Tuesday, October 30, 2007

No Exorcisms for Toronto

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.

Saturday, October 27, 2007

Judges Too Stupid For Charter: Crown Attorney

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.”

Wednesday, October 24, 2007

Baby Names: A Precocious Feminist War on Children

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.

Monday, October 22, 2007

Traditional Anglicans Defect, Seek Union with Rome

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.

Sunday, October 21, 2007

Causation 101: Those Wacky Europeans

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.

Wednesday, October 10, 2007

Monday, October 8, 2007

Sorry, no vote here for Tory

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.

Thursday, October 4, 2007

As you were: No dead baby here, no sir

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....)

Monday, October 1, 2007

Tory Train Wreck in Ontario

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, September 30, 2007

Sunday Rants

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?

Friday, September 28, 2007

Choose Change in Ontario

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.”

Wednesday, September 26, 2007

Catholic Voters Guide: Ontario Election 2007

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

Tuesday, September 25, 2007

Not all Conservative Candidates are Rocket Scientists

[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....

Monday, September 24, 2007

Reality Check: De-funding Ontario's Catholic Schools

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.

Wednesday, August 29, 2007

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

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?

Friday, August 24, 2007

Toronto Abortion Clinic Hit Hard

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.

Wednesday, August 15, 2007

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

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.

Saturday, August 11, 2007

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



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.