Christians targeted for extermination in Iraq are welcomed in the Kurdish north.

Nice to hear.  Still, dozens of Christians have died, been sentenced to death, or are being threatened every day, and that's just in the Islamic world.  I finally heard on the news that some international organizations are beginning to condemn these actions.  Nice to hear.  Christians everywhere should be praying for them, and if possible, finding ways to help them.  Right now, the global reaction against this has been the diplomatic equivalent of looking at the perpetrators and saying, "Shame, shame, double shame, everybody knows your name."  Lord be with those who are persecuted for your name's sake.

China's economy to over take America by 2012

The only thing that shocks me in this story is that it will take so damn long.  America, like  Western Culture, is dying.  That much is pretty clear.  I'm of the school of thought that the West has been on the decline since the 19th century.  When European intellectuals threw out the last vestiges of Christian teaching, and nation states lifted themselves up above all other considerations, it was the beginning of the end.  America, always keen on following Europe, was only behind by a couple decades or so.  Being a new country, it had to hit its zenith, which it did between around 1900 and 1965 or so.  Since then, it's been - with a few bumps in the road - a steady decline.  Europe is more or less finished.  Odds makers are no longer asking if, but when Europe will become Eurabia, the north-westernmost extension of the Islamic world.  Meanwhile in America, the primary candidate for taking control of the wheel is China.  In response to a political ad that showed a Chinese lecturer discussing the downfall of America, I saw a fellow blast it as untrue.  In an interview on CNN, he said the problem with the commercial was that it linked America's downfall to policies that the Chinese have adopted, including stimulus-like spending.  What I couldn't help notice is that China, unlike America, didn't go into debt to China to pull it off. 

No, it's only a question  of which generation is ongoing to the be the first to get it in the throat.  Having spent 50 years or so apologizing for every sin, and focusing on every fault, most Americans don't think there's much there worth saving.  Or at least far too many think that.  If America tanks, what of it?  No big deal.  Things will just keep on keeping on.  Of course that's for those Americans who take time off from texting, playing video games, and working for the next tech upgrade to even think about such things.  If money, drugs, and sex are the three gifts of post-modern America in which so many abideth, then apathy and complacency are the crook and scepter with which we rule our crumbling domain.  And we only will be able to measure the results by the suffering of our posterity.  I just have to remind them that while the temptation to never forgive us will be strong, forgive us they must.

In A Home, in Ohio, there lived Dave Griffey

Not a lavish, opulent home.

Nor a humble, rustic, country home.

It was a Maronda home.

And that means, crappy.

I have a blog. It's mine. It's mine to say what I want. And right now, I have to say that it is pretty clear America has already sunk to second-rate status. A visit by friends from Hungary this last weekend confirmed that America is already well on its way to becoming one of the has-been-jokes of history. There are no doubt many reasons, the inevitability of societal decline being among them. But I have to say, as I look at our 8 year old home, and see the deplorable level of craftsmanship, the appalling cheapness of materials, the embarrassing standards by which it was not only built, but approved, it's not hard to see why American is fast becoming synonymous with jack-ass. The hardest thing I see as I look around at the abysmal lack of pride that went behind my little dwelling, and other modern housing projects, is any real care on the part of the adults at the royal screwing our children will get because of our lazy, spoiled, stupid short sighted narcissism that values hedonism above all things. Well done America. If only we, instead of our posterity, would pay the price.

Whew. That felt good.

Black Thursday?

So I caught the tail end of a story on CNN this morning talking about the slow creep of greed by our retail industry.  Apparently, more stores are beginning to open earlier, and earlier, and earlier on Thanksgiving.  Or rather, that annual celebration of evil racist genocidal murders butchering hapless fowl in order to applaud their rape of a pristine and Utopian paradise.  Given that Thanksgiving is, almost by definition, an affront to the sensitivities of our Big Politically Correct Brother, the dogmas of post modernism, and the teachings of Multi-Culturalism, I figure it has about thirty years of life left, if that.  Oh, there will be something there.  Something around the holiday formerly known as Thanksgiving to officially tell us it's time to shop, buy, get, and consume.  Already the notion of giving thanks [to God] has been dispensed with, replaced by some abstract notion of thankfulness during a time of family celebrations.  Of course family itself is being redefined as quickly as possible, and the notion of thanks almost assumes that I didn't have it coming to me in the first place.  Having long ago dealt Easter the death blow of modernity, and cast the shepherds and wise men into the trash heap to make way for our yearly orgy of consumerist greed, I can't help but see Thanksgiving as next on the chopping block, if you'll pardon the imagery.  At the end of the day, Darwinian Capitalism, greed without a heart and soul, is no better or safer than Communism.  America: worshipping drugs, sex, and money.  But the greatest of these is money.

Todd Hartch on how to stop the downward spiral on America's campuses

Todd Hartch, an assistant professor of history at Eastern Kentucky University, has some great points on how Christians can save the rotting apple from total decay. It's worth the read. My only problem is, he writes as though the samethink and demands for conformity to secular, liberal, and anti-traditional values is something new. As a self-proclaimed liberal agnostic in the 1980s, I noticed that my own state university was no more open toward wrongthink as it is today. It's more graphic, it's more obvious, hatred and contempt for wrongthink is encouraged, but apart from that, the basic viewpoints and value systems haven't changed since I was in school all those years ago.

I don't like the New American Bible Translation

I admit it. I don't like the New American Translation, the translation used by Catholics and Catholic parishes across the country. I don't like it one bit. There's no one reason, apart from it just being a bad translation. It moves when it should sit and sits when it should move. When maintaining a poetic feel is called for, a bare bones prose is used, one that is as inspiring as a tax ledger. When simple, blunt language is needed, some open ended talking-around-the-point approach is taken; one that I can't help but feel reflects the Church's reluctance sometimes to just get to the point. In so many ways, it epic fails when it comes to capturing the richness, the poetry, the majesty of the Scriptures that convey nothing less than the truths of God, Salvation, and our purpose in life.

Don't believe me? Let's take an example. Most folks who've grown up in the English speaking world have heard the 23rd Pslam. In case we've missed it, I'll type it now as it appears in the most famous version, that of the King James English Translation:

The LORD is my shepherd,

I shall not want
He maketh me to lie down in green pastures:
He leadeth me beside still waters.
He restoreth my soul:
He leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for His name's sake.
Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil:
For thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.
Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies:
Thou annointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over.
Surely goodness and mercy will follow me all the days of my life:
And I will dwell in the house of the LORD forever.

Nice. Beautiful. Stunning. It evokes, it calls to mind things of the divine, the struggle of good and evil, lovely pastoral settings, and our safety in the arms of a loving and powerful God. What poem written in three thousand years can compete? The valley of the shadow of death. Dwelling in the house of the LORD forever. Those words speak to another world, another reality than the one we can become ensared in during our daily pilgrimage across this sod.

Sure, the 'yea' this and 'thou' that can sometimes find itself floundering on the modern tongue too used to communication by texting. And some modern translations dispense with those words, while maintaining the flavor, power, and beauty of the original texts. For instance, the Revised Standard Version makes the following change:

Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I fear no evil; for You are with me.

Yeah, I know. It looses a little bit, but for those who aren't big poetry fans, it still gets the point across. Even the New International Version, with its rather agenda driven translations and sometimes watered down renditions manages this take:

Even though I walk through the darkest valley, I will fear no evil; for You are with me.

But this, this is the translation used by the New American Bible, the official translation of the American Catholic Church, used in Masses, heard by Catholics, and read by millions:

The Lord is my shepherd, there is nothing I lack (there is nothing I lack?)

In green pastures you let me graze,
To safe waters you lead me;
you restore my strength. You guide me along the right path for the sake of your name.
Even when I walk through a dark valley, I fear no harm for you are at my side; your rod and your staff give me courage.
You set a table for me as my enemies watch, you anoint my head with oil; my cup overflows.
Only goodness and love will pursue me all the days of my life; I will dwell in the house of the LORD for years to come.

That last line almost makes me loose it. In the words of Shaggy from Scooby Doo: Double yuck, yuck. For years to come? How many, three, eight, ten years from next Tuesday? Can anyone see just how lame that is. It misses the heart and soul of the psalm. It replaces it with a prose that has all the deep and meaningful sound of a letter from a school board.

Now, lest we think this is some really spiffy and accurate work on the part of the Catholic translators, out to show those rascally Protestant upstarts what the Bible really says, let's take a look at a couple words.

The shadow of death. It's worth noting that the later NIV translation also backs off the translation 'shadow of death.' Inserting a more watered down 'darkest valley'. At least it says darkest valley, as in the darkest valley one may have encountered, or something like it. The NAB, on the other hand, reduces it to a mere dark valley, one of millions, one like you see any day driving around a steep gully cut in the hills to make way for the interstate. Problem is, the Hebrew word is a compound from two separate words meaning - you guessed it - shadow and death. Death shadow: (tsal (shadow) and maveth (death)). Coupled with the Hebrew term that comes before (gay', or 'valley'), and you get valley of the shadow of death every time. Why eliminate it when it has such a powerful punch? And when it is literally what the original says. It doesn't say 'darkest valley', it sure doesn't say 'dark valley.'

Or another one. Fear no evil. Why would they water it down with the mere 'harm.' Sure, it can certainly mean that, and in all likelihood can attribute the word ra' with evil in the sense of bad things, or harm being done. But in the overarching context of the psalm, with the Lord (in this psalm the translation indicates the Hebrew proper name for God - Yahweh) protecting in the presence of enemies, evil can be used because it includes both bad fortune, as well as the badness of evil.

Finally, the last sentence. The Hebrew phrase is made up of two words, one 'orek, meaning length, and the other yom, meaning day. It makes the point of being a length of time, no specific amount given. Endless, or without measure. Or, forever. The vast majority of translations use forever as the understood meaning of the Hebrew construct. Every major English translation: RSV, ASV, NASB, NIV, heck, even the NIV UK edition, uses 'forever' to convey the meaning of the Hebrew. And it works. Forever. We dwell in the house of the Lord forever. So why, why in the world, does the Catholic NAB instead use the limp and uninspiring phrase 'for years to come'?

This, of course, is just one example. There are others. Many others. Not all are horrible. Many pass the test well enough. But too often the translation either misses the point of the original texts, or conveys the points in such watered down, uninspiring prose that the reader would be hard pressed to be grabbed by the power of the message. This is the Word of God after all. This is the Holy Scriptures, the written record of God's revelation to man. For all that the Church carries on about the need to keep the liturgy pure, and redo the prayers, and keep the purity of the music, it wouldn't hurt to invest the same care and concern in the very written heart of the Sacred Tradition.

Only a little risk in dropping don't ask, don't tell?

But is there any risk to keeping it for the time being?  If there isn't, then even a little risk is a risk.  Is that worth it at this time.  Are we ready to implode, loose, be run out of town on a rail, due to not allowing gays in the military?  I'm just wondering, since I'm getting mixed signals from out of the military about this issue.  Since I've heard the military is all political anyway (or at least I've heard it off and on since I was a youngster in high school in the 1980s), I'm having a hard time pinning down just what is and isn't good.  Of course from a moral point of view, not to mention a logical point of view, there are issues.  But common sense, logic, and morality tend not to be big issues in our political posturing nowadays.

On the eleventh hour...thank you veterans

From a time when we could thank our veterans for something, instead of reducing ourselves to thanking them for nothing. And in so doing, the true worth of freedom is being forgotten. Thanks to those who gave the last full measure of devotion for we who too quickly forget.

“Have you news of my boy Jack?”
Not this tide.
“When d’you think that he’ll come back?”
Not with this wind blowing, and this tide.

“Has any one else had word of him?”
Not this tide.
For what is sunk will hardly swim,
Not with this wind blowing, and this tide.

“Oh, dear, what comfort can I find?”
None this tide,
Nor any tide,
Except he did not shame his kind —
Not even with that wind blowing, and that tide.

Then hold your head up all the more,
This tide,
And every tide;
Because he was the son you bore,
And gave to that wind blowing and that tide!

That's all for today. Just the thanks.

Verily doth the David Crowder Band rocketh

I'm not a big fan of contemporary Christian music, but that's just me. Nonetheless, anyone who can do this with a Lite-Brite has my attention.

Bill Maher: Knowing the right F-Word to use

So I'm checking out my stats page, and pretty happy with the readers I'm getting. For a nobody with a blog a few months old, I'm impressed. I'm pretty happy with the comments, though would love to see more. I find I learn more about how to say what I'm trying to say by reading how folks took my posts. But we'll get there.

Anyhow, I'm looking at the stats and all of a sudden I notice a minor influx of referrals from Huffington Post. Don't ask me why. The stats don't tell me everything. Or if they tell me everything, I'm too tech stupid to figure it out. I stopped going to the Huffpost some time ago. In fact, one of the reasons I started my blog was due to the annoyance of seeing about one out of every ten posts of mine get censored. So, decided to start my own where I can say pretty much what I want (within reason and legal limits).

After about a minute, I was reminded of another reason that I stopped visiting - I just cannot relate to the post-liberal Left. To me, it's rage and hatred against anything that stands in the way of sex, drugs, hedonism and narcissism. It's a contempt and loathing for ideological non-conformists that makes one think of how blacks were regarded in years gone by, or Jews in some other countries we've read about.

One thing that caught my eye was this little clip by Bill Maher. In it, he basically says that since Americans are too fat to join the army, let gays join instead. It's a joke, I know. But I noted the ease with which he cast being 'fat' in such a negative way. I've already pointed out that our society, which twenty years ago said we should not use the word 'fat' because it is insensitive, is now getting back to the old 'fatty' attitudes.

Never mind that there are many reasons people may be overweight. Never mind multiple causes that can lead a person to gain weight. Being 'fat' increasingly is seen the way being a smoker was in the 90s, or, dare I say, a homosexual was seen sixty years ago.: disgusting, a burden, a brunt of jokes, and being told to change no matter what your reason for being overweight.

Naturally, the same things said about being overweight could be said about homosexuality. But say that today about homosexuality and see how far you get. As I pointed out when I began noticing CNN's calls for intolerance of non-supportive attitudes toward homosexuality, the double standard is palpable. CNN, after finishing a story about how much of a burden obesity is on our great nation, launched into its bullying equals bigotry against gays series that ran for almost two weeks. At no point, did CNN mention that it could be argued homosexuality continues to contribute to problems such as the HIV pandemic. Nor did it mention the expenses and economic burdens that arise from that. Certainly you won't find it on Huffington Post, where only stories that paint homosexuality in the most positive light possible are allowed. That's the same site that allows such a swipe at people with weight problems. Now, according to CNN, Huffingont Post, and other left leaning outlets dedicated to making the acceptance of homosexuality the law, it's perfectly fine to just call those other rotten folks 'fat' and be done with it.

Mark Shea has fun at Gordon Bennett's expense

Well, several do actually. It wasn't hard, and I admit I jumped in on the pile. But on second reflection, I noticed something. What Gordon was saying was, well, almost biblical. Almost. His problem was he filtered a valid point through the latest, hippest bigotry of our time. One of the favorite statements folks who want their worldviews fast and easy so they can develop a universal philosophy during Dances With the Stars commercial breaks, is that organized religion is bad. That idea is, of course, almost laughable. Organized religion is not bad any more than organized business, organized entertainment, organized anything. You want bad, try absolute anarchy. Try a society founded upon narcissism and the worship of the self above all things. Although you don't have to try. You can look at the West for the last fifty years or so.

Fact is, there is nothing at all wrong with 'organized religion', mainly because the term itself seldom means anything. Usually it's a semi-clever and lazy way of saying 'approaches to the divine, spiritual realities of the universe that I don't like but don't have enough time to really think about why I don't like them.' That is the problem with Gordon's article.

Sure, as the quote from Amos suggests, allowing the ritual and liturgy of a religious tradition to replace charity, love, and good works is a sure way to incur the wrath of the Almighty. One need merely read the prophets of the Old Testament, or the teachings of Jesus, to see that. Letting religion by the numbers do your pilgrimage for you is a quick way to the judgement seat.

On the other hand, there is not thing one wrong with religion and its rituals, if they are designed to point the individual to God's grace, and lift up praise and worship to God alone. Ritual is in our bones, organization is our way to avoid the chaos and confusion that we see in places like our public schools when we try to live by the creed of 'No Rules, just Right'. It's when ritual or ceremony replaces our devotion to God, or we use them to ignore God's commands to give that cup of cold water, lift up the widow or the orphan, or seek righteousness and be compassionate to our neighbor, or not out-debauch a porn star, that the problems arise. When we just punch our religion card, no matter how 'organized' or 'disorganized', it is the same foul smelling reek to God.

That should be a warning for those who fail to realize that despite lifting up the lofty 'I don't do organised religion' mantra, they, too, may be in the cross hairs. They may well be manipulating some abstract personalized form-fitting self celebration that keeps God out of the way of the cocktail hour while patting themselves on the back for being smarter and more spiritual than those dolts who need their petty rituals. And such clever spirituality, while possibly able to make you feel good about yourself, does no more than the stale, empty rituals condemned by the likes of Amos.

Gordon's problem was fuddling all that. He simply grabbed a tired, worn out and intellectually vacant argument, then followed through by adding the most ludicrous notion a person in the post-20th century world can believe - that the absence of 'religion' will save the world (the 20th century being the most secular driven century in history). A waste of a good point. Had he avoided the typical post-modern cliches, there was a valid point to be made. The warning of God is not 'beware of religion.' The warning of God is beware of anything: shallow adherence to ritual, selfish and conniving manipulation of the divine for personal convenience, or outright rejection of the ultimate Source of all Good. For whenever any of these happen, in whatever form, the result has always been the tears of the world.

CNN launches ad calling FOX News and MSNBC partisan

In other news, the pot launches ad campaign calling the kettle black. CNN, founded by uber-liberal anti-Catholic Ted Turner (who has admittedly softened in recent years, or so they say), has always been purely in a post-American leftist, secular, pro-European Socialist tank. Over the years, it has tried to field those not in that particular mindset to maintain a sense of balance. But balance was never there. In recent years, as CNN attempted to work with those who are more open critics of generally accepted liberal dogmas, the Left Wing audience bolted and threatened to boycott CNN once and for all. So after such luminaries as Lou Dobbs were dispatched, and the leash let loose on hosts like Anderson Cooper, CNN's own leftward lurch continues to be obvious. From Christiane Amanpour's famous "God's Warriors" special (you know, where she examined such murderous radicals as Islamic terrorists, violent Zionists, and Christians who taught abstinence and tried to influence politics (a real insight into the secular liberal mindset)), to Anderson Cooper's recent attempts to suggest its time to end this tolerance for people who refuse to celebrate homosexuality (including guests willing to take it to the legal limit), it's almost impossible to miss it's post-American leftist tendencies. When Fareed Zakaria interviews the Prime Minister of Malaysia, and allows him to get away with saying Islam is about peace and can never be associated with violence, you know objectivity is out the window. Imagine Mr. Zakaria letting someone say Christianity is about peace and therefore cannot be associated with violence at anytime throughout its history! Yes, CNN's bias is a little larger than American Conservatism vs. American Liberalism. But anyone who made it past kindergarten nonetheless can see it's there.

MSNBC: The farce continues

So Keith Olbermann is coming back! It was expected. A little quicker than I thought, but expected nonetheless. Once again, as I said earlier, this was simply MSNBC doing some damage control over its disastrously inept election night coverage. A lame and superficial attempt to say, "See, we are not FOX!"


What did it accomplish? It allowed the weekend news shows to talk about it, make Olbermann look like a Juan Williams, let the news casts focus on FOX's biases, and gave commentators and pundits a chance to agree with Olbermann's rant against Jon Stewart, that MSNBC is nothing like FOX. How dare anyone suggest there are similarities!


And that's just what the various news shows that covered the story concluded. FOX News was and is the culprit. MSNBC may have gone a little bit overboard, but as Olbermann contended, he and MSNBC only reacted because of the Right. The evil Right. Those rascally tunneling under your homes Right.


Were they correct? Is FOX, founded on an obvious conservative slant, different than MSNBC displaying an obvious liberal slant? Well yeah. First, FOX usually tries to keep the production above a pre-adolescent level. Unlike MSNBC. But beyond that, yes, FOX was obviously founded upon an agenda to promote Republican values, while MSNBC seems to have reacted to the presence of FOX by moving more and more flagrantly to the Left.


But let's look at what happened. Why was FOX created? A billionaire, like George Soros, who decided to invest his money in a cable news network out of love for the cause? Or one who saw a great business opportunity? My guess is, a little bit of both. And here's why I say that. When was FOX News created?


FOX was created in 1996. That was the year of Bill Clinton's reelection campaign. Already it was becoming difficult for even the most die hard independent, like myself, to ignore the increasing slant of the media in its coverage of American politics. Just the tenor of the coverage was different from Bill Clinton's ascendancy. By 1994, when the Republicans took over, it was obvious the media had an axe to grind. From 'How the Gingrich stole Christmas', to the media's willingness to accept the Democrat's take on things - like the government shutdown - the ideological slant of the press was becoming clear.


So it was into this context that FOX was born. The media, with its ever growing slant, created a market niche that Rupert Murdoch was more than happy to fill. FOX debuted with a hefty audience, and has grown ever since. In the late 90s, during the Lewinsky scandal, the MSM bias was even clearer. When Hillary Clinton charged Matt Lauer and the rest of the MSM to hunt down the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, and the media ran with that template without even asking if there was any proof behind the charge, it was no longer deniable.


As outlets spent months proving, through investigative reporting, research, and extensive interviews, that it was scientifically impossible for a president to have an affair in the Oval Office, one would think they might have stumbled on the fact that it was quite possible. After the Grand Admission, the MSM became cheerleaders again, throwing feminism under the bus and convincing the US that perjury, sex, morals, character, truth - none of these mattered for Clinton alone had given us the greatest economy in history. That some economists were warning things may not be as good as they look was easily dealt with - they simply were part of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.


And so it was that FOX News rose to prominence. Why? Because it was clear to all non-Democrats and non-liberals (and perhaps to some of them), that the rest of the media was, as Rush Limbaugh frequently asserted, 'in the tank' with the Democrats and liberal establishment. The news was no longer the news, but advocacy for a particular cause. And suddenly, there was an alternative.


And since it remains the only alternative, FOX cleans up. Anyone who wants a non-liberal spin must go to FOX. If you want a liberal spin, the choices are legion, for they are many. CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, all have variations of liberal bias behind their reporting. Some more obvious than others. MSNBC adds that prepubescent flair to those who really like to get snotty about it. And so the rest of the media divides the audience. But FOX holds a monopoly. A monopoly guaranteed as long as the rest of the media continues to share a common bias, and vie for the remaining audience. Perhaps if one other network were to become more neutral, more balanced, the numbers would swell their audience. But that's a big IF. Right now, the MSM is everything FOX News can hope for, with MSNBC's latest dalliance nothing more than proof of how FOX News has become such a force to be reckoned with, and how lame the rest of the MSM is in dealing with the fact.

A Mom and her Baby

Or better still, my wonderful, beautiful wife and our youngest boy. Look like they were having fun? They were. Grandparents (off the screen) were in town, and this accounts for much of the jubilation.

Ammunition for the modern anti-Catholic

Except for a few fundamentalist evangelical denominations or Jack Chick-like ministries, most Protestants no longer rail against Catholicism under the old 'whore of Babylon' directive. As a general rule, Protestant and conservative Evangelical scholars began to notice that, as our society moved from non-Christian to post-Christian to anti-Christian, a general dislike of the Faith in general was taking root. So every charge of corruption, cruelty, witch burnings, crusades, torture, greed, oppression, or any of the one sided arguments from Fox's Book of Martyrs, just came flying right back at the Christian population in general.

As a result, you began to see books, texts, periodicals, studies, and others that took a new look at Catholic history. A willingness emerged to meet Catholicism where it was, especially on such topics as marriage, abortion, and other conservative social values. Plus, where Catholicism stood on the basic orthodox Christian beliefs, a new set of allies could be seen among Protestant ranks. Preferring to focus on the positives of Catholic history, the new arguments tried to diminish the Hollywood negativity toward the Christian faith in general by reducing the stereotypically dismal portrayal of historic Catholicism in particular.

But where can a Protestant, realizing that to the non-Christian world Catholic equals Christian, go to continue justifying a refusal to unite with the Catholic Church? Easy. The Catholic Church sometimes appears to want to give ammunition to the non-believer. Take Notre Dame. Among informed Protestants, Notre Dame is a hotbed of reasons for good, Christ loving and dedicated Christians to avoid Catholicism. In this story, we have a reminder that Notre Dame, a Catholic university (the most famous in America), is prosecuting pro-life protesters who protested the university's decision to honor President Obama. It is the University that appears to be a driving force behind the ongoing prosecution of the protesters. That's right. You really don't need a fishing rod when the fish are willing to jump in the boat. And Protestant Christians don't need to sweat about how to dissuade their fellow Protestants from becoming Catholic when there are such wonderful reasons as this.

As I can attest when I speak to non-Catholic Christians, one of the main reasons they use to avoid returning to the Catholic Church is, well, the Catholic Church - or at least various Catholic ministries thereof. No, there is no such thing as a perfect anything. But Catholics should understand that there is a limit, and stop using sin and imperfection to cover up real and serious problems in the ranks. This example alone suggests that Catholics who are serious about spreading the good news of Catholicism should turn their backs on the Fighting Irish, at least until the school decides to clean up its act. I know that sounds harsh, but enough is enough.

God save England

Only in England could a couple try to escape the last vestiges of marriage by embracing civil unions that were created for homosexual couples. For the record, I though England already allowed for gay marriage. I guess I was wrong. Not that it will matter. Like Mark Shea says, England, like the rest of secularized Europe, is in for a rude awakening. It imagines its grandchildren will, like the modern generations, revel in hedonism and narcissism and chant 'God is dead' all day long. Instead, in all likelihood, they will be saying Allahu Akbar.

Not another Catholic scandal

Oh boy. Looks like just about everything the Church did in Ireland is under suspicion. Hopefully it won't be as bad as it looks, but nothing in the last couple decades suggests I should be optimistic. My prayer is that, when the Church has emerged from the ashes of this decades long spanking, it will be the better for it.

Well done Driscoll Middle School!

Classic! Brilliant! Truly, truly I say to you, they rock. This is why I love football. No other sport would allow for such a sly, clever fake out as this.

When gay rights advocates smell a rat

There comes a point in any movement where people have to admit that those on the same team may be jumping the shark. With the emergence of the zealous radicals in the gay rights movement, others in the movement are going to be called to speak out. Those who still argue for gay rights under the auspices of liberty, freedom, tolerance, and respect will have to step up to the plate and call a spade a spade. Glad to see The Colorado Springs Gazette, a paper otherwise friendly toward advancing gay marriage, has called the Soviets of San Fransisco on the carpet for their anti-Catholic proclamation.

5 U.K. Anglican Priests to be fastratcked into the Catholic Priesthood

That's nice. Now if the Church would just figure out what to do with the rest of the Protestant Clergy who would like to come back to the Catholic Faith, we might see a veritable tidal wave of converts. Unfortunately, as I posted earlier, the steam seems to be letting out for the time being, and the number of converts from the clergy are not what they were. Certainly there are no new bright stars on the horizon ready to keep the torch burning.

In addition, it's worth noting that so many of the 'clergy' converts were already those with other incomes, or involved in ministries (such as professors or counselors) that could easily transfer into a Catholic milieu. The full time Protestant pastoral minister can find himself in a lurch, with nowhere but the secular world to go to for sustenance. And in today's job market, I would be a dollar to a donut that many who might otherwise take the plunge into the Tiber are holding off, possibly indefinitely. This also could be leading to a slow down.

I'm not saying make them priests. But be creative, put these fellows, often with years or decades of experience in Pastoral care, counseling, administration, finance, to work in the parishes or diocese. If not, then don't clang the cymbals too loudly about the great New Evangelism. As James would say, it takes more than a pat on the back and a 'go in peace, be warmed and well fed.' It takes putting muscle where the mouth is.