Archive for January 2008
Where No Pope Has Gone Before
Kris sent me Jay’s letter who in turn sent me Jeff Miller’s Curt Jester’s Splendor of Truth’s blog. Jeff Miller is an atheist turned theist and since 2002 blogged on punditry, prayer, parody, polemics, and puns from a Papist perspective. Jeff’s post on Pope Kirk 1 on the altar design for Pope Benedict XVI’s USA tour is funny.
The chair immediately reminds me of what I think would be the perfect chair if Captain James T. Kirk was elected Pope cracked me up.
Surely he would feel right at home in such a chair. I have commented on Kirk chairs used as celebrants chairs in the past, though this is the first Papal Kirk chair I have noticed. Maybe IKEA is now designing liturgical furniture?
Now the design is not exactly ugly, but beauty does not come to my mind when I look at this rather cold and stark set. The designs on the pulpit and lectern are kind of interesting, but incongruent and they bring nothing to mind of the Church. They could easily be used in any non-liturgical setting without looking out of place in for example an auditorium. It does make me wonder about Captain Kirk as Pope on the U.S.S. Vatican. Currently though we do have theologians who have gone where no theologians have gone before In fact I think many bishops have a Prime Directive towards theologians in their diocese – that is a non-interference policy – I guess in hope that one day they might develop intelligent life.
I would like to see a Star Trek movie developed along Kirk as Pope lines – surely if the Enterprise could visit one planet with Cowboys and another with Gangsters, and so surely there is a parallel world that is explicitly Catholic.
How about “The Wrath of Küng”?
Pope Kirk: Küng is denying my Papal authority again! We must return to Switzerland. Scotty give me warp factor nine and your opinion on Küng’s latest treatise.
Cardinal Scotty: Captain, I am engineer not a theologian!
Really funny, but the comments on the post are even funnier! Go to Curt’s blogsite and add your own Trekkie insights. Curt’s site has had good reviews:
- The Curt Jester: Disturbingly Funny —Mark Shea
- EX-cellent blog —Jimmy Akin
- One wag has even posted a list of the Top Ten signs that someone is in the grip of “motu-mania,” — John Allen Jr.
- Brilliance abounds —Victor Lams
- The Curt Jester is a blog of wise-ass musings on the media, politics, and things “Papist.” The Revealer
- Not all the Jester’s lines hit their target. –Commonweal
Okay, so not all the reviews are great, Commonweal’s probably an atheist who thinks Picard should be in charge of the altar design.
Check out the American Papist’s article on the altar furniture.
Now reviewing the design on the altar? Could it be more sterile and lackluster? But then again, it does embody the spirit of the early Church without the pompousness and vulgar opulence of the Middle Ages. Maybe with some beautiful flowers it will be more regal. Or does Pope Benedict XVI even want that?
It reminds me of the Bread and Circuses (episode 225, 1968) of Star Trek, the original series:
Live long and prosper, Catholic Church.
Thanks Kris, Jayfor passing it on!
UPDATE: McCain Has Promises To Keep?
John Edwards quit. Who’s he going to endorse? Speaking from New Orleans, will John Edwards be Obama’s or Clinton’s head of FEMA’s choice?
McCain won. Giuliani quit the race and endorsed McCain. Is he the new Homeland Security Chief? Beware politicians in emperor’s clothing who endorse the leftover candidates. They have jobs in the wings waiting for them.
McCain is leading at 8:45pm with 41% precincts in leading by 22,000 votes. He secured his lead by appealing to the Hispanics with endorsements by Senator Mel Martinez and by Governor Crist, a very moderate Republican.
Are these endorsements in anticipation of Department posts if McCain wins? With McCain’s liberal immigration shamnesty policies, and his feeble acknowledgement to “secure the border” (Does anybody believe that?), these two unconservative politicians stand to benefit the most from a McCain win.
Combine Mel Martinez who wanted to make all the illegal aliens citizens with Juan “Mexico Numero Uno” Hernandez, McCain’s Hispanic outreach representative and you have a North American Union and the loss of sovereignity of the United States squarely in the hands of liberal Republican.
Super Tuesday May Produce Super Deadlock
It ain’t going to be over even after Super Tuesday next week. Last night’s Florida GOP votes was a boost for Juan McCain but the results were hardly a crowning victory. With both parties emotionally splintered, next week’s votes in more than 20 states could produce 2700 winning, or at least, equalizing delegates for any of the five top presidential candidates.
- McCain (R-AZ) 93
- Romney (R) 57
- Huckabee (R) 40
- Obama (D-IL) 63
- Clinton (D-NY) 48
- John Edwards (D-NC) 26
More than 70 million registered voters in more than 20 states will choose more than 2,700 Democratic and Republican convention delegates on Super Tuesday, almost 10 times more than in all the primaries and caucuses so far.
Virtually all states voting on Super Tuesday have adopted detailed — and different — rules for awarding delegates. The rules are so dense, in fact, that few observers agree on how many convention delegates will be picked that day. The best estimate: 1,029 GOP delegates pledged to specific candidates, and 1,678 pledged Democratic delegates.That’s just more than 40 percent of all the delegates in each party.
With the anti-Juan McCain conservative Republicans, Romney could easily garner the nomination but even Huckabee isn’t out of the race with fundamentalists, moderates and independants. On the Democrat side, anti-Billary voters going for Obama, there will be moderate Democrats and independents purposely voting to keep the Clinton dynasty out of the White House. Southern states could go either way for Obama, with supposed racism turning votes away or minorities voting for Obama because of race.
How many delegates do the candidates need to win their party’s nomination?
- McCain (R-AZ) 1088
- Romney (R) 1122
- Huckabee (R) 1141
- Obama (D-IL) 2052
- Clinton (D-NY) 2067
- John Edwards (D-NC) 2089
Buckle up, folks – it’s going to be a bumpy ride.
Clinton Taps Into Left’s Racism
Bill and Hillary Cinton are playing the race card in the Democratic primary race, and the left is all in a twitter. Sometimes life is just so good. But why are the Dems so exorcised about Bill injecting race into the campaign? Isn’t the left the home of egalitarianism, protective of diversity at all costs? What has them so worried?
Mickey Kaus referred to Bill Clinton’s statements in South Carolina (comparing Obama’s win to Jesse Jackson’s earlier win in the same primary for instance), the “attempted ghettoization” of Obama’s campaign. Mother Jones complains that Bill “injects race into the conversation.” Over at the Huffington Post, they (tongue firmly in cheek) “can’t understand why anyone would think the Clintons are running a race-baiting campaign to paint Obama as ‘the black candidate.'” Teddy Kennedy decries the “old politics of race against race.”And Al Sharpton simply tells Bill to “Shut up.”
There is no doubt that Bill was injecting race into the campaign. South Carolina was already lost. So why make such a blatant appeal to race? And more interestingly, why are so many Dems upset about it? They think it will work to drive white voters to Hillary in the later primaries. But why?
For years the Dems have attacked Republicans as racists. Sure the Republican party was formed to fight slavery. Sure a higher percentage of Republican congressmen voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than Democrats. Yes, J. William Fulbright, Al Gore Sr., and Robert Byrd, voted against the Act. And yes, the most famous segregationists, like George Wallace, Orville Faubus, Bull Connor were all Democrats. But the Republican Party is the party 0f racists we are told.
The fable goes that, once the Civil Rights Acts were passed, all those racist Democrats left the Democratic Party, and went to the Republicans. Why, when an even larger percentage of Republicans voted for those acts is never explained. It is just an element of their faith. But think for a second, how many of those listed above left the Democratic Party? When did Bull Connor register as a Republican? Ever seen a list of the racist Democrats who left that party and became Republicans?
The truth is, the racists never left the Democratic Party. And the leaders of that party have known it all along. The left still decries Richard Nixon’s advisers using a Southern strategy when he was running for president, designed to attract white voters in the South. The architect of that strategy was quoted as saying:
“The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That’s where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats.”
That is exactly what Clinton is accused (accurately) of doing in South Carolina. The Clintons were going to lose South Carolina anyway. By race baiting black voters, Bill ensured an even more massive loss, that they hoped would scare the white bigots that still populate their party. And don’t think the only racists in the Democratic Party are 
Southern whites. Let’s face it, a party whose elite claims that affirmative action must be kept around forever, does not see blacks as even potentially equal to whites.
Clinton enaged in race baiting because he knows it will work in the Democratic party. All those Dems lining up to rail against him for it, know the same thing. They just object to the tactic being used against one of their own.
Two Man Campaign Now
McCain wins the Florida GOP race and wins all 57 of Florida’s delegates for a total of 93 delegates. Romney is second with 59 delegates from Wyoming and Michigan. Former Governor and my former favored candidate, Mike Huckabee is still claiming to be in the race, which is doubtful since he has even less money than McCain, and Giuliani.
First Class Saint Relics On Sale At Ebay
St. Bartholomew, flayed alive as a martyr for the Church has his first class relics on sale on Ebay. Human remains are forbidden to be sold on Ebay, and the Catholic Church bans the sale of relics to the highest bidder but this hasn’t hampered the owner.
On eBay on Jan. 3, a would-be seller posted a wheat-colored envelope, fastened with a red wax seal, said to contain remains of the Apostle Bartholomew.
Another posting showed a beveled glass reliquary inset with pieces of five saints’ earthly matter.
The sale of what the Catholic Church terms first-class relics — bits of bone, hair and flesh — outrages Tom Serafin, a Catholic activist and the president of the International Crusade for Holy Relics, a Los Angeles-based organization that maintains a traveling exhibit of venerated articles.
It’s not the prices that get Serafin hopping mad. It’s the fact that pitches appear on the site for the remains of saints and objects of worship, such as Eucharist wafers used in holy communion.
Church law forbids the buying and selling of the items.
“Just as you would not go around selling portions of one of your beloved deceased for money, for the church, these (saints) are our family members,” said Father Mark Weisner, spokesman for the Oakland Diocese.
On Tuesday, Weisner, stunned to learn of the online sales, ran an eBay search for “holy relics.” Up popped a posting for an authenticated piece of the papal collar of Pope Leo XIII (a second-class relic).
If someone were to ask for my blessing, I wouldn’t say, ‘OK, that will be $10,'” said Father Michael Sweeney, president of the Dominican School for Philosophy and Theology. “It’s not to be treated as having profane value.”
How Big A Sip Are They Taking?
Hungary wants Catholic priests to be exempt from new DUI law.
Due to a shortage of priests, many hold masses in several villages in a day. They also drive to funerals, to Sunday school and when visiting the sick, church authorities wrote in a letter to the minister [prime].
The church plans to issue special cards for its priests to show that they consume alcohol in the fulfilment of official duties.
Seventy Bursts of Applause in Fifty-three Minutes
What a great speech President George Bush gave in his final State of the Union Address! His sentiment behind his words were inspiring and as one attendee said to him as he shook hands and left Congress’s hallowed halls: “You make me proud to be an American.”
He tackled many of the goals that he wants to accomplish before he leaves next January, but he also cited many of the successes that the United States saw and will see this year: the Iraqi Surge, 20,000 American troops will be coming, 4th and 8th grade students have record high grades in math, and the confirmation of two conservative judges, with the future possibility of another.
He mentioned a $300M proposal to save Catholic schools in Washington, D.C. to allow impoverished students to attend parochial schools. It would be nice to have bipartisan support and pass it. He assured Congress that he would veto any pork barrel spending that came to his desk.
President Bush is certainly beloved among his constituency.
He invoked laughs from his audience when he suggested that those who have said they don’t mind paying more taxes, that the US IRS Department takes checks and money orders.
The ones who didn’t laugh or smile during the speech: Obama, Kennedy, Clinton, Kerry.
The part that I didn’t like: His immigration remarks. Let’s send the illegal aliens home first, then we can discuss immigration reform. But then he knows that.
Code of Canon Law Turns 25 Years Old
One of the reasons I like to read “In The Light Of The Law”, is that Roman Catholic canon lawyer Edward N. Peters discusses current canonical issues which are interesting and informational to Catholics. He explains Catholic Law in ways which laymen can understand.
Last week, Peters points out that twenty-five years ago, during the tumultuous 1970’s, the beloved Pope John Paul II released Sacrae disciplinae leges and a revised Code of Canon Law for the Roman Catholic Church. Peters enlightens Catholics as to why this was a critical turning point in the Church.
Reading Peters blog, I always learn something new, whether it’s a word, phrase, or theological viewpoint that I didn’t understand. This week it was the word antinomianism. I had never heard it before but it offers an answer to a much asked question in Catholic chatrooms by anti-Catholic bashers and pharisical fundamentalists absorbed by the law: What is more important faith or actions for salvation? (Believe me, fundamentalists are obsessive about this question)
Antinomianism is a great response to those confused by Catholicism. Merriam-Webster’s definition states:
Main Entry: an·ti·no·mi·an
Function: noun
Pronunciation: “an-ti-‘nO-me-&n
Etymology: Medieval Latin antinomus, from Latin anti- + Greek nomos law
1 : one who holds that under the gospel dispensation of grace the moral law is of no use or obligation because faith alone is necessary to salvation
2 : one who rejects a socially established morality
It is a belief that I think most modern Catholics struggle with.
In the same blog, Peter’s also offers up 10 canon law issues that need to be addressed by Church officials.
- Is canon law essentially a juridic or theological discipline? SDL 18.
- Can laity hold office in the Church? c. 129, 145.
- How is defection from the Church distinct from schism? cc. 751, 1117.
- Can deacons perform anointing of the sick? c. 1003.
- Is every marriage of two baptized persons necessarily a sacrament? c. 1055.
- Should canonical form be required for the validity of Catholic marriage? c. 1108.
- Should latae sententiae penalties be eliminated from canon law? c. 1314.
Read the rest of Peter’s concerns in In The Light Of The Law often, you’ll learn something about your faith everytime. He also sincerely reminded me to remember canon lawyers (and I would include all lawyers) in my prayers.
“The next time you pray the Fifth Joyful Mystery of the Rosary, where Mary & Joseph find the boy Jesus teaching the scholars what Law really means (Luke II:46-47), please remember us canon lawyers in your prayers. Thanks!”
Edward Peters really touches your heart.
Other posts:
Catholic Church Expects Catholics To Obey Their Laws
Confession Isn’t Always Good For Spouses
Think You Know All About Excommunication?
Condoleezza Albright
We now have the worst of both worlds. A liberal Republican president with a Democratic foreign policy. Of course, we should have seen it coming. In an August 2005 article in Time Magazine, Rice described her foreign policy by quoting General George Marshall speaking of the Marshall Plan: “Our policy is directed not against any country or doctrine,” Marshall said, “but against hunger, poverty, desperation and chaos.”
Missing from Rice’s thoughts are any indication that Marshall made this statement, and planned for the rebuilding of Europe, after we won the war. Can anyone imagine Marshall, or any other adult, saying anything like that in 1943? It seems to me our policy pre-1945 was pretty clearly against Germany, Japan and fascism. As for today, Iran and Korea are seeking nuclear weapons; Palestinians are sending rockets into Israel; Islamic fascists the world over are using children as guided missles; Russia is descending into despotism once again; and China is the looming 500 pound gorilla on the planet. But we have a Secretary of State who thinks poverty is the “root cause” of what ails the globe.
In that same Time article, Rice is quoted as saying “We must provide greater prosperity to people all over the world…” Newsflash for Secetary Rice and the other statists in the State Department, capitalism and democracy have brought propserity to people the worldover, not government bureaucrats.
And how have we come to this pass? The New York Times reports:
“Now Ms. Rice is working hard to reshape her legacy in her remaining 16 months in office. She is cooperating with a range of authors who have lined up to write books about her: “The Confidante: Condoleezza Rice and the Creation of the Bush Legacy,” by The Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler, comes out next week, while “Condoleezza Rice: An American Life,” by The New York Times’s Elisabeth Bumiller is due out in December. “Twice as Good: Condoleezza Rice and Her Path to Power,” by Marcus Mabry, now an editor at The Times, came out in May. “
Our Secretary of State is shaping our foreign policy to please the solons of the Washington Post and New York Times. What was the point of electing Bush if we were going to get stuck with Bill Clinton’s foreign policy?
Sma' Talk Wi' T 