Punditry

(CNSNews.com) – In a Dec. 1 op-ed in the Washington Post, First Lady Laura Bush said Americans need to “practice safe sex,” use condoms “every time,” and get tested for HIV/AIDS. Her spokeswoman repeated the message to Cybercast News Service this week. However, it is a message that is contrary to the Bush administration’s policy position on abstinence education as the best way to fight HIV/AIDS.

In her commentary, “Let’s Unite Against HIV-AIDS,”

Mrs. Bush wrote that Americans “should know our HIV status” and provided the Web site to find “the testing center closest to you.” She went on to write: “Practice Safe Sex. Let’s take a cue from our African counterparts and follow the ABC method of prevention: Abstinence, Be Faithful and the Correct and Consistent Use of Condoms. That means not just occasionally, but every time.”

To the First Lady’s message just say no. Though I would ask of her if you are abstinent or faithful why would you need to wear a condom every time? But I guess it is perfectly consistent within Church teaching for abstinent people to wear condoms. Heck anybody can wear a condom if they want – just not while having sex.

Now if I was going to write parody names for workshops I might create ones such as:

• Getting Beyond Dominating Hierarchy: Recovering an Authentic Vision of Teaching Authority in the Church …
• Getting Beyond the Church as an ‘Unequal Society’: Uncovering Vatican II’s Vision of the Church …
• Getting Beyond ‘Pay, Pray and Obey’: Reflections on the Vocation of the Laity.

Unfortunately those are real workshops that will be held in the Diocese of Rochester – the diocese that even makes Cardinal Mahony and his diocese look orthodox by comparison.

These workshops will be held by Dr. Richard R. Gaillardetz. The Bishop’s marriage site recommended one of his books last month. Though the book review has now been pulled. Since the USCCB also recently yanked the Golden Compass review I think it can be explained by "Nobody expects the Vanish Inquisition."

Rich Leonardi who posted on this originally also has a copy of the invitation for this workshop at his blog.

Pope Benedict XVI has launched a surprise attack on climate change prophets of doom, warning them that any solutions to global warming must be based on firm evidence and not on dubious ideology.

The leader of more than a billion Roman Catholics suggested that fears over man-made emissions melting the ice caps and causing a wave of unprecedented disasters were nothing more than scare-mongering.

The German-born Pontiff said that while some concerns may be valid it was vital that the international community based its policies on science rather than the dogma of the environmentalist movement.

His remarks will be made in his annual message for World Peace Day on January 1, but they were released as delegates from all over the world convened on the Indonesian holiday island of Bali for UN climate change talks.

This is from an article from The Daily Mail titled "The Pope condemns the climate change prophets of doom." More proof that you should never just rely on the media whether it is on the left or the right. The author of the article came up with his interpretation based on this piece from the Pope’s message.

It is important for assessments in this regard to be carried out prudently, in dialogue with experts and people of wisdom, uninhibited by ideological pressure to draw hasty conclusions, and above all with the aim of reaching agreement on a model of sustainable development capable of ensuring the well-being of all while respecting environmental balances.

The author Simon Caldwell makes the Pope say much more then he actually said. Saying that the Pope was calling this scare-mongering is a reach , though it is obvious that the Pope sees the current discussion on the environment to be partially driven by ideological pressure and perhaps jumping the gun on the science. While I agree with Simon Caldwell about their being prophets of doom in the debate on “climate change”, I think it is dishonest to put those words in the Pope’s mouth.

The Holy Fathers message for the World Day of Peace called The Human Family, a Community of Peace is a good read just as everything he writes is. His message starts off and is rooted in the family.

The natural family, as an intimate communion of life and love, based on marriage between a man and a woman, constitutes “the primary place of ‘humanization’ for the person and society”, and a “cradle of life and love”. The family is therefore rightly defined as the first natural society, “a divine institution that stands at the foundation of life of the human person as the prototype of every social order”

The message proceeds from the family to the human community where he addresses the environment. He then goes on to talk about economy in the context of human community and moral values and ends with overcoming conflict in the world and moving towards disarmament.

Dawn Eden has found more Planned Parenthood posters from around the world.

Today the U.S. bishops withdrew the review of the film The Golden Compass, which opened in theaters in the United States Dec. 7. The review was written by Harry Forbes and John Mulderig, the director and staff reviewer respectively of the Office for Film and Broadcasting of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. The review was released and posted on the CNS Web site Nov. 29. The USCCB gave no reason for withdrawing the review.

Now they just need to redraw the Office for Film and Broadcasting itself.

In reference to my Imagine post about an atheist group’s "Imagine No Religion" display with a picture of the Twin Towers John Gibson sent me this graphic he created.

a

Now as to whether Hitler was an atheist I would consider debatable. The case can be certain made for his being influenced by occult racist theories developed by Theosophy and mixed with German Paganism.

But the others pictured were all avowed atheists. Atheist apologists like to bring up the fact that Stalin once went to seminary as if this set the stage for the massacres, purges, and famines and killing enough people to make Hitler look tame by contrast. Stalin though went to seminary not because he felt he had a priestly vocation, but because of the lack of locally available university education.

The question I would have for atheists is why should Stalin have changed any aspect of his life? He lived to be a 74 in a life of luxury where he was able to dictate to others to give him whatever he wanted. If this life is all there is then why not take everything by force if you are able? A lot of atheist morality is tied to the idea that you accept a framework of socially developed morality to help you get along in life. That these socially developed moralities are culturally dependent and thus can change. That morality is totally subjective. So why should Stalin have followed these subjective moralities when he became top dog despite them. He didn’t "go along to get along" which is what culturally developed morality is all about. From Stalin’s subjective view he saw that what he did worked and in a material only world there are only material pleasures which he had a plenty.

I had also found it interesting that the atheist group wanted to tie it’s message to 9/11. At first glance you might think this makes a kind of sense since you would think that suicide bombers are going to be motivated by religious thought to be willing to die for a cause. Though the truth is that atheists are also quite willing to kill themselves in suicide attacks. Just look at the cases of the Columbine killers, the shooter responsible for the Virginia Tech massacre, and pretty much everybody behind school shootings. Instead of dying for bad theology these killers seemed mostly to be willing to die for publicity.

But when you believe there is really no law outside yourself besides what you willingly shackle yourself with to go through life it is not surprising that this can lead to a view where human life is cheapened. Morality at this level is a consequence management view of morality. It is not about absolute rights or wrongs, but if I do this am I willing to accept probable consequences for a given action. During my conversion I started to realize that my own high moral view was built on a foundation of straw and could not backed up by a materialistic world view. I took a lot for granted that was actually borrowed from religious thought such as the idea of personhood and absolutes when it came to morality.

Atheists display a picture of the Twin Towers on a sign that say "Imagine no Religion"

VERNON – The sturdy white sign in Rockville’s Central Park asking passers-by to "Imagine No Religion" has generated some calls, a few of them angry, to town hall. There have also been calls to local clergymen and discussion in businesses along Rockville’s West Main Street.

The sign — some call it a billboard — was erected on Dec. 1 by the Connecticut Valley Atheists, and as of Thursday was the only display erected in the town’s center to mark the holiday season, aside from a Christmas tree just across from the town hall and some garland and white lights wrapped around light poles.

Yes why can’t religious people act more like Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao Tse Tung, and the other enlightened atheist leaders of the last century. How thankful we are for the start of the French Enlightenment which was called the Reign of Terror for some odd reason.

I think their sign would be better with the caption "Imagine no bad theology" since that is mostly what the problem is for Jihadists in the first place.

With all the talk today of Mitt Romney’s "Faith and America" speech and the reference to JFK’s speech I decided to actually read the JFK speech
to the Southern Baptist Leaders in 1960. Wow what an overrated speech that was and it is quite horrid in parts with it’s modern view of Church/State separation that is quite rigid. It was interesting to read that JFK was opposed to having an ambassador to the Vatican and in fact it wasn’t till President Reagan that we had an ambassador to the Holy See. It is certainly not a speech that religious conservatives today would much like, but maybe it had helped him with borderline anti-Catholics. Though I think the funniest thing in hindsight is the idea of JFK being beholden to the Catholic Church in any way in the first place.

Mitt Romney’s speech on the other hand concentrates mostly on faith in public life and not his own faith for the most part and in fact he only mentions Mormons once. His view of church and state separation is much better than JFK’s and closer to what the founders actually intended.

…”We separate church and state affairs in this country, and for good reason. No religion should dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion. But in recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America the religion of secularism. They are wrong.

…”There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church’s distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution. No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith. For if he becomes President he will need the prayers of the people of all faiths.

” I believe that every faith I have encountered draws its adherents closer to God. And in every faith I have come to know, there are features I wish were in my own: I love the profound ceremony of the Catholic Mass, the approachability of God in the prayers of the Evangelicals, the tenderness of spirit among the Pentecostals, the confident independence of the Lutherans, the ancient traditions of the Jews, unchanged through the ages, and the commitment to frequent prayer of the Muslims. As I travel across the country and see our towns and cities, I am always moved by the many houses of worship with their steeples, all pointing to heaven, reminding us of the source of life’s blessings.

Interesting remarks about the Catholic Mass. He must not have been to Mass at the Church John Kerry attends in Boston. Though if I were a Lutheran I think I would be miffed at Mitt. I don’t think "confident independence" is going to be a advertising motto for Lutheran churches anytime soon. "You look confidently independent. Are you a Lutheran per chance?"

…"Let me assure you that no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions. Their authority is theirs, within the province of church affairs, and it ends where the affairs of the nation begin.

With Mormonism such a statement is more important considering that their current "prophet" can receive new revelation as has happened in the past. Maybe one day they will have one on caffeine to help out Starbucks in Utah. But if you believe in this Mormon doctrine where new revelation can contradict older ones than saying that this could have no influence on presidential decisions is to say he is not a faithful Mormon. JFK’s at least said he would step down in some theoretical case his faith conflicted with his presidency. But the purpose of this speech in the first place is to satisfy those who are concerned about his being a Mormon and it is not surprising he takes this tack, but I don’t think it helps his credibility by saying so and his credibility is already his major liability.

Jimmy Akin is not impressed with the speech and mentions how Romney wants to have it both ways. I agree with Jimmy on how the "Religious test" was misrepresented from the Constitution. Voters certainly can have a religious test in making their decisions. If a candidate was part of some doomsday cult than surely you can knock him out of contention just for that.

His speech is just too generic on faith in public life and has little to do with him as a Mormon. He obviously perceived his Mormonism as a problem to be addressed, but this speech doesn’t do it. For me there are a lot more issues I am concerned about with Mitt Romney than his Mormonism.

I heard Donny Osmond the other day in a interview he did that included a defense of Mormonism where he talked about believing what the Council of Nicea said which he thought took place sometime in the 900’s. And here I thought Mormons held that the Church became corrupted pretty much right away. Though you always do have to wonder just how much Mormons really know about their faith and its distinctive from Christianity. Those Latter Day Saint commercials constantly on TV never seem to mention Polytheism or the name of the planet God the Father came from.

As a blogger who sees lots and lots of headlines through various sources there is one thing I would love to do. I wish I could write a search and replace macro virus that would go through all of the various news organization style guides and make some changes.

Headline writers are just getting too lazy. One word I especially see used way too much is "slam" or "slams" Apparently everyday somebody is slamming something. In fact later generations if they go by news sources will be convinced that at one point there was an Pope who took the name of Slams since so many headlines say Pope Slams this and Pope Slams that. Though it isn’t just the pope who gets the slam treatment, it is used throughout all headlines on just about any topic.

In almost all cases slam can be replaced with "disagree" or "criticizes." I guess those words just aren’t as sexy for headline writers. But surely people get desensitized to always using slam and it will be less likely to catch your eyes.

A reader sent me a sample of how New Line Cinema is deceptively using a review from the USSCB’s Office for Film & Broadcasting.

First it is dishonest to say that it is the USSCB that said this, but that is the least of the problem.

The part they put in quotes does not actually exist in the review. They have cobbled it together from two different sections of the review.

Whatever author Pullman’s putative motives in writing the story, writer-director Chris Weitz’s film, taken purely on its own cinematic terms, can be viewed as an exciting adventure story with, at its core, a traditional struggle between good and evil, and a generalized rejection of authoritarianism.

and

To the extent, moreover, that Lyra and her allies are taking a stand on behalf of free will in opposition to the coercive force of the Magisterium, they are of course acting entirely in harmony with Catholic teaching.

They didn’t even do a Maureen Down and put in ellipses.

I sent off some emails to New Line Cinema’s Press Contacts, though I doubt if I will get a reply.

Though I also do wonder how non-Catholics might see the endorsement and if if it a negative in their case?

Update: New Line Cinema emailed me back with this reply “We have been alerted yesterday about this matter and we have changed the text — it takes 24 hours for the online change and it will happen sometime today –.” So if anybody sees the new text of the ad let me know what it is.