AUGUSTINE'S POODLE

2009: Q1 Recap

2009-03-03T19:46:00.000-08:00

While my blog has been silent the last three months, the Catholic world has not been:

1) In January, the Vatican proved the indispensibility of a Google search.

2) In February, the Legion of Christ showed us what a wolf in sheep's clothing looks like and how some Catholic ecclesial leaders still haven't learned any lessons from the 2002 sexual abuse scandal.

3) In March, Obama has shown us that he thinks appointing a notoriously pro-abortion Catholic to the USA's top healthcare position is in harmony with his pledge to 'lower the number of abortions'.

And to top it all off, the Catholic world will be blessed with another Poodle puppy, sometime around the middle of October.

Compromise

2009-03-03T19:43:00.001-08:00

Blogging is a lot like marriage: Without commitment, it's worthless. These last 3 months I've been the unfaithful spouse of my blog, finding stimulation and pleasure outside of my blogarital promises.

Hopefully that changes now.

Richard John Neuhaus - RIP

2009-01-12T16:06:00.000-08:00

Between work, traveling to work, traveling from work, and taking care of my now 1 year old son, there isn't much time for posting. Which is a shame since a lot has changed over the last few months:

The biggest news, for me, of 2009 is the passing of Richard Neuhaus. Neuhaus is one of my most favourite polemicists, apologists, evangelists, and political commentators. During my long walk back to the Church from spiritual apathy and marxism, Neuhaus and his First Things were required reading. I gobbled up every edition I could get my hands on - although I never read it back to front, like some many others apparently did. Via him I was introduced into the realm of serious Catholic intellectual thought and spirituality (albeit of a very conservative bend) that I never knew existed in all my previous 23 years as a nominal Catholic. To say that Neuhaus was a major influence in my spiritual and intellectual life as a young adult is an understatement. May his soul rest in peace.

The reaction of his colleagues in the media and press has been interesting to say the least. There have been many moving tributes given by friends, bizarre recollections given by people who wish they were his friend, and even more bizarre comments from people who made styled themselves as his enemy. I speak there of one Damon Linker, a fellow who wrote a shallow, alarmist tale of Neuhaus' influence and political project after serving as an editor on First Things for five years. His remarks were selfish, banal and completely out of line. When you write an obituary that mentions that is completely self-referential and self-serving, it says a lot about you. It says you are a shithead.

Avery Dulles & Advent

2008-12-19T10:46:00.000-08:00

Avery Cardinal Dulles has died. Requiesat in pace.

Advent is nearly over and my son is now a year old and changing by the minute.

Stephane Dion & the Giant Peach

2008-11-08T10:56:00.000-08:00

Stephane Dion should stop talking about elections. No sooner than his leadership was shown to be an unmitigated disaster, he is back on the scene threatening to force another election. Now you might say that this is a fair response to Stephen Harper's claim that his government will treat every bill as a measure of confidence, and you'd be right. But the problem is that the Conservatives have come very close to a majority, increased their share of the urban vote, have a competent leader, and enjoy comparatively lots of cash to spend. In short, Harper can afford to be bullish, and Dion can't.

I can't help but wonder whether or not Dion's rediscovery of his courage has something to do with the American election. There's a strange meme floating about that Canadians will vote left when our American cousins do the same. So then, the logic follows that it would be in the best interests of the NDP and the left of left faction in the Liberal Party to push for an election with Canada is basking in the post-election euphoria (that I will now call Obamarama). I'm guessing that people are looking at the Chretien years that coincided with the Clinton years. But what about the Chretien/Martin years that coincided with the Bush years? Chretien spent 7 years in power with Clinton in office, and Chretien/Martin had 5 years with Bush in office. Moreover, Chretien's 7 years came as the conservative movement imploded and ceased to be a significant political force. It wasn't until 2006, when anti-Bush and anti-conservatism was at it's heyday, that the Conservatives managed to make some progress in Canada. So yea, there's a lot wrong there.

Dion should really be focused nursing the Liberal Party back to health. The Liberals are broke and are facing another bitter leadership race. The most palatable and centrist candidates, John Manley and Frank McKenna, have dropped out. This leaves Bob Rae and his NDP ghosts and Michael Ignatieff and his advocacy of torture as the remainging two choices with the suitable national exposure for an effective leadership. Gerald Kennedy will probably take this time to rebuild his image, and Ujjal Donsanjh, who barely won his riding, has perhaps the worst political history of anyone in Canada. And then there's the question of money, which the Liberals don't have.

Back in business.

2008-11-08T10:19:00.001-08:00

Finally! Two important things in my life have ended this week: The nauseatingly-long American election and the nauseatingly-long move to a new home. I am happy for the conclusion of both.

The soul-searching that follows an election has always interested me. As anyone who has participated in the democratic process can attest, it is one of the most revealing experiences at the national and individual level. The Democrats, sore losers of the previous two presidential elections, finally have their man in the executive. The Republicans, sore losers of this election, finally can look to close off a two year slide toward electoral defeat.

Sarah Palin returns to Alaska both a nationally reviled and beloved figure. Reviled by her political opponents and the bitterest losers of the McCain camp, beloved by social conservatives and, oddly enough, Lorne Michaels. Of note is the anonymous abuse she's faced since Tuesday from members of McCain's team. Dirty cloaks and rusty daggers I call it, when a faceless and remarkably classless accusation from your own side conveniently finds itself into the national media.

These accusations from McCain's team should surprise no one. Not that these things are uncommon after losing an election - political parties usually act this way -, it's that it is so indicative of the people McCain chose to run his campaign. These folks know, as the rest of conservative movement knows, that they really blew it. Picking an unprepared candidate for VP was one thing: Most people involved in these campaigns spend months (if not years, in Obama's case) getting coached through interviews and buffing up their policy credentials. What really hurts these folks is that after Palin finally wrestled free of their control, she ran a much more effective campaign. Her worst moments came under McCain's tutelage, her best as her own master. To be sure, if Palin chooses to continue on in national politics, she will have to rebrush her image. And that will take some time, which is something that she has in droves.

So it must be curtains for McCain's advisers, I assume. Their mishandling of Palin, Jeremiah Wright, the financial crisis and the Ayers/Acorn scandals made Obama's campaign that much easier. Of course they're eager to push the blame to Palin, which is a shame: Palin was the sole reason the conservative base started to gain interest in the outcome of this election. Most, if not all the failures of the McCain campaign were completely independent of the Alaskan governor. And even if they disagree with that assessment, why on earth should your vice-presidential pick have that much influence on the fortunes of your campaign? Obama chose an equally questionable candidate in Joe Biden, and managed to keep Biden's several gaffes from become a major interference.

For Obama, the time for careful play is now at hand. It should be remembered by my fellow Canadians and Europeans that Obama's election does not represent a social or political shift to the left in America. Blacks and Hispanics, who voted overwhelmingly for Obama, also voted overwhelmingly for the bans on same-sex marriage. In fact, in all newly blue states, the Democratic senators and congressmen campaigned on socially conservative, populist policies. Hence the need for Obama not to politick the way he has and to honour his own 'promise' to develop a more harmonious political environment. There might be little chance of this happening with a Democrat controlled Senate and House of Congress, but it's imperative to the success of his presidency that he does. Soon the energy and euphoria of this election will subside, and the harsh, ruthless knife of modern day mass-politics will come down.

Michael Coren: The Conservatives are the new natural ruling party

2008-10-19T22:45:00.001-07:00

Arch-conservative (Darth Vader levels of conservative) Michael Coren says that the Conservatives are now the natural ruling party of Canada. The Liberals have left the stage, the NDP failed to get near it, the Bloq have no interest or business being there, and the Greens, well the Greens no one really cared about to begin with.

I don't find the term 'natural ruling party' very palatable, even when it is used to describe the political party I currently support. It's just so sickeningly Canadian and provincial, maybe anti-democratic. It's a term that could only come from a country with a highly dysfunctional political system and an overabundance of hubris in its politicians. So no, I don't think the Conservatives are the new ruling party of Canada. I hope they never will be either.

Coren points out that the NDP hoped for 50-60 seats, but only grabbed 7 in the end, making this election something of a failure for them. I hadn't realised that the NDP were so serious, but now that Coren mentions it, I did notice a lot more of Jack Layton talking as if he had a chance at winning a majority. But what sort of party expects to win even 50-60 seats with people like Julian West, Andrew McKeever, Dana Larsen and Kirk Tousaw? Now Layton is once again calling for a grand union of left-wing parties to defeat the Conservatives, including the Bloq Quebecois and the unelected and largely insignificant Greens. Which makes me wonder if Layton believes that he alone could lead a left-wing alliance; surely deference to Liberal leader would be too much to bear?

What of the absurdity of Justin Trudeau? No sooner than he been elected in Papineau, he was removing himself as a leadership candidate for the Liberal Party. Did the media not realize that he's not done a thing yet other than ride off the back of his father's political capital? If that's what counts for merit in today's Liberal Party, or to the media, they're both much worse off than I thought.

Reasoned voices in the media are heralding a return to the Centre for the Liberals, not a further plunge deeper into the Left, despite the overtures of Elizabeth May and Jack Layton. It makes sense to me: Since the Liberals bore a hard turn toward the policies of the NDP and Bloq Quebecois (sans les separatists!), they have effectively abandoned the Centre to the Conservatives. In the past three elections, the Liberals' traditional centrist base of ethnic minority communities, Catholics and Montrealers slowly eroded into the meager collection of barely won ridings scattered throughout Ontario, the Maritimes and Quebec. As we've now seen, these voters - who often come from Liberal voting families (like mine) - are now voting Conservative. All the while Dion's leadership team was obsessed with bleeding votes to the NDP and the Greens (even though May tried her best to stop that), while the major benefactor of ex-Liberal votes was in fact the Conservative Party.

If reason prevails, a 'blue-ish' Liberal such as Michael Ignatieff or Keith Martin will secure party leadership. But all is not reasonable in the Liberal Party caucus these days. Ujjal Dosanjh, who just barely kept his Vancouver riding against a first time Conservative candidate, has announced his intention to one day seek a leadership nominations. Bob Rae's aspirations are well known. Both of these candidates are ex-NDP premiers and decidedly men of the Left. And each carry much unpleasant baggage with them from their times as premiers in British Columbia and Ontario respectively. A Dosanjh or Rae leadership would be, a la John McCain and George Bush, a repetition of existing policies. We all know how that usually turns out.

Colin Powell: Man of Mystery

2008-10-19T19:28:00.000-07:00

I don't know how to respond to the press's response to Colin Powell's endorsement of Barack Obama. Wasn't Powell a hated arch-neo-conservative fascist only a few years ago? Wasn't it Colin Powell who helped start the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? Wasn't he a Reagan and Bush Snr., appointee that was parachuted into the White House to watch over that incompetent monkey president? It just goes to show what a timely endorsement can do for one's reputation.

I don't think it's an issue of race, despite what that ignoramus Rush Limbaugh wants people to believe. I think it's an issue of popularity: Nothing hurts a politician more than being out of sync with the nation's mood.

How to win attention and alienate people

2008-10-19T19:06:00.000-07:00

Vernunft at the The New Skeptic discusse s Christopher Buckley's defection from the 'right' to the 'Obama'. I think Vernunft gets it right enough: Buckley's departure is looking less and less like a serious, political decision and painful exile and more like a self-serving attention grab. Usually it works out like this: person defects, presupposes the hatred of their former comrades, writes book. It amazes me that these brave souls survive the process.

More often than not, these incidents involve someone leaving the Right for the Left, and making a big, big deal about it. Do people leaving the Left for the Right do the same thing? I can only speak of Canadian examples, but when David Emerson did it (he had been elected to the House of Commons as a Liberal MP and then joined the Conservatives a few days later), he played down the entire affair. However when Belinda Stronach left the Conservatives for the Liberals, she made sure it was national news for several days in a row. Emerson made sure not to say anything disparaging about his former colleagues; Stronach made it as if she was being persecuted out of the party. I don't doubt that both switched out of personal gain, but the way each handled their situation couldn't have been more different.

Abp. Chaput says...

2008-10-19T18:31:00.000-07:00

... Catholic supporters of Obama should stop kidding themselves. Supporting a candidate who has promised to make his first act in office the repeal of every state-level abortion restriction doesn't square with Catholicism. While his overtures towards poverty alleviation and a potentially less hawkish foreign policy are noble in and of themselves, they are ultimately rendered irrelevant by his hawkish pro-abortion policies.

Catholicism has always considered abortion the unjust and evil taking of an individual's life. In contrast to war, in abortion there is no necessity, no proportionalism, no justice, no self-defense. And heck, American voters have absolutely no guarantee that Obama is going to be suddenly less hawkish than Bush once in office. While it would be in his political interests to avoid extending America's military into new and potentially long term conflicts, there is absolutely no way anyone can know what sort of decisions he will make as president. So while we may or may not turn out to be an authentically anti-war president, we do know how he feels about abortion and what sort of attacks he will launch against the pro-life movement.

Flailing the Greens

2008-10-16T20:21:00.000-07:00

I expected the Green Party to at least win one seat this election. No really, I truly did. I don't think that since the late 1980's was there such a strong environmentalist streak within the national political mood. Elizabeth May successfully petitioned to be included in the televised debates. Jim Harris had provided the infrastructure, funding and legitimacy to the party after years of peripheral involvement in the federal square. The time was ripe for the Greens to finally elect their very first Member of Parliament, so what happened?

A lot of things went as planned: The Greens capitalized on the newly refreshed environmentalist movement and increased their take of the overall vote. Almost 1,000,000 Canadians opted for a Green candidate, an increase of 300,000 from the 2006 Federal Election. In fact, they were the only party in Canada to actually increase their total votes. But despite this, the Greens failed to win a single riding, and even lost their lone sitting MP to a Conservative.

The mistake was primarily May's decision to develop an uncomfortably close relationship with Stephane Dion, the doomed Liberal leader. May advocated strategic voting, urging Green voters to choose the Liberal candidate rather than the Green candidate. The goal, apparently, was to keep Conservatives from winning seats, rather than increasing Green representation. May also developed a bizarre non-compete agreement with Dion, choosing not to field a candidate in the Liberal leader's home riding. These agreements might have improved May's standing with Dion, but they cost the Green Party itself precious funding in lost votes. It remains to be seen just what May was hoping for. A place in Dion's cabinet perhaps? A cozy job in Ottawa as Minister of the Environment? Whatever one can say about her actions, post-election it is clear that a good deal of her efforts were for the advancement of Elizabeth May the politician, not the Green Party.

We're now hearing some interesting things from depths of the Green Party. One senior Green has come out against May's renewed call for a coalition against Stephen Harper and her strategic voting policy. Another Green has come out and stated that the goal of the Green Party is, amazingly, not to exist as a political entity but to influence other political parties, acting as some sort of publicly funded lobby group. And of course we still have Elizabeth May, simultaneously announcing a party debt of $2,000,000 and her new plan to topple Stephen Harper's government without ever setting foot in the House of Commons. These are the sounds of party suffering from a bad case of indigestion.

I saw Bill Maher on Charlie Rose....

2008-10-13T22:37:00.001-07:00

... and I was both impressed and disappointed.

Impressed, because Bill Maher was able to give credit to Rick Warren for being a serious Christian. Maher said he appreciated that Warren was so earnest in his personal journey to be Christ-like, that Warren felt poverty and global warming were serious issues.

Impressed, because Maher will say something so blithely stupid*, piss you off, and then chum up a silly smile and make you forgot he ever offended you at all.

Impressed, because Maher brings North Americans to attention about the problem of Islamism in Europe and secularism's inability to confront it.

Disappointed, because Maher brings North Americans to attention about the problem of Islamism in Europe and secularism's inability to confront it, and then says only secularism can confront it.

Disappointed, because Maher spent a lot of time explaining his self-described fact based, rationalist atheism, and then threw the rationalism out the window when it suited him. In response to Francis Collin's claim that the Gospels are eye-witness accounts, Maher countered that they couldn't be because the earliest written copies didn't appear until several decades after Christ's death. Maher, an educated man I assume, should be aware of the historical veracity of the Gospels and the Jewish oral tradition - two things which make Collins look like the one going by academic consensus, and Maher look like the coo-koo making up stuff.

Disappointed, because Maher speaks highly of Europe's secularism, but doesn't (or chooses not to) realise that secularism is itself a Christian - specifically Catholic - political concept. He lauds Europe's atheism, but fails to see its philosophical and practical limitations.

Disappointed, because Maher makes a point of saying that Europe hasn't collapsed because of atheism and atheistic secularism. Maher must have heard something about World War Two, where the Nazis - who were atheists - killed off over ten million people. And he must have learned about Communism, which is of course atheistic, and has lead to the killing of tens of millions of people since 1917.

Maher would make a lot more sense if he simply sought out irrationalism regardless of whether or not it comes cloaked in religious terms or cloaked in irreligious terms. Atheistic regimes of the last 90 years alone have been more murderous, more anti-science, and more authoritarian than any religious regime so far in history. Yet this intellectual, social and political history is completely ignored or quietly dismissed as aberrations. Maher wants to convince people to join his cause, and like Coke and Pepsi, he just might find new customers in the post-Christian circles of North America and Europe. But to create an honest and serious critique of 'organized religion', he needs to do a lot more than just repeat the talking points of the New Atheist movement and engage the history of anti-religion and atheism.

::postscript:: Maher's co-interviewee, co-producer of Religulous Larry Charles, didn't fare as well. He isn't blessed with the same charisma, or better yet, puppy-dog charm, that lets Maher get away with saying offensive and stupid things.* Charles looked like the type of guy you wouldn't want your children standing near in a Starbucks, and surprise, his answers were equally suspicious and repellent. His was a sidekick effort to Maher's, and the less time he spent talking, the more credible the premise and argument of Religulous remained.

*Maher says that he doesn't believe in vaccinations. Yes, he says that he doesn't believe in vaccinations. So, if we really listened to this herald of rationalism, we'd be much more enlightened toward atheism, but mostly dead or sick as a result.

Pissing myself

2008-10-09T19:41:00.000-07:00

We are a funny bunch. Main Street? Wall Street? Kitchen Table? Boardroom Table? Can't we just fucking say 'banks' or 'corporations' and 'people who work at banks' or 'people who work at corporations'?

The stupidest thing about these euphemisms is what they're attempting to accomplish. Class antagonism really should be a dead thing, especially in a society that still provides its members with economic mobility. We certainly don't need our politicians and media workers (who are rich) bringing back the ghosts of Marxism past. To be sure there is an antagonism between the few rich folks and the common, not as rich folks, which affords these euphemisms more life than they really deserve. And yet, there's just as much antagonism between the not-so-rich and the poor, perhaps even more, and it's rarely spoken about.

I suppose the comparison between 'kitchen tables' and 'dumpsters' doesn't carry the same weight as the other ones. We middle class people don't like to be reminded that we really are not the ones getting completely fucked over by economic bailouts. We like to feel like we're the truly downtrodden, the truly good people who are getting less than we rightly deserve. We especially don't like to be reminded that it's us, not the super rich, who completely fucked ourselves and the people below us. We took out lines of credit we couldn't afford, we created unsustainable spending patterns, we leased our cars, tv's, couches, and cell phones, and we pretended that nothing bad would ever come of it.

I haven't had caffeine or sugar since June; perhaps the 12oz Mocha wasn't such a good idea.

NDP Part Deux

2008-10-06T21:34:00.001-07:00

Always setting new standards, the NDP have one-upped themselves. Their recent attack ads, which discussed the increasing weird 'new strong', have received a new touch. Instead of drum beats and a husky, female voice, we now have Jack Layton the man with Jack Layton the cartoon.

Yes, a cartoon! First, a grumpy cartoon Stephen Harper turns his back on a cartoon family with a coughing son. Harper vanishes, only to be replaced with a smiling Jack Layton. Layton you see, will somehow (I think he's planning to use magic) bring thousands of doctors and nurses into Canada, and make sure the ones we have will stay. To be fair, the NDP does have an outline of a plan that could increase the number of doctors in Canada, but it's far from the overnight express package they're making it out to be. In fact, their plan would take at least 8 years to bear fruit, and even then, relies more on the goodwill of medical students than anything else.

I have to wonder at the wisdom behind the NDP's attack ads that focus exclusively on Harper. The votes the NDP is currently winning aren't coming from erstwhile Conservative voters, but from erstwhile Bloc Quebecois, Green, and Liberal voters. Shouldn't they be attacking Dion's inabilities to lead a meaningful opposition, his mishandling of the carbon tax, and his 'third choice' candidacy?

New Democratic Poopaganda

2008-10-01T21:44:00.001-07:00

The NDP's televised ads are nothing short of hilarious.

The new strong? What the hell is that? If Layton is talking about manly social strength and economic vitality, just when has the NDP ever been associated with any definitions of strength or fiscal competency?

Maybe the funniest thing is that those ads seem to be doing a very good job at pulling Liberal voters to their camp. Last I checked the national polls, the NDP was bucking at 20%, while the Liberals were struggling to maintain 24%.

My last question: Could Dion beat Layton in an arm wrestle?

Catholics don't care about genital warts

2008-10-01T21:27:00.000-07:00

I just saw an ad urging women, ages '9-26', to receive Gardasil vaccination. Gardasil is of course the famous drug that prevents, in the vast majority of studied cases, human papillomavirus, HPV. HPV can increase the risk of cervical cancer, throat cancer, and genital warts. Schools are offering free vaccinations as early as grade 5, and some schools, like the Catholic ones in Calgary, aren't going for it.

From the Catholic perspective, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with Gardasil. It is by all accounts a very effective and even life-saving drug that will undoubtedly help thousands of Canadians every year. But there is something wrong with a STI drug being given to girls who haven't even reached puberty yet. Of course, the critics will say, there is the few 9 year-old girls who tragically will be sexually active at that young age. But their situation is not the norm, and we should make sure it never is, lest the next devastating STI epidemic is thrust upon us. And the hyper-aggressive advertising, the type which vilifies parents who may have reservations about their children receiving the vaccination at a certain age, is just plain wrong.

I'd like it if the Catholic school boards that aren't suitably excited about Gardasil advance their arguments a little better. Make sure the rest of Canada understands why you think it's worth thinking twice about giving children drugs that are explicitly designed to prevent sexually-transmitted diseases. Otherwise, it makes Catholics look like fundamentalist nutters who'd rather circle the wagons than make peace with the natives.

Most of all, the Gardasil phenomenon is an opportunity for Catholic school boards to initiate a very important discussion with the rest of Canada. I can think of a few elementary questions to start from:

- Canadians should re-examine the sexual education children receive in public and private schools to make sure the children are not exposed to dangerous and potentially life threatening infections. I've always thought that the best way to do this is to follow the tried and true ABC format of sex-ed: Abstinence; be faithful; or use a condom.

- At what point should children be exposed to sex-ed? When should the role of the parents in this matter be usurped by a teacher? How exactly do we get parents to maturely and responsibly discuss these things with their children?

- Should we aggressively advertise a drug to minors?

Russia what?

2008-09-26T19:02:00.000-07:00

With the collapse of Washington Mutual, the impending failure of Bush's bank bailout, and the purchase of AIG by the US federal government, not many people have heard anything about the current financial crisis in Russia. It seems most Westerners are nervously discussing the possibility of the return of an antagonistic and imperialistic Russia rather than the return of an impotent, imploding Russia. But all is not well in Putin's playground, despite his best attempts to keep us looking the other way.

A fair chunk of the Russian crisis is a side-effect from the American crisis. Some Russian banks have billions invested in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Oil and other natural resources have also been trading for much less than earlier in the year. But then a lot of this insecurity comes from the neo-autocrats themselves. Take this for example: Putin's silly criticism of the steel company Mechel dropped it's stock by 38%. This in turn weakend market confidence, with foreign investment taking the worst hit. And then Putin criticized Mechel again, and after a slight rebound of 15%, its stock dropped a further 33%.

As of today, Russian markets are at the point of collapse. The federal government has injected $44 billion into the three largest Russian banks. Trading has been suspended several times. Things are not looking good at all. Just thought you'd like to know.

Sarah Palin's interview...

2008-09-25T20:42:00.001-07:00

... gives me the impression that she is fast approaching Dan Quayle level's of crappiness. And I thought Stephen Harper struggled with the press.

What the?

2008-09-25T07:56:00.000-07:00

Justin Trudeau, a Liberal Party candidate, told CTV News on Tuesday that the Canadian 'arts and culture' industry is what defines Canada, and thus should continue to receive federal government funding. He also claimed that it is an $85 billion industry, that employs close to 1 million people.

So... should anyone tell the rest of the Liberals that this guy is an idiot, or should we watch while the Conservatives do it for us? If the arts industry was an $85 billion dollar industry, it would be the biggest 'arts' industry in North America and Europe. Bigger than Hollywood. Bigger than professional sports. Bigger than TV and video games.

And since when did the notoriously esoteric and gnostic arts and culture industry become a defining characteristic of Canada? It might be for the few folks involved in it, but for the vast majority of Canadians, it's just not. As for the foreign invasion argument paraded about by Jack Layton, who despite his claims to be a voice for ordinary Canadians immediately abandons that tune to come to the rescue of the status quo, doesn't hold water anymore: Canadians willfully choose to watch American programming when it's offered, and avoid the CBC's Canadian programming religiously.

More than anything else, it highlights the massive disconnect between self-proclaimed populist politicians like Jack Layton, the Liberal Party, and the needs of normal Canadians. I say this as a student of art history and visual arts, and the son of a hardworking mother who owned her own dance and performing arts school. Why not earmark the money for people training in the arts, like we do for everyone else, and then let them sink or swim on their own merits?

Man stabs priest after viewing The Da Vinci Code

2008-09-24T08:30:00.000-07:00

Sigh.

My prayers go out to Fr. Canistri and they especially go out to the assailant, Marco Luzi. Christ, bless and keep them both in their hour of need. Santa Maria please intercede for the physical healing of both men, and particularly for the spiritual healing of Marco. Amen.

Are the irreligious stupid?

2008-09-23T23:03:00.000-07:00

The survey says... yes!

At least that's what some folks want to interpret from this.

I don't share the enthusiasm of some who want to point fingers at the 'new' atheist movement (just a bunch of legal positivists about 50 years behind schedule) for gifting us a generation and a half of complete spiritual morons. I know, they're not morons, they're just different. That's why we should happily accept their wholesale rejection of rational thought and traditional religious belief has a good thing. I digest...

But in reality my fellow Catholics have as much to do with this situation that anyone else. As far as I know, we're alone in having a clear duty to spread the Gospel to everyone, and as far as I know, we're, by the numbers, unusually shitty at it. How many times have we sat by while this anti-scientific tripe gets passed about as if it is honest Catholicism? Speaking for myself, many times. And now that I've read this survey, I hope I won't be such a sitztinkler the next time it happens.

It's Christmas in America!

2008-09-22T06:11:00.000-07:00

I wrote a little while ago that it was the Democrats election to lose. In their excessive vitriol toward Sarah Palin, they managed to rally disaffected independents and discontented Republicans to her cause. These attacks against her personal life - especially those directed at her disabled new son and her pregnant daughter - did nothing but sell her to the electorate. So it wasn't all that unexpected when the official Democratic strategy switched away from her personal life and focused attention on her as a politician.

This new strategy was immediately effective. Palin's track record as a politician is light, though not as light as it would seem, but light nonetheless. Obama and the Dems scored easy hits against her rising star by simply bringing up her recent mayorship of the tiny Alaskan town of Wasilla. But these attacks were nothing compared to the damage Palin did to herself in her Charlie Gibson interview, which highlighted her greeness better than any Democratic attack ad. The Democrats were simply sitting back and letting Palin (and McCain's lousy campaign strategists) do the dirty work themselves.

But wouldn't you know it, the Democrats and their supporters are forgetful. Even with Palin's star fading as fast as it rose and with Obama's call for a end to the rumour-making, they just couldn't help themselves. Enter Charles Rangel, a popular Democrat out of New York, who had the foresight to call Palin a 'disabled politician'. That might be an accurate assessment from his point of view, but his choice of words couldn't have been worse. Saturday Night Live jumps in too, showing a skit that insinuated Palin's husband indulged himself in an incestuous relationship. And on top of all of this, you have several supermarket tabloids, greeting shoppers every day with more ludicrous rumours about Palin's personal life.

And so we start the week with the GOP still in close contention and the final results of the election anyone's best guess. Well done, guys.

Jeremy Hinzman: Stay or Go?

2008-09-21T19:39:00.000-07:00

Wtf? Jeremy Hinzman volunteered to join the army. He volunteered to join a part of the army that was specifically combat based. If he didn't want to go to war, he shouldn't have voluntarily signed a contract with the f***ing army.

And so it is that I'm torn between caring for Hinzman and not giving two shits about his duplicitous ass. He's father of two and a husband, so there's that little gumball for my empathy to chew on. He's also the one who decided to sign a contract with a group of guys in the government who could at anytime send him somewhere to kill someone. He's also the fellow who undermined his own conscientious objector claim by stupidly announcing that he would participate in defensive combat operations, but not offensive ones.

To some he's a hero, to those with a brain he's a insolent man-child. Seriously.

Race!

2008-09-17T10:44:00.000-07:00

Jack Cafferty of CNN asks his readers, will Barack Obama’s race cost him the White House? The posted answers offer up the response Cafferty is looking for: Yes, people don't like him because he's black. Cafferty gives us the statement that the only attacks that 'hurt' Obama were the ones that associated him with Jeremiah Wright, the now infamous racist preacher Obama listened to every Sunday for over 20 years. Cafferty dissects the info for us, letting us know that the 'angry black man' image that popped up during the Wright scandal didn't sit well with whites.

There are two things about Cafferty's assumptions that I think are deeply flawed. First, there is nothing specifically racist about not liking the 'angry black man' image that Wright personifies so emphatically. Wright preaches a twisted version of the Gospel that allows no room for repentance, reconciliation and the salvation of humanity, all on the assumption that race trumps all. I don't think most people, of any race or creed, Christian or otherwise, wouldn't find it healthy to ingest Wright's gospel on a weekly basis. Obama was hurt by Wright because Wright is an asshole, not because Wright is black.

Second, there's no question that some white, Hispanic, and Asian voters will avoid Obama's name come November because of racial prejudices. The burden of racism has been with us all of time, in varying forms, and it's not going to magically disappear or get worse because of this election. But it's a stretch to say that these racist voters represent a large enough margin to gift the presidency to McCain. These voters, who I assume are automatically generalized as Republicans, have supported a presidency with two major black members: Condi Rice and Colin Powell. These folks have also supported a Hispanic attorney general, Alberto Gonzalez, and elected Bobby Jindal, of Indian ancestry, in Louisiana, and Mike Steele, the black vice-governor of Maryland. The proof is in the pudding, no?

Lastly, Cafferty speaks of racism as the elephant in the room. That's true, but not in the way Cafferty thinks it is. If anything, this election could be decided by black folks voting for Obama over McCain because of race. It's not as difficult to digest of course, blacks choosing a candidate because of his blackness, because of the checkered history of race relations in the US, we can have some empathy. But it's still racism.

PS - Another poster from the site, Pliny, makes a good point: "If race were still a factor with the ability to swing elections Obama would never have been able to become the Democrat nominee. If Obama loses it will be because of his liberal ideology and bad policy positions."

How to lose an election

2008-09-11T09:10:00.000-07:00

I've always said that this election is Obama's to lose. And lost it he may, thanks to the recent contributions of liberal bloggers, Andrew Sullivan, Us magazine, Joe Biden, and now South Carolina Democrat Carol Fowler.

Remarking on Sarah Palin's nomination, Fowler had this wonderful contribution: "[McCain chose a candidate] whose primary qualification seems to be that she hasn’t had an abortion.”

Yea, so... Fowler later offered up an apology, stating that her comment was actually an attack on single-issue voters (ie, pro-life folks), as opposed to anything else. Single-issue voters, eh? I suppose Obama supporters who find him singularly appealing because of his black father (Oprah and her book club), or the supporters who chime that he will bring 'change' (everyone), are single-issue voters too then? I doubt Fowler and every other Democrat that is perennially bothered by single-issue voters, is actually bothered when those single-issues happen to coincide with the Democratic Party's platform.

Saturated

2008-09-11T08:55:00.000-07:00

Vernuft at The New Skeptic has had enough of this election. Me too. It's easy to say that it's saturation has everything to do with the machinations of two of the self-styled agents of change of the Democratic Party. Thanks to Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, people were talking about this election long before they really should have, or so we like to say.

That's a fair enough assessment which holds a kernel of truth: Obama and Clinton knew that their campaigns would need to be quickly off the mark in order to capitalize on the ever-slowing decay of the GOP. They also knew just what kind of beast their opponent was, and so the race to win the hearts of the disaffected electorate and the mainstream media, which was once decidedly pro-Clinton, was launched months, if not a year, before official campaigning began.

But I like to think that it just wasn't the Obama or Clinton's power grab, or the media's hard-on for Democratic candidates. I think the weakness of the Presidency, from mid-2005 to early 2007, had as much or more to do with the saturation than anything the Democrats did. My idea follows as such: Since the Republicans were in a state of disarray, they quickly became a side-show the much more positive developments in the Democratic Party. It wasn't that there was a vast, left-wing conspiracy - people just don't like hearing about the collapse of one political party, whose members were breaking rank and back-stabbing each other just to retain a modicum of a positive public image. The catastrophes of Mark Foley, Larry Craig and Jack Abramoff aren't exactly the type of news most people like to hear about everyday.

Clarifications on a Wednesday morning....

2008-09-10T10:05:00.001-07:00

With a few moments to spare (2 hours until work, baby & wife swimming at Y), I'd like to revisit those poor, pathetic thoughts I threw out in my last post. In no particular order, by the way.

Russia: Many commentators in the West seem to agree in general that Russia's invasion and subsequent annexation of South Ossetia heralds the former Soviet empire's return to the world stage. Coupled with this idea is the assertion that the United States somehow failed to make good on it's self-assigned role as protector of its allies.

Russia's actions against Georgia, are not representative of its abilities on the global level. This is first and foremost an unfortunately typical conflict between a core post-communist state, and a former satellite post-communist state, played out within a tiny, isolated geographical area. An American style 'rebuilding', a la Iraq, this is not. If comparisons help, and they often work for me, think of this as the US invading Grenada, as opposed to Afghanistan or Iraq.

As for the reaction of the United States, it's easy to call it a tactical and political failure. But then this assumes that the United States is the only guarantor of state-sovereignty, and completely ignores the role of the European super-powers of Britain, France and Germany. Certainly one of the main criticisms of American interventions has been their lack of unilateralism, and yet when push came to shove, everyone, looked to the United States to check Russia's power. So far only France has take major steps toward addressing the threat of a militaristic, aggressive Russia, which says a lot more about the ability of the EU and it's member states than it does about America.

Sarah Palin: Being of the conservative flock, I'm extremely partial to Sarah Palin. Only two weeks after she popped up on the scene, she's taken a lot of abuse and, so far, stood steady. If she makes it through this election without embarrassing herself (those veep debates will have a lot to do with that), I could see her rising far above any other female politician has, including Senator Clinton.

That said, I'm less convinced that she was a poor veep choice than I previously thought she was. She's taken a lot shit, more shit than any male politician would take, and is still standing. That's a good sign. I thought that once the torrents of abuse came in from Obama's supporters - which is often alarmingly misogynistic, sexist, and out right cruel (see the rumours/comments about her son, Trig) - she'd wither and withdraw from the race. Now I don't really see that happening, especially since the abuse is drawing a lot of sympathy from soft-conservatives and liberals who otherwise would have completely ignored her.

Stephane Dion (and Lizzie May): As I said before, I could see Dion winning a minority government this election. I don't feel the CPC has done enough out East to win over disaffected members of the LPC, and I certainly don't feel they've made enough progress in urban centres in British Columbia. But now things may not been as they were last week when I was almost certain Dion would win. First off, he's looking like an idiot for supporting Lizzie May's quest to be included in the leadership debates - the same Lizzie May, the leader of the GPC, who has made her partiality toward Dion public, and even made a non-compete agreement with him in one riding.

I've some empathy for May's demand to be included in the debates, but there are more hurdles the GPC needs to jump through before they deserve to be invited. They need to win - win in a contested election - a single riding. I don't care if they have 'official party status', or that a former Liberal MP conveniently defected to their cause, to be at a leadership debate you should have at least one riding that was won in an election.

UPDATE: Lizzie May and the GPC will be represented at the televised debates after the network commission in charge of such things reversed its earlier decision. I'm happy they're there, but I am skeptical, or maybe cynical, about the GPC's ability to contribute anything to the national conversation at this point. This is not to say that the GPC doesn't play an important role in Canadian politics, but that without any sort of the federal experience to draw upon, it will be difficult for them to articulate their policies more than they already have in the few media soundbites they've already given us over the past two years. Nevertheless, I'm of the 'more democracy = better democracy' mindset, so more discussion is for me always a positive thing.

There's just not much to say...

2008-09-02T20:25:00.001-07:00

I've been busy lately. Actually, I've been busy all year since the little baby surprised us all by being born last December. And with this business comes complete and utter apathy toward blogging once the sun goes down. This despite all the news that's fit to blog on. What can I say?

Well for one, I could say that I think Sarah Palin has a lot potential to become a major influence in American politics and the GOP, but is a weak veep choice.

I could also say that Russia isn't a 'world power', rather a regional one, despite it's recent and many claims to the contrary.

And I could also, and finally, say that Stephane Dion may win an election, but will lose government soon after.

One more time...

2008-08-19T11:51:00.001-07:00

I promise to make this the last post in my Obama trilogy. No crappy prequels or cartoon spin-offs will follow.

From Keith Pavlischek of First Things:

Dr. Hymie Gordon (Mayo Clinic): “By all criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception.”

Dr. Micheline Matthews-Roth (Harvard University Medical School): “It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception.”

Dr. Alfred Bongioanni (University of Pennsylvania): “I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception.”

Dr. Jerome LeJeune, “the Father of Modern Genetics” (University of Descartes, Paris): “To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion . . . it is plain experimental evidence.”

Rick Warren: At what point does a baby get human rights in your view?
Sen. Barack Obama: Well, I think that whether you are looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade.

That's it. Promise.

And more on Obama....

2008-08-17T15:05:00.000-07:00

Rick Warren shows us the real Barack Obama...

2008-08-17T12:55:00.001-07:00

Rick Warren, the famous, best-selling, megachurch pastor, recently hosted a forum featuring both presidential candidates. As I'm sure you heard. Warren commands by most accounts a large part of the evangelical vote, so just how well McCain and Obama handled themselves last night will no doubt be represented this November.

Warren asked each candidate at what point they believed a baby recieved human rights. McCain answered that he believed those rights were imparted at conception, and mentioned his 25 year pro-life record. Obama naturally didn't choose to highlight his extreme pro-choice record, and decided to answer the question like this:

human rights… whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity … is above my pay grade.

And there you have it. Take it as it folks. Senator Obama is running for the highest office in the United States, and yet he feels that such a question is beyond his pay grade, even though he is already an employed legislator.

::postscript:: If we consider that Obama feels that such a distinction cannot be made by the judiciary or legislative bodies, then we must conclude that he feels that the question can be answered theologically by the Christianity which he professes allegiance to, and scientifically by the scientific world. Hence, since Christianity is clearly opposed to the abortion (I call upon the Didache and the philosophical and theological arguments advanced by the Catholic Church here), and 'science' has proved without question, for over 40 years, that separate, human life occurs at conception, we must admit that Obama is both a shitty Christian and unwilling to heed empirical evidence when it disagrees with him. And that my friends is one crummy candidate for president.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc

2008-08-15T22:10:00.000-07:00

LifeSite drops the ball in a serious way.

The problems with this article are legion. First, check out the ledes: "The film could easily be seen to portray good as a weakness used and repeatedly exploited by evil" and "The movie was visually and viscerally stunning but deeply disturbing, even diabolic." That's just two of the first few sentences. Author (and site editor) John-Henry Westen doesn't waste our time in getting his message across. The Dark Knight is the devil and will make stupid people do evil things. That itself is an interesting take considering the film's plot. If you remember, the Joker gets stupid, evil people to do evil things, but cannot get good (and maybe stupid) people to do evil things. In fact, that's pretty much the summation of the plot right there. Just how Westen missed this, and then wrote an article on the movie is beyond my simple brain.

But hey, just a few paragraphs later, Westen dives even deeper: "As sick and scary as that scenario [the Joker's description of his scars] is, it is nevertheless one with which a great many of today's youth - deeply scarred internally - will easily identify as they too have been subjected to domestic violence." Ah, yes - all those kids whose parents abused them will find their perverted moral reference point in the Joker. Because before the Joker, they found themselves sympathizing with Hitler, Pol Pot and other famous criminals who had similarly difficult childhoods.

Not to be outdone by himself, near the end of the article, Westen drops this bombshell: "Seeing the film only a few days after the very disturbing and unexplainable beheading of a passenger on a Canadian bus, I could not help wonder if the perpetrator had seen the Batman film. " Oh. My. The murder of an innocent man by a psychologically disturbed man is being linked to the Joker? That's a pretty big non sequitur - and a gigantic post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy if I've ever seen one.

Unfortunately for LifeSite, men like Westen are what make the social conservative movement so unattractive to many people. The Dark Knight is one of the first movies in a long while to deliver a message of redemption and sacrifice that actually resonates with the public. And rather than using it as an opportunity to discuss these basic-yet-vital concepts with a larger audience, Westen prefers to circle the wagons.

Will Saletan (for such a smart guy, he's really quite stupid)

2008-08-06T00:27:00.000-07:00

Will Saletan - columnist for Slate - is really smart. And very stupid.

How do I know?

Well, I read his letter to the Secretary of Health and Human Services concerning a possible regulation that would protect a health care worker's right of conscience. In this potential regulation, a worker would not be compelled to provide artificial birth control, or any 'abortafacient', if doing so compromised their personal beliefs. For Saletan, the overall message of the draft is that artificial birth control is wrong, and it's use should be generally discouraged.

Saletan is naturally quite upset, and thinks that he has spotted the Achilles' Heel of pro-life opposition to artificial birth control. In his view, pro-life folks are opposed to birth control because it 'prevents' implantation and thus causes a de facto abortion. Aha! says Saletan, so too does breast feeding. And therefore, in fairness, that also should be discouraged by pro-lifers.

As someone with a very shallow understanding of pro-life philosophy, Saletan's jeering is understandable. But it's also very stupid. Pro-life folks have never, ever, claimed that family planning or preventing pregnancy is wrong. What they have said is that the foreign introduction of a chemical which prevents implantation is akin to abortion. In fact, artificial birth control taken in heavy doses does cause an abortion itself. Saletan himself admits that birth control causes what amounts to an abortion, but dismisses that very fact because the abortive effect is difficult to observe. In it's place, Saletan sarcastically argues that breastfeeding, due to it's preventative effects on implantation, should be discouraged as well.

I suppose at a basic level Saletan does have a point, since breastfeeding can prevent implantation. But here's the rub: It is a natural act, necessarily produced by the mother to nurture the infant at it's most delicate state. It's primary function is not to prevent pregnancy, although it also can have that effect. Artificial birth control however is inherently designed to prevent a pregnancy - and even end it if implantation does occur.

Artificial birth control, by it's own nature, part and parcel of the process of aborting an infant. After reading the letter, I got the feeling that Saletan knows this, but is so steeped in leftish doublethink that he cannot bring himself to admit it. Hopefully he will someday, because not only is his letter not intelligent, it's also painfully not funny.

The King is dead...

2008-07-30T20:46:00.000-07:00

Any student of politics has at one point encountered some who scoffed at the medieval concept of the divine right of kings. Actually, you're more than likely to encounter it every other week, particularly if you are interested in political philosophy and theory. I suppose the reasoning is this: The divine right was a system level, institutional, concept that legitimized the rule of the strong over the weak. So it then follows that when the upstart American colonists, and later the upstart French anti-clerical terrorists, did the world a great favour by smashing the hegemony of monarchical rule.

Now all of this is fair - I wouldn't trade my liberal democracy for a medieval monarchy. But then again, there's more to the divine right of kings than just having the final authority over a realm and its subjects. Kings were also expected to live by a certain code of Christian ethics. If a ruler fell afoul of the Catholic Church, ie. Christ-on-Earth, his opponents and his subjects were able to legitimize rebellion against him. So, for example, if a ruler is heavily taxing subjects, or even terrorizing them, it would be possible for this ruler to be justly deposed.

This legitimization of dissent came to a close during the late Renaissance. Niccolo Machiavelli pointed out that a ruler is responsible to himself, and must work to maximize his gains. There was to be no obstacle to his rule. Suddenly, religion became the instrument of the state. This new reality was compounded during the Reformation, when opposition to a prince instantly associated any dissenting voice with the enemies of the state religion. This fomented a new type of dehumanization - of the ruler, and of the subject.

Once the ability of a dissenter to reference a higher moral authority, the Catholic Church, it was open season. For the new Protestant kings and princes, there was no fear of rebuke from Rome. Likewise, for the Catholic rulers, there was considerable leeway. Civil war atrocities could be rationalized, and ecclesial opposition was muted, if not already in outright support. For the first time since the Roman Empire, religion sought legitimacy from the state, rather than vice versa.
So now in our time, we are faced with a state that now believes itself to the sole purveyor of legitimacy. For the state, nothing is sacred but the state. It almost makes you wish for a king again.

The Dark Knight (and the best trailer of the year)

2008-07-24T21:47:00.000-07:00

Like so many other moviefiles, I flocked to a theatre near me for the latest Batman movie, The Dark Knight. I won't go into a detailed review, since Nick Milne of The Daily Kraken already has in greater detail and eloquence than I ever could. Nonetheless, I will give you this: It is the first time a movie has lived up to it's hype. First time.

What fewer people are talking about is the trailer for the upcoming movie based on Alan Moore's timeless graphic novel, The Watchmen. The Watchmen is one of the few comics/graphic novels that captures the immensity of great literature. It is primarily a meditation on the corruption of power and the irrationality of cold, solitary rationalism. But then, it's much, much more, and I invite anyone who has yet to experience it to do so.

The Fear & Loathing of PZ Myers

2008-07-21T22:05:00.001-07:00

PZ Myers, the self-styled scrouge of Catholicism ... a lot of cyber ink has already been wasted upon discussing his latest exploits. So briefly: Myers has called for people to send him stolen, consecrated Eucharists (crackers in his lexicon) so that he can publicly defile them. This is in response to the strange case of one Webster Cook, whom himself stole a Eucharist and then claimed to receive death threats from angered Catholics.

There is something very revealing about the lengths Myers will go to prove his atheist credentials. Disrupting the Mass, promoting theft of ecclesial property and defiling the Eucharist aren't simply rude and unlawful, they're jarringly desperate. Content men don't attack others, but men fast running out of time and ideas do. Pascal pointed this out over two hundred years ago: Men despise religion; they hate it, and they fear it is true. Myers cannot believe that something might exist beyond his reckoning and so he must attempt to destroy it, lest his own limitations be laid bare for all to see.

2008-07-15T14:41:00.000-07:00

Cool!

BOSTON -- When he was playing professional soccer in Chile, Chase Hilgenbrinck would seek comfort in the churches to satisfy his spiritual needs and remind him of childhood Sundays spent at Holy Trinity in his hometown of Bloomington, Ill.

Even after moving back to the United States last Christmas to play Major League Soccer -- a dream of his, but just one of them -- Hilgenbrinck felt the pull of his religion.

"I felt called to something greater," Hilgenbrinck said. "At one time I thought that call might be professional soccer. In the past few years, I found my soul is hungry for something else.

"I discerned, through prayer, that it was calling me to the Catholic Church. I do not want this call to pass me by."

Hilgenbrinck accepted the calling on Monday when he left the New England Revolution and retired from professional soccer to enter a seminary, where he will spend the next six years studying theology and philosophy so he can be ordained as a Roman Catholic priest.

"It's not that I'm ready to leave soccer. I still have a great passion for the game," he said in a telephone interview. "I wouldn't leave the game for just any other job. I'm moving on for the Lord. I want to do the will of the Lord, I want to do what he wants for me, not what I want to do for myself."

A 26-year-old defender who was the captain of the Revolution's reserve team, Hilgenbrinck will attend Mount St. Mary's Seminary in Emmitsburg, Md. After finishing his studies, he will report to his home parish in Peoria, Ill., for assignment.

"He said it was time for him, that he had been thinking long and hard," New England vice president of player personnel Michael Burns said. "Purely from a Revs standpoint, it's too bad. But a lot of players leave the game not on their own terms. He's clearly left on his own terms, which is great for him."

Raised in a Catholic family of regular churchgoers, Hilgenbrinck played soccer at Clemson and hooked on with the Chilean first division after he went unpicked in the 2004 MLS draft.

Far from home, he began to seek out familiar surroundings.

"I fell back on what I knew, and that was the Catholic Church," he said. "I grew up as a Catholic. I was always involved in the church, went to Catholic schools. It was when I got out on my own that my faith really became mine. I really embraced it. I didn't have to go to church any more, I was free to really believe what I wanted to believe.

"I looked to strengthen my personal relationship with Christ. And when my personal life started to flourish, I couldn't turn my back on that relationship."

Hilgenbrinck was signed and cut by the Colorado Rapids before he landed with the Revolution. He played in four MLS games for New England and started in both of the Revolution's U.S. Open Cup matches this month.

Although he has felt the calling for some time, Hilgenbrinck also knew it would be easier to continue playing soccer. He tried to convince himself that he was not ready, not deserving, or not in a hurry.

"I was putting up a bunch of barriers, saying I'm not worthy to be called to something like that," he said. "But, one by one, the barriers started to come down."

With a short window in which he will be able to play professional sports, he considered postponing the priesthood until after his career was over. But he decided with the same certainty that he could not allow himself to wait.

"Trust me, I thought of that," said Hilgenbrinck, who in his studies came across the saying, "Delayed obedience is disobedience."

"We are all called to do something. I feel like my specific call is to the priesthood. So, no, it was not possible to continue with soccer. It's absolutely inevitable."

Hilgenbrinck had his initial interview for the seminary last July, followed by a rigorous application process. There were written tests, personality screenings, background checks, fingerprinting and meetings with three different psychiatrists to make sure he had the right temperament to be a priest.

At first, he told no one, lest they influence him one way or the other: "I really wanted it to be a decision between me and God," he said.

There were more tests in January, and in March Hilgenbrinck learned he had been accepted to the seminary. A few weeks ago, he met with Burns and Revolution coach Steve Nicol.

"We weren't exactly sure what he was going to say, because it's not what you usually hear," Burns said. "When he said it, I was glad. I was glad for him. This is something that he clearly wants to do, and we wish him all the best."

However...

2008-07-15T14:03:00.000-07:00

Happy Summer! For the first time in weeks, it actually feels like the summer ought to feel. You know, warm weather, no rain and such. But alas, I am inside, weathering my latest illness (the flu). So in between other time-wasting-yet-restful-activities I have returned to my neglected blog to offer up a paltry posting.

- World Youth Day 2008: Akin to previous events, the Australian progressives - atheists, leftists - have launched attack after attack on the Catholic youth visiting Sydney and on the Church in general. Judging from the content of these attacks, I suppose these progressives are in fact so advanced that they have already completed the evolutionary cycle and are now at the level of bed-wetting neanderthals. Really now - telling Catholics that their sexual ethics are 'wrong', all the while sitting on top of a society rife with abortion, abusive birth control, involuntary sterilizations, and levels of sexually transmitted diseases that have reached epidemic levels, is just plain stupid. I have to wonder, is it so much to entertain that the Church, in its 2,000 year existence, might have learned a thing or two about sex?

- Henry Morgentaler: However outraged I was that Dr. Morgentaler received the Order of Canada, I was not surprised. The ruling elites of this country are so far removed from reality I'm sure they would have honoured Margaret Sanger with a snowflake if they had the chance. But the biggest concern on every Catholic's mind should be the soul of Dr. Morgentaler and the souls of those people his actions have put in danger. Forgiveness is a heavy cross.

- CHRC: Yes, Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant won their respective battles, but what of the other, smaller scale lawsuits that still endanger democratic rights in Canada? It would be a mistake to call the war over, for it I fear is just beginning. These folks in the HRC's will not go down without a fight, and lacking any iniative from the federal Conservatives, this will have to be a grass-roots, gritty conflict that will span many years. Read Five Feet of Fury for more details.

2 1/2 Cheers to Spain

2008-06-30T23:15:00.001-07:00

However much I enjoyed the footballing clinic that is the Spanish team, I couldn't muster up much enthusiasm for their well-deserved win.

Happy Euro 2008

2008-06-07T09:34:00.001-07:00

Football's second best tournament starts today.

I still haven't decided on a favourite. I think Germany could do well, although their age is an issue (half of the team is over 30). Greece haven't improved enough to repeat, but they did do well in the qualification, so who knows. One team that I guarantee to fail is Holland. They have been rated as favourites in every major tournament since they won the Euros in 1988, but haven't done anything since. I don't see them doing anything this year either.

Saving Burma, one jimmy hat at a time

2008-05-27T21:27:00.000-07:00

Some news is just too strange not to be true. If you had anyone doubts about the competency of the hacks who populate the UN, let them be laid to rest with this story:

Bangkok - The United Nations will send nearly a quarter of a million condoms into cyclone-hit Myanmar to help needy survivors with no access to contraceptives, a UN official says.
So far, the UN Population Fund (UNFPA) said it had sent 72 800 condoms to survivors struggling to maintain their family planning after the storm hit in early May.A total of 218 400 condoms would be delivered, UNFPA aid advisor Chaiyos Kunanusont said.
"We don't want regular use of contraception disrupted. An emergency usually damages the health system, so people don't have access to condoms and contraceptives," said Chaiyos.
Flights were also carrying reproductive health kits, which included razors for cutting umbilical cords, clean sheets for delivering babies and enough contraceptive pills and injections to last 3 390 women three months.
The supplies were meant to serve about 300 000 people, Chaiyos said.
Cyclone Nargis left 2.4 million people in desperate need of food, medicine and shelter, the UN estimated, but Chaiyos said not all of the affected people would need family planning supplies.
"Not every single woman is using contraceptives in Myanmar. We're basing this on regular habits," he said.Cyclone Nargis left at least 133 000 people dead and missing, and aid groups had complained that supplies were not getting to survivors quickly enough because of limitations imposed by the ruling junta.

H.o.l.y.C.r.a.p. I wish for the sake of those Burmese who are already suffering even more that this wasn't true. A bunch of Western elites sending boxes of latex rather than food, water and emergency medical supplies. Because if there's one thing people who have just had their homes and lives destroyed loved to do, it's have risky sex. I suppose this reminds me tangentially of why people believe in God: there has to be justice.

Barack Obama '08: Kill them babies

2008-05-21T22:10:00.000-07:00

One of the more interesting and yet predictable developments in the American presidential election is the declaration of war between 'Obama's Catholics' and the rest of the Catholic Church. A few days ago, the Catholic blogosphere finally starting talking about something other than the Pope's visit to the US after a group called 'Roman Catholics for Obama '08' announced the compatibility of supporting Obama and being a faithful Catholic. These Obamaniacs would like the rest of the Democrats, and other Catholics, to believe that there is nothing wrong, contradictory, or even just plain stupid about supporting Obama in lieu of his position on abortion and infanticide.

Obama's voting record on abortion is well known - he is one of the few top tier politicians who have received a '100%' score on abortion from NARAL. That's more than both Clintons, Bush, McCain and Kerry. He (Obama) has even exceeded the expectations of the pro-choice movement by opposing the Born Alive Infant Act, which requires that children who survive an abortion be given life sustaining treatment. Not bad for a Senator with less than ten year's experience.

Back to the RCO's. According to their magisterial interpretation of Catholicism, because Obama supports policies that could hypothetically reduce abortion and poverty, that oppose the death penalty, his opposition to the War in Iraq, and his abilities to blow smoke up people's asses, there is nothing wrong with a Catholic supporting his candidacy. F*ck off. Is this really what these guys expect people to believe? Let me tell you this, if you are a Catholic, and you think supporting the most pro-abortion presidential candidate is a-o-k, you're incredibly stupid. Or you're incredibly disingenuous.

I think perhaps some of the confusion that could be clouding the minds of my fellow Catholics has to do with the shite leadership and formation they've received. But that's only half of it. No matter how crappy our Catholic education was, and is, the Church has never, ever wavered on abortion. It is one of the singularly great evils of our time and of all time. It is worse than war. We are duty bound to oppose it.

Those poor Krakatoans

2008-05-21T20:22:00.000-07:00

Sorry for the conspicuous lack of posting. While my heart has always been with self-published, sometimes real life requires my attention too. The littlest poodle is now five months old, and armed with two new lower teeth (his first), perfect for slicing finger tips. The poodlette is doing well too - honestly, how is it that women can bring a child into the world, and then selflessly devote themselves, heart and soul, to his care? Amazing.

On my account, I have been enjoying time since school ended; it's given me a chance to weigh up my options. It's looking like I'll be in school a lot longer than I originally anticipated, which is both a good and bad thing. Good in that I find this second bout of schooling much more enjoyable than the last, bad in the sense that I find this second bout of schooling much more enjoyable than the last.

Since this is my first blogpost in one and a half months, I feel I should comment on something. Here's something: How do we cope with the passing of a generation?

Transgendered tomfoolery!

2008-03-31T23:52:00.000-07:00

So a woman who identifies herself as a man is pregnant. Wow. My wife just had a baby and she happens to be a woman to boot. No reporter was present for the birth of our son, and no pictures of her pregnant frame were published on any website. After reading about Thomas Beatie, nee Tracy Lagondino, I'm feeling like we got a bum deal.

Honestly, why the hell is this even a major story? Unless you have a hate on for biology and scienece, this story is about a woman getting pregnant via artificial insemination. For those who desperately want the world to treat it as the first 'male pregnancy': We won't. This is about a pyschologically mixed up woman using her pregnancy as a publicity stunt. It's happened before (pregnancy as a publicity stunt) and if it tells us anything, it's that we know now that Tracy Lagondino will be one shitty parent.

Islam: We're No. 1!

2008-03-31T23:27:00.001-07:00

Muslims have done it! Islam has finally overtaken Catholicism as the world's single largest religious denomination. Mohammedians around the world rejoice, thine hour of victory is at hand!

So says a report published by the BBC in which a Vatican bishop claims UN census data shows that Muslims outnumber Catholics by a small margin. About 17% of the world population is Catholic, while 19% is Muslim. That means there are about 120 million more Muslims living today than Catholics - a first we are told since the Middle Ages.

Now this is an interesting story, not in the least because Islam has a great deal of self-worth wrapped up in its image as an unstoppable force (one Muslim student in my political philosophy class today spoke of how impressed she was by the sheer 'power' of Islam, before admitting that she was in fact a Muslim herself). What's even more interesting is that the claim is robbed entirely of its value once it's realised that it relies upon flawed methodology. If there is going to be a comparison of Islam to other religions, it has to be against the entire religion, not just one entity within it. Catholicism is but one of several massive Christian denominations falling under the umbrella of Christianity. Islam is an entire religion. Comparing Islam with Catholicism is only useful if you want to point out the sheer numbers of Catholics vis a vis the world's second largest religion.

A better and more accurate comparison would between Christianity as a whole and Islam. There are around 2 billion Christians, and anywhere from 1.1 to 1.3 Muslims. Of course if this comparison is made, the story loses all of its appeal, since Muslims don't want to remember that there are substantially more Christians and Christians don't want to remember there are another 4 billion people that need to be converted. An even better and illuminating comparison would have been to compare the number of Sunnis or Shi'as to Catholics and Eastern Orthodox.

Christiantiy makes up 33% of world's population, but that's not important to Christians. We are of course commanded to spread the Gospel to all the corners of the world, but we are first required to love God with all our hearts and love our neighbours. If we don't do that, it doesn't matter if there are 2 billion Christians or 200, since it's always been quality (or better yet, charity and fidelity) over quantity. Jesus Himself was aware of this during His life, asking his disciples whether he would find any faith on earth when he returns. It's never been a numbers game for us, even if we actually are winning.

::postscript:: I can't help but notice this story comes straight from a mid-level, previously unknown Vatican bureaucrat just after the baptism of Cristiano Allam at Easter. That baptism made many Muslims of shallow and disordered religiosity upset, which in turn tends to make wooly-kneed Westerners uneasy. It's as if someone out there was trying to lessen the shock to the Islamic world that Muslims do, and quite often when they are freely allowed, become Christians.

Do Canadians have the balls to boycott the Olympics?

2008-03-25T23:34:00.000-07:00

This evening the CBC ran what can only be considered a massive peice of pro-Chinese pro-Olympics propaganda. The situation in Tibet was only mentioned in passing; the real story, the CBC thinks, is that athletes might miss out on a once in a lifetime opportunity. Call me callous, but when a government murders 700 innocent Tibetans, whose 'crime' we should remember was desiring an end to Chinese occupation of their country, I don't give a sh*t about the athletes. If these athletes wanted to make a point, they could boycott the games in a show of solidarity with Tibet.

I hope, and I think, many Canadians will boycott the Olympics. Canadians are traditionally a people very concerned with the plight of the world's oppressed peoples, or so we say we are. Take this then as a litmus test: If Canada boycotts the games, then we can take solace in the knowledge that we don't let our affections govern our commitment to advancing international human rights.

Let's not let ourselves down.

Law & Order was once a good show....

2008-03-22T00:50:00.001-07:00

... until it attempted to tackle 'real' cases.

I was reading over at Jihadwatch about a Law & Order episode that depicts the murder of Christian girl, by her Christian father, for having a Muslim boyfriend. Critics of the show, and they are legion, are pointing out that this is a gross misrepresentation of a real issue: Muslim fathers killing their daughters for dating non-Muslims and/or not practicing Islam as fanatically as they do. Two Muslim girls were recently killed in Texas for dating non-Muslims, and last summer in Canada we had a similar story of a girl being killed for refusing to wear a hijab. What we don't have is a story of a fanatic Christian father killing anyone over a religious issue, let alone his own daughter. And yet Law & Order makes it seem to millions of viewers that it does happen. Go figure.

There are of course very practical reasons for smearing Christians rather than Muslims. One is that, like it or not, there is always the lingering spectre of sectarian conflict. Another is Western society's penchant for persecuting minorities since the Englightenment started 300 years ago. But most importantly, Christians will take the smear, whereas Muslims won't (just ask Theo Van Gogh, the Danish cartoonists or Christians in Iraq). Hence Law & Order having a Christian, rather than a Muslim, murdering his daughter for dating a heathen.

Folks who drink this tripe up are what worry me. If someone can honestly sit throught this episode and think, 'by golly, those darned Christians!', then our society is in real trouble. Why? Because for someone to believe that, they'd have to be utterly divorced from reality. And you know, a lot of people watch Law & Order.

Mikhail Gorbachev is NOT a Christian...

2008-03-19T11:19:00.000-07:00

Well, I was wrong. I was gullied into believing that Mikhail Gorbachev had in fact returned to his Christian roots, but alas, it was simply a case wishful thinking and an over-enthusiastic journalist. Thus, I have changed the post.

"However, as someone who dabbled in Marxist philosophy and politics, I'm interested to know what lead Gorbachev away from the logical positivism of Marxism/Leninism and toward Christ."

I wrote this last Wednesday when I thought Gorby had reverted. He hasn't, but I still want to know what's keeping him an atheist.

St. Patrick's Day

2008-03-17T11:47:00.000-07:00

Happy belated St. Patrick's Day! Belated? Well, yes! Since no feast day can fall in Holy Week (or Pasche for you Frenchies), St. Pat's was moved to March 14, though not many people noticed. Since it is Holy Week, and thus No Beer Shall Be Consumed, I think it's worth remembering a few details about St. Patrick's life.

St. Patrick was kidnapped as a young man and was sold into slavery in Ireland, spending six years in captivity before escaping and returning home. In a dream he was commanded to return to Ireland to spread Christianity, which he did apparently right away. Although he did not actually drive all the snakes out of Ireland in a literal sense, he did drive out slavery, centuries before it was outlawed in continental Europe. Thus it's ironic that many Irish have forsaken their Christianity, only to still celebrate the life of a Catholic saint. Without St. Patrick Ireland would have been just another backwater island, mired in the Dark Ages, rather than a beacon of enlightenment and civilization.

So for all those folks who will be drowning their metaphysical sorrows tonight in green beer and poorly poured Guiness, here is a section of St. Patrick's Breastplate:

Christ to shield me today
Against poison, against burning,
Against drowning, against wounding,
So that there may come to me abundance of reward.
Christ with me, Christ before me, Christ behind me,
Christ in me, Christ beneath me, Christ above me,
Christ on my right, Christ on my left,
Christ when I lie down, Christ when I sit down, Christ when I arise,
Christ in the heart of every man who thinks of me,
Christ in the mouth of everyone who speaks of me,
Christ in every eye that sees me,
Christ in every ear that hears me.

Eliot Spitzer: A true American hypocrite.

2008-03-14T23:01:00.000-07:00

The word hypocrite is thrown about a lot these days. Usually it's applied improperly, and usually it's only applied to Christians and other fallen figures of the political right. Rare is the occasion when we the public have a singularly perfect example of a through-and-through hypocrite, but this day we do, and his name is Eliot Spitzer. Spitzer, in case you didn't know, spent a lot of money on prostitutes. He also spent a lot of money on the people who find and indenture these prostitutes. He also spent a lot money making sure everyone involved kept his identity secret. He lied about his name, he lied to his wife, he lied to the public, and he lied to his three teenage daughters.

To make the grade as a hypocrite, a person needs to be actively duplicitous. He must make sure people think he is against the very sin he is committing, by actively championing a position against the sin while happily and willfully committing it. This is a point that most people forget when they call out what they think is a real example of hypocrisy. The Enron and Worldcom CEO's were thus hypocrites, whereas Dr. Martin Luther King was not. Sure, this makes it very hard to actually call someone a hypocrite, but then again, there aren't really that many anyway.

Enter Eliot Spitzer, who as governor passed into law a bill that cracked down on sex trafficking, which is exactly what we know now the Emperor's Club specializes in. As an attorney, Spitzer crusaded against the very same financial corruption he was in fact concurrently engaging in. In Spitzer's resignation speech, there was preciously little repentance or contrition, but a lot of petulance. Listening to him pathetically speak of 'what could have been', I couldn't really escape the feeling that Spitzer just seemed bummed that he was caught. There was no emotion, just disappointment. The gig was up and it was time to go home.

::postscript:: I think the press picked up on Spitzer's attitude, and as such switched the focus to the prostitute, whose personal life story should make anyone who thinks prostitution should be normalized stop and think.

The Road by Cormac McCarthy

2008-03-11T23:12:00.001-07:00

Cormac McCarthy's The Road is being made into a movie. Thankfully for those of us who enjoy McCarthy, the Coen brothers are now where near this one - yes, despite the awards, No Country for Old Men the movie was a pointless, violence driven exercise in the Hollywoodization of two former 'independent' filmmakers.

The wikipedia entry has a long quote from British environmentalist George Monbiot. Monbiot likes the book: "It could be the most important environmental book ever. It is a thought experiment that imagines a world without a biosphere, and shows that everything we value depends on the ecosystem." Hmm.

I believe that once an artist has released his work, he no longer has a hegemony on its interpretation; that's just one of the many beauties of good art. But I think Monbiot, and many others like him, are reading their own beliefs into the novel beyond what is even reasonable by artistic standards. A history lesson: the term 'the road' is a medieval term referring to the pilgrimage to Santiago de la Compostela. It was a penitary pilgrimage, and a very dangerous one (nowadays it doesn't offer pilgrims the same physical risks, but still gives those applicable a plenary indulgence).

I'm just saying.

Pro-choice mentality explained....

2008-02-29T09:36:00.000-08:00

... in cartoon!

Why did you leave the Church

2008-02-28T17:33:00.000-08:00

Kathy Shaidle has linked to a post on Deacon's Bench about people leaving the Catholic Church. The stimulus is the recent Pew Study that showed that the Catholic Church in America had the highest representation among those who had left the faith of their birth/youth. So what makes people leave? Deacon Greg Kandra, who blogs at Deacon's Bench, says it's other people:

"No, what drives people away is often something far simpler and, in a way, far more sinister.

It's other people.

It's the priest who condescendingly tells a grieving daughter, after her mother's funeral, "Now you can really grow up. You know, we never truly become adults until after our parents die."

It's the deacon who refuses to anoint a baby at a parish baptism because the family arrived late.

It's the pastor who won't take the time to listen to a teenage girl's problems because "it's just hormones."

These are real examples from people I know -- and the people who experienced them walked away from the local parish and, eventually, the Catholic Church. There are many other factors that contribute to religious alienation, I know. But, like the woman at the well in last Sunday's gospel, people are thirsty. What are we giving them to drink?"

I can agree to an extent, though I think the Greg Kandra and Kathy Shaidle are only partially correct. Certainly being offended by other parishioners, priests or other religious can play an influential role in where and how a person worships, but its far from the main cause. Of the people who've left, I imagine very few had what we could call 'serious religiosity', ie a developed relationship with Christ via an active prayer life, the Sacraments and Scripture. I recently had the misfortune to be told by a lay church steward that my confession wouldn't be heard because the priest had to leave early to prepare to say Mass with the bishop. That the fate of my soul could have been at risk never seemed to enter into the mind of this over eager baby-boomer Catholic, whose real interest was in keeping a schedule than helping other people live their faith. But despite this, and I was really pissed off, I didn't leave the Church. I didn't even leave the parish. I prayed about it, got over myself and moved on. According to Kandra however, most people would have:

"From my experience, most alienated Catholics have wandered away not because of dogma or doctrine, or even discipline. They're willing to live with the sometimes difficult teachings of the Church, even the ones with which they don't entirely agree. They're even willing to forgive (after a lot of prayer and teeth-gnashing and soul-searching) the financial and sexual scandals that seize the headlines."

Now there are a tiny minority of cases, such as those involving abuse, that undoubtedly move people away from the Church because of the heinousness of the act. Yet most of the complaints Deacon Greg Kandra lists are ones that we wouldn't quit our jobs over, or make us end friendships, or divorce spouses for. They are in fact a litany of petty gripes from people who were already only tenuously attached to their Catholic faith. I know that sounds harsh, but if you really believe the Catholic Church was founded by Christ and is the only way to know Him, you wouldn't leave even if your priest refused to have a funeral Mass for your Mexican mother because he didn't like ethnic minorities.

In my experience, which I admit is probably much more limited than both Shaidle's and Kandra's, is that people who have left the Church had mentally left long before their bodies did. All of my friends growing up, who were all baptised and confirmed Catholics, left the Church in their teen years because they didn't believe in Catholicism anymore. They left because they didn't agree with the Catholic position on sexual ethics, homosexuality, contraception, divorce and the rest of the usual suspects. For these folks, Catholicism had ceased to be normative, and thus had no personal relevance, so leaving had little to do with their respective interpersonal ecclesial experiences, and everything to do with how the faith was passed on to them.

Who was Tracy Latimer?

2008-02-27T22:57:00.000-08:00

We all know who Robert Latimer is, the father who murdered his disabled daughter, but what about his daughter? Now that Latimer is being released from prison before completing his sentence, expect his crime to be discussed, glossed, and ultimately celebrated by our nation's media. Yet here's the telling thing - no one is discussing Tracy. Oh sure, there's a few paltry comments about her condition made whenever her murder is discussed, but we never ever learn anything about who she was. Why is that?

The problem with discussing Tracy, I think, is that by acknowledging her personhood we are forced to re-examine the traditional defence of Latimer. Latimer's defenders will say, and do frequently, that his crime was one of compassion, that his love for his daughter made him kill her. What this defence does is take the focus away from the victim and her inviolable human rights and move it to her father, the beleaguered farmer who just could not help but poison his own disabled daughter. When we look at Robert, we forget about Tracy, and we forget about the crime.

I shouldn't have to repeat this, but murder is murder all the time. Robert Latimer was not in 1993 an expert on cerebral palsy, nor is he now. He had no peculiar insight into the life of a person living with palsy anymore than I have insight into the life of a junky on the street. I wouldn't go suffocating herion-addicted junkies just because I thought they were suffering too much, and if I did I would end in jail for life. Latimer on the other hand decided he could suffocate his own daugther, and he's out of jail on parole. If Canadians think we can live in a peaceful and healthy society with such blatant contradictions, then they're going to be in for a very unpleasant surprise. Leben unwertes leben isn't just a 30's thing.

Vocations: 20 Best & Worst Dioceses in the USA

2008-02-26T20:28:00.000-08:00

Catholic World Report has released its annual list of the 20 best and 20 worst dioceses in the United States for vocations. The grading is based upon the ratio between seminarians to lay Catholics in all 176 dioceses in the country.

The top 20: Lincoln, Juneau, Tulsa, Rapid City, Cheyenne, Duluth, Peoria, Denver, Wichita, Lexington, Tyler, Bismarck, Fargo, Nashville, Spokane, Pensacola-Tallahassee, Memphis, Mobile, Yakima, and Sioux City.

The bottom 20: San Diego, Honolulu, Metuchen, Las Vegas, Laredo, Los Angeles, New York, Hartford, El Paso, Rochester, Santa Rosa, San Antonio, Galveston-Houston, Rockville Centre, Boston, Syracuse, Detroit, San Bernardino, Reno, and Monterey.

There's a couple of things I've noticed about the study. One, it fails to take into account the massive number of Catholics in dioceses like New York, Boston and Los Angeles, three major immigration centres that will always have an extraordinarily high number of lay Catholics, but a lower number of vocationally religious Catholics. Two, the authors of the report admit that due to the volatility of seminarian life, ie being moved to different dioceses every six to twelve months, it is possible that the results could be wildly inaccurate. Take for example the two dioceses the report singles out: "The Diocese of Shreveport, for example, surged from 176th to 61st in the rankings between 2003 and 2006, while the Diocese of Lubbock declined from 9th to 121st." I haven't read through all of the report, and I'm no statistician, but I think there might be a problem with methodology as it doesn't appear that all factors, particularly those that would skew results, were taken into account.

That all said, it shouldn't be a surprise that certain cities are doing very well and others are, well, failing miserably. Even with its size, the diocese of Los Angeles, which is the largest diocese in the United States, should have a better ratio. But then most Catholics who are concerned with vocations probably already have a few ideas as to why Los Angeles isn't attracting many men to the cloth. Same with Boston, which may never recover from being the epicentre of the sexual-abuse crisis. New York probably will do better once Cardinal Egan is gone, who seems more interested in keeping his head down that following the path carved out by the great John Cardinal O'Connor. And it shouldn't surprise anyone that Spokane and Denver, with the ecclesial leadership those dioceses enjoy, are among the best in the country.

On the decriminalization of prostitution....

2008-02-22T21:14:00.000-08:00

Lurking in the shadows since 2006, the prostitution debate is back. From what I've seen, the argument for decriminalization has yet to really change in the past two years: Legalize prostitution to protect women. Proponents generally argue that prostitution, when no longer a criminal act, can in fact benefit women financially, and that just as long as it is made safe and secure, the net result is positive for society as a whole.

There are several problems with this argument that I should first address. For starters, how to make prostitution 'safe and secure' is notoriously unclear, as there is no fool proof way to prevent the spread of STI's and guarantee the safety of the prostitute. Second, the number of 'successful' prostitutes is infinitesimal to the amount of 'unsuccessful' prostitutes, even in countries like Germany and the Netherlands that have decriminalization. Third, the creation of First World prostitution zones provides a legitimate outlet for human traffickers worldwide. There's a lot more to be said, but I'd like draw attention to the one person who isn't discussed: The john.

Pro-decriminalization folks virtually always speak of the woman, though rarely the john. It's assumed that via decriminalization john's will simply become 'better customers', more responsible, more clean, more discriminating. And that's the extent of it; the rest of the discussion is of the female 'sex worker'. So what of the john? It seems that proponents realize that discussing the john is to draw the debate away from its strengths and toward its fundamental weaknesses. The john represents the failure of an adult man. He pays for something he should, in a sense, earn through courtship, maturity, love and commitment. His 'yes' to paying for sex is simply another moral failure in that man's life. He will take his experience of paying for sex with him wherever he goes - to work, to school, and to home. Now imagine men having easy and quick access to prostitutes. Only the artlessly naive could ignore the clear societal implications of decriminalization.

On the passing of Uncle Fidel...

2008-02-20T18:59:00.001-08:00

Leftists, Communists and other douchebags are together in mourning today. It was announced just 24 hours ago that long serving dictator, party leader, ruthless murderer, imprisoner of innocents, sterilizer of dissidents, president of Cuba Fidel Castro was formally handing over control to his younger brother, Raul.

The CBC and CTV have wasted no time eulogized Castro's legacy. In sort of man bites dog sentimentality, both stations waxed nostalgic on the halycon days of Fidel's early Cuba, his continued defiance of the USA and common sense. CTV even ran the lede 'Castro, the man who outlasted nine presidents' in one of their stories. Nevermind that the US is a democracy and no president can serve more than 2 terms, whereas Fidel Castro refused even the smallest iota of actual political and social freedom, no, Fidel really was something special.

I obviously don't feel the same compassion toward Castro that my elders in the media and academia seem to. They say, collectively of course, that he introduced a strong health care system and raised literacy to close to 98% of the population. So it may be, but Castro also systematically murdered his political opponents, persecuted journalists, blacks, dissidents and homosexuals, and almost plunged the world into nuclear war. 1961 was a long time ago, but not that long.

So what portends for Cuba and Raul Castro? Hopefully the introduction of common sense. Cuba's economic stagnancy has to do with Castro's many failed economic plans rather than the US embargo, but the easing of the embargo would undoubtedly help. Democracy would reconcile the many Cuban expats, thus stopping the brain drain that has seen so many of Cuba's best and brightest flee the country for the muggy climes of Miami. To do these things would make sense for Raul, but then again, communists are not famous for the successes of their political and economic decision making. We'll just have to wait and see how much of a 'Fidel' Raul really is.

No Steven Speilberg? Then get me his Mexican equivalent!

2008-02-14T22:38:00.000-08:00

... so said Mr. Burns, and so say the organizers of the 2008 Olympic Summer Games. Spielberg, alas, did not drop out in protest of the many human rights violations committed by the PRC on a daily basis, rather because of the PRC's lack of action on the crisis in Darfur.

So it's noble, and should be applauded, but strangely removed the issue at hand: The People's Republic of China is the single most abusive state outside of Africa and the Middle East. It's obvious to anyone but a few idiots that the Olympics are an economic event, not a sporting one. Hence Moscow 1980 and Toronto 2008 that never was.

A few facts about China:

- In preparation for the Olympics, the Chinese government has been forcefully evicting people from their traditional homes, and displacing them into hastily constructed shanty-towns away from the international gaze.
- China is currently the world's leading producer of green house gasses, general air pollution, has 16 of the world's 20 most pollutant rivers, and promotes illegal deforestation in South East Russa.
- China enforces a one child per couple policy, enforces punitive measures against those who break this policy, such as jail and the removal of the excess children.
- The one child policy has lead to 25 million more Chinese males than females, since male Chinese workers make more than female Chinese workers.
- As a result of China's one child policy, the country faces a demographic crisis of such magnitude that it will likely erase all of China's ecomonic gains in the next half century.
- And finally, China is a Communist country.

If you can't resist the Olympics, then simply do your part by peeing on a PRC flag this October 1st.

Obama v. HRC

2008-02-14T22:17:00.001-08:00

Obama is rolling and HRC is blowing steam. McCain has the nod from Romney, and it's only a matter of time before Huckabee negotiates the Veep for his social covservative shore up. This means the real story is no longer the lack of a decent Republican candidate (let's be honest, McCain is the candidate Republicans deserve, and he really isn't that bad) but the looming tete a tete between Obama and Clinton.

If Obama wins even one of the next major primaries, Wisconsin, Texas or Ohio, he will have an almost insurmountable lead. If Clinton wins all three, both her and Obama will be completely neck and neck. So what the DNC wants to make sure, no matter how the campaigns play out, is that a credentials debate does not occur. Credentials are arguably the Demcrats weakest link this election, with McCain having more political experience in sheer years than both Clinton and Obama combined. Even with Obama's ability to increase voter turnout, all his positives could be for naught if he can't explain to Democrats themselves why they should elect an unknown quantity over an established party leader.

Hello reality!

2008-02-13T21:42:00.001-08:00

Remember to support Maclean's, Ezra Levant & Mark Steyn....

2008-02-13T21:30:00.000-08:00

I haven't posted on the HR complaints against Maclean's, Levant and Steyn because I don't need to; read the sources yourself.

I will comment that I hope this is an issue Canadians of all political persuasions can agree is of the utmost importance. If we lose our freedom of speech, press and expression, we have effectively gifted the state a tyrannical amount of control. And we should remember that the reason why we have these freedoms enshrined in our society and in our constituions because we know that for a real, liberal democracy to exist, the state needs to be restrained.

Congratulations to Liberal MP Keith Martin, of Victoria no less, for recognizing the issue and acting on it. Keith, you're making the Conservatives look bad to their own party support - good politics!

Little Mosque on the Prairie...

2008-02-13T20:55:00.001-08:00

... sucks.

Little House on the Praire was a good show if you liked mulleted pilgrims and sacchrine family moments. Little Mosque is a good show if you like living in a dream world where Muslim immigrants to Canada don't hate gays, women, Christians, Jews, and want to impose Sharia.

I admit that I've only watched a few episodes, so take my opinion with a grain of salt. I have however in my short life watched many hours of sitcom television of varying degrees of quality, so I think I can tell when a show is funny and original, or just plain original. Little Mosque excels on the originality - Muslims living like secularized lefty Christians - but fails horribly at the comedy. Jokes about reactionary Anglican priests (they exist?), reactionary town conservatives (they exisit?) and uber-liberal Mohammedeans (they exist?) can be funny I'm sure, but Little Mosque instead borrows it's comedy from all the boring sitcoms you forgot existed, like The Golden Palace and Flying High. I don't really understand what makes a couple hundred thousand Canadians watch Little Mosque, other than the unrequited boredom that has apparently taken over their lives.

:post script: Can someone explain to me how the cast of a show that presents Muslims as fully sercularized Canadians can lead a panel on diversity?

February: A bad time to be a Liberal/Progressive Christian

2008-02-12T20:13:00.001-08:00

Two reasons not to be a liberal Christian:

(1) Archbishop Rowan Williams, head of the Anglican Church, 'explores' the inevitability of Sharia law in Britain. Somehow, Williams missed the fact that Anglicans in Nigeria are currently being persecuted under Sharia law, or maybe Williams knew but just didn't care. One hopes it's the former, but I can't help but think, with the behaviour of certain Anglican leaders in mind, that it could just be the former.

(2) Catholics in the Netherlands have decided to start calling Lent, 'Christian Ramadan'. Yea, that makes as much sense, both practically and theologically, as Dutch Bishop Tiny Mueskens wanting to call God 'Allah', to foster better relations between Christians and Mohammedeans. I feel for the 400,000 Dutch Catholics who actually still attend Mass on a weekly basis, but who must becoming inured to the outright stupidity of their ecclesial leaders.

I guess the positive side of the decay of liberal Christianity is it that it will eventually lead to Christian reunification. On the negative side... well, there's just too much to mention.

Giving up nothing...

2008-02-12T19:06:00.000-08:00

... and wanting everything. It's a very popular way of approaching life in 21st Century Canada, if the article found here is anything to go by.

Other bloggers have associated this trend with our laxidaisical approach to other serious questions of adulthood, like abortion, birth control and drug use. I think there is a connection. You cannot expect people to accept the responsibility of, say, a mortgaged home with no equity, if you are telling them at the same time they can opt out of pregnancy and marriage if they think it is too difficult. We've been telling our teenagers for years that some decisions, which they themselves know are serious, aren't serious and generally consequence free. Should anyone be surprised that these teens, now grown adults, apply this logic to foreclosure?

Cult of Obama?

2008-02-11T17:13:00.000-08:00

Obamania is heating up, and the First Things' blog takes notice. Stephen Webb illustrates some startiling similarities between Obama's followers, and the usual characteristics of cultists.

I'm generally quite critical of Obama supporters, and as much as I don't want to admit, there is a fanatical quality that most smitten Barry O supporters exhibit. In conversations, I've mentioned his lack of political record only to be told that there 'isn't a resume for being president'. I've asked Obamites how he will overcome his lack of experience, to hear that it's the advisors that shape a presidency, not the president. And lastly, I've quizzed them about his murky notion of new politics, as compared to his announced policy objectives, all of which simply tow the Democratic Party line, rather than call for an innovative, bipartisan, consensus based approach - to be told that these are indeed the new way.

The reluctance, better yet, refusal to address a question in an honestic and objective way usually belies an irrational attachment. Sure, within politics there's always going to be a bit of obtuseness coming from politicians and their followers, but it's usually only ever a case of a tiny minority. With Obamaniacs (zing!) it's different - everyone displays this same fanatical and illogical attachment. To be fair, there are lots of folks who think Obama is a better Democratic candidate than Hillary Clinton, and support his policies. But they're not the ones you run into on a day to day basis; you're much more likely to hear about his 'symbolic importance' and his 'new politics' and get a black eye for any unasked for inquiries.

Movies of 2007....

2008-01-08T21:40:00.001-08:00

... that I saw and you shouldn't see. No matter what.

In first place is the 'film' 28 Months Later. It's a zombie flick, so it at least has the undead eating the living, but that's about all it has going for it. It tries for poignancy by tying in the zombie outbreak to the USA's foreign policy in the Middle East. Now that I think of it that's exactly what the movie was about - Americans making the simple and the violent crazy - and that alone is a pretty offensive statement about the folks who live there (MUSLIMS). In the end no one really cared though because the movie was crap. Don't see it.

In a close second is Factory Girl. I don't like post-modern art, the hedonistic lifestyle of artistic circles, or Guy Pearce, so my mind was pretty much made up before I saw it. Still, I'm rather impressionable and gave it a chance. Worst way to spend 2 hours. What did I learn? The 60's was full of people on drugs screwing other people on drugs, and a bunch of pervs watching said screwing go down. Apparently, the art world of then wasn't any different. Woohoo.

In a strong third is Balls of Fury. When a movie is named about a particularly horrid case of what the post-pubescent call 'blue balls', there is a limit as to how good it can actually be. All of my worst expectations were met and in some cases exceeded. Christopher Walken how you have fallen.

American races...

2008-01-07T09:44:00.000-08:00

... are always more interesting than Canadian races. Political races!

Even though the 2008 presidential campaign has been going on for over a year now, it's hard not to be fascinated by it. Maybe it's my background in political science, or maybe it's just because this is one of the more complex campaigns we've seen in some time. Take for example the Republican side. There you have four plausible candidates battling it out for what is almost definitely a defensive action, with victory little more than a wishful thought. Then you have the Democrats. Oh, the Dems. You'd think with the backing of the media and the popular appeal of their anti-war, anti-Bush platforms, they would be doing more. But they aren't, and I have a few thoughts on why that is.

That this is a historical race is a understatement - it is the first race in which race and sex have become the primary selling points for two of the Democrat's major three candidates. Barack Obama, as nice and charismatic as he seems, is there because he's black. He has little political experience, no executive experience, but virtually all the media doting. Hilary has a bit more actual political experience - her claims of co-presidency are alarming, if not borderline insane. Imagine if a police officer's wife ran for chief because her husband had been chief before. Again, here Hilary's main selling point is her sex - make history by electing a woman.

Both of these candidates put impressionable voters into a precarious position because of their implicit emphasis on their being the firsts of their kind. Though it is painful to admit, many people will vote for Hilary or Barack because of their 'minority' appeal, rather than their credentials.

Declan Micah John...

2007-12-21T23:29:00.001-08:00

... this is your very first blog post.

My wife and I have finally welcomed out little son into this world, Declan Micah John. We had originally thought of the name Augustine if it were to be a boy, but after we held and beheld him, we knew it wasn't the right fit. He actually didn't have a name until well into his first day, and it was my wife that came up with the name. The second names were chosen by our parents: Micah because of the Old Testament prophet, and John because it is the confirmation name my father and I share.

Coming out the hospital is a real shock. They tell you this in pre-natal class quite a bit, but it doesn't really sink in until it's 3am, you and your baby haven't slept for ages and you just can't get him to latch properly. Nevertheless, even with all the concern and frustration we've felt as new parents, our son is easily the most wondrous thing I have ever seen. The immediate love we felt for him was, well, completely out of this world. I think we both began to understand the love God has for us, fractionally of course, when little Declan came into our lives.

Merry Christmas!

Adeste Fideles!

Thank You God for the blessing of Declan!

A short update:

2007-11-15T10:49:00.000-08:00

I haven't been able to post for over a month... but for a good reason. My wife and I are mentally, spiritually, emotionally and physically preparing for the arrival of our first baby, and for that reason(s) alone, I just haven't found the time to motivate myself for an extended period of blogging. Ah well, I'm sure it will pick up soon.

Nevertheless, I thought anyone who passes by this blog should know that the ecumencial council that discusses the rehabilitation of the Latin and Orthodox Churches has agreed on the primacy of the papacy. That's pretty big news, since the primacy of the Petrine Office has always been the main source of dispute between the two Churches.

Sadly, there is still so much to do. The Eastern Orthodox Churches themselves are separated from one another, and then there is the whole matter of reincorporating theologically and canonically the entire group of Orthodox Churches. And not to be outdone, there is also the matter of the Orthodox laity accepting the reunion, which will take some time.

But still, it's a wonderful bit of news.

What's wrong with the Mass...

2007-10-07T09:48:00.001-07:00

A 16 year old Catholic from Baltimore addresses people within his own parish who scoff at the Old Rite (h/t to The Cafeteria is Closed):

I am 16 years old, and for the past 11 months I have attended the traditional Latin Mass weekly, while still attending the Novus Ordo Mass during the week. Because of this, I decided to address certain points made by Carroll Sterne in the Sept. 6 edition of The Georgia Bulletin. Mr. Sterne speaks about the type of Mass that someone of a younger generation is drawn to, and I thought that a teenager’s point of view might be helpful.

Mr. Sterne in his letter gives voice to the opinion of many of today’s liturgists when he says that no one from a younger generation would be drawn to the Latin Mass (many take this even further and assume that we would not like a reverent Novus Ordo Mass either). This opinion causes many of those who plan modern liturgies to do veritable back flips in an attempt to draw teenagers and young adults in. Sometimes this works, but it has a side effect: by doing these things, liturgists show that they have absolutely no faith in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass to change the lives of those in my generation.My generation knows about this lack of faith, we are able to see it every time we go to a “teen Mass” and experience priests ad-libbing prayers in an attempt to make them more relevant to us.

This lack of faith backfires; it sends us the message that we also should distrust the power of the liturgy, and it also can turn the Mass into something of a joke.

After experiencing this for months, I attended a Traditional Latin Mass and experienced something that I’d never seen before: Here was a priest who expected my life to be changed without adding anything to the Mass in an attempt to bring this change about. This priest had perfect faith in the power of the liturgy, and it showed. It was beautiful. The traditional Mass did more to change my life then any “relevant” teen Mass ever did.

Ethan Milukas, Peachtree City

I don't think anyone could have said it better or more succinctly. I felt the same way about 'youth' Masses when I was his age: They were cheesy, irreverent, stripped of all sanctity and ultimately entirely useless to us as young people. It was as if those Masses were designed to turn people off. It wasn't until I was 19 that I actually encountered a reverent Novus Ordo Mass, and that was in Victoria, a diocese that was almost completely killed off by Bishop Remi de Roo.

Advertisers say that we cannot estimate just how low the public will go. I think that's correct, but it's not something that we as Catholics should ever be measuring or tailoring our liturgies by. There are ways to celebrate a Novus Ordo Mass with P/W music that do not detract from the ability of the laity to focus on Christ. The problem arises when liturgists, music directors and priests spurn traditionally Catholic forms of worship because they, at first glance, seem out of touch with modern sensibilities. They couldn't be more wrong.

Young Catholics basically have two choices in most parishes these days. Either you stick it out with sub-par liturgies, tepid homilies and lazy celebrations of Christ's Sacrifice, or you just stop going. There isn't a middle ground anymore. And when you stop and consider the pressures placed upon young Catholics by a very anti-Catholic society, you can plainly see with so many young men and women simply choose the latter.

Catholic Bishops: Plan B Abortafacient is OK

2007-09-30T09:14:00.000-07:00

Plan B, a known abortafacient (just read the packaging), has been approved by the Conneticut Catholic Conference of Bishops for use in Catholic hospitals. The bishops claim that Plan B has not been decisively proven to be abortion causing in all cases, so therefore it can be used for 'rape victims' in Catholic hospitals. If wondering just why the bishops would do this, join the masses. Plan B is a self-admitted abortion causing agent; it even says so on the box they come in. And if you're wondering if this is a trickle-down effect from some cloudy USCCB pronouncement, it isn't: Plan B was prohibited by the national bishops' group because of its abortafacient effects and because it also falls under the category of contraception.

It's hard to find the patience or charity for bishops like this. Thankfully it's Sundary and I know God will give the grace to forgive and to pray for these men.

What makes little sense....

2007-09-28T09:29:00.001-07:00

... is how the political left so warmingly embraced Iran's lunatic president (yes, the man is actually a lunatic - he belongs to a apocalyptic cult which believes the Madhi will return and destroy the non-Muslim and Shia peoples, and leads a regime that regularly rapes, tortures and executes its fellow countrymen). I can understand why some people wanted to hear him speak - listening a cunning madman is apparently a stimulating experience - but I don't understand why a dictator who so ardently opposes so many key leftist beliefs is nevertheless asked to come and speak to a receptive audience at one of the USA's most prestigious universities.

A quick rundown: Ahmandinejad opposes abortion, homosexuality, women's rights, basic freedom of expression and political dissension. Most Americans of any political persuasion will therefore find something to hate about this guy, but why did the outcry thus come from the conservatives? You end up thinking that the only reason the left actually has time for him is because he is anti-West and anti-American, which seems to be the cause-celebre of the political left these days.

It's the first time I've heard this...

2007-09-28T09:20:00.000-07:00

Condoms in Africa is an issue everyone has an opinion on, and thankfully there are pretty much only two opinions at that. Either you support the spread of condoms in African to help prevent HIV infection, or you don't; it's all rather simple. What you rarely hear is any grand conspiratorial rant that suggests European condom producers are intentionally infected condoms with HIV. And when you do hear something like that, which you have to admit, even if you are opposed to the 'condom solution', you're more likely to hear it expressed on a message board by a teen-age fundamentalist. But no, the first person to make this claim just happened to be the Archbishop of the Catholic Church in Mozambique. Awesome.

Gerald of The Cafeteria is Closed tells us that Archbishop Francisco Chimoio recently informed the press that he was aware of at least two condom producers who were infecting their product. Chimoio noticeably does not name a manufacturer, but nevertheless stands by his claim. Now although I don't really think a company would stoop to this, it isn't entirely plausible if you approach the claim from a financial perspective: The more African that have AIDS/HIV, the more condoms the UN will purchase to import to Africa, and the more money condom makers earn.

We'll see how this story develops.

Becoming Less Bloggish

2007-09-19T18:48:00.000-07:00

I was reading an excellent blog today and I came across the blogger's admission that during his first few years of blogging, his writing style was unforgivably 'bloggish'. By this, I take it, he means awkward, verbose, sarcastic and fragmented, oh, and snarky too. Those five are probably the most common characteristics to be found in the blogosphere, unfortunately much more common than elegant prose, proper diction and common sense.

So with this in mind, I've decided to try and write more serious and thoughtful posts. The benefits I think are twofold: People who stumbled across my blog won't be offended by a particular callous or ridiculous remark, and my own writing style will eventually improve.

Now on that last point, the improvement of my writing, I'll have to work a lot harder. I was weaned on the style of writing that is pushed upon Political Science students at Canadian universities, and not being blessed with any inante gifts of composition myself, the result is the current standard of Augustine's Poodle. To improve then, I will begin making more sensible and sometimes longer posts on more sensible subjects (rather than Catholics wearing funny clothes). I will also return to emulating the writing style of my favourite non-fiction authors, so no more Robert Ludlum spy novels for the time being.

Check back for updates.

Catholic Frumpiness

2007-09-04T08:49:00.001-07:00

Kathy Shaidle at the soon to be renamed RelapsedCatholic Blog has taken the time to make several posts on the issue of Catholic fashion. Or maybe I should call it the issue of the Catholic lack of fashion. By this she, and I too, mean the general absence of any taste in clothing found in so many of the young men and women populating the 'Catholic revival'. Arm-pit level dress pants for boys, curtain skirts and mock head scarfs for girls - at age 20. You know what I'm talking about.

So I've decided to put together a few points - randomly right now, but maybe one day in order. Let's begin:

1) Fashion is OK. I am not by any means a stylish person, nor am I outrageously good looking nor blessed with an adonis-physique (quite the opposite). But I at least know that in our day and age, one needs to keep up at least minimally with the winds of fashion to be taken seriously by peers in our society. Jesus didn't wear animals skins, John the Baptist did, and people thought John was a pretty crazy guy and most people didn't listen to him, which was okay with John. Jesus from what we understand liked a good wine and party, spent a lot time in the market place, and He is God for goodness' sake. If Jesus kept up with fashion, you should too.

2) Dressing your children like they are headed to an audition for the re-union of Little House on the Prairie is not fair and possibly child abuse. It doesn't matter that they might be home-schooled or wear a uniform to school, they can still look good in public. The flood pants that were cute at age four are downright embarassing and repulsive at age 17. Parents please remember this.

3) Engage the culture with your beliefs, not with your clothes. This speaks for its self. People should not know how Catholic you are by your garb unless you are a monk, nun or priest.

That should do it for now.

Finding God in Movies

2007-08-28T12:33:00.000-07:00

Two good friends of mine, my wife and I went and saw the 'new' movie Superbad last weekend. It is a raunchy affair: There is menstrual mockery, cartoon male genitalia, teenage drunkenness (something I know nothing about) and goofy cops. If I were not a product of the pseudo-Catholic school system of Ontario, I'm sure I would have been revolted by the film, if it weren't so close to how so many young teenage men act these days.

Amidst the raunch, writers Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg still however manage to get a moral message across - which is remarkable in comparison to other films of the same genre, like American Pie, whose only moral commandment was to have none. The fat oaf Seth learns that girls are not simply the material sum of their sexual parts, and the skinny dork Evan keeps a drunken girl, whom he secretly loves, from doing something she'll regret with him. Sure, it's the best way to sell decent morality, but it works.

-------------

And to the few you may still visit this blog, I'm terribly sorry for not posting anything of meaning lately. I've been very busy with moving, my new job, God, and my lovely, 6 months pregnant wife. Until I am able to post more frequently here, please visit Catholic Explorers, which is a better blog anyway.

God Bless!

Oh, and here's an ultrasound our new gift from God:

Remember that?

2007-08-18T01:00:00.001-07:00

If there's one thing I know, Jesus love never failed me.

This isn't news...

2007-08-11T23:47:00.000-07:00

... but that doesn't mean it isn't worth blogging about.

According to CNN, Barack Obama mistakenly referred to the political leader of Canada as 'president', instead of prime minister. Obama's opponents, Democrat and Republican alike, have taken time out of their busy schedules to roast the Illinois' Senator's gaffe, however trivia it may be. The Obama supporters on the other hand, have been quick to point out that this is just an honest mistake, and one that really isn't important or even indicative of the character or intelligence of the man.

As a Canadian, I can say with complete honesty that I don't really care what some American presidential hopeful whose lack of political experience makes Michael Ignatieff look like Wilfred Laurier, and whose main appeal his is novel skin pigmentation, yea I don't really care what he knows about Canada. But if I were American, I would. And if I were from Illinois, I'd be pissed.
Why? Several reasons. Illinois trades extensively with Canada. It's economy is synced with our own. Some 3,000 jobs in Illinois are dependent upon trade with Canada, and Chicago's tourism industry is largely propped up by Canadian visitors. Since Obama is a senator from Illinois, you'd think he would know something about Canada. At least that Canada has a prime minister, which is different in definition and praxis than a president. And Obama is a Harvard graduate, not some Stanford post grad, which is supposed to mean something. Or maybe look at it this way: If Obama referred to the Queen of the UK as King, or the Pope as Dalai Lama, people would be questioning his abilities (like we've been doing with Bush for the last 7 years).

Maybe this gaffe isn't indicative of anything, and Obama will go on to becoming the Great Golden-Brown Hope the Democrats have been waiting for since Jesse Jackson decided there were too many Jews in New York City back in the 80's. Still maybe it is something, especially since Americans have had enough of bumbling buffoons running their country.

What do you think? Brick over the head?

2007-08-09T11:09:00.000-07:00

A new pro-life/anti-abortion campaign is starting in Canada. It will feature graphic images of aborted children on billboards and on the sides of trucks. I have argued against this type of activism in this space before, because I think that (a) people are repulsed more by the images than by what caused the depicted scene and (b) it alienates women and men who have sought and procured abortions. I think the television adverts for the pregnancy crisis centres that the Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons fund in BC are much more effective, as they appeal to a person's sense of remorse and regret, lingering pain from an abortion, and offer a means to reconciliation and proper counselling. I even think the movie 'Knocked Up', which was rude and raunchy, did more for the pro-life cause than any projectile plastic baby or graphic image has done in the last 30 years.

You can find more info on this campaign at Life Site News.

Contra Smut

2007-08-09T10:26:00.000-07:00

With all the Catholic and Christian blogs out there, you'd think there would be more discussion of pornography. We talk about abortion, capital punishment and war all the time, but porn? Not so much.

Considering how widespread pornography is, especially on the Internet (I recall reading that 2 of every 3 websites contained sexually explicit images) it's clearly time for a change. Engaging the culture as Catholics and other Christians should means engaging every part of that culture, including pornography. Think about it, it alone comprises several facets of the culture of death, including but not limited to abortion, contraception, sexual abuse, rape, violence, drug abuse, alcohol abuse, sexually transmitted disease, divorce, avarice, lust and so forth. Pornography is also one of the leading causes for divorce, according to several studies conducted in the USA and Canada.

So let's get started. There's the Serenellians, who are named after an Italian man who raped and killed a young girl after following impulses he felt after watching pornography, after which he repented and returned to the Church. There's this article by a former porn 'actress', who describes in painful detail her experiences in the sex industry. And here's an article written by a Kansas Bishop on the dangers of pornography. These three are good starting point.

One thing I know most people are not aware of is the drug and alcohol abuse that so many women involved in the sex industry fall into. Especially as people become more and more desensitized to pornography, they become less aware of the consequences of pornography and prostitution (which is what porn really is), particularly upon the women involved. Sure, there are the few women who voluntarily work in the sex industry out of desire and do not become involved with substance abuse, but they are in the minority. Most of the women in porn are there because of poverty, familial estrangement and prior sexual abuse. And once they're in, it becomes harder and harder to come out.

And yet in our enlightened/benighted culture, we're becoming gradually less and less resistant to the spread of pornography. Many people my age do not see it as an evil, but just another thing Europeans do better than us (seriously). And can you blame them? What's left of the feminist movement is more preoccupied with careerism and restrictions on birth control than an entire industry founded upon physical and psychological rape. Community leadership has balked under 'freedom of speech' and 'artistic expression' arguments for the last 20 years. Church leadership has failed catastrophically, on sexual ethics as a whole, and nonetheless the evils of pornography.

What we really need is young adults especially taking a stand on pornography, since we're the ones who have grown up in a society permeated by it. We haven't bought into this artless naivete about smut like older generations because we didn't have a chance to be naive about it (by age 12, most boys have seen sexually explicit images). We need to pressure our ecclesial and political leaders into addressing, at the very least, the issue and its effects upon society. So look up your local mayor, bishop, or MP, and let them know.

Bless your children

2007-08-03T10:56:00.000-07:00

What a week it has been. Work, husbanding, and finding a new place.

My friend Charles has a wonderful post on parenthood over at the Catholic Explorers blog. He mentions, among other heartwarming things, that he has begun to bless his son every morning, something he plans to do forever. That has me thinking about the similarity between our understanding of God the Father, and of human fatherhood. It's an amazing thing, to think that Our Father will bless us every day without our request, giving us graces that we will probably never ever be fully aware of until the end of our earthly lives. It's another amazing thing to think that as mothers and fathers, we can help new generations to realize and experience God's enduring love by such simple actions as blessing our children everyday in the morning.

Cardinal Zen Ze-kiun Interview

2007-07-30T20:08:00.001-07:00

The First Things weblog (from some reason I don't like calling it just a blog, weird) has another excellent offering for us Catholic freeloaders today in the form of a lengthy interview with Hong Kong's Cardinal Zen Ze-kiun. From reading it, you get the feeling that Zen is a very humble, careful, caring and smart person. It's a fascinating insight into the trials and triumphs, however few there may be at the moment, of the Catholic Church in China.

I can't help but wonder if the Church in China is experiencing what our Church in Canada, or the Church in the UK or the USA, will suffer through in the coming years, if as expected, unrestricted Catholicism becomes public-enemy number one to our governments. Certainly we have seen this happen in Boston and in the entire UK, where the local and national governments there have tried to force Catholic adoption providers to send children into homosexual relationships. In response, I'm sure you know, the providers chose not to continue their services, and, in Boston, have all closed down. Some call it the hard line approach, but you can't begin to compromise Catholic teaching just to make a few political points.

Which is something Zen says the Church in China didn't always do well, the hard line stuff. It cooperated frequently with the Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association, a government controlled body, in order to carry out its mission, even at the expense of its mission. This resulted in the two Churches, the Patriotic and the Underground, both of which, confusingly, have valid sacraments. The Patriotic Church receives its funding from the government, is controlled by the CCPA, and basically is the bureaucracy which administers the Church, officially, in China. It recently caused much uproar by allowing the illicit ordination of a bishop at the behest of the Communist government. If we look at things comparatively, we can see just what could happen in the West if the Church didn't take a hard line approach and maintain its autonomy.

Richard Neuhaus on the NAB

2007-07-27T11:31:00.001-07:00

On today's First Things blog, Fr. Neuhaus takes the New American Bible to task, again, for yet another ludicrous translation of a passage that is not only completely different in some ways to earlier translations of the passage, but ultimately misleading as well. Neuhaus writes:

The New American Bible (NAB), an unfortunate translation episcopally imposed upon Catholics for readings at Mass, has prompted earlier comment in First Things (see here and here). The problem keeps coming back, not least in pastoral counseling. Take the woman who had had it with her husband’s lying to her. I mentioned to her Our Lord’s admonition to forgive “seventy times seven” (Matt. 18:22). That’s the way it reads in every widely used English translation, including the Douay-Rheims, an earlier English translation used by Catholics. Jesus obviously intended hyperbole, indicating that forgiveness is open-ended. Keep on forgiving as you are forgiven by God, for God’s forgiving is beyond measure or counting.

But this woman had been reading her NAB, according to which Jesus said we should forgive not “seventy times seven,” but “seventy times.” She had been keeping count, and her husband was well over his quota. Then there is Matt. 5:32 and 19:9, where in both passages Jesus says: “But I say to you that every one who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, makes her an adulteress.” In other widely used English translations, it is “unfaithfulness” or “marital unfaithfulness.” The Douay-Rheims says “excepting in the case of fornication.”

In both passages, the NAB puts it this way: “But I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) causes her to commit adultery.” Meaning a previous marriage had not been annulled by the diocesan marriage tribunal? Whatever.

Now to be perfectly fair, in the three passages mentioned there are ancient authorities that lend some support for the NAB translation. For instance, some ancient texts of Matthew 19 read “he who marries a divorced woman commits adultery,” which is closer to the NAB version. But in the tradition of translation, scholars have overwhelmingly decided that the manuscripts referring to unchastity or unfaithfulness are to be preferred.

Neuhaus has said time and time again, that legalistic literal accuracy should not be the driving force behind any translation of the Bible. Unfortunately, no one at the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, which owns the NAB and the right to enforce its use in every liturgy from Astoria to Atlanta, ever wants to listen to him. Which is a shame; American Catholics have thus been forced to read a drab, deconstructionist and awkward translation at every Mass. Neuhaus continues:

The NAB is a banal, linguistically inept, and misleading translation. Why did the bishops force it upon the Catholic people, demanding that it and it alone be used in the readings of the Mass? Various answers are given: Because it was produced by the guild of Catholic biblical scholars and, while it may not be very good, at least it is ours. Because the bishops hold the copyright, and charges for using the NAB in Mass guides and elsewhere is a cash cow for the financially strapped bishops conference. Because the bishops really don’t care whether Catholics use a worthy and reliable translation of the Bible.

So in the end, it's probably about the money. That's how it seems to me at least, in no small part to Neuhaus's constant polemicising, but also because no one at the USCCB has ever really explained the bishop's tendencies to become remarkably fascist when it comes to biblical translations. This understanding is given further credence, I think, by the fact that national bishop's conferences are not a mandated ecclessial bureaucracy and receive no monetary support from the Vatican. These conferences, most of which started up after Vatican 2, are therefore reliant on copyrights, fundraising and properties, and are having a hard time proving their relevancy to the laity (and probably Rome as well).

And does anyone else think it's ironic that the USCCB fought tooth and nail against the motu proprio, in lieu of Neuhaus's comments on the NAB? As far as I know, the NAB has not been translated back into Latin, which would mean that a different Bible would have to be used at Old Rite liturgies. That could mean lower demand for new NAB translations (which come out every other year for some reason) and higher demand for say, the Douay-Rheims. I'm sure the USCCB, in it's precarious financial state (all though not so precarious that it prevented the bishops from meeting at a five-star Las Vegas hotel for their last meeting) wanted nothing to do with a papal directive that could ultimately cost them their monopoly on Catholic Bibles in the US.

Demographic Divide?

2007-07-24T09:23:00.001-07:00

The Cafeteria is Closed blog has an interesting link to a recent Time Magazine article in which a 'young, progressive Catholic' publicly discusses his desire for a universal, reverent, Latin 'Old Rite' liturgy, as opposed to the experimental forms of the vernacular Novus Ordo Rite. It has me wondering, is this an area in which young Catholics are in agreement, progressive or orthodox? In my conversations with other young Catholics, I have yet to encounter any opposition to the 'Old Rite', only curiosity, and hopefulness - hopefulness that one day the liturgy will be at least consistent between local parishes, if not around the whole world, and even with the Church of History.

On the other hand, I tend to encounter more concern from older Catholics, ages forty and up, particularly those who are either currently employed by the Church in some capacity or who simply were 'young Catholics' during the 1960s and 1970s. These concerns are now well published, in the wake of the Motu Proprio of course, and seem to revolve around the idea that different liturgies will factionalize the Church. And although I don't necessarily agree with that concern, it is valid: These are the folks who lived through previous liturgical changes, and they remember quite well that it wasn't a harmonious time for the Church by any stretch of the imagination.

All the same, I think those fears will ultimately be assuaged by the eagerness of young Catholics to recreate the Catholic identity through a more reverent liturgy, 'Old Rite' or Novus Ordo. And I think the Pope hopes for such an outcome as well. If there's one thing that most young Catholics can agree on, it's that the Haugen-Haas ice-cream liturgy has to go. Dominus Vobiscum!

Support Free Dominion

2007-07-21T10:03:00.000-07:00

Free Dominion, a socially conservative blog, has been served notice that the ironically named Human Rights Commission is considering charging it with a violation of the Human Rights Act after a woman, Marie-Line Gentes, took issue with comments posted on that blog by a visitor. The complainant, who is not a Muslim, took issue with these remarks made by someone named Bill Whatcott:

04/24/06 "I can't figure out why the homosexuals I ran into are on the side of the Muslims. After all, Muslims who practice Sharia law tend to advocate beheading homosexuals."

03/09/06 "I defy Islamic censorship and speak about what I believe is the truth
about violent Islamism and its threat to religious liberty in Canada."

And:

"How many of us pay nothing but lip service to the Muslim threat here in Canada?"
"Probably everyone want to jail a Muslim."
"I have to ask why we are importing them here?"
"Islamic fundamentalism and its threat to Canada's religious and civil liberties."

You don't have to personally support Bill's comments, or even read Free Dominion, to realise that something's amiss here. First, Bill should be able to tell anyone anywhere what his beliefs are; that's called freedom of speech and is of the utmost importance to the health of democracy. Second, an unelected, unaccountable, shadowy bureaucracy like the Human Rights Commission (HRC) should not be able to 'sue' Canadians based upon a person's sensitivity level. The HRC is supposed to deal with discrimination and authentic hate speech, not moderate public discussion, although opponents of the HRC have always claimed that's exactly what it was made for. Left or right, progressive or conservative, you have to admit that when something like this happens, all of our rights suffer.

Support Free Dominion, publish these quotes on your own blog. Cherish freedom of speech.

ps - To those who complain that this approach is heavy handed, of course it is. About as heavy handed than filing a complaint with the HRC about something you read on the internet.

Motus, Catholics and a Waning Summer

2007-07-20T00:28:00.000-07:00

Phew. Time has just breezed by me again. I guess this time I do have an excuse for not posting in over two weeks: I started a new job (a crappy one, but an honest one) and my wife is pregnant (cop-out).

A lot has happened in the last two weeks, especially if you are a Catholic. The long expected motu proprio was released, finally, to applause from some and revulsion from many, especially the media and the media-friendly. And just after the motu proprio, the Vatican released a document which basically reaffirmed the 2,000 year old Catholic dogma that there is no 'Church' outside the one, true Church found by Christ Himself.

So where to begin? I admit that I haven't written my Bishop to demand a Tridentine Mass just yet. I understand that it will take some time for my local priests to learn it and even more time for my Catholic peers to be comfortable with the celebration of a Mass so foreign to our current liturgical norms. But once I know there is a priest who can celebrate a Tridentine Mass I will demand/attend. Why? I'm no fan of Latin particularly, although as a self-styled pragmatist I do support the return of widespread use of the universal Catholic language. I think my interest in that Mass has to do with one of my experiences at WYD 2005. I met a young priest who was a member of the Society of St. Paul, which is an order that is permitted to only celebrate Mass in the Tridentine Rite. This priest told me that there was no better liturgy in which to contemplate the sacrifice and the gift which Christ gives at every Mass. It's been two years now, and I'm getting ancy.

Of course the press, and some unremarkable Bishops, had a field day creating a public litany of complaints after the release of the motu proprio. Most felt it was a 'conservative' reform of the reforms of Vatican 2, which, to anyone with a brain, it isn't, because the Paul VI Mass has nothing to do with directly with Vatican 2, and everything to do with the need introduce the vernacular and congregational participation into the liturgy, a need which was first articulated by the famous liturgist Romano Guardini in the early 1920s, some 40 years or so before the Council.

And if you think it stopped there, you we're wrong. As I mentioned before, the Vatican followed up the motu proprio with a statement on the nature of the Catholic Church and other Christian churches. The true faith, according to us Catholics, resides in the Catholic Church. Other Christian churches thus are not Churches in the same sense as the Catholic Church, but 'ecclesial bodies' in which the Holy Spirit resides and graces are found, but which lack the full efficacy of the Catholic Church. So basically, the Vatican decided to drop this oft-forgotten facet of Catholicism just after it had already dropped the motu proprio bombshell. While it made for a busy two weeks for journalists, bishops, and commentators with an axe to grind with orthodox Catholicism, it also got everything out of the way at once.

Just what were they raising awareness about?

2007-07-08T20:45:00.000-07:00

For those of us questioning the logic behind holding several environmentally wasteful concerts just to 'raise awareness', we know have an answer.

Someone certainly raised awareness.

Live Earth is now dead

2007-07-07T23:48:00.000-07:00

It's over. Some 74,500 tons of green-house gases were emitted/created/produced to put on the show, but hey, at least a few million Westerners (give or take a few million, probably take) got to rock out, feel good about feeling good about doing nothing, and help raise awareness.

Now tell me, if I were to burn down a grocery store to raise awareness about over consumption or destructive farming techniques, what would the reaction be? I earnestly hope people would deem me a madman without any second thought, seeing as I created a big mess just to protest a big mess. And what if the big mess I was protesting wasn't even proven to be a big mess at all? What then?

If those who attended any of the Live Earth concerts set any standard, no one would care. They'd just be happy that I invited a few modern day pop stars to help make the mess. Private jet? No problem - she's raising awareness, don't cha know. In our age of enlightenment, raising awareness is practically a cause for secular sainthood. It doesn't matter that a person's lifestyle contradicts their message, just as long as they make sure they insert a few catch-phrases to their songs and smile to the media, they're totally above criticism.

Perhaps the best quote of all, which sums up the entire problem of Live Earth and the slacktivism of global warming came from a British punter named Jayme Fine, "People leaving their lights on at home when nobody's there is going to eat up electricity. If we all just remember to shut those off, it's OK for us to have an event like this."

Idiot.

Live Earthypocrisy

2007-07-05T10:47:00.000-07:00

If ever there was a stupid idea, it the idea of using rock concerts to promote environmentalism. I've been to several concerts and festivals and they all do one thing the same and very well: Create mass amounts of garbage. Not only that, the performers themselves are usually amongst the worst consumers of energy and resources and often lead the most shallow, callow, and hollow materialistic lives visible to the public eye. The last festival I went to, Sasquatch (held annually in the Gorge Amphitheatre in Washington state) tried to be 'green' by simply blasting 'green' slogans on electronic billboards from time to time. There were no recycle bins, no biodegradable utensils (even WYD 2005 had those), yet there were several young Al Gore enthusiasts handing out free copies of 'An Inconvenient Truth' - each with its own double plastic wrapping.

I guess on the other hand that if your real goal is simply to boost your own popularity and sense of importance, perhaps to bolster a sagging political portfolio, organizing such an event is good thing to do.

All the same, the Live Earth concerts aren't even selling that well in Europe, which many thought would be the safest and most profitable venues. The city of Hamburg is now handing out tickets for free to visitors, and several of the original 'Live {insert cause here}' promoters like Bob Geldof have already distanced themselves from the concerts.

Happy Dominion/Canada Day +1

2007-07-01T22:30:00.000-07:00

I had a great weekend. My wife and I celebrated our 6-month anniversary at a wonderful lodge just 20 minutes out of Victoria. Today had breakfast with my parents, went to Mass, then watched two U-20 World Cup games. All in all, a great and glorious day given to us by God.

ps - Nigerians really know how to watch soccer. And to all the drunken Canadians, beer does not darken the skin and gift you rythym.

Your Friendly Neighbourhood Christian-Muslim Womenpriest of the Episcopal Church

2007-06-20T16:49:00.001-07:00

I caught this story the other day. A Episcopalian womenpriest, who incidentally is without parish at the moment, also says she is a Muslim. That much I'm sure of - the real question is whether or not she is actually a Christian. At glance, I'd probably through up the ol'negatory response and be done with it, but - but - this is an ordained women in the Episcopal Church. Even the Episcopalians must have standards, right?

Trinity? Eucharist? Resurrection? Heck, is the crucifixion even considered part of the Episcopalian canon these days or is that optional too?

You'll notice by now that the link I posted doesn't actually bring you to a AP or Reuter's article, those I'm sure you could find on your own, but to another piece of wry commentary from Mark Steyn, who must have now become the most annoying Christian journalist to the rest of the world. Steyn simply mentions in passing that Lina Joy, a Malaysian woman who converted from Islam to Christianity, has not been allowed to have 'Muslim' removed from her identity card. Why? Because Malaysia has sharia law, and you can't convert from Islam under sharia. Steyn also points out that just over half the population is Muslim, which Christians, Hindus and Buddhists making up the remainder, and yet the country is ruled by Islamic law. That alone is worth thinking about, particularly if you live here, here, here, or here.

Mikey Moore & The Making of Idiocracy

2007-06-20T13:49:00.000-07:00

When I was a lad, 13 or 14 or something, I liked Michael Moore. He had a show on tv that exposed our societal hypocracises, untruths, excesses and misdirections in a time when no one was really asking (The Clinton/Chretien era) and no one really cared. After about ten episodes, the show was cancelled and Michael Moore was never heard of again. That is, until a national catastrophe occurred that proved too tempting to hijack.

Mikey was back, and his Bowling for Columbine singlehandedly resurrected the fictional documentary. It was years since This is Spinal Tap, and so everyone had pretty much forgotten that just because it looks like a fact, smells like a fact, and is delivered like a fact, it doesn't mean that it is a fact. North Americans and Europeans loved Moore's irreverent usurpal of the American gun industry - especially when he compared it to Canada, which has no guns, no violence, and no crime. A few years later, Moore was back with Fahrenheit 9/11, which attacked the fact that the West had been attacked by violent Islamists and hinted at widespread conspiracies which were plunging the world into chaos and war. When critics pointed out the many fallacies, strawmen, and sometimes plain lies of Moore's films, he and his followers simply ignored them: When you're in the fiction business, you're the realist, everyone and everything else is just imaginary.

It's 2007 and Moore is back with Sicko, another fictional documentary that this time goes after private medical insurance in the United States. The point of it is that nationalized medical insurance, paid for by taxes, is good, and private medical insurance, paid for by clients, is bad. Once again, Canada is held up on a pedastel, while the American healthcare system is chopped to peices.

So what does this have to do with the making of an idiocracy? Well it's not like film is the most cerebral of mediums, so obviously you can't fault Moore there. Where you fault Moore is with how and why he sells his ideas. Rather than a pro vs. con comparison of each argument, Moore simply dismisses any opposition without actually building an argument to do so. It's like John Stewart, only some Daily Show viewers are able to distinguish between real life and tv, whereas many Moore fans have simply decided not to. What happens is that millions of impressionable youths (and holdout communists, socialists, leftists, condo-owning hippies) walk out of movie theatres thinking they've engaged an serious issue, or at least have a good understanding of it, while all that's really changed is just an unquantifiable drop in common sense and greasy popcorn fingers. Moore says it's wrong, ergo it is wrong. Tautology for the unphilosophized.

To wrap up this rant I'd like to just point out a couple problems that I can immediately see with Sicko just from what I know of the premise of the film. For starters, the American medical system, even with it's lack of public medical insurance, is still the envy of the world. People do not fly from Cheyenne, Wyoming to Vancouver, British Columbia for treatment - they fly to Cheyenne from Vancouver. Nationalized health insurance is prone to widespread abuse by patients, which clogs the system and prevents many honest patients from receiving the treatment they require (and paid for), which has a substantial affect on, say, the survivability rates for breast cancer. Last I looked, the curative rate for breast cancer in the USA was around 75%, as compared to 50% and 40% for Canada and Britain. Are these trivial facts, too peripheral for Moore to include? It seems so.

A little time for meditation

2007-06-15T08:46:00.000-07:00

On my way to an interview yesterday morning, I passed by our fine city's beautiful Anglican Cathedral. So back the Anglican cathedral. It perhaps uses the least amount of billboard advertising (unlike the Catholic, Methodist and Baptist churches) because, I think, it is just not doing that well. This thought was vindicated yesterday when, as I walked by the church, I saw a little sandwich board advertisement which read:

Open 9am - 5pm Service Sunday 10am Come inside for quiet meditation

Quiet meditation? Is it not me but when a cathedral parish simply offers up room for 'quiet meditation' something is very wrong with that church. Is prayer too fundamentalist or traditional a term? The sign simply smacked of metaphysical emptiness and desperation on the part of church leaders. Not that the term 'meditation' is particularly bad, but I'm sure you'll agree that is much more fitting of New Age paganism or even facile North American Buddhism than Anglican Christianity.

What I think is particularly sad is how this pithy little sandwich sign represents the theological and institutional crisis of the Anglican Church. It is widely expected now that the church will become increasingly factionalised in the coming months, with Archbishop Rowan Williams decision not invite several 'conservative' prelates while inviting all but one of the 'liberal' prelates to the upcoming Lambeth Conference only exacerbating a terrible situation. Already North American parishes under the Episcopal banner are contemplating schism, and indeed some have even split and joined under the leadership of Archbishop Peter Akinola of Nigeria. Some Anglican priests have even, and quite publicly, attempted to reunify their entire parishes with the Catholic Church. And here in quiet Victoria, amidst all the confusion, chaos and division, our local Anglicans are prepared to offer you not a place for prayer per se, but for quiet meditation.
Ironic, isn't it, since prayer is the only thing that's going to save the Anglican Church.

Latin Revivalism a la Benedict 16

2007-06-11T13:59:00.000-07:00

Some of my friends at Catholic Explorers have been discussing the impending motu proprio which is expected to permit the use of the Tridentine Rite without permission of a bishop. As it stands now, if you want to have the Mass said according to the Old Rite, you need the permission of your local bishop. It's expected that the motu proprio will change all that.

I don't know about you, but I would love a bit more Latin in the liturgy. My favourite hymns and prayers are in Latin, and I've always felt that it lends a much more eternal and sacramental feeling to the Mass, at least for a regular Joe-60 Ouncer like myself. Speaking a language that is not your mother tongue is always a special experience, bewildering and difficult at times yes, but always worth it. Imagine how it would be to speak the mother tongue of your faith! (leaving aside Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek of course)

So back to my friends. One thinks that the use of the Old Rite will lead toward proper liturgical evolution, a process that was upset after Vatican II. The other is more skeptical, feeling that a direct indult requiring the use of Latin in the Novus Ordo Mass would be more effective and rule out the possibility of creating a Tridentine and New Order factional divide within the Church. Those are both compelling arguments and I think both are right. The thing is, I'm pretty sure we're supposed to be using some Latin in the Novus Ordo Mass already, which makes me skeptical of how effective any direct indult would be.

I personally think Ol'Ben is up to something a little more indirect, which would make sense if he were truly wishing to revitalize the process of liturgical evolution, and heck, we all know it's more his style to do things subtly than with a bang. Visit Catholic Explorers for more on this discussion.

No Posting For Another Two Weeks...

2007-05-22T20:24:00.001-07:00

... because I just don't have the time I once had!

But I have one announcement to make to the blogosphere: My wife is pregnant! It is still early on, so we are very anxious about the health of our baby and try not to get too excited about it. Nevertheless, I thank God everyday for even the possibility that I might be a father before the end of 2007.

But about the blog. I should be back in the second week of June with some regular blogging. I've dropped the ball a bit and it'll take some time to get back into the swing of things.

God Bless & Peace of Christ be with you always,

Colm

2007-05-10T08:51:00.000-07:00

I found this article particularly interesting in light of my recent posts on the pro-life movement.

Calgary Bishop Cites Graphic Images for Withdrawal of Support for Prominent Pro-life Group
By Hilary White

CALGARY, May 9, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) – In 2005 when the Canadian Centre for Bioethical Reform (CCBR) was preparing to move to Calgary, the group that had met with remarkable successes across the country did not expect to lose the support of the Catholic bishop who is arguably the most outspoken on life and family issues.

CCBR has been immensely successful as a pioneer in Canada of the use of large graphic images of aborted children juxtaposed with other forms of historical genocide. The displays, called the Genocide Awareness Project (GAP), erected at university campuses and similar settings are accompanied by trained volunteers who discuss the issues with passers by. The group now plans to bring the GAP to the next level with trucks rolling the images down the highways during commuter rush hours.

But in February this year, over a year after the group’s arrival in Calgary, Bishop Fred Henry released a letter to all his parishes, school boards and Knights of Columbus chapters saying he was “withdrawing all support” from the group, objecting to their use of graphic images of abortion, the central aspect of CCBR’s work.

Stephanie Gray, executive director of CCBR, spoke with LifeSiteNews.com saying they are disappointed with the bishop’s position.

When the group first met with Bishop Henry, Gray said he praised their work in general but “expressed reservations on graphic images.” She said, “He didn’t embrace us but he didn’t forbid Catholics to get involved.”

The Bishop, she said, was “uneasy” and thought the approach did “some harm” but “recognized the morality of the strategy.” Gray and CCBR took this statement as indicating that there is nothing morally objectionable about the GAP approach and began contacting local parishes and schools.

Henry’s position has apparently hardened, however. In his February 14th letter, while he praised the group’s “strong, clear and articulate presentations on behalf of life,” the bishop wrote that the GAP violated the moral principle that “the end...does not justify the means.”

He wrote, “In no way may these pictures be construed as healing, nor can the project be described as ‘tough love’ and I am not in favour of this kind of pedagogy. It is not good news and in my opinion does more harm than good to the pro-life cause.”

Gray said that although the bishop’s letter has not yet cost the group any financial supporters, it has hurt them. “So far, all the emails we have received have been in favour of us and expressing deep disappointment in Bishop Henry,” she said. However, Gray said that the group has lost speaking opportunities in one school and at one parish.

Perhaps worse, shortly after the letter was released, the diocesan post-abortion healing ministry, Project Rachel, refused to meet with Gray’s colleague, Jose Ruba and Gray was removed from the Diocesan Life Education Committee. Both groups and the parish cited the bishop’s letter.

Gray said, “Those are only the things we know about. We don’t know how many more people there are in parishes who might have been interested in us, who are now being put off.”

The success of GAP can be measured by the dramatic increases in calls and visits by pregnant women, often students, to local crisis pregnancy centres in areas where the displays have appeared. But the fact that the photos have arguably saved lives, does not stop them from regularly coming under attack, frequently most vociferously from fellow pro-life activists.

She told LifeSiteNews.com that although Bishop Henry denied CCBR the opportunity of answering his objections before the letter was distributed, the group’s website has been adjusted to answer them.

Preaching: Let's get happy

2007-05-09T12:32:00.000-07:00

Diogenes posts at CWNews that a new group, the College of Preachers, has published a new guide. This new guide discusses ways Catholic priests can improve their homilies. Great, you'd think, crummy homilies are a problem, and priests clearly need some sort of encouragement, advice to make themselves more adept at the oldest and second most visible part of their vocation. So enter the College's guide to preaching.

The guide sets out to help priests 'double-check' facts on areas which are out of their technical expertise. Again, great, right? Well no. The guide is designed so that say, Fr. Doe wants to preach about the mortal sin of mixing your recycables, he knows where to look to make sure he doesn't confuse the hard plastics with the corrugated cardboard. Yea, not what's really needed.

The problem most priests seem to have with preaching is actually coming out and saying something worthwhile. There's simply too much therapy and not enough instruction. As much as we like a chuckle, 4 jokes does not a good sermon make. Nor does reminding us that all we need is love and that we're all pretty good deep inside - that's what our saccharine hymns are apparently for.

Unfortunately it's just too easy to offer up a few heartwarming and mindnumbing comments, or make an empassioned pseudo-political speech against the most recognizable media-inflated issue de jour. But that's not effective preaching, and no matter accurate your facts are, the congregation still suffers.

I've noticed many younger priests to be much better preachers than older priests. I don't know why that is; maybe there's an a problem of priests burning out, especially after what the Church and Western culture has been through the past 40 years. But what these new priests seem to understand and the older ones don't, is that simply preaching the Gospel and Catholic tradition is and will always be the best choice. Not that reminding Catholics of God's demand that we, for example, be stewards of the Earth in the context of climate change isn't all that bad, rather, it's that people are inured to that sort of thing. We get that stuff from our friends, the media and family outside of Church and we don't need it every Sunday too.

edit: If you really want a guide to preaching, start by reviewing this.

The 'A-word'

2007-05-07T13:54:00.000-07:00

The United States has the 'n-word'. Canada has the 'a-word'. In a very surprising National Post article, columnist Anne Marie Owens discusses why, when and how the public abortion debate in Canada never got started. At Catholic Explorers, contributor Mary Anne picks up on the article and the lack of debate. It's an excellent post (actually two) which should be read by every leathernecked pro-lifer.

While I don't necessarily agree that Canadians are afraid of the abortion issue because of its divisivness, I think there is some truth to it. Many Canadians simply do not like to talk about serious things. I don't know why that it is, but its the current status quo. Actually, the current status quo is that when and if a particularly pernicious and troubling issue like abortion is raised, you will either be yelled at by a lunatic abortionist or a radical right-to-lifer.

So in the wake of this, my wife, my mother and I were discussing how we should begin to revitalize some elements of the pro-life movement. I for one think a very good place to start would be to remove any 'abortion is murder' placard, quote or whatever from our arsenal. Why? Because the discussion is no longer about whether or not it is human life or if it is not human life. Science has emphatically proven on several occassions since abortion was legalized in Canada that human life begins at conception. As much as it pains me to say it, people who procure abortions are usually well aware that it is akin to murder. For the pregnant woman, it is usually a utilitarian decision; for the pro-choice movements, it is a rights-based decision. When was the last time you even hear a pro-abortionist say 'Well, we don't really know when it becomes life anyway, so best to err on the side of the mother'? And moreover, if a woman has an abortion, is she going to react positively to a placard which reads 'Abortion: 1 Dead, 1 Wound'?

The same goes for the graphic images. Showing people images of destroyed babies, for whatever reason, puts people in shell-shock mode and they simply turn their minds off. It's not even that difficult to realize - soldiers, doctors, anyone who views extremely graphic pictures of dead humans simply depersonalizes the image and pushes it to the fartherest corner of their mind. What the pro-life movement seems to be discovering is that it is the images and videos of children in the womb at various stages that are the most effective. The very successful crisis pregnancy certains do not 'win over' pregnant women by showing them images of tiny, dismembered and bloodied people.

Now this is not to say that the murder rhetoric and the use of graphic images should never be employed. Rather, I think that there are certain occassions when such plain terms and shocking pictures must be used. We shouldn't forget about the horrors of abortion or shy away from informing others about them, but we should use the utmost discretion to ensure that our message is received properly. How much more attractive is it when people are for something instead of against it?

(A little guy at 17 weeks)

Another Beckwith reflection...

2007-05-07T09:32:00.000-07:00

Dr. Francis Beckwith's conversion has reminded me of something else. Before I returned to my faith, I hit a wall. I suppose many people do. For me it occurred when I realized that if I was going to be truly sincere, my pride would have to suffer and I would have to admit that on a certain many things, my own opinions and postulations were completely wrong. I had to admit that I had been wrong, and that I had been totally complicit in my wrong doing. Sorry if this sounds simplistic, but it's just how it was. You see the Truth, and then you see what's holding you back from the Truth.

When I reflect upon those days when I was denying Christ, almost compulsively, I like to remember how St. Thomas was so stubborn that he wouldn't accept that Christ had risen unless he, well, check out the picture above (there's never an occassion that doesn't warrant a Caravaggio). It wasn't Christ keeping Thomas from seeing, it was Thomas. It was Thomas' attachment to, perhaps, a form of rationalism, despite all he had seen over the previous three years. Just as it is with us, when we are no longer in communion with Christ and with His Church, it's always down to ourselves, what we choose to think and choose to do.

Another one bites the dust...

2007-05-06T22:41:00.000-07:00

The Holy Spirit is at it again; another returns home. Welcome, Frances Beckwith, your family, and everyone esle who entered into full communion with the Universal Church of Christ.

This conversion has some up in arms, just check the Right Reason combox, and others are using it as a chance to exercise and hone the virtue of charity. I like that. When I've had to deal with friends and family falling away from the Church, I've learned through prayer that it's the best time to bless them and pray for them, and pray for yourself.

I've often wondered if their is a difference between the way Catholics and Protestants cope with a family member or friend converting. I can't say for sure, but I think Catholics are more inclined to pray and hope rather than anathemize, judge and become confused. I have many friends who have left the faith, and it is a troubling thing, but it does not ever make me call in question the efficacy of the sacraments or Christ's promise to Peter. Yet in reading many of the Protestant responses to Dr. Beckwith, I can't help but notice not more than a little bit of worry and bitterness - worry that Beckwith did the right thing, and bitterness for making them doubt their own beliefs.