News Clips: January 2009 Archives

The preacher of the Pontifical Household urges Christians to do what the early Christians did, and focus on changing society by acts of love over changing laws. As conditions continue to move more toward the way they were during the early Christian era, we'll have to move more toward that model.

Fr. Thomas Euteneuer, President, Human Life International, who can certainly not be considered a shrinking violet when it comes to pro-life issues, offers several suggestions, two of which I list here:

"1. Do not become absorbed in the quest for a political solution to abortion: after 36 years of working for a political solution to abortion, we may soon see the wiping out of most, if not all, of the pro-life movement's gains with the stroke of a pen. Politics has failed. Or rather, we have failed at politics. Either way, politics now offers us little chance of anything other than just trying to slow the massive momentum of the culture of death.

2. Do not waste any more energy on overturning Roe: two Supreme Court seats are assured during an Obama administration, and they will undoubtedly be filled with extreme pro-abortion activist judges. A third appointment will leave us with no hope of overturning Roe in anyone's lifetime reading this. For that matter, the chance that a good pro-life President will succeed Obama in four years and nullify the leftward lurch of the high court is, shall we say, unlikely. Let's get hopes of undoing Roe out of our system and focus on more productive things."

This is not to say that it isn't right to make abortion illegal, only that working toward that may no longer be a prudent or expeditious avenue to pursue.

Yesterday the excommunications of the four bishops of the Society of St. Pius X were lifted. So much to say on the article. Let's start with the Holocaust denier whose excommunication was lifted. This is in my mind a very bad political move for a pope who is already viewed with suspicion by Jews. They are quite right, Holocaust denial is not an excommunicable offense. But nothing obliges the pope to lift the excommunication for another offense. Put another way, while you can't excommunicate someone for being a Holocaust denier, I see no reason why you can't refuse to lift an excommunication for another reason, at least temporarily, even if that reason no longer stands. I fear this may do incalculable damage to Jewish-Catholic relations.

On the other side of the coin, and maybe some will accuse me of contradicting myself, I am frustrated by the Jewish kvetching about the old Mass. Part of this comes from the way the article was written; it says the Jews were "incensed by the rehabilitation of the old Latin Mass because it contained a prayer calling for their conversion." This makes it sound like every Mass contained the prayer! For crying out loud, it's on ONE day out of the year, which isn't even a day the faithful are obligated to attend Mass! (Good Friday) And even so, we believe that everyone should be converted to Catholicism, not just Jews, so we're not singling them out. And beyond even that, while I understand the Judaism is not a proselytizing religion, surely they can't expect religions to not seek converts? You can disagree with us, you can not want Jews to convert, but what right do you have to demand that we not pray for your conversion? I couldn't care less myself if my Protestant prethren pray for the conversion of Catholics. Excluding the interpretation that everyone needs conversion, to me this is an expression of love and concern, however misguided. Sure, it communicates the idea that we need conversion to their own faith, but I respect them that they believe in the truth enough to ask for that conversion. Moreover, I know that God will take that prayer and make it a right prayer and do the right thing. Maybe that will be answering it by helping Catholics grow deeper in their own faith. Maybe it will be even be by bringing Catholics who don't have real faith into a relationship with God through their own ministry and maybe they will convert and find grace that they wouldn't have encountered in the Catholic church — while this is not God's perfect will, I fully believe God allows people to join other churches because that's the only way he can get to them. In which case, glory be to God, he has done what he wills. If God wants to allow someone to convert to a Protestant church for some greater reason, I will not object. The point is, I see no reason to grouse about someone's prayers, especially a prayer used by an infinitesimal minority of Catholics on one day out of the year that isn't even obligatory or well attended.

The other thing that bugs me about this article is it says, "In lifting the excommunication decree, he answered the society's second condition for beginning theological discussions about normalizing relations." Huh? So lifting the excommunications is a starting point for normalizing relations? Shouldn't it be the last step since communion implies full unity? Benedict must want this reconciliation more desperately than the SSPX. That spells trouble to me.

The WSJ earlier this month said that families that are now saving more money are aggravating the recession* because, they argue, the only way out of the recession is to spend ourselves out. Wow, I never thought I'd hear the day when someone said that saving money — which I think is fiscally responsible and prudent — was a threat to our nation.

I'm more in agreement with Peter Schiff who says that "the U.S. economy has become dangerously and unsustainably dependent on consumption" and that to try to consume our way out of the recession just creates another bubble. I advocate the hard path of increasing our saving and paying for our sins, so to speak. The economy will eventually settle into some sort of stasis, and while it will be a lot more difficult, I think long term it's the path to economic health.

*Article will only be available until 1/29/9. WSJ subscribers can search for headline "Hard-Hit Families Finally Start Saving, Aggravating Nation's Economic Woes".

Please pray for this dear woman who was an aspiring model and came down with an infection that required amputation and other dreadful surgeries.

A prominent fashion designer in Chile is dressing up busty fashion models like the Virgin Mary, causing a row. Oy vey! I guess I wouldn't necessarily object to portrayals of the Virgin Mary with generous breasts, but in this case they are also revealing. Also the designer is not really portraying the Virgin Mary but dressing up his models in a manner inspired by her, which seems to me to be a mockery and sacrilege. It's one thing if you have a nativity scene that portrays the Virgin Mary with largish but appropriately-clad breasts. That could be interpreted as accentuating her femininity and even her maternity. There have got to be some medieval paintings that portray her this way. It's another thing if you pull a Madonna and try to sexualize her image.

Get this: A woman is auctioning off her virginity. Ok, this is grossly immoral, this is prostitution, but the icing on the cake is why: She wants to use the money to pay for a masters degree in Family and Marriage therapy!! Whoa! Can you imagine getting marriage counseling and advice from a woman who auctioned off her virginity to the highest bidder?

Ironically, she commented, "It's shocking that men will pay so much for someone's virginity, which isn't even prized so highly anymore." Especially with tarts like you.

Wow, this is on par with the conversion of Norma McCorvey (Roe as in Roe vs. Wade) and Dr. Bernard Nathanson the notorious abortionist: One of the key scientists in the development of The Pill is now denouncing it as a demographic and ecological nightmare.

(Thanks to Paul M.)

Wait, it's not what you think. I am all for breast-feeding and I'm for the right to breast-feed in public. But somehow these women's definition of "discreet" clashes with Facebook's rule of "no areolas or nipples". To me, "discreet" means the baby is under a cloth or piece of clothing. I have no problem with some cleavage, but let's not even argue how much flesh: Why is it necessary to post photos of breast-feeding at all on Facebook? I can see how breast-feeding is necessary to do in public from time to time, even perhaps while revealing something from certain angles if people are all around, and so I accept it wholeheartedly as a means of feeding your baby, but a photo is different. Can you not put your baby down for a second to pose for a photo? And assuming you can't, can you not manage to avoid showing your nipple in the photo? I'm a bit confused why a woman would want a photo of herself breastfeeding on Facebook anyway. I'm afraid I'm with Facebook on this one based on the information here.