The Hound Of Ulster

Well, not really his letter. That doesn’t require much clarification. It’s somewhere between “highly” and “absolutely” clear. The key segment:

4. Paragraph 279 of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal directs that the sacred vessels are to be purified by the priest, the deacon or an instituted acolyte. The status of this text as legislation has recently been clarified by the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts. It does not seem feasible, therefore, for the Congregation to grant the requested indult from this directive in the general law of the Latin Church.

5. This letter is therefore a request to the members of the Bishops’ Conference of the United Status of America to prepare the necessary explanations and catechetical materials for your clergy and people so that henceforth the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, no. 279, as found in the editio typicatia of the Roman Missal, will be observed throughout its territories.

Translation: “No.”

The thing that really strikes me as interesting in this letter is not the answer, but the reason for the answer. (And the focus, but I’ll get to that in a moment.)

Although I am not exactly sure what the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts said on the matter, it seems clear that Cardinal Arinze sees it as definitive. The argument seems to be that the Council’s “clarification” makes the entire issue easy to address. My reading of #4 runs something like this: “The GIRM is very clear on the matter. And the GIRM is the definitive text - the liturgical law, as we all know from the Pontifical Council’s recent clarification. So, how can we provide an exception from that?”

To oversimplify once again: “No. Because the GIRM says no.”

I do feel compelled to retract at least partially my displeasure with Cardinal Mahony on this matter. In point 5, Cardinal Arinze clearly sees the need for “explanations and catechetical materials.” It’s easy for me to rush ahead with plans to dismiss all extra-ordinary ministers from the purification process. But I’m not actually in charge of anything, and I have a bit of a tin ear on this particular issue. (It’s hard to watch folks carelessly cleaning the sacred vessels. The former altar boy in me cringes ever time I see it.)

I’m not excited by Cardinal Mahony’s use of the word “recommendation.” Looking over the letter from Cardinal Arinze, there seems to be nothing recommended there - except for perhaps the recommendation that the Bishops’ Conference prepare explanations for their members. In fact, the final couple of points seem like a “gentle semi-reminder” of the USCCB’s apparent reluctance to implement the GIRM more fully.

But a delay of some sort does seem consistant with the letter’s emphasis. I’m just not particularly interested in finding out how long it will take the Archdiocese of Los Angeles to “prepare the necessary explanations and catechetical materials for its clergy and people.” (Oops. There I go again.)

And I haven’t even gotten to the “focus” point yet.

The letter spends a great deal of time discussing the importance of having people receive under both species. This moves to a discussion of intinction, and then to the point that reception of the host “has been legitimately established as the most common form in the Latin rite.” But it also points out that, though legitimate, this norm was adopted for largely pastoral reasons.

Receiving under both species is not something I am particularly familiar with. But Cardinal Arinze seems to be suggesting that it would be well for me to consider it a bit further.

That’s what they’re doing in MISSOURAH.

The video showed a group taking all 11 of his “Vote No on Amendment 2″ signs.

“What have I done other than say this is what I feel, what I believe and how I’m going to vote?” Jones said.

Jones said it is the second time in a week someone has taken his signs. After the first sign disappeared, Jones set up his surveillance camera.

“It’s kind of humorous. Part of me wanted to catch them and say, ‘Hey, stop acting childish, vote the way you want to vote,’” Jones said.

But what you can’t see on the tape is that whoever took the signs also decorated Jones’ front tree with toilet paper and knocked over a flower pot on the front porch, Moultrie reported.

Jones said that other “vote no” signs in his neighborhood disappeared overnight as well.

Very mature actions on the part of the opposition, I must say. I’ve never been able to understand this sort of thing. Seems to fall into the “massive risk, negligable reward” camp. So, let’s say you get away without anyone seeing you. Great. You’ve gotten rid of a sign that does little except indicate someone’s voting intentions.

Do those signs change people’s mind? I doubt it. But they do probably serve as encouragement to those that are planning to vote against The Two.

Think about the downside, though. If you get caught - or even seen, like these folks - your side comes off looking like brats at best, and dishonest. If you’re already having issues with looking honest, that seems like a serious risk to take. And definitely not worth the reward.

So please, carry on.

(HT: WOLFTRACKER)

Oh, and I wonder if Michael J. Fox has anything to say about THIS.

British scientists have grown the world’s first artificial liver from stem cells in a breakthrough that will one day provide entire organs for transplant.

The technique that created the ‘mini-liver’, currently the size of a one pence piece, will be developed to create a full-size functioning liver.

Described as a ‘Eureka moment’ by the Newcastle University researchers, the tissue was created from blood taken from babies’ umbilical cords just a few minutes after birth.

As it stands, the mini organ can be used to test new drugs, preventing disasters such as the recent ‘Elephant Man’ drug trial. Using lab-grown liver tissue would also reduce the number of animal experiments.

Within five years, pieces of artificial tissue could be used to repair livers damaged by injury, disease, alcohol abuse and paracetamol overdose.

And then, in just 15 years’ time, entire liver transplants could take place using organs grown in a lab.

Let’s talk about that. Getting away from “the hope that requires the destruction of innocent human life” for a bit might be a nice change.

Kerry had this to say at yesterday’s Angelidas campaign event:

You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.

The man’s tin ear is amazing. Someone who makes statements like that will never be President of the United States.

Michelle has another of her clasic link COLLECTIONS on this one, Captain Ed has a bit MORE, and Hugh Hewitt makes a key POINT about the MSM, the Dems, and why the military vote is always highly Republican. (HERE is the video, for those with strong stomachs.)

Tony Snow thinks Kerry should apologize.

Senator Kerry not only owes an apology to those who are serving, but also to the families of those who’ve given their lives in this. This is an absolute insult.

Kerry THINKS not.

Kerry, a decorated Vietnam veteran and Bush’s rival in 2004, fired back, saying the president and his administration are the ones who owe U.S. troops an apology because they “misled America into war and have given us a Katrina foreign policy that has betrayed our ideals, killed and maimed our soldiers, and widened the terrorist threat instead of defeating it.”

“This is the classic GOP playbook,” Kerry said in a harshly worded statement. “I’m sick and tired of these despicable Republican attacks that always seem to come from those who never can be found to serve in war, but love to attack those who did. I’m not going to be lectured by a stuffed suit White House mouthpiece standing behind a podium.”

I can’t decide what part of this statement is more absurd: the part that calls Tony Snow a “stuffed suit White House mouthpiece,” or the part that employs the absurd “Chickenhawk” defense. (OK, I can actully decide. The notion that someone needs to have been in the military to truly say anything about it is way, way more absurd.)

Luckily, we have the perfect response.

Senator Kerry owes an apology to the many thousands of Americans serving in Iraq, who answered their country’s call because they are patriots and not because of any deficiencies in their education. Americans from all backgrounds, well off and less fortunate, with high school diplomas and graduate degrees, take seriously their duty to our country, and risk their lives today to defend the rest of us in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.

They all deserve our respect and deepest gratitude for their service. The suggestion that only the least educated Americans would agree to serve in the military and fight in Iraq, is an insult to every soldier serving in combat, and should deeply offend any American with an ounce of appreciation for what they suffer and risk so that the rest of us can sleep more comfortably at night. Without them, we wouldn’t live in a country where people securely possess all their God-given rights, including the right to express insensitive, ill-considered and uninformed remarks.

THAT’S McCain. He can’t be a Chickenhawk, can he?

I think I want to address this a bit later. After my blood has cooled.

Providing a bit more certitude to this whole election PROCESS:

A new statewide database of registered voters contains as many as 77,000 dead people on its rolls, and as many as 2,600 of them have cast votes from the grave, according to a Poughkeepsie Journal computer-assisted analysis.

Oh, great. But don’t worry. It’s all above-board.

The numbers do not indicate how much fraud is the result of dead voters in New York, only the potential for it. Typically, records of votes by the dead are the result of bookkeeping errors and do not mean any extra ballots were actually cast.

The Journal did not find any fraud in the local matches it investigated.

Great. I can stop worrying, I guess. Especially when I read things like this:

Democrats who cast votes after they died outnumbered Republicans by more than 4 to 1.

Don’t be alarmed. Here’s an explanation.

The reason: Most of them came from Democrat-dominated New York City, where the higher population produced more matches.

It’s definitely important, though. Remember this?

Other states have used the death index to supplement data collected by their health departments. Earlier this year, officials in Washington state used health department records and the death index to remove 19,579 deceased people in the first four months after its statewide database was created. The effort there was underscored by the results of the 2004 gubernatorial election, in which Democratic Gov. Christine Gregoire won by 129 votes after two recounts of the more than 2.8 million cast.

I would be curious as to whether or not (and if yes, for whom) those 19.5K voted.

The Kerry Spot - (Wow. Haven’t thought about him for a while.) - has some insider INFO. And Red State’s Leon Wolf is FEELING like me.

Oh, and just for the record? THIS is the way you do a political ad.

American Papist REPORTS on Detroit’s new bishop - (auxiliary, that is).

Ordained for Corpus Christi in 1988, Flores was immediately placed on the fast track by then-Bishop Rene Gracida, who the new bishop served as his personal secretary, parochial vicar of Corpus Christi Cathedral, vice-chancellor and episcopal master of ceremonies. After five years as the diocese’s vocation director, he was sent to Rome, where he earned his license and doctorate in theology from the Angelicum.

Returning home, the bishop-elect was named chancellor of the diocese while serving as a professor of theology at the University of St Thomas in Houston and St Mary’s, where he was named vice-rector in 2002. Named earlier this year as rector of Corpus Christi Cathedral, he speaks Spanish, Italian, and Latin in addition to English.

And here are a couple of Halloween links: FUNNY or SCARY? You pick.

That was my dad’s reaction to THIS.

Until Cardinal Mahony and the auxiliary bishops have the opportunity to discuss the new recommendations, both locally and at the general meeting of the USCCB in November, no changes will be made regarding the present policy for the distribution of Holy Communion and/or the purification of the sacred vessels.

I didn’t realize it was a recommendation. And I didn’t realize it was something that would require discussion. Seems like firing off a fax that says “stop” would have worked just fine. Might not have made everyone happy, but it seems like it would have been effective.

Of course, that would require that we were talking about people (or a person) that wanted to stop. Or even to listen.

I suppose, as that link suggests, there is a charitable spin to put on this. Could be an issue of “how best to implement this in a large diocese,” I guess. But I’m not getting a good feeling about this. (HT: DOM)

Congrats, Cards.

Now, on to business.

REPORT #1:

Insiders believe Barry Zito will flirt with the East Coast teams, but eventually will stay on the West Coast. The Dodgers are the leading contenders.
– Fort Worth Star-Telegram

REPORT #2:

Prediction: Seattle strikes again to sign Matsuzaka, a move that will convince Suzuki not to go looking for greener pastures when his deal expires after next season. The Mets outbid the Dodgers for Zito and Schmidt winds up with the Cubs. At least two other Japanese starters accompany Matsuzaka to the United States, including Hiroki Kuroda, an unrestricted free agent.

I sure hope that second one is right. I like Zito. But he’s exactly the sort of pitcher it is impossible not to overpay. He’s getting close to 30, strikes out very few, and does not have overpowering stuff. His consistancy is praiseworthy, to be sure. And it would be a mistake to avoid someone simply because they’re consistant.

But he struggles to dominate in key games, precisely because he doesn’t notch K’s, and because his stuff is fairly soft. Combine that with the “magical 30-year line,” and you have a recipe for regression, ad least.  And definitely not a recipe for $15,000,000 a year.

I’m more than happy to let the Mets do that.

November 7th can’t come soon enough for me. I don’t know if I’m going to make it. The crush of political commentary - (and the increasingly partisan nature of the commentary from both sides) - is really starting to weigh on me. Not sure how much more I can take.

Plus, there’s so much UNCERTAINTY in the process.

Serious pollsters concede that there are some problems with polling. Americans have fewer landline phones than they used to, and the random digit dialing most pollsters use does not include cell-phone numbers. Larger and larger percentages of those called are declining to be interviewed.

Interviewers can inject bias in the results. The late Warren Mitofsky, who conducted the 2004 NEP exit poll, went back and found that the greatest difference between actual results in exit poll precincts and the reports phoned in to NEP came where the interviewers were female graduate students — and almost all the discrepancies favored the Democrats.

The pollsters I know, both Republican and Democratic, are continually questioning their own procedures and are trying to adjust them to reflect changes in the workings of society. Polls, they all concede, are imperfect instruments, to be read with some caution.

As the results come in on election night, and as we peruse them in the days and weeks afterward, we will see whether the party identification of the electorate has changed as much as many of the polls suggest. In off-years especially, the key to elections is who comes out to vote.

At least Barone’s willing to say he’s not sure what’s going on. Too bad he can’t pass that honesty on to some of his other newspaper friends. (HT: HUGH HEWITT, who seems to think Barone is making a slightly narrower point than I see him making.)

But despite this sort of “election fatigue,” there are far too many important issues for us to just “sit this one out.”

Take THIS one, for example. Trailing a bit in the polls, it’s true. But let’s not forget that these folks are up against the Planned Parenthood Monetary Goliath. But that’s exactly the sort of THING we can do something about. (Just for the record, I’m really not sure what I think about that ban. But then, I’m always too cautious. Now that it’s going forward, I don’t want it to fail.)

AMY has more, including a link to this First Things POST. Takes a different approach than most discussions on the matter; most interesting.

Of course, everything changes for the postmodern academics who think mere humanity not a locus of dignity at all, that only experience and not being matters, that what one is doesn’t count, that human personhood is only an epiphenomenon rather than a nature. If the only rule of ethics were, for example, “reasoning processes should not be interrupted,” then it would be absurd to oppose the abortion of a human embryo that had not yet developed a brain. Similarly, no logical mistake is made by a utilitarian who thinks that the only evil is pain, that at a certain stage a fetus cannot feel pain, and thus that abortion is obviously OK with regard to that fetus (though any short- or long-term painful consequences for his or her mother would still need to be considered before approving of abortion).

In other words, those who hold both to the truth of human development and to the truth of universal human dignity will seek to respect life from conception. But those who fall into ignorance or denial of one or the other of these truths will find our arguments against abortion to be absurd.

Fr. Martin Fox has a PSEUDODEBATE with Michael J. Fox.

Father: You and I are both white males. We haven’t, historically, had to worry about being part of a marginalized minority. At least, far less so than many others. I’m saying, sometimes you have to put these questions beyond majority-rule.

Actor: So you don’t even want the question placed on the ballot?

Father: That’s exactly what I’m saying. I’m saying, I don’t care if 99% of the people vote for something–that doesn’t make it right. After all–suppose that referendum goes down in Missouri–it may–does that make you wrong? Will you change your position.

Actor: No.

I think Fr. Martin is a bit nicer to Fox than he needs to be - especially given this new INFORMATION. (The blogosphere priests are all over this sort of THING, aren’t they?)

But it does serve as a nice reminder of several things. First, our opponents on this issue are not always monsters. They are deeply human. Motivated by fear, greed and by self-love, perhaps. But which of us are not?

Second, although they are not monsters, what they propose is monstrous.

We find ourselves once again in the difficult situation of “loving the sinner, but hating the sin.” Never easy, I know. But much more important than either allowing our concern with the issue to overcome the ever-present need for true charity or failing to confront the issue head-on.

Since when has “easy” been an essential requirement in following Christ, anyway?

(Wolftracker PROVIDES real hope.)

A friend of mine recently mentioned this film to me, and was shocked and horrified to discover that I do not care for it in the least.

That’s right. I don’t like it. (I also hate kittens, but that’s a different story.)

A fair portion of this dislike most certainly stems from a deep and abiding hatred I bear towards pretty much every screen character I have ever seen from Maureen O’Hara. She’s not a small part of the film, as you may remember.

But the biggest reason why I find the film unappealing is that the source material suggests a much better film than the one Ford actually produced.

The original short story, written by an Irishman named Maurice Walsh, is wonderful. It is far more interesting than the film, for numerous reasons - not the least of which is that the wife is likeable and the brother is not. And it is also far more Irish, though the fact that Ford cast John Wayne in the lead role suggest that “Irish” was perhaps not his greatest concern.

HERE is the original.

His face was still of stone, but his voice quivered and had in it all the dramatic force of the Celt: “Mother of my son, will you come home with me?”

She lifted to the appeal, voice and eye: Is it so you ask me, Shawn Kelvin?”

His face of stone quivered at last. “As my wife only-Ellen Kelvin! “

“Very well, heart’s treasure.” She caught his arm in both of hers. “Let us be going home.”

“In the name of God,” he finished for her.

And she went with him, proud as the morning, out of that place. But a woman, she would have the last word. “Mother of God!” she cried. “The trouble I had to make a man of him!”

“God Almighty did that for him before you were born,’ said Matt Tobin softly.

Now tell me that wouldn’t have made a great film.

For REAL. Maybe.

Evolutionary theorist Oliver Curry of the London School of Economics expects a genetic upper class and a dim-witted underclass to emerge.

The human race would peak in the year 3000, he said - before a decline due to dependence on technology.

People would become choosier about their sexual partners, causing humanity to divide into sub-species, he added.

The descendants of the genetic upper class would be tall, slim, healthy, attractive, intelligent, and creative and a far cry from the “underclass” humans who would have evolved into dim-witted, ugly, squat goblin-like creatures.

A couple quick thoughts. First, why is the London School of Economics involved with this? And why would we trust economists on the future of the human race? They seem to have enough trouble predicting the economy.

Second, why will our “dependence on technology” lead to our decline? Curry says we’ll become pets. or something like that.

Spoiled by gadgets designed to meet their every need, they could come to resemble domesticated animals.

I wonder what the justification is for that? Sounds interesting enough, but a bit far-fetched. Course, we could always invoke the Darwin principle. We’re talking about ” a really long time,” remember? So that should explain it.

And lastly, we seem to be drifting towards “less choosier about sexual partners,” not the other direction.

Then again, maybe the economists are WRONG.

And the notion of two subspecies in a hundred thousand years is frankly daft. As Voltaire put it, history is the sound of silken slippers descending the stairs, while hobnailed boots march up them. Humans are mobile and becoming more so, in terms of miles, cash and sex; and basic evolutionary theory tells us that new species can only arise in isolation as defined by distance or mating preference – and isolation is the one thing that we lack.

The Time Machine, a work of art as much as of science, has a clever twist. The evil Morlocks are in fact the rulers, the sensitive Eloi their mere domestic animals. H G Wells’ message was a political one and he wrote before politics became quite as terrifying as it is today.

As someone interested in world affairs as much as biology, I can make a more immediate, confident, and cheerless forecast than any moral psychologist, evolutionary or otherwise; that history will not end with a Darwinian whimper in some distant dysgenic future, but quite soon and quite suddenly, with an emphatic Einsteinian bang.

Myself, I have to agree with that second paragraph. There is nearly nothing scientific about Wells. He mostly wants to make political points. (Remember War of the Worlds? Very political, really. Nearly completely political. And interestingly enough, nearly completely different politically that Spielberg’s version. But that’s a discussion for another time.) When he isn’t making political points, he’s making absurd scientific claims - claims that have proven to be wrong again and again.

Agreeing with Wells’ science should be a perfectly good reason for rejecting your own theory. Maybe the economists should look at their allies a bit more closely. It could be quite instructive.