Month: October 2005

There is almost no comment that can be made on THIS ARTICLE (from Catholic Exchange, originally from Catholic World News) that could adequately express the contemptible and farcical absurdity of the "demands" made by the folks at We Are Church to the current Synod in Rome. I literally laughed out loud.

Consider this paragraph from the article:

"At an October 4 press conference in Rome, the dissident group called
for reconsideration of the key Catholic doctrine on the
transubstantiation, an end to the "hierarchical monopoly" on the
sacraments, and approval of shared communion with other Christian
denominations."

Never mind that the dissidents seem to be demanding that the Catholic Church simply cease to exist.
What struck me is how much really hangs on the Real Presence. Look at their three main complaints and how they hang together. If Jesus is not really present in the Eucharist, then it doesn’t much matter who administers the Sacrament, and so there is no need for a "hierarchical monopoly" (the priesthood).

It follows also that, if the Eucharist is just a symbolic remembrance, it doesn’t much matter who is allowed to receive it. Sure, open it up to everyone, even non-Christians. After all, wouldn’t it be petty and mean to exclude anyone?

What, are these people just too fond of drink to become Baptists?

Oh, I forgot, that would involve believing in an inerrant and inspired scripture, and you know these folks’ brains are too highly evolved for that.

What they are asking, in a nutshell, is that we give up every distinguishing feature of the Catholic faith. I have no doubt that they, or those of their ilk, will eventually demand this of all religions. We will be allowed to keep everything except our most deeply held beliefs; after all, those are "divisive".

Well, this makes me especially happy that my last painting (above) honors the Eucharist. Anybody know how to say "This is my body" in Latin? That is how I would like to name the piece.

WHAT WAS THE PRESIDENT THINKING???

That’s what my 86-year old grandmother said when I spoke to her recently.

She lives on the family ranch in Deep East Texas, about 20 miles from the Lousiana border.

We wpoke in the wake of Hurricane Rita, which made landfall at Sabine Pass, Texas, more than 120 miles to the south.

When Rita reached my family ranch, it was still a Category 1 hurricane–120 MILES INLAND!

The wind blew and blew for hours, and my grandmother described for
me how the thought that the tall pine trees around the house would
crash over, but they didn’t.

One of my cousins shows up to help her during the storm.

The next day revealed that Deep East Texas is tore up BAD.

Grandmother described for me how there are branches down all over the place, power lines swinging, and virtually all normal services shut off.

The power is down, which means (among other things) that there is no radio, TV, or Internet, no clean water (everyone’s wells run on power), no gasoline (can’t pump it out of the tanks at filling stations), and worst of all–NO AIR CONDITIONING in the muggy heat of Indian Summer.

That’s not good for the elderly.

And the authorities estimate that it’s going to STAY that way (i.e., no power and no anything else) for TWO WEEKS TO A MONTH!

But my grandmother is determined to stick it out.

She’s got her dogs.

She’s got her gun.

And she’s got my relatives.

Like my six aunts and uncles who live in Houston, not to mention cousins.

The storm’s fury didn’t strike their areas near as bad, so they’re all fine.

My relatives have her set up with a small, portable generator that provides enough electricity to let her keep her phone and freezer working–and maybe an electric fan.

The relatives also bring her fresh water in jugs and gasoline (brought in from other counties) to keep the generator going).

So a big YEE-HAW!!! for my Tough-As-Texas grandmother!

And prayers for all the other HALF-MILLION folks in Texas who are without power due to Rita.

Thanks much, y’all!

EXERPTS:

A day after Bush publicly beseeched skeptical supporters to trust his judgment on Miers, a succession of prominent conservative leaders told his representatives that they did not. Over the course of several hours of sometimes testy exchanges, the dissenters complained that Miers was an unknown quantity with a thin résumé and that her selection — Bush called her "the best person I could find" — was a betrayal of years of struggle to move the court to the right.

At one point in the first of the two off-the-record sessions, according to several people in the room, White House adviser Ed Gillespie suggested that some of the unease about Miers "has a whiff of sexism and a whiff of elitism." Irate participants erupted and demanded that he take it back. Gillespie later said he did not mean to accuse anyone in the room but "was talking more broadly" about criticism of Miers.

[NOTE FROM JIMMY: The charge of sexism is INSANE. If the president had nominated a KNOWN ORIGINALIST who happened to be a woman there would be ZERO complaints. Gillespie DESERVED to be shouted down for such an insult.]

The tenor of the two meetings suggested that Bush has yet to rally his own party behind Miers and underscores that he risks the biggest rupture with the Republican base of his presidency. While conservatives at times have assailed some Bush policy decisions, rarely have they been so openly distrustful of the president himself.

The 90-minute Norquist session where Gillespie appeared before 100 activists was the more fiery encounter, according to participants. Among those speaking out was Jessica Echard, executive director of the Eagle Forum, founded by Phyllis Schlafly. While she declined to give a full account later because of the meeting ground rules, Echard said in an interview that her group could not for now support Miers: "We feel this is a disappointment in President Bush. If it’s going to be a woman, we expected an equal heavyweight to Ruth Bader Ginsburg and her liberal stance, and we did not get that in Miss Miers."

Another conservative captured the mood, according to a witness, by scorning Miers. "She’s the president’s nominee," he said. "She’s not ours."

At Weyrich’s two-hour luncheon featuring Mehlman and Goeglein addressing 85 activists, the host opened the discussion by rejecting Bush’s call to trust him. "I told Mehlman that I had had five ‘trust-mes’ in my long history here . . . and I said, ‘I’m sorry but the president saying he knows her heart is insufficient," Weyrich said, referring to Republican court appointments that resulted in disappointment for conservatives.

GET THE STORY.

Earlier today I looked at how things might go well and how they might go ill with the Harriet Miers nomination.

Now here’s what I want to happen. . . .

It depends.

IF Harriet Miers (a) is willing to overturn The Evil Decision and (b) willing to vote that there is NOT a right to homosexual marriage in the Constitution THEN I want her to be confirmed.

I’m not happy about the situation, but that’s what I want to happen.

On the other hand,

IF Harriet Miers fails to meet conditions (a) AND (b) THEN I want her not to be confirmed. That can happen two ways:

1) Things get so bad that the Senate refuses to confirm her.

2) Things get so bad that Bush withdraws her nomination.

I don’t care which.

I wish that I could be more concrete about what I want, but in the absence of knowing where Miers is with respect to (a) and (b), I can’t. I can only offer a conditional expression of my desires.

I’m hacked about being in such a situation, and–frankly–I find it ABSURD.

This "Don’t ask, don’t tell" policy on abortion that recent Republican presidents have been following with respect to Supreme Court nominees is absurd. Democrats don’t follow that when they’re in office, and as a result, they get the kinds of justices they want (Breyer, Ginsburgh).

By contrast, look at the Lame-Os and outright Evilfolk that Republican presidents have stuck us with:

• Warren Burger (original vote FOR the Evil Decision)
• Harry Blackmun (AUTHOR of the Evil Decision)
• Lewis Powell (original vote FOR the Evil Decision)
• John Paul Stevens (voted to uphold the Evil Decision)
• Sandra Day O’Connor (voted to uphold the Evil Decision)
• Anthony Kennedy (voted to uphold the Evil Decision)
• David Souter (voted to uphold the Evil Decision)

Now compare this list to the GOOD (or semi-good) justices that have been nominated by Republican presidents in the same timeframe:

• William Renhquist (original vote AGAINST the Evil Decision)
• Antonin Scalia (voted to overturn the Evil Decision)
• Clarence Thomas (voted to overturn the Evil Decision)

So it’s 7 to 3.

That’s a DIRT POOR batting average, fellas.

And in recent cases, it’s faciliated by the "Don’t ask, don’t tell" policy.

Overall, it’s been facilitated by Republican presidents not INSISTING that only originalists be put on the bench.

Some allowance can be made for the fact that, thirty years ago there was no Federalist Society and no organized originalist movement, but that’s still a DIRT POOR record, and there is no reason for it to continue today.

Not when there are tons of good originalists out there to pick from.

Not when Republicans have 55 seats in the Senate.

The president is playing with fire.

These nominations are WHY he won both of his elections. If pro-lifers were taken out of the equation, he would have been defeated both times. These nominations are THE THING he was sent to Washington to do, and at the moment he’s giving every appearance of fouling them up.

This is NOT inspiring to his base, and his presidency will founder if ANY of them go the wrong way. His base will simply desert him and he will be unable to accomplish anything in the remainder of his second term, with even more notably diminished capacity to do anything after the punitive 2006 elections take their toll on the Republican Party.

Unless Bush is playing the "How things could go well" scenario and has secret, insider information that BOTH Roberts AND Miers meet conditions (a) AND (b) then this stealth candidate strategy is not only DANGEROUS and UNNECESSARY, it’s also utterly PUSILLANIMOUS.