Today is my late mother-in-law's birthday. A finer woman I've never known.

Mr. Cork has been posting tidbits from the book that influenced my life more than any other up to about age 25 -- The Lutheran Hymnal of 1941. It’s what I used to learn piano and much more.

In that spirit, I post one of its finest Advent hymns – the only hymn with three melodies in TLH. The third (the “Missouri Synod Waltz”) is absolutely lovely (a much-too-slow midi is here:

Lift Up Your Heads, Ye Mighty Gates"
by Georg Weissel, 1590-1635
Translated by Catherine Winkworth, 1829-1878


1. Lift up your heads, ye mighty gates!
Behold, the King of Glory waits;
The King of kings is drawing near,
The Savior of the world is here.
Life and salvation He doth bring,
Wherefore rejoice and gladly sing:
We praise Thee, Father, now,
Creator, wise art Thou!

2. A Helper just He comes to thee,
His chariot is humility,
His kingly crown is holiness,
His scepter, pity in distress,
The end of all our woe He brings;
Wherefore the earth is glad and sings:
We praise Thee, Savior, now,
Mighty in deed art Thou!

3. O blest the land, the city blest,
Where Christ the Ruler is confessed!
O happy hearts and happy homes
To whom this King in triumph comes!
The cloudless Sun of joy He is,
Who bringeth pure delight and bliss.
We praise Thee, Spirit, now,
Our Comforter art Thou!

4. Fling wide the portals of your heart;
Make it a temple set apart
From earthly use for Heaven's employ,
Adorned with prayer and love and joy.
So shall your Sovereign enter in
And new and nobler life begin.
To Thee, O God, be praise
For word and deed and grace!

5. Redeemer, come! I open wide
My heart to Thee; here, Lord, abide!
Let me Thy inner presence feel,
Thy grace and love in me reveal;
Thy Holy Spirit guide us on
Until our glorious goal is won.
Eternal praise and fame
We offer to Thy name.

Thought provoking question raised by Dylan: If you were asked to choose the worst day in American history between November 22, 1963 (assassination of President Kennedy) and September 11, 2001 (Islamist terrorist attacks killing over 3000 Americans), which date would you choose? Which incident, and why?”

I posted three in his comments (the fall of the Tehran embassy; Roe v. Wade; Evans v. Romer), but there are at least two more that merit consideration: the appeasement of extortion by Anwar Sadat in the ‘70s and Yassir Arafat in the ‘90s. Sadat’s bargain has propped up his successor’s regime by making it such a large beneficiary of US money. Arafat’s has kept the terror train rolling and gaining speed. It’s a hard choice.

Mr. Den Beste has a very optimistic post about the future of much of southwest Asia. The gist: the US is being quiet about Saudi Arabia, Israel is exercising great restraint against the murderous mob of vermin in its midst and India is quiet about Pakistani aggression because the civilized world is following a plan whereby Iraq goes first and is redeveloped as a civilized state, then in good time the other gangs of Moslem murderers will go to their reward courtesy of the civilized world. While I ardently hope he’s right, it’s difficult for me to be that optimistic about multiple governments getting on the page and doing something that disciplined.

I’ve refrained from commenting on the assassination of a woman by a homosexual activist. This story won’t get much attention of course, but it is likely to be a theme repeated throughout this century. The Stalinists won’t kill Christians in the future, as the Stalinists are gone. The same is true of Nazis. The homosexual preference movement, though, is real and is as opposed to Christianity as were the twentieth century’s mass murderers.

Huzzah for the Silver and the Gold.

I'm delighted that my very own University of Colorado Buffaloes have contributed to the worst season of Nebraska football in FIFTY YEARS!

. . . and so to class.

Interesting to see that Mr. Roberts posted on something recently that I had also posted on – the indult chapel south of Denver, to be specific. Hie thee hence!

I have been remiss in recommending Miss Donna Marie Lewis, a/k/a Qwenta Narwinion. I’m confident that my dear readers have found her, but if perchance one hasn’t, I must enjoin him (or her) to hasten thither.

So today I took the day off work to research a term paper that’s due one week from now. Left that early to take Mr. Puppy to the vet. Between that and upcoming class, I stopped for two martinis. Quite glad I did.

Lately all those dearest to me are suffering horribly and I can do nothing but pray. My wife is in fear for the upcoming biopsy. My father slips farther into madness, absolute dependence on others and, ultimately, the grave. My dearest friend finds himself faced with apparently insurmountable marital difficulties. Even the dog has mysterious health problems. And on and on. Consequently, my prayers are a clamor of supplication. Tonight I took a bit of time to quiet myself.

You see, when I drink, my voice is quieted in that I speak less (though some say I speak more loudly when I do speak and I have no reason to doubt them). Also when I drink the internal narrative (and my fingers, for that matter) are enlivened. For the first time, I blog under the influence. I rather like it.

I had my two favorite martinis and Cana style in that I had the better of the two last. I started with a Belvedere garnished with olives and concluded with a Chopin garnished with onion. When I drink Polish vodkas I always silently toast St. Faustina and St. Maximilian Kolbe. Should I live to be a good bit older, I shall then toast St. John Paul II as well when I drink Polish vodka. The Poles have been good to the Church of late. Would that other nations would follow their example!

I stopped at one of Denver’s most sophisticated martini bars – a place with which I’m acquainted, though not as closely as I might like to be. The music, the lighting, the décor all assist the elixir in anesthetizing that which bothers one on arrival. The servers would do well to excite other botherments (a word that ought to be in everyone’s vocabulary!). In fact the servers were quite sophisticated, sexy and even slutty. There was no beauty, though, as the tenderness that animates feminine beauty was in them replaced with calculation and severity. ‘Twas as mercy that they weren’t beautiful, as they were pretty enough that should I have stayed much longer it would have been a near occasion of sin and, should they have been beautiful, the near occasion of sin would have come nearer much more quickly.

My Victorian tone is inspired, at least in part, by the fine book recently recommended by Mr. Shea -- that book being Lord of the World. It was the first novel I’d read in a while and it did nearly everything one could ask of a novel. It wasn’t quite The Brothers Karamazov or The Sun Also Rises, but what is?

I thank God for you, my dear readers – particularly those of you who have contacted me by comments or e-mail. Your kindness to me is touching. It is deeply humbling that anyone would read what I have to say and I desperately need the humility you inculcate.

One of my dad’s problems is that he has lost all of his eyesight. Now I read his mail to him. His church (which is Lutheran) sends him the sermon and the bulletin each week he doesn’t attend. He didn’t go last week, so I read the sermon to him. It was quite difficult to simply read it to him without comment (although I’m sure the tone of my voice conveyed much).

Following the old Lutheran practice, the text is not taken from the readings for the day and the text is but one verse. In the case the text was “Come, enter the kingdom the Father has prepared for you since the beginning of the world!”(If that isn’t verbatim, it’s very nearly so, as I’m going from memory of the odd new translation his congregation uses). The homilist went to great pains to stress that the separation between sheep and goats had absolutely nothing to do with what they did – despite the appearances given by the preceding verses! He couldn’t simply grasp that those who are of the Kingdom of necessity do at least some of the King’s will while those outside it don’t. It’s the central failing of Lutheranism – the maniacal antipathy toward anything that might be called “works righteousness”. It’s quite frustrating to see it in its native inaction.

One part of my regular routine is taking the dog for his walks. Other than on Wednesdays, when I have school until 10 pm, I take him for one walk in the morning and one in the afternoon. Most of our walks take us to and through the nearby park, which isn’t well lit. It’s difficult to scoop the poop when you can’t see it!

So the other day I got one of those new LED flashlights. The one I chose had a nifty clip to allow one to position it nearly anywhere. I wear a white baseball cap when we walk after dark, to make us more visible and to allow me to shield my eyes from the headlights of passing cars. I thought it would be a good idea to clip the flashlight to the brim of the cap. It did work well for helping me see, even if it did make me look like one of the Borg. Problem was that it was just too heavy to keep on the hat without getting a headache. Next I tried clipping it to my belt, but my hips move too much when I walk for that to be practical. It will work out one way or another. It has given me a bit more appreciation for “Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path” – particularly yesterday afternoon when it helped me avoid a patch of ice!

Given all the posts about integrism and integrists, I hope no one gets the false impression that I’m opposed to use of the Tridentine Mass. I’m quite proud that my home parish had a Tridentine Mass every Sunday until quite recently, when its regulars got their own chapel (completely licit and in full communion with our local Bishop and the Holy See) that now offers Tridentine Mass twice every day* and three times every Sunday. They even offer confession daily, though I don’t think my Latin’s good enough for me to confess in it ;-)

Soon I will be availing myself of this great opportunity for worship. Should you ever be in the area between Denver and Colorado Springs, I encourage you to do the same.

*except Thursday, when there is but one

Courtesy of the inimitable Kat Lively!
· 1. WHAT TIME DO YOU WAKE UP IN THE MORNING? Work days @ 5:15; weekends about 6:45.
· 2. IF YOU COULD EAT LUNCH WITH ONE FAMOUS PERSON, WHO WOULD IT BE? How famous? I’d say Jonah Goldberg. If it had to be someone more famous than him, then probably Justice Scalia.
· 3. GOLD OR SILVER? Gold
· 4. WHAT WAS THE LAST FILM YOU SAW AT THE CINEMA? Master of Disguise. Ugh.
· 5. FAVORITE TV SHOW? The Sopranos.
· 7. WHAT WOULD YOU HATE TO BE LEFT IN A ROOM WITH? A large dead animal. I get queasy easily.
· 8. CAN YOU TOUCH YOUR NOSE WITH YOUR TONGUE? Yes.
· 9. WHAT/WHO INSPIRES YOU? The greatness of our predecessors in the faith.
· 10. WHAT'S YOUR MIDDLE NAME? Paul
· 11. BEACH, CITY, or COUNTRY? City
· 12. SUMMER OR WINTER? Winter
· 13. FAVORITE ICE CREAM? Coconut
· 14. BUTTERED, PLAIN, OR SALTED POPCORN? Buttered
· 15. FAVORITE COLOR? Green
· 16. FAVORITE CAR? I’m not that nuts about any cars, but the Benz SLK 530 looks nice.
· 17. FAVORITE SANDWICH FILLING? Bacon.
· 18. TRUE LOVE? Is there not but One who is true?
· 19. WHAT CHARACTERISTICS DO YOU DESPISE? Intentional incompetence.
· 20. FAVORITE FLOWER? Morning Glories.
· 21. IF YOU HAD A BIG WIN IN THE LOTTERY, HOW LONG WOULD YOU WAIT TO TELL PEOPLE? Not long at all – I wouldn’t want them to find out from television!
· 22. FIZZY OR STILL WATER AS A DRINK? Still water
· 23. WHAT COLOR IS YOUR BATHROOM? Pale gray.
· 24. HOW MANY KEYS ON YOUR KEY RING? Three.
· 25. WHERE WOULD YOU RETIRE TO? Guadalajara
· 26. CAN YOU JUGGLE? IF YES HOW MANY? Only three of anything
· 27. FAVORITE DAY OF THE WEEK? Sunday
· 28. RED or WHITE wine? The redder the better – Shiraz if I’m buying, Brunello di Montalcino otherwise.
· 29. WHAT DID YOU DO FOR YOUR LAST BIRTHDAY? Went to a great steakhouse, just my wife, me and one martini too many.
· 30. DO YOU CARRY A DONOR CARD? Yes
· 31. WHAT IS YOUR FAVORITE MOVIE? The Gang’s All Here

A reminder: correlation is not causation.

Sometimes people who are overly zealous*, not very bright or intentionally dishonest make that mistake. (I’m sure there may be other reasons for it too -- I just haven’t thought of them.) Let me give an example.

1. In 1902 religious observance was more prevalent than it is in 2002.
2. In 1902 there were no airplanes
3. Therefore the mere existence of airplanes makes people less likely to be religiously observant.

Most people who have the ability to read would readily grasp the flaws in that logic.

When the reference to airplanes is changed to, say, the Roman Missal of 1969, the flaw in logic (which is precisely the same flaw) becomes just enough harder to see that it drops completely from view for many – note, not for all.

It’s often a sign of a weak argument. It’s easier than a real argument because it doesn’t require the same kind of research and analysis. It can also be used to bolster literally any pet cause, even if facts don’t support it as facts ultimately have no bearing on this sort of reasoning.

The most recent incident I’ve seen was by Mr. Sungenis. I’m not qualified to determine why he did it. It would be uncharitable of me to speculate.

Oh, by the way sir, what are you going to do about the hundreds of millions of people throughout the world who come into contact with God Himself through the sacraments of the Church? What are you going to do about the countless hungry who are fed, homeless who are housed, sick who are tended and prisoners who are visited by those in full communion with their bishops? What are you going to do about the necessity of the Petrine office and of obedience thereto? Some would say that your policy regarding the good things the Church does is to “deny it, spin it, ignore it” as it doesn’t fit your apparent position that the Church has gone apostate. Can you prove them wrong?

*That is, their zeal is such as to diminish one or more of their faculties.

Time to get back on the horse . . .

Very strange events have taken place since I last posted.

Wednesday night was a school night, so I didn’t get home until about 10. That evening and nearly all of yesterday, the electricity in the house wasn’t working properly. Lights were either dimmer or brighter than usual. Thursday morning, my wife’s hair dryer wouldn’t work. We called the electric company, but they couldn’t send anyone out.

Found out that my wife’s biopsy won’t be until December 6 as she has to be off a particular medication for a set number of days before they can do it. So we wait.

Last night our dog had a rather dramatic seizure. He quit breathing, stiffened his limbs and quivered. I carried him into the dining room – with no great purpose in mind. It just seemed like a good idea to get him off of the couch. When I set him down, he couldn’t stand. He seemed unconscious. After just a few seconds, though, he woke up and was his usual self. (On further reflection, he probably had a seizure in August as well, but we just didn’t recognize it as such.) I went to the basement and prayed the Visita Quaesumus Domine.

Ever since then, the electricity in the house has been back to normal.

Oh, I nearly forgot to mention, two houses away from our house is the home of a practicing witch. I don’t know if that connects in any way with the other events, but it is worthy of note.

My deepest thanks to all those of you who are kind enough to remember my wife in your prayers!

Posting may be sparse in days ahead as my wife received a bad result on a medical test and is going in for a biopsy soon. All holy men and women, pray for us.

Greetings to all readers sent here by the kind mention of Mr. Vere at Envoy Encore. Actually, it’s more fitting to say greetings to all of you who have seen fit to read this site. You’re in my prayers.

If by chance you haven't checked out the Envoy Encore site of late, the post on Integrism is terrific. Clicke, lege!

I got a good charge from this post at Dylan’s site, although some may be taken aback by an instance of harsh language therein. I remember reading “My House is a house of prayer for all peoples”, but I haven’t seen anything about it being a “place of welcome” either.

I wasn’t surprised when this happened.

Also on Sunday, we met a sweet older lady we know who sat with us for Mass. Shortly before Mass began, she told us that she had lost her special rosary beads that her late husband had given her on their wedding day 60 years ago. The last time she had seen them was the previous Sunday at Mass. My wife recommended that she pray to St. Anthony, which she promptly did. During the reading of the epistle, the lady opened her pocketbook to get out a tissue and immediately found the rosary beads.

I forgot to mention this from Sunday.

There’s a replica of the San Damiano Cross in my parish, near the confessionals. I recently noticed the accompanying plaque stating that it had been donated during the 1993 World Youth Day by the contingent from Franciscan University of Steubenville. I’m happy to have a tangible connection with those good folks.

I’ve noticed that a great many integrists* are either converts or reverts. Moreover, nearly all of the integrists that post frequently on the web come from a fundamentalist background.

This actually make pretty good sense. Fundamentalism started as a protestant reaction against modernism – a reaction based on highly literal readings of scripture. What distinguished fundamentalism is its stridency and use of proof-texting. Since fundamentalism was a reaction against some serious heresies, it’s not surprising that fundamentalists have a tendency to look for (and find) the worst in everyone. Too often the stridency brings out the worst in those who try to engage them in discussion. Since fundamentalism was a reaction against a new set of ideas, fundamentalists are so suspicious of anything that appears to be new that they often conclude that the world is now more evil than it’s ever been. Since most fundamentalists have relatively narrow educations, that notion sticks.

I had limited exposure to fundamentalists before my conversion to Catholicism. There were some in the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod, such as a college prof who taught Old Testament and insisted that anyone who believed that the exodus occurred after 1300 B.C. had endangered his salvation. I remember the 1970s debates in the LCMS in which one side held that anyone who denied or doubted the literality of the story of Jonah was a heretic. That sort of overreaching insistence on strict adherence to notions that are at best peripheral to the message of Jesus, while often ignoring the clear mandates of the King of Kings, drove me from the LCMS and, ultimately, to Catholicism.

Fundamentalism doesn’t deal well with paradoxes and contradictions.
Eventually, any bright, honest and dedicated fundamentalist would invariably run into many of the inconsistencies presented by Sola Scriptura. Ultimately he would have to either proclaim some kind of private revelation or look to Rome.

When a fundamentalist becomes Catholic, a new problem arises. Too often the convert’s way of looking at the world doesn’t change that much. The stridency is still there, and now there’s a much larger body of literature to search for proof texts. If the convert had believed that the world is growing more evil every day, there’s little chance that he’ll outgrow that notion. That and an ill-informed focus on the purported immutability of the Church would lead one to recoil in horror from even the slightest alteration to doctrinal pronouncements or liturgical practice. Instant integrism.

During my conversion, I was deeply troubled by what I read at a putatively Catholic web site (I’d rather not give them any traffic by naming them), until I figured out that they were Catholic fundamentalists or, to use a better term, integrists. They insisted on private interpretation of self-selected documents to establish their own doctrinal purity and the depravity of everyone else.

Ironically enough the integrists, to the degree they reject the authority of their bishops, the Pope and the most recent Council, are ultimately protestants.

*The term “integrist” is preferable to “traditionalist” (whether or not modified with “radical”) or other like terms because it conveys the central trait of Integrism –seeing some peripheral trappings of the Church as integral to Her life and mission. Besides, they don’t have any monopoly on respect for traditional practice (which they emphasize to the exclusion of the ecclesiastical structure implicit in Sacred Tradition).

My Sensus Catholicus Says . . . .

A site to which I probably pay too much attention has something new about "Sensus Catholicus" -- a term that seems to have been appropriated in its entirety by integrists. The "SC" is that ability of the faithful to pick up on what is legitimately Catholic and what isn't. The integrists use it to condemn deviation from Tridentine ritual.

It includes an illustration showing a monstrance enveloping a picture of the Blessed Virgin Mother of God, Mary Most Holy. Something tells me that even the highest of all creatures shouldn't be shown in a monstrance as the monstrance is reserved for One greater even than her.

Ironic, eh?

What?

A weird story saying that Hilary Clinton will get a leadership role from her party contains the following bizarre contention:

"The conservative establishment in this country really has a lock on the airwaves," said Sen. Dick Durbin (Ill.), the assistant Democratic floor leader.

What universe does Sen. Durbin inhabit? Is he from such a remote place that his TV programming doesn’t have constant paeans to homosexuality? How about the 60 minute political commercial cum drama “The Left Wing” – er – “The West Wing”? Who on this side of the Atlantic could in good conscience call Dan Rather, Peter Jennings or Tom Brokaw conservative?

If it Happned in Advent, Would We Have Had a Dog in the Manger?

Yesterday during Mass I witnessed something very odd. During the Agnus Dei, a golden retriever sauntered up the main aisle. (There was a little old lady between the aisle and me, so I couldn’t very well stop the dog myself.)

Since the weather was so nice, someone had left the doors open. The golden apparently just came in of her own volition. Another parishioner led her, explaining, “She’s not my dog.”

The Envoy Encore crew is quite taken with little people – no, not leprechauns, just people who have tiny bodies. They were talking apologists and saints in particular, but I must mention that I recently was at a Mass with both Archbishop Chaput and Bishop Gomez. I was taller than both of them even counting their miters (and Bishop Gomez wears the tall miter). I’m put in mind of the camel going through the eye of a needle and, as someone who’s roughly the size of an NFL offensive lineman circa 1973, I’m given pause. I’d like to see some attention to saints whose physical stature is in line with their spiritual stature.

To continue on the saints theme, John da Fiesole of Disputations (who, I’m glad to say, is back to posting at places other than TMQ) has a nifty little page in which he lists his patron saints. While none of them are reputed to have been of great physical stature, here they are::

St. Anthony of Padua;
Bl. Antony Neyrot;
St. Francis of Assisi;
St. Joseph;
St. Lawrence;
the ever-virgin Mother of God; Mary Most Holy

Recently a correspondent said I was “overly influenced by liberalism, ecumenism and papolatry [sic]”.

I’d like to address that allegation publicly.

The Catholic Encyclopedia summarizes liberalism very nicely as follows: “It is contrary to the natural, innate, and inalienable right and liberty and dignity of man, to subject himself to an authority, the root, rule, measure, and sanction of which is not in himself". (For more details, look here.) The abandonment of sexual moral standards in our society can be traced to this rejection of external authority.

The referenced article also gives this more specific description of liberal Catholicism: “In general it [liberal Catholicism] advocates latitude in interpreting dogma, oversight or disregard of the disciplinary and doctrinal decrees of the Roman Congregations, sympathy with the State even in its enactments against the liberty of the Church, in the action of her bishops, clergy, religious orders and congregations, and a disposition to regard as clericalism the efforts of the Church to protect the rights of the family and of individuals to the free exercise of religion.”

In the past I’ve wholeheartedly endorsed the Professio Fidei and the Credo of the People of God. I now endorse the Athanasian Creed and the First Vatican Council’s Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith There’s no dogma for which I advocate latitude in interpretation. Other than in my sins, I haven’t shown disregard for the Church’s discipline. What evidence is there, then, that I am “overly influenced by liberalism”? (Other than the tongue-in-cheek “You Are Karl Barth” below, that is.)

I freely admit being “ecumencial”. I’m a convert who has been both Lutheran and Anglican. I’d be delighted to see the Lutherans and Anglicans return to Rome en masse, joined by all the other separated brethren. I don’t propose that there be any compromise to Catholic doctrine or practice to achieve this, though. What, then, is objectionable about being this type of “ecumenical”?

“Papolatry” is a term that’s usually used by the most aggressive Protestants to accuse Catholics of worshipping the pope. Recently I’ve seen it used by those who criticize this pope (and usually Paul VI, Bl. John XXIII and Vatican II as well) for not measuring up to their own understanding of what the Faith is. I refer to Vatican I’s First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ which states:

Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.

In this way, by unity with the Roman Pontiff in communion and in profession of the same faith , the Church of Christ becomes one flock under one Supreme Shepherd

This is the teaching of the Catholic truth, and no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation.

In short, those who dissent from papal edicts regarding Church governance and discipline (e. g. the SSPX, whose bishops were consecrated in direct violation of the directives of the pope) endanger their faith and salvation. So do those who dissent from the Church’s teaching on faith and morals. So if “papolatry” means the submission to the authority described above, I hope to exhibit it.

A few more observations.

How could anyone simultaneously exhibit “papolatry” and excessive “ecumenism”? The non-Catholics would be so offended by the “papolatry” that they’d have none of the ecumenism. Similarly, excessive ecumenism would of necessity include reduction in Petrine authority. The two are mutually exclusive.

The same goes for “papolatry” and “liberalism” – unless you take the schismatic step of proclaiming the pope himself to be in error. A liberal by definition would refuse the authority of the pope. Even the precedent of Pope John XXII’s preaching of doctrinal error (which was on a matter that was, relatively speaking, not central to the Deposit of Faith or to the good order of the Church and which was from an ordinary pulpit rather than ex cathedra) doesn’t give each Catholic the right to sit in judgment of the pope. In that case, theologians who had appropriate education and experience pointed out the discrepancy, not upset laymen nor self-appointed (and ecclesiastically suspect) abbots, nor previously legitimate prelates who incurred excommunication, nor self-appointed experts lacking in theological education and experience. If you want to make a legitimate complaint against the ecclesiastical authorities on matters of faith, morals, governance or discipline, then you must first acquire the appropriate position to do so. This entails acquiring personal holiness and demonstrated expertise in theology, not just a cut and paste of a few carefully selected old documents.

Lastly, if you can’t use pejoratives consistently and rationally, you have no business using them!

This ranks high among the weirdest and most disgusting things I’ve ever seen.

This is the best blog post I've ever seen. Bar none.

Courtesy of Flos Carmeli, a result of which I'm not exceptionally proud:

"We reject the false doctrine that the church could have permission to hand over the form of its message and of its order to whatever it itself might wish or to the vicissitudes of the prevailing ideological and political convictions of the day."

You are Karl Barth! You like your freedom, and are pretty stubborn against authority! You don't care much for other people's opinions either. You can come up with your own fun, and often enough you have too much fun. You are pretty popular because you let people have their way, even when you have things figured out better than them.

What theologian are you?

A creation of Henderson

Then again, alternatives included Calvin and Wesley. Glad I didn't get either of them!

Too long since updates for two blogs no one should confuse: Disputations and Pro Multis.

Continuing in thought from the discussion at Amy Welborn’s, I’m not sure that the partial birth abortion ban is the best place to focus current pro-life activities. PBA is barbaric, but it’s also not as common or as “easy” as other forms of abortion. If we could mobilize against “emergency contraception” (early chemical abortion) instead, we’d probably save more children and make women think more about what they’re doing. At the same time we could continue to use the gruesome PBA as a PR tool. (I still say the ANDA is the biggest pro-life issue out there right now. If it doesn’t pass, Catholic healthcare in the US is doomed.)

Healthcare in the US is in awful shape these days. That’s not news to anyone. The more I think about it, the more convinced I become that part of the problem is that we expect people with clinical backgrounds to take on management roles. In my experience, not very many good doctors and nurses become good managers. (In fact, as I see it, almost no nurses make good managers, and I’ve had to deal with many.) What’s worse is that we lose the good doctors and nurses and get bad managers who in turn chase away good doctors and nurses! (I think the same dynamic is in play in many school systems, just with teachers instead of clinical folks.)

Dylan has some great thoughts on the Professio Fidei. So here are some thoughts of my own about it.

While I’m not an apologist or theologian, I do talk about the Faith here. I want to be clear about what the Faith means to me. Since quite a bit of this blog (and lots of the searches that lead people here) have been about some rather odd dissidents, I want to make it clear that I don’t endorse the dissidents.

I’m not trying to position myself as the most knowledgeable, most faithful, most orthodox or holiest blogger. I fall short in all those areas. It seems to me that the only reason St. Paul could honestly call himself the “chief of sinners”, is that I wasn’t around yet.

The Professio is the ideal. I need to remind myself of that ideal.

There’s been a hue and cry from many quarters (like this and this, for instance) that the election results should not be seen as an endorsement of the victorious party’s social policies. Hmmm . . . let’s see. The parties don’t differ substantially on the economy. The parties are (with the exception of a few scattered folks) mostly in agreement on the war. What’s that leave as a difference other than social policies, folks?

Sorry for yesterday’s fit of pique. I must have had subconscious premonitions about the abomination of a football game last night in which the Ralphie Ciffaretto crew – er Oakland Raiders (sorry for the disrespect, Mr. C) – gave the Ralphie Treatment to the locals. (BTW, given what happened to Ralphie in Episode 9, the term “Ralphie Treatment” may lose its vigor. A pity.)

While they get more hits per day than this blog has had in its entire history, they asked nicely. Therefore I’m adding a link to Envoy Encore. It looks promising. Interesting that so many old-media publications have started to group-blog.

You probably want to skip this post . . . .

Why are so many of the people I have to deal with at work consistently dumber than a bag of hammers?

And why is it that the proverbial bag of hammers is the sine qua non of stupidity? Is it the idiocy of keeping hammers in a bag, so they whap you as you carry the bag? Is it the tendency of the hammers to wear out the bag and scatter? Is it the hammers' relative inarticulateness (I say relative inarticulateness since the average hammer seems to have a bigger vocabulary, snappier repartee' and a better grasp on the importance of conveying information than do many of my co-workers!)? Is it that hammers in a bag will smash each other?

Or is it something pertaining simply to any aggregation of hammers, regardless of whether or not they're in a container? If so, why are multiple hammers dumber than one? That implies negative intellect on the part of each hammer. I don't think that's quite fair or accurate. Then again, it seems like I've encountered anti-intelligence both on the web and at the office, so I suppose that hammers could share that trait with certain folks whom charity forbids me to name here. (Although I can't resist this tidbit: one has an e-mail address that starts DMBELL -- that's right, dumb bell. At least she's honest about onething.)

So, should you be a co-worker or a woefully clueless correspondent with a combination of paranoid delusions and an inability to understand clear communication, please refer to my friend Sue's sign: "I'll try being nicer when you try being smarter!"

So, St. Blog’s leading light from the Most Catholic Kingdom of Spain pointed me to an interesting comment by the Holy Father on Catholic healthcare that’s found here. In short, the Holy Father wants Catholic healthcare to be more Catholic – to help people who are in need and to minister to the whole person, rather than just to their medical conditions. I saw another article that seems to have disappeared in which mention is made of emphasizing authentic teaching on redemptive suffering.

I’ve worked in the healthcare industry in the US for almost 9 years, first at a secular non-profit, then in for-profit, then in a Catholic organization and now, again, in the for-profit role. I hope to return to Catholic healthcare after finishing my MBA next year. (And, in case you thought you had a grip on just how odd of a duck I am, the USCCB’s Ethical and Religious Directives for Healthcare Facilities – a document that is to be binding on all Catholic healthcare facilities in the US – played a role in my conversion to Catholicism.) There are some serious problems facing Catholic healthcare in the US. (While I’m not qualified to address Catholic healthcare elsewhere, I wouldn’t be surprised if some of the same concerns apply.)

Many of the problems facing Catholic healthcare probably tie in quite strongly with problems facing church governance as a whole as described in Amy Welborn’s latest
tour-de-force. They aren’t easy to describe concisely.

One thing I’ve noticed in Catholic healthcare is a much lower turnover of management, coupled with a trend of very slow career advancement. Many would hail this as a good thing, and it can have some advantanges. It does not reward innovation, as the potential reward for innovation is very small.

The high premium placed on consensus (or what is misunderstood to be “consensus”) as the preferred form of decision-making compounds this problem and introduces the heightened risk in proposing innovations in Catholic healthcare. The following example, hard as it is to believe, is factual. I am grateful that it isn’t the norm, but am alarmed that it ever could have happened. One day in early 2000, about two dozen rather senior managers for a Catholic healthcare entity were to have a day-long meeting on an issue that was both important to the long-term position of the organization and that had a somewhat high degree of time-sensitivity. The first 45 minutes of the meeting were spent on one issue: when to break for lunch. None of the two dozen managers dared to be enough of a grown-up to say something like “We have bigger issues in front of us. Let’s start on them now and break for lunch when we get to a good pause in the discussion.” So eighteen hours (45 minutes times 24 managers) went into the decision of when to have lunch. So not only is there little reward for innovation, with this type of decision-making structure, there’s a high cost to proposing new ideas.

The reluctance to make waves extends beyond the boundaries of the organization. Most Catholic healthcare facilities in the US receive operating income from (in descending order):
Government-funded programs (medicare and Medicaid, the latter program using distinctive brand names in some states);
Private insurance (usually health insurance, but also auto insurance and, for most practical purposes, workers’ compensation – though that is a governmental program in some states);
Charitable contributions; and
Patient out-of-pocket payments.

Capital funds are usually obtained by some combination of
Federal grants and loans;
issuing bonds; or
charitable contributions (yet again!).

There’s considerable interaction between the various funding sources too. For example, most contracts with private health insurance require a provider to be an active provider in good standing with medicare.

Many Catholic healthcare institutions now have permanent relationships based on “formal and material cooperation” with non-Catholic entities, as was anticipated by the Directives. Some of these are structured as joint ventures, others as entirely new non-profit corporations. Here in Denver, one major Catholic hospital system works jointly with Lutheran Hospital and the other with a few Seventh-Day Adventist hospitals --- despite the SDA’s well-publicized local leaflet campaign just 9 years ago accusing the Holy Father of being the antichrist! They two Catholic hospital systems, though, don’t work with each other.

The desire to please the funding sources and outside “cooperators” often leads Catholic healthcare institutions to water down their Catholicism. We’ve all seen horrific examples like this, even though it doesn’t involve an outside “cooperator”, the push to this type of behavior becomes even stronger when “cooperators” are involved.

Propaganda campaigns like this (trying to scare people into believing that, if Catholic hospitals aren’t forced to perform abortions, then the entire pro-abortion cause is destroyed) also seem to be effective in making Catholic hospitals reluctant to uphold Catholic principles in a clear public fashion.

The secularization of society in general also plays a part. When I worked for a Catholic organization there was little, other than the crucifixes in meeting rooms, to remind one that this wasn’t just any non-profit healthcare business. People were reluctant to discuss patently Catholic themes since discussion of religion has become more taboo than discussion of sex. IIRC, the organization’s stated values (that were posted everywhere) were: Collaboration, Compassion, Dignity, Justice and Stewardship. Of those only “stewardship” usually carries an exclusively religious connotation, but even there the concept isn’t specifically Christian. While the words used can represent aspects of Faith, they aren’t particularly explicit. (How about using words like “Ministry” or “Sacraments” in the core values?)

So the first thing that Catholic healthcare needs is the confidence to be openly Catholic. We need to stand up with the Apostle and say, “I am not ashamed of the Gospel”. That doesn’t mean a long procession of professed religious in habits chanting Latin antiphons up and down the corridors (though I’d rather like that!), it means discussing and living healthcare as “the continuation of the healing ministry of Jesus” as the Directives charge us. It means emphasizing pastoral care – even when that pastoral care of necessity can’t come directly from a priest. (I was delighted that in my September hospitalization, I heard prayers over the loudspeaker system a few minutes before going into surgery. That sort of thing doesn’t happen quite often enough.)

It also means being willing to face the consequences of being a Christian. For example, if a state were to require all of its medicaid hospitals to perform abortions, that hospital would have to be willing to forego medicaid patients.

The next necessary thing is the combination of greater flexibility (in changing the organization) and stronger leadership. The ideal of collaboration is appealing, but its reality is too often enormously dysfunctional. Take a medical example: if there’s one surgeon with a couple of assistants in the operating room, the operation is conducted quickly and efficiently. Things could go wrong, but the process is as simple as possible. If, though, there are multiple surgeons, the operation takes more time, there are more chances for things to go wrong. The surgeons can focus more on their disagreements than on the patient. There’s something to be said for being decisive – even at the expense of “collaboration”.

A group of smart and dedicated people need to find a way to increase Catholic hospitals’ charity care participation. There are many complicating factors in terms of medicaid regulations (in many states), Hill-Burton grants and loans and bond indentures. Working with your local Catholic hospital to resolve those issues is a great opportunity for Catholic attorneys to do something to help the neediest in our society.

Most challenging is long-term care of the incapacitated elderly. This is unimaginably expensive. It’s difficult physically and emotionally. The need is immense. We bear responsibility to care for those who can’t care for themselves. Too often the care that commercial providers give is simply custodial care of the body. These people have spiritual needs too! As the years roll on, there are more and more people who, thanks to modern medicine, continue life yet lack the ability to do much of anything for themselves. Perhaps some shuttered educational institutions can become nursing homes. Perhaps there are other solutions that haven’t been imagined yet. We must work on meeting this need.

Despite all the problems I catalog above, there’s still great potential in Catholic healthcare. It is, after all, a continuation of Jesus’ own work. It’s animated by the Holy Spirit. It combines the strongest aspirations and exertions of our hearts, minds and souls. It’s commended at the last judgment.

Duc in altum!

Now Bob Sungenis is imitating Ted Rall.

What a fall! Just a few months ago, he was a somewhat eccentric guy who nevertheless tried to proclaim a Catholic message. In those few months he's lost his credibility, many colleagues, the respect of thousands of people, exposure on EWTN, his respect for the Church and, by all indications, his last vestige of sanity.

PS -- Perhaps the attack on Messrs. Betts and Cork is his attempt to troll for hits. It sure has the stench of desparation.

"Life gets rough, life gets tough.
So tell me, whatcha gonna do about it?"

From Reuters ("One man's news service is another's post-nasal drip!"):
Major Pharmaceutical Company's "Top Seller" is an Anti-Schizophrenic. (See last sentence.)

Perhaps it's a top seller in some category, but overall?

BTW . . .

the "King of America" reference was to one of the rather few pop stars of my lifetime that I enjoy and respect -- Elvis Costello.

One of the few pop groups I enjoy says, "Pressure gonna drop on you".

Oh yeah.

Be careful what you ask for . . . .

One of the leading lights of St. Blog's has invited me to comment on an issue near and dear to me. Needless to say I'm cooking up something big and (I hope) tasty.

Interesting stuff too from Steven Den Beste regarding terrorism. As you'd expect from an engineer, he takes a nuts 'n bolts approach.

Great post from The Old Oligarch! (Not for the faint of heart.) Lots of food for thought.

If this political stuff is getting tiring, please let me know.

I’ve read several commentators who have advised the new congressional majority to use restraint. This election, apparently, is not a mandate for the policies espoused by those who won the election other than those pertaining directly to the war.

The two items that commentators have been most emphatic in insisting on maintaining the status quo are abortion and homosexual preference*.

The Clinton Party candidate for Senate in Colorado, Tom Strickland, ran more ads that I saw than any other two candidates combined. Every single one of his ads mentioned that he was pro-abortion and that his opponent wasn’t. The NARAL ad that was in heavy rotation in the weekend before the election mentioned no other issue. Strickland lost.

In numerous other states, abortion was the biggest difference between the candidates. The pro-life candidates did much better than the pro-aborts.

The call for the majority party to abandon all remaining vestiges of morality and to salute the parade of sexual decadence is beneath contempt.

BTW, in addition to the disconnect between the Clinton Party and the majority of the electorate on basic morality, the Clinton Party would do well to learn at least a little bit about the markets in which they advertise. Remember the dictum that all politics is local – they’ve inverted it! The second-most-run of Strickland’s commercials showed a man whose entire life savings was tied up stock in a crashed telecom for which he worked. The sob story was that he lost his job and his savings and his family was wondering “why Daddy’s company won’t take care of us” as he paged through the classifieds of the Dallas Morning News.

This is the West. You ever hear of self-reliance? Out here we tend to expect people to have a little bit of sense and to live with the consequences of their own acts of blatant stupidity. What kind of mindless cretin would put everything into stock in one company? And then keep it there as he saw things crashing around him? What kind of spineless creature expects the company someone else works for to “take care of” him? Don’t these people have any initiative or ability? I’m sure the ad tested well somewhere so it ran everywhere.

Also this is Colorado. Texans are generally not very sympathetic figures here, particularly when talking about hard times. The last time a boom went bust here featured plenty of loot heading to Houston and Dallas. So now they’re going through what happened here in ’86. We got through it then – without some big bailout from other states. They’ll eventually catch on there too.

The big theme was that Allard, by virtue of his opposition to abortion and gun control and his attitude toward business was “too extreme”. Allard, before becoming a senator, was a veterinarian. I don’t know of another profession that’s more highly esteemed out here. It’s hard to become a vet (vet school being both more selective and more expensive than medical school!) and the rewards are mainly intangible. If people don’t find you trustworthy, they’ll head elsewhere in a hurry in the state with the most veterinarians per capita. It isn’t a field that draws “extremists”. Strickland, by comparison, is a lobbyist. Obviously this marks him as a man of high principle with good standing to judge who’s extreme.

Clinton Party – please do us all a favor and find someone who will rent you a clue on the cheap!

*I use the term “homosexual preference” for several reasons.
1. Generally the pro-homosexual position involves establishing some preferential treatment for homosexuals, despite the spin that it’s about “equality”.
2. Until the term “morally acceptable” is widely used to describe those who confine their sexual behavior to marriage, the word “homosexual” should be used instead of “gay”.
3. It reminds one of the now-passé term “sexual preference” – demonstrating the slipperiness of pro-homosexual rhetoric and emphasizing the volitional aspect of homosexual behavior, particularly of the behavior of publicly disclosing one’s sexual desires and behaviors.

Despite a bit of glee in the results of the election, I am convinced that the nation is not best served by having only one functioning political party. The other guys need to get their act together. (Of course starting by acknowledging some basic morality would be best!)

This is from a truly odd source (and you wouldn't believe how I got there), but it does have something to say to the idea of having two viable political parties in the US. (Sorry, but I don't think the LIbertarians will ever amount to much more than a protest vote.)

Elector Set.

Quite the intriguing results. A few of which you may not yet have been aware:

Oregon Measure 23, which would have established single-payor healthcare. Defeated nearly 4:1.

Per Instapundit, a Massachusetts proposal which would have repealed in the income tax got 45% of the vote. Between Taxachusetts getting a nominal Republican governor and this, maybe some actually sensible people like Dom Bettinelli and Mark C.N. Sullivan could run for office too! (Sad that this issue gets so little coverage.)

Best yet, Nevada’s Question 2, which bans homosexual marriages, passed (though only 61:39). May that start a global trend!

One thing that intrigues me is the blame game that will be played out over the next few weeks. The Democrats will not admit that they lost to superior candidates or that their opponents are more in touch with what voters want. They won’t have the arguments they had in the wake of the 2000 election regarding “voter confusion”.

Where I think some prominent Democrats are poised given yesterday’s results.

William J. Clinton – no blame will stick to him as he is remarkably adept at evading blame for anything.

Albert A. Gore Jr. – just when he didn’t think it could get any worse. You may want to call in sick for the scheduled appearance on Saturday Night Live.

Tom Daschle – was cited as having said he’d rather keep the SoDak seat in his party’s hands than keep control of the Senate. We won’t know for a while if he kept the SoDak seat, but his nonchalance regarding the rest of the country won’t help his position for the future. Can you say George McGovern?

Terry McAuliffe – if, as it appears, he was a mover behind the Wellstone rally, he could be toast. If he’s toast, the whole party could be in big trouble as he’s been their most successful fund-raiser. Also opens up jockeying for the party chairmanship.

Hillary Clinton – untouched and, presumably, untouchable.

Gray Davis (or is it Davis Gray?) – surviving, which is more than many would have thought a year ago.

Gary Hartpence – doesn’t he realize that the last election of a president who had not previously served as either a governor or vice president was in 1960? The failing senators include Goldwater, McGovern and Dole. Four of the last five men elected to the presidency have been governors and the other was a vice-president. (Oh no, not another Mondale campaign in ’04!)

That brings me to a promise of a future post handicapping Demo candidates for the ’04 nomination.

In the meantime, rejoice!

The folloiwng sounds about right (linked courtesy of Eve Tushnet"

Which Founding Father Are You?

Huzzah! I got to vote today.

I’m grateful that I don’t have the problem of many coastal state voters where there are no pro-life candidates in any race. Here there were only a couple of races where the selection was that limited.

Bob Sungenis’ Next Job: King of America?

Bill Cork made reference to the only web site cited by Bob Sungenis in the Fatima post. He made me curious and I’m glad I looked. This source of Bob’s could run into trademark problems with an east coast coffee company as it’s just chock full o’ nuttiness. It echoes Mr. Sungenis’ allegations regarding the Fatima apparitions and the putative assassination of Pope John Paul I along with the wildest French claims regarding Moslem terrorist attacks against the United States.

The impresario of the site is the self-sytled Abbe de Nantes. He was ordained in 1948 and soon started a small monastic community. In 1963 he was reprimanded for his protests against the French episcopate’s politiscs – to the point of having his priestly faculties suspended by his own bishop. In 1966 he ran afoul of ecclesiastical authorities again, as he put it “threatened with an interdict”. After his trial in Rome, he refused to pledge submission to his bishop. In 1969, L’Osservatore Romano published a notice of the Abbe’s refusal to retract “grave accusations of heresy against Paul VI and the Council”.

In 1973 he prepared a ‘Book of Accusation” charging Pope Paul VI with heresy. In 1978 he was to meet with Vatican representatives, but the Pope’s death precluded the meeting. The Abbe saw this as divine vindication. (After all, isn’t it all about him?) In 1983 the Abbe prepared a “Book of Accusation” charging the current Pope with heresy. In 1993 he followed up with a “Book of Accusation” against the author of the Catechism. In recent years, the Abbe has continued his campaign of ecclesiastical civil disobedience. (I wonder if 2003 will bring another “Book of Accusation”, or if he’ll settle for the three volume set?) In 1997 he was apparently excommunicated (the wording used in the website is not particularly clear).

I didn’t slog through all the “Books of Accusation”, but I glanced at the one on the Catechism. Per the Abbe, the Catechism’s errors include humanism and failure to proclaim the divine right of kings. (How’s that for an election day special?) He even cites Pope Pius X's "Letter Against the Sillon" (referenced for other purposes by Sungenis’ protégé Jacob Michael) as a binding perpetual prohibition on any Catholic participation in democracy!

One of the segments of the page details the 150 Points of the Phalangist Communion , the manifesto of a religio-political party dedicated to restoring the monarchy not only to France, but to all the world and, apparently, the tertiary community for the Abbe. The Phalange’s political inspiration is Charles Maurras, who was condemned by Popes Leo XIII and Pius X.

So Bob Sungenis is now taking cues from a man who’s been excommunicated and who finds the Catechism to be heretical. How much longer can he go on claiming any ongoing relationship with the Church?

Since Bob Sungenis is approvingly citing the Abbe and his “Catholic Counter-Reformation” with no caveats, it’s reasonable to conclude that Mr. Sungenis is sympathetic to the Phalange and its monarchist program. Who better to star in the monarchist show than the one man bold enough to issue the geocentrism challenge? Anyone out there but me (and, presuming she’d ever go slumming here, the mighty Eve Tushnet) catch the other reason I mention “King of America”? Or was this just a brilliant mistake?

There’s more from Bob Sungenis now. Lots more. (Sorry, but I can’t link directly to the article entitled “Fatima: Consecration or Cover-up” Bill Cork has a nice take on it here..)

First introductory note: Mickey Kaus, to my knowledge the last honest member of the Democratic party in the US, did the world a service with his invention of the Series Skipper. Kaus would read the long pieces of “important journalism” and offer synopses with highlights on his website, saving his readers the time and drudgery of slogging through whatever the New York Times finds to be so important. This is, more or less, a Series Skipper of Mr. Sungenis’ latest post (which weighs in around forty-seven thousand words).

Second introductory note: Mr. Sungenis has in the past talked in terms of conspiracy theories. Physicists talk about a Grand Unified Theory that explains all behavior of sub-atomic particles. Today we see Mr. Sungenis introduce his Grand Unified Conspiracy Theory. I think the recent post is also the one hinted at throughout September and October directed to people who are concerned about current scandals in the Church.

Mr. Sungenis opens by mentioning the Fatima well-known request: “I shall come to the world to ask that Russia be consecrated to my Immaculate Heart, and I shall ask that on the First Saturday of every month Communion of reparation be made in atonement for the sins of the world. If my wishes are fulfilled, Russia will be converted, and there will be peace; if not, then Russia will spread her error throughout the world..." He then mentions several current unsavory news items regarding Russia and concludes that, since he does not find sufficient evidence of conversion on the part of Russia, the consecration must not have taken place. Never mind that most of the problems and errors facing Russia today are quite different than those facing Russia during Stalin’s times.

Instead, we move into sensationalism. The first “money quote”: “In the Third Secret is foretold, among other things, that the great apostasy in the Church will begin at the top.” There’s a big problem with the quote. It’s attributed to Luigi Cardinal Ciappi (who is no longer alive) and reached through a putative article by a Fr. Gerard Mura in a magazine simply entitled Catholic. I can find only two references to Fr. Mura. One repeats this exact assertion in the same words. It’s on the website of John Vennari, a noted sedevacantist. The other reference to Fr. Mura is an attack on the excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre. I can find no corroboration of the quote attributed to Cardinal Ciappi, nor can I find independent reference to a magazine simply entitled Catholic.

Another major source is a lengthy quote from a radio interview of the late Fr. Malachi Martin, a laicized priest noted for sympathies leaning toward the SSPX and away from unity with the Church. The quote implies that a pope will come under the control of Satan and that Bl. John XXIII fainted on hearing this, further implying which pope would then be the ultimate anti-pope. Mr. Sungenis also seizes on the fact that there had been an anti-pope named John XXIII.

Next “money quote”: “If we are not getting the whole story about Fatima, then we must be willing to admit that the Vatican has not been telling us the whole truth about Fatima. It also means that, if true, whoever is behind the disinformation campaign has a devious agenda. And what does that mean? It means that popes, cardinals and bishops in high places have sinned grievously against God and the church. If true, it puts a black mark on the Church that would surpass any scandal in its past history.”

Even without addressing the logical fallacies and wild leaps of speculation, the above is seriously deficient. The first reason given by Sungenis for the “disinformation” is a so-called “Pact of Metz” in which the Vatican allegedly agreed to refrain from condemning communism during Vatican II in exchange for Russia allowing visits to Rome by Russian Orthodox bishops. Those who posit the “Pact of Metz” must never have read Gaudium et Spes, which denounces each of the fundamental building blocks of communism, while omitting the word “communism” from its condemnation (See especially sections 68 ff.). The second reason given for diverting attention from Fatima is ecumenism. The theory goes that Church authorities, in an effort to make Protestants more comfortable, were de-emphasizing the role of Mary.

Sungenis goes on to say that Bl. John XXIII wanted to end the council, but that Cardinal Montini was elected by his promise to continue to the council. (Wait a minute, wasn’t Bl. John XXIII supposed to be a bad guy in all this? Then wouldn’t the continuation of the council be a good thing?)

We then swing back to Fatima-specific allegations. The first allegation is that the release of the Fatima secret in 2000 is incomplete. The second is that the consecrations by Pius XII are found “inadvertently” insufficient, as is the 1984 consecration by the current Pope. An interesting note: the “consecration to the Immaculate Heart of Mary” seems to go against the definition of consecration: “to make or declare sacred; especially : to devote irrevocably to the worship of God by a solemn ceremony“. The Pope is criticized for questioning the idea of a consecration to someone other than God (and, for so questioning, accused of being under the baleful influence of “liberals”), but no reason is given how there could be a “consecration” that isn’t directed to God Himself.

He refers to a speech by the Pope in 1980 that allegedly refers to warnings of global catastrophe including massive floods. The only independent source I can find with the same quote is a presumed visionary who has been excommunicated for proclaiming himself to be “bishop of the Eucharist”.

It gets better in this third “money quote”: “Indeed, the vision of the Fatima children does not suggest the rosy picture of the future that liberal theologians predict. The cry of the angel to do ‘Penance, Penance, Penance,’ as the vision is opened, and the fact that the ‘Bishop dressed in white,’ along with ‘other bishops, priests, religious and lay people’ are killed, suggests that the sins to which the angel alluded come from within the Church itself and that repentance from the Church is not forthcoming, resulting in God's judgment and the scattering of dead bodies all over the land. These possibilities, though somewhat incriminating, are not far-fetched, since anyone familiar with the goings-on in the Catholic Church for the last 50 years knows quite well of the war between its various factions. . . . . Although some may claim that the murder of Catholics means that they were martyrs, it is also possible that they were rightful victims of God's judgment due to the apostasy they generated in the Church - a judgment that God brought upon them using the atheistic nations of the world from which they sought friendship and ecumenism.”

One of the great crises in the Church is the degree to which we don’t preach hellfire and damnation. No, really. Despite centuries of experience in finding that people respond more to mercy than to condemnation, we are expected to preach damnation at every opportunity. The article then goes to great lengths in efforts to discredit the Vatican’s interpretation of the Third Secret – finding the Vatican interpretation insufficiently literal. Near his conclusion, Mr. Sungenis claims that Pope John Paul I was murdered by the curia.

This piece in general is less organized than most things I’ve read by Mr. Sungenis. It also contains inconsistencies both in logic (see above re: Bl. John XXIII) and in data – in one place he claims that the noted miracle of the “dancing Sun” lasted for eight minutes, in another place he mentions it lasting twelve minutes. The article gives the impression of being hastily slapped together from a few sources. That technique is usually used not to find truth, but to make an argument in support of pre-existing positions.

Mr. Sungenis apparently finds the allegations of various dissenters (like those who accuse the curia of the murder of Pope John Paul I) to be more credible than the clear statements of legitimate ecclesiastical authorities. How can this be in a Church against which the gates of Hell shall not prevail? Does it imply that when Jesus promised to be with his disciples always, he meant only to be with a small remnant while allowing most to fall away? Is the Church not protected from error regarding faith and morals despite the sins of her individual members?

Here’s what I perceive to be the key elements of Mr. Sungenis’ Grand Unified Conspiracy Theory:

1. Bl. John XXIII desired to push for ecumenism to such a degree that he forbade the disclosure of the Third Secret.
2. Bl. John XXIII also entered into a secret agreement with Russia because his ecumenism is, like communism, a creation of the Masons.
3. The ecumenists and Masons set the goals of Vatican II, which were not in keeping with Catholic Tradition.
4. The Church was already in serious trouble at the start of Vatican II, due to the failure of previous Popes to use the precise formula for the consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. This led to Pope Pius XII having to hide Jews in the Vatican (which Mr. Sungenis apparently finds to be sacreligious).
5. Bl. John XXIII wanted to end Vatican II early, but died before he had the chance. Pope Paul VI was elected based on his promise to keep the council in session.
6. Pope Paul VI appointed evil men to the curia and promoted heretical theologians.
7. The evil and heretical men appointed by Paul VI were behind the changes in the liturgy.
8. Pope John Paul I was a good man who was killed by members of the curia.
9. Pope John Paul II made a deal with the communists (and the Russian Orthodox) rather than taking them on, continuing in the spirit of the “Pact of Metz” in the “Declaration of Balamand”.
10. The Vatican’s messages about the Fatima secrets are not as credible as are the comments of those who doubt the Vatican’s messages.
11. The evils visible in the word today, from homosexuality to abortion and then some, are attributable to the influence of heretics and evil men in the Church.
12. “The great apostasy in the Church has begun at the top.”

The whole focus of the article is disturbing. The Fatima visions are, after all, private revelation. They add nothing to the deposit of faith. The message of penance and prayer is good and valuable. Specific apocalyptic speculations, though, can be harmful if they draw us away from what is truly important. In one mention of the “dancing sun” miracle, Mr. Sungenis calls it “one of the greatest miracles ever recorded”. Meaning no disrespect, sir, the greatest miracles make that look small. The greatest miracles are things like the Incarnation, the Atonement, the Eucharist and the conversion of sinners. Astronomical anomalies are visually impressive, but they are nothing compared to the inestimable riches of the mercy of the living God. May we all focus more on Him and less on our own agendas.

Seems to me that criticism of pigskin burials, likethis, miss the point. Of course the pigskin burial does nothing to change the fate of the offender who is buried in pigskin, but it could give pause to some other devout Moslem who may be considering following in the same footsteps. I still find it a good idea as a deterrent.

Highlights of my life since last I blogged:

Friday after work – attended All Saints’ Day Mass celebrated by Archbishop Chaput, who spoke (as is his custom often) on the universal call to holiness.

Saturday morning – a meeting for my home parish’s lectors at which we were introduced to pertinent bits of the new GIRM.

Saturday evening – dinner with friends.

Sunday morning – Mass with several dear friends .

Sunday afternoon – reading the latest from Sungenis (more to come on this soon).

This morning – took a great walk with the big furry mutt. The twin purposes of his existence are to constantly verify that his people do indeed love him and to rid the world of squirrels. This morning he came within an inch of actually catching a squirrel. The disappointment in not catching the squirrel lasted for only an instant, but his delight at having made the squirrel flee in mortal terror was obviously a highlight of his puppy existence. It’s too easy for me to obsess about my failures and the things in my life that aren’t how I want the to be. May God grant me the grace to have the optimism I see in the dog.

So there you have it.

Bill Cork has an interesting take on the recent resignations of top LA Archdiocese officials. The resignations certainly give one pause. I’m looking forward to finding out what Los Angeles Lay Catholic Mission has to say about it. Cdl. Mahony faces quite a challenge indeed.

Great post by JB the Kairos Guy on rules and the Church. You’ve probably seen it already, but just in case you haven’t . . . .

Recently I saw the following campaign commercials, in this order:

1. The Clinton party candidate for Senate is the most pro-child as evidenced by his support for the teacher unions and his opponents’ votes opposing the already-accomplished expansions of Medicaid. Remember: electing the Clintonian is best for children.
2. The Clinton party candidate for Senate is the one man who can ensure that abortion remains legal.
What more can one say?

Yesterday I saw one of the all-time great business logos. I had forgotten it, but on seeing it again remembered how fascinating I found it when I was just a little boy.

The logo is for a plumbing contractor. Not normally that exciting of a business. This logo, though, exemplifies what I’m sure is the unrealized dream of many plumbers.

A pretty woman reclines in a bathtub, one foot propped on the edge, the other knee at an odd angle. She’s talking on the phone.

It doesn’t take long to realize that she has a toe stuck in either the drain or the faucet. Lucky that she has a phone in the bathroom to call for help! So our intrepid hero is on his way to rescue this damsel in undress (er, distress, I mean). The big question is how the lady, who is pretty, naked and (presumably) grateful, will react to her rescue.