Curious about the Porn and Pancake Breakfast hosted by Living Word Assembly of God Church in the town of Ontario, New York?
News Clips: January 2007 Archives
"Doubleday, the company that sold [Dan] Brown's book [The DaVinci Code] about Jesus fathering children — which the Vatican branded as blasphemous — is also handling the American market for Benedict's book about the life of Christ."
There has been a sea change in Evangelical colleges recently as many of them drop their bans on dancing. Changes in the culture have brought this about — you can still find students who think that drinking, smoking, gambling, and pre-marital sex are wrong, but you wouldn't likely find one that thought that dancing was wrong.
I would argue that dancing is not wrong per se, but when it becomes suggestive, obscene, or salacious (except, possibly, in private between spouses), you've obviously crossed the line. I think we can make good judgments about these things. On the other hand it's easier to enforce a total ban.
Well I hope the colleges do well. I think they will, at least for many years.
No, Your Grace, Bishop Gumbleton, your removal as pastor couldn't have anything to do with your nearly heretical stance on many issues, including your promotion of homosexual activity. It couldn't be one of the myriad of ways you oppose sound doctrine and have shamed your office. You are right, it only had to do with your stance against sexual abuse. And we all know how that must grate against the hierarchy and do violence to their plans for the future.
This is like Representative Mark Foley claiming he was pressured to resign over political disagreements about policy concerning the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children.
Any way we can shut this miserable wretch of a bishop up and put him out of commission is OK by me. Well, ok, the have to be moral ways, that goes without saying. But this guy is bad news and I am happy to see him go, even if it is only as pastor of a parish. The only question was, why did it take so many years to do it?
As you may have heard, Islam is awaiting a conquering messiah", the Mahdi, who was a 10th century imam who mysteriously disappeared. He will impose Islamic Shiite rule over the entire world, and consign "liberal democratic civilization" to the dustbin of history. No one can know the day or hour of his appearance, and Jesus will be his lieutenant (apparently Mahdi is more qualified). Upon his return, he will rule for seven years, and then the end of the world will come. All Iran is "buzzing" about this fraud. Sounds like they've been reading a bit too many "Left Behind" novels.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the President of Iran, even claims to have seen a mystical light from Allah bathe him during a UN appearance.
All of this turns out to be fairly dangerous, of course, because it gives people a framework to conduct violence. Unlike Jesus, whom everyone will see on the clouds of heaven when he comes, no one knows how the Mahdi will come, he will just appear and anyone could claim to be him, and he'd have an instant following. You could get multiple people trying to conquer the world by violence, each with a fervent following all convinced this is totally blessed by God and destined to succeed. Yowsers.
Enough to make you want the real Messiah to show up and sort things out ...
Now I'm a few days too late on this, you'll have to forgive me, but if you think you're feeling just too bright and cheery today, have a look at this condescending New York Times (natch) article that covers post-abortion trauma centers that meet the needs of women harmed by abortion while matter-of-factly claiming that "the idea that abortion is at the root of women’s psychological ills is not supported by the bulk of the research."
Of course, framing the debate is half, if not most, of the battle. That statement deceptively appears to refute all of the pro-life claims while being worded in such a way as to be plausibly defensible. What psychological ills? Note that it doesn't say "the root of certain psychological ills", thus implying that the pro-life argument is that all of a woman's problems are caused by abortion. That's not the argument at all, of course; the argument is that abortion can and does hurt women. It doesn't take a pro-lifer, for example, to realize that there is a chance that a woman may be wracked by guilt over her decision, or that she may go through painful what-if scenarios. Only the most hardened feminist will come out of an abortion clinic bright and cheerful. Abortion is not a happy event and this needs to be acknowledged.
I would like to see this research, though. Who did it? (Guttmacher?) Who did they talk to? What were they measuring? Part of the problem is that it's not entirely obvious what causes what. If someone is not considering abortion as a possible cause, they will be unlikely to find it. It's easy to attribute psychological issues to other causes if one is predisposed to do so.
It's hard to believe that these counseling centers would stay in business if there was no causality between abortion and psychological trauma. I've heard many stories of women dreaming about fetuses and having other indications that are obviously associated with their abortion. I'm not going to argue that every woman experiences significant psychological trauma from abortion. Nor am I going to deny that abortion can be glibly blamed for all of a woman's problems, and that it is possible to convince someone wrongly that their troubles are all due to abortion. A dose of professional skepticism may be in order for some counselors. But let's not go the other way and pretend it has no effect on anyone.
With three, count 'em, three miracles, John Paul is close to sainthood. The article refers to a "formal announcement expected on April 2, the second anniversary of John Paul's death"; I'm not sure if this means announcing his canonization or what, it seems that way but my intuition tells me it would be doubtful. They have to go through all his writings and review them, and that could take a while. :-)
There is no imminent meeting planned between Benedict and the Patriarch of Moscow, which is unfortunate, but relations are improving.
The article cites a commission "currently looking into accusations that the Roman Catholic Church is proselytizing in Russia." When this topic comes up it always disturbs me because I'm not sure what it means.
Now, in years past it has lamentably occurred that the Eastern Catholics used promises of material gain or influence or some sort of quid pro quo for the conversion of Orthodox. This is to be condemned, and in some cases this is what is meant by "proselytism".
Yet I can never get over the nagging doubt that it might mean proclaiming the truth of Catholicism or even just accepting converts warmly. The Orthodox tend not to be an evangelistic faith and so they don't understand (it seems to me) that a Christian might have the conviction that his faith is true and so want to proclaim this truth to other Christians and invite them to join his church. I cannot accept an attitude which says I may not consider my church true enough to work toward inviting others to join it, including other Christians. I say if you don't like people convincing your people that Catholicism is true, then properly form your own people.
As in many things, I am sure this is all very complicated.
A judge has responded to interminably bickering spouses by ordering that a wall be constructed in their house. An interesting solution. I'm not sure how it works; how do you give both of them a functional kitchen without sharing space?
An unusual problem, to be sure.
Take one guess at what a burqini is and you'll probably get it right. Yes, it is a full-length swimsuit suitable for conservative Muslim women. I suppose it only makes sense ...
A nurse who had an obscene bumper sticker on her car got a ticket for it. And sued. The bumper sticker said something along the lines of "I'm tired of all this Bush--" and you fill in the blanks. Now the ticket was thrown out — the law the ticket was based on, a "lewd decal" law, was declared unconstitutional. She is claiming that the police officer "acted with reckless disregard" of her rights.
Now let's back it up. Apart from the merits of the law, which we will get to in a minute, if there is a law on the books, it is the job of the police to enforce it, not to decide whether it is, in their august estimate, constitutional. She definitely violated the law. The police officer couldn't predict it would be overturned. So what's the problem?
As for the law itself, I think it is an excellent law and I am sorry it was overturned. I do not consider obscenities to be protected speech. The Founding Fathers used to say that free speech doesn't cover yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. I would add, it doesn't cover yelling "Sh-t" in an elementary classroom. Obscenities, in my mind, are not meaningful discourse. The author of the Bill of Rights did not intend to protect George Carlin. He intended to protect political dissidents.
Alas, I am not a lawyer, though I do know one whose feedback I am sure would be interesting. Is obscenity constitutionally protected free speech? According to that ruling, apparently it is. But I am certain that some laws against obscenity are constitutional.
Anyway, my argument in favor of this law is that there are parents with children who do not want to expose their highly imitative children to obscene language (or even foul language, if you prefer). I contend that is their right, and I maintain that any public forum where children may be inadvertently exposed to such material should be maintained free from such material. This includes T-Shirts and bumper stickers. Unfortunately it seems that I'm fighting a losing battle.
Newsweek has an interesting brief this week: Science faculty blocked the introduction of a mandatory class on faith and reason into a new curriculum. Apparently anti-faith attitudes among scientists have reached such a fever pitch that they could not tolerate making a class on it mandatory, even when it discussed reason as well. Harvard psychology professor Steven Pinker said, "It's like having a requirement in 'Astronomy & Astrology.' They're not comparable topics."
Which is an unfair comparison, because astrology is of no importance in culture, government, and society, whereas religion is of the utmost importance. Perhaps scientists do not recognize this because they work in such isolation, but in some areas, religion is far more important than science. Being able to extract and cultivate a stem cell will do you no good in working toward peace in the Middle East. Knowing evolution will never help you understand the last few millennia of history. Religion is a force to be dealt with, whether you admit it or not, and the well-rounded person will understand it, even if it's from the perspective of an outsider.
Ok so it's not quite that bad, but Denis and Sarah Scheele want their dog Shadow to be legally recognized as a member of the family. Fortunately they are clear that they aren't asking for pets to be recognized as persons, but as it is, pets are treated as property, which means that when there is a wrongful death, as there was in Shadow's case, owners (excuse me — "guardians") are not entitled to any compensation for emotional distress. Shadow was shot and killed by a property owner after straying briefly from an adjoining property. The man now faces several charges.
I guess I don't understand why we can't simply amend the laws to grant entitlement for compensation for emotional distress in the case of pets without going so far as grant them "family" status, which seems to me to be an unwarranted philosophical statement. Still, attitudes are changing. It is no longer unusual for people to refer to their pets, even if jokingly, as "children". An Internet joke says to visitors, "To you, it's an animal. To me, he/she is an adopted son/daughter who is short, hairy, walks on all fours and doesn't speak clearly." PETA has their famous dictum, "A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy." But history has shown that when you try to elevate the status of animals by equating them to humans, in point of fact you usually end up dragging down the status of humans instead.
Wow, I have to admit that this one took me by surprise: A California (figures) man was "stunned" that he couldn't simply adopt his wife's last name when he got married. I'm used to women who keep their maiden names, even to men who hyphenate, but somehow a movement for men to adopt their wife's last name wasn't something I expected.
I thought it was funny he was "stunned". Surely he had to realize it was an extremely unusual desire. Although I will note that my own state, known for its perversions, has made it equally easy for men to adopt their wife's name as for the converse.
While he was "stunned" that they did things the traditional way, I am not stunned that Massachusetts allows it. It's a natural outgrowth of feminism and equal rights. I suppose it's inevitable. If you're going to be consistent with everything else that's been going on, you have to allow it. Of course I'd probably argue the same thing about polygamy (not that I'm in favor of it).
Well, guess what, folks? We are likely moving closer to Doomsday. Do you remember the Doomsday Clock from the Cold War days? It reflected how close we supposedly were to Doomsday.
I love this thing. This is PR at its climax. I always wondered how they balanced their desire to maximize the scare factor while leaving themselves enough room to reflect worse developments. (When the clock is only at seven minutes to midnight, you don't have much space to maneuver.) Frankly I'm surprised it isn't at 23:59:53 instead of seven minutes to midnight. (Not because I think the world is that close to catastrophe, but because their obvious agenda is alarming people.)
I never respected this alarmist tactic. Hey, if you lived for sixty years never further than a quarter hour from doomsday (note that the clock isn't even marked earlier than that), you become inured to it and pretty soon it loses its effect. It's like the boy who cried "wolf". But there will always be a new generation to frighten.
UPDATE: John Allen has an excellent elucidation of the situation from a more informed viewpoint. Well worth reading. Thanks to Greg K. who recommended it.
The Pope is said to be furious over the Bishop of Warsaw affair, and quite rightly so. Let me back up for those who are not familiar with the story: The bishop of Warsaw, who was just appointed by the Pope, resigned hours before his installation because he admitted to cooperating with the Polish secret police for a long time.
Ironically he was not originally on the list of candidates but was added because the Pope favored him. Worse, the article notes, 'Approving the selection of Bishop Wielgus, the Pope had declared his "full confidence" in him, taking account of "all his life circumstances, including those connected with his past". The implication was that he knew Bishop Wielgus had skeletons in his closet, but chose to overlook them.' While in Warsaw, the Pope told clergy, "We must guard against the arrogant claim of setting ourselves up to judge earlier generations who lived in different times and in different circumstances," apparently referring to Communist collaborators. I don't know about you but to me this doesn't look very good, and the article makes hash out of it.
The prefect of the Congregation of Bishops, Giovanni Battista Cardinal Re, claims that they knew nothing about this situation. Yet even Benedict's own words suggest he was well aware of the collaboration. It would be hard to keep a secret like this. He's caught between a rock and a hard place, though; if he says they didn't know, he looks incompetent, but if he says they did know, that's even worse.
Well, let's pray for the See of Warsaw, for the Pope, and for the erstwhile bishop.
A judge ruled that a sexual abuse victim can seek damages from the Vatican.
I wonder how they'd collect if they won them. I don't know what assets they have in the U.S. that they could freeze.
The New York Times reports that 85% of dioceses discover embezzlement, despite some of the strictest policies in financial accountability. The problem, the article notes, is that the policies aren't followed. A lot of times people assume that because it's the church, people will behave, but it turns out not to be true. Eleven percent of dioceses report embezzlement over half a million dollars.
Could this be the next Scandal?
The big news today is that researchers have been able to obtain therapeutically beneficial stem cells from amniotic fluid. They even grow without tumors, as traditional tumors tend to form. The article notes, "They were successfully turned into new bone, heart muscle, blood vessels, fat, nerve and liver tissues in lab mice."
This is excellent, excellent news (although I will note there is a slight risk of abortion in the removal of amniotic fluid.) Let us pray that scientists seize on this as a way of avoiding embryonic stem cells.
Newsweek reports that atheists are now starting sites, such as BlasphemyChallenge.com, specifically to test and taunt God, for example, by attempting to deliberately commit the unforgiveable sin. The goal is to show that supposedly you don't have to be afraid of God.
They've certainly taken things to new levels. Could this be a sign of End Times? (Just kidding.)
Interestingly they have a documentary they are giving away called "The God Who Wasn't There" — but to get a copy, you have to publically damn yourself on YouTube. Call it the modern equivalent of offering incense to the emperor. You damn yourself, according to their terms, by explicitly denying the Holy Spirit. This refers to the statement in the Bible that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven. The problem is that it isn't clear, theologically speaking, that denying the Holy Spirit counts as blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Although it's a nice try.
Maybe we should flood them with requests that they look at videos we compose of us rebuking them for their own blasphemy. Or reciting the Creed. That would be a good one.
This is not unlike the blood oaths demanded of secret societies, although this is much more serious. It appeals to people's desire to be initiated into a serious group and to take a stand on something important. It's unfortunate that people are putting it to the wrong use.
The atheists are on the offensive, and the Wall Street Journal casts a critical eye
Fortunately, only a small proportion of the population will naturally gravitate toward serious atheism. Most people seem to be spiritually inclined, even if it isn't a formal religion. The boasting of the atheists sounds like gays who dream of a day when gay marriage is the norm and heterosexual marriage is discriminated against. But they will certainly cause trouble, that much I believe.
A close aide of the Pope, Father Leonardo Sapienza, head of protocol at the Vatican, has published a book of witticisms and aphorisms for Christians largely featuring the wit of Oscar Wilde. Astute readers will recognize Wilde as a notorious homosexual who ended his life a deathbed convert to Catholicism. Well, that would be an unfair simplification. He was also a recognized writer, whose works include The Importance of Being Earnest and The Picture of Dorian Gray.
I haven't studied his conversion enough to judge its sincerity or depth. I can certainly rejoice in this report, however, and I think it's true that wisdom can be found even among the most degenerate, however rarely.
The media, of course, are delighted in this news. The headline, you'll note, is, "Vatican comes out of the closet and embraces Oscar." Never mind the fact that a close aide neither constitutes nor represents the Vatican; this is a private act (as far as I can tell).
That is not to say that I'm opposed to the book, though I'd have to see it before assessing it further. One quote is “The only way to get rid of a temptation is yield to it”, which I suppose is witty and amusing, but not exactly edifying.
Which brings up an important point: If you lived a life of debauchery and dissipation, and had a deathbed conversion, would you want your life to be promoted? Obviously your conversion would be edifying, and one can hardly rejoice in the conversion adequately without probing the dissipation, but on the other hand you'd want people to not learn from the bad example you set. Still, there would be value and good to your life, and those things would be worthy of proclamation.
The book, interestingly enough, is called Provocations: Aphorisms for an Anti-conformist Christianity.
It's official: "Roman Catholics are the largest single U.S. religious denomination among members of the new U.S. Congress," at 155 members.
Interestingly there are five, count 'em, five, Eastern Orthodox, and four Assemblies of God. Strangely, there are 26 "Protestant nondenominational" and 18 "Christian nondenominational". I know that not all non-Catholic, non-Orthodox Christians identify themselves as Protestant but to see so many in Congress is rather surprising.
Also interesting was there are 37 Episcopal and one Anglican. I'd love to hear the story behind that. Is he one of these Episcopalians who has aligned himself with the Anglican church in Nigeria? Or one of the several break-off Anglican groups not in communion with the Episcopal church?
Well anyway let's pray the 155 Catholics actually live as Catholics.
More people than in any other year attended public meeting with Pope Benedict in 2006, according to figures released by the Vatican, says this article. The Pope's Wednesday audiences alone drew 1,031,500 people last year. Pretty amazing.
