Sunday, July 31, 2005
Friday, July 29, 2005
The meditation room, 12 feet by 20 feet, is intended to serve people of non-Christian faiths, or those "for whom the main chapel is not suitable," [Sister Renee] Zastoupil said.
Here's good news:
The hospital has published rules for use of the room. The use of peyote and other drugs is prohibited, as is the "practice of any religion or act which is diametrically opposed to the Roman Catholic Church." The hospital lists "Satanism, Wicca and Voodoo" as examples.Here's...uh...other news:
Eagle Shield said the meditation room was several years in the making, and was a result of "sensitivity sessions" held with the hospital.
Are you like me? When you hear or read the word "sensitivity sessions" or "sensitivity training" do you immediately want to shout:
Here's the article.
"The slippery slope that wasn't supposed to happen once same-sex marriage was granted is making Everest jealous.
"In Massachusetts this week, Gov. Mitt Romney has been butting heads with same-sex couples over birth certificates for their newborns. I'll give you a minute to wrap your mind around that concept.After you take that minute — it is a rather tough concept to grasp, isn't it? — check out the rest of Parker's article here.
Thursday, July 28, 2005
:::::::::: drum roll:::::::::::
"A Woman's Right to Chose"
"Separation of Church and State"
Any others? And how about defining them (in real terms)?
From once-Anglican-now-Roman Catholic Gregory Elder's column:
I am pleased and humbled to announce that my bishop, the Most Rev. Gerald R. Barnes of the Diocese of San Bernardino, has received permission from Rome to ordain me to the Catholic priesthood. I will be the first canonically ordained and married Catholic priest in the history of this diocese, or province, of the Catholic community. Perhaps a word of personal history is in order here.
Read the whole column here.
Wednesday, July 27, 2005
Whew...well, now we can get some sleep.
Tuesday, July 26, 2005
Several years ago now, in the letters to the editor section of the notorously liberal NCR [National Catholic Reporter], I remember this famous quip by a female opponent of OW (and I quote, because it stuck with me as a great soundbyte):
"The best argument against the ordination of women is the women who want to be ordained..."
Note: This reader uses WebTV and therefore can't use the comments feature, alas. He is a Roman Catholic priest.
It interested me particularly since the family is a member of an amazing parish: Our Lady of the Atonement Catholic Church. The parish website is definitely worth exploring.
Monday, July 25, 2005
From today's Boston Globe, a photo caption to a story:
"Marie David outside the Harbor Breeze Inn in Harwichport, in deacon’s vestments. She will be ordained a Catholic priest today in Canada. Church officials say the ceremony is invalid." [My emphasis.]
Church officials "say" the ceremony is invalid. Okay, I supposed that's good journalism.
But why then why didn't the caption writer exercise the same journalist integrity in the second sentence: "She will be ordained a Catholic priest..." Shouldn't it read, "She says she will be ordained, etc."?
And what's with this lead:
"Even as a child, Marie David wanted to be a priest."
How do we know this? Because Marie David says so? Then why not put it that way:
"Marie David claims she wanted to be a priest, even as a child."
Another question: is there any woman who, although she truly believes that she has a vocation to the priesthood, is faithful to the Church on other matters? I didn't think so.
"[Mrs.]David, who opposes mandatory celibacy for priests and is married to a former priest, shrugs off the possibility of being excommunicated by the church, saying '`there would be a sadness, but I refuse to recognize their authority to tell me that.'"
Why "sadness?" If she refuses to recognize the Church's authority, why does she give a bleep about excommunication?
"As an adult, she worked as a director of religious education at a parish in Saco, Maine, and then as a volunteer in a parish in Merrimack, N.H., where she tried to get permission from the bishop to preach regularly, but was ignored. "
Somebody maybe should've stepped in right at this point and offered a bit of education to Mrs. David. And, incidentally, yanked her from the DRE position!
"While living in New Hampshire, she married James F. David, who had been the pastor in Saco, but who had resigned from the priesthood; the couple began worshiping at the Paulist Center in Boston."
No surprise there.
Friday, July 22, 2005
Thursday, July 21, 2005
"We rejoice and give thanks for all the gifts we have, and strive for truth and integrity in holding everyone, including ourselves, accountable for the way we live our Christianity."
Look what they've got cooking for September...tell me how, given the organization's insistence on not taking stances on "hot button issues," to reconcile the following with "truth and integrity"?
To date the following speakers will represent their respective organizations:
Wednesday, July 20, 2005
Tuesday, July 19, 2005
Good news for pro-lifers? Maybe. I hope so.
Back in 2003, Roberts told the Senate Judiciary Committee that Roe v. Wade was "the settled law of the land."
"There's nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent," told the Committee according to Fox News.
On the other hand...
Read Norman's whole article, of course, but then come back and talk to me.
I'm interested in knowing...what "talismanic words" drive you crazy?
"Insurgent" for "terrorist," is one Norman covers. "Dialogue" (aaagh!) for "debate" is another.
"Procedure" for "abortion" comes immediately to mind. (Or how about "killing" for "abortion"?)
There are more, I know. Anyway, as usual, TFP scores a hit with this one.
Monday, July 18, 2005
Sunday, July 17, 2005
When I installed Haloscan for comments — with Only The Best Intentions — previous comments were evidently banished into cyberspace...an occurence for which I dutifully apologized.
Now it looks as though Haloscan has presented a new wrinkle. For the past few days I've been under the impression that nobody's been commenting on my posts. This impression was fortified by the fact that when I looked at the word "comment" under various posts, it is followed this:
I'm no mathematical wizard, but doesn't "0" mean "zero," "nada," "nil," and "goose egg?"
Apparently not on this blog!
Check out, for example (if you don't mind, that is) a post about the Pope's words to terrorists. Okay, doesn't it look like there are ZERO comments? That's what I thought, too, but click on the comments link anyway and — what, ho! — there are several! How was I to know?
To my great distress, I've discovered that good folks have been offering excellent opinions — a big reason why I started this blog in the first place — and I haven't even realized it!
"Hey, Kelly...what do you expect? Help from us?"
Well...kinda. Am I the only one who's seeing the (0) on the comment links? Anybody got any ideas on a fix?
And, what the heck, as long as I'm in an apologetic mode...there's a "link" on the left called "I Was Robbed." The fact that I've labeled it "a must read" is a bit embarrassing because...it doesn't work. Twice, I've asked the Blogger Folk to explain why it doesn't but I haven't heard anything in days now. The code is correct. The other side links work. But the "must read" one doesn't.
Let's see if "I Was Robbed" works from here:
Okay, it does. Well, I'm clueless. Any suggestions would be mucho appreciated.
Thursday, July 14, 2005
Boston Councilor Jerry P. McDermott is in a snit. Now, he's got a right to be in a snit, and he's even got a right to behave like an ignoramous. (I believe, actually, that the latter is a de facto requirement for "serving" on the Boston Board of Hacks.)
But McDermott also thinks he's got a right to spend MY MONEY to indulge his snit. Even more girlyish, he wants to, in my not so humble opinion, whip up the — what do they call themselves? Oh, yeah, "disaffected `Catholics'" — into a frenzy that a friend of mine likened to the annual celebration of Guy Fawkes Day.
Today, the Boston City Council discussed the notion of asking Boston voters the following, totally, uh, unbiased question:
"Do you agree that, to date, the Archdiocese of Boston has failed to work effectively with Boston's neighborhoods to mitigate the impacts of Catholic parish and school closings on neighborhood services; and that in the future the Archdiocese of Boston should be strongly urged to meet its institutional obligations to all of Boston's citizens, to neighbors, and to the city's agencies by cooperating before-the-fact, diligently and in good faith, for the difficult transitions?"
There are so many things wrong with the notion of putting this referendum (yeah, yeah, I know it's "non-binding") on the ballot that the entire Internet would have a tough time holding them all, but here's my advice to the City Hall hacks:
Get a real job, wouldja?
Or, in lieu of that, be smart. Collect your nice checks (don't mention it, really, it's a pleasure, honest, no fooling) and...shut up.
Monday, July 11, 2005
The Holy Father voiced his "profound grief over the atrocious terrorist attacks" that had shocked London two days earlier. He prayed for the victims and their families, and condemned those who "nourish feelings of hatred" and engage in "such repugnant terrorist acts."
Meanwhile, Catholic World News (and apparently other media outlets) report a "dispute" in the Vatican over the use of the term "anti-Christian" in condemning the attacks.
I hate to sound Clintonesque, but I'm wondering if it all depends on what the term "anti-Christian" means.
If it's meant to convey that Islam is an "anti-Christian" religion, that's one thing. It it's meant to convey that behaving like a terrorist does not conform to Christianity, that's another thing.
I mean, if my Catholic friend teamed up with my Methodist minister pal and my Jewish buddy and blew up my house, I'd call that both "anti-Christian" and "anti-human."
"Just as there exists an evil fervor, a bitter spirit, which divides us from God and leads us to hell, so there is a good fervor which sets us apart from evil inclinations and leads us toward God and eternal life. No one should follow what he considers to be good for himself, but rather what seems good for another. Let them put Christ before all else; and may he lead us all to everlasting life."
Read an interesting article on the founder of Western Monasticism here.
And a Happy Name Day to our Holy Father!
Saturday, July 09, 2005
Unfortunately, in doing so I lost all your previous comments.
Mea culpa! Please feel free to comment again! (I only did it to make it nicer for you, after all. Sheesh.)
I can understand the usual wrong assumptions the D'Alessandro operates under...that the Church is a corporation, Benedict XVI the CEO, bishops and priests his "employees" and related garbage. And all too stale to be taken seriously are his bone-headed litany of the Church's "shortcomings:"
Yada, yada, yada.
But what puzzles the heck out of me is this:
How the bleep did this guy ever get a job managing other people's money?
Thursday, July 07, 2005
These are the gaping wounds that the people of St. Albert's, St. Francis's, VOTF, the council of parishes, and the rest of that demonic-inspired horde have inflicted:
They have dragged MY mother (and YOURS), our Church, through the public media in rags like a whore, laying Her open to the scorn and contempt of the rabble, inviting their curses and their stones by casting the first and the nastiest themselves.
They have trampled Her good name and reputation in the mud and exposed her to the hatred of the crowds, just as Her Son was dragged through the streets of Jerusalem.
They have clamped an iron ring around the neck of MY spiritual father (and YOURS), the Archbishop, the Apostle chosen by Christ, and led him like a trained bear, humiliating him before the vlugar eyes of every hater of Christ, and they cheered on the chorus of blood-lust, "Crucify him. Crucify him."
They spat on him. They yelled, "Liar" and every ugly name that came to their debased minds and made every false accusation against him, the worst and most vicious and the most painful coming from those who call themselves Catholic.
They dance on his bruised and battered, almost-dead soul, his humiliation being greater because it was egged on by those whom he has tried, in Christ, to serve. "See these Christians, how they love one another."
And Ms. Akoury. "Like David, we have defeated Goliath." How she revealed her ugly intentions in that metaphor! This is what she actually said: "We will one day be king, because we have slain the King's only Son. We will remake His Body, the Church, in OUR image." As Jesus said, "Their very own words will condemn them."
She did not say anything about "answered prayers". It's a good thing. From the ugly fruit that this ugly tree has borne, it can hardly have been an answer from God.
Worst of all (as if all that hell-on-earth were not enough) are the charades called "eucharistic prayer services", which are nothing more than blasphemy and sacrilege. They mock the very thing that they pretend to worship.
These are the bleeding, gaping wounds that every one of us who love the Church have suffered from the self-indulgence of whining children who don't want to leave their little sandbox.
So now, the St. Albert's-Lovel's Corner Men's (and Lady's) Club has re-opened, and they can have their soccer team and their hockey team and their color guard, and their book club that studies heresy, and feel very smug and self-satisfied.
Eucharistic Adoration? Forty Hours Devotion? As I was told by the man who runs their website, "Oh, we don't have time for those things. Maybe someday when we are not so busy."
They have defeated the King--and they are SO proud.
Wednesday, July 06, 2005
Here's the website I got it from, but you don't even have to visit it. Just send an email info to firstname.lastname@example.org to get a daily message about...well, what should be the most important part of your life.
From last October to this October, it's the Year of the Eucharist. Does anybody know why the "year" starts in October? I'm thinking it has to do with some Pope's Calendar, but that's just me trying to show off what knowledge I really don't have.
The First Reading deals with Joseph, the guy who was betrayed by his brothers, only to find himself, years later, in the position to help feed a world starved by famine.
The Gospel, describing the calling of the first bishops, mentions "Judas Iscariot, who betrayed Jesus." As we all know, that very betrayal led to our salvation.
Then there's Maria. Mortally wounded by stab wounds at the age of 12, by a neighbor ticked off because she fought against his rape attempts, the girl forgave her betrayer and prayed for him. Years later, the repentant rapist attended Maria's canonization ceremony with her mom.
God knows what He's doing.
What are the limits of conscience? Can there be any limits on conscience? Professor R. Alta Charo, who teaches law and bioethics at the University of Wisconsin Law and Medical Schools in Madison, thinks there should be, and that the law should require health care professionals to violate their consciences in certain cases, and has written an article to that effect in the June 16 New England Journal of Medicine, one of the most prestigious peer-reviewed medical journals in the world, which as such, ought to be scientific and objective.
He's talking about the professor's objection to allowing a medical professional to refuse to refer a patient to another professional to obtain a "service" to which the original professional objects to on moral grounds. (Although the professor doesn't use the word "moral.")
Read the whole article but I was particularly struck by this nugget:
Charo apparently believes that if a physician has a moral objection to performing an abortion the needs of the physician's conscience are met in merely refusing to perform it himself or herself, but then they should be required by law to make a referral to a physician who will perform the abortion.
Evidently this professor of ethics has no idea what conscience means.
In other words, imagine that, in the not-to-distant future, it were legal for a physician to shoot a patient dead if the patient so requested. Charo believes a scrupulous physician may say to a patient, "No, I don't do that." but then would be required to say, "But, here, go to my colleague across the street, she will gladly shoot you to end your misery."
Tuesday, July 05, 2005
First, remember: the commandment is to love your neighbors (including your enemies). It doesn't demand that you like them!
So. About that SOB who is constantly telling you exactly what you're doing wrong with your life...or that total idiot who just cut you off in traffic...or that in-law who insists on telling you the proper way to raise your own children...or that [fill in the blank #*@(@*#&@ person]?
Here's what you want to do:
(I didn't make this up. A friend -- a holy person, actually -- clued me in on this one long ago.)
Pray for the creep.
(N.B. It's probably not a hot idea to use the word "creep" in your prayer.)
Here's a prayer I often use:
"Dear God, please put that so-and-so in a higher place than me in Your Heavenly Kingdom. Amen."
I mean, think about it. By praying like this, you're doing yourself a favor (communication with God is always a good idea), your enemy a favor (look, you're basically asking God to make the SOB -- 'scuse me, person in question -- better than you are) and, again, yourself another favor.
If God hears your prayer (and you know He will) there's a good chance that this person who drives you bananas might turn around and become someone worthy of a high place in Heaven. Hey, the jerk might even become a friend!
Who's the loser here? Nobody! Unless you count the devil.
Congratulations, Dom o' Mine!
Dom's "Musings" have been, and remain, a favorite...and certainly an important resource for me.
Good going, Domenico!
(Gee...I was wondering what all the fireworks were about yesterday!)
"Reversing the decision to close that parish was a big mistake," he told me. The overt disobedience of the parishioners didn't bother him so much as did what he called the "flagrant abuse of Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament."
(During the months-long "sit-in," parishioners held Sunday Communion services; the Sacrament reportedly provided by a "sympathetic priest.)
My friend thought the Archbishop should have explained why he was excommunicating the particpants by simply saying: "You do not hold your Savior hostage!"
As for the "sympathetic priest?" He should not only be defrocked, opined my friend, but excommunicated as well.
Furthermore (for a rather quiet guy, this guy was loud and firm about this issue) my friend declared, the Archbishop should "de-sanctify the church building and sell it immediately."
Strong words, no doubt about it. But then again, people are always telling me that excommunication can be used as a charitable tool -- a radical way of teaching Catholics the difference between what is right and what is very, very wrong.
As I read the above-linked story, I wonder what really was learned in this entire affair.
Monday, July 04, 2005
::::::: drum roll ::::::
Indiana Is In A Different Time Zone!
Also on the agenda is a "Liturgical Dance Training Session."
[sigh...could somebody send the Fuddled a memo announcing the new Pope? Thank you.]