An excellent and thoughtful essay on the nature of hell, by C. R. Hardy at NRO.

An excerpt:

And then, neither of us looking at the other, she said the following — slowly and deliberately, as if she had been formulating the thought all afternoon: “I also believe that hell exists. But I just realized that I don’t live as if I believed that hell exists. And Auschwitz, that’s just what man can do. But what can God do?”

Posted by: annika at 11:02 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 84 words, total size 1 kb.

This is satirical, so it's okay to watch.

h/t Shelly, Cranky, Linda, Bluto, Allah, and Scott

Posted by: annika at 08:15 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 24 words, total size 1 kb.

For my Jewish friends, a Shavu'ot poem:

Autumn Season

Truth
is the
Sword of Gevurah
that the Just Warrior wields with Mighty Power!

I say unto Thee:

Defend Thy Honor fiercely
with Noble Courage that Towers above the Tide.

I say unto Thee:

Feed the Hungry of Body and Spirit,
Give them Hope for Health and Livelihood.

I say unto Thee:

Protect the folk from those who would seek to steal away
their precious rights!

I say unto Thee:

Be Thou Swift to shine the Light of Truth upon
those who deceive, delude and dishonor,
hiding behind the dark veil of privilege.

Shine the Light now,
so that Ye may walk with Honor to Thy Destiny.

Rememberest Thou:
whatsoever is the will of man...
the Lord God demands Truth and Justice
from those who would seek to serve
Heaven...

Understand why it Rains, Know why the Wind Howls:
Be Wise when you are offered the Hand of Redemption!
Justice must prevail!

You are the Servant
that must Right the great Injustice that has been wrought.

I'm not Jewish, but I will enjoy the traditional Chalav observance tonight by eating a bowl of chocolate chip cookie dough ice cream with my favorite chocolate syrup and a big glass of water. mmmmm. Not exactly kosher, but that's the advantage of being Catholic.

h/t Linda at Something and Half of Something.

Posted by: annika at 07:13 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 236 words, total size 2 kb.

Please remember Gcotharn's mom in your prayers. Though I've never met Greg, he's been a great friend and supporter of this blog, and it's a sad thing that has happened in his family. I hope his mom will have a full recovery.

Posted by: annika at 07:54 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 46 words, total size 1 kb.

A recently concluded study on the power of prayer supposedly found no evidence that prayer had any effect on the recovery of 1800 heart patients.

In fact, the study found some of the patients who knew they were being prayed for did worse than others who were only told they might be prayed for -- though those who did the study said they could not explain why.

The patients in the study at six U.S. hospitals included 604 who were actually prayed for after being told they might or might not be; another 597 patients who were not prayed for after being told they might or might not be; and a group of 601 who were prayed for and told they would be the subject of such prayer.

. . .

Among the first group -- who were prayed for but only told they might be -- 52 percent had post-surgical complications compared to 51 percent in the second group, the ones who were not prayed for though told they might be. In the third group, who knew they were being prayed for, 59 percent had complications.

. . .

"Intercessory prayer itself had no effect on whether complications occurred (and) patients who were certain that intercessors would pray for them had a higher rate of complications than patients who were uncertain but did receive intercessory prayer," the study said.

That is, simply put, God can say "no."

Just because someone does not get what they prayed for, does not mean that the prayer was not answered. It's an obvious point, but one that escapes a surprising number of people ― even many religious people.

Posted by: annika at 10:50 PM | Comments (27) | Add Comment
Post contains 309 words, total size 2 kb.

An excellent short post on Pope Benedict's Deus Caritas Est is over at Hugo's. I wholeheartedly agree with the Pope, and Hugo's, thoughts on the separation of charity and proselytization. Although I recognize that for much of my church's history, that separation was blurred at best. I do think it's most effective, especially on a personal level, to proclaim the Gospel more by example and less by argument.

Posted by: annika at 09:55 AM | Comments (18) | Add Comment
Post contains 74 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Word

Posted by: Scof at January 27, 2006 09:24 AM (a3fqn)

2 On the other hand, I once worked at an inner city mission for the homeless, They gave out good food and preached during the eveng meal. There were at least a few people who turned away from alcohol because of a religous experience.

Posted by: Kyle N at January 27, 2006 12:12 PM (UKuFN)

3 "There were at least a few people who turned away from alcohol because of a religous experience." Our current president being one of them....

Posted by: reagan80 at January 27, 2006 03:22 PM (K9tdw)

4 Yes Ray, He'd been an abusive, angry, lying sack of shit who also drank too much. Too bad religion only got him to give up one bad habit.

Posted by: Strawman at January 29, 2006 05:05 PM (0ZdtC)

5 "He'd (sic) been an abusive, angry, lying sack of shit who also drank too much. Too bad religion only got him to give up one bad habit." Shit straw, sounds more like you... do you drink too much?

Posted by: Casca at January 29, 2006 06:36 PM (2gORp)

6 Hey StrawDude, Do you get your material from Howard Dean, Paul Begala, or James Carville---visionary thinkers all. The ad hominem attacks only demonstrates the extent to which "W" has kicked the shit out of you guys. Here is an idea for Democrats: Come up with one new idea...just one. I won't hold my breath, though. The Dems idea of a policy debate is to run around saying "Bush lied, Bush lied." You fucking idiots haven't had a new idea since FDR tried to destroy our country with his brand of socialism. (Well, that is when he wasn't throwing non-white people in internment camps. Funny, how your heroes above don't have much to say about that action in a time of war, but are torn up about monitoring the calls of terroists.) Anyway, the Left's disdain for religion is one (of many) reason you people lose election after election. So, go put on your Che Guevara T-Shirt and attend a Hugo Chavez rally. You'll feel right at home amongst people who idolize murderers and God-haters.

Posted by: Blu at January 30, 2006 09:41 AM (2LSwo)

7 A link to two people who don't think much of God, the Pope, or Bush. (Strawman's peeps.) http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060129/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/venezuela_sheehan

Posted by: Blu at January 30, 2006 11:29 AM (2LSwo)

8 Hey Blu, What do you think of god? I'm Curious. You like the guy? Think he/she is doing a good job caring for his best works? DO ya think he has a plan? BTW, the Japanese internment was a terrible crime against Americans and I don't know anybody who thinks differently. Nor do I think any historians on the left have given FDR a free ride about it. It is, however, a bit late for those on the left to protest it. But W is a lying sack of shit and history will record him as such. How quickly you forget that he lost the first election and won the second by the smallest margin of a second term winner. This to you is kicking the shit outof something? That a majority of this nation currently feels he has bungled Iraq and is not trustworthy or competent. Wait 'till the midterms and you'll watch his party run away from him.

Posted by: Strawman at January 30, 2006 05:17 PM (0ZdtC)

9 He lost the first election? Really? Weird, I thought he won the electoral college vote, which is how we elect Presidents in this country. Yep, I'm pretty sure he won---despite widespread Democrat voter fraud.

Posted by: Blu at January 30, 2006 05:51 PM (A+3OL)

10 Blu, Really? I didn't notice the W was president. My point was that more Americans wanted Al Gore to be president than wanted W. I do know that the electoral college is the method we use, none the less, it has been and continues to be a myth purpertrated by the Right that the country is in some RW slide. IT is not. The right to choose is supported by nearly 60%, the presidents popularity is less than 40%, the perception that he is an incompetent boob is shared by more than 50%, his lies about the need for SS over hall were rejected for what they were,distortions, his wish to have creationism taught as "just another point of view" was crushed with predjudice, his lie that "nobody could have imagined the levee's breaching" is clear to all who are not dead, his fear mongering about how if illegal wire taps had been in use prior to 911, it could have been stopped, utter nonsence, just a caculated lie to manipulate public opinion among the freightened sheep who make up a large part of this country. Why did Chainey pound away befor the invasion on the idea that there was a Saddam-Al Quieda connection regardless of there being NO supporting evidence? You think he had info he wouldn't share or he had an invasion agenda? The NYT call Bush a liar at least 5 times in Sunday's editorial and has refuted every stupid baseless argument the WH puts out about the need and legality of domestic spying: the lives it saves or could have saved, pure bullshit. Blu, you are living a dream which is rapidly becoming a god infested , facist neightmare. W has the FEAR card and nothing more and you quake in your boots watching your constitutional protections go down the sewer.

Posted by: Strawman at January 31, 2006 10:06 AM (0ZdtC)

11 The links between Sadaam and Al Quieda are well-docuemnted. He trained them in his country for years. Get over it. Read Stephen Hayes and stop listening to left-wingers with two-digit IQs. You actually read the NY Times editorials? The specific editorial referenced was a fucking joke---one of the worse pieces of crap ever written by that piece of shit paper. (Maybe, Jason Blair wrote it.) They couldn't even cite relevant case law to support their argument. On the other hand, the President can easily make his case for based on several pre-FISA cases and a post-FISA case. Now, do you think the idiots at the NY Times, (who have NO constitutional scholars on their editorial board,) bothered to check the case law? Of course not. The NY Times is a Left-wing rag that is becoming less relevant each and every day. Check their circulation #s over the past decade. Anyway, the difference between you and me (and the Right and Left generally) is the use of facts rather than just the spewing of BS. So, here is the case law (courtesy of John Hinderaker) that supports Bush and that proves you and the NY Times incorrect...as usual. United States v. Clay, 430 F.2d 165 (5th Cir. 1970), in which the court held that federal statutes prohibiting wiretapping do not "[forbid] the President, or his representative, from ordering wiretap surveillance to obtain foreign intelligence in the national interest." Does the Times mention Clay? Of course not. United States v. Butenko, 494 F.2d 593 (3rd Cir. 1974), where the court held that no judicial warrant was necessary where "surveillances ... were 'conducted and maintained solely for the purpose of gathering foreign intelligence information.'” Times doesn't mention it. United States v. Truong, 629 F.2d 908 (4th Cir. 1980), where the court sustained the federal government's position, which it summarized as follows: "In the area of foreign intelligence, the government contends, the President may authorize surveillance without seeking a judicial warrant because of his constitutional prerogatives in the area of foreign affairs." The court explained why the President has the inherent constitutional authority to order warrantless electronic surveillance: "For several reasons, the needs of the executive are so compelling in the area of foreign intelligence, unlike the area of domestic security, that a uniform warrant requirement would, following [United States v. United States District Court, 407 U.S. 297 (1972)], “unduly frustrate” the President in carrying out his foreign affairs responsibilities. First of all, attempts to counter foreign threats to the national security require the utmost stealth, speed and secrecy. A warrant requirement would add a procedural hurdle that would reduce the flexibility of executive foreign intelligence activities, in some cases delay executive response to foreign intelligence threats, and increase the chance of leaks regarding sensitive executive operations." If the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals was right, then the New York Times is wrong. So, surely the Times must have some persuasive rebuttal to the Truong decision in support of its technical legal argument? No. The Times never refers to Truong. United States v. Duggan, 743 F.2d 59 (2nd Cir. 1984), was a terrorism case in which the court, among other rulings, upheld the constitutionality of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The court wrote: "Prior to the enactment of FISA, virtually every court that had addressed the issue had concluded that the President had the inherent power to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance to collect foreign intelligence information, and that such surveillances constituted an exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment." A damning summary. Surely the Times has a rejoinder to the court's statement that the universal weight of authority is against the paper's position? Nope. Those cases are pre-FISA, of course, and the Times says that FISA is the statute the administration "violated." So maybe the Times would argue that the pre-FISA cases don't apply. Such a claim would be unpersuasive on its face, since Congress cannot by statute or otherwise strip the executive branch of its constitutional powers. But there is, in fact, a post-FISA case that specifically addresses the question whether the passage of that statute could have changed the pre-existing principle that the President has constitutional power to order warrantless surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes. Since that case is directly on point, surely the Times discussed it. Right? Wrong. The Times never mentions In re: Sealed Case No. 02-001, decided in 2002 by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, the very court which is responsible for interpreting and applying FISA. It's not hard to figure out why the Times editorialists pretend that Sealed Case No 02-001 doesn't exist. It conclusively refutes their legal position: The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. ... We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power. So the only federal appellate court that has ruled on the issue says that the New York Times is wrong about the law. The Times, ostrich-like, pretends that the federal courts don't exist. So, Strawman, as usual, I bury your bullshit with facts. You really are gonna have to bring your game up a level.

Posted by: Blu at January 31, 2006 10:40 AM (9Z/ir)

12 Blu, I am not a lawyer and rely on the interpretation of others who are so I cannot argue the decisions and interpretations that you would like to call facts. I do, however, read and have heard many lawyers,(the latest was Reagans soliciter general) say you are wrong and that the warrantless taps, post FISA are illegal. If it were as cut and dry as you say it is there would not be such an uproar. A bi-partisian one at that. Listening to the pin head last night I realized that the whole wire tap issue is a smoke screen. They really don't think the intel is that valuable nor do they believe they would have done better connectiong the dots pre-911. Rather what they are doing is defining the election strategy. They realize that the Dems are going to have to answer the question " ....so senator, in other words, if an operative is talk'in to Al Kida overseas you don't want to know what he's say'in?" The fear card. If you oppose wirtapping you are willing to let American's be killed. This is the only hope thay have for winning. All the real issues are in a shambles for the RW. Iraq is a debacle, the tax cuts have only benefitted the wealthy, real wages for Americans are dropping, economic growth is slow, spending is at an all time high, the diaster response and relief are deeply troubled plagued by incompetence at the top and the surplus they inherited has turned into the largest debt ever. Fear is their only card. So you may parse the legality but it is meaningless. They couldn't and still can't find there way out of a gunny sack. What did Condiliar say the other day in response to the Hammas win? "Yes, Bob, we were quite surprised by that and I am goning to find out why we didn't have have a clue" (paraphrase) She has never had a clue, never will, she is in way over her head.

Posted by: Strawman at February 01, 2006 10:04 AM (0ZdtC)

13 There are opinions and then there are facts. The court is the final arbitor of law. The appellate courts, as demonstrated by the relevant case law, have decided---REPEATEDLY---that the President has the authority. So, end of discussion. Now, people may be uncomfortable with the facts, but they are arguing their personal sentiments not the law. BTW, C. Rice is by far the smartest and most intellectual Sec of State this country has ever had. Her recent work with N. Korea was universally applauded as brilliant. And her work with Israel and its barbaric neighbor has also been lauded as very effective and even-handed---as compared to Clinton's courting of those Palestinian fascists. Compare her to the idiot windbag of a woman Clinton installed for purely affirmative action reasons. It was Albright's (and Clinton's) mess that Rice cleaned up in N. Korea. Indeed, it is Clinton's mess world-wide that Bush has had to deal with since taking office. Their "head in the sand" foreign policy directly led to 9-11 and to a myriad of other problems in the world. Lucky for him that a stock-market fueled by imaginary internet profits allowed that idiot/serial adulterer to duck out just in time to avoid the blame for disaster with wich he left us.

Posted by: Blu at February 01, 2006 10:38 AM (9Z/ir)

14 Oh, and economic growth has been very, very good. Do you even look at the numbers? On top of that, inflation has been low despite high energy prices. What world do you live in? Clinton handed us a recession, which TAX CUTS got us out of. Do you even understand basic macro-economics? And, yes, you are right there was a surplus---but then, as I said, Clinton gave us a recession and then his incompetence gave us 9/11. Surplus gone. Besides, the surplus was an illusion. Clinton got his "surplus" by gutting our military. This has been yet another area that Bush has had to salvage. Prior to Bush, our troops didn't have sufficient equipment for normal training. Do you ever wonder why 90% of the military despises Clinton and the Left? Seriously, debating with you can be very annoying because you don't seem to have knowledge about fundamental concepts of law, economics, and political philosophy. Do you just make stuff up? Perhaps, you just mimick the Left-wingers you trust. I'm not certain. Regardless, do your homework or get your ass to graduate school. Or maybe just read a book. Opinions are nice but facts are better.

Posted by: Blu at February 01, 2006 11:07 AM (9Z/ir)

15 "C. Rice is by far the smartest and most intellectual Sec of State this country has ever had." Well, I don't know. I seem to remember a guy by the name of Thomas Jefferson. I'm not trying to pick on you Blu. You know I luv you. Rock on.

Posted by: annika at February 02, 2006 07:35 AM (naOK+)

16 Annika, I'm not a Thomas Jefferson fan. Spent A LOT OF TIME in graduate school and since reading Jefferson and reading about him. He was (admittedly) brilliant, arrogant, radical, and hypocritical. I much prefer Adams and Hamilton (in terms of Founding Dudes). His support of the French Revolution and his weak reasons for supporting it ought to be enough to turn the stomach of any conservative. I know that it is tough to argue against the (main) writer of the Declaration and a Founder, but I don't think that he was even close to being the brightest of the Founders. He was, however,(second only to Franklin) an excellent self-promoter. With regard to the Rice comment, I admittedly failed to think beyond the past several decades. So, hey, pick away. I can take it. Remember, I've spent many, many years debating academic/political crap. I can take it.

Posted by: Blu at February 02, 2006 10:17 AM (9Z/ir)

17 Alright, Blu, if you don't like our first Secretary of State, how about these: John Marshall, James Madison, James Monroe, John Quincy Adams, Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, William Seward, William Jennings Bryan, Charles Evans Hughes, Gen. George C. Marshall, John Foster Dulles, Dean Acheson, Henry Kissinger. I am a big fan of Condi, but that's a pretty tough list to be at the top of.

Posted by: annika at February 03, 2006 06:48 PM (FbmKB)

18 Man, Annika you do like the old white guys. (Must be a history major I think that I like Madison the most of that group though he wasn't considered terribly effective. Kissinger might be the smartest of the bunch. But we all know his baggage. You are right---our country has has the benefit of some very smart men (and women.)

Posted by: Blu at February 03, 2006 07:01 PM (9Z/ir)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Merry Christmas and Happy Hannukah, everybody!

Posted by: annika at 12:15 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 12 words, total size 1 kb.

Here's a quote worth thinking about:

Man nurtures the suspicion that God, at the end of the day, takes something away from his life, that God is a competitor who limits our freedom and that we will be fully human only when we will have set him aside . . . There emerges in us the suspicion that the person who doesn't sin at all is basically a boring person, that something is lacking in his life, the dramatic dimension of being autonomous, that the freedom to say 'no' belongs to real human beings.

Overcome the temptation of a mediocre life, made of compromises with evil.

Posted by: annika at 09:27 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 113 words, total size 1 kb.

Disclaimer: This is a post i don't expect everyone to agree with.

Perhaps due to the ongoing disaster in the Gulf states, and some personal tragedies that have hit an alarming number of my blog friends recently, i've been seeing an unusual number of posts that deal with faith and tragedy.

It's the age old question. Why do bad things happen to good people? What does a person of faith do when tragedy strikes? How does one deal? What happens to a person's faith in an all-powerful and all-loving God when that God takes a loved one for no apparent reason?

One book of the Bible supposedly deals with this very question. It's the book of Job. Perhaps i'm not alone when i say that Job never really made me feel better for reading it. It's a strange book, and it's not a comfort at all, really. i read Job all the way through a few years ago. Let's just say i needed to read it at the time and leave it at that.

Basically, the gist of the story is this, as i recall. Job is a good and righteous man who's been blessed with a nice family and lots of money. One day, God makes a bet with the devil about whether or not Job will reject God if He lets the devil completely fuck with Job's life. So the devil kills all of Job's family, takes all his stuff, and gives Job boils on his skin.

Job gets pissed, but doesn't blame God at first. The devil continues to fuck him up, so Job asks a friend to talk to God for him. That ends up nowhere, and Job finally gets on the line with the Big Guy himself. Now God is pissed, and He says to Job (i'm paraphrasing) "Dude, why don't you create the entire universe in six days. Then you can come back here and pop off to me. Until then, shut your pie hole. I do what I want and you don't get to know the reason."

Now there are plenty of other parts in the Bible where one can go for real comfort in times of despair, but Job is not one of them. God doesn't come off looking very nice in Job, but that's not the point of the story. It's kind of the tough talk part of the Old Testament. We may not like the message, but we need to hear it at least once.

God's smackdown to Job, is one of the most awe inspiring and majestic passages of the Bible. It is hard reading when you're in trouble, though. You never thought God could be this sarcastic either:

From out of a storm,
the LORD said to Job:
Why do you talk so much
when you know so little?
Now get ready to face me!
Can you answer
the questions I ask?
How did I lay the foundation
for the earth?
Were you there?
Doubtless you know who decided
its length and width.
What supports the foundation?
Who placed the cornerstone,
while morning stars sang,
and angels rejoiced?

Have you journeyed to the springs of the sea
or walked in the recesses of the deep?

Have the gates of death been shown to you?
Have you seen the gates of the shadow of death?

Have you comprehended the vast expanses of the earth?
Tell me, if you know all this.

What is the way to the abode of light?
And where does darkness reside?

Can you take them to their places?
Do you know the paths to their dwellings?

Surely you know, for you were already born!
You have lived so many years!

My favorite holy day of obligation in the Catholic Church is the Feast of Christ the King. It's the last Holy Day of the liturgical year, and i think it's placed there for emphasis. It's a reminder to me that God is ruler over all. The universe is not a democracy, it is a monarchy and we are subjects of the King, not his equals.

Therefore i think it would be the height of arrogance for me to presume to know the mind of God. That's the lesson of the tower of Babel, and of the Book of Job. WTF, we humans can't even understand how light can act like both a particle and a wave. We don't know why neurons communicate across synapses. And every day, giant squid and great whales a hundred feet long fight death battles at the bottom of the sea that no man has ever witnessed. So for me to decide whether God is acting justly or unjustly, based on my own infinitely narrow vantage point on the universe, well it's the height of arrogance as i said.

i could choose to be pissed off at my own powerlessness, or i could find freedom in it. i never understand why so many people waste so much energy trying to reason God into or out of existence. Or trying to reason the nature of God. My knowledge that God exists was never based on reason. That knowledge is itself a gift from God and it remains in me as a result of my faith, not reason.

So i go on believing whether or not God's plan appears fair to me. i don't get to know the plan. Is that a cop-out? i don't think so. i think it's the essence of faith. If my faith were dependent on things like reason or observation or argument, it would be a very weak faith indeed. Yes, even my own mind, smart as i am, was created by Him.

Who endowed the heart with wisdom
or gave understanding to the mind?

So what does that mean? What about God's love that we hear so much about. Where does that fit into a universe that may or may not be cruel in a completely arbitrary way. Job asked:

from my deep despair,
I complain to you, my God.
Don't just condemn me!
Point out my sin.
Why do you take such delight
in destroying those you created
and in smiling on sinners?
Do you look at things
the way we humans do?
Is your life as short as ours?
Is that why you are so quick
to find fault with me?
You know I am innocent,
but who can defend me
against you?

It's the knowledge of my own inferior wisdom that has enabled me to never have a crisis of faith, even in times of despair. My spiritual weakness is one of devoutness, not doubt. i have crises of apathy, not belief. i'm going through one now, as a matter of fact. But God's love for this world is obvious to me every time i hear the Gospel. And that's what overcomes the pain i see at times too often to ignore.

Posted by: annika at 07:39 PM | Comments (18) | Add Comment
Post contains 1373 words, total size 7 kb.

i'm donating to Catholic Charities.

While local agencies along the Gulf Coast anticipate that they will be provide some type of emergency assistance in their communities, Catholic Charities' niche in disaster relief is to provide long-term recovery work. In fact, Catholic Charities agencies in Florida are still providing services to help people recover from last year's devastating hurricanes.

Based on past disasters, possible long-term services that Catholic Charities may provide include temporary and permanent housing, direct assistance beyond food and water to get people back into their homes, job placement counseling, and medical and prescription drug assistance.

Posted by: annika at 07:40 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 130 words, total size 1 kb.

Here's a quote from Steve Jobs' speech at this year's Stanford commencement ceremony.

[Y]ou can't connect the dots looking forward; you can only connect them looking backwards. So you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect in your future. You have to trust in something - your gut, destiny, life, karma, whatever. This approach has never let me down, and it has made all the difference in my life.

Posted by: annika at 03:45 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 83 words, total size 1 kb.

Apparently, journalism schools are now teaching their students that when they don't know something, just make shit up.

Listening to KCRA Channel 3's morning newscast in Sacramento, i was appalled to hear the news bimbo say that the Pope was given his "ring and woman's shawl" at this morning's installment ceremony.

It's called a stole, you idiot! Not common knowledge certainly, but a few seconds of research would have helped you avoid sounding like a complete ass.

"Woman's shawl?" Why not just say "shawl" if you didn't know what it was? If you're gonna make shit up, why not just say they gave him a ceremonial cigar too? Or that they passed around the ceremonial beer at mass?

i tell ya. It's near impossible to watch the news anymore.

Update: Okay, maybe i mis-heard it. She might have said "woolen" shawl. But still. How about a little enunciation?

Update 2: A little more than a few seconds of research revealed that i was wrong too. The stole is more properly called a Pallium, and Benedict spoke about its significance in this morning's homily.

The first symbol is the Pallium, woven in pure wool, which will be placed on my shoulders. This ancient sign, which the Bishops of Rome have worn since the fourth century, may be considered an image of the yoke of Christ, which the Bishop of this City, the Servant of the Servants of God, takes upon his shoulders. Gods yoke is Gods will, which we accept. And this will does not weigh down on us, oppressing us and taking away our freedom. To know what God wants, to know where the path of life is found this was Israel's joy, this was her great privilege. It is also our joy: Gods will does not alienate us, it purifies us even if this can be painful and so it leads us to ourselves. In this way, we serve not only him, but the salvation of the whole world, of all history.

The symbolism of the Pallium is even more concrete: the lambs wool is meant to represent the lost, sick or weak sheep which the shepherd places on his shoulders and carries to the waters of life. For the Fathers of the Church, the parable of the lost sheep, which the shepherd seeks in the desert, was an image of the mystery of Christ and the Church. The human race every one of us is the sheep lost in the desert which no longer knows the way. The Son of God will not let this happen; he cannot abandon humanity in so wretched a condition. He leaps to his feet and abandons the glory of heaven, in order to go in search of the sheep and pursue it, all the way to the Cross. He takes it upon his shoulders and carries our humanity; he carries us all he is the good shepherd who lays down his life for the sheep. What the Pallium indicates first and foremost is that we are all carried by Christ. But at the same time it invites us to carry one another. Hence the Pallium becomes a symbol of the shepherds mission, of which the Second Reading and the Gospel speak.

. . .

One of the basic characteristics of a shepherd must be to love the people entrusted to him, even as he loves Christ whom he serves. 'Feed my sheep,' says Christ to Peter, and now, at this moment, he says it to me as well. Feeding means loving, and loving also means being ready to suffer. Loving means giving the sheep what is truly good, the nourishment of Gods truth, of Gods word, the nourishment of his presence, which he gives us in the Blessed Sacrament. My dear friends at this moment I can only say: pray for me, that I may learn to love the Lord more and more. Pray for me, that I may learn to love his flock more and more in other words, you, the holy Church, each one of you and all of you together. Pray for me, that I may not flee for fear of the wolves. Let us pray for one another, that the Lord will carry us and that we will learn to carry one another.

I greet with great joy and gratitude all of you gathered here. . . . With great affection I also greet all those who have been reborn in the sacrament of Baptism but are not yet in full communion with us; and you, my brothers and sisters of the Jewish people, to whom we are joined by a great shared spiritual heritage, one rooted in God's irrevocable promises. Finally, like a wave gathering force, my thoughts go out to all men and women of today, to believers and nonbelievers alike.

Posted by: annika at 09:50 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 831 words, total size 5 kb.

In one of his first official acts as pontiff, Pope Benedict XVI will meet with the Archbishop of Canterbury. What surprised me is that such an invitation has never before happened, according to the Times of London.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, will meet Pope Benedict XVI for the first time on Monday.

Anglican insiders said it was "highly significant" that the Pope should choose to meet the honorary head of the Anglican communion in the very first hours of his official pontificate.

The papal audience in the Vatican follows his attendance at tomorrowÂ’s inaugural mass at St PeterÂ’s, when Dr Williams will become the first serving Archbishop of Canterbury to attend a papal inauguration since the Reformation. On Sunday evening Dr Williams will preach at the Anglican church of All Saints in Rome.

After a chilly period for Anglicanism under the last Pope because of the ordination of women priests, Benedict XVI appears eager to usher in a new era of closeness between the two communions.
[emphasis added]

More myths busted: The anti-semitic slur against the new pope is bogus:

Rabbi Di Segni quoted a letter from the pope, who said he had "trust in the help of the Almighty", in which he pledged to continue and intensify contacts with Jews begun by his predecessor, Pope John Paul II.

'I trust in the help of the Almighty to continue and strengthen the dialogue and collaboration with the sons and daughters of the Jewish people,' the pope said in the message, dated yesterday.

Jewish leaders in Israel and beyond have saluted the election of Benedict, saying he was a friend of the Jewish people and calling on him to continue the fight against anti-Semitism.

The new pope's conservative outlook, which has caused controversy in the Western world, appears not to overly concern religious leaders in the Middle East.

Jordan's King Abdullah II, a direct descendant of Islam's prophet, Mohammed, voiced his trust in the new pope's 'wisdom and courage to go forward and continue his predecessor's mission with strength and faith to bring about world peace and reinforce respect between religions.'

The Italian daily La Repubblica, meanwhile, reported that the documents Benedict had been working on before being elected pope included one allowing divorced couples who remarry to receive Communion.

Posted by: annika at 10:49 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 452 words, total size 3 kb.

i'm ecstatic about the selection of Cardinal Ratzinger, which is strange since i'm quite liberal on many Catholic issues. It's not just because we share a Bavarian ancestry. i really believe that the Church needs an orthodox leader after the touchy-feely pontificate of John Paul II.

The list of changes i would favor in my Church is long. But my faith remains strong. i'm not going to leave the Church because women can't be ordained, for example. It is good that the Pope is more conservative than i am. That's something the reformers seem to forget. When religion doesn't set moral standards, it ceases to be a religion, and becomes a social club.

Also, the media critics don't want to admit that most of the Catholic world is very happy at the selection of a conservative cardinal. It's just here in the godless west that you hear the whining. i am hopeful and happy about Pope Benedict XVI because he has already signalled that he will not lead the Church into error by chasing after fallen Catholics. It is up to the faithful to remain in faith, not the other way around.

Lastly, i'm sick and tired of hearing the talking heads question whether Cardinal Ratzinger will be too divisive, when (they arrogantly surmise) the Church needs a uniter. i'm reminded of the following words of scripture:

Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law, a man's enemies will be the members of his own household. [Matthew 10:34-36]

Viva il Papa nuova.

Update: Zomby has a great post on this very thing.

Posted by: annika at 09:14 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 327 words, total size 2 kb.

Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi,
Miserere nobis.

Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi,
Miserere nobis.

Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi,
Dona nobis pacem.

[traditional, Agnus Dei]

From the sixth hour until the ninth hour darkness came over all the land. About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?” -–which means, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

When some of those standing there heard this, they said, “He's calling Elijah.”

Immediately one of them ran and got a sponge. He filled it with wine vinegar, put it on a stick, and offered it to Jesus to drink. The rest said, “Now leave him alone. Let's see if Elijah comes to save him.”

And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit.

At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook and the rocks split. The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus' resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people.

When the centurion and those with him who were guarding Jesus saw the earthquake and all that had happened, they were terrified, and exclaimed, “Surely he was the Son of God!”

Many women were there, watching from a distance. They had followed Jesus from Galilee to care for his needs. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee's sons.

[Matthew 27:45-56]

Ich binÂ’s, ich sollte büßen,
An Händen und an Füßen
Gebunden in der Höll'!
Die Geißeln und die Banden
Und was du ausgestanden,
Das hat verdienet meine Seel'.

[Christian Friedrich Henrici (Picander), St. Matthew Passion (libretto)]

Fac, ut ardeat cor meum
in amando Christum Deum
ut sibi complaceam.

Sancta Mater, istud agas,
crucifixi fige plagas
cordi meo valide.

Tui Nati vulnerati,
tam dignati pro me pati,
poenas mecum divide.

[Jacopone da Todi, Stabat Mater]

Posted by: annika at 03:02 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 331 words, total size 2 kb.

The story of how Hannes Bergstroem was found really got to me.

A 2-year-old boy who was found dazed and alone on a roadside in the wasteland of a tsunami-devastated Thai resort was reunited Tuesday with his uncle, who spotted the child's picture on the Internet.

The boy, identified by his uncle as Hannes Bergstroem, was found Sunday night on a road in Phang Nga province near the beach resort of Khao Lak, about 60 miles from the island of Phuket. He was taken to Phuket International Hospital where the staff posted pictures of the blond-haired boy with red spots all over his face from mosquito bites on its Web site on Monday. They also published his photo in a local newspaper.

. . .

A man, who identified himself only as Jim, told the Associated Press on Tuesday in a telephone interview that he found his nephew after he saw his picture on the Web.

'When I saw Hannes on the Internet, I booked an air ticket to come here in less than five hours,' said Jim, who rushed to the Phuket hospital on Tuesday from Chonburi province in Thailand, hours away from Phuket, where he was staying. 'This is a miracle, the biggest thing that could happen.'

Hospital staff said the boy had been babbling but workers did not know what language he was speaking They thought he might be Swedish because he was enthusiastic when a man spoke Swedish to him.

On Wednesday, a Swedish toddler, Hannes Bergstroem, was reunited with his injured father at a Thai hospital, days after being found wandering alone in the wreckage. The 2-year-old's uncle had spotted the child's photo posted on the Web by another hospital and claimed him Tuesday, setting up the reunion with Hannes' father, Marko Karkkainen.

But Hannes' mother, Suzanne Bergstroem, was still among some 5,000 people missing in Thailand.

Posted by: annika at 07:29 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 331 words, total size 2 kb.

A very Happy Hanukkah to all my Jewish visitors. Here is the text of President Bush's 2004 Hanukkah Proclamation:

I send greetings to all those celebrating Hanukkah, the festival of lights.

On the 25th day of Kislev on the Hebrew calendar, Jews around the world commemorate the rededication of the Temple in Jerusalem more than 2,000 years ago. During this time of darkness, the Temple had been seized, and Judaism had been outlawed. Judah Maccabee and his followers fought for three years for their freedom and successfully recaptured Jerusalem and the Temple. Jewish tradition teaches that the Maccabees found only one small bottle of oil to be used for temple rituals, but that oil lasted eight days and nights. The miracle of this enduring light, remembered through the lighting of the Menorah, continues to symbolize the triumph of faith over tyranny.

The bravery of the Maccabees has provided inspiration through the ages. We must remain steadfast and courageous as we seek to spread peace and freedom throughout the world. This holiday season, we give thanks to God, and we remember the brave men and women of our Armed Forces and their families. We also pray that all who live under oppression will see their day of freedom and that the light of faith will always shine through the darkness.

Laura joins me in wishing you a blessed and Happy Hanukkah.

GEORGE W. BUSH

Posted by: annika at 11:33 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 240 words, total size 2 kb.

Can you spot the irony in this holiday stamp webpage from the United States Postal Service's site?

i'll tell you. The word Christmas appears nowhere on either of the two pages from which you can order holiday stamps. Even though four of the eight selections on the first page are clearly and specifically Christmas stamps.

i can understand the view that the US government should not appear to endorse any particular religion by actually uttering the word "Christmas." i don't agree with that line of thinking, but i see how the argument can be made.

The problem with the USPS site is that their omission of the word Christmas, to describe stamps with Santa Claus, reindeer and even an image of the baby Jesus, cannot be based on any desire to adhere to the First Amendment.

Note that there are also stamps clearly identified with the names of two other religious celebrations: Hanukkah and Eid. (From what i understand, Kwanzaa and the Lunar New Year are cultural, not religious celebrations.)

As far as i'm concerned, the only way this PC bullshit can be interpreted is that the USPS thinks some people might be offended by looking at the word Christmas while shopping for stamps.* Either that, or the Postal Service marketing department has been taken over by anti-Christian wackos. (Not anti-religious wackos, mind you, just anti-Christian.)

i don't think anyone, even the most rabid anti-religious zealot, could possibly be offended by merely looking at the word Christmas. Those kind of people just do not exist. Oh i'm certain that there are some people who claim offense in order to advance a political agenda. But anyone who would be truly offended by the word Christmas simply could not function in society.

i think it's great that the USPS is commemorating Hanukkah and Eid-ul-Fitr with stamps. But how is calling a Christmas stamp a Christmas stamp somehow improper?

Maybe they should change their acronym to the USPCS.
_______________

* By the way, the function of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause is not, and has never been, to prevent people from being offended.

Posted by: annika at 10:11 AM | Comments (24) | Add Comment
Post contains 354 words, total size 3 kb.

Posted by: annika at 01:21 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 29 words, total size 1 kb.

The Democratic Party is the party of anti-Christian hatred, their false "inclusiveness" rhetoric at the convention notwithstanding.

On July 23, Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chairman Terry McAuliffe announced the appointment of Rev. Brenda Bartella Peterson as the Senior Advisor for Religious Outreach; she is an ordained minister in the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ).

Brenda has dedicated her life to showing us all how religion and politics intersect with integrity . . . We are proud to have her join the DNC, in order to spread John Kerry's positive vision to people of all faiths."

Unfortunately, that's complete bullshit.

Catholic League president, Dr. William Donohue said:

Rev. Brenda Bartella Peterson was one of thirty-two clergy members to file an amicus curiae brief in behalf of Michael NewdowÂ’s attempt to excise the words ‘under GodÂ’ from the Pledge of Allegiance. The brief shows infinitely more concern for the sensibilities of atheists like Newdow than it does for the 90 percent of Americans who believe in God. And this is the person the Democrats want to dispatch to meet with the heads of religious organizations? Are they out of their minds? Would they hire a gay basher to reach out to homosexuals? [link omitted]

Thanks Dems. There should now be no doubt about where you stand.

Link via Bill.

Posted by: annika at 03:35 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 277 words, total size 2 kb.