It's not often that one of your boyhood heroes gets inducted into the Hall of Fame. Permit me then, a moment of indulgence and hometown pride, as I congratulate Ryne Sandberg on his achievement.
You earned it, Ryno! Enjoy!
Sandro Magister wrote about the new Compendium a few weeks ago. In his piece (see about 3/4 of the way down the page), he includes an article that appeared in Avvenire, the newspaper of the Italian bishops' Conference.
Of course, the sensitivity and commitment of his predecessors prepared the way. But now, with this important step, the pope has restored the image to the people of God precisely where the Church communicates to the people, through the catechism, the great deposit of the faith.
Imagery is a structural part of the Christian faith. In his letter to the Colossians, Paul defines Christ himself as the image, the icon of the invisible Father. The Gospels and the letters of John similarly emphasize the fact that, in Christ, what previously was a verbal expression has become an iconographic expression. The Word became flesh so that we could see. The Word of God made himself visible, the first letter of John says, so that we could contemplate him, see him, and touch him with our hands.
So, as one of Paul's other writings says, what God spoke on many occasions to our fathers through the prophets he no longer says in words, because words have shown themselves to be inadequate for expressing the full weight of what God has to say, and for man's capacity to understand his message. In these last times, God has spoken through something that everyone can see: the manifestation of his very being in the glory of his Son.
The whole thing is quite good.
NPR has a news piece on Patrick Fitzgerald, the US Prosecutor in Chicago.
I don't know much about his politics, but what I do know is that he is all over every important case in this state. His wrath is bi-partisan - he's gone after both Governor George Ryan and Mayor Daley's regime - and from everything I've ever read and heard he gets results. This piece confirms all of that. He's a nice antidote to our hissy-fit pitching Illiois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, who sees sidewalk counselors as a top threat in our state.
This headline from Lifesite News gets more and more horrifying as you read it, until the end, when it sorta unfortunately makes sense.
'Ordained' Woman...
Eww!
is Pro-Abortion...
Ack!
Religion Professor...
Gah!
at Catholic University...
Stop! Stop! Pleeeeeaaase!
of San Diego...
Oh. Surprise, surprise.
NPR has this audio report on the play-date.
Some gems (emphasis mine):
snip
The eight Americans and a Canandian walk single-file to the river. They are led by three women in tie-dyed red silk robes - these are the bishops.
snip
The boat is symbolic of early Christian symbolism. Also, they couldn't find a Church to host them...
snip
The liturgy is alternative...
snip
[Just-ordained Non-priestess #2] looks drained, currently eating the rest of the bread in her Eucharist bowl.
...in this week's Word from Rome.
But first, a disclaimer: I don't agree with the National Catholic Reporter on many things, but John Allen is a great journalist. His column is always full of solid reporting with true balance. Occasionally, I don't agree with the tone of something he writes, but it's very rarely and usually a very mild offense.
Anyway, on to the Word.
Allen discusses the Pope's views on Islam, including a lengthy excerpt from Ratzinger's The Salt of the Earth discussing Islam.
He also discusses the Vatican-Israeli dispute that occurred this week, including one possibility for Israel's drastic over-reaction:
Others suggested that traditional Jewish sensitivity to alleged papal "silences" on anti-Semitism, and not the specifics of the current negotiations, were more likely the underlying motive.
Whatever the case, sources tell NCR that the Israeli/Holy See negotiations are currently stalled, among other things, over the question of what force an agreement would have under Israeli law. In essence, the Israelis want the agreement to be subject to the ordinary legislative process, so that if the Knesset decides a year from now to overhaul the country's tax system, church institutions would be included. Vatican negotiators insist that the point of a bilateral agreement is that its terms cannot be unilaterally altered by one party.
Optimism that an agreement could be worked out quickly seems, in the wake of this dispute as well as the new diplomatic flap, to have abated.
Perhaps the biggest news in the Word is that Allen has heard that the next World Youth Day will be held in Sydney, Australia in 2008. That's great and all, but it doesn't look like a party me and the fam are gonna be able to attend.
There's also a peculiar piece concerning the United Nations. I don't understand all of the U.N. politics involved, but the gist seems to be that some European countries want to "eliminate the distribution of emergency food in Africa and other famine-stricken regions," alleging that the U.S. uses these distributions as an outlet for surplus agricultural goods. One U.S. ambassador is outraged and is asking the Holy See to weigh in.
I'm not sure why these distributions are supposed to be harmful. The food is going to feed starving people who couldn't otherwise purchase it. Furthermore, the European idea of replacing those distributions with cash donations handled by the United Nations seems to rank somewhere behind Crystal Pepsi on the All Time Greatest Ideas list - why not just have the Chicago Water Department handle it? Allen doesn't discuss the implications, but it would be interesting to see if the Holy See takes the side of the U.S. against the E.U in this debate.
Anyway, like I said, lots of good stuff here.
You don’t have to have a Ph.D. to know that many poor parents have not signed up for the Mission.
From What’s Holding Black Kids Back? by Kay S. Hymovitz, a nice piece that looks at the differences between middle and lower class families with regards to child rearing.
I like the piece, but I take issues with a few of her assertions. I don't agree with the assertion that smaller family size is evidence of an increasing focus on The Mission. For some families yes, but for others, it's evidence of wanting to "be done" early and reture at 50.
Additionally, subscribing to The Mission doesn't necessarily make one a good parent. I'd rather raise good, happy children than four-sport all-stars who play 12 instruments and have wretched attitudes. Any family that is "training [children] to prosper in an individualistic, commercial, self-governing republic" at the expense of teaching a child how to live in relationship with God, nature and fellow man is not an enviroment for raising healthy children, it's a Young Capitalist factory.
Even though the article isn't concerned with that distinction, much of its critique of lower-class parenting can also be applied to the moral dimension. It's interesting at this time of assault on traditional views of the family to have a piece like this which makes the case for an intact family.
Cringe though you rightfully may at the capitalistic wording of that last sentence, the truth of the notion remains.
An "alternative" source os stem cells.
Hey man, whatever works and is ethically sound, I guess.
The parody blog catholicnews.org has a hilarious piece on a man whose wish that the Church never existed gets fulfilled:
Here's the whole thing. Cute.
That was the vote in the Polish lower house in favor of making October 16 a holiday in honor of Pope John Paul II.
OK, so it won't quite be a national holiday, but really, isn't that remarkable both for the beauty of the gesture and for the sad fact that a similar gesture for an [incredibly hypothetical] American pope would never fly?
This is my first post with MT 3, which stblogs.org just installed.
Due to the large amount of comment spam, I now have comment registration. You don't have to register, but if you don't, then your comment won't show up until I approve it. If you do register, your email address will be kept confdential.
This week the Pontifical Academy for Life responded to a request by an American woman seeking moral guidance on the issue of vaccinations that were derived from aborted fetuses.
Here is the PDF file with the 8 page response, which is very detailed and informative. The document lists the cell lines that are derived from aborted fetuses and analyzes the moral culpability of those with various degrees of involvement in the use of these tainted vaccines.
Here is the meat of it as pertains to those of us parents who are forced to deal with the decision to use these vaccinations or not:
However, in this situation, the aspect of passive cooperation is that which stands out most. It is up to the faithful and citizens of upright conscience (fathers of families, doctors, etc.) to oppose, even by making an objection of conscience, the ever more widespread attacks against life and the "culture of death" which underlies them. From this point of view, the use of vaccines whose production is connected with procured abortion constitutes at least a mediate remote passive material cooperation to the abortion, and an immediate passive material cooperation with regard to their marketing. Furthermore, on a cultural level, the use of such vaccines contributes in the creation of a generalized social consensus to the operation of the pharmaceutical industries which produce them in an immoral way.
Therefore, doctors and fathers of families have a duty to take recourse to alternative vaccines (if they exist), putting pressure on the political authorities and health systems so that other vaccines without moral problems become available. They should take recourse, if necessary, to the use of conscientious objection with regard to the use of vaccines produced by means of cell lines of aborted human foetal origin. Equally, they should oppose by all means (in writing, through the various associations, mass media, etc.) the vaccines which do not yet have morally acceptable alternatives, creating pressure so that alternative vaccines are prepared, which are not connected with the abortion of a human foetus, and requesting rigorous legal control of the pharmaceutical industry producers.
As regards the diseases against which there are no alternative vaccines which are available and ethically acceptable, it is right to abstain from using these vaccines if it can be done without causing children, and indirectly the population as a whole, to undergo significant risks to their health. However, if the latter are exposed to considerable dangers to their health, vaccines with moral problems pertaining to them may also be used on a temporary basis. The moral reason is that the duty to avoid passive material cooperation is not obligatory if there is grave inconvenience. Moreover, we find, in such a case, a proportional reason, in order to accept the use of these vaccines in the presence of the danger of favouring the spread of the pathological agent, due to the lack of vaccination of children. This is particularly true in the case of vaccination against German measles.
In any case, there remains a moral duty to continue to fight and to employ every lawful means in order to make life difficult for the pharmaceutical industries which act unscrupulously and unethically. However, the burden of this important battle cannot and must not fall on innocent children and on the health situation of the population - especially with regard to pregnant women.
To summarize, it must be confirmed that:
-there is a grave responsibility to use alternative vaccines and to make a conscientious objection with regard to those which have moral problems;
- as regards the vaccines without an alternative, the need to contest so that others may be prepared must be reaffirmed, as should be the lawfulness of using the former in the meantime insomuch as is necessary in order to avoid a serious risk not only for one's own children but also, and perhaps more specifically, for the health conditions of the population as a whole - especially for pregnant women;
- the lawfulness of the use of these vaccines should not be misinterpreted as a declaration of the lawfulness of their production, marketing and use, but is to be understood as being a passive material cooperation and, in its mildest and remotest sense, also active, morally justified as an extrema ratio due to the necessity to provide for the good of one's children and of the people who come in contact with the children (pregnant women);
- such cooperation occurs in a context of moral coercion of the conscience of parents, who are forced to choose to act against their conscience or otherwise, to put the health of their children and of the population as a whole at risk. This is an unjust alternative choice, which must be eliminated as soon as possible.
My reading of this is that it's OK for us to grudgingly use these vaccines, provided that there are no licit alternatives and that we reject the procedures by which they were obtained and do our best however we can to fight the injustice by which they were derived.
I called Christie Clinic here in Champaign, and a nurse explained to me that they order their vaccines through the pharmacy, and they may have different vaccines they use at different times. She did, however, tell me that the doctor or nurse we see when vaccination time comes could let us know what vaccines are available at that time, so I will make sure we always have the list with us when we go in.
Also, a friend emailed me the Children of God website, which has this more detailed list that also lists alternatives..
A nice local way to organize would be to circulate petitions among families stating our desire for morally licit vaccinations, and then present the petitions to the local hospitals and clinics to encourage them to stock the licit alternatives.
Nationally, the same petitions could be sent to drug companies (the Children of God site has a petition here). Even if the drug companies don't care about the value of the human life destroyed, the desire for profit (the ol' invisible hand does come in handy occasionally) may lead the companies to create licit lines and make them more readily available.
So, while the Vatican says that in the interest of protecting our children, it is acceptable to use these vaccines when there are no others available, let's also remember the call to oppose these lines in every possible way, and do what we can in prayer and action to ensure that families don't have to choose between cooperating (however remotely) with evil and leaving our children unprotected.
A Durbin quote from 1982, found chez Diogenes:
What a difference a couple of decades and 5 or 6 figures from NOW makes.
Either it's Laura Vanderkam, who says overturning Roe v. Wade will have a minimal effect on abortion, or it's Ted Rall, the title of whose piece says it all: "SAY SAYONARA TO ABORTION."
Vanderkam seems to me to be closer to the truth, as most states either have enacted or would enact fairly liberal abortion laws. The point she misses however, is that the many of the very reasonable limitations passed by states in the past 10 years will then be enforceable. This means the people of any given state will be free to decide that maybe 13 year olds should not be able to get abortions without their parents permission. Who can really be sad about this?
Not only is Rall wrong in his prediction, but he's also wrong in his facts. Roe v Wade is not in danger. If Roberts is confirmed and if he turns out to truly be pro-life and if Rehnquist retires soon and ifanother pro-life justice is nominated and confirmed, then there will still only be four pro-life justices on the Supreme Court. Sure, maybe some of the restrictions on abortion that have been stricken down such as partial birth abortion and parental notification laws might get passed, but the vast majority of abortions - elective early term abortions on grown women - would still be legal.
Thanks for the reasoned discourse, Ted.
By the way, here's an interesting excerpt from Rall's piece"
So Ted's whole rant is based on his mistaken assertion that a court decision that he admits is "legally dubious" and "flawed" will be overturned. Still, it is nice to hear somebody on the left admit that Roe v. Wade is terrible law.
How about "Psychotically Over-Devotional?"
Parishioners at St. Peter's church in Acerra said they had witnessed the plaster statue's legs turn flesh colored and move "as though she were walking toward us." One man told reporters last week that he had filmed the "miracle" on his mobile phone.
Mama-Lu sniffed this one out immediately: "Don't Mary statues usually have really long robes covering the whole legs?"
You gotta love this nonsense from Howard Dean:
What? Didn't the entire right wing plus O'Connor join in dissent to Kelo? Or is he referring to those famous right wingers Ginsburg and Stevens?
So is he a liar or does he have absolutely no control over the bile spewing from his facial orifice?
From the first paragraph of the second page of this Beliefnet story on the Catholicism of Supreme Court nominee John Roberts.
This NPR piece sounds like a parody. Bruce Reed of the Democratic Leadership council denies Hillary has a liberal reputation ("I wouldn't say that"), calls her "culturally conservative" and denies that her new prominent role in the DLC's efforts amounts to an endorsement of her for the presidency in 2008.
Of all the errors in Andrew Greeley's latest, here's the silliest:
Huh??? Is he serious? What does the NYT ever say against the Church that Greeley himself doesn't agree with?
Cautiously I wade into this territory. So little we know for sure, though all signs are encouraging.
I am very optimistic about a Justice Roberts, and if indeed he turns out to be faithful to the Constitution, then this will be a brilliant pick by the President.
By all accounts, he will stand up for life. We don't know this 100%, which is uncomfortable, but all the signs are good.
First of all, his wife was active in Feminists For Life. I'm with Jill Stanek - it would be a hard for somebody so actively pro-life to be married to somebody who didn't share her views.
Additionally, he has been described as a faithful - even a "traditional" - Catholic. His two children are adopted. These are all good signs.
Politically, the main reason I feel good about him is that Bush and Rove should darn well know better than to put another pro-choice Catholic on the Supreme Court. Many otherwise liberal Catholics hold a weak allegiance to the Republican party based primarily on seeing in them the best hope of reversing the national tragedy that is Roe v. Wade.
Rove (the demographics guru) knows that the Catholics are trending Republican precisely on this issue, despite being against the Presidents foreign policy. If Roberts is everything he appears to be, they will stay Republican. If Bush fails on this nomination and adds insult to injury by giving us another Kennedy, the Republicans will lose the Catholic vote in '06 and '08.
Bush may not be overly concerned with his legacy, but if he wants the '07-'08 Congress to have more R's than D's, Roberts better come through. And for all the assaults on Bush's intellect, we know that one area where he is as sharp as anybody is political strategery.
If Roberts falls through, and Catholics see that they cannot count on the Republicans to protect life, then they will walk. Bush knows this, Karl Rove knows this. This makes me feel very optimistic about Roberts.
There are reasons to worry. I personally am a bit skittish with the fact that Roberts made his bread and butter for years as a corporate lawyer. And the fact of the matter is, we don't know if he is pro-life or not.
Aside fom all of that, the boys at Southern Appeal seem to be pretty psyched about Roberts. For what it's worth, I'll take their vote of confidence over Ann Coulter's hatred of Roberts for representing a welfare mother free of charge anyday.
By the way, see Southern Appeal for tons of great coverage on Roberts.
This is from a few weeks ago:
The following day, the police went to the bookstore, locked some clients and women religious in, and began searching for CDs and videos, according to the priest.
The Karachi Archdiocese issued a statement condemning the police raid and the false accusations against the sisters' bookstore.
Absurd.
I don't believe I've seen anybody appear so deeply human in such a brief interview as Joaquin Navarro-Valls, head of the Vatican press office, does in this interview with the Italian Espresso Online.
First, he recounts his experience of the death of Pope John Paul II
A: "Yes, in the end I displayed all of my vulnerability. Until that moment I had been able to carry out my duty of providing information on the worsening condition of John Paul II while keeping my emotions in check. But then, when a German colleague asked me: 'But how are you experiencing this bereavement personally?', I was pierced with sorrow and could no longer hold back my tears."
Q: Three months have gone by. Is the pain going away, too?
A: "It is in fact diminishing, and the reason for this is precisely the rich and full character of the pope himself. It is easier to reconcile oneself to the death of a man who has left a mark like he has. I would like to tell you about something that has been kept private until now. Do you know what was the first prayer said by the persons in the room at the moment of his death?"
Q: A Requiem?
A: "No, a Te Deum, which is a solemn hymn of thanksgiving. The religious sisters, the secretary, and the few others who were present spontaneously intoned it to thank God, not for his death of course, but for those 84 years that were so fruitful. I myself found it extraordinarily difficult in that moment to recite the usual prayers on behalf of the deceased."
Is that not a beautiful image to bring to mind?
A: "It was wonderful and close. My father, a liberal lawyer of great intellectual rigor, permitted me to become a doctor without insisting that I follow the juridical tradition of the family. My mother, who is now 91, was a mother through and through, devoted and affectionate. I wanted to unite both of their last names with a hyphen, in order to keep both of them always with me. And then there was my sister Assunta: it was wonderful to be with her."
Q: Your face lit up just then. Did you love your sister very much?
A: "I loved her very much, but she died suddenly of a brain aneurysm at the age of 35. She left four little children, and I was present when each of them was born."
Q: Now your face has become very troubled. It seems that this is still an open wound.
A: "It is. We were almost like a couple, with an extraordinary mutual understanding. She was just a year older than me, and we did everything together, we even danced together. When we were young, at parties people would ask us to perform the tango. My girlfriend would be there, too, but I danced with Assunta. It seems that we were quite good."
Later on:
A: "My reaction to growing old is rather one of surprise. Good grief, I say, I'm no longer capable of the great mastery in tennis that once was laughably easy. Am I perhaps out of training? No, I’m just getting old."
Q: And this doesn't make you afraid?
A: "Not at all. I look at the limitations of our culture, which experiences old age as an insult. Once the child making his first communion was dressed as an adult. Now the adults dress like children, and they are ridiculous. But the wonderful way in which the pope grew old may have been a corrective. He taught that life leads to death, but that this is not the final end of life."
It is a wonderful read all the way through.
I was just going to comment, but Papa-Lu wants a post, so quickly here's what I said when he told me about the article and after reading it for myself.
First, rules don't raise happy children. Studies show that juvenile delinquents come half from families that were neglectful and half from rigid families with all the rules. Also, breastfeeding will not guarantee a happy child or a fulfilled adult. I grew up in a Le Leche League house and boy could I tell you stories of some very freaky, angry, socially delinquent pepole- all breastfed or breastfeeding. Father Virtue makes this point in his book (which has not been read by a large number of the people who talk about it). He points out that hostility at the breast is more damaging than bottle feeding and that it is possible to nurture a child fully using a bottle, if the situation requires it.
Anyway, another response I had to the post is that a disordered attachment to the rules leads to a blatant disregard for the human person, evidenced in a lack of compassion and empathy. An attitude which Selkie's post pegged perfectly, not only in its competitiveness and tendency to blame people for their own problems, but also in its datedness, out of step with the modern world and with modern theology as found in JPII.
Finally, when it comes to parenting I sympathize with the people who feel the need for rules. Children have a way of making a person feel like a faliure and rules provide security. However, my current reading and thinking leads me to say that normal children will grow up to be normal people if their parents do the best they can and trust their instincts. Only special situations require special rules and systems.
Oh, I would also like to add that I used to fit the rules person description perfectly down to the matilla, scapular and bad attitude and have turned into a happy, fulfilled URP married to an URP and raising little people who can make up their own minds.
Comment left there by me, last paragraph edited for clarity:
I don't mean to denigrate those concerned parents who seek out strategies and methods: if something is known to work, why not use it? My distaste, rather is for those who reduce parenting to a program or a technique that can be mastered. Parenting is a relationship that develops organically, it is a loving response to the glorious revelation of God's love that is a child. Approaching this relationship with a "strategy" seems somewhat strange. Then again, I may just not be a rules person.
As for CCL, I read a witness to the glory of NFP in their newsletter once. It left my wife and I with the distinct impression that this woman was mistakenly foregoing seriously needed psychotherapy and marriage counseling by clinging to NFP as a cure-all for her and her husband's problems. NFP may have been working for them, but they had serious issues that were going to bubble over into trouble sooner or later. This was aparently a success story.
I feel I should add the disclaimer that I embrace and endorse the Church's teaching that periodic continence for the purpose of delaying conception can be a moral good. People always seem to question that when I say things like this. Indeed my wife and have had recourse to such natural spacing
Not only is Catholic Answers hosting a debate on whether the Novus Ordo Mass is valid (really, with all the crap going on in the world, is this in any way necessary?), but in his E-Letter discussing the debate and the ramifications if the theory that it is not valid is in fact correct, Karl Keating fails to actually take a stance in the matter.
I understand Karl may want to publicize the debate, but if one is to raise the subject of whether or not we currently have a valid pope to however many hundreds or thousands of subscribers Karl has to his E-letter, it would be a kind and charitable thing to do to assure these people of the outright nuttiness of the theory.
How serious is the matter?
Now let's say that the same man was ordained a bishop in 1977. That would have been under the new rite, so, if we follow Matatics's logic, that second ordination would have been invalid. In reality the man still would be a priest; he would not have been elevated to the episcopacy.
Let's take the hypothetical one step further and imagine that this man, who was ordained a priest but not a bishop, is elected pope. What happens?
By definition the pope is the bishop of Rome, not the priest or layman of Rome. No man can be pope unless he is a bishop, just as no man is married unless he has a wife. If our hypothetical man is not made a bishop, either before or just after his election, he cannot be a real pope. There is no such thing as a layman pope or a priest pope. The bishop of Rome must be a bishop.
Now let's bring this hypothetical into the real world.
Joseph Ratzinger was ordained to the priesthood in 1951. He was ordained archbishop of Munich-Freising in 1977. He was elected pope in 2005. If his priestly ordination was valid but his episcopal ordination was not, then he is not a true pope. He is an anti-pope, a pretender, an imposter.
He may be called the pope. He may be addressed as "Holy Father." He may wear papal white. He may live in the Apostolic Palace. He may preside at Vatican events. But, according to this logic, he is not the pope.
This is the inevitable implication of the position that Matatics is now said to promote. If the Catholic Church has not had a valid rite of ordination since 1968, then today it cannot have a true pope. This is sedevacantism.
I'm not saying that Karl takes the side of the sedevacantists (indeed, his tone is somewhat reproachful), but considering the gravity of the subject (which Karl describes as and the fact that his organization is called "Catholic Answers," I think Karl has erred by not clearly refuting the position held by Gerry Matatics to his subscribers.
In short, I wish to assert the fact that we do indeed have a Pope.
Yield: approximately 1 gallon
4 bottles white wine (something dry and fruity)
3 oranges, cut into eighths
1 lime, cut into eighths
2 fresh bay leaves
10 mint leaves
20 cracked peppercorns
1 cinnamon stick, whole
3 peaches, preferably white, cut into eighths
1 tsp salt
10 lemon verbena leaves (optional)
1 vanilla bean (optional)
Pour the wine into a large pitcher or carafe. Add all the remaining ingredients except for the oranges and lime. Squeeze the citrus into the wine, herb, and spice mixture and add the fruit, as well. Stir the mixture. Allow the pitcher to stand at room temperature for 4 hours before serving, or cover and refrigerate overnight. To serve, fill a glass with ice and pour the white sangria over the ice until almost full. Top off with a spash of soda water or champagne to give it a bit of pizzazz!
I forgot to post these a couple of weeks ago. Better late...
General prayer intention:
That Christians be sensitive to the needs of everyone, without ever hiding the radical requirements of the Gospel message.
Missionary intention: That all the baptized be committed, each in their own state of life, to transforming society by permeating the mentality and structures of the world with the light of the Gospel.
Maggie Gallagher is definitely one of my favorite columnists. Here she starts with Eric Rudolph...
Oops, there goes another Christian fundamentalist terrorist....
Touches on Islamic Terrorism...
I hate conspiracy theories. But one can't avoid noticing the ongoing effort among certain powerful groups to craft a dramatic new storyline for religion in America: to lump Christian "fundamentalists" in with Muslim "fundamentalists," to equate evangelicals with fundamentalists and Catholics with evangelicals, merging all traditional religions into one scary, irrational and potentially violent "Christianist" mass. A traditional religion, in this view, is any faith community that does not accept sexual liberalism. This is the core of liberalist drama in America today, the line that if crossed will put you in the crosshairs.
and ends with Cardinal Schonborn:
Perhaps because it is useful to the grand liberalist metanarrative portraying religion as an irrational, backward force for evil in America today?
Read the whole thing here.
When White House spokesman Scott McClellan is getting slammed in the press room, one of his outs is to call on India Globe reporter Raghubir Goyal, who without fail asks a question relted to India and/or Pakistan. This changes the subject and often provides news networks with a good time to cut away from the conference.
Why the Media Miss the Stem-Cell Story
The intro:
But why – on a scientific issue, about which most people know relatively little – does public opinion seem so lopsided?
One explanation is that the polls often feature loaded questions that begin with tales of the medical miracles ESCs will allegedly bring us: cures for Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, diabetes, you name it. They don't even try to find out whether respondents really have any idea of what ESC research is. And as a rule, they don't mention possible alternatives – namely, so-called adult stem cells (ASCs), which are obtained without the ethical conflicts of harvesting human embryos.
But the biggest reason may simply be that the mainstream media are doing a lousy job of informing the public on the state of stem-cell science. By and large, they're telling people all about the potential of ESCs – especially the supposed ability to become any type of cell-without talking about certain little drawbacks, like a tendency for ESCs to be rejected and even to become cancerous.
Perhaps more important, the media aren't telling people how much more advanced ASC research is, or how rapidly it's making breakthroughs. Certainly they're not telling people about it nearly as often as they're hailing the promise of ESCs – and when they do, they tend to undermine the news with pooh-poohing, often-groundless quotes from ESC advocates. (More on that later.)
As a science writer who has covered the topic extensively, I know something about this. I see the media coverage practically every day. On rare occasions I'll find blatant falsehoods: Last August, for example, influential New York Times science writer Gina Kolata told readers "so far, no one has succeeded" in getting adult stem cells to treat diseases.* That statement either reveals startling ignorance or is an outright lie: Adult stem cells routinely treat or cure more than 80 different diseases, while no ESC research is anywhere near becoming a human clinical trial.
Usually, though, I see something less blatant, but perhaps more harmful: a subtle but persistent bias in reporters' choice of subject matter, interview subjects and quotes, all skewing the reader toward embryonic stem cells and away from any alternatives.
Nor am I the only one who's noticed.
I talked to a number of stem-cell researchers and the only journalist willing to be interviewed for this story and found a consensus that there's a strong media bias. What interested me most, though, were their thoughts on how and why that bias comes into play – and the role of factors like attitudes toward religion, manipulation by the pro-ESC lobby, and just plain ignorance and laziness.
The whole piece is quote good.
Is there such a think as "attempted manslaughter?"
Bishop Luigi Locati of the Isiolo diocese, about 200 kilometres (120 miles) north of the capital Nairobi, was shot in the head and the neck late Thursday and died shortly before he was due to be airlifted out, said Robert Kipkemoi Kitur, the assistant commissioner of police in Kenya's Eastern Province where the raid took place.
 You scored as Mace Windu.
Which Revenge of the Sith Character are you? created with QuizFarm.com |
Scandal-by-Scandal Baseball Coverage from NPR.
They also have this interview with Howard Bryant, author of Juicing the Game.
Sandro Magister looks at the first three months of Pope Benedict XVI's pontificate.
Zenit points us to the Vatican Radio homepage, where you'll see a new podcast link in the upper left part of the screen.
They also point out Catholic Insider, a podcast from a Dutch priest.
Crisis Magazine: The Other Catholics: A Short Guide to the Eastern Catholic Churches
Meet the Catholic Churches. There are more of them than you think.
A nice introduction to the east. Personally, I would find it hard to belong to a Church that counted only 2,345 members (The Greek Catholic Church in Greece), but I am fascinated by this overlooked part of the Church.
I agree with the notion that induced abortion probably increases abuse of drugs and alcohol during later pregnancies, but the article that describes (but does not link to) the study says nothing of whether the study controlled for drug and alcohol abuse prior to the abortion.
Here are three theories that are all plausible explanations of drug use among women who have had abortions depending on the rate of drug use among women before they have abortions
- These post-abortive women may have used drugs and alcohol at a lower rate during or before their preganancy which resulted in an abortion In this case the theory offered in this article, that unresolved grief leads women to be depressed and turn to drugs and/or alcohol.
- These women may have used drugs and alcohol at the same rate before or during the aborted pregnancy. In this case, the explanation may be simply that women with substance abuse habits are more likely to have abortions.
- They may have used drugs and alcohol at a higher rate before or during the aborted pregnancy. In this case, it could be argued that the abortion was actually somehow a positive experience as evidenced by the decrease in the rate of drug or alcohol abuse during a subequent pregnancy. In this case, their rates of substance abuse may still be higher than non-post-abortive women depending on how bad the rate of abuse was before the abortion.
If the latter two scenarios are the case, then pro-choice advocates would unfortunately applaud the figures. For - as in the second case above - if women with substance abuse habits have more abortions, they would say that lessens the risk that children would be born with certain birth defects, and that those women would be unfiot mothers anyway. Or - as in the third case above - if women abuse drugs less following an abortion, they could say - as I noted - that the abortion was somehow a positive experience.
There is not a doubt in my mind that the first case is more likely true, but without the statistics that say what these women's drug and alcohol habits were before the abortion, we have no way of knowing the truth, and a press release claiming that post-abortive women abuse more drugs than non post-abortive women gives an incomplete picture of the situation and raises more questions than it answers.
Caritas is doing wonderful work in Iraq.
The aid reaches some 20,000 beneficiaries at risk, both Muslim and Christian, in Baghdad, Basra, Nassiriya, Umarah, Dialah and Saladin, according to the Catholic agency.
Caritas' nutrition program, which has been carried out for years in Iraq, benefits children under 8, women in their sixth month of pregnancy and beyond, and nursing mothers with babies under 6 months of age.
In addition to food aid, the beneficiaries are entitled to care in Caritas-Iraq's health centers, as well as free medical treatment.
Like other voluntary groups in the country, Caritas-Iraq works amid precarious security conditions. On Sunday an explosion occurred only 100 meters from a Caritas office in Baghdad, reported Sami Yousif Toma, president of Caritas-Iraq.
"Fortunately, there were no personal injuries," he added. "But all our staff is understandably very worried by what happened as no one can predict what will happen the next time."
From Zenit.
I wanted to link to the webpage to show you how to donate, but the Caritas International webpage doesn't have a donation link that I culd find, so perhaps it would be easiest to give through your local Catholic Charities.
What is the motivation for running through narrow streets chased by angry animals with large horns?
Does anybody think this guy isn't regretting his decision?
What about this fellow? Surely he had greater aspirations for his trip to Pamplona than this?
Speaking of aspirations, I understand many make the trip to prove their mettle. Yes, well, let's ask these fellows how important showing their noble quality is right at this moment:
Please note the particularly undignified posture of the fellow hiding on the ground behind the post. "Yeah, let's go running with the bulls! It'll be loads of fun!"
I think this one speaks for itself, although I wil add that there's nothing quote like hearing a click and seeing a flash of a camera two feet away while your face is getting gored by a pissed off bull.
Now here's a man I can sympathize with:
This guy didn't have a meeting with the business end of a bull. No, he had a nasty run-in with the authorities, receiving a beat-down for trying to run through the streets drunk. Those mean Spanish cops think maybe drunkards lack the judgment required to play tag with enraged cattle.
If you've been having problems posting, here's how I get around it.
When I click save, I get the internal server error. The post gets saved , but it doesnt publish. The way around this is to rebuild. Yes it takes a long time, espeecially if you have a large blog with losts of posts, put then all of your "error" posts show up properly.
Reading this testimony given by Ed Whelan of the Ethics and Public Policy Center at Senator Sam Brownback's hearing on Roe v. Wade.
Here are some things I took away from reading it. Most are things I already knew, but Whelan makes the points forcefully
- Roe v. Wade is a legal atrocity, based upon a clause in the 14th amendment that states may not "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Why this means that states cannot - through due process - enact resonable laws banning or limiting abortion remains a mystery.
- The majority opinion in Roe and subsequent decisions supporting it are laughable to read. Laughable that is, except in light of the power-driven egomania behind them. Especially offensive is the majority opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which implies that our legitmacy as a nation of law abiding people demands that Roe v. Wade not be overturned.
- The dissenting opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey by Justice Scalia is wonderful. Here are some passages cited by Whelan in his testimony:
"The Court’s description of the place of Roe in the social history of the United States is unrecognizable. Not only did Roe not, as the Court suggests, resolve the deeply divisive issue of abortion; it did more than anything else to nourish it, by elevating it to the national level where it is infinitely more difficult to resolve. National politics were not plagued by abortion protests, national abortion lobbying, or abortion marches on Congress, before Roe v. Wade was decided. Profound disagreement existed among our citizens over the issue—as it does over other issues, such as the death penalty—but that disagreement was being worked out at the state level." 505 U.S. at 995.
"Roe fanned into life an issue that has inflamed our national politics in general, and has obscured with its smoke the selection of Justices to this Court in particular, ever since. And by keeping us in the abortion umpiring business, it is the perpetuation of that disruption, rather than of any pax Roeana, that the Court’s new majority decrees." 505 U.S. at 995-996.
"The Imperial Judiciary lives. It is instructive to compare this Nietzschean vision of us unelected, life tenured judges—leading a Volk who will be ‘tested by following,’ and whose very ‘belief in themselves’ is mystically bound up in their ‘understanding’ of a Court that ‘speak[s] before all others for their constitutional ideals’—with the somewhat more modest role envisioned for these lawyers by the Founders.‘The judiciary . . . has . . . no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society, and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither Force nor Will but merely judgment . . . .’ The Federalist No. 78.
"Or, again, to compare this ecstasy of a Supreme Court in which there is, especially on controversial matters, no shadow of change or hint of alteration … with the more democratic views of a more humble man:
‘[T]he candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon v