News Clips: January 2006 Archives

A French nun with Parkinson's prayed to John Paul II and seems to have been cured of her Parkinson's.

I'm not sure whether Parkinson's is curable. If I am not mistaken, it is not, which would make this an awesome testimony.

The suspected miracle survived an initial scrutiny by doctors. More studies by the church investigative team will now be done.

How fitting and wonderful it would be if God cured a woman of Parkinson's by his prayers, and this miracle is the one that prompts his beatification!

A Waco, Texas Hooters restaurant got an unexpected boost from a priest who offered to bless it. Other clergy in the area opposed its opening, but Monsignor (!) Isidore Rozycki welcomes it, because “God's image is in all of these folks.” “I look it as a very fun place. It was a place of laughter. You forget about the tensions and stress of daily life and get an opportunity to laugh with friends. And it's great food.” All of which, of course, are convincing arguments from Scripture and Tradition for why we should open a Hooter's Restaurant. After all, didn't Our Lord say, "Blessed are those who laugh and have fun, for their stomachs shall be filled"? In another allusion to Scripture he says, "We can't be narrow-minded. People won't accept that anymore. If they don't get it here, they'll go somewhere else."

Someone was able to get into a Carthusian monastery and make a film about the life there. As you may know the Carthusian order is the strictest Catholic order in terms of their rules and practice. They weren't allowed to use any music or commentary. They followed the monk's activities for six months. "These are some of the most cheerful, happy and healthy people I've ever seen," Philip Gröning, the filmmaker, says. The movie is getting rave reviews.

A starving woman in Nairobi cursed God and died. She cast the powerful tribal curse on account of the famine afflicting the land, then died in her sleep.

Not sure what I make of this. It's certainly possible God struck her dead because of her curse. I don't see such things happening in the U.S. but there are a lot of supernatural and preternatural things that happen in Africa but not in the U.S. The attitude of her heart could have had an impact on this. And perhaps the influence it had on the society there; here, if someone curses God and lives, no one pays much attention, but there, perhaps it could cause a major scandal.

I've given up on trying to get God to act. I have an atheist friend who was, it appears, truly searching for a time, who asked God for signs and was very flexible about them, but God was silent, and he considered that proof that God didn't exist. He seemed pretty sincere to me. Why did God not act? Beats me. Perhaps, unbeknownst to me, his attitude was wrong. In any case it was an embarrassment and discouragement to me. I couldn't answer him when he asked me why God did not respond.

So this is a nice story (of sorts). If you choose to believe God struck her dead, be my guest, and if you choose to believe it was mere coincidence, I won't argue with you.

But I'm sure not going to try to curse God.

Here is an interesting article, in of all places the Boston Globe, about how porn in many forms has insinuated itself into American life.* From actors having real sex in art-house movies to porn-inspired cinematography on the Food Network, porn has infected many different aspects of our culture. "What is new and troubling, critics suggest, is that the porn aesthetic has become so pervasive that it now serves as a kind of sensory wallpaper, something that many people don't even notice anymore."

It's a hopeful sign that the Globe recognizes and acknowledges the same tenet we do: Porn often involves reducing women to subjugated ex objects, and cultivates a "culture that objectifies them while disguising it as female empowerment." (In turn, I would add, it makes female empowerment a form of manipulation — objectifying, that is, using, men as a means to obtain what they want.)

This article is well worth a read.

*Username: raccoonradio@myway.com; password: bgonweb. For more accounts, see http://www.bugmenot.com.

Here is an interesting Wall Street Journal article about how various religions are demanding changes to history textbooks* to suit their own agendas. For example, Hindus are complaining about being portrayed as polytheists. Yeah that was my reaction. Some are claiming that they really only worship one God, Brahman, and that all the other gods are manifestations of that one. Ok, you're free to start your own minor Hindu sect and believe that, but I'd venture to say that 95% or more of Hindus believe they worship multiple gods. Another claim from Muslims is that conversions to Islam during the Middle Ages weren't forced by military conquest. Who dreamed that one up?

I feared we'd show up in the article, but we don't (not as one of the whiners, anyway). After all we're portrayed quite negatively in history books. Some of it is fair, some of it is unfair. And I am not doubting that there is some misrepresentation or problematic wording affecting Hinduism or Islam. But when you use political pressure to remove accurate statements and replace them with sectarian fantasy, that's just ridiculous. I'm embarassed about the Galileo affair, and while I think it should be portrayed in a balanced fashion (and usually isn't), we can neither gloss over it or pretend it happened differently than it did. It's an important part of history and needs to be told. Peter's denial of Christ was embarassing, too, as was the apostle's cluelessness, but they had to be told.

I'd argue that anything that materially affects the flow of history, the culture, or society needs to be frankly discussed. For example, discussing Galileo is a must, but saying that many Catholic couples in the Middle Ages had sex through a hole in a bedsheet to avoid touching one another (an assertion I've heard) is immaterial to history and would just be anti-Catholic. Language as neutral as possible without sacrificing accuracy should be used. When conflicts are portrayed, an effort should be made to present both sides of the story.

One way to handle the Muslim objection above is as follows. I wouldn't ordinarily recommend teaching history this way, but one could present it in terms of the perceptions of both sides, e.g., "Large numbers of Christians in the Middle East felt enormous pressure to convert to Islam, though many Muslims today deny that forced conversion was intended. Many Christians were put to death. Christians believed this was for refusing to convert, while Muslims believe it was for insurrection." (I made that last part up.)

This is definitely going to be tough for the textbook manufacturers, that's for sure. But we as Christians should love the truth, even when it is difficult for us.

*Note: Only available until 1/31.

ooo ooo, I found my next article, and it's a doozy.

University of Florida is modifying the domestic partnership clause to require partners to swear they've been having sex for over a year and explicitly excludes platonic relationships.

So much for my idea of exploiting loopholes in something I disagreed with.

Some wags have suggested that some married couples can't meet that requirement.

Companies and organizations are in a bind. Here is where, classically, the state steps in to define something common for everyone, so that companies can simply use the state definitions and not rely on rolling their own. In other words, it would be so much easier for them if every state had civil unions. Instead they have to police people's sex lives. Unfortunately this may prove to be an impetus to civil unions. Lack of civil unions is certainly not stopping companies from offering such benefits.

I find it a little strange that they would be as zealous as they are about excluding platonic relationships. After all, that's a benefit that can attract people. You may reply, well, they want to save money. Well if they wanted to save money, why are they offering domestic partnership benefits? To which you might reply, because it attracts people, and my retort would be, we're back at the beginning, offering benefits to platonic partners attracts people, too. What is it about people having sex that they want to provide benefits to? In the traditional marriage situation, you had one breadwinner who needed coverage for a dependent spouse and dependent children. Clearly a need there. What is the compelling need for two working people having sex without kids to have benefits over two people (one of whom may not be able to work) not having sex without kids? In all this rush to redefine family, why aren't we open to platonic families?

I guess another question is how often domestic partner agreements exclude family members from domestic partnership. (Of course, this cruelly discriminates against incestuous relationships, but I digress.)

Should be interesting to see if and when polyamory becomes part of company policies. I suspect it won't since there is no evidence polyamory will gain the traction domestic partnership has, and it would be prohibitively costly for employers to cover multiple partners. But it's fun to throw it out.

The president of Providence College in Rhode Island, a Catholic college, has banned the performance of The Vagina Monologues on the campus, saying that it conflicts with Catholic teaching.

Bravo, Fr. Shanley.

He correctly says that it is exploitative toward women. And thanks be to God that some Catholic college administrator points out that "But artistic freedom on a Catholic campus cannot mean the complete license to perform or display any work of art regardless of its intellectual or moral content". May we have more like him!

Attached is his full statement.

In what is apparently a first of its kind for the U.S., a priest, Rev. Ned Reidy, has been found guilty of heresy by a Diocese of San Bernardino tribunal.

Great news! The only catch is that the priest long ago joined another denomination, the "Ecumenical Catholic Communion", which automatically excommunicates him anyway.

Apparently the diocese wanted to make a statement to make sure no one was confused about his status, since his new church worships in a way almost indistinguishable from the Catholic Church.

Attempts to try John Kerry and other politicians for heresy have apparently gone nowhere.

Here is a hopeful sign. An American Muslim advocacy group is interceding for the release of an American journalist kidnapped by a radical Muslim group and facing death. I've always wondered why Muslims in America who protest that they aren't like the stereotype seem so unwilling to do anything concrete to change it. Bravo to the Council on American-Islamic Relations for taking bold steps for peace.

Lion, lamb; snake, hamster; not too different. A four-foot rat snake and a 3.5-inch dwarf hamster in Toyko became friends after they attempted to feed the latter (named "meal" in Japanese) to the former. Now they live in harmony (though I don't know that the snake is eating grass).

I don't blame the snake for turning down frozen mice. As a cold-blooded animal, you need to conserve all the heat you can!

And you thought a hippo and turtle were improbable friends.

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - Pope Benedict's first encyclical, touching on charity and the relationship between spiritual love and erotic love, is due to be issued soon after weeks of delays because of revisions and changes.

UPDATE: To be released on January 25th.

Even non-churchgoers are picking up a new trend in Quebec: snacking on communion wafers. They are even sold in the grocery stores, packaged like peanuts and popcorn.

If you ask me, this is sacriligious. It's not necessarily wrong per se to eat unconsecrated hosts, but when you, essentially, profane them in this fashion, I think there is a problem. People associate them with the sacred. If you associate the sacred with a profane act or a profane context, you profane the sacred thing. Holy means "set apart", and there is a reason that communion hosts are "set apart" from normal food. People will naturally think of communion as less holy because they associate it with what they eat watching TV. Yuck!

Mehmet Ali Agca, the man who shot Pope John Paul II in 1981, will soon be released on parole.
 
 
 
 
 

A number of major British politicians are campaigning to make a married ex-Anglican convert a Cardinal. Msgr. Graham Leonard is a well-known convert to Catholicism, and former (Anglican, obviously) bishop of London.

The problem is canon law requires cardinals to accept the episcopacy, which he cannot due owing to his marriage.

But interestingly this canon seems to have been ignored in the case of Cardinal Dulles who, like Leonard, is beyond the voting age.

Personally I am opposed to this canon, but on the other hand, I'm not sure we should go about ignoring canons willy-nilly. Or maybe the Pope gave himself a rescript? The whole concept of putting in a canon which binds the pope in this way doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

(I was tempted to add a red zucchetto to the photo but I refrained. :-))

UPDATE: I am told that early on in the pontificate of John Paul, it was determined that men over 80 being given the red hat (solely for honorific purposes) did not have to receive episcopal consecration. So Msgr. Leonard could in fact receive the red hat.

An Italian court has ordered a priest to prove Jesus's existence. It pertains to a court case brought by an atheist against the priest after the priest denounced him in the parish newsletter for questioning the historical existence of Jesus. The charge is that the priest is "abusing popular credulity". Whatever that means; is he arguing that the priest is taking advantage of the people's credulity to get them to believe wrong things about the atheist, or is he arguing that the priest is taking advantage of the people's credulity by teaching Christ's historical existence? In the latter case, presumably the whole church would be implicated, and there would be no end to it as it would seem to me any article of faith could be turned into an "abuse of popular credulity". And who exactly is harmed if we teach that Christ truly existed? Why is this a legal offense?

Strange indeed.

The U.S. faces severe worker shortage in future says U.S. Chamber of Commerce President and CEO Thomas Donohue, and he has just the solution. If you think the solution includes encouraging Americans to have more children, you'd be wrong, though. His solution is to advocating better education for Americans and changes in immigration law to allow in more foreign workers.

Not that I'm opposed to immigration — our nation was built on immigrants &mash; but having children is an equally viable alternative and I think it deserves mention. If Europeans don't have enough children (which they aren't), and Americans don't have enough children (definitely getting there), then who is going to immigrate? More than likely the Muslims, who don't believe in contraception. Wouldn't it be ironic if they ended up conquering us by immigration because we believed in contraception. It's not hard to see the contraception is a recipe for racial suicide. The race that contracepts will always lose out in the long run against the race that is fertile. As they say, survival of the fittest. You'd think these brainy intellectual Darwinists would figure that out.

Two Mormon missionaries in Chesapeake, VA were shot, one fatally, while making their rounds. The assailant apparently approached them on the street.

UPDATE: It is believed the missionaries were shot because they witnessed a crime.