There were about 40 or so bishops who opposed the texts of the new translation of the Missae Typica. There were about 40 or so bishops who opposed the pastoral on marriage and family life. (One wanted to remand it to a committee, which would remove it from consideration in this meeting--keep it from coming to the floor for a vote!)
So, what I really wish I had was a list of which bishops voted for what on these issues, so that perhaps we could begin to piece together a pattern amongst our bishops--who is Catholic, and who is a closet Modernist. who wishes to further the Gospel with clear liturgy and teaching, and who wishes to obstruct it, so they can remain popular amongst their cronies.
I wonder why this data is unavailable.
TRIUMPHALIST--YOU GOT A PROBLEM WITH THAT?
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Global Warming
I have never been sold on Anthropogenic Global Warming. It smacks of politicized junk science. In fact it reminds me of the "global cooling/new ice age" panic of the 70's.
It wasn't helped by the "major study" signed by "hundreds" of scientists, that turned out to be a problem because many of the scientists who were "signatories" of the study didn't sign it, and many more demanded that their names be removed from it because the conclusions had been changed from the draft they signed on to.
So now, we find that e-mails from the Hadley Climate Research Unit point to the deliberate concealment of data that contradicts the theory of AGW. Even more damning, are e-mails that document an attempt to silence scientists who disagree, to the point of trying to undermine a publications reputation as a peer reviewed journal, because it published peer reviewed articles disagreeing with the AGW theory.
Essentially, these politicized "scientists" decided what reality was, and damn debate or data.
It kind of ties in with my post on Texts.
It wasn't helped by the "major study" signed by "hundreds" of scientists, that turned out to be a problem because many of the scientists who were "signatories" of the study didn't sign it, and many more demanded that their names be removed from it because the conclusions had been changed from the draft they signed on to.
So now, we find that e-mails from the Hadley Climate Research Unit point to the deliberate concealment of data that contradicts the theory of AGW. Even more damning, are e-mails that document an attempt to silence scientists who disagree, to the point of trying to undermine a publications reputation as a peer reviewed journal, because it published peer reviewed articles disagreeing with the AGW theory.
Essentially, these politicized "scientists" decided what reality was, and damn debate or data.
It kind of ties in with my post on Texts.
More on the Corrosive Campaign for Human Deception
Roger Morin of Biloxi, Mississippi has decided that we pew sitting laymen are all wrong in our distrust and disappointment in the CCHD. After all, he says it's only financed three groups opposed to Catholic teaching!
Oh--that's OK then. an official arm of the Bishops has only given money to three groups that are working against the Church. I'm so relieved.
Look, first off Bishop Morin is wrong--they have given money to far more groups that work against Catholic Moral and Social teaching than that. Second, the CCHD was founded, not to give relief and succor to the poor, but to finance political groups, which have so far all been proven to be on the leftward end of the political spectrum.
I looked at the CCHD envelopes our parish received. Written on them are the words "Families are struggling. Faith is calling". Both are true. My family is struggling. And my Faith calls me to acts of charity. But the CCHD does not benefit families--it benefits political activists groups, by design. And it is giving money given by the faithful to groups that oppose the faith.
I wonder, Chystostom said that the road to hell is paved with the bones of priest with the bodies of bishops as signposts. Could the bishops who so oppose scrutiny and accountability, and the reform of the CCHD be thinking of an afterlife as a road sign? Or are they more concerned with pleasing a secular world view held by a faction within the church?
Oh--that's OK then. an official arm of the Bishops has only given money to three groups that are working against the Church. I'm so relieved.
Look, first off Bishop Morin is wrong--they have given money to far more groups that work against Catholic Moral and Social teaching than that. Second, the CCHD was founded, not to give relief and succor to the poor, but to finance political groups, which have so far all been proven to be on the leftward end of the political spectrum.
I looked at the CCHD envelopes our parish received. Written on them are the words "Families are struggling. Faith is calling". Both are true. My family is struggling. And my Faith calls me to acts of charity. But the CCHD does not benefit families--it benefits political activists groups, by design. And it is giving money given by the faithful to groups that oppose the faith.
I wonder, Chystostom said that the road to hell is paved with the bones of priest with the bodies of bishops as signposts. Could the bishops who so oppose scrutiny and accountability, and the reform of the CCHD be thinking of an afterlife as a road sign? Or are they more concerned with pleasing a secular world view held by a faction within the church?
"We Only Have the Text"
I heard that a lot in school. Whenever one would speak of the milieu that produced a piece of literature, we would only be told that we can only go by what is in the text. It seems to be a foundation of "Post modern scholarship" that we cannot examine anything other than the printed page. Of course, that means we can read any meaning we choose into a document or a story. ( Like deciding that the relationship between Sam and Frodo in LOTR was a homoerotic pair bonding rather than being based on the relationship between a British officers and their batmen in the first quarter of the 20th century--a relationship that Tolkien had first hand experience of.)
It also makes it possible to discount the radical departure of Christianity from the intellectual and spiritual climate of the classical world. For if we restrict ourselves only to the texts of myths, letters, and accounts of religious sects, we can draw whatever conclusions we choose about the similarities between the various mystery religions and Christianity, and then discard the eventual emergence of Christianity as the religion of the Roman Empire in late antiquity, dismissing the Holy Spirit in favour of a political-economic explanation.
So I'm going to contrast something for you: The Pandora story and Christian Hope.
In the Pandora story, the last thing that emerged from the box she so rashly opened was hope. (Notice the lower case--I'm not being politically correct!) Hope wasn't interpreted as a blessing, but as the worst and final curse, the one that lead people to tolerate the others. Hope was not a virtue, but a delusion. Contrasted with this, Christian Hope is a great virtue. Hope is a variety of trust in the Lord and his promises.
By eliminating context, post modern interpretation makes not only possible, but nearly requires, that Christianity be interpreted as just another thing. The idea that the text of anything stands on it's own is simply a way to avoid meanings and words that challenge ones own assumptions, world view and life ways. It facilitates the relegation of truth--the idea of truth--to an intellectual rubbish heap as a concept that interferes with the freedom of intellect to choose it's own reality.
Returning to the milieu of the Pandora story, I cannot conceive of a classical pagan from the Mediterranean Cultural Area writing something like Spe Salvi, because hope was seen as a delusion and a curse. For that matter, I cannot conceive of an existentialist writing it either. perhaps that is the best indicator I have that modern philosophy and scholarship are intrinsically pagan.
It also makes it possible to discount the radical departure of Christianity from the intellectual and spiritual climate of the classical world. For if we restrict ourselves only to the texts of myths, letters, and accounts of religious sects, we can draw whatever conclusions we choose about the similarities between the various mystery religions and Christianity, and then discard the eventual emergence of Christianity as the religion of the Roman Empire in late antiquity, dismissing the Holy Spirit in favour of a political-economic explanation.
So I'm going to contrast something for you: The Pandora story and Christian Hope.
In the Pandora story, the last thing that emerged from the box she so rashly opened was hope. (Notice the lower case--I'm not being politically correct!) Hope wasn't interpreted as a blessing, but as the worst and final curse, the one that lead people to tolerate the others. Hope was not a virtue, but a delusion. Contrasted with this, Christian Hope is a great virtue. Hope is a variety of trust in the Lord and his promises.
By eliminating context, post modern interpretation makes not only possible, but nearly requires, that Christianity be interpreted as just another thing. The idea that the text of anything stands on it's own is simply a way to avoid meanings and words that challenge ones own assumptions, world view and life ways. It facilitates the relegation of truth--the idea of truth--to an intellectual rubbish heap as a concept that interferes with the freedom of intellect to choose it's own reality.
Returning to the milieu of the Pandora story, I cannot conceive of a classical pagan from the Mediterranean Cultural Area writing something like Spe Salvi, because hope was seen as a delusion and a curse. For that matter, I cannot conceive of an existentialist writing it either. perhaps that is the best indicator I have that modern philosophy and scholarship are intrinsically pagan.
Friday, November 20, 2009
Porn Rules the Mainstream
Obviously.
I mean, not only does Fox News try to keep a slide show up with pictures of scantily clad hotties every Monday, but both Fox and the MSN pages today blared out how they had slide shows of the Victoria's Secret Fasion Show--both saying it was the sexiest one yet.
These are not set up so you can buy the merchandise. They exist so you can ogle the pretty girls.
Porn is depictions of images or writings intended to excite sexual desire. Hence, even in the mainstream, Porn Rules!
It seems to bring more hits than real news.
I mean, not only does Fox News try to keep a slide show up with pictures of scantily clad hotties every Monday, but both Fox and the MSN pages today blared out how they had slide shows of the Victoria's Secret Fasion Show--both saying it was the sexiest one yet.
These are not set up so you can buy the merchandise. They exist so you can ogle the pretty girls.
Porn is depictions of images or writings intended to excite sexual desire. Hence, even in the mainstream, Porn Rules!
It seems to bring more hits than real news.
Palinophobia
I have not understood the evident hatred that much of the press and the Liberal segment of society hold for Sarah Palin. Especially as she is no longer a candidate for any office, and unlikely to become one.
I read an essay on the 'net from the Anchorage Daily News, ( www.adn.com ) that suggested it was a sort of latent guilt or sorrow coupled with jealousy over her family and children and her career. That feminists don't like her because she has had a good career, while not putting motherhood or family on hold to facilitate it. I don't think so.
I think that it is simply classism. Sarah Palin and her husband are affluent members of the working class. They earned what they have. They do not fit the common cultural assumptions of the early 21st century middle class. They have neither the right schools in their background, nor the right accents, nor the right aesthetic.
(This last is more important than it seems--it was why the Campaign decided to remake her image and wardrobe, as well as that of her whole family in 2008!)
In short, Ms. Palin represents the "dream of America", that the common person can achieve, do well, and even have political influence. The current liberal thinking is that we can't, or at least, shouldn't, that we should be dependant on the Government, and a pervasive and powerful bureaucracy. A Bureaucracy pulled from the ranks of the middle class, educated at the right schools, with the right attitudes, or from those favoured by this same class who have attended the right schools with assistance from this same bureaucracy.
In short, I think she is hated because she demonstrates that we do not need them!
We don't need them to teach us their morality of convenient self indulgence, their aesthetic of urbane and ugly banality, their "leadership" into dependency and economic stagnation. Ms. Palins existence proves that their basic assumptions about us are wrong, and that given the slightest chance we will wield power, to the detriment of their privilege.
(Hence their propensity for working through Courts and Bureaucracy, rather than through direct polls and ballot measures!
I'm slipping into political commentary, so I need not to continue this, or to think of blogging about politics.
I read an essay on the 'net from the Anchorage Daily News, ( www.adn.com ) that suggested it was a sort of latent guilt or sorrow coupled with jealousy over her family and children and her career. That feminists don't like her because she has had a good career, while not putting motherhood or family on hold to facilitate it. I don't think so.
I think that it is simply classism. Sarah Palin and her husband are affluent members of the working class. They earned what they have. They do not fit the common cultural assumptions of the early 21st century middle class. They have neither the right schools in their background, nor the right accents, nor the right aesthetic.
(This last is more important than it seems--it was why the Campaign decided to remake her image and wardrobe, as well as that of her whole family in 2008!)
In short, Ms. Palin represents the "dream of America", that the common person can achieve, do well, and even have political influence. The current liberal thinking is that we can't, or at least, shouldn't, that we should be dependant on the Government, and a pervasive and powerful bureaucracy. A Bureaucracy pulled from the ranks of the middle class, educated at the right schools, with the right attitudes, or from those favoured by this same class who have attended the right schools with assistance from this same bureaucracy.
In short, I think she is hated because she demonstrates that we do not need them!
We don't need them to teach us their morality of convenient self indulgence, their aesthetic of urbane and ugly banality, their "leadership" into dependency and economic stagnation. Ms. Palins existence proves that their basic assumptions about us are wrong, and that given the slightest chance we will wield power, to the detriment of their privilege.
(Hence their propensity for working through Courts and Bureaucracy, rather than through direct polls and ballot measures!
I'm slipping into political commentary, so I need not to continue this, or to think of blogging about politics.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
I see part of the problem...
Over at www.americancatholic.com they have a link to an essay saying "We need to name more married saints".
The title shows an essential problem in the vision and understanding of the Church that is prevalent today.
We don't "name saints" except as a colloquialism. Saints are canonized, declared to be saints, upon evidence of heroic virtue and only after miracles that cannot be disproved are attributed to their intercession. We just can't up and "name" someone a 'saint" because it would be good politics!
I think this shows a problem with current catechises: people are taught that the Church has authority, and that things like doctrine and discipline can develop over time, but are not taught the limits of development. In this case, they are taught that canonization of a saint is reserved to the Holy See, but fail to grasp that the Holy See isn't free to just decide someone is a saint.
I don't really hold this against the people who have been taught erroneously. But I do hold it against the ones who taught them.
It really is our responsibility as Catholic Laymen to gently explain to people who hold these erroneous positions the teachings and disciplines of the Church. Even if we really would like to be a bit harsher! Especially if we feel the urge to be a bit harsher!
The Church doesn't make saints. It doesn't name saints. The Holy Spirit raises up among us souls who, through the practice of heroic virtue, are saints, and then, the Church proclaims them--after long investigation--to be saints.
We don't make saints. God does.
I think this shows how little many well meaning, and even (in the way they were taught) loyal Catholics can say such odd things. They were just plain taught wrong.
(An aside--my daughters were "taught" in an Archdiocesan school, that saints were to serve only as examples. They had never been taught about saintly intercession or the Treasury of Merit, or about the Church Triumphant. Such poor teaching isn't on those who receive it in good faith, but needs to be repaired.)
The title shows an essential problem in the vision and understanding of the Church that is prevalent today.
We don't "name saints" except as a colloquialism. Saints are canonized, declared to be saints, upon evidence of heroic virtue and only after miracles that cannot be disproved are attributed to their intercession. We just can't up and "name" someone a 'saint" because it would be good politics!
I think this shows a problem with current catechises: people are taught that the Church has authority, and that things like doctrine and discipline can develop over time, but are not taught the limits of development. In this case, they are taught that canonization of a saint is reserved to the Holy See, but fail to grasp that the Holy See isn't free to just decide someone is a saint.
I don't really hold this against the people who have been taught erroneously. But I do hold it against the ones who taught them.
It really is our responsibility as Catholic Laymen to gently explain to people who hold these erroneous positions the teachings and disciplines of the Church. Even if we really would like to be a bit harsher! Especially if we feel the urge to be a bit harsher!
The Church doesn't make saints. It doesn't name saints. The Holy Spirit raises up among us souls who, through the practice of heroic virtue, are saints, and then, the Church proclaims them--after long investigation--to be saints.
We don't make saints. God does.
I think this shows how little many well meaning, and even (in the way they were taught) loyal Catholics can say such odd things. They were just plain taught wrong.
(An aside--my daughters were "taught" in an Archdiocesan school, that saints were to serve only as examples. They had never been taught about saintly intercession or the Treasury of Merit, or about the Church Triumphant. Such poor teaching isn't on those who receive it in good faith, but needs to be repaired.)
Vocation Shortage a Myth?
I don't think that there is a Vocation Shortage.
I think that there is an opportunity shortage.
I can't help but notice that orders and congregations faithful to the charisms of religious life are doing well. As are dioceses that embrace the traditional charisms of the priesthood (LIncoln and Arlington).
We have all heard of the success of the Dominican Sisters of St. Cecilia, and of the Sisters of Mary, Mother of the Eucharist. We all know of the Sisters of Life. Or Clear Creek. Or the Community of St. John.
Let's ad those strange little Carmelites, popularly known as the "Coffee Monks". Let's use just a little bit of math: Two years ago there were six of them. Now there are 15 of them. That means that they have grown by 150% in two years.
That kind of growth was what was seen when Francis founded the Friars Minor, or Benedict's Monks in their first one hundred years.
See, the Holy Spirit is calling to people. It's just that the Modernists, in cooperation with the Eternal Enemy, have made it difficult for people to find a place to live out their Vocation.
St. Michael, defend us in battle. St. Joseph, pray for us. And thank God for the reform orders that will be the saving of the religious life.
I think that there is an opportunity shortage.
I can't help but notice that orders and congregations faithful to the charisms of religious life are doing well. As are dioceses that embrace the traditional charisms of the priesthood (LIncoln and Arlington).
We have all heard of the success of the Dominican Sisters of St. Cecilia, and of the Sisters of Mary, Mother of the Eucharist. We all know of the Sisters of Life. Or Clear Creek. Or the Community of St. John.
Let's ad those strange little Carmelites, popularly known as the "Coffee Monks". Let's use just a little bit of math: Two years ago there were six of them. Now there are 15 of them. That means that they have grown by 150% in two years.
That kind of growth was what was seen when Francis founded the Friars Minor, or Benedict's Monks in their first one hundred years.
See, the Holy Spirit is calling to people. It's just that the Modernists, in cooperation with the Eternal Enemy, have made it difficult for people to find a place to live out their Vocation.
St. Michael, defend us in battle. St. Joseph, pray for us. And thank God for the reform orders that will be the saving of the religious life.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Occult Fiction
I've been thinking about the popularity of certain types of "occult" fiction. I'm not talking here of horror fiction, I'm talking about things like Twilight, or the books of Charles DeLint. Catherine Briggs comes to mind as well.
I'm talking about the genera of novels where Fae, (fey? fay?), supernatural beings like vampires, werewolves, elementals etc exist, and are to be found even in towns and cities.
What I find interesting about the genera (aside from the fact that some of them are actually well written and tell good stories--I like Catherine Briggs) is that it seems to be an expression of something that is written upon all our hearts. The material world isn't the only world, and material concerns and explanations doe not suffice for life, love, courage or wisdom.
It seems to me that we intuit that there is a spiritual world, that that world influences and impinges on our own, and upon our selves.
In these books the various super and preternatural beings are not generally uniform. Even within categories some are good, some are evil. Nobility of action and altruism are found among them in about equal measure with vileness and hatred. And generally, they are depicted as dangerous entities to mix with.
Some how, the desire to know and love God, to be happy with him resurfaces in our secular society in the guise of these books. People, having convinced themselves that there is no other reality, still feel a need for spiritual connection and explanation. Often feeling that they cannot have that in real life they seek it in novels and fiction, much as people read romance and adventure novels as an anodyne for loneliness or boredom in daily life. (Hmmmm...I could extend this analogy a bit farther and see these books as a kind of "spiritual porn". And you know, in some cases I would be right!)
I see these books as having some relation, for some readers, to the New Age and Neo-Pagan movements. Having in practical matters, if not explicitly, abandoned conventional religion and spiritual beliefs and practices I think many readers turn to them so they have a "feeling" of spiritual connection.
It's sort of like eating Melba Toast and celery sticks instead of food. And then wondering why you feel hungry.
I'm talking about the genera of novels where Fae, (fey? fay?), supernatural beings like vampires, werewolves, elementals etc exist, and are to be found even in towns and cities.
What I find interesting about the genera (aside from the fact that some of them are actually well written and tell good stories--I like Catherine Briggs) is that it seems to be an expression of something that is written upon all our hearts. The material world isn't the only world, and material concerns and explanations doe not suffice for life, love, courage or wisdom.
It seems to me that we intuit that there is a spiritual world, that that world influences and impinges on our own, and upon our selves.
In these books the various super and preternatural beings are not generally uniform. Even within categories some are good, some are evil. Nobility of action and altruism are found among them in about equal measure with vileness and hatred. And generally, they are depicted as dangerous entities to mix with.
Some how, the desire to know and love God, to be happy with him resurfaces in our secular society in the guise of these books. People, having convinced themselves that there is no other reality, still feel a need for spiritual connection and explanation. Often feeling that they cannot have that in real life they seek it in novels and fiction, much as people read romance and adventure novels as an anodyne for loneliness or boredom in daily life. (Hmmmm...I could extend this analogy a bit farther and see these books as a kind of "spiritual porn". And you know, in some cases I would be right!)
I see these books as having some relation, for some readers, to the New Age and Neo-Pagan movements. Having in practical matters, if not explicitly, abandoned conventional religion and spiritual beliefs and practices I think many readers turn to them so they have a "feeling" of spiritual connection.
It's sort of like eating Melba Toast and celery sticks instead of food. And then wondering why you feel hungry.
Interesting...
The LCWR represents, it says, 95% of American nuns. Over at American Papist, it's pointed out that despite the claims of the LCWR and it's media fans, they actually represent 80% of American Sisters.
Now the other group--the Council of Major Superiors of Women Religious--represents 20% of American Sisters. (The CMSWR was founded by communities that didn't want to participate in the error and disobedience that is fostered by the LCWR, and were chartered by the Vatican.)
Oddly enough the numbers invert in one category: 80% of female vocations to the religious life are received by groups affiliated with the CMSWR, and the loopy groups only get 20%.
Go figure.
The Holy Spirit doesn't call people to heresy, schism, lesbianism, etc.
Now the other group--the Council of Major Superiors of Women Religious--represents 20% of American Sisters. (The CMSWR was founded by communities that didn't want to participate in the error and disobedience that is fostered by the LCWR, and were chartered by the Vatican.)
Oddly enough the numbers invert in one category: 80% of female vocations to the religious life are received by groups affiliated with the CMSWR, and the loopy groups only get 20%.
Go figure.
The Holy Spirit doesn't call people to heresy, schism, lesbianism, etc.
Why I no longer year MSM stories about the Church.
On Monday, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette web page posted an article about how deeply divided the Bishops were on the new translation of the Mass. ( www.post-gazette.com) To read it, one would think that the bishops were split down the middle, the issue was in doubt and perhaps we would be seeing a crozier weilding riot.
So according to Father Z, over at What Does the Prayer Really Say, ( http://wdtprs.com/blog/ ) the result of the vote on the new translation before the Bishops on Bishop Troutman's attempt to derail the process by turning down the texts being considered:
Against (turning down the texts) 166 For (turning down the texts) 46.
Hardly close.
And, in a related issue, the president of the USCCB just decided to let the Vatican have complete control of the translations of the antiphons. When that was put to a vote you ended up with this result:
For (letting the Vatican choose the wording) 194 Against (letting the Vatican choose the wording) 20
So the big ugly disruptive bi--ch fight the press was hoping for didn't happen. BTW--I have read no MSM reports on the study on the Abuse Scandal, and where to place blame, which hasn't been sugar coated.
So--I guess it's good I don't look to the MSM to report on the Church. After all, by their actions they have demonstrated a degree of hostility verging on Sectarian Hatred for us.
So according to Father Z, over at What Does the Prayer Really Say, ( http://wdtprs.com/blog/ ) the result of the vote on the new translation before the Bishops on Bishop Troutman's attempt to derail the process by turning down the texts being considered:
Against (turning down the texts) 166 For (turning down the texts) 46.
Hardly close.
And, in a related issue, the president of the USCCB just decided to let the Vatican have complete control of the translations of the antiphons. When that was put to a vote you ended up with this result:
For (letting the Vatican choose the wording) 194 Against (letting the Vatican choose the wording) 20
So the big ugly disruptive bi--ch fight the press was hoping for didn't happen. BTW--I have read no MSM reports on the study on the Abuse Scandal, and where to place blame, which hasn't been sugar coated.
So--I guess it's good I don't look to the MSM to report on the Church. After all, by their actions they have demonstrated a degree of hostility verging on Sectarian Hatred for us.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Hangin's too good for 'im!
Major Nical Malik Hasan killed 13 adults and an unborn child in his Jihadist action.
He is being charged with 13 counts of murder under the UCMJ in military court. The military retains the death penalty--specified to be hanging but that may be changed to lethal injection. The military hasn't executed anyone since 1961. Oddly enough, the Military Justice system is more prone to mercy than the civilian.
Now as a Catholic I believe what the church officially teaches about execution: that it's permissible only when it's the only practical way to protect society. I also believe, just like the Catechism of the Catholic Church says, that the decision to execute is reserved as a matter of prudential judgment to the Civil Powers.
But if we try and execute this guy, we'll be giving him just what he wants, and what his little, untermenschlich puppet masters want. Martyrdom. Maj Malik wants to be a martyr, so he can have his 72 virgins, his rivers flowing with wine, his beardless boys in the drunken pedo-rape heaven he believes in. His masters want him to be a martyr so they can use his memory to inspire more of their deluded and impressionable coreligionists to go commit senseless murders.
Let's not give them what they want.
We can confine this man, keep him from personally committing more sectarian murders. All we have to do is find him guilty, and sentence him to 13 consecutive life terms. No parole for him. But the argument can be made that we need to deter others from following his course. That would be a way of protecting society from further acts. The problem is, these mutts go into action against the defenseless expecting to be killed. They want to be killed. Executing them simply makes them a martyr, and they expect to get all those tender young virgin girls and boys and the rivers of wine in their drunken pedo-heaven.
Better is to throw his sorry, deluded ass into prison, where he will be exposed to the population of other prisoners, eventually. (Yes, he would end up in protective custody in the slammer, just like Jeffry Dahmer. And just like Jeffery Dahmer, he won't be kept there forever.) After they're done with him, he might just find himself in a state of ritual impurity that makes him go to his grave without even the illusory hope of pedo-heaven. Treat him not like a dangerous Jihadist Allah-Warrior, but like a common mass murderer, subjected to all the degradation of an American prison. suddenly, being a Jihadist doesn't look so good to those deluded guys who are looking for a good time in the after life.
(Did you know that upon interview, one would be suicide bomber, who turned out to be 14 years old, stated his motivation was to finally get to have sex because he would die a martyr and go to the Islamic version of paradise? You know, the one with all the booze and young virgin girls who put out.)
Unfortunately, it's contrary to American law to feed him on pork and unclean, non-halal foods and give him only Israeli wine to drink, 'cause I'd like to watch him whimper.
Great, having vented my thoughts on this question now I need to go to confession.
He is being charged with 13 counts of murder under the UCMJ in military court. The military retains the death penalty--specified to be hanging but that may be changed to lethal injection. The military hasn't executed anyone since 1961. Oddly enough, the Military Justice system is more prone to mercy than the civilian.
Now as a Catholic I believe what the church officially teaches about execution: that it's permissible only when it's the only practical way to protect society. I also believe, just like the Catechism of the Catholic Church says, that the decision to execute is reserved as a matter of prudential judgment to the Civil Powers.
But if we try and execute this guy, we'll be giving him just what he wants, and what his little, untermenschlich puppet masters want. Martyrdom. Maj Malik wants to be a martyr, so he can have his 72 virgins, his rivers flowing with wine, his beardless boys in the drunken pedo-rape heaven he believes in. His masters want him to be a martyr so they can use his memory to inspire more of their deluded and impressionable coreligionists to go commit senseless murders.
Let's not give them what they want.
We can confine this man, keep him from personally committing more sectarian murders. All we have to do is find him guilty, and sentence him to 13 consecutive life terms. No parole for him. But the argument can be made that we need to deter others from following his course. That would be a way of protecting society from further acts. The problem is, these mutts go into action against the defenseless expecting to be killed. They want to be killed. Executing them simply makes them a martyr, and they expect to get all those tender young virgin girls and boys and the rivers of wine in their drunken pedo-heaven.
Better is to throw his sorry, deluded ass into prison, where he will be exposed to the population of other prisoners, eventually. (Yes, he would end up in protective custody in the slammer, just like Jeffry Dahmer. And just like Jeffery Dahmer, he won't be kept there forever.) After they're done with him, he might just find himself in a state of ritual impurity that makes him go to his grave without even the illusory hope of pedo-heaven. Treat him not like a dangerous Jihadist Allah-Warrior, but like a common mass murderer, subjected to all the degradation of an American prison. suddenly, being a Jihadist doesn't look so good to those deluded guys who are looking for a good time in the after life.
(Did you know that upon interview, one would be suicide bomber, who turned out to be 14 years old, stated his motivation was to finally get to have sex because he would die a martyr and go to the Islamic version of paradise? You know, the one with all the booze and young virgin girls who put out.)
Unfortunately, it's contrary to American law to feed him on pork and unclean, non-halal foods and give him only Israeli wine to drink, 'cause I'd like to watch him whimper.
Great, having vented my thoughts on this question now I need to go to confession.
A Disturbing Photo
No, not President Obama doing something I don't like!
This is worse. At least, in my mind it's worse. In the Fall issue of Ursulines Alive, (Vol 9, No. 1)
on page 8 there is a photo of Sister Michele Morek, the "Congregational Leader" attempting to bless the farm fields. She's wearing a white jacket and sprinkling about with an aspergelium.
Now a parent can bless their child, and so forth. We laymen can bless what we have authority over. But to use a blessing from the Book of Blessings, or the Rituale Romanum, one must be in Holy Orders, a Deacon or a Priest. Religious sisters are not ordained, so for practical matters of this sort they are laymen.
Sister Morek is simply usurping the preogatives of the Holy Priesthood, and is leaving the fields unblessed, despite her attempt. I find her white jacket especially disturbing. It strikes me as an attempt to simulate an alb (from alba = white)while dodging any obvious rebellion.
I wish our bishop had some moral courage when dealing with the sisters in our Archdiocese--most of them are out of hand.
This is worse. At least, in my mind it's worse. In the Fall issue of Ursulines Alive, (Vol 9, No. 1)
on page 8 there is a photo of Sister Michele Morek, the "Congregational Leader" attempting to bless the farm fields. She's wearing a white jacket and sprinkling about with an aspergelium.
Now a parent can bless their child, and so forth. We laymen can bless what we have authority over. But to use a blessing from the Book of Blessings, or the Rituale Romanum, one must be in Holy Orders, a Deacon or a Priest. Religious sisters are not ordained, so for practical matters of this sort they are laymen.
Sister Morek is simply usurping the preogatives of the Holy Priesthood, and is leaving the fields unblessed, despite her attempt. I find her white jacket especially disturbing. It strikes me as an attempt to simulate an alb (from alba = white)while dodging any obvious rebellion.
I wish our bishop had some moral courage when dealing with the sisters in our Archdiocese--most of them are out of hand.
Sure they're a "Branch of the Church Universal"
1--The "Church" of England has decided that it will make no provision for those who hold to the Anglo-Catholic faith and believe that Holy Orders is restricted to men. they will not have a group of Male bishops to provide sacramental ministry and oversight to this group of Anglicans.
And they wonder why the Holy Spirit moved the heart of the Pope to provide a place for them i the Catholic Church.
Now all that remains to be seen is whether they will value the Protestant concept of self determination and congregational governance over the concept of communio, and Holy Orders itself.
And they wonder why the Holy Spirit moved the heart of the Pope to provide a place for them i the Catholic Church.
Now all that remains to be seen is whether they will value the Protestant concept of self determination and congregational governance over the concept of communio, and Holy Orders itself.
Depose Willie
Bishop Willie Walsh is publicly saying that we should re-examine the Church's teachings on women "priests", homosexuality, priestly celibacy and not allowing communion to those who aren't Catholic.
This is public.
He should be deposed forthwith, for the good of his soul and the safety of the faithful.
This is public.
He should be deposed forthwith, for the good of his soul and the safety of the faithful.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)