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!