Now, Why Can't We Get This Guy As Speaker of the House?

True, this video has been floating around awhile — I first saw it early this year, shortly after it came out — but it's worth watching again (and again, and again).

It takes conservative British MP Daniel Hannan just over three minutes to completely flay Gordon Brown over his government's failed economic policies. The video doesn't show Brown's response, but I am quite confident that he has nowhere near enough firepower to take on Hannan in a serious exchange about this issue.

Imagine if we had a few such gutsy, intelligent, and eloquent orators like this guy serving in the U.S. House and Senate. If we had had just five Hannan-types working for us in Congress, I don't think we would have gotten into the government-issue financial mess we're now in.

Here, here!

Archbishop Charles Chaput: A Man for Our Season

Here's a snippet from my new article on InsideCatholic.com:

My first conversation with Archbishop Charles J. Chaput happened over dinner at a mom-and-pop Chinese restaurant in South Dakota in late 1990. He was the bishop of Rapid City; I was working for Catholic Answers and had been invited to conduct a weekend apologetics conference there. From that first meeting, I could tell immediately that I was in the presence of a truly excellent bishop.

"Bishop Charles," as all the Catholics I met that weekend called him with proud affection, personified "down to earth." He was not merely being polite; he clearly was interested and engaged with those around him, listening thoughtfully and offering insights, advice, and the occasional funny anecdote with an easy joviality that put people at ease, while always maintaining the dignity of his role as shepherd of the flock.

I was impressed with Bishop Charles's humility; his palpable love for Christ and the Church; his quiet, understated wisdom; and his obvious pastoral dedication to the spiritual and physical wellbeing of his flock. I've met many bishops over the years, and I knew from that very first conversation with him that I was in the presence of not just a good bishop, but a great man. . . .

(continue reading)

Watch This Mesmerizing Time-Elapse Video of New York City

This fascinating video reminds me a lot of the inner workings of the human body: blood vessels coursing, incessant cellular activity, firing nerve synapses. It is mesmerizing, in part due to the hypnotic Moby soundtrack, but I must admit that, as beautiful as the city is with its myriad pulsating rhythms, watching this video evokes in me somber emotions and memories of 9/11.

What about you?

Spanish Doctors Alarmed by Government Abortion Proposal

I will be in Spain in a few weeks and will get more up-to-date firsthand information about this developing story, but here are the basic details:

High-level officials in the Spanish government are seeking to amend that country's laws to criminalize any physician who refuses to perform abortions. Such a refusal, on any grounds — including religious convictions — would be deemed "civil disobedience" and, if such laws were enacted, would be punishable by imprisonment.

This could be an ominous precursor to a more widespread effort by other governments to criminalize pro-life resistance to abortion. If this is successful in Spain, it is likely that a legally enforceable governmental hostility towards pro-life men and women who stand against the atrocity of abortion will spread rapidly.

By Anna Arco —

Spanish doctors have leapt to the defence of freedom of conscience not to be involved in procuring abortions after a senior minister suggested that refusing to perform an abortion might constitute civil disobedience.

The General Council of Doctors Colleges (OMC) in Spain last week insisted that conscientious objection must be an option after the Spanish minister Francisco Caamaño suggested that refusing to perform an abortion would amount to a crime.

It said that under the radical new abortion legislation that is being fiercely debated in the Spanish parliament doctors might lose the reject to object to performing an abortion. Doctors urgently called for a clause protecting conscience to be included in the law.

In a statement issued on Monday they said: "Conscientious objection for medical reasons can hardly be considered civil disobedience."

Stressing that the only protections for conscience in the existing law dealt with cases relating to the media and the military, the OMC called for "the urgent need for the new abortion law to include during its time in parliament conscientious objection of medical personnel who intervene directly in them, just as it is in almost all countries which have de-penalised abortion.

"In these countries, conscientious objection has become recognised as a specific right, with clauses which prevent discrimination against those physicians who for whatever reasons of conscience refuse to participate in the abortive practices, especially if, as stands in our future law of abortion, it will pass from being a de-penalised crime in certain situations and become a 'right'; the 'right of a woman to abort'."

They said that the right to conscientious objection was "a universal criterion of the medical profession".

They said that conflicts arise when the defence of certain principles come against the rights that have been legally established. For that reason it is important, the doctors argued, "for the freedom of conscience to be legally recognised in the general medicine, not just in the context of abortion - guaranteeing the juridical safety of all including the foetus in the case of abortion".

The statement came after Spain's justice minister said on Spanish television last week that refusing to perform abortions would be punished.

Speaking in an interview last week Mr Caamaño said he did not believe there were more rights to conscientious objection than those expressly established by the constitution or by the legislator in the general courts.

He said: "Personal ideas cannot excuse us from complying the law because, if not, we would arrive in many subjects, in this and many others, to civil disobedience... where there is no law which allows it, I am with the supreme tribunal and its ruling on education for citizens. Conscientious objection does not fit."

Spain is in the throes of a fierce national debate over further liberalisation of the country's abortion laws.

José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero's government has been at odds with the Church since its election in 2004 over issues such as easing Spain's divorce laws and pushing same-sex marriage. Its plans to make abortions easier have launched by far the most heated debate. Under the proposed legislation women could freely obtain abortions within the first 14 weeks of pregnancy.

Girls as young as 16 could have abortions without requiring parental consent. Women could abort at up to 22 weeks in the case of congenital disorder under the new law, and continue to abort after that if the pregnancy places them in mortal danger.

The Spanish bishops roundly condemned the legislation in July, saying that it was a "serious danger for the common good". They said: "To include abortion in health policy always gravely compromises the medical profession which is distorted when it is placed at the service of death."

(source)

Catholic College Students Rise to Defend Belmont Abbey College

Students from the University of Dallas, Franciscan University of Steubenville, De Sales University and Catholic University of America are fighting back.

Students at Catholic universities across the nation are banding together with students at Belmont Abbey College (BAC) in a stand for religious liberty and conscience rights, after the college was warned by the Obama administration last month that its refusal to cover contraception amounted to gender discrimination.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) ignited the First Amendment firestorm earlier this month when it ruled Belmont Abbey College was wrong not to include coverage for contraception in its employee health insurance plan, despite the Catholic Church's prohibition on contraception as intrinsically evil. In addition to the Church's teachings against contraception as such, it is known that hormonal contraceptives often function as abortifacients.

According to BAC president William Thierfelder, while the local EEOC initially threw out the complaint, the decision was reversed after the affair went to officials in Washington.

Students from the University of Dallas, Franciscan University of Steubenville, De Sales University and Catholic University of America are fighting back, saying the EEOC decision is a troubling indication of the Obama administration's ideas on "reasonable" conscience protection.

"People need to wake up," said Michael Barnett, American Life League's director of leadership development and its LiveCampus college outreach program. "Under Obama, the federal government is forcing a religious institution to commit an act that violates its core values. This is religious persecution and a clear signal of what Obamacare would bring. This is the government imposing its will against the people's will."

In a letter to the Belmont, the EEOC claimed that the school discriminated against women by not covering contraceptives: "By denying prescription contraception drugs, [the college] is discriminating based on gender because only females take oral prescription contraceptives. By denying coverage, men are not affected, only women."

In a letter subsequently sent to EEOC chairman Stuart Ishimaru, Judie Brown, president of American Life League, pointed out, "The Catholic Church teaches that contraception is an evil and certainly not the sort of 'treatment' one would expect to find in a health insurance plan designed for staff at a Catholic facility. Your discriminatory actions against the college are unfounded and unconstitutional."

William K. Thierfelder, Belmont's president, affirmed that rather than provide contraceptive coverage, "We would close the college."

(continue reading) Read additional info on this developing story.

As the economy worsens, be sure you're laying up treasure in heaven

“Then, they will say to him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a strange or naked or sick or imprisoned and did not minister to you?’ Then he will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me’” (Matt. 25:44-45).

I'll be on TV tonight

Beyond Spectacular: The Hubble Ultra Deep Field in 3-D

"The heavens proclaim His righteousness; and all the peoples behold His glory" (Psalm 97.6).

Analysis: Who Was Father Maciel's Moderator?

As the scandal-drama surrounding the late Fr. Marcial Maciel unfolds, more and more pointed questions are rising to the surface. Former Legionary priest James Farfaglia, for example, raises a series of such pertinent questions on his blog.

New questions arose in my mind recently as I studied an online dossier of "censored" documents, which purports to include lengthy excerpts of the constitutions of the Legionaries of Christ. Father Maciel, who served as the Legion's director general uninterruptedly for decades, mandated that the constitutions not be disclosed to the public and, therefore, few people outside the Legion have any clue what they contain (c.f., 254.2 and 417. §2 & 3).

A careful analysis of the rules which Fr. Maciel put in force yields many remarkable details, such as the fact that he exempted himself from the, now-abrogated, "private vow" in which every temporally or perpetually professed member of the order solemnly promises never to criticize other Legionaries, especially superiors.

What really caught my eye, though, was the section which mandates that a "monitor of the general director" must be appointed who will closely observe and "concern himself with the external aspects of the life of the director general, such as his dress, his diet, and his expenditures."

(I'm pretty sure, by the way, that the whole "expenditure" thing would fall squarely into the category of Father Maciel's now-verified, long-term habit of squandering Legionary money [i.e., benefactor donations] on frivolities such as trans-Atlantic flights on the Concorde, posh hotels, luxury cruises, succulent gourmet meals and, at least in his later years, of supplying an affluent upkeep for at least one child he fathered [it seems as though there may be others]).

According to the official description of the "moderator of the general director," it seems clear that the duties envisioned by the Legion of Christ constitutions was not something akin to those of a confessor or spiritual director, which would concern the internal forum of the conscience and, therefore, would entail a confidential relationship with the subject (Maciel) which could not be revealed to another under pain of serious sin. Rather, the moderator called for by the Legionary constitutions could be likened to a kind of "ombudsman," whose job it would be to help identify and correct problems with Maciel's externally discernible lifestyle (i.e., not in the internal forum).

I hadn't known that the Legionary constitutions required that someone be officially appointed to monitor Father Maciel's activities. But after checking with a few former Legionary priests and religious about this, and after their review of these documents and verification that they are indeed accurate, several intriguing new questions arise, such as:

1) Who exactly was Father Maciel's moderator? The constitutions require that this role be fulfilled by a Legionary priest, appointed by the general chapter, who is " a very spiritual man, with at least ten years of profession in the Congregation, who is at least forty years old, of balanced temperament, gentle and understanding of spirit, faithful and loving of the superiors, with a practical sense, and whose capacity of reserve, discretion, prudence and sensitivity are well-proven and recognized." If this requirement was fulfilled (the term is for 12 years), there will be records of it, which the apostolic visitators to the Legion of Christ will surely want to study.

2) Did the Legion's general chapters ever actually appoint a priest to fulfill this constitutionally mandated role as moderator of Father Maciel's activities? If so, who was he (they), when was he appointed, and what were his findings? Presumably, the Church's apostolic visitation process will, in due course, obtain and evaluate any documents that pertain to the issue of the monitor of the general director.

3) If the Legion did in fact observe this requirement, then how did the moderator fulfill his mandate to moderate, as the order's regulations stipulate, "all things related to the spiritual perfection and personal obligations of the director general, dialoguing with him about these things . . . [and to] concern himself with external aspects of the life of the director general, such as his dress, his diet, and his expenditures"? What, if anything, did he report about this?

Clearly, the frauds perpetrated by Fr. Maciel against the members of his own religious order, as well as the Church, his victims, etc., involved activities that would have, should have, could have been observed — and, one would assume, reported — by a genuinely dedicated, sagacious, honest, man of probity who had been formally entrusted with the task of "moderating" the general director.

So, again, it must be asked: Was there ever such a moderator? And if so, who was he? And if no one was ever appointed to this position, why wasn't it done?

If there was such a moderator, and if he performed his duties to observe Father Maciel's personal life and give advice or admonishment based on what he observed, did he report what must have been an endless series of strange anomalies in the director's travels, activities, and personal habits? If he reported them to the general chapter, why was no action ever taken?

After all, the general impression given is that everyone in the Legion — everyone — was caught completely by surprise when the scandal revelations began tumbling out. No one seems to have had even the slightest inkling of what this man was doing in his free time.

One section of the dossier I mention above, goes to the very heart of the sickness of secrecy at work here. It reads:

576. If the person chosen for this post [of moderator] exposes or criticizes aspects of the life of the director general, he should be removed from his post. In such a case, the council general, at the request of the director general, shall proceed to appoint, by deliberative vote, another to take his place, from a group of three proposed by the director general.

In other words, the Legion's internal laws required that a moderator be appointed to watch closely over Father Maciel's personal life — something that, if it had been carried out according to the LC constitutions, could have spared the Legion, Regnum Christi, and the Church as a whole all the Maciel-induced misery this scandal has engendered.

But those same laws stipulate that if the moderator were to "expose or criticize" any problems he might find, he would be summarily canned.

Huh? Given the Sword-of-Damocles position into which the constitutions encumber the moderator, what good could he be to the order? What beneficial purpose could he serve?

This disjunction in the LC constitutons would seem to explain why the official Legionary requirement of putting such a moderator in place may simply have been ignored. But if it was not ignored, and the order's general chapter did, in fact, appoint a priest to do what the constitutions call for, then let's hope that the appropriate apostolic visitator will have ample opportunity to discuss this issue in detail with that man.

(Read more of my previous commentary on this issue.)

An Impossible Magic Trick

At first, this video clip looked kind of cheesy and lame, but it turned out to be quite amazing. I have no idea how they did this trick, but it is impressive!

Nancy Pelosi says: "I'm a fan of disruptors"

Oh, reeeeeeally?

Congressman Kevin Brady Explains the Health Care Bill

Look Who's Discriminating Now

Belmont Abbey College is under attack for its refusal to offer medical coverage for abortion.

Last week, thanks to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the federal government took a giant leap toward encroaching on the religious liberty of Catholics. Reuben Daniels Jr., director of the EEOC District Office in Charlotte, N.C, ruled that a small Catholic college discriminated against female employees by refusing to cover prescription contraceptives in its health insurance plan. With health-care reform looming before the country, this ruling is a bad omen for people of faith.

— by Patrick J. Reilly, The Wall Street Journal —

In 2007, eight faculty members filed a complaint against Belmont Abbey College in Belmont, N.C., claiming that the school's decision to exclude prescription contraceptives from its health-care plan was discriminatory against women. "As a Roman Catholic institution, Belmont Abbey College is not able to and will not offer nor subsidize medical services that contradict the clear teaching of the Catholic Church," said the college's president, William Thierfelder, at the time.

In March the commission informed the college that the investigation of its employee health insurance plan had been closed with no finding of wrongdoing. Inexplicably, the case was reopened, and now the college is charged with violating federal law. If Belmont Abbey doesn't back down, the EEOC will recommend court remedies.

The ruling against the college is certainly consistent with the commission's published guidance on "pregnancy discrimination." The EEOC has found that contraceptive coverage is mandated by the 1978 Pregnancy Discrimination Act (even though the law concerns pregnant women and does not, by strict interpretation, consider discrimination against all women of childbearing potential). North Carolina also has made its position clear with a law requiring employers to cover employees' contraceptive expenses if other prescription drugs are insured.

The difference, however, between the EEOC's guidance and the North Carolina law is that the latter exempts religious employers such as a Catholic college, whereas the commission fails to consider that the tenets of a faith may preclude an institution from offering such benefits.

And that's the rub: Increasingly it is clear to Catholics and other religious groups that without very clear exemptions for religious employers—and conscience protections for individual doctors, nurses, pharmacists—federal health-care laws and guidelines could severely restrict religious freedom in the U.S. . . . (continue reading)

N.B. If you would like to make a donation of any amount to help Belmont Abbey College protect its Catholic identity in the face of pressure like this, please donate securely online to the new "Chancellor's Fund."

All Aboard With the Steaming Priest

Father Jay Finelli, pastor of Holy Ghost Parish in Tiverton, Rhode Island, explains in this video how he blows off a little steam with this unique hobby.

Also, check out this nice profile piece on Father Finelli in the diocesan paper.

Lego Spinal Tap: "These Go to 11"

If you have seen and "get" This Is Spinal Tap, this will make complete sense to you. If you haven't, it won't. (But your Lego-playing kids will like it, regardless.)