Small Miracles

Three months ago a Virginian woman named Susan Torres was rushed to the hospital.

It turned out that she had advanced melanoma. At the hospital she was declared brain dead with no hope of recovery.

She was 16 weeks pregnant at the time.

A pro-lifer with a pro-life family, her cause became a race against time to keep her alive long enough that the child she was carrying could be brought safely into the world.

Millions prayed.

I saw one report indicating that B16 himself was praying on a regular basis for baby Torres and her mother.

Their prayers were answered.

GET THE (JOYOUS AND SAD) STORY.
(CHT to the reader who e-mailed!)

For As Long As Love Lasts…

If the idea of marriage till death parts you is scary, some couples have come up with an Idea. Vow to stay married for "as long as we both shall love":

"Vows like ‘For as long as we continue to love each other,’ ‘For as long as our love shall last’ and ‘Until our time together is over’ are increasingly replacing the traditional to-the-grave vow — a switch that some call realistic and others call a recipe for failure.

"’We’re hearing that a lot — "as long as our love shall last." I personally think it’s quite a statement on today’s times — people know the odds of divorce," said New Jersey wedding expert Sharon Naylor, author of Your Special Wedding Vows, who adds that the rephrasing is also part of a more general trend toward personalizing vows.

"Naylor said killing the ‘death vow’ doesn’t mean that people don’t take their marriage promises seriously. Quite the contrary.

"’People understand that anything can happen in life, and you don’t make a promise you can’t keep. When people get divorced, they mourn the fact that they said ’til death do us part’ — you didn’t keep your word in church (if they had a church wedding). Some people are in therapy because they promised ’til death do us part’ — it is the sticking point in the healing of a broken marriage. The wording can give you a stigma of personal failure.’"

GET THE STORY.

Well, for those worried about the "stigma of personal failure," it can always be rephrased to "deferred success at marriage."   I had intended to comment on this story earlier, back when I first saw it, but Dale of Dyspeptic Mutterings beat me to it. For more commentary, go there.

GET THE FISK.

Hitler's Mufti

Rabbi David G. Dalin writes:

Many readers of the New York Times no doubt believe that Pope Pius XII was “Hitler’s Pope.” John Cornwell’s bestselling book told them that, and it’s been reaffirmed by Garry Wills, Daniel Goldhagen and other writers since. It’s been said so often in fact that most well-read liberals know it for a certainty. The only trouble is: it isn’t true.

Not only does it contradict the words of Holocaust survivors, the founders of Israel, and the contemporary record of the New York Times, but even John Cornwell, the originator of the phrase “Hitler’s pope,” has recanted it saying that he was wrong to have ascribed evil motives to Pius and now found it “impossible to judge” the wartime pope.

But there’s something else that has been ignored nearly all together. Precisely at the moment when Pope Pius XII and the Catholic Church in Rome (and throughout Europe) was saving thousands of Jewish lives, Hitler had a cleric broadcasting from Berlin who called for the extermination of the Jews.

He was Hajj Amin al-Husseini, the viciously anti-Semitic grand mufti of Jerusalem, who resided in Berlin as a welcome guest and ally of the Nazis throughout the years of the Holocaust.

GET THE STORY.
(CHT to Thomas Woods for e-mailing!)

Hitler’s Mufti

Rabbi David G. Dalin writes:

Many readers of the New York Times no doubt believe that Pope Pius XII was “Hitler’s Pope.” John Cornwell’s bestselling book told them that, and it’s been reaffirmed by Garry Wills, Daniel Goldhagen and other writers since. It’s been said so often in fact that most well-read liberals know it for a certainty. The only trouble is: it isn’t true.

Not only does it contradict the words of Holocaust survivors, the founders of Israel, and the contemporary record of the New York Times, but even John Cornwell, the originator of the phrase “Hitler’s pope,” has recanted it saying that he was wrong to have ascribed evil motives to Pius and now found it “impossible to judge” the wartime pope.

But there’s something else that has been ignored nearly all together. Precisely at the moment when Pope Pius XII and the Catholic Church in Rome (and throughout Europe) was saving thousands of Jewish lives, Hitler had a cleric broadcasting from Berlin who called for the extermination of the Jews.

He was Hajj Amin al-Husseini, the viciously anti-Semitic grand mufti of Jerusalem, who resided in Berlin as a welcome guest and ally of the Nazis throughout the years of the Holocaust.

GET THE STORY.
(CHT to Thomas Woods for e-mailing!)

A Brilliant Idea That Isn't

Some folks at the U.N. have an idea that they seem to regard as brilliant. The idea is that the U.S., which built the Internet and grew it into the stunning, civilization-changing success that it is today, should cede control of the Internet to . . .  (are you read?) . . . (drumroll, please) . . . a U.N. committee.

This is indeed a brilliant idea.

Except for the fact that it isn’t.

Fortunately, the fact that it isn’t a brilliant idea has occurred to others. Sen. Norm Coleman of Minnesota, for example.

"My probe of the U.N. as Chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations revealed management that was at best, incompetent, and at worst corrupt," said Coleman. "The first priority for the United Nations must be fundamental reform of its management and operations rather than any expansion of its authority and responsibilities. The Internet has flourished under U.S. supervision, oversight, and private sector involvement. This growth did not happen because of increased government involvement, but rather, from the opening on the Internet to commerce and private sector innovation. Subjecting the Internet and its security to the politicized control of the UN bureaucracy would be a giant and foolhardy step backwards."

"Recently, I introduced UN reform legislation with the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations, Senator Dick Lugar (R-IN), known as the Coleman-Lugar UN Reform Bill, to help put an end to a culture of corruption that was exposed by the Oil for Food scandal, peacekeeping sexual abuse scandals, and other instances of organizational failures at U.N.," Coleman said. "Putting the U.N. in charge of one of the world’s most important technological wonders and economic engines is out of the question. This proposal would leave the United States with no more say over the future of the Internet than Cuba or China-countries that have little or no commitment to the free flow of information."

Yeah, that’s what we really need: Giving China U.N. Security Council-level veto power over decisions affecting the Internet. That’ll be really good for the free flow of information and ideas.

Perhaps if China and other countries are not satisfied with the U.S. controlling the Internet that it built and organized then maybe they should build their own Internet.

Heck, do a better job with a second Internet and I’m sure Americans will be trying to book time on it, instead.

That’s the nice thing about competition.

In the meantime,

GET THE STORY.

A Brilliant Idea That Isn’t

Some folks at the U.N. have an idea that they seem to regard as brilliant. The idea is that the U.S., which built the Internet and grew it into the stunning, civilization-changing success that it is today, should cede control of the Internet to . . .  (are you read?) . . . (drumroll, please) . . . a U.N. committee.

This is indeed a brilliant idea.

Except for the fact that it isn’t.

Fortunately, the fact that it isn’t a brilliant idea has occurred to others. Sen. Norm Coleman of Minnesota, for example.

"My probe of the U.N. as Chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations revealed management that was at best, incompetent, and at worst corrupt," said Coleman. "The first priority for the United Nations must be fundamental reform of its management and operations rather than any expansion of its authority and responsibilities. The Internet has flourished under U.S. supervision, oversight, and private sector involvement. This growth did not happen because of increased government involvement, but rather, from the opening on the Internet to commerce and private sector innovation. Subjecting the Internet and its security to the politicized control of the UN bureaucracy would be a giant and foolhardy step backwards."

"Recently, I introduced UN reform legislation with the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations, Senator Dick Lugar (R-IN), known as the Coleman-Lugar UN Reform Bill, to help put an end to a culture of corruption that was exposed by the Oil for Food scandal, peacekeeping sexual abuse scandals, and other instances of organizational failures at U.N.," Coleman said. "Putting the U.N. in charge of one of the world’s most important technological wonders and economic engines is out of the question. This proposal would leave the United States with no more say over the future of the Internet than Cuba or China-countries that have little or no commitment to the free flow of information."

Yeah, that’s what we really need: Giving China U.N. Security Council-level veto power over decisions affecting the Internet. That’ll be really good for the free flow of information and ideas.

Perhaps if China and other countries are not satisfied with the U.S. controlling the Internet that it built and organized then maybe they should build their own Internet.

Heck, do a better job with a second Internet and I’m sure Americans will be trying to book time on it, instead.

That’s the nice thing about competition.

In the meantime,

GET THE STORY.

Scripture Translations At Mass

A reader writes:

Prof. Dr. Jimmy:

If you’ve addressed this before, then my profuse apologies.

Question, Short Form:  Is the NAB the only Bible from which readings at Mass may be used?

Answer, Short Form: Technically, no, but you’re not going to have much of a chance of getting another used, at least in the U.S.

Question, Longer Form:  As we all (that is, we being, well, we) recognize, the NAB is, to put it nicely, just somewhat lacking when it comes to translational accuracy; or, as Butthead once said, "This sucks more than anything that has ever sucked before."  Given either premise, is substitution allowed?  Specifically for the Torah, I have in mind Everett Fox’s ‘The Schocken Bible, Vol. I.’  While I am aware that it, too, has some problems, at least it seems to attempt to adhere to the poetic nature and intent of the early Hebrew writers.

Answer, Longer Form: Technically, the lectionary promoted by the USCCB is not simply based on the NAB. Parts of it are based on the NAB, but parts are based on an edited form of the Revised NAB, so what we have is a kind of patchwork lectioary composed from different sources. As has been pointed out, you cannot buy a Bible that has in it what the lectionary has in it. This is because of the unique redactional history of the current lectionary.

That being said, I would agree that the lectionary leaves much to be desired in the translational accuracy department and in the literary style department. Though the phrase is cute, I wouldn’t go so far as to agree with the literary character you mention who described it as "sucking more than anything has sucked before." I would apply that term to the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New World "Translation," which is truly skin-peelingly bad.

Years ago there were permissions given for lectionaries based on other Scripture translations–the Jerusalem Bible and the Revised Standard Version (not the NRSV), as I recall correctly–and it was suggested that when the current lectionary came out that these permissions would get yanked, but as far as I know, they haven’t been, and so these lectionaries would technically still be permitted. There’s also a Lectionary for Masses with Children based on the Contemporary English Version.

The Shocken Bible’s version of the Torah, however, was never one of those approved versions.

The odds of getting an approved lectionary that isn’t the standard one used in a typical parish setting in the U.S. are very, very low. The current Lectionary for Mass published by the USCCB is the only one being promoted and the only approved one likely to be used.

If you’re interested in seeing how other English-speaking countries do things in this regard

LOOK HERE.

Four Of A Kine

From our Believe It Or Don’t Files, we bring you news of a cow who gave birth to quadruplets.

"It wasn’t that one of his cows had delivered twins that gave Paul Soucie pause when he checked his pasture. Eleven sets of twins had already been delivered this year on the farmstead near Deweese that Soucie runs with his wife, Janet. But what raised his curiosity on the morning of July 12 was that this particular cow still appeared pregnant.

"’I said, "She sure looks full for having already had twins. I wouldn’t be surprised if she has another calf,"’ Soucie said.

"He was right.

"The cow did indeed deliver another calf. Then another one.

"When the Soucies checked their pasture on July 13, they discovered that the cow had given birth to four offspring without human assistance."

GET THE STORY.