Disciplining Marciel

Pope Benedict XVI is showing signs of bravado:

Pope Benedict XVI disciplined the founder of the conservative Legionaries of Christ, a favorite of Pope John Paul II who for decades has been dogged by sexual abuse allegations _ effectively making the elderly prelate a priest in name only.

In its announcement Friday the Vatican did not say whether it had determined if the accusations against the 86-year-old Mexican priest, the Rev. Marcial Maciel, were true. But canon law experts said the Vatican would not have imposed such a severe penalty unless it found at least some validity to the complaints.

Initially, nine former seminarians said Maciel had abused them when they were young boys or teenagers in Roman Catholic seminaries in Spain and Italy in the 1940s-1960s. Later, others came forward.

One of the problems which plagued Pope John Paul II pontificate was the priest abuse scandal, and his seeming blindness or indifferenct to what was actually a tremendous tragedy. One should not impugn the character of such a holy man too easily, but even saints make mistakes. In his defense, evidently orthodox priests and other good Catholics were often falsely charged with heinous crimes by the enemies of the Church, at least in the Pope's native Poland. Thus, he interpreted allegations of abuse, not as serious and credible charges, bus instead as character smears, similar to those he saw earlier in his lifetime. Benedict's decision to discipline Marciel shows that he does not take the same view as his predecessor.

The Legionaries of Christ, which Maciel founded in 1941 in Mexico City, is one of the fastest-growing religious orders in the Catholic Church with more than 600 priests and 2,500 seminarians in 20 countries in North and South America, Europe and Australia.

It was well-regarded by John Paul in particular because of its conservative views, loyalty to church teaching and because it has been so successful in recruiting.

That Benedict would choose to target Marciel is telling. Obviously, Marciel is quite guilty; the Vatican wouldn't dare take the risk of taking out someone of such high profile were the case the least bit ambiguous. Still, the laws of practical politics, insensible that they are, say to leave the founder of a growing orthodox order well enough alone. If Benedict's latest action is indicative of the way in which his papacy will be run, orthodox Catholic, even those who look well upon Marciel, have reason to be pleased. Once the priesthood had been cleansed, healing and forgiveness can take place, and the Church can reclaim her place in the world as a bastion of morality and truth. This can only be done by going after each and every pedophile, and the cowardly bishops who perpetuated these monsters.

Reforml takes time, but if Benedict is committed, as one can safely surmise, the reform will transpire as quickly as possible. The Church gives all appearances of being in very good hands.

Dud Vinci Code

Since I'm Catholic, I should probably care. More Da Vinci news here, off to elsewhere if you're not interested.

Kicking off the annual Cannes film festival, Ron Howard's adaptation of the Dan Brown bestseller was described variously as "grim", "unwieldy" and "plodding", though one reviewer bucked the trend and said "You'll Louvre It!"

Terrible pun. We're bringing back the Inquisition if the reviewer doesn't knock it off now.

Even before its general release on May 18 and 19, The Da Vinci Code generated controversy as Christians around the world called for it to be banned.

I don't think the reviews matter. The movie will do moderately well because 1) people have poor taste in films--this from someone who thinks Strange Brew was comic gold--and 2) the controversy is worth a few million bucks at least.

If you ban it, they will go. Humans have a prediliction to indulge in that which is verboten. Educate people about the true history of the Church and let that speak for itself. Banning the movie, or even attempting to do so, gives the clown named Brown media attention. A large segment of the population spends a preposterous amount of time in front of the television. The more often "Da Vinci" comes up, the more likely they will imbibe.

I've got a hunch this thing isn't going away any time soon. Stay tuned....

Protesting Protestantism: A Possible Introduction

I recently finished reading a moderately fascinating book entitled The Mosaic of Christian Belief. It was recommended to me after I confessed an ignorance of Protestant traditions. Before I read the book I was a convicted Catholic; after I read the book I am a convicted Catholic. Anyway, the author, Roger E. Olson, who is obviously a well educated theologian, traces core Christian beliefs throughout what he calls "twenty centuries of unity and diversity". In his own words, his book:

aims at being thoroughly biblical and both faithful to the Great Tradition of Christianity as well as contemporary in its restatement of what Christians have always believed. It also intends, however, to provide a mediating theological perspective within the broad tradition of evangelical Protestant Christianity. A mediating theology is one that attempts to bridge unnecessary and unfortunate gulfs between perspectives and interpretations within a single religion—in this case Christianity. Such an approach values unity as well as truth and assumes that at times it is necessary for equally committed Christians to agree to disagree about secondary matters and come together on common ground. One way in which this may be accomplished is by a rediscovery and new valuing of our common Christian heritage of belief—what will here be called the Great Tradition of Christian teaching...

At least in my own estimation, Olson does not seem to succeed. This is not because of a lack of intelligence, foresight or wisdom on his part; and it is certainly not due to a lack of humility. Olson's error is more fundamental than the mere mark of imperfection which is present in every Christian, theologian or otherwise. It is my intention to explain Olson's error and offer a solution to it within this book.

Let us first look back at Olson's introduction as shown above. Sub-titled “The Need for a “Both-And” Theology”, Olson embraces a contradiction that is not quite a paradox. For a paradox is true, and if inexplicable, it nonetheless stands. I am certain that Olson understands paradox, for he uses the very word, as well as examples thereof in his book. I am equally certain that Olson does not believe that there is anything out of the ordinary with the title of his introduction. But he is emphatically wrong, and we cannot go further in his book without explaining the inconsistency present in the most basic principle of his book.

There are cases when “both-and” theology may apply, but they are rare. And though certainly not exclusive to the Christian faith, Christianity is marked by many paradoxes. For example, Olson points out that, according to the Christian faith, Christ was both God and man. As an aside, even this paradox, upon which the whole faith hangs, has been challenged vociferously and often during the history of the Church. I shall say more on this later. Yet there are other instances where the unity of paradox is trumped by a diversity which would give an outright contradiction. Christ may be true God and true man. It is impossible for the mind—at least my own—to comprehend such a mystery, but the fact that it transcends human understanding does not make it a falsehood. However, if Olson would have said—I should clarify that he does not—that Christ was either a man or God--but not both; if he said that both of these beliefs fit within the mold of Christianity, he would be lying. It would be akin to saying that Christ was born in both Nazareth and Bethlehem. While Olson allows no compromise on the nature of Christ, and for that I commend him, he does allow compromise on other areas. To use just one example, he notes that providence is both limited and detailed, under the Christian tradition.

I must beg the readers forgiveness while I clarify this point before moving onward. A man, if he is talented, can both chew gum and walk; he cannot take a bath and drive to the mall at the same time. These examples seem childish, and probably a bit silly, but it is only my intention to prove the same point Aristotle noted before Christ was born. “A” is not the same as “Not A”. In fact, the two are, by definition, mutually exclusive. I cannot simultaneously be writing this in my bedroom while parting the Red Sea. No one can be checking Olson's book out from the library while playing first base at Yankee stadium. If I may be even more absurd, the Red Sea is not Yankee stadium and Olson's book, although it might suffice, is not first base.

Providence may be limited, and it may be detailed. It may even, as the Catholic Tradition has it, embrace both in the form of a paradox. But the belief of Calvin cannot be reconciled with the belief of the Roman Catholic Church. Either we are all predestined in the Calvinist sense and have no real free will, but bend before the might power of God, or we, though impacted by God's grace, make decisions on our own. We have been created by a great God, and though he has the power to stop us from doing wrong, he chose instead to give us free will do that we could freely love him. He knows all things, and, as the being who transcends time, knows even those things which are to be, but he does not create so as to damn, or even in a manner that all will be saved. His love was freely given and it must be freely chosen, and even a Calvinist who sins is doing so of his own volition, and should praise God for the grace to choose well when he has done so, and earnestly repent, again of his own accord, when necessary. I should not give a false account of the words or the intent of Mr. Olson, who closes his chapter on Providence with a call to unity: “Christians need to rediscover and rally together around a distinctively Christian view of God's sovereignty over nature and history in spite of deep differences about the details.” Would that Mr. Olson closed every chapter with such a call. Anyway, the devil, it is said, is in the details. By all means Christians should rally together for a unitive viewpoint on an issue such as providence, but it is the firm contention of this book that unity is important in almost every area of Christian belief, and, furthermore, that this unity can only come, and will only come within the confines—which are not confining—of the Roman Catholic Church.

I do not wish to talk down to Mr. Olson or anyone else who may be reading this. I am sure that he is quite proficient in basic logic, and I would wager that he is far more familiar with Aristotle than I am. Therefore, I realize that what appears obvious to me, and what I should hope appears obvious to the reader, is likewise obvious to him. There is a need for some “either-or” theology. If Christianity is stricken from any absolutes at all, it retains absolutely nothing, and becomes absolutely worthless, especially as a religion. Many men and women have bravely died for Christ. Yet these martyrs have had a clear picture of what it was that they were dying for. I am not concerned, at least for the moment, with whether or not their beliefs were true. I do know that they were true enough for them; they were esteemed true enough to die for. And while many men and women have died for truth, and even for conflicting definitions of truth, they have always had this idea of truth securely in mind. It has always been a firm idea, perhaps a simple idea, but in any case something clearly defined. No one has ever been martyred for some vague notion of peace and love, even if they would sing about it. People have died in protest of individual assaults on peace or love, and even more obviously have been ironically quite ready to make war in order to make peace as were the Communists. It has always been an idea which has lifted man to perform extraordinary feats. It has always been doctrine, even if it happens to be the false doctrine of Marx.

And just as the Christians of old were willing to die for Christ, so too are Christians today ready to courageously follow suit. But the early Christians would not lay their lives down for some moral teacher who allowed for any number of opinions to divide the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church. They would die for the Son of God, and indeed did so bravely and willingly. They would even die for the doctrine of the Church which the world sees as completely insignificant, as did Thomas Moore. There are even early Christians who died for the Eucharist, something about which the church is no longer united. If the belief that the bread and wine were Christ's body and blood was enough to drive holy men and women to martyrdom, it is certainly an important enough topic upon which to develop a solid, firm, and unwavering opinion to which the communion of believers may readily cling.

There is clearly need for unity in the faith, and again Olson says as much. He lucidly and quite humbly lays out some basic beliefs for Christians—what he refers to as the “Great Tradition”. But here trouble sets in. For in accepting certain beliefs as common to Christians, he is excluding other beliefs. Now, it is of course quite necessary to exclude certain beliefs if we wish to prevent Christianity from being some amorphous blob of nothing, encompassing all, and, much like a great big circus tent, collapsing of its supposed liberality. Any proclamation of any one thing is a proclamation against a thousand others, just as the man in the library is neither at Yankee Stadium nor in the Red Sea. Any proclamation of one thing extols some trait over other traits; it lifts one thing over others, even if the others do not in fact fall except in comparison. A proclamation is judgment, and a judgment is an appeal to authority. The problem is that in making a case for Christian commonality, Olson must make this appeal to authority.

There are two sources to which Olson appeals. First, the sacred scriptures, and second, his “Great Tradition” of the the church, with an emphasis on both early church fathers, and reformers along with modern day Protestants. Now, I think that Olson chooses his sources wisely, and anyway, as wisely as he could have with such an untenable proposition for a book. Throughout his work, he clearly tries to keep his opinions out of it. Certainly his selections are based on his viewpoints, but nowhere does Olson spring up to condemn something without first appealing to some authority beyond himself. This is a mark of his wisdom and humility as a Christian, but the reason the book is only moderately fascinating is that it lacks authority. I, for one, do not wish to have more of Olson's opinions in the book, and I think that those who do respect him would only see this respect diminished if he became overly pedagogic. But there is still something lacking in the book. There are common points to be sure, and assuming for the sake of the argument, which we shall revisit later, that Olson does peg Christianity correctly, the greater issue is the discrepancy, which is probably only a far meaner way of saying diversity. There is a distinct impression that what is missing from the book is a solution to all the mad controversies that have plagued the church for two thousand years. One cannot escape the feeling that the diversity does matter, and it matters even more than all the unity which we do in fact share.

To again make use of an earlier example, Olson condemns as heretic those who do not accept the dual nature of Christ, proclaimed by the Nicaean Creed, in which we say: I believe in Jesus Christ, true God, and true man. Again, I applaud Olson for his assertion, but this begs more questions than it gives answers. If the council of Nice was valid, why wasn't the council of Constance likewise valid? If the believers had authority, by whom was this authority given? If it was given by man, Christianity has been nothing but a series of best guesses by our best thinkers, and Arius was condemned, not for being wrong, but for being unable to sway enough bishops to his cause. Luther, was not a heretic, preaching false doctrines; he was an unfortunate soul, unable to conjure sympathy among the clergy. If, on the other hand, the authority derives from God, when did he remove his guiding hand from the Church? The dilemma remains.

It is not enough to say that the Great Tradition teaches that diversity of opinion is not allowed on this particular issue. There was a time when this same Tradition, would have allowed diversity on this very topic. Arius believed that his view on the nature of Christ was accurate, just as Luther thought the Church was wrong, and just as Calvin thought his beliefs correct. If we are not to allow in Arius and his followers, why do the Protestants merit a seat at the banquet table? If Arius is not a Christian, why is Luther?

Protestantism is a heresy, for it attacks the authority of the one Church, called Catholic. There are many good Protestants, and Olson gives all appearances of being one. Heretic has become a dirty word, and I run the risk of dividing rather than uniting by writing this book. Yet such is not my goal. Christians are already divided, though there was to be no division in Christ, and I don't see any way to re-unite the Church without stamping out Protestantism. It is my hope that one day we will all worship as one people, as one body in Christ. May the Lord bring us together once again into his flock. May the fold, through the mercy and grace of Christ, return to the Church.

Keyes Clearly Sees

I am only vaguely familiar with Alan Keyes, although he seems to give every appearance of being genuinely conservative. In 2004, he ran the U.S. Senate in the state of Illinois race against one, Barack Obama, despite the fact that Keyes did not live there, even though he had earlier chastised Hillary for doing something similar in New York. Yet this inconsistent burst of spontaneity does not seem to have marked a permanent regressive change in the man, as evidenced by today's column.

During his speech Monday night, President G.W. Bush acknowledged in a breathtaking understatement that, "We do not have full control of the border." If this were the beginning of his first term, and he had expressed a determination to correct the failed policies of a predecessor, that statement might imply no dereliction of duty in his administration...

The president and others suggest that we must urgently address the crisis of the millions of immigrants who are in this country illegally. But this crisis is the direct result of years of willful neglect by political leaders who have sought their own political advantage and profit for their financial backers, at the expense of America's vital interest...

We have the right to be more than a little doubtful about the credibility of politicians who tell us that we must urgently dash forward to resolve a problem greatly aggravated by their own willful incompetence.

Indeed, Mr Keyes, and well put I might add. It makes precious little difference why both parties are complicit on border security--politicians don't wish to risk alienating an ever-growing Hispanic population; lobbyists who represent corporate interest, dependent on illegal labor, can be most persuasive; globalists see no need to protect borders; doing something about a serious issue would set an unfortunate precedent. It is more than enough to know that they are, in fact, complicit. There appear to be a fair amount of house republicans to whom the aforementioned egregious cowardice does not apply--at least insofar as immigation reform is concerned--but the pusillanimity which pervades the senate is thick enough to choke Neville Chamberlain, and irreconcilable differences between the two houses will render meaningful legislation highly unlikely until after the November elections.

Keyes, and others like him, are tired of waiting for our leaders to lead. Reform cannot be postponed indefinitely, and each subsequent promise of action from the republicans followed by a period of platitudes and inaction causes doubt to embolden in the most fervent believer's heart. I need hardly mention that while the issue of immigration is slowly destorying the unity in the republican camp, the democrats epitomize disunity, and have not seen fit to develop cogent and consistent party positions on any issue save their dislike for Mr. Bush. Leadership, especially on immigration, will not come from the party of Pelosi.

Third parties have played the role of spoilers in American history, especially in recent times--just ask George's father or Al Gore. If the republican party does not grow a backbone and do something to impede the onslaught of illegals as well as begin to send back the vast majority, if not all, of the aliens who erroneously dub the U.S. "home", the Constitution party, which has no qualms about either deportation or border security, may play the spoiler in 2008. This will give Hillary the presidency, as I have long asserted, nor do I much care. In order for me to prefer one party to the other, one must do something which is genuinely preferable.
Sealing the borders and cracking down on businesses which hire illegals seems as good a place as any to start.

Keyes asks:

The border security crisis serves to reveal a deeper one, which has at its heart this question: If the elites produced by both the existing political parties are no longer willing to defend the nation's borders, how can we trust them to defend its life?

The unfortunate answer, Mr. Keyes, is that we cannot.

Rome is to America: My Obsession

A friend of mine recently said, only half jokingly, that I ought to finish Democracy in America before the lessons no longer apply. Tocqueville's assertions seem to be of three types: those that are true or mostly so; those that were once true but are no longer; and, rarest of all, educated guesses that turned out to be patently wrong. Most unfortunate, the second type seems to be ever increasing.

Yet even though his observations become less true with each step towards autocracy, his work is a classic, and the reader will be delighted to find moments when the strange French man put things just so. To use but one example:

[P]atriotism and religion are the only two motives in the world which can permanently direct the whole of a body politic to one end.

Americans are no longer near as religious as we once were, and though many still attend church, the hypocrisy of the millions of Christians the nation over is both rampant and rank. A quick survey of statistics surrounding divorce and promiscuity will not exonerate the followers of Christ whose commitment, it would seem, all too often tends to be of a purely verbal variety.

Patriotism seems to fare little better. The Fox News crowd is content to march, rank and file with their commander in chief, but as soon as the letter next to his name changes from R to D, the supposed patriotism will immediately fade. There is nothing wrong with partisanship, and, to quote Chesterton, "'My country, right or wrong' is a thing no patriot would ever think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying 'My mother, drunk or sober.'" Yet patriotism demands a love for country so long as it adheres to a specific set of principles. The two major parties disagree formally on little, and even less in terms of action, and a fervor for one coupled with a disdain for the other is more madness than patriotism.

Being the eternal pessimist, I see little hope that either religion or patriotism are renewed in time to save the republic. In fact, the more despotic a country becomes, the more difficult it is for the true patriots to continue to stand by her. We still have a long way to go on the road to totalitarianism, but without some signs of improvement, or at least a committment by one of the parties for a return to the principles upon which this nation was founded, it's going to be terribly difficult for the patriot to feel patriotic.

A return to religion is more probable, and, in the long run, the only thing that will bring salvation, not only in the world to come, but here as well. It is possible that the people of this fair land could re-discover the religion of their ancestors, and conjure up passion for something to which their present feelings are tepid at best, but it is not wise to place hope above reason. The Christian religion will survive; more specifically, the Catholic Church will continue to exist as a bastion of light and truth, but it is less than clear what role American believers will play in the upcoming scenes in salvation history.

The more I study the Church, the more I find kernals of wisdom she has deposited throughout the ages. I close with this gem from Augustine, whose words, composed some sixteen hundred years ago, are just as applicable to the Americans as they were to the citizens of Rome, to which Augustine gives mock voice.

"So long as it lasts," [the Romans] said, "so long as it enjoys material prosperity and the glory of victorious war, or better, the security of peace, why should we worry? What concerns us is that we should get richer all the time, to have enough for extravagant spending every day, enough to keep our inferiors in their place…It is a good thing to have the din of dancing everywhere, and theatres full of fevered shouts of degenerate pleasure and of every kind of cruel and degraded indulgence. Anyone who disapproves of this kind of happiness should rank as a public enemy..."

And so it goes; and so it goes.

The Price of Power

There is an oft repeated maxim that applies especially to the republican Party of today: Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.

Disgusted with the scandal-ridden Clinton presidency and his inept and illiberal governance, the republicans, hellbent on snatching executive control, nominated George W. Bush. They could have picked a genuine conservative—Steve Forbes comes to mind, as does Buchanan, who was so ungratefully snubbed in '96—but that would have risked offending moderate voters who, bereft of principles, sway with the wind. Winning was, in the words of Lombardi, the only thing.

The republicans achieved victory; but in their pursuit of the ring of power, the party became like the soulless wraiths. For the one ring of power can no more be used to defend Gondor than governmental authority can be wielded by modern republicans without manifesting itself in autocratic fashion. History will one day proclaim Bush as either a useful idiot or a willful participant in the destruction of the republic, but whether Bush was drawn to the power before or after his attainment thereof makes no difference. Once in possession of the ring, all shards of conservatism were displaced; Bush spent as Johnson could only dream; he marched further for the god Democracy than Wilson would have dared. The ring, it seemed, had a mind of its own.

As the facade of transformation was slowly being enacted, we, the remnant of believers, were told that September 11th necessitated urgent actions. Bush would return to conservatism in due time. The American people continued to give in to the demands of Bush, believing, or perhaps only hoping, that the seed of conservatism was planted deeply within their leader, and if given full power, he would be apt to use it more prudently and wisely. All but the most irascible of dissidents gave Bush the benefit of the doubt, and conservatives turned out en masse to re-elect their president.

With the defeat of John Kerry, Bush saw every branch of government in Republican control. Then a strange thing happened, or, more accurately and just as incredibly, things stayed exactly the same. No longer could the evil senate democrats take the blame for foiling the benevolent plans of Bush and his chums; with power comes responsibility, and with absolute power, excuses for inaction are as pitiful as the hapless opposition's pleas for mercy. Bush wasn't a conservative at all; in the words of Tolkien "they were all of them, deceived."

Bush is not doubt wishing he could take his wish back. The jig is up and even the most loyal sheep are becoming suspicious of their shepherd. Yet unlike poor Frodo, who was compelled to scale Mount Doom to destroy the wretched ring, Bush's salvation lies along an easier path. Most conservatives forgive easily enough, so long as the sins are of omission rather than commission. Bush's father lost because he reneged on his vow that there would be "no new taxes". Despite the younger Bush's failure to cut spending, his moderate tax cuts were enough to earn the favor of a majority in the electoral college. But the tax cuts are an old memory, as this year the fed collected the second most money of all time in taxes; and support is dwindling for a war which was never fought upon conservative principles to begin with and good news on the Iraq front continues to be slow in forthcoming.

Yet illegal immigration is a very important issue to many Americans, especially among what is still left of Bush's shrinking base. Tonight, Bush had a chance to win back the support of his base and ensure that, though they may take a much deserved pounding in the house and senate elections, his party would retain control in one or both houses. By taking a firm stance against illegal immigration and offering a proposal to abate the crisis, Bush could reclaim the moniker of conservative in the eyes of many of his constituents. Tonight, Bush blew it in a big way.

The issue is much more simple than it is purported to be. The reason illegal immigrants come to this country is not because they love baseball, freedom and apple pie. Baseball is booming regions southward; we're not nearly that free—though I suppose if one hails from a totalitarian realm, things seem not so bad in the USA—and apple pie, while delicious, has seldom tempted man to leave hearth and home. Illegals come here because it is profitable to do so. It is better to work here, earning wages Americans would never deign labor at, than to dwell in the wretched poverty from whence they came. Thus, if it is no longer profitable to move here, illegals will cease to move here. By the simple imposition of exorbitant fines upon those employing illegals, the incentive for hiring them will be relieved, and the unfortunate lawbreakers will soon find themselves without a source of income. So long as we can simultaneously prevent illegals from receiving welfare, many will migrate home all by themselves, rendering deportation extraneous.

Being a plutocrat, Bush did not crack down on his corporate friends. Instead, he offered platitudes, hoping to mollify his base without angering the more sizable part of the country which already fervently dislikes him and his policies. He failed to offer any real permanent solutions, although he did advocate more federal spending. The debt will grow, but the problem will not be solved—nor is it intended to be. The issue of illegal immigration will be vociferously debated until November, and neither party will budge. If legislation is enacted, representatives might be held culpable, and divisive stands make it tough to get re-elected. It's better to stick with spending money, for the children of course, and lavishly lace appropriations bills with pork.

To borrow another analogy from Tolkien, the neo-cons have the genuine conservatives under a deep spell, just as Wormtongue controlled the Theoden King. I have been waiting for a long time for my idealogical brethren to wake from their sleep, with or without the metaphorical Gandalf's help. Hope yet remains, but whether the conservatives rejoin the battle in time to prevent the death of the republic remains to be determined. The republicans have authored their own defeat by trading principle for power, and what they most fear is all but inevitable. The hours grow ever darker; a new shadow rises in the east; and the one ring of power shall soon pass to Hillary.

The Perils of Browsing the Internet

By any stretch of imagination, Internet Explorer is a bad browser. Thus, I do most of my surfing with the aid of Firefox. I've been using Firefox for over a year now, and for the most part, I've been thoroughly impressed with it. For whatever reason, it has been behaving like IE lately, and has exploded on me three times in the last several days. I have lost what I am sure were mind blowingly brilliant blog entries on both occasions.

Thus, I have no piece on Mother's Day. Sorry Mom. I will, instead, leave my readers a link to a more thorough and more interesting attack of the nonsense behind The Da Vinci Code.

Drat Firefox, seriously. If it wasn't for tabulated browsing, I'd leave you. Is it weird that I talk to my browser?

Condemning the Code

Near as I can surmise, every American who has the capability to do so has read The Da Vinci Code. I have not. One of Dan Brown's previous novels, Deception Point, struck me as marginal, and I saw no reason to go out of my way to read mediocre fiction when my stack of books to be read was towering with writers that would put Brown to shame.

Earlier today, the large picture adorning the top of the Drudge Report displayed burning copies of Brown's controversial novel. According to Wikipedia, "Critics have attacked it as inaccurate, sacrilegious and poorly written and decry the many negative implications about the Catholic Church and Opus Dei." Thus, the book burns.

In his leading of the delighted reader through the Fall and Decline of the Roman Empire, Gibbon spends no small amount of time with the Emperor Constantine, who, as I understand it, played an instrumental role in the cover-up proclaimed by Brown. Yet, strangely, Gibbon does not mention the progeny of Jesus and Mary Magdalene at all. Since he viewed the Catholic Church as one of the principle culprits in the demise of the great empire, it is unconscionable that Gibbon would willingly commit such a careless oversight. The historian is skeptical of religious sentiment, especially that of the Christians, who were frequently either too hypocritical or too "superstitious" for his cynical mind.

Now, Brown obviously offers some explanation for how the conspiracy was brought to light, even if I have no idea what that explanation is. In all likelihood he exonerates the character of Gibbon, as the damning documentation was discovered some time in the last two hundred years, after the completion of Gibbon's work.

It never ceases to amaze me the outrageous explanations people will believe which belie Occam's razor. There are several possibilities as to the qualities of the person of Christ, and there are several alike for that of the Church. It is entirely possible that the Church has pulled the wool over the eyes of everyone. She may in fact be the vehicle of the greatest conspiracy of all time. But make no mistake about it, if the Church is not what she says she is—namely, the protector of the sacred Truth revealed by Christ—she is the most powerful and devious institution to grace this earth in hoodwinking so many billions of people over the last two thousand years. It seems far more plausible that the Church is exactly what she says she is, rather than some bizarre collection of ambitious scoundrels, hellbent on controlling the masses.

As an aside, I can't ever figure out how on earth the Church can be presumed to be so controlling. Only four percent of married American Catholics follow her teaching on contraception; the bishops refuse to withhold communion from politicians who support abortion—and yet find time to march for illegal aliens, which is more curious than unholy; most Catholics do not attend mass weekly, and fewer still receive the Sacrament worthily. Ironically, it is the remnant of orthodox Catholics which is now howling loudest in the Church, not for reform per se, but rather for a strict adherence to her doctrine and promulgation thereof. The hard-liners scream for more control and pastoral leadership, but the Vatican refuses to budge. Controlling indeed.

I've been trying to get riled up about Da Vinci. I know it's blatant heresy, but anyone who has studied the Church history knows that we've dealt with this thing before. The idea that the Church could last two thousand years only to be brought down by a mediocre novelist is laughable. The Church will rise again; people will be surprised as they always are; and in a short matter of time they will resurrect some new cadaver to lead their march new march which will assuredly destroy the Church.

Yet heresy should not be dealt with lightly. The pope at the time of the reformation was alerted to murmurs of discontent, but dismissed them as silly disputes amongst the monks. One of those monks was Martin Luther, and since that horrible day when he nailed his complaints—some legitimate, some not—to the Church door, the Church has been reeling from disunity. I do not see Brown having the same impact that Luther did, but he still has the power to shake the faith of some Christians.

Now, as I have already mentioned, anyone who knows anything about the Church and what she teaches, or about the history, specifically in regard to all the heretics she has had to condemn, can't find this latest assault my Brown much more than a nuisance. It calls to mind the story of the great doctor of the Church, St. Thomas Aquinas, who once interrupted a large feast with an adamant fist to the table and a boisterous shout of, "And that will settle the Manichees!" St. Augustine had, of course, settled the Manichees hundreds of years previous, but heretics are notoriously bad with history, and were evidently unaware of this fact. St Thomas, patient man that he was, had found perhaps another way of “settling” the dissenters.

Unfortunately, however, most Catholic, and fewer Christians, know much about their faith, especially as it extends beyond selected passages in the Bible. It is our job to instruct, and to avoid contributing to this heresy by boycotting the film. The shepherds of the church have not been struck, but have instead played the coward, and the sheep will be scattered. Only one of very weak faith would buy into the nonsense of Mr. Brown, but in the spirit of Vatican II, we have handed out condoms and false doctrine in the stead of faith and knowledge.

Christ said that the path is wide that leads to destruction, and although we must fight to broaden the path and urge others to follow, we are all, ultimately left with free will. If Christ saw no problem in letting others choose damnation, neither shall we. But let us pray...

Rape! (Just Kidding)

Once omnipresent, the Duke rape story is now nowhere to be found. This could merely be further evidence that the collective American attention span barely surpasses that of the goldfish. Alternatively, the priveleged white boys, once guilty as sin--or the secular equivalent thereof--now appear to be nothing more than victims of calumny, which is almost as shocking as the announcement from the revered tabloid that yet another celebrity marriage fell apart.

The day after the March 13 team party where a 27-year-old black woman claimed she was raped, Durham police told campus officers that "this will blow over," the report said. The woman initially told police she was raped by 20 white men, then said she was attacked by three, the report said.

Being a prospective engineer, I'm tolerably good at math. The number twenty is greater than the number three. We can glean one of several conclusions.

1) The accuser was in an altered state such that she mistook three men for nearly seven times that many. In this case, her testimony is unreliable. If a woman can't distinguish between twenty and three of an object that is, on average, six feet tall and one hundred ninety pounds--note, these numbers are made up; just pretend I work for the New York Times--she cannot be a worthy source of information in determining whether or not she was raped. The DNA tests have thus exonerated the men.

2) The accuser is lying outright. She was never raped, and is, in fact, only conjuring up a story because she can. Even when the men are acquitted, the apologists for this poor woman will see further evidence of privelege trumping the rights of the commoner. Oh the calamity of a jury which clings readily to facts, and uses the obvious lack thereof which coincide with the woman's allegations to return a just verdict.

When honesty is no longer honored, lying becomes permissible. When the reasons to lie are many, and the reasons to tell the truth, few, weak constitutions will find excuse to forgo the path of noblility. Since women who lie about rapes suffer few consequences, and reap the rewards that come with media exposure, women lie about rape, and will continue to do so. This is not to say that rape never happens, of course, but when making up a story lands one a scholarship, well, you do the math.

On a related note, it seems we have another bogus rape claim--great name for a band, by the way.

A 13-year-old girl who told Zion police she was raped by seven boys in an apartment complex laundry room last month has recanted her original statement that she was forced to engage in the sexual activity.

See, abstinence doesn't work. Because, I mean, kids are going to have sex, you know. With multiple partners. In the same day.

We are in a strange stage culturally, where, despite valiant attempts by those opposed to traditional Judeo-Christian values, specifically in regard to the sexual ethic, something innate in people tells them that having gratuitous sex is not something of which to be proud. It is deemed less dishonorable to invent claims of rape than admit that one is, in fact, a dirty tramp or a misguided fool.

I for one will be estatic when we erase all this silly Christian guilt. In twenty years, this girl will be proud of having sex with seven boys, and the bogus claims can all go away. Ah, the sweet smell of cultural demise under the guise of liberation.

Health Nonsense

I realize that smoking is, at best, extraneous, and at worst "unhealthy". I'm not going to argue that inhaling tobacco is on a level with, say, ingesting vitamin C, but obsession with health has got to be one of the worst facets of American culture. Don't do anything unhealthy; it's imperative to live a sterile life until the ripe old age of eighty. Of course, if you refrain from doing unhealthy things, which pretty much leaves walking--indoors so as to avoid sunlight-- drinking water and eating, well, you can't eat too much of anything, so I guess you're boned, by the time you reach sixty you won't care for living any more.

There was an honest to goodness story last week about how eating too many steamed vegetables is bad for your teeth. Too much acid. We've officially lost it. Why study that in the first place? If someone is eating too many vegetables--whatever that means--first, they're nuts anyway. Most people have a healthy--yes, I said healthy--suspicion when it comes to vegetables. It's prudent to stomach your greens, and there are certainly ways to make getting those precious vitamins and minerals less painful, like dumping several ounces of Ranch on a leaf of lettuce, or tossing some mushrooms on a pizza, or, well, you get the idea. But vegetarians have a couple screws loose, attempting to subsist largely on vegetables.

The study proves two things, and no, it doesn't prove that vegetables are bad for you. This will be recanted in six months, guaranteed. For every study there is an equal an opposite study. That's the first thing we learned. I'm not saying there isn't truth involved when it comes to nutrutional matters. I just don't trust the "scientists" doing the studies. I'd say about 1 in 4 studies have validity, 1 in 4 are false, and half of them could be right and could be wrong, but no one has a clue either way. Yes, I just made that up, but so did they. At least no one had to grease my palm for that scientific survey.

The other point is that there is no way to be healthy enough. Near as I can figure, we are all organic, and as such, we will die and decay. I don't see the problem. Let's all make sure we get our vitamins and minerals in so to ensure we live forever--except we won't. Forget about health. Life is too short to fret over calories and other trivialities. You're going to die with or without that Oreo, and while the pipe tobacco is probably ticking precious seconds off of my life with each beautiful drag, I remain a convicted agnostic. No one has done a study on people who smoke a pipe twice a week for a year in their twenties. Of course, I wouldn't believe the results if they did, but in either case, I see no reason to sit about in a state of panic.

Tolkien and Chesterton smoked; that's good enough for me.