Contact CBS Now!

CBS, the television network that will broadcast this year's Superbowl, is being pressured by the peddlers of the Culture of Death to not broadcast a pro-life commercial during the game.

A coalition of women's groups called on the CBS network on Monday to scrap its plan to broadcast an ad during the Super Bowl featuring college football star Tim Tebow and his mother, which critics say is likely to convey an anti-abortion message.

The ad -- paid for by the conservative Christian group Focus on the Family -- is expected to recount the story of Pam Tebow's pregnancy in 1987 with a theme of "Celebrate Family, Celebrate Life." After getting sick during a mission trip to the Philippines, she ignored a recommendation by doctors to abort her fifth child and gave birth to Tim, who went on to win the 2007 Heisman Trophy while helping his Florida team to two college football championships.

The New York-based Women's Media Center was coordinating the protest with backing from the National Organization for Women, the Feminist Majority and other groups.

"An ad that uses sports to divide rather than to unite has no place in the biggest national sports event of the year -- an event designed to bring Americans together," said Jehmu Greene, president of the Women's Media Center.

You know, I get the point that abortion may be more divisive than Budweiser vs. Miller or Pepsi vs. Coke. But the feminist concern is not about dividing, but rather that life argument is raised at all. As my previous post points out, the pro-abortion argument only survives when it remains unchallenged. That is their concern. To them, the pro-life cause has no place anywhere, let alone the most-watched commercial stage.

My fellow pro-life bloggers, please spread the word. We need everyone who can to contact CBS now and encourage them to stand up to the pressure.

As for me, if they decide to cancel the commercial, I will not watch the Superbowl, nor anything else on CBS for 2010. If they cancel, it is a clear message to me as a pro-lifer, one who wants to spread that message, that my patronage of their network is unappreciated. That, however, won't be in my message to them. They are planning on running it as of right now, and they don't need threats. They just need some backbone reinforcement. Thanks and admiration will do just fine.

Timeliness is important. I'm sure there is support within the notwork for dropping the ad, and that contingent won't give up. Some support right now might help keep this ad in it's prime-time location.

REJOICE!

Thus saith the Lord: A voice was heard on high of lamentation, of mourning, and weeping, of Rachel weeping for her children, and refusing to be comforted for them, because they are not. Thus saith the Lord: Let thy voice cease from weeping, and thy eyes from tears: for there is a reward for thy work, saith the Lord: and they shall return out of the land of the enemy.

(Jer 31:15-16)

And all that sat in the council, looking on him, saw his face as if it had been the face of an angel.

(Acts 6:15)

Matthew points us to Jeremiah for a prophecy of the Holy Innocents. We needed the pointer, because most people would have thought that he was referring to the Assyrian slaughter of the Kingdom of Israel. That is where most of her children, and those of her maidservant, resided. Save the tiny tribe of Benjamin, the tribal family structure of all her children all but ceased. The surviving dominant tribe of Judah and the priestly tribe of Levi would better be described as the children of her older sister Leah.

But Matthew reminds us that the Word of God is not limited in meaning. The children of Bethlehem are hers, as this is the location of her tomb. Thus we can proceed to the words of comfort that dilute the sorrow of story. "Let thy voice cease from weeping, and thy eyes from tears: for there is a reward for thy work, saith the Lord: and they shall return out of the land of the enemy."

Two years ago today, my family was in our parish chapel for Mass. My son, Jack II, a joyful boy that would give Saint Stephen a run for his money in the most angelic face category, was just a tad over two years old. His language was at a stage where he knew very few words of his own, but could do a manageable job of parroting what he's heard. Even before his birth, we thought this boy would one day be a priest. This day of two years ago, he would provide yet another confirmation.

After communion, as the celebrant was finishing with the purification of the sacred vessels, the chapel was silent as can be. My son took advantage of the silence. He had quietly observed Mass from start to finish. He was too young to be bored. His older sister, Jackie I, was at that stage, and she was working her way through that boredom. Jack III wasn't yet a year old.

The priest made his way to the chair to be seated for a moment. At this particular parish chapel, the congregation universally remains kneeling until the closing prayer. As the priest sat down, Jack 2, for no reason we can figure out, shouted twice, "Re-joice!"

This brings to mind the words of Saint Paul from a little over two short weeks previous, "Rejoice in the Lord always! I say it again, rejoice." It's Christmas, of course. This day of Christmas, though, reminds us that the Lord is a sign of contradiction (Luke 2:34, Acts 28:22).

I am come to cast fire on the earth; and what will I, but that it be kindled? And I have a baptism wherewith I am to be baptized: and how am I straitened until it be accomplished? Think ye, that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, no; but separation. For there shall be from henceforth five in one house divided: three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against his father, the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother, the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. (Luke 12:49-53)

Since our first miscarriage, we've had a special connection to this Feast of the Holy Innocents. It's a sad connection, still in the back of our mind wondering what person was lost. Was it a boy or girl? What would he or she have looked like or been like? And try as I do, it is hard to understand why some die before baptism. I certainly have no claim to any merit for my baptism.

It's hard. Any family that's been through it knows that, though the grief is handled in different ways. Most friends of ours are certain that they have saints in Heaven interceding for them. We do pray to our departed children, now three in number. As far as their status, all I have to say is that I don't know and the Church doesn't know. The news is primarily good, though:

As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. (CCC, 1261)

I guess Limbo could be looked at as their worst possible fate, and that should be enough for my peace. Still, there is a pain that we carry. There is a desire that can't be fulfilled. And that's the way it will remain until the day that He fixes the mess that we make.

This day two years ago, we were just two to three weeks from laying to rest our second miscarriage. The death of innocents read in the liturgy was a reminder of the innocents that the Lord himself took, by his own accord, from our joy. Quite appropriately, we often are reminded on this day in the homily that abortion is our modern day equivalent of this biblical slaughter, only on a much higher scale.

But at least the abortionists can't see the face of the children!

How could Herod's thugs have slaughtered children in their mother's arms? This kind of depravity is unimaginable. Certainly not unprecedented - from Genghis Khan to Hitler to Saddam Hussein, we have plenty of examples to show that this kind of depravity is possible. But still beyond imagination.

Similarly, we celebrated the martyrdom of Saint Stephen just two days ago. They stoned him, even though they knew he was innocent. The Sanhedrin saw that he had the face of an angel, the face of innocence, and they still had him stoned.

How could they? How?

Early in Christmas, we commemorate two great acts of murder. It seems so distant from the tranquil adoration of the shepherds just a few days ago. Yet my son had it right. Rejoice! As one man with the blood of Stephen on his hands said, "Rejoice in the Lord always!" These days of Christmas should shock us out of our sentimental picture of an idealistic Nativity scene. The contradiction should not be blurred. If it is blurred, then we'll always be at the whim of apparent fortune.

We must trust in the Lord, as the man with Stephen's blood on his hands once said, "We know that all things work for good for those who love God, who are called according to his purpose." That means abortion, miscarriage, terrorism, despotism, genocide, starvation, etc., etc. Our challenge is to stay in the fight for good, but not be scandalized by the bad. Never get discouraged.

Sorrow is as certain as death and taxes. If rejoicing is a certain reaction for us as well, we'll be much further along. How many of us have looked into the face of Jesus and sinned? We have the blood of God on our hands, yet that same blood can cover our sins. How's that for a contradiction?

As we commemorate the death of innocents this Christmas, let us rejoice. Because to us was born the most innocent of the innocents, who will turn his own murder into our redemption. If the urge hits you, remind the somber that today is a day of Christmas - God came down to us -us in our depravity. No matter what happens, no act of evil will overcome that. Rejoice!

And when I am lifted up from the earth, I will draw everyone to myself. (John 12:32)

Thou must leave thy lowly dwelling,
The humble crib, the stable bare.
Babe, all mortal babes excelling,
Content our earthly lot to share.
Loving father, Loving mother,
Shelter thee with tender care!
Loving father, Loving mother,
Shelter thee with tender care!
Shelter thee with tender care!

Blessed Jesus, we implore thee
With humble love and holy fear.
In the land that lies before thee,
Forget not us who linger here!
May the shepherd's lowly calling,
Ever to thy heart be dear!
May the shepherd's lowly calling,
Ever to thy heart be dear!
Ever to thy heart be dear!

Blest are ye beyond all measure,
Thou happy father, mother mild!
Guard ye well your heav'nly treasure,
The Prince of Peace, The Holy Child!
God go with you, God protect you,
Guide you safely through the wild!
God go with you, God protect you,
Guide you safely through the wild!
Guide you safely through the wild!

A Good Lesson for Advent

This post from the Acton Institute, along with the documentary trailer, really struck me:

Just over a year ago, I traveled with the Acton Institute to Rwanda in preparation for a new project on poverty. Although we were there primarily talking to entrepreneurs about wealth and poverty, it was impossible not to have questions about the 1994 genocide. In less than 100 days, nearly one million people were murdered and tens of thousands were responsible for these deaths. Flying into the country with that knowledge, a mere 14 years later, I didn’t know what to expect. I was anxious and unsettled, the same sort of tension that I felt while visiting Tim’s body at the funeral home. The weight of death stood in stark contrast to such a vibrant culture.

Genocide destroyed Rwanda — socially, economically, and politically. After some measure of stability was restored, the new leaders needed to find a way to further return order and rebuild the infrastructure that was lost. Punishing the murderers and enacting justice was immediately a problem. How do you uphold justice when the guilty are too many to count? The small, landlocked country didn’t have the prison space to lock up all of the killers. With an overwhelming backlog of court cases and little hope of full reparation, Rwanda’s leaders tried something revolutionary. Incarceration and execution were set aside in favor of reconciliation. Beginning in 2003, over 50,000 killers who acknowledged their part in the genocide were released and reintegrated back into society. The doors were opened for genocidaires to live side by side with the surviving members of families they had destroyed.

Advent should help us to face the ugliest elements of our lives, reminded of the shortness of our time to fill the valleys and make low the hills. The Gospel of Gaudette Sunday contains a stark note of caution regarding the One, "...Whose fan is in his hand, and he will purge his floor, and will gather the wheat into his barn; but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire." Few things can focus the need for repentance like examining those in extreme situations:

Filmmaker Laura Waters Hinson jumps headlong into the tension between the justified victim and the repentant killer. Her hour-long documentary, As We Forgive, tells the personal stories of two women struggling to forgive the men who took their families from them. Hinson also shares the testimonies of the men, wracked with grief and remorse, as they do their best to find forgiveness and rebuild trust. With the help of Rwandan mediation groups, the victims and killers meet face to face in an
attempt to reconcile.

There is nothing forced about the forgiveness process Hinson exposes in As We Forgive. She simply uses the camera as a window through which the audience watches it unfold. The story follows Rosaria, who has already forgiven the man who killed her family. Her journey in the film is one of re-building trust. I liked Rosaria immediately and was amazed by the peace and gentleness that flowed from her, despite the incredible hardships. But not so with another woman, Chantal, who has no desire to meet the man who wronged her. The pain she suffered is tangible and forgiveness is nothing compared to the justice she feels she deserves. Hers is a story of deep grief and a desire to withhold forgiveness.

I will never forget the personal stories I heard from the survivors of the genocide during my visit. The stories of the killers, however, were not told nor did I ask to hear them. Hinson, on the other hand, has the insight to recognize the importance of the guilty men’s accounts. Both men describe the darkness that overcame them and how the weight of their actions has affected their lives. Their burden of guilt is heavy and, although terrified to meet and interact with Rosaria and Chantal, both men do whatever they can to redeem themselves.

Anyone else have trouble forgiving those in the family who squeeze the toothpaste from the top of the tube?

Check out the whole post - I think it's a timely subject. While you're doing that, I'll head out to check Home Depot and see if they rent bulldozers. I've got to ramp-up my leveling project.

Next mystagogue project - avoiding the "righteous anger" crutch. [Oh, how I love that one :( ]

UPDATE - I notice that the author of this post is a new contributor to the Acton Institute blog. She's got an interesting video of her own on Rwanda and poverty. Check this out:

Thoughts on Poverty. from Tabitha Blanski on Vimeo.

Drive By Post

A real quick post, and I need to yield the computer to Mrs. Jack.

Do you celebrate Veteran's Day or Martinmas? I'd like to see us blend those traditions together. After all, St. Martin was a veteran, and a little more of a celebration is called for.

Speaking of Veteran's Day, Amy Proctor reports that President Obama still can't make up his mind about what to do in Afghanistan. His "thinking" this strategy over during the two bloodiest months of the war ought to remind voters that elections matter.

On the abortion front, Jeff Miller calls for the wall to come down between social justice and the pro-life effort. Amen. And Michelle Malkin points out the 14th victim of the Fort Hood shooting that the media will never count.

So, you may ask, why is Obama dithering while our military personnel die? Why is there a wall between social justice and the right to life? Why can't the media note the 14th victim? All such questions are answered by that very long post I wrote on the liberal dialectic. Please read it and never question these absurdities again.

UPDATE: Father V. does an excellent job of explaining the logic that favors abortion. Bravo! Along with finding the nearest common ground, true dialog on any important issue must start with defining the argument from the other side, with terms that both sides can agree on. Now, which pro-abortion blogger will step out an do the same from his side?

Can it be that we could exist as a country where one’s conscience can be the determining factor? The question becomes can a people live in unity where one sees a soul-less life to be treated as the “host” wills and the other who sees a person with legal and God given rights of peace, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

I don't expect to see much of a reaction from the other side to an honest debate. That's something that historically hasn't played itself out. Those who subscribe to the liberal dialectic believe that all is fair to champion the oppressed, lies included. The truth is something to be feared. To date, no one has yet explained the pro-choice position on the beginning of life and stuck around to defend their logic. It won't hold up. Unless, of course, someone is honest about it. Then it holds up logically, but opens a new can of worms that would unify the nation against the practice. That's why a close, honest examination of the issue is avoided. In the liberal mind, the end is what matters, and it will be achieved by any means deemed necessary.

Berlin and Fort Hood

UPDATE: Father Sirico has a much more eloquent statement for the occasion. His assessment was bleak, but I loved how he ends on a hopeful note:

Then I remember the years leading up to 1989. The
people who brought that victory about were not defeatist or compliant.

A former Hollywood actor, undaunted by ridicule and
the compromising lethargy of his own party; a Soviet prisoner, Alexander
Solzhenitsyn, reaching from the frozen tundra of the Gulags of the Soviet Empire
and wounding the omnivorous bear with a simple pen; an iron lady in England,
Margaret Thatcher, who didn’t get the memo about the demise of capitalism and
the rise of the Marxist dialectic; a rough and crude Polish shipyard worker,
Lech Walesa, who led a workers’ revolt against the Worker’s Paradise, encouraged
by another Pole, John Paul II, who on his appearance on the world stage bade the
world to throw open the doors to Christ and who, without tanks or military
resources, stood face to face with Soviet puppets who literally trembled at his
calm articulation of the Truth.

It is a remarkable testament to the human thirst
for freedom under such hardship and against such odds—in the midst of
deprivation and with guns pointed at them—all they were able to achieve, these
mothers and fathers of freedom. Their example calls us not to acquiesce to the
softer, more insidious and seductive tyranny of our own time, but to redouble
our efforts.

Their example also calls us to remember what too
many of us today have forgotten: We are beings with a destiny both in and beyond
this world—a destiny which can only be worked out in human freedom.

Twenty years ago today, the Berlin Wall fell. Growing up in the 70’s and 80’s, such an event was unthinkable. We thought of the Reds as strong, inflexible, unbreakable, with a zeal for world domination. The thought then was that the wall would only come down if Soviet expansion assumed the entire city of Berlin, or possibly something worse. It was the symbol of the divide between east and west. In the past, citizen uprisings in Czechoslovakia and Hungary were met with brutal repression. As much as we despised the Wall, most of us were used to the idea of living with it.

Then citizen uprisings began that year. It wasn’t just Berlin. Before the wall fell, also in 1989, citizen movements in Hungary and Poland managed to force multiparty elections, and lo and behold, the communists lost. Soon after November 9th of that year the Velvet revolution toppled the communist government of Czechoslovakia and citizens gained control of the military forces in Romania, closing out 1989 with the hasty executions of Nicolae Ceausescu on Christmas day.

The news was fast and furious and there was giddy hope for the future. Of course, not all was well, as Yugoslavia and China did not adjust well to this new paradigm. Nevertheless, such a stirring victory for human freedom was deemed a fantasy. Looking back, was it not for the courage of men and women who believed in God and our inheritance of Western Civilization, such a glorious day as the fall of the Berlin Wall. The multitude of heros will never be counted in this life, but three names resound today; Reagan, Thatcher, and John Paul the II.

Looking at Reagan in particular, I can only state what I remember from my high school and early college years. It seemed as if he was on an island of his own. When he made his famous speech at the Brandenburg Gates in 1987, many people unduly influenced by the media shrieked with embarrassment that we had such a fool as our leader. I was one such person. His foreign policy was reckless, so we said. And his senile mouth was even more dangerous. We couldn’t wait to rid our nation of this dolt.

Ronald Reagan, to his credit, subscribed to a traditional American school of thought which recognizes the dignity of the human person. His critics, for the most part, do not. They would never admit to that, but the liberal dialectic reduces the person to a set of traits based on accidents of birth or inclinations. And it has so pervaded American thought that I don’t think, 20 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, that we could in our age so valiantly participate in such a noble endeavor.

Recent news mocks this momentous anniversary. I could apply this to the current debate over healthcare, but instead, since other bloggers have written well on the Fort Hood massacre, I will piggy-back on that and look to contrast the weakness of our current times with the strength of the previous generation of leadership.

Former Education Secretary and Drug Czar Bill Bennett zeroed in on this earlier today.

I give you the words of two German Chancellors: Helmut Kohl and Angela Merkel.
When the wall came down, Helmut Kohl told President George H. W. Bush: “Without
the U.S., this day would not have been possible. Tell your people that.” And
last week, Angela Merkel said this:

I think of John F.
Kennedy, who won the hearts of the Berliners, when, during his visit in 1961,
after the wall had been built, he reached out to the desperate citizens of
Berlin by saying, “Ich bin ein Berliner.” I think of Ronald Reagan, who, far
earlier than most, clearly saw the sign of the times and, standing in front of
the Brandenburg Gate, already in 1987, called out, “Mr. Gorbachev, open this
gate. Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.” This appeal shall remain forever in
my heart.

I thank George Herbert Walker Bush for the trust he
placed in Germany and then-Chancellor Helmut Kohl, offering something of
immeasurable value to us Germans already in May 1989: partnership in
leadership. What a generous offer 40 years after the end of the Second World
War.

“Forever in her heart,” “partnership.” “leadership.”
“Immeasurable value.” “Generosity.” That is what the United States of America
stands for, that is what this country dedicated to a proposition stands for.
That is what our men and women in uniform fight for.
…Last week the
battlefield showed itself in one of the most unimaginable places: Ft. Hood,
Texas. We don’t need to wring our hands and our brains to try and figure out the
motive of the terrorist, when someone fires on Americans, killing as many as he
possibly can, shouting “Allahu Akbar,” that is all I need to know. The
question of motive need not be asked, especially not when you have further
evidence of devout religiosity, and vocal criticism of our military missions in
our other battlefields, like Iraq and Afghanistan: all of which was true of
Nidal Hasan.

But there are questions to be asked and I suspect many
of the answers will be unsatisfying — I also suspect we will see memos or some
kind of paperwork on Nidal Hasan that will prove embarrassing to officials in
the FBI, our intelligence services, or the military. There are many stories to
relay relating to Hasan — here’s just one, reported
by the AP: “Fellow students of Hasan in a military training course
complained to the faculty about Hasan’s ‘anti-American propaganda,’ but said a
fear of appearing discriminatory against a Muslim student kept officers from
filing a formal written complaint.”

This last part is one isolated example that showed Maj Hasan had no business on duty. Had this man been a non-Muslim and spouted right-wing hatred in this manner, there is no doubt he would have been stripped of his commission and been closely watched by the FBI, if not incarcerated. As ironic as it sounds, this man could not be treated as if he were a potential Islamic terrorist because he was a Muslim. It sounds silly, but you know that it is true.

This insane political correctness has continued in Orwellian fashion in the aftermath. From President Obama to the talking heads on most of the cable shows, the association of the man’s professed religion and his actions, though obvious to all, has been ignored.

We were instructed twice by the president not to “jump to conclusions”. Of course, that means we aren’t supposed to jump to the obvious conclusion. But, not much more than an hour after the first rounds were discharged into our innocent service men and women, the FBI had no trouble declaring that terrorism wasn’t involved. The media then “jumped” into full gear “conclusion” mode, speculating that gunman was a victim of discrimination and post traumatic stress syndrome (despite his lack of deployment to a combat theater). This is a good roundup of the media “jumping to conclusions”, other than the obvious. The obvious, that this man is a traitor and an Islamic terrorist, is avoided. Days later, it’s still avoided.

The same flawed thinking that fought President Reagan every step of the way has had 20 more years to metastasize and pervade more and more of our institutions; media, education, government, the Church, and even the brave world of our military. So what is going on here? Why is this insanity taking over?

Let it be said that liberals are principled. They just don’t adhere to universal principles in certain, and very important, matters of right and wrong. Dr. Jose Yulo wrote a very short and profound post, the key to unlocking the mind of the liberal, and all of us who are susceptible to it.

The motivation behind the massacre still remains mysterious. What is
intriguing, however, was the quickness with which some news organizations began
the narrative of a soldier ridiculed because of his ethnicity, ultimately
cracking and lashing out in a rage against his perceived persecution. Making
matters more interesting was the possibility of the murders carried out because
of post-traumatic stress, an unusual possibility to say the least since, by
latest account, the attacker had not yet been deployed overseas and therefore
had yet to experience the fire of combat.

Perhaps unknown to its various authors, the roots of this narrative run
deep and parallel to the precedents set forth by certain philosophical schools
in the last century. Paramount here is the dichotomous worldview ham-fistedly
established by Marx and perennially finding converts among cultural elites. The
dialectical clash between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie is often
chameleon-like, assuming the suitable color and hue to fit the assigned
socio-political context.

In the liberation theology of Paulo Freire, the
paradigm of the oppressor and the oppressed takes form as the basis for the
Brazilian's distillation of Socratic dialogue into "conscientization." In this
third world setting, members of the latter class are made aware of their
assigned status and encouraged to rebel, sometimes violently, against the former
since, as Freire claims, rebellion is an "act of love."

Integral in this school of thought is the belief that group membership
in the oppressed class, even removed by both time and current economic
conditions, permits for a looser interpretation of moral norms, enabling a
historically underprivileged group the license to "correct" their plights by
means restricted only by their creativity.

Read the whole article. It’s very important, especially if you’ve ever found yourself questioning the liberal devotions to abortion, reverse-racism, the labor movement, environmentalism, anti-capitalism, sympathy for foreign and domestic communists and terrorists, the peace movement, and a paranoid fear of an imperial United States. In every case, you can cast a group in the role of the bourgeoisie and the opposing group in the role of the proletariat. It’s pretty simple, then, to understand the thinking.

For example, let’s take abortion. In this case. men (that is All Men) are the oppressor group and women are the oppressed. It is clear that there has been a history of male oppression over the physically weaker sex. That is universally understood. So now, with that history, women can be defined as an oppressed group, even if much of that oppression has long past. As an oppressed group, they bear no responsibility for anything they do as a member of that oppressed group. It’s simply a reaction to being a victim. Children, in fact, limit the potential of women to combat this inequality with men, an inequality which renders them victims. They are forced to live pregnant for nine months (something not inhibiting men), nurse (again, something men could not do, even if they wanted to), and nurture the children through their young youth. This limits the potential of a woman who desired to pursue her own career, compete in a male world, and reach what they consider a place of respect. Therefore, abortion is a required option. A) It’s perfectly moral to rectify inequalities and B) even if it were not moral, a woman is a victim and cannot be held responsible for her actions.

You might be tempted to wonder why unborn children are not considered an oppressed class. That’s a good question that needs to be explored, and once answered, could be used to convert more liberals to the pro-life cause. But as my wife, a sociology graduate student, remarked, there have to be hierarchies of the oppressed to order the thinking of elites, and currently woman occupy a high tier than the unborn. My guess would be that woman are outside of the womb, and therefore can complain about their oppression, whereby the unborn cannot. It could be as simple as that.

Please understand, I was once a liberal myself. Having converted through the course of the 90’s, I have to say that I cannot understand my own thinking. But this is how I think it starts. My family was in most ways very traditional. My mother stayed at home and my father worked at the factory. We were a union family. We cared about many issues, but clearly when it came to politics, the issue that trumped all others were labor concerns. Thus, we belonged to our own oppressed class.

Thus, in 1987, I’m a huge Ronald Reagan detractor. But still, despite that, we were still pro-life, and we never subscribed to the grievances of the environmentalists, the gay community, the peace movement, or any of the other liberal groups. They were crazy. Yet, we still loyally voted for candidates who were supported by all those other groups.

I theorize that the rank and file oppressed only subscribe to their own grievance. They generally don’t subscribe to all the other grievances out there that the liberals all embrace. Take the black community as an example. They vote liberal in lock-step since they see themselves as an oppressed group, and their grievances will be addressed by they liberals. But all the studies I’ve seen show that they line up against other liberal causes; gay marriage, abortion, environmentalism, etc. Yet, much like my family, their own grievance trumps all, and that’s the way they vote.

After high school, I went on to college, and moved from being an oppressed to being an elite. Sympathy for one oppressed class can lead to the universal sympathy of liberalism. An elite sees the big picture, recognizes all these oppressed groups, and understands the need for political cooperation in order to accomplish justice for any of them. An elite does not necessarily have to belong to an oppressed class. They only have to be a champion for them. That gives their life meaning. We all want to champion the oppressed, don’t we? In return, the oppressed adopted us. We can, thus, be a member of the oppressed without ever suffering oppression. Pretty good deal, eh?

And what happens when an oppressed member decides to fight for the oppressors? The highest scorn of the oppressed and their elite champions is reserved for the traitor, people like Clarence Thomas and Sarah Palin. Feel free to earn money, social status, and fame, but never turn your back on the people you left behind.

It is a conservative reflex to blame liberals for relativism. That is unfair. As I’ve shown, the liberal dialectic is very defined. But their reactions seem relativistic, since they can see evil and fail to condemn it, as is the case with this Fort Hood shooting. That is, evil from the conservative’s perspective, one that expects people to take responsibility for their own actions and holds them accountable.

When George W. Bush declared what is now known as the Bush Doctrine (any nation that assists the terrorists will be considered as guilty as the terrorists), he was criticized as being simplistic and seeing the world through rigid, black-and-white lenses. How could something so logical be so offensive? This criticism seems kind of relativistic, doesn’t it? Well, when viewed through the liberal dialectic, we, the United States, through our military and economic strength, are the oppressors of the world. Through our support of Israel, we’ve marginalized even further the plight of the Muslim world. So the help that terrorists, who were justified in their outrage against the US, receive from terrorist-sponsoring nations should not be acknowledged, since they obviously need the help to combat the US juggernaut. That isn’t relativistic from their standpoint.

Let me be careful at this point. This doesn’t mean that liberals overtly or covertly support terrorists. However, there is a level of sympathy that prevents them from interiorly condemning them and exteriorly acting on the condemnation. That’s why the president and the media are afraid to admit the obvious, for it might lead to a condemnation of someone who wasn’t responsible for his actions.

So here we are, 20 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, and we in the United States seem to be rapidly adopting the thinking that would have prevented that wall’s momentous fall. Maybe someday I will write on the errors of the conservative dialectic, but I will have to recognize that error first. I have no doubt that errors are there (especially when I continue to hear prominent conservatives insist that healthcare is not a right), but I don’t think in this era that they are important. Right now, the call to intellectual arms needs to favor an end to this group dialectic which is destroying our ability to see and respond to the truth.

By the way, this, again, is why we homeschool.

Catholic Culture

"And if the watchman see the sword coming, and sound not the trumpet: and the people look not to themselves, and the sword come, and cut off a soul from among them: he indeed is taken away in his iniquity, but I will require his blood at the hand of the watchman. 7 So thou, O son of man, I have made thee a watchman to the house of Israel: therefore thou shalt hear the word from my mouth, and shalt tell it them from me." (Ez 33:6-7)

I'd like to take this opportunity to put a plug in for a website that keeps delivering time and time again. For years, my homepage was CatholicCulture.org. It was a website that served as a clearinghouse for useful Catholic information, dealing in both current and timeless issues. Right as the page opened, we would see where we were on the liturgical calender, see the Collect from the mass, find headlines on news related to the Church, read solidly Catholic commentary, and have easy access to devotions, crafts, and recipes for the Domestic Church. They have an impressive library of documents and public domain publications to research just about anything Catholic.

This website has undergone some changes over the years, most particularly a merger with their then sister website, the Catholic World News. Some of the information takes some searching these days, but all the stuff is still there.

My homepage was changed recently to the Blogger Dashboard so that I can follow the better bloggers out there. But we are still a monthly financial contributor and visit their website often. I cannot recommend a better website out there for daily immersion in your Catholic faith.

Their main contributors, Dr. Jeff Mirus and Phil Lawler, speak their minds. They are very respectful and humble, yet they have to courage to offer their opinions on controversial matters, even as their enterprise depends on donations from readers and faithful dealings with the Bishops. A quick search of their documents shows that they take a skeptical view of Medjugorje, something certain to alienate a large portion of potential readers. They also won't shy away from reporting unflattering information that may hurt fundraising efforts of the USCCB's pet projects. If there is an alarm that needs to be raised, they will do their duty.

So please visit them often, and contribute if you like what you see. I'm sure in these current economic times, they could use the boost. Also, keep an eye on their blog. Just this morning, Lawler is offering a couple of interesting contributions of interest to all Catholics.

For instance, recall my post on education that had some unflattering characterizations of the current Health Care Reform debate. But with a Culture of Death administration and a Culture of Death congress pushing health care reform, why have the Bishops for the most part remained on the sidelines? Mr. Lawler writes respectfully of the second Catholic contingent in this debate:

"This difference in perspectives, I think, is at the heart of the recent debate among Catholics over questions such as whether or not Catholic Charities should support health-care reform legislation. Some Catholics-- let's put the folks from Catholic Charities in this category-- have been working hard to enact health-care reform. Now the time is ripe, there's plenty of momentum behind the effort, and they're frustrated to see that the abortion issue is jeopardizing all the progress. That's understandable."

Also offered this morning is an important issue to ALWAYS keep in the forefront of our daily lives. Lawler reminds us of the persecution of the Church in India, a nation in which the United States has taken a growing economic interest(my emphasis in bold):

"Over the years we have carried literally hundreds of stories about the sufferings of Christians in India-- as well as the trials that our Christians brethren face in other countries. (See today's Feature about the latest fervent pleas by Vietnamese Catholics for an end to government oppression.) But I'm sorry to say that these stories attract fewer readers than most other CWN headlines. That's a shame-- literally-- because Alex Kannattumadom is right. Wherever Christians are suffering for the faith, they deserve our support.

Maybe there isn't much that we can do to help our fellow Catholics living thousands of miles away, apart from praying for them. But prayer is the most important step that we could take to preserve their hope and their courage. And the knowledge that we are praying for them should bolster their morale."

By all means, pay close attention to what's going on at Catholic Culture. I can attest that these guys will keep you better informed Catholics.

Welcome to 1984

There are many reasons for homeschooling. It’s a very useful means to pass along the Catholic faith and a sure means of avoiding the leftwing indoctrination towards relativism, diversity, environmentalism, and sexualization. For those who don’t have the means to homeschool or send their kids to a private school that won’t push such nonsense, parents have a responsibility to de-indoctrinate their kids at home, and thankfully many parents are doing this.

When asked about our reasons for homeschooling, Mrs. Jack’s primary response is that we want to provide our kids with a classical education. Along with mathematics, art, science and faith, it is very important to us that our kids are well-grounded in the classical trivium (grammar, logic, and rhetoric). This is the learning style that built Western Civilization. That same civilization that has dominated the earth for the last 2,500 years. There was sound reasoning behind this style. Our modern schools for the most part have shrugged this in favor of a style that is primarily indoctrination and secondarily k through 12 day-care.

It’s one thing to be Catholic. Yes, we are weird. For good reason, we’re peculiar. That’s understandable, and it has always been so from the birth of the Church nearly 2000 years ago. But here in the United States, natural human reason is now a rare commodity. The history of mankind has been best characterized by “might makes right”. But in our grand experiment here in the United States, the respect for the God-given freedom and sovereignty of the individual has allowed for us as a nation to actually be right most of the time. Though we’ve gotten some things terribly wrong (slavery comes to mind), peoples’ pursuit of happiness generally leads them closer to truth. But if we dismiss our educational inheritance, we will become pawns of our passions and easily manipulated by those whose passion is power. The United States of America could very possibly slip into tyranny.

Mrs. Jack has seen this first-hand, as she has instructed and assisted at university classes at a major state institution. This is a center of learning with a respected academic reputation in this field, yet to witness it from the inside, Mrs. Jack wonders how bad it must be at the mediocre universities. Students are only concerned about memorizing what they need to for the tests. And instructors are all-too eager to spoon feed these students what they want them know. Students receive a very narrow education, so narrow and manipulative that in some cases, they actually leave the class less intelligent than when they entered. The idea of learning wisdom from the great minds and works of a chosen academic field is lost. What its been replaced with is learning the various agendas of the instructors just enough to score well.

I think all of us have seen the loss of honest debate. We used to have a news media that would prevent people from telling lies. If some major figure lied to the country, he ran the risk of being exposed as a liar and ruining his reputation. That didn’t completely prevent people from lying, but it has at least held our civic leaders somewhat in check.

People who are younger than me may not remember what it was like to have a somewhat honest media. They have always been liberal, but they did a better job giving our people the whole story than they do today. What we’ve seen in the last few years has been steady progression towards an altered reality.

Most people can remember in the 2004 presidential election, when bloggers and swiftboat veterans were questioning Candidate John Kerry’s account of his service record and clearly caught him in a lie. The main-stream media avoided the story, either pleading ignorance, or dismissing the bloggers and veterans as nut-jobs and liars. On the other hand, they couldn’t wait to trash President Bush’s service record, so anxious that they ran with documents that were obvious forgeries. In fact, President Bush’s entire eight years, minus a short 9/11 honeymoon, was under constant fire from a press that would gin-up stories and keep him under relentless attack.

Now it’s even worse. Barrack Obama, who’s past was carefully hidden by the same media that left no stone unturned when it came to a conservative vice-presidential candidate, became president, and the Whitehouse press corps was transformed from rabid vermin to parrots and pack-mules.

In George Orwell’s novel 1984, his protagonist works for the Ministry of Truth, the official government agency that delivers the news to their people. This is the key to the control of the people. With the exclusive authority to deliver information, the citizens of Oceana are manipulated in any way the state deems it necessary. 1984 didn’t introduce this concept. We have already seen this played out throughout history. The United States and other places that take their God-given right to a free press seriously are truly the exception.

But what if? What if the free press voluntarily decides to support one side? What if, in mass, all the various private agencies that deliver the news decide that they are going to support a specific agenda? Could the same propaganda effect of 1984’s Ministry of Truth be accomplished through voluntary compliance?

We are certain to find out if we watch for it, because that is exactly what is evolving right before our eyes. It has been in the process for many years. For instance, how did Senator Ted Kennedy get away with his baseless screed against Judge Robert Bork in 1987? And how about that “crisis” of the government shutdown in 1995? In both cases, the media failed to report the whole story, but propagated the lies of the liberal agenda toward a successful outcome. But as time has gone on, past attempts of the media to manipulate public opinion look modest by comparison.

Take President Obama’s Town Hall this past Tuesday. In public and on the record, he took a room stacked with supporters and told lie after lie after lie after lie (Imagine Bush attempting something like that?). We have the black and white text of the bills running through the House and Senate, but Obama won’t address the specifics, continually addressing generalities which are contradicted by the language of the bills. The news media, rather than call him out for that, continues to run with these lies as if they are the truth, and tries to portray those who point out the lies and the real agenda behind Obamacare as kooks.

It’s gotten to the point now that they go after a Senator that gives veiled credence to the possibility of a “Death Panel”, suggesting that he should be censured.

Has it really come to that. A Senator is to be censured for admitting what is obviously in the bill, while the media angrily insists it is not?

The Granted, these two fools are liberal commentators, but in a forum of honest debate, they wouldn’t be allowed anywhere near a respectable news outlet.

We have a media that promotes lies and selectively covers stories to provide their viewers with an altered reality, specifically designed to promote the same left-wing agenda as the current administration. Unlike 1984, there appears to be no central authority controlling this. Neither is there a central authority filling our universities and entertainment media with left-wingers. This has simply happened as a matter of natural progression. How? Well, a qualified and honest sociologist might be useful to present a theory. But thanks to the deterioration of the academics, good like finding a sociologist without an agenda willing to take this question on. But while I’m at a loss as to how to explain how it happened, I can easily answer what enabled it.

If you sent your child to a university and found that they were teaching him insane ideas, and they were training him to be an imbecile, what would you do? Of course, you would stop wasting your money on an institution that was wasting the intellect of your child. But universities spent centuries developing public trust. With that trust in hand, who are we to question it? In the past, instructors would have to defend their teachings in public, before all to hear, and they had to adhere to logic, rhetoric, and the scientific method. And that defense was not a one-time deal. It could occur at any lecture or public forum, and could happen at any point during a career. Instructors who couldn’t adhere to these principles didn’t last. Nowadays, defenses are conducted in limited circles, and if you find a circle of fools, you too can be a respected scholar.

That’s the problem. We don’t even know how to defend common sense, let alone complex issues. As our society has drifted from the model of a classical education, we now no longer have a capacity to debate issues. Passions now drive the masses. We begin with a conclusion based on feelings, and we need not reach it with sound logic, nor defend it with sound rhetoric. Respect for differing opinions is dead because those opinions either aren’t presented well or, when actually well-presented, they aren’t heard. All that matters is how we feel.

Feelings are very important. They are there for a very important reason – to act as a check again faulty reasoning, or to take-over when the time is not there to think things through. But they cannot replace thinking. There once was a time when serious debates took place. People put their feelings aside, listened, and respect both. Now when a serious debate takes place, it’s a game of how many lies you can tell, worried not that a compliant media will expose you after the debate.

We continue, in more rapid fashion, drifting towards Orwell’s 1984, even if it is not in the way Orwell supposed. In the past, I believe our grounding in a classical trivium allowed us to separate truth from lie and prevent this oligarchic team from forming. Now, without that grounding, education is no longer a passing of wisdom and the tools to grow. Instead, we are used to being spoon-fed how to think. And now, who are we to question what we are being told?

I am encouraged by current events which show that people are standing up to the lies. We haven’t entirely forgotten our American instincts. However, our current state is so bleak, I don’t know if we will always be able to walk away from totalitarianism unless we reclaim our educational inheritance.

That is why we homeschool. And while we do it, we also need to evangelize this priceless gift from the past. Future generations depend on our society reclaiming a classical education.

She didn't just say that...

You've got to be kidding me. Either I'm completely out of touch or this person is. I scanned the headlines and found the most bizarre headline:

Without a Doubt:

Why Barack Obama represents American Catholics better than the pope does.

What? Oh, let me guess. As Americans, we're smarter than the rest of the Church. We know Jesus better than those old guys at the Vatican. We've advanced further and discovered things they have yet to tap into. We've inherited some sort of nuanced enlightenment by virtue of our geography.

Might this article contain something other than the tired-old sound bytes about reducing (not ending) abortions and helping the poor by creating secular government bureaucracies to distribute our love?

Nope. But this article is still a great read, because it goes beyond the sound byte and provides the depth (or shallowness?) of this person's lack of ascent. Finally, someone from the liberal church has the guts to explain herself completely and expose the arrogance, egotism, and complete disregard for the virtue of obedience.

The entire article is an outrage. I'll quote this one snippet:

"Before he became John Paul II, Karol Wojtyla had a telling all-or-nothing formulation: "If it should be decided that contraception is not an evil in itself then we should have to concede frankly that the Holy Spirit is on the side of the Protestant Churches."

That attitude has resulted in some heinous decisions."

Oh, I see. The entire magisterial teaching on the use of contraception can be reduced to our Church leaders not wanting to admit a mistake. This, from a person claiming earlier in the article that...

"... listening to the other has been a particular stumbling block for the Catholic hierarchy"

Hipocracy, thy name is Kathleen Kennedy Townsend. If you had bothered to actually read Humanae Vitae, and the teaching of His Late Holiness John Paul II, you would not detract from these beautiful and divinely inspired teachings by reducing them to the sin of pride, which unfortunately is something that you understand quite personally and to which you can obviously relate (judging alone from this article, this conclusion is unmistakable).

Let me explain. We are Catholic Americans. Yes, we have our own culture that we value. We do things differently and have our own attitude, and a unique identity. But the "Catholic" comes first. We are not American Catholics. Were we to be American Catholics, we would cease to be catholic. By it's very name, "Catholic" transcends lesser characteristics of our person. Were these lesser characteristics to be greater, we would cease being catholic. What made the Catholic Church catholic was when there became no distinction between Jew or Gentile, Hebrew, Samaritan, or Greek. We are a family of faith that works in the USA, England, Lebanon, India, China, Australia, and Ghana. All of us connected by one God, one faith, one baptism. The second we start believing in ourselves above the mystical body of Christ, we become heretics, separated brethren. We become Martin Luther, Henry VIII, or Bishop Marcel Lefevre. Our Lord said, "You be one, or you be not mine."

This person needs so many prayers. Please pray for her. And she's not alone. Our parishes have many just like her. It is a fundamental hang-up that I suffered from most of my life. It really is, in my opinion, and denial of the divine. We want to believe in our own infallibility, or at least our own ultimate authority in our lives. We look at the Church as a man-made, fallible institution, not is the mystical body and bride of Christ. And we can't look beyond our own prism, which is this case is one in which all matters can be reduced to politics. When I was there, many good Catholics prayed for me. I have so far to go, I know, but at least I'm not THERE any more, thanks to God's grace and prayerful Catholics.

He is infinite. He can bring the coldest hearts and the stiffest necks back home. The mindset of the liberal church is insurmountable through reason. But it's nothing for God. I will be turning my offense into prayer. If He is just waiting for us to ask, let Him wait no longer.

I'm Speechless

I read this article today, and I can't help but to post it. I mean, it simply blows my mind. This guy almost won a pulitzer prize once.

Abortion is murder. In my view women have--and ought to continue to have--the right to murder their unborn babies. Each abortion is a tragedy, some necessary and others not, and all of them are murder. It's not a position that I'm comfortable with. But as sad and horrible as abortion is, I can't see telling a woman who doesn't want to carry a pregnancy to term that she has to do so.

I'd love comments, because I can't comment on the article on that site. And I'm having trouble processing it.

Defining Moment?

You have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thy enemy.  But I say to you, Love your enemies: do good to them that hate you: and pray for them that persecute and calumniate you:  That you may be the children of your Father who is in heaven, who maketh his sun to rise upon the good, and bad, and raineth upon the just and the unjust.  For if you love them that love you, what reward shall you have? do not even the publicans this?  And if you salute your brethren only, what do you more? do not also the heathens this?  Be you therefore perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect.  (Mt 5:43-47)

Timing is such a mystery.  Today, at about the same time (give or take a few hours) thousands, if not millions, of people in our country were offering the sacrifice of our Lord for an end to abortion, a gunman was entering a Lutheran church to turn a notorious abortionist into a martyr.  What are you up to Lord?

I often ask that question.  I appreciate the fact that He tolerates such questions from finite creatures.

A few things come to mind.

1.       -- The murder of George Tiller will be manipulated to silence the pro-life movement.  He is now the trump card to silence all debate, today and for the next 20 years.  Here are the “facts” that the pro-death mentality will make the following assumption, which they do in many cases:  Criminals, like this gunman, aren’t really responsible for their own actions.  Sociological elements cause such behavior.  This gunman, therefore, is the product of the groups that promote the idea that abortion actually kills a human being.  So if you oppose abortion, you are encouraging acts like this.  DON’T BE SILENCED!  PUT THEM ON THE DEFENSIVE! It's important to understand that these people have a self-serving agenda, and explaining to them a thousand times over the next ten years that you don’t condone the murder of abortionists plays right into their hands.  Don’t play that game.  “So, are you accusing me of murder?”  Make them answer that question, yes or no.  Don’t let the conversation go any further until they give you a definitive answer.  If the answer is “no”, then they have no business linking your pro-life views with the actions of a terrorist.  If the answer is “yes”, then you need to call a spade a spade.  “Maybe in your Orwellian universe it is murder to support the lives of unborn children, but that stands to reason, since it was similar logic that allowed, and continues to allow, millions of unborn children to die year after year.”  Counterattack the logic in short-order.  Abortion proponents have been waiting for this moment to turn the tables on the pro-life movement.  They wont’ let it pass.  Don’t run.  Meet them head on.  And whatever you do, do not wear this man.  Make the abortion advocate wear their lame attempt to silence and brand you.

2.      -- The murder of unborn children happens silently, while abortionists get front page attention.  By my count, this is 6 abortionists and their staff to be murdered since 1993.  In that same time period, there have been about 20 million unborn children killed in their mother’s wombs by surgical abortion.  Every life is precious to God.  So we cannot simply write-off six lives as insignificant.  But neither can we ignore the disparity.  Being an abortionist is dangerous, but much less dangerous than being an unborn child.  Keep this reality in mind as the media targets the pro-life movement.

3.      -- Do you take our Lord seriously when he tells you to love your enemy?  Well, here He is presenting an excellent opportunity.  Tiller is a particularly egregious foe.  His participation in needless late-term abortions means that this man brutally killed many helpless children at a stage in life when they were unmistakably human.  This is about as cold-blooded as it gets.  Did he die in his rebellion or did he receive final mercy?  We don’t know.  His particular judgment is likely over.  But our God is not bound by time.  We can pray now that this man repented at the moment of his death and was spared eternal fire.  Both God and Satan want his soul.  I don’t think it does us much good to side with Satan on anything.  So please, offer prayer  that Tiller be granted eternal joy, as well as all his supporters in the pro-death camp.  Rosary, Mass or Divine Office intentions would be best, but offer something for this poor soul.  That’s about the only love we have left to offer George Tiller.  But at least it is something, and it may make a difference for him. 

It’s important to remember in times like these to avoid cynicism.  “And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all things to myself.” (John 12:32) God seems to be littering our world with crosses.  A person of faith, as we all should be, should gaze out on those crosses and praise God for drawing the world closer to Himself.  That is his promise, and that should be our hope.

As always, act as a Christian should.  The murder of George Tiller could be a defining moment in the pro-life movement.  Will we go forth or retreat?  Stay faithful, and you put the definition on this moment.  Don't let the pro-abortionists and one lunatic terrorist do it for you.

We've just celebrated the mass of Pentecost.  Now is not the time to hide the truth, but proclaim it without fear.  "The Spirit of the Lord fills the whole world. It holds all things together and knows every word spoken by man, alleluia." (Wisdom 1:7, Introit for Pentecost)

Update: Jeff Miller has a roundup of some reactions from Catholic bloggers.  While you're praying for Tiller, remember also his grieving family.

The Fighting Relativists of ND - Post Script

I'm not really feeling inspired enough to produce a blog post. However, I am motivated to bury the post directly below this one. Despite Andy's well intentioned point, posting videos of such a grotesque nature might be offensive to certain classes of people, for instance, people who breathe.

So, on to Notre Dame. I must confess that as one who was an avid college football fan before becoming an avid Catholic, I have had little regard for the University of Notre Dame, the prima donna of the college football community. Too good to join an athletic conference. Too fawned-over to actually have to have a decent team in order to be ranked. So worshiped by the sports media that they get opportunities not afforded to other teams (like getting a shot an #1 Florida in in the 1992 Sugar Bowl).

Now things are different, and, unfortunately, my attitude hasn't changed much. I'm not at all thrilled that they have a mural of the Risen Lord that they trivialize by calling it "Touchdown Jesus". And they employ on their Theology staff a Fr. McBrien, who's never found a doctrinal error that he didn't want to teach.

In short, Notre Dame did not impress the secularistic or the theistic portions of my life. But three years ago, something happened that made me reconsider. Father Jenkins, the university president, voiced a marvelous critique of Vagina Monologues, and seemed to be signally an eventual ban from the Notre Dame campus. Progress, so I thought, initiated by a courageous priest willing to stand-up for Catholicism in the midst of the antithetical world of American academia. That lasted a few weeks before he folded like the football team did against Oregon State in the Fiesta Bowl (or the Insight.Com Bowl, take your pick). Any thoughts of sending my kids there lasted for the same few weeks.

So as far as Obama's honorary degree and his commencement speech go, I have to say that I'm encouraged by the fact that some Catholics put up a fights. Over 70 bishops penned their disapproval! When have we ever seen that? And while the mainstream media avoided the condemnations and protests, noting them only to display them as freakish, the news that Notre Dame won't honor a basic moral principle is out, and they will be damaged goods to faithful Catholics until they clean house.

Father Z followed the story tenaciously, and he seems a little discouraged by the outcome. But still looking forward, he offers a solution to this and other deeply rooted problems within the Catholic community.

We are not getting the fullness of the Church’s teachings from Notre Dame or other, now lesser, water carriers of the secularist agenda. We are not getting it from very many of our leaders in the Church.

And so…

I urge all priests and bishops who read this blog with any slight quaver of resonance or benevolence, to consider this with care:

If you sense that something quite serious and important is going on right now, for the love of God rethink your approach to how you foster Holy Church’s proper public worship.

Do all in your power and through your influence to foster a worship of God which conforms not to worldly goals – as praiseworthy as they may be in a world still dominated by its dire prince – but rather to the real point of religion: an encounter with mystery.

Our worship must become more and more focused on the one who is Other. Seek what is truly above in your rites and raise people to encounter mystery.

You will be challenged and reviled, blocked and attacked as you do. You will be worn down and afraid under the weight of resistance.

But I think that to save the world we must save the liturgy.

Sunday reaffirmed this for me.

They can’t compete with the fullness of Catholic liturgy and sound preaching.

Reforming the liturgy along the lines Pope Benedict has proposed may be the most loving and effective option we have in these ever hotter times.

People will have to keep working very much in the sphere of the secular. Of course! Our inward Catholic Christian identity must find outward expression and bring concrete fruits.

But I think the real work now – where we will make some effective headway – must be done at the level of our public worship.

It always keeps coming back to that.