News Clips: December 2005 Archives

Here is a sad sad story — two girls in a Lutheran school are expelled under suspicion that they are lesbians, and are attempting to sue the school. It is sad in two ways. One, the girls were more or less coerced into confessing that they "loved one another", and dismissed for violating their "Christian code of conduct". First of all Jesus taught us to "love one another", I have no problems saying that I love some of my friends both male and female, but that doesn't mean I have a sexual relationship with them. Be that as it may — suppose we assume that the love in question is demonstrably erotic — "feelings" (and the principal specifically cited their feelings) are not part of someone's conduct. If the principal can prove that there was in fact sexual conduct, that's different, but they didn't see any (as they acknowledged). I see no reason to expel students from a school simply because they have an unusual relationship lacking any sexual contact, or simply because someone has same-sex attraction.

The other way it is sad is on the other side: suing for discrimination. (I'm not going to argue for or against suing for invasion of privacy.) While I think the school made the wrong decision I believe the school has a right to set moral standards and enforce them. Granted, this does not appear to be a case of moral turpitude, but I am very jealous of religious school's rights to dismiss those who engage in what the school defines as misconduct. If the student disagrees — well, that was part of the deal they accepted when they enrolled. I do not think a student has a right to sue a Christian school for sexual orientation discrimination due to sexual misconduct. Again, this is not a sexual misconduct case, but the girl is demanding an injunction barring the school from excluding gays and lesbians. This I cannot tolerate. First, the school has a right at a minimum to exclude those whose conduct violates their moral principles (as would be the case for most gays and lesbians). Second, we're back to "can the Boy Scouts exclude girls" type of argument: right of association. These are private schools, not public ones, and do not need to accomodate everyone.

No one wins in this case. I just hope no damaging precedents are set.

Big Love is the name of a new HBO series debuting in March about, of all things, a polygamous marriage. I thought it would never happen. I'm tempted to say now I've seen everything, but I know better. Not surprisingly the characters belong to an offshoot of Mormonism, and are devoutly religious. (It took this plot line to convince HBO to do a series on a religious character?) Most of the action focuses on the everyday aspects of a family with three wives.

Logically speaking, everything that has happened in our culture undermines any justification for prohibiting polygamy (or polyamory in general). Hey, it's a holdover from Christianity, that's about it. (Well, then there are the creeps that marry to defraud, but that can be rectified.) I've often wondered if we will start to go in that direction. Perhaps this is a small sign that we might be.

The cinnamon bun that resembles Mother Teresa was stolen on Christmas Day, of all days. Police don't have any leads.
 
 
 
 

On Tuesday, federal appeals judge Richard Suhrheinrich made a surprising ruling on a case involving the display of the Ten Commandments at a county courthouse. The ACLU, not surprisingly, argued on the basis of the separating wall of church and state. In reply, Suhrheinrich wrote, "This extraconstitutional construct has grown tiresome. The First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church and state. Our nation's history is replete with governmental acknowledgment and in some cases, accommodation of religion."

All I have to say is — wow! <sound of rubbing eyes> Admittedly the statement is somewhat nuanced, but it is nonetheless significant. Is the concept of the separation of church and state no longer the shrine at which every judge worships? Is it now possible for a judge to dismiss the classic separation of church and state?

As I have always interpreted the First Amendment, it was intended primarily to prevent the establishment of a state church. That is why it refers to "respecting an establishment of religion". The Constitution was never intended to totally excise religion in general from our government's consideration, even Christianity (or this case, Judaism as well). The idea was, it should be neutral toward all the establishments of religion (churches, synogogues, mosques, etc.) Of course, I am a strict constructionist, which is the radical position that one should interpret the Constitution according to the of the framers, and not take it out of context.

In that sense there should be a separation between church and state, in the sense that the state should not get mixed up with a particular establishment of religion in such a way that violates its neutrality. But does this mean that the government cannot give its approbation to concepts that are, in a vague sense, religious, but not confined to particular establishments of religion? In other words, does putting up a monument to the Ten Commandments respect an establishment of religion in such a way that jeopardizes the government's political neutrality towards establishments of religion (especially when, in this case, the Commandments are part of a secular set of monuments to great historical moments in law, if you will)?

USA Today published an interesting article about the new fluidity between friends and family — essentially how friendships have in some cases begun to vie with families for importance in people's lives. They gave several examples of people who will spend the holidays with friends rather than family.

I found it an interesting article since I'm one of those people who relies much more on my friends than on my family. Part of that is because I live away from my family; part of it is because I have a small family (my dad is the only blood relative in my immediate family), and I never lived near my extended family. Part of it, frankly, is because my dad and I do not connect on an emotional level. My friends, on the other hand, have provided the emotional support I need. And so, for me, in a sense, my friends are my family.

Of course, taken to extremes, that can run afoul of the Christian view of the family. A family is not just anyone who wants to make a family. I recognize that my friends are not, technically, family, but I do strive to treat some of them as such.

This reminds me of Dr. Scott Hahn's teaching about covenants in Scripture. He called covenants a "family bond". When you made a covenant with someone, you became part of the same family, and it was not unusual for people to make non-marriage covenants. For example, David and Jonathan made a covenant (1 Sam 18:3, 1 Sam 20:16, 1 Sam 23:18). Of course that was a very different cultural environment — covenants were central to their culture, and were taken very seriously. Today, covenants between people are rare except for marriage. (I wonder if religious profession would count as a covenant?)

Plenty of books imitating The Da Vinci Code, or at least in its style, are coming out by this spring. "Labyrinth," by Kate Mosse, features a rival sect to the Catholic church and a search for the Holy Grail. In "The Templar Legacy," a thriller by Steve Berry, a former government agent attempts to unravel a mystery about an order of knights whose power rivaled the Pope's. Matilde Asensi's "The Last Cato" features the head of the Vatican's secret archive and his efforts to solve a murder with clues dating back to biblical times. No indication whether they will be as anti-Catholic as The Da Vinci Code, but you can bet that's what's popular. Apparently publishers have been inundated with manuscripts in this genre. If anyone finds a good Catholic review of any of these, let me know.

One could be forgiven for thinking the Pope was Santa during his weekly audience this week. He wore a red velvet cap, called a camauro, worn by medieval popes but rarely worn in recent times. It's simply to keep his head warm. Together with his red cape, he looked a bit like Santa.

The New York Times has a shocking article about the prevalence of teenage boys getting caught up in the online pornography world, selling images of themselves to predatory men who ask them to pose for them. As one victim reasoned when asked to bare his chest for a man, he wasn't doing anything that he wouldn't do at the local pool. Kids with webcams are especially vulnerable; this victim got a free webcam from this ISP, and when he installed it, it automatically put a picture of him up on a public website, where a predator within minutes found it and contacted him. Shamefully, his father even approved of it, accepting a share of the thousands of dollars of proceeds he got.

I think today's moral climate is ripe for such despicable abuse, on both sides; men who have no qualms about exploiting children, and parents who don't teach their children about sex in such a way that guards against exploitation. I think modesty is the term here. Much in past years has been made of female modesty, but there is a place for male modesty as well. Perhaps it's all the more important, since a woman can clearly tell when she's being treated as a sex object, and she encounters it enough to be wary, but it's much more subtle with men who exploit boys. Sadly, it's hard for teenagers to overcome the rationalization that they are getting good money to do something that is simple and doesn't appear to hurt them in the least (and in some cases is pleasurable).

The Internet is definitely in many ways a double-edged sword. This is probably the worst aspect of it. I'm not sure what the solution is. Moreover, it is not really the kids that are being brought up by loving, vigilant parents who are becoming victims, but in many cases those whose parents are asleep at the switch.

Lord, keep all children from harm. Grant the grace of conversion of heart to those who prey on them. St. Don Bosco, pray for us.

A Portugese author, 29 year-old Luis Miguel Rocha, is coming out with a novel this coming April which asserts that Pope John Paul I was assassinated over his plans to radically reform the church. Moreover, he was aware, he says, of money laundering involving the Vatican Bank. "He wanted to be the last wealthy pope. John Paul I wanted to redistribute the riches of the Church, open the Church to women and authorize the use of contraceptives," Rocha claims.

He speaks as if popes personally own a great deal of wealth. They may be custodians of lots of wealth, but that wealth doesn't make the pope wealthy, so it is odd that Pope John Paul I would say that. On the other hand, he did prove himself to be a bit of an iconoclast; choosing an unusual name and refusing a coronation ceremony.

Will this be the next Da Vinci code? Only time will tell. It does sound like another clever but ambiguous mixture of fact and fiction. (Or in the cast of the Da Vinci Code, mostly fiction.)

The biggest family in America has 17 children, from a 22 year-old to a 1 week-old infant. I am proud to report that they are Ukrainian.

The article refers to their "15-seat minivan." Man, that is not a minivan, it's a bus! (Actually another article does call it a bus.)

The father says, "I never thought I would have such a big family,. But I sincerely believe in God, and I believe my children are a gift from the Lord."

The Chernenkos' church, Bethany Slavic Missionary Church, is the nation's largest Slavic Pentecostal congregation.

All the kids save one married daughter still live at home.

Well our own Dom Bettinelli — fellow Catholic blogger who is quite up-and-coming and a friend of mine — made the Wall Street Journal today. (Ok, I'm exaggerating; I wouldn't call him a friend [not, if you are reading this Dom, that I wouldn't want to be]; he is an acquaintance who moves in my social circles and readily recognizes me. Can you tell I'm name-dropping? ;-)) The article, entitled "Leak Chic", is on the proliferation of anonymous sources and media tipsters.

Excerpt:

More and more, though, it's not just celebrities whose lives are affected by tattling, but private citizens with little claim to (or desire for) fame. Teresa Kettelkamp works for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops overseeing programs dealing with sexual abuse. Her quiet life was upended in September after she wrote a memo to some bishops about speaking to children about sexual abuse.

First, someone anonymously leaked the memo to Domenico Bettinelli Jr., the editor of a Catholic magazine and Web site. Mr. Bettinelli posted excerpts of the memo, taking issue with her point of view -- and listing her cellphone number. One reader wrote in to Mr. Bettinelli's site, claiming that Ms. Kettelkamp, a former police colonel, was affiliated with a police organization that supports abortion rights. More than two months later, she's still receiving angry phone calls. A spokesman for Ms. Kettelkamp says the episode reflects "the price of doing business in our world today."

George Niederauer, 69, formerly archbishop of Salt Lake City, was named by Pope Benedict to replace William Levada, now Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. My sources call him an "absolute zero", a useless and extremely disappointing appointment likely prompted by Cdl. Mahony, thus proving that Benedict is not in charge. A sad report.

Taiwan's bishops have launched a Beatitudes Credit card that sends 0.25% of funds to charities supported by the episcopal conference.
 
 
 
 

[That's more (Weird Catholic) News than Weird (Catholic News)]

A sect in Puerto Rico whose leader claims to be a "manifestation" of John Paul II has been excommunicated. They also believe Pope Benedict is the anti-Christ. (Sure, John Paul would have the anti-Christ as his right-hand man ...)

Then there is the woman (same article) who claims she's the Virgin Mary.

Where do these people come from??

People by now are well familiar with suits being filed against those who put nativity scenes on public property.

But did you know that someone was threatened to fines for putting a creche on their own private property?

It's true. A family in Novi, Michigan, was threatened with fines by the management company of their subdivision unless they removed the nativity scene from their own front lawn. (Although I gotta admit, looking at the set they chose, it isn't surprising management company objected. Hard to tell if this is religious persecution or simply a question of good taste.) But fortunately, a call to a lawyer and the "misunderstanding" was quickly rectified.

The referenced article has a few other good items. They discuss how many people are ignorant of the actual law and how schools often overreact and ban all sorts of stuff the courts don't demand that they ban.

An interesting organization has been founded by none other than Don Feder called
"Jews Against Anti-Christian Defamation" to "combat the widespread prejudice against Christians by the cultural elites." This organization has spoken out against purging Christmas from the public square. Gotta love Don Feder for his help, and I don't want to seem ungrateful, and I am a big Don Feder fan, but I'm somewhat left scratching my head why he (as a Jew) would (and does) strive so hard to defend us. Of course, undoubtedly he's totally alienated the Jewish community at large by his conservative perspective. Perhaps he's just supporting the people who love him rather than those who hate him. The question in my mind, how many Jews think like him, or is he unique?

Put this judge on the U.S. Supreme Court! Sanity prevails for once in a U.S. court of law!

"it is not the role of judges to redefine the terms "husband" and "wife.""

"[This] was an act that exceeded the court's constitutional mandate and usurped that of the Legislature."

I have to pinch myself here!!

Leave it to the Wall Street Journal to attempt to prove that money buys happiness.

(Expires 12/14)
 
 
 
 
 
 

Evangelical megachurches are cancelling Christmas-Day services, something about "decentralizing" worship and not interfering with the family.

Now, the family is important, but doesn't God come first?

"The best way to honor the birth of Jesus is for families to have a more personal experience on that day." Huh? How is this more biblical than having a worship service on Christmas?

One comment was rather odd. They said that the resources that would have funded the Sunday service would go to a DVD, apparently to be given at unchurched people who show up at Christmas, which they call their "Super Bowl". But how do you give a DVD to unchurched people showing up at your Christmas service if you don't have one? Given that Christmas is the most-attended day of the year, when thousands of people who never go to church the rest of the year show up, wouldn't you want to have a service so you could reach out to them?

Maybe what they really want is rest for the pastor and the people who put on the service.

Former Hollywood madame Heidi Fleiss is opening a stud farm in Nevada — male prostitutes servicing women. Unfortunately the laws are written with female prostitutes in mind (requiring cervical tests and so forth). She argues that the existing laws discriminate against men, and she's ready to fight, saying, "What's good for the goose should be good for the gander." Ah, but Fleiss may be blindsided by someone who's got her number &mdash gay lawmaker David Perks, who is asking for a legal opinion on whether it would be illegal for her to restrict her clients to women. Yes, indeed, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Newly opened New Life Christian Church in Auburn, CA has a new tack: They are offering gas cards at $1.99 a gallon to show that God cares about everyday things, including gas prices. But aptly named Church of the Divide nearby in Garden Valley protested with signs saying "Jesus cares more about your sin and burning in hell than gas prices." Yeah but if the cheap gas prices get you into the church to address your sin, isn't that a plus? A member of that church says of New Life, "The true gospel is repentance, but people are going into these services and coming out exactly the same. They might hear an ear-tingling sermon of what they want to hear, get some coffee and leave." Given that it is a new church, one has to question how he's able to so definitively judge the church. He also said that the New Life Church would be better to focus on moral issues such as abortion and gay marriage, a comment that leaves me in a quandary. As readers here well know I'm as opposed to abortion and gay marriage as anyone. But I'm troubled by the context of the comment. We oppose gay marriage and abortion because they are wrong, not because doing so will attract more people. (If you attract people who oppose gay marriage, you risk attracting people with dubious motives. Instead you should attract people who are morally upright and conform to the Church's teachings.) I'm not sure what he point is; is he saying they should expend their efforts on political issues? How does he know they aren't aiming to address abortion and gay marriage by drawing people into the church and then bringing them to conversion on these points? Why is what the church is doing incompatible with opposing abortion and gay marriage?

Now it may very well be that this church is a health-and-wealth gospel church only interested in telling people what they want to here, and if so, it deserves reproach. But it seems to me, on the evidence, that the Church of the Divide is being just a wee bit judgmental. You can tell from their signs and quotes that they tend to be rather shrill. They would not be people I would look forward to talking to, that's for sure. Curiously, though, no cleric from Church of the Divide was quoted. It's entirely possible that this is the work of a few isolated individuals.

For the part of New Life, I'd probably prefer that they offered the cards to the poor, rather than the people at large. (Of course, then you'd get mostly poor people attending the church, which would present some challenges. I'm not sure what I think of the concept of such gimmicks in getting people to come to church. I think one should be creative in reaching out to people. I think deceptive or manipulative gimmicks are definitely wrong. I hate it when charities — which are forever using gimmicks to get donations — send me 5c and ask me to send it back. That's playing on my guilt and I think it counts as manipulation. I think New Life's reasons, as stated, are fine; they want to demonstrate that God cares about our everyday lives. If it induced guilt in people making them feel obliged to come to church, that might be a problem.

What are your thoughts?

Yes, it's difficult to sleep in

It's hard to see but there is a fir tree woven in there somewhere.

I'm not sure whether that's a festive piece of holly between his teeth or what.

If you've been looking for an excuse to give the wife to buy that Ferrari, now you have one. They've given $1.1 million to the Pope.
 
 
 
 

Is Jesus a redneck?

Judge for yourself.

Part of me sighs "Oh brother!", part of me says, anything that will stir up people's faith. But one thing is for sure, we aren't impressing the unbelievers.

I gotta admit it's a pretty darned good image though. But for all we know, it could be artificial.

The Vatican has issued a private cover letter, accompanying the recent instruction on homosexuals in the seminaries, that says that men with homosexual inclinations are not to teach in seminaries nor be appointed as rectors.

Frankly I find this puzzling, unless it is designed to prevent trysts with seminarians. I can't think of anything that a rector or professor does that especially demands things that men with SSA lack, unless they are just being especially sensitive to the danger of establishing a homosexual underground network. On the other hand, I don't see it as a big deal, either.

Here is an article with interesting statistics about the physiology of men and women:

"After analyzing magnetic resonance imaging (MRIs) of 23 men and 10 women, the team found that the sexes use different areas of the brain even when working on exactly the same task."

"Again using MRIs, he found that men have more than six times the amount of gray matter — which controls information processing — in their brains as women do. But females have 10 times the amount of white matter, which controls networking abilities."

This is bound to be controversial.

It also says that men and women have different senses of humor. Any boy who's made noises with his hand under his armpits knows that. :-)

A class at the University of Kansas intended to debunk creationism and intelligent design was cancelled after the professor made some ill-advised vicious comments about those who believe it them.

I think it's about time the nastiness the science side sometimes engages in is reported on. People tend to assume that scientists are all dispassionate and objective about it all the time, but that's not true.