South Dakota Politics

One of my more recent permalinks is Jason Van Beek's South Dakota Politics. Jason chronicles most of the political goings-on in the state, and is well worth a read. A couple of recent items are particularly worth noting.

First, in this post Jason comments on a recent Daschle campaign ad in which self-described Republicans complain about negative Republican ads against Senator Daschle. One of these fellows makes his complaint while standing in front of a cornfield in which the corn plants have tasseled. Now, to those of us who don't do agriculture, that might not mean anything. But to those who know corn, there is something significant present, and Jason explains it for us:

Corn plants don't tassel until late summer, meaning that this Daschle ad, or at least the segment with Steve Grubbrud, was in the can almost a year ago. It leads one to ask exactly what negative ad Steve Grubbrud was upset about at the time.

Indeed.

In another post, Jason discusses a recent Roll Call ad in which we find that Daschle has raised three times more money from corporations than has John Thune, his Republican challenger. Jason contrasts that fact with this statement from a Daschle spokesman, made when the U.S. Chamber of Commerce endorsed Thune back in February: "Tom Daschle has taken on special interests for years, so we are not shocked when they target him for defeat." Jason comments appropriately: "Yes, Daschle has taken on the special interests so vigorously that they give him three times more money than they give to John Thune."

Well said.

Rage

During my recent blogging hiatus (work took me out of town for a bit) I visited Annie's blog After abortion (it's one of my permalinks under Lord of the Rings). Annie attended the abortion rights rally on Sunday, April 25th as a member of Silent No More, an awareness group which seeks to educate the public about the effects of abortion on women. Annie and many others stood (many with signs) in silence as the march passed by them, and the abuse that she and others dealt with is truly unbelievable.

Read her account here.

The Ordination of Women

One of my recent new permalinks is the blog of a pseudonymous systematic theologian, the Old Oligarch. I discovered OO over a year ago, but was lazy in finally getting a link up (what's new, right?).

One of his best posts (we do know his gender) is an argument against the ordination of women. Now, I have to warn you: by blog standards, it's a long piece. But trust me: it's well worth the read.

Ecclesial Tyrant?

Apropos of the recent discussions concerning John Kerry and other pro-abortion rights politicians possibly (or actually) being refused communion, a number of Catholic bloggers have pointed to the actions of Archbishop Joseph Rummel, the archbishop of New Orleans in the early 60's. In 1962, he excommunicated three Catholics who opposed his efforts to desegregate Catholic schools. What did they do in response? Gave speeches, organized rallies, wrote letters to the major local newspaper, and withheld church contributions.

Hmm... I wonder what those who up in arms about the statements of some bishops about refusing communion to Kerry et al would say in response to this? Would they complain that Archbishop Rummel was blurring the line between church and state, or that he was putting his nose in places it doesn't belong, or that this was just another example of an intolerant, un-pastoral Catholic hierarch? Somehow, I doubt it.

(Thanks -- in order of my seeing it mentioned -- to Stuart Buck, Bill Cork, and Dale Price.)

Round X

The official dialogue in the U.S. between Lutheran and Catholic scholars recently completed its tenth round of discussion, this time focusing on the structures and ministries of the church. The Common Statement of the text can be found here for anyone who is interested.

Too much spam

So in an effort to try to reduce it, I've simply put my email address after my fav blogs; sorry, you'll have to actually type it in if you want to email me.

Redemptionis Sacramentum

The Instruction "On certain matters to be observed or to be avoided regarding the Most Holy Eucharist" from the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacrament (with the assistance of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) was promulgated by JPII today.

You can find the text here.

Here's the Table of Contents:

Preamble [1-13]

Chapter I

The regulation of the Sacred Liturgy [14-18]

1. The Diocesan Bishop, High Priest of his Flock [19-25]
2. The Conference of Bishops [26-28]
3. Priests [29-33]
4. Deacons [34-35]

Chapter II

The Participation of the Lay Christian Faithful in the Eucharistic Celebration

1. Active and Conscious Participation [36-42]
2. The Ministries of the Lay Christian Faithful in the Celebration of Holy Mass [43-47]

Chapter III

The Proper Celebration of Mass

1. The Matter of the Most Holy Eucharist [48-50]
2. The Eucharistic Prayer [51-56]
3. The Other Parts of the Mass [57-74]
4. The Joining of Various Rites with the Celebration of Mass [75-79]

Chapter IV

Holy Communion

1. Dispositions for the Reception of Holy Communion [80-86]
2. The Distribution of Holy Communion [87-96]
3. The Communion of Priests [97-99]
4. Communion under Both Kinds [100-107]

Chapter V

Certain Other Matters concerning the Eucharist

1. The Place for the Celebration of Holy Mass [108-109]
2. Various Circumstances Relating to Mass [110-116]
3. Sacred Vessels [117-120]
4. Liturgical Vesture [121-128]

Chapter VI

The Reservation of the Most Holy Eucharist and Eucharistic Worship outside Mass

1. The Reservation of the Most Holy Eucharist [129-133]
2. Certain Forms of Worship of the Most Holy Eucharist outside Mass [134-141]
3. Processions and Eucharistic Congresses [142-145]

Chapter VII

Extraordinary Functions of the Lay Faithful [146-153]

1. The Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion [154-160]
2. Preaching [161]
3. Particular Celebrations Carried Out in the Absence of a Priest [162-167]
4. Those Who Have Left the Clerical State [168]

Chapter VIII

Remedies [169-171]

1. Graviora Delicta [172]
2. Grave Matters [173]
3. Other Abuses [174-175]
4. The Diocesan Bishop [176-180]
5. The Apostolic See [181-182]
6. Complaints Regarding Abuses in Liturgical Matters [183-184]

Conclusion [185-186]

Atheists and abortion

It seems that pro-abortion atheists are used to dealing with pro-lifers who appeal to theology to support their position. I say this because when they encounter a pro-lifer who offers arguments demonstrating the humanity of the human embryo, they offer all sorts of non sequiturs, strawmen, and other baseless arguments.

My latest example of this is in my discussion of the humanity of the embryo with Ben, in the comments of this post.

Now, I've enjoyed my conversations with Ben thus far, and continue to do so. But neither he nor biologist PZ Myers have thus far offered a definition of a human being which excludes the embryo or fetus in a non-arbitrary and consistent manner. Nor, IMO, have they successfully refuted my arguments. But I'll let the readers of the comments judge who is more successful.

Ono Ekeh

Mr. Ekeh was -- until a few weeks ago -- an employee of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops. When it was discovered that he was a strong Kerry supporter with a website "Catholics for Kerry", he was asked to resign, and rightly so: Kerry is unabashedly in favor of abortion rights, and there is simply no way to reconcile that with a Catholic perspective.

Mr. Ekeh has explained himself recently in a piece entitled More than one pro-life way in the National Catholic Reporter.

And Amy Welborn responds nicely.

SSM

In discussing same sex marriage with Ben, it's become apparent that I'm going to have to enter into a more lengthy discussion of natural law theory, as it is so crucial in understanding the rational case against said marriages. As I told Ben, I hope to begin that discussion soon.

In the meantime, a couple of more articles worth reading:

Shelby Steele's WSJ article, and his rebuttal to Andrew Sullivan's response to the WSJ piece.

Enjoy!

Which branch is unchecked?

William -- one of the guys at Southern Appeal -- posts today on the following comment made by SCOTUS justice Breyer in oral arguments yesterday: "It seems rather contrary to a nation with a constitution providing for three branches of government that one branch should be allowed to do whatever it wants without any check."

Go and read Bill's fisking of this somewhat ironic statement of a SCOTUS justice.

Hate speech

Candace -- one of the bloggers at The Village Gate (formerly The Right Christians) -- posts about this from the Family Research Council:

Gays disproportionately diseased "Homosexuals account for a disproportionate number of America's most serious STD's, including syphilis, gonorrhea, genital warts, and hepatitis A and B."

She sees it as hateful, anti-gay rhetoric. But what if it's accurate? Is it hateful then? Is it hateful to say that a particular group accounts for a larger proportion of STDs? If it's an outright falsehood, that's one thing. But Candace doesn't challenge the accuracy of the statement... merely to utter it is hateful, even if true.

On the other hand, I wonder what she thinks of this little note sent to FreeDominion.ca:

Biil c250 will pass. Your group will be the first one we go after. You are nothing but a group of hatefilled bigots. How dare you use a name like freedominion, free for who, right wing ***holes. I was in Edmonton last week and I enjoyed ****** Lorne Gunters son in the *****. Tight. I am headed down to parliament hill later to slap that ******* Anne Cools[bible thumping nigger] and to ****** your hero Steve Harper. I'll bet he likes the taste of ********. Talk to you later redneck *********.

Hmm... which one sounds more hate-filled to you?

(Hat tip to Mark Shea on the latter.)

More Dan Brown inanities

I've read The DaVinci Code, but only because I gave a talk on it. Before that piece of historical rubbishnovel came out, I started Angels and Demons on my dad's recommendation, only to put it down within the first ten pages after references to the conflict [sic] between faith and reason.

Bill Cork, on the other hand, was able to finish the A&D, and he catalogs some of the egregious errors Brown makes in that novel.

But what does Brown care about truth? He's making a pile of money.

Two Is Enough: Why large families don't deserve tax breaks.

That's the title of this article by Dalton Conley, the director of NYU's Center for Advanced Social Science Research. Conley writes, "If we really care about kids' welfare and accomplishment, the United States should scrap policies that encourage parents to have lots of children. As my recent research shows, having more than two children is tantamount to handicapping their chances for academic, and thus economic, success."

Whatever. My wife is one of eight kids, and of the eight, six have at least a bachelor's degree. And my in-laws are most certainly middle class. But read the whole thing.

A Train on a Circular Track

Fyodorovna -- current Lutheran, former Catholic -- offers her thoughts on Josh's argument, which I linked below. She doesn't think that Josh's argument will convince many Catholics -- about that, she's right -- because whether your an orthodox Catholic or not, "the primacy of a personal commitment to the institution(!)" nullifies the most determined efforts to help Catholics see the truth.

Fyodorovna's argument reminds me of what a friend wrote to me some years ago. He -- currently an LCMS pastor, then a seminarian -- accused me of having a completely circular thought process, akin to a bullet train on a circular track. His point was similar to hers: I kept pointing back to the human institution of the Church.

I have to cut this post short... I'll return to the thought later.

Blogroll updated

I've updated the blogroll some.

Rowan Williams

Yesterday kendall of titusonenine linked an interesting (and lengthy -- 47 pages) article on the theology and sexual ethics of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams. It might be worth reading...

Catholic certitude

Josh has a good post on the question of certitude in Catholicism. He notes how one so often hears Catholic apologists asking, "How can you know that what you believe is true without an infallible teaching authority?" and then proceeds to outline some of his problems with certitude in the Catholic Church. Pointing to what he views as contradictions between how one doctrine was explained back in the day and how it's explained today, he posits that a Catholic can never really know the truth of a doctrine, because the explanation he hears today might change tomorrow.

I've offered a few thoughts in the comments box... I think it's an important post that Catholics need to address, or rather, they need to address Josh's argument.

You knew it had to happen sometime...

Fr. Bryce Sibley has found something interesting (what's new)... a version of Star Wars, Episode IV... the opera.

"rely on"???

Jeff Miller wonders what the VP and General Counsel of the fledgling liberal talk radio network Air America meant when he said, "To shut off a broadcast that listeners rely on without warning and in the middle of discussions is the height of irresponsibility and a slap in the face of the media industry."

So, liberals can't do without their daily dose of Franken and Garafolo? With Jeff, I thought it was only Rush Limbaugh's listeners who were mind-numbed robots who depend on the talk show host in order to know what to think. Hmm...