Thursday, June 26, 2008

2nd Amendment

The Supreme Court has just voted 5-4 to uphold the right to bare arms for individuals (militias).

This is really scary to think this just barely squeaked by 5-4 with Justices Ginsburg, Souter, Breyer and Stevens dissenting.

Makes you kind of worry about who'll be in office to replace any of the present Justices.

5-4 Ruling

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices' first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.

The court's 5-4 ruling struck down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision went further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms laws intact.

The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia. MORE

I'm having a hard time understanding the dissenters arguments on interpreting the 'Framers', our Foundings Fathers thoughts when this amendment was penned.

In a dissent he summarized from the bench, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."
He said such evidence "is nowhere to be found."

Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a separate dissent in which he said, "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas."

It almost like re-writing history to one's own liking.

Equal rights!.......For Apes

I just found out that my post on the Ballgirl was fake.

...I'm hopin that this next story is fake as well.

Spanish parliament to extend rights to apes!

MADRID (Reuters) - Spain's parliament voiced its support on Wednesday for the rights of great apes to life and freedom in what will apparently be the first time any national legislature has called for such rights for non-humans.

Parliament's environmental committee approved resolutions urging Spain to comply with the Great Apes Project, devised by scientists and philosophers who say our closest genetic relatives deserve rights hitherto limited to humans.

"This is a historic day in the struggle for animal rights and in defense of our evolutionary comrades, which will doubtless go down in the history of humanity," said Pedro Pozas, Spanish director of the Great Apes Project. MORE...if you can stomach it

The Parliament's environmental committee? ......hmmmmmm

Things sure have changed since Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero's Socialist government took over.

Friday, June 20, 2008

Thursday, June 19, 2008

Rev. Pfleger 'I double-dog-dare-you Vatican'

So, this is not an exact quote from Fr. Pleger but his 'you just wait' until mass on Sunday attitude smells of a double-dare-you, if you ask me.

I sure hope I'm wrong and Fr. Pfleger will not use the Sunday mass to vent.

"I'm good. I'll speak Sunday and give my talk then," Pfleger said as he sifted through a desk full of papers. "I'm grateful to be back and to do what I'm called to do. I'm grateful to the cardinal for letting me back.

"When asked if he was the same "Michael Pfleger" as before, he said: "I'm me. I'm not changing. This is how I've been since I've been born. I'm not changing." MORE

Okay, just remember your priestly obligations first.

Nationalization of Refineries?

Okay, we can go round and round about how this mess got started and how to fix it, but do we really trust the government to control the refineries?

I know the oil companies are the bad boys on this issue although it's ludicrous to dub them the sole source of blame.

I just don't think the idea of government control (ya I know they claim the people own it) is the answer. It sounds like something Venezuela would do.

...oh wait, they've (Hugo) already done it.

House Democrats call for nationalization of refineries

House Democrats responded to President's Bush's call for Congress to lift the moratorium on offshore drilling. This was at an on-camera press conference fed back live.

Among other things, the Democrats called for the government to own refineries so it could better control the flow of the oil supply. MORE

Robot for lonely men?

This is sick!

I'm amazed at the ingenuity of Japan's advances in Robotics however, after reading this you gota ask yourself


She is big-busted, petite, very friendly, and she runs on batteries.
A Japanese firm has produced a 38 cm (15 inch) tall robotic girlfriend that kisses on command, to go on sale in September for around US$175, with a target market of lonely adult men.

Using her infrared sensors and battery power, the diminutive damsel named "EMA" puckers up for nearby human heads, entering what designers call its "love mode".

World Most Expensive Hamburger

Do you have $200.00 dollars (Whatever Euros) to flush down the toilet...literally?

It's a Whooper to add insult to pocket book.

Okay, if someone bought me one maybe, however I don't think it would look exactly like the picture when made at the shop (your nearest Burger London that is).

Anyway, here's the story.

BTW: If anyone out there has eaten one of these bad boy, let me know.... does it taste just like a regular whooper?

Burger King Launches World's Most Expensive Hamburger

The fine ingredients of what is called simply 'The Burger' include Wagyu beef, white truffles, Pata Negra ham slices, Cristal onion straws, Modena balsamic vinegar, lambs lettuce, pink Himalayan rock salt, organic white wine and shallot infused mayonnaise in an Iranian saffron and white truffle dusted bun.

Wednesday, June 18, 2008

Canada: Muffled Catholic Voice

This story was brought to my attention by Karl Keating of Catholic Answers. I subscribe to his E-Letter which comes out sporadically.

This issue mentions a Father Alphonse de Valk, a Catholic priest, well known for his pro-life activities, wrote in defense of the Church’s teaching on marriage. Specifically, he wrote against “gay marriage,” citing the Bible, the catechism, and the writings of John Paul II. He wrote nothing that you or I would consider inflammatory; he simply restated constant Church teaching: marriage can exist only between one man and one woman.

What Fr. de Valk got for his troubles was a complaint filed by homosexuals who accused him of fostering “extreme hatred and contempt.” So far, the legal expenses for the priest and his magazine have exceeded $20,000. They are sure to rise.

Catholic Insight is a small-circulation, orthodox Catholic magazine. (That is almost tautological. All orthodox Catholic magazines have small circulations.) If its legal bills pile up enough, the magazine will have to fold—which is probably the goal of both the complainants and the activists on the human rights commission.

It appears that Canada has a Human Rights Commission (non-elected by the people) that basically has free reign to declare that Father de Valk's review of catholic teaching is considered hate crime. And one more thing, you're considered guilty until proven (that means if the commission believes your side of the story) innocent.

Hey, what ever happen to free speach? Do they not have it in Canada?

Here's the Catholic Insight website if you'd like to help Father de Valk out with his legal expenses.

.... Don't think this could not happen here in the good old United States of America.

New Summer Reads

I'm ordering two new books to start out my summer reading session.

Foreword by Cardinal Christoph Schönborn
In 2005 the Archbishop of Vienna, Christoph Cardinal Schönborn wrote a guest editorial in The New York Times that sparked a worldwide debate about “Creation and Evolution”. Pope Benedict XVI instructed the Cardinal to study more closely this problem and the current debate between “evolutionism” and “creationism,” and asked the yearly gathering of his former students to address these questions.

Even after Joseph Ratzinger became Pope Benedict XVI, he has continued to maintain close contact with the circle of his former students. The "study circle" (Schulerkrers) meets once a year with Pope Benedict XVI for a conference. Many of these former Ratzinger students have gone on to become acclaimed scholars, professors and writers, as well as high ranking Church prelates.

This book documents the proceedings of the remarkable conference on the topic of “Creation and Evolution” hosted by Pope Benedict XVI in 2006 at the papal summer residence, Castel Gandolfo. It includes papers that were presented from the fields of natural science, philosophy and theology, and records the subsequent discussion, in which Pope Benedict XVI himself participated.

“Ultimately it comes down to the alternative: What came first? Creative Reason, the Creator Spirit who makes all things and gives them growth, or Unreason, which, lacking any meaning, strangely enough brings forth a mathematically ordered cosmos, as well as man and his reason. The latter, however, would then be nothing more than a chance result of evolution and thus, in the end, equally meaningless. As Christians, we say: I believe in God the Father, the Creator of heaven and earth. I believe in the Creator Spirit. We believe that at the beginning of everything is the eternal Word, with Reason and not Unreason.” — Pope Benedict XVI

"Creation and Evolution is an extraordinary opportunity for the public to listen in on the conversation as some of the greatest minds in the Catholic Church — theologians, philosophers, scientists, and Pope Benedict himself — wrestle with one of the most thorny and far-reaching of topics. Participants clash repeatedly over what we really know about the forces that shaped life on earth, over what is data and what is hype, over what certain scenarios might mean even if they were true. I recommend it to anyone who wants to know where we might have come from and where we might be headed.— Michael J. Behe, Lehigh University, Author of The Edge of Evolution

"At a time when evolution is the subject of so many bitter polemics, it is refreshing to see theologians and scientists together to engage in respectful, informed, and thoughtful discussion of it."— Stephen M. Barr, professor of Theoretical Physics, University of Delaware, and author of Modern Physics and Ancient Faith.

Order from Ignatius Press if you can.

Secular humanists and other progressives have been predicting the demise of religion for the past 250 years. But they keep running into a problem--those who were supposed to be liberated by secular gospel that God is Dead aren't buying it. Why not? Since the Greeks and Romans, as Robert Royal explains, religion has nurtured the development of the individual and of Western culture itself.
Christianity and Judaism collaborated to create a dialogue between faith and reason that determined the history of the Middle Ages, the Renaissance and Reformation, and several Enlightenments, including our current postmodern moment. Royal concludes that modern democratic societies are intimately tied to a Christian view of the dignity of the human person and the health and survival of free institutions.

The Catholic Thing

One more new website that I've stubbled onto. It's called The Catholic Thing

Catholic Commentary, News, Articles. Looks promising ....

Faith and Reason Institute

I found this website which I thought I'd pass on...

Their Staff in impressive:

Robert Royal, Ph.D.President

Phillip LawlerNon-resident Research Fellow

Jason Boffetti, Ph.D. Civitas FellowResearch Associate in Education

Mary Zito Events Co-ordinator and Research Assistant

Advisory Board

Hadley Arkes, Amherst College
Martha Bayles, writer
Joseph Bottum, The Weekly Standard
Michael Crofton, The Philadelphia Trust Company
Elizabeth Fox-Genovese, Emory University
Robert P. George, Princeton University
Mary Ann Glendon, Harvard University
Mark Helprin, writer
The Honorable Paolo Janni, Avvenire
Joseph F. Johnston, Jr.Drinker Biddle & Reath, LLP
Fr. Matthew Lamb, Boston College
Virgil Nemoianu, Catholic University of America
Dean L. Overman, Winston & Strawn
Peter Skerry, Claremont-McKenna College
Michael Uhlmann, Bradley Foundation
Thomas West, University of Dallas

Here's a paper that can be obtain from the site. Excellent topic.


The Present Position of Catholics in America:
Rights, Duties, Challenges
Robert Royal
First Annual St. Thomas More Lecture
Fairfield University, Center for Faith and Public Life
February 11, 2008

...All this I believe, is relatively clear to any fair-minded person. So that=s the easy part for a lecturer on the present position of Catholics in America. But I want to turn now to some questions that I am sure will be more difficult: What has the success of Catholics in American public life meant to the quality of Catholicism as a Faith in America, and does the Catholic Church still continue to exert a public influence in this country of the kind that it believes it must by its own self-understanding? A survey in Britain last year discovered that somewhere around 70 percent of Muslims in that country consider themselves Muslims first and British second. To many analysts, this indicated a high potential towards disloyal behavior, perhaps even towards terrorism. But when I read the survey, I immediately realized that I consider myself Catholic first and American second, though I don=t see these two categories as necessarily opposed to one another. But if you are lucky, you spend no more than eighty years in America. After that it=s eternity, and an American passport and American attitudes may or may not be the best things to travel with on that journey. Seriously, if you believe in a God at all and reflect even minimally, no matter what nation you are living in, certain elements of your national culture will accord with a Godly life and others will not. No earthly culture comes close to realizing the Kingdom of God. So while we owe loyalty to the nation in which we live, it is only simple realism to say with the great St. Thomas More: "The King's good servant, but God's first."

This kind of analysis gives rise to great divisions at a fundamental level. Let me be clear about what I mean: this is not a question of Catholics split between our two main political parties, which is how we usually think of being divided today. Traditional Catholics are often currently aligned with Republicans because the GOP opposes abortion, homosexual marriage, and troubling practices like physician-assisted suicide and embryonic stem-cell research, all of which contradict long-held and carefully thought out Catholic beliefs. By contrast, more liberal Catholics tend to favor the Democrats, despite their general support of abortion, because of their opposition to intolerance, inequality, and racism, values that may also to a certain degree be identified with classical Catholic beliefs. No. The discernment of spirits in our day is not between liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican. It may look like that to people on the outside. For example, I expect that, as was true of John Paul II=s visits to the United States, Benedict XVI=s trip in April will largely be reported in political categories of liberal and conservative. But Catholics have a responsibility to see themselves and such things in a very different light. Much of what was good in the American Founding was and remains deeply compatible with the Faith. Indeed, as John Paul II and Benedict XVI have said, like other manifestation of the Enlightenment, it has heightened certain Christian values in modern societies that had been relatively neglected, particularly freedom, including freedom of religion. Still, many elements of American culture that have emerged, especially in the last half century or so, are not only contrary to the Catholic Faith, but pose a distinct challenge, perhaps even a threat, to traditional beliefs of all kinds in America. And that is the heart of what I want to discuss with you tonight.

What is the nature of this challenge or threat? It has multiple dimensions but perhaps the most serious one is that it seeks to denature, in my view, Catholicism itself as a price for being fully tolerated in the United States. Paradoxically, until a half century ago the problem was less pointed. Catholicism was embattled primarily in its relations with the overwhelming Protestant character of America, had to defend itself, and built up various institutions and practices to do so -- institutions like Fairfield University for example. There are almost 300 Catholic colleges and universities in the United States, more than in the rest of the world combined. Our frugal immigrant forbears built up this system along with the Catholic primary and secondary schools when they were far poorer and discriminated against than we are because they knew that without places where Catholics could be educated in their beliefs as well as in secular subjects, it would be nearly impossible for Catholics to hold their own as Catholics in American society. Those institutions were not always on a par with the best secular or Protestant schools, but at least they produced graduates who had been exposed to Catholic thought, which is a complex, comprehensive, and in several ways diverse approach to the world. (My next door neighbor is a retired military officer who attended a small mid-Western Catholic college. Every now and then, when we=re out cutting the grass, we'll stop and he'll ask about Jacques Maritain or some theologian, because in his day distinctive Catholic philosophers and theologians shaped the experience of undergraduates on Catholic campuses, even those who did not study philosophy or theology.) Today, Catholics constitute a large percentage of the students at all the prestigious schools -- I myself went to an Ivy League campus from this area B and are far better educated than in the past. The problem is that we are better educated, but not necessarily better educated in Catholicism, even those of us who attended Catholic institutions. And that has left many Catholics uninstructed when they make choices between America and the Faith. Obviously, at times we should look to one or the other or both, since we have to live as Catholics in America. And the Church has learned from several good things in America. But it is worth looking more closely at this question because it reveals some opportunities, but some real challenges as well.

Sociologists and historians commonly cite three main reasons for the current position have studied the place of Catholics in America. First, there was the weakening or disappearance of the so-called Catholic Ghetto, the network of parishes, schools, unions, men=s clubs, sodalities, Knights of Labor, Knights of Columbus, and other intermediate associations that enveloped American Catholics in a rich social web that was simultaneously Catholic and embedded in American daily life. A watershed moment came when John F. Kennedy was elected president in 1960. Clearly, a good deal of the visceral anti-Catholicism that existed from Colonial times had evaporated by then. Kennedy was handsome, brilliant, and charismatic, but he still had to make the case -- and did so before a meeting of Protestant clergy in Houston -- that the Vatican would not dictate policy through him. It was unfortunate that he even had to make this argument, and the way he did opened the door to later claims that religion should have no real influence in the public square at all. But Protestants by and large were prepared to believe him and he won. With this social acceptance, however, which had been fitfully underway ever since large numbers of Catholic immigrants started arriving in the nineteenth century, a crucial element in shielding Catholic identity disappeared. It probably had to at some point and in many ways it was a good thing. But because of several other developments, the disappearance of the Catholic ghetto also made the Church vulnerable to some new problems that require very careful attention to the differences between Catholic thought and American practice.

Confusions on this score arose from a second major factor: the huge influence of the Second Vatican Council (1962-65), which opened up the Church to the modern world, as it is often said. That is true, but not true in the way many people took it to mean after the Council. They thought the Church had decided to accommodate itself to modernity in the sense of becoming more like the modern world. There is nothing in the documents that the Council Fathers produced to suggest that this was their aim. By the way, two men who did not exactly have mediocre careers later, contributed to the Council: Karol Wojtyla, then a young and brilliant bishop, and Joseph Ratzinger, then a young and perhaps even more brilliant theologian. Both later confirmed that what they thought they were doing at the Council was very different than what became the common interpretation. In fact, it is probably truer to say that the Council was so confident of the position of the Church that it underestimated the challenges it would face in the task Pope John XXIII had really set for it: finding even more effective ways to evangelize the modern world. Instead, the world, including the American world, evangelized the Church more than the other way around. Earlier Americanist controversies had involved questions of whether Catholic should attend public schools, should have ethnic parishes, and could join unions (which in Europe were almost universally anti-Catholic), which is to say practical, not doctrinal questions. The aftermath of the Council in America threatened for a time to make Catholicism something entirely different on fundamental questions such as birth control and abortion, and even formerly uncontroversial points like Sunday Mass attendance and the authority of the Church=s teaching body, the Magisterium. Under the last two popes, that process has slowed and even reversed to a certain extent.

Finally, a third thing happened, the cultural revolution, including the sexual revolution, that erupted here and around the world in 1968, which is to say after the uncertainties introduced after the Council and the dismantling of the Catholic ghetto. Today, many people have grown accustomed to that revolution with its near total acceptance of sex outside marriage, widespread contraception, abortion, and divorce -- inevitable consequences of sexual liberation. On a fair reading, there is nothing in the Catholic tradition or the broader Judeo-Christian background that justifies these practices; they are wholly a product of American culture, and even a particularly radicalized form of American culture at that. The cultural revolution also questioned authority of all kinds, religious and secular, and put great emphasis on individual judgments as opposed to the fidelity to revealed truths and authoritative traditions. Some of these attitudes dissipated with the return to a more conservative political and moral outlook in the last quarter of the twentieth century and, within the Church, under one of the greatest of modern popes, John Paul II, beyond all doubt a great moral voice globally. Still, some of them persist within the Church itself, though more among inactive than active Catholics.

Congrad's to the Celtics

(photo -

Congratulations to the Celtics on a job well done.

Tuesday, June 17, 2008

The "A" Word

It seems to me that every time (... alright most times) I mention the "A" word while discussing the Presidential election issues, I get an answer like, "That's the least of our problems today!" or "Oh, your not one of those overly- religious folks, are you?"

Or, more than often they try to tie it to another issue, so as to negate the "A" word.
"With all those deaths that Americans are causing in Iraq, how could you even bring that up?".... as if the deaths of these little ones is nothing to be concerned about.

We can and will go into these responses later, however I did want to pass on this article I read this morning that brought forward how ridicules these kind of reactions are.

It's the story of Tiny Tim:

It was a relatively calm day in my hospital’s NICU (Neonatal Intensive Care Unit). Two other nurses and I were trying to have a conversation amid the customary sound of ventilators and heart monitors.

I was in midsentence when the shrill ring of the red emergency phone halted all conversation.

“Come fast, “ the voice said urgently. “We need a neonatal nurse stat!”

Fear gripped my heart as I ran into the delivery room.

Instantly, I knew the situation was critical.

“What’s happening here.” I asked.

“It’s an ‘OOPS abortion,’ and now it’s your problem!” responded one the nurses. For us, an “OOPS abortion” meant the mother’s due date was miscalculated, and the fetus survived the abortion procedure.

A pediatrician was called to the scene. He ran by me with the fetus (now called a baby) in his hand and yelled in my direction, indicating he wanted me to follow him into the resuscitation room adjoining the delivery room.

I looked into the bed of the warmer as I grabbed equipment. Before my eyes was a baby boy. A very, very tiny baby boy. The doctor and I immediately made an attempt at intubation (inserting a tube down the trachea from the mouth or nose of the infant to the top of the lungs to ventilate, expand and oxygenate them). The doctor’s effort at intubation failed, which further traumatized the baby. I glanced at the doctor and hesitantly asked, “Will you attempt intubation again?”

“You’ve got to be kidding,” he replied. “It would be inhumane to attempt to intubate this poor little thing again. This infant will never survive.”

“No, Doctor, I’m not kidding,” I said, “and it’s my job to ask.”

The doctor softened for a moment. “I’m sorry, Sharon. I’m just angry. The mother doesn’t want the inconvenience of a baby, so she comes to the hospital so she can pay somebody to get rid of it - all neat and tidy. Then the whole thing gets messed up when the fetus has the audacity to survive.


The "A" word is obviously Abortion. It disturbs me that the catholics I work with don't really seem to think this is an election issue. They seem more concerned about filling their SUV. Which of coarse is an important issue.

Some even have the Audacity to say Mr. Obama is actually pro-life.

.... What?

Here's another article on Roman Catholics for Obama


The United States Congress has also learned about this grisly reality, and finally, in 2002, passed the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, requiring that babies like Tiny Tim who survive abortions receive medical care from the medical professionals in their midst—medical professionals who suddenly must morph from killers to their traditional roles of healers and helpers.

The bill was so obviously necessary and became so popular that it faced no real opposition, even from the most fanatical of Congress’ pro-abortion extremists, including Hillary Clinton, Barbara Boxer, and Ted Kennedy. Even NARAL, the National Abortion Rights Action League, supported the legislation.

Indeed, who could ever oppose such legislation? Actually, there is someone: Barack Obama, who appears as of May to be the frontrunner for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination, and possibly the next president of the United States.

Obviously more to follow....

Monday, June 16, 2008

Obama the Pied Piper

Great post on Mr. Obama's pied piper influence on Catholics who don't know the teachings of the church as well as they should.

They seem to fall prey to the melodious music of Obama's speeches and rhythmic tempo of his "..change....change...change...change" chanting.

Sen. Obama's "open mind" about abortion

Thanks Carl for the post.

The end of the Angelican Church?

I read this during the weekend.

LONDON (AP) - The bishop of London said Sunday he would order an investigation into whether two gay priests exchanged rings and vows in a church ceremony, violating Anglican guidelines.

The priests walked down the aisle in a May 31 service at one of London's oldest churches marked by a fanfare of trumpets and capped by a shower of confetti, Britain's Sunday Telegraph reported.

The bishop, the Right Rev. Richard Chartres, said such services are not authorized in the Church of England. He said he would ask the archdeacon of London to investigate.

A call placed with the archdeacon was not immediately returned.

Britain officially recognizes civil partnerships but the Church of England's guidelines say clergy should not bless such unions.

The wedding-like ceremony is likely to anger conservative members of the Anglican Communion, a loose-knit worldwide Christian grouping that includes the Episcopal Church in the U.S.

Conservatives are fiercely opposed to both same-sex partnerships and the ordaining of gay priests, and the issue threatens to tear the Anglicans apart. The archbishop of Uganda, the Most Rev. Henry Orombi, was quoted by the Telegraph as calling the ceremony "blasphemous."

The ceremony took place at St. Bartholomew the Great, according to the report. The Rev. Peter Cowell and the Rev. David Lord exchanged rings, read each other poetry and took part in communion, the paper said.

While not technically a marriage, the ceremony's liturgy, including the introductory "Dearly beloved," closely matched the wording used for weddings. MORE

President Bush Catholic?

Wow, just could wind of this on Carl's site InsightScoop.

We heard about Mr. Blair becoming Catholic after leaving office, however now come rumors of President Bush doing the same.

Vatican City, Jun 13, 2008 / 05:50 pm (CNA).- Today as President Bush and Pope Benedict XVI met at the Vatican, the English newspaper, The Telegraph reported that Bush may be considering converting to Catholicism at the end of his presidential term.

The Telegraph indicated that various Italian newspapers have been commenting on the news, especially Il Foglio.

Il Foglio explains that the circulating rumors could be correct: "anything is possible, especially for someone reborn like Bush.” Yet, similar to former Prime Minister Tony Blair, "if anything happens, it will happen after he finishes his period as president, not before. It is similar to Blair's case, but with different circumstances."


SiriusXM merger Okey Dokey

Finally, the FCC weighs in.

And the verdict is .... Okey, But!

FCC Chairman Kevin Martin made his recommendation Sunday in exchange for a number of concessions, including turning 24 channels over to noncommercial and minority programming.

what does 'minority programming' mean?


I thought it was already 'noncommercial'?

Anyway, lets see how long this is going to take.

The proposed merger of the nation's two satellite radio broadcasters, bogged down in the regulatory process for over a year, has cleared a major hurdle with Federal Communications Commission chief recommending approval of the $5 billion deal. MORE

Hey, I know, maybe some of you creative, Photoshop, Design Element, designers out there can post some new ideas on what the New Logo will look like...

Hey Tom...Hit the Road!

So, Mr. Hanks is filming the latest in fantasy sequels of "The Da Vinci Code ". This one's entitled "Demons and Angels"

I guess they (producers) posed the question something similar to this.
"Ah, we're filming another anti-catholic film and we were wondering if we could use your sacred church sites for our purposes of profit."

....or something like that.

Hmmm, I bet you know what the answer was.

The Vatican has banned the makers of Angels & Demons, the latest Dan Brown thriller to be filmed, from shooting scenes not only in the Vatican but in any church in Rome on the ground that it is "an offence against God" and "wounds common religious feelings".

Archbishop Velasio De Paolis, head of the Vatican's Prefecture for Economic Affairs, said that the author had "turned the Gospels upside down to poison the faith. It would be unacceptable to transform churches into film sets so that his blasphemous novels can be made into mendacious films in the name of business." MORE

Friday, June 13, 2008

NBA Finals

How about them Lakers!


what the heck happened?

Bush and B16 - Vatican Gardens

President Bush visited the Vatican Gardens with Pope Benedict as his guide. I'm jealous...

I love this exchange between the two:

After the meeting in the tower, they stood on a terrace to take in the view of 44 hectares (108 acres) of manicured gardens, buildings, ancient walls and St Peter's Basilica that make up Vatican City.

Bush asked: "How big is it?" A Vatican aide responded: "Not quite as big as Texas." Bush then said: "Yes but more important ... this is spectacular." MORE

I love it...

WCC +<><

Tuesday, June 10, 2008

Canadian Catholic news

Interesting article from Pete Vera.

Canada Orders Pastor to Renounce His Faith

In a decision that foreshadows the possible fate of Fr. Alphonse de Valk, Canada’s leading pro-life voice among Catholic clergy, the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal has forbidden evangelical pastor Stephen Boisson from expressing his moral opposition to homosexuality. The tribunal also ordered Boisson to pay $5,000 “damages for pain and suffering” and apologize to the “human rights” activist who filed the complaint.

The complaint stems from Canada’s debate leading up to state legislation recognizing so-called same-sex marriage. In 2002, the pastor wrote a letter to the editor of his local newspaper in which he denounced the homosexual agenda as “wicked” and stated that: “Children as young as five and six years of age are being subjected to psychologically and physiologically damaging pro-homosexual literature and guidance in the public school system; all under the fraudulent guise of equal rights.” More


Government to pastor: Renounce your faith!
Now Banned from expressing moral opposition to homosexuality

Government to pastor: Renounce your faith!Now banned from expressing moral opposition to homosexuality MORE

Interesting to see how this developes.

Wednesday, June 04, 2008

Mars - Too Cool

Found this photo on the web. This photo is particularly amazing. It shows the Mars Lander parachuting, mid-flight on it's way down to the surface.

....too cool.
Check out the website

Roman Catholics for Obama?

Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver trys to set the record straight with Catholic Obama voters who use his words to prop up their support for "the Elite One".

Arhcbishop Cahllenges 'Roman Catholics for Obama'

Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver chided a group called Roman Catholics for Obama ’08 for quoting him out of context on voting for a pro-abortion candidate.

In a May 19 column on the website of the Archdiocese of Denver, Archbishop Chaput clarified his position and challenged members to lobby for pro-life issues in the Democratic Party.

The controversy began after excerpts from an earlier column were posted on the website as a possible solution to the “voting dilemma” of supporting Obama, whose “position on abortion is in conflict with the vision of the Church.”

The group quoted Archbishop Chaput saying, “Catholics can vote for pro-choice candidates if they vote for them despite — not because of — their pro-choice views.”

I guess you can twist anything to agree with your viewpiont.... NOT!

Cardinal George disciplines Fr. Pfleger

Cardinal corrects Fr. Plfeger on his actions at Trinity.

Cardinal George Temporily Removes Pfleger From St. Sabina.

Francis Cardinal George is temporarily removing Father Michael Pfleger from his position as pastor of St. Sabina Roman Catholic Church on Chicago's South Side.

CBS 2 Chief Correspondent Jay Levine reports the move comes after several days of deliberation and consultation by the Cardinal, who first learned about Pfleger's racially charged comments about senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton from the pulpit of Trinity Unity Church of Christ last Thursday night.

The Cardinal immediately contacted Pfleger who agreed not to refer to the presidential candidates by name, but as CBS 2 reported at the time, there remained the possibility of some further disciplinary action against Pfleger. MORE

There are a number of news videos of this as well as parishioners reactions to the decision by the good Cardinal.

Just watching the clips of the angry congregation makes me realize that Cardinal George better take a closer look at this parish. In one clip one can see the liturgical dancing around the alter, which appears to be during mass.

That's a no-no...

It looks like Fr. Plegers influence is deeply rooted here. The parishioners may be upset, however they better think twice about following their Bishop.

And Father Pfleger better do some deep reflection...

Show time's over Father.

Monday, June 02, 2008

Ex-Communication for attempted ordained women

Jimmy Akin has the latest on the Vaticans, specifically the CDF (Congregation for the Doctrin of the Faith) new document "On the delict of attempted sacred ordination of a woman"

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

General Decree

On the delict of attempted sacred ordination of a woman

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in virtue of the special faculty granted to it by the Supreme Authority of the Church (cf. Can. 30, Code of Canon Law), in order to safeguard the nature and validity of the sacrament of Holy Orders, decreed, in the Ordinary Session of December 19, 2007:

In accordance with what is disposed by Can. 1378 of the Code of Canon Law, he who shall have attempted to confer holy orders on a woman, as well as the woman who may have attempted to receive Holy Orders, incurs in a latae sententiae excommunication, reserved to the Apostolic See.

If he who shall have attempted to confer Holy Orders on a woman or if the woman who shall have attempted to received Holy Orders is a faithful bound to the Code of Canons of the Oriental Churches, he is to be punished with the major excommunication, whose remission remains reserved to the Apostolic See, in accordance with can. 1443 of the same Code (cf. can. 1423, Code of Canons of the Oriental Churches).

The present decree enters in force immediately after its publication in L'Osservatore Romano.

William Cardinal Levada
PrefectAngelo Amato, s.d.b.
Titular Archbishop of SilaSecretary