It’s First Thursday–Remember to Dedicate Priests to the Sacred Heart

In this Year of Priests, the Holy Father has offered a Plenary Indulgence, under usual conditions, to those who, while in church, commit all priests to the protection of the Sacred Heart of Jesus.

Facing Death . . . over, and over, and over

I’m not talking about some science fiction story here.

Most adults have probably had some “brush with death” in their life by the time they reach their 30s, whether it’s a diagnosis–or possible diagnosis–of a life threatening illness, an accident, or whatever.  Even just contemplating the death of someone we know puts us in touch with our own mortality.

There are several approaches to the idea of impending death:

• “Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die” — or anything to that effect
• Making sure your loved ones know you care
• Getting very spiritual very fast
• Despair
• Working hard to get something accomplished.

What few people have to deal with is the constant awareness that, not only are they mortal, but there’s a relatively high probability they could die today.  And don’t tell me, “You could be hit by a bus.”  I get sick of hearing that response (or words to that effect).

If a person says, “Oh, no!  What if I get hit by a bus?” all the tiem, that’s generally considered being paranoid and/or phobic.

It is not paranoid and/or phobic for a Marfan, especially a post-operative Marfan with a St. Jude valve, a daily dose of Warfarin (aka Rat Poison), a brain aneurysm, and a thoracic aortic aneurysm to think, “What if I die today?”  Especially when one hears of middle-aged Marfans whose aortas dissect simply from the strain of coughing.

Today, I learned of a 16 year old girl who died of Marfan syndrome on October 9.  Her name was Madison Beaudroux.  She told her sister, “I feel like I’m going to pass out.”  She did, and those were her last words.

Every day, there’s some point where I feel like I’m going to pass out, and I often think at those moments, “What if I’m dying?”

Sometimes, I just get in so much pain that I don’t quite “pass out” or fall asleep, but I just kind of hunch over and close my eyes and stay perfectly still.  I think, “What if I die like this?” or, more precisely, “If I had just died, would anyone have noticed?”

Every day, I consider each of those above options to some degree or another.  Usually one or another predominates the others, depending upon my mood, circumstances, etc. 

Every time I get up to do something mildly strenuous, I stop and think, “What if this is the strain that pushes me over the edge?  Will this be worth it?”

What of my duties to this family God has given me?  Is it better to push myself to the limits for them and die or to hold back and be there for them?   Would I not be of more use to them as a saint in Heaven than as a cripple here on earth?
What of my duties to this body God has given me?  Is it merely a mere “coil” to be “shuffled off”?  Is it essentially a burden to be relieved from or a treasure to be protected? How to walk that line?

What of the sins I commit in thought and deed and ommission because of the strain my constant pain and fatigue put on my conscience?  Are the pain and fatigue merely the devil pressuring me to sin?  Will God show me mercy if I can’t get to Confession in time to once again confess the same bad habits and mindsets I fall back into over and over?  What if I’m not detached enough?  What if I’m just excusing myself? 

Have mercy on us, and on the whole world.

“The only thing certain about the missing link is that it’s missing.” –G.K. Chesterton

Evolution, we’re told, is dogma.  Strangely, when every other area of modern science admits to being subject to revision, evolution is held dogmatically.  It can’t be disproven.  The evidentiary holes and logical leaps used by evolutionists are to be ignored and unchallenged.

Yet, every so often, as today, there’s a report that rattles the bones of evolutionists and shakes up their “conventional wisdom” like a student playing with a laboratory skeleton. . . . .

“Lucy” is not the common ancestor of chimps and humans. They’ve found a 4.4 million year old skeleton that has human-like features that apes do not have.  They emphasize that “apes evolved differently,” of course. 

But, the real point is that every direct human ancestor they can find points to the idea that humans at least separated from other primates a *long* time ago. 

Here’s a legitimate question: how do they know these things had hair?

Egyptians Claim to find evidence of Joseph

Egyptian archaeologists have found ancient coins bearing the inscriptions of Pharoahs and other important figures . Among the coins are coins bearing the image of a man identified as “Joseph,” the Pharoah’s treasurer.

Episcopal support for Christopher West

Justin Cardinal Rigali and Bishop Kevin Rhoades have offered support for Christopher West in the debate over his work. They contend that West is doing work that needs to be done, even if his approach may be controversial to some, and commend West for his openness to criticism and revision.

Paraphrasing a friend of mine, why is there a white woman on the cover of _Ebony_?

Ever since Michael Jackson died, and especially since Ted Kennedy died, I’ve been thinking of a feature story Fr. George Rutler had in the November 1997 Crisis: “Speaking Well of the Dead.”   Well, Catholicity.com has reprinted it, and here it is!

On July 29, 1997, a representative philosophe of our abortion culture, retired Supreme Court Justice William Brennan, was lavishly eulogized in St. Matthew’s Cathedral in Washington, D.C., where the Requiem Mass for President Kennedy had been sung in 1963. Richard Cardinal Cushing was relatively constrained back then, because liturgical depredations had not yet switched into high gear. It was not thus when President Clinton, who vetoed the ban on partial-birth abortions, was permitted to announce to all corners of the cathedral for consumption in all corners of the world: “Brennan’s America is America at its best.” That is, internecine America is at its best with 39 million fewer children than would have been born were it not for Brennan’s eisegesis of the Constitution. Attorney General Janet Reno later said in a speech to the American Bar Association that the honors paid to Brennan in St. Matthew’s Cathedral inspired her to go on.

. . .

Once in a press conference in which he distanced himself from the angels on significant points of behavior, Senator Edward Kennedy said that St. Thomas More had been “intolerant.” The saint indeed had been intolerant, but of falseness. The logician in him would have found grotesque the Orwellian doublethink of the priest-eulogist who said that one way to honor Brennan’s memory would be to help “a young pregnant girl.” The jurist in him would have raised an eyebrow when the priest declared: “The Brennan mind met the Brennan heart, and in their perfect match was the secret greatness of our friend.” A meeting of mind and heart is anatomically difficult when there is a spine; and when More insisted on this point, his King obliged with an ax. In the majority opinion on Roe v. Wade, Brennan concurring, mind and heart congealed to produce the words: “If the human race is to survive, pregnancy will always be with us.” The twentieth century has taught that such banality can be the diction of cruelty incarnadine.

Senator Kennedy often seems innocent of historical information, as he was in an interview with an Italian reporter in 1982 when he placed the Battle of Lepanto in the Second World War. This has made him a much sought-after eulogist. Except for his recidivistic neglect of verbs, the rhetorical senator can excel Bossuet on the death of the Prince de Condé. At a requiem for Mr. Stephen Smith, he pictured his father and brothers playing golf on a cloud with his spontaneously beatified brother-in-law. The press quoted this recreational account of the Beatific Vision with murmurs of approval.

It is not that Senator Kennedy should have said anything tactless over the corpse, or that he should have mentioned some more vigorous sport instead; he simply should not have been saying anything at all from the pulpit. [emphasis added]

That bit about the mind and heart is one of my all-time favorite quotations.

Read the rest.  It is both hilarious and insightful, and just as true about the Celebrity Canonizations of 2009 as of the ones in 1997.

The Jeffersonian Ideal and the Internet

Many of the colonists who came to America from the British Isles came religious groups seeking a place where they could be free to practice their religions.  There were already pockets of Dutch, German, Spanish, and French colonists.  Even the differences between English, Welsh, Scottish and Irish settlers.  .. . Everyone settled in small communities based upon religion or ethnicity, and the they lived together in those close-knit communities, either in small villages and farms or in city ghettoes. 
This led to the “Jeffersonian ideal,” the homogeneous community.  Ironically, Jefferson himself expressed the hope that freedom of religion would lead to all Americans becoming Unitarians.  However, he still promoted the idea that the United States of America should be a perfectly subsidiarist system.

An extremely limited federal government was only supposed to regulate interstate and international matters–nothing more.

States may have had a little more power than the federal government, but most matters were to be handled at the local level.

This is where “town halls,” of course, came from: the literal town hall meeting of people in a local community.  And “parties” were just that: you got together for a barbecue with a bunch of like-minded people and decided which of your like-minded people you were going to put in office. 

People say today that the electoral college is “obsolete.”  It really isn’t.  It’s still the same thing.  The average person is never going to get to know any presidential candidate beyond a possible handshake.  But the average person *can* find out who his or her local elector is, and then get to know that person. 

Anyway, the idea behind our representative system was not just that representatives at state and federal levels would represent geographic regions but that those geographic regoins would, in turn, have common belief systems.  The presumption was that villages and towns would largely be populated by like-minded people, so the representative elected to serve a locality would reflect the beliefs of his or her locality; collectively, the state legislatures were presumed to represent the overall culture and beliefs of their states, which is why they elected senators.

All of this has been largely abandoned as our nation has grown.  Somewhere along the line, homoegeneous communities were replaced with melting pots as the American “ideal.”

This progressed to everyone learning to “get along.”

Ironically, today, the Internet has provided a new form of the “Jeffersonian ideal.” 

Our society has not become a melting pot so much as a soup.  We’re not all melted together into indistinguishable mush, though many of us are.  Instead, we’re a mixture of distinct beliefs and ideas. 

The problem is the mixture doesn’t always make a very tasty soup.  We’re not just a mixture of metaphorical carrots and potatoes and celery, but we’re like minestrone, chicken noodle soup, cream of mushroom, chili and clam chowder all dumped into the same pot.

So the lonely little pea in our culture spends most of his day floating in the gruel, trying to find someone he can relate to. 

That’s where the internet comes in.  Today’s homoegeneous communities are not to be found geographically but virtually, on blogs, and message boards, listservs and Facebook networks.

Whether it’s a commonality of religion, or politics, or morality, or gardening, or toy collecting or soap operas, people seek out those they share things in common with.

And these groups are sharing information amongst each other and unifying as voices for change.   Like minded people can share controversial news and take on whatever power structure it is–corporations, Hollywood, churches or governments–in a way that has been unprecedented, except perhaps for the earliest days of America.  That is why the “culture of the Internet,” so often derided, is very similar, whether one is speaking of fandoms, religious groups, consumer groups, hobbyists or political groups.

And that’s why it is so threatening to those in power.

The sociologists and other “experts” tell us how “dangerous” it is that people are connecting online, sharing ideas with likeminded people rather than mixing–kind of like what they say about homeschooling versus public schooling.

Is the situation dangerous for the individuals engaging in it?  Or is it dangerous for those in power, and the “melting pot” ideal that keeps them in power?

Ironically, the Internet is providing more than just a means for people to connect virtually and ideologically.  People meet online, whether through matchmaking services or just through regular social networks and discussion groups, based upon shared beliefs, and then get married, raising families based upon those values.

People organize get togethers, and eventually conventions, based upon their online relationships, adding greater cohesion to these new forming groups.  Indeed, realizing the limitations of online communication only, people do their best to use it as a tool to meet like minded people “in person” whenever possible.

*This* is what is so threatening to those in power. 

You can go online now and find a Latin Mass, or a Byzantine Liturgy, or, if it suits you, a clown mass with a gay priest.  Before the Internet, such selectivity was nigh-impossible. 

You can go online and find an NFP only pro-life physician.  You can find a homeschooling group.  You can find a house.  A job. 

A few years ago, I read about a fellow who found a small town with a low cost of living and  a fantastic Catholic parish.  He invited like-minded friends and relatives to come check it out, helped them find jobs and houses, and basically colonized the town with like-minded Catholics.

The Internet makes this possible. 

The very thing that Steve Jobs and Bill Gates thought would perfect the progressive ideal will end up sabotaging it, however gradually.

Most recently, it seems to be facilitating the progressives, as embodied by the Obama election.  But progressives have no core values to maintain their ideology.  Progressivism is a self-defeating ideology because it leads to anarchism.

I’ve long felt that those who voted out the Republicans in 2006 and those who voted in Obama last year were not so much voting *for* anything as *against.*  Obama campaigned on “change”.  Eventually, if you just keep “changing” for its own sake, you’re gonna end up with nothing left to change to except chaos.

Meanwhile, as Deacon Paul Weyrich predicted 10 years ago in his open letter declaring that we’d lost the Culture Wars, traditionalists are gathering in small enclaves, hunting down towns and parishes that are sympathetic, connecting online, homeschooling, etc.

When was the last time you heard a Bishop speak against contraception?

Fr. Tom Bartolomeo had the nerve to preach against artificial contraception, a topic which, before Vatican II, priests were required to preach on at least once per year, and he was removed from his parish for it.

Bishop Joseph Martino resigns shortly after Archbishop Michael Sheehan of Santa Fe says some bishops are too outspoken on “abortion and the other stuff.”

The USCCB’s “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship” document, supposedly a summary of Catholic social teaching, never even mentions “birth control” or “contraception,” even though Mater et Magistra says that

189.  Besides, the resources which God in His goodness and wisdom has implanted in Nature are well-nigh inexhaustible, and He has at the same time given man the intelligence to discover ways and means of exploiting these resources for his own advantage and his own livelihood. Hence, the real solution of the problem is not to be found in expedients which offend against the divinely established moral order and which attack human life at its very source, but in a renewed scientific and technical effort on man’s part to deepen and extend his dominion over Nature. The progress of science and technology that has already been achieved opens up almost limitless horizons in this held.
…
194. Human life is sacred—all men must recognize that fact. From its very inception it reveals the creating hand of God. Those who violate His laws not only offend the divine majesty and degrade themselves and humanity, they also sap the vitality of the political community of which they are members.
…
199. A provident God grants sufficient means to the human race to find a dignified solution to the problems attendant upon the transmission of human life. But these problems can become difficult of solution, or even insoluble, if man, led astray in mind and perverted in will, turns to such means as are opposed to right reason, and seeks ends that are contrary to his social nature and the intentions of Providence. 

Liberals continue to insist that Archbishop Charles Chaput (who supports the Neocatechumenate Way, Charismatic Renewal, and other heterodox lay movements) is a “far right conservative” just because he’s outspoken on abortion.

We hear from Cardinals Rigali, O’Malley and others say they will not support a health care bill that pays for abortions, which implies that they will support a health care bill that pays for contraceptives.

When was the last time the USCCB issued an official statement

We’re told of people like Fr. Bartolomeo and Fr. Christopher Buckner and Bishop Martino that it is their “pastoral style,” not their “orthodoxy,” that gets them in trouble.  Yet many saints have had a similar “pastoral style.”

We’re told that the “pastoral styles” of O’Malley and Chaput and Dolan are more effective.

Effective at doing what? 
Not actually teaching what the Church does?

Shouldn’t a pastor be making sure his sheep get through the gate?

One poll says 61% of Catholics think contraception should be up to laity and 75% say it’s possible to be a good Catholic and disobey the Natural Law on this matter. 

A Centers for Disease Control (CDC) Study found that 97% of Catholic women over 18 have used some form of artificial birth control in their lives, and a 2005 Harris Poll found that 90% of Catholics supported birth control.

These polls indicate the range of numbers I’ve heard on how many Catholics in the US support and/or use artificial birth control.

Attention, USCCB: the majority of your flock are headed straight to Hell, and you aren’t saying anything about it!!!

How are they supposed to repent if you don’t tell them to????

Instead, the few voices who actually speak on it are called “right wing extremists” or “judgemental” just for being willing to say what the Church teaches.

Has the USCCB ever issued a statement condemning birth control?

Has the USCCB ever issued a statement condemning the “overpopulation” movement or NSSM-200?

Until that happens, I’ll take Judie Brown or Fr. Tom Euteneuer over the fraudulent “shepherds” at the USCCB.

The Performer, the Politician and the Priest: Funerals, Fanfare and Felonies

Michael  Jackson admitted to literally sleeping with boys in his bed.  Let’s take that action alone.

I’ve read numerous cases against priests where the primary accusation was sharing a bed.  There are lots of accusations made against priests for “merely sleeping” without any alleged sexual contact (of course, the convicted pedophiles on the VIRTUS video explain in great detail how they were able to get pleasured by children without the children even realizing what was gonig on).

So, again, as I noted at the time of the Michael Jackson sobfest, a Catholic priest who is merely *accused* of doing as much as Michael Jackson *admitted*, without ever being convicted, has his life destroyed.  But everyone is supposed to admire this man who was little more than a porn star because of how much he impacted our culture (hardly for the better, morally or culturally) and how much money he allegedly gave to charity.

OK.

Now, we have this case of another instrument of the Culture of Death, from the other direction, whose passing has opened up debates about how well the Church speaks its voice against the grave moral evils of our world, how well the Church speaks out against politicians who support those evils, and about how the dead are honored in general.  Many have suggested that the questions of eulogies, non-Catholics receiving Communion at funerals, etc. are so commonplace as to be unimportant.

I didn’t realize that there was a certain number of times a sin could be committed and then it ceased to be a sin!

These two stories converge in my mind in the case of a presumably holy priest who is suffering in canonical limbo, due to an unproven allegation.  If what most people assume is correct, that allegation stems from trying to safeguard authentic liturgy even at the expense of grieving family members.

The priest is Fr. Christopher Buckner of the Diocese of Arlington.   I mostly know Fr. Buckner by reputation.  I only met him once, in passing, attended a couple of his masses, and I think I confessed to him once.    He struck me as a very sincere, devout and holy priest.  In his farewell homily to the parishioners of St. Mary’s in Fredericksburg (the only homily I know for certain I heard), he gave a sincere apology for how his notorious temper had hurt some people.

Now, Fr. Buckner was the kind of priest one either loved or hated, and it depended upon where one stood in the culture wars.  If one stood on the Left side of the fence, or one sat on the “I’d rather not get involved” middle, Fr. Buckner was hated: hated by the Left for denouncing them; hated by the Middle for disturbing their “can’t we all just get along” mentality.

Interestingly, for a priest who was often accused of “driving people away,” Fr. Buckner managed to get a huge number of converts for RCIA classes every year–in part by simply advertising in the newspaper.  He was friends with many non-Catholics around Fredericksburg, perhaps friendlier with non-Catholics than members of his own parish.

He told my wife’s rabidly Democratic aunt that her Clinton/Gore bumper stickers were not welcome at his parish. 

One of my wife’s  best friends served altar with Fr. Buckner at a parish in Northern Virginia and always thought highly of him.  Indeed, having known Fr. Buckner mainly for his gruff reputation, Mary got another side one night, when she and a group of college friends were driving back to Williamsburg via Fredericksburg.  The aforementioned friend wanted to stop by St. Mary’s and see Fr. Buckner.  The prospect of knocking on the rectory door that late in the evening, particularly to the “infamous” Fr. Buckner, was daunting to Mary, but she was greeted by a whole other side of this priest.  He greeted them all warmly, served them snacks, and they had a great time.

After he left St. Mary’s, Fr. Buckner served as a professor at Catholic Distance University, and served as an assistant at a parish where another one of our friends attended.  She also thought highly of Fr. Buckner.

Fr. Buckner was also known for his youth pilgrimages to the Holy Land. 

We knew there were rumors–if nothing else that he was a bit too “touchy feely,” but they never seemed credible.  Having taken VIRTUS training, it is easy to see how Fr. Buckner *could* fit a certain MO (e.g., giving the appearance of virtue to most people, singling out the one victim, and the victim is not believed because of it).

Well, in May 2007, Arlington was rocked with Bishop Paul Loverde–who has a long history of silencing or otherwise disciplining outspokenly orthodox priests–announced the suspension of Fr. Buckner.

This carried with it a couple implications.  First, we *had* heard the rumor that his transfer in 2000 was due to allegations made by some former altar boys, so, on the surface, this seemed to prove those allegations.  However, Loverde had said, in reference to the Fr. Haley/Fr. Hamilton  situation in 2002, that Arlington had *always* had a zero tolerance policy with abuse accusations.  If the rumors we’d heard in 2000 were true, then that proves Loverde lied in his statements denouncing Fr. Haley (of course, Loverde did lie about Fr. Haley in other ways, too). 

In any case, all the diocese of Arlington ever officially said was that Fr. Buckner had been accused of “inappropriate conduct with a minor.” 

The date given was between 1992 and 1994.  Now, one of the reasons Fr. Buckner’s temper was so notorious, and why this relates to the recent debacle in Boston, is that there was, shortly after he arrived at St. Mary’s, a controversy regarding a funeral.

The family wanted a song sung at the funeral, and Fr. Buckner didn’t want secular music.  So the family defied him, and the decedent’s son sang the song anyway, and, after the Mass, Fr. Buckner allegedly cussed the kid out.

Now, I’ve been on both sides of this issue over the years, as my own view of liturgy has evolved.  So, I’m inclined to see both sides on this, if not lean towards the family.  But does speak volumes to the mentality that we should let anything go at a Catholic funeral, from crazy music selections to eulogies (which are explicitly forbidden by canon law) to sacrilegious communions just out of compassion for the grieving families.

OK, so, back to  the accusation.   When the accusation came out, most people who knew anything at all about Fr. Buckner and the parish, etc., figured it was probably from that incident.

The Diocese kept the accusation vaguee.  To date, more than 2 years later ,there have not been any charges filed against Fr. Buckner.  There has been no civil trial.  No criminal trial.  No canonical trial.  There hasn’t been any word about where Fr. Buckner is.  He’s just in canonical limbo, suspended as a priest, without any due process.

My mother in law told us that, shortly after the suspension, they brough this whole investigative crew to St. Mary’s.  They were told the people would be there for 4 weeks investigating the case against Fr. Buckner.  It was a regular witch hunt, and they summoned people in trying to dig up dirt.

And they couldn’t find any.

They left in less than two weeks because no one was able to corroborate anything, and no one was willing to denounce Fr. Buckner.

There was no evidence.

So, there you have it, folks.

1.  Rich celebrity accused of various accusations by teenaged boys.  Gets off scott free.  Admits to sleeping with them.  People excuse him and say what a great “artist” he was.

2.  Rich politician flaunts his defiance against God his whole life.  May or may not have repented on his deathbed (which is really irrelevant).  Certainly never publicly renounced his public heresies and public scandals.  Got a big to-do of a funeral, replete with numerous liturgical abuses, including a non-Catholic pro-abortion president delivering a eulogy. 

3.  Mostly holy priest with a bad temper, who tries to do what’s right and teach others to practice heroic virtue, lets his temper get the better of him in regard to a possible liturgical abuse at a funeral.  Has an unproven allegation made against him–perhaps stemming from that incident or perhaps unrelated–and even though he has brought numerous converts to the Catholic faith, even though he has, in giving people the sacraments, done infinitely more good than every entertainer and politician put together, this priest languages in a state of canonical suspension, with barely a mention in the media.

The salvation of a single soul through sacramental grace is worth more than all the money in the world, especially since money is worth nothing.

If even our bishops and the Vatican newspaper say that the alleged good works of Michael Jackson and Ted Kennedy warrant them our respect and admiration, then shouldn’t the good works of Fr. Christopher Buckner and Fr. James Haley warrant even more respect and admiration?

Shouldn’t these two holy priests–one suspended for an unproven allegation, the other suspended for making proven allegations–get the same kind of “pass” as Ted Kennedy?

Is not a single Host of infinite worth and importance?  Is not a single Mass of infinite worth and importance?

The dangers of civility

Today’s Gospel reading is the story of how the Pharisees condemned Jesus and His disciples for not washing their hands . This is a  common motif in the Gospels, which people conveniently ignore in their attempts at being as worldly as possible.  Martha condemns Mary for for making a nice dinner setting.  The Pharisees condemn the Apostles for not washing their hands.

Civility is often the enemy of the spiritual life, more than its friend.  Certainly, there are parallels between good manners and good morals.  Certainly,  human respect can aid virtue if it is one more thing to shame us out of commiting at least certain kinds of sin.

But, more often than not, civility is just what the Devil uses to cover up his tracks.

Somewhere, my kids picked up the idea, when playing, that there are “evil people” and there are “nice people.”  I’m constantly trying to point out, when I hear them say that, that evil people often appear nice, and goodness often is not “nice.”

“Nice” people don’t  like what’s unpleasant.  That may be the exposure of the festering wounds of sin, or that may be the exposure of the festering wounds of the body.  They don’t like being around those who are odd-looking, or different, or challenging. 

Flannery O’Connor’s stories are all about how the civility and manners of “nice, decent” people both disguise their sins and impede them from pursuing heroic virtue.  She forces them into dramatic situations where they are forced to face the unpleasant head-on, and then they have to deal with that somehow.  In doing that, she forces her readers to face the same situation, and her “nice, decent” readers often balk at the unpleasantness of her stories.

Yet O’Connor forces us to look right at the unpleasnat in the eye, and then points us to the Desert Fathers, who understood the truth of Matthew 11:12. 

One of her favorite passages, quoted prominently in one of her later stories, was the following letter of St. Jerome:

Pampered soldier, why are you wasting time in your father’s house? Where is the rampart, the ditch, the winter campaign under canvas? Behold the trumpet sounds from heaven! Our General, fully armed, comes amid the clouds to overcome the world. From our King’s mouth comes the double-edged sword that cuts down all in its path. Are you going to remain in your chamber and not come out to join in the battle? . . . Listen to your King’s proclamation: “He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters.”
…

0 desert, green with the flowers of Christ! 0 solitude in which the stones of the Great City of the King mentioned in the Apocalypse are found! 0 wilderness rejoicing in the presence of God! Brother, what are you doing in the world when you are so much more important than the world? How long are the shadows of a roof going to hold you back? How long will the smoky dungeon of these cities imprison you? . . . How refreshing to fling off the burdens of the flesh and fly to the sparkling aether? . . . You are spoiled indeed, dear friend, if you wish to rejoice here on earth–and afterwards reign with Christ!

To whom did St. Jerome direct these harsh, judgemental words?  To a pro-abortion politician?  To a  bishop who gave solace to such a politician?  No.  He gave them to a fellow hermit who accepted a position as a bishop in the city. 

The saints understood that the way of salvation is harsh and difficult.  They understand that, as St. Teresa of Avila puts it, this life is like a night in a bad hotel room, and the most pleasant things the world offers are nothing compared to the next life.

But even those who have “made themselves eunuchs” for the Gospel still cling to human respect.  They wine and dine with those who do the work of the enemy.  They say, “Well, Jesus dined with tax collectors and sinners.”
Yes, He dined with tax collectors and sinners who repented, though He often dined with Pharissees as well, in order to debate with them. 

When bishops, pundits and politicians talk of their “friendships” with pro-abortion politicians and celebrities, and cite Jesus dining with sinners to endorse those friendships, have they put those friendships above their responsibility to Truth?  Have they really tried to change the minds of those pro-abortion and pro-contraception people? 

When a Catholic politician dumps his wife for a younger model and wants an annulment, does any prelate dare stand against him the way the Holy Father stood against Henry VIII?  Or do they just give a rubber-stamp annulment–the way they do for other laity these days–for some reason not much better than “irreconcilable differences,” totally degrading the importance of marriage? 

Do they make any efforts at getting those politicians to reconcile with their wives?  Heck, to they make any efforts at saving Catholic marriages these days?

Or do they do the “civil” thing and avoid controversy, especially when the controversy could cost them thousands of dollars in donations?

Civility says there are things you don’t talk about in polite company.  Instead ,those most important of  subjects, get conveniently avoided, and those who *would* talk about them, those who *would* try to challenge the behavior of others are challenged for violating the rules of “civility.”

“This man’s spiritual power has been precisely this, that he has distinguished between custom and creed. He has broken the conventions, but he has kept the commandments”

–GK Chesterton

Allie the Republican

Driving to Adoration last night, I commented to Allie that we hadn’t seen The Donut Man in a long time. 

She said, “EWTN keeps cancelling all my favorite shows.  I wonder why that is. . . . . I have an idea!”  She shifts to a growling whisper, “I bet it has to do with our new president!  He’s making them get rid of all the shows CCD teachers can really use.  First, it was Storykeepers, then The Donut Man.  What’s next?  Truth in the Heart?”

Are you a hamartiaphile?

Well, this week, one way or the other, the Catholic Church in America has lost both a supreme embarrassment and a great hero.  Which one is which depends upon which side of the Culture Wars you’re on.

Bishop Joseph Martino of Scranton is apparently getting ready to formally announce his resignation at the age of 63.  Reasons as yet are unclear, but it is a tragedy to lose such a stalwart defender of orthodoxy and the right to life. 

Sadly, this has given great rejoicing to the kinds of Catholics who say Ted Kennedy made them “proud to be Catholic” yet call Patrick Madrid “hateful“

More on the Kennedys and the Catholics who worship them as false idols later.

But, reading someone on National Catholic Reporter’s blog call Martino a “homophobe”, especially amidst all the discussion how we should not “judge” Ted Kennedy, and “we are all sinners,” etc., I really got to thinking.

From now on, when liberals call us “bigots” and “homophobes,” we should start calling them hamartiaphiles.

“What?” you ask?

Well, I looked it up, and “hamartia” is apparently the transliteration of the Greek word for “sin.” 

 First, there’s the old issue of the grammatical idiocy of the term “homophobia,” which literally means “fear of self.” 

If we take the spiritual advice of St. Augustine, whose feast we celebrate today, fear of self is a good thing, so homophobia, literally taken, is sound advice

The fact that I do happen to fear homosexuals does not have any effect on my view of the morality of what they do.  I don’t particularly fear people who use contraception, but I still believe that those who use contraception use their spouses as prostitutes.

No.  But the Left could very easily be accuesd of hamartiaphilia, the love of sin.  The Left takes “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone” and then leaves out the part about “Go and sin no more.”

They may try to say they just want to end discrimination against homosexuals (even though Casti Connubii teaches that homosexuals *should* be discriminated against).  They may say they just want to protect women’s “freedom of choice” or to help women in desperate situations.  But by saying these things they are still implying that homosexual behavior and abortion are good, or at least morally neutral, acts, acts which can be licitly performed under certain circumstances.

In any case, the “i’m a sinner too” argument ignores the many teachings in the New Testament that call for admonishment of sinners, which is also taught by the Church to be a Spiritual Work of Mercy.  Read the letters of St. Paul and then compare them to the average “orthodox” Catholic blog.  If St. Paul were alive today, the folks at NCR, Commonweal or America would likely call him a “homophobe,” a “bigot,” a ”hater,” and “out of touch” with “the rest of the  Church” (indeed, I’m sure many of them do). 

And that’s just St. Paul, who’s kind of wishy-washy and softspoken compared to Peter, John, Jude and James.

There is a difference between outright heresy and private sin.

There is a difference between public scandal and private sin.

There is also a difference between repeatedly, privately sinning and always repenting and trying better, on the one hand, and insisting no one can do better, on the other.

The thing about the Left is that they don’t want to demand a higher standard, because they love their sins.  Liberal A may not personally be guilty of abortion or homosexuality, but he may be guilty of contraception or divorce or adultery or swearing or engaging in unnecessary business on Sunday.  And he *likes* doing it.  He likes using and dumping women, relegating prayer to God to last-place status in his life and/or praying to Satan with every other sentence.

It isn’t a sense of guilt behind, “We are all sinners” but a sense of solidarity with the drug addicts, homosexuals and abortionists, which motivates the Catholic who votes Democrat.

“Hide Me In Your Wounds”

Here it is.  I’ve been dropping hints, and mentioning it directly, and now it’s here.  Hide Me In Your Wounds: Daily Prayer with the Saints, the debut CD of J.C. Hathaway Productions (previously the name I’ve put on my taxes for my business of freelance writing and occasional PR contracting) is now available for sale through Amazon.com and its subsidiary, CreateSpace.

The CD can be purchased for $14 + s&h through Amazon or through my personal link (please use this one if you want to buy the CD).  The album can also be purchased as an MP3 download at this link. 

I call this my “get middle class quick” scheme.  It would be cool to have some kind of oustanding bestseller, but even a few hundred sales will net me more than I can make teaching college.  Even mild success will bring in enough income to justify dedicating more solid time to writing and/or music, and, now that I know about CreateSpace, I’m going to be doing more works for self-publication.

After years of struggle, barely breaking even month to month, job hunting unssuccessfully because of my disability, etc., this could be my big break, and I am grateful for your support and prayers both leading up to this moment and moving forward.

The genesis of this idea goes back to when I was commuting from Fredericksburg to Springfield, VA, and working for Strayer University online.  I would drive at least 45 minutes a day, and it got pretty mindless.  One day, I’d listen to *nothing*, and just think.  This carried with it the problem of lots of great thoughts and no place to record them.

Early on, I ruled out listening to Rush Limbaugh (I worked the 1 o’clock shift), because it didn’t put me in the right mood to go sit listening to a bunch of liberals talking about their sexual lives and perversions or what they’d heard on _Oprah_. 

I’d play a Rosary CD, but that tended to make me sleepy.

One of my favorite things was listening to Fr. Corapi talks, but those get old after one or two listens, and I couldn’t just keep buying Fr. Corapi DVDs.

Listening to music kept me awake, but wasn’t very prayerful.

So I started to wish for recordings of shorter prayers, as opposed to the Rosary and Divine Mercy Chaplet, that I could put into MP3 format and intermix with a music playlist.

Plus, I have a whole collection of daily prayer books that I only really use a few prayers out of, and I’ve always wanted to make my own compilation of my favorite devotions, something that I could carry around and have easy access to. 

Those ideas sent me searching for years for such a CD, to no avail.  There are a lot of prayers on the Net in MP3 format, but not really a collection, and definitely not many of the devotions I’ve compiled here. 

During the second half of 2008, we did a lot of house hunting, unsuccessfully.  In December, we looked at a house we really liked, but it was at the top of our price range, and had a few issues.  But it had several cool features, including a separate building that was outfitted as a recording studio.  (It’s still on the market, only for $40K less–anonymous benefactors, take note.) Got me thinking about such a home studio, even if we didn’t buy that house.

Then I got laid off by the college I was teaching for, and decided to dedicate time to writing while I collected unemployment and looked for a new job.  In April, I looked into CreateSpace.  All those things came together.  After trying a couple different ways of recording, I purchased a digital USB microphone and began recording prayers. 

By the end of May I had most of what I wanted for the album, but I was hoping for some supplemental recordings.  I contacted the office of the new bishop of Charleston, the Most Rev. Robert Guglielmone, asking about procedures to get official approval for my compilation.  He replied that he’d be in Columbia the next week, and asked me to drop my materials off at St. Joseph’s.  So I dropped off a draft CD with a letter explaining the whole project, the selections, etc.  The following Tuesday morning, I met with him.  He hadn’t listened to the whole thing, but he liked what he heard and read, and, as he spends a lot of time in his car and owns several rosary CDs himself, he liked the basic idea.  He said that, if I wanted an official Nihil Obstat, I should give the final CD to a local priest for a letter, but he didn’t think it was necessary.  I noted that there is a rule somewhere that any compilation of prayers needs approval of the local bishop, and he said, “Well, you’ve got that.”  And he asked me to give him a copy when it was ready.  (He’s coming to town this week, and I hope to have the chance to do that then).

So, it’s been nearly 3 months since then, putting the finishing touches on the CD, fixing some of the quality on some of the recordings, and then going through the process with CreateSpace, getting the CD proofed, while I did things like designing the cover and booklet.  So, here it is! 

How fitting that it should all come live on the feast of St. Louis the King, one of the patrons of this site, and of course the patron of my personal intercesor in Heaven, “Little Lew,” as well as the co-patron (with Catherine of Siena) of all Third Order Catholics (regardless of Order).

There are rumors circulating on the net that Michelle Obama’s mother may be practicing witchcraft in the White House, and that Barack, citing his alleged Christian beliefs and anticipating controversy, has told her to stop.

Mary points out that Yahoo, often has headlines that are fairly controversial, particularly with a conservative slant, and then disappear.  I saw the article as a yahoo headline.  A couple blogs picked it up.  When I did a google search, there were several hits, and all the sites had been taken down.  Several of the hits were satirical, so that may have been the origin.

In any case, it is only fair to point out that, while it’s not inconceivable that Marian Robinson may be practicing some form of voodoo or santeria or whatever, we know her son-in-law is definitely a practicing New Ager.

Let’s not forget that Nancy Reagan consulted an astrologer in the White House.  George H. W. Bush’s “nickname” in Skull & Bones (the secret society at Yale that has produced  a disproportionate number of presidents, Supreme Court Justices and other highly influential Americans) was “Magog.”

Let’s remember: most of the “Founding Fathers” were members of the Freemasons.  The Freemasons adopt the Gnostic belief that there were two Gods in the old Testament, embodied in what “modern Scripture Scholars” call the “Elohist source” and the “Yahwehist Source.”

The “modern Scripture scholar” side of it has that there are two parallel narratives in the Old Testament, explaining things like the two “Creation Accounts” and other redundant stories in the Pentateuch, or Chronicles versus Samuel/Kings, etc.  The story goes that one “tradition” likes to refer to God using the Tetragrammaton YHWH, while the other uses the generic Hebrew name for  God, Elohim.  It would be the equivalent of one Greek writer telling a story about “Zeus” while another Greek writer told a parallel but different story about “Theos.”  In any case, some modern Scripture scholars go so far as to say the accoutns, which sometimes differ in God’s “personality,” are talking about two different gods altogether.

The Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses, similarly believe in a kind of Dualistic reading of the Bible.  In both those religions, Jesus and Satan were brothers.  The Witnesses teach that St. Michael = Jesus. Interestingly, Joseph Smith had Masonic ties. 

I’ve read testimonies from those who’ve been involved in varying degrees with Masonry and the Shriners.  Many think the Shriners are the more “harmless” aspect of the Masons because they do those nice parades and children’s charities and hospitals and stuff, but the Shriners are, in fact, some of the most deeply involved Masons.  Shriners, like all Masons, worship Lucifer.

They exalt the Pyramids, the Tower of Babel, and other ancient “achievements.”  The whole reason they are called Freemasons is that they believe in what man can build without God’s assistance.  This, again is why the Church condemnd freemasonry to begin with: it advocates human achievement without God, human alliance without concern for religious differences, charity without Christ.

Meanwhile, the word Gnosticism, of course, comes from the Greek Gnosis, “knowledge.”  The Gnostics believed there was secret knowledge that a select few could have and the rest of the public remained ignorant.  Of course, a lot of people think that.  Averroneans think that.  Platonists think that.  Atheists like Myers, Dawkins and Hitchens think that. 

What makes Gnosticism different is that the knowledge in question is basically what we now call, collectively, “magic” (although many of the terms we now use as synonymous had different meanings originally).  Gnosticism arose of out Babylonian mystery cults, and, as the ideology moved through the ancient Near East and Mediterranean, it would co-opt the literature and religion of each local culture. 

So the Gnostics also saw the Old Testament as a story of two Gods, and they saw the true “good” God as Lucifer, who was trying to provide humanity with the knowledge that the evil Yahweh was denying.

Our founding fathers were, mostly Masons.  Jefferson expressed the hope that America’s separation of Church and State–which he said should be a “Wall”–would one day lead to everyone being Unitarian.

Many of our national images are masonic.  Most of the monuments in DC are Masonic in design.  The dollar bill has the masonic symbol of the eye at the top of a pyramid on it.

Many Conservatives make a big deal about “in God we Trust” on our money.  I don’t.   The God the money is referring to is not the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the Blessed Trinity.  The God it is referring to is the God of Masonry. 

Now, let’s get to the whole New Age Thing: Oprah, Deepak Chopra and all the other gurus love him.

I’ve cited those quotes many times here.  Obama sees Jesus as “one of many” great religious leaders. He says his idea of heaven is tucking his daughters in.  He says his idea of prayer is silently thinking about how to solve a problem.

His religious view is centered on him. It’s amorphous.  He is a Christian, by his own admission, only in a kind of a cultural African American way, but he has “problems” with many Christian teachings. 

Long story short, it doesn’t really matter whether the Freemasons are one united group taking over the world or just a bunch of people who share simiarlly flawed beliefs, or a bunch of groups of people who are not united but share similarly flawed beliefs.  It also doesn’t matter if all presidents have been specifically members of the Masons, though they all come from similar backgrounds.  It is more realistic to acknowledge that there are multiple behind-the-scenes power structures manipulating American politics.

But, from the political side, representative democracy is a sham, and, from the religious side, we have a system which encourages ambitious people to pursue power ambitiously, and that leads directly down, to borrow  a phrase, “The path to the Dark Side.”  Satan is the prince of this world.  Yes, Jesus won the battle on the Cross.  Yes, God is in control.  But Jesus still makes it clear who the Enemy is, and that the Enemy has the reigns as far as this world goes, that the Kingdom of God, in this life, only exists in the heart of the individual believer.

I don’t believe a good person has any hope of political advancement in our society, and I believe a few near-exceptions to the rule prove it.  You may manage to get a cable TV talk show, or a seat in the House, or a state-level positoin.  Some good people may even get into advisory or cabinet level jobs.  But a good Senator is hard to find (Santorum anyone?  Brownback?) and a good president or Supreme Court Justice is harder (Scalia?)

You don’t obtain that kind of power from nothing unless you’re either 100% saintly (and that would preclude pursuit of worldly power) or else you’re working for the one who grants worldly power. 

We don’t need rumors about Marian Robinson and Santeria to tell us that.

Obama’s Mentor, Saul Alinksy, said the first “Radical” was Satan

David Horowitz on Saul Alinksy

Here’s what Sarah Palin Actually *said* about “Death Panels”

OK.  So Obama has created the talking point over the past several days that has led many, even many the right, to disparage Sarah Palin’s “death panels” comment as being over-the-top, inaccurate, etc. 

As I’ve discussed in several recent posts, the Liberals have based their claim of inaccuracy on the idea that Palin is talking about “end of life” care counseling.  I have speculated, having not read the actual speech till just now, that she wasn’t even talking about that, and she wasn’t.  Even if she *were*, as I’ve previously discussed, end of life care, as they call it, goes against Christian principles.

But Palin was not talking about that. She was talking about the standards for “triage” and health care rationing.  Here’s the text:

As more Americans delve into the disturbing details of the nationalized health care plan that the current administration is rushing through Congress, our collective jaw is dropping, and we’re saying not just no, but hell no!

The Democrats promise that a government health care system will reduce the cost of health care, but as the economist Thomas Sowell has pointed out, government health care will not reduce the cost; it will simply refuse to pay the cost. And who will suffer the most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course. The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.

Health care by definition involves life and death decisions. Human rights and human dignity must be at the center of any health care discussion.

Rep. Michele Bachmann highlighted the Orwellian thinking of the president’s health care advisor, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of the White House chief of staff, in a floor speech to the House of Representatives. I commend her for being a voice for the most precious members of our society, our children and our seniors.

We must step up and engage in this most crucial debate. Nationalizing our health care system is a point of no return for government interference in the lives of its citizens. If we go down this path, there will be no turning back. Ronald Reagan once wrote, “Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth.” Let’s stop and think and make our voices heard before it’s too late.

Where in the speech does she say anything about forced euthanasia?  She is talking about denial of services to those who are deemed unworthy, something that Rahm Emmanuel, Tom Daschle and others have all advocated.
Health care by definition involves life and death decisions. Human rights and human dignity must be at the center of any health care discussion.

Rep. Michele Bachmann highlighted the Orwellian thinking of the president’s health care advisor, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of the White House chief of staff, in a floor speech to the House of Representatives. I commend her for being a voice for the most precious members of our society, our children and our seniors.

We must step up and engage in this most crucial debate. Nationalizing our health care system is a point of no return for government interference in the lives of its citizens. If we go down this path, there will be no turning back. Ronald Reagan once wrote, “Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth.” Let’s stop and think and make our voices heard before it’s too late.

Here’s an article on what Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, Rahm’s brother, advocates in terms of health rationing.

Some blogs are suggesting that Palin’s speech was inaccurate because such “death panels” are not in the Bill.  But they *were* in the Bill and were struck down.  Either way, as I said in my last post, it’s the slippery slope.  Why do we want to open the door to these people to allow it? 

One of the things we’re told about the alleged evil of insurance companies is about denial of services to those who need them most.  Does anyone really think the government is that altruistic????  Does anyone really think the government will do better?  Does anyone really think that, when Medicare and Medicaid already have absurd rules for what services they’ll pay for, that a new government insurance plan will be any better?

I have been online since 1997.  I’ve been on message boards, listserves, blogs, Facebook, etc.  I’ve argued these issues time and again with people.  I know my view is an unpopular one with most people, including may self-styled conservatives and many self-styled Catholics.

This is why I know we need Sarah Palin in the public square . We need someone who is a voice against the attitudes about the disabled and those who have genetic disorders, etc. 

I know what it is to grow up in pain, knowing that death is always potentially around the corner.

I know what it is to be ridiculed for being different.

I know what it is to be told that I’m not worthy of being alive. 

I know that liberals and many who call themselves conservatives take it as a given that it is cruel to “knowingly” allow a child to be born with a genetic disorder.  Most people presume that people with genetic disorders should never reproduce, and that people who get in utero diagnoses of genetic defects should have abortions. 

This is how they think.  It’s not just my experience from one or two conversations.  It’s what I’ve heard from every liberal I’ve ever argued with, and from many a yuppie graduate of Franciscan University or Christendom College (though they cover up their eugenicist mentality with perpetual continence or NFP). 

They say these things.  Their “experts” say these things.  The countries that already have government-run health care do these things or are working towards them.  Then, when we call them on it, they say we’re lying!

Here’s a piece on Peter Singer’s contribution to the Death Panel debate.

Here’s a piece on Obama’s appeals to “faith based” Groups to win support for socialism and to redirect the debate on health rationing.

Here’s an article by a disabiltiy group that agrees with Sarah.

Here’s a Wall Street Journal piece on how rationing is central to Obamacare (HT Below the Beltway)

Here’s an article about GE’s role in promoting health rationing.

Here’s an article about how the death panel already exists: it’s the “Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research,” which was part of the “stimulus” bill. 

According to George Will, the draft report on the so-called stimulus bill states the CER will identify medical “items, procedures, and interventions” that it deems insufficiently effective or excessively expensive. They “will no longer be prescribed” by federal health programs.

This is especially ironic, since one of the original purposes of the federal government getting involved in medical research was the Orphan Drug Act: federally funding research deemed to be too commercially unviable.

Here’s a blog piece from July which points to the rationing provisions in the House plan.

It’s Coming . . .

Simon Cowell says, “What’s your dream, John?  Who do you want to be?”
I say, “George Lucas,  Andrew Lloyd Webber or Jim Henson.”

In the midst of my various “careers” I’ve imagined myself getting into since I was 5 — detective, elementary teacher, high school teacher, medical researcher, priest, college teacher, writer, artist, musician – there has been one thing that I’ve always really wanted.

And that is embodied in the Sydmonton Festival, Skywalker Ranch and Jim Henson’s Creature Shop.

Andrew Lloyd Webber, like Richard Wagner before him, is as much a financial genius as a creative genius.  Early in his career, he founded his own production company–the Really Useful Group (named for his lifelong love for the _Thomas The Tank Engine_ books and his hopes of getting involved in the then-planned cartoon series).  He bought a renaissance estate called Sydmonton and began renovating it.  Starting in the late 1970s, he began hosting an annual arts festival there.  At Sydmonton, he produces sample productions of the musicals he’s currently working on. 

At Sydmonton in 1980, Andrew Lloyd Webber played the piano and sang to a previously unpublished T. S. Eliot poem, “Pollicle Dogs and Jellicle Cats”–the melody based upon the poem, and a few of its lines, would make it into Cats, but the song itself would be rewritten and never heard until the Now and Forever box set over 20 years later.  At Sydmonton, Colm Wilkinson was the second “Phantom” opposite Sarah Brightman (following rocker Steve Harley in the single and music video of the title song), six months before Michael Crawford officially created the role in London.  At Sydmonton in 1993, Patti Lupone wowed the select audience as Norma Desmond months before audiences saw her in the West End.

At the Sydmonton Festival, Andrew Lloyd Webber showcases his works-in-progress, his art collection and other promising artistic, musical and theatrical works that interest him. 

Andrew Lloyd Webber once made a bet with his brother over the Soccer finals and wrote Variations as a result.  He planned an opera in tribute to Puccini and played the melody he wrote for that opera for his father.  His father said of that melody, “It sounds like a million dollars.” 

William Lloyd Webber was wrong on that one.  “Memory” has probably been a billion-dollar industry unto itself.  They say there was a point in the mid-80s when it could statistically be heard playing at every minute on the radio at some point in the United States. 

And what did Lloyd Webber due with his success from Cats?  He said, “I’m rich enough to do whatever I want.  I think I’ll write a Requiem Mass.”

Now he’s a reknowned food and architecture critic, theatrical producer, theater and real estate magnate and, film producer, television producer and reality host, and even the license holder to a number of classic musicals he didn’t write. 

Then there’s George Lucas, whose talent as a visionary lies more in his understanding of business and technology than his talent as a director.  A successful college film turned into a mildly successful and critically acclaimed theatrical film (the THX thing), then a successful and critically acclaimed film (American Graffiti), and then a multi-film contract that gave us the Star Wars and Indiana Jones franchises.   And, while making Star Wars, Lucas had two brilliant ideas:

1.  No one in Hollywood could make the special effects he envisioned, so he started his own special effects firm.  And no one can doubt the influence of Industrial Light and Magic, which makes the special effects for like every blockbuster out there.  And then there’s that uppity little spin-off of ILM, later bought by Steve Jobs, called Pixar.

2.  Lucas had his studio contract.  And movie licensing existed.  But it was, at the time, not that big a deal.  Lucas, the visionary, negotiated with Fox to give him the rights to the sales of licensed products and the soundtrack.  Fox, thinking “ha, that’s chicken feed” gave him those rights, around the same time as Xerox and IBM and HP and AT&T were laughing at Steve Jobs and Bill Gates.

Of course, we all know that a big part of Star Wars is its tremendous soundtrack and the vast toy merchandising.  Star Wars redefined movie marketing, soundtracks, sequels, and even the entire toy industry.  There would be no G I Joe, Transformers or Masters of the Universe, Ninja Turtles, Batman (toys), etc., without Star Wars. 

Years later, Lucas bought a big ranch and named it Skywalker Ranch.  I’ve always loved the description of it in articles: a dusty “dude ranch” on the outside, with old-fashoined western buildings and such.  Then, on the inside, the most state-of-the-art technological facilities you could imagine, housing the LucasArts video game company, the Skywalker Sound recording studio, the THX surround sound headquarters, and the ILM offices, decorated with works of fine art all around.

One of my dreams is to one day own my own Catholic version of Skywalker Ranch: a place where technology, nature, creativity and faith meet.

One of my dreams is to someday host my own variation on the Sydmonton festival. 

My dream is to be like Andrew Lloyd Webber, Jim Henson and George Lucas: free to just create what I want to create, and not necessarily to be pigeonholed to one particular genre or medium or style.

The trick has always been, of course, to generate the income to get that cycle going, to get that “big break.”  The Internet has provided vast opportunities for self-publishing and self-marketing.  As I’ve learned more and more about these, I’ve prayed for the opportunity to finally realize my dream. 

Then, in January, I lost both my teaching jobs, but I was eligible for unemployment benefits.  I had the money to pay the bills, no job to do, and no classes to take.  So I threw myself into writing, and into trying to up the quality and readership of this blog, while I looked for the right moment.  I submitted articles to various places, getting one successfully published.

Then I thought about self-published recordings.  I discovered Amazon.com’s CreateSpace service. I did a bit of research on home recording and equipment.  I bought myself a digital USB microphone.  And I recorded a 72 minute audio book.

C. S. Lewis said he wrote the books he always wanted to read, and I recorded the audiobook I’ve always wanted to listen to–or at least since I used to drive a minimal 45 minute commute every day from Fredericksburg to Springfield, VA, and wished I could pray all those daily devotions I liked from diverse prayer books while I drove. 

The more I’ve gotten into MP3s, and have downloaded various free MP3s online, and purchased various Rosary and Divine Mercy CDs, Fr. Corapi DVDs, etc., I’ve wished I could find a collection of short prayers that I could intermix with music: like when you’re driving a long trip, and you want to pray, but the rosary or the reflection CD is too relaxing and makes you fall asleep, but you don’t want to just listen to music either.  Something I could intermix with a music playlist.

Well, I’ve made that CD.  It’s called Hide Me in Your Wounds, and, very shortly, it will be availalbe for sale on Amazon.com and Create Space.  You can purchase it as a direct download, or you can order the CD from my page.  I will be placing an ad on the side bar of this blog very soon. 

I’m waitng for Amazon to ship me my “proof copy”, and, as soon as I approve it, it will be live for sale on Amazon.com, Target.com and my personal store (note: I get a better royalty if you purchase it from my store, but I also recommend you just purchase the MP3 format).

Here is the direct link. 

Please consider purchasing a copy.  I will be sharing more details as the release date gets closer.  I have both mild and wild expectations for this CD, but if even the mild expectations are met, it will provide me with sufficient income to focus more on creating my next work for self-publication.

Why should we *trust* them??

Liberals say conservatives are telling lies and rumors about their wonderful “health care” plan, even though what we’re saying is based upon what the plan says, and what Obama’s advisors and Democratic congressmen and Obama himself have said in various speeches.

Most importantly, our concerns are based upon our familiarity with how the Federal Government and the Democrats work.

They don’t just stick the from in the pot of cold water, they stick the frog in the pot of cold water and tell him it’s for his own good.  They tell him the water is cleaner than the pond and that the metal walls will keep him safe from predators.

They actually coax the frog to jump *into* the pot of cold water.  The convince him the lid’s for his own good, to keep him safe, and that, when the lid’s down, it will keep the flies in and easy to catch.

And the stupid frog believes them and hops in, and let’s them put the lid on his head, and then they turn the heat on.

That’s how they do it.  They did it with education.  And once the Republicans got back in, promising to abolish the newly formed Department of Education, they saw the Department of Education as a tool for their own power, and just expanded it, till we went from Carter to Reagan to Dubya’s NCLB.

They did it with abortion and contracption.  I challenge anyone who thinks legalized abortion or contraception is OK, or anyone who trusts the Democrats or the Republicans, to actually read NSSM-200.  I’ve blogged about it on this site, including links and quotations.  It’s all in there: using “Choice” as the buzzword to make the people accept the government’s imperialist agenda of population control; getting the American public to overcome their moral objections to abortion and contraception so they’ll support the government forcing these things on other countries.

These are not lies or conspiracy theories.  These are official USAID policies established in this document.  Read it.

They did it with “sex education.”  About 15 years ago, Jocelyn Elders was controversial for saying there should be sex ed. in Kindergarten.  Now it’s widely promoted in the name of “protecting” kids from sexual predators.

They did it with the Bill of Rights.  Has Obama gotten rid of waterboarding?  Has he voluntarily declined any of the special powers Bush arrogated to himself?

Can  anyone name one area where the Democrats, or the federal government, have proven trustworthy?

One area where, once they’ve taken power, they’ve voluntarily relinquished it?

One area where, once they’ve got their foot in the door, they haven’t pushed the door open and taken over the house?

Everyone’s talking about the conservative blogs: what about the liberal blogs that say Obama isn’t going far enough?

Starving someone to death is not “end of life care”

I’m sick of the lying.  Yesterday, Barack Obama, in a conference call to sympathetic religious leaders, accused his enemies of “bearing false witness” against his socialist health care plan.  The Democrat shills at Yahoo and the AP keep trying to “debunk” the “myths” about “Health Care Reform.” 

He calls the discussion of abortion coverage a “fabrication,” but the point is that, as a priest recently pointed out on Facebook, if abortion is not specifically *not* covered, it is implicitly covered by Obamacare because it is a legal medical procedure.

And then there’s Sarah Palin’s “Death Panels” comment. 

Now, there are two issues at stake here:

1.  Obama and his supporters are conveniently skipping over the question of “rationing”: that in any government-run healthcare system, there is rationing of services.  This is expressed in minimal practice by the waiting lists in Canada and the UK.  I’ll do a separate post on that later.

However, it needs to be said that, when people talk about “death panels,” they’re talking in part about panels that will at least establish triage rules if not the very overt elimination of “inferior people” advocated by Peter Singer, Tom Daschle, and several of Obama’s closest advisors.

2.  The question of “end of life care.” Obama’s supporters, including some Republicans, say the issue is just whether Medicare/Medicaid and the hypothetical “government option” should pay doctors to give “end of life” counseling to elderly and terminally ill patients–things like living wills and such.  They claim it’s not about the government or doctors dictating the end of life decisions, and that provisions specifically forbid euthanasia or assisted suicide counseling.

That’s all a matter of your definition of terms.  Because the Obama Apologists point to the Terri Schiavo case as the example of what they’re talking about.  In *their* view, an individual has the right to decide *not* to receive basic care such as nutrition and hydration.

I’m the first to admit that a patient should be allowed to refuse measures which can be classified as “extraordinary” according to the criteria laid out in the Catechism, and that any one of the conditions listed in the Catechism can be sufficient to refuse a medical treatment.

For example, I don’t get the flu vaccine, even though I’m in the category that “ought to”.  In my experience , every year I got the flu vaccine, I ended up getting a horrible bout of bronchitis or pneumonia .

Or when a particular medication has side effects that are too severe for the particular user, that’s an extraordinary measure in that person’s case.

But basic survival is a moral obligation.  Even if one believes a feeding tube as such is “extraordinary,” one is still obligated to provide *some* sustenance.  It wasn’t just that they removed Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube–that was bad enough-but after they did that, they tortured her by not even trying to give her ice cubes or small amounts of food by mouth.  They brutally starved her to death.

A feeding tube is not the same thing as a respirator or other “life support.”  On a respirator or heart-lung machine, one could theoretically go on for years in a physiological limbo.  But one can also die on such a machine, in spite of artificial survival.  There is no natural cognate to the machine in that case: but for a feeding tube, the natural cognate is just eating or drinking. 

My mother in law lived off a feeding tube for a year.  In terms of basic life functions, there was nothing else wrong with her.  Certainly, there were times she felt like “giving up”–quite frequently, in fact–but she kept going.  Seven years later, she’s living a fairly normal, active senior life. 

Now, when she was at the worst of her situation, she’d had several surgeries, infections, etc., and it was pretty dire.  It would have been one thing to say, “I don’t want any more surgeries.”   Had she made that decision, it would have been sad and tragic and ironic (given that the last one was the one that worked), but that would have made sense.

However, to say, “Take out the feeding tube” would *not* be a morally acceptable decision, because, while it’s a very nuanced difference, that would have been to actively kill her. 

Certainly, these matters are complex.  We are not, as Obama has claimed, “God’s partners in matters of life and death”–at least not in the way that he means.  Indeed, we should be God’s “partners’ in these matters, if he means prayerfully deciding what action is most in keeping with moral law.  But when we force God’s hand, whether it’s by contracepting, or using IVF, or by denying basic life sustenance to a seriously disabled or terminally ill person , we are not “partnering”–we’re controlling.

Recently, some friends’ former son-in-law passed away.  Their grandson was faced with the troubling decision of whether to “pull the plug” on his own father.  God was merciful, and his father passed away that night on the life support, anyway.

On the other hand, there was a family member who, after multiple bouts with cancer, signed a living will with a blanket refusal of life sustaining measures, which was phrased so broadly that, when the time came, she was starved to death.

And then there was a family friend who was in a horrible traffic accident like a year and a half ago.  When it first happened, he was on lifesupport and not responding, and there was a big debate about “pulling the plug.”  Before a decision was made, he woke up.  Then they said he was completely paralyzed.  Then he wasn’t.  Now he’s walking again and, while not 100%, mostly back to his old life.

As I have read many stories of middle aged Marfans who coughed too hard, thus dissecting their aortas, and then went into comas for several months only to die of respiratory failure when their lungs filled up with blood, I wonder how I want such a situation handled.  I don’t want to be arbitrarily denied care or taken off the machines.  I don’t want to die *only* because a living will was improperly written or whatever, too vaguely.  

Or my wife’s cousin, who was the center of a national Botox scandal, whose father almost “pulled the plug” when things were most dire (they brougth the family together and used the minimal communication they were able to get from her–as they do with people with “locked in” syndrome–to get her response on which family member she wanted as her representative), but she’s since recovered.

I’ve never been comfortable with the idea of shutting down “life support,” nor with the idea of “brain death.”  

So much of it depends on the exact circumstances ,an

Should people have living wills?  Yes, if only to protect themselves from the  Michael Schiavos of the world. 

Should people carefully consider these issues?  Yes. 

Should doctors or the government or the insurance be the ones to “counsel” people?  No.  This decision should be made with detached parties who have the expertise in the moral rules, with a thorough understanding of the medical situation and possibilities, not with those who have a vested interest in the situation.

St. Teresa of Avila on the struggles of the spiritual path

“But as He did not order me to cease from drinking when I had begun to do so, but caused me to be plunged into the depths of the water, it is certain that He will forbid no one to come: indeed, He calls us publicly, and in a loud voice, to do so.[72] Yet, as He is so good, He does not force us to drink, but enable those who wish to follow Him to drink in many ways so that none may lack comfort or die of thirst. For from this rich spring flow many streams — some large, others small, and also little pools for children, which they find quite large enough, for the sight of a great deal of water would frighten them: by children, I mean those who are in the early stages.[73] Therefore, sisters, have no fear that you will die of thirst on this road; you will never lack so much of the water of comfort that your thirst will be intolerable; so take my advice and do not tarry on the way, but strive like strong men until you die in the attempt, for you are here for nothing else than to strive. If you always pursue this determination to die rather than fail to reach the end of the road, the Lord may bring you through this life with a certain degree of thirst, but in the life which never ends He will give you great abundance to drink and you will have no fear of its failing you. May the Lord grant us never to fail Him. Amen.” (Way of Perfection, Ch. 20, para. 2).