The Empty Chair

Homily for the Third Sunday of Ordinary Time

Cycle C





Earlier this week, I read an article which brought home to me in a vivid and disturbing way just how dangerous it is to be a young person today. All sorts of dangers and temptations surround them, and powerful forces are working hard to corrupt and mislead them. To be blunt, our youth culture has become degenerate.

The fact is, we don't have to look very hard or very far to see the evidence of this. The most popular kind of music among young people today is "gangsta rap", which glories in violence, degradation, and exploitation. It assaults the very idea of social bonds. One of the biggest fads today is body piercing: It's no longer enough for some people to wear one or two, or even three earrings, but now some young people pierce their noses, their eyebrows, their cheeks, and even less mentionable parts. But it goes even farther, to things like branding, or something called "tongue splitting", in which people have their tongues surgically split in two, so as to resemble that of a snake. A serious problem among young women today is "cutting": these girls cut themselves deliberately, mutilating their bodies.

All of these kinds of self-mutilation, all of this degradation, is symptomatic of something. It didn't just come out of nowhere. These things are symptoms of deep emotional and spiritual pain. According to pychologists and therapists who have worked with these young people, the thing that is universal among them is a feeling of total disintegration, a feeling that the world is meaningless, that their lives are meaningless. They feel that everything is random, and nothing really matters. Another thing these young people have in common is rage: uncontrollable, almost inexpressible rage. And these feelings of meaninglessness and rage are so overpowering, so overwhelming, that the only way they feel they can get relief is to inflict physical pain on themselves.

Now, some of you parents here this morning might be thinking "hey, my kids aren't doing any of that stuff." And some of you young people here today might be thinking "I'm not doing any of that stuff." Well, good! Thank God for that! Thank God for preserving you or your kids from that kind of spiritual poison. But, I bet that many of you wouldn't have to think very long or look very hard to discover that you know some young person who is caught up in those things.

Where are these things coming from? Why are some of our young people caught up in this soul-destroying behavior? There are several reasons for this, I think:

We all know that kids need stability. They need firmness, limits, structure. They need guidance. They need to know where the boundaries are. And have we, as a society, given them those things? I'd have to say, in all too many cases, the answer is no.

We've broken up their families with divorce.

We've confused them about sex by creating a society in which anything goes. We've told them "you're going to do it anyway. We're not going to bother teaching you about virtue and self-control and the preciousness of sex." We've just thrown contraceptives at them.

In too many cases they've learned that their lives are meaningless, because they've never heard of the One who gives life meaning.

We've told them, and we've shown them, that their worth lies not in who they are, but in how much stuff they can collect; whether they're wearing the right clothes, or the right shoes. Whether they listen to the right music, or drink the right soft drink.


But one of the greatest reasons for this underlying sense of meaninglessness, for this rage among so many young people, among the "Gen-X'ers" (those who are under 30), is the fact that our young people, those under 30, as a Gen-X'er recently wrote, are the first generation that our society has systematically tried to wipe out through the holocaust of abortion. If you think I'm exaggerating, if you think I'm being "extremist" by saying something like that, consider this: since 1973, when abortion was made legal by the Supreme Court, we have killed 38 million children through abortion. 38 million! That's more people than Hitler and Stalin managed to kill.



That brings me to these young people sitting up here this morning. You see, since 1973, in our nation, abortion claims the life of 1 out of every 4 children conceived. One out of four children conceived today will not survive to birth because of abortion. One out of four. And that child, that fourth child, would have been sitting in in that empty chair. That empty chair would have been filled by a child, by a young person, if it hadn't been for abortion. That child might have been your neighbor, your own child's classmate. He or she might have been your nephew, or your cousin, or your niece. That empty child might have been filled by a child who'd be your paperboy, who'd grow up to be a doctor, a teacher, a missionary, a mother, or even a priest. But that child won't be any of those things, because he isn't here.

Now, the supporters of legalized abortion like to use phrases like "women's rights", or "freedom of choice." Those phrases are deceptions; they're smoke and mirrors. Smoke and mirrors designed to hide that empty chair. Smoke and mirrors designed to obscure the child who isn't there.



Phrases like "reproductive rights" and "the right to choose" are abstractions. But that empty chair is very concrete, it's very real.

Whenever you hear phrases like "abortion rights", or "a woman's right to choose", I want you to think of that empty chair.

At any moment from conception to birth, a child's life can be snuffed out by abortion. That fact sends a message to our young people, a disturbing and corrosive message.

It says "You're only here because we decided to allow you to be here."

It says "You aren't supremely valuable, you aren't of inestimable worth." Because if you were, we would have done a better job of protecting your unborn brothers and sisters.

It tells our young people, "life is cheap, and easily thrown away."

Frankly, I'm not surprised that a lot of our young people feel meaninglessness and rage. I'm not surprised at all.

We heard Our Lord say in the gospel today:

The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,
because he has anointed me,
to bring glad tidings to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim liberty to captives,
and recovery of sight to the blind,
to let the oppressed go free,
and to proclaim a year acceptable the Lord.

(Luke 4:14-21)

Our society is captive to the embrace of Death. Our nation is in poverty: Poverty, in the midst of the richest nation on earth! For as Mother Theresa said, "it is a great poverty to decide that a child must die so that we might live as we wish."

Our nation is blind to the dignity and humanity of the weakest and most vulnerable among us: the unborn child.

Every year, in our nation, millions suffer the ultimate oppression at the hands of abortionists.

In St. Paul's Letter to the Corinthians, we heard that we are the members of Christ's Body. As Christ's voice, it is for us to bring glad tidings to the poor. It is for us to proclaim liberty to captives.

Our challenge is this: Will we proclaim liberty to those captive to the Culture of Death? Will we be Christ's eyes, and see the dignity and humanity of the unborn child? Will we be Christ's hands, and reach out to protect those innocent lives?

Will we say to our young people, and to the world, "I WILL choose life!"?

Explorare Googles Ope!

Google has a Latin Version!

There you can "Favente Fortuna" in your web searches.

Everything is there, like your hints: "navigabulis plerisque inserendi clavem pulsare satis est, ne potius in tessera strepites".

Even the "Vincula sub Patrocinio" are there.

Make it protocollum tuum!

It's Not Like the Media Is Biased Or Anything...

The media is always trying to assure us that it's fair, balanced, objective, etc. So I'm sure that those objective professionals at KATU in Portland, Oregon, can explain how their coverage of today's March for Life is objective and balanced and accurate.

Today, hundreds of thousands of people went to Washington, D.C. to express their support for the dignity and humanity of the unborn. The scene in Washington looked something like this:



So, in their fair, objective, accurate report on the March, KATU provides this:



Nahh, there's no bias in the Media.

The March For Life



And I mean not just the annual March today in Washington, D.C., but the struggle, the battle, for the dignity of human life, which we are waging against the Culture of Death in which we are immersed.

Where are we, 31 years after Roe v. Wade?

I hate to say it, but it seems to me, as far as the nation as a whole goes, not much progress has been made. The organs of the dominant culture are just as implacably anti-life as they were 10-20 years ago. Catholics themselves, according to the surveys, are just as likely to support Abortion-On-Demand, and even have abortions, as the rest of society. If we can't get our own people "on board", how can we hope to change the broader culture?

And in the political sphere, I am beginning to think that Pro-lifers have been led down the garden path. I have labelled the Democratic Party the "Party of Death", and I still think that's the case: Their one and only real commitment is to the Slaughter of Innocents. But the Republicans can hardly be called the "Party of Life". The Republicans have managed to fob off pro-lifers with promises and platitudes for years now, while delivering next to nothing. And Republican commitment to the Pro-life cause is shaky as it has never been before. For the first 2 years after George W. Bush was elected, I thought that he was waiting to "solidify" his base before taking substantive pro-life action. But I don't think so anymore. I don't think he's going to deliver anything else. His behavior today tells the story. Pro-lifers should take cold comfort in his phone call to the March today: He could not have signalled his intent to keep pro-lifers at arms length any more clearly. He wasn't even physically in Washington today. And I don't believe for a moment that was an accident. It's not like the date of the March wasn't known well in advance.

So where, if at all, are signs of hope to be found? Well, it seems to me, that there is hope in our youth. I watched a little bit of the Mass for Life in Washington on EWTN last night, and I was struck by how many of the faces in the crowd were under 30. My own experience leads me to have hope: The Gen-X'ers and younger people are beginning to catch on to the fact that their generation has been savaged by abortion. Victor Lams put it bluntly last week:

... [T]he Boomer generation was the first generation to really selfishly turn on the next generation (my generation) and try to wipe it out through the holocaust of abortion and contraception. The boomers looked/do-look at the very existence of the Gen Xers as a threat to their youth ("Who are these youngsters? I'm the kid! I get the sex and the toys!")...

When young people get wind of what has been perpetrated on them, they're horrified and angry. I find that the following exercise brings the point home, especially with 12-14 year olds: When I talk to them about abortion, I'll have them sit so that every third or fourth chair amongst them is empty, but in it is either a name tag with the name left blank, or a cutout drawing of a face, with no features drawn on it. Then I tell them about what happened in 1973, and how, since then, we've been killing 1 out of 4 unborn children by abortion. I then point at those empty chairs, and blank nametags, and tell them: Those chairs are empty because the people who would have been there never had the chance to live. And those kids, the kids who died before they were born, would have been your classmates, your friends, your cousins, maybe even your brothers or sisters. That gets the message across. And it's a message that sticks. It's a sobering thought to realize that you exist only on the sufferance of society.

If enough of those kids get the message, then one day abortion will be ended, because they won't be party to murdering another generation.

A Thought Experiment

Several people have either sent me e-mails or left comments defending The West Wing against my criticisms of yesterday.

I readily grant that the show is well-written and acted. But a show can be well-written and acted and still have an agenda. And the agenda is the engine driving TWW.

But imagine this: What if "The West Wing" had a conservative President as protagonist, and an equally smart, beautiful, dedicated band of people striving to bring about School Vouchers, an end to Affirmative Action, opening up the Alaskan Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling, and a Human Life Amendment? And imagine that the president's opponents, in that case liberals, were portrayed in a manner similar to the way conservatives are portrayed in the current show. The hue and cry from the outraged Left would reach the heavens. Critics would be having fits of apoplexy, and would demand the show's cancellation, and the immediate banishment or execution of its cast, writers, and producers.

Now Here's a Celebrity With Some Depth And Substance



Did you know that Britney Spears was an expert in Solid-State Physics?

Well, never underestimate what a girl can do when she sets her mind to it. She won't rest on her accomplishments in singing and acting. At Britney's Guide to Semiconductor Physics, she will guide you in learning about the vital laser components that have made it possible to hear her super music in a digital format.



At first, Britney admits, it was hard to understand things like valence bonds or n-N and p-P Heterojunctions:



But pretty soon, she was able to rattle off radiative transmission calculations off the top of her pretty little head:



Don't let phrases like "Finite Barrier Quantum Well" or "plane wave electric field" scare you! With a little hard work, anyone can understand semiconductor physics.



Britney says "It's a Snap!"

Just Honoring Her Wish

"A Conversation With Michael Schiavo"


A reader sent this to me, and I thought it amusing and worth passing on:


Q: Michael, you stated your wife Terri said "I wouldn't want to live like that". Yet, she is breathing on her own, not dying, not suffering from any terminal disease. Do you realize if you pulled her feeding tube, she would die from starvation and dehydration? What do you call that?

MS: just honoring her wish.

Q: Let me put it another way, Michael. Suppose Terri said she wanted you to put a loaded gun to her head and pull the trigger, would you go ahead? What do you call that?

MS: just honoring her wish.

Q: Perhaps we should try this .... Michael, suppose Terri said she wanted you to give her a push into the path of a moving freight train, would you go ahead? What do you call that?

MS: just honoring her wish.

Q: Alright Michael, suppose Terri said she wanted you to jump out of an airplane without a parachute, would you go ahead? What do you call that?

MS: hey, but she never said that.

Q: Don't worry about it Michael, go ahead anyway. We'll tell the world you were "just honoring her wish".

This conversation is fictitious, but, unfortunately, that doesn't mean it isn't true.

Update On Terri Schiavo,

or,

Being a Judge Means Never Having to Say, "I was Wrong"

My article titled "Killing Terri Schiavo" is now out in the January issue of Crisis Magazine. If you don't subscribe to Crisis, you might buy, beg or borrow (don't steal) a copy of it. In the article I examine some of the legal and medical issues in her case, and demonstrate how Terri has been the victim of a judicial and medical establishment that has embraced the pro-death agenda. In my research for the article, it became plain to me that a serious miscarriage of justice has been perpetrated by Judge Greer et al. One notable way in which the Florida courts have ridden roughshod over Terri's rights is in the manner they have handled the guardians ad litem in her case: Several attorneys have informed me that the normal procedure is to have such a guardian appointed to represent the person's interest. But Terri's court cases have consistently gone to trial without an independent guardian ad litem to represent her. As I write in my Crisis article, the first guardian ad litem, Richard Pearse, said some things in his report which George Felos, attorney for Michael Schiavo, didn't like, so Felos tried to get rid of him:

In February of 1999 George Felos filed a "suggestion of bias" against Pearse, and demanded he be removed as guardian ad litem. The judge then hearing the case, Bruce Boyer, took no action on Felos' "suggestion of bias" nor on Pearse's report. In April of that year, after waiting four months without hearing from the judge, Pearse filed a request that he either be given further instructions or discharged. He reiterated his concerns about Michael's guardianship, and also noted that there would be due process difficulties if the case proceeded to trial without Terri having an independent guardian ad litem. Judge Boyer's response was to discharge Pearse without appointing a successor. The case then proceeded to trial before Judge Greer, without him appointing a new guardian ad litem .

Well, now it looks like the same thing is happening again. In the latest proceeding, Governor Bush asked the most recent court-appointed guardian, Jay Wolfson, to investigate 10 issues related to Terri's case, including such things as the circumstances of the injuries which led to her brain damage. Governor Bush also asked Wolfson to make a determination as to whether Terri and Michael could be divorced. Mr. Wolfson had also, in his report to the court, advocated that swallowing tests be done on Terri, as well as other measures to determine whether there is any likelihood that therapy could improve her condition.

All of these questions, and the request for a swallowing test, are highly inconvenient to Michael Schiavo and his attorney, George Felos. If Michael and Terri can be divorced, then Michael is sunk, and Felos loses the pro-death test case he longs for. If a swallowing test is conducted by honest and independent doctors, then Michael will almost certainly be sunk as well, because such a test will reveal that Terri already is swallowing her own saliva (about 2 to 2.5 liters per day, like most normal adults) and can therefore swallow liquids. If she can swallow liquids, then she can probably re-learn to swallow solid food.

But these questions and the request for a test are also inconvenient to the Florida courts, because honest answers to them will reveal the bias and judicial incompetence, if not outright misconduct, of Judge Greer and, to a lesser extent, Judges Boyer and Baird.

And so, the response of the courts has been, once again, to discharge the guardian ad litem. Once again, there is no independent advocate representing Terri. The Schindlers have petitioned the court to re-instate Jay Wolfson so that he can complete the investigation into Terri's case. Predictably, George Felos opposes the re-instatement, saying that Wolfson had already completed the investigation. Felos has relied upon misinformation and outright deception to make his case, and can't afford to have any further inconvenient facts come to light.

What this case is now about is the combined efforts of George Felos and the judges of this case to prevent Governor Bush and the Schindlers from re-visiting the questions of fact in Terri's case. In my opinion, the maneuverings regarding the constitutionality of "Terri's Law" are just a smoke screen in front of those questions of fact.

You see, Judge Greer made some highly dubious, and indeed almost unaccountable findings of fact in this case. His judgment that Michael's assertion that Terri "wouldn't want to go on living" in her condition met the standard of "clear and convincing" proof is one egregious example of what can only with charity be described as a number of "counter-intuitive" decisions.

But in our legal system, once a judge has made a finding of fact, that finding is all-but unassailable, no matter what evidence might come to light subsequently showing that finding to be erroneous or even absurd. Being a judge means, in a very real sense, never having to say "I was wrong".

Governor Bush and the Schindlers are using the opening given them by "Terri's Law" and the governor's intervention to try to re-open the case and re-visit the rulings that Judge Greer made regarding Terri's diagnosis and regarding her putative wishes. And, as I have written before, there is ample reason to doubt the validity of those judgments.

It is precisely because of the objective weakness of those judgments and the flimsiness of the evidence behind them, that the Florida judiciary will do almost anything to prevent them from being re-examined. A small waft of truth will bring down that house of cards. So the tactic of the judges will be to keep the windows closed on, and the light off of, the matter.

And so the Florida courts, wittingly or not, are locked in common cause with George Felos. They both need the same thing, albeit for different reasons. And that is why I am not at all sanguine about the outcome of Terri's case as long as it is in the Florida courts. Neither the Schindlers nor the attorney for Gov. Bush, Ken Connor, are optimistic, either. Judge Baird has clearly signalled his intentions by refusing to allow a new trial to present or consider evidence in the case.

It is almost a certainty that Judge Baird will rule that Terri's Law is unconstitutional. Judge Baird all but declared himself on the matter before there was even a hearing. That his evident bias didn't disqualify him is appalling, but not surprising. The arguments he gives for his ruling may be of interest to legal pundits, but even if he has no plausible reasons the outcome will be the same. As far as the judiciary as concerned, it is necessary that Terri's Law be found unconstitutional. They will allow no governor nor legislature to brook the unfettered exercise of judicial power. Once Terri's Law is declared unconstitutional, that puts an end to the inconvenient questions and demands of Gov. Bush and the Schindlers. Once Terri's Law is declared unconstitutional, the inconvenient findings and recommendations of Jay Wolfson will be rendered moot.

As soon as that ruling is given, George Felos will ask for an order to again remove Terri's feeding tube. It will probably be granted. Felos will try to get Terri's death order on a "fast track", so as to limit the opportunities for further legal maneuvering. Gov. Bush and the Schindlers will ask for a stay of the death order pending appeal, but many involved in the case think Judge Baird is not likely to grant it. And the Florida appellate courts, in all likelihood, will also decline to issue stays. Their interests also lie the way of Terri's death. At that point the only hope is in a Federal intervention.

Once Terri is dead, then all the inconvenient, unanswered questions lose their interest and relevance. Felos knows that against the fact of Terri's death, none of those problematic issues will have much actuality. Most people will shrug their shoulders and move on. And Felos and his comrades at the Hemlock Society and Death-with Dignity" will have their test case, and the legal means to continue apace their offerings to Death The All-Embracing.

I'm back

After the busyness of Christmas and the New Year, I was just exhausted and needed to take a break from blogging. But I'm back, at least for now. I have a couple of big projects looming which will probably result in a curtailment of my blogging later this month. But in the meantime, I'll try to edify and entertain.

Sancte Stephane, Ora Pro Nobis!

I hope all of you had a joyful and blessed Christmas! Mine was busy, but wonderful: I love celebrating the Masses of Christmas. I enjoyed Christmas dinner with some parishioners, as there wasn't enough time for me to travel to be at home for Christmas this year.

Today is the feast of St. Stephen the Protomartyr:



I used to be puzzled at celebrating this feast on the day after Christmas. It seemed to me that, after the joy and exaltation of Christmas, to celebrate the feast of a martyr was sort of a comedown. I mean, it's not as though we know the actual date of Stephen's death, so the Church could have picked almost any day. But this date is not a coincidence. There is a fittingness to this date, as St. Fulgentius (465-533) tells us in a homily for this day:

Yesterday we celebrated the temporal birth of our eternal King: today we celebrate the triumphal passion of his soldier. Yesterday our King, having put on the garb of our flesh, came from the sanctuary of His Mother's virginal womb, and mercifully visited the earth: today his soldier, quitting his earthly tabernacle, entered triumphantly into heaven... Yesterday Jesus was wrapped, for our sakes, in swaddling clothes: today Stephen was clothed with the robe of immortal glory. Yesterday a narrow crib contained the infant Jesus: today the immensity of the heavenly court received the triumphant Stephen... The place of honor amidst all who stand round the crib of the new-born King belongs to Stephen, the proto-martyr, who, as the Church sings of him, was "the first to pay back to the Saviour the death suffered by the Saviour." It was just that this honor should be shown to Martyrdom; for Martyrdom is the creature's testimony and return to the Creator for all the favors bestowed on him: it is man testifying, even by shedding his blood, to the truths which God has revealed to the world... Now the glorious martyr-band of Christ is headed by St. Stephen. His name signifies the Crowned, and a conqueror such as he could not be better named. He marshals, in the name of Christ, the white-robed army; for he was the first, even before the apostles themselves, to receive the summons, and right nobly did he answer it.

Christ is Savior and Lord. He is King, and the Shepherds and Wise Men acknowledged his Kingship. But Christ did not rule from a throne, but from the Cross. He did not wear a crown of gold and gems, but a crown of thorns. He is Triumphator, but His triumph came through suffering and death. So Stephen points the way for us, to follow Christ to glory!

Carmina Solemnitatis Nativitatis Domini

That's "Christmas Carols in Latin", for you Latin-challenged folks...


Aquafolia Ornatis

"Deck the Halls"

Aquafolia ornatis,
Fa la la la la, la la la la.
Tempus hoc hilaritatis,
Fa la la la la, la la la la
Vestes claras induamus;
Fa la la la la, la la la la
Cantilenas nunc promamus,
Fa la la la la, la la la la.


O Parve Vice Bethlehem

"O Little Town of Bethlehem"

O parve vice Bethlehem,
Quam tacite dormis,
Et spectant alta sidera
De caeruleis caelis.
Sed in obscuris viis
Tu hodie tenes,
Aeterna luce fulgente,
Annorum omnes spes!

Nam Iesus Christus natus est;
Et laeti angeli
Infantem sanctum mirantur
Dum dormiunt pop'li.
O stellae, conclamate
Nostrum Redemptorem,
Atque laudes Deo Regi,
Mortalibus pacem!


And, of course:

Rudolphus, Reno Nasus Rubricatus

"Rudolph, the Red-Nosed Reindeer"

Reno erat Rudolphus
Nasum rubrum habebat;
Si quando hunc videbas,
Hunc candere tu dicas.

Omnes renores alii
Semper hunc deridebant;
Cum misero Rudolpho
In ludis non ludebant.

Santus Nicholas dixit
Nocte nebulae,
"Rudolphe, naso claro
Nonne carum tu duces?"

Tum renores clambant,
"Rudolphe, delectus es?
Cum naso rubro claro
Historia descendes!"

For all your Latin Carol needs, go here.

Re-Defining Sex

My friend Jenny Roback Morse is pretty cool: she's an economist, a good Catholic, a mom, a writer, and all-around smart lady.

She has a pair of articles at NRO, the first of which is "Love and...Marriage and the Meaning of Sex".

A revolution in the definition of sex has been going on for the last generation or so. Until recently, sex was understood, at least implicitly, as having a communal function, and society had an interest in defining the proper boundaries of sexual behavior. But, Morse argues, that has changed:

...For many people in modern America, sex has little or nothing to do with building community of any kind. Sex is a purely private matter, in the narrowest sense of private. Sex is a recreational activity, and a consumer good. My consumption of this good, my enjoyment of this activity, is a completely private matter that should be viewed analogously with other goods and activities.

This redifinition is having repercussions throughout society, and is at the heart of the debate over such issues as Gay "marriage". Jenny's article is right on mark, as far as I'm concerned. Read it and see why!

Having a Blog is Funny, Sometimes

You can encounter all sorts of different people.

Commenter Don is certainly that. And at first, his comments were kind of interesting and amusing. He reminds me of the "Jack" character from "Will & Grace": Someone who goes through life in a state of perpetual ferment and drama, utterly unaware of how insubstantial and ludicrous he is.

When Don started up with the all-but-inevitable name-calling (more on that in a moment), I was tempted to ban him. But I decided not to, for two reasons: (1) I didn't want to provide him with an excuse to pose as The Grievously Suffering Martyr, silenced for being a Prophet of the Gay cause. (2) Don is a lightweight. Banning him would be like using a shotgun to get rid of a pesky fly.

See, in Monday's post "Ideology as History", I quoted actual statements from important figures in Greek history which give the lie to the gay activists' contention that the ancient Greeks thought, like the fashionable parrots of the Zeitgeist, that homosexuality was the Most Wonderful Thing in The Universe. In fact, they didn't, as yet one more quote, from Plato's Laws, will illustrate:

[636c]...One certainly should not fail to observe that when male unites with female for procreation the pleasure experienced is held to be due to nature, but contrary to nature when male mates with male or female with female, and that those first guilty of such enormities were impelled by their slavery to pleasure.

Here, the gay activist's ideology, that is to say, his mythos, runs up against the brick wall of fact. And so he can either (a) refute the facts adduced, (b) ignore the facts and proceed as thought they didn't exist, or (c) attempt to shout down the person adducing the facts.

Don (nor the other gay advocate who commented), I will note, did not adduce a single actual argument challenging my demonstration that the ancient Greeks did not accept homosexual behavior as "normal". Instead, he chose options b and c.

Don illustrated the truth of Ann Coulter's dictum (from her book, Slander) that Leftists (and homosexual activists are simply a species of Leftist), when confronted with facts inconvenient to them, don't argue. They attempt to shout down the opposition and resort to name calling.

And in the 40 or so comments Don posted over a couple of threads, we certainly get a lot of name calling. Unfortunately, most of it is rather derivative, consisting of worn out and unimaginative calumnies such as:

I am a "hater". (Anyone who disagrees with a Leftist must be doing so out of hate.)

The Church, and people who advocate moral standards and accountability, want to "control" people.

The Church is engaging in "Nazism" against gays. (It is an established rule of Internet discourse that the person who introduces comparisons of "nazis" or "fascists" to his opponent at that moment has lost the argument).

The Church has abused women and continues to do so.

God "made" people gay.

The Church, which is powerful and evil and wicked enough to do all those bad things, is nonetheless about to crumble into oblivion.

And so on, ad nauseam. And of, course, those of us who embrace the traditional standards of Christian morality are "bigots", and "fools", and "brainwashed".

Of course, he is saying all these things, including telling one commenter to "burn in hell, dear", because he is filled with Jesus' LOVE: "L.O.V.E. YOU IDIOTS ! LOVE !"

Of course, the more shrill his screams are, the more absurd he becomes. That's why I don't ban him.

Don, in short, is a troll. It is always a capital mistake to engage a troll in rational argument, as you would a reasonable person. The troll is not interested in rational argument: he is usually a monomaniac intent only on shouting his mania to all around him. So I will ask my readers to please observe the common-sense rule applied to trolls: Don't feed him. I'm confident that sooner or later, he will say something so abusive or outrageous that I'll have to ban him. But let's not hand him the opportunity.

Hooray for Me!

Sometime last night or early this morning I turned over 100,000 hits on my blog counter!

Thank you for your support!

Blug

That's my neologism for plugging a blog. Blog + Plug = Blug.

Or perhaps, a better neologism might be Plog. Plug + Blog = Plog.

Although I seem to recall that Victor Lams already used Plog for something else. If you read this, Victor, or if anyone else remembers, let me know.

At any rate, the Blog I wish to Blug is that of my good friend and classmate, Fr. Dave Hudgins.

Dave's a good guy and great priest, and you can read his thoughts over at The Great Commandment. Go pay him a visit!

Ideology as History

I wasn't going to post anything today. Monday is my day off, and I had planned on indulging myself in relative idleness in view of the fact that last week was very busy and that I will get even busier as we near Christmas.

But sometimes a piece of nonsense comes along so egregious that comment, correction, and debunking is necessary.

I am speaking of some of the assertions made in a recent New York Times book review, linked yesterday by Mark Shea.

Edward Rothstein, in his efforts to offer unconfined adulation to Louis Crompton's Homosexuality and Civilization, repeats uncritically Crompton's assertions regarding homosexuality in ancient Greece, and illustrates that the Manhattanite chattering classes owe their conception of history more to trends of pseudo-intellectual fashion than to actual reading.

Crompton, in his book, wants to posit that "homosexuality is associated with the inner workings of civilization itself". Since homosexuality is at the very core of what it means to be civlilized, it shouldn't surprise us to learn that homosexuals had things just peachy before that horrible old Christianity came on the scene; until just a few decades or so ago, when we finally began shaking those Christian bugaboos off our enlightened intellects.

And so, he trots out the now all-but-unquestioned canard that in ancient Greece "homosexuality had an 'honored place' for more than a millennium".

This. is. utter. nonsense.

I know you've heard from shows on the Discovery Channel and read in Cosmo that homosexuality was an accepted, "normal" part of Greek society, but that assertion is complete poppycock.

Anyone who asserts that the ancient Greeks looked at homosexuality as "normal" is either ignorant or is blinded by ideology. And any honest classical scholar will admit it.

I studied Classics and Patristics in graduate school at the Catholic University of America in Washinton, DC, whence I have an M.A. in Classics. I also studied the Classics in college at the University of Illinois. I labored for years reading Plato, Xenophon, Euripides, Plutarch, Homer, etc. in the original Greek. And I can tell you without equivocation that the ancient Greeks did not view homosexuality as "ok".

Now, it is true that they didn't look at homsexual behavior with the same degree of abomination as say, did ancient Israel. And they wouldn't have labelled it a "sin against nature", as would Thomas and the scholastics. At best, it was something they made jokes about. And the failure to abominate hardly constitutes approval. There's a wide ground between calling homosexuality an "objective disorder" and granting it an "honored place" in society.

But don't just take my word for it. Let's look at what some notable Greeks themselves said. This is how Xenophon, in his Memorobilia, describes Socrates' reaction to Critias' homosexual desire for Euthydemus:

Nevertheless, although he [Socrates] was himself free from vice, if he saw and approved of base conduct in them, he would be open to censure. Well, when he found that Critias loved Euthydemus and wanted to lead him astray, he tried to restrain him by saying that it was mean and unbecoming in a gentleman to sue like a beggar to the object of his affection, whose good opinion he coveted, stooping to ask a favour that it was wrong to grant. [30] As Critias paid no heed whatever to this protest, Socrates, it is said, exclaimed in the presence of Euthydemus and many others, “Critias seems to have the feelings of a pig: he can no more keep away from Euthydemus than pigs can help rubbing themselves against stones.”

It is important to note that Xenophon places this account in relation to describing Socrates moral rectitude and virtue, and in his reactions to "base" conduct. Secondly, Socrates points out that it would be "wrong" for Euthydemus to grant the favor Critias sought, and that it is "mean" for Critias to go mooning after him. Finally, even in ancient Greece one did not compare sentiments which have an "honored place" in society to the "feelings of a pig."

Xenophon also describes how the legendary Lawgiver of the Spartans, Lycurgus, dealt with the prospect of homosexual "recruitment" of boys in the ephebate [the training program for boys of about 15-19]:

If someone, being himself an honest man, admired a boy's soul and tried to make of him an ideal friend without reproach and to associate with him, he approved, and believed in the excellence of this kind of training. But if it was clear that the attraction lay in the boy's outward beauty, he banned the connexion as an abomination; and thus he caused lovers to abstain from boys no less than parents abstain from sexual intercourse with their children and brothers and sisters with each other.

Xenophon, Constitution of the Lacedaimonians

Again, it is hard to reconcile the supposed "honored" place of homosexuality with its description as an "abomination" on par with incest.

Plutarch, in his Alexandros, relates that when Alexander was asked by the governor of one of his provinces in Asia Minor, in an attempt to curry favor, if he would like him to send "...a young man, the likes of whom for bloom and beauty did not exist." Alexander replied, "Why you vile man, what past deeds of mine have you witnessed that would make you think I would be interested in such pleasures?" Note that Alexander did not reply with a modern, "tolerant" response, like, "Well, "I'm not interested in that sort of thing, not that there's anything wrong with that."

Finally, Nikos Vrissimtzis, the author of a recent best-seller in Greece, Love, Sex and Marriage - a Guide to the Private Life of the Ancient Greeks, said in a BBC report:

"Contrary to popular opinion, that world was not a paradise for homosexuals, and paedaracy was held in such contempt that it was very heavily punished... Homosexuals were not, as many believed, openly accepted by society. They were marginalised and punished by law," Vrissimtzis says. "For example, they could not enter the ancient Agora [the business and government center of a Greek city] or participate in ranks and rituals involving the state.

He also said, "Ancient Greece was not a liberal society."

And in that last remark lies the crux of the issue. It is the typical tactic of sexual libertines, including homosexuals, to try to create a mythos of some ideal society which embraces the degeneracy that they want to establish here and now. Liberals want to be able to point to some utopia, and will make one up if necessary. Margaret Mead tried to do it with the Samoans and was eventually proven a fraud. The gay activists have been trying to do it with ancient Greece, and are also perpetrating a fraud.

Something Really Does Stink In Pinellas County, Florida

Sorry, but everything I see coming from Florida: the egregious rulings of Judge Greer, the topsy-turvy rulings of the Appellate courts, the lamentable lack of investigation into the circumstances of Terri's injuries, leads me to believe that it is a cesspool of corruption.

And now, outrageously, a disabled teacher has been fired in Pinellas County, Florida, almost certainly because of her outspoken support for Terri's right to live. Pinellas County is the same county in which Terri resides in her hospice. It's the same county which has on it's circuit bench Judges Greer and Baird. It's the same place in which death-dealing attorney George Felos has his practice.

CNS News reports:

Rus Cooper-Dowda told CNSNews.com Wednesday morning that the Pinellas County School Board voted six-to-one to fire her Tuesday night, citing "job perforrmance" as the reason. The veteran teacher claims she was terminated in retaliation for sharing her opinion about the Schiavo case in response to a reporter's question.

Rus Cooper-Dowda is disabled herself, and has written eloquently about Terri's case. At one time she was in a similar situation to Terri's:

At age 30, the teacher contracted a severe case of lupus that left her unable to speak and with very little control over her motor functions. She listened helplessly as doctors incorrectly diagnosed her as being in a Persistent Vegetative State, the same condition some physicians believe afflicts Terri, and described her chances for recovery as "hopeless."

"I could hear all that," Cooper-Dowda recalled. "It took a huge effort to finally communicate, 'I'm in here!' And I barely survived."

Though she could not speak, Cooper-Dowda would use her finger to write the word "no" in the air when doctors discussed removing her life support. Those same doctors diagnosed her attempts to communicate as "seizure activity" and sedated her. According to Cooper-Dowda, the harder she tried to communicate with her caretakers, the more heavily she was sedated.

The curiosity of one nurse saved Cooper-Dowda's life, she said.

"She refused to believe that the systematic pattern of tapping and blinking and moving and moaning was not communication," Cooper-Dowda recalled. "So, when I went to Terri Schiavo's October 2002 hearing ... I saw the videos for the first time and I was writing about it and I thought, 'That could have been me,' and then I thought, 'Oh, it was me!'"

Cooper-Dowda's firing seems to follow a little too closely her remarks made to a reporter about the Terri Schiavo case:

I did a very brief interview, offsite, on my own time, not identifying as a teacher, where I said, 'As a disabled Floridian of faith, female, with disabilities, this is scary,'" Cooper-Dowda explained. "And I was really clear that 'you cannot say I am a teacher' and the reporter was disappointed because I teach special ed[ucation], but agreed."

But, unknown to her, many of her students were watching the news that evening, and the word of her appearance spread quickly. At a faculty meeting the next day she heard, among other things, that she didn't "fit in", that teachers "with public opinions like that don't fit in." She was also labelled a "religious wacko" by some of her colleagues and superiors. She was told by her principal, various teachers, etc. that "Teachers aren't allowed to have opinions, especially about Terri Schiavo, and especially if you're already a seminary grad[uate]".

Things really got bad, she said, when some copies of a booklet she had written about Terri Schiavo appeared on campus.

After that I couldn't get the most accepted basic support like needed room supplies, memos about meetings, campus police help when any of my kids needed to be removed for violence or assistance for students hurting themselves regularly," Cooper-Dowda alleged. "Finally, I was given less than a day to hand deliver a resignation for 'personal reasons' or be fired for 'not fitting in.'"

She is contemplating legal action against the school board, but, unless she can mount a federal case, she'll have to bring it before the judges of Pinellas County. Any guesses as to the likelihood of her getting justice there?

A More High-falutin' Kind of E-mail Scam

Here's an excerpt...


Mlle Rama Kinta

J’ai l’honneur de venir par le biais de ma lettre vous
informer mon désir ardent d'entamer une relation
d’affaire avec vous.

Je m'appelle Rama Kinta je suis la fille unique de feu
monsieur Kinta Alfred avant qu’il ne soit empoisonner
par son associer au cour d’un dîner d’affaire était un
grand exportateur de café et de cacao baser au Ghana
avant le décès de papa a la clinique Gospel il m’a
appeler a son chevet pour me faire part d’un grand
secret.

Il m’a fait savoir qu’il avait fait un dépôt d'une
importante somme d'argent de 10 000 000$ de dollars
(DIX MILLIONS DE DOLLARS ) dans la garderie d'une
compagnie de sécurité en cote d’ivoire Mais la
compagnie de sécurité ne connaît pas le contenu de la
caisse par ce qu'il avait déclaré le contenue du
coffre comme étant des objets de valeur familiaux et
non de l'argent pour des raisons de sécurités j’ai en
ma possession les clefs du coffre et tous les
documents officiels du dépôt.

Sure, they've got $10,000,000 deposited somewhere on the Ivory Coast.

I guess they figured if their pitch was en francais, I'd somehow fail to notice that it's a scam.

The Topsy-Turvy Land of Florida Courts

Apparently, in the Florida judicial system, the hieratic powers of its black-robed masters have reached so far as to be able to make darkness light, day into night, and suspend the laws of logic which bind us mere ordinary mortals.

Consider the following:

The trial judge in the Terri Schiavo case, George Greer, ruled that Michael Schiavo's testimony that Terri "wouldn't want to go on living" is "clear and convincing", in spite of it being corroborated only by Michael's brother and sister-in-law, whose corroboration was only gotten into court by a last-minute dodge by attorney George Felos, which violated the rules of civil trial procedure. Greer also ignored substantial contravening testimony against Michael's contention.

The appeals court in Florida keeps Felos on the case, in spite of the above violation, as well as Greer's violation of the rule against ex parte communications, by having impromptu news conferences in his chambers when counsel for both sides are not present.

Now, the Florida Appeals court has ruled that Circuit Judge W. Douglas Baird is to remain on the Terri Schiavo case, in spite of evidence that he is biased.

Judge Baird, before any hearings have been held in the matter of "Terri's Law", the legislation which allowed Gov. Jeb Bush to intervene and order Terri's feeding tube restored, has made statements that he believes the law is "presumptively unconstitutional."

To the ordinary person, that sounds like the judge has pre-judged the case. But to Florida Appeals judges, who apparently use a secret code which sounds like the English language, but conveys different meanings, such utterances from Baird are "not improper".

Bush criticized the decision, saying in a statement that "it appears the court has determined that prejudging a case before evidence is presented is acceptable in Florida."

What's really going on is this: the black-robed masters of the Florida judiciary, being accustomed to the unfettered power to call black white by their fiat, are mad as hell that the Florida legislature and Gov. Bush have challenged their ability to exercise raw power, and order an innocent woman's death by judicial ukase.

So now they are going to try to punish Bush, and they will not rest until Terri is dead, if for no other reason than to demonstrate who our masters really are. Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. And there is no one in this country who exercises power more absolute than a judge, particularly at the appellate level. And once they have tasted the heady brew that is the power over life and death, most will do almost anything to keep it.

Polls vs. Truth

Yesterday, Patricia Anderson, attorney for Bob & Mary Schindler, issued the following statement in response to the St. Petersburg Times/Miami Herald poll which reported that sixty-five percent of the poll's 800 respondents disagreed with Governor Jeb Bush's order to reinstate Terri Schiavo's feeding tube.


PATRICIA FIELDS ANDERSON, P.A.
Attorney at Law
 

Any first-year political science student knows that poll results are only as good as the bias of the questioner. 
 
The fact is that unless Florida law is changed to honor only written advance directives, we will all see other cases like Terri Schiavo, in which a spouse, now living with another woman with whom he has had two children, suddenly and  conveniently remembers years after the fact the disabled spouse's wishes in the matter.  If we, as a society, are prepared to accept these remembered wishes as a cover for getting rid of seriously disabled persons, where is that line going to be drawn?  Who's next?  Children with cerebral palsy?  Alzheimer's patients? People who wear contact lenses?  Are the lives of the disabled less valuable?

Pat Anderson is on to a very important point: if we are going to allow half-remembered, uncorroborated (I will not dignify Michael Schiavo's last-minute production of his brother and sister-in-law with the term "corroboration") casual statements to dictate life and death decisions, many of those people writing opinion pieces and answering pollsters that they think it's OK to starve Terri may come to rue their offhanded comments. Some one of their relatives or children, in a few years, may be able to say, "Well, I remember Mom telling that pollster she thought it was OK to pull the plug on Terri Schiavo, so I guess we can just let that pneumonia run its course and finish her off."

The Duty to Die

Nat Hentoff wrote another great column last week exploring the implications of the Terri Schiavo case. He has noted that when they first began their efforts, so-called "death with dignity" advocates championed the rights of patients and families to make decisions about providing or withholding treatment.

But now, what was once dubiously called the "right to die" has been transformed by some clinicians and bio-ethicists into what amounts to a "duty to die". He quotes Nancy Valko, a nurse and expert on medical ethics:

This theory [that some lives are no longer worth living] has now evolved into 'futile care' policies at hospitals in Houston, Des Moines, California and many other areas. Even Catholic hospitals are now becoming involved. . . . Thus, the 'right to die' becomes the 'duty to die,' with futile care policies offering death as the only 'choice.' . . . A poor prognosis, which can be erroneous and is seldom precise, will become a death sentence.

Not too long ago, standard medical ethics coincided with Catholic teaching in granting a "presumption in favor" of medically assisted nutrition and hydration. But, as I have researched the Terri Schiavo case, I have discovered that a revolution has been going on for the last 10-15 years. The "presumption in favor of medically assisted nutrition and hydration" found in Catholic teaching is being undermined by an alternative presumption, which is based on redefining the boundaries of what constitutes medical "treatment". Dr. Ronald Cranford was the principal medical witness for Michael Schiavo. He testified that Terri is in a PVS and will never recover. He also tesitified to that effect in the Nancy Cruzan case. But in the Cruzan case, the patient did not require a feeding tube. She could be fed by mouth. Nevertheless, he was willing to redefine even spoon-feeding a patient as "treatment". By this principle, practically anything a health-care provider does for a patient becomes "treatment".

Another attempted redefinition lies in the meaning of the term "futile". It is a commonplace of medical ethics, as well as Catholic teaching, that one is under no obligation to continue, and may indeed be obliged to withdraw, treatment that is "futile." Cindy Province, RN, MSN, Associate Director of the Bioethics Center of St. Louis, has written that a treatment has typically been considered "futile" if it has no benefit or desired effect whatsoever. Food has not been considered treatment because no one expects food to have any "direct curative effect". Furthermore, Province explains, in a patient like Terri tube feeding can be considered effective because it "clearly achieves the objective of maintaining a good nutritional state." But this kind of common-sense thinking has been rejected by much of the medical community:

...This view has been largely replaced by a more general view of the nature of nutrition as treatment... in that it has not enabled the patient to recover from his underlying condition.

Now, since food and water, redefined as treatment, do not help the patient to recover from his underlying condition, it can be labeled as "futile." Having deemed feeding the patient, by this sleight-of-hand, as "futile", it is a short step to justifying its withdrawal. By means of these redefinitions, those who want to help the sub-functional to depart this life a little more quickly have obtained an infinitely fungible, increasingly meaningless and arbitrary set of boundaries within which to do so.

Sorry For Being Scarce Lately...

But I've been busy. In addition to travelling a great deal over the past few weeks, I've had a couple of big writing projects which took up most of my time.

Things have let up somewhat: at least I won't have to go anywhere for a while. So I can blog a little again. But I'm still pretty busy, with Advent and parish responsibilities, and I have a couple of other big projects bearing down on me, so if I disappear again, you'll know why.

Giving Thanks

Gratitude is an indicator of holiness. If you read the writings of, or the Lives of, the great Saints, you'll see that they were suffused with a spirit of Gratitude. They were always thanking God for all they had, and taking notice of the smallest blessings.

Gratitude is also a remedy against Sin. It's the times when I'm most self-satisfied and taking things for granted that I end up being the most susceptible to temptation, and prone to become self-absorbed. Gratitude takes the attention away from yourself and puts it on the Giver. If you make the effort to practice gratitude, you will be come Holy. It's that simple.

I am grateful for many things today. Here are a few:

I'm grateful for my priesthood.

I'm grateful for the Grace by which Our Lord saved me.

I'm grateful for Our Lord's most holy gift of the Eucharist, and the unimaginable privilege he has given me as His priest, to make Him present on the Altar.

I'm grateful for my family: my mother, father, aunts, cousins, who have shown me so much love and support over the years.

I'm grateful for my friends: they have taught me so much, given me so much, shared with me so much, and mean so much to me.

I'm grateful for all the good things of this world: The beauty of Nature, the wonders of creation, red wine, champagne, Prime Angus steaks, Vienna Beef Chicago-style hot dogs, lobster, asparagus, good Scotch whisky, good Bourbon, cigars, and micro-brewed beers.


Great are the works of the Lord, to be treasured for all their delights!

What Thanksgiving is Really All About

According to Gary Hull, in Capitalism Magazine, "Thanksgiving celebrates man's ability to produce."

That's right, Thanksgiving isn't about gratitude, or thanking God for His blessings upon us. No, Hull says:

That view is a slap in the face of any person who has worked an honest day in his life. The appropriate values for this holiday are not faith and charity, but thought and production.

There's nothing spiritual about it; it's all about producing and consuming, all about the "creation of wealth". That's your purpose in life.

At first, upon reading it, I thought the writer was merely some unimaginitive and culturally tone-deaf ass. But on a second examination, I realize there's something more sinister here. See, Capitalism Magazine is the work of modern-day acolytes of Ayn Rand, the apostle of selfishness and the Nietszchean Will to Power.

How, then, should we celebrate Thanksgiving? "By raising a toast to the virtue of your own productive ability...", we are told.

Produce for yourself! Thank yourself! Toast yourself!

Sounds to me like variations on the old theme:
Worship Yourself!

Well, At Least It's Almost Over

I heard a commercial this morning, urging us to watch the spellbinding, exciting, two-hour finale to "The Bachelor".

After my first reaction, "Two hours??!!??", two more thoughts came to mind:

(1) Well, at least it's going to be over.

(2) Doing practically anything else that wasn't actually sinful would be a better use of time than wasting two hours watching that dreck.

Throwing a Monkeywrench Into The Media Machine

That's what Nat Hentoff continues to do by telling the truth about Terri Schiavo. And he's telling it to truth-starved Manhattanites who might otherwise only receive the East-ablishment Party Line from the New York Times.

Yesterday, in his Village Voice column, Hentoff asked the question "Was Terri Schiavo Beaten in 1990?"

As he described Tuesday in the Jewish World Review, and as I explained here almost two weeks ago, the mounting evidence seems more and more clearly to answer his question "Yes".

Hentoff reports on evidence from a brain scan and x-rays that were done on Terri in 1991. Nat writes concerning Dr. Campbell Walker's report:

"This patient has a history of trauma. The presumption is that the other multiple areas of trauma also relate to previous trauma."[Emphasis added].

Here we get to what focused Dr. Baden's attention. On cnsnews.com, Jeff Johnson reported, "Walker listed apparent injuries to the ribs, thoracic vertebrae, both sacroiliac joints, both ankles and both knees."

The most promising news is that a Federal agency, the Advocacy Center for Persons With Disabilities (ACPD) is now investigating Terri's case. Let's hope they will be able to uncover the truth about the Michael's mis-guardianship of Terri, and about how she got into her present state in the first place.

Schindlers to Appear on Oprah Today!

I got behind the 8-ball on this one... but Mary Schindler, and Terri's brother and sister, Bobby and Suzanne, will be appearing today on Oprah.

The show is scheduled for broadcast today, but your local station may follow a different broadcast schedule.

The comments on Oprah's Message Board seem to be running generally towards the Schindlers and the pro-life position.

Bleg! Help Needed!

I need some help and information. I need to talk to someone who is very knowledgeable about Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. I'd prefer an attorney who specializes in such things, but if another professional (e.g., CPA, Financial Planner) has expertise in such matters I'll certainly listen to him/her as well.

The issues concern my mother. She has several questions/problems which she doesn't have answers for. She's talked to people at Social Security, but (Surprise! Surprise!) gets "I'll have to get back to about that", or gets different answers from different people.

If you are such a person or know someone who could be of help, please e-mail me at frrob@earthlink.net.

The Generosity of St. Blog's

I have been overwhelmed by the generosity of so many of you, the virtual "parishioners" of St. Blog's. When the suggestion was first made, here and on other blogs, that I should go to Florida to offer support to Bob & Mary Schindler, and assistance to Msgr. Ted Malanowski, a large number of you stepped forward to offer to help with the expenses for my trip.

When the trip actually became a reality, you followed through and sent donations: by PayPal, by mail, and "in kind". And I received many e-mails from others who told me that they were unable to assist financially, but were praying for Terri and for me. The whole experience was an illustration of Faith in Action. I was and am humbled by your compassion and generosity.

While there are too many of you to thank here by name, there are a a few people who I feel deserve special mention: Firstly, Pete Vere of Catholic Light and Envoy Encore was of great help to me in the logistical arrangements for my trip. He also did very important work himself in reporting from the scene. The distinction of the donation sent from farthest away goes to "Chris" from New Zealand. A special thank you also goes to the man my readers will know as "Zippy" from his comments-box nom de plume. He made my flight arrangements for me, as well as offering a substantial contribution. I was particularly touched by his support because he and I have crossed verbal swords more than once over various issues. I think it was evidence of his excellent character that he was able to put aside the differences of opinion we had had and be so helpful to me.

A few donations were trickling in by mail as late as last Friday. Now that they're all in, and I have looked over the receipts and bills, I am happy to be able to fulfill the promise I made when I first undertook to go, that any donations I received over and above my expenses would go to the Terri Schindler Schiavo Foundation. Firstly, though, a word of explanation is in order: When I brought up with Bob Schindler the subject of a donation to the foundation, he was very appreciative, but said that if I knew of any other deserving persons or families that I should help them out as well. So, after discussion with him, I have given assistance to some of Terri's supporters who were in need, who had made substantial sacrifices and gone to some expense to help the Schindlers.

That being said, the amount that will be contributed to the Terri Schindler Schiavo Foundation, representing the cash donations remaining after expenses and the other assistance I mentioned above, is $2,275.00.

Thanks to all of you who made this possible. You have truly done God's work!

Nat Hentoff Once Again Proves: Great Minds Think Alike

Nat Hentoff is writing a series of columns about Terri Schiavo. His column yesterday on the media's Lies About Terri was reminiscent of something I had blogged about a week earlier.

Well, today, Nat focuses on the troubling evidence that Terri may have been put in her condition by her husband, Michael. He recalls last week's appearance on Greta van Susteren's show by Dr. Michael Baden. Among other things, Dr. Baden said:

"The trauma could be from an auto accident ... a fall ... or from some kind of beating that she obtained from somebody somewhere. It's something that should have been investigated in 1991 when these findings were found. ...

I'm glad that Hentoff is following up these issues. Writing, as he does, primarily for publications on the Left, he is getting the truth out to people who might otherwise read or hear only the half-truths propagated by the Media Machine.

But you, my loyal readers, knew about all this from my blog over a week ago...

I'm Excited About This!

The rest of you can have your Matrix: Revolutions or whatever. I'm psyched about the opening of Master And Commander: The Far Side of the World this weekend!

"Master and Commander" shows every sign of being a real swashbuckling epic. Your best bet for viewing the trailer is here at the Apple trailer page for Master and Commander.

The movie is based on the famous series of Aubrey/Maturin novels by Patrick O'Brian. I've read the whole 20-novel series, and these books have made some of the best reading I have ever enjoyed in my life. O'Brian's characters, Captain Jack Aubrey and Dr. Stephen Maturin, are two of most well-drawn characters I have ever encountered in fiction. Set during the Napoleonic wars of the early 19th century, the whole series rings with believability.

The movie's title comes from the first book of the series:



Master and Commander

The movie is based on the 11th novel in the series,



The Far Side of the World

It appears from the trailer that they take a few liberties with the plot of the novel. (You can read a synopsis of the movie here.) But that's not the sort of thing that bothers me a lot. I'm not one of those people who require slavish duplication of a book by a movie. Indeed, it seems to me that attempts to do so usually fall flat.

What I will be looking for is whether the actors can capture the essence of the wonderful characters that inhabit O'Brian's novels. Even the minor characters are filled out and memorable. That, and whether the film can convey the atmosphere of the stories, and the feel of the time. If the movie can do that, it will be a hit in my book.

And if you're looking for a good read, I can't recommend the Aubrey/Maturin series highly enough!

Lying About Terri Schiavo

Nat Hentoff also notices that the major media frequently do little more than parrot the George Feloses of the world.

He observes that in this, as in so many other matters, organs of "enlightened" opinion "are not as indicative of conscious liberal 'bias' as they are of ignorance or denial of the facts."

I wonder if Nat read my blog on The Persistently Vegetative Press?

Thanks to Amy for the link.

NARAL Pro-Choice America

laments that the Partial Birth Abortion ban is the "first federal ban on safe abortion procedures."

Firstly, just a reminder: NARAL changed its name to "Pro-Choice America" a while back. NARAL stands for National Abortion Rights Action League. They're not in the business of "choice". They're in the business of killing unborn children.

Secondly, the law was rendered moot by black-robed acolytes of NARAL within an hour of it's going into effect, so the grisly procedure is, in fact, going on apace. Moloch must be fed!

Finally, "safe" for whom? It certainly isn't "safe" for the baby whose head is pierced by a scissors and has its brains sucked out, moments before it would have otherwise been delivered alive and viable.

I check out the NARAL site every once in a while just to see what they're up to. You should, too. Although I warn you, afterwards you'll feel like you need a shower in Holy Water.

Rumor Correction Alert!

It has been reported that Bob & Mary Schindler were "axed" from the "Larry King Live" program. They were scheduled to appear tonight.

While it is true that they will not be appearing tonight, it has nothing to do with Larry King. Nothing nefarious going on here.

Bob Schindler has been having some heart and blood pressure problems in the last couple of weeks (one might guess as to the cause...).

So his doctors have ordered him to do nothing for a week. The Schindlers have tentatively rescheduled their Larry King appearance for next Friday, November 14.

Say a prayer for the Schindlers.

Why Doesn't Michael Divorce Terri?

A frequent question brought up regarding Michael Schiavo's relentless pursuit of Terri's death is, "Why doesn't he just divorce her and walk away?" Bob & Mary Schindler have begged Michael to do just that, saying that they will be happy to care for her. He would then be free to "move on" with his own life; marry his live-in girlfriend, etc.

Michael's response to that question, put to him last week by Larry King, was just as unconvincing as his confabulated tale of Terri's supposed wish not to be kept alive. All he can say are things like: "This is between Terri and myself. I'm not asking anybody to be mad at me. I'm not asking anybody to agree with me."

I have been thinking a lot about that question for the last few days, and I think I have some possible answers to it. Obviously, what I offer here are speculations, but they're speculations that I think fit what we know of the case.

Firstly, Michael might have some difficulty obtaining a divorce from Terri in Florida. From what Terri's parents told me and what I have learned about Florida law, Michael might find it difficult or even impossible to divorce Terri because she is disabled and unable to respond to a petition for divorce. The laws in Florida, in all likelihood, are written as they are to prevent people from divorcing their disabled spouses and dumping their care on the state. Of course, that well-intended law now works to Terri's detriment.

So then what about the possibility of moving Terri to another state, which would permit the divorce more readily? At first I thought the Schindlers might have objected to having Terri moved, but when I brought up the idea with Bob, he said, "if Michael wanted to move Terri to another state to divorce her, I'd say, 'let's do it tonight.'"

But, even then, there are other reasons why moving Terri and divorcing her wouldn't be acceptable to Michael. If Michael had divorced Terri say, five years ago, there would have still been around $700,000 in Terri's settlement fund. But in a divorce, Michael would be lucky to get even a third of it. Any competent lawyer representing Terri would realize that much of that money would be needed for Terri's care, and wouldn't have allowed Michael to get much of it at all.

No, a divorce wouldn't have given Michael what he wanted, if it was money he was after. In a divorce, Michael walks away with maybe $250,000. If Terri died, he would have gotten it all.

Now, of course, there isn't much money to be had. By all accounts, much of the money has gone to pay for Michael's lawyers. Michael says there's only about $50,000 left in the fund, and lawyer George Felos laments that he hasn't been paid since July (poor guy). Even allowing for Michael low-balling the amount left in the fund, there wouldn't be enough in there to care for Terri for more than a few years.

So now, for Michael, divorce is the last thing he wants. Not only in a divorce would he get nothing, he might even be required by the court to contribute to Terri's care, possibly for the rest of her life. He'd come out of the bargain worse off than when he entered it.

Then we come to what might be the more "intangible" considerations: Whatever motivations Michael may have had in seeking Terri's death, for George Felos, this is part of his Crusade of Death. Mr. Felos has built his legal practice around seeking the death of the diseased, elderly, and disabled. He has been a member of the Hemlock Society and is an advocate of euthanasia. Felos wants to expand the parameters within which we will find death not only acceptable, but desirable. And I think it was clear from the Larry King appearance that Felos is now the engineer of the train. Michael, it seems to me, may be a brute, but he is fundamentally a small, banal man. Michael is neither smart enough, nor evil enough, to have followed through for this long. And now Michael's only hope of seeing his wish for Terri's death come to fruition is to stay hitched to that train.

It would not suit Felos' purposes at all for Michael to divorce Terri. If that happened, Felos wouldn't have his test case. And Felos is not alone in wanting this test case. I do not think it is an accident that George Felos had Dr. Ronald Cranford appear as the chief medical witness for Michael. Dr. Cranford testified that Terri is in a persistent vegetative state, and will never recover. Although I hold, as I have written before, that Terri's "recoverability" is not the real issue, nonetheless Cranford's testimony on that score is hardly disinterested. He jokingly refers to himself as "Dr. Death," and for a fee he will come to your trial and testify that the person whose life you want ended is in a PVS. He was the leading medical voice calling for the deaths of Paul Brophy, Nancy Jobes, Nancy Cruzan, and Christine Busalucci. And what manner of death was prepared for all those about whom he testified? Removal of food and water, leading to death by dehydration/starvation.

Nancy Cruzan required no skilled nursing, no care but food and fluids, hygiene and turning to prevent bedsores. Indeed, she didn't require tube feeding. But Cranford testified that he would even consider spoon-feeding for Nancy Cruzan to be "medical treatment". Dr. Cranford has written that he foresees "that there may be extreme situations, and in the future increasingly common situations, where physician-assisted suicide may not only be permissible, but encouraged." In an op-ed piece for the Minneapolis-St. Paul Star-Tribune, Dr. Cranford advocated the starvation of Alzheimer's patients. Granny better hope and pray she remembers her grandkids' birthdays if Dr. Cranford gets his way.

Dr. Cranford is one of the leaders of the Death Crusade. He sees death as a solution to the problems posed by the elderly and disabled, and so wants more of it. George Felos demonstrates where he is coming from and what he is after by employing him. There are hundreds of thousands of elderly people in Florida, posing what Cranford called "challenges and costs" to society. A win in Terri's case would set a legal precedent, allowing Felos and the other acolytes of the euthanasia movement to help all those people to shuffle off this mortal coil a little more quickly than otherwise.

Mr. Felos has his own reasons for assisting Michael in his pursuit of Terri's death. Michael's reasons are, perhaps, more humble, but now they're attached to Felos.

Michael may have another reason for seeking Terri's death, though. It might be the same reason he has ordered that Terri is not to have an autopsy when she dies, and that her body is to be cremated...

Eve Has Been Very Good to Me

Eve Tushnet has been very good to me over the past few months, saying nice things about me and plugging my blog on several occasions. And, schmuck that I am, I've failed to acknowledge it until now.

So, Thanks, Eve!

By the way, she has a pretty cool blog. You should read it. Lots of stuff lately about movies and culture. Though, I must confess, I don't get the whole comic book thing.

Small Victory For the Schindlers

At a hearing yesterday, Judge Greer ruled against Michael Schiavo's motion to dismiss the Schindler's petition to have Schiavo removed as guardian.

Some time ago (before the constitutional challenge to Terri's Law), Pat Anderson, attorney for the Schindlers', filed a petition in Judge Greer's court seeking to remove Michael as Terri's guardian. Deborah Bushnell, guardianship attorney for Michael, opposed the petition and asked Judge Greer to dismiss it out of hand, without a hearing.

Judge Greer denied Bushnell's motion for dismissal, and ruled that he will hear the Schindler's petition at a later date.

While this is admittedly a small, procedural, victory for the Schindlers, it is nonetheless important, as it means that the Schindlers will have the opportunity to challenge Michael's guardianship. Judge Greer could have dismissed it, on the grounds that the Schindlers have already sought to have Michael removed twice.

We need to keep praying, that the Schindlers may finally prevail in court.

Editor of Chicago Tribune Admits Abortion Bias

Don Wycliff, public editor of the Chicago Tribune, admitted in his column today that "some of our failures have been egregious."

In referring to recent stories dealing with abortion, particularly the Partial-Birth abortion ban, Wycliff wrote:

The perspective of those who define the issues involved in terms of "choice" was taken as normative, and the position of those who disagree with them and define the issues differently was characterized in "choice" terms. The result was two headlines that couldn't have been more slanted if they had come directly from the public relations office of NARAL Pro-Choice America.

He also described how a letter from Bill Beckman, the executive director of the Illinois Right to Life Committee, was edited by the Tribune so that "each of his uses of 'pro-life' was changed to 'anti-abortion...'"

Those who seek to have good called evil and evil called good first seek to change the language with which we speak of good and evil. Nowhere has that been more apparent than with abortion.

Save Birdies, Kill Children

A reader passed this story along from the Detroit News:

Hours after hundreds of hunters led by "Motor City Madman" Ted Nugent rallied on the Capitol steps, the Michigan House voted to remove a century-old state ban on the hunting of mourning doves. The tally was 64-44. The measure now heads to the Senate, where similar legislation failed by a single vote in 2000. Gov. Jennifer Granholm has not indicated if she would sign the controversial legislation. Lawmakers have been flooded with phone calls and e-mails from people on both sides of the issue.

"The cooing you hear are the doves who are mourning over this bill," Rep. Aldo Vagnozzi, D-Farmington Hills, said during a floor speech in which he failed to persuade colleagues to vote no.

Of course, we all know that Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm, who likes to wax rhapsodic about what her Catholic faith means to her, vetoed a state Partial-Birth Abortion Ban. If the bill goes to her, it will be interesting to see whether birds rate stronger protection under the law than children.

And the ringleader of those striving with all their might to save the birdies, Rep. Aldo Vagnozzi? He voted against the Partial-birth Abortion ban. And what religion, pray tell, is Vagnozzi?

Why he's Catholic, of course.

Not A Great Man

St. Blog's resident deranged genius, Victor Lams, has composed a song which captures the self-absorbed persona of Michael Schiavo.

I haven't made up my mind whether anything in the Terri Schiavo case, even Michael's posturing, is ready for parody or satire yet. But if it is, then Victor has done it brilliantly in his song, "Not a Great Man". It's got a great Techno-Hiphop sort of groove to it. Some of the choicer lyrics are:

I never said that I was a great man,
I'm just an average man who'd like to make some plans;
And you're standing in the way of this average man,
who'd like to move on just as soon as he can...

I promised to love you faithfully,
before you became such a burden to me...

Sometimes art can express what prose only strains at conveying.

Having Your Cake And Eating It

I think it's been pretty clear to most of my readers that I don't think much of Michael Schiavo. I find his story about Terri's "wish" to not be kept alive incredible, I find his efforts to portray himself as the caring husband unbelievable, and his attempt to portray Bob & Mary Schindler as the villains of the conflict contemptible. Furthermore, if, as I suspect, it was his actions which put Terri in her current state, his behavior would have been despicable.

These sentiments, as they have found their way into my writing about Terri, have prompted some to accuse me of "hating" Michael or of being uncharitable towards him. This, of course, is false. I don't hate Michael: I think he is pursuing an evil course of action against an innocent third person, and as such, it is my duty, and that of every other decent person, to try to stop him. If he relented from his relentless pursuit of Terri's death I'd be perfectly content to let him go about his life and never utter another word about him.

But I am not, in charity, obliged to pretend his actions and stated intentions are somehow less evil than they are, or to make believe that whatever good Michael might do in other spheres of his life somehow makes up for or negates the evil he is inflicting on Terri. That is, it would be silly for me to say, "Michael is nice to the child he had by his girlfriend, so he must be a decent guy, and he must have a point in wanting Terri dead." It is not charity to ignore or make light of evil actions or designs, especially when they involve the life of an innocent person.

Which brings me to my point. After reading today's article "The Guardian", by Wesley J. Smith, I realize now what it is about Michael's actions and statements that I find so reprehensible: It is that Michael is trying to have it both ways. He is trying to have his cake and eat it too.

The Schindlers have not made their allegations of abuse (which are founded on medical evidence), or disputed Michael's claim to be acting upon Terri's wishes out of some desire to hurt him. They have not challenged his self-touted image as the caring husband because they have some ill-will toward him. They're doing so, and I have taken up their cause, because his claims and image are false.

It was Michael who went to the court and, in effect, said, "my wife told me she didn't want to live like this, so please let me kill her." It was Michael who claimed that he was acting out of his love towards Terri. It was Michael who went on Larry King Live and tried to convince us that he was the caring and long-suffering husband.

And, as the Schindlers told me last week, they find his claims to be false and his pose as the loving husband to be unbelievable. I was convinced of that by what the Schindlers told me, what I read in court documents and medical testimony, and by Michael's own performance on Larry King.

The Schindlers told me that the first court-appointed guardian ad litem, Richard Pearse, found Michael to be incredible. Now, as Smith's article makes clear, Pearse's report and recommendations substantially support Bob & Mary Schindlers' statements to me:

Bob & Mary told me that Michael withheld treatment from Terri for an infection. The treatment consisted of a routine course of antibiotics. Mr. Pearse found that "Early in 1994, for example, he refused to consent to treat an infection from which the ward was then suffering and ordered that she not be resuscitated in the event of cardiac arrest. "

Furthermore, the Schindlers, in their account of the initial dispute that caused their estrangement, said that it became clear to them at that point that Michael didn't intend to follow through on his promises to seek rehabilitation for Terri. Mr. Pearse saw it the same way. Smith wrote:

Pearse confirmed the charge by the Schindlers that once the medical malpractice money was in the bank, Schiavo began to refuse medical treatment for Terri, writing:

After February 1993, Mr. Schiavo's attitude concerning treatment for the ward apparently changed.

And there were signs that that attitude had changed even earlier, as Mr. Pearse reported that Michael "admitted to the guardian ad litem that he had at least "two romantic involvements" after Terri's collapse. " Pearse concluded:

"It is apparent to me," Pearse wrote the court, "that he has reached a point that he has no hope of the ward's recovery and wants to get on with his own life." Smith adds: To say the least. At the time of Pearse's investigation, Schiavo was already living with the woman who would become the mother of his children.

Michael has proclaimed repeatedly his love for Terri. But men who love their wives stick by them, even when they are sick, disabled, or debilitated. Men who love their wives seek to have them treated if they are sick or disabled. They don't deny treatment in spite of doctor's urgings. And if love isn't sufficient or it is crushed under the weight of grief or despair, then duty and honor would urge any decent man to stay the course. As Mary Schindler once said to me, "if Michael loves her so much he could start by keeping his vows to her."

Michael is trying to have it both ways: he is seeks to exercise the prerogatives of a husband, when in fact he has not lived up to the responsibilities of a husband. He seeks the moral standing that a husband would have vis-a-vis his wife, but he has constructively not lived as Terri's husband since before he began his efforts to bring about her death.

When Michael took his vows to Terri, he committed himself to bear the burdens of marriage as well as enjoy its benefits. If he won't fulfill the one, he has no moral basis on which to enjoy the other. He can't have it both ways.

Mr. Pearse, as I wrote in my interview with the Schindlers last week, found that Michael's claim that Terri wouldn't want to live in her condition wasn't credible, saying:

his credibility is necessarily adversely affected by the obvious financial benefit to him of being the ward's sole heir at law in the event of her death while still married to him. Her death also permits him to get on with his own life.

The portrait of Michael that emerges from the Pearse report could hardly be at greater variance from his own representations. Upon scrutiny, his claims crumble into dust. He wants to be trusted as a loving husband, but we see a man who threw aside his marriage vows a long time ago. He wants us to believe that he has her best interests at heart, but he refused her routine treatment for illnesses having nothing to do with her primary disability. He wants us to believe that he is trying to live up to a promise he made to Terri, but he is revealed to have broken promises that he made repeatedly before he got the money in his hands.

He can't have it both ways.

Terri's Parents To Go On Larry King

Bob & Mary Schindler will be appearing on the Larry King Live program this Friday night. The show airs at 9:00 PM EST.

The Schindlers were able to persuade Larry King to drop his demand that they give him an "Exclusive" interview, that would have prevented them from going on other similar shows.

It will be interesting to see how Larry treats them in comparison to how he handled Michael Schiavo last week.



New Guardian ad litem Appointed

The court has appointed a new guardian ad litem in Terri's case, Mr. Jay Wolfson. The Schindlers had opposed his appointment out of concern that he was carrying "baggage" that indicated he might be prejudiced in this case. Apparently Mr. Wolfson has made statements in opposition to "Terri's Law".

However, the Schindlers say that it is too soon to tell what he is going to do or recommend in her case. He has agreed to visit Terri accompanied by Mr. Schiavo, and another visit accompanied by the Schindlers.

Forensic Pathologist: Terri Was Likely Abused

Some have tried to dismiss the Schindlers' allegations that Terri's brain injury was the result of abuse. They have labelled those allegations as "11th hour", when in fact the Schindlers have been trying to get someone to pay attention to them for years. Judge Greer, oddly, ruled them "irrelevant". Others have rejected them as baseless.

But in fact, as forensic pathologist Dr. Michael Baden makes clear, the allegation of abuse is squarely founded on medical evidence:

"[The] bone scan describes her as having a head injury. That's why she's there. That's why she's getting a bone scan," Baden explained, "and a head injury can cause, lead to the 'vegetative state' that Ms. Schiavo is [allegedly] in now."

The doctor who completed her bone scan, Dr. W. Campbell Walker, reported "This patient has a history of trauma".

Dr. Baden also stated that Terri's injuries should have been investigated long ago:

The trauma could be from an auto accident, the trauma could be from a fall, or the trauma could be from some kind of beating that she obtained from somebody somewhere. It's something that should have been investigated in 1991.

Not only weren't they investigated then, but they still haven't been investigated now, 12 years later.

To paraphrase Judge Greer, it would be "interesting" to know what happened to her...