Monthly Archives: March 2009

"Silas commands his thousands, but David, his tens of thousands."

It figures that Kings is getting bad ratings; it’s probably the best television series I’ve ever seen . Both Shakespearian and Biblical, elevating the soap opera genre to its highest potential with a clear moral vision and fantastic acting . . . .
The most recent episode, “First Night,” was outstanding. Almost too much to comment on. Echoes of Barack Obama in Silas’s declaration to his court that he no longer cares about the views of Rev. Samuels. Later, a fantastic discussion between Rev. Samuels and King Silas about sacrifice. “Hasn’t God gotten beyond that?” asks Silas.
David and Michelle being faced with temptation–and turning away from it.

Almost trivial compared to the more profound stories, but still noteworthy, was a discussion of condoms at the beginning. Prince Jack (Jonathan) takes David out for a “night on the town” with a group of army buddies. He and his mother are trying to tarnish David’s public image. There’s this scene where one of the guys passes out condoms to everyone, noting all the things you want to “keep it away from” if you don’t want a pregnancy (in other words, admitting all the ways condoms break), including “a gold-digger’s fingernails.”

It’s interesting, really. Every time I hear an overt discussion of condoms in a film or TV show, it’s about how they *break* or aren’t used properly.

Former Enforcers of the Kissinger Doctrine say it needs to be enforced more

Operative words, "theoretically" and "fantasy"

OK, so CBS News has this glowing story about a method that may *theoretically* generate “limitless” supplies of lab-created blood from dead babies (talk about about vampirism!).

We’re told that the many treatments developed using adult stem cells are “only treatments, not cures” or that they’re “snake oil,” or “untested,” or whatever other excuse they can come up with.

But in this case, for something that hasn’t even been developed or tested yet, but purely theoretical, the media’s going ga-ga, and this guy gets a multi-million dollar research grant. He’s sure sitting pretty.

Dr. Marc Turner, . . . received a multi-million dollar research grant to try to make blood in his lab from human stem cells.
“These cells are being generated from human embryonic stem cells, which themselves are generated from three-to-five-day-old human embryos,” Turner says.
Palmer explains that stem cells can be coaxed, theoretically, to grow into any human body part.”

Let’s look at that one again: embryonic “stem cells can be coaxed, theoretically, to grow into any human body part.” So, for decades, they’ve been talking about this. Has anyone actually demonstrated that it can happen????

If they’re successful, the payoff is huge: a limitless supply of blood. Dr. Gail Roboz, a New York hematologist leukemia researcher told CBS News, “We want the fantasy; we would like a purely clean and limitless blood supply[. . . .] The fantasy here — what would be phenomenal — would be if we could create infection-free blood that’s laboratory generated, so it’s not dependent on donors and their availability and their willingness to come in and donate. But rather, something that the doctors could actually mine in the laboratory and have available for patients in an as-needed basis.”

I mean, come on! “The fantasy”??? Are they medical professionals or science fiction writers?

Speaking of science fiction,

“Consider that in the history of many worlds there have always been disposable creatures. They do the dirty work. They do the work that no one else wants to do, because it’s too difficult or too hazardous. And an army of Datas, all disposable? You don’t have to think about their welfare; you don’t think about how they feel. Whole generations of disposable people.
“You’re talking about slavery.”
“I think that’s a little harsh.”
I don’t think that’s a little harsh, I think that’s the truth. But that’s a truth that we have obscured behind a… comfortable, easy euphemism. ‘Property.’ But that’s not the issue at all, is it?”
–Guinan and Captain Jean-Luc Picard, “The Measure of a Man,” Star Trek: The Next Generation.

Or a comfortable euphemism of “choice.” Or a comfortable euphemism of “discarded embryo.” Or a comfortable euphemism of “scientific integrity,” as our president puts it.

Angelina Jolie wants 8 kids

Apparently, she’s never heard of Bill Gates or Warren Buffett

I haven’t read the article beyond the snippet on my blog roll. Usually I do, but my blood pressure can only handle so much of the hate and invective on Reproductive Health Reality Check.

But this writer is wishing she had a billion dollars to “improve access” to birth control in third world countries. Apparently, she’s never heard of Bill Gates or Warren Buffett, who, individually or combined, have probably spent at least that much, because it’s their main “charitable cause.”

Then let’s add the tons of money the UN and the US specifically pour into “population control.”

Human Life International has done numerous exposes of the amount of money the International Planned Parenthood Federation spends on bribing medical professionals, media personalities and politicians in third world nations to advance its agenda.

They really can’t think of a *better* way to spend those billions, like maybe actually providing food or education or alternative energy???

It’s like the “bail-out.” “Families are in debt. Small businesses are going out of business. But we’ll give trillions of dollars to the corporations that caused this mess.” Even the few “trickle down” measures, like the $8000 construction credit, really just serve as welfare to the building corporations that over-built to begin with.

So Randall Terry did some good, after all?

Deal Hudson reports that the bishops of Washington and Arlington, Donald Wuerl and Paul Loverde, have said they’ll uphold Kansas City Bishop Joseph Naumann’s order that Governor Kathleen Sebelius–when she is almost inevitably appointed Secretary of Health and Human Services (aka Eugenicist in Chief)–should refrain from the altar when she lives in the DC area.

Hudson points out that a big difference in this situation–pointed out by Archbishop Burke himself–is how the emphasis is on Sebelius *refraining* from Communion, as opposed to overtly *denying* her Communion. On the other hand, now that they have said this, it eliminates excuses. If Sebelius were to present herself, and any priest, deacon or EMC would grant her the Blessed Sacrament, it would undoubtedly create a firestorm in the New Media.

It also sets a precedent, solving the issue of the dual status of many government types. Now, if their “home bishops” say something, Wuerl and Loverde will back it up.

But what’s *most* interesting is how certain sites have been dissing Randall Terry and his recent visit to the Vatican.

We’ve been told, again, that Burke is an “embarrassment” and a “rogue” and a “blowhard.” We’ve been told that Terry is an opportunist (he may well be; I don’t really know much about the man except that he’s done a lot of good for unborn babies). We’ve been told that it’s hypocritical of “conservatives” to say “the Church is not a democracy” yet lobby the Vatican.

Let’s see. When liberals “lobby the Vatican,” they usually get shut out completely. When conservatives “lobby the Vatican,” they’re at least listened to (except on the whole Mediatrix thing, at least).

When Call to Action did its “We Are Church” petition about 10 years ago, its representatives were not even let in the Vatican. Meanwhile, two teenagers from Seton High School in Northern Virginia did a “We are Catholic” petitoin to counter-protest, got a lot more signatures than Call to Action did, and got an audience with John Paul II.

When Bernard Cardinal Law wanted inclusive language in the Catechism, Fr. Fessio and Mother Angelica “lobbied the Vatican,” and the inclusive language was shot down.

A few years later, Cardinal Mahony tried to go to the Vatican and get Mother Angelica put out of business. After fuming and posturing against Mother Angelica for months, he practically stormed the Congregation for Clergy, was called in for a private meeting with JPII, and left the Vatican defeated, never mentioning Mother Angelica–or the pastoral letter she condemned on the air–again. Meanwhile, the Pope sent Mother Angelica a monstrance.

So, now, Randall Terry goes to the Vatican specifically regarding Loverde and Wuerl, and–lo and behold!–they’re changing their tunes.

In related news, the Pope has apparently thought better of having a Jesuit in charge of his press office.

When did "Zealous" become a bad word?

Dallas Morning News describes Archbishop Raymond Burke as “one of the most outspoken (some would say zealous) defenders of the Catholic prohibition against abortion.”

Shortly before Fr. James Haley–one of the best homilists I’ve ever heard–was suspened by Bishop Paul Loverde, he said, “People say I’m too zealous.”

When did “zealous” become a bad word? It’s apparently a bad word in the minds of many Catholics, who call zeal “extremism” or “fanaticism.”

First, let’s look at the Psalms. The Church encourages us to base our prayers on them, but if you try quoting them (particularly Psalm 15 or Psalm 127) in Catholic circles, watch out!

“Because zeal for your house consumes me, I am scorned by those who scorn you. ” (Psalm 69:10, quoted as “zeal for your house will consume me” in John 2:17).

“I am intensely jealous for Zion, stirred to jealous wrath for her. ” (Zechariah 8:2)
“[Elijah] I have been most zealous for the LORD, the God of hosts, but the Israelites have forsaken your covenant, torn down your altars, and put your prophets to the sword. I alone am left, and they seek to take my life.” (1 Kings 19:10; Carmelite Motto)