June 2006 Archives

I have spent the evening ploughing through CS "The Man" Lewis' book The Magician's Nephew. It is an excellent book, with a great wealth of Christian symbolism.

It is this book which has gotten me thinking, particularly in the chapter "An Unexpected Meeting," of one of Satan's greatest ploys. It is not so much that it is something I did not already know about what he does to lead people away. It is more I guess that this particular situation (and you will know it when you have read the book if you have not already) has given me a new appreciation.

The long and short of it is this: Satan likes to put on as if he is emotionally invested in our problems, as if he desires that we should solve them and overcome our hardships. It helps, when tempted to go along with his bosh suggestions, simply to remember the truth.

And the truth is: Satan doesn't give a rat's ass about your problems or mine. If he does, he hopes that our struggles to overcome hardship and escape suffering lead us into so wretched a state as his. We need simply say unto him, when he is purporting to empathize with us, "Look here; where do you come into all this? Why are you so very invested in my wellbeing all of a sudden? What's it got to do with you? What's your game?"

I should read more Lewis.

In a glittering gem of subtly slanted reporting, the Washington Post on Wednesday reports:

Harvard University announced yesterday the launch of a privately funded, multimillion-dollar program to create cloned human embryos as sources of medically promising stem cells.

If I read one more article from the Mainstream Press about how “medically promising” these untested, unproven cells are, I might have to take a vacation. We all know what “medically promising” means. It means entirely theoretical. If the mainstream media had as much blind faith in religion as they do in science and biotechnology, they would be more Catholic than the pope.

This is not about stem cells!
The glittering gem continues:

The collaborative effort, involving several Harvard-affiliated medical research centers, the New York Stem Cell Foundation and Columbia University, marks a new phase in the long-simmering U.S. culture war over stem cell research, pitting some of the nation's most prestigious institutions against a vocal conservative movement that opposes the work.

First of all, this “long-simmering US culture war” is not over stem cells. How many times do we have to go over this? It is over the embryos who are being destroyed in the process of having their stem cells taken away for research purposes. The least our friends in the mainstream press could do is accurately report precisely what the source of the controversy is.

Three out of the four possible sources of stem cells are considered perfectly licit by the Catholic Church and pro-lifers. There’s adults, there’s fetuses, and there’s postnatal umbilical chords. The last one is no longer living so it’s fair game. The first two can have stem cells extracted without being killed or maimed. There’s nothing wrong with researching stem cells. There’s something very wrong with killing innocent people in order to do it. And as Fr Tad Pacholczyk at the National Catholic Bioethics Center points out, it’s these sources of stem cells that are actually being used right now to treat disease and are actually succeeding! No blind faith needed here. But the Washington Post makes it sound like all of us grandfather-clock, anti-technology Christians are opposed to all the stem-cell research that’s happening when they fail to simply and clearly identify precisely the kind of stem cell research to which Christians and pro-lifers are opposed and why.

Borderline editorializing
Now I just have to observe here: How does the mainstream press describe those who perpetrate this research? They are “collaborative” and “pres-tee-gee-ous.” Whereas who are we? We are “vocal” and “conservative”! Well gee whiz Washington Post, why not throw in “meddling” while you’re at it? The contrast is so obvious it borders on editorializing. Could they not have at least suffered to give us the label “pro-life”? “Why no, Mark, that would bring a positive spin to the story and keep the paper from being fair-and-balanced.” Okay fine but if that’s true, then why is it okay to call these scientists “presteegeeous”?

“Sincerity” versus truth
The folks spearheading the latest embryo-destructive research campaign for whatever reason feel the need to pander to us scrupulous, antiquated, simple-minded, churchgoing pro-lifers who have opposed the utilitarian practice for years. Harvard President Lawrence H Summers had this to say:

“While we understand and respect the sincerely held beliefs of those who oppose the research, we are equally sincere in our belief that the life-and-death medical needs of countless suffering children and adults justifies moving forward with this research.”

Make no mistake folks. This is textbook relativism. Look at the premises behind what President Summers is saying. It doesn’t matter what you believe. All that matters is that you believe it sincerely. We dogmatic simpletons can believe that embryos are human beings who have rights and deserve not to be exploited even for ostensibly noble purposes. And our presteegeeous colleagues in the biotechnology industry can believe that embryos are industrial material, to be drained of resources and then discarded.

Surely embryonic research proponents like President Summers are aware that we antiquated religious pro-life types aren’t swayed by all of this “sincerity” talk. If we sincerely believe that Hitler’s final solution to the Jewish problem is a good idea, it is still a very bad idea. That kind of ideology of “sincerity” is precisely what justified those atrocities then, and it’s what justifies these atrocities today. It’s not enough to be sincere. I am reminded of something I heard Archbishop Fulton Sheen say on Relevant Radio a few days ago, that history shows us that what is happening today is not new. They are the same things that have always happened, just in different ways to different people.

Injustice has always been justified not by claiming that it is right but by claiming it is for a good end and it is nobody’s place to judge the means. And injustices have always been rectified by those who sincerely strive to do what is really right, even if it means being vocal, and meddling, and uncompromising.

From Fox News:

There are 400,000 women in Germany already whose livelihoods come from selling their bodies for other people's sexual enjoyment. A US Congressman has cited that perhaps 40,000 more will make their way into Germany's borders while the country hosts the World Cup Soccer games. Archbishop Agostino Marchetto, a top official for the Pontifical Council for the Care of Migrants, told Vatican radio earlier this week:

"Using soccer terminology, I say that red flags should be given to this industry, to its clients and to the public authorities who host the event. Prostitution, in fact, violates the dignity of the human person, reducing her to an object and instrument of sexual pleasure. Women become goods to be purchased, whose cost is even less than that of a ticket to a soccer game."

I wonder what the radical feminists think about this. I mean, do they whip out their same shtick about this issue that they do about abortion? "Prostitution empowers women"? "It's her body, it's her choice"? And if not, then I wonder if they would give this woman-suppressing cleric from the woman-suppressing Church some credit for speaking out on the exploitation of women. Hey I can dream can't I?

There is a certain perspective which the Cross of Christ can supply to those struggling to live a virtuous life. The perspective is in recognizing just how minimal are our discomforts today compared to the intense sufferings which Jesus (and many of his followers) had to face. If Christ can bleed and die the way he did for love of me, then perhaps I can abstain from whatever sinful comforts to which I have attached myself over the course of my life.

I have been told, even in the confessional, that there is value in trying not to do something again, but that nevertheless I must accept that I will do it nonetheless. I imagine I am not the only one who has been told that. We are told that we are human, that we are normal and healthy and that people will simply do these things because certain "experts" have said that it is in our nature to do so. And besides, we ought not to be preoccupied with being "perfect" (even though Jesus called us to be). All of that does seem to make sense. The passions are too deep-seated. The temptations are too strong. The ideal is an ideal and normal human beings are not, and thus will trip up from time to time.

And the good news is that God is a merciful God, and he will take us back even if and no matter how many times and how badly we trip up, as long as we turn to him. All of that is true, but it lacks one element. The element is the perspective afforded by the Cross. Jesus, a human (in fact the human par excellence), overcame every deep-seated instinct, including that of survival, and stood up against every temptation, becoming obedient to the point of death, and by doing so, really lived the ideal and invited us time and time again to do the same.

Jesus said after washing the disciples' feet, "As I have done, so you must also do." In other words, "If I can do it, you can do it!" It is about time we stopped complaining about how he is God and we are not. For that did not seem to enter into the equation for him when it came to living the virtuous life. Quite the contrary, he is "the vine" and we are "the branches." All we need is to remain attached to him. "Abide in me as I abide in you." In practical terms, we just need to keep some perspective, and remember the Cross. The Cross is the key to Christ.

That's right ladies and gentlemen, I am posting this entry on the sixth minute of the sixth hour (...PM but anyways) of the sixth day of the sixth month of '06! Oh my gosh! that's like ... 66666! That's even more evil than 666!

Evil movie!
Well, what would a day like today be without summer blockbuster The Omen to commemorate it? And what kind of commemoration would a summer blockbuster be if said summer blockbuster was not a remake of an original from 30 years ago? (And thirty is a multiple of six! What're the odds??)

I have not seen it (and will not tonight because I have better things to do that don't involve the occult in any way shape or form), but hope to at some point. Roger Ebert gave it a positive review. He said something in the review that got me thinking:

I've observed before that when it comes to dealing with demons and suchlike, Roman Catholics have the market cornered. Preachers of other faiths can foam and foment all they want about satanic cults, but when it comes to knowing the ground rules and reading ominous signs, what you want at the bedside is a priest who knows his way around an exorcism.

Amen to that, Roger.

Okay so, that may be overstating it. People have been joking about this empire of baloney since before the movie came out I'd wager. But now the jokes are really starting to permeate. Two great pieces on the DaVinci Load that came out recently:

"Opus Dei's Box-Office Triumph" by Paul Fortunato
On June 2 an Opus Dei member from Houston wrote an op-ed in the New York Times. He practices corporal mortification, and is not ashamed to admit it. He also does something that works as a demonstration of class while serving at the same time as a nice little back-handed jab at the author and creators of the Load. He thanks them.

As a member of Opus Dei, I would like to thank Dan Brown and Ron Howard for "The Da Vinci Code." Why am I not outraged like so many other devout Roman Catholics? Because I think we could not have wished for a better result: critics attack the film (and, retrospectively, the book) as boring and annoying and cartoonish; and because everyone is seeing it anyway, many people who would otherwise have no interest in Opus Dei are curious, allowing us to explain what we are really about.

"Heaven Can Wait" by Anthony Lane
This piece, printed in the May 29 issue of the New Yorker, is laugh-out-loud funny. The last paragraph is priceless, and I won't give it away. Just read it.

I read this from Mother Theresa's No Greater Love on Friday while sitting on the pier in Glaveston.

What we need is to love without getting tired. How does a lamp burn? Through the continuous input of small drops of oil. What are these drops of oil in our lamps? They are the small things of daily life: faithfulness, small words of kindness, a thought for others, our way of being silent, of looking, of speaking, and of acting. Do not look for Jesus away from yourselves. He is not out there; He is in you. Keep your lamp burning, and you will recognize Him.

Boston College philosophy of religion professor Peter Kreeft wrote in one of his books: “Relativism is not humane. It is tolerant only as long as it feels like being tolerant. Once it feels otherwise no moral law prevents it from becoming dictatorial.”

We are seeing that very truth play out before us in the American Civil Liberties Union. Our brothers and sisters adrift in this organization have for years defended speech on all fronts, however despicable and exploitative the speech might be, always citing the sacrosanct value of liberty and autonomy afforded by the First Amendment to those perpetrating the speech.

But now they’ve apparently found something even more evil, even more egregious than hardcore pornography, something they simply must oppose on principle. What could it possibly be you ask? Why, advertising by those evil pro-life pregnancy centers of course!

A question of truthfulness
The Christian Examiner reported yesterday that in Washington a new campaign is under way to limit the speech rights of Pro-Life Pregnancy Help Centers like our local Gabriel Project Life Centers among others. US Representative Carolyn Maloney of New York introduced on March 30 the Stop Deceptive Advertising for Women’s Services Act. Maloney said in a written release that some crisis pregnancy centers “should be called ‘Counterfeit Pregnancy Centers.’ They have a right to exist, but they shouldn’t have the right to deceive in order to advance their particular beliefs.”

With all due respect to Rep Maloney, she does not want to go down that road. It is becoming more and more widely known that the minute pregnant ladies walk through the doors of an abortion clinic, what immediately ensues is precisely what she describes, only in this case at the hands of the opposite interests. The South Dakota Task Force on Abortion reached this very conclusion and shortly thereafter bipartisan legislation was passed and signed into law that looks to shut down the abortion business in the state almost completely. The last card the abortion industry wants to play is “truthfulness.”

At any rate, needless to say representatives of the crisis pregnancy centers themselves have had a few bones to pick with the proposed legislation. Care Net President Kurt Entsminger said, “This is nothing more than a routine attack on pregnancy centers by organizations seeking to limit their competition. We find it particularly curious that in her announcement Rep. Maloney did not cite one example of a pregnancy center that is engaging in deceptive advertising.”

Kim Conroy, director of Sanctity of Human Life at Focus on the Family, said that women deserve to be fully informed of all the facts and have accurate medical information before the abortion. “And,” she said, “they deserve to get that information from an entity that is not going to profit from their decision.”

"What about the First Amendment?"
Now in response to this monumental muzzle of proposed legislation, the ACLU has—denounced it as an affront to the First Amendment? Whipped out their old shtick about “no matter how offensive some speech may seem, it is not our place to decide who has the right to speak and who doesn’t based on moral ideology”?

Nope. They’ve endorsed it. Big surprise. And that endorsement has caused many who have defended the organization’s work in the past to now come forward and openly criticize the group. Nat Hentoff, a syndicated columnist and former ACLU board member, asked, “What about the First Amendment? When you have the state, with its power, deciding what is deceptive on something as thoroughly controversial as this, it goes against the very core, it seems to me, of the First Amendment.” According to Hentoff, advocacy of abortion over and above freedom of speech has been a problem in the ACLU for years. Of course it has, because when you get down to it, that’s more important to them.

University of California law professor Eugene Volokh said that parts of the bill would likely be declared unconstitutional. Said he: “The same logic would justify regulating a broad range of political or historical statements. I think that’s a very dangerous policy.”

Dissension in the ranks
Criticism isn’t coming just from without, but from within as well. Yahoo! News reported on Tuesday that ACLU board member Wendy Kaminer openly dissented the ridiculous backing of the ridiculous bill. Kaminer is a Boston attorney who considers herself “very strongly pro-choice.” Said she: “I don't believe the pro-choice movement has the copyright on the term ‘abortion services.’ That seems to me a very clear example of government being the language police.”

Now reports are coming out that the ACLU may do a little internal language policing of its own. Agape Press reports that the ACLU is developing new guidelines that would restrict its own officials from publicly criticizing disagreements within the organization. The new policies stem from recent squabbles that took place between Kaminer and ACLU executive director Anthony Romero. During a meeting, Romero asked her and fellow board member Michael Meyers to step outside, after which he verbally chastised them.

Bendict is dead-on
Just think if word got out about Pope Benedict telling dissenters to step outside and then chastising them later. Imagine the deluge of coverage that would get! We would never hear the end of Cardinal Ratzinger’s history of “suppressing debate” and “silencing dissent” and all this other rigmarole. As it turns out Pope Benedict has listened far more charitably to other people’s ideas and been more pastoral than anyone in the mainstream press anticipated, far from the foaming fuming rabid rottweiler we were told to expect. And on the other hand you’ve got the executive director of the ACLU chewing out the two people in the room who have the smidgen of intellectual honesty necessary to point out the blatant hypocrisy of their organization’s endorsements. The more we see of the goings on in the meeting rooms of those who support abortion to the exclusion even of rights like free _expression, the more Pope Benedict’s characterization of the “dictatorship of relativism” proves dead-on.

I think somebody, maybe one of the reps from South Dakota, should introduce a counter-bill, entitled the “Stop False Accusations of Pregnancy Help Centers Act.” I wonder if the Anti-Christian Liberties Union would back that?

On my way into Galveston earlier today I saw a billboard that advertised: "Heartbreakers -- Restaurant and Club." So I said to myself, okay, it's a strip joint. Says my roommate, "No, it's an adult entertainment venue." Whatever. So then, just about twenty yards further up the highway, I saw another billboard. This one was for a church, and pictured the pastor with a smug grin on his face. The billboard read:

"Jesus heals the brokenhearted." I sat for a couple of seconds while it registered, and then cried out, "Brilliant!"