No Posting For Another Two Weeks...

... 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

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

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'

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...

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...

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.

To the Sarko go the spoils...

Nicholas Sarkozy has won the French election. Segolene Royal conceded defeat (I love how the loser concedes defeat; it's one of the few classy moments left for a politician) shortly after polls closed and it became apparent that she had not overcome the 10 point deficit she faced coming into Sunday. Make no mistake, the press will have a field day making Sarkozy out to be a frevent right-winger, and dress up Royal's socialism to no end. Even though Royal is a die-hard socialist, and socialism is the reason why the French economy, once the envy of the West, is now one of the weakest, no one in the media would dare point out the obvious failings of someone so close to their own ideology. C'est la vie - salut, Sarko!

I don't know if Sarkozy will be able to implement many of the reforms he promised during the election, but he has been given a clear mandate by the French public to do so. This is a France much different from the France of even 10 years ago. You could consider the rejection of the EU Constitution and the election of a conservative (fiscally definitely, socially somewhat) a very clear statement that France has had enough of socialist experiments and the nanny state.

Tar and feather, Segolene Royal, tar and feather

Segolene Royal has a problem: She's more than 10 points behind Nicholas Sarkozy. With only a
few days remaining until the final day of voting, Royal faces the monumental task of overcoming this deficit, somehow convincing the French that a return to Socialism is just what the country needs.

The French know this, and so too does Royal, so she's decided to get nasty. Royal is now warning that Sarkozy's election with lead to violence. She's right. But it won't be the poor or ethnic who will be turning over cars and burning garbages cans, it'll be the socialists, pissed off that they've lost another election.

What is Quebec?

Shane Doan versus Quebec. It didn't always be like this. There was a time when Quebec culture was vibrant and secure and distinct. It wasn't until the Quiet Revolution (you know, when Quebeckers stopped having kids, going to Church and speaking French) that Quebec as a culture began to crack.

And here we are today: An unremarkable hockey player has Quebec at odds with the rest of Canada. You really have to wonder when and where it's going to end for Quebec. The reaction has all the hallmarks of that spoiled kid in highschool who just couldn't take a joke. And that's what this is really like - a dispaly of highschool hypersenstivity and immaturity on a national scale.

So what's happened? How do turn a healthy society into a pale, artificial shadow of what it once was?

More on Catholics and the American Supreme Court

The extra-smart Robert Miller weighs in at First Things on the growing trend to point out that 5 of the assenting judges in the Gonzales v. Carthart decision are practicing Catholics. Miller takes issue mainly with what he sees as the trend beneath the trend, the trend that is to entirely dismiss the opinions and decisions of others, rather than engaging them, on the mere basis that they do not agree with your own opinions and decisions.

There's a lot of that going on these days, and Miller is right on point when he calls this trend out as the real culprit, rather than anti-Catholicism, which by the way is a growing phenomenon in the West once again. Up here in the wild and wintery climes of Canada, we socially conservative and Christian folk are used to such dismissals-sans-debate. The perfect example of course is the non-debate which 'occurred' during the same-sex summer of 2005. Perfectly ordinary Canadians like myself were simply told that a debate had occurred and the issue was settled and closed. Where, who, how and when were not acceptible questions - the debate had happened and the issue was closed. Nothing to see here, folks.

And so it is with the PBA ban in the US. Pro-choice commentators have spent little energy actually discussing the procedure, probably because they spent all than enery in 2003 during Congressional discussion on the ban. Back then it was shown to the entire nation that no scientific or moral evidence exists which necessitates the availability of PBA. So perhaps that defeat is in the mind of pro-choicers when they voice their disgust to the Carthart decision, and hence the lack of discussion.

But anyway, I still think it's an interesting phenomenon. The pro-choice comments, with precious few exceptions, have instead run along these lines: The ban is wrong because it goes against the unlimited abortion license and anyone who disagrees with that is wrong. Why? Because abortion is sacrosanct and modern woman requires its availability. Paint me unconvinced.

Official NDP Policy: Anti-Counter-Insurgency

Dawn Black, the NDP Defense Critic, tells Charles Adler and Canada that the official party position is anti-counter-insurgency. Why? Because in the wisdom of the NDP, the military should not be involved in active combat. Why? Because active combat means big guns and big guns do not win 'hearts and minds'. They may win battles and wars, but they do not make the NDP feel happy. And the NDP's happiness is what is really important right now.

Does anyone ever find it troubling that the NDP is openly subverting the Canadian effort in Afghanistan for mere political gain?

Female Deacons

My friend Charles has an excellent post over at the Catholic Explorers blog on the recent article by Phyllis Zagano on the possibility of a female diaconate. Check it out.

Charles asks, drawing upon the Zagano's arguments, whether or not there are duties which a deacon performs that could be done by a woman. I think there are, but they all seem to be the ones that any lay person could perform regardless of sex. And then there's the issue of the Sacrament of Holy Orders, of which the permanent diaconate is a part, which requires a male recipient to be licit and valid. Obviously the Catholic Church does not redefine sacraments, and even though the Second Vatican Council did allow for the return of the ancient practice of the permanent diaconate (as opposed to the transitional diaconate), this minor alteration was simply a renewal of a practice which simply fell by the way side in the early middle ages.

All in all, I think the argument Zagano tries to advance is juvenile, optimistic, dishonest and purely academic. There will never be female deacons in the fashion Zagano wants - especially since she seems to view the diaconate as a halfway house to priesthood. So what could a girl like Zagano do in this crazy Church of ours?

What Would Jesus Do?

I remember being at some sort of the Catholic youth day around when I was 9 or so when I first was asked the question. If I recall correctly, a friend and I had just been caught teasing another boy by one of the adult chaperones. Rather than remonstrating us for our transgressions and cutting us off from the lemonade (which is a harsh and brutal punishment considering the hummidity of mid-summer Ontario), this overly pleasant woman simply asked us, What Would Jesus Do?

What Would Jesus Do? pretty much summarizes my catechesis from ages 9 to 18. Stole some pencils at school? What Would Jesus Do? Confessed that you had lied to your parents about doing your chores? What Would Jesus Do? Initially I took the question seriously. I did know that Jesus would not have intentially roofed little Chris Mackay's tennis ball during lunch time recess. But by the time I was 10, the effect had worn off. I had realised that I could easily rationalize What Would Jesus Do? into whatever sort of justification I needed at the time. Sure, I would think, Jesus wouldn't have roofed the tennis ball, but Jesus knew I was just having fun with my friends, which is OK. And besides, Jesus forgives, right?


It's wasn't long after that I completely lost whatever relationship I had with Christ as a child. The hardwork my parents had done teaching me the faith was undermined as my religious education became more and more the domain of well-meaning but woefully mistaken elementary school teachers. If Catholicism boiled down to What Would Jesus Do?, well then Catholicism as I perceived it became What Would Colm Do? and What Would Jean Chretien Do? It's not as if I actually knew all that much about Jesus in the first place. I had read some of the Gospels, but I had never studied them. I knew some of the Commandments, but it was never an educational requisite to have to learn them by memory. What Would Jesus Do? became incredibly detrimental to my development into a Catholic adult because I didn't know what Jesus would have done in anycase. The assumption is that children know that Jesus is an all around good guy who didn't do anything wrong, which is true at a very base level. Yet the assumption forgets that the definition of wrong is subjective to every single person. Without a properly formed conscience or at least the strength of a vigorous catechetical program, What Would Jesus Do? becomes one of the most destructive philosophies to hand down to children.

Those Damn Catholic Judges on the Supreme Court

It's starting.

5 of the Supreme Court Justices who voted to uphold the ban on partial-birth abortion happened to all be Catholic. Yes - Andrew Kennedy, Catholic (who authored the majority opinion); John Roberts, Catholic; Antonin Scalia, Catholic; Clarence Thomas, Catholic; Sam Alito, Catholic. You know what that means?

-----------

It will be interesting to see how the American public reacts to the decision of Obama, Clinton and Edwards to attack the ban on partial-birth abortion, rather than at the very least attempt to empathize with the 2/3's of Americans who, if polls are worth anything, support the ban. This has forced these guys to go on the attack/defensive for their Culture of Death beliefs much earlier than their strategizers had probably expected.

Partial-birth abortion is not illegal in Canada. There is no ban on any abortion no matter the health of the baby or the stage of the pregnancy. But I daresay that a 'success' of sorts like this for the pro-life movement in the US emboldens the pro-life movement in Canada. It's just that while Americans are discussing the implications of the Carthart decision, Canadians aren't discussing the pro-abortion campaign being waged in Nova Scotia. That's a big problem. I think most Canadians are against abortion, it's just that so few of them understand the situation in Canada. They seem to think that we have similar restrictions and rights in Canada and we don't.

Latin, Motu Proprios, and the Spectre of the Vicious Traditionalists

I admit it; I'm not a big fan of the way the Novus Ordo Mass is celebrated in most parishes I've visited. The high decibel folky whole wheat hymns, the experimentation, the dissonance of kneelers, standers, and kneelers & standers, it all gets to me a bit. But no matter how awful I make the situation out to be, it's still the Mass and Christ is still present. Even though the sense of sanctity is often difficult to find, it is still Mass. So those times when I'm fed up with what I think is shoddy rubrics or whatever else I can nitpick out of the liturgy, I simply remind myself where I am and what I am witnessing, and thank God for it.

I admit this too: I am eagerly awaiting the Motu Proprio and, hopefully, a more traditional method of celebrating Mass in the Novus Ordo. And I admit that I am partially mystified by the Pope's apparent dallying on the release of the Motu Proprio. I've read Spirit of the Liturgy and assume I know how Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger felt about the state of the liturgy, so why is it taking so long?

I think it has to do with charity - specifically a lack thereof. In my blogosphere travels and in my conversations with Catholics of all persuasions, I've noticed that people who I consider 'serious about their faith' sometimes err on on the side of hyper-criticality. Nothing is acceptable to them other than what they consider the pure, unadulterated use of Latin, Liturgy, etc, etc. Priests who are otherwise good and orthodox men, are singled out for abuse and ridicule because of the inclusion of the classical guitar, bongo, flute, or trumpet instead of, or even along with, the pipe organ. Priests who administer the sacraments with reverence are criticized, by the very Catholics who actively receive these sacraments, because their pronunciation of 'agnus' wasn't correct. I understand that many Catholics simply want the liturgy to be conducted properly, it's just that often many Catholics, like me, go too far.

Diversification Trumps Excellence

The University of Victoria, my alma mater, published this job posting in the Globe & Mail:

National Chair in Aboriginal Economic Development

Faculty of Business and Faculty of Law
University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

The Faculties of Business and Law at the University of Victoria are seeking a highly qualified and dynamic individual to hold the newly created, endowed, tenure-track, National Chair in Aboriginal Economic Development for a term of five or more years. The joint appointment will normally be at the Associate or Full Professor level and will commence at a mutually agreeable date.

The Chair will serve as a catalyst for Aboriginal economic development in accordance with Aboriginal aspirations and practical goals by generating applied research, consolidating knowledge and best practices and promoting innovation, facilitating and brokering partnerships, and delivering relevant educational programming. A detailed description of the Chair and its activities may be found at http://www.business.uvic.ca/ or http://www.law.uvic.ca/.

The successful candidate will hold a graduate degree in Business and/or Law (or their equivalent) and will have a deep understanding of Aboriginal cultural values and broad experience dealing with issues relating to Aboriginal economic development, an exceptional record of research, and a demonstrated ability to work with Aboriginal communities. Capacity to speak an Aboriginal language would be an asset.

Applications, including a covering letter, resume, and names of (and contact information for) at least three references should be submitted no later than May8,2007. Please forward applications by mail (or by email followed by ordinary mail) to:

Rosemary Garton
Faculty of Law
University of Victoria
P O Box2400, STN CSC
Victoria, BC V8W 3H7

Email: rgarton@uvic.ca.

The University of Victoria is an equity employer and encourages applications from women, persons with disabilities, visible minorities, Aboriginal peoples, people of all sexual orientations and genders, and others who may contribute to the further diversification of the University.

All qualified candidates are encouraged to apply; in accordance with Canadian Immigration requirements, Canadians and permanent residents will be given priority.

Tell me again why the university seems more interested in diversification, and not even of the academic sort, than attracting properly qualified candidates? This might have something to do with elements within the university who are still smarting from the 'failed' presidency which blighted the school's reputation during the 1990s.

Poodle to World: J'excuse!

As a Canadian, I'd like to tell you that I'm sorry about the same-sex marriage thing. It's a real shame that it was made law and is now probably being used in your own country against your own laws. That's another side effect of transnationalism - in Spain, Progenitor A and Progenitor B can now repeal the law you and your parents and your grand parents developed because we lazy Canadians didn't do enough to stop what is now becoming a supranational leviathan.

Perhaps you're lucky and you live in a country with a more impartial and fair democratic system. Perhaps you live in a country with an accountable judiciary system and the fiat of an obscure provincial court is not enough to dramatically alter the legal landscape. Or perhaps you live in a place like Canada. If that's the case, put your hat on, tighten your belt and make a sandwich.

Here's some thoughts, however worthless you may find them:

- Don't get caught out by the 'debate is over' assertion. There wasn't a 'debate' to begin with in Canada, and yet our honourable political leaders kept telling us that there was. If someone uses this tactic against you, you'll know for certain that your position is probably the right one, so keep hammering away.

- Remember what exactly we're dealing with here. It's not about marriage, but about abolishing it all together. Love has nothing to do with same-sex marriage, and that's not to say that love does not exist in same-sex relationships. This is political and social battle which is inherently anti-religious, if not specifically anti-Christian. Canada is already witness to public persecutions (and prosecutions) of Bishops, marriage officials, priest, business people and teachers who have dared act in accordance with their conscience and exercised their right to freely express themselves as private citizens.

- When someone attacks you for being 'old fashioned', 'traditionalist' or, of course bigoted, prejudiced and in favour of discrimination, you can have some fun and help your own cause by pointing out a few things. Sure, marriage is old fashioned - it's an established fact that its been around since the dawn of humanity, so no arguments there. But it's also old fashioned in the same way cooking with fire and sleeping under a roof are; we do it because it works. It's a matter of discrimination when I chose to cook my chicken fingers, since I am making a discriminatory decision against eating uncooked meat. It's also the same for sleeping under a roof - I admit that I do harbour a deepseated prejudice against death by exposure, and I adjust my behaviour accordingly. Since all scientific statistical stuff says that heterosexual marriage is best for society, well, it goes without saying.

Iran to Britain: Take, oh, take me as I am

Why is it that at the relatively young age of 25 I notice that history is already repeating itself? Why does everything seem so gosh-darn similar these days?

I'm thinking specifically about the 'resolved' dispute over the captured British sailors. All credible sources claim that the sailors remained within Iraqi waters during the now infamous operation. The sailors themselves confirm as much, even stating that it was apparent that the Iranians who arrived and began to act aggressively, were clearly following a preconceived plan. And then we have the confirmation that dispite the blatant violations of the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of prisoners of war, ie the televising of the prisoners and the forced public interviews, the Iranians even went so far as to commit pyschological torture, ie telling each individual prisoner that they were the 'last one' and that the others were already executed.

And with this evidence, what is the response of Britain, the UN, and the Western media?

*crickets chirping*

I hate to violate Godwin's Law (the one that states that any internet argument is made forfeit by referencing the Nazis), but doesn't all this seem very, in fact, eeriely similar to the Daladier-Chamberlain policy of appeasement? (oh, maybe I haven't violated Godwin's yet after all, technically) In those days, the West was as war weary and hesitant as we are now, just with more reasonable excuses like ecomonic collapse, crop failures and World War I. The leaders, not wanting to waste any political capital on another unpopular and unwanted conflict, sought the persue 'soft war' via the ivory corridors of international diplomacy. It's good to remember that international diplomacy in the 1930's was about as bogus as it is now: The League of Nations, the precursor to the UN, was just as impotent, corrupt, and ineffectual as its modern day embodiment. Nevertheless, in the face of outright persecution and authentically 'illegal' wars (who makes wars legal by the way?) , the leaders of the West of the 1930s opted to do exactly what the leaders of the West of the 2000s chose. Nothing.

Richard Neuhaus on Pope Benedict on Iraq

Fr. Neuhaus expands upon Pope Benedict's mention of the Iraq War during his Easter Sunday address. You can read it here - but I want to comment on a corollary effect of the Pope's statement. Neuhaus points out: "... it is galling when Catholics and others who are usually blithely indifferent to church teaching seize upon a papal opinion with which they agree and, suddenly becoming hyper-infallibilists, elevate it to dogmatic status." Galling, indeed.

Happy Easter

He is risen.