Did you know there’s a law on the Italian books that says insulting the Pope is equivalent to insulting the President of Italy?  And this is a jailable offense?  It’s true.

But then she got religion, and after warning everyone that within 20 years Italian teachers would be vetted and chosen by the Vatican, she got to the punchline: “But then, within 20 years the Pope will be where he ought to be — in Hell, tormented by great big poofter devils, and very active ones, not passive ones.”

The joke may have gone done well with her crowd on the Piazza Navona in Rome, but not with Italian prosecutors. She is facing prosecution for “offending the honour of the sacred and inviolable person” of Benedict XVI.

Unfortunately, the story is from the London Times so the typical slant is written right into the story as though it’s news.  And unfortunately, the commenters are London Times readers…

Benedict’s been ridiculed even since his days as the leader of the CDF, and I am sure he really doesn’t care one way or the other about what an Italian Russell Brand says.  But, it is good to see a bit of parity…Muslim countries will string you up for saying something about Mohammed that they don’t like.  What’s good for the goose…

More

Barack Obama, confused about who he’s running against, is sharpening his jabs at Sarah Palin.  After talking about everything McCain would be identical to Bush on, he said, if you put lipstick on a pig, it’s still a pig.  Naturally, lipstick being something females wear, it’s being logically assumed that this is a direct reference to Governor Palin.

Just imagine for a moment if anyone in the blogosphere or in right-wing talkradio had every used a comment about lipstick and Mrs. Clinton in the same sentence.  Heck, for that matter, consider what happened when David Schuster talked about the Clinton campaign “pimping” Chelsea…

Sadly I predict no MSM attention to this statement.

Oh yeah, here’s the video.

In a totally unsurprising move, Cardinal Rigali has released a statement on behalf of the USCCB regarding Biden’s unfathomable comments on Meet the Press this past Sunday; the CNS blog is currently reporting it, and we’ll likely see it on the USCCB website shortly. In part, it says:

However, the Senator’s claim that the beginning of human life is a “personal and private” matter of religious faith, one which cannot be “imposed” on others, does not reflect Catholic teaching.  The Church teaches that the obligation to protect unborn human life rests on the answer to two questions, neither of which is private or specifically religious.

The first is a biological question: When does a new human life begin?  When is there a new living organism of the human species, distinct from mother and father and ready to develop and mature if given a nurturing environment?  While ancient thinkers had little verifiable knowledge to help them answer this question, today embryology textbooks confirm that a new human life begins at conception (see www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/bioethic/fact298.shtml).  The Catholic Church does not teach this as a matter of faith; it acknowledges it as a matter of objective fact.

The second is a moral question, with legal and political consequences: Which living members of the human species should be seen as having fundamental human rights, such as a right not to be killed?  The Catholic Church’s answer is: Everybody.  No human being should be treated as lacking human rights, and we have no business dividing humanity into those who are valuable enough to warrant protection and those who are not.  Even this is not solely a Catholic teaching, but a principle of natural law accessible to all people of good will.  The framers of the Declaration of Independence pointed to the same basic truth by speaking of inalienable rights, bestowed on all members of the human race not by any human power, but by their Creator.  Those who hold a narrower and more exclusionary view have the burden of explaining why we should divide humanity into the moral “haves” and “have-nots,” and why their particular choice of where to draw that line can be sustained in a pluralistic society.  Such views pose a serious threat to the dignity and rights of other poor and vulnerable members of the human family who need and deserve our respect and protection.

While in past centuries biological knowledge was often inaccurate, modern science leaves no excuse for anyone to deny the humanity of the unborn child.  Protection of innocent human life is not an imposition of personal religious conviction but a demand of justice.

This level of spine is something we’ve been longing for in our Bishops.  We regularly saw it in statements of those like Burke and Chaput…to be getting responses out of so many Bishops who often let the CCB do their talking for them, well, it leads one to believe B16’s visit to the USA is bearing real fruit among the Bishops.

Joe Biden, not knowing how to stop when he’s behind, said the following today:

“I hear all this talk about how the Republicans are going to work in dealing with parents who have both the joy, because there’s joy to it as well, the joy and the difficulty of raising a child who has a developmental disability, who were born with a birth defect. Well guess what folks? If you care about it, why don’t you support stem cell research?”

Curt Jester points out that although he doesn’t say it, he must be referring to embryonic stem cell research, since no one on the planet has ever seemed to have a problem with adult stem cell research - which has two strikes against it in the mind of the left: it doesn’t kill anyone and it is actually useful.

My youngest brother-in-law, Tim, embarked upon his seminary adventure last week.  He’s now metriculating at Papal College Josephinum, located in Columbus, Ohio.  He’s written and called a few times.  He’s so far been very happy about the depth he’s experienced so far - the corporate liturgical prayer, like-mindedness of his classmates, and even the highly-structured schedule.  Mandatory study periods every evening, mandatory bedtimes, etc.  Perhaps I can talk him into squeezing a blog post in here every week or something.

Incidentally, he also mentioned he’s been printing out some of these blog posts and leaving them in common areas for other seminarians to read them.  Hopefully, this will get my readership up, and more importantly get some comment threads going.  I might develop a delusion of relevance as a Catholic blogger, you never know.

So, to you friendly folks at the Josephinum, welcome to the blog.  You’re already more qualified than I am….have at it.  If there’s an item of Catholic importance that needs airing, email me the link and I will look into posting about it.

It seems to be a rather new phenomenon that the Democrat party is trying to attract morally straight-thinking folks who recognize the radical abortion-on-demand stance as diametrically opposed to their point of view.  How are the Dems doing it?  They are consistently claiming that they want to make abortion as safe as possible and as rare as possible.  Their solution of course is as much contaception as possible (as we all know, contraception has led to abortion as Pope Paul VI predicted it would) which is fallacious. But it seems they are cautious about how loudly they talk of reducing the number of abortions.  For example, this from Obama’s website:

“Thirty-five years after the Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade, it’s never been more important to protect a woman’s right to choose…With one more vacancy on the Supreme Court, we could be looking at a majority hostile to a women’s fundamental right to choose for the first time since Roe v. Wade. The next president may be asked to nominate that Supreme Court justice. That is what is at stake in this election.”

“When South Dakota passed a law banning all abortions in a direct effort to have Roe overruled, I was the only candidate for President to raise money to help the citizens of South Dakota repeal that law. When anti-choice protesters blocked the opening of an Illinois Planned Parenthood clinic in a community where affordable health care is in short supply, I was the only candidate for President who spoke out against it. And I will continue to defend this right by passing the Freedom of Choice Act as president.”

I saw a really good editorial comment all about this on the new RealCatholicTV.com, from a guy named Michael Voris.  He starts out with the thesis that all Democrats have ever done about abortion is lied.  They claimed that abortion must be legal due to all the hundreds of thousands of back-alley abortions taking place; since then, the man who made up the fake statistic they always cited has confessed to making it up.  They’ve said that it’s just “tissue.”  Biology has proven otherwise.  They’ve said “it’s just potential human life, and doesn’t have rights until the state says it does.”  So now to top it off, they say they want to reduce the number of abortions.  The best argument that proves this is just another lie is one of basic logic.  If there’s nothing wrong with abortion, if the “right to choose” is a basic human right, then why would a Democrat suggest that there’s any good reason to reduce the number of abortions?  It makes no sense - why try to dissuade me from exercising this most basic of human rights?

It’s worth watching this video…Mr. Voris has a substantial level of bravado and may be a shade over the top, but it’s simply to illustrate his points and the absurdity of the claims.  Check it out.

Check out the video here! -Note - you need to log in to view the video…use the username RCBC and the password RCBC2008.

I know we live in the world of the 24 hour news cycle, but how could Biden have possibly missed out on the firestorm raised by Speaker Pelosi’s comments on Meet the Press 2 weeks ago today?  Biden divereged slightly from Pelosi’s statements - he did say that he’s willing to accept the teachings of his church for himself, but he couldn’t impose them on anyone else.  It was one of those “right for me isn’t necessarily right for someone else” moments.  He explained that the moment of life’s start is a matter of faith (in spite of the fact that his own church has stated it’s a matter of biology, not faith.)  But he did (mis)quote Thomas Aquinas in an effort to show that the Church has had many disagreements on the definition of life beginning over the years (again, in spite of modern science that has cleared up the controversy for us.)  In the end, he summed it up by saying exactly the same thing the Speaker said - it’s a matter that is between a woman, her God, and her doctor, blah blah blah.

American Papist points out that Biden’s new Bishop will be installed tomorrow and Biden plans to be at the installation ceremony.  I extrapolate that Biden was apparently drawing a line in the sand that he’s daring his new Bishop to cross.

Catholics Against Joe Biden has excellent coverage as well.

The Curt Jester has a sterling analysis including this truly brilliant profundity (emphasis mine):

what we really once again have is the evil that Mario Cuomo brought to us with the “personally opposed, but” dodge. This saying is pure evil and I don’t just say this as hyperbole. “I personally believe that abortion is the intentionally murder of an innocent child, but I will vote to support it because there are differing views.” This is obscene language that should instantly disqualify somebody from public office. They are saying that they will vote against their conscience and not stand up for the truth. That he is a consciousness objector to his own conscience. Nancy Pelosi while highly problematic is at least more honest than Joe Biden’s to some degree.

You can read the full transcript here.

I served as lector this morning at Mass.  While I was proclaiming the words of Scripture, Biden was on the air excommunicating himself from the Church (perhaps that’s a matter of opinion, but at least a few Canon lawyers agree on this.)  Let’s see…what we this morning’s readings?

If I tell the wicked, “O wicked one, you shall surely die, ”
and you do not speak out to dissuade the wicked from his way,
the wicked shall die for his guilt,
but I will hold you responsible for his death.
But if you warn the wicked,
trying to turn him from his way,
and he refuses to turn from his way,
he shall die for his guilt,
but you shall save yourself.  (Ezekiel 33:7-9)

“If your brother sins against you,
go and tell him his fault between you and him alone.
If he listens to you, you have won over your brother.
If he does not listen,
take one or two others along with you,
so that ‘every fact may be established
on the testimony of two or three witnesses.’
If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church.
If he refuses to listen even to the church,
then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.
Amen, I say to you,
whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven,
and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. (Matthew 18:15-20)

Especially poignant, today’s responsorial Psalm: If today you hear His voice, harden not your heart.

Let the race begin…will it be Chaput or Egan coming in first place on this?

And let’s start a pool on which pro-abort Catholic will be the next to step on this landmine.

Heard this mentioned by Glenn Beck…I am just quickly throwing a quote up here and will comment later.  Read the whole article.  This is from Investors Business Daily:

Barack Obama was a founding member of the board of Public Allies in 1992, resigning before his wife became executive director of the Chicago chapter of Public Allies in 1993. Obama plans to use the nonprofit group, which he features on his campaign Web site, as the model for a national service corps. He calls his Orwellian program, “Universal Voluntary Public Service.”

“Our alumni are more than twice as likely as 18-34 year olds to . . . engage in protest activities,” Public Allies boasts in a document found with its tax filings. It has already deployed an army of 2,200 community organizers like Obama to agitate for “justice” and “equality” in his hometown of Chicago and other U.S. cities, including Cincinnati, Los Angeles, Milwaukee, New York, Phoenix, Pittsburgh and Washington. “I get to practice being an activist,” and get paid for it, gushed Cincinnati recruit Amy Vincent.

The Obamas discourage work in the private sector. “Don’t go into corporate America,” Michelle has exhorted youth. “Work for the community. Be social workers.” Shun the “money culture,” Barack added. “Individual salvation depends on collective salvation.”

“If you commit to serving your community,” he pledged in his Denver acceptance speech, “we will make sure you can afford a college education.” So, go through government to go to college, and then go back into government.

Many of today’s youth find the pitch attractive. “I may spend the rest of my life trying to create social movement,” said Brian Coovert of the Cincinnati chapter. “There is always going to be work to do. Until we have a perfect country, I’ll have a job.”

…”heterosexism,” which a Public Allies training seminar in Chicago describes as a negative byproduct of “capitalism, white supremacy, patriarchy and male-dominated privilege.”

Read the article here!

Here’s a special clip sent to caucus workers some time ago…Obamessiah outlining his plan to defend America…by disarming her.  He explains his plan to disarm in detail.  Watch it.

http://macsmind.com/wordpress/2008/06/08/obama-wants-to-prot ect-america/

I’ve held my tongue a while on the blog about Sarah Palin for Vice President.  15 minutes from this posting, her keynote speech at the RNC will begin.  I’ll be watching.  The MSM, who thinks that her selection is intended to fool estro-centric women into voting for her as an alternative to Mrs. Clinton, completely miss the point.  Her selection is to excite and energize the right wing of the Republican party…people like me who were honestly thinking about voting for Bob Barr or writing in Ronald Reagan or something like that.  Suddenly, I may actually be able to get interested in voting for McCain/Palin rather than just against the EmptySuit / OldGuy ticket.  Time will tell how this will shake out.

Several bishops have released individual statements correcting Nancy Pelosi’s misinterpretations (that’s their word for it, I prefer the word “lies” or “misstatements”) of Catholic teaching on abortion.  The USCCB released an official statement, and now they have moved forward to create a whole new document, referred to as a fact sheet (as American Papist says, these are facts, not opinions.)  In the preamble to the document, Pelosi’s statements are specifically referenced as the reason for the document.  From the USCCB website:

To help end confusion caused by recent misrepresentations of Catholic Church teaching on abortion, the U.S. bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities has issued a two-page fact sheet called “Respect for Unborn Human Life: The Church’s Constant Teaching.”

Public debate on the topic was prompted by misleading remarks by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, August 24 in an interview on Meet the Press.  On August 26, Cardinal Justin Rigali, chairman of the bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities, and Bishop William Lori, chairman of their Committee on Doctrine, issued a statement to correct her remarks.

That link will take you to the document.  They’ve also put out a brochure called “The Catholic Church is a Pro-Life Church.”

They aren’t stopping there on correcting and clarifying misinterpretations of Church teaching, as evidence by this statement:

Many communities within the United States are now engaged in a new conversation on the meaning of the word “marriage”, questioning whether it should describe a union only between a man and a woman. As leaders of our respective faiths, we, as Orthodox Rabbis, communal leaders and representatives of the Roman Catholic Bishops of the United States, wish to affirm our shared commitment to the ordinance of God, the Almighty One, who created man and woman in the divine image (Gen. 1:26-27), so that they might share as male and female, as helpmates and equals (Gen. 2:21-24), in the procreation of children (Gen. 1:28) and the building up of society.

We now confront a demand that same sex unions be classified as marriage. Advocates of this position argue that to do otherwise is to engage in a form of discrimination against homosexuals.   We recognize that all persons share equally in the dignity of human nature and are entitled to have that human dignity protected, but this does not justify the creation of a new definition for a term whose traditional meaning is of critical importance to the furtherance of a fundamental societal interest.

God’s design for the continuance of human life, as seen in the natural order, as well as in the Bible  (Gen. 1-3), clearly revolves around the union of male and female, first as husband and wife, and then as parents. A unique goal of marriage, which is reproduction and the raising of families, exists apart from that of same sex unions, which cannot equally participate in this essential function. While others may claim the right to establish private relationships between persons of the same gender that simulate marriage, the legal classification of such relationships as marriage dilutes the special standing of marriage between a man and a woman. Since the future of every society depends upon its ability to reproduce itself according to this natural order and to have its young people reared in a stable environment, it is the duty of the state to protect the traditional place of marriage and the family for the good of society.

While others have the freedom to disagree with us, we hope that even those outside of our common religious traditions will recognize that we speak from the truth of human nature itself which is consistent with both reason and the moral life.  We also call upon our local faith communities to consider carefully the long held traditions of Jews and Christians on the nature of marriage as built upon the commitment of a man and a woman desirous of establishing a family for contributing to the common good of humanity.

Here we have a statement which can only be described as quintessentially Judeo-Christian, and it doesn’t beat around the proverbial bush at all.  Great stuff.  No doubt the formerly “closed cafeteria” will be in a tizzy about this.