Secret Chinese Weather Manipulation Program Uncovered!

Chinese_fansBeijing (DAILY PLANET) — Western diplomats were shocked when photographic proof emerged of the secret Chinese weather manipulation program.

As part of the new Cold War, Chinese officials have circumvented the technological gap by ordering their population of one billion to line the Great Wall and manipulate global weather patterns by waving fans in unison and generating powerful winds.

"It’s staggering that they could think they could get away with something like this," said Wink Blinkley of the State Department. "This is a clear act of hostility, and we have strongly protested this action of the Chinese government. Next week we will be introducing a U.N. Security Council resolution dealing with this alarming turn of events."

Climate experts said that the Chinese weather manipulation effort could harm crops in various countries–particularly China’s competitors in population-heavy Southeast Asia–disrupting food supplies and economies.

"It could go even further than that," said author Michael Crichton. "This may well be responsible for the phenomenon of global warming. The Chinese may have been playing the West for suckers by redirecting warm air currents, trying to hobble our own economies by forcing us to take draconian steps in dealing with a phenomenon that has been a hoax all along, giving them time to catch up to the West in economic development."

Tensions between Washington and Beijing have spiked since the photographic evidence of the Chinese program emerged. Speaking on background, officials in the White House compared its potential significance to that of the Cuban Missle Crisis, which occurred in the 1960s when a U.S. spy plane provided photographic evidence that the Soviet Union was basing strategic missles in Cuba.

"We sincerely hope that ‘Operation Red Fan’ will not lead to that kind of confrontation between superpowers," said one official.

Developments in technology since the 1960s played a role in uncovering the secret Chinese program. Evidence of Operation Red Fan (which in Mandarin can also mean "Operation Hot Wind") was not collected by a spy plane but by a tourist with a cell phone camera.

"I can’t give any details on precisely how this photo arrived in our hands," said Blinkley, "but let’s just say that the photo has touched off a crisis that is Cingular in the history of Sino-American relations."

GET THE STORY.

“St. Me, Pray For Me”?

A reader writes:

If Heaven is beyond time and space, and the Angels and Saints can hear our prayers as the book of Revelation shows, then are the prayers the saints hear ones that are made after their death?

Angels don’t have death, but yes, saints in heaven do hear prayers made after their deaths. Thus in A.D. 2006 I can pray to St. Paul, who died in the A.D. 60s. That doesn’t require heaven to be beyond time and space, though. Even if St. Paul is still fully within the flow of time, so that for him it’s also 2006, he can still hear the prayer as long as he has a way to perceive it.

The standard thought is that it is God who communicates to the saints the fact that someone is praying to them, so if I am in 2006 and St. Paul is in 2006, God can simply pass on my prayer to St. Paul. God, of course, is outside of time, but St. Paul doesn’t have to be for him to learn about my prayer long after his death.

If, because Heaven is beyond time and space, I could hear prayers from all times, then if I pray now, die and go to Heaven, will I be able to hear my own prayers that I made before I died?

Possibly. There are a few caveats, though:

1) While God is outside of time, it is not at all clear that human souls are outside of time. Or at least they are not outside of time in the same way that God is. God does not experience any sequentiality; he lives in an "eternal now" in which all of history happens at once (or, to put it more precisely, every moment in the history of the world is equally present to God).

Souls, however, clearly do experience sequentiality. There is the point at which they die, experience the particular judgment, are purified (if needed), and fully glorified, are restored to their bodies at the Resurrection, experience the general judgment, experience the eternal order, etc. Even if you want to say that this sequentiality doesn’t take place in time as we experience it (and I’m open to the proposition that it does take place in time as we experience it), you at least have to say that it takes place over something analogous to time that allows things to happen in sequence rather than all at once in an eternal now.

2) You don’t need to posit heaven being outside of time, though, in order to get your prayer request to your future, sainted self. As we mentioned, God is outside of time, and so if you are alive in 2006 and praying to yourself in heaven then God could tell you about that prayer in 2306, when you die and arrive in heaven (let’s assume that medical technology discovers something really fabulous that lets you live for more than three centuries).

3) It’s not clear that this would be necessary, however, since Scripture seems to indicate that we will have a whole-life review at some point–possibly at more than one point (i.e., both the particular and the general judgments) and we may have constant, continuous access to the events of our own lives in the form of memory (unimpeded by our brain’s faulty retrieval system). If that’s the case then, or whenever the whole-life review takes place, we could come across our former prayer request and be able to fulfill it.

4) On the other hand, there may be limits to what we can pray for on behalf of our former selves. One thing that it does not make sense for us to pray for is something that we know was not God’s will. For example, even today–with me still being alive–I could not ask God to make it so that I had never been born. I already know that it was God’s will for me to be born, and I cannot legitimately pray for something that I know to be contrary to God’s will.

(I could pray that God create an alternate timeline in which I was never born, but I cannot pray that I never existed in this timeline.)

Once we’re in heaven and have had our whole-life review and know everything that happened to us, we wouldn’t be able to pray that things turn out differently for us–at any particular moment of our lives–than they did, for to do so would be to pray contrary to God’s will for us.

5) We could, however, pray for things to turn out as they did. Since God is outside of time, I can ask him in 2306 to allow something to happen to me in 2006 that I know did happen to me in that year. In this case, I’m praying in harmony with God’s will–and such a prayer of mine in 2306 might (hypothetically) be a contributing factor to why God allowed the event to happen to me in 2006.

6) It is not clear, however, whether God would respond to this type of prayer. First, he might judge that the purpose of the Communion of the Saints is to build up the body of Christ by praying for each other. Praying for our own past selves might not be what he has in mind. For example, I’m not sure what God would think of me praying–now, in 2006–that he allow me to be born back in the 1960s.

In fact, I rather suspect that God might take a dim view of me making that request of him, at least while I’m in this life. Given that I already know what his will was on that matter, I suspect he would rather have me spending my time and energy praying for things where I don’t know his will–like my present needs or the needs of others.

In this life I have limited time and energy to devote to things, and God might well deem it more productive for me to devote my petitionary prayer to matters that are not yet settled from my temporal perspective. I might praise and thank him for allowing me to be born, but in terms of what I should be asking for, he might want me to ask that he bless me or my loved ones or the pope or the poor of the souls in purgatory or someone who I don’t already know it was his will to bless.

Here’s one way God might want us to handle things in prayer:

* If we know it’s his will, praise and thank him for it.
* If we don’t know if it’s his will, ask that he will grant the request if it’s his will.
* If we know it’s not his will, don’t ask him for it.

For our future selves, things that we know did happen to us would go in the first category and things that we know didn’t happen would go in the third. Once we’re in heaven, presumably nothing about our past lives would fall in the middle category. If that’s the case then praying for our past selves would not be in harmony with God’s will.

That’s assuming, of course, that God handles things according to the three categories mentioned above. He may not. As noted before, he might act on the prayers of our future selves in granting blessings to our present selves.

Litany Of The Saints . . . And Then Some

A reader writes:

When I went to church for All Saint’s Day,  I was happy to hear the
Litany of the Saints announced.  But then I started hearing saints I had
never heard of …well, there are some of those.  But I saw the people
in the choir looking significantly at each other as they said these
names, and some of them sounded like common names in our area…so I
asked afterwards.   It turns out that this "worship site " of my
territorial parish has a custom of including the names of all the people
in the parish who died in the previous year, in the litany of the
saints.

I expressed some reservations about this to the priest….we don’t know
that these people are in heaven, we don’t know their eternal fate, some
might be damned although we hope not,  most probably had some "time" in
Purgatory during which they would need our prayers.  He seemed to be
upset by my statement that it was conceivable that some of these people
were damned and that probably most would be in Purgatory.

What do you think of this practice?

Two things:

First, it’s prohibited by law. According to the Code of Canon Law,

Can.  1187 It is permitted to reverence through
public veneration only those servants of God whom the authority of the Church
has recorded in the list of the saints or the blessed.

Since the people who have died in your parish in the last year have not been recorded in the list of saints and blesseds by the authority of the Church (either of which listings requires the approval of the pope), they cannot be given reverence through public veneration. You can pray to them privately if you want, but not under church auspices. As the litany of the saints is a form of public veneration, including non-saints/non-blesseds in the litany of the saints is prohibited by law.

Second, doing this on All Saints Day undermines the purpose of the following day, All Souls Day. The whole point of All Souls Day is to encourage us to pray for those souls who have not been declared saints. That’s why they have their own separate day. If you go and quasi-canonize them by venerating them the previous day, it works againt the purpose of the day that is devoted to them on the liturgical calendar.

Beisner Responds

Regarding the recent controversy with Bill Moyers, Dr. E Calvin Beisner writes:

First, I didn’t lie but wrote honestly from the best of my memory.
  Second, the conversations on which my memory were based occurred before and
  after the recorded interview, as I reported in the October 12 issue of the ISA
  newsletter (before ever hearing from Moyers about the October 9
  issue) and were not taped.

Equal space will be given to any response that Mr. Moyers chooses to send me.

A Canadian Drinan?

DrinanRemember this guy?

If you were politically conscious in the 1970s, you may.

It’s the man who introduced a resolution for the impeachement against Richard Nixon.

But how could a priest do that? Don’t you have to be a member of the House of Representatives to introduce a resolution for impeachment?

Well, this man is a priest and was–at the time–a member of the House of Representatives.

He was a Democratic representative from Massachusetts, a Jesuit, and his name is Fr. Robert Drinan.

He was also vocally anti-war and vocally pro-abortion–at least in terms of the legality of abortion (he claimed to be privately opposed to it with one of those "personally opposed but . . . " rationalizations of babykilling).

And Drinan’s disgraceful performance is one of the reasons that, when the 1983 Code of Canon Law was released, it was made absolutely clear that priests are not to hold such offices. Already, under the 1917 Code, there were severe limitations on what kind of political offices priests could hold, and the Drinan scandal was so shocking that John Paul II took steps to get him out of office (Drinan eventually complied by not running for re-election to a fifth term) and to ensure that in the future priests would not follow in his footsteps. Thus the current Code of Canon Law provides:

Canon 285 ยง3

Clerics are forbidden to assume public offices
which entail a participation in the exercise of civil power.

So why are there now reports of a Canadian priest trying to become the Robert Drinan of the Great White North?

ED PETERS POINTS OUT HOW CANONICALLY SUSPECT THIS ALL IS.

MORE ON DRINAN.

MORE ON THE DRINAN SCANDAL.

PREDICTION: This dog won’t hunt. The Holy See will become involved in the question and order the Canadian priest not to hold elective office if he doesn’t back off on his own.