January 2005

Two Minneapolis priests who have led parishes sympathetic to gay and lesbian rights have announced their resignations.

The Rev. George Wertin, senior priest of St. Joan of Arc Catholic Church, which has clashed with its archdiocese and some orthodox Catholics in the Twin Cities, announced his retirement Sunday effective July 1. And the Rev. Stephen O’Gara, pastor at the Church of St. Thomas the Apostle, said last week he’s leaving March 1.

Both said the timing of their announcements was coincidental, and they assured parishioners that they weren’t pressured by the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis to leave. [Source]

I wonder if they were actually pressured to retire by the the diocese? I guess we will know when they announce the replacements and whether the new pastors will be more of the same or a true improvement. If an orthodox priest is assigned to St. Joan of Arc’s he will have a tough road ahead of him. It will be quite a challenge to accurately bring the faith back there when the priest and the congregation have virtually been in schism for some time. It would probably be a good idea to start a chapter of Courage there so that those who were attracted to St. Joan’s might find that the Church’s true position on homosexuality is not about prejudice or hatred but a call to be chaste, just as all of us are.

After Abortion and Dawn Eden have both been following the story of Consumer Reports recent move towards abortion and contraception advocacy. That their latest report on contraception and abortion product has been released online for free even though they always charged people for online articles.

This WorldNetDaily article addresses the fact that Consumer Reports CEO had worked for Planned Parenthood. Beyond just the CEO the article also mentions the background of several staffers coming from left-leaning organizations which pushed various liberal causes. Consumer Reports denies that there is any connection, but also does not mention why the new article is available freely online. Consumer Reports in the past has worked hard to maintain their image of neutrality by not accepting ads or anything that might defer a conflict of interest. Yet now their CEO is a walking advertisement for the culture of death. Their objectivity on this question is not only called into question, but has moved directly into the area of advocacy.

Previously also reported on the Consumer Report article was the fact that Planned Parenthood’s condoms had the lowest rating. Recently in Crisis Magazine H. W. Crocker III wrote an article available online called "Making Babies: A Very Different Look at Natural Family Planning." In it he proposes a rallying cry for the use of NFP saying “Use NFP: It Doesn’t Work!” and then goes on to promote having babies.

Planned Parenthood has actually come out and developed a more moral condom. Still not moral, but it is less evil to use half the time because thatits failure rate. Use Planned Parenthood condoms because they don’t work could be their new jingle. Maybe those couples trying to kick the habit of contraception could take a nicotine patch approach. That they start of with condoms rated higher by Consumer Reports and then move towards the last stage where couples use Planned Parenthoods condoms and then finally condom-free. This will enable them to prepare for being contraception-free in easy stages!

Now obviously I am joking here and the reason PP has such poor condoms is that when they do fail they provide the fallback contraception called abortion. This is like an emergency room designing seatbelts and airbags that don’t always work knowing that ER profitability will increase with increased injuries. Contraception for PP is like a drug dealer handing out free samples knowing that sooner or later they will come back for more expensive items. The report should had triggered a media outcry for this tie-in with their main business of providing abortion. Negative findings on contraception and abortion is the third rail of reportage for the main stream media.

PEOPLE are to be tortured in laboratories at Oxford University in a United States-funded experiment to determine whether belief in God is effective in relieving pain.

Top neurologists, pharmacologists, anatomists, ethicists and theologians are to examine the scientific basis of religious belief and whether it is anything more than a placebo.

Headed by Baroness Greenfield, the leading neurologist, the new Centre for the Science of the Mind is to use imaging systems to find out how religious, spiritual and other belief systems, such as an illogical belief in the innate superiority of men, influence consciousness.

A central aspect of the two-year study, which has $2 million (£1.06 million) funding from the John Templeton Foundation, the US philanthropic body, will involve dozens of people being subjected to painful experiments in laboratory conditions.

While enduring the agony, they will be exposed to religious symbols such as images of the Virgin Mary or a crucifix. Their neurological responses will be measured to determine the efficacy of their faith in helping them to cope.

The aim is to develop new and practical approaches “for promoting wellbeing and ultimately maximising individual human potential”.

…He said that the experiments would involve non-invasive simulation of burns and will be conducted according to strict ethical rules. As they suffer, the human guinea pigs will be asked to access a belief system, whether religious or otherwise. [Source]

Access a belief system? This almost sounds as if faith is being viewed like a file on a hard drive. Please wait – accessing belief system. For atheists it must be "file not found." For syncretist you would then proceed to select from a menu of choices. For Sunday Christians the file is archived during the week. When losing your faith maybe you should first check the Recycle Bin before panicking.

Reading science stories like this really makes you feel that we have come a long way. That we are truly enlightened now. Pick up your cross daily while we calibrate the potentiometer of pain and measure your belief response. No pain no scientific gain. What that hurts? Then look at this religious symbol and see if that helps your neurological response.

Now a non-invasive simulation of burns sounds like something out of the Dune series. In Dune a Gom Jabber (needle with lethal poison) was held to the neck of Paul Atreides while he placed his had in a box that simulated burning pain to determine if he was a "true human." If he removed his hand to soon the Reverend Mother would poke him with the Gom Jabber.

After reading the Independent Review Panel report via the PDF document I was wondering if whoever issued the document might have a sense of humor. Since the report mentions typefaces and fontstyles I wonder if they might have used the same font used in those infamous forged memos. Sure enough after comparing a section to the same text in Microsoft word using Times New Roman, I find an exact match. The font used is indeed Times New Roman.

I wonder if Mary Mapes will claim that this report was also written by Lt. Col Killian? And speaking of this fired producer, she said on Monday.

"If there was a journalistic crime committed here, it was not by me," a bitter-sounding Mapes said in a statement last night. "I am concerned that [the actions of CBS network chief Les Moonves] are motivated by corporate and political considerations – ratings rather than journalism."

This is pretty funny coming from someone who took documents from a source she labeled in an email as “our bitter little buddy.” She was of course referring to Bill Burkett. Her view of journalism of not being motivated by political considerations must be different from mine. Mapes also testified to the panel that at the end of her conversation with Joe Lockhart that she ended the conversation by saying that she could “not wait to do a tough story on your guy,” referring to Sen. Kerry. This is laughable in the extreme that she actually said such a thing. Waiting for Mary Mapes to do a tough story on John Kerry provides a good parallel for a reflection on meaning of eternity.

Although it is a common mistake for religious people to confuse the views of atheism with those of agnosticism, said Ohio University sophomore Jordan Cooper, he claims the only real similarity is that "they both start with the letter ‘A’."

Cooper is an agnostic and said that the confusion between the two views is usually the result of apathy or a lack of understanding on the part of others.

OU senior Brenton Withers, who was raised atheist, agreed.

"I think a lot of people…think atheists and agnostics are just people who have lost their faith or never found out (about it) in the first place," he said.

In reality, agnostics can sometimes be defined as religious individuals who base their beliefs on faith rather than concrete knowledge, said George Weckman, an associate professor in the department of Classics and World Religions at OU.

"There are people who say all religions involve agnosticism," Weckman said. "You can be agnostic as a Buddhist or a Muslim or a Christian because you’re saying it’s a matter of faith and not knowledge."

Religious people who are not agnostic, Weckman said, are individuals who believe their religious views are based solely on fact. [Source]

This is a pretty strange definition for agnoticism and is more accurately a redefinition. Dictionary.com gives the definition as:

1. a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
   b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
2. .One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.

This definition tries to make the faith and reason as one or the other. That on one side there are those who have blind faith that there is a God and on the other side are those who based their belief on concrete knowledge. Also be this definition there could only be atheists and agnostics since many articles of faith such as the Trinity can not be proven and rely on God’s revelation to us. And then comes a redefinition for atheism:

Weckman also said that there are two different ways to define atheism.

"One is to be against the idea that there is a god; the other is to be against religion. Those may or may not be the same," he said.

So now the claim is that those who are deist but don’t accept organized religion are in fact atheists.

The independent review panel for Ra^therGate has finally come out and it is pretty much as expected. [PDF Version]

One part I find funny is there reference to the blogosphere with "the so-called blogosphere." They were not able to determine political agenda of those involved because they say this is subjective, yet they were able to label commentary by Powerline, and Little Green Footballs as having a "conservative agenda." While the conservative aim of these blogs in undeniable so is the aim of CBS news.

The short version of the report is that the problems were caused by zeal and competition

These problems were caused primarily by a myopic zeal to be the first news organization to broadcast what was believed to be a new story about President Bush’s TexANG service, and the rigid and blind defense of the Segment after it aired despite numerous indications of its shortcomings\

The report tries to make this point by in part blaming associate producer Yvonne Miller late in the game and who had not previously worked with Mary Mapes. The report also tries to make the case that it was Mapes and Miller’s inexperience with document examination that also lead to mistakes. This excuse is just plain an excuse. One of the examiners saying that the signatures on the memos and in Bush’s TANG records had “consistent inconsistencies" that led him to believe that the signatures were from the same person. The fact is that all four document examiners said that they could not authenticate the documents since they were copies. This should have been enough to eliminate the documents from consideration and since Mapes and Miller had no experience in this field they should have relied on their experts.

If zeal and competition were the only real factors then why did it only affect this one story. They are always competing against other news outlets and you would think they would have zeal for all they cover.

In the section on obtaining the documents it says that Burkett handed some of the documents to Mapes and Michael Smith, a freelance journalist from Texas, on September 2nd. The other documents were provided three days later and were apparently faxed from a Kinko’s in Abilene, Texas. Since they were personally handed some of the documents it also shows that even then they were not handed originals and their deterioration was not due just to a fax machine. That Burkett only handed them copies in the first place should have set off alarm bells. It also seems strange that at this face to face meeting that not all the memos were delivered to them at once. Did Burkett need to create some new documents since the ones he gave them at first didn’t go far enough in their accusations?

The report states that the Panel was not able to reach a definitive conclusion as to the authenticity of the Killian documents. It is interesting that it mentions that Mapes made presentation to the Panel to try to prove that in fact the memo’s were genuine. This attempt was done even after all the facts made by document experts and others overwhelmingly showed that the documents were forgeries. She was in no rushed time line at this junction and by now was much better informed about document examinations. So with all the evidence that the memos were forged and with the fact that Killian’s family members claimed that he never kept memo’s at home Mapes persisted in claiming them to be genuine.

"The question of whether a political agenda played any role in the airing of the Segment is one of the most subjective, and most difficult, that the Panel has sought to answer. The political agenda question was posed by the Panel directly to Dan Rather and his producer, Mary Mapes, who appear to have drawn the greatest attention in terms of possible political agendas. Both strongly denied that they brought any political bias to the Segment. The Panel recognizes that those who saw bias at work in the Segment are likely to sweep such denials aside. However, the Panel will not level allegations for which it cannot offer adequate proof.

The Panel does not find a basis to accuse those who investigated, produced, vetted or aired the Segment of having a political bias. The Panel does note, however, that on such a politically charged story, coming in the midst of a presidential campaign in which military service records had become an issue, there was a need for meticulous care to avoid any suggestion of an agenda at work. The Panel does not believe that the appropriate level of care to avoid the appearance of political motivation was used in connection with this story."

So this is the result of an investigation? If they were investigating a murder and they asked the murderer if they did it and they replied in the negative by this standard they would be let go. There was plenty of evidence that the reporting of this story was lead by political convictions. Mary Mapes spent five years off-and-on this story and at the end of it all she really had for evidence was forged memos from a highly questionable source. The other question is why work so long on a story that even if true would only prove special treatment. They had no similar outcry of Sen. Gore’s father influence in his son Al being a journalist in the Army during Vietnam with a shortened tour of duty.

It also appears that she withheld information from vetters at CBS as to the problems with Burkett and the qualms that the document examiners had. She also oversold them as to Major General Hodge confirmation (over the phone without seeing them) of the content of the documents. They also say the story was rushed to beat the competition, yet provide no evidence of other news organizations were competing for this story. It is true that there was a deadline for them. The deadline was that the story had to appear before election day. So with all the evidence to the contrary they dismiss the story as not a political act. The report minimizes the contact with the Kerry campaign by saying "it gave the appearance of a political bias." There is also a conflict in the stories with what Mapes told the panel and what Joe Lockhart said. This pattern is repeated throughout the report of Mapes’ testimony differing significantly from others. They would also have us believe that the Democrats Fortunate Son campaign that broke out at the same time and even used some of the material from the CBS report was just a coincidence. The plain fact is that this story was a political campaign commercial from the beginning and was ran so as to affect the outcome of the presidential race.

Do they really want to assert that if a questionable source had handed Mary Mapes copies of memos that shed a negative light on John Kerry’s military career that the results would have been the same?

The paragraph titled "The Involvement of Dan Rather" is real short and starts off by excusing Dan for his involvement by saying he " was working extremely long hours" and paying attention to Hurricane Frances. So Dan Rather the man who wants to be known a more then just a news reader gets a pass for ardently defending the story even after the facts came out. He is allowed to ride off into the sunset as if he was totally blameless for this episode.

With the problems the report detailed you almost wonder why four people even got fired. If the problems really were only document authentication, vetting process, interviewing of witnesses, and a strident defense; then why fire anyone? Just hire someone in a new job position, put through some more rules, and process changes and then everything is hunky-dory.

Another part of the report I found funny was "The stated goal of CBS News is to have a reputation for journalism of the highest quality." I would have thought that the stated goal of a news organization would be to have the highest quality journalism and not just a reputation for that.

The problem with CBS news is not just this one incident and the people involved. This is only one symptom of how they gave conducted the news. 60 Minutes provided much airtime to authors of books critical to President Bush (mainly ones Viacom had a financial interest in) and provided no stories of books critical of John Kerry. The suggestions for improvements the report recommends will have no real impact since the report does not address the real underlying problems at CBS. That there is no balance in their reporting and that diversity of political opinions in their newsroom is almost non-existent. Sure CBS will now staff a new position for Standards and Practices and some rule changes. CBS news and other news outlets will continue to bleed viewer because everybody but this panel can see how the news is biased and politically motivated.

Hugh Hewitt comments on the end of the report.

"Inevitably, some inside and outside CBS News will fault a few, if not many, of the Panel’s findings and conclusions. We will have been too tough, too easy, intrusive, timid, unfair, naïve, gullible or more. This is not a simple story, but we are confident that we have told it fully and fairly."

"Too tough?" With a punt on the central question of the controversy? CBS got what it wanted –a slap on the wrist, an apparent wrap-up with the dismissal of some underlings. The culture of undisclosed bias gets a pass, and the obvious corruption of the "news" process in the service of the Democratic Party is classified as "unknowable" because Dan Rather and Mary Mapes said they weren’t partisans? What a joke, as transparent a whitewash as the documents were forgeries.

Like many people with Catholic backgrounds, Oakland University history Professor Ronald Finucane learned early on that saints are canonized only after living extraordinary lives marked by holiness, benevolence and miraculous works.

With help from a $24,000 grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities, however, the accomplished historian expects to publish research showing that political considerations have been at least equally influential in the canonization process.

"What I’m suggesting is that the idea of holiness is immaterial in some cases," Finucane said.

"Through this work, I expect you’ll be able to see a clearer connection between saints and the politics of their times."

A graduate of Stanford University who conducted doctoral dissertation research at Oxford University, Finucane has done extensive research on belief systems of the 14th through 16th centuries. He has published five books and authored numerous scholarly articles and essays.

Throughout much of this work, the 13-year Oakland University professor has nurtured a growing interest in ties between significant historical events and papal decisions to canonize certain saintly individuals.

Finucane cited the example of St. Hyacinth, a 13th century Polish priest whose canonization was not made official until the end of the 16th century.

Following the Protestant Reformation, the Catholic Church was interested in minimizing the influence of divergent preachers in Poland. Canonization of St. Hyacinth helped convince ruling powers to stamp out Protestant missions.

At the same time, the church’s favorably received decision bolstered support among the Polish ruling class to join battles against Turks invading Western Europe.

Finucane explained that some 300 years after his death, St. Hyacinth’s canonization rose from scores of candidates who had been neglected during a dearth of canonizations in the previous six decades.

"In his own order alone, there were undoubtedly others who were at least as holy," Finucane said.

…Arguing that politics is undoubtedly part of any practical answer, Finucane added: "I think even the most devoted Catholics wouldn’t find this approach offensive. Some of the things I write about might surprise Catholics, but I don’t think it will offend them." [Source]

I have no doubt that politics plays its hand in the reason why some causes for sainthood are advanced at certain times. I would quibble with his statement that "holiness is immaterial in some cases." Politics at times have caused the canonization time to lengthen and not to be shortened. This was true in the case of St. Thomas More. When he cause started to move forward Catholics in England requested for the Vatican to not go ahead with it at that time. During that period of times there was still heavy persecution of Catholics in England and they felt that canonizing Thomas More could only worsen the situation. He was eventually raised to the altar in 1935.

The fact that the process of canonization might lapse three hundred years or more and then go forward might not be just because of political implications. The Holy Spirit in some cases brings this about because a certain saints life and message is needed at the time.

BERLIN – A German bishop has apologized for appearing to compare abortion with the Holocaust and the killing of millions of people under Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin, a remark condemned by Germany’s most prominent Jewish leader.
Joachim Meisner, the Roman Catholic archbishop of Cologne, said he would have left out the reference Adolf Hitler in his Epiphany sermon Thursday at the Cologne cathedral "had I had any inkling it would be misunderstood."

During the sermon, Meisner cited what he said were examples of humans taking on unlimited powers: "First Herod, who had the children of Bethlehem killed, then, among others, under Hitler and Stalin, who had millions of people exterminated, and today, in our times, millions of unborn children are killed," he said.

The head of Germany’s Central Council of Jews, Paul Spiegel, called the comparison "unspeakable and offensive." [Source]

I am not quite sure what would be "unspeakable and offensive" about the statement. It shows no diminishing of the horror of Hitler and Stalin and only puts abortion in the context of the escalation of evil. Those children killed by abortion world wide in the last 30 years overwhelms the number of deaths under both Hitler and Stalin. Those who work in abortion clinics and those who worked in concentration camps relate similar stories of dealing with what they saw and did and how those under their charge became less than human to them. There are many other similarities. Jewish people were dehumanized by speaking of them as less than human and as parasites. Language in reference to them was modified so as not to admit their human dignity. How is this different from children in the womb where different language is used such as fetus or product of conception. These children are dehumanized by referring to them as only a potential or only as a mass of cells. Some medical texts in reference to abortion even refer to the child in the womb as a parasite that must be dealt with. We must never forget the horror of the holocaust (though it seems increasingly in the world with rampant anti-Semitism that they have forgotten) , but we must also not forget the modern horror happening right under our noses in our neighborhoods that abortion us.

Update: In a related story

The president of the Central Council for Jews in Germany, Paul Spiegel (photo), said the cardinal had insulted the millions of victims of the Holocaust and that he was considering taking the matter to court.

Spiegel told Friday’s edition of the newspaper Saarbrücker Zeitung he "cannot in any way understand" how anyone could compare abortion and euthanasia to the crimes of the Nazis. [Source]

He seems to forget that the Nazis started their training in executions via euthanasia. That first to clear out hospitals so save government funds those with physical or mental disabilities were euthanized. They became efficient at this and later used the same techniques on a larger scale to gas the Jews and other ethnic groups. To say that you "cannot in any way understand" the connection between abortion, euthanasia and the Nazis is to be blind to the similarities.

Tom of Disputations commented on this post and another comment by saying:

But everyone doesn’t know it — or better, doesn’t realize it.

The bishop was correct in his homily, and he was right to apologize. His job isn’t simply to state the truth, but by God’s grace to give the truth to others, and if he speaks the truth in terms that cause others to reject it, he should look for other terms.

This was a point I did not consider and is certainly valid. This view is also Biblically valid since St. Paul in 1 Corinthians said:

"All things are lawful for me," but not all things are helpful.

This was in reference to eating food that had been dedicated to idols. Paul knew that this did not effect the food at all and that morally he could eat it. Yet to keep from offending others who might fall in their own belief by his action he would refrain. Not everybody had the same depth of understanding that Paul did on this matter and so he acted prudently to prevent problems. The same thing happens with proclaiming the truth. Their are many ways to proclaim the truth and not all of them are fruitful. So on further reflection I can now understand why the Bishop would apologize for a statement that was truthful. The reaction to his statement is mistaken, though I can understand the hyper-sensitive attitude by people to anything pertaining to the holocaust. People should be worried about any sort of relativism of what happened especially since unfortunately there are many who either diminish or totally deny what happened in WWII.