Conservative Donnybrook

Christmas marks a momentous occasion in the history of Man’s salvation. With the coming of Our Lord, those who walk in the Spirit with Christ are restored to God’s family. God so loved the world that He gave his only Son that we could be saved. St. Paul teaches that God wishes to adopt us into his own family as brothers, sisters, and heirs of Christ (Rom 8:14-17). We as human beings are, of course, imbued with inherent dignity by our creation in the likeness and image of God. But, how much more does it increase our dignity to be adopted heirs to Christ’s throne? Each person possesses a claim on Christ’s Chair when he professes his faith in Christ and partakes of His flesh and blood. As adopted sons and daughters of God, each person’s intrinsic worth is increased over his former state, albeit immeasurably short of Christ’s Divine Sonship.

Of course, concomitant with God’s overwhelming beneficence comes a reciprocal duty to recognize the import of such a gift. Our response to such an astounding gift can be no less than full acceptance and spreading of that Good News to anyone who will listen. If God makes the faithful more worthy through his Divine Condescension, we can do nothing short of respecting that quality in others. We do this by imitating Christ, the supreme example, and treating others with the respect that their station as co-heirs with Christ rightly entitles them. Our personal interactions, our familial interactions, our public interactions, and even our national interactions should be guided by that example.

A child was born in a manger a little over 2000 years ago to a family of humble means. And the world was changed. With that child came hope for every man, woman and child. With that birth, we were freed from the slavery to sin and given a great promise that we might share in Christ’s heritage. Rejoice and be glad for this is the day the Lord has made. And, in this day, we are to be called to God’s family through our Redeemer.

Merry Christmas to one and all.

Genesis 25:27-34  (MRAV – modern revised American version):

27                As the boys grew up, Esau became a Democrat, a man who loved big government; whereas Jacob was a simple man, who kept to his tents.

28                The people loved Esau, because they were fond of largesse; but the founding fathers preferred Jacob.

29                Once, when Jacob was treating a wounded sheep, Esau came in from the open, with a hangnail.

30                He said to Jacob, “Give me some of that medical treatment, I am uncomfortable.” (That is why he was called America.)

31                But Jacob replied, “First give me your birthright in exchange for it.”

32                “Look,” said Esau, “I’m on the point of dying. What good will my freedoms and liberties do me?”

33                But Jacob insisted, “Swear to me first!” So he sold Jacob his birthright under oath.

34                Jacob then treated his hangnail, and Esau sighed in relief, got up, and went his way. Esau cared little for his birthright.

A well known Catholic priest has quit the Catholic Church in favor of the Episcopalian church.  His reason: The Episcopals allow him to love up the ladies.  Nothing like sin and promotion of sin to soothe the wayward soul!

To quote the article linked above: “Some Catholics expressed sympathy for Cutie and said it was time to end the celibacy rule. Others said that, given the recent scandals involving U.S. priests sexually abusing young boys, and Irish priests raping, flogging and enslaving children in Catholic schools, they were relieved that Cutie had merely become involved with an adult woman.”

Indeed, thank God out priests feel comfortable to break the sacrament they took!  Never mind that whole commitment to God and Church thing.  What ever feels good, right?

Now, if we can just get ex-father Cutie (hilarious name I might add) to take the pedophiles with him… after all, sex is sex right?

To support their savior, Barack Obama, Georgetown University covered the name of Christ during a speech by the chosen one.  Apparently the President asked Georgetown to cover any signage or symbols on the Gaston Hall stage where he was to deliver a soul-stirring speech.

A spokes-hole for the once Catholic institution said:

“In coordinating the logistical arrangements for yesterday’s event, Georgetown honored the White House staff’s request to cover all of the Georgetown University signage and symbols behind Gaston Hall stage….  Frankly, the pipe and drape wasn’t high enough by itself to fully cover the IHS and cross above the GU seal and it seemed most respectful to have them covered so as not to be seen out of context.”

Outrageous!  I sure hope that Notre Dame is paying attention.  South Bend, are you listening?

We know that Obama is no fan of religion and this is nothing shocking.  But the fact that a university that claims to be Catholic would cover the name of Christ in order to appease an enemy of the faith is nothing short of depressing.  It is commonly known that Georgetown University does not represent the faith.  They (and many other Catholic schools) are, as others here have pointed out, CINO.

There is an interesting article that details how science has proved some of the earlier evolution models faulty. This story focuses on Darwin’s idea of the “Tree of Life.” Allow me to share one paragraph:

The neat picture of a branching tree is further blurred by a process called endosymbiosis. Early on in their evolution, eukaryotes are thought to have engulfed two free-living prokaryotes. One of these gave rise to the cellular power generators called mitochondria while the other was the precursor of the chloroplasts, in which photosynthesis takes place. These “endosymbionts” later transferred large chunks of their genomes into those of their eukaryote hosts, creating hybrid genomes. As if that weren’t complicated enough, some early eukaryotic lineages apparently swallowed one another and amalgamated their genomes, creating yet another layer of horizontal transfer (Trends in Ecology and Evolution, vol, 23, p 268).

This is why I believe in God.

That’s an awful lot to swallow. Their theory seems like a Deus ex Deus ex Deus ex Deus ex machina to me. The coincidences seem to engulf one another and built upon one another until the whole concept taxes one’s credulity. I suppose you have to be a true believer when first you approach a theory like this if there is any hope of wholesale adoption.

The kicker, of course, is the final sentence of the article in which Eric Bapteste, a scientist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, says, “The tree of life was useful. It helped us to understand that evolution was real. But now we know more about evolution, it’s time to move on.”

It was helpful to be led down a dead-end path for nearly two centuries? In an academic sense, I suppose it could have been a useful exercise for scientists to hone their argumentation skills, building the strongest case they could from the evidence they could uncover. But, in the end, the evidence they produced has apparently been rent asunder, rendered completely useless.

Meanwhile, after four millenia of intense scrutiny, Yahweh still is. The further revelations that God is Trinity has withstood the battering of two thousand years’ worth of inquiry. Leaving Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as constant and immutable as the day Man discovered the nature of their God. All the while science has “progressed,” reversed its conclusions, and reinvented itself when, time after time, the latest theory is decimated by a johnny-come-lately claimant to the throne of scientific consensus.

Of course, it seems to be the vogue thing to worship Change. After all, it is something one can believe in. No matter how far-fetched.

Fox News is reporting as I write this that a US Airways plane has crashed into the Hudson River as it left La Guardia. The early reports are that the plane struck several birds during takeoff and lost both its engines. The pilot guided the plane into the Hudson without power, managed to keep its wings level and set it into the water. Miraculously, everyone on board appears to have survived with injuries no worse than what one would see in a car accident. The first responders in New York City, once again, should be lauded for their extremely rapid response in rescuing the passengers and crew. As I look at the footage that Fox is airing, it appears that the plane is now partly submerged. A set of divers have apparently entered the plane and confirmed that no persons are left on board. In the meantime, pray that the early reports of no casualties is accurate.

Someone needs to find that pilot, give him a raise, a medal, and buy him a drink. Not necessarily in that order.

I have, on two separate occasions now, advocated for the formation of a third party. Not surprisingly, my fellow blogger, Bill, has taken me to task for my previous comment that voting for a third party could imperil one’s soul. Therefore, it is properly incumbent upon me to detail why I think voting for a third party in the future is, in any way, different going forward than it was in the late election.

First, the late election was notable for the stark contrast between the candidates’ stances on abortion. On the Democratic side, there was a candidate who favored infanticide for alive-born aborted babies. On the other side was a candidate who professed to be against abortion (although I recognize that his voting record was ambiguous). In light of the differences, the outcome of the election made one’s vote particularly important, given the stakes.

I wrote a post wherein I supported the decision of a local priest to withhold the Eucharist from persons who had voted for Obama. My argument proceeded along the lines that because of the peculiar situation of the United States, where the people are their own rulers, our votes take on special meaning. The basis for this claim, as I alluded to, was St. Paul’s comments in Romans:

1 Let every person be subordinate to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been established by God.

2 Therefore, whoever resists authority opposes what God has appointed, and those who oppose it will bring judgment upon themselves.

3 For rulers are not a cause of fear to good conduct, but to evil. Do you wish to have no fear of authority? Then do what is good and you will receive approval from it,

4 for it is a servant of God for your good. But if you do evil, be afraid, for it does not bear the sword without purpose; it is the servant of God to inflict wrath on the evildoer.

5 Therefore, it is necessary to be subject not only because of the wrath but also because of conscience.

6 This is why you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, devoting themselves to this very thing.

7 Pay to all their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, toll to whom toll is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.

Continue Reading »

On Monday an atheist advocacy group gained permission from Governor Gregoire to erect a paean to atheism in the rotunda of the Washington State Capitol building. The sign reads:

At this season of the Winter Solstice, may reason prevail.

There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell.

There is only our natural world.

Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts

and enslaves minds.

This is the second such display to be officially sanctioned by the government – the other is in Madison, Wisconsion. The assault on Christianity proceeds apace.

Yesterday, the Diocese of Charleston, South Carolina, issued a repudiation of Father Newman’s statements regarding the culpability of voters who cooperate in furthering the ongoing holocaust of innocent babies. The full statement, delivered by Monsignor Martin T. Laughlin reads as follows:

CHARLESTON, S.C. (November 14, 2008) – This past week, the Catholic Church’s clear, moral teaching on the evil of abortion has been pulled into the partisan political arena. The recent comments of Father Jay Scott Newman, pastor of St. Mary’s Catholic Church in Greenville, S.C., have diverted the focus from the Church’s clear position against abortion. As Administrator of the Diocese of Charleston, let me state with clarity that Father Newman’s statements do not adequately reflect the Catholic Church’s teachings. Any comments or statements to the contrary are repudiated.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, “Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions.” The Catechism goes on to state: “In the formation of conscience the Word of God is the light for our path; we must assimilate it in faith and prayer and put it into practice. We must also examine our conscience before the Lord’s Cross. We are assisted by the gifts of the Holy Spirit, aided by the witness or advice of others and guided by the authoritative teaching of the Church.”

Christ gives us freedom to explore our own conscience and to make our own decisions while adhering to the law of God and the teachings of the faith. Therefore, if a person has formed his or her conscience well, he or she should not be denied Communion, nor be told to go to confession before receiving Communion.

The pulpit is reserved for the Word of God. Sometimes God’s truth, as is the Church’s teaching on abortion, is unpopular. All Catholics must be aware of and follow the teachings of the Church.

We should all come together to support the President-elect and all elected officials with a view to influencing policy in favor of the protection of the unborn child. Let us pray for them and ask God to guide them as they take the mantle of leadership on January 20, 2009.

I ask also for your continued prayers for me and for the Diocese of Charleston.

Unfortunately, Monsignor Laughlin’s repudiation confuses a moral issue for a political one. Abortion is not a political issue. It is a moral issue, which has been politicized because of the nature of our country and government. Throughout history, God has used worldly governments to rule over his people. Figures such as Pharoah, Moses, Nebuchadnezzar, Xerxes, Cyrus, and Caesar have been used by God to either chastise or deliver His people.

The United States is unique in history because of the phrase “We, the People.” Abraham Lincoln referred to the United States as a “government of the people, for the people, by the people.” In this sense, we are the authority which God has set over us. As such, we are culpable for our actions as rulers of God’s people. To that end, every time we resort to the polling place, each of us is engaged in a moral act which has ramifications for our salvation.

During the latest election, we were given the choice between two men whose views were remarkably similar. More than one person argued with me that there was not a hair’s breadth worth of difference between the two candidates. In many ways, they were correct. The difference between the candidates was mostly in degree, but not in intent. Universal health care? One proposed to socialize medicine, while the other provided health care through the tax code. Immigration? I’m not really sure that there was any difference, frankly. The economy? The candidates disagreed only to the extent that the government should nationalize industry. Social Security? Was there a difference? The environment? One wanted massive tax increases through the imposition of cap and trade. The other wanted massive tax increases through cap and trade. Indeed, the only real difference was on the issue of abortion. I argued that this was the determinative factor and the reason conservatives should swallow their pride and vote for McCain – because there was a chance that McCain would nominate justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade, whereas his opponent would expand the destruction of innocent life.

Viewed in this light, each voter’s prudential decision to which Monsignor Laughlin refers was between a candidate who supports the destruction of innocent life whenever convenient and one who does not. The other issues – the ones which the Monsignor implies a person might have been justified in basing his decision – were more or less the same except in their degree. Given that choice, it is clear that Father Newman’s original statement was more in keeping with the Church’s teachings.

Even if there were social justice issues that a Catholic could look to and find Obama preferable, I am at a loss to find even one that trumps the wholesale murder of millions of innocent babies. Welfare? Jobs? Education? Health care? None of them do a person any good if he is killed in the womb. Life is more important than any other social justice issue, because without the basic right to be born, there is no justice.

In that sense, the elimination of abortion is the predicate to all social justice. There is not a larger moral issue than our complicity in the killing of millions of babies. So long as we continue to engage in this barbarity, we can scarcely call ourselves a moral nation. No matter the level of congeniality we achieve racially, socio-economically, ethnically, or between the sexes, we will still merit damnation as a nation while we are killing our babies. Furthermore, Monsignor Laughlin’s comments about the well formed conscience beg the question. Can a person with a well-formed conscience vote for a candidate who will expand abortion? Because abortion is, above all else, a moral issue, the Church is singularly competent to address it. They should be forceful in their condemnation of the act. Attaching repercussions to one’s status within the community of the Church for material support of this evil is appropriate. The Diocese of Charleston should reconsider its position.

UPDATE: While Fr. Newman has taken the original letter off the parish website, as we know nothing ever truly is deleted on the Internet. Here is the cached Google page containing the original letter.

According to one parish priest in South Carolina, parishioners who voted for Barack Hussein Obama should not present themselves for communion until they have repented, confessed and received absolution for their votes.

According to the Rev. Jay Scott Newman:

Our nation has chosen for its chief executive the most radical pro-abortion politician ever to serve in the United States Senate or to run for president. Voting for a pro-abortion politician when a plausible pro-life alternative exits constitutes material cooperation with intrinsic evil, and those Catholics who do so place themselves outside of the full communion of Christ’s Church and under the judgment of divine law. Persons in this condition should not receive Holy Communion until and unless they are reconciled to God in the Sacrament of Penance, lest they eat and drink their own condemnation.

Judging by the yard signs in my neighborhood, such a stance at my parish would trim 20 minutes off the mass time. It is good to see one priest stand up against the grave moral evil of our time. If more priests were to take the issue seriously, we may be able to make inroads against this modern holocaust.

Two announcements:

First, beginning tomorrow, Conservative Donnybrook is encouraging all lawyers and friends of CD to begin a novena to pray for the successful passage of the candidates taking the New York bar exam. The prayer which CD asks everyone to pray is as follows each day beginning on July 19 and ending on July 28, the day before the exam:

On behalf of the takers of the New York Bar Exam, we pray:

O Ineffable Creator,

True Fountain of light and wisdom, shed the brightness of Thy Light upon the darkness of my understanding;

Grant me acuteness in understanding what I read, power to remember it, readiness in learning it, subtlety in interpreting it, and clearness in expressing it.

Order the beginnings of my work, direct its progress, and bring it to fulfillment, through Christ our Lord.

Amen.

Second, CD invites our audience to watch this space for the inevitable announcement when Obama concedes victory in Iraq after his tour there.

When I was a kid, I noticed that a lot of people were flying POW/MIA flags. I found this odd because I had been told that all of the POW’s and MIA’s to date had been (or were on their way to being) classified as KIA by the government. I thought that the sign of solidarity for those whose status was unclear (but who were most likely dead) was misplaced and Pollyanna-ish, the stuff of Rambo fantasies and conspiracy garbage. It wasn’t until I was older that I understood that the motivation shown by folks flying the now-ubiquitous black flag was not a display of their own hope, but rather for the sake of the memories of missing themselves; that the awful thing that happened to them in pursuit of freedom would not be left in doubt forever, and that there were still people at home who would not rest until every single man was definitively accounted for. In this way, the forces of evil would not have victory over their memories.  In the end, the brave will find their true home, and the valiant will, at last, have their rest.

Which brings me to the point of this post. There are thousands of unaccounted-for clergy behind the Bamboo Curtain, and one remarkable case of a Catholic “MIA”  bears retelling, if for no other reason than that Holy Mother Church has been keeping solidarity with the memory of Francis Hong-yong Ho for decades. In October, he will celebrate his 102nd birthday, and he is currently be the oldest reigning bishop in the world, if not the entire history of the Church.

The Most Rev. Francis Hong Yong-Ho (born 12 October 1906) was made Vicar Apostolic of P’yong-yang, Korea, by Pius XII in 1944, and ordained Bishop the same year. When the Chi-Coms invaded and installed their puppet, Kim Il-sung (the father of the present butcher in charge of North Korea), Bishop Hong was, first, imprisoned in 1949, and then later disappeared. In solidarity with Korean Catholics suffering under the Red Yoke, Pope Bl. John XXIII errected P’yong-yang as a diocese and named Bishop Hong as its first (and, to date, only) ordinary on 10 March 1962.

The sign of solidarity against the Communist outrage is ongoing. The Pontifical Yearbook continues to list Bishop Hong as Ordinary of P’yong-yang, with a footnote: “(missing)” Bishop Hong has been the bishop of record in P’yong-yang for 46 years and counting.

See also: Wikipedia.

LONDON, July 7 (UPI)—Toddlers who say “yuck” when given flavorful foreign food may be exhibiting racist behavior, a British government-sponsored organization says. …

“…babies must also be included in the effort to eliminate racism because they have the ability to “recognize different people in their lives.”

It doesn’t get any better than this.

Obama has come out in favor of expanding faith-based initiatives. Rod Dreher conducts a thought experiment:

But here’s something worth considering. Obama has recently declared himself opposed to the attempt to amend California’s constitution, or the U.S. Constitution, to ban same-sex marriage. …Anyway, here’s the thing. If gay marriage gets read by SCOTUS into the US Constitution as a fundamental civil right, as Obama no doubt wishes, I’m pretty sure that no religious organization that adheres to the traditional Christian/Jewish/Muslim teaching about same-sex marriage will be eligible to receive taxpayer funds as part of any faith-based initiative. So his proclamation today that he will support and expand federal funding for faith-based initiatives would, in that case, mean that he would in effect support federal funding for liberal faith-based groups only. The only churches, synagogues, etc., that would be eligible to receive federal funds would be those that have abandoned traditional teaching on homosexuality. Right?

The Anglican church has a problem: Dr. Rowan.  Yet he is not the underlying problem, just its very visible face.  For years the church has been split between well intentioned and so-called “conservatives” and the Christian-lite “liberals” led by Dr. Rowan and brought into scrutinizing light by the elevation of bishop Gene Robinson.

Some parishes around the world have responded to the dismantling of orthodox ideals by calling for a conservative Anglican council.  The newly created council will teach seminarians, interpret biblical texts and issue proclamations on dogmatic issues.  Not a break from the Anglicans, but a “church within a church.”  While the desire to resist Dr. Rowan and his company’s brand of liberal theology is understandable, the decision to remain a church within a church fails to correct the root of the Anglican problem. 

When the prodigal son had enough of the world’s wicked ways did he forge a new way, keeping vestiges of a failed philosophy?  No, he returned to that which he first, erroneously, separated himself from: his roots, symbolized by his father.  So too should the prodigal church return to her roots: The Roman Catholic Church.  Much time has passed since the wicked and heretical King Henry VIII seized control of God’s Church on Earth.  The political and theological hegemony once emanating from Rome is no more.  No longer does the Roman Catholic Church rule the land with a shepherd’s crook and a crown and She has no desire to return to those days.  Her focus is now solely on souls.  Created by God for God’s people, it is time the rightly angered Anglicans came home. 

This afternoon my wife and I went to see Ben Stein’s documentary, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. As one reviewer pointed out, one’s opinion of the film is almost guaranteed to be determined by one’s stance on the Evolutionism v. Intelligent Design “debate.”

The point of the film is not whether ID is superior to Evolutionism, but rather that the mere suggestion that ID might provide some explanation as to the origins of life is strictly verboten in academic and scientific circles. Stein introduces his viewers to several scientists who have been drummed out of their positions because they had the audacity to mention Intelligent Design in their research.

One proponent of evolutionism, William Provine, an avowed atheist science historian at Cornell University, objected to the teaching of intelligent design in part on the basis that it’s “BOOOORING. I can’t think of any topic that is more BOOOORING!” Of course, when asked about the origins of life, Provine posited that aliens might have seeded life on this planet, deftly pushing back the question one generation (How did the seed scattering aliens come to exist, Professor Provine?).

Perhaps no single point shows that Stein was not attempting to advocate for the Intelligent Design position than the fact that Stein did not interview Michael Behe, a microbiologist whose book Darwin’s Black Box I found to provide much evidentiary support for intelligent design. Behe’s argument proceeded by examining the simplest of life forms, a single celled creature, and examined it at the microbiological level. At that level there are mechanisms (Behe uses a flagella as one example) that are incredibly complex structurally and functionally such that they could not have evolved happenstance. He coined the term “irreducible complexity”: Take away any of the structure’s complexity and it would cease to function and therefore would not confer an advantage which would be selected for. Indeed, extra baggage which provided no function would put the organism at a disadvantage, which Darwin predicted would ultimately cause its extinction. Critics of Behe have noted that some of the proteins that make up some of these structures that Behe used as examples occur in other contexts within the cell, however, that still fails to account for their combination into a specific structure which is much more complex than the joining of a few proteins randomly.

Continue Reading »

Lowry’s latest proves remarkably insightful despite its brevity.

As I mentioned previously, no matter what Benedict said in his addresss to the U.N. liberals were going to seize on the pontiff’s words and reappropriate them as a rebuke of Bush’s foreign policy.  Benedict gave them little fodder, if any.  In fact,

…Benedict blessed an interventionism farther reaching than anything Bush has ever defended. If nation states don’t protect their citizens from ‘grave and sustained violations of human rights,’ he said, ‘the international community must intervene.’ This view might seriously endanger national sovereignty – if the United Nations weren’t so comically ineffectual.

As expected, Benedict devoted much of his address to a dense philosophical explication of human rights.  While liberals had hoped Benedict would chide the U.S. specifically, His Holiness took a more universal approach, referencing “the natural law inscribed on human hearts and present in different cultures and civilizations. ”  Lowry correctly notes that, with this universal theme of human dignity and rights,

Benedict sounded similar to Bush. There’s a reason that yesterday Bush declared with gusto at the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast in Washington: ‘His Holiness believes that freedom is the Almighty’s gift to every man, woman and child on Earth.’

Emphasizing the most blaspemously neglected storyline of Benedict’s visit, Lowry recognizes ‘the consonance of vision’ of Benedict and Bush:

When they stood together on the White House lawn in a majestic welcoming ceremony on Wednesday, it symbolized the growing rapprochement of American evangelical Protestantism and the Catholic Church.

It was West Texas meets Rome; plain-spoken man of faith meets intellectual of great depth; representative of America’s awesome secular power meets representative of the spiritual power of Christianity.  And more united than divided them.

A better model of Christ, a better message of “Hope”:

Thanks to The Curt Jester. And Laughing Squid.

WAC

Same headline as the breaking news story from the National Catholic Reporter.

I’m glad to see Pope benedict confronting this crisis with the due diligence it deserves:

Benedict is today is wrapping up the first leg of his six-day visit to the United States. He has repeatedly engaged the sexual abuse crisis during this trip, speaking about it for the first time before he even arrived.

“We are deeply ashamed, and we will do all that is possible that this cannot happen in the future,” the pope said in a session with reporters aboard the papal plane Tuesday en route to the United States.

Benedict argued that efforts to address the crisis have to unfold on three levels: the legal and juridical, the pastoral, and programs of prevention to ensure that future priests are “sound.” Pointedly, the pope said that “it’s more important to have good priests than to have many.”

Hopefully this will serve to usher in a sense of closure for victims, their families, and the American faithful.