CANADIAN YAHOOS: No Mass For You Prisoners!

In the wilds of Soviet Canuckistan one of their "superjails" (soon to be overflowing with Christians once the polit bureau makes Christianity illegal and starts packing the gulags) has barred a Catholic priest from being able to celebrate Mass for the prisoners.

Why?

‘Cause he’s gotta bring two ounces of wine into the prison in order to say Mass.

EXCERPT:

"We’re not bringing in a jug of wine, we’re not going to serve the consecrated wine to the prisoners," he said, adding that the wine is consumed only by the priest at jail services.

"But Catholic mass requires bread and wine, there’s no way around it. It’s black-letter law."

Indeed it is! The Code of Canon Law states:

The most holy eucharistic sacrifice must be offered with bread and with wine in which a little water must be mixed [Can.  924 §1].

It is absolutely forbidden, even in extreme urgent necessity, to consecrate one matter without the other or even both outside the eucharistic celebration [Can.  927].

So. . . .

So much for Canada’s religious freedom and inclusivity.

Now what was that about a dictatorship of relativism?

GET THE STORY.

(CHT to the reader who e-mailed!)

Righteous Non-Gentiles

Jewish tradition recognizes the category of "righteous gentiles"–that is, a person who are not Jewish but who nevertheless are doing good in the world.

Allow me to introduce you to a group of righteous non-gentiles. That is, they are Jewish and, while they do not share the Christian faith, they are definitely out to do good in the world.

The group is JAACD: Jews Against Anti-Christian Defamation.

EXCERPTS:

"Members span the spectrum from Orthodox to secular, but are united in their determination to support our beleaguered brothers and sisters in the Christian community," a statement from the organization said.

"What I consider an epidemic of anti-Christian bigotry and persecution is something that has concerned me for a long time," Feder told WND.

Feder says about a year ago he decided there should be a distinctly Jewish organization dealing with anti-Christian prejudice, which he considers a "political pogrom."

"If a Jewish organization complains about these things," he explained, "no one can accuse us of self-interest, because we’re not Christians; we’re Jews."

Added Feder: "The fate of America hinges on whether or not Christians – I mean authentic Christians – succeed in the political arena."

Others involved with the group include: David Horowitz (Center for the Study of Popular Culture), Morton Klein (Zionist Organization of America), Herb London (Hudson Institute), Bruce Herschensohn (professor, Pepperdine University), Rabbi Daniel Lapin (Toward Tradition), syndicated talk-show host Michael Medved, Rabbi Jacob Neusner (professor, Bard College) and comedian Jackie Mason.

Feder also makes a great point:

The organization’s founder ridiculed the notion that religious Americans want the nation ruled by a theocracy.

"It’s just absurd," Feder said. "If what the left is talking about constitutes a theocracy, then America was a theocracy in 1961.

"American had school prayer, in many states there was Bible reading in the schools, public display of religious symbols, abortion was outlawed except in rare instances, if anyone talked about same-sex marriage they would have been met with derisive laughter," he noted. "I was alive in 1961; if we were a theocracy then, somehow I missed it."

GET THE STORY.

(CHT to the reader who e-mailed!)

Hillary: Less Than Advertised?

HillaryHillary Clinton is being treated as if she’s a political supergenius.

Y’know, you hear all those stories in the press about how she’s "cleverly repositioning" herself to fool voters into thinking that she’s not a shieking, hard-left harpy in anticipation of the 2008 elections, in which she will be a virtually unstoppable juggernaut because she’ll have pulled the wool over the American public’s eyes so completely that we won’t remember she was ever a hard-left harpy and won’t notice all the hard-lefties supporting her in 2008 giving each other all the "wink, wink, nudge, nudge" signs as she says things to further her non-hard-left harpy image.

What a supergenius politician!

OR IS SHE?

Why Dems Losing Culture Wars

On the other hand, not everyone is as comfortable with unrestrained vulgarity as South Park conservatives are.

One particular group that feels less than joyful when vulgarity is being pumped through their TVs are parents with children at home.

Whether South Park conservatives will get less comfortable with filth as they morph into parents is an open question at this point. But what is certain is that an awful lot of parents out there are not comfortable with the tidal wave of filth that is crushing their children thanks to the crudification of TV, movies, and music in our culture.

That kind of thing can have negative political consequences for you if you’re a political party cozying up to Hollywood and other culture poisoners.

SO SAY ONE DEMOCRAT REGARDING HIS OWN PARTY.

EXCERPT:

If the Democratic chieftains in Washington really want a window into why heartland residents are tuning out our party, they should stop huddling with loopy linguists from Berkeley like George Lakoff and just start reading Frank Rich’s commentaries in the New York Times. There they will find a perfect distillation of the arrogance and narrow-mindedness that typifies the cultural thinking of our elites–and turns off red-state voters.

In the view of Mr. Rich and his acolytes, freedom in our culture has been "under attack" ever since 9/11. Indeed, Mr. Rich has argued that this attack is being led by "new Puritans" who want to "stamp out" all that is "joyously vulgar" in American culture and who are fomenting a "government war against indecency" to get the job done.

Once you get past the absurdity of Mr. Rich’s hyperbole–vulgarity, joyous or otherwise, is hardly in retreat–the implications of this mindset and the battle lines it establishes are clear. On one side are the forces of freedom, tolerance, diversity, modernity; on the other those of repression, intolerance, conformity and zealotry. And if you’re not exactly enamored of watching titillating stunts and ads at the Super Bowl with your 6-year-old, you’re part of the TV Taliban.

GET THE STORY.

South Park Conservatives

Southpark There’s a new term you’re probably going to be hearing a lot of (if you haven’t been already): South Park conservatives.

The idea of South Park conservatives is that they’re, well, conservatives who like the vulgar cartoon show South Park, which skewers politically correct nonsense on a regular basis.

The reason you’ll be hearing a lot of the term is that some folks have been arguing that there are an awful lot of South Park conservatives, and since they’re younger (on average) that most voters, they represent the wave of the future.

HEREZA STORY FROM TECH CENTRAL ON SOUTH PARK CONSERVATIVES (CHT: Southern Appeal.)

The saga of South Park conservatives is also the focus of a new book by author Brian C. Anderson. He writes about them in

THIS BOOK ADVERTISEMENT THINLY DISGUISED AS NEWS ANALYSIS.

EXCERPTS:

For decades, with few exceptions, a liberal sensibility dominated American humor. From Lenny Bruce to Norman Lear’s "All in the Family" to today’s "Will & Grace," the laughs came at the expense of fuddy-duddy conservatives and bourgeois conventions.

But new media have allowed a new kind of cutting-edge humor to emerge, one whose primary target is the Left.

The anarchic, vulgar archetype of this anti-liberal spirit, which gives my book its title, is Comedy Central’s brilliant, and wildly popular, cartoon series "South Park," depicting the adventures of four foulmouthed fourth-graders.

"South Park" sometimes shows a socially conservative streak — one episode actually mocks pro-choice extremism, when Cartman’s mother, Liane, decides to abort her son — then in the third grade.

She goes to the "Unplanned Parenthood" clinic. "I want to have an abortion," she tells the receptionist.

"If you don’t feel fit to raise a child, then abortion probably is the answer," the receptionist tells her. "Do you know the actual time of conception?"

Liane: "About—eight years ago."

"I see," the receptionist says, "so the fetus is?"

Eight years old, Liane says, matter-of-factly.

"Ms. Cartman, uh eight years old is a little late to be considering abortion," says the receptionist.

Liane registers surprise, and the receptionist elaborates: "Yes — this is what we would refer to as the ‘fortieth trimester.’ "

"But I just don’t think I’m a fit mother," Liane laments.

"Wuh? But we prefer to abort babies a little earlier on," the receptionist notes. "In fact, there’s a law against abortions after the second trimester."

Later, Liane discovers, to her horror, that the word "abortion" means termination of life — and not the same thing as "adoption," as she had mistakenly thought — she abandons her plans.

GET THE STORY.

The Changing American Catholic Voter

The role of Catholics in American politics has undergone significant changes in the last hundred years. Catholics were able to make sufficient inroads that they could get a presidential candidate (Al Smith) nominated in 1928 and then enabling him to lose despite voting for him in large numbers, followed by being able to get a presidential candidate (John Kennedy) nominated in 1960 and then enabling him to win by voting for him in large numbers, followed by having a third presidential candidate (John Kerry) nominated in 2004 and enabling him to lose by voting for his opponent in large numbers.

The latter is explained by the ongoing decoupling of the American Catholic population from the Democratic Party and a change in its voting habits and priorities.

HOW MIGHT A NEW POPE INFLUENCE THAT?

EXCERPT:

George W. Bush was the first sitting president to attend a papal funeral. President Carter sent his mother to Pope John Paul I’s 1978 funeral. Such symbolic change speaks volumes about the evolution in Catholic America’s voting habits over the past quarter-century and about Pope John Paul II’s role in that conversion.

GET THE STORY.

“Beware The Ides Of April”

Okay, okay. The Ides of April is actually April 13th, not April 15th, but it’s too goo an allusion to pass up.

Why beware today?

‘Cause it’s tax day in the U.S.!

Oooooooo! Pretty scary, eh, kids?

‘Couse it’s no where near as scary as in Europe or the more socialistic Anglophone countries, but it’s scary enough, okay!

Make sure you’ve sent in your taxes if you haven’t already!

"Beware The Ides Of April"

Okay, okay. The Ides of April is actually April 13th, not April 15th, but it’s too goo an allusion to pass up.

Why beware today?

‘Cause it’s tax day in the U.S.!

Oooooooo! Pretty scary, eh, kids?

‘Couse it’s no where near as scary as in Europe or the more socialistic Anglophone countries, but it’s scary enough, okay!

Make sure you’ve sent in your taxes if you haven’t already!

What A Surprise

It turns out that a neurologist hired by wife-killer Michael Schiavo to examine Terri, a doctor who approves of killing patients, had previously misdiagnosed a patient as being in a persistent vegetative state and declared that he would never again regain consciousness.

EXCERPTS:

”Sergeant Mack will never regain cognitive, sapient functioning,” Cranford said six months after Mack was shot while serving a search warrant on Dec. 13, 1979. ”He will never be aware of his condition nor resume any degree of meaningful voluntary conscious interaction with his family or friends.”

Based on Cranford’s unequivocal diagnosis of Mack, the officer’s relatives removed him from a respirator in August 1980 "because his family felt he should be allowed to die rather than exist in such a state," according to published reports.

But Mack did not die.

On Oct. 22, 1981, 18 months after Cranford declared Mack’s case hopeless, doctors at the advanced care facility where Mack was being treated noticed that he was awake.

GET THE STORY.

(Cowboy hat tip to the reader who e-mailed!)

If At First You Don’t Succeed…

Being the inveterate royal-watcher I am, when I stumbled across a recap of Prince Charles’ wedding to Mrs. Andrew Parker Bowles on "BBC America" I watched … with clenched teeth and appropriately timed snorts of disbelief. Apparently even CNN couldn’t help but notice the supreme irony of the occasion:

"A solemn ceremony has blessed the wedding of the heir to the British throne Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles, now the Duchess of Cornwall, at which the couple each pledged to be faithful to each other.

[…]

"The blessing ceremony, which had the feel of a wedding and was aired across the globe, conjured memories of the 1981 day when millions of television viewers watched Prince Charles marry Lady Diana Spencer at St. Paul’s Cathedral in what has become part of royal lore as a ‘fairy-tale’ wedding. "That storybook Charles-Diana wedding ceremony, which captivated the world, contrasted in sad irony with what followed — a tempestuous marriage and separation of Charles and the now-late Diana, Princess of Wales, that shocked and appalled all of England and royal-watchers everywhere.

[…]

"The [Anglican] archbishop’s [Rowan Williams of Canterbury] talk of ‘love and faithfulness’ contrasted with the adultery the pair, as well as the late Diana herself, displayed over the years.

"In the wedding blessing, the couple recited a line of repentance from the Book of Common Prayer, the inclusion of which is seen as an acknowledgment of their prior adultery."

Or a continuing state of adultery, unless the new Duchess of Cornwall has obtained an annulment of her first marriage to the Roman Catholic Andrew Parker Bowles.  (If she has, then this marriage to Prince Charles means that there would be no ongoing state of adultery and the marriage would be presumably sacramental.)

GET THE STORY.