Upper Canada Catholic

No Exorcisms for Toronto

2007-10-30T04:18:00.000-07:00

From the website of Toronto's Archdiocese:

"The Archdiocese of Toronto does not have an exorcist nor does it perform the rite of exorcism."

How's that go again? Oh yes, the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world that he does not exist, viz this extract from an interview with Fr. Gabriel Amorth, the chief exorcist of the Vatican:

Question: You fight against the demon every day. What is Satan's greatest success?

Fr. Amorth: To succeed in making people believe that he doesn't exist. And in this he has almost succeeded. Even within the Church. We have a clergy and an episcopate who no longer believe in the devil, in exorcisms, in the extraordinary evil that the devil can cause, nor in the power that Jesus has given us to drive out demons.
For three centuries, the Latin Church - in contrast with the Orthodox Church and various Protestant confessions - has almost entirely abandoned the ministry of exorcism. As the clergy no longer practice exorcisms, as they no longer study them and have never seen them, they no longer believe in them. And nor do they believe in the devil either. We have entire episcopates who are hostile to exorcisms. There are countries in which there is not a single exorcist.... A terrifying deficiency.

Judges Too Stupid For Charter: Crown Attorney

2007-10-27T04:37:00.000-07:00

Anyone seeking out the biggest understatement of the week need look no further than here:

When guilty people go free because their constitutional rights have been violated, there's a danger the public will begin to see the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as little more than "a game of snakes and ladders," a judge of the Ontario Court of Appeal says. …"It seems to me if you get to the point where there's a perception the Charter has, in fact, become a game of snakes and ladders, where criminal trial results depend on things that have nothing to do with the merits of the case, the public perception will be these rights are not really rights that are important to us," he said.

Despite an astonishing array of legal rights, its citizens are reaching the point where few genuinely believe in those rights and don't expect them to be enforced, he contended.

My personal favourite quote is this one from a Crown Attorney:

"The Charter gave Constitutional jurisdiction to every mutt in the country,' he said, with each of those judges aquiring power to strike down laws or toss out charges for individual rights violations.

"The first thing that had to be recognized was there was going to be a huge spectrum of intellectual ability that was going to be addressing these very important questions, and that was going to lead to results that were all over the place."

For those not fully initiated into legal-speak, let me translate for you:

“huge spectrum of intellectual ability” = “lot of really stupid judges out there who are going to screw this thing up but good.”

Baby Names: A Precocious Feminist War on Children

2007-10-24T23:28:00.000-07:00

I think it’s time we stop this nonsense of married women hyphenating their names and inflicting same on their unfortunate offspring. Too many hyphenated progeny are populating today’s grammar schools and will shortly be unleashed on society at large. What an unfortunate example of the precocious me-generation, which insists on labelling their children as personal possessions without any thought of the later burden they will have to carry.

What happens, exactly, when Nathaniel Buford-Somerville weds Mary McNaughton-Hutchings and they produce children? Do they become Christopher Daniel Buford-Somerville-McNaughton-Hutchings? Shall we start producing drivers licenses on legal sized photo cards? Will Tamils end up having the shortest names?

Please. Society has had this one nailed for generations. Lineage flows through only one surname, traditionally the male’s. Bury this feminist canard now.

Traditional Anglicans Defect, Seek Union with Rome

2007-10-22T15:30:00.000-07:00

The College of Bishops of the Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC) met in Plenary Session in Portsmouth, England, in the first week of October 2007. The Bishops and Vicars-General unanimously agreed to the text of a letter to the See of Rome seeking full, corporate, sacramental union. The letter was signed solemnly by all the College and entrusted to the Primate and two bishops chosen by the College to be presented to the Holy See. The letter was cordially received at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The Primate of the TAC has agreed that no member of the College will give interviews until the Holy See has considered the letter and responded.

More here. Discussion here.

This is what happens when you muddle your "brand" with what you think people want to hear - gay sex and marriage is as normal as straight sex and traditional marriage, abortion is a private matter between a woman and her doctor, etc.

Roman Catholics stand for something. Many things actually. And we don't change them every time somebody starts writing editorials of a different flavour.

Welcome home Anglicans. Peace.

Causation 101: Those Wacky Europeans

2007-10-21T18:07:00.000-07:00

Abortion is becoming commonplace and people are insufficiently troubled about terminating pregnancies, the Archbishop of Canterbury said on Sunday. There were nearly 200,000 abortions in England and Wales in 2005, according to the Department of Health, and a recent survey by the medical journal Lancet reported that one-third of pregnancies in Europe ends in abortion.

The archbishop said that when the Abortion Act was passed in 1967, it was never meant to usher in a period of "easy abortion", but to provide an option for women in extreme cases.

Gee, never saw that coming.

Conservatives Elected, Red Tories Defeated - TAKE THE HINT

2007-10-10T20:33:00.000-07:00

I'm just sayin.

Leadership sometimes means falling on your sword.

Bye John.

Sorry, no vote here for Tory

2007-10-08T17:15:00.000-07:00

For the first time ever I will not be casting a vote my local conservative candidate in an election. The reasons are many:

1) I want the party led by an actual, you know, conservative and a really poor showing will bring the knives out. By “actual conservative” I mean pretty much anyone who doesn’t cry during meetings with the Toronto Star’s editorial board.

2) Tory has snatched defeat from the jaws of victory and the people of Ontario will be saddled with Premier Pinnochio for four more years because he screwed up. I wish to punish him for that by, at the very least, not rewarding him with my vote.

3) Remember Roger’s attempt at reverse-billing with cable fees. Tory ran the company. I’m still pi**ed about that.

Family Coalition Party – you got my vote.

As you were: No dead baby here, no sir

2007-10-04T03:45:00.000-07:00

People have a sense of right and wrong, no matter how much they try to suppress it. That’s why everybody, from the police to news commentators to politicians, spoke of the stabbing murders of Aysun Sesen and her seven month unborn child as two murders with two victims. Everyone spoke of the doctors who tried to save the “child” but couldn’t. There will be two caskets at the funeral. As soon as I saw the news reports on TV and read them in the paper I said to my wife “just wait, there will be big climb down tomorrow as the word foetus crops up everywhere.”

Now, today, they are no longer speaking of two victims. There is no mention of a dead “Mother and child.” As the Star explains today, correctly, under Canadian law even a full term baby is just a clump of cells until such time as it has the temerity to draw a breath on its own, whereupon society is immediately inconvenienced by having to afford it protection under the criminal law.

Now everyone knows this is nonsense. That’s why we all understood that two murders had taken place. But the pro-choice chill has made us once again shutter what is right and true up into the deep recesses of our consciences.

Let me make another prediction: At this scumbag’s trial, no one will be able to even mention that the victim was pregnant.

That might inflame the ordinary folks on the jury. And we can’t let a little thing like dead babies get us all hot and bothered after all, now can we?

(Hint: Maybe we should stop and ask ourselves why the fact that the victim was pregnant is so inflammatory? I mean, if the child really just was a clump of cells, no more deserving of legal protection than a cyst, then no one would be inflamed, would they? Think about it....)

Fat Lady Clears Throat in Ontario

2007-10-02T09:59:00.000-07:00

My Prediction:

Liberals 71
Tories 27
NDP 9

Tory Train Wreck in Ontario

2007-10-01T03:04:00.000-07:00

I only seem to disagree with Warren Kinsella when he’s shilling for someone. When Warren’s just speaking for Warren, he’s usually right. Like last month, when he wrote this:

September 24, 2007 – …This thing is getting worse every day. Why doesn’t John Tory simply admit he made a mistake, and drop his private religious schools plan?

Naturally, on this - the day of the big climb down - he now writes this:

October 1, 2007 - Here's a memorable way to start October: blow what is left of your credibility to bits. Amazing. As John Tory and his desperate gang gather for a conference call at 10 a.m., they can reflect on their putative leader's own words: "I will not be backing off." That's a quote. That's what he said in the St. Catharines Standard on September 27, 2007. Now, he's getting ready to "back off." Now he's getting ready to do - to use his own phraseology - the biggest flip-flop in the history of the world. Now, I know that I should be sort-of happy, because I posted something about it at 3:30 yesterday. A promising career in fortune-telling awaits, etc. But, seriously, I am angry. Tory rips the province's social cohesion to shreds - he runs around screaming about people breaking promises for months - and now he says: "Oh, never mind." That's leadership?That's not leadership. That's the beginning of the leadership campaigns of Tim Hudak and Jim Flaherty. But it isn't leadership.

Warren was right before and wrong now. Here’s why:

Leadership means admitting you made a mistake before the election, not after like McGuinty did. The voters will have the opportunity to cast their ballots on the basis of the "new" platform, which is a heck of a lot more honest than what McGuinty did when he imposed the largest tax hike in Ontario history after getting elected by promising – in writing- that he wouldn’t.

Now the Tory campaign’s still a train wreck, of course. But I’m just sayin.

Sunday Rants

2007-09-30T06:38:00.000-07:00

I'm so conflicted. On the one hand, Jamaican rap music constitutes my own personal vision of hell, but on the other hand....

I've changed my mind. We can leave now....

I'm sorry, I thought we motorists paid for the %$#@ing roads?

Choose Change in Ontario

2007-09-28T07:32:00.000-07:00

UPDATE: Amazing how two people can have identical reasoning on this issue, yet arrive at opposite conclusions, viz Urquhart in today's Star:

And, of course, existing fringe parties like the Greens (quirky environmentalists), the Freedom Party (for abolition of income and property taxes and introduction of two-tier medicare), and the Family Coalition Party (pro-life and anti-gay marriage) could also meet that threshold. Then, after the election, the major parties would have to bargain with some or all of these lesser parties for support in order to form a government.

So we might end up with another Mike Harris who becomes premier with the support of a pro-life party and/or a northern party that is against gun control and for logging in provincial parks.

That's why I'll be voting against MMP in the referendum.

And that's precisely why I'm voting for it. Thanks Ian.

My original post and reasoning is here:
I’ll be voting in the next Ontario election, but not the way you think; I’m not particularly enthralled right now with either of the two main parties or their leaders for reasons I won’t bore you with, so no vote from me for any of them will be forthcoming. That said, there’s another reason I will make the trip to the polls:

Ontario, you see, will also be holding a referendum on our electoral system.

Voters will be asked whether they wish to keep their current system (person will the most votes wins the riding), or opt for a new proposal called Mixed Member Proportional (MMP). In MMP, as proposed in Ontario anyway (there are many versions of it worldwide), our Legislature would be made up of MPPs chosen like this:

Voters would vote twice: once for the local candidate of their choice (just as they do now), and again for their favourite political party. It is possible, for example, for you to really like a particular candidate, but not their party, and you could then vote for the person, but not the party they represent. Or perhaps you know that locally it is a tight race between A and B, and while you personally support candidate C and his/her party, the local reality is that they simply don’t stand a chance. Under the new system, you would be free to help tip the balance in favour of A or B (choosing the lesser of two evils) while also voting for Party C. This would allow your votes for Party C to be be added together with all the other votes for Party C to help elect more Party C candidates, notwithstanding the fact that Party C’s local candidate will have lost in your riding.

Here’s why: Most MPPs in the Legislature will still be locally elected members, but some would now be from Party lists. If a party wins fewer seats in the legislature than its percentage of the popular vote, it will get extra seats to make up the difference. If a Party ends up with 35% of the vote, it should end up with about the same representation in the Legislature.

So, why is this a good thing? Well, as you’ll know from my previous posts, I am not a lukewarm kind of voter. I hold to be true certain moral staples that, while they have stood the test of time, are not currently in fashion. The result is that mainstream political parties tend to gravitate towards the middle and run campaigns based not on what they believe to be true, so much as what they believe to be least offensive. This leads to what I call “tyranny of the squeaky wheel”, ably abetted by their Charter-chuckling lackeys on the bench and the Op Ed pages.

Under the new system, voters like me could for the first time vote for a party that truly speaks to them, and for them – or at least comes closer to doing so than other parties. For example, the Family Coalition Party of Ontario is a pro-life, pro-family political party. It has never won a seat in any election, and under the current system it never will. So I, and others, never vote for them. A nasty, self-fulfilling prophesy, n’est-ce pas? Under the new system, if just 3% of Ontario’s voters voted for that party, it would automatically be allotted about 4 seats in the legislature. Think about it – a tiny caucus of militant pro-life, pro-family MPPs that could tip the balance in minority parliaments one way or the other in exchange for small concessions of great import to voters like me. The same, of course, could be said of the Green Party and others who would also win leverage on behalf of voters currently on the outside of the electoral process, looking in.

So go the polls this October and, to borrow a phrase, “choose change.”

Catholic Voters Guide: Ontario Election 2007

2007-09-26T14:41:00.000-07:00

Ok, Ok, so it's not a voter's guide, per se. The Ontario Bishop's have, however, put together a number of resources to assist Ontarians at the polls in a few weeks. As expected they are a bit heavy on the social justice stuff, and tip toe around harder issues like criminal justice.

Worth a read though, especially if you're a old school type like me who needs a few edges smoothed off. Here they are:

Election 2007: Counting on Your Vote

Taking Stock 2007

Choosing a Government

Not all Conservative Candidates are Rocket Scientists

2007-09-25T15:04:00.000-07:00

[Willowdale PC Candidate David Shiner] pointed out Zimmer presented a petition to the legislature in June 2006, titled Petition to Ontario Legislature to End Discrimination, in which he calls for government funding for all faith-based schools. "He presents a petition to the legislature in support of faith-based education and then speaks against it," Shiner said. "My question is, where does my opponent stand? He tells his constituents one thing and others something else. It takes away the integrity we all have as representatives."

I thought MPPs were required to submit petitions they receive to the Legislature as part of their duties, and that tabling a petition from one's constituents does not necessarily mean that the MPP personally supports its contents. Why is such a basic democratic touchpoint like petitions being spun is such an underhanded way? Is this seriously Shiner's best attack on his Liberal opponent? If so, perhaps Mr. Zimmer ought to be returned. At least we know our petitions would get tabled....

Reality Check: De-funding Ontario's Catholic Schools

2007-09-24T15:14:00.000-07:00

Here’s a few things nobody’s talking about when it comes to the whole funding for faith based schools / end funding of Catholic schools debate raging in Ontario:

"Why can’t Ontario do what Newfoundland did and pass a constitutional amendment to get rid of the Catholic school system?"
Because it won’t work here. Newfoundland, pre-amendment, had two systems: Protestant and Catholic. There was no secular, publicly funded alternative, and this was a key rationale for acting at the time. Ontario’s Protestant system self-immolated years ago, and has now morphed into what we call the public system – sort of a lowest common denominator education system. Another key difference is that Newfoundland doesn’t have a middle class – at least not in the same sense as Ontario does. In Ontario, a very significant proportion of parents already send their kids to some form of private or independent school, whereas in Newfoundland that opportunity is simply not there in any comparable sense. The new secular system works in Newfoundland, therefore, because parents have no choice; they have to send their kids there. In Ontario, where private education is a thriving, mature enterprise, parents could more easily pull their kids out of a secular system and find a mature, privately funded parallel system ready to expand and absorb them at all price points. De-funding Catholic schools in Ontario, therefore, would mean that parents seeking a Catholic education could simply withdraw entirely from the public system.

"But where would Catholic kids go if their schools were secularized? There’d really be no capacity anywhere else that quickly."
Not true. Do you know who owns the schools in Ontario – bricks, mortar and land? In the public system, schools are owned by public school boards. In the Catholic system, however, it’s a mix: some are owned by Catholic boards, but many others are only run by the Board under a lease. These schools are, in fact, owned lock, stock and barrel by religious orders of the Roman Catholic Church. If a constitutional amendment were to be enacted on Monday, on Tuesday all of this educational capacity (schools, land, textbooks, and many teachers) would become de facto private schools as leases were ripped up all over Ontario. The point not to be missed here is that de-funding Catholic schools would have the immediate effect of shrinking the public system. Fewer, not more, students would be in public schools in a post-constitutional amendment Ontario.

Just a few things to think over before October 10, or while reading anything the CCLU prints.

Man of the House: Why the Husband Rules the Roost in Christian Marriages

2007-08-29T10:39:00.000-07:00

I was re-reading C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity the other day, and was once again struck by the clarity with which he articulated controversial topics in ways that illustrated obvious points we all intuitively know to be true. One of the most interesting Chapters dealt with the man’s role in marriage. First, Lewis defines his terms, starting with marriage:

The Christian idea of marriage is based on Christ's words that a man and wife are to be regarded as a single organism-for that is what the words "one flesh" would be in modern English. And the Christians believe that when He said this He was not expressing a sentiment but stating a fact-just as one is stating a fact when one says that a lock and its key are one mechanism, or that a violin and a bow are one musical instrument. The inventor of the human machine was telling us that its two halves, the male and the female, were made to be combined together in pairs, not simply on the sexual level, but totally combined. The monstrosity of sexual intercourse outside marriage is that those who indulge in it are trying to isolate one kind of union (the sexual) from all the other kinds of union which were intended to go along with it and make up the total union. The Christian attitude does not mean that there is anything wrong about sexual pleasure, any more than about the pleasure of eating. It means that you must not isolate that pleasure and try to get it by itself, any more than you ought to try to get the pleasures of taste without swallowing and digesting, by chewing things and spitting them out again.

Next, he asks this central question:

In Christian marriage the man is said to be the "head." Two questions obviously arise here, (1) Why should there be a head at all -why not equality? (2) Why should it be the man?

His answer, reproduced in full, is below. As you read it, ask yourself truthfully: does this not ring absolutely true? In my own marriage, for example, my wife has de facto charge over things internal to the family (sort of a Minister of the Interior), while everything to do with External Relations is my charge. For example, my wife may very well go out and choose, say, a new table for the living room but it is I who will then haggle the price. If there’s a return to be made, it’s me again. But which table, and where it will go, and what can be placed upon it is her purview. Likewise, if our family ever finds itself in conflict with others (a speeding ticket and trip to court, or a fender-bender in which my wife was involved), the entire mess falls to me. Another woman hit my wife in the parking lot – how do you suppose the whole thing was resolved? The two women exchanged phone numbers, and I dealt with the other husband on the phone to sort it all out. No doubt his wife was crabbing about the high cost of the repairs, while mine did the same about how we really should have used the dealer for a better (and pricier) fix. Can anyone really imagine the wives sorting this out? They call it a catfight for a reason.

Anyway, here’s Lewis in his own words. You won’t be disappointed:

(1) The need for some head follows from the idea that marriage is permanent. Of course, as long as the husband and wife are agreed, no question of a head need arise; and we may hope that this will be the normal state of affairs in a Christian marriage. But when there is a real disagreement, what is to happen? Talk it over, of course; but I am assuming they have done that and still failed to reach agreement What do they do next? They cannot decide by a majority vote, for in a council of two there can be no majority. Surely, only one or other of two things can happen: either they must separate and go their own ways or else one or other of them must have a casting vote. If marriage is permanent, one or other party must, in the last resort, have the power of deciding the family policy. You cannot have a permanent association without a constitution.

(2) If there must be a head, why the man? Well, firstly, is there any very serious wish that it should be the woman? As I have said, I am not married myself, but as far as 1 can see, even a woman who wants to be the head of her own house does not usually admire the same state of things when she finds it going on next door. She is much more likely to say "Poor Mr. X! Why he allows that appalling woman to boss him about the way she does is more than I can imagine." I do not think she is even very flattered if anyone mentions the fact of her own "headship." There must be something unnatural about the rule of wives over husbands, because the wives themselves are half ashamed of it and despise the husbands whom they rule. But there is also another reason; and here I speak quite frankly as a bachelor, because it is a reason you can see from outside even better than from inside. The relations of the family to the outer world-what might be called its foreign policy-must depend, in the last resort, upon the man, because he always ought to be, and usually is, much more just to the outsiders. A woman is primarily fighting for her own children and husband against the rest of the world. Naturally, almost, in a sense, rightly, their claims override, for her, all other claims. She is the special trustee of their interests. The function of the husband is to see that this natural preference of hers is not given its head. He has the last word in order to protect other people from the intense family patriotism of the wife. If anyone doubts this, let me ask a simple question. If your dog has bitten the child next door, or if your child has hurt the dog next door, which would you sooner have to deal with, the master of that house or the mistress? Or, if you are a married woman, let me ask you this question. Much as you admire your husband, would you not say that his chief failing is his tendency not to stick up for his rights and yours against the neighbours as vigorously as you would like? A bit of an Appeaser?

Toronto Abortion Clinic Hit Hard

2007-08-24T08:31:00.000-07:00

There was some controversy at a Toronto abortion clinic yesterday, as a group called Show The Truth blitzed the street with a photo Burma shave-style protest. For the uninitiated, this means that dozens of people lined the street holding giant (4x6 foot), full colour photographs of aborted children at various stages of foetal development. Each placard was clearly (and accurately) labelled (e.g. 21 weeks, 4 weeks). Each photo was very graphic and clearly showed what pro-abortion types call the "products of conception" as they appear when removed from the mother during an abortion.

The typical reaction this group receives (they’ve even been called terrorists) is highly negative. These photos are very disturbing (pictures of murdered babies are about as offensive as you can get, after all) and no one is more disturbed than, naturally, pro-abortion advocates.

But I do not understand why. On what basis could anyone pose any rationale objection? If they object on the basis of offensive aesthetics, the reply is that our courts have consistently ruled that people living in a free and democratic society do not have the right to live free from offence, especially where peaceful demonstration is involved. On a more subjective level, I suppose the reply would simply be that, as abortion itself is offensive, it’s quite natural that photographic records of it would also be offensive.

What if they object on the basis of truth or factual accuracy? Well, they can’t; the photos are accurate, real and correctly labelled. They are, in every sense of the word, "true".

How about an objection on the basis that these photos may deter women from having an abortion, or make their decision more difficult? Well, that’s the whole point of the exercise, isn’t it? Surely pro-choicers are in favour of an informed consumer? A woman seeking an abortion, when confronted with new, factual information about the procedure, is placed in a superior position to a less-informed one, surely? A woman so informed may indeed choose not to have the procedure. Another may press on regardless. Surely the latter would be viewed as all the more virtuous by abortion advocates, and all the more hellish by the rest of us? But at least the decision, and the moral choices involved, were all the more informed for the new information? And the associated consequences more clearly chosen?

That is the troublesome nature of truth: it can be decried as very inconvenient, or even as offensive, but it can never be successfully attacked – on any front.

Res ipsa loquitur.

Toronto Star: Guns Don't Kill People, People Kill People

2007-08-15T04:25:00.000-07:00

Or, at least their version of it:

"What killed ... wasn't panhandling; it was a violent attack with a knife."

All part of an editorial explaining why panhandling shouldn't be banned just because some people are violent while begging. The plug in support of Mike Harris' Safe Streets Act was an especially nice touch.

The case is sad, but the irony just...kills me.

Ontario (Progressive) Conservative Leader John Tory: Picture = 1000 words

2007-08-11T18:10:00.000-07:00

Ontario Conservative (sorry, Progressive Conservative) Leader John Tory at Gay Pride festivities in Toronto.

My mother said if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all...so I'm just leaving you kind folks with the photo. H/T.

To The Person Who Stole My Flip-Flops From the YMCA:

2007-08-02T09:33:00.000-07:00

I suffer from Plantar Wart Fasciitis.

Good luck with that.

The Chill of Intellectual Laziness

2007-07-30T07:15:00.000-07:00

Of all the intellectual sins, the ad hominem attack is perhaps the greatest. For the uninitiated, this means seeking to refute or condemn an argument by attacking the personal character or attributes of the person proffering it. Many examples abound:

The pro-life message is attacked because its proponents are sometimes kooky-looking old men waggling their fingers while thumping bibles and carrying poorly-spelled placards;

Conrad Black contributes some extraordinary work on the life of FDR, or makes a speech about economic policy, and we are reminded of his vanity or piques and quarrels in the business, legal or political realms;

Warren Kinsella contributes insightful political commentary, and his enemies (which he collects with some regularity) respond with rather boring reminders about all the times he’s been taken down a peg (i.e. the stupid cookie cartoon, apologies on his website to settle threatened or actual defamation actions – oh heck, now I’m doing it!);

The Catholic Church preaches the truth about human sexuality, marriage, or the dignity of human life and our opponents remind us of the child sex abuse scandals.

Here is my problem: a thing is either true or it is not. It does not become more or less true by virtue of the character or personal failings of the person espousing it. We have to allow for the possibility that the world’s greatest blithering idiot may occasionally drop a pearl of wisdom from which the whole of mankind could benefit, if we only just paid attention. Since becoming a Christian, I have discovered a few things about my fellow humans:

First, they are (just like me and you) prone to sin; that is to say, they will from time to time exhibit moral failings that will hurt and disappoint others unjustly. If we take any given two people, one of whom is known to sin and another who is held in higher esteem, I submit the latter is no better than the former; his sin simply remains hidden, or he is perhaps in a phase of his life where his sin is less than it has been before, or will be in the future. The moral differences between them are largely illusionary.

Second, we can learn something from anyone. If we ever find ourselves in one of those dreary conversations with someone we consider to be loathsome, annoying or stupid, we should push those thoughts out of our heads and try – for as long or short a period of time as we can stand it – to shut up and listen to what is being said. You will learn something, I guarantee it.

There’s a reason we are called to be practicing Christians – because we'll never get right!

That would be the sound of a cracking whip....

2007-07-16T13:09:00.000-07:00

Proving once again that to stand for everything is to stand for nothing, even The Star has noticed Pope Benedict’s quiet pursuit of a new, robust Roman Catholic brand:

"Benedict is very progressive about his brand," says Patrick McGovern, vice-president of Blade Creative Branding, a Toronto-based marketing agency, who gives the Pope credit for clearly expressing the values a core constituency holds dear. "If everybody is wishy-washy, (the institution) will wash away."

Two recent moves only reaffirm Benedict’s shrewd strategy: the revival of the Traditional Latin Mass and reaffirmation of the supremacy of the Catholic Church. In the former case, the Pope has allowed for expanded use of the old liturgy, which is very different from the current Mass which mimics many Protestant services. Benedict clearly intends that the Mass should be easily differentiated from other Christian services, while supporting a clear Catholic identity (brand). In the latter case, Benedict recently affirmed that Protestant churches are schismatic and deficient, and should only be considered “ecclesial communities,” while affirming the original church (his), as the one, true church (Newsflash: Pope Catholic!).

Both moves have sparked controversy in the media (much of it ill-informed) and the predictable Chicken Little cries from the usual quarters about how this will “split” the church and drive people away from the pews. It comes as no surprise to marketers, however, that the facts prove precisely the opposite:

The Vatican's financial statements for 2006, Benedict's first full year as pope, show a huge leap in donations to the papal charity known as Peter's Pence, ($101 million U.S. in 2006 versus $64.4 million the year before) in 2006, and the numbers of faithful flocking to St. Peter's Square in Rome are soaring. While marketing is likely the last thing on the Pope's mind, experts in that worldly field say Benedict's actions serve very powerfully to brand the Catholic Church in the eyes of the world, bringing a muscular "take-it-or-leave-it" approach to church positioning.

What should ordinary Catholics take from all this? A few things: first, being Catholic means something; you cannot, for example, be a Catholic and support abortion. The church may very well be one house with many rooms, but none of them are labelled “pro-choice”, “gay marriage” or “women priests.” Second, the Catholic Church is not going to be a cafeteria – you don’t get to pick the parts you like, and leave the ones you don’t; everyone at the table partakes of the same meal. There are to be core values around which all Catholics are called to rally, regardless of their political or economic preferences. Third, the church has very real authority that binds the whole community together through a chain of command instituted by Christ Himself, and obedience is to be rediscovered as an underappreciated virtue.

The Catholic Church. Universal. Apostolic. And kicking butt.

The Perfidious Jews, and Other Lies About The Latin Mass

2007-07-08T12:56:00.000-07:00

For those of us (like me) who care, Pope Benedict has significantly liberated the Traditional Latin Mass (also called the Tridentine Mass) for use by Catholics. One of the media “angles” often sensationalized is how this liberation of what is now called the Extraordinary Rite is that it undoes Catholic-Jewish relations because one of many Good Friday prayers calls for the conversation of “the Perfidious Jews.”

Two small problems here: First, there’s no such prayer in the approved Extraordinary Rite, and second there’s nothing wrong with calling others to conversion; if fact, if you’re a Christian, it’s actually required to do so.

What the Prayer Really Says:
The version of the Extraordinary Rite approved for use is the 1962 Roman Missal. The now approved relevant section of the Good Friday prayer pertaining to the Jews is as follows:

Let us pray also for the Jews: that God and Lord would remove the veil from their hearts: that they may also acknowledge our Lord Jesus Christ.

Other prayers call for the conversion of pagans, heretics and others. The phrase “Perfidious Jews” appeared in the 1953 Roman Missal, but the word “Perfidious” was removed because its original meaning (faithless) had since garnered the unfortunate connotation “treacherous”, which was clearly far removed from the original intended meaning. So we can dispense with the anti-Semitic canard that the newly liberated Extraordinary Rite contains a slur on the Jewish people.

Convert all Nations:
Now to the second error: What, exactly, is objectionable about seeking and praying for the conversion of others to the Christian faith? I would expect (perhaps naively) that followers of any religion are persuaded that their faith is true and good and holy, and would therefore seek the conversion of others. If you consider yourself to be a person of religious faith, but do not believe others should be encouraged to discover the same gift you have received, then you should re-examine why you remain a member of your church.

Faith is not a social club; it is an acknowledgement, through grace and will, of the special relationship between you, other people and your creator. Indeed, the only allowable reason for joining a faith community is that you believe the basic tenets of that faith to be true. No other reasons could possibly justify a profession of faith.

In the case of Christians, our duty to encourage and pray for the conversion of other is made quite clear by Christ Himself:

Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. – Matthew 28:19

So let us rejoice in the liberation of the Extraordinary Rite. It is a celebration of Christian heritage and a sound liturgical basis upon which to truly seek the conversion of all nations.

Supremes Get It Right, but the Mounties Sharpen their Knives

2007-07-06T11:32:00.000-07:00

Two very significant developments on the Justice front today; both are unbelievable, but for very different reasons:

Supremes Get it Right on Police Search and Racial Profiling:

Setting up a roadblock and searching two men in a black Jaguar was a justifiable response to a "gun call" outside a Brampton strip club, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled today in a case that helps define the limits of police powers. A 911 call reporting 10 "black guys" with guns outside the Million Dollar Saloon gave police reasonable grounds to believe a serious offence had been committed and there was risk of genuine bodily harm to the public, the court said in a 9-0 decision.

The ruling overturns a powerfully-worded judgment from the Ontario Court of Appeal in 2005 that acquitted Troy Farmer and Wendell Clayton, who were both found carrying loaded handguns after Farmer's Jaguar was stopped at the club's rear exit on Sept. 24, 1999. Ontario's appeal court was highly critical of Peel Region police, saying they case revealed the force had an "institutionally ingrained" disregard for individual liberties.

Writing for the Supreme Court majority today, Justice Rosalie Abella said requiring police to stop only those vehicles described "would impose an unrealistic burden" on officers.

Incredible – the Nine Santas coming down on the side of good old fashioned police work at the expense of gun-toting visible minorities. Sad commentary on western society though – what should have shocked us is that the lower court let two obviously guilty, gun-packing street punks walk. Oh well, score one for the good guys….

From Our Dead Man Walking File:

A career bureaucrat with longtime Conservative ties was named today as the first outsider to head the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in the force’s 134-year history. Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day announced that William Elliott will become commissioner of Canada’s national police force on July 16. …Elliott, a lawyer who has never been a police officer, has been around government since 1988, either as a political staff member of the Conservative Party or in the civil service.

I’m a former copper, and let me tell you how this will end: death by a thousand cuts for Commissioner Elliott. Do the horsemen need their stables cleaned out? You bet. But quasi-military organizations need to be led from the very top, by someone the rank and file know will get their backs because they share a common background. If you’ve never been swarmed at a picket line, pelted with bottles at an arrest, had the sh*t kicked out of you by bandits, lost your own cool or nerve at some point and gotten away with it (or did the kangaroo court two-step), or woken up with the night sweats over that dead baby you delivered, then you cannot and will not ever command the hearts, minds, or respect of the men and women on the front lines.

He will be set up and hung out to dry on a thousand little things, by the people who invented all of the tricks the rest of us just watch on TV.

Smug Liberal Homilies

2007-07-04T13:58:00.001-07:00

The one thing about aging, white liberals is that they like to rage against old, irrelevant wrongdoings and ignore contemporary ones.

I attended a Mass a while back that contained a very disappointing homily. For those who don’t know, a homily is the “sermon” delivered by the priest during a church service. It is usually a short speech, tied in with that day’s Bible readings, that makes some important point or imparts a moral lesson. My local parish priests are among those, however, who don’t like to talk about sin a whole lot; I gather they consider it to be real downer or something. In any event, it’s a big deal therefore when they actually do talk about sin in a homily. So which sin did they pick?

Slavery.

Yup – not the metaphorically-speaking-as-an-analogy slavery – but the full-blown slave ships from Africa slavery. That one.

We actually sat through a 15 minute diatribe, railing against a sin no one in the entire parish actually commits. It was a smug, little, condescending white-guilt platitude designed to make all the old, white liberals feel morally superior.

What ever happened to that whole beam in the eye thing?

Here we had a packed Mass attended by ordinary working people who are challenged by sin every day of their lives. Present no doubt were adulterers, drug users and alcoholics, men who beat their wives, women who nag and spurn their husbands, children who swear and disrespect everyone – and we get a homily on how evil the slave trade was.

What a bloody disgrace.

Here’s a newsflash – a priest’s job isn’t just to comfort the afflicted, sometimes it’s to afflict the comfortable. Christ founded His church to bring salvation to sinners, not to make sinners happy about the status quo.

Christ told people the truth, and they chased Him out of town. We need more priests who are prepared to run fast after a good homily….

Smug Liberal Homilies

2007-07-04T06:51:00.000-07:00

Law and Order: The New Star Trek!

2007-07-03T18:45:00.000-07:00

NBC’s hit TV drama franchise Law and Order is the new Star Trek.

You remember Star Trek, right? I mean the new guy in the red shirt that Capt. Kirk gushes over and invites to join the landing party every episode? You just know he’s toast – he’ll get eaten by a carnivorous plant, or killed by a Romulin. It was a sure thing.

Today, we have the same predictability on L&O. As soon as a rich/privileged white person is introduced into the plot line, you just know how the show will end – whatever horrible crime is under investigation, they will be guilty as hell. Sure, there’ll be an occasional plot twist – sometimes they’ll use their privileged connections to “beat” the charge and get away with it. I actually saw an episode the other day where a snooty, rich white lady – big hat and all, got arrested for buying a poor, black girl as a slave!

Other safe assumptions you can always make about L&O episodes:

If the “ripped from the headlines” plot involves terrorists, they will be white supremacists. There are no Islamic terrorists in Law and Order.
If the plot line involves abortion, pro-lifers will either be murderers or absolute wackos. There are no rational, articulate pro-lifers on L&O.
If the plot involves religion, then controlling, misogynistic, fat, kooky evangelists will be the bad guys. Unless they’re Catholic, in which case they will be self-hating sexual something or others pushed beyond their limits by a conspiring church. Christians are bad people on L&O. Other religions, even voodoo and occult practices, are afforded respect and deference.

Any others you folks can think of?

Liberals and Conservatives - Their Worst and Their Best

2007-07-03T11:50:00.000-07:00

This excellent short essay on the best and worst of Liberalism and Conservatism was written by Ron Rolheiser, OMI and is as timely and accurate a snapshot of all of us at our best and worst:

Houston Smith, who writes textbooks on world religions, suggests that we should always judge a religion by what’s best in it, not by its more strident expressions. The same is true for ideologies. Liberals and conservatives should be judged by what’s best in them, not by their worst expressions.

With that being said, here’s a little snapshot of both, at their worst and at their best:

At their worst, conservatives are mean-spirited, narrow, and grandiose, seeing every liberalizing tendency as dangerous, godless, an enemy, a tyranny of relativity. With much of the outside world perceived as a threat, strident conservatives live a lot by fear and their primary instinct is to protect, circle the wagons, re-entrench, reduce ambiguity, and have clarity trump everything else. They have one litmus text for morality, abortion. Conservatives, at their worst, move more naturally to exclusion rather than inclusion. God becomes a hammer to defend truth. At their worst, conservatives are prone to use power and authority to shut down discussion and to actively remove those who oppose them. If a conservative doesn’t like you, he or she will try to get you fired! Conservatives, at their worst, are overly serious and grandiose - because they see themselves as the sole guardians of God and truth, and how can such an awesome responsibility be taken lightly?

And liberals return the favor: At their worst, liberals are naive, adolescent, and arrogant. For them, every secular challenge to traditional values and religion is the moral high ground and may itself not be challenged. Secular enlightenment is seen as the exclusive agent in having brought about the liberation of human freedom from superstition and false authority. Secular enlightenment is also seen as being the sole agent in the struggle against racism, sexism, and other forms of inequality and injustice. Its litmus tests for morality are pro-choice and gay marriage. As a young liberal complained recently, at a liberal political convention, you can admit that you have had an abortion or are gay, but you may not admit that you take Jesus seriously. Strident liberals tend to be secular fundamentalists and are unable to see and admit that what’s best inside of their own morality comes out of Judeo-Christian roots. If a liberal doesn’t like you he or she probably won’t try to get you fired but they will try to intimidate and shame you intellectually. God isn’t a hammer with which to defend truth, but God is excluded from public discourse.

But that’s conservatives and liberals at their angry worst, it’s not the place where they should be judged. What are they at their best?

At their best, conservatives keep us aware of some important truths:

First, that energy isn’t friendly and we shouldn’t be naive to that fact. Karl Jung once suggested that it is naive to think that energy is friendly, it isn’t. It’s imperialistic, wreaks havoc with our lives and our relationships, and often beats us up like the playground bully. Taboos exist for a reason and the release of energy is in fact often a slippery slope. Next, conservatives highlight: the truth that every kingdom needs to be protected. From our countries, to our neighborhoods, to our marriages, to our families, to our private relationships, something or someone will invariably encroach on our boundaries and it’s naive to think that what’s precious doesn’t need to be protected. Importantly too, conservatives point out that sexuality is not an exempt area within morality and politics. It too has consequences. Finally, conservatives rightly point out that there are some absolutes. Perhaps we can’t always know what they are and perhaps we sometimes draw our boundaries too tightly and live with too much fear and timidity, but there are absolutes that we cannot ignore without seriously hurting ourselves and our world.

At their best, what do liberals bring to the table?

Liberals rightly highlight that freedom is a divine gift, that it has been bought at a great historical price, and that it should never be denigrated or reduced in God’s name. God wants us to be free, and free from fear. The opposite of a liberal is not the church but the Taliban. Next, liberals rightly point out that there are as many dangers in being too safe as there are in taking risks. As Goethe points out, and every parent knows, the dangers of life are many, and safety is one of those dangers. Liberals too rightly point out that historically the golden age of the church was not as golden for non-whites and for women. Finally, and importantly, liberals at their best, challenge us to “catholicity”, namely, to an ever-wider embrace, to an ever-widening openness to what’s other, to the truth revealed by Jesus that God’s heart is not a ghetto but a house with many rooms.

Sadly though, mostly liberals and conservatives fight each other when in fact they badly need each other. Both carry important truths and our culture and our churches would be far healthier if would accept that.

(c) 2007 Ron Rolheiser, OMI

Dimwits can be right wing too....

2007-07-02T05:48:00.000-07:00

So, I posted this little ditty the other day about how the Rule of Law was being suspended for Canadian Aboriginals, and lo and behold my comments section gets filled with raving-lunatic hang-the-injuns crap (I deleted most of them).

My post simply suggested that the protesters should have been arrested just like everyone else, and that this Canadian double standard allowing natives to break any laws they like for the sake of protesting was not an appropriate way to go. I also posted excerpts from Ontario's Police Services Act to argue that police who allowed this lawbreaking to occur were in violation of their very own Code of Conduct.

So what do I get for arguing that the laws of this Country should be upheld (insert liberal shock, gasp)? A bunch of people who think even more laws should be broken by them.

Shut up. You people embarrass me.

Don't Get Mad at the Natives (Updated - Police Neglect of Duty)

2007-06-29T05:06:00.000-07:00

"We're going to have that expression of strength and solidarity across this country," Brant said in an interview near Deseronto, west of Kingston. "Then we'll step back and say: 'You absorb this.' Because the next time we come out, it's going to be harder, it's going to be longer and it's going to have an impact on this economy that Canada can't imagine at this point.
- Shawn Brant, Mohawk Leader

Shawn Brant is absolutely right. He is planning to lead, as he has so often before, illegal protests that will include criminal mischief, trespassing, common nuisance and other unlawful acts. He will close the 401 Highway. He will disable rail lines. He will occupy other people’s property. He will cause millions of dollars in lost productivity, jobs and corporate revenues.

And he will absolutely get away with it.

And – this is the kicker – none of this is Shawn Brant’s fault. He is simply engaging in tactics that we have let him use. It is well-established, as a matter of record, that unlawful, criminal activity organized and undertaken by aboriginal groups will not result in any significant intervention or enforcement action. The OPP may have hired tough-guy Julian Fantino as their new Commissioner, but his testicles clearly weren’t included in the deal. At Caledonia, native protesters occupied land, beat people up, used bulldozers to knock over hydro poles – all in the presence of OPP officers who did absolutely nothing except watch it happen.

So, when your travel plans are disrupted this holiday weekend by native blockades, or your shift gets laid off at the auto parts plant, don’t get mad at Shawn Brant for doing what he clearly has permission to get away with.

Instead, take a long, hard look in the mirror and ask yourself why your government and police services have decided that the laws of this country don’t apply to aboriginals.

Self-emasculation is the new "I am Canadian."

Update: As of this morning (June 29), native protesters wearing balaclavas and some carrying shotguns have closed several highways and rail lines. The OPP are "negotiating" with them. When our society has been reduced to pleading with armed thugs to pleeeeease obey the laws (you know, the ones we don't actually enforce), I'm not sure our society is worth saving anymore....

Update #2: "First Nations protesters are again blocking CN’s rail corridor and the OPP continues to refuse to intervene," said a statement issued by the railway early today. Brant, a 43-year-old Mohawk, is out on bail on previous charges of mischief, disobeying a court order and breach of recognizance in connection with a 30-hour blockade of the nearby CN line April 20. No, he has not been arrested although a warrant has been issued (worthless if not executed).

From the Code of Conduct for Ontario Police Officers: 2. (1) Any … police officer commits misconduct if he or she engages in, (a) Discreditable Conduct, in that he or she (i) fails to treat or protect a person equally without discrimination with respect to police services because of that person’s race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age, marital status, family status or handicap, … (c) Neglect of Duty, in that he or she, (i) without lawful excuse, neglects or omits promptly and diligently to perform a duty as a member of the police force, … iv) fails, when knowing where an offender is to be found, to report him or her or to make due exertions for bringing the offender to justice,

Abortion Clinic Pics and Lost Irony

2007-06-26T14:50:00.000-07:00

Yes, yes, I know – abortion is no laughing matter. But sometimes, the pro-aborts have their heads shoved so deep in the sand that even their most painfully obvious double-speak is lost on them. Take the website of Toronto’s Bloor West Village Women’s Clinic as a prime example of just how forked a tongue can actually become.

They say a picture is worth a thousand words, right? Check this out – the abortion clinic’s website offers a slideshow tour of the clinic, pictures of which I’ve reproduced here with “stating the bloody obvious” running commentary. The headlines below are the photo captions exactly as they appear on the website (click photo to enlarge):

Reception; where you’ll meet some of our friendly staff
(Gee, they must be hiding behind the desk. Don’t these kinds of “welcoming” reception area photos for “health clinics” usually show smiling faces, waiting to greet the customer?)

Have a seat in our waiting room
(What? No smiling, happy customers? No proud women extolling “My body, my choice!”?)

All questions answered by our counsellor
(She must be on the speakerphone. Do the pretty bags help the guilt go away? Do you get two if you abort twins? And take note of the tissue box…it becomes a theme as you’ll see)

Enjoy the view
(Anything but think about that baby you’re about to snuff out. Gee, aren’t those pretty houses…the kind families live in, right? At least there’s more tissue!)

Ultra-sound and procedure room
(Hey, do they get to see the baby’s heartbeat too? Before I mean? Those machines can do that you know….)

Enjoy a variety of snacks and beverages
(Cause there’s nothing like the munchies after offing your kid, right? And just why, do you think, do they seem to need so much tissue? Every recovery chair gets its own box. These women – they’re not, you know, upset and crying are they? Whatever for? It’s just a clump of tissue, a mass of the products of conception, right? Gee, you’d think someone had died or something….)

Seriously folks, if you're about to undergo a procedure at a place where no one will show their faces, and the clients needs counselling and endless boxes of tissue to get through the process, maybe you want to think just a little longer about this irreversible thing you're about to do. (Hint: Women who have had abortions it regret it, but those who didn't, don't).

Wanted - Best Local Confessors!

2007-06-19T09:45:00.000-07:00

It’s time to publish a list of the best confessors in our own dioceses. Please submit in the comments section the name, parish and (arch)diocese of any priest you feel possesses extraordinary pastoral capacity in the administration of the Sacrament of Reconciliation (Penance/Confession).

For the purposes of nominating, please suggest any priest who:

Makes himself available to administer the sacrament outside of regular hours or conventional settings;

Warmly welcomes the penitent into the sacrament;

Has an unusual capacity to ‘tease out’ sin, and assist the penitent in identifying his/her particular occasions of sin;

Makes astute and probing inquiries of the penitent, without being voyeuristic;

Appears to have a firm grasp of the moral challenges facing today’s families and youth, and is able to correctly articulate sin and its occasions for the penitent;

Provides firm guidance, advice and tools that are of practical use to the penitent;

Discerns sometimes unusual (and maybe difficult), but relevant and appropriate penance tailored to suit individual circumstances and needs;

Removes the sense of despair from penitents who feel they cannot escape sin, or who are weak in faith;

Creates an atmosphere of trust, hope, love and forgiveness that can sometimes cause a penitent to reveal past sins previously concealed; and

Fosters an understanding that the conquest of sin may be a long journey, and that neither he nor the church will ever give up hope for the penitent.

This is obviously not an exhaustive list of what makes a good confessor. A sound knowledge of sacramental theology and scripture, personal spiritual health, affective maturity and other factors contribute significantly to the character of priests who administer the sacrament.

That said, it is time to make a list of priests known for their extraordinary abilities in the confessional generally known so that the faithful can avail themselves of the best pastoral resources in their own communities. Too many have been away from this sacrament for far too long, and need to experience this extraordinary gift at its very best.

Comments Note: Due to the sensitive nature of this post, anonymous comments have been enabled to allow those who wish to post without attribution to do so, but my preference is for attributable comments. Also, please take the time to hyperlink the parish or priest name so that others can more easily track them down (which is the whole point here - to embolden others to take advantage of the sacrament). Thanks!

Ego te absolvo a peccatis tuis in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti. Amen.

SSPX in the Jewel of Victoria, BC

2007-05-11T17:03:00.000-07:00

The Society of Saint Pius X in Canada holds monthly services in the historic St. Ann's Academy in beautiful Victoria, British Columbia. I had the pleasure of visiting this historic landmark, officially deconsecrated by the Roman Catholic Church after Vatican II but preserved by the BC Government as a historical site.

The chapel has often been referred to as "The Heart of St. Ann’s". For the Sisters, their lives as Postulants and Novices began in the chapel, and ended there, when they passed away. For students, it was a place of beauty and music, that put them on their best behaviour. Many of the girls received their first Holy Communion there. The chapel became part of St. Ann’s in 1886, when it was added on to the newly built wing of the school and Convent. However, the history of the chapel begins long before that date.

Please enjoy my photos!

Dad vs. Puberty: Part 1

2007-05-03T06:03:00.000-07:00

Actual conversation with my 12 year old son:

Dad, boys like to look at girls’ apples, don’t they?

What?

You know…their apples.

Uhhh…son, do you mean melons?

Yeah, that’s it – their melons.

Son, it’s normal for you to be attracted to girl’s body, but it is rude to refer to body parts that way. They’re called breasts, not melons.

OK Dad.

...

Dad?

Yes son.

Mom’s are more like apples though, aren’t they?

Victim-bashing, Right-wing Nutcase Answers Stupid Liberal Question

2007-04-27T07:50:00.000-07:00

So many folks have begun saying aloud what I have been thinking myself, that a pattern of squishy-left responses has become clear. When anyone dares ascribe cowardice to victims (a la Virginia Tech) who fail to fight back, the retort is almost always “What do you know about it, you keyboard warrior? If you’re such a big man why don’t you go to Iraq and fight terrorists? Until it happens to you, you can’t possibly know how you’d react, so how dare you blame the victims?”

I think I’ll answer that, actually.

What would I do? I would respond with maturity, fortitude and do whatever was required. If, for example, I was accosted on the street by a mugger with a gun who declares "Your money or your life," I would dutifully hand over my wallet and let him be on his way. I would obtain as best a description as I could, then call the police and cancel my credit cards. Rushing my attacker in this case could escalate a non-lethal situation into one where bullets would be flying and any number of people could get killed. Neither my wallet nor my XY vanity is worth it.

Not so with other situations, however. In the case of school shootings, we are all well acquainted with the Modus Operandi: a suicidal maniac, armed to the teeth, will calmly roam the hallways killing as many people as he can until he is either stopped or runs out of bullets, save one, which he will then use on himself. He will, in other words, continue killing for as long as he is permitted by others to do so. Liberals may not like to hear this inconvenient truth, but an obligation falls to other human beings in the area, through no fault of theirs, to actually do something about it. In every situation these victims (those being shot at right now) and potential victims (those who will be shot next) have a choice to make. They can flee, defend or attack. All are appropriate reactions depending on the tactical situation at hand. Three guys barricading a classroom to save twenty others may be a good move in one area of engagement. Five guys rushing the attacker after he passes your doorway, or when he reloads or is firing in another direction, would have also been a good idea at many points. Lining up like cattle while he shoots you one by one will always be a very poor tactical choice. It is called "cowardice".

Please don’t misunderstand me: everyone, and I mean everyone, is entitled to freeze up for a few moments – to be temporarily overwhelmed by disbelief or frozen by shock and terror. As the moments pass and the disbelief fades, however, you will have to make choices about your behaviour – and these you can control. You will be held accountable for them in any event.

This notion about having to have special training or leaving it to the professionals in law enforcement is nonsense. Before 13 year old Marian Fisher was executed by her school shooter, she asked to be shot first so as to protect the younger children. Maybe the shooter would run out of bullets, leaving the youngest to survive, or may be he would have a change of heart after killing her, she must have thought. This child knew a lot more about courage than a lot of the students at Virginia Tech.

Airplane hijackings are, of course, another classic example where the rules are now universally understood by passengers everywhere: If the hijackers get control of the plane, you and lots of other people on the ground will die. There are, depending on the size of the aircraft, always somewhere between 60 and 300 passengers. Ever if there are dozens of well armed hijackers, they don’t stand a chance of getting control of that aircraft if everyone leaps out of their seat and rushes them. I sincerely doubt that there is a single person who would support the idea of going along for a final ride on Jihad Air, just so they could live long enough to see a national monument or F-14 up close. In this tactical situation, cowardice is simply no longer an option.

We are left, really, with simple math:

CRIME = f(CRIMINAL)(VICTIM).

Every single crime requires two things: a perpetrator and a victim. If either of those factors is absent, a crime will not occur. Victims are as much part of this equation as the suspect, and like it or not will therefore have a say in the outcome. This say means making a choice.

I’ve made mine. What’s yours?

PS: I have deliberately left the whole Christian perspective aside, as my post deals with universal morality and realities. For those asking WWJD however, you just have to read Kathy’s take:

Greater love hath no man than this, that he lay down his life for his friend."

That stupid Jesus guy left out all the stuff about being "properly trained first", the differences between this or that caliber gun, and following our "natural instincts".

What a loser, huh?

Are there even any real men left anymore?

2007-04-17T15:08:00.000-07:00

Kathy’s point is well taken; I call them Grief Groupies (or GGs for short) – just a bunch of misery-loving, misguided humanity wallowing in the grief of others to give their empty, pathetic lives some fleeting meaning. Get. A. Life.

One question among many unanswered ones: How did over 50 people get shot without anyone taking the shooter down? Did everyone just hurtle themselves out windows and hide under desks? Would there be over 50 shot and 30 dead if after 2 or 3 victims a few guys with actual testicles rushed the shooter? Flight 93? Anyone? Anyone…?

Seditious cowards, the lot of them. They castrated a once proud nation with twinkles in their eyes, and treason in their souls. Wall. Against. Put. Shot.

Last real man get the lights on your way out….

Giving up Blogging for Lent

2007-02-21T04:00:00.000-08:00

An interesting discussion has started up here and here about the virtue of giving up blogging for Lent. Certainly, a certain amount of satisfaction comes from shooting my mouth off now and then, even when I fail to first load my brain. Perhaps depriving myself of such an outlet would indeed be an appropriate Lenten sacrifice?

Done, then! I will immerse myself in Lenten reading and my ongoing independent study of Ecclesiastical Latin, in lieu of blogging.

And as they say this Ash Wednesday, "Remember that you are dust, and to dust you will return."

Till Easter folks.

The Flipside of the Autism Breakthrough

2007-02-20T13:01:00.000-08:00

Perhaps I am the only one, but I greeted the recent breakthrough in autism research with more than just a little trepidation. My concern, located in the bottom paragraphs after the turn, relates directly to the following snip:

Every week parents of autistic children ask Wendy Roberts, a developmental pediatrician and co-director of the autism research unit at Sick Kids, whether there are prenatal tests to screen for autism. “At this point, we say that we can’t.” The study won’t have any immediate impact on clinical practice, said Roberts, a co-author of the study. It will take time to design a prenatal test for autism, precisely because there are so many genes involved.

Now, you ask, of what possible value could a prenatal test for autism be? To treat it in the womb with some kind of as yet undiscovered gene therapy? Not likely. No, the purpose of prenatal testing for autism would be exactly the same as the reasons behind prenatal testing for cystic fibrosis and Downs Syndrome – to allow the parents to abort the baby and save themselves from a lifetime of having to care for a special needs child. That this so-called "breakthrough" will lead to a cure for autism is probably true enough – but only if you think you ought to cure a disease by killing everyone who has it.

I recall my wife being told to go for an amniocentesis during her pregnancy and upon being told why (her age and the risk of birth defects) we asked what good the information would do – and were told it would allow us to terminate the pregnancy. We looked our doctor right in the eye and told her that we weren’t terminating anything, and where she could stick her needle. You should have seen the look, as if to say "What do you mean you wouldn’t abort a Downs Syndrome child?" All through the pregnancy we constantly had to explain to various medical professionals that the reason the amnio test wasn’t in our file was because we refused to allow one to be done.

Our child, thankfully, is fine. I say thankfully, not because we would not have loved a disabled child, but because we wanted a healthy, happy baby just like every other parent. And what of those parents of autistic children? Would they turn back the clock if they could and abort their child? Their answers are, emphatically, "No."

So, yes, all hail the god of science, but pardon me for not jumping on the eugenics bandwagon to Hell. Call me a simple minded Catholic, but that’s how I feel.

Cure autism? Good. Aborting autistic children? Bad.

Worst Valentine Card Ever

2007-02-14T06:11:00.000-08:00

Catholic Blog Awards 2007

2007-02-07T15:54:00.000-08:00

Well the Catholic Blog Awards are underway again and I would like you to nominate...no, not me actually. My blog is too Mickey Mouse - 30 hits a day, etc. Or, as Kathy Shaidle has been known to say, "There are blogs, and then there are blogs. I'm just sayin."

Or something like that.

Anyway, just do as I did and stop by and nominate a whole bunch of truly worthy blogs. If you need a list, may I humbly suggest to look to my sidebar. They are all worthy.

Merci.

Woodcut Defence League vs. Warren Kinsella

2007-02-06T11:23:00.000-08:00

Warren Kinsella had gone too far. His vicious attack on Norm Spector (to wit: that he "has a web site that resembles a fourteenth-century woodcut, and has the mental acuity of one, too.") is an insult. To woodcuts.

First of all, woodcuts were used in the 15th and 16th centuries, not the 14th. Secondly, they represent an outstanding contribution to literary art and were used extensively to illustrate the connection between the intangible supernatural and the liturgy of the Christian faith. Woodcuts were used throughout the Missale Romanum, the book used by priests for centuries to celebrate the Mass.

About Woodcuts:
The process of creating a woodcut has changed little over the intervening six centuries. Although the quality and shape of the knives used today are somewhat different, the action of making a woodblock is essentially the same.

Choosing wood for the block is the first step in creating a woodcut. In the fifteenth century wood from fruit trees, especially pear trees, was used because of the strength of the wood's grain. These hardwoods could withstand the pressure the printing press exerted on the block and insured that the woodblock could be used repeatedly. Hundreds of legible images could be produced before a new block had to be cut.

Once the block is planed and sanded flat, an image is either drawn directly onto the surface of the block or transferred from another drawing or print. The woodcut artist then uses the lines of the block as a guide, cutting away all the wood that surrounds the lines and leaving the lines in relief. The woodblock is then set onto the bed of a printing press along with type, and ink is applied to the lines on the block and the type. Finally paper is set on top of the block and the action of the printing press forces a transfer of ink to paper, revealing an image which is the reverse of the image on the block. The areas that have been cut away read white, and the lines in relief read black.

Given the obvious contribution of woodcuts in the development of printing throughout the ages, and their pivotal role in the beauty of the Catholic liturgy, I must insist that Warren Kinsella cease and desist immediately his continued defamation of woodcuts by associating them with something so obviously trailing edge as Norm Spector’s website.

The Truth About Rape

2007-01-27T10:41:00.000-08:00

One of the great things about blogging is the ability to tackle explicit subjects shunned in even the most modern mainstream media. As a former police officer, as well as a husband, brother and father, I have something very explicit, but very important, to say to women who have been raped.

This is taboo to discuss, but so be it: Many women fail to report rape because they feel complicit in the crime. The reason? During the rape her body reacted sexually – the vagina produced the usual secretions to ease penetration, the clitoris was stimulated and maybe she even achieved orgasm.

Let’s set the record straight: your body reacted on a purely physical level, and the production of vaginal secretions and related signs of sexual arousal does NOT mean that you liked it, really wanted it or asked for it. And it most definitely does not mean that you encouraged your own rape. Ever.

In the City of God, St. Augustine crafts his own consolatio, an attempt to assuage the suffering of women raped in the sack of Rome. He wrote that women raped in Rome’s fall do not lose their chastity which is a virtue in the soul and does not depend on how others use the body. Even if the body responded mechanically, that does not matter if the soul withheld consent.

Rape is not a crime against a vagina; it is a crime against a person. That crime is not defined by the normal anatomical reactions of masses of nerve endings or other physiological reactions to the sex act. Rape is an assault against a person’s will and dignity; against their will, because the act did not involve a choice on their part, and against their dignity because the act treated them as an object, not a person.

Now you know.

Friends don't let friends do stained glass....

2007-01-21T15:27:00.000-08:00

Personally, I blame Vatican 2....

Shaidle v. Kinsella

2007-01-13T05:58:00.000-08:00

Well for those who follow such things, the internet is chalk full of pi**ing matches between bloggers. When two heavyweights decide to go at it, it actually gets a little…entertaining. Which brings is to the current battle between two Catholic bloggers – Warren Kinsella and Kathy Shaidle.

I feel particularly complelled to comment because:

1. I read and like both blogs
2. I am not myself any kind of significant blogging presence, and if either of them links to this I’ll get more hits in one hour than I usually get in a year, and
3. I feel like it.

The bottom line is that Kathy doesn’t think Warren is a particularly good writer and ego alone shouldn’t qualify him for a writing a gig at the Post. She also thinks him thin-skinned and a liberal hack. Warren thinks Kathy is a gnome and her blogging goes a bit too far in dissing the Religion of Peace (my interpretation). Both have also insulted each other’s physical appearance.

I’ve never met either of them, but I think I would like them if I did, because:

As someone who’s not a professional writer, I can enjoy both styles without assessing relative literary merit;
I like Warren’s family nature - his dedication to his family, his respect for his obviously amazing Dad, his time at the rink and so on. I’m a Dad and a son, so I get it. And I prayed the Rosary for his father.
I like Kathy’s public commitment to her man, and her struggles with befuddled church hierarchy to achieve more formal recognition for what is obviously an amazing pairing; trust me, this Arnie fellow is a lucky guy. A woman with passion…it’s all any man really wants, and who cares if the boots don’t fit? (couldn’t find the link, but avid Relapsed Catholic readers know what I mean.)
Both are political warriors, and not particularly fond of taking prisoners.
Both write what they mean and mean what they write. Like you can find that in the MSM anymore. Not since Steyn left anyway.

So what do you say guys, Pax?

Dumbest Quote by a University Professor. Ever.

2007-01-12T09:21:00.000-08:00

Gagged over this quote by Toronto law professor and author Kent Roach in this morning's Star:

"Some of it may be this failure of imagination or empathy for many Canadians to put themselves in Omar Khadr's shoes. Some of it may be the unpopularity of the family in general and I think some of it is probably related to the fact that he's alleged to have killed an American medic," Roach said yesterday.

Gee, ya think? You need a law degree to figure this stuff out?

Sorry, "professor", but I hardly regard it to be a personal character failing that I can’t put myself in the shoes of a raving fanatic lobbing hand grenades at an ally’s soldiers in a criminal foreign insurgency. And I won’t be crying a river if all of his ilk meet their end with a short drop and sudden stop.

Intervening on behalf of these jokers would only confirm what many of us already suspect – that aside from being an occasional get-out-of-a-hellhole-free card, Canadian citizenship is as about as valuable as Canadian Tire money.

It ends with a bang and a wimper, apparently

2006-12-31T06:06:00.000-08:00

So ends Saddam Hussein. Wonder what Iranian and North Korean leaders are thinking right now?

(Caution - video is graphic).

Cardinal Flunks Catechism 101, Supports Saddam

2006-12-28T10:01:00.000-08:00

From today’s news at Associated Press:

A top Vatican official condemned the death sentence against Saddam Hussein in a newspaper interview published Thursday, acknowledging the crimes of the ousted Iraqi leader but reiterating that capital punishment goes against the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. Cardinal Renato Martino, Pope Benedict's top prelate for justice issues and a former Vatican envoy to the United Nations, said that Saddam's execution would punish "a crime with another crime" and expressed hope that the sentence would not be carried out. In the interview with Rome daily La Repubblica, Martino reiterated the Vatican's staunch opposition to the death penalty, saying that life must be safeguarded from its beginning to its ``natural" end. "The death penalty is not a natural death. And no one can give death, not even the State," he said.

My my my. The Vatican has a "staunch opposition" to the death penalty, does it? Violates the "teachings" of the Catholic Church? Really?

Uh…not so much. The teachings of the Catholic Church are, in fact, publically available to anyone who cares to instruct themselves in such matters. In the case of the death penalty, the church does not now, nor has it ever, opposed capital punishment, per se – viz:

Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor. If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

So, while it would be fair to say that the Catholic Church is not a big supporter of the death penalty, it does not hold that capital punishment and the Christian faith are mutually exclusive, nor does it teach that the death penalty in and of itself violates the teachings of the Church.

Sigh. Maybe the red hat’s too tight or something, but wouldn’t be nice if the man responsible for propagation of the Church’s teachings on justice issues had actually, you know, read the Church’s teachings on justice issues?

UPDATE: The wicked witch is dead.

Christmas instructions for Christians

2006-12-22T06:31:00.000-08:00

A few parting instructions for fellow Christians this Christmas, to help you all navigate all the Political Correctness (PC) out there – not to mention all those workers busy relocating Christmas trees back and forth, depending on where the PC roulette wheel landed:

1. No matter your church affiliation, for the next few days, if religion comes up just say you are a "Christian" – not Baptist, or Catholic, or Methodist. If you are a loyal member of the United Church of Canada, however, you’re still required to answer either "Pagan” or "Atheist." Sorry.

2. Being a Christian in a pluralistic democarcy does not mean your belief system gets suppressed in favour of minority views. It means that CHRISTmas gets celebrated with no less joy and tolerance than everything else.

3. Wish people a "Merry Christmas" and mean it, unless you know for certain they belong to another faith tradition. Err, in other words, on the side of Christ.

4. Attend at least one real Christmas Concert. I know, I know – you’ve already been to your kid’s "Winter Celebration" where all that stuff about Jesus is hummed instead of sung, but just once track down a real Christmas Concert with all the traditional carols and attend – and no, it doesn’t matter if it’s at a church other than yours. Yes, even if it’s an Anglican Christmas Concert, just go.

5. Pray, just once, for everybody – especially for people you can’t stand. Storm the gates of heaven for them. Forgive them everything. Please.

6. Create or visit a Nativity. They’re disappearing and if you don’t normally have one as part of your family tradition, start one. Make one. Buy one. Whatever.

7. Most importantly, no matter what anyone else thinks, just act like a Christian. Tell someone how happy you are that Christ was born. Let people see you being a good Christian. True ecumenism is conversion by example - not that water-down-that-convert-all-nations crap. As St. Francis said, "Preach always – if necessary, use words."

8. And have a Merry Christmas everyone: Eat, drink, hug your kid, make love to your wife/husband, pray – and feel free to mix up the order.

I’m doing it all....

Quick! While they're all in one place!

2006-12-12T15:12:00.000-08:00

Holocaust conference in Tehran denies...the Holocaust.

Surrender Monkey for PM?

2006-12-06T18:43:00.000-08:00

Stephane Dion thinks there is nothing wrong with the Prime Minister of Canada being a foreign national. Stephene Dion, the self-styled nationalist, refuses to dispense with a foreign citizenship.

Either Stephane Dion is stupid, or he thinks we are. Does this man seriously not understand the most elementary concept of citizenship? A citizen owes a legal and fiduciary obligation to the nation affording him citizenship, period. When present in a country of which he is a citizen, he becomes subject to all of the requirements demanded by that citizenship from time to time.

Conscription. Tax laws. Laws pertaining to treason, sedition, political activity – everything. And folks, the French (unlike Canada) take their citizenship very seriously. Just ask all those car-burning Islamic guest workers.

Election slogan? Easy – “Vote for the Canadian”

Dion. Is. Toast.

It’s over baby….

Murder Bias

2006-12-05T06:00:00.000-08:00

Why is it then when a man commits murder-suicide the media (quite rightly) don’t immediately start lamenting about his problems or mental health issues, but instead focus on the innocent victims of his heinous criminal act – usually his wife and children. When a woman commits exactly the same evil crime, however, everyone suddenly becomes a pop psychologist and trips all over themselves trying to hand her a harp and strap a pair of wings on her.

The media’s collective mind is so open to every mitigating theory of the crime, brains are falling out all over TV. Just look at the language being used to describe this killing: the baby wasn’t thrown off the bridge, they “plunged” or even worse he “jumped with his mother.” It wasn’t even a murder at all in most reports, but a “tragedy”, as if they’d been killed in a traffic accident or something. Not a single article appears without some kind of authoritative quotes from medical experts about depression, despite the fact that they know as much about these two people and their circumstances as you and I – not a bloody thing.

So you will please excuse me for offering this nowhere-else-to-be-found alternate theory of this week’s latest murder-suicide-by-mother: Maybe she was just an evil, murdering, twisted killer who’s choking back the flames in that special corner of Hell reserved for parents who betray the ultimate trust bestowed upon them.

The true facts will become known in the coming days, weeks and months. But until they are known, the above theory is just as supported by the known evidence as all the crap filling our morning papers.

And until we know differently, I will pray for Sunna Genua. He’s the little boy murdered this week by his mommy.

As for his mother…I will defer to His perfect judgement in such matters.

Paging Mrs. Dion

2006-12-03T08:20:00.000-08:00

Anyone know why the new Liberal leader's wife or daughter wasn't on stage with him, or anywhere with him at the convention? Why they never appear together?

Hey, just askin...I'm one of those backward voters who like their chosen political leaders to be family people, etc.

So I'm...just askin.

UPDATE:
OK, I found a pic of Dion embracing his family on stage after winning the leadership, as is always the case:

OK, so you can't really see them all that well, but they're there. Trust me.

As for his passion, well just check out these embraces:

Letters, Redux

2006-12-03T04:11:00.000-08:00

Welcome to a new feature here at Upper Canada Catholic, where we will apply the "turnabout is fair play" rule to the most moronic, left-wing letters to the editor we can find. For our inaugural letter, here is Joe Tatarnic's passing contribution to sodomite sophistry in today's Toronto Star:

Beware Shrill Protests on Same-Sex Marriage

Unedited original:

With the re-opening of the same-sex marriage debate in Parliament next week, we must expect the possibility of well-organized campaigns calling for the legislation's reversal. Do not be swayed by their shrillness. These events will be organized by well-financed minorities who, due to their social conservatism or religious bias, have a vested interest in overturning the same-sex marriage bill and curtailing other people's freedom and rights.

Thanks for clarifying that Joe - we now understand that there are no religious views or values which can legitimately inform public policy - just religious "bias." Also, we appreciate the fact that our views can be dismissed because they come from "minorities"; this is a new liberal position we haven't heard before. Tell us, Joe, which other minorities is our allegedly democratic society allowed to dismiss out of hand? The list, please...we'd really like to know what the hidden liberal agenda is here.

Joe, because you choose to support same-sex marriage not by defending it directly, but by launching vapid sophistry missiles at people who oppose it it, your letter has been chosen to be rewritten by Upper Canada Catholic editors.

The New and Improved Version:

With the re-opening of the same-sex marriage debate in Parliament next week, we must expect the possibility of well-organized campaigns calling for the legislation's approval. Do not be swayed by their shrillness. These events will be organized by well-financed minorities who, due to their sexual preferences or anti-religious bias, have a vested interest in saving the same-sex marriage bill and curtailing other people's freedom and rights.

Next time, Joe, try making an actual argument.

Cardinal's latest pastoral letter rocks Toronto

2006-11-22T06:59:00.000-08:00

Every now and then people ask me why I became a Catholic. Well, if I had to give the shortest possible I would simply say that this is the reason. Or, if you like, this. This also serves as an excellent example of the very same reason – because Catholicism speaks the truth – to me, and to everyone else.

Let us take the latest example of an exceptionally articulated act of truthful leadership from the mouth of non-other than our very own Toronto Archbishop, Aloysius Cardinal Ambrozic. His most recent pastoral letter, Religion and Gain, is arriving in Toronto households this week and speaks directly to the abuse of the word values in today’s society:

The reason for my negative reaction seems to lie in the fact that the talk of values strikes me as very neutral. The word admits that for someone else my value may be quite valueless. The term communicates, in fact, our acceptance that what we take as valuable may be quite meaningless in somebody else's eyes. In other words, I react negatively to the word simply because it contains a possibility of relativism and meaninglessness. …There is the attitude that the dialogue takes place without any attempt to change anyone's mind. All discussion of values is useless. Any attempt to change anyone's mind is, in fact, unacceptable and even unecumenical.

His Eminence is just getting warmed up, however, for a full-frontal assault on today’s big lie – that there are no set morals or values which are true for all people in all times, and which ought to be obeyed. I share the Cardinal’s view that we are living in a time where nothing is true, and the greatest virtue is the pursuit of new truths we create for ourselves:

It seems that the only value that is universal in our society is that of the glorified ego. The notion predominates that all our views must be measured by our sovereign likes and dislikes. This notion seems to be at the basis of our democratic conviction and practice; my ego is thought to be the only authority which counts. There is no truth and value apart from what I like or dislike. The difficulty is, however, that this sovereign ego is not a neutral value -- just because it is generally accepted. It is, clearly, a one-sided myth.

This, of course, has very practical consequences for all of us and the society in which we live – and die:

If we wish to have proof of the mythical quality of our sovereign ego, it lies in the fact that it is quickly becoming something else, that is to say, a productive ego, a unit of economic utility. It is this productive human being whose "value" is beginning to fray at both ends of the life spectrum. Our society has already accepted the principle of abortion, and there is a growing number of people defending euthanasia. Whatever the reasons proclaimed by them, children learning from this type of society will get rid of their old people as soon as they become economically unproductive.

Cardinal Ambrozic pulls no punches – his next target is another sacred cow of western civilization – democracy, or more particularly the perversion of it into an instrument of selfishness:

The notion very much at home in some of our media and the programmes of some political parties, seems to be basic and unquestioned, though it can hardly be said to be neutral, that the well-fed, fully employed and economically secure individual will remain honest and democratic. However, this self-seeking and self-justifying individual, seeking his own economic advantage, will hardly proclaim the values of honesty and respect for others. The point we must stress again and again is that our society is basing itself on an ideologically un-neutral notion of the sovereign individual. …Before I feel that I must be honest, I must be convinced that there is a God who demands that honesty. God is greater and far more important than democracy and financial honesty. Should democracy become an end in itself, should we have no reason whatever apart from our "social" obligation to be honest and non-violent, self-controlled and tolerant, then we become victims of our own prejudices and predilections. The only way for democracy to survive is to accept the two great commandments which Jesus has given us, the love of God first, and the love of neighbour. It is only if we know that God is greater than us, that God is greater than anything else in the world, that we can then accept His commands, whether they serve us or not, whether they are useful to us or not, that we shall live in true freedom and democracy.

It is said that in today’s world, mass communications should be written at a grade six reading level. I’m told that most major dailies follow this plain language rule, and it is refreshing that our local Ordinary feels no such compunction. He consistently produces homilies and pastoral letters of the highest, truthful character that if followed would make this City one of the best places in the world.

Dominus Vobiscum Cardinal

Ailing Toronto Cardinal Celebrates Special Mass

2006-11-21T06:35:00.000-08:00

I had the good fortune to attend last Sunday's official dedication and consecration of St. Gabriel’s Passionist Parish in Toronto. His Eminence Aloysius Cardinal Ambrozic, Cardinal Archbishop of Toronto (pictured left, swiped from the Parish site), celebrated the special Mass consecrating the new church building during the well attended Mass.

The Cardinal was in good spirits, his obvious health issues notwithstanding. He even cracked a joke about being given the bum's rush when the lights dimmed accidentally during his homily. My own impression was that this great man was imitating the example of the late John Paul II whose attention to duty and service would not be circumscribed by debilitaing health issues or obvious pain and ambulatory issues.

Bottom line: it was a good Mass in a nice, new (although very monastic) church, celebrated by an ailing Ordinary setting the best possible example for his flock.

Stewardship indeed.

Maybe Toronto does suck after all

2006-11-13T13:35:00.000-08:00

It just does, sorry. My main reasons are here, but at least I did go vote today, although I'm not too sure why. This election's such a sleeper I'm sure the news copy is already written and off to the presses: "All incumbents were re-elected with wide margins, 30% turnout lowest ever, blah blah blah."

Anyway, I couldn't stomach voting for Pitfield, even though she's running on the platform most closely aligned with my own take on things. Trouble is, Jane doesn't believe any of it. She's just taking opposite sides to whatever Miller says in the faint of winning votes from everyone Miller's pi**ed off in the last three years. If I honestly thought she believed in anything other than getting elected Mayor, I'd have voted for her. Honest.

Anyway, I voted for this Toronto blogger instead. WTF.

Throw in a dozen Krispy Kremes and you got a deal

2006-04-13T05:44:00.000-07:00

Firing the host who made the death threat was probably the right thing to do, but the Catholic League is right to call CBS on its double standard:

After comparing Mother Teresa to Charles Manson, Jillette again said she “got her [sexual] kicks watching people suffer and die.” He concluded by saying, “Paris Hilton. You’re so much better than that. Don’t take the gig. Keep making good wholesome porno films. Just do that. Do what you’re cut out for. Don’t lower yourself to playing Mother Teresa.”

Subsequent to Jillette’s remarks, John London, a radio talk-show host on KIFR/San Francisco (a CBS station that carries Jillette’s show), said that he would offer “$5,000 to the person that kills Jillette” for his attack on Mother Teresa. He added that if Jillette “suffers, I’ll make it $7,000.” London, and his producer, Dennis Cruz, were then fired by the CBS management in New York.

Reason # 512 to send your kid to Catholic school

2006-04-12T09:26:00.000-07:00

"A grade three teacher in BC has developed a lesson plan ostensibly to teach schoolchildren 'tolerance,' encouraging the message that same-sex attraction is healthy and normal, as depicted in the homosexual cowboy movie Brokeback Mountain."

James Chamberlain, notorious for taking the Surrey School Board to the province's Supreme Court so he could incorporate same-sex story books like One Dad, Two Dads, Brown Dads, Blue Dads into his kindergarten curriculum, encourages teachers to first take their classes to see the film."

H/T to Kathy.

City Council assumes queer new mandate...

2006-04-07T13:11:00.000-07:00

...to meddle in things not normally associated with municipal jurisdiction.

Ready for a laugh? I mean a real laugh? OK - have a look at San Francisco's municipal resolution condemning the Vatican, passed unaminously by council (which includes Catholics). I especially like the reference to the Inquisition. Can't be anti-Catholic without mentioning the Inquisition. Everyone knows that.

This, of course, is a total slam dunk. I wonder how San Francisco's ratepayers feel about the nice, big cheque they're going to write to the Catholic League? Might help fund many, many more of these.

Hilarious. Absolutely hilarious. The Gates of Hell are indeed wide enough....

Her kid can play with my kid anytime

2006-04-04T06:45:00.000-07:00

Sorry Anchoress, lock your kid in his room until he writes "I promise to accept the Sacrament of Holy Orders" 500 times. I mean, he's already a priest in the ways that matter, so he should make it official, don't you think? The following is from the mouth of a 16 year old boy, as related by his mother. Check it out:

“How exactly,” Buster asked me. “I’ve read that the Eucharist has been stolen for use in black masses - but what do they do with it, actually?” I don’t like talking about this stuff, but I related a little - that some have put the Consecrated Host upon an “altar” and stabbed it, or sliced it, so as to “stab” Christ. “They believe, as we do, that the Eucharist is the actual, physical Presence, the Body and Blood of Christ,” I explained. “That’s why Wonder Bread and Grape Juice won’t do. They want the Consecrated Host - they know what it is. Sometimes the desecrations can be tearing it up and stomping on it, or doing disgusting things to it. And sometimes the Host is even abused sexually. Just as sexual abuse or rape is about power and control and domination, someone who sexually abuses a Host, sees it as controling and dominating Christ.”

“But, it’s a Gift,” Buster said, “So they only cheat and hurt themselves.”

I was a little confused. “What do you mean, which is the Gift, the Holy Eucharist, or sexuality?” “Both,” he said. “They’re both gifts, but I’m talking about the Gift of the Body of Christ. Christ gave himself to us - freely - of his own free will. A Gift freely given. If someone takes the Gift and spits on it or whatever - they’re only destroying what was given to them, they are destroying what is “theirs.” They don’t in any way destroy the Giver of the Gift, or lessen the Giver…OR the Gift. So they have no power over it, they can’t dominate it. All they can do is destroy themselves within themselves.”

Read the whole thing here. And Buster's mom just got blogrolled here, which oughta add like three hits a month to her sitemeter, or something.

Bloody amazing. When I think of the waste I made of my 16th year I just want to hug her kid....

Another Franciscan Warrior!

2006-04-03T08:28:00.000-07:00

You know what? I’m really getting to like these Franciscans. First, I hear about the one who led an army that saved Europe from being conquered by he Mohammedans (too bad they played the long game, and won Europe anyway using differential birth rates and failed immigration polices as the weapons of choice, but I digress). Next, I read about St. Francis himself, rejecting what we now call 20th century ecumenism in favour of – wait for it – actually converting Muslims to Christianity. And now, we have the example of Friar Michael Seed who seems to have a knack for converting membership of the British political oligarchy to the faith.

Father Michael has reportedly been saying private Masses at 10 Downing Street for British Prime Minister Tony Blair, whose closeness to the Church has been one of those poorly kept secrets for years:

Tony Blair has been attending private Roman Catholic Mass with Father Michael Seed, prompting speculation that he plans to become a Catholic when he leaves
office.

Father Michael, who is well known for converting establishment figures to Catholicism, was reported in The Sunday Times to have held services for the Blair family at Downing Street and at Chequers, the Prime Minister's country residence.

Read the whole thing here. Hat tip to Amy. And say a prayer to St. Francis that these examples will spread throughout the Order of Friars Minor.

Link Policy

2006-04-02T10:25:00.000-07:00

I thought a quick explanation of my link policy over here at Upper Canada Catholic was in order, since for some reason I have received about a half dozen requests in the last month to get added to my Blogroll on the right-hand sidebar.

So here it is:

My Blogroll consists of blogs I read pretty regularly, and that I feel comfortable putting out there as an open invitation for others to read as well. Sometimes blogs get nixed because I'm told they've shut down or otherwise gone on hiatus (City of God, Island Catholic, etc.).

I do not have a reciprocal linking policy. Over half of my Blogroll does not link back to me, which is totally OK! Likewise, if I don't reciprocate a link you've made to me it's not personal. I may still read you occasionally, but not regular enough to add you to the Blogroll I click through daily myself. Yet.

So now you know. As you were....

Terri Schiavo: A Catholic Contrarian Confesses

2006-04-02T07:28:00.000-07:00

In the past year I have read a lot about Terri Shiavo in the Catholic blogosphere, and am acutely aware of the Church’s position about the removal of her feeding tube and subsequent death, and those of many great blogging minds. Now I wish to come clean:

I agreed with the removal of her feeding tube.

I remain greatly troubled by the fact that so many people in whom I hold great esteem remain steadfastly committed to their position that what occurred was nothing short of premeditated murder, and possibly torture. When so many great and decent people hold such strong views contrary to my own, my first, second and third inclination is to think that they are right and I am wrong. I ask myself “What am I missing here?” A year on, and the answer remains “I still don’t know. I don’t think I’m missing anything.”

Her autopsy found that most of Ms.Shiavo’s brain had turned to mush, and doctors described her particular vegetative state as unrecoverable (confirmed by autopsy), and “cruel” in that it allowed her to appear responsive to stimulus (light, touch) in a way that mimicked normal, human responses – thus allowing loved ones to more easily deceive themselves as to her prognosis.

Now her husband may or may not have been a class one prick, or even a killer or adulterer – I have no idea, and I’m not sure it mattered as far as Ms. Shiavo’s unrecoverable vegetative state was concerned. I am quite certain that I would never want to be nursed ad infinitum as a hooked-up cadaver, and frankly it seems hard to see the medical facts in her case as anything other than just that. As I wrote recently, medical science can now sustain life through extraordinary means almost indefinitely (and the “almost” is about to disappear), and this has very real repercussions for our society.

One outcome of this affair was that I signed a living will making it very clear that my plug is to be pulled, and my family is to move on; life is for the living, and it is already too short.

Terri Schiavo’s tombstone says she departed this Earth back in 1990 at the time of her original cardiac arrest. Honestly folks, that sounds about right to me. I think that despite mustering all of my cognitive abilities I was unable to come round to other’s way of thinking really sucks. Honestly, I do. If you think you can convince me otherwise, I promise to open my mind.

But don’t get your hopes up.

I'm No. 2!

2006-03-31T07:26:00.000-08:00

Free publicity Tim Horton's doesn't want - I'm the number two hit right after the corporate home page when "Tim Hortons roll up the rim" is searched!

Right back atcha Timmy....

Armed Franciscans - Where have you gone?

2006-03-30T06:51:00.000-08:00

Too often we read stories about how much our religious priests* have marched off to join the loony left. In the spirit of ecumenism (as opposed to the Holy Spirit, I suppose) many religious have jettisoned the entire notion of evangelization – especially as it pertains to Muslims. In the interests of setting the record straight, I must tell you – ‘twasn’t always so:

He [St. Francis] … crossed the Crusader lines to visit and have an audience with the caliph. …Francis wasn't a 20th-century ecumenist -- he probably tried to convert the caliph.

Q: Did St. Francis view Muslims as Christian heretics or infidels? What was his understanding of Islam in the scheme of Providence?
Cunningham: …My educated guess is that Francis thought Muslims, like the Jews, needed to be converted to Christianity. Also, any theologian in Francis' time that knew anything about Muslims would know the Koran explicitly denies the doctrine of the Trinity; "ipso facto," that makes them heretical.

ZENIT has the whole thing here, while Thirsty Scribe recalls a Franciscan Friar who actually picked up a sword and led the army that saved Europe:

At age 70 [Franciscan Friar St. Giovanni (Juan) Capistrano] led an army against 'Mohammed II the conquerer' (who inspired the same dread that Osama bin Laden inspires today). The defensive battle pitted 24,000 Christians against 80,000 Muslim Turks and their 300 cannons. He won, and saved Europe from the conquering Muslims.

Gives a whole new meaning to “Preach always. If necessary, use words”, doesn’t it?

(*Religious priests are those who have been ordained by religious orders (i.e. monks), and they differ from secular or diocesan priests who receive ordination directly through a diocese. Unlike religious priests, diocesan priests do not take a vow of poverty and assume primary responsibility for their own finances, housing and care.)

Like they really needed another reason...

2006-03-27T15:56:00.000-08:00

"...the family of freed Christian peace activist James Loney kept his sexual orientation quiet out of fear for his safety.
"Doug Pritchard says the family feared Mr. Loney might come to harm at the hands of his Iraqi captors had they known he was gay."

The heresy that just keeps on giving.

Now was that so hard?

2006-03-25T05:10:00.000-08:00

Yesterday, the Christian Peacemaker Teams issued a belated thank you to those who saved their members. "We are grateful to the soldiers who risked their lives to free Jim, Norman and Harmeet. As peacemakers who hold firm to our commitment to non-violence, we are also deeply grateful that they fired no shots to free our colleagues," they said in a statement.The irony was not lost on them or on those involved in the rescue. The military they opposed had saved them.

Read it all here. Interesting is how The Star and other lefty media are distancing themselves from the group too:

The Peacemaker crisis raises another question, about the appropriateness of Peacemaker-type intervention in an anarchic place like Iraq where foreigners are easy targets. ... they put themselves at great risk, put their loved ones through a nightmare of worry and put their rescuers at risk. The murderers who snatched them were blind to the Peacemakers' good intentions. Instead, the captors used the Peacemakers as pawns, murdered Fox, and threatened to kill the others unless foreign troops left Iraq, and Iraqi detainees were freed. The Peacemakers must now consider whether the good they seek to do by exposing themselves to harm in Iraq outweighs the danger, not just to themselves, but to others. The answer should be obvious.

Worthless, undeserving rabble freed by real men

2006-03-23T06:03:00.000-08:00

What she said.

Utter, heretical hypocrites. The lot of them.

Wretched, imperfect faith - a neophyte's journey

2006-03-21T18:42:00.000-08:00

As my neophyte year draws to a close, I am reminded of a great speech given by Ronald Reagan where he said of his political rivals, “It’s not that our Democratic friends are ignorant – it’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.” Well, that’s my worry – that my “convert zeal” is robbing me of a true understanding of prayer and scripture. Church is meant to be the connection between God and man – a connection that is necessary. But there’s so much to understand, and this recipient is too often found wanting (I am sure) by his Creator.

When I pray to the Saints for their intercession, do they laugh? When I pray the Rosary, does Mary listen or turn her attention to more worthy recipients - or say, “What a silly man playing with beads”? If she did turn away, would she not be right to do so? Why should my prayers be answered when there is so much suffering and genuine need in the world? I have a wonderful family, and others cannot even conceive – should their prayers for a chance to be parents not be preferred over mine? Is my prayer not selfish when it seeks aid for me or my family?

These thoughts and doubts plague me all too often. My faith is “strong in weakness” yet it never leaves me completely. I do not seek a miracle or divine revelation. I have no desire to see God’s face in a potato or a bleeding statue. I just want something between me and that son of a b*tch Satan. So I pray, and read and go to Mass.

On the upside, as a neophyte I enjoy homilies that explain scripture – especially the parables. I remember hearing the one about the field or the prodigal son and thinking “Man, I agree with those workers who spent the whole day working in the field wanting more money than the guys who showed up just before dark” or “If I was that good son I’d be really p*ssed too” – only to be granted an “A ha!” moment when it all got explained. But part of my heart is never fully converted to the right way of seeing the explanation, and holds back.

I’m sorry to say it – but Easter is hard for me. Why should Christ have died for me when I clearly doubt I’m worth it? I have never seen the movie Passion of the Christ. Know why? I couldn’t hack it. Since I believe – no, I know – He died for me, I just can’t watch it knowing I don’t deserve it.

Man, that is so whacked.

Off skiing....

2006-03-13T09:00:00.000-08:00

...with the family till the 21st. I'll try not to break anything. Be good! Check out my blogroll for recently updated pearls of wisdom while I'm recharging the batteries - thanks!

UPDATE FROM JESUSLAND: Attended a great Mass in the most amazing church I have personally laid eyes on. Wow.

Marine Corps Deserter - Dumbass...or not?

2006-03-13T07:55:00.000-08:00

Mr. Abney, a grandfather, was arrested as he went with his wife, Adrienne, across their local border crossing in the East Kootenays region of B.C. for a brief holiday in Reno, a crossing they had made many times without any problems.

Not this time. Border officials ran the couple's passports through their database, and Mr. Abney's 1968 desertion showed up.

His last words to his wife were: "They're putting me in jail."

U.S. Marines spokesman Lieutenant Lawton King said the Marines never forget.

OK - two things: First, you've got to finish what you start - the United States is absolutely right to prosecute this deserter. Second, that being the case, why exactly did it take so long? Why was this deserter allowed to cross back and forth between Canada and the United States endlessly for decades - only to be "caught" now?

Something's wrong here. I'm just sayin.

Your Parish might be really liberal if...

2006-03-12T07:42:00.000-08:00

Your Parish might be left wing if…

The Pastor often speaks in glowing terms about how our “Protestant friends worship”
Notwithstanding what the Congregation for Divine Worship has to say about it, the Sacred Vessels are wicker baskets lined with napkins
A healthy supply of Christian Peacemaker Team envelopes and propaganda are available at the end of each Mass
The Stations of the Cross are “contemporary” versions; photographs of police beating back demonstrators in Latin America and Vietnam war protestors replace scenes of Christ and His cross
The church building looks like an insurance company office building; there is no crucifix
The RCIA program teaches that the Catholic Church scares away too many converts because of our “worship” of Mary and “misunderstanding” of confession
In the Sacrament of Reconciliation, the Priest does not actually “give” absolution for sins – the Sacrament merely “celebrates” the fact that God forgives sins as soon as you regret them
The processional crucifix is a “Risen Christ” (the one that looks like an action figure jumping off the cross)
The Pastor declines to bless water because “all water is already Holy”
Homilies often refer to the “future role” women will play in the Catholic Church, and the need for marriage to embrace “all love”

Yes, very witty, etc. The problem is that I have actually described pretty much my home Parish. As a neophyte convert, I am troubled by the idea of, well, making trouble for the Parish, my son or myself. Even though all these things strike me as wrong to some degree, it also occurs to me that as Johnny-come-lately I shouldn’t be questioning the guidance of a Pastor with so much experience and who is, frankly, a wonderful and kind man.

So…how have others handled this?

Did you know...?

2006-03-10T08:51:00.000-08:00

Did you know that religious services in Canada (including the Mass) are afforded special, legal protection? It’s true. It is illegal to impede a clergyman from attending to his duties or to disturb or interrupt a religious service. According to Section 176 of the Criminal Code of Canada:

176. (1) Every one who

(a) by threats or force, unlawfully obstructs or prevents or endeavours to obstruct or prevent a clergyman or minister from celebrating divine service or performing any other function in connection with his calling, or

(b) knowing that a clergyman or minister is about to perform, is on his way to perform or is returning from the performance of any of the duties or functions mentioned in paragraph (a)

(i) assaults or offers any violence to him, or
(ii) arrests him on a civil process, or under the pretence of executing a civil process,

is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.

(2) Every one who wilfully disturbs or interrupts an assemblage of persons met for religious worship or for a moral, social or benevolent purpose is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

(3) Every one who, at or near a meeting referred to in subsection (2), wilfully does anything that disturbs the order or solemnity of the meeting is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Furthermore, under Canada’s powers of arrest, anyone asked by an official in charge of the Church's property can arrest an offender found committing these offences using as much force as is required, following which the person is to be turned over to the police. I recall a local story of a man being pursued by store security for shoplifting, who ran into a Catholic church during Mass. Police arrived and waited out the Mass before arresting the man, for the very reason of not wanting to flout this section themselves.

Just thought I’d mention it in case these unsettled times result in unfortunate incidents in your church one day.

A Marriage Guide for Men

2006-03-05T19:22:00.000-08:00

As a 30-something male who has been married for 16 years, and who is feeling magnanimous, I have decided to share my learning with younger men considering embarking upon a similar journey of marital bliss. Women, please click here now. Men, for your general edification the following may be duly classified as “lessons learned and duly conferred”:

On Property:
The wedding ceremony seals her entitlement to your assets. When you were single and bought her whimsical gifts, it was your money. Now, when you buy her flowers or a little something, you are “wasting” money. What’s hers is hers and what’s yours is “ours.” Discretionary income spent on your hobbies and pastimes is considered to be of marginal utility to the “family” and will soon become a source of tension. Sorry. At some point she may even tell you not to send her flowers on Valentine’s Day because it’s a waste of money. She is lying. If that delivery man doesn’t show up at her office with a bouquet you are toast. And toast sleeps on the couch.

On Buying a House:
Your opinions on absolutely everything will be sought (the size of closets, width of hallways, number of cupboards, etc.) endlessly. Should your opinions differ from hers, they will be re-solicited until such time as they change to conform to her already settled opinions. It is required that you take an active interest in all such matters, and appear to retain a perfect, photographic recollection of every detail of every house you have ever seen. When asked “Honey, do you remember the cute split-level we saw with the burber carpet?” the only acceptable response is “Of course I do snookims.” You will purchase the house she wants, and assume all responsibility for negotiating the price she is willing to pay. The fact that she exclaimed “This is PERFECT honey – we can DEFINITELY afford this house now that you got your big bonus!” in the presence of the vendor’s agent must not be used as an excuse for failing to negotiate a more advantageous closing price. Ever.

On Arguments:
Remember all those courses you took on logical reasoning, dialectics and the Socratic Method? Excellent. Now forget them. There is no greater screw up in a marriage than winning an argument with your wife. You could back a truckload of evidence up to the door and get the Supreme Court to rule in your favour, and it would only nail your coffin shut that much more. End all arguments with “You’ve really given me something to think about” or “You’re right; I hadn’t thought of it like that before. Sorry.”

On Other Women:
For reasons never fully explained, your wife will occasionally solicit your opinions on the physical qualities of other women. This usually occurs immediately following her own offering of sometimes indiscreet opinions, so as to set an atmosphere of trust and to facilitate an equally erudite response from you. Do not EVER engage in this type of exchange. If your wife exclaims “Did you see what Sue was wearing at the beach party today!” and the Sue in question was a 42DD in a mesh tube top at a volleyball game, the answer is “Sorry honey, no, Bob and I were talking about the game.” Experience has shown that the following observations in particular are to be studiously avoided:

“You're right honey; your sister’s breasts are kind of perky I guess – just like yours used to be!”

“Yeah, she is kind of attractive, isn’t she?”

“Hey honey, remember when you used to wear a dress like that?”

On Sex:
I know – you got married in part so that you could have disease-free, guilt-free sex with the woman you love anytime you want. Sucker. You will have as much sex as your wife wants; which is fine, so long as she wants the same amount and kind of sex you do. Which she probably will – for about a couple of years or kids – whichever comes first. After that, I’m afraid it’s going to be a lot harder. Yes, that was a double entendre.

The first thing you need to understand is the term “bad sex.” This is difficult, I know, because for men there is no such thing – it’s all good. Having bad sex is physically impossible for a man, barring a thumb tack accident or lockjaw. For a woman, however, bad sex is all too common. To avoid making sex something she’d rather avoid, it is necessary to listen very closely to what she says. This will not be easy. Listening when we just want to get laid is very hard (that was a pun, not a double entendre). So, whatever else you may screw up (pun again), be sure to LISTEN to what she says about things like relaxing, candles, back rubs, foot rubs, getting the housework and kids homework done so she can relax and a lot of other things that seem wholly disconnected from sex, but are not. I know it’s hard to make the connection between vacuuming and sex, but trust me – it’s there.

The following tips are also worth their weight in gold:

You know that old quilt that’s been in her family for four generations? Not a good wet spot cushion. Nuff said.

It’s not necessarily over just because you’re done. Really. Unless it’s a quickie, in which case the rule is get in, and get out. Sometimes, she really is just doing it for you. Be OK with that.

If you are ever asked about sexual experiences prior your relationship with her, there are a thousand wrong answers and one acceptable one – “That was sex, this is love making and I’ll never go back.” A transparent dodge? Maybe. But it is kind of true, isn’t it?

A few final thoughts: marriage is tricky, and it has a lot of ups and downs. Truthfully, a good marriage is one where you keep falling in love with each other over and over again. Until you die.

And that’s it.

Ahhh...The mysteries of blogging!

2006-03-04T06:51:00.000-08:00

I don't get it. I really don't. Every now and then I put a lot of effort and cognitive grease into a post like this. And how is my occasional, self-proclaimed opus received? With a collective shrug. No one reads it, or cares.

On other occasions, moved I suppose by whimsical fancy (or scotch), I dash off silly or risque missives, only to return later to find I could power my house with my spinning sitemeter, and that I have several angry voicemails from Al Gore, demanding to know why I broke his internet.

Sigh. I'll never get it....

Ashes on, mostly

2006-03-01T16:58:00.000-08:00

After the best debate ever in an Upper Canada Catholic combox, I can now tell you how Ash Wednesday (my first as a full-fledged Catholic) worked out:

I left the ashes on, and decided to see what the reaction would be instead of just making assumptions. When I got back to the office, I looked in the mirror and saw that my whole forehead was covered in ashes - I didn't look like a penitant, I looked like a chimney sweep! So I washed off all but a one inch circle and went about my day.

Let's just say I now I know how women feel when men talk to their chests. But on par - no real problems - just a lot of staring.

Thanks to everyone who took the time to comment.

Ashes on - or off?

2006-02-27T12:17:00.000-08:00

Ash Wednesday is this week, and I have a question: Ashes on or off? That is, after leaving the Mass, should one wipe the ashes off the forehead or leave them on until they wear off naturally? I ask, because I am definitely in the “wipe them off” school, but would welcome the opinion and instruction of others.

For me, leaving them on would lead to the sin of pride: “Hey everyone, look at me – I have ashes on my forehead! Aren’t I pious? I am so much better than you because I go to church and fast and stuff.” As they say, it’s hard to look up and see God if you’re always looking down on others. I am reminded of how much Christ loathed the Pharisees and Sadducees and their outward, hypocritical signs of piety. Matthew 16 speaks, for example, to fasting like this:

And when you fast, be not as the hypocrites, sad. For they disfigure their faces, that they may appear unto men to fast. Amen I say to you, they have received their reward. But thou, when thou fastest anoint thy head, and wash thy face; That thou appear not to men to fast, but to thy Father who is in secret: and thy Father who seeth in secret, will repay thee.

Others, though, see the wearing of ashes as a public affirmation of faith, symbolic of the spirit of contrition. So I'll turn it over to others: What say you?

Roll up the rim to lose - Boycott Tim Hortons!

2006-02-27T05:49:00.000-08:00

It's that time of year again - Canada's unofficial winter sport is now underway. Now US-owned, Tim Hortons has launched their Roll up the rim to win contest, to the hysterical joy of senior executives who apparently get their jollies watching poor working stiffs soiling their hands unravelling stiff coffee cup lips to see what they haven't won.

Sigh. I remember when this contest was launched. Just about every cup won something - a free coffee, a donut or cookie - something. It wasn't so much a contest as it was an exercise in customer appreciation: "Hey, thanks for drinking our coffee and not the other guy's; have a free donut."

Not so anymore. In the last four years - despite multiple daily purchases - I have won nothing. Nada. Zip.

So, I have decided to do something about it. I will not purchase a Tim Hortons product again until the end of their rip-off contest. I will, instead, purchase a rather good cup of coffee here.

So there. Tim Hortons can bite me.

UPDATE: Welcome to Kate's readers from SDA; grab a (non-Timmy) cup o'joe and stick around!

Star hack cites Martin Luther King in defence of Islamofascism

2006-02-26T11:50:00.000-08:00

I’ve got to hand it to Haroon Siddiqui, the Toronto Star’s Editor Emeritus and official apologist for Islamic poor behaviour. Needless to say, Siddiqui has of late been spinning like a top in an all out effort to stem the growing tide towards criticism of fundamentalist Islam. His missive on today’s OpEd pages, however, reached a new low in Islamofascist apologetics: it turns out that all of the recent violence committed in the name of Islam is really – wait for it – the fault of Western, Christian civilization:

…why should the West take Muslims seriously when they routinely commit great crimes…? The answer is that the Muslim world is in a deep crisis.
But Muslims alone cannot fix the mess, because it is not entirely of their making.

Just keep reading and that “not entirely” quickly morphs into one big anti-western finger pointing exercise:

Nearly 400 million Muslims live under authoritarian and corrupt regimes, many of them U.S. proxies…. Islam being their last zone of comfort, many Muslims react strongly, sometimes irrationally and violently…. They react in ways the angry dispossessed do, riots being the voice of the voiceless, as Martin Luther King said.

Did everyone catch that? Siddiqui just compared the rampaging mobs of Muslims to segregated blacks! I guess the King reference is to…Bin laden?

But the crowds rampage on, harming their own interests. The aid-giving European Union office in the West Bank is closed. Danish aid workers in Chechnya are withdrawn. Worse, some of the protesters themselves are killed, 48 so far.

Ahhh…how Siddiqui really feels! The murder of Christian school girls and the beheading of hostages are nothing; the real victims are Islamic protesters who gave their lives in the pursuit of anti-Christian violence.

As tragic as all this is, it pales in comparison to the million innocent Muslims killed, and millions more maimed, in the name of fighting terrorism or finding non-existent weapons of mass destruction or other excuses.

The closing rhetorical flourish – just in case anyone forgot that Christians must bear the responsibility for Islamic violence. The closing non-sequiturs were just Star policy, no doubt.

It’s not that I expected a lot of credibility from the Star’s editorial pages, but I think we can count this as the moment this blowhard’s credibility officially bit the dust.

Pop Policy and a Happy Harper Government

2006-02-25T07:01:00.000-08:00

I know it sounds like playing to the lowest common denominator, but sometimes “street level” or “joe six-pack” policies win huge approval ratings for governments. In the spirit of bolstering the Harper government’s popularity, I am pleased to list two possible policy items for consideration:

A full pint law: Already popular in Britain, such a law requires bars to pour their beer to the exact amount advertised. Buy a pint (16 oz) of beer – get a pint of beer.

A beefed-up do not call list: close the loopholes and introduce a law that would financially penalize not just telemarketers and call centres (who are often offshore) but their clients whose services are being hawked to you. Ouch!

By the way, the best way to beat auto-dialers is to download this short mp3 file and add these tones to the start of your answering machine’s outgoing message. The incoming call’s computer recognizes these tones as an indication that the number is no longer in service, and deletes it from their lists. We dropped from 15 calls an evening to just three or four. You’re welcome.

Any other suggestions for popular initiatives?

Reason to leave the United Church #637

2006-02-20T07:57:00.000-08:00

The anti-conservative and now anti-Christian United Church of Canada has truly outdone itself this time. As you may have seen in this morning’s Globe and Mail editorial (subscription required), my former Church has officially indicted all those who publish the Mohammed cartoons as racists and Islamophobes. After having gone to their website to check out the original source material, I can tell you they actually went a lot further than the Globe chose to reveal. Herewith, for your edification with snarky commentary is the press release issued by the General Council of the United Church of Canada - plus a shocking discovery from their archives:

Toronto: The United Church of Canada has sent a letter to the Islamic Council of Imams expressing the denomination's "deepest regret that the name of Muhammad has been so tragically misused in the depictions of cartoons first published in Europe, but now also in Canada." […]

A search of the United Church’s website for similar press releases condemning suicide bombings of mosques by Islamic terrorists, the slaughter of Jews by Hamas, Iran’s desire to wipe Israel off the map, the murder of Christian school girls in Pakistan (and so on) yielded no results. Obviously, the publication of cartoons is a far more serious matter worthy of condemnation by the Church’s General Council.

The text of the letter is as follows:

Dear Imam Patel and Imam Slimi;

Greetings in the name of Jesus, whom both Christians and Muslims honour.
On behalf of The United Church of Canada we wish to express to you and through the Council of Imams, to the Islamic communities of Canada, our deepest regret that the name of Muhammad has been so tragically misused in the depictions of cartoons first published in Europe, but now also in Canada.

In order to dispel any doubt, let me be clear that the United Church in its quest for apostasy and heresy is on record as stating that “Christian history is full of examples of…outright misrepresentation of Muhammad’s life. …We believe that it is important that Christians strive to speak truthfully and respectfully about Muhammad. We also believe it is a possible, though major, step forward…for Christians to acknowledge Mohammed as a prophet of God.” (p. 32, That We May Know Each Other, published by the United Church of Canada’s 38th Council in May 2005). Just so everyone is on the same page here: The United Church of Canada worships Mohammed as a prophet, and they are not entitled to any credibility as representatives of the Christian faith (which is, of course, why I left them). Pass the burkas.

We believe that the intention of publishing the cartoons has little to do with freedom of expression and much to do with incitement to racial and religious hatred. As you have noted in your recent press release, the cartoons suggest that Islam itself teaches, condones and encourages violence, bombings and the mistreatment of women. Furthermore, the implication is that all Muslims believe so as well. This we know to be untrue.

Wow! The United Church obviously has some kind of inside-track here on Islam: I mean, all those Imans issuing fatwas and the bombers and those silly Islamic nations calling for genocide against Jews and Infidels – what do they know about Islam? The United Church of Canada knows better folks – Islam is a religion of peace!

The answer to your question of "why publish such cartoons?" we believe is simply racial hatred. In other forms it has been called Islamophobia.

Well, as you all know, I also do not favour publishing the cartoons for reasons I will not repeat here. It occurs to me, however, that those who do publish them may be motivated by things other than racism and hatred. Maybe they’re just trying to make a point about freedoms, or trying to sell newspapers. My own theory is that they’re afraid of losing their Christian heritage and institutions to an Islamic tide (Europe anyone?). Fear is a very powerful motivator. The United Church knows best though: those who publish the cartoons are nothing more than a bunch of racists, so there’s no need for anyone to listen to their concerns.

These attitudes should have no place in Canada. Because we all share responsibility for the society in which we live, we wish to offer our sincere apologies that such attitudes can persevere in a country that we believe can and should be a model for the world of racial and ethnic respect.

Isn’t that nice: the United Church of Canada has seen fit to issue an apology on your behalf. Here’s an idea – let them know how you feel about that.

May God's peace be with you.

May his mercy be with you.

Open Letter to Canada's Catholic Voters

2006-01-10T05:43:00.000-08:00

In an open letter to Catholics, Canada's Catholic Organization for Life and Family (COLF) writes:

"At this time in the history of Canada, a realistic look at society reveals a fundamental problem -- the loss of respect for human life and dignity.

(...)

"As Catholic citizens, we not only have the moral duty to exercise our civic and political responsibilities, but also the right to be involved in the life of society, each according to his or her own area of expertise, and without denying the Gospel values that are central to our lives. We are not obliged to suppress our moral conscience in order to live in society. There should be no separation -- but instead coherence -- between our faith and our daily choices, made evident in our personal, family, professional, political and cultural decisions."

COLF invites voters to examine critically the platform of each party, and to evaluate those platforms "in the light of the plan of God by studying the social doctrine of the Church."

"The question for the Catholic voter is: How, in the light of the Gospel, can I use my vote to advance the common good in Canada and throughout the world?"

The debates don't matter.

2006-01-09T20:17:00.000-08:00

They never have. What matters, of course, is the media coverage of the debates. In other words, what the papers and talking heads tell you to think so you can sound informed at work the next day.

The Toronto Star's lead right now is that "Paul Martin came out fighting." Guess he won then. Cause I'm informed....

Five weird things about me

2006-01-08T07:06:00.000-08:00

Having been duly tagged by The Surly Beaver, I am pleased to relate five weird things about me, for the general edification of anyone who cares:

My wife married me. All her friends consider this weird. Just ask them.
I love watching Pride and Prejudice - the A&E version is always in our DVD. I cried at the wedding part. Once.
I am a math wiz, and enjoy playing around with old cipher systems and inventing new ones. Large prime numbers excite me.
I almost died of pneumonia when I was 13.
It's not unusual for a man's mind to drift into fantasy. Mine are all about my wife. My friends say that's weird. Which causes me to wonder who they're fantasizing about....

Everyone has just about been tagged by this, so I'm tagging...anyone who hasn't been. Go for it.

Catholics must stop voting Liberal

2006-01-06T16:28:00.000-08:00

Normally I'd offer my own take on a letter like this. In this case, I'll just leave it at "What he said." From my inbox today:

Fellow Catholics,

I’m writing to you about the importance of the current federal election to our faith and its place in this country. This election is essentially a showdown between Paul Martin, a Catholic and Stephen Harper a Protestant. Yet the future health of our Church in Canada relies on you and I ensuring that Paul Martin is not Prime Minister after January 23rd.

There is a longstanding connection between Catholics in Canada and the Liberal party. For decades Catholics felt at home in a party that was moderate on economic policy and moderate on social policy. Catholics and Liberals seemed to fit, today, that couldn’t be further from the truth. The Liberals that once stood for family and tradition now forbid dissent on key issues for many Catholics. Paul Martin has gone as far as to forbid MPs in his party from bringing forward any bill that would limit abortion. As you may know, Canada has no abortion law meaning that right up until the mother gives birth, abortion is legal if a doctor can be found willing to perform it. There are many Liberal MPs who would be willing to bring forward a private member’s bill to ban late term or partial birth abortions, but Paul Martin won’t let them. Late term abortions are something that even Dr. Henry Morgentaler doesn’t agree with, refusing to perform them. Paul Martin believes banning them is wrong and allowing MPs to say so is worse.

Paul Martin, who still claims to be a strong Catholic, was also behind the push to legalize gay marriage. What you should know is that Mr. Martin is now saying that those who oppose gay marriage aren’t fit to be Prime Minister. Catholic bishops, priests, Knights of Columbus, school teachers, principals or lay people who follow the doctrines of the Church are all unfit to be Prime Minister in the eyes of Paul Martin. Due to Stephen Harper’s opposition to gay marriage, Martin asked Harper why he wants to be Prime Minister adding that the Prime Minister’s job is to protect the Charter. In Martin’s eyes once again disagreement isn’t allowed in fact it is unCanadian even if the person he is disagreeing with is upholding the beliefs of the Catholic Church. While Martin says he is the defender of the Charter, he has refused to speak up for the Knights of Columbus recently ordered to pay $2,000 to a lesbian couple for refusing to rent them a hall based on religious grounds.

Stephen Harper’ Conservatives are not the perfect party for faithful Catholics, but they are better than Martin’s Liberals. The Liberal party will never change as long as they can count on the support of Catholic voters and believe me they take Catholic votes for granted. An American Deacon named Keith Fournier wrote about last year’s US elections saying Catholic should always be the noun; we are Catholics not Catholic Democrats or Catholic Republicans. In the same way here in Canada we cannot be Catholic Liberals or switch to being Catholic Conservatives, no political party deserves the unquestioning support of any faith group. For far too long the Liberals have been able to count on the support of Catholics like you and I and look at where it has taken us. After passing gay marriage the Liberals are now planning to introduce a bill legalizing euthanasia if they are re-elected. While we cannot switch from being Catholic Liberals to being Catholic Conservatives we can vote as Catholics should for the party that will stand up for family and respect life from beginning to end.

I urge you to vote for the future of Catholics in Canada on January 23rd and support Stephen Harper and your local Conservative candidate.

When the Tory Can't Win: Strategic Voting for Conservatives

2006-01-02T12:49:00.000-08:00

So what do you do as a good Tory when your local Conservative candidate stands no realistic probability of getting elected? You can vote for him/her anyway, or you may choose to play a strategic role in denying the riding to the Liberals by voting for someone else. It is this latter decision that can plague a Tory voter living in a swing riding that just won’t be going to the Conservatives this time out.

Case in point: Beaches-East York; Liberal incumbent Maria Minna is in a tight race with the NDP’s Marilyn Churley, a popular local MPP who just resigned her provincial seat to run federally. Jim Harris, Green Party leader, rounds out the field. Now you can certainly vote for Peter Conroy, the local Conservative candidate, but most reasonable people agree that come January 24 either Minna or Churley will be the MP. Deciding to exercise the only real power you have – to deny the seat to Minna – is a very real option being considered by a lot of conservatives.

Conservatives I know are making these kind of strategic decisions in many ridings, and by and large they are deciding to do whatever they can to deny the Liberals another seat. In Beaches-East York, this means voting for Churley. In Trinity-Spadina, they’re voting for New Democrat Olivia Chow. In Churchill, Manitoba three-term incumbent Bev Desjarlais is getting the nod as an independent candidate, after getting dumped by the NDP for her opposition to same-sex marriage. Desjarlais is in a tough battle against Liberal star-candidate Tina Keeper of North of 60 fame. There are many other ridings where Conservatives are similarly tested (Fry-Robinson, anyone?), and the decision to hold one’s nose is never easy.

Doubtless there are many who feel being a Conservative means backing your local candidate no matter what. While there is nothing wrong with this approach, it cannot be denied that others prefer to make any difference they can. Sometimes, this means electing the only person capable of keeping the riding from the Liberals. In 2006, fewer seats for the corrupt Liberal Party of Canada translates into a Conservative government.

Even if it means helping elect political foes like Churley, Chow and others.

Open Thread: Penance

2006-01-01T05:46:00.000-08:00

As we begin 2006, let us call to mind our sins: and all of the (perhaps) odd type of penance we may have been assigned for them.

A combination of prayers and time in front of the Blessed Sacrament are all I have ever faced. How about you?

Winning Big: A New Conservative Justice Strategy

2005-12-31T08:27:00.000-08:00

In the wake of recent shootings, bail and sentencing reform could be the next Ontario wedge issue as we approach e-day. It abates the gender gap, moving mothers over to conservative “tough on crime by getting tough on criminals” policies. Here are some facts that should scare voters:

Parole and Early Release

Depending on the length of the sentence, offenders are eligible for some type of unescorted release after serving just one sixth (1/6th) of their sentence.
Almost all offenders are eligible for parole after serving one third (1/3rd) of their sentence.
Except in the rarest of possible circumstances, all remaining offenders (those deemed too dangerous even by the parole board) will be released after serving two thirds (2/3rd) of their sentences.
Persons sentenced to life in prison are eventually paroled; no one actually dies of old age in prison.

Bail
Bail is given to people charged with crimes so that they may remain free “on the street” while awaiting trial. As a result of a series of court decisions on section 11(e) of the Charter, it has become quite difficult to actually keep someone in jail while awaiting trial; they generally have to violate their bail before being detained becomes a possibility. The courts are not allowed to deny bail simply because a crime is serious or the public conscience is shocked by a crime. Getting bail has actually become a right, and not the privilege it was once intended to be.

Consider this example: a street gang member gets arrested for robbing a convenience store with a handgun. He makes bail, and gets caught two weeks later violating his release conditions. He makes bail again, with a “stern warning” from a Justice of the Peace (quaking in his Nikes, no doubt). A week later, he gets arrested again for robbery; now he gets DO’d (a Detention Order is issued, his bail is revoked, and he awaits trial on his initial charges in jail).

Now assume eight months elapse during which he is housed at Toronto’s Don Jail before he gets convicted of Robbery and Using a Firearm in the Commission of an Indictable Offence. The minimum sentence is four years in a federal penitentiary - but wait! The defence lawyer uses the Charter to argue that such a severe sentence would violate his client’s Charter right not to be subject to cruel and unusual punishment. This quite often works, but let’s just assume it doesn’t and our gang-banger actually gets a four year sentence.

Now we have fun with the math: The eight months “dead time” he did in the Don Jail is worth three for one, meaning that it actually counts as 24 months towards satisfaction of his sentence. Four years minus 24 months is 2 years. But wait – we’re not done yet! Remember parole? The offender is eligible for full parole after serving one third of his four year sentence (16 months). Poof! His release is just a matter of doing the paperwork and he’s back out on the streets – just like that, right after the community is defrauded into thinking he’s just been put away for four years!

The Fix:
“A conservative government will use the Charter’s notwithstanding clause to ensure that persons charged with violent offences cannot make bail, and to see that any sentence imposed by a court is actually served. Sentences will always be served consecutive to any other sentences and time served awaiting trial. The current system of parole will be replaced with one that ensures offenders will be eligible for release only where public safety can be protected, and the public’s confidence in the administration of justice would not be eroded.”

Make it so.

Best Place for Weekday Mass in Toronto

2005-12-30T07:34:00.000-08:00

I often attend Mass when I can during the lunch hour in downtown Toronto. I usually hit St. Michael's Cathedral near the Eaton Centre, and have also enjoyed St. Basil's on Bay Street just north of Wellesley, and St. Patrick's near the Art Gallery of Toronto.

But the best place, hands down? The University of Toronto's very own St. Thomas Aquinas Church attached to the Newman Centre, 50 Hoskin Ave at St. George St. on the U of T campus. Aquinas isn't just a school chapel either - it's a full-fledged Parish of the Archdiocese of Toronto serving the University and surrounding community. The gothic design is inspiring:

The resulting one-storey limestone structure was designed in the style of 15th century Gothic architecture. The exterior walls were composed of coursed broken face Credit Valley limestone and ashlar Indiana limestone, topped by a roof composed of gray slate and copper. The church design features a nave and aisle plan with deep sanctuary and sacristy. The interior of the church is quite beautiful with arch braced trusses and an exposed roof made of dark stained British Columbia fir. The design originally featured white and yellow leaded glass Gothic windows with diamond panes to allow natural light to pour into the interior and two traditional stained glass windows near the entrance of the church honouring St. Thomas Aquinas and Cardinal Newman.

Quiet meditation on the Liturgy of the Hours is not uncommon preceding Mass, and the church clearly acts as the necessary touch-point for the University's Catholic community, with weddings and baptisms being common. Communion is always received under both species (Body and Precious Blood) by all the faithful present during each Mass.

If you find yourself anywhere near the U of T's downtown campus near Queen's Park, be sure to drop by - you won't be sorry.

CBC no longer biased?

2005-12-29T16:20:00.000-08:00

Did I see this right last night in bed with my wife? That was Peter Mansbridge of the CBC tearing Goodale a new one, but good! By the time Mansbridge was through mopping the floor with him, there was nothing left. The little nail in the coffin, of course, was the reference to how Ontario's former finance minister Greg Sobara was honourable enough to step down in similar circumstances. Ouch!

Click here to watch the whole interview again. And again...and again....

An open letter from Paul Martin to Street Gangs

2005-12-29T16:14:00.000-08:00

H/T to Kathy, authored by Lost Budgie. Wish I had said it:

Dear Murdering Gang Members,
Please forgive us for making unwed motherhood a financially viable and socially acceptable career choice - for paying generations of illiterate, unmarried seventeen-year-old sluts and their fatherless boyfriends to produce yet more illiterate, unmarried seventeen-year-old sluts and their fatherless boyfriends.
Please forgive us for not hiring you in entry-level food service jobs because you can't fill out the application, make change or report for work on time without smelling of marihuana. Yes, we understand that ganga is part of your religious and cultural tradition. We are trying adapt our society to your needs, but are not always
successful.
Please forgive us for not understanding that murder and violent turf wars are just a normal part of the business of street drugs.Please forgive us for not understanding that you have made a choice to earn your living as violent criminal gang members because legitimate work doesn't pay nearly as well, and we have virtually eliminated the negative consequences of choosing a criminal lifestyle.
Yours truly,
Paul Martin, Prime Minister of Canada

Quick - let's build even more community centres!

2005-12-27T11:54:00.000-08:00

In light of the recent mass murder attempt on Toronto's Yonge Street yesterday, allow me to make a few, really daring predictions:

All the guilty parties will be black males. All of them.
They will be in gangs.
They will come from broken families allowed to immigrate here by Liberal governments.
The usual suspects will cite the usual "root causes": systemic racism, lack of opportunity, white bias in the educational system; the suspects will not be named as being accountable for their actions.
Mayor Miller will announce that we need even more funding for community centres.
Prime Minister Martin will call for strengthened gun laws.
No one will spend more than three actual years in jail for their role in the shootings.

Can we talk about targeting immigration that strengthens the country, instead of tearing it apart yet? How about limiting the use of the Charter to garner exemptions from mandatory sentencing laws on a case-by-case basis, as is now the preferred method for circumventing the will of Parliament?

No? OK, how many more dead are needed until we can? I'm sorry to say it, but Liberal governments are killing us. Just killing us.

Let me reveal the only, true "root cause" of crime: CRIMINALS!

How un-Canadian - Can't let the schools teach this!

2005-12-27T06:30:00.000-08:00

Let's face it: a country so keen to destroy its Judeo-Christian heritage by eradicating its institutions (legal, cultural and iconic) in a misguided attempt at multicultural appeasement probably doesn't deserve to have actual martyrs. You know, the founding Christian missionaries who contributed to the building of this nation - and gave their lives in the course of carving a society out of nothing? Never heard of them? That's not surprising, with Canadian history textbooks focusing on how mean we were to the native population of the time. Sigh. Well, you all know how I just hate letting the facts get in the way of liberal attempts to re-write our history into a litany of self-loathing, misogynistic, white oppression - but consider this excerpt from a history of the Canadian Martyrs:

The men known today as The Canadian Martyrs were among the hardy and brave missionaries who brought the Gospel to the Huron and Iroquis people in the United States and Canada. They were martyred by the Iroquis between 1642 and 1649. They were beatified by Pope Pius Xi on June 21, 1925 and canonized by the same Pope in 1930.

The story of Saint Issac Jogues in especially moving, so much so that Francis Parkman in his definitive history of the colonization of America grudgingly mentions him, despite Parkman's strongly Protestant dis-approval of anything or anyone Catholic. In the course of his preaching the Gospel to the Mohawks in Canada, he travelled to the eastern end of Lake Superior, a distance of one thousand miles inland and farther than any other European at the time.

He was taken captive by the Iroquois in 1642 and imprisoned for thirteen months. He was kept as a slave and beaten by the women of the tribe regularily. The Indians considered it a dishonourable and shameful thing to be captured and death preferable to slavery, so keeping the priest as a slave was a worse punishment than merely killing him. Father Jogues did not think so. He welcomed the opportunity to witness to the Indians with his example to submission to God's will, and secretly taught and baptized the other captives and slaves of the tribe.

His greatest sorrow was the torture that cost him the use of his hands. The law of the Church is that whatever other infirmities a priest may have, he must retain the use of his hands in order to celebrate the Eucharist. After more than a year with the Iroquois, he was rescued by the Dutch and made his way back to France. The only passage available was on the open deck of a fishing boat, he slept in a coil of rope.

Once in France, he obtained a dispensation to continue as a priest, despite the injuries to his hands, and eagerly returned to the New World to continue the Lord's Work. During this time, he visited Auriesville, New York and is believed to be the first Catholic priest to set foot on Manhattan Island.

On a third visit to the Iroquois, he was seized by the Bear Clan who, believing him to be a sorcerer, held him responsible for the disease which was ravaging the tribe and for the failure of their food crops. He was tortured and beheaded.

An impressive display of fidelity, affection and resolute character. Of course, the account of their treatment at the hands of native Canadians ensures our school children will never hear of it.

What would these martyrs think of the country today, I wonder?

Welcome new UCC Blogroll Members!

2005-12-24T11:48:00.000-08:00

As some of you may have noticed, I have added a few new bloggers to my Blogroll (well, new to me anyway). As you may know, I only list those blogs I read regularly and do so irrespective of any reciprocal links. Link to me or don't - your call, but you'll wind up on my roll if I like you regardless. Anyway, a warn welcome to:

The Lair of the Catholic Caveman: Don't expect to always agree with this Traditional Roman Rite (but non-schismatic) Catholic, but this good, retired US Marine will argue his case with anyone. It's worth a romp around the Lair, unless you have "SJ" after your name, in which case I'd pass.

Holy Whapping: these Notre Dame students have got a pretty good blog, which I like for its links and - best of all - amazing photography.

New Liturgical Movement: Good place to hear from people who know a heck of a lot more about the Liturgy than you do. Also, some awsome liturgical texts for sale.

That's all for now folks: Merry Christmas to all!

Blogger Prayer for the Faithful

2005-12-24T08:20:00.000-08:00

Lord, we ask your blessings be poured out upon we who blog, that we may be given an abundance of the cardinal virtues to guide our hands: fortitude, to suffer fools gladly; temperance, to tame our flames; prudence, to know when enough is enough and justice, that merit might be our guide. To these we ask you add the theological virtues: faith, to keep us steadfast to what is right; hope for salvation of those yet to rejoice in your salvation, and charity, that we may render a good acount of your name in our exchanges with others.

This we ask in the name of Jesus Christ, who lives and
dwells with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever.

Amen.

The Christmas Meme

2005-12-22T18:30:00.000-08:00

Tagged! By Rick at City of God. Well, here it goes:

1. Hot chocolate or apple cider?
Before or after the Scotch?

2. Turkey or Ham?
Ham.

3. Do you get a Fake or Real you cut it yourself Christmas tree?
Fake, with lots of little pieces. Mme. Sallet can't be truly happy unless the tree job is miserable.

4. Decorations on the outside of your house?
Absolutely. As soon as the restraining order expires....

5. Snowball fights or sledding?
Sledding, or as we call it: human curling.

6. Do you enjoy going downtown shopping?
Sure...it's right up there with a colonoscopy and a prostate exam by a 22 year old med student named "Bunny" (true).

7. Favorite Christmas song?
Jingle bells, Batman smells, Robin laid and egg.... Just kidding. Silent Night.

8. How do you feel about Christmas movies?
Love the traditional ones, cartoons included. It's OK to add National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation, right? Right?

9. When is it too early to start listening to Christmas music?
In elevators or at home?

10. Stockings before or after presents?
Definitely before. You need them for the stick-ups to get the presents....

11. Carolers, do you or do you not watch and listen to them?
Never seen one.

12. Go to someone else’s house or they come to you?
Well, you're pretty much scre*ed either way. I just go where the wife says then seek out other Y chromosomes when I get there.

13. Do you read the Christmas Story?
Yes. Kid loves it. Wife gets copulatory glare.

14. What do you do after presents and dinner?
Scotch & nice cuban cigar.

15. What is your favorite holiday smell?
Pine indoors.

16. Ice skating or walking around the mall?
Why don't I just use a hammer drill on my feet and call it even?

17. Do you open a present or presents on Christmas Eve, or wait until Christmas day?
Christmas morning.

18. Favorite Christmas memory?
I think there was one in there somewhere where I didn't get clothes. That one.

19. Favorite Part about winter?
Well, I like to ski.

20. Ever been kissed under mistletoe?
I only get dirty looks from my wife under one. I guess she forgets the time when we were under one at her parent' house and we snuck off and...uh, never mind.

Since there wasn't a single question about loudest belches, I'm also going to assume this was written by a XX. Won't tag anyone as it's so close to the day now, but thanks Rick!

Ask a stupid question...

2005-12-22T08:15:00.000-08:00

In another stunningly ignornant missive, Haroon Siddiqui of the Toronto Star cries a river for dual Canadian-Iranian citizens being "harassed" at the Canada-US border crossing. For the life of me I just can't figure out why the United States would be so malicious as to exercise increased vigilence when dealing with individuals who have deliberately chosen to retain Iranian citizenship, their recently acquired Canadian citizenship apparently not being good enough for them.

Oh, wait a minute - I seem to recall this and this and this and this.

I guess Siddiqui must of overlooked those inconvenient tidbits. I mean, why should the U.S. want to keep an eye on foreign nationals whose country denies the Holocaust, has a nuclear weapons strategy, vowed to persecute Christians and calls for Jews to be slaughtered and the destruction of Israel.

Notwithstanding Siddiqui's appalling ignorance (or bias - you decide), his closing question deserves an answer::

Why would Canada allow Canadians to keep dual citizenship and then abandon them for exercising that right?

Excellent point. Let's ban this have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too approach to citizenship. Pick your cliche: get off the fence, fish or cut bait - whatever. Either being a Canadian is good enough for you, or it is not. You choose, and we will respect your decision and lobby the U.S. to do likewise. Until then, remember that next time you feel "harassed" at the U.S. border that you chose to be a citizen of a nation with declared, genocidal goals and which is an enemy of the United States.

If that's a problem for you, tough.

If I could give anything I wanted to my parish...

2005-12-21T06:49:00.000-08:00

...I would give these. Is that wrong?

UPDATE: Final selling price was $7900 to a lucky eBayer using the name "liturgy"! Very nice....

Cathedral Prayer Service is a Scandal

2005-12-19T16:06:00.000-08:00

I know this is hard to say, but the Toronto Star’s Rosie DiManno is right. Again. It’s been happening a lot lately, so one of us is maturing I guess. In today’s column she eviscerates Toronto’s lefty clergy for a bogus, anti-American “Ecumenical Prayer Service” for the so-called Christian Peacemakers being held hostage in Iraq:

“…from the depths of their faith, a blinding if luminous faith, they bore false witness, disingenuous witness. And that is a grave sin. It wasn't the abductors who were condemned from the pulpit. It wasn't the tyranny of terror that was denounced. It wasn't the gutless tactic of holding defenceless civilians in bondage for the purpose of staging repugnant videotaped theatre that was decried.

“It was the occupation of Iraq that was damned — an exclusive assignment of blame, as if no one else in this agonizing hostage drama is culpable for what has happened: Not the four men who wilfully put themselves in harm's way in the naïve assumption that piety and a commiseration with anti-American sentiment would shield them from danger; not the Christian organization that sent them on a mission overseas after minimal preparation with instructions to intervene, to insinuate themselves between occupiers and occupied; not even the little-known militant group, the Swords of Righteousness Brigades, that has claimed responsibility for the abduction, accusing the men of being spies.

“Someone coming in cold to the Toronto service, with no knowledge of the facts, would have been forgiven for assuming it was U.S. troops who had taken these aid workers hostage, such was the thrust of the commentary that accompanied the praying and the hymnsinging. There was barely any reference to the abductors, as if they were merely bit players in a larger narrative, not central to a crime.”

As we have already demonstrated here on Upper Canada Catholic, Christian Peacemaker Teams have nothing to do with making peace, and even less to do with the teachings of Jesus Christ. Since their abduction by Islamic terrorists 23 days ago, Canadians have had their intelligence insulted by MSM reports quoting CPT members anxious to bend over backwards to top each other in their “Blame America” game. They send an envoy to Iraq to connect with the terrorists to explain how the abductions were all a big mistake; the hostages, he explained, are their friends who hate the Americans as much as they do. Of course, the envoy was also abducted.

They just really, really don’t get it do they? The abductors do not care about human life. They bomb women and school children and weddings. They want to kill every living person on this planet who fails to share their world view, and they care not a wit for their allies among western appeasers whom they would smite with equal fervour. Naturally, the abductions will be blamed on US policy, as will the hostages’ deaths once the body parts start rolling in. The hostage takers are the enemy of Christ, his people and peace. Where are the Christian warriors? (Oh yes, in the USMC - never mind).

As a Catholic, I naturally pray for the intervention of the Holy Spirit, the conversion of the hostage takers to Christ and the safe deliverance of the hostages. I am also ashamed that my Cathedral was sullied by such a wallowing in left-wing nonsense ably abetted by idiotic clergy using the Gospels as cover for an anti-American political agenda. I sign off as Rosie did with my own prayer for the faithful:

“That those who oppose the freedom of the Iraqi people and their supporters here and abroad respond to God’s grace and defend the Iraqi people victimized by terrorism, that Iraqi and Coalition Forces be delivered from harm in their fight for the freedom and security of the Iraqi people and that the terrorists holding the hostages release them in good health and lay down their arms.

The Lord hear our prayers….”

Support Character in Parliament: Back this Independent

2005-12-18T08:49:00.000-08:00

I've written about Bev Desjarlais before; she's the former NDP MP kicked out of caucus and stripped of her nomination in this election for opposing same-sex marriage (SSM) in the recent free vote. By "free vote" I mean free for anyone other than the anti-democratic NDP, which despite its huffing and puffing over the democratic deficit clearly doesn't wish to soil its hands with democracy at the caucus level. But I digress.

Bev has served her Manitoba constituents well for three terms, but now faces a tough three-way race against a provincial cabinet minister's daughter running for her former party, and Tina Keeper (former star of North of 60) for the Liberals. Those of us in the fight against SSM called on MPs from all parties to show character by voting their conscience and doing the right thing.

Bev did that. Now she may be out of a job. How can we ask MPs to show character, then walk away when they do? Well, now it's our turn to show character: cut her a cheque. Today. By all means, as good Tories cut another to this fine fellow carrying our standard in Chruchill, but given local dynamics the best, realistic hope for Parliament lies with denying this seat to the Liberals and NDP and placing it firmly in the hands of Independent MP Bev Desjarlais.

Any donation under $200 will keep your name out of it as far as the candidate's reported contributions are concerned, and any donation under $400 earns you a 75% tax rebate. A $100 donation costs you just $25, so get out the cheque book and send anything you can afford to:

Bev Desjarlais Campaign
c/o Leslie Ellsworth, Official Agent
64 Partridge Cres.
Thompson, MB R8N 1A2
(make cheque payable to "Bev Desjarlais Campaign")

Character is always worth supporting. Merry Christmas everyone.