This Site (My Site) Is Under the Patronage and Protection of the Blessed Virgin Mary

My thanks go out to Nancy at her Traditional Motherhood blog for finding and posting this glorious icon of Our Lady!

10 Municipal Bankruptcies in Coming Next Year?

From the “how bad will it get?” file, comes this recent story from Bloomberg.com about the likelihood of a slew of cities and counties, especially in my home state of California (we're expats living in Ohio now), going belly up. It's already happened (e.g., Vallejo & Orange County), and what I worry about is the potential domino effect that can bring a lot of other things crashing down when a cascade of bankruptcies picks up momentum.

“The accountant who predicted the nation’s largest municipal bankruptcy says as many as 10 insolvencies will roil the $2.7 trillion U.S. market for state, county and city debt next year as public finances worsen amid calls for federal aid to state and local governments. . . . ” (read more)

"How Much Do You Have to Hate Someone to Not Proselytize?"

This is an amazing little video commentary from comedian Penn Jillette (from the act Penn & Teller), a profane, outspoken atheist who has been vicious at times in his public attacks on religion. Even so, this video clip is worth watching. He speaks candidly about a post-show encounter he had recently with a Christian audience member who gave him a Bible. He asks rhetorically a very important question that makes perfect logical sense, coming from an atheist. I just wish more Christians were in a position to answer it.

It may well be that, down the road, according to God's merciful providence, Penn Jillette will come to believe in God. You never know. 

(With thanks to Jeff Miller for his earlier blog post about this.)

A Catholic Case Against “Gay Marriage”

Dr. Mark Lowery is a Catholic moral theologian at the University of Dallas. In this article, which originally appeared in Envoy Magazine.  I hope you find it helpful in your own efforts to understand and explain this issue.

The Knot That Can't Be Tied: Secular, Natural, and Sacramental Marriage

By Mark Lowery, Ph.D.

MAN'S SEXUAL ENERGIES are of extraordinary power and complexity. Is this energy something we can use however we wish, or is there some objective standard to which this energy should be conformed?

The Western tradition, like many other traditions, has consistently held that there is such an objective standard, and it is the reality called "marriage." Today, however, many think that marriage can be whatever they want it to be. Instead of seeing marriage as an objective reality to which we align ourselves, it is seen as something that must conform to our notions and desires. Let's call this perspective on marriage "secular marriage."

Here's an example of the "secular marriage" mindset. Jessie Bernard, in The Future of Marriage, describes marriage as follows:

“Both of us commit ourselves to: 1) continue to grow, each in his or her unique way; 2) retain future choices about our relationship, recognizing that the risks of growth include the risks of growing apart; 3) give room for the process of growing; 4) provide a climate that stimulates and invites growing; 5) take risks; 6) respect differences of belief or viewpoint. . . .”

According to this scheme, marriage is what one wishes it to be. All the criteria Bernard lists are subjective, and there is no hint that, by marrying, the spouses are entering into a permanent reality. It's exactly this type of subjective misunderstanding of marriage that sets the stage for recent political and legislative efforts to legitimize homosexual relationships under the guise of marriage.

How can we effectively respond to those who promote the notion of "secular marriage," and how can we demonstrate that marriage is an objective reality? One method is to rely on the evidence we see in God's divine revelation. As important as such a method is, however, because of the separation of church and state we cannot base civil laws on any particular religion's understanding of God's revelation.

There are many people these days who deny that there are any objective truths at all, whether knowable by reason or revelation, so using religious explanations alone isn't always sufficient to make your case.

The purpose of this article is to lay out a five-step argument about the nature of marriage, with the specific aim of showing why homosexuality (and homosexual "marriage") is incompatible with that objective reality. . . (continue reading this article at www.envoymagazine.com; all rights reserved. If you wish to post a link to this article, please include a live link to Envoy's site).

Dominican Wisdom on How to Teach Young People the Faith

We are parishioners at St. Patrick's, a wonderful Dominican-run parish in Columbus, Ohio. St. Patrick's has a wide and well-deserved reputation for orthodoxy. Confessions are heard by two priests for a few hours each day. The confession lines are long, Masses are typically packed, and large families are practically the norm there. I can think of at least five families we know personally who are parishioners at St. Patrick's, who have 10 or more children. Families with 5, 6, 7, and 8 children are inumerable.

Anyway, that's all background for saying that St. Patrick's and the Dominican friars who staff it are part of the Dominican Province of St. Joseph, which has its headquarters in Washington, DC (just across from the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception). This province is known for producing orthodox and erudite men for the priesthood. Many of them have passed through the hallowed walls of St. Patrick's Parish, over the years.

One of the intellectual powerhouses of the St. Joseph Province is Father Augustine De Noia, O.P., undersecretary for the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. He has written a very insightful piece on “Clearing Away the Barriers: Preaching to Young People Today.” I've put in bold a particularly important passage. Enjoy!

An effective preacher needs to understand how this background shapes young people’s understanding of the Catholic faith. The influence of the beliefs and attitudes of non-Catholic friends on young Catholics also have to be taken into account. Research conducted by an evangelical think tank (the Barna Group) suggests that a significant percentage of Christian young people share the negative perceptions of Christianity held by their non-Christian fellows.

We have to respect and be willing to engage the intellectual challenges and questions young people pose in their struggle to understand their Catholic faith. “Young adults enjoy challenging the rules. They are extremely-you might say innately-skeptical. Today’s young people are the target of more advertising, media, and marketing than any generation before. And their mindset is both incredibly savvy and unusually jaded” (Kinnaman 2007, 21-22). They are “the ultimate conversation generations. They want to discuss, debate and question everything” (Kinnaman 2007, 33).

In our conversations with young people, we have to avoid the temptation to fudge-to adapt the Catholic faith so as to make it palatable to modern tastes and expectations. This so-called “accommodationist” approach generally fails, and it fails doubly with young people. There is a risk in this approach that the Christian message becomes indistinguishable from everything else on offer in the market stalls of secularised religious faith: “In the powerful yet soft secularising totalitarianism of distinctively modern culture, our greatest enemy is…the Church’s ‘own internal secularisation’ which, when it occurs, does so through the ‘…largely unconscious’ adoption of the ‘ideas and practices’ of seemingly ‘benign adversaries’” (Nichols 2008, 141).

Clearing away the barriers-whatever the audience we have in view-demands a robust sort of apologetics. No one in his or her right mind will be interested in a faith about which its exponents seem too embarrassed to communicate forthrightly. We have to be convinced that the fullness of the truth and beauty of the message about Jesus Christ is powerfully attractive when it is communicated without apologies or compromise.

Our reasoning has to be based on solid theological principles and to operate within a vision of the Catholic faith in its integrity and interconnectedness. “Apologetics is a theological art that must rest on the firm foundation of theological science. If our defense does not flow from deep preparation, deep Christian formation, it will be unconvincing at best, but merely offensive at worst” (Hahn 2007, 12). Sometimes the response “it’s a mystery” is just a cover for theological ignorance on the part of people who should know better. Especially with young people who have questions, it is a mistake to cry “mystery” when an explanation is available and needed. (continue reading)

The Real Estate Downfall

(Thanks, Jim.)

Now This Guy Is a Prophet

Meet Peter Schiff. I had never heard of him before today. Over 2 years ago, he was accurately predicting exactly what has happened in our economy. Everyone, and I mean everyone, was scoffing and laughing at his dire predictions. Well, they're not laughing any more.

My favorite part is when Ben Stein (who gets it really wrong, but whom I otherwise enjoy watching) says that Merrill Lynch “is an astonishingly well-run company.” So well-run, in fact, that only months after he said this, the company suffered an 8+ billion dollar loss in 2007 and fired their CEO as a result.

Oh Good Lord, No

One can just imagine the gloating among all those Catholics of a certain variety as our new Líder Maximo selects a Catholic — Tom Daschle, who countenances abortion with weasle words — for his cabinet Secretary of Health and Human Services. Now comes word from the Jesuit publication America — read into that what you will — that some voices on the Catholic left are clamoring for another kind of appointment. And I wouldn't be surprised if their wish comes to pass. 

In another display of smug condescencion from the far-left political fringe, someone named Michael Sean Winters elbows his way into the discussion with asseverations (emphasis added) such as these in his article “Kmiec for Vatican Ambassador”: 

“Obama deserves his own person at the post and, in the event, there is a perfect candidate: Professor Douglas Kmiec. . . .  Despite his Republican credentials, Kmiec endorsed Barack Obama this year and penned a thoughtful book, 'Can a Catholic Support Him? The question is ridiculous to most ears and, in the event, most Catholics did support him. But for some extremists on the right, there was a firm conviction that no Catholic could vote for Obama. A Dominican priest even denied Kmiec communion at a Mass in May. (The priest was later reprimanded by Cardinal Mahoney.) [N.B. see Ezekiel 34:1-10] Longtime associates of Professor Kmiec denounced him, often in ways that lacked all charity, suggesting bad logic or bad motives or both. There is no better way to answer those who argued that no Catholic could vote for Obama in good conscience than to see the man who wrote the book (literally!) defending the proposition that Catholics can and should vote for Obama being received in the Sala Clementina by Pope Benedict XVI! . . . In truth, Kmiec’s pro-life credentials, despite some carping from the far right political fringe, are impeccable. . .” et cetrera, et cetera, et cetera.

I sincerely hope that Mr. Winters and those who agree with him on this issue enjoy their day in the sun. I really don't think the nice weather is going to last all that long.  

Masters of Persuasion

This is a curious little experiment on how susceptible we are to subliminal suggestions in advertising. The concept of “hidden messages” in ads isn't new, but this video shows how it works from an angle I have not seen before.

Update: The embedded link doesn't seem to work anymore, so try this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyQjr1YL0zg

 

An Abortionist Has a Dream . . .

Madrid, Nov 12, 2008 / 09:21 pm (CNA).- The Spanish daily “La Razon” has published an article on the pro-life conversion of a former “champion of abortion.” Stojan Adasevic, who performed 48,000 abortions, sometimes up to 35 per day, is now the most important pro-life leader in Serbia, after 26 years as the most renowned abortion doctor in the country.

“The medical textbooks of the Communist regime said abortion was simply the removal of a blob of tissue,” the newspaper reported.  “Ultrasounds allowing the fetus to be seen did not arrive until the 80s, but they did not change his opinion. Nevertheless, he began to have nightmares.”

In describing his conversion, Adasevic “dreamed about a beautiful field full of children and young people who were playing and laughing, from 4 to 24 years of age, but who ran away from him in fear. A man dressed in a black and white habit stared at him in silence.  The dream was repeated each night and he would wake up in a cold sweat. One night he asked the man in black and white who he was. ‘My name is Thomas Aquinas,’ the man in his dream responded. Adasevic, educated in communist schools, had never heard of the Dominican genius saint.  He didn’t recognize the name”

“Why don’t you ask me who these children are?” St. Thomas asked Adasevic in his dream.

“They are the ones you killed with your abortions,’ St. Thomas told him. 

“Adasevic awoke in amazement and decided not to perform any more abortions,” the article stated.

“That same day a cousin came to the hospital with his four months-pregnant girlfriend, who wanted to get her ninth abortion—something quite frequent in the countries of the Soviet bloc.  The doctor agreed. Instead of removing the fetus piece by piece, he decided to chop it up and remove it as a mass. However, the baby’s heart came out still beating. Adasevic realized then that he had killed a human being” . . .  (continue reading). 

Confessions of a Former Contracepter

LittleDeb recently started following this blog, so I did what I do when each new person graciously signs up as a follower (my thanks to you all), I visited her blog, Confessions of a Former Contracepter, and found it very thoughtful.

I hope she won't mind my drawing a little attention to it and suggesting that you go read her posts on this hugely important and widely misunderstood issue that affets most marriages today. Here's a little sampling from her post titled “Contraceptive Thinking Takes Over”:

“So what really happened to make this thinking take over? I have some ideas, but I'm not sure I am willing to definitively state them as fact. They are working theories. The first and foremost is the change in believing that having children is a privilege to the belief that having children is a right. Because the converse is also true, that thinking NOT having children was a privilege before to thinking that NOT having children was a right. That is where contraception made its early inroads. The targets of the first contraception clinics were the poor, the under-privileged. The message drummed into their heads was that fewer children meant more prosperity. The fact that a simple reading of world history proves that untrue did not sway the march.

“What the original contraceptionists sought was a reduction in the poor by merely 'un-breeding' them out of existence. That is still the stance. It is still touted that 'the poor woman doesn't need another baby.' I mean that statement alone just confuses me. Is it like she is going out and aquiring another handbag and heels? I mean is the baby her possession? It seems to be that many think so. Because to view something as a 'right' means you hold it as something you possess. I have the right to life, liberty, and the pusuit of happiness. No matter what ever happens to me I possess those rights. Even if someone seeks to remove them, they can't. I own them just because I exist.”

Very insightful. Thanks, LittleDeb!