Month: July 2005

“The World Is Over. The Fight Has Just Begun.”

That’s the tagline for the new Battlestar Galactica series.

Cool, huh?

It may soon (in the next few years) apply to another arena: the abortion debate.

Abortion Nazis have acted for years like overturning Roe would be the end of the world.

Nope.

It’d be the beginning of the fight.

Long term, pro-lifers will win that fight for simple demographic reasons: the "Roe effect." But what would the early stages of the fight look like?

HERE’S SOME ANALYSIS FROM A LADY WHO SEEMS TO BE NO FAN OF THE IDEA OF ENDING ROE BUT WHO RECOGNIZES WHAT IT WOULD MEAN IN PRACTICE.

About that fight . . . bring it on, man! Bring it on!

The sooner we fight it, the sooner baby killing ends.

Roe v. Wade v. Technology

Tony Blankley makes a point I’ve been making for some time:

It is the very language of Roe that carries the seed of its own possible irrelevance within the next several years. Roe enunciated the more or less unencumbered right of a woman to obtain an abortion prior to fetal viability. After viability, the right of states to regulate or prohibit abortions arise. The court defined legal viability as "potentially able to live outside the mother’s womb, albeit with artificial aid."

But medical science is remorselessly advancing on two fronts along paths that may fairly soon seize and destroy in a scientific pincer movement the viability of Roe’s reasoning.

Today, babies born after only 20 weeks of gestation routinely survive — and thus are viable under the Roe definition (and thus potentially legally safe from the abortionist’s medical weapons).

But radical research may soon reduce that 20 weeks to just a few — or perhaps no weeks.

Blankley then reports on two methods currently under development which might give us the ultimate collapse of the idea of non-viability: the artificial womb. (Interesting stuff. Read it.)

Then he notes:

Once such technologies make it medically possible for a fetus to be "potentially able to live outside the mother’s womb, albeit with artificial aid" the language of Roe v Wade will not have to be overturned. It could stay on the books as legally valid, but factually meaningless.

What may happen next?

WE MIGHT FIND OURSELVES IN A BRAVE NEW WORLD.

The Anglican Solution

The Church of England has come up with a "Let’s try to please everyone!"-solution to the problem of Anglican homosexual clergy and the gay clergy’s desire for "marriage." "Okay," sez the Church of England, "You can marry but you must remain celibate continent!"

"The Church of England is to allow gay clergy to enter into civil partnerships but only if they promise to abstain from sex, according to guidance issued yesterday.

"It has been drawn up to clarify the Church’s position on the Civil Partnerships Act, which will offer same-sex couples a legal status similar to marriage when it comes into effect on Dec 5.

"In a ‘pastoral statement’ [scare quotes in the original], the House of Bishops said that clergy would be able to take advantage of the Act, but only if they reassure their bishops that they will uphold Church teaching. Clergy were also told that they should not offer formal services of blessing for couples who had been through a civil partnership ceremony, but they could pray with the couple."

GET THE STORY.

I find it fascinating that a church created because of one man’s sexual indiscretions and rationalizations for his immoral behavior has constantly been at the forefront of the liberal Christian "sexual revolution" and the rationalization by some Christians of sexual behavior traditionally recognized to be immoral.

Huh?

Down yonder a reader writes:

Mr. Akin,
What is your position on the Iraq War? I know that the late Holy Father
as well as the current Holy Father were opposed to it. I just don’t
believe it qualifies as a just war. Where is your evidence that it
qualifies? Why do you think it’s a good idea for Catholics to support
it? Have you lost your mind?

I wonder what you think of my website?

This comment was posted at 12:06 p.m., Pacific Time.

Then, at 12:44 p.m., the same commenter posted:

By the way, your position of same-sex "marriage" is good. However,
neoconservative foreign policy is not. I don’t see why just because
you’re an American you have to support immoral war policy.

Then, after someone pointed out that it’s rather rude to ask "Have you lost your mind?" before you at least know the answer to the prior question, the previous commenter posted at 1:21 p.m.:

Good idea.  I retract the question "Have you lost your mind?"  at least for now anyway.

Then, at 2:33 p.m. the commenter posts on his own blog that

I have been unable to get Jimmy Akin’s answer to the question I posed
to him: what qualifies the invasion of Iraq as a just war according to
the Catholic Doctrine? I will be honest: at the outset of the war, I
was a more or less passive supporter of it. However, now I oppose it
because I believe it does not meet the criteria for a just war as found
in Catholic teaching. Both the late Holy Father and the current Holy
Father were opposed to it. As then-Cardinal Ratzinger said before the
outset of the war, the pretext of a preemptive war cannot be found in
the Catechism. He also said that the unilateral invasion of Iraq by the
US was unjustified. Since the start of the war in 2003, all of the
original premises for going to war have been discredited: no weapons of
mass destruction were found, there is no evidence of a link with al
Quaeda, etc. The war has proved enormously costly both in civilian
casualties, lives of American soldiers lost, and an enormous amount of
money has been spent. More lives continue to be lost and more money
continues to be spent. In my opinion, the neoconservative idea that the
United States should force rogue nations to adopt Western-style
democracy at gunpoint is overly idealistic.

To all this I have to say: Kid! Cut back on the caffeine! ‘Kay?

I know that you may be part of the videogame generation (your blog profile says you’re a university student) and may perceive life as moving at breakneck speed, but it simply is not realistic to post a blog comment at 12:06 p.m. asking me a question and then two hours and twenty-seven minutes later be declaiming to the world that you have been "unable" to get my answer to the question.

I know that as a result of a variety of causes (the Internet among them), many folks have gotten so used to instant info gratification that they have the attention span of a ferret on cocaine, but really!

As I pointed out just the other day, I don’t write blog posts during the day (when I’m at work) but at night (when I’m not). If you write at 12:06 p.m., I’m likely to not even see your query until I get home. Much less am I going to drop everything to write a post responding to a tendentiously-phrased query about a subject like the Iraq War.

Further, again as I explained the other day, a lot of folks write with queries that, much as I’d like to, I simply can’t answer for time reasons. Why am I going to jump your query up to the head of the list, above everyone else’s, in order to answer it?

And that assumes that I’m even going to answer it.

As I explained just yesterday, I don’t generally comment on political issues. I’m quite happy to explain the Church’s just war teaching, and in fact I have done so on numerous occasions. But when it comes to applying those criteria to particular conflicts, who says that I have any obligation to tell people what to think about a particular war when even JPII and B16 have not (despite what you may have heard) chosen to make authoritative statements on the subject and bind the consciences of the faithful?

If I choose to express an opinion or not, that’s my choice, but I certainly have no obligation to commit to a running debate with you on the subject just because you stick a remark in my combox.

Further, if you’re asking for my position on the war, why are you then assuming that I’m in favor of it? If you already know the answer to your question, why are you asking it?

And, puh-lease, don’t go around contemptuously labeling as "neoconservative" whatever position I may or may not privately hold. Would you like someone slapping insulting labels on what they perceived to be your position–and before you have even said what your position is?

Also . . . what does any of this have to do with Canada? That was, you may recall, the subject of the post into which you stuck your comment. To the extent it had to do with countries in general (including the U.S.), it emphasized how little I tend to comment on political matters involving them. If you have an off-topic query to make, well . . . that’s why God created e-mail.

Then there is the "Have you lost your mind?" query. Despite your later attempt to retract it, you need to learn a swift life lesson that this ain’t how it works. Having uttered words in someone’s presence, you can’t just magically take them back (unless you have access to a time-travelling Delorean). You can try to mitigate the damage you did to your case with them by expression contrition for having been so insulting with what you said, but saying "Good idea.  I retract the question ‘Have you lost your mind?’  at least for now anyway" ain’t the way to do that.

Then we have the further query

I wonder what you think of my website?

This can be taken in either a snarky or a non-snarky sense. If it’s taken in a snarky sense then one would expect that there might be something on your blog that I would disapprove of (e.g., like comments about the Iraq War), however a check of your blog reveals that at the time you posted your comment you had written a grand total of seven blog posts, none of which had anything to do with the Iraq War, making it seem unlikely that you intended the question in a snarky sense.

That leaves us with the non-snarky sense. This one is also hard to explain because anyone who is sincerely seeking feedback on their blogging efforts should know enough not provoke and then insult the very person from whom they are seeking feedback.

Nevertheless, here are a few pieces of constructive criticism:

1) Light grey text on black background is a bad color scheme. It’s hard for the eye to read and will discourage people from reading your blog. If you want to attract readers, reverse the contrast.

2) It seems that you are still in the process of determining the name for your blog. That’s understandable, though you should get a snappier name for your blog than "Blog." A few days ago it was apparently called "Your Mom," which–while confusing–was snappier than "Blog." I know that it’s hard coming up with snappy names for things sometimes. Perhaps you might hold a "Name this blog!" contest among your readers or at least have a brainstorming session with your friends.

3) In regard to readers and friends, you’ll attract and keep more of both if you approach people positively rather than provoking and insulting them. Seasoned bloggers won’t mind engaging in friendly debates with you, but you can’t simply presume their answers and then start flailing away at them. You have to give people a chance to answer–if they want to–and treat them with the same respect that you’d like. Make a pain of yourself and few will link to you.

4) Oh yeah, and hit your "Enter" key often. If paragraphs get too long, they get hard on the eyes. Make sure you get a blank space between graphs, too. Much easier on the eyes.

Commenting On Canada

A reader writes:

I noticed you do not comment a lot about politics in Canada and with
the recent legalizing of gay "marriage" there, I was wondering why
you have not said too anything about it? Do you have some sort of
policy about commenting on foreign countries?

Actually, I generally don’t comment that much about politics in other countries (or even particular political fights here at home) that much.

Partly this is due to the fact that I don’t follow what’s going on in other countries, and I don’t like to comment on things I don’t have a good handle on.

Partly it’s due to the fact that I prefer commenting on issues rather than individual political fights.

It’s also partly due to an experience I had about nine or ten months ago. If you cast your mind back that distance, you’ll find yourself right in the middle of the U.S. election. You remember: The one between the Texan and the Evil Guy?–the one who would have only appointed Supreme Court justices committed to locking in slaveryabortion for the foreseeeable future?

Well, during that election, some foreigners decided to try to weigh in an influence the U.S. election. One "newspaper" in England even "adopted" a town in the U.S. and had its readers write letters to people in that town to urge them to vote for the Evil Guy.

I didn’t like that, and not just because they were supporting the Evil Guy. I didn’t like it because this was a U.S. election and people from other places ought to let us sort out our own leadership, thankyew.

Well, what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, I realized, and so I have generally refrained from commenting on political matters in other countries.

I have done so a few times. For example, I wrote about the need to reject the European Constitution due to its civilization-destroying and totalitarianism-imposing effects. I wouldn’t be opposed to Europeans getting together and forming their own country if they wanted to. That’d be fine. But this constitution would have been bad news and accelerated the European civilizational deathspiral. I was concerned to see European countries retain enough autonomy to be the kind of laboratories needed to experiment and find ways to save themselves from the destruction that would occur if they all fossilized the current European "social model," which is killing the continent at present. Once Europeans see countries in their own neighborhood saving themselves from destruction, they’ll be inclined to follow suit, and everyone will be better off.

But that’s a kind of meta-political issue not attached to the particulars of party politics. Indeed, I wrote in hopes of doing my teeny, weenie little part to help preserve room for different parties to try different solutions.

As a result, I generally don’t comment on particular political fights. For example, much as I’d love to see the president of a certain European country whose name starts with "France" get his arrogant obstreperousness handed to him on a silver platter come election time, I expect that I’ll sit by the sidelines, keep my mouth shut, and not write "Anybody but Jacques!" blog posts.

It’s that "Do unto others" thing, y’know?

Since the Canadian homosexual "marriage" thing is an issue, though I could comment on it except . . . I’m not sure what I’d say about it except that it’s bad, that it’s a tragedy, that it’s an outrage, etc., and it might come off like kicking Canada when it’s down.

I don’ wanna be kicking other countries when they’re down.

Will Catholic Answers have some Canadian speakers on to explain the
situation? Because to me, it looks like a pretty serious human rights
violation (freedom of religion, freedom of speech) and it is similar
( I think) to what is happening in Europe now.

That’s a good idea! I’ll mention it to the folks who plan out the schedule. Maybe they can get a show put together on it!

In the meantime, if folks (Canadian or otherwise) want to comment on the Canadian homosexual "marriage" situation, feel free to do so.

Organ During Eucharistic Prayer

A reader writes:

At our Church the pastor says the Eucharistic prayers and also has the organist accompany him during this time.  This is very distracting and I have expressed this concern both with the music director and the pastor.  The music director told me that the pastor wants this because it "helps him know what to say next."  The pastor did not reply to my letter of concern and has continued this practice.

Is this a situation that I should take further to try to stop?  We have many problems at our church including inclusive language and we don’t know what to stand up for and what to just offer up for the Church.  Like I said, the music during Consecration is very distracting to me and others and I believe the Church has given us a gift in calling for silence during this time.

As to whether you should take further action to help deal with the situation, that is something that will have to be up to your best judgment. The practice is certainly contrary to the Church’s liturgical law and in itself worthy of action, but there may be "bigger fish to fry" in your parish (i.e., other problems that need more urgently to be solved). Make your best guess after reflecting on the situation and then act accordingly.

If you do conclude that the matter does need to be pursue further, I would talk to the priest directly about it rather than starting by going over his head. Work the steps that Jesus outlines in Matthew 18 to the extent that this is possible: talk to him privately, talk to him with a group, etc.

So that you know you’re on safe ground her legally, here is what the current (2002) General Instruction of the Roman Missal has to say on the matter:

 

30. Among the parts assigned to the priest, the foremost is the Eucharistic Prayer, which is the high point of the entire celebration. Next are the orations: that is to say, the collect, the prayer over the offerings, and the prayer after Communion. These prayers are addressed to God in the name of the entire holy people and all present, by the priest who presides over the assembly in the person of Christ. It is with good reason, therefore, that they are called the “presidential prayers.”

32. The nature of the “presidential” texts demands that they be spoken in a loud and clear voice and that everyone listen with attention. Thus, while the priest is speaking these texts, there should be no other prayers or singing, and the organ or other musical instruments should be silent.

Cats Hate Sweets

That was the conclusion of a Very Important Scientific Study conducted recently:

"Now, there’s a scientific theory explaining, at least in part, why cats have such snobby eating habits: genetics.

"Researchers at the Monell Chemical Senses Center in Philadelphia and their collaborators said Sunday they found a dysfunctional feline gene that probably prevents cats from tasting sweets, a sensation nearly every other mammal on the planet experiences to varying degrees.

"Researchers took saliva and blood samples from six cats, including a tiger and a cheetah and found each had a useless gene that other mammals use to create a ‘sweet receptor’ on their tongues. The gene in question does not produce one of the two vital proteins needed to form the receptors.

"’Because cats can’t taste sweets, they’re cranky,’ joked Joseph Brand, Monell’s associate director and an author of the paper being published Sunday in the inaugural issue of the Public Library of Science’s journal Genetics."

GET THE STORY.

Just what the world needs: Scientific proof that cats are finicky.

One wonders why scientists choose the research topics that they do. While a study like this might be entertaining, of what possible use could it be to the furtherance of scientific inquiry? Merely to be able to say that we know? I hope that there is some use to studies like this and that it is only my completely unscientific mind that barely scraped through required high-school science that cannot fathom it.

Giant Microbes!

GiantmicrobesOkay! The link to GiantMicrobes.Com is too amazing to pass up!

For those who missed it, yesterday Tim J. was telling about a bug that’s recently had him severely under the weather. (Muchos sympathies to Tim J.!)

There’s been something similar going around the Catholic Answers offices (as Michelle mentioned), only it seems to be a cough-inducing virus that goes into folks lungs and stays there for weeks and weeks and weeks. (Mercifully, I have not caught it.)

Then in the combox a helpful reader pointed to the amazing site GiantMicrobes.Com! As they explain on the site:

We make stuffed animals that look like tiny microbes—only a million times actual size! Now available: The Common Cold, The Flu, Sore Throat, Stomach Ache, Cough, Ear Ache, Bad Breath, Kissing Disease, Athlete’s Foot, Ulcer, Martian Life, Beer & Bread, Black Death, Ebola, Flesh Eating, Sleeping Sickness, Dust Mite, Bed Bug, and Bookworm (and in our Professional line: H.I.V. and Hepatitis).

Each 5-to-7 inch doll is accompanied by an image of the real microbe it represents, as well as information about the microbe.

They make great learning tools for parents and educators, as well as amusing gifts for anyone with a sense of humor!

They’re also serious about making the plush toys look like (well, kinda like) the offending real-world critters.

They’re the perfect thing to help Mr. Monk get over his germophobia!

Note also that they have a "Martian Life" plush toy based on the alleged fossils of Martian life in that meteor they found in Antartica.

(Warning also that a few of the diseases are scary or unmentionable.)