Questions the media wouldn't ask

Phil Lawyer of Catholiculture.org asks the questions the Pope-hating media couldn't be bothered to ask:

• Was Cardinal Ratzinger responding to the complaints of priestly pedophilia? No. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which the future Pontiff headed, did not have jurisdiction for pedophile priests until 2001. The cardinal was weighing a request for laicization of Kiesle.

• Had Oakland's Bishop John Cummins sought to laicize Kiesle as punishment for his misconduct? No. Kiesle himself asked to be released from the priesthood. The bishop supported the wayward priest's application.

• Was the request for laicization denied? No. Eventually, in 1987, the Vatican approved Kiesle's dismissal from the priesthood.

• Did Kiesle abuse children again before he was laicized? To the best of our knowledge, No. The next complaints against him arose in 2002: 15 years after he was dismissed from the priesthood.

• Did Cardinal Ratzinger's reluctance to make a quick decision mean that Kiesle remained in active ministry? No. Bishop Cummins had the authority to suspend the predator-priest, and in fact he had placed him on an extended leave of absence long before the application for laicization was entered.

• Would quicker laicization have protected children in California? No. Cardinal Ratzinger did not have the power to put Kiesle behind bars. If Kiesle had been defrocked in 1985 instead of 1987, he would have remained at large, thanks to a light sentence from the California courts. As things stood, he remained at large. He was not engaged in parish ministry and had no special access to children.

• Did the Vatican cover up evidence of Kiesle's predatory behavior? No. The civil courts of California destroyed that evidence after the priest completed a sentence of probation-- before the case ever reached Rome.

Read the whole article and lament the decline in professional journalistic standards.

Follow HancAquam ------------>

Apple Cider Vinegar cure-all?

Anyone out there ever tried drinking diluted Apple Cider Vinegar as a tonic?

I tried it years ago and was generally unimpressed by the results.  I recently ran across a "folk remedy" site that has a huge amount of material on ACV and its alleged benefits.  

Always willing to give most anything a go (legal and moral, of course!), I bought a bottle of organic, unfiltered, unpasteurized ACV.

I add about a tablespoon of ACV to my two liter water bottle and drink it all before lunch.  The results?  The most noticeable result for me has been a rather dramatic increase in energy.  I find myself chaffing at sitting inside to read. . .I'm going out of the priory most everyday. . .I'm actually sleeping through most of the night now.  ACV is also supposed to help with excessive sweating by correcting the magnesium imbalance that often causes this problem.  No results on this front just yet.

ACV is also touted as a natural way to prevent infections.  Since I rarely get sick, this benefit might not be all that apparent for me.  We'll see. . .

Anyone else ever tried this?

Follow HancAquam ------------>

Steven's resignation will move Kennedy in the Right direction

The Legal Fanboy in me couldn't resist posting this insightful analysis on the effect Justice Steven's resignation from the SCOTUS would have on future court-rulings.

The bottomline: it's pretty much good news for the Court's "conservatives."

from SCOTUSblog:

[. . .]

First, take the issue of Kennedy’s soon-to-emerge role as an “assigning” Justice. When the Court is divided on any case being decided on the merits, the senior Justice in the majority gets to select a colleague (or take on personally) the task of writing the opinion for the majority. Depending upon who gets the assignment, that can shape the actual outcome of the case, and also influence its breadth or narrowness. Also, a colleague whose support may be somewhat shaky can be handed an assignment in order to nail down that colleague’s vote and preserve a narrow majority.

If the Chief Justice is in the majority when the Court divides, the Chief always has the assigning function, because, however long in the job of Chief Justice, that member of the Court always has top seniority. Only if the Chief Justice is not in the majority does the assigning task then fall to the Justice next highest in seniority. That has been Justice Stevens, for 16 years of his 34 years on the Court.

But Kennedy is moving up only a single notch in seniority. He is still outranked in seniority by Justice Antonin Scalia. So, if the Court’s eight other Justices were to split along conservative and liberal lines, and the four most likely conservative Justices attracted Kennedy’s vote, the assigning task would fall to the Chief Justice. In any divided Court with Kennedy and Scalia on the same side, Scalia would always be the assigning Justice should the Chief Justice not be on that side.

But, if Kennedy were to line up, in a divided case, with the Court’s four moderate-to-liberal Justices (assuming Stevens’ replacement sides with that bloc), Kennedy would always have the assigning task, inheriting it from Stevens. He would outrank, in seniority, all of the Justices in that bloc. He thus will be able to shape even the Court’s more liberally inclined outcomes, by the way he chooses the opinion authors. And, if he thought any of the other four might use an assignment to write an opinion more sweeping than he would want, he could assign the task to himself, and keep it within whatever bounds he chose so long as it did not drive off one of the four other votes he would need to keep a majority.

[. . .]

Follow HancAquam ------------>

Too much? Maybe. . .

I'm no fan of B.O., but I think DRUDGE may be piling it on a little thick, don't you?

GINGRICH: Obama 'most radical president ever'...

LIMBAUGH: Obama 'inflicting untold damage on this great country'...

MARK LEVIN: Obama 'Closest Thing to Dictator We've Ever Had'...

PALIN: Obama's 'vast nuclear experience he acquired 'community organizer'...

LIZ CHENEY: Obama Putting America on 'Path to Decline'...

HANNITY: Obama 'Is a Socialist'...

SAVAGE: 'Obama The Destroyer'...

Follow HancAquam ------------>

Advances in anti-Zombie weaponry

The Coming Zombie Apocalypse fix for the day:

Yeah, OK. . .but does it have a flamethrower?

Follow HancAquam ------------>

Coffee Bowl Browsing

Justice Stevens will leave the Supreme Court at the end of this term.  What does this mean?  Another summer of listening to Senate confirmation hearings on NPR while commuting to Irving.  Why they bother holding these hearings is beyond me.  Nominees never say anything of substance.  Every word is carefully crafted to make the nominee as inoffensive as possible.  It's a choreographed dance.

Oh, if only women and married men could be swim coaches, this sort of thing would've never have happened!

Jonah Goldberg:  "We can’t become Europe unless someone else is willing to become America. . .Europe is a free-rider. It can only afford to be Europe because we can afford to be America."  Ouch.

A preview of the chaos that ObamaCare will cause. 

Richard Bastien asks the pertinent question:  "Why the near hysteria regarding sexual abuse in the Catholic Church, most of which occurred decades ago, from a society that celebrates the lack of constraints against almost every form of sexual activity, no matter how degraded?"

75 Books Every Man Should Read. . .and it would't hurt women to read them either.

Need help separating fact from urban legend?  Go to Snopes. I recently rec'd this one at my email account:  Giants Found! 

Fascinating solutions to everyday problems. . .


Follow HancAquam ------------>

Call it anything but sin

Bishop James Conley sticks up for the Holy Father.  Here are three excerpts that deserve special attention:

[. . .]

Sexual abuse of children cries to heaven for justice. It violates everything that is good and holy. It mocks everything Christ said in the gospels. Jesus compared the Kingdom of Heaven to the innocence of a little child. And for a Catholic priest to commit a crime and a sin like this is profoundly evil [Except for murder, I would say that there is no more evil act a priest could commit.  The damage done to children who have been sexually violated is enduring and often leads them into becoming predators themselves.]

[. . .]

And no person has done more to rid the Church of the evil of sexual abuse than the current successor of St. Peter, Benedict XVI. As archbishop of Munich thirty years ago, then as the Prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and now as the Vicar of Christ, Pope Benedict has always been dedicated to his responsibilities of purifying the Church in this area [and this is likely why he is currently the focus of these vicious media attacks:  does anyone think that a permissive, doctrinally lazy pope would be attacked like this?].

[. . .]

No other world religious leader, Jewish, Muslim or other, would be treated in this way. Contempt for the Catholic Church—and don't be fooled; the contempt is directed not just at Church leaders, but at ordinary believers as well—no matter how vulgar or bitter, is the last acceptable prejudice. Why? Because the Catholic Church is one of the few remaining voices that speaks effectively against the moral confusion of our day. The Catholic faith does not and will not bless the damaging moral path some people now seem to prefer [Amen.  The general line of attack here is fairly obvious:  if you can't beat the message, beat the messenger and hope that the message is discredited in the process.  The duplicity here is exposed when media talking-heads and church dissents immediately start touting their reform agenda as the only possible answer to the crisis.  What do they fear?  That the Holy Father's sincere efforts to return the Church to the principal task of preaching and teaching the gospel will succeed in unraveling the unmitigated disasters of the Spirit of Vatican Two revolutionaries.] 

 

I wonder when some prominent member of the Spirit of Vatican Two cadre will man-up and accept partial responsibility for this mess.  As I have already noted many times, the root cause of the scandal is sin.  Not ecclesial structures.  Not processes, procedures, or policies.  So, the question is:  what has happened in the Church in the last forty years to turn sin into any and everything but sin?  We talk endlessly about psychological disorders, legal responsibilities, criminal negligence, financial culpability, and the failure to self-actualize.  Why have we been so reluctant to call this outrageous behavior what it is:  sin?

Follow HancAquam ------------>

Kindle 2 vs. iPad. . .what's it gonna be?

In a recent post I asked for advice/reviews of Amazon's Kindle 2.  Most of the responses were positive.  Some readers suggested I look at Apple's iPad. 

So, I did.  

My conclusion:  very nifty machine. . .but WAY more machine than I need.  I just want a easy-to-use, inexpensive way to read my books while traveling during the summer.  Since I have a laptop for web browsing, the iPad's internet capabilities would go unused most of the time.  I don't collect pictures or videos nor would I use the thing to store financial/personal info.  My sense of the iPad is that for me buying one would be comparable to a little old lady buying a Porsche to make her weekly trip to Bingo at St. Bubba's.

So, what's the decision on the Kindle 2?  Probably gonna pass.  First, on the advice of my sagacious readers, I looked at the WISH LIST and discovered that none of the books I should be reading during the summer have been Kindled (is that a new verb?!).  Second, my Fun Books (sci-fi, fantasy, mysteries) end up in the common reading room of the priory.  I couldn't share them if they were on a Kindle.  Third, I could buy a lot of philosophy books for $260. 

Follow HancAquam ------------>

Abuse scandals = crisis in fidelity

George Weigel, always an excellent read, points out what is obvious to any clear-thinking Catholic:  the abuse scandal is the result of clerics defying Church teaching and not the result of structural problems.  Ergo, all the fav "solutions" of ecclesial revolutionaries are just opportunistic whining about reform for reform's sake:

". . .what ought to be obvious about sexual abuse in the Catholic Church is that these grave sins and crimes were acts of infidelity, denials of the truths the church teaches. A priest who takes seriously the vows of his ordination is not a sexual abuser or predator. And if a bishop takes seriously his ordination oath to shepherd the Lord's flock, he will always put the safety of the Master's little ones ahead of concerns about public scandal. Catholic Lite is not the answer to what has essentially been a crisis of fidelity."

Exactly.

Follow HancAquam ------------>

AP once again lying about the Holy Father. . .

"New" revelations of the future Pope Benedict XVI covering up for a clerical child molester?

Or, just another case of a lazy, Catholic-hating reporter publishing court documents leaked to her by plaintiff's lawyers?  (You know, like that NYT hit piece over Holy Week. . .)?

Here's the "reporting". . .

And here's Fr. Z.'s evisceration of the story.  . .line by line, "fact" by "fact."  The gist of Fr. Z.'s take-down is this:  the AP story ignores the time-line of Ratzinger's appt to the CDF; conflates the canonical duties of various curial offices in dealing with priests accused of molestation; completely confuses the various sorts of canonical remedies for molesters (defrocking, dispensation, etc.); and completely punts on the historical fact that Crdl. Ratzinger insisted on taking personal charge of all abuse cases sometime in 2001. 

Makes you wonder if AP reporters have access to Google or, you know, telephones. . .anything that would help them actually look stuff up, or you know, call someone to check their facts.  

Also, I have to believe that if these charges were being made against a prominent Muslim cleric or leading Rabbi, the reporter would go out of her way to learn something, anything about the internal workings of these faiths in order to better report the facts.  Cultural diversity, difference, and all that being the pinnacle of lefty ideology.  But since she's dealing with the Evil Roman Pontiff, who opposes all thing holy and good to the Left, plain ole willful ignorance serves the narrative just fine. . .so, why bother?

UPDATE:  Damien Thompson points out a few factual errors in the AP report.

UPDATE 2:  Fr. Fessio has an interesting take on why the process for granting priestly dispensations took so long after 1980.

Follow HancAquam ------------>

Catholic Priest = Child Molester?

from the otherwise reprehensible Newsweek:

+

The Catholic sex-abuse stories emerging every day suggest that Catholics have a much bigger problem with child molestation than other denominations and the general population. Many point to peculiarities of the Catholic Church (its celibacy rules for priests, its insular hierarchy, its exclusion of women) to infer that there's something particularly pernicious about Catholic clerics that predisposes them to these horrific acts. It's no wonder that, back in 2002—when the last Catholic sex-abuse scandal was making headlines—a Wall Street Journal-NBC News poll found that 64 percent of those queried thought Catholic priests "frequently'' abused children.

 

Yet experts say there's simply no data to support the claim at all. No formal comparative study has ever broken down child sexual abuse by denomination, and only the Catholic Church has released detailed data about its own. But based on the surveys and studies conducted by different denominations over the past 30 years, experts who study child abuse say they see little reason to conclude that sexual abuse is mostly a Catholic issue. "We don't see the Catholic Church as a hotbed of this or a place that has a bigger problem than anyone else," said Ernie Allen, president of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. "I can tell you without hesitation that we have seen cases in many religious settings, from traveling evangelists to mainstream ministers to rabbis and others."

+

The good news:  Catholic priests do not molest children at rates higher than other ministers.

The bad news:  Catholic priests molest children at rates comparable to other ministers.

Follow HancAquam ------------>

Banning the burkha?

Q:  What do you think about these countries like France that are trying to ban Muslim women from wearing  burkha's?

A:  Only liberal fascists are stupid enough to believe that something as useless as banning religious garb will guard their precious secularist dogmas.  If they ban burkha's, why not clerical garb or religious habits?  You might say that they wouldn't ban Christian religious garb b/c Christianity is foundational to western European culture.  According to the E.U. Constitution, Christianity had absolutely nothing to do with the foundation and development of European culture.  They've already tried to ban crucifixes in Italian classrooms, and the leftists in the U.K. are trying to force Catholic schools to teach that abortion is a morally acceptable choice. 

By banning the burkha, the Nanny Statists are turning this traditional form of dress into a symbol of religious resistance to an over-weening political ideology.  I say, "Wear Two Burkha's!"

Follow HancAquam ------------>

Coffee Bowl Browsing (in breve)

The ever-vigilant Tom K. of Disputations provides irrefutable scriptural proof that Jesus was a Dominican:  Luke 24.41.  Now, this proof fails to demonstrate that Jesus was a plump, trustworthy Dominican.  Had Jesus wanted to prove that he was such a Dominican, he would have asked, "Have you any creme-filled Krispy Kremes."  Why KK's?  Because Jesus was also a southerner. 

More anti-Catholic bigotry from Newsweek:  a report on priests raping religious sisters in Africa is titled, "The Trouble With Celibacy."   Are we to conclude from this that celibacy causes rape?  

I've often preached against "bumper sticker spirituality". . .now there's a book out explaining the philosophy of bumper stickers.  If you read, send me a review. 

Kathryn Lopez of National Review Online takes Maureen "CINO" Dowd to the woodshed.  Lopez notes that in a recent column Dowd whines out this ridiculous question:  “How can we maintain that faith when our leaders are unworthy of it?”  Surely this question tells us all we know about the depth, breadth, and sincerity of Dowd's faith.

Follow HancAquam ------------>

Rel & Sci seminar: required texts

Below I've posted a very rough syllabus for the Religion & Science seminar I am offering this summer at the University of Dallas.

Here's an updated list of required texts:

Polkinghorne, J.  One World: the interaction of science and theology (2007)

Ferngren, G.  Science and Religion: a historical introduction (2002)

Godfrey-Smith, P.  Theory and Reality: an introduction to the philosophy of science (2003)

A good portion of the reading for this seminar will be articles, chapters, etc. from my collection of anthologies.  

Follow HancAquam ------------>

Calling terrorists by a different name doesn't make them disappear

B.O.'s brilliant plan to re-name radical Islamic terrorism out of existence is working great.  

This just in:  an elderly Methodist woman is caught trying to blow up an American passenger jet while screaming something about a conspiracy against Jeopardy and her SSI benefits. 

Not.

Follow HancAquam ------------>