Sideshow Fringe Celebrity Wins the Day

A few weeks ago nobody had ever heard about Dede Scozzafava. And then Newt Gingrich endorsed her for the House seat (NY-23) for which she was already endorsed by the local Republican Party.

But then Sarah Palin, who Katie Couric recently referred to as a "sideshow" on the "fringe" of the party, endorsed a little known third party conservative candidate.

And then everything changed. Hundreds of thousands of dollars poured into conservative Doug Hoffman's coffers. National pundits focused their gaze on this New York district. Hoffman shot up in the polls despite the NRCC and RNC backing Scozzafava.

And now today Hot Air reports:

Just confirmed that Republican candidate Dede Scozzafava has quit the race. Speaking to supporters, Scozzafava broke down in tears...

Scozzafava, the hand-picked choice of the New York state GOP in the key 23rd District special election, reportedly will throw her support to Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman.

That deserves a big fat wow from anyone who cares about politics.

The media hasn't played this up mainly because they'd rather cover what that nincompoop Levi Johnston has to say rather than the fact that Palin, proving herself to be a true maverick endorsed a third party candidate who just knocked out the Republican.

Palin has now set herself up as something different than a powerful Republican. She may have established herself as a principled conservative. Needless to say, the Republican party will not be happy. Nor will the media.

Palin's upcoming media tour to sell her book will be a very big deal when it comes to convincing many people she's someone to be taken seriously. But what just occured in New York, while ignored by much of the media, may be seen in retrospect as the beginning of something huge.

I'm excited and nervous about it.

Good Without God?

I won't be reading "Good Without God: What a Billion Nonreligious People Do Believe" by Greg Epstein, the Humanist Chaplain of Harvard University.

I would've read it if I thought it had anything of interest to say about morality. But based on the author's response to a question on the On Faith blog, it would seem that either he was hit on the head right before he answered or he's been leaking IQ points from his ears since getting his Harvard gig and everybody's been simply too kind to point it out.

The question posed by On Faith is:

Q: Is there good without God? Can people be good without God? How can people be good, in the moral and ethical sense, without being grounded in some sort of belief in a being which is greater than they are? Where do concepts such as good and evil, right and wrong, come from if not from religion? From where do you get your sense of good and evil, right and wrong?

While the question seems to be a journalistic slow pitch designed for Epstein to take it yard, his response is such a whiff that I don't think anyone could see it as anything less than an embarrassment.

For one, Epstein fails to answer the question put to him as to how there can be good without God. Or even what "good" is in a universe without God? He simply points out that there are people who don't publicly acknowledge God who are also good. Well, duh. But that doesn't answer the question as to whether good can exist without God. You know, for all of Pontius Pilate's fault (which have been well documented) he at least faced the relevant question when he asked, "What is truth?"

Epstein, on the other hand, skips merrily past the difficult question of defining good and, I guess, assumes that the definition of "good" is acknowledged by all as the same worldwide. In his swerving around the main question Epstein actually lends credence to the theory that good and evil are innately recognized by us. And if that sense was put in all of us then we must ask by Whom?

If, however, Mr. Epstein doesn't believe that good can be innately recognized then it would seem incumbent upon him to answer that question since he actually wrote a book on the subject.

But if Mr. Epstein is evasive concerning "good" he certainly finds it easy to label anyone who thinks that "good" and "God" are inextricably linked as bad. He calls Rabbi Brad Hirschfield "prejudice" for suggesting that there can be no "good" without God. He even suggest that the Rabbi is not in his "right mind."

So, from Epstein's work we can surmise at least one nugget. Epstein= good. Rabbi= bad. I don't know if that's enough to build a worldview on but Mr. Epstein seems pretty comfy with it or at least comfy enough to write a book on it.

Ironically, Epstein writes early in his piece:

I see all of this activity as a chance to finally begin a new kind of conversation about god, religion, morality, and community. It's a chance to put to rest some of the animosity and mutual mistrust that we've seen too often when religious and nonreligious people come together of late. It's a chance for Humanists or nontheists like me to begin again to work alongside religious people of many stripes to build the better world we all want and need to see.

So in an effort to put to bed all that animosity and mistrust, Epstein calls the Rabbi names by writing:

But this is not the time to debate the question, "can we be good without god?" And frankly, I am disappointed in Rabbi Hirschfield for his assertion that we can't be.

Let's be perfectly clear: of course we can be good without God. Millions of Americans are. But that's not what my book is about. Because if you think we can't be good without God, that's not just your opinion. That's not just some brainstorm that crossed your mind. It is prejudice. And it might even be discrimination.

He's sure it's prejudice but unsure whether it's discrimination? So Epstein, as well as failing to define "good" also seems unable to define "discrimination." Do they not have dictionaries at Harvard?

Epstein continues:

"I mean, no one in his or her right mind would ever say, "Oh, you're a Catholic. How nice--is it possible for you to be a decent human being, too?" We wouldn't ask whether it's possible to be a good person and Jewish, or Muslim, or Buddhist. We don't ask whether you can be good and a Democrat, or a Republican (at least, usually we don't). So since we know that there are now millions and millions of people living without belief in a god, it's time to reject the question of whether we can be good without God."

So instead of answering the question that was actually put to him (which also is the name of his own book) he rejects the question? Wait. The name of your book kind of says that you're going to be answering this question. I'll alert the philosophy departments all over the world that there is "of course" good without God so that solves that philosophical conundrum, I guess.

Then he continues to reroute the question by stating all the things he's not going to answer until he gets to one he might:

However, that's not to say living well or being a good person is easy--with or without god. And so the question why we are motivated to be good without God is much very much worth asking. The question of how we can be good without God is absolutely crucial. And both of these questions lead to a third--with whom can I be good without God? After all, one of the most important reasons people turn to religion is for a sense of community--so how can Humanists and the nonreligious build a secular alternative to religious community?

Hmmm. A secular alternative to a religious community? Uhm...I think it's called Harvard University, Mr. Epstein.

And in conclusion he says that there's a reason he doesn't answer the main question put to him and that's because...wait for it...oh I'll just let him tell you why.

But again, can we please agree that from now on it should be beyond the pale to accuse Humanist, atheist, agnostic, and nonreligious citizens of having no basis for goodness and decency? Let's remember that we are all imperfect.

You gotta' love how some people just declare whole areas of questioning as "beyond the pale."

And if we all are imperfect as Mr. Epstein states, isn't there necessarily some standard of perfection that he is measuring us up against? What is that standard, Mr. Epstein?

But I've got to feel a little sorry for the editors at On Faith blog who came up with a decent question, invited a Harvard man who wrote a book on it to answer it, only to be informed that their question is "beyond the pale."

Maybe Mr. Epstein's book is better than his efforts here. But for now all I can say about Mr. Epstein's article is: Not good.

Fr. Barron on the Vampire Craze

I'm Proud To Be An Anglican

With apologies to Lee Greenwood, Anglicans, and people of good will...

If tomorrow all the things were gone
I believed all my life
And I had to pick another faith
That wouldn't crimp my style of life
I'd thank my lucky stars for a church in such decay
Cause the Pope poached all those orthodox
And he took them all away.

Chorus: And I'm proud to be an Anglican
Where at least I'm dogma free.
I like my priests to be tye-dyed
And gays - that's right for me.
And I gladly stand up next to you
And defend her still today.
The Pope will never give me command
God bless the middle way!

We ordained a bunch of women
but the TAC did not agree
Then we added gay bishops
And ignored every plea
From Canterbury to New Hampshire
We will believe our own way
What Jesus said will be taken a la carte
And it's time we stand and say

Chorus: And I'm proud to be an Anglican
Where at least I'm dogma free.
I like my priests to be tye-dyed
And gays - that's right for me.
And I gladly stand up next to you
And defend her still today.
The Pope will never give me command
God bless the middle way!

Penn State May Be Full of Vampires

You know me. I'm not one to make outlandish accusations but I think Penn State University may be filled with vampires. And not the angsty teen kind like in "Twilight." But the old school Bella Lugosi freak out at a crucifix kind. I don't have a lot of scientific data to back up that claim but I'm still sayin' it.

You want evidence? Ok. As a fairly normal human I want you to look at the shirt below. Just a quick look will do.


OK. You saw it. Are you reeling across the room in pain? Hissing? Turning into a winged rodent? Are you even offended by that shirt?

No? Well some "people" at Penn State University are so offended they've sworn not to wear that shirt. They don't even want it on campus. Why? Because it kinda' sorta' almost looks like a cross. It's not one. But it kinda' sorta' almost looks like one.

Look, I'm not telling people at Penn State what to do. I'm just saying that if I were there and someone refused to go near that shirt the first thing I'd be doing is looking for their reflection in a mirror or just super soaking them with holy water.

Fox News reports that:

The shirts — intended to foster school spirit — sport a vertical blue line down the center with the words "Penn State White Out" emblazoned across the chest, forming a design that some say resembles a cross. The back of the shirt depicts the same blue line obscured by the words, "Don't be intimated … It's just me and 110,000 of my friends." Roughly 30,000 of the shirts have been sold.

But alas Penn State says they received six complaints about the shirt. Six! Stop the presses. Burn the shirt!

But all complaints are not created equal. You see, the Anti-Defamation League's Philadelphia branch, lodged a complaint as well. And now you've got a full-blown campus brouhaha.

I love this quote from an offended student in the story:

"At first glance, you don't necessarily think that's what it looks like, but when you look at it more, it does look like a cross," Berns told Foxnews.com. "That's the reason I didn't purchase it."

Translation? She wasn't offended until someone told her that she was and then she quickly whipped up some huff. So in short, don't waste the holy water on her. She's just stupid and easily manipulated.

Showing that Penn State isn't a barren wasteland of political correctness on parade, one student laughed that pretty soon people will be offended by lower case t's. And kudos to the Penn State administration for not backing down either.

So in short, Penn State either has vampires on campus or just lots of idiots. Bet on idiots. But just keep a crucifix handy. That'll tick 'em off either way.

Bishops Call for Opposition to Obamacare!

Wow! This is big news. For months the bishops have been threatening to oppose the healthcare legislation as long as it included abortion funding. But I didn't expect this. Wonderful news. Catholic.org reports:

An E-mail directive has been sent from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops Pro-Life Activities Secretariat mobilizing every parish in the United States of America. It contains an urgent message which is to be distributed in every parish this weekend and announced at every single Mass. This massive and urgent appeal may be unprecedented in our history as Catholics in America. It is an effort to mobilize the Catholic faithful on an urgent matter of public policy concerning the fundamental and foundational human right to life.

The E-Mail specifically asks that no parish opt out of this initiative.

The bishops are urging all parishes to insert a document into all parish bulletins across the country. The pdf of the file is here.

The text reads:USCCB NATIONWIDE BULLETIN INSERT

Tell Congress: Remove Abortion Funding & Mandates from Needed Health Care Reform

Congress is preparing to debate health care reform legislation on the House and Senate floors.

Genuine health care reform should protect the life and dignity of all people from the moment of conception until natural death. The U.S. bishops’ conference has concluded that all committee approved bills are seriously deficient on the issues of abortion and conscience, and do not provide adequate access to health care for immigrants and the poor. The bills will have to change or the bishops have pledged to oppose them.

Our nation is at a crossroads. Policies adopted in health care reform will have an impact for good or ill for years to come. None of the bills retains longstanding current policies against abortion funding or abortion coverage mandates, and none fully protects conscience rights in health care.

As the U.S. bishops’ letter of October 8 states:

“No one should be required to pay for or participate in abortion. It is essential that the legislation clearly apply to this new program longstanding and widely supported federal restrictions on abortion funding and mandates, and protections for rights of conscience.

No current bill meets this test…. If acceptable language in these areas cannot be found, we will have to oppose the health care bill vigorously.”

For the full text of this letter and more information on proposed legislation and the bishops’ advocacy for authentic health care reform, visit: www.usccb.org/healthcare.

Congressional leaders are attempting to put together final bills for floor consideration. Please contact your Representative and Senators today and urge them to fix these bills with the pro-life amendments noted below. Otherwise much needed health care reform will have to be opposed. Health care reform should be about saving lives, not destroying them.

ACTION: Contact Members through e-mail, phone calls or FAX letters.
 To send a pre-written, instant e-mail to Congress go to www.usccb.org/action.
 Call the U.S. Capitol switchboard at: 202-224-3121, or call your Members’ local offices.
 Full contact info can be found on Members’ web sites at www.house.gov & www.senate.gov.

MESSAGE to SENATE:
“During floor debate on the health care reform bill, please support an amendment to
incorporate longstanding policies against abortion funding and in favor of conscience rights.

If these serious concerns are not addressed, the final bill should be opposed.”

MESSAGE to HOUSE: “Please support the Stupak Amendment that addresses essential pro-life concerns on abortion funding and conscience rights in the health care reform bill. Help ensure that the Rule for the bill allows a vote on this amendment. If these serious concerns are not addressed, the final bill should be opposed.”

WHEN: Both House and Senate are preparing for floor votes now. Act today! Thank you!

There's a lot more at Catholic.org

Update: It'll be interesting to see how this might affect the vote of some Catholic Senators who ran on a pro-life platform like Pennsylvania Senator Bob Casey Jr. I just called Senator Casey's D.C. office but nobody answered the phone. The message said it's due to "extremely high call volume." Ha. Good.

Update II: Jack Smith at Catholic Key has lots of info on this as well.

Safe, Legal and Rare. And Funded!

Pro-choice Democrat Rep. John Yarmuth was in a difficult position last night on Chris Matthews' Hardball. This is interesting because it marks the first time a Democrat has felt uncomfortable on MSNBC since Bill Clinton said something negative about Barack Obama.

But last night Yarmuth was in the unfortunate position of stating categorically on national television (if anybody still counts MSNBC as national television anymore)that the healthcare bill does NOT (no how no way) include abortion funding. But then just three minutes later poor Yarmuth admitted that the Democrats can't take abortion funding out of the bill because too many pro-choice Democrats would freak and threaten to filibuster it.

Huh? Chris Matthews, of course, didn't call him on the discrepancy. Wouldn't you love being a liberal who can say mutually exclusive things and all reporters do is smile and nod.

But to be fair Matthews, I must admit, did actually have an interesting idea. He suggested offering Obama's own words as an amendment. Remember, Obama said "under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place."

But we know that Democrats can't do that. Because the Democratic Party depends too heavily on Big Abortion to veer from the party line. So while they say they want abortion to be "safe, legal and rare" what they actually mean is "funded."

The video is here. It's kind of long but I'm too stupid to figure out how to just rip the highlights out. So here it is:

I Haven't Been Called a Cannibal Since...

I haven't been called a cannibal since the 70's. Firstly, I can explain what happened that day. The pizza guy wouldn't deliver, my buddy was sleeping and I just thought "Wow, ten toes is a lot to have." Oh wait, Richard Dawkins wasn't talking about me personally. He means that all Catholics are cannibals. Whew!

I like when Dawkins is angry. Dawkins' anger is clarifying for me. It's one of the most assured ways of knowing that Pope Benedict made a great decision. Here's my pet theory - If Dawkins, Maureen Dowd, or James Carroll is outraged then I'm automatically giggly. And based on how mad they've all been recently, I should be very giggly.

In the Washington Post today, Dawkins' flipped through his insult thesaurus and called the Catholic Church all sorts of polysyllabic names including misogynistic, cannibalistic, homophobic, and the greatest force for evil in the world.

What's at the root of this outpouring of liberal anger over Pope Benedict's decision to accept Anglicans who are interested in converting to Catholicism? It seems to be a highly selective anger. Did you know that at least 6,000 Christians were forcibly reconverted to Hinduism in Mumbai earlier this week because of the strong-arming violence from some Hindu groups, according to Asia news.

Heard about it from the media? Nope. Not a peep about forced conversions of Christians to Hinduism but you've heard the Pope's offer to Anglicans labeled a "Blitzkrieg" or an "assault."

You know, I'm starting to think the media doesn't much like Christianity. And they might just hate Catholicism. But why? Not because it is the greatest force for evil in the world as they say but because it's the greatest force for preventing their worldview of abortion on demand, the dissolution of marriage, the degradation of sex, and the destruction of families from coming to fruition.

Randall Terry Is Not Helping

Randall Terry is running a contest on his website called the "Burn in Hell" Contest and he's calling on pro-lifers to burn Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid in effigy on Halloween, video it, send it to Terry, and win prizes such as books autographed by Terry.

Oh boy. On the video below (available at his site) he gives instructions how to download pictures of Reid and Pelosi and get them all nice and ready for faux fiery perdition and how to get local press to cover it.



Who does this help? Seriously. I mean other than Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. And don't give me the "oh he's just raising awareness." Because there isn't anybody who's not hooked up to life support that doesn't know that abortion is a hot button issue in the Democrat's healthcare plan.

This kind of thing turns off the very people who we're trying to convince. But as is typical of Terry's antics, they appear to be more about Randall Terry getting noticed than shining a spotlight on the issue of abortion.

Pro-Life Stupak Says He'd Vote for Obamacare

Well that was quick. You see, for a few hours today I believed in the existence of moderate Democrats. I really did. For years I thought of moderate Democrats as similar to Bigfoot and Chupacabra. Sure, other people said they saw them but I wasn't so sure. I'd resisted believing in such a thing for a long time but I relented when I saw Michigan congressman Bart Stupak saying that he was prepared to "torpedo" the Democrat's healthcare plan as long at it contained public funding of abortion.

Many pro-lifers including me were cheering Stupak. I even said that if he resisted we'd be referring to him as a profile in courage one day.

Do I feel stupid. Video footage of a town hall held in Cheboygan, Mich., on Saturday, shows Stupak saying that he'd vote for the Democrats’ healthcare reform even though it includes public funding for abortion.

If everything I want [is] in the final bill, I like everything in the bill except you have public funding for abortion, and we had a chance to run our amendment and we lost. OK, I voted my conscience, stayed true to my principles, stayed true to the beliefs of this district, could I vote for healthcare? Yes I still could.

So what he's saying is that he'll make some efforts to prevent abortion funding but he doesn't think it's all that important. Saving the lives of the unborn isn't as important as pleasing President Obama, I guess. This is like saying that I am opposed to the death penalty, sure, but if I lost and there was no pardon - sure I 'd pull the trigger.

Congressman Stupak, principles don't have an expiration date.



HT The Foundry

Praise For "Catholic Church Architecture and the Spirit of the Liturgy"

Starting tomorrow we will begin printing some excerpts from Denis McNamara's "Catholic Church Architecture and the Spirit of the Liturgy."

Today, I just wanted to show you some of the testimonials that have been gathered for this exciting and dare I say, important new book. If you have any interest at all in Catholic Church architecture, I highly encourage you to buy this book. Now, the testimonials.

* * *

“With his Catholic Church Architecture and the Spirit of the Liturgy, Dr. Denis McNamara has made a most significant contribution to the theology of the Sacred Liturgy, in the line of the luminous writings on the subject by Pope Benedict XVI, both before and after his election to the See of Peter. Dr. McNamara argues convincingly and well that the lex aedificandi, that is, the norm of building in what pertains to churches and chapels, like the lex orandi or norm of praying, by its very nature, gives expression to the lex credendi or norm of faith itself.

Among the many rich elements of Dr. McNamara’s profound and comprehensive study of Sacred Architecture is his most timely application of the “hermeneutic of continuity,” that is, the interpretation of Sacred Architecture in the light both of the roots of Christian worship in Jewish worship and of the organic development of Sacred Worship, down the Christian centuries. Dr. McNamara helps us to understand how a church or chapel is at one and the same time the House of God and the House of the Church.

I wholeheartedly commend the work of Dr. McNamara to all who want to deepen their understanding of sacred architecture, who desire to be schooled in the Church’s lex aedificandi. In a particular way, it is my hope that his study will become a standard reference for seminarians and priests, and for all who have responsibility for the building and maintenance of churches and chapels. For every attentive reader, Catholic Church Architecture and the Spirit of the Liturgy will not fail to offer a most significant contribution to the life of faith and worship.”

The Most Reverend Raymond L. Burke
Archbishop Emeritus of Saint Louis
Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura

* * *

“This comprehensive volume answers the two questions that should initiate any discussion about the future of liturgical architecture: Why and How. Why should a church look like a church? How do we “read” a church to know if it does? The answer to these fundamental questions does not come out of ideology or archaism, but from a theological analysis of Beauty and a review of architectural principles. McNamara has the uncommon capacity to speak about both, as he describes the church as a sacramental building. McNamara’s progression from eschatological icon and Beauty to the architectural principles of decoration and ornament to a careful reading of Sacrosanctum Concilium is ingenious. If congregations facing a renovation, priests facing a building committee, and church architects facing a project were to really struggle with the content of this book, it would change the kind of churches that we build. The book has the potential to change the future. What would happen to church architecture for the next fifty years if this book were to be read seriously?

David Fagerberg
Asociate Professor of Theology
University of Notre Dame

* * *

In this unique, groundbreaking book by “one of this generations finest architectural historians,” Dr. Denis McNamara devlves into the deep meanings of liturgical art and architecture, and the Sacred Liturgy itself.

Catholic Church Architecture and the Spirit of the Liturgy Catholic Church Architecture and the Spirit of the Liturgy is a foundational sourcebook for studying, designing, building, and renovating Catholic churches, this book is intended to find the middle of the road between differing and sometimes conflicting theories of liturgical architecture. It will give architects, building committees, pastors, seminarians, and anyone who has ever visited a church the theological language and tools to understand the elements of church design.

“Denis McNamara is an amazing teacher. He knows the theology of our liturgy and has a love of the sacraments of the Church and the symbols that express those sacraments. He has an uncanny way of blending all three together while using his understanding of classical architecture so that not only will new churches be beautiful to the eye and understandable to the mind, but most moving to the heart. This unique and fascinating book unites the sacred celebrated in our presence with the Heavenly Jerusalem and the Eternal Banquet.

Denis McNamara’s Catholic Church Architecture and the Spirit of the Liturgy will help those parishes in the process of renovating, planning, or building a church. It is a must read for anyone interested in being better educated about how liturgical art and architecture help bring souls back to God. “

Rev. William Porter
Pastor
St. Michael the Archangel Church
Leawood, KS

* * *

“Catholic Church Architecture and the Spirit of the Liturgy is an invaluable and easy-to-read theological resource for all pastors, parish liturgy committees, architects and artists. I was really carried away by this book—I could not stop reading it. This is exactly what parishes and offices of worship need as they build or renovate their churches.

Msgr. William McCumber
Director, Office of SacredWorship
Archdiocese of St. Louis

* * *

“Denis McNamara has accomplished something unique and important in this book: he has reflected on church buildings as the built expression of distinctively theological ideas. This analysis has enabled him to specify precisely why certain churches are adequate to their deepest purpose—and why others are not. In this lucidly written text, he helps us to see how the Garden of Eden, the Jerusalem Temple, the sacrifice of the cross, the communion of saints, and the song of the angels in heaven all have relevance to the way we think about--and more significantly--the way we build our churches. It is my hope that this marvelous book will find its way into the hands of pastors, educators, architects, renovators, and worshippers all across the country.”

Rev. Robert Barron
Francis Cardinal George Chair of Faith and Culture
University of St. Mary of the Lake/Mundelein Seminary
Founder, Word on Fire Ministries

* * *

“This wonderful book will lead those who build churches out of the wilderness littered with ugly and misbegotten buildings. Biblical exegesis and patristic, scholastic, and recent theology support McNamara’s convincing rereading of documents of the Second Vatican Council. They sanction no particular style but do demand that churches once again shine forth with the beautiful image of the Heavenly Jerusalem. Everyone involved in church building must read it, and take it to heart.”

C. William Westfall
Frank Montana Professor
School of Architecture
University of Notre Dame

* * *

“Contrary to the impression given by some, the principles of sacred architecture did not begin in the Middle Ages, or even in earliest Christianity. Instead, they are rooted in the liturgy of ancient Israel, embodied in the Tabernacle of Moses and the glorious Temple of Solomon, and fulfilled in Christ and the Church. In this lucidly written and theologically sophisticated book, Dr. Denis McNamara sheds new light on old debates about Church architecture by inserting them into salvation history: the three ages of Shadow, Image, and Reality. By tracing the shape of worship from the Paradise of Eden to the Heavenly Jerusalem, McNamara has given us something both unique and precious: a biblical theology of Church architecture. This book needs to be on the shelf of anyone--pastors, seminarians, or laity--interested in what the written Word of God has to say about the spirit of the liturgy and the splendor of worship.”

Brant Pitre
Professor of Sacred Scripture
Notre Dame Seminary, New Orleans
Author of Jesus and the Last Supper: Judaism and the Originsof the Eucharist

* * *

“Denis McNamara’s authorship and scholarship are a tremendous source of inspiration. In this book he illuminates the way forward for art and architecture in true service of the Church and in full participation in God’s majestic revelation made present in the Mass. McNamara explains to artists, architects, and their clients the very nature of their work. He establishes expectations for those of us who turn our talents to making the image of the Church.He reveals to us how to think of church building anew,and explains why doing so is absolutely vital to our success in her service. In doing so, McNamara guides the work of bishops, pastors and the architects and artists who serve them to a more beautiful, more truthful, and infinitely more rewarding manner of making churches.”

James McCrery
McCrery Architects
Washington, DC

* * *

“Dr. Denis McNamara’s Catholic Church Architecture and the Spirit of the Liturgy is a must read for parish councils, building committees, liturgists, pastors and church architects. Dr. McNamara has a beautiful ability to bring together sacred art, architecture, liturgy, and theology and explain it so that it all makes sense. This book makes clear to us that sacred art and architecture can invoke in each of us a sense of the sacred, and reminds us that when we remove beauty and art from inside our churches we really remove an opportunity for human beings to encounter God. This book will guide parishes to construct churches that not only follow the rules of Vatican II but the spirit behind Vatican II and help lead the faithful to more fruitful participation in the earthly and heavenly liturgies.”

Denise Ogilvie
Director of Christian Education and Liturgy
St. Michael the Archangel Catholic Parish
Leawood, KS

Obama Wasn't Lying, He Was Imagining.

Remember when Obama told the joint session of Congress in his speech:

And one more misunderstanding I want to clear up -- under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place.

Well, it looks like Obama wasn't lying (as Joe Wilson loudly claimed.) Obama was simply referring to a pretend bill that nobody's ever actually written and exists only in his head. See. And you thought he was lying.

CNS is reporting:

Rep. Bart Stupak (D.-Mich.) told CNSNews.com that President Barack Obama told him in a telephone conversation that when he said in his Sept. 9 speech to a joint session of Congress that “under our plan no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions” he was not talking about the actual bill drafted in the House but about the president’s own health care plan—which has never been written.

“I don’t know if it is a game of semantics or what,” Stupak said of Obama’s nationally televised declaration to Congress that the health-care plan will not allow federal funding of abortion...

Wow. The brazenness of it all is just disturbing.

This whole thing might just come down to Obama vs. Stupak. In Stupak, we may be looking at a modern day profile in courage. The entire weight of the Democratic Party is sure to lean on him in coming weeks. Let's hope and pray that he can stand up to it and hold to his pro-life convictions.

Ecumenism Is Dead, Long Live Ecumenism

While many Anglicans worldwide are now occupied with understanding what orthodoxy demands of them, the balance are otherwise occupied.

While playing a fanciful dirge at the funeral of failed ecumenism, Anglican Bishop John Chapman sticks a knife in it just to make sure it is really dead.

Anglican Bishop John Chapman is allowing an Ottawa church to offer blessings for same-sex couples who are already civilly married.

"My intention is to embrace a liturgical process that will not discriminate between members of the church on the basis of sexual orientation," Chapman told a congregation Thursday night at the beginning of the diocese's annual synod. "This will be Ottawa's offering to the ongoing discernment that is happening throughout the Anglican Church of Canada."

Indeed that coffin has been nailed shut. How is ecumenism possible with a group that doesn't actually believe in anything definite? How do you convince a boulder happily rolling down a mountain that it should be going the other way? You can't. It is Sisyphus in reverse.

A generation and half has been convinced of the notion that ecumenism is not really about convincing like-minded Christians that one side or the other is right, but rather that we are all wrong.

Alas, ecumenism not seeking the fullness of truth will always, at the last, die of malnourishment. Sugary platitudes do not sustain. Rising in its place is a robust ecumenism focused on truth and unity.

Ecumenism is dead. Long live ecumenism.

What's the Deal With Chris West?

Everywhere I go in the Catholic blogosphere somebody's got an opinion on Chris West. Cheeky Pink Girl is defending him. Countless blogs including Steve Kellmeyer's are very very upset with him.

The furor surrounding West has grown to such a level that Cardinal Justin Rigali, the archbishop of Philadelphia, and Bishop Kevin Rhoades of Harrisburg both announced their support of West's work.

And West himself wrote a piece about the swirling controversy.

I've received a number of emails asking me about what our take is on him but I honestly don't feel I know enough about him.

So I'm asking you guys to give me your thoughts. If the combox gets crazy or nasty I'll just shut it down for the day. But I'm truly interested in what the thinking is on Chris West.

Update: Chelsea Zimmerman has a post up on Chris West today. I found it informative.

And thanks to all of you for keeping the dialogue above board.

Scott Hahn's Foreword to Denis' Book

As you know, we are very excited about the new book from CMR contributor Denis McNamara. For those of you who don't know, Denis (DMac) is Assistant Director and Faculty Member at The Liturgical Institute located at Mundelein Seminary in the Archdiocese of Chicago. Denis has a B.A. in History of Art from Yale University and an M.Arch.H. and Ph.D. in Architectural History from the University of Virginia. His new book "Catholic Church Architecture and the Spirit of the Liturgy" will be released in very early November.

It is with great pleasure that we can present for the first time, the foreword to the book written by none other than Dr. Scott Hahn.

***

After the exodus from Egypt, as Israel sojourned in the desert, God gave Moses “the pattern of the tabernacle and of all its furniture” (Exodus 25:9). And so Moses commanded the construction of this portable sanctuary of God’s presence among his chosen people. Centuries later, in Jerusalem, God gave David “the plan of the vestibule of the temple, and of its houses, its treasuries, its upper rooms, and its inner chambers, and of the room for the mercy seat” (1 Chronicles 28:11). To the son of David, King Solomon, God also gave the right to call his temple “the house of the Lord” and “the house of God” (1 Chronicles 28:20 – 21).

The early Christians saw both the tabernacle and the temple as biblical “types” foreshadowing the Christian Church. They were earthly sanctuaries that would find their fulfillment in the worship of heaven and earth that we find detailed in the New Testament books of Hebrews and Revelation (see Hebrews 8 –10 and Revelation 11:19). The Church at worship included what Catholics traditionally call the Church Militant, the Church Triumphant, and the Church Suffering — the great cloud of witnesses — the communion of the Church on earth, in heaven, and in purgatory.

But most of this was invisible to the eye. It was made known, however, through the preaching of the Church fathers, especially those we know as “mystagogues”: Ambrose, Cyril of Jerusalem, John Chrysostom, Augustine, Denis the Areopagite, and Maximus the Confessor.

Mystagogy is guidance in the “mysteries,” in things hidden since the foundation of the world. The mystagogue guided his congregation, especially the new converts, through the external, material appearances to grasp the unseen reality that is interior, spiritual, hidden, and divine. Thus he could demonstrate that the liturgical and sacramental signs have been foreshadowed in both the Old and New Testaments. He could trace their development from shadow (in the Old) to image (in the New) to reality (in heaven).

Ancient mystagogy was intensely concerned not only with rite and gesture, but with architecture as well. What the tabernacle had been to the Israelites, what the temple had been to the Jews, the church was now for the Christians. The Apostolic Constitutions (fourth century) includes a lovely symbolic interpretation of the church building as a ship sailing heavenward. It instructs the bishop thus:

When you call an assembly of the Church as one that is the commander of a great ship, appoint the assemblies to be made with all possible skill, charging the deacons as mariners to prepare places for the brethren as for passengers, with all due care and decency. And first, let the building be long, with its head to the east, with its vestries on both sides at the east end, and so it will be like a ship. In the middle let the bishop’s throne be placed, and on each side of him let the presbytery sit down; and let the deacons stand near at hand, in close and small girt garments, for they are like the mariners and managers of the ship: with regard to these, let the laity sit on the other side, with all quietness and good order. 1

The redactors obviously believed they could trace the pedigree of such ideas back to the apostles themselves.

But somehow these ideas got lost in the shuffle of the ages — so utterly lost that, in our own age, the popes have issued urgent calls for their recovery. In his apostolic exhortation Sacramentum Caritatis (SCar.), Pope Benedict XVI pleads for a “mystagogical catechesis . . . concerned with presenting the meaning of the signs.” He continues: “This is particularly important in a highly technological age like our own, which risks losing the ability to appreciate signs and symbols. More than simply conveying information, a mystagogical catechesis should be capable of making the faithful more sensitive to the language of signs” (SCar., 64). Elsewhere in the same letter, he — like his “apostolic” forebears — emphasizes that mystagogy must include the elements of iconography and architecture:

The profound connection between beauty and the liturgy should make us attentive to every work of art placed at the service of the celebration. Certainly an important element of sacred art is church architecture, which should highlight the unity of the furnishings of the sanctuary. Here it is important to remember that the purpose of sacred architecture is to offer the Church a fitting space for the celebration of the mysteries.” (SCar., 41)

I believe that this book by Denis McNamara is the kind of mystagogy Pope Benedict called for. I believe it is the kind of mystagogy the ancient Church fathers would wish for their own churches. Dr. McNamara knows that to contemplate sacred space is not merely to trace influences in an evolutionary diagram back to Vitruvius. To understand a church requires more than a genealogy of tourist postcards. It requires an interior life. It requires a hope of heaven. It requires a revelation. It calls for mystagogy. All of this is evident in the pages of this book.

Dr. McNamara has given us something we desperately need, something rare and great: at once an achievement of scholarship, a work of mystagogy, and an act of piety.

— Scott Hahn
Professor of Theology and Scripture
Franciscan University of Steubenville
Founder and Director, Saint Paul
Center for Biblical Theology

1. Apostolic Constitutions, 2.57.

***

Be sure to order your copy today.

Tailgating the Holocaust Museum

If Timothy McVeigh's family went door to door trying to sell off his spare fertilizer as keepsakes for the victim's families, it wouldn't be more icky than this.

Reiner Hoess, Rudolph Hoess' grandson, clearly aims to be called the ickiest dude on the planet. With one crazy move, he just rocketed past balloon boy's father and Jon Gosselin.

Get this. Hoess approached an Israeli agency which memorializes the victims of the Holocaust and essentially said hey listen, my grandfather had a hand in killing six million of your ancestors so I'm wondering if you'd be interested in buying some of my grandfather's memorabilia from those wacky days.

The Philadelphia Bulletin reports:

The offices of Yad Vashem, the Israeli agency that memorializes the six million Jews murdered by their Nazis and their allies, received an extraordinary and even infuriating proposal recently. The grandson of Rudolf Hoess, the notorious commander of the Auschwitz death camp, offered to sell some of his grandfather’s personal effects to the museum.

The letter to the museum, which was sent several months ago and entitled “Rare objects, Auschwitz, Commander Hoess,” was short and succinct, saying: “These are several objects from the estate of Rudolf Hoess, the commander of Auschwitz: A massive, fireproof box with official insignia – a gift from Henrich Himmler, the commander of the SS, weighing 50 kilograms, a letter opener and folders, slides from Auschwitz that have never been seen publicly, letters from his period of imprisonment in Krakow. I would be very grateful for a brief answer. Sincerely, Reiner Hoess.”

The management of Yad Vashem responded with shock to the proposal and rejected it out of hand. The management of the museum expressed disgust over the desire of the criminal’s relative to profit from Holocaust memorabilia.

Wow. Dude, gotta lay off the Rumple Minze.

But now he's saying it wasn't even his idea. His friend, the grandson of Baldur von Schirach, who was the leader of the Hitler Youth came up with this brilliant idea and passed it on to his friend.

OK. Anyone else a little uncomfortable thinking about Hoess' grandkid hanging out with the grandkid of the dude in charge of Hitler Youth? Could these guys be more tone deaf? I mean, what's next from these two? These two tailgating the Holocaust Museum with a Grooler full of Beck's and Schnapps in the back of the Volkswagon?

Canterbury Tailspin Part II: Ecumania!

For kicks and giggles - a round up of the fun, the foreseeable, and the absurd.

What is it with the Brits? The are so delightfully overflowing with droll vitriol that I am left in a perpetual state of envy. Insult as art is so unappreciated this side of the pond. My appreciation for Damian Thompson is well recognized. Add to this list Gerald Warner. In describing blindsided ecumenists Rowan Williams and Cardinal Kasper, Warner built a picture in my head I will not soon forget.

While press releases spouted ecumaniac drivel, the Anglicans voted to ordain priestesses in 1992. In 2003 John Paul II suspended talks, following the consecration of the homosexual American bishop Gene Robinson. The Church of England is now moving inexorably to the consecration of women "bishops". Only a clutch of flared-trousered 1960s relics still dance arthritically to the ecumenical tune. Now Rowan Williams and Walter Kasper have been left to dance around their handbags.

Totally awesome awesomeness. Take a moment and picture that. Heels. Pearls. Bad perfume. The macarena. Got it? Moving on...

A liberal Episcopal priest from Salem thinks that the Pope is a very bad man for being nice to the Anglicans. He has his talking points and he's sticking to them.

The Rev. Paul Bresnahan of St. Peter's Church in Salem said he is troubled by the Catholic Church's unexpected overture this week, which appeared to be aimed at conservative Anglicans who have become disillusioned with their church, in part over its acceptance of openly gay bishops and female priests.

"It sends a terrible message to the gay community," said Bresnahan, the father of two gay sons. "It says, in effect, you're not welcome here. To me, that slams the door shut in your face."
...

"What kind of message does it send to half the population of the world? What if a woman feels she is called to serve God as a priest?" Bresnahan said. It puts her in a position, he said, of "saying no to God."

What with door slamming and misogyny, its a wonder the Pope has time for anything else. Meanwhile, back at the Hall of Justice... There is a group of so called Anglo-Catholic priests who still prefer the Anglo to the Catholic. Run of the mill stuff but I liked this part.

On the other hand, anglo-catholics have found the openness of the Anglican tradition, allowing for a wide range of views and different approaches, to reflect the realities of life in the Body of Christ as it is lived out in history and the world. For many within the catholic tradition, recent changes are a natural extension of our understanding of the evolution of tradition within the life of the Church. The catholic tradition has never been about simply safeguarding narrowly explicit interpretations of scripture but about engaging the contributions and experience of all the members of the Body of Christ in the life of the Church.

These are not the anglo-catholics you are looking for, move along. These are not the anglo-catholics we are looking for. Move along, move along.

Of course, no litany of the inane would be complete without a quote from FutureChurch.

Following news that the Roman Catholic church may accept more married ex-Anglican priests into its ranks, the grassroots network FutureChurch has called for the option of a married priesthood in the Latin rite of the Catholic Church too.

Sister Christine Schenk, the director of FutureChurch, said: "Parishes in Europe, the United States and the United Kingdom are closing, while thousands of Catholics in the developing world have virtually no access to Mass and the sacraments because of too few celibate priests."

Up to 80 per cent of all Sunday celebrations in Brazil are led by lay leaders because there are no priests, she added.

"I think this may be painful news for married Catholic priests who are not permitted to serve the Church", said FutureChurch board member Bill Wisniewski, himself a married Catholic priest.

I don't even know what to say to that. Let's finish up with something good. A senior prelate in the Church of England, The Bishop of Fulham, the Right Rev John Broadhurst after calling a former Archbishop of Canterbury a moaner for complaining about the surprise over something that was in the making for years had this to say.

Asked what his views were on giving up his title as bishop, Bishop Broadhurst said: “Who cares. Soon I’ll be in a wooden box in front of the altar. What matters is the bigger picture. God matters, the truth matters. We as individuals don’t matter. We think we matter but we don’t.”

The truth matters, eh? Oh, he will never fit in as a Catholic.

Former Priest: Pope is Anti-Anglican

James Carroll, a former priest and current columnist for the Boston Globe, was obviously jealous of Maureen Dowd's anti-papal polemics. So he one-upped her. Maybe even two-upped her, if that's a word. I warn you that if you read on, this way lies madness. I highlighted just some of his insults of the Pope, Anglicans, Latin Mass-goers, conservatives...etc.

Here's Carroll:

Last week’s anti-Anglican salvo from Rome shows how far the Catholic leadership has fallen from the heights of Vatican II. The invitation to “disgruntled’’ members of the Church of England’s extended family to abandon the Thames for the Tiber is a rejection of contemporary human experience, a resounding response of “No!’’ The church against the modern world, after all. Not only a cruel assault on a fellow Christian communion that is valiantly struggling to strike a balance between liberal and conservative impulses; not only an insult to loyal Catholic liberals who will be denied what converted Anglicans are offered (notably a married clergy); not only a slap at women and homosexuals whose progress toward equality is a global measure of justice; not only a stark contrast with the common Anglican practice of fully welcoming alienated Roman Catholics, while eschewing any pressure on them to convert - there is more.

Oh boy is there more. Notice how, according to Carroll the height of the 2,000 year old Catholic Church was Vatican II. Kinda' tells you where he's coming from, huh?

But what is this love affair that Carroll has with the "modern world?" Was he around during the 20th century? Pretty much a mess. A bloody mess. Wars, nuclear weapons, 100 million killed by communists, 20 million killed by fascists, genocide, the holocaust of the unborn, the dissolution of marriage. So when Carroll says that it's the Church versus the modern world, I scream "Yes."

Equally damaging, the Vatican’s preemptive exploitation of Anglican distress explicitly ducks the large and urgent challenge facing every religion and every religious person, which is how to positively reconcile tradition with the massive changes in awareness, knowledge, and communication that come with the scientific and technological breakthroughs that daily alter the meaning of existence.

No, Mr. Carroll the meaning of existence is the one thing which hasn't changed.

But Mr. Carroll doesn't see that because for him the main issue facing all religions today is to somehow reconcile their beliefs with the whims and meandering thoughts of James Carroll.

From the misfit fringe of another denomination, Rome recruits the naysayers it needs to bolster what has become its own place on the margin of Catholic life. First there was Opus Dei, with its crypto-fascist origins, then there were the Holocaust-denying lovers of Latin - and now the Anglo-fundies. Come on over, guys!

And this is Carroll defending the Anglicans against Pope Benedict who supposedly hates them? Misfit fringe? Holocaust denying Latin lovers? Anglo-fundies? What the heck is the Globe thinking by allowing this guy to publish?

While the Vatican and its recruits just say no, the rest of us attempt to apply tested modes of ethical reasoning to revolutions, for example, in genetic science that separate reproduction from sexuality.

"Tested modes of ethical reasoning?" Hmm. Sounds an awful lot like tradition? Hey, James Carroll better be careful or he's going to wind up at Latin mass.

Now here's where Carroll really gets carried away. He imagines himself facing down the barbarian hordes of unreason warpathing their way through Western civilization and turning out the lights behind them on the way to the Dark Ages. And our Mr. Carroll bravely brandishes the light of logic as our only hope.

The story of the Vatican raid on the Anglican communion was front page news because these issues go deeper than religion. Nothing less than the survival of the human species is at stake. Will 21st-century fundamentalism thwart science across the globe? Will old habits of tribalism, nationalism, and excluding religious denominationalism prevent a new world humanism from emerging? Will the ancient wisdom of moral philosophies embedded in the great spiritual traditions be available as guides to future decisions? Or will rational, self-critical, ecumenically minded religion self-destruct just when humanity most needs its positive influence? Positive is the point.

Delusions of grandeur much?

Catholicism is only part of this story, yet the affirming spirit of Vatican II was a resounding yes to the human future. The Catholic Church, with due modesty, embraced its role as a builder of that future in equal partnership with other believers and all people of good will. That meant not just tolerance for differing religious bodies, like the Anglican communion, but a compact of mutual advancement.

Ha! Tolerance for differing religious bodies?! He's got to be kidding me. Where's his tolerance for the "fascist" Opus Dei or the holocaust deniers who attend Latin Mass, or the Anglo-fundies? I guess tolerance only means you have the right to agree with James Carroll.

But you see, Mr Carroll was pretty pleased with all the Catholics that went a-knockin' on Anglicanism's door but now that some Anglicans are seeking to convert to Catholicism, they are now relegated to the fringe of society and must be mocked, name called and shunned in the name of tolerance.

29 Uhms And 1 Big Fat Lie

David Axelrod is lying about federal funding for abortion in Obamacare. And he's doing it poorly to boot. But clearly the audience at the Kennedy School of Government was cool with that because as Greg Hengler points out, nobody called him on it.

But it's kind of funny because Axelrod utters more "uhms" and "ohms" than a beginner's yoga class. He's clearly uncomfortable. Did he really not think this might come up?

HT Townhall

Five wrong!

My daughter got five wrong on a Math test. Five!

I could tell the moment she appeared in the doorway of the school at the end of the day that something had gone wrong.

Everyday, my seven year old daughter steps into the doorway, scans the crowd excitedly, spots me in the parking lot, smiles, grabs her sisters, and they all come running out together, a blur of plaid, curls, and smiles.

But on Thursday she saw me and she looked me in the eyes and she seemed...scared? And the girls all came walking out together. Funereally.

My mind raced through the possibilities. A fight at school? Disrespecting a teacher? Mind you, none of my children have ever gotten into any trouble at school but when your little girl avoids your eyes after school your mind jumps to conclusions. At least mine does.

I took their hands silently. They threw their bags onto the passenger seat and filed into the van. After she buckled herself into the backseat I saw her eyes search mine out in the rear view mirror. And when I looked at her she looked away.

"What's wrong, doll?"

She looked at me for a moment and her wide blue eyes filled with tears and she couldn't even speak for a moment. She stared up at the ceiling of the van and squeaked, "I got five wrong."

She had a Math test which we'd studied for. Now, I wanted to say, "It's OK." But that's not what I said. I asked, "Out of how many?"

"20," she said, still finding it difficult to talk.

"Oh my. What happened?" I said. "We studied. You knew it all so well."

She continued telling me as I drove home. You see, she added instead of subtracted on a few of the problems. She forgot to do one and one she just got another one wrong. And then I know I should have said, "Don't worry doll. We'll do better next time." But what I said was, "Pass it up. Let me see it."

And there I was. Driving and examining this Math test for my second grader. I could see her staring at me. Waiting for me to say something. And what did I do? I lectured all my children how we all have to pay attention to everything we're doing. I talked about details. And then I spitballed a system that maybe she could circle subtraction signs and put squares around addition signs just so we'd be forced to pay attention to the signs.

And when we got home the day simply went on. We sat down to do our homework. I checked it all. I made dinner. We cleaned it up. The children played until it was time for bed. We went upstairs, said our prayers, and they all climbed into bed. I came downstairs and got on the computer.

At some point, the computer froze and I had to shut it down and then it hit me. I realized what a jerk I was. Well, that's not true. I know what a jerk I am. But I realized what a jerk I was today. My seven year old wasn't upset because she got five wrong. She was scared of telling me she got five wrong. I hadn't even taken the time to notice that my seven year old had been circling me the entire afternoon and early evening. Looking to me...for something. And then quickly looking away. Even while cleaning the dishes I noticed her looking at me out of the corner of her eye. I noticed it but I didn't see it, if you know what I mean. She'd been waiting for me to say what I should've said the moment she walked out of school. That no matter what happened I love her. That no matter what happened I'm proud of her. And no matter what happened I think she's the most special seven year old in the world.

This little girl. My little girl. She was waiting for her dopey father to tell her he loved her all day and that it was just a math test. Instead he told her to circle subtraction signs.

I had to face it. I did a lot worse on my test than she did on hers. Sometimes you just think that children know how much we love them. But the harsh words we say I think somehow stick with them longer than many of our kindnesses. Our little cruelties are like splinters. They go in easily, cause pain, and they're very difficult to get out.

If children could know how much their parents loved them, I believe it would make them feel so much safer than they probably do. But maybe that's our main job as parents. We need to let them know they're loved. Tell them how special they are. Because we are their introduction to God. Can you believe it? I know. But we are.

As much as we see the workings of God in our tiny immortal children, they look for God in us. I am sometimes amazed at the responsibility that's fallen into my lap. These precious gifts who feel, who love, who can be hurt, who sympathize, who close their eyes when their favorite part of their song comes on, who help each other climb trees, who run to tell Dad when one of them is hurt. These precious gifts look to us to find God.

And when my seven year old was crying in the backseat, afraid that she'd disappointed me I told her to focus on details. I got up from my computer and walked quickly up the stairs. I peeked into the room with the four girls in it. By the glow of the night light I could see that my seven year old was asleep. I thought about waking her up but that would've just been more selfishness on my part. I sat there on the stairs for a few minutes watching her sleep through the crack in the door. And I did all I could think to do at that moment. I said a prayer that I would do better tomorrow, be better tomorrow.

In the morning I went up the stairs and sang to everyone to wake up with a silly song that my father used to sing to me and my brothers as children. The seven year old didn't move. She never does. The other two got up and the two year old was doing calisthenics in the crib. I called the seven year old in my sing song way and I saw her smile a little. I grabbed her feet and slowly pulled her off the bottom bunk. I had her down on the floor and she was still pretending to sleep but smiling so I jumped on her and started tickling her. She screamed with laughter. The other girls, seeing this, piled on and began tickling me. The boy heard us from across the hall and came tearing in and jumped on the pile like he was going for a loose ball. Hold on, I said. I need someone on my side. My seven year old said she would be on my side. And the tickle war began. Now it turned out a few moments later that she was a spy for the other side and she attacked me from behind. But I was never so glad to be attacked.

We were a little late to school Friday morning. We all went in and I had to sign them in. But I did my job a lot better than I did it the day before. I told them all that I loved them as I sent them down the hall. Those are the details I need to focus on. As they walked into their classrooms I glanced around just in time to see the two year old running into the Principal's office.

We Have A Winner!

We have a winner! This contest, which has lasted the last four years, has been rough and tumble. Many people have vied for the crown, but there can be only one. The winner for the single stupidest thing written about the Pope and the Church goes to former Catholic turned religious black hole with a soft spot for call-girl clothing, Maureen Dowd.

Witness!

Nuns need to be even more sepia-toned for the über-conservative pope, who was christened “God’s Rottweiler” for his enforcement of orthodoxy. Once a conscripted member of the Hitler Youth, Benedict pardoned a schismatic bishop who claimed that there was no Nazi gas chamber. He also argued on a trip to Africa that distributing condoms could make the AIDS crisis worse.

The Vatican is now conducting two inquisitions into the “quality of life” of American nuns, a dwindling group with an average age of about 70, hoping to herd them back into their old-fashioned habits and convents and curb any speck of modernity or independence.

But wait, there's more! How 'bout this humdinger?

The church enabled rampant pedophilia, but nuns who live in apartments and do social work with ailing gays? Sacrilegious! The pope can wear Serengeti sunglasses and expensive red loafers, but shorter hems for nuns? Disgraceful!

Now that some Anglicans are potentially affiliated with the Catholic Church, let's have a go at them as well!

As the Vatican is trying to wall off the “brides of Christ,” Cask of Amontillado style, it is welcoming extreme-right Anglicans into the Catholic Church — the ones who are disgruntled about female priests and openly gay bishops. Il Papa is even willing to bend Rome’s most doggedly held dogma, against married priests — as long as they’re clutching the Anglicans’ Book of Common Prayer.

Now I know, the celibate priesthood is not a dogma but a practice you say! It is merely a longstanding discipline and not a matter of faith and certainly not a dogma you further protest. I say, let's not let facts that can be ascertained withing two minutes on the google stand in her way, the woman is on a roll!

Now before you are too hard on poor little Maureen for all this magnificent inanity, there is an explanation. This can be seen in the opening anecdote...

Once, in the first grade, I was late for class. I started crying in the schoolyard, terrified to go in and face the formidable Sister Hiltruda.

Father Montgomery, who looked like a handsome young priest out of a 1930s movie, found me cowering and took my hand, leading me into the classroom.

Sister Hiltruda looked ready to pop, but she couldn’t say a word to me, then or ever. There was no more unassailable patriarchy than the Catholic Church.

Nuns were second-class citizens then and — 40 years after feminism utterly changed America — they still are. The matter of women as priests is closed, a forbidden topic.

If only lil' Maureen hadn't been late to class or Sr. Hiltruda had hit her repeatedly upside the head, she might have learned something. Alas alack.

Canterbury Tailspin Part I

Oh snap! Didn't see this coming! A senior Anglican Bishop in England has indicated he is ready to convert! This is not one of the breakaway factions or even the TAC. This is just a regular ol' Anglican Bishop. The Telegraph:

The Rt Rev John Hind, the Bishop of Chichester, has announced he is considering becoming a Roman Catholic in a move that could spark an exodus of clergy.

Bishop Hind said he would be "happy" to be reordained as a Catholic priest and said that divisions in Anglicanism could make it impossible to stay in the church.

He is the most senior Anglican to admit that he is prepared to accept the offer from the Pope, who shocked the Church of England last week when he paved the way for clergy to convert to Catholicism in large numbers.

This is most unexpected, at least for me. I expected most of the mainstream - but traditional - Anglicans to play hard to get for a while. Perhaps they still will, but not Bishop Hind. I suspect that he is saying what many others are thinking.

Now Bishop Hind, the most senior traditionalist in the Church of England, has confirmed that he is willing to sacrifice his salary and palace residence to defect to the Catholic Church.

"This is a remarkable new step from the Vatican," he said. "At long last there are some choices for Catholics in the Church of England. I'd be happy to be reordained into the Catholic Church."

While the bishop stressed that this would depend on his previous ministry being recognised, he said that the divisions in the Anglican Communion could make it impossible to stay.

"How can the Church exist if bishops are not in full communion with each other," he said.

This is going to be real interesting. Fr. Longenecker adds:

This is truly momentous news. I know of no other precedent in modern times of a sitting bishop in the Church of England to make such an announcement. They usually wait until their retirement or resignation to announce their plans. John Hind is not even one of the 'flying bishops' who look after the traditionalists. If he and the other bishops in the Church of England act courageously and do as they say they will do we may be witnessing a truly historic re-alignment in Western Christianity.

Like I said, real interesting. Stick with CMR as we will continue to cover the amazing Canterbury Tailspin.

Update: Check out this paragraph from TAC Primate John Hepworth via Rorate Caeli. If this is true it could be earth shattering.

Already there are stories circulating that the Patriarch of Moscow has urged his ecumenical negotiators in the Vatican to hurry in order that the Anglicans do not get too far ahead. They're probably apocryphal, but we do know that the Russian Orthodox Church is very close to achieving unity with Rome. It is the largest of the Orthodox churches of the East. We also know that the Orthodox are watching the Anglican process very closely to try to assess the extent to which Rome is serious about tolerating many different traditions of Christianity within the scope of the Catholic Church. I have had conversations with members of the Greek Orthodox Church and the Coptic Church about the parallels between their conversations with Rome and ours. Christian unity throughout the world is at a very similar moment. Conversation and co-operation are beginning to evolve into forms of organic unity that still protect diverse Christian traditions of worship and spirituality.

WOW!

I Want to Work There

EMBED-Office Workers' Awesome Backstreet Boys Lipdub - Watch more free videos This is just fun. It almost makes me like the Backstreet Boys. Almost. This video reminds me of the CMR office party minus the police raid and "Little People" bowling contest.

HT Viral Footage

Shoulda Put A Ring On It

Because its the weekend!

Patrick Kennedy Blasts Catholic Church

You know, I'm starting to think that maybe a lot of the Kennedy's don't really care about abortion. This is truly outrageous. CNS reports:

Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-R.I) told CNSNews.com that the Catholic Church is doing nothing but fanning “the flames of dissent and discord” by taking the position that it will oppose the health-care reform bill under consideration in Congress unless it is amended to explicitly prohibit funding of abortion.

“I can’t understand for the life of me how the Catholic Church could be against the biggest social justice issue of our time, where the very dignity of the human person is being respected by the fact that we’re caring and giving health care to the human person--that right now we have 50 million people who are uninsured,” Kennedy told CNSNews.com when asked about a letter the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) had sent to members of Congress stating the bishops' position on abortion funding in the health-care bill.

“You mean to tell me the Catholic Church is going to be denying those people life saving health care? I thought they were pro-life?” said Kennedy. “If the church is pro-life, then they ought to be for health care reform because it’s going to provide health care that are going to keep people alive. So this is an absolute red herring and I don’t think that it does anything but to fan the flames of dissent and discord and I don’t think it’s productive at all.

A Lockstep Donnybrook?

For over a year we've been hearing about how Republicans are imploding and fighting with each other. The pro-lifers are fighting the pro-choicers. The social libertarians are fighting the Christians. Palin vs. McCain was always a more interesting fight than McCain/Obama ever was. Never mind the whole torture debate.

In short, it's been accepted wisdom by the media that the Republican Party is a well dressed cage match. And every blow and tackle was nationally televised and analyzed by the media with glee.

The GOP had been home to Lindsey Graham, Olympia Snowe and Arlen Specter. And it's educational to notice that Joe Lieberman was kicked out of his party for daring to support the Democrat's stance on the war while Specter, who hardly agreed with anything on the GOP platform, left the party weeping and wailing like a stood-up prom date.

When President Bush attempted to push immigration reform the Democrats supported him. It was the Republican rank and file that fought the President who was the leader of their party. And the rank and file won.

Remember Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers. The Democrats didn't get rid of her. The pro-life Republicans did.

Obama rode into the White House unscathed mainly because the GOP was in their circular firing squad formation. So now Obama says:

“You know, the other side, they just kinda sometimes do what they’re told. Democrats, y’all thinkin’ for yourselves.”

For Mr. bipartisan to say that is the height of hypocrisy because essentially he's banking his Presidency on his ability to roll over moderate Democrats and bully them into doing his will on Obamacare. Essentially what Obama was saying to Democrats is "Stop thinking. Just do what I say."

In fact, Jay Nordlinger points out:

In 2008, according to Congressional Quarterly, House Democrats voted on average with the majority of their caucus 92 percent of the time. The score for House Republicans was five points lower. Senate Democrats voted as a unified caucus 87 percent of the time, four points higher than the GOP score.”

But that doesn't stop the media from running that quote. In fact, the quote itself was the basis for many stories including one on ABC. And there was no room for Republicans to disagree with his assertion in the story either.

So, what Obama said is I'm sure well on its way to becoming conventional wisdom for the media though I'm unsure how they'll be able to simultaneously cover the collapsing of the GOP through infighting while mocking their lockstep approach to governance. It'll be interesting.

Romeward Bound

Apologies to Simon and Garfunkel and Anglicans everywhere.

Romeward Bound

We're splitting like a Balkan nation
Can't take more of this deep frustration
Heresy I cannot stand, my rosary and cross in hand.
Unity discretely planned by the Holy Spirit and His man

Romeward bound,
I wish I was,
Romeward bound,
Rome where TAC's escaping,
Rome where fear's allaying,
Rome where my Lord lies waiting
Patiently for me.


Ev'ry day's an endless stream
Of women priests and gay mass themes.
I want to keep my liturgy, smells bells and married priests
Now the Pope's generosity, reminds me that I long to be

Romeward bound,
I wish I was,
Romeward bound,
Rome where TAC's escaping,
Rome where fear's allaying,
Rome where my Lord lies waiting
Patiently for me.

Tonight I'll sing my songs again,
I'll play the game and pretend.
But all my words fall short to Thee, Who desires visible unity.
No more disharmony, I need a Church to stand by me.

Romeward bound,
I wish I was,
Romeward bound,
Rome where TAC's escaping,
Rome where fear's allaying,
Rome where my Lord lies waiting
Patiently for me.
Patiently for me.

Law & Order Does Tiller

If I didn't know better I'd think the television show Law & Order hates abortionists? In the past ten years Law & Order and its spinoffs have depicted the murder of more abortionists than have actually occured in real life.

The NY Times reports that the "ripped from the headlines" show is going to depict the murder of a late-term abortionist being gunned down. In church. You know, there's a fine line between "ripped from the headlines" and lazy unimaginative writing.

But this is the third time the show has tackled the abortion issue. Wanna' know how it was depicted in each of the three. Says the New York Times:

“Law & Order” has twice before addressed abortion, in 1991 with “Life Choice,” a first-season episode about the bombing of an abortion clinic, and in 1995, its fifth season, with “Progeny,” which also focused on the murder of a doctor who provided abortions.

And now they're recreating Tiller's murder.

Just so you know that there's been one abortionist killed in the past ten years. One. Gee, don't pro-choicers ever do anything bad? I seem to remember a pro-lifer who was killed pretty recently. But no "ripped from the headlines" story about that, huh? And every week some jerk does violence to their pregnant girlfriend in order to force them to get an abortion in real life. But to be fair those stories don't even get the headlines to rip them from in the first place.

NBC has been pushing the episode to gin up publicity calling it “the most controversial episode of the series.” HA! Controversial to depict religious people as nuts? And abortionists as saints? That's practically the viewpoint of every show on NBC - which might explain why the network ranks dead last among the four major networks.

Another Heartwarming Pro-Choice Story

Before you read this you must promise to agree that this should not be classified as pro-abortion violence. That would be crazy. We all know that pro-lifers like you are the violent wackjobs. Remember, admitting your problem gets you halfway home.

Lehigh Valley Live reports that:

A Bethlehem man faces charges after he put a gun in his girlfriend's mouth during an argument over whether she should have an abortion, court records say.

Jonathan Stock, 28, of the 3300 block of East Boulevard was arguing with Tammy Smith because he wanted her to get an abortion, records say. Stock initially pushed Smith against a wall and choked her, lifting her off her feet, court records say. Stock then threw Smith to the ground, grabbed her hair and pointed a .380-caliber pistol her in mouth and head and said he was going to kill her, records say.

Stock eventually let Smith go and she was able to run from the house. Police were called and Stock was arrested and charged with two counts of aggravated assault, two counts of simple assault, making terroristic threats and recklessly endangering another person. He was sent to Northampton County Prison in lieu of $75,000 bail.

I know we're never supposed to call someone pro-abortion. But come on. This guy can definitely be called "pro-abortion," right? So even though you could logically label this "pro-abortion violence" that is unacceptable. In fact, there's no such thing as pro-abortion violence. You are the violent wacko. This poor guy was just trying to exercise a constitutional right that, I guess, only women have or something...

Laughably Bad Coverage of TAC

As always, anything the Vatican does receives terrible reporting from the media. It generally receives bad reportage mainly for two reasons. 1) Reporters don't know a thing about Catholicism. 2) Most reporters hate Catholicism.

They hate Catholicism so much that when Notre Dame plays Boston College they can't bring themselves to root for either team so they just hope for injuries.

But the reporting surrounding the Church's accepting of the The Anglican Communion was pretty bad even by media standards. It included wishing metaphorical death on the converts, accusing the Pope of an act of war, predicting this would be a disaster for the Church, and accusing the Pope of an 18th century misdemeanor known as "poaching."

It's always a good sign of fiercely independent reporting when all the media fiercely and independently uses the same words and metaphors. For some strange reason, the word "poach" was returned from the island of "Words that hadn't yet been used in the 21st century" and dragged into stories concerning the Pope this week.

The word was used about 40 times in news reports concerning the Pope accepting the Traditional Anglican Communion into the Church. Was there some kind of memo issued that all reporters must begin using the word "poach." Stay tuned for the feature next week which accuses the Pope of "hornswoggling."

So when I went through some of the more ridiculous headlines, ledes and comments concerning this story, it should be no surprise that NPR kicks off the ridiculous coverage. What does surprise me (a little) is that John Allen was part of it.

NPR with John Allen. NPR's Sylvia Poggioli interviewed John Allen on All Things Considered:

POGGIOLI: But veteran Vatican correspondent John Allen says the move breaks a longstanding gentlemen's agreement among divided Christian churches.

ALLEN: That they don't go fishing in each others' ponds. They don't proselytize one another's members.

OK. Firstly, The Church didn't go "fishing in" the Anglican pond. The Traditional Anglican Communion crawled out of the Anglican Pond because they thought it was getting a little polluted with the stink of heresy (or maybe they just didn't like Gene Robinson's choice of bathing suit), they asked to jump into our pond, and after much deliberation the Pope said, "Come on in. The water's fine."

Should the Catholic Church have turned away people who were asking to join? Seems kind of un-Christian to turn them away. Oddly, the BBC clearly liked Allen's sentiments so much they headlined their story: "Rome goes fishing in Anglican pond."

But the thing that bugged me in the NPR story was that it was assumed to be a given that Pope Benedict broke a gentleman's agreement. And Allen, of course, didn't correct that accusation at all. But hey, breaking a gentleman's agreement is almost nothing compared to Ruth Gledhill of the UK Times accusing the Pope of an act of war.

Rome parks tanks on Rowan's lawn

What?! Parks a tank? If anything, Pope Benedict drove a bus, honked its horn outside Rowan's house and a bunch of Anglicans came-a-running.

But on top of those outlandish headlines you then got your prophecies of doom predicting "this could backfire" on the Church in an editorial from the Kansas City Star:

Conversion works both ways.

That was my thought after seeing the news that the Roman Catholic church will try to poach disaffected Anglicans and bring them back to the fold...Seems as though it may be just as likely that the move to pack the Catholic church with even more conservatives just might send more liberal members of the flock looking for the nearest Episcopal sanctuary.

So the logic of that is it's bad for the Church to accept converts, I guess. That's the funny thing about the Church. Anyone can come and go as they please. Nobody keeps you there.

This headline from the Christian Science Monitor was great:

Will Vatican lure Africa's Anglican anti-gay bishops to Catholic church?

Anti-gay? They don't attempt to prove the anti-gay accusation. It's just a given.

But this next one takes the cake because it seems to actually wish or at least predict metaphorical death for the Anglican converts. This headline from Libby Purves of the Times Online reads:

"Converts may choke on raw meat of Catholicism."

Wow! Libby?! Remind me next week to write something about some Anglicans catching the botchulism of liberalism.

But you see Libby smells a conspiracy. She seems to think that Pope Benedict cleverly timed this announcement to take media attention away from the sexual abuse scandal. Well, that might have been a good strategy...uhm...ten years ago! But I don't know if Libby's been comatose or living with the Amish for a while but the abuse scandal actually got mentioned a few times in the media.

And if you know anything about the Vatican's media strategy it's that...THE VATICAN HAS NO MEDIA STRATEGY! (See: Holocaust denying SSPX Bishop debacle)

But Libby's clearly not playing it straight. She's got a bit of an agenda as she calls transubstantiation a "weird doctrine." Here's her closing statement.

"Anglicanism was founded on uneasy compromise, and this has, over centuries, made it kindly and even humble: a mixed salad of a faith. Catholicism is older, darker, strong raw meat. It may choke them."

How sweet. Mind you, she's not hoping they all choke, she's just pointing out that it might happen.

So I'm thinking we take the tank that Ruth Gledhill seems to think that Pope Benedict has. We commandeer it for a few hours, park it on the lawns of the media. Steady...Aim...(Now I'm not predicting the tank will fire. I'm just saying it might.)

Thoughts on The Anglican Initiative

On History

It continues to be my belief that one day Pope Benedict the XVI will be remembered as the great unifier. The Pope who began a process that will eventually lead to one flock and one shepherd. There will likely be much pain between now and then but the day is coming when we will all be one again. When we get there, Pope Benedict will be widely regarded as the beginning.

On Ecumenism

One of the reasons PB will be regarded as the Father of Unity is that he has finally rejected the fruitless ecumenism of the past decades. Oh sure, much lip service has been given by the Vatican and Nichols and Williams to the ecumenical process, but the truth is that it had nothing to do with it. In fact, in order to get this done Pope Benedict has to avoid all the usual channels. Archbishop Nichols and Rowan Williams didn't learn about it until about ten minutes before we did. But the most glaring evidence that the old ecumenism is dead is that Cardinal Kasper, President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity (our head ecumenist) was not allowed within 1000 yards of any microphone during this process. If had been up to the old ecumenical guard this never would have happened. So the Pope just bypassed them all. Sometimes its good to be Pope.

On the Press

As usual, the bulk of the press managed to misrepresent the whole thing. As usual, they are entirely focused on the married priests bit and about the politics of the whole thing and with anti-gay misogyny underlying the whole thing. That said, there were some bright spots.

One of those spots is a headline used by Ruth Gledhill. While unfair and inaccurate it did make me laugh. "Rome parks tanks on Rowan's lawn." Nice! And of course Damian Thompson continues to delight lovers of snark everywhere!

On Liberalism

Liberals in the Church are rightfully beside themselves. They have always pretended to be for ecumenism so they try to maintain the pretense that this is a good thing. But, as we all know, ecumenism in their minds meant that we become more like them, not the other way around. This has gotta hurt. Fr. Rutler rightly says that this is "total repudiation of the ordination of women, homosexual marriage and the general neglect of doctrine in Anglicanism" And liberal Catholicism I might add. As a result we see some of the predictable whinings of the Catholic left, but this is merely the snorts and grunts of dinosaurs as they watch the giant asteroid come throught the atmosphere.

On Names

My one problem with this whole thing is the term "personal ordinariates." I am sorry, this just won't do. I simply cannot say this term three times in a row with a blood alcohol level of .04 or above. We have to come up with a better term than this. I would even prefer non-geographical flying dioceses. NGFDs for short.

On Diversity

Why is it that the same people who love diversity in all its other shapes and forms, detest it when it applies to anyone or anything orthodox? You keep using this word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

On Prophecy

From New Advent: Prophecy of St. Edward the Confessor

'The extreme corruption and wickedness of the English nation has provoked the just anger of God. When malice shall have reached the fullness of its measure, God will, in His wrath, send to the English people wicked spirits, who will punish and afflict them with great severity, by separating the green tree from its parent stem the length of three furlongs. But at last this same tree, through the compassionate mercy of God, and without any national (governmental) assistance, shall return to its original root, reflourish and bear abundant fruit.'

I think those furlongs are almost over.