Papa Knows Best

Bishops at the Barricades: The Vatican's document on homosexuals in the priesthood is still topic A. In a front-page story today, the Washington Post forsees a "wide-ranging battle within the U.S. church over the document's implementation." The president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops's "flexible" flexible interpretation is "sharply at odds" with the more conservative bips.

It's at the diocesan leval that the Vatican's directives will be obeyed or disregarded--but something tells me the laissez-faire administration of the Church has come to an end. John Paul II was one of the great popes in history. But he was not an administrator. He governed loosely. What is interesting to me is that some bishops have not wholeheartedly embraced the Vatican's instruction--it's an excellent document and it will go far towards improving the atmosphere at seminaries.

This quote (also in the Post story) reveals much about the popular mentality on the matter:

"I think every gay seminarian faces a question of conscience now," said a 33-year-old gay seminarian from New England who requested anonymity because he has not yet decided whether to leave his seminary. "There's no question of leaving the church. I'll die a Catholic. The question is whether I can with integrity be a priest."

He cannot be a priest with integrity if he has deep-seated homosexual tendencies. In the past, he might have. But now the Church, which confers the sacrament of Holy Orders, has spoken. Unequivocally. This young man may be called upon to make a sacrifice. I am glad he is going to die a Catholic.

Andrew Sullivan should be spanked for writing that, with the new instruction, Benedict XVI has perpetrated a "smear" against Father Mychal Judge, the priest, allegedly homosexual, who perished in the September 11 inferno. The Vatican in no way smears those homosexuals who have served as priests in the past. (Not having been Fr. Judge's confessor, I have no idea how he would feel about having become a gay icon in death.)

Andrew--he of the beautiful mind that is intrinsically disordered when it comes to this one subject--does quote Kathryn Jean Lopez's response to his smear of the Church:

Andrew Sullivan's post on the life of Fr. Mychal Judge is heartbreaking--that anyone would conclude that the Catholic Church thinks that if Fr. Judge (the priest who died ministering at the World Trade Center on 9/11) was a gay man his life had "no social value." The Catholic Church says no such thing.

This new document released yesterday from the Vatican says that "the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question, cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practice homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called 'gay culture.'" That strikes me as neither a surprising nor a hateful position. If you practice homosexuality and support "the so-called 'gay culture'" wouldn't you expect that to be a barrier to the sacrament of the Catholic priesthood?

As readers of this blog know, I am intrinsically squishy on the matter of ordaining homosexuals to the priesthood. This is based partly on the story of an Anglican clergyman who appears to have attained heroic sanctity after eschewing a gay life style. For me, the bottom line would be the priest-to-be believing that homosexual activity is sinful. It wouldn't even bother me if a priest had the odd slip-up, if he was deeply--and I mean deeply--repentent.

But 'tis Holy Mother Church, not I, that, in her wisdom, orders priests.

Of course, the real matter here isn't just ordination--the outrage comes from the Vatican's treating homosexuality as something other than just another way of being. Same as heteros, they just happen to like men, ya know. This is a very contemporary notion, and Rome does not embrace it. An article by Msgr. Tony Anatrella, who is a psychoanalyst and consultant to the Pontifical Council for the Family, explains what Rome is up against:

In cultures where homosexuality increasingly is seen as a "normal quality" rather than as "a problem in the psychic organization" of a person's sexuality, he said, the church's teaching needed to be reaffirmed.

Homosexuals have a place in the church just like any other baptized person, Msgr. Anatrella said. They are to be welcomed, supported and helped "to live in fidelity to their baptism and to assume all the moral consequences of the Christian life, but they cannot be called to holy orders."

Slate's William Saletan portrays Benedict as some kind of purge-bent madman--"Now he's in charge, and he's got ambitions beyond the church. He wants to cleanse us all, inside and out"--but, ironically, Saletan gives valuable links for relevant documents in the Church's grappling with homosexuality. Ignore his piece and go straight to the documents.

It is by no means incongruous that Benedict has spoken out on the need to help AIDS sufferers. This is not about hate. The Church loves homosexuals but she will not lie to them.

No More Liturgical Dancing at Assisi?

While there has been no shortage of praise or outrage over the Vatican's document on ordination and gays, the other big story of Benedict's reign hasn't hit the charts yet--at least, not in the U.S. It's created a huge brouhaha in Europe.

On the surface, it sounds like dry stuff--Benedict has "named a new bishop in Assisi and given him additional authority to oversee more closely the activities of the basilicas of St. Francis and of St. Mary of the Angels." Benedict took this action on Nov. 19.

An episcopal appointment in Italy? Yawn. Even though the Basilica of St. Francis holds the body of St. Francis of Assisi, one of Christendom's greatest saints, this seems like small potatoes. Indeed, the perspicacious Rocco of Whispers in the Loggia at first failed to see the significance, originally viewing Benedict's move as a demotion for Domenico Sorrentino, the Secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments,who now rules over Assisi. But this is no demotion--it's a terribly important job.

Assisi, you see, was a very happening place during the papacy of John Paul II. The Washington Post--which (far as I can tell) has one of the first U.S. reports on the Assisi move today--paints a good picture of goings on at the shrine:

Imams, rabbis, Buddhist monks, Hindu holy men and followers of Confucius have strolled the chalky white and pink stone courtyards of the massive basilica here. Anti-globalization activists with fists in the air and Communist atheists carrying Marxist texts have conversed with gentle Catholic monks [sic-they are actually called friars].

Peace marches and conferences on economic development, bioethics and myriad other topics have unfolded, all under the auspices of the Franciscan monks who control the shrine of Saint Francis of Assisi, the much-beloved and storied founder of the Franciscan order.

Such gatherings, particularly a pair of interfaith meetings between world religious officials and Pope John Paul II, attracted wide media attention. Some drew heated controversy, such as a 2003 visit by Tariq Aziz, Iraq's deputy prime minister at a time when the United States was gearing up to invade his country. Aziz, a Christian, lit a candle in a church.

Benedict is putting the kibosh on this foolishness. The reaction in Europe was instantaneous (as the Post notes today):

Reaction to the Vatican's move was strong across Italy. 'The stronghold of dialogue has fallen. Now the Franciscans have their hands tied and can no longer be a bridge between the church and society,' said Livia Turco, a member of the largest party in Italy's opposition coalition, the Democrats of the Left.

"It's about time," Bishop Sergio Goretti, the retiring bishop of Assisi, told La Repubblica newspaper. He complained that the monks had created "an autonomous enclave."

"Sometimes, I only found out what the monks were doing when I read about it in the newspapers," he said.

The autonomy is now ending, and not a moment too soon. As Reuters reports:

Benedict's decree declared that the monks would have to seek the local bishop's permission for any future initiatives.

Commentators said this would deprive the centre-left of one of its most visible platforms ahead of next April's elections, thereby helping the centre-right, which has worked hard to woo the powerful Roman Catholic vote.

Rome Cardinal Camillo Ruini, one of the three men who will monitor the monks, has served notice to the centre-left that it will not tolerate any attempts to enact liberal legislation such as allowing gay marriages or widening abortion rights.

The Pope, who was the Vatican's doctrinal enforcer for nearly 25 years before his election last April, also told the monks that their religious celebrations had to adhere to norms.

And now Rocco sees the profound significance:

[L]ooking at it from another vantage, this is the moment when Joseph Ratzinger's papacy has actually, finally, begun....

As Phil Pulella of Reuters termed it, Benedict 'turn[ed] the screws' on the Friars. To use the best American analogy I could come up with, it's comparable to a mass excommunication of the Kennedys. Does that help?

The Color Purple

Should Loose Canon wish you a happy New Year? The Church's liturgical year began yesterday--it was the first Sunday in Advent. As is apparent from the purple color of the vestments and altar clothes, Advent is a penitential season. It is also a season of expectation and joy, as expressed in this children's hymn:

"Advent tells us Christ is near;
Christmas tells us Christ is here!
In Epiphany we trace
all the glory of his grace."

The hymn goes through the entire Christian year--since it's an Anglican hymn you'll look in vain for, say, the Feast of the Assumption, but it's a lovely song. It reminds us why the Christian year, with vestments, and seasonal songs, is such a beautiful way to teach the faith. As with Medieval peasants, we can today learn through ceremony. Beliefnet even has some tips on how to use the site's interactive Advent calendar.

Oh, and happy New Year.

Problem Children

What do you become if you survive a botched abortion? A problem. Here is a report on problem children in England:

The debate over abortion was reignited last night after it emerged that 50 babies survive botched terminations in Britain every year.

The figures are the first to show the true scale of a problem thought to have been confined to just a handful of babies.

Now some of the country's leading doctors will investigate how so many survived to be born after just 22 weeks of pregnancy. Shockingly, some of the babies may have gone through more than one abortion....

Doctors in Norwich are treating a toddler born at 24 weeks after three botched terminations.

The boy, now aged two, has a range of medical problems. Cemach's report to the Department of Health could see Britain's abortion procedures being overhauled....

Any babies that survive the procedure, and are born alive, are entitled to medical care. However, anti-abortion campaigners claim that some are so unwanted that they are simply left to die.

If you can read this without a sense of horror for the children in particular and society in general, you are clearly post-Christian. This takes us back to the pagan mores than prevailed before the evangelization of Europe.

(On rereading, I have a feeling that my language on this was inspired by Diogenes.)

Un, Deux, Trois

Columnist Charles Krauthammer cuts through the--er--mustard on the subject of torture. The key thing is that there are three classes of prisoners. It you understand that, you are ready to debate the issue intelligently.

Why Are You Calling Me Father?

The ususal arguments--ho hum--are being advanced against the Vatican's excellent instruction on homosexuals and ordination. One of the most popular whines: You'll force gay men to live a lie. As John Allen notes in a wide-ranging report, the instruction is not only against ordaining active homosexuals; it is also against--are you ready?--lying:

"It would be gravely dishonest for a candidate to hide his own homosexuality, regardless of everything, to arrive at ordination," it says. "Such an inauthentic attitude does not correspond to the spirit of truth, loyalty, and availability that must characterize the personality of one who considers himself called to serve Christ and his Church in the ministerial priesthood."

Some of the sob stories don't make me sob. For example, there is Mariano Gargiulo, who became an Episcopal priest "because he was tired of shielding his identity as a gay man from a church that condemns homosexuality."

In Loose Canon's view, Cardinal Theodore McCarrick might have been just a tad more condemning when Gargiulo came out to him (this is Gargiulo's account):

Gargiulo said McCarrick told him he wanted him back as a priest, but that he would have to be celibate. Gargiulo told McCarrick he would not return.

"I said to him, 'I have to tell you that my partner is in the outer office, and if you'd like to come and meet him that would be fine, and if you don't, I understand that completely.'

"He said 'Oh no, I'll come out and meet him.' He came out, he shook his hand, he was very nice. He said, 'Mariano's worked very hard for us for many years, and you take care of him. And God bless you both.'"

Loose Canon hopes God blesses them, too. But shouldn't the ever-gracious cardinal have reminded his departing priest that engaging in homosexual activity is a tad sinful and can imperil your immortal soul? I dunno. Just a thought.

I always wondered why they call me Father: "Finally, there is the question of 'spiritual fatherhood.' This is not a concept with which I am familiar," writes the Rev. Timothy Radcliffe, O.P., former Master General of the Dominican order. It's in a critique of the Vatican instruction, which stresses spiritual fatherhood of priests).

Father (?) Radcliffe adds: "If the role of the priest was to be a model of masculinity, then he would be relevant to less than half of the congregation..."

Because, as we all know, women don't have fathers, says Diogenes.

Where's Ernie Pyle, Now that We Need Him?

Swami says the war is over. If so (and I don't think so), an anti-war press has turned Iraq into Vietnam, an unnecessary defeat. But is the war really going as badly as the press thinks? Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institute says that the military may be too optimistic but the press is too pessimistic.

James Q. Wilson says that what we care about is not who did or didn't mislead the public but whether we are winning. That's why it's essential for a biased press to present an unjustifiably negative picture of the Iraq war.

Happy Thanksgiving!

Among many other blessings, I am thankful to live in a free country. And I am grateful that the ACLU wasn't on hand to try and stop John Winthrop (1588–1649), governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, from uttering these remarkable words: "For we must consider that we shall be as a City upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon us. Soe that if we shall deal falsely with our God in this work we have undertaken, and so cause him to withdraw his present help from us, we shall be made a story and a byword throughout the world."

May God bless you and yours on this Thanksgiving.

The Vatican Gets It Just Right

Now that Loose Canon has had a chance to carefully read the Vatican document on homosexuals and ordination, I think I'm going to put it on the gratitude list; it's excellent. Yes, there will be discernment problems (aren't there always?). But the Vatican document is a fine statement on the priestly vocation, more valuable becuase it is blessedly free of jargon that mars so many contemporary Church documents.

Before we get to the homsems (thanks to Whispers in the Loggia for this neologism--I also used the Whispers translation that came via a writer for the U.K.'s Tablet) part, I want to quote a nice bit on the totus tuus nature of the priesthood:

"According to the constant Tradition of the Church, only baptised males validly receive sacred Ordination. Through the sacrament of Orders the Holy Spirit configures the candidate, with a new and specific designation, to Jesus Christ: the priest, in fact, sacramentally represents Christ, Head, Shepherd, and Spouse of the Church. Because of this configuration to Christ, the entire life of the sacred minister must be animated by the gift of his entire person to the Church and by authentic pastoral charity."

In dealing with specifically with homosexuaality, the document uses a three-letter word that was all-too-often absent in our disucssions of the recent pedophilia scandals in the Church:

"Regarding acts, it teaches that, in Sacred Scripture, these are presented grave sins. Tradition has always considered them as intrinsically immoral and contrary to the natural law. As a consequence, they can never be approved under any circumstance.

"As regards to deep-seated homosexual tendencies, which are present in a certain number of men and women, these also are objectively disordered and are often a trial for such people. They must be accepted with respect and sensitivity; every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfil God’s will in their lives and to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter."

Most important for the current debate, the Vatican document stresses that a vocation to the priesthood is a gift, not a right:

"There are two inseparable aspects of every vocation: the free gift of God and the responsible freedom of man. The vocation is a gift of divine grace, received through the Church, in the Church, and for service of the Church. By responding to the call of God, man offers himself freely to Him in love. The mere desire to become a priest is not sufficient and there is no right to receive sacred Ordination."

Amy Welborn of Open Book notes that, "Already, the discussion has taken a sharp turn into Self-Pity and Oppression land." But she is less sanguine about the doc than I am--she makes some good points.

Andrew Sullivan, the best writer I know who gets the Church's sexual teachings so all wrong, hasn't spoken on the document yet, but I assume his reference to "what seems at first blush one of the darkest hours in the church's recent history" presages sorrow or outrage. (But Andrew has nice things to say about Benedict's attire.) Needless to say, the New York Times article raises the specter of the priest shortage--something that seems to vex secularists terribly only when the subjects of women's ordination or homosexuals in the priesthood rear their heads. To sum up: It's a great doc--we should be pleased that the Church has produced something this good.

(Oh, and here's some more good news--the U.S. bishops have decided to limit the number of inane statements they put out.)

Modern Body Snatchers

While I don't think we really own our bodies (they're a gift from God, though I do wish my gift had been a bit more svelte), this story (also here) about organ donation shows how we are coming to view the human body in a profoundly post-Christian way:

Britain is going to introduce a sobering bill in April that will finesse the issue of ownership of a newly deceased corpse. According to The Times, doctors are to be given the right to keep organs artificially alive after death without getting consent from the next of kin. This involves cooling and preserving fluids being pumped into the corpse. These preserve the organs for up to four hours, while surgeons seek consent from -- read 'put pressure on' -- the newly bereaved in the holy name of transplants. In this instance, they are hoping to clear a backlist of more than 5,000 people on the kidney transplant list -- assuming that they can wear down most of the grieving families within the four-hour time limit.

Thus one more light goes out. The ancient universal respect for the dead and horror at desecration of the corpse gets one more accretion of hardening calcium over ancient tenderness and respect in the service of official "need". Your body belongs not to your family, but the state, and we are en route to nationalization of the recently deceased....

Medical science is able to keep people with critical illnesses alive for ever-longer interim pre-transplant periods. So the need for organs has reached the stage where ghoulish measures, such as the one proposed in Britain, are being tiptoed in. How much favor they will find with the public isn't known, but the sanctity previously accorded the dead is being eroded by a powerful and aggressive transplant lobby.

Terrorist Turkeys

Is this story the apotheosis of liberalism or what?

Do Democrats Have the Courage to Be Cowards?

Swami is crowing with gratitude, too, this Thanksgiving--he seems to feel that liberals have achieved their heart's desire, turning Iraq into Vietnam. I hope this is not true. Author and columnist Max Boot urges us to listen to the real experts (sorry, Swami) before we do something disastrous:

A large majority of the American public is convinced that the liberation of Iraq was a mistake, while a smaller but growing number thinks that we are losing and that we need to pull out soon. Those sentiments are echoed by finger-in-the-wind politicians, including many--such as John Kerry, Harry Reid, John Edwards, John Murtha and Bill Clinton--who supported the invasion. ...

Yet in a survey last month from the U.S.-based International Republican Institute, 47% of Iraqis polled said their country was headed in the right direction, as opposed to 37% who said they thought that it was going in the wrong direction. And 56% thought things would be better in six months. Only 16% thought they would be worse.

American soldiers are also much more optimistic than American civilians. The Pew Research Center and the Council on Foreign Relations just released a survey of American elites that found that 64% of military officers are confident that we will succeed in establishing a stable democracy in Iraq. The comparable figures for journalists and academics are 33% and 27%, respectively. Even more impressive than the Pew poll is the evidence of how our service members are voting with their feet. Although both the Army and the Marine Corps are having trouble attracting fresh recruits — no surprise, given the state of public opinion regarding Iraq — reenlistment rates continue to exceed expectations. Veterans are expressing their confidence in the war effort by signing up to continue fighting.

Before Swami gets his way, the Democrats will have to have more spine and less whine. Not bloody likely. Columnist Jack Kelly summed up the courage of the Democrats:

"'It's a trap,' a Democratic strategist told Newsweek's Eleanor Clift. 'If the party comes out for a unilateral six month withdrawal, that would become the issue for 06, and they (Republicans) would kill us again." Democrats like to make antiwar noises for their moonbat base, but were unwilling to cast a vote that could hurt them with swing voters. They were too cowardly to be forthright cowards." Historian Victor Davis Hanson also offers some caveats for Democrats engaging in the crying game.

Out of the Closet: Vatican Document Leaked

The Vatican's long-awaited document on ordaining homosexuals has been leaked to an Italian newspaper--and Catholic World News says that the text looks authentic. Whispers in the Loggia has a copy of an unofficial translation by the Tablet, the U.K.'s best-known Catholic mag.

What's telling is that the Washington Post has chosen to highlight something that I would have assumed a given--the headline is "Vatican: Sexually Active Gays Unwelcome." Well, duh.

Loose Canon had assumed that those who actively engage in grave sin probably would be barred from ordination. The question wasn't about active homosexuals--it was about men in a more intermediate state. Would they be allowed to become priests? On this, the Vatican appears to have taken course that doesn't quite answer the question:

"If instead it is a case of homosexual tendencies that are merely the expression of a transitory problem, for example as in the case of an unfinished adolescence, they must however have been clearly overcome for at least three years before ordination as a deacon."

To me this says: No homosexuals, but it may be okay if you've had some identity problems. This will be hard to interpret and apply. What would ER's Carrie Weaver, who went from straight to gay in one season, say about this approach to homosexuality?

You Are Who You Hate

"The Left hates inequality, not evil." That is what Dennis Prager says in today's most provocative piece of writing. It's one of those delightful insights that make a light go on. The implications are vast, including this:

"As noted above, everyone hates someone, and that includes people on the Left. The problem is that because they don't hate evil, they hate those who oppose evil. That is how liberals went from anti-communist to anti-anti-communist. To paraphrase one of the greatest moral insights of the Talmud, those who show mercy to the cruel will be cruel to the merciful. So, George W. Bush, not the Islamic terror world, is the Left's villain; life-embracing Israel is the Left's villain, not their death-loving enemies; and religious Christians who note moral weaknesses within the Islamic world are the real danger, not the moral weaknesses within the Islamic world."

Anglicans: To Go or Stay

While I was on the road promoting a book, believing Episcopalians were also on a journey. This is my roundabout way of apologizing for being extremely tardy in taking notice of something that may turn out to have historic ramifications. I refer, of course, to the Faith and a Hope gathering, of Episcopalians who actually believe the ancient teachings of Christianity, in Pittsburgh. (In other words, these are the Episcopalians who realize that one man has almost wrecked their church.)

One of the key questions, of course, is whether the Episcopal Church will remain intact. Midwest Conservative--which has good coverage of the Pittsburgh conference, witty comments included--posted these remarks by the Rt. Rev. Robert Duncan, the bishop who moderated the event:

"'We are going to do what we can to help [the leadership of the Episcopal Church] talk about the Windsor Report,[a document aimed at healing the rift in the Anglican Communion]' the Rt. Rev. Robert W. Duncan, Bishop of Pittsburgh and moderator of the network, told The Living Church after the closing Eucharist. 'We would love for them to commit to the Windsor Report, but we don’t think that is at all likely. The truth, then, is that we have no choice but to listen to what the Primate of Nigeria has said that you are going to have to make a choice.'

"Bishop Duncan was referring to comments made by the Most Rev. Peter Akinola during a 'Global South Primates Panel' presentation. In response to the written question, 'What would you like to see the bishops of the network do that they have not yet done?' Archbishop Akinola said in part, 'We have indicated this is your kairos moment to make up your mind of exactly what you want to do. Many of you have one leg in ECUSA and one leg in the network. With that, my friends, comes disaster. If you really want the Global South to partner with you, you must let us know exactly where you are. Are you ECUSA or are you network?'"

(There are reports that the Archbishop of Canterbury, the titular head of the Anglican communion, has recognized the network of conservative Episcopalians, but Loose Canon doesn't yet know what to make of this.)

There were several ordinations at the Pittsburgh event, including one deacon (Episcopalians and RC's have three degrees of holy orders: deacons, priests, and bishops) for the ultra-liberal diocese of Washington, D.C. This produced a blast by trendy Washington bip John Chane, followed by a counterblast from Chane's critics.

It's easy to see all this as a tempest inside an Anglican teapot. But it's more important than that. This is the communion that was once seen as the bridge between Catholicism and Protestantism. Will it find its way back to fidelity to the gospel? Will it splinter? Sometimes I think Episcopalians by and large (i.e., those who aren't sympathetic with those who went to Pittsburgh) have become too shallow to care much about orthodoxy (see Tommy Lipscomb's biting piece on what they are like now). As for me, I feel my love for something beautiful from my childhood is on its deathbed.

Natural Selection and Religiosity

If religion turns out to be a trait that makes you fit to survive, will evolutionists welcome religionists? Oh, never mind. But Suzanne Fields has an interesting column on David Sloan Wilson, a biologist and anthropologist, who, apparently, said something similar:

"David Sloan Wilson, a professor of biology and anthropology at Binghamton University in New York state, argues that 'religiosity' fosters group discipline and could have given our hunter-gatherer ancestors an advantage for survival as they grouped together for worship. This helped them defend against predators at the waterhole, where they became prey on the savannah. Those who survived passed on their genes, increasing the survival of the fittest unto the next generation. Thus 'religiosity' became a 'useful' genetic trait.

"His thesis, as set forth in his book 'Darwin's Cathedral,' raises provocative and controversial ideas. The ancient cave drawings and paintings have often been interpreted as Cro-Magnon churches for ceremonies replete with icons of religious inspiration, but these interpretations have been based solely on speculation. The Wilson argument rests on a Darwinian analysis of what contributes to evolution. Darwin wrote that tribes with a high degree of fidelity, obedience, courage and sympathy, always prepared to sacrifice themselves for the common good, would triumph over other tribes and thus be more likely to survive. This view perceives society as a single organism; since religious men and women historically aim to encourage such traits within their community, Mr. Wilson believes they were favored by natural selection. He draws on examples as diverse as Calvinism in Geneva and water temples in Bali."

Cute Episcopalians

As long as I've picked on a Presbyterian today, I feel honor bound to point out that Episcopalians can be even more insufferable. Here's a story of two who fell in love and made it into The New York Times' most degenerate column--no, not Maureen Dowd; it's the Vows column, which every week goes to a different wedding and introduces us to the couple:

"They were introduced by a mutual friend nearly 10 years ago. 'Our first date was at a monastery,' said Mr. McGee, who is 36 and known as Stan, recalling their meeting at a service at the Society of St. John the Evangelist in Cambridge, Mass.

"'Stan thought it was a very bizarre gay date, but we were both interested in theology,' said Mr. Finley, now 35 and a candidate for ordination in the Episcopal Church. 'When the monk came by with the holy water I saw Stan take what I assumed was a deep and profoundly pious bow. Later I realized it was because he was wearing a suede waistcoat which he didn't want to get stained.'"

Wanna Turn al Qaeda into a Superpower?

Contrary to what you may have heard, the Bush administration hasn't questioned the patriotism of those calling for a Vietnam-style pullout in Iraq. But I have no such qualms. Sure, some are motivated by something other than Bush-hatred. But many simply detest the president so much so that they are willing to tell "The (Very) Big Lie" to hurt him. Nor do they seem to care about the consequences to their country.

"It is said that a big lie can work if it is repeated often enough. For weeks, leading Democrats have been hammering away at the Big Lie that George W. Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction in Saddam Hussein's Iraq," writes columnist Michael Barone in a column about the big lie.

"Bush, Cheney and the administration have the truth on their side," writes Barone. "Exhaustive and authoritative examinations of the prewar intelligence, by the bipartisan report of the Senate Intelligence Committee in 2004, by the Silberman-Robb Commission in 2005 and by the British commission headed by Lord Butler, have established that U.S. intelligence agencies, and the intelligence organizations of leading countries like Britain, France and Germany, believed that Saddam Hussein's regime was in possession of or developing weapons of mass destruction -- chemical and biological weapons, which the regime had used before, and nuclear weapons, which it was working on in the 1980s."

Bush, Cheney, and the administration do not have the media on their side. Therefore you would look in vain for explanatory stories setting the record straight. This will come only from conservative-leaning writers such as Barone.

If the Democrats perpetrate their big lie, the consequences of quitting in Iraq will be dire. Not just for the Bush administration but for the world, in particular us. But Democrats aren't really bothered by this. Ralph Peters notes some of the consequences of quitting before we win:

"Increasingly, quitting looks like the new American Way of War. No matter how great your team, you can't win the game if you walk off the field at half-time. That's precisely what the Democratic Party wants America to do in Iraq. Forget the fact that we've made remarkable progress under daunting conditions: The Dems are looking to throw the game just to embarrass the Bush administration.

"Forget about the consequences. Disregard the immediate encouragement to the terrorists and insurgents to keep killing every American soldier they can. Ignore what would happen in Iraq — and the region — if we bail out. And don't mention how a U.S. surrender would turn al Qaeda into an Islamic superpower, the champ who knocked out Uncle Sam in the third round."

Columnist Mark Steyn is just as clear-eyed about the state of the war debate:

"I wonder whether the Senate chamber itself should not be renamed the Abu Musab al-Zarqawi United States Senate. With increasingly rare exceptions, just about everything that emerges from the chamber tends to support the Zarqawi view of Iraq -- that this is a psychological war in which the Great Satan is an effete wimp who can be worn down and chased back to his La-Z-Boy recliner in Florida.

"Last week, the Republican majority, to their disgrace and with 13 honorable exceptions, passed an amendment calling on the administration to lay out its 'plan' for 'ending' the war and withdrawing U.S. troops. They effectively signed on to the Democrat framing of the debate: that the only thing that matters is the so-called exit strategy. The only difference between Bill Frist's mushy Republicans and Harry Reid's shameless Democrats is that the latter want to put a firm date on withdrawal, so that Zarqawi's insurgents can schedule an especially big car bomb to coincide with the formal handover of the Great Satan's cojones."

If you loved the aftermath of Vietnam (boat people, a supine America unwilling to defend herself, allies unable to trust us, etc.), you ain't seen nothing yet.

Fortunately, the administration is at last fighting back.

Things Are This Bad

What authority is responsible for defrocking Presbyterians? That was my question on reading this piece in the Washington Post:

"Clarendon Presbyterian Church Pastor David Ensign has an alternative air about him. He wears an earring and has been known to pick up his guitar to play a few hymns during Sunday services.

"But he surprised even some of Arlington's die-hard progressives Nov. 3 at the county's annual human rights awards ceremony, where his church was honored. He used the occasion to announce the church's new wedding policy:

"Traditional marriages are out. 'Celebrations of commitment' are in.

"To protest Virginia's laws banning same-sex marriage, Ensign and the church's governing council decided recently that Clarendon Presbyterian will no longer have any weddings, and Ensign will renounce his state authority to marry couples.

"Any heterosexual couple who has their union 'blessed' in a 'celebration ceremony' at the tiny church will have to take the extra step of being officially wed by a justice of the peace at the courthouse."

Get Religion is blase about the earring. But it's not the earring that bothers me.

Should More TV Characters Have Abortions?

Village Voice writer Rebecca Raber has voiced a complaint about what's on television these days. Is it the mindless quality of a many shows? No. It's that there aren't enough women getting abortions in prime time:

"It seems like everyone in TV land is pregnant these days. All of those plot-pushing hookups that keep us tuned in week after week have resulted in positive pregnancy tests for Housewives and high schoolers on every channel. This is often an unwelcome surprise, but none of these fictional characters, unlike their real-world counterparts who might agonize over the choice to have a baby, will choose to end their pregnancies."

Even more painful to Ms. Raber:

"It's not just these programs on notoriously family-friendly, Disney-owned ABC where abortion is conspicuously absent. Fox, that bastion of taste and family values that brought us the Bundys of Married With Children and shows like The Littlest Groom (a/k/a I Want to Marry a Midget), might be more experienced with raunch and sleaze, but they're still clueless about what to do with the moral quagmire of abortion."

If Ms. Raber is right, abortion may be the only offensive issue not on TV. Let's hope it stays this way.

More on the Terrible G-Word

Loose Canon once thought that school prayer was a silly issue. Who cares if children can't say some prayer redolent of a vague civic religion? But as I've watched public schools turn out hooligans, I've changed my mind. The attempt to eradicate the notion (ever how vague) that we are a nation under God is likewise harmful to the commonweal. David Gerlernter notes that it is also ahistorical:

"When we invite our children to say the pledge, including 'one nation, under God,' we are asking them to repeat Lincoln's phrase, and perhaps even to feel his presence. Children who were reared as atheists, whose parents are wiser than Lincoln on the subject of God, are free to keep quiet.

"And even if children should feel coerced by peer pressure (as the lawsuits have argued) to say that terrible G-word, they won't be magically converted into Christians or Jews or God-believers of any stripe. In fact, children who don't believe in God might still like to be reminded how Lincoln saw this nation, might like to test drive the worldview of the man who saved the Union and set it on the path to justice.

"If that's unconstitutional, we have made a serious mistake somewhere along the line."

Did Plato Exist?

Even during my youthful atheist phase, I sometimes went to church on Ash Wednesday: The liturgy captured the essence of human nature, our tendency to miss the mark. Why had the church managed to achieve this? At the time, I thought it was because the Church had once been such a central institution that it hired all the best brains.

But the best and brightest minds are not enough if they are not based in reality. This thought occure to me again when I was reading a book review of "What We Believe But Cannot Prove: Today's Leading Thinkers on Science in the Age of Certainty," edited by John Brockman, who decided "to gather the 100 most brilliant minds in the world together in a room, lock them in and have them ask each other the questions they were asking themselves." He supposed that the product would be a "synthesis of all thought."

What was the result? Reviewer John Michell was not impressed:

There are no philosophers, mystics or religious thinkers among them; those selected are followers of the dominant party line--atheists, materialists, dogmatic Darwinians, the single-vision types who monopolise education and have never allowed an officially unacceptable idea to enter their minds. I do not mean to disparage the worthy souls whose opinions are here paraded, but set together in this way, undiluted by wider, more comprehensive thinkers, they look like a pack of heresy-hunters. There is nothing in this book to indicate that Plato ever existed....
Typical of this is the statement contributed by our arch-Darwinian, Richard Dawkins.

Evolution by Darwinian natural selection is, he proclaims, ‘an established fact’. It is also the God of creation. Order and design are apparent in the universe but, according to Dawkins, they are secondary effects, the products of evolution. One after the other, the contributors echo their faith in evolutionism, Big Bang cosmogony, godlessness, soullessness and world-improvement through technological progress. Not being of that faith myself, I reacted in favour of whatever these writers were opposed to.

My Godward inclinations were strengthened by Sam Harris's denigration of religion as 'a humble species of terrestrial credulity' and 'the principal reason we have found to kill one another'. The latter assertion is repeated by several contributors, with no reference to the atrocities of atheists and self-cultists, Stalin, Hitler, Mao and Pol Pot, in our own times.

Vietnam Wish Fulfillment

The Democrats wanted Iraq to be Vietnam. It wasn't. Now, however, they may succeed in turning Iraq into Vietnam. If so, we will withdraw our troops before winning a victory that is attainable and the effect will be as profound and long-lasting as our abandonment of Vietnam.

Our enemies will know that all they have to do is get horrific pictures on the evening news and America will refuse to continue to fight them; our allies will know that we are feckless. Loose Canon felt that the emphasis on WMDs was wrong all along. What if it turned out that none were found? But I supported the war. I still do. There were good reasons to go to war. Daniel Henninger outlines them in Opinion Journal:

Here is one man's view of why we are in Iraq: We are trying to democratize this country so they don't try to kill us. That Iraqis should "get their freedom" is genuinely good and desirable. But I wish President Bush would say more often that Iraqi democratization is in our raw self-interest. It doesn't much matter to me whether the country we democratize is Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia or Syria. The theory that democracies don't attack other democracies is as strong as such notions get, and what the world most needs now is a new, large Islamic democracy. A democracy, however 'imperfect,' is less likely than an authoritarian state to detonate a nuclear device in someone else's territory.

The best reasons for staying and winning in Iraq were put forth by Senator John McCain yesterday in the New York Post.

Iraq is today in the throes of another critical moment in its post-Saddam history. There is both great hope and great difficulty, with a new constitution and an ongoing insurgency, with parliamentary elections in a month and violence plaguing many areas.

At home, the American people wish to see us succeed in helping bring freedom and democracy to the Iraqi people, but express increased uncertainty among the way forward. Now is the last time we should send a message that withdrawing troops is more important than achieving success.

Unfortunately, the Senate considered two amendments this week — one of which was approved with 79 votes--that did just that. In the version that passed, 2006 is designated as 'a period of significant transition to full sovereignty ... thereby creating the conditions for the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq.'

These words are likely to be examined closely in Iraq, by both friends and enemies. They suggest that the Senate has its priorities upside down, and I voted to reject them.

Anyone reading the amendment gets the sense that the Senate's foremost objective is the draw-down of American troops. What it should have said is that America's first goal in Iraq is not to withdraw troops, but to win the war. All other policy decisions we make should support, and be subordinate to, the successful completion of our mission.

The attack on the war and the president's credibility is working--and it's despicable. Back to Henninger:

Would Senators Sam Nunn, Pat Moynihan, Bob Kerrey, Chuck Robb, David Boren or Henry M. Jackson have conducted their opposition to President Bush's war policies in Iraq as have Senators Harry Reid, Richard Durbin, Ted Kennedy and Barbara Boxer? The former group stood for the idea of a loyal opposition; the latter stand simply in opposition.

Such opposition could cause us to abandon the most important battle in the war on terror. Citing new research, Mac Owens, a professor at the Naval War College, notes that "while the [Vietnam] war was being won on the ground, it was being lost at the peace table and in Congress." Here we go again.

Should Priests Be Models of Maleness?

As readers of this blog know, Loose Canon has been in favor of ordaining homosexual men who promise to lead chaste lives and who embrace the Church's teaching on homosexual activity (it's sinful). But Archbishop Edwin O'Brien, speaking on PBS's The Newshour, puts foward a compelling argument against my view:

"We don't want our people to think, as our culture is now saying, there's really no difference whether one is gay or straight, is homosexual or heterosexual. We think for our vocation that there is a difference, and our people expect to have a male priesthood that sets a strong role model of maleness."

A story from Florida has this bit on homosexual priests:

"Researchers have estimated that thousands of homosexual clergy across the United States have dedicated their lives to a church that considers them 'intrinsically disordered' and prone to 'evil tendencies.' Soon, the Vatican will back up that teaching with a document that could set new restrictions on candidates for the priesthood--a pronouncement U.S. bishops may discuss in private during their national meeting starting Monday in Washington."

Notice the article seems to encourage homosexuals to take offense that the Church teaches that their sexual orientation "intrinsically disordered" and prone to "evil tendencies." But the Church is obligated to speak the truth. Though LC clings to the notion that chaste homosexuals can be holy priests, the angry responses of offended homosexuals already in the priesthood is moving her closer to the O'Brien fold.

Gay organizations that sue to prevent Christian organizations from excluding them shove me even closer to the O'Brien position.

They're Liars, Not Sheep

George W. Bush did not lie to take us to war with Iraq. Christopher Hitchens outlines what you must believe to believe that Bush lied.

But Democratic members of Congress and their surrogates in the media have made great headway in convincing the public that this is the case. "Are they liars? Or sheep?," the Arizona Republic asks, going on to explain:

Members of Congress now taking turns at re-writing the history of the advent of the war in Iraq are presenting the public with a choice.

Either the words they spoke in the months and years prior to the invasion of Iraq - words that certainly appeared emphatic and uncoerced - were lies that spilled from their own politically motivated calculations about the public's temperament.

Or they were sheep, vacuously sopping up presidential interpretations - from both the Clinton and Bush administrations - of intelligence reports about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein.

The list of opportunists feeding at the wounds of a now-unpopular president is lengthy, growing and increasingly distressing in its unspoken message: that their dislike or hatred of President Bush is so consuming that congressional critics will risk exposing themselves as dupes or liars to thwart him politically.

These Democrats are the liars. History may find them out--but it will be too late to avert catastrophe, the American Spectator notes:

"History will, most probably, correct the current misperceptions regarding Bush 'lying us into war.' And, most probably, history will eventually render an unflattering judgment on the Democratic leadership's current behavior. But that will be small comfort if the Democrats manage to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in Iraq. Fortunately, Bush seems to have awoken to the fact that he can't continue simply to shrug off Democratic attacks and will, with the Republicans in Congress, aggressively respond to the Democrats' smear campaign."

Two Views of Amman

Will the Amman bombings turn out to have been a huge tactical error for terrorists?

"The significance of triple bombings of November 9 in Amman is that they may emerge as the event that starts the tide turning in civilization's favor," writes Eli Lake of the New York Sun. "An opinion poll conducted by elGhad newspaper in Jordan on Saturday provides a glimpse of the story. When the Hashemite Kingdom's subjects were asked, 'In your opinion what is the primary motivation behind last Wednesday's attacks?' the response was extraordinary: 0.9% of those surveyed said the attacks were in the interest of the 'Arab cause,' whereas nearly everyone else said it was either to 'target Jordan' or 'kill innocent people.'"

Conservative columnist Dennis Prager points out that the Muslim shock at the killing of fellow Muslims in Amman appears to fall far short of a genuine change of heart:

And why are they shocked? Because the terrorists blew up Jordanians. As long as Islamic terrorists blew up men, women and children who are Jewish, Christian, Hindu, American, Australian and black Sudanese, the Arab and larger Muslim worlds were not particularly disturbed. In fact, Palestinians, who comprise the majority of Jordan's population, celebrated when Jews were blown up at Passover seders and at weddings. And they took to the streets and cheered in the Palestinian fashion, handing out candy, when Americans were incinerated in office buildings.

For some reason, Palestinians, most other Arabs and many Muslims around the world thought that the credulity-straining evil of targeting the most innocent for death, paralysis, blindness and brain damage would be confined to non-Arabs and non-Muslims. In fact, the idea that this Palestinian-made cancer would target Arab Muslims is so inconceivable to most Arabs that many now believe the terror attack in Amman was orchestrated by Jews (the Israeli Mossad).

Hey, I'm Doing This for Your Own Good...

Journalist Maria Eftimiades didn't just decide to have an abortion because her child had Down Syndrome--she acted as if she was doing the baby a favor. In an op-ed in the Washington Post Eftimiades explained:

While I have no doubt there can be joys and victories in raising a mentally handicapped child, for me and for Mike, it's a painful journey that we believe is better not taken. To know now that our son would be retarded, perhaps profoundly, gives us the choice of not continuing the pregnancy. We don't want a life like that for our child, and the added worry that we wouldn't be around long