some illusion that the poor, harried seasonal employee (who is no doubt wearing an elf costume) is unaware of this most obvious of facts?

"Could you hurry Sir?"

Oh no he di-in't! Can you believe the gall of this kid? If he hadn't been yammering on ad nauseum--and had had his money ready--he would already be on his way home.

"Daddy says there's not much time."

You mean the same good-for-nothing Daddy who lets him run the streets on Christmas Eve, dirty, penniless, and half-naked? Just checking.

"You see, she's been sick for quite a while
And I know these shoes will make her smile
And I want her to look beautiful
If Momma meets Jesus, tonight."

As if this woman, who is lying in bed writhing in agony, is going to want to strap some uncomfortable shoes on her hideously gigantic feet. Yeah, that'll maker her smile! Apparently Daddy hasn't taught junior his catechism, either, as the boy seems completely unaware that Momma's mortal body (along with, presumably, her freakishly humongous shoes) will not meet Jesus until after the final resurrection. Assuming she doesn't end up in hell--or make a pit stop in purgatory--her spirit is the most that will be meeting Jesus tonight.

He counted pennies for what seemed like years

What it seems like is that none of the other fine people in line are ever going to get home to celebrate Christmas Eve with their families. Seriously, the kid is trying to purchase a pair of luxury big-and-tall shoes with pennies? What would that take--2,500 pennies? 5,000? Where did all these pennies come from? Why did the singer not mention that the putrescent little ragamuffin was pushing a rusty wheelbarrow full of coins?

And cashier says "Son there's not enough here"
He searched his pockets frantically

For the extra 1,200 pennies, presumably.

And then he turned and he looked at me

My aching back, here we go. At this point, the other folks in line are throwing their gifts on the ground and storming out of the store.

He said, "Momma made Christmas good at our house
Though most years she just did without"

What kid is going to say "most years she just did without"? Honestly? And, by the way, house doesn't rhyme with without. I'm just sayin'.

"Tell me, Sir
What am I gonna do?
Some how I’ve got to buy her these Christmas shoes."

This is where the singer should explain to the kid the value of hard work and that, if the kid doesn't earn the money for the shoes himself, he's never really going to appreciate them. . . and he should also explain the bit about the beatific vision being purely spiritual until after the Second Coming . . .

So I laid the money down.
I just had to help him out.

Mostly, he probably just wanted the kid to shut up and move along! (And down doesn't rhyme with out.)

And I'll never forget
The look on his face
When he said, "Momma's gonna look so great."

Now, I think we all know that this stupendously large pair of stiletto pumps probably appeared on eBay later that same evening. Dude, you've been had. (And face doesn't rhyme with great.)

I knew I caught a glimpse of heaven's love as he thanked me and ran out.
I know that God had sent that little boy to remind me
What Christmas is all about

Yeah, it's apparently all about waiting in line for "what seemed like years" on Christmas Eve and being forced to listen to a sad-sap fictional tale of woe--only to get swindled in the end by a manipulative little imp. I at least hope that, during his ordeal, the composer of this song had better Christmas music to listen to than this!

Godbama: Providing Peace, Chicago-Style

2009-12-10T22:06:00.000-06:00

The Green Movement, a Division of the Culture of Death

2009-12-10T16:06:00.000-06:00

The Green movement is, at its core, an anti-life crusade. How could it be otherwise? The logic is simple. If one believes that people are destroying the planet, and one's overriding goal is to protect the planet from this putative destruction, one is ultimately led to the convenient--but diabolical--conclusion that the only final and lasting way to save the earth from mankind is to reduce the number of men.

Whether the world should achieve this reduction on the front end (via contraception, abortion, and infanticide) or on the back end (via some variant of euthanasia) is up for debate, with the front-enders usually carrying the day due to humanity's widespread difficulty understanding that little people are just as valuable as big people. Of course, the population control underpinnings of the Green movement--and the inherent hatred of humanity that they imply--are rarely admitted or publicized. But they are there. Diane Francis, for example, advocates front-end population reduction in the online version of Canada's Financial Post:

The "inconvenient truth" overhanging the UN's Copenhagen conference is not that the climate is warming or cooling, but that humans are overpopulating the world. A planetary law, such as China's one-child policy, is the only way to reverse the disastrous global birthrate currently, which is one million births every four days.

I'll get to the fallacy of overpopulation in a moment, but first let's consider whether China's one-child policy is a good thing--a system under which, even if we believe in overpopulation, we'd like to live. Steven Mosher, president of the Population Research Institute, and an expert on Chinese culture and the one-child policy, writes:

Still in force today, the “technical policy” requires IUDs for women of childbearing age with one child, sterilization for couples with two children (usually performed on the woman), and abortions for women pregnant without authorization. By the mid-eighties, according to Chinese government statistics, birth control surgeries—abortions, sterilizations, and IUD insertions—were averaging more than thirty million a year. Many, if not most, of these procedures were performed on women who submitted only under duress. . .

A quarter century after the Chinese got deadly serious about family planning, the program continues to be carried out against the popular will by means of a variety of coercive measures. In presenting the program to foreigners, who can be squeamish about such things, Chinese family planning officials are careful to emphasize “voluntarism.” In speaking to their own cadres, however, the only form of coercion ever condemned is the actual use of physical force—tying down pregnant women for abortions, for instance. But while force is frowned upon, it is never punished. Home-wrecking, unlawful detentions, heavily punitive fines, and like measures continue to be, as they have been from the late 1970s, the whip hand of the program. Women are psychologically and physically pressured to abort unauthorized children to the point of being dragged to the abortion mill. Networks of paid informants are used to report on unauthorized pregnancies of neighbors, family, and friends. Entire villages are punished for out-of-plan births. Officials conduct nighttime raids on couples suspected of having unauthorized children, and they keep detailed records on the sexual activity of every woman in their jurisdiction—so much for privacy. And to make the coercive regime complete, the “family planning centers” have prison cells—complete with bars—to detain those who resist forced abortion or sterilization. Forced sterilization is used not only as a means of population birth control, but sometimes as punishment for men and women who disobey the rules.

This is the way the one-child policy has worked in real life. Not pretty. Women don't want forced contraception, forced sterilization, or forced abortion, yet tyranny like this is what enlightened Greens like Diane Francis would shove down their throats. Oh sure, Diane probably imagines that her version of the one-child policy would be kinder and gentler. But how, pray tell, can a non-voluntary one-child policy be anything other than, well, forced? Even the docile Canadians to whom Diane writes (who have practically sterilized themselves) won't stand for that!

And the notion of overpopulation being legitimate--or something about which to be legitimately worried--is laughable. Past purveyors of overpopulation alarmism (the disgraced Paul Ehrlich, for example) have been proven wrong time and again, as human population has burst through the supposed limits of our resources. In actuality, we are facing a grave crisis of underpopulation that threatens to destroy life as we know it (including our ability to care for the environment). From the website of the powerful documentary Demographic Winter (which you should watch, along with its sequel):

Economist Robert J. Samuelson wrote in a June 15, 2005 column in The Washington Post: “It’s hard to be a great power if your population is shriveling.” Samuelson warned: “Europe as we know it is going out of business…. Western Europe’s population grows dramatically grayer, projects the U.S. Census Bureau. Now about one-sixth of the population is 65 and older. By 2030, that could be one-fourth and by 2050, almost one-third.” . . . In developed nations, today, 20% of the population is over 60. By 2050, the proportion of elderly will rise to 36%. By then, these societies will have two elderly for every child.

If present low birthrates persist, the European Union estimates there will be a continent-wide shortfall of 20 million workers by 2030. Who will operate the factories and farms in the Europe of the future? Who will develop the natural resources? Where will Russia find the soldiers to guard the frontiers of the nation with the largest land mass? Who will care for a graying population? A burgeoning elderly population combined with a shrinking work force will lead to a train-wreck for state pension systems.

This only skims the surface of the way demographic decline will change the face of civilization. Even the environment will be adversely impacted. With severely strained public budgets, developed nations will no longer be willing to shoulder the costs of industrial clean-up or a reduction of CO2 emissions.

Of course, Greens like Diane Francis may not see the misery and decline of human society as a bad thing. Perhaps eventually, humanity will die out altogether, and then the earth will finally have a little peace and quiet.

Here's a quick little film from Steven Mosher's Population Research Institute that explains the genesis and fallacy of the overpopulation myth. Enjoy!

Bigfoot in Minnesota?

2009-12-10T10:12:00.000-06:00

Check out this photo--seemingly of Bigfoot--captured on a hunter's un-manned trail camera in Remer, MN. For some reason, I have always been fascinated with the possibility of Bigfoot's existence. One of these days, I'll be proven correct . . . I just know it. Read about the circumstances surrounding this photo at The Bigfoot Field Reporter.

Liturgical Norms in the Midst of Gunfire

2009-12-10T08:45:00.000-06:00

Over at WDTPRS, Fr. Z offers, in response to a reader's question, his hilarious take on what actions are appropriate should some violent act--whether of God or man--interrupt the sacred liturgy. Here's a hint of his suggested remedy:

I believe there is a little known rubric which calls for the deacon and subdeacon (who in any event should be packing) to take out, reverently, their .9mm and return fire. As I read it, they are to recite the Maledictory Psalms while firing. At the change of a clip/magazine, they may bow, or duck. . . Alternately, if the sacred ministers are not packing, there is no reason why a group of religious could not be formed as a sort of liturgical militia against such an eventuality. I believe in this case, the gun stock must have a ribbon of the color of the days.

Read the whole high-larious thing here.

Ecumenical Flow Chart

2009-12-09T13:02:00.000-06:00

via Brian Cross at Principium Unitatis, this looks about right . . .

Desert Island Health Care

2009-12-08T22:00:00.001-06:00

Gap & The Dictatorship of Relativism

2009-11-23T09:59:00.000-06:00

This Gap commercial, which is receiving heavy play on mainstream television, is an artistic embodiment of what Pope Benedict XVI calls the "dictatorship of relativism".

Listen for the lyrics: "Two, four, six, eight, 'tis the time to liberate. Go Christmas, go Hannukah, go Kwanza, go solstice. ... You eighty-six the rules -- you do what just feels right. Happy do-whatever-you-wann-ukah and to all a cheery night." What a wretched, empty sentiment of despair!

A Bishop Who Knows How to Bish!

2009-11-23T09:19:00.000-06:00

Amidst all the instances of our Catholic bishops' failing to properly discipline those obstinately pro-abortion politicians within their flocks (paging Abp. Niederauer of San Francisco. Abp Niederauer?), Bishop Tobin of Providence, R.I. has given us something to cheer about by essentially denying Holy Communion to pro-abort U.S. Rep Patrick Kennedy (son of Teddy).

My buddy Tony Felich, a Reformed Presbyterian pastor, blogs about it here: Reepicheep: Credit where it is due. Tony often takes alot of flack from his Reformed readership when he says nice things about Catholics. Let's hope that, this time, they see the wisdom in his words.

Chris Stigall, the host of the top local talk show on Kansas City radio (and a Methodist) echoes and extends Felich's praise:

You have to hand it to Catholics. They know what they believe, and their leadership is becoming more vocal about it every day. . . Catholic leadership continues to stand resolute in their beliefs rooted in their faith. Providing politicians with political comfort and cover from the winds of “change” and “progressive” thinking has never been their motivation. Rather, Catholic leaders are providing politicians a spiritual framework with which to make important decisions. They are unapologetic, clear and consistent in their message. (From the Platte County Landmark via the Catholic Key Blog)

Love it or hate it, the Catholic Church is uniquely qualified to provide moral clarity and guidance to a world that is desperately in need of it. More, please.

The Eatin' Manginos

2009-11-22T16:05:00.000-06:00

Good discussion of the Mark Mangino situation over at Reepicheep. Tony's half-wrong, but passionate and well-argued, as always. There are lines that coaches must not cross, and using personal or private details about a player's off-the-field life to embarrass or threaten him crosses it. That's what some of these players are alleging. If their allegations are true, Mangino has to go.

A Holy Throng in Downtown KC

2009-11-22T06:51:00.000-06:00

Via the Catholic Key blog, Joe Cory's inspiring photographs of 22,000 young men and women joining Bishop Robert Finn in Eucharistic Procession through the streets of downtown Kansas City this past weekend. This procession, in honor of Christ the King, was part of the National Catholic Youth Conference, which drew Catholic youngsters from all over the country. Is there anything more beautiful than a public procession in honor of Our Lord? This is my favorite photo -- go to the story to see them all:

What's Black Got to Do (Got to Do) With it?

2009-11-21T11:46:00.000-06:00

The least colorblind man in America, Jesse "Hymietown" Jackson, is trying to make the healthcare debate about race.

The Rev. Jesse Jackson on Wednesday night criticized Rep. Artur Davis (D-Ala.) for voting against the Democrats’ signature healthcare bill. “We even have blacks voting against the healthcare bill from Alabama,” Jackson said at a reception Wednesday night. “You can’t vote against healthcare and call yourself a black man.” (The Hill via Drudge)

Well, of course. Isn't everything about race for the self-appointed gatekeeper of the black plantation? Black folks better toe Jesse's line -- or else they're not real black folks. I'll bet the good Reverend just can't wait for the government to start killing off more black babies via the federally-funded abortions that this bill will provide.