They just. don't. get it.

The new issue of Newsweek has the stars of the movie The Da Vinci Code (Tom Hanks plays the lead [thanks, Tom]) on its cover. In the cover story, writer Devin Gordon refers to the "inflammatory, if well-traveled, conspiracy theory" of the novel: "that Christ was married to Mary Magdalene and fathered a daughter, whose bloodline has survived into present-day Europe—and that the Catholic Church has been covering up the "truth" for 2,000 years."

What Mr. Gordon doesn't mention -- presumably because he doesn't know any better -- is that there is something a teeny bit more inflammatory about this fiction-posing-as-truth: that Jesus of Nazareth was not God.

No biggie, though.

Oh: please don't comment on how I'm being ridiculous because "it's just a novel". Brown believes the basic lines of the thesis, and his forward tries to pass the thesis off as true. And early on, he relentlessly asserted the factuality of his historical assertions (until experts and other informed commenters started demonstrating their utter falsity). Not only that, but plenty of people apparently think it really is true.

So: if that's your line, don't bother.

Iraq = Vietnam?

As I've said before, nope.

Read more here.

SSA and the priesthood

Robert Gotcher has a very interesting post on the issue of same-sex attraction and the priesthood in light of the recent Vatican instruction on the issue.

I highly recommend you check it out.

Jesuit, not Catholic

From the Boston College student newspaper:

The Issue: BC denies GLBT dance due to conflict with the church
What we think: BC should follow Jesuit values, not Catholic doctrine

In the latter line, one finds a contradiction: there is no conflict between Jesuit values and Catholic doctrine. Period.

How 'bout that

Turns out that the day after Thanksgiving is not the biggest shopping day of the year.

Hm.

HT: Bill Cork.

"Without Roots"

In case you haven't heard, that's the title of a forthcoming book in english translation written by Pope Benedict. The subtitle indicates the nature of the work: "Europe, Relativism, Christianity, Islam". It's due out on February 1st.

See here for more.

The German takes a Pole, the Pole takes a French, hi-ho the derry-o...

Earlier today I received an email from a fellow Romano, Fr. David Pignato of the Diocese of Fall River. Fr. Pignato and I had classes together at the Angelicum, and among our professors was a polish priest, Fr. Wojciech Giertych, OP.

Fr. Giertych is an outstanding moral theologian. He is especially liked by his students for his Fundamental Moral Theology course, which I (unfortunately) did not "have" to take because I had a similar course in my undergrad years at Steubenville. In my case (and Fr. David's as well), I had Fr. Giertych for a seminar on Veritatis Splendor.

In the last few years, Fr. Giertych's teaching load at the Angelicum was lightened as he took on greater administrative responsibilities for the Dominican order.

Today, his load got a whole lot lighter.

In his email, Fr. David informed some of his fellow Angelicum alumni that Fr. Giertych was appointed today as the Theologian of the Papal Household! Fr. Giertych succeeds Fr. Georges Cottier, another Dominican who held the office since 1989.

As tonight's Zenit story explains (it'll be up at the website tomorrow), the role of the Theologian of the Papal Household is to give the nihil obstat to all the texts written by those who collaborate with the pope in the preparation of addresses, messages, etc. The office was first held by St. Dominic in the 13th century, and ever since then has been held by a Dominican.

This is exciting news for anyone who knows Fr. Giertych; let's make sure that he's in our prayers as he undertakes this new position.

St. Dominic, pray for us!

Leaving now or later?

Earlier this week, Democrat Jack Murtha (described by the AP as "one of Congress' most hawkish Democrats") made big news when he "called Thursday for the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq."

Note that carefully: according to the AP (and other major media outlets), he called for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. And there was no correction of that description from Murtha or anyone else.

Yesterday, the Republicans said, "fine. You Democrats want a withdrawal? Let's put it to a vote." So they offered a resolution virtually identical to Murtha's and put it to a vote.

Guess what how the vote went: 403-3 in opposition.

Now, Democrats were up in arms because the resolution called for an immediate withdrawal, while Murtha apparently wanted a withdrawal when practicable.

So tell me: what's the difference between the latter view and the President's view? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Yet Murtha made it clear that things aren't going right, and that we need to change direction and "redeploy now. This was (rightly) interpreted to mean that he was calling for an immediate withdrawal, because the only other possible interpretation of his words is virtually identical to the President's position.

In the end, the Democrats' bluff was called, and they voted against an immediate withdrawal, despite their unending pressers for weeks, it seems, calling for an immediate withdrawal.

So, what do the Democrats stand for when it comes to the war?

If contraception, then abortion

Another excellent post at Right Reason today, this one on the unlikely prospects for a decisive pro-life turn in our culture as long as contraception is widely accepted. The author, Christopher Tollefsen, argues that we must seek -- one person at a time, not via political or legal action -- to cure our culture of its contraceptive mentality for its own sake and for the sake of the pro-life cause.

Naturally, this will be a bit unsettling to those pro-lifers who are not morally opposed to contraception, but he is nonetheless right on.

Doubting the genealogical method in theology/philosophy

Thomas of Endlessly Rocking has a very interesting post in which he questions the genealogical approach to identifying the origins of modernity and its attendent problems.

In short, this approach -- which is used by von Balthasar and the Radically Orthodox, among others -- "holds" that the origin of a "position" is found by tracing its intellectual ancestors (hence the name "geneaological method").

Thomas first notes that he has been a practioner of this method himself, or at least has been in agreement with the more notable of said practioners. But he then proceeds to poder about the validity of the method.

If you're at all interested in questions of modernity, liberalism (the broader variety), and Ressourcement or Radical Orthodoxy theology, check this post out.

Originalism: Intentionalism or Textualism?

Interesting post and discussion at Right Reason on which species of originalism is better.

Today in history...

From The Writer's Almanac for Thursday, November 17th, 2005:

It was on this day in 1968 that NBC interrupted its coverage of a football game between the Oakland Raiders and the New York Jets with one minute remaining in order to show the scheduled movie Heidi, about an orphaned girl who goes to live with her grandfather in the Swiss Alps.

In the last minute of the game, the Raiders scored two touchdowns, coming from behind to win the game 43 to 32. Football fans were enraged. So many people called to complain that the NBC's telephone switchboard in New York City blew 26 fuses.

It was that game, and the storm of protest by fans, that forced TV executives to realize how passionate the audience for football really was. Two years later, networks began showing football on Monday nights as well. And because of that game, the NFL now has a contract with the networks that all football games will be shown until their completion.

I bet the fans were unhappy... the Raiders won!

Those Pesky Pro-lifers!

You've probably heard about the girl attended a Sacramento all-girls Catholic school whose mom complained about a teacher who was a Planned Barrenhood escort, resulting in the firing of the latter after the Bishop got involved.

A couple weeks later, the girl was expelled.

You can read the latest on this at her blog, here. She presents all of the documentation in question regarding her expulsion, and from where I sit, the school administration had no moral grounds for expelling her. While they might be entitled to do so legally, the reasons they put forth to justify their actions do not hold water.

If you can stomach it, read through the comments in the above and other posts at her blog; the lack of a Catholic understanding on the part of some of the students and alumnae is sadly apparent.

Our Iraq Exit Strategy: Victory

And nothing less.

If you agree, visit and spread the word about No End But Victory (see this for more).

"Justice" system?

I have a guilty pleasure: the tv show "Boston Legal", created by David Kelley, who is liberal in both the political and Catholic senses of the term. His politics often come out in the show, but generally they do not outweigh the other, more positive dimensions of the show. Simply put, the man knows his business, and he does it very, very well. He manages to create a program that is both very funny and simultaneously fairly substantial, whatever his own politics, apart from the more egregious instances of outright propaganda.

Anyway...

In tonight's episode, the law firm to which the characters belong represents a man who is by his own admission to them guilty of negligent homicide (he hit and killed a man with his car). Candace Bergen's character is the lead attorney on the case, and she succeeds in getting a not-guilty verdict for her client.

I just don't get that.

Isn't it called the "justice" system for a reason? How is it that defense attorneys can conscientiously defend clients whom they know to be guilty of the charges made against them? I've heard the argument made that this prompts the state to make its best case, but that's not what the justice system is about, is it? It's about the guilty being punished and the innocent not, right? So what's the justification for defending someone who is admittedly guilty of what they are charged with?

I'm hoping someone can explain this to me in a manner that doesn't make a travesty of the idea and virtue of justice.

From the WSJ of late:

An article on the "spiritual but not religious"/"do-it-yourself religion" demographic.

Another demographic article: "Old Age Tsunami: Asia's graying populations could roil the global economy."

Catholic Carnival is up!

Check it out!

Mamma's boys

This article explains how Italy's low (sub-replacement) birthrate is due to the fact that many Italian men live at home well into their thirties; in fact, 40% of Italian men age 30-34 still live at home.

Based on my time in Rome, I can vouch for the argument of this article... it's true, pure and simple.

The Italian mammas need to give their boys the boot, and the latter need to take some responsibility of their own.

New Information Technology Device

From Fr. Neuhaus:

B.O.O.K.

Introducing the new Bio-Optic Organized Knowledge device—trade-named: BOOK.

BOOK is a revolutionary breakthrough in technology: no wires, no electric circuits, no batteries, nothing to be connected or switched on. It’s so easy to use, even a child can operate it.

Compact and portable, it can be used anywhere—even sitting in an armchair by the fire—yet it is powerful enough to hold as much information as a CD-ROM.

Here’s how it works: BOOK is constructed of sequentially numbered sheets of recyclable paper, each capable of holding thousands of bits of information. The pages are locked together with a custom-fit device called a binder which keeps the sheets in their correct sequence.

Opaque Paper Technology (OPT) allows manufacturers to use both sides of the sheet, doubling the information density and cutting costs. Experts are divided on the prospects for further increases in information density; for now, BOOKS with more information simply use more pages. Each sheet is scanned optically, registering information directly into your brain. A flick of the finger takes you to the next sheet.

BOOK may be taken up at any time and used merely by opening it.

BOOK never crashes or requires rebooting, though, like other devices, it can become damaged if coffee is spilled on it and it becomes unusable if dropped too many times on a hard surface. The “browse” feature allows you to move instantly to any sheet, and move forward or backward as you wish. Many come with an “index” feature, which pin-points the exact location of any selected information for instant retrieval.

An optional “BOOKmark” accessory allows you to open BOOK to the exact place you left it in a previous session—even if the BOOK has been closed. BOOKmarks fit universal design standards; thus, a single BOOKmark can be used in BOOKs by various manufacturers. Conversely, numerous BOOK markers can be used in a single BOOK if the user wants to store numerous views at once. The number is limited only by the number of pages in the BOOK. You can also make personal notes next to BOOK text entries with optional programming tools, Portable Erasable Nib Cryptic Intercommunication Language Styli (PENCILS).

Portable, durable, and affordable, BOOK is being hailed as a precursor of a new entertainment wave. BOOK’s appeal seems so certain that thousands of content creators have committed to the platform and investors are reportedly flocking to invest. Look for a flood of new titles soon.

Sounds exciting! ;-)

Revisionism

From the President's speech today:

And our debate at home must also be fair-minded. One of the hallmarks of a free society and what makes our country strong is that our political leaders can discuss their differences openly, even in times of war. When I made the decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power, Congress approved it with strong bipartisan support. I also recognize that some of our fellow citizens and elected officials didn't support the liberation of Iraq. And that is their right, and I respect it. As President and Commander-in-Chief, I accept the responsibilities, and the criticisms, and the consequences that come with such a solemn decision.

While it's perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began. (Applause.) Some Democrats and anti-war critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people about why we went to war. These critics are fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments related to Iraq's weapons programs.

They also know that intelligence agencies from around the world agreed with our assessment of Saddam Hussein. They know the United Nations passed more than a dozen resolutions citing his development and possession of weapons of mass destruction. And many of these critics supported my opponent during the last election, who explained his position to support the resolution in the Congress this way: "When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security." That's why more than a hundred Democrats in the House and the Senate -- who had access to the same intelligence -- voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power. (Applause.)

They're already known as The Three Paragraphs. And rightly so. You can't pretend you didn't support the war before when you seek to oppose it now.

But I don't think this is about the truth anymore. It's about power politics. It's about trying to score points against the President, to tie his hands and weaken his support so that he's unable to implement his agenda and in so doing set the stage for more GOP victories in '06.

Most politics isn't about doing what's right for the American people anymore, and I think that applies to people on both sides. But I think it applies more to the Democrats, because they're the minority party now, and they'll do anything to get back into the majority.

Look that the "Blue Dogs" in the House. These are self-described conservative democrats who -- among other things -- want to see some degree of reduced federal spending. But not one of them -- not a one -- will give their support to HR 4241, which by and large just seeks to reduce spending increases in the next budget. Pelosi has her troops in line, and their following party over principle, presumably in the hope that partisan discipline will help them ultimately at the ballot box in '06, '08, and beyond.

We'll see, I guess.

(For the few liberals and/or democrats who read this blog, I'd be happy to hear how I'm wrong, or how the GOP is just as bad as your team. Seriously. I know this post is a bit "rantier" than normal, but don't take that to mean that I'm unable to hear what you have to say. So, comment or email away.)