Creative Minority Report

Today on CMR — November 20, 2009

2010-03-28T23:59:00.897-04:00

Just One Pro-Life Dem?
—It's down to Stupak. Again.

I Can Only Imagine, Murder
—The song that drove me to the edge!

The Urgency Of Now...Delayed
—Guest post by LarryD

Gollum as Screwtape
—Kinda' freaky.

Prayer Request
—It would be appreciated.

The Eucharist as Metaphor
—Theologian says Jesus is a step in the right direction.

Archbishop of Canterbury Is No James T. Kirk
—Rowan Williams could learn a lot from James T. Kirk.

If Jesse Jackson Were a Catholic Bishop
—Jesse excommunicates blacks from being black.

Is Sarah Palin Not Pro-Life Enough?
—Warning! Pro-lifers cannibalizing each other.

Creative Minority Reader

Fr. Barron on the Movie "2012"
—The world's in pieces. So is Catholicism.

Google Followers - This Shall Not Stand!
—Help CMR right a terrible injustice!

Name Ave Maria's New Fieldhouse
—Is Ave Maria the new Notre Dame?

Two Sets Of Rules
—A guest post by LarryD.

"Fireproof" Follow-Up
—Hollywood ain't gonna' come to us.

I'm a Better Parent Than Them...Probably
—Parenting Fail.

Just One Pro-Life Dem?

2009-11-20T12:25:00.015-05:00

There are no blue dogs in the Senate. They are a myth like Bigfoot and Chupacabra. We need just one pro-life Democrat to put a stop to this madness of a healthcare bill. But sadly, that doesn't seem to be happening.

According to Fox News, Republican Senator Mike Johanns said: "We don't need 40 Democrats to stand up for what's right. We need just one. if just one pro-life Democrat would say I will not vote to move this bill until it's fixed, until it's truly pro-life, that would happen. So those who say they are pro-life but refuse to take that stand, I worry are not standing up for life. "

There are supposedly three pro-life Democrats in the Senate. One of them is Harry Reid who isn't pro-life at all.

Senator Bob Casey of Pennsylvania seems to be a lost cause as well. His latest announcement was that he hasn't yet had time to digest the abortion language and its implications in the 2,074-page bill. "The most important thing right now is getting the bill to the floor," he said. "I'm going to have lots to say. I have provisions I've been working on that are not in the bill yet; I've got a long list."

But that's the problem. Bob Casey always has a lot to say about abortion. He just doesn't do much to prevent it. He voted with Obama on the Mexico City policy and had a long list of reasons why.

I don't understand Casey at all saying he's got to read over the whole bill in order to weigh things. Presumably, if you're pro-life you believe that killing the unborn should be illegal as it is the murder of a person. What other details in the bill could be paramount to signing off on the federal funding of the killing of human beings?

And according to the Washington Post pro-life Democrat Ben Nelson, who seemed to be our only hope, just announced he's a "yes" for health care reform.

The moderate lawmaker told Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., that he would vote with rank-and-file Democrats to move ahead on the legislation.

So, that's what pro-lifers get for voting in pro-life Democrats who have a lot to say but will turn on us when party pressure is applied.

And in the end this will likely come down to Bart Stupak in the House, who says he's got 10-15 pro-life Democrats who will block the legislation if it throws out the Stupak-Pitts amendment. Once again, Stupak may be our only hope.

Update: Steven Ertelt of LifeNews.com reports that Nelson may not have completely crumbled.

A key pro-life Democrat, who is seen by political observers as one of the Democrats who would help defeat the pro-abortion Senate health care bill, says he will vote tomorrow for the Motion to Proceed -- allowing the Senate to debate the bill that contains massive abortion funding.

However, Sen. Ben Nelson, a Nebraska Democrat, says not to interpret his vote to begin debate as him supporting the bill itself.

The entire weight of the party will be leaning on him. Let's pray he has the strength to withstand it.

I Can Only Imagine, Murder

2009-11-19T23:35:00.006-05:00

They had to go and do it! One! In the history of my life I like one Christian pop song and now I can never listen to it again.

We all know that we would prefer mixing soda with poprocks over Christian Pop/Rock any day. Actually poprocks are aptly named cousins of Christian pop/rock, a sugary sweet exploding candy that rumor has it can kill you. Christian pop/rock is that bad, with one exception.

I really like—correction—I used to really like Mercy Me's "I Can Only Imagine." It is what all Christian rock should aspire to be but isn't—good. Now the song is dead to me.

Last Sunday, my daughter's catechism class got together to go to mass, the 5:30 pm Mass, the teen Mass. So we all went to the teen Mass. Then at communion time...

I'm sorry, give me a moment. This is so tough. Pull yourself together Pat! Pull yourself together! Ok. Continuing.

Then at communion time, I heard the first couple of notes. I looked at my wife in total desperation. She looked back. We were helpless.

It is not just that the song was completely inappropriate for a communion hymn, it was just SOOOO bad. The lead singer was passable but the backup vocalist (whose mic seemed to be about 4x louder than necessary) was flatter than that dry salt lake in Utah. They destroyed it. I mean they destroyed it so bad that my wife was actually laughing. Yes, my wife was laughing at communion time. The song was so bad, my saintly wife now needs to go to confession. That's bad.

I am sorry to say, I need to go to confession as well. I am not guilty of my wife's irreverence and poor laughter control. I am guilty of the sin of despair and worse, much worse.

Standing in the back because the baby was being noisy, the atrocity pelted my ears. I quickly looked around, I needed a way out. Perhaps I could use the edge of a bulletin to cut my wrists. Death by paper cut. That wouldn't work, surrounded by all these church-going goody-two-shoes, they would stop the bleeding before I died. I needed something quicker.

Perhaps if I smashed the holy water font, I could use the broken glass. No, still too slow. But then I realized how selfish and cowardly suicide would be. I couldn't just kill myself like that. That would be terribly selfish and wrong. What about all the other people who would be left to suffer. No, I had to take the youth choir with me.

I remembered that I had some garden fertilizer left in the van. I wondered how long it would take me to siphon gas out of my Toyota Sienna and mix it with the fertilizer. Maybe then I could pack the mixture in my socks, secure them to my belt, pop the cigarette lighter, and make a mad dash across the parking lot, through the doors, and straight toward the guitar and drum section.

As I worked out the final logistics of my plan, the song mercifully ended. I slowly backed off the mental ledge that I found myself on. What was I thinking? Now I must confess my crime, my sin. What will the priest think of me?

Will the priest think I am a terrible person? Selfish? Stupid? I mean, that lighter would never have stayed lit while I ran across the parking lot. I needed a fuse.

The Urgency Of Now...Delayed

2009-11-19T22:53:00.001-05:00

by LarryD

This is a guest post by our friend LarryD of the fine blog "Acts of the Apostasy." LarryD is one of the few remaining tax payers in metro Detroit; father of two, husband of one, chief of staff for the pet cat; blogging since March 2008; still waiting for that Great American Novel to write itself ; professional penitent; all around good guy even he is a Detroit Red Wings fan.

Well, well, well. Seems that there won't be any Hopenchangen coming from Copenhagen this December after all. Thank goodness! This despite British PM's Gordon Brown warning everybody back on October 19 that the world has only 50 days left (PM Warns of Climate 'Catastrophe') if the world leaders delayed any longer.

Lemme see...Oct 19 + 50 days....carry the 1....that puts it at about December 8. Feast of the Immaculate Conception. Perhaps it ought to be renamed as the Feast of the Inaccurate Deception, just this once. No disrespect to the Blessed Mother, mind you.

Why the latest delay? While on his Bash America tour in Asia, President Obama participated in the annual two-day APEC summit, and it was reported in the BBC that "...leaders have failed to agree a target for reducing greenhouse gas emissions at the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation (Apec) forum.

Officials said the leaders - including presidents Barack Obama of the US and Hu Jintao of China - now viewed the Copenhagen summit as a "staging post", and not an end point, in the search for a global deal to cut emissions of greenhouse gases."

A member of the Obama administration added: "There was an assessment by the leaders that it was unrealistic to expect a full internationally legally binding agreement to be negotiated between now and when Copenhagen starts in 22 days."

How much you want to bet this is because the US Senate hasn't done anything on Cap-n-Tax? Which has to be a major embarrassment to President Man-child. Especially since the German publication 'der Spiegel' has come out and lambasted him for failure to come through on promises made during his Berlin campaign speech:

Barack Obama cast himself as a "citizen of the world" when he delivered his well-received campaign speech in Berlin in the summer of 2008. But the US president has now betrayed this claim. In his Berlin speech, he was dishonest with Europe. Since then, Obama has neglected the single most important issue for an American president who likes to imagine himself as a world citizen, namely, his country's addiction to fossil fuels and the risks of unchecked climate change. Health-care reform and other domestic issues were more important to him than global environmental threats. He was either unwilling or unable to convince skeptics in his own ranks and potential defectors from the ranks of the Republicans to support him, for example, by promising alternative investments as a compensation for states with large coal reserves.

Obama's announcement at the APEC summit that it was no longer possible to secure a binding treaty in Copenhagen is the result of his own negligence. China, India and other emerging economies have always spoken openly about the fact that the US, as the world's largest emitter of CO2, has to be proactive in commiting itself to targets agreed on by way of international negotiation. But that is not America's style. The US is quite happy to see itself as the leader of the Western world. But when it comes to climate change, America has once again failed miserably -- for the umpteenth time.

Ouch! That's gonna leave a mark!

Thing is, more and more Americans are seeing the light, that Cap-n-Tax is nothing more than a jobs killer and an attempt to redistribute wealth. For instance, stimulus money was awarded to Texas to develop large wind farms as part of the shift to renewable energy, and to create jobs. Dirty little secret, though, is that 100% of the parts for the turbines will be manufactured in China. Only 330 jobs will be created here, and of those, only 30 will be permanent, while China will reap the benefit of thousands of manufacturing jobs. Gateway Pundit has the story.

The longer this climate change malarkey is postponed the better. It won't ever go away, sadly, not while politicians and snake-oil salesmen (Al Gore, anyone?) stand to profit from it. Perhaps if politicians continue to make fear-mongering claims of imminent destruction, voters will cast them aside for more practical level-headed leaders. And for many in the US Congress, their 'catastrophe' may strike in about 351 days - Election Day, 2010. Now that's a bold prediction I can look forward to.

Gollum as Screwtape

2009-11-19T19:51:00.000-05:00

We referred to this on The Reader but it's definitely worth the main site. Andy Serkis who played Gollum is taking on Screwtape. I gotta' admit. He kind of freaks me out. Check it out.

Prayer Request

2009-11-19T13:56:00.004-05:00

One of my older brothers (not Patrick) just had some bad news. He's been fighting brain cancer for years and he's in the hospital now and they've just discovered some tumors have returned.

So if you have a minute or two say a prayer for my brother and his family. It would be much appreciated. Thanks.

Note: If you ever want to appreciate all you have go sit in an oncologist's waiting room for an hour.

The Eucharist as Metaphor

2009-11-19T11:54:00.005-05:00

Jesus said: "‘I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.’"

When Jesus said this some people started freaking out because they realized that Jesus sure didn't sound like he was speaking metaphorically. Jesus heard them yapping nervously and told them to quiet down and listen up.

He spoke again and made doubly sure everyone understood what He was saying. "Amen, Amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him."

Then the folks really freaked out. Much hoopla and consternation ensued. A bunch of people skedaddled over the people in the cheap seats and high-tailed it out of there. The interesting thing to note is that Jesus didn't call them back and say He was just kidding or that he was speaking metaphorically. He wasn't.

He said "Amen, Amen I say to you" not "Metaphorically metaphorically I suggest that if you kinda' sorta eat the flesh..."

I'm sure the Eucharist has been used in metaphors before but Dr. Richard R. Gaillardetz, a Catholic theologian seems to go a step further in his lecture called, “Eucharist, Hunger and the Destruction of the Planet: Can a Religious Ritual Heal the World?”

The answer to that would seem to be a resounding "Yes." But sadly, Dr. Gaillardetz seems intent on fitting Jesus into a metaphor. And his lecture seems not to focus at all on what the Eucharist actually is which is the body and blood of our Lord.

Gaillardetz, according to The Independent Collegian, employs the Eucharist as a metaphor for feeding the poor and saving the planet.

He said the examples of the values Jesus displayed at the Last Supper can be utilized by Christians and non-Christians as a way to relieve earth’s social and environmental dilemmas...

Gaillardetz explored the link between worship and ethics by explaining how the Eucharist is a ritual enactment of the Christian practice to feed the hungry and poor... He used the example of Jesus giving bread and wine to his disciples to convey how God gave humans the planet. “The gifts are those of a cooperating relationship between man’s works of the hand with the earth; grain and grapes were not given but rather the product of both with the help of humans,” he said...

What?!

All of that just seems kind of beside the point that in the Eucharist lies the salvation of the world?

But when a member of the audience asked about the idea of religion healing the world being "an extreme view," Gaillardetz said "he knows religion is not the answer to fix everything, but the ideas embodied by Christianity are a step in the right direction for Christians and non-Christians alike."

Just a reminder, Jesus said "I am the way, the truth and the life." He didn't say, "I'm a step in the right direction." Focusing on the Eucharist as metaphor for saving the planet seems to me to be a step in the wrong direction.

Archbishop of Canterbury Is No James T. Kirk

2009-11-18T22:14:00.021-05:00

Just in the nick of time we see some real leadership from the Archbishop of Canterbury. No no, he isn't doing anything crazy to save the Anglican communion like embracing orthodoxy or anything. Canterbury leads us in a different direction, off a cliff.

Rowan Williams has come out strongly in favor of the doctrine of higher taxes. Further, he gives us the source of this divinely inspired revelation, Big Brother 11.

[Telegraph]Dr Rowan Williams said that taxation should not be seen as a way of stifling business or redistributing wealth but helping to make the world a better place in which to live.

He called for new levies to be introduced on financial transactions and carbon emissions, and an end to the idea that unlimited economic growth is desirable.

The archbishop also claimed reality television gives us “alarming glimpses” of what the world would look like were everyone to be governed by self-interest.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, who looks remarkably like Sybok from the one of the worst movies of all time Star Trek V, has lost his marbles. As it happens, Sybok's tale is instructive. Sybok, half brother of Spock, has rejected logic and embraced emotions as his guide. This allows him to be fooled by a false God that beckons him to a far-off Planet. Let's call that planet, for the sake of argument, the Socialist Utopian planet.

Sybok cannot get to this utopian planet on his own so, knowing the rightness of his cause, he decides he can force others to do his bidding. In order to accomplish this, he fools people into going along and believing lies by appealing to their emotions. "Come with me", he says "I will take you to a better place where you will be happy and never get sick." It's not true of course, but it convinces enough people who want it to be true to go along for the ride. Let's call this, for lack of a better word, liberalism.

Of course, this is not enough. In order to get to this supposed utopia, he needs to take a few things from those who aren't completely on board with the program. He needs the Enterprise. So Sybok and his emotional friends steal it at the point of a gun. Let's call this taxation.

So after they have fooled all the people that they could and forced the rest at gunpoint to go along with their foolish plans, they finally arrive at this supposed utopia. Alas they discover that all that was promised them doesn't materialize. Instead, they are greeted by their false god who, surprise, just wants more. It turns out that the false god wanted the starship (acquired through taxation) for his own nefarious purposes and was never really interested in helping the people in the first place. How disappointing.

Now that I think about, Star Trek V might one of the best political allegories since Animal Farm.

One of the more memorable quotes from this otherwise forgettable movie comes from our hero, James T. Kirk, a rugged individualist if there ever was one. Never fooled by the appeal to his emotions, he questions this false God and asks, "What does God need with a starship?" Ignored, he asks again. Let's call this a town-hall meeting.

I would ask Rowan Williams a similar question. "What does God need with our tax dollars?" Either wake up from your socialist delusion or go back to watching Big Brother. Either way, leave our starship alone.

Phasers are not on stun.

If Jesse Jackson Were a Catholic Bishop

2009-11-18T20:47:00.000-05:00

Well you've got to give Reverend Jesse Jackson credit. He doesn't pull punches. He just excommunicated all moderate and conservative blacks from...well...being black.

No. I'm not kidding. According to The Hill:

The Rev. Jesse Jackson on Wednesday night criticized Rep. Artur Davis (D-Ala.) for voting against the Democrats’ signature healthcare bill.

“We even have blacks voting against the healthcare bill,” Jackson said at a reception Wednesday night. “You can’t vote against healthcare and call yourself a black man.”

Obviously what he said is stupid and offensive and says that African Americans aren't allowed to think for themselves.

But there's another angle to this. The media ironically has fits when a bishop says you can't be Catholic and pro-choice but they'll likely give Jesse a pass on saying you can't be black and against healthcare.

I wish all of our bishops were 1/4 as gutsy as Rev. Jesse.

Nancy Pelosi can go on national television and distort the Church's teaching on abortion and what do we get? Hand wringing from many bishops. Notre Dame honors the most pro-abortion President the country's ever seen and what do we see? Priests having priests arrested on a college campus.

If all of our bishops could be 1/10 as serious about abortion as Jesse is on healthcare I'd be impressed.

I guess my only question is that excommunicated Catholics can always become Episcopalians, but where do former black people go? Do they have to sign on to other nationalities or ancestries?

Is Sarah Palin Not Pro-Life Enough?

2009-11-18T16:02:00.005-05:00

Warning!: Pro-lifers cannibalizing each other ahead.

Is Sarah Palin pro-life? Not if you ask the American Right to Life which is promoting their site with pro-life profiles of some heavy hitting pro-life leaders. These guys don't cut anyone much slack. Even Fr. Frank Pavone doesn't get their highest rating. Sarah Palin and George W. Bush fare terribly and I'm not sure that's completely fair.

But I thought I'd throw it out there even if some of their standards seem a little wacky to me including an endorsement of creationism as a benchmark of pro-life-ness. There are some, to me, legitimate criticisms of Palin in there as well.

Here's some of it:

•As a Candidate Whom Many Pro-lifers Would Like to Support: her actual abortion record and rhetoric is shocking to the conscience in that Sarah Palin:

- appointed in 2009 a Planned Parenthood board member to the Alaska Supreme Court

- argues that chemical abortifacients that kill the youngest children should be legal

- distinguishes between her "personal" and public pro-life views (personally pro-life means officially pro-choice)

- indicates support for public funding to kill some unborn children

- whitewashes other candidates misleading millions to believe that pro-choice politicians are pro-life

- allows her name to be used in ads promoting grisly government-funded embryonic stem cell "research"

- undermines the God-given right to life by promoting evolution while officially opposing creation

- harms personhood by claiming that "equal protection" should not apply to unborn children

- has never announced support for any state's personhood amendment nor the Federal Human Personhood Amendment

- opposes personhood by claiming that the majority can decide to legalize the killing of children.

In her vice-presidential acceptance speech Sarah said, "there is a time for politics and a time for leadership." During the above, which time was it for her? Sources below document Sarah Palin's record and political rhetoric.

•Thinks the Morning After Pill should be Legal: Palin says that personally she would not take the Morning After Pill (an abortifacient chemical that kills the tiniest children) but that it should not be illegal. "I don't think that it should necessarily be illegal." This demonstrates the ARTL adage that "To be personally pro-life means to be officially pro-choice."

As far as nominating a pro-choicer to Alaska's highest court, Palin kind of had her hands tied on that one. And while I do believe she probably could've made a bigger stink over it, the Democratic legislature only offered her a couple of bad choices.

As for the personhood amendment I know many pro-lifers who don't agree that now is the time to push that agenda. That doesn't make them less pro-life.

So even though I'll admit that what was written about Palin's stance on the morning after pill is troubling and I'll look into it more, this seems like a pretty rough and at times unfair evaluation of Palin's pro-life credibility.

In the end, this kind of thing isn't really all that helpful in my opinion other than to gain awareness for your organization. All in all, I came out of this wondering more about the American Right to Life than I did about Sarah Palin.

Fr. Barron on the Movie "2012"

2009-11-18T11:53:00.001-05:00

One of Fr. Barron's very best.

Google Followers - This Shall Not Stand!

2009-11-18T09:11:00.008-05:00

We are so grateful for all the positive feedback that we receive on this website. None is more gratifying than the 234 lackeys, aka Google Followers, that hang on our every word.

I take that back. We are not grateful at all. It has come to my attention that Mark Shea has 270 minions, a fact that he rubs in our faces every chance he gets! You may not know this but he mocked us at the last secret blogger meeting held at the La Quinta Inn in Poughkeepsie (They have great tacos there btw!). Yes, he is a well respected author, editor, and radio personality and we aren't, but so what! This shall not stand!

Oh sure, Patrick Madrid has 489 followers, but he has that cool Burt Reynolds mustache. We just can't compete with that. But Mark can and should be knocked down from his perch.

But it isn't just Mark. Father Dwight Longenecker has 258 followers. It is true that he is a priest and we just can't buy that kind of street cred. However we view his Google superiority as evidence of a pernicious form of clericalism. Besides, we have more hair. Well, Matthew doesn't but I do and I probably will for at least six more months. So act now!

Anyway, help us to right these injustices. Follow CMR on Google!

Two Sets Of Rules

2009-11-17T22:44:00.005-05:00

* * *

You know how some people - mainly the progressives - complain that the Church is too focused on the Rules? Rules about contraception, rules about divorce, rules about annulments, rules about this that and the other. They say things like "Jesus didn't care about rules. He only commanded us to love". Or "Jesus never said anything about homosexuality, so stop judging".

It turns out that they're only complaining about the Rules they don't like. Because they're totally okay with the rules Vatican II set out, like taking statues out of churches, or getting rid of Latin, or permitting Sr.Kumbaya and The Unifying Spirit Dance Company to take over the liturgy.

Hang on. I forgot - those are the rules they *think* are in Vatican II. So not only do they complain about and/or ignore the rules they don't like, they also imagine rules that don't exist.

Lest you think the progressives are above any sort of actual rules, a story came out yesterday that kinda proves the axiom that the best rule is a rule that gives progressives an advantage.

From the Telegraph.co.uk: Priest Ordered to Pay Court Costs After Repairing Leaks Without Permission [my comments]

A priest and his church warden have been ordered to pay £100 each for repairing leaks to their church roof without permission from a church court.

Geoffrey Tattersall QC, Chancellor of the Diocese of Manchester and a judge of the Church of England's Consistory Court, said he was "appalled" with the way the repair works to Saint Margaret's Church, Halliwell, Bolton had been arranged without proper authority by priest in charge Rev Derek French and churchwarden Robert Abram, and in "blatant disregard" of advice that they were not suitable.

He ruled that some of Mr French's evidence was "lacking credibility" and said that there had been an "attempt to conceal" that the works had already been carried out when they applied to the consistory court for permission.

The judge took the rare step of ordering both Mr French and Mr Abram to each personally pay £100 towards the cost of the proceedings to "mark the gravity of their behaviour".

Mr French and Mr Abram had taken action to have the roof of the Baptistry repaired to put an end to 15 years of leaks at the church, which sometimes required several buckets to collect incoming rainwater.

[Okay - we have a leaky roof that has been in disrepair since the mid-1990's. And Mr. Tattersall says they're lacking credible evidence? Hello? 15 years??]

In late 2007, the Parochial Church Council decided that repairs should be carried out, at a cost of more than £3,000, and submitted a repair proposal to the Diocesan Advisory Committee (DAC) for approval.

However, in September 2008 the DAC responded saying that it could not recommend the proposal because it was "inappropriate and lacking in detail".
It criticised the specification of the lead to be used, as well as the use of polystyrene in the repairs, and the way battens were to be fixed. It advised consultation with the church architect.

[This is how I know the priest was dealing with liberals. Two years ago, he says he has to fix a roof that's been leaking for 15 years. One year later, the committee responds with, in effect, "How many holes are there and show us exactly where they are." And then declares that repairing the roof might result in environmental disaster - shown by the utter disdain for lead and polystyrene.]

On 29 September, a "disappointed" Mr French wrote back saying they had no intention of consulting with the architect for what was a repair job, and did not wish to incur additional fees. He provided answers to the DAC's queries, and urged an "early and favourable response", adding: "In the meantime I would ask the committee to bear in mind that the roof still leaks and the winter weather is drawing in."

[Big mistake, there - expecting a liberal committee to respond to common sense.]
At a meeting on 6 October 2008, the DAC again rejected the proposal, deeming it "wholly inappropriate" and concluding that it would not solve the problem.
Nevertheless, the repairs were carried out between 13 October and 2 November, even though such work requires a "faculty" or permission to be granted by the consistory court.

The judge said that in the subsequent petition for a faculty, dated 19 November 2008, completed by Mr French and signed by both applicants, the question in Item 31, 'How soon will work start after the faculty is granted', was met with the answer "ASAP", and the time estimate for completion given as two weeks.

However, during the course of the proceedings, Mr French revealed that the work had already been carried out "in order to stop the ingress of water that we have been experiencing for some time".

He wrote in a letter to the judge in May this year: "You might be interested to know that we have had no ingress of water throughout this past winter."

However, the judge in his ruling said: "Whilst I accept that the works undertaken have prevented the further ingress of water, it is self evident that only works of an appropriate specification will stop such further ingress in the longer term."

[The priest gets the roof fixed anyway to prevent further damage and more expensive repairs - successfully, as there were no leaks throughout the winter and spring - but the judge says "So what? You failed to pay homage to the almighty committee, and thus you must pay for your sin."

I imagine the priest and his warden consider the fine to be the best £100 they ever spent, just to avoid having to deal with the stupid committee anymore. And they have a dry church to boot, which I'm sure pleases the congregation.]

There are two lessons to be learned here. One, alluding to the start of this post, rules that progressives make are the only rules that must be followed. By everyone. No exception. We are experiencing that in society, and unfortunately in the Church as well.

But here's the second, and it's one that the Catholic Church should consider adopting. In order to curb liturgical abuses, the Vatican ought to authorize theCDF or CDW to develop a "GIRM Offenses To Cease Happening Assessment" plan. GOTCHA, for short. It would be applied when priests, pastoral associates, or liturgy committees commit liturgical abuses. Using Ritz crackers and grape juice? Slap! $1000 fine. Using inclusive language? Ding! 50 bucks please! Halloween Mass? $500, thank you very much. Playing too many MartyHaugen tunes? $250 per offense!

Alright, the last one is more of a pet peeve than an abuse. But who knows? This idea might provide sufficient disincentive and bring some of the worst offenders in line. And the collected fines could defray seminary tuition, or be donated to non-ACORN related charities.

After all, the progressives have been playing GOTCHA! with Church rules for a long time. Time to turn the tables.

* * *

Be sure to check out LarryD's blog Acts Of The Apostasy

Name Ave Maria's New Fieldhouse

2009-11-17T22:41:00.009-05:00

A pro-choice multi-millionaire donated $4 million to Ave Maria University for a sports facility which will bear his name.

Pewsitter asks "Ave Maria, a Poor Man's Notre Dame?" and links to a story at Angel Queen:

Tom Monaghan secured a $4 million “investment” from a pro-choice billionaire for Ave Maria University’s new “Tom Golisano Field House”. Golisano is a major donor to Democrat campaigns and the founder of a political party with a pro-choice platform...

Ave Maria University would ban pro-choice President Obama from speaking on its campus. But, AMU is happy to actively go after $4 million from pro-choice Tom Golisano. Both ran for political office on a pro-choice platform.

Firstly, for Ave Maria to accept a donation from a pro-choice person seems pretty different from Notre Dame honoring President Obama. I see a difference.

I mean, are Catholic schools really supposed to ask each donor where they are on every issue to see if they're Catholic enough to give?

However, naming the Fieldhouse after him is a more questionable decision. CMR wants a seat at the nomenclature debate and has some suggestions for the name of Ave Maria's new fieldhouse:

1) Sanger Stadium
2) Heresy hall
3) Apostasy Athletic Complex
4) The Sin Center
5) FOCA Fieldhouse

It's the one facility in the country where no matter how many tickets they sell for games, they can always say they sold out!

Any suggestions, let us know.

"Fireproof" Follow-Up

2009-11-17T21:43:00.006-05:00

I never saw "Fireproof" but I know a few people that did and they all seemed to like it. Maybe a little too earnest and not heavy on artistry but it had a lot of good messages from what I hear. And hey, it made $33 million and it was made for $500,000 so guess what's next? More. And that's probably a good thing.

The makers of the surprise hit Fireproof will produce a film about fatherhood as their follow-up to the top independent movie release of 2008.
Officials for Sherwood Baptist Church in Albany, Ga.—where Fireproof and their earlier films were created--made the announcement during Sunday night's church service, which drew Christian media members who were flown in for the event.

"The title is one word: Courageous," said Fireproof Director Alex Kendrick, who will also direct the new film. "[It's about] four fathers who are all in law enforcement—who protect and serve together—[and] go through a terrible tragedy. They begin looking at their role as fathers ... and they begin challenging one another to fulfill God's intention for fathers."

I know that after "Fireproof" a lot of people said that this would change the movie industry because it made so much money. But the truth is that Hollywood's first priority isn't money. It's advancing their agenda. They've made that clear.

So I kinda' like the idea of just doing an end-run around Hollywood and trying to make movies and take it right to the people. It will be interesting to watch how this turns out.

I'm a Better Parent Than Them...Probably

2009-11-17T16:32:00.003-05:00

After watching this, I'm feeling pretty good about myself as a parent.

HT Fail Blog

Politico: Church is Racist and Anti-Woman

2009-11-17T10:01:00.000-05:00

I present to you as a gift the most ridiculous and just laughably bad attempt to slime the Catholic Church by The Politico in weeks.

But this attack on the Church is just so poorly done that I literally laughed out loud on reading it. You've got to check it out. The whole thing is ludicrous but you at least have to read the first two sentences. Here's the first sentence:

Thirty-three years ago this fall, a bitter, race-tinged fight over abortion matched Roman Catholic bishops and the House against the nation’s first popularly elected black senator, Republican Ed Brooke of Massachusetts.

OK. So we can take from the first sentence that the Church is racist because it opposed the first popularly elected black Senator, right?

And since that's the lede you'd expect the article would actually mention Brooke again. It doesn't. Not once.

Note to The Politico: The lede of a story should kinda' be indicative of where you're going. If you mention a standoff between the Church and "THE FIRST POPULARLY ELECTED BLACK SENATOR" you should probably mention "THE FIRST POPULARLY ELECTED BLACK SENATOR" again, don't you think?

You'd think The Politico would substantiate (even a little) that the debate over the Hyde Amendment was "race tinged." It doesn't. So, to make it clear, the first black Senator has nothing to do with this story as he's never mentioned again and nowhere is his race brought into the story again.

Does The Politico name the color of every Senator it mentions? It doesn't mention Senator Henry Hyde's ghostly white pallor when referring to him. But let's face it, the only reason the writer mentions Senator Brooke is so they can pit the Catholic Church against a black Senator to imply racism.

OK. So now let's go to the second sentence. The second sentence has two points of information.

Now, with health care reform on the line, the same male-dominated church hierarchy is dictating to the first woman speaker of the House, Democrat Nancy Pelosi, a Catholic herself and past ally for the bishops on everything from human rights in China to tax credits for low-income families.

Gotta' love the "male dominated hierarchy" dictating to the "first woman speaker." Hey Politico, Nancy Pelosi called the bishops for their support. Are the bishops under some kind of command to do what Nancy Pelosi says? The bishops stood up against the healthcare plan because of its inclusion of federal funding of abortion. Pelosi changed the bill and called the bishops to gain their support. That's hardly dictating.

And the second nugget of info in that sentence is that Saint Nancy is quite the wonderful Catholic who's right in line with those mean traitorous bishops and has been their ally on everything...oh except little things like the legalized slaughter of 43 million unborn babies.

So, in short, the Catholic Church hates black people, hates women, and often turns on even the saintliest of its members. Not that any of that has anything to do with the story but I guess The Politico wants you to know that.

Kathleen Parker's Incivility

2009-11-16T23:30:00.002-05:00

The introspection-free world of a left-leaning columnist must be a nice place to live.

Kathleen Parker, without the slightest hint of irony, laments the incivility of our current discourse. She concedes that the history of American political debate is rife with incivility, but contends that the tone of debate is at an all-time low. Of course, somebody of the self-assumed stature of Ms. Parker does not levy such an accusation without a culprit in mind—bloggers, of course.

Most crucial in the viral growth of incivility are new media - the Internet, the blogosphere and all the social applications, from Facebook to Twitter, and whatever else may have developed since I began typing this page.

I do not suggest that Ms. Parker is incorrect, just insincere. After all, Kathleen Parker is the same columnist who referred to the religious conservatives as "the evangelical, right-wing, oogedy-boogedy branch of the GOP" and suggested that "the GOP has surrendered its high ground to its lowest brows." Parker also infamously suggested that Sarah Palin overwhelmed a doddering McCain with sex appeal to secure the veep nod. The previous statements might lead one to question Ms. Parker's commitment to the cause she now champions.

Far be it from me to question a convert's heart, but Parker may need a few more visits to "Civility Anonymous" meetings before she is completely on the wagon. In her article Parker, right after weeping over the incivility bloggers have foisted upon an otherwise respectful and illuminating political debate, breaks free of the shackles of consistency by comparing Glenn Beck to Roman purveyors of death as entertainment.

The real challenge for the civility-minded is that incivility is more exciting. Human beings are drawn to spectacle, as the bookers of Rome's Colosseum understood. Glenn Beck is proof of the constancy of human nature.

I suppose that in Parker's mind (a potential oxymoron), incivility in the name of civility is no vice. As mentioned, the introspection-free world of a left-leaning columnist must be a nice place to live.

For my part I judge civility to be a fine thing, but like all good things, done only in moderation.

"The Box" Couldn't be More Offensive or Bad

2009-11-16T22:01:00.000-05:00

If they poked pointed sticks at children who stuttered, "The Box" wouldn't be more offensive.

If they mocked cancer patients, "The Box" couldn't be more offensive.

Honestly, I've not seen a movie more antithetical to my worldview than "The Box." And it's not even well done.

I didn't really want to see it but I don't get out much without the kids and this was the only thing playing at the time so I got myself some popcorn and a bucket of Diet Coke and sat myself down for a moral conundrum movie.

OK. We all know the premise. Strange creepy looking guy with half a face gives Cameron Diaz and the guy from X-Men a box with a button inside. He tells them that if they push the button two things will happen. One, they get a million bucks. Two, someone they don't know dies.

The movie for some reason is set in 1976. Why that is, I can't fathom except so it could be set in the days when a million bucks really meant something.

Now I'm down with moral conundrum movies. But I had no great interest in seeing "The Box" mainly because I think Cameron Diaz is essentially a giggly mobile mannequin. But there aren't a lot of giggles in this movie. And I'm cool with that. Like I said, I dig moral conundrum movies. But they have to be real moral conundrums.

Unfortunately, this supposedly regular couple is given a million bucks for a death of someone they don't know and their moral quibbling boils down to "hey, people die all the time so no major biggie if someone dies because of this button or from an earthquake." Well it seems they forgot the whole conundrum thing. Diaz just pouted at the box for a few scenes and pushes it without much buildup.

They make it clear that she did it so that her son could have all the advantages that a million bucks can bring a young person. (Just ask Lindsey Lohan how that's working out for her) We soon find out that someone did actually die and that the woman who died was, in fact, the woman who had pushed the button before Diaz.

Strange thing. We see three couples push the button in the movie and all three times it was the wife who pushed the button. Kind of an Adam and Eve thing, I guess. Actually, there's all sorts of Christian imagery in the movie from manger scenes in the background to crosses on walls. And it would actually work well in a movie which actually had a cohesive moral point but this movie cleverly managed to avoid anything like a point. Just as they forgot the whole conundrum part, they also forgot the moral.

BIG SPOILERS BELOW!!!!

It turns out that the creepy guy with The Box is an alien and he works with a whole lot of aliens and they're giving the boxes out as a test on humanity's altruism - which it seems that humanity is failing pretty dismally, mind you.

So the couple does all sorts of investigating which means that they walk around sneakily and the bad guys essentially find them and lay out their entire plan to them for no apparent reason. And I'm like "C'mon Shaggy and Scoob have to work harder for clues than these people." But I had my popcorn and a now half filled bucket of Diet Coke so I was still reasonably happy. I really was.

And then the creepy guy with half a face comes back and gives Cameron Diaz and the dude from X-Men a new ultimatum. He tells them their son is locked in the upstairs bathroom but he is now blind and deaf and will remain so unless the dude from X-Men kills his wife. So here's the upshot: They can either live on with their million dollars and their disabled son, or the dude from X-Men can shoot his wife through the heart at which point the son's sight and hearing will be restored and the million will be placed in a bank account for the boy.

Now normally I'd say a movie where Cameron Diaz dies in the end is a winner but in this case her murder by her husband is presented as a noble end which is depicted as elevating humanity because he kills her to give his child's senses back and some mad cash, of course. So the father killing the mother is a happy ending? Is that really the message?

The son's got some disabilities so the Dad kills the Mom to restore him? Seriously. A man murdering his wife is the happy ending? Really? And I could tell that this was supposed to be the inspiring ending because the music told me so.

Oh wait, I forgot this part. Cameron Diaz tells her husband that it's OK is he kills her because the creepy guy smiled when she asked if there was an afterlife. I'm serious. That's really what she said. She pretty much says "Sayonara, see you in a few years when you go to your afterlife" and dies peacefully from a massive smoking hole in the middle of her chest.

And then the dude from X-Men gets taken away by the aliens after receiving approving looks from top secret government guys standing on his lawn.

And then we cut to the alien creepy guy strolling slowly by a manger scene and he tips his hat.

And I'm like "What?!" I honestly felt like stopping the three other people in the theater on the way out to ask if they understood something I didn't. I didn't. I just shook the popcorn off my shirt and loudly slurped my empty bucket of Diet Coke.

I'm still trying to work it out. The movie tut-tuts people causing the death of a stranger for the good of their child but then weirdly ends with praising the killing of the child's mother for the good of the child. I'm not sure I saw a real distinction there but the movie makers clearly did.

And all I could think was that maybe this movie was an unintentionally telling benchmark on our national psyche. Are we so far gone as a society with abortion, embryonic stem cell research, and euthanasia and an overall lack of morals that we can't even have decent moral conundrum movies. You see, for a moral conundrum movie to work you first need morals.

Juan Williams Bashes Palin as Bad Mother

2009-11-16T14:03:00.001-05:00

With liberals, it's always personal. And for Juan Williams, who appeared on Fox News Sunday, the issue of Sarah Palin seems very personal. Juan, who is often quite reasonable for a liberal, freaks out at the mere mention of Sarah Palin's name. We're talking like vampires and crucifix kind of freak out here.

Both Bill Kristol and Liz Cheney both spoke respectfully of Sarah Palin. And that proved too much for poor Juan. He lashed out and accused Bill Kristol of being "in love with her."

What is this, the second grade? I'm surprised he didn't spell out k-i-s-s-i-n-g. But this goes to show how obsessed liberals are with Sarah's looks. (See the Newsweek cover) They insist that anyone who likes her or respects her just simply has the hots for her. Remember Kathleen Parker essentially accused Palin of using her feminine wiles on poor old John McCain in order to get the Veep nod like Anna Nicole Smith manipulated that creepy old billionaire.

Juan Williams attempts to elevate the debate by saying "Let's look at the record" and then proceeds to accuse Sarah of being "self centered" and a bad mother.

I'll give him credit though because Juan was able to scream about actual political stuff for about ten seconds seconds before getting personal against Sarah which is a record for liberals. At first, he criticized Palin for "hijacking the nomination" in NY-23 and her "death panel" remarks because we all know that government panels that decide who should or shouldn't get treatment should never be called "death panels". But that's political stuff. It's fair game.

But then poor Juan can't help himself and he does what all Sarah-haters do. They go personal. He screams about Sarah: "This is someone who is centered on herself... she apparently doesn't even know whats going on with her family..."

What?! Funny. I don't remember Juan fretting that Al Gore's children weren't always walking the straight and narrow. Or Joe Biden's?

But this is liberals' way of alluding to Bristol Palin's pregnancy, which they love to do because they think it disqualifies her in the minds of religious conservatives. What liberals don't understand is that most conservatives are just happy the Palins' didn't subscribe to the "I don't want my daughter punished with a baby" mentality.

But Liz Cheney actually had exactly the right question for Juan. After listening to his personal attacks against Sarah, she smilingly mocked him, asking, "You know her well?"

I don't know if Juan knows Sarah well, but this kind of rhetoric helps me to know Juan a little better. So much the worse.

Video is below:

A Jury Of His Peers?

2009-11-16T10:10:00.008-05:00

Much has been said about the colossal folly that is the Obama administration's decision to try 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) in the New York civilian court system.

One wonders if by the rules of the civilian courts, KSM is entitled to trial by a jury of his peers? In fairness, such a jury should be composed exclusively of those bent on the total destruction of the United States as we know it. No problem there, New York has plenty of Democrats.

If possible, can we arrange for Chuck Schumer to be sequestered for the duration?

China Reports Abortion/Breast Cancer Link

2009-11-15T22:56:00.001-05:00

Womens' bodies are crazy. I don't know why God made them so but He did. Women's bodies are all weird and things are connected in ways most men can't imagine.

My wife had curly hair. Like really curly. When she became pregnant with our first child she announced while we were both getting ready for work one morning that she believed the pregnancy was making her hair straight. I, being the gracious sensitive husband I am, immediately scoffed that she was the craziest person outside the asylum. I told her definitively that her pregnancy and her hair were not connected at all.

But my wife laughed and called me crazy. Well, sure enough my wife's hair was straight by the time she gave birth.

Hey, what can I say? I'm not a scientist. I didn't know. But after seeing the facts I admitted I was wrong because I'm good like that.

But the pro-choice industry and the media in American are clearly better than I am at refuting facts. No matter how much evidence is amassed pointing to a link between abortion and breast cancer they simply refuse to see it.

It's saying something when there's more freedom and openness to truth in China than America. CNA reports:

Chinese researchers claim to have found a 17 percent increased breast cancer risk among women who have had induced abortions.

Peng Xing and other researchers in the Department of Oncology at the First Affiliated Hospital of China Medical University enrolled in their study 1,417 patients diagnosed with breast cancer and 1,587 women without a prior breast cancer.

The researchers’ findings indicated that induced abortion increased a woman’s risk of breast cancer by a “statistically significant” rate of 17 percent.

According to the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer (CABC), U.S. researchers have said that Chinese studies on a link between abortion and breast cancer exclude “report bias” because abortion isn’t stigmatized in China and Chinese women are considered reliable reporters for their abortions.

The CABC said a Turkish study published earlier this year reported a 66 percent increased breast cancer risk among women who have had abortions

The thing is that America overreacts to everything. Remember the whole silicone scare in breast implants? Remember the pesticide scare? How many people are freaked out about global warming when it hasn't gotten any warmer in a decade?

The media plays up anything and everything to scare us but no media attention is given to the link between abortion and breast cancer despite several studies showing it.

If the media were fair we should see stories about how the federal government intends to fund a known carcinogen by funding abortion in the healthcare legislation. And they'd be detailing how dependent the Democratic Party is on Big Abortion for campaign funds. Or detailing how the party is blinded to the truth of science by ideology.

But I guess that's what the blogosphere is for. We don't have to wait for the media anymore. So let's all do our job and start beating the drum on this information. Let's take on the anti-science left. Not only might it affect Big Abortion but it might save lives.

Writing, Running, And Religion

2009-11-15T22:37:00.004-05:00

What do writing, running, and religion all have in common?

A few years ago, I thought I would make good on a long-standing intention to write a book. I can't tell you exactly when the idea for the book came into being, suffice it to say, it is measured in decades.

I had recently competed in and completed my dream endurance event the Ironman triathlon, for which I had trained for years. At the behest of my wife and prudence, I rested from my labors. With hours newly devoid of pointless dream-driven pursuit, I resolved to fill them with writing my book. I spent two weeks writing the first five pages only to be compelled to permanently destroy them, lest posterity judge me a hack.

What was I thinking? I hadn't written anything, aside from email, since college some twenty years before. What hubris to think that I could sit down and write a book when I hadn't flexed a wrist muscle in decades. I had just spent years preparing for a lifetime goal. I instinctively understood that one does not tackle something of the scope of an Ironman without the requisite blood, sweat, and saltwater. Over years I completed literally dozens of road races from 5k to marathon; finished triathlons of every different size and difficulty level; and swam countless miles in the ocean because that was the price of entry.

The obvious lesson of my Ironman adventure did not penetrate my skull. I realized as I deleted my five pages of hackery that writing, like running, requires you to put in the miles. What you read here every day are my miles. What can I say? It's a work in progress.

During my marathon years I was an evangelist of running. I badgered friends and co-workers that they should give running a try. I heard every possible excuse. Frequently people told me that their knees prevented them from running any kind of distance.

No they don't.

What do you mean? Yes they do!

If your knees hurt when you run, then you are doing it wrong.

My comment about "doing it wrong" often confused or even insulted people. "How could I be doing it wrong? I know how to run!", they would say. Asking how often they ran and how far, they would admit that they hadn't run since high school gym class. Why would otherwise intelligent people think that they know everything there is to know about something they hadn't done since childhood, and then only because they were forced.

What is it about these things that people just assume that they are experts? Writing and running are not unique in this regard. There are just certain things about which most everybody claims expertise, even though the trade is rarely, if ever, plied.

Chief among the subjects which people assume osmotic expertise is religion. So many times intelligent people, who admittedly have not picked up a book on religion since Confirmation or third grade Sunday school, argue with me over what the church teaches without the slightest bit of suitable humility or discomfiture. While tempted to rudely note the presumption, I remember my own arrogance at the keyboard not so long ago.

Once when a friend lamented his inability to run any notable distance, I gave him my standard line that he must be "doing it wrong." Rather than get mad or defensive, he was intrigued and asked me what I meant. I told him. He has now completed more than ten marathons and has even qualified for the Boston Marathon—an amazing feat.

Perhaps some day, God willing, someone will listen to what I say about the Church the way my friend listened about running. I must always remember this truism when people argue religion with me—you never know who may be listening. Maybe I will write a book about it, some day, when I am ready.

Their President Or Life. No Middle Ground.

2009-11-15T12:34:00.003-05:00

David Axelrod, appearing on CNN's "State of the Union," stated unequivocally that Stupak will not be part of any health-care bill that might make it to the desk of the President. Obama will make sure of that.

[Foxnews]White House Senior Adviser David Axelrod suggested Sunday that President Obama will intervene to make sure a controversial amendment restricting federal funding for abortion coverage is stripped from final health care reform legislation.

In doing so, the president would be heeding the call of abortion rights supporters like Planned Parenthood that have called the White House their "strongest weapon" in keeping such restrictions out of the bill.

Obama is Planned Parenthood's strongest weapon, truly their weapon of mass destruction.

Obama signaled his opposition to the amendment last week, but the fact that Axelrod was sent out this Sunday to keep the troops in line reveals their depth of commitment. Obama is committed to a Stupak-free health-care bill.

So what is the takeaway here? If the bill makes out of the Senate and Stupak is stripped in conference, we will know once and for all if there really is a creature known as a pro-life Democrat. They will either support their party, their president, or life. No middle ground.

Any bets?

Compare & Contrast

2009-11-14T11:23:00.002-05:00

Discuss.