The Seventh Age

I've never liked detective fiction. Like Joseph Epstein I don't really care whodunit, unless I can know more about the who and what it is exactly they've done. For me, literature is about learning a little bit more about human beings, not solving logic or plot puzzles. If I want to do that, I'll watch them on TV. (The exception is, of course, Chesterton's mysteries which I've never found that interesting as mysteries.) I do, however, like reading Jon Breen's regular updates on the genre in The Weekly Standard. This week, Breen takes on the burgeoning group of mysteries in which the detective is a historical character, and often a writer--like Chaucer, Shakespeare, Poe, Agatha Christie, and Dickens. Breen has many good things to say about the general nature of historical fiction, but he is also very amusing. Regarding my favorite use of a historical character as a detective, Beatrix Potter of Peter Rabbit fame, Breen writes:

While I normally draw the line at talking animals in an adult mystery, in this context they seem unavoidable.

Read the whole article here.

David B. Hart, the best Eastern Orthodox theologian in America,and probably the best theologian in America, period, has a nice piece on OpinionJournal.com that does a wonderful job heading off at the pass the Voltaire-lite types who want to declare that the tsunami in South Asia shows God is dead. Hart does so by pointing out that the only God who might be affected by such attacks is the deist God of said Voltaire types. Hart does some wonderful public catechesis about the Christian vision with his usual literary flair and without any hint of the pedantic:

Yes, at the heart of the gospel is an ineradicable triumphalism, a conviction that the victory over evil and death has been won; but it is also a victory yet to come. As Paul says, all creation groans in anguished anticipation of the day when God's glory will transfigure all things. For now we live amid a strife of darkness and light.

I've noted before that my reading of John XXIII's Journal of a Soul shows him to be a perfectly orthodox pope, to the contrary of claims of "radical traditionalists" and Catholic "progressives" alike. One of the very interesting things was when John was beatified a few years ago with Pius IX, many Catholic progressives were horrified. How could the architect of Vatican II be paired with that neanderthal who hated all liberalism. Herewith from the diary of John XXIII during his 1959 retreat in the Vatican:

I always think of Pius IX of sacred and glorious memory and, by imitating him in his sufferings, I would like to be worthy to celebrate his canonization. (p. 299)

While he wasn't able to celebrate it, it may be the case that Good Pope John will be canonized with Pius IX, "of sacred and glorious memory."

Indeed, Pope John was already aware of those trying to manipulate him and his image into something that it was most definitely not. From his August 13, 1961 journal during a retreat:

I must beware of the audacity of those who, with unseeing minds led astray by secret pride, presume to do good without having been called to do so by God speaking through his Church, as if the divine Redeemer had any need of their worthless co-operation, or indeed of any man's. (p. 310)

Pope John's own disposition toward Church authority had never wavered. There was no contradiction between obedience and conscience, since he saw the Christian faith as Newman did, a spiritual army with discipline that was needed to make a Christian fit to serve and use prudence in the first place. Pope John recorded this disposition in his 1954 Spiritual Testament:

I wish to profess once more my complete Christian and Catholic faith, belonging and submitting as I do to the holy, apostolic and Roman Church, and my perfect devotion and obedience to its august head, the supreme Pontiff, . . . . (p. 342).

Terry Eastland, publisher of the Weekly Standard, weighs in with doubts about Republican triumphalism regarding the take-over of the US Civil Rights Commission. Eastland's main contention is that the need for a standing civil rights commission is over. I think Eastland is probably right. The Standard in election mode was willing to talk about a new kind of conservative, that is, a big-gov conservative. As a means of triangulating, it's very clever, but it's a dangerous game to keep loading the federal gov't's guns just because right now Republicans are in office. I'm glad to see Eastland and others starting to criticize Bush as well as other Republicans for giving into the "Hudge" appeal so easily (in Chesterton's terms "Hudge" is big gov't while "Gudge" is big business).

As someone who is a convert to Catholic faith, I invest lots of prayer and argument into getting people into the Church. A friend serving as a sponsor for candidates for reception at a local parish was telling me that some of the people taking classes on the faith have discovered that being a Catholic is more than just talking about "community," tacky statuary, and bad church music. Dogma is not always so friendly, even if it is man's best friend. So let us pray for those who've begun their journeys that they will keep going and not let difficulties about the faith turn into doubt. I thought these words from a Christmas prayer of Pope John XXIII to the Child Jesus were fitting:

Calm aggressive minds, convert the erring, make your people holy, preserve the purity of virgins, guard the faithfulness of married men and women; fortify the chaste; enlighten those who have only just begun follow your teaching, and confirm them, make them worthy of loftier attainment, and may we at the last all be eternally reunited in your kingdom, O Jesus, together with you, with the Father and the Holy Spirit, to whom be glory, honour and blessing for ever and ever. Amen.

During my annual winter break excursion to the North Shore (of Lake Superior, that is), the Mrs. and I rented the last four tapes of the seven tape series entitled, "Civilisation: A Personal View" by Lord Kenneth Clark. I had heard of them through the lectures on spiritual theology by Fr. Paul Murray, OP during my time in Rome. He seemed to be quite taken with them, and explained that after Lord Clark had produced these documentaries, he became a Catholic himself after realizing that the Church was the main civilizing force through history.

I was not disappointed by the movies. Despite only having the last four tapes (episodes 7-13) that covered the era from the Roman Baroque to the present age of "heroic materialism," Lord Clark's tour of the art, philosophy, and music of the various ages, sprinkled with his own stinging commentary, was a wonderful tour and reflection on Western cultural brilliance and decay.

Clark is decidedly anti-modernist, even if he does show an appreciation for some of the sentiments that led to Romanticism. Even though the movies were made in late 1960s, Clark covers relatively little after the end of the nineteenth century. One wonders if this is subtle commentary on the (lack of) civilization since World War I. He speaks often of Western man descending into barbarism.

Lord Clark published a companion book to add commentary to the videos. Along with Paul Johnson's new book Art: A New History, these are brilliant introductions to the history of Western Culture, especially since the fall of Rome.

Here is his biography:

Clark, Kenneth Mackenzie, Baron (1903-1983). British art historian and critic. Educated at Oxford, he worked with Bernard Berebson in Florence for two years, and became Director of the National Gallery London, 1935-1945. He was Slade professor of Fine Arts at Oxford university 1946-50 and 1961-62. He was chairman of the Arts Council of Great Britain 1953-60 and chairman of the Independent Television Authority 1954-57. His books included Leonardo da Vinci(1939), Landscape into Art (1949), Piero della Francesca(1951), The Nude (1956) and Rembrandt and the Italian Renaissance(1966). His television series and subsequent book Civilisation (1969) were extremely popular. He received a KCB in 1938, the CH in 1959, a peerage in 1969 and the OM in 1976. His son Alan Kenneth Mackenzie Clark (1928-) was a controversial military historian and diarist, Conservative MP 1974-93 and a junior minister.

The collapse of civil society continues apace in Montana where its reported that the Supreme Court of that state has overturned a lower court’s ruling permitting the Montana University System’s policy of denying group health coverage to same-sex couples. The Supreme Court’s opinion is a microcosm of contemporary societal befuddlement and the judicial deprecation that is both its cause and its effect.

The majority opinion finds that the University System has discriminated against homosexuals. It seems the University System has long offered health coverage to dependent spouses as well as those who signed an affidavit asserting that they "mutually consented and contracted to become husband and wife." Naturally, a homosexual signed the affidavit trying to cover their partner. Unfortunately for the University System, they offered insurance to heterosexual couples who signed the affidavit but denied it to homosexual couples who signed. That clearly creates an equal protection issue, and the Court found the use of these affidavits violated the state constitution. The logic is unassailable.

The problem with the decision is that the legal question decided by the Court, the constitutionality of the affidavits, was never raised in the initial complaint. The original complaint challenged the policy of denying coverage to homosexual partners, period. It made no mention of the affidavit policy. The unequal protection argued turned not on a difference between homosexual affidavit holders and heterosexual affidavit holders, but between those who were statutorily married and those who were not. The dissent points out, to no avail, that no one is allowed to change their pleading upon appeal. Here, the Court has done the changing on behalf of the original plaintiff in order to strike another blow against traditional marriage.

Montana statutes state that “marriage is a personal relationship between a man and a woman” and that “a marriage between persons of the same sex” is “prohibited.” The University System’s variance of coverage according to marital status has strong common law support, which is why the lower court dismissed the case. That is a distinction that can be legally made without being discriminatory, unlike a distinction based on race or gender. But the common law is inconvenient for imperial courts, and steps must be taken.

How did Montana get here? At some point in the past, the University System had a clear policy of covering spouses. No doubt some progressive thinking unmarried couple demanded coverage, claiming that they did not believe in marriage, or didn’t need a piece of paper to prove they were committed. The University System, being already compromised by the liberal the contagion being spread by activist courts and cultural elites, caved in and invented the affidavit. The descent down the slippery slope was under way.

This decision is worth the read. It showcases a disingenuous majority skillfully pulling a gay rabbit out of the judicial hat. It also features a blathering, unschooled concurrence decrying the woe of the poor victimized homosexual in the current Dark Age. And for good measure, it has a desperate dissent that points out the obvious crime of the majority, but is then reduced to unbefitting contortions of its own in an effort at some corrupt expostulation.

This sobering burlesque plays itself out over and over across the country every day.

Michael Long has a column with some excellent cultural predictions. The one I'm most interested in claims that pro-lifers will draft something like a Human Life Amendment in 2005 so that pro-abortion forces will have to spend themselves out of money fighting a two-front war 1) to defend Roe in the first place and 2) to defeat the amendment. Long claims that this is desired so that pro-lifers will not have to fight an expensive 50-state battle even if Roe is overturned.

My own inclination is to think that such an amendment is still unlikely to pass, but possibly worth doing for the strategic reasons given by Long. It is also necessary at all times to note that any battle for the good--particularly this one--must be fought not just with strategy and legality must begin, be driven by, and conclude with both prayer and fasting--and personal as well as corporate witness to life in the culture.

Tip of the hat to OpinionJournal.com for this article in the Washington Post about research showing that more women are not using contraceptives. The article presents this as a problem, perhaps unsurprisingly. I think of it as a great sign. I would like the figures broken down into Protestant/Catholic/Orthodox myself. My suspicion is that much of the increase in women not using contraception is a result of Protestants who've embraced Catholic (and old-school Protestant we must add) teaching on morality. I sometimes feel as if I have more Protestant friends my own age obeying the natural law than I do Catholics my own age. If my hunch is right, this is good news for real ecumenism--the kind that finds unity in the truth.

University of Virginia sociologist Brad Wilcox has this article in the latest edition of Touchstone Magazine chronicling how sociological data keeps pouring in that confirms the truth (or at least the practical benefits) of the Church's sexual morality.

He ends the piece by noting the rise of enthusiasm for the arguments made by Pope Paul VI in Humanae Vitae among notable evangelicals such as Harold O.J. Brown and J.I. Packer. As Dave mentioned, it seems that Protestants are sometimes latching on to these truths quicker than many Catholics. And it does seem that when offered sound evidence, many evangelicals "convert" to more Catholic positions on any number of matters. Perhaps the term "orthodoxy" in vogue amoung traditionalist ecumenists will perhaps gain a morally robust component.

With pre-Christmas consumption a fading capitalist memory, it's time for the next big retail season, post-Christmas consumption. If you're like most, you've probably received a handful of gift cards to celebrate the Savior's birth. But did you know why gift cards are such big business? Here are some interesting insights from the inside of Target:

GiftCards are a major traffic driver pre- and post-holiday, since each one sold means at least two trips to the store: one by the giver and one by the recipient. That’s 16 million purchase trips and 18 million redemption trips from November to January.

Here are a few other reasons why GiftCards are an important component of the fifth quarter strategy:

• One in three GiftCard recipients said they would not have made their purchase at Target had they not received the GiftCard.
  
• Nine out of 10 GiftCard recipients spend more than the value of the card upon redemption.
  
• More than 78 percent of GiftCards are redeemed within 90 days of purchase—imagine the sales when the 4,000,000 GiftCards sold during December week 3 are redeemed!
  

. . .that we need to stop exaggerating. I got my letter today from the Thomas More Law Center asking that I renew my membership. I give this organization, headed by Richard Thompson, some money each year because I think many of the cases they work on are valuable--defending pro-life students who are made to not wear pro-life clothing, crafting pro-life legislation for states, defending Nativity Scenes in public where Menorahs or Crescents have been allowed, etc.

But I take some umbrage at the letter I received which claims that "the main battleground in the culture war is the courtroom. . ."
and that fighting courtroom battles is "the single most EFFECTIVE way to WIN
this all out war for the soul of America!."

With all due understanding of the legal and judicial problems in the US, the line dividing good and evil is still, as Solzhenitsyn put it, running right down the middle of the human heart. As I noted yesterday, the key to that war is prayer and fasting--culture is from cultus, meaning worship. That is the "main battleground in the culture war."

Just like the claim that "America is the last and best hope for the world," such claims invert the proportions in our thinking and thus take our eyes off the main goal, perhaps inducing idolatry. So, fine, give to Thomas More Law Center--I will--but let's all keep our heads and remember that the main battleground is in churches, adoration chapels, prayer closets, and icon corners. Not in the courtroom.

I suppose the most ridiculously pretentious way to describe myself is as a "Harry Potter Scholar," but I have been so described before, embarrassingly enough in print. Ah, Blessed humility! In any case, I have read all of the books several times and seen all the movies, movies which are, with the exception of the last one, somewhat boring and very disappointing. One thing I've never been able to understand is the so-called "Christian case" against Potter because of its "promotion of witchcraft." Andrew Stuttaford, reviewing a new series of "Christian fantasies" by one G.P. Taylor (fantasies about which he wonders how "books quite so bad have sold quite so well?"), begins his review in the print edition of National Review with this (p. 47):

For those of us who like to believe, however tentatively, in human progress, the notion that there are 21st-century Americans who think that the brave, benign--and fictional--Harry Potter can be used as a recruitment officer for the occult is profoundly depressing.

Amen, brother Stuttaford. If you'd like to see what I see in Mr. Potter and his tales, take a look sometime at an article my wife and I did a few years ago, called "Character, Choice, and Harry Potter."

You can also see an essay by David Baggett in a new book (in which my wife and I also contributed a chapter), called Harry Potter and Philosophy.

Take it from me. I'm a Harry Potter Scholar.

Thanks to our growing popularity we have also been experiencing a growing presence of Viagra, breast enlargment, and online casino "comments" whose relevance to the postings here leaves much to be desired.

To combat this, we are now making registration and manual approval a necessary condition of your comments appearing in the blog.

If you are a new user, you will need to register to enter a comment on one of the postings. Once you have registered, you can enter a comment, though it will not appear until your registration has been manually approved (we don't want to accidentally automatically eliminate anyone with legitimate references to cialis, imitation rolex watches, or mortgage refinance rates below 2%).

Once you have registered and been approved, your subsequent comments will appear in the blog immediately after you type them.

Thanks for your patience in cleaning up the comments here!

The Archdiocese of Los Angeles released the details of a $100 million abuse settlement with 90 victims a few days ago.

Turns out when all is said and done, attorneys will walk away with between $33 and $40 million of the total amount.

With 554 abuse claims still outstanding in LA, if I were an unethical attorney with nothing better to do, I would jump on this gravy train in no time.

I'm not persuaded that $4 million (the largest awards in this settlement) is reasonable compensation in the first place. It strikes me as a wee bit astronomical, but the fact that 33%-40% of this settlement doesn't even go to the victims raises some serious questions of justice.

I find it odd that none of the supposed support groups for victims of clergy abuse are raising this concern. You would think they would be the first to call for reform of the legal system. It makes you wonder if they are more interested in revenge than restitution.

I guess the gospels are still accurate in their advice that it's better to settle with your opponent on the way to court, lest the judge hand you over to the attorneys, and they hold on to you until they get every last penny.

This article borders on the absurd. It claims that Democrats have been too nice in standing up to persistent Republican "attack-dog" assaults on the character of their candidates, accusing them of being "unpatriotic," members of the ACLU, and soft on defense. Oooohhhh, what nastiness. So basically, Republicans have been attacking the policy positions and ideological leanings of their opponents with consistency.

Of course, GOPers are no angels, and some attacks are "mean-spirited," but Democrats always accuse Republicans of being nasty when their policy positions are criticized. For example, when GOP congressman Mark Kennedy noted in his ads that his opponent, Patty Wetterling, had accepted large donations from the very, shall we say, unpatriotic MoveOn.org, he was denounced as engaging in a mean, "smear" campaign.

But of course, if we look at the actual campaigns run by Democrats, and their coordinated media "hits," you will see Republicans labeled as racist, sexist, war-mongering, uncaring about the poor, sick or elderly, scamming elections (note Barbara Boxer here), sacrificing American lives for oil, etc.

Can these people really be serious? The USA Today reporter says it is impossible to imagine Democrats attacking Republicans for eight straight months. Oh, please.

The newest controversy, among many others, popping up around the nation is whether Catholic schools should be required to admit the children of homosexual couples. The Chicago Tribune compiles the latest details in the brewing controversy.

I understand the parents' concerns that the presence of the twin boys at the California school may lead other students to think that homosexuality is just another "lifestyle choice." However, the idea that these two little kids will be mouthpieces for the gay agenda seems far-fetched and neurotic. More and more, people want laws and rules to shield them from taking the responsibility of raising their kids. Good parenting and education should safely "insulate" your children from entertaining the validity of homosexuality.

It seems to me a simple matter of justice to let these kids attend the Catholic school. It is not as though they had the choice to be adopted by gays who wanted to play "parents." If we are really concerned about their well-being, the Christian thing to do would be to welcome them (and their parents) into an inviting Christian environment and effectively communicate the truth of the Gospel. There may be a breakdown on two levels: parents who don't want to do the heavy lifting of forming the moral fabric of their child's conscience and schools that don't want to teach Catholic morality for fear of having to offend anyone. If Catholic schools confidently asserted truth, then there would be no controversy over admitting these boys.

While I think various Catholic schools should have their own policies over whom they get to admit (parishioners only, Catholics only, everyone and their brother, etc), I don't like lawsuits by various folks being filed to compel the Catholic schools to admit certain folks. It would be sort of ironic that gay couples would sue to enforce acceptance of their morals and lifestyle on a community that vocally disapproves. But that of course, is today's liberal version of tolerance.

Once again, it all goes back to the abandonment of responsibility (across the ideological spectrum). Let's go after fast food, cigarette companies, and impose insular, narrow-minded policies that allow me to abdicate the hard-work of parenting, and having to live by, or assert, uncomfortable moral truths.

I would love to get some comments on this question, as the solution is not clear cut by any means.

In an interesting move, Consumer Reports tackles birth control options in their February issue, and concludes that just about anything from IUDs, to the Pill, to Abortion is a lot better for you than you may think, and probably safer than pregnancy.

They also examine condoms, and conclude the worst two of all those they tested were from Planned Parenthood. Hmmm. Wonder why that would be?

Now even the folks at Planned Parenthood would acknowledge the existence of abstinence as a "birth control method" (Consumer Reports doesn't) and some of the risks of things like IUDs. But check out Consumer Reports glowing report on IUDs:

Yet today’s IUDs have an excellent safety record, allow women years of “set it and forget it” contraception, and can be less expensive overall than other birth-control methods.

Two brands are available in the U.S. The ParaGard T380A, a T-shaped device, releases copper ions that prevent pregnancy by slowing down sperm and preventing eggs from maturing to the point where they can be fertilized. It can stay in place for up to a decade, but can cause heavier menstrual bleeding and cramps.

That’s not the case with the newest IUD, Mirena. “It’s highly effective, completely reversible, and makes periods lighter and less crampy,” says Mitchell Creinin, M.D., professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Pittsburgh. The reason is that Mirena releases a steady trickle of the hormone progestin, which over time thins the uterine lining so that it can’t support a pregnancy. It lasts for five years, but a woman can have it removed at any time and she doesn’t have to wait before

Yet another example of ideology, the tie that blinds.

German archbishop apologizes to Jews after comparing the slaughter of the innocents known as abortion to the Nazi Holocaust. It seems Jews were outraged that the destruction of hundreds of millions of babies worldwide would be even mentioned in the same breath as the Shoah.

Message from the Jewish group: "We have a trademark on suffering, nothing compares to what was perpetuated against us on the scale of human evil," and "How dare you compare abortion to genocide." The weakest and most vulnerable of society are still us!

Message from archbishop: I will back-down and hedge on the plain truth in the face of small, senseless pressure groups.

Eeeiuwww.

One further note, there was a great book put out about five years ago entiled, The Holocaust in American Life, chronicling the marketing of Jewish oppression during World War II. It was a worthwhile book, and makes the excellent point that even sympathetic movements can be twisted for advancing personal and unnecessary ideological agendas. One can be sympathetic to accounts of anti-semitism while at the same time deplore the "crying wolf" strategy espoused by Abe Foxman (remember "The Passion"?) and this German group.

Though reasonable minds can differ on the ethics of lawyers engaged in the Church abuse scandals (see “Catholic Archdiocese Gives Lawyers Over $33 Million” and comments below), it must be admitted that these suits, and the tort law that has spawned them, call into question our conception of justice.

Exhibit A is to be found at www.kbla.com, the home page of the firm that negotiated the recent Diocese of Orange settlement. It is not the money they collected for their services that should be disquieting, but the manner in which they marketed their services. A quick perusal of the site reveals that the firm is “a consumer litigation boutique,” which means that they troll the crankiest and most populous class of Americans, consumers, looking for profitable angst that can be collected and litigated. Their site side bar features complaints they have filed that might strike a chord with a few hundred other ”consumers” and their “Publications” link opens a page bursting with articles designed to inflame the indignation of the curious. Their business model seems to be to find a bad product or procedure, publicize its existence and exactly why a “consumer” ought to be outraged, file an individual complaint when an accomplice comes forward spouting the verbiage they read on the firm’s site, and then advertise aggressively that the gravy train is about to leave the station.

Though they are currently handling tort du jure thoroughbreds such as Fen-Phen, their approach to the clergy scandal is most troubling. Their site features a secure “victim form” and “hotline” for potential plaintiffs to get on board. They inspire potential litigants with messages like this one:

“Those of you who have been reluctant to come forward because of shame, guilt, fear, and emotional pain, these are emotions shared by many of your fellow abused… Those predators who took advantage of young boys and girls at their most vulnerable must be held accountable for the sins of the fathers and those who have protected them. This office is working hard to make this happen.”

But the vertex of this mountainous arrogance and avarice is what they call the “Database of Clergy Accused or Convicted of Sexual Abuse.” This technological marvel allows litigation shoppers the ability to search for specific names of persons or intuitions that have come under the shadow of suspicion, and are therefore fair game. Is your old middle school on the hit list? How about that cranky old priest who taught you geometry? You can look them up. But the firm is so dedicated to justice that they allow you to search by state as well. So simply searching for “CA” brings up a list of 156 individual names of accused Californians. Clicking on the name will reveal the reason for the individual’s election to the hall of shame, and many are as flimsy as this:

“Authorities say [this priest] was the subject of a complaint within the last decade involving a teenage boy.”

A single allegation is all it takes. And since allegations are free, the gravy train grinds on and on. As mentioned below, it would seem to be much easier to “remember” long past assaults if you are free to browse for any familiar names knowing that someone else has already cast suspicion on them. This devious tool tempts every visitor with promises of cash to pull a Richard Rich while at the same time smearing the names of priests and religious that once might have been presumed innocent.

This is justice? My torts class did not cover this.

Our Daily Cat Box Liner is reporting today that two pastors from two notorious Catholic parishes are resigning their posts. This is good news indeed, but we will have to wait for the fallout.

As noted in these pages before, the strange contradiction of the Archbishop’s decision to legitimize heretics at renegade parishes indefinitely while at the same time forcefully evicting a chartered, respected organization like Regnum Christi is troubling to the faithful. It is disheartening that these disobedient pastors had to leave, apparently, of their own accord. But now that they are thankfully on their way, the Chancery cannot avoid taking a position. They will have to decide what, if anything, to say about these pastors and then they will have to install new pastors. Who will be the new shepherds for the confused souls at St. Joan of Arc and St. Thomas the Apostle? And what will the Chancery have to say about the “service” of these pastors who ignored doctrine and willfully lead their flock into moral error? Will the new pastors set things right at the expense of parish enrollment, or will they continue the scandal?

It is telling that the answers to these questions are not obvious. They should be.

Once again, the Minnesota bishops have come out for tax increases for a fair and equitable distribution of income and to meet "human needs."

Frankly, this is scandalous. We have been pouring money down the rathole of government welfare projects for too long. In next week's Catholic Spirit there will be an op-ed from Kathy Tomlin or Ron Krietemeyer exhorting me to go beyond my naked self-interest and support the tax increases. Never mind that I donate a sizable amount of my (loan money) to charities that actually do something positive. Nope, not good enough. I need to energize the forces of benevolence at the local bureaucracy so they can create more layers of red tape and associate director positions to more efficiently distribute checks. Monstrous ignorance and stupidity.

If the bishops want to have an opinion, fine. But when are they going to learn that when they speak beyond their realm of credibility and authority, they do more damage to themselves. Why not propose general principles (which are the only real substantive set of doctrines that Catholic Social Thought provides) and focus on the essentials. Supposedly, this is the age of the laity, so shouldn't the bishops get out of the way and let us work out prudential matters with the mind of the Church? The problem is that "the laity" in this case isn't in line with the ex-nuns and "justice" bureaucrats who run chanceries and have the ear of bishops. Read the full statement here.

A list of 2005 legislative priorities for the Minnesota Catholic Conference can be accessed at this link. At least they list the tax increase as the third priority behind abortion and a state marriage amendment.

A discussion on this issue is happening at Amy Welborn's blog, Open Book.

And for more episcopal malaise, Hugh Hewitt compares the Church's response to the sex-abuse scandals with the cover-up by CBS News.

While I usually stay away from the evolution debate/discussions, mostly because I really don't care, this news item, sent to me by a friend, was rather noteworthy.

A federal judge has decided that stickers on biology text books that state that Darwninian evolution is theory, not fact, are unconstitutional as an establishment of religion. More news stories chronicling this silliness can be accessed here.

While I think one can reconcile natural selection and theism, the implications of this ruling seem to be a desire to impose state atheism. Questioning a materialistic philosophy in a public school text book is establishment? Asserting some higher "designer" may exist is a threat to freedom? Yowsa.

Tawlk amongst ya selves.

The AP reports tonight on a televised debate between Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Stephen Breyer on the role of foreign judicial decisions and international public opinion in US law. As noted on Power Line, this revelation from Breyer is sobering:

"U.S. law is not handed down from on high even at the U.S. Supreme Court. The law emerges from a conversation with judges, lawyers, professors and law students. ... It's what I call opening your eyes as to what's going on elsewhere."

As the modern federal judiciary legislates its corrupt morality from the bench, it is easy to lose sight of the fact that behind the issue by issue attacks there looms a fundamental collapse of constitutional law as we know it. If you think foreign cases cited in Supreme Court cases is absurd, review Lawrence v. Texas. If you think international public opinion ought to have no role in Supreme Court decisions, make sure you’re sitting down when the Court releases its Roper v. Simmons ruling in the near future.

Law does not “emerge;” it is legislated. There is a rather large clause of the Constitution devoted to that explicit process. That legislative process does not involve judges, lawyers, professors or (God help us) law students in any way, unless they have been duly elected to Congress. Here we see the utter contempt Breyer and other judges have for the Constitution they are sworn to uphold, and for the American people whose rights are protected by that Constitution. It is, in fact, judicial hegemony that “emerges,” irresolute, unpredictable but dangerous nonetheless, like a jackal from a dank, maleficent hole. The legislative process was established here to combat such degeneracy, not to enshrine it.If the judges, lawyers, professors and law students want to have a conversation, I would happily refer to them to some stimulating reading material.

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby.”

It’s what I call opening your eyes to the United States Constitution.

A Marine on leave from his transport duties in Iraq goes on a shooting spree in small town California and kills a police officer. A sign of cultural decline? Of failed radical secularism? Of counterproductive liberal social programs? Certainly not. It clearly must be post-traumatic stress disorder or fear of the horrific warfare in Iraq. That is the conclusion posited by many community members and happily reprinted by the ever-professional leftist lackeys at the NY Times. They refer to the slain police officer as a "casualty of war." It’s the eighth paragraph before it is mentioned that the man had a history of gang associations, that his weapon was a banned assault rifle, and that the police he battled with suspect drugs were involved. This is what the MSM refers to as “reporting the news.”

Roger Kimball, conservative culture critic, has posted a reflection on the purpose and leisure, and some thoughts on Josef Pieper's important work, "Leisure, The Basis of Culture."

I tend to think it is one of the most important duties of Christians and conservatives engaged in the culture wars to recover this conception of leisure. The problem is trying to foster leisure in an overly-competitive consumer environment where we are inundated with tasks that require us to live in a perpetual state of busyness (except when we are blogging of course!).

The post can be accessed through the New Criterion Web site.

While the U.S. Bishop's Conference has been busy debating the merits of quinceaera, their Spanish counterparts have been a bit more active, recently supporting the use of condoms to halt the spread of AIDS:

But "condoms have a place in the global prevention of AIDS," Juan Antonio Martinez Camino, spokesman for the Spanish Bishops Conference, told reporters after a meeting Tuesday with Health Minister Elena Salgado to discuss ways of fighting the disease.

Martinez Camino said the Spanish Catholic Church's stance is backed by the scientific world. He cited a recent study by experts in the medical magazine Lancet that supported the so-called "ABC" approach of fighting AIDS - "A" for abstinence, "B" for being faithful to partners, and "C" for condoms.

It's also interesting how the actions of the bishops are reported as those of "Spain's Catholic Church" as if each nation has its own Catholic congregation with its own creed. Such is probably due to reporter ignorance, though with actions like this, the Spanish bishops are already laying the foundations for their own national church.

OK, so the good Professor didn't actually publish in that droll urban liberals mag, but I saw therein an ad for The Modern Scholar: Great Professors Teaching You, a company not quite modern enough to have a website, but modern enough that you can call (800-636-3399) or fax (410-535-5499) them to order sets of lectures in a variety of different areas, including stand-byes like "Masterpieces of Western Music" and "A History of Ancient Rome," but also more specific topics like "Winston Churchill: Man of the Century," and "The Literature of C. S. Lewis." No, that last series was not the one Kreeft is doing, but instead it is "Ethics: A History of Moral Thought." I'm not a very good listener (just ask my wife) but many people are and I'm glad that the Modern Scholar's ad has a stand-up Catholic teacher so prominently displayed in such a place. It's a good sign for the times.

Although I've warned bloggers in earlier posts not to exaggerate, I think I'm OK to describe the men's basketball contests between Calvin College, my alma mater, and rival Hope College as the greatest small college sports rivalry ever. For years now, alums of the two schools have met all over the US and all over the world to watch the contest on satellite. This weekend, after the prayer service at the St. Paul Cathedral on Roe v. Wade day, I plan to go and watch the 155th game of the series at a Twin Cities bar/restaurant called Champps in New Brighton. Calvin has a lead in the series, but they got crushed last year. If you're interested in this game, alum of the two schools or not, check it out here.

As I figured, this was a non-story. Yahoo! News blared the headline "Spanish Church Backs Condoms" early this morning. I was waiting for the corrections to come out, and come out they have.

It appears that the MSM, in its desire to make the Church look foolish in its inconsistency, or, rather, that it is finally catching up to modernity, pulled this story out of thin air by either not checking with the source, or twisting the spokesman's words.

There was just no way the Spanish bishops, who are a rather conservative lot, would do something like this without the nod from the Home Office. And everyone knows that Cardinal Trujillo is dead-set against condoms as a solution to the AIDS crisis, and for good reason.

Also, read the logic of the Bishops' spokesman's defense of condoms from the Reuters story. What???

This ranks up there with "Church Declares Monopoly on Salvation" that came out when Dominus Iesus was published.

The Curt Jester is on the case.

Uh oh.

For now, Harry Flynn is in the good graces of the liberal Twin Cities media. A pointless and patronizing pastoral letter on racism under his belt, our good bishop has now attracted more adulation from self-righteous liberal journalists, including our favorite -- Nick Coleman.

Nick is shocked that no politicians showed up for Archbishop Flynn's West Side poverty tour. Is outrage! Those uncaring politicians didn't come to hear why we need more spending, more spending, more spending.

As an aside, Governor Pawlenty has been a huge disappointment in his budget priorities and in the initiatives he takes on. Gambling at MOA? A new U of M campus in Rochester? I'm not one of those folks who believes small government is an end in itself, but rather the best way to foster the health and vitality of families and local communities. It is the subsidiarity principle. When government can step in to "unleas the armies of compassion" or provide needed services or correct market deficiencies, I take the authentically conservative (and Catholic) position that that is a legitimate role. So maybe our pols should re-examine their priorities from time to time.

But that is not the real issue.

The real issue is that no politicians showed up to Harry Flynn's gathering because he has made himself irrelevant. He or his surrogates are always telling politicians what to do. Having a position on the darder snail and other sundry issues has created a huge credibility problem for the church. No one bothers (and can you blame them?) to listen. Is there an echo? Have I said this before?

Harry Flynn spends his media capital in unproductive ways, and when he finally gets to use it, no one cares what he has to say because his policy prescriptions are certainly not the only "Christian" way of looking at the issue. It's one thing to call legislators' attention to the needs of the poor when they are subsidizing professional sports, gambling, and cosmopolitan transportation initiatives. He could have done this. But instead, he advocates tax increases, government health insurance, and more ineffective social service programs.

And what are people really grappling with at the parish level? In-vitro fertilization, divorce and remarriage in the Church, contraception, stem-cell research (oh, and basic Catholic doctrine).

When will see a glowing article from Nick Coleman highlighting Flynn's "Culture of Life" (not yet in existence) initiative?

Ugh!

At the IgnatiusInsight Webzine, Mark Brumley has a nice review of a solid introductory book on Catholic Social Doctrine. Brumley describes the book, and illuminates the major principles of Church social teaching.

Since I am always mentioning the topic, and usually criticizing folks for misapplying this collection of doctrines, I thought I would note the presence of the fine introductory volume.

I'll admit that I find living in a city more congenial and probably healthier than living in the suburbs. I think that much of the new urbanist critique of suburban design is correct. But I also think I, along with a lot of other new urbanists and fellow travelers, often engage in a dangerous sort of pride about where I live. Particularly in the belief that the arts only are valued in cities. Joel Kotkin's "Suburban Culture: Soccer, SUV's, and, now, Symphonies," on OpinionJournal.com, weighs in with some information about the life of the arts in suburbs around the country. He mentions, for instance, the fact that there are more arts jobs in the Chicago suburbs than there are in Chicago proper. I still believe that older urban planning principles--sidewalks, multi-use zoning, narrow streets, etc--beat those of the modern suburb any day of the week. But that does not mean that the people in those suburbs are simply uncultured.

One of conservatism's rising stars, City Journal editor Brian Anderson, has penned a new book entitled, "South Park Conservatives: The Revolt Against Liberal Media Bias," due out in March from Regnery.

To whet our palettes, Anderson has written a lenghty feature for OpinionJournal.com describing the new conservatism that he believes is emerging on college campuses, especially the elite schools.

The question I would pose to Anderson is, "To what extent are these young folks actually conservatives?" The conservatism that Anderson is describing is one VERY broadly defined.

Ande