Priest fined $100,000 for ringing his church's bells

So much for sacred ambiance:

An Italian priest has been ordered to pay €60,000 (£49,000) in damages because the bells of his church were too loud, and were rung for too long at "unsocial hours".

The judgement, handed down by a court in the town of Chiavari, has widespread implications for what is often seen as Europe's most Catholic nation, and perhaps the country with the highest density of churches. The case brought by a retired university teacher, Flora Leuzzi, is one of several alleging that over-enthusiastic tolling constitutes noise pollution.

Professor Leuzzi, who lives close to the Carmine church in Lavagna, near Genoa, began her campaign against its belfry 13 years ago. The judge found that the sound it emitted was louder than average. He also agreed that Leuzzi's hearing had been marginally impaired. (The UK Guardian)

Considering the average sounds one hears in an Italian city, I'd have thought the bells would help.

Stevens-Arroyo's inexplicably flippant - and uninformed - Pelosi commentary

Anthony Stevens-Arroyo, contributing to the Washington Post/Newsweek blog On Faith today, demonstrates an extraordinary ability to gravely miss the point of Pelosi's comments, and do so glibly.

First, the glib:

"After House Speaker Nancy Pelosi spoke about the abortion issue in a television interview, Archbishop Donald Wuerl of Washington issued a clarifying statement.

Rather than a put-down as some had expected, however, the Archbishop did a dance with her."

Oh, isn't that cute. They're doing a little dance together. One problem: they're dancing around the issue of abortion.

Next, missing-the-point:

In the interview, Pelosi had said that the Democratic Party's position reflected the religious pluralism of the country.

Wrong. Pelosi did not make claims about the Democratic Party's position on abortion. She made claims about the Catholic Church's teaching on abortion. If she had made claims about the Democrat Party's position on abortion, there would have been nothing to talk about. In fact, she went beyond that and made (erroneous) claims about the Catholic Church.

That's why the bishops responded. This is a fundamental point, and Stevens-Arroyo completely misses it.

More missing-the-point by Stevens-Arroyo:

The House Speaker had talked about the scientific dimension of the issue: the Archbishop emphasized the theological (or metaphysical) definition. They were moving in lock-step but in different directions - just like partners in a dance.

Wrong again. In regards to abortion and the question of when life begins, part of the theological point is that scientifically one can know that human life begins at conception. They aren't moving in "different directions" - they are approaching the same truth from different perspectives.

Even more missing-the-point by Stevens-Arroyo:

Other bishops continue to repeat the theological opinion, which of course they should do. However, while theologians can speak authoritatively about the need to respect the moment of conception, it is "above their pay grade" to put on a biologist cap and define scientifically when that moment occurs.

First of all, using Obama's infamous "above my pay grade" line isn't going to win you any friends among rational, informed Christians. Second, wrong: this was exactly the point of Cardinal Egan - being Catholic doesn't make you automatically incapable of doing science, no matter that Pelosi tried to claim a disingenuous scientific agnosticism about the time when life begins at the same time as proposing a false theological relativism when confronted with the question of when this life deserves protection. (Honorable-mention third point: Pelosi didn't limit herself to defending early abortions, she also brought in second, and third-trimester abortions.)

Now, not just missing-the-point, but being actively wrong, by Stevens-Arroyo:

Fertility doctors, who are the experts on this matter, distinguish between a "fertilized egg" and "conception." Only when the embryo is implanted in the womb does it achieve conception, they say.

Notice, first, how the opinion of fertility doctors is supposed to be some sort of trump card. Second, this is not a grammatical question of what one considers a "conceptus." The Church defines conception as the moment of fertilization. And Stevens-Arroyo would be hard pressed to argue that the conceptus undergoes some sort of radical change simply by merit of being physically in the womb as opposed to the fallopian tube.

Now, on top of being wrong, being wrong about what the Church teaches, by Stevens-Arroyo:

Now, Catholic teaching instructs us that even if an embryo is not yet conceived, it has that potential.

Show me where the Church teaches that a "conceptus" is not an embryo. You can't. I'll put it another way, more clearly: embryos do not have the potential to be conceived, they are the result of being conceived.

Back to simply missing-the-point, by Stevens-Arroyo:

Unfortunately, this avoids the real issue for bishops and politicians alike: Does Catholic teaching bind non-Catholics?

That, actually, is a separate question. If Pelosi had kept herself to that sort of discussion, no correction would have been immediately and urgently required. Instead, she decided to claim that Catholic teaching does not bind Catholics. (Seriously, how hard is this?)

More missing-the-point, by even wider margins:

Are Catholic voters obliged by their bishops to take away the right of Protestants (or Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc.) to practice their religion (or atheists to be atheists) in the U.S.?

Honestly, this is so far off topic that it's not even worth chasing.

The rest of the essay trails off along these confused lines, but a couple further line do deserve a highlight:

However, so as long as the bishops give theological answers to political questions, they expose our faith to confused charges of infidelity to the American way.

Stevens-Arroyo is here guilty of the tired separation of church-and-state dualism which claims a question can only be theological or political, and never both (i.e., informed by both). In fact it was Pelosi who trespassed into theological territory when she claimed to present the teaching of the church. She was the one who exposed "our" faith to ridicule and dissemination.

Finally, as a laughable conclusion to this travesty of a commentary:

Speaker Pelosi is no dummy: she spoke correctly from her perspective, just as the Archbishop did from his. It would be a service to Catholics everywhere if the bishops articulated more clearly the need to distinguish between theological teaching and political decision-making.

It's like we're talking about a different person, and reading different words uttered by that person. She did not speak correctly from her perspective - because she spoke as a Catholic. How one can possibly take Pelosi-Gate as an example of bishops failing to make distinctions is simply beyond me. It was they who re-established the destinction after Pelosi had made a mess of it all.

The author's flippant sign-off:

Keep Catholic political leaders and bishops on the dance floor of the public square, I say! The public needs to see the careful intricacy we undergo in living within our shared Catholic conviction. I think the two concerns of theology and democracy can make beautiful music together.

It's one thing to be wrong. It's another, worse thing to be flippantly wrong about issues as grave as abortion, the malicious deceits of Catholic pro-abort politicians, and the response of lay people and Catholic bishops who are trying to instruct the Catholic faithful in this atmosphere of ignorance, self-interest and ... joking.

I've refrained from doing much research into Stevens-Arroyo's other published commentaries. This isn't a hit piece, after all. It's simply a point-by-point illustration of the errors in this piece of his writing.

I do have to add, however, that his June 17th column is titled "When Popes Go To Far" and argues for women priests against the 1994 teaching of Pope John Paul II. So maybe he makes a habit of missing the point when it comes to Catholic teaching.

... can someone explain to me again why Newsweek/Washington Post goes to him for "Catholic commentary"?

[Photo credit: DAVID KIDWELL/Pocono Record]

update: my counter-points are well-supported by today's press release by the U.S. Bishops.

Catholic priest claims cannabis field in backyard 'a gift from God'!

Good times in Bulgaria:

A catholic priest, who claims that his back yard full of cannabis plants is a gift from God, has been placed under constant surveillance by police.

Father Cyril Papudov, of Petrich, Bulgaria, has been arrested seven times but police have never caught him actually cultivating the crop.

He insists that the cannabis seeded by itself and is part of God's gift of nature and nothing to do with him. (ANI)

Where is the bishop?!

Sandro Magister, others, on the growing Hindu violence

Magister adds his commanding take to the story, which I covered extensively last week here.

In India, the Christians' Offense Is Fighting Against Slavery

The slavery is that of the caste system. Against this, the Christians both preach and practice equal dignity for all. Professor Parsi explains the reasons for the growing Hindu violence. And he warns about the international repercussions

This morning, the 25,000 Catholic schools in India closed their doors for the entire day. The Indian Catholic Church has called for a day of prayer and fasting for the first Sunday in September, with peaceful processions all over the country.

The reason is the new wave of violence that has struck the Christians in the state of Orissa. Every day, there is news of killing, wounding, rape, assaults against churches, convents, schools, orphanages, villages, carried out by Hindu fanatics. Thousands of people have had to abandon their homes and flee to the forests.

The spark for the latest explosion of violence was struck with the killing, on August 23, of the Hindu religious leader Swami Laxmanananda Saraswati and five of his followers. The killing was carried out by armed Maoist groups, but the Hindus used it as a pretext for blaming the Christians and taking revenge on them. [More.]

Meanwhile, a local Indian Archbishop calls this violence a case of "Christianophobia":

The international community must demonstrate the same commitment to wiping out growing ‘Christianophobia’ as to tackling anti-Semitism or Islamophobia, the Vatican’s foreign minister said on Friday.

Archbishop Dominique Mamberti was speaking as Hindu mobs continue to go on the rampage against Christians in India’s Orissa state in retaliation for the killing of a Hindu leader, despite the Indian government saying that Maoists are most likely responsible for the murder. At least 13 people have been killed in the violence and hundreds of Christian churches and homes have been burned down.

Archbishop Mamberti said religious freedom was fundamental to upholding human dignity.

"In order to promote this dignity in an integral way, so-called 'Christianophobia' should be combated as decisively as 'Islamophobia' and anti-Semitism," he said.

More than 3,000 people, mainly Christians, have fled from their homes to government-run relief camps or surrounding forests. - Christian Today

Christians are not demanding special treatment, simpy equal.

Looking at the news feeds, I'm seeing practically no major US-media coverage of this story.

Liberals already going after Palin

{post updated, 12:35pm}

Perhaps taking the cake is Daily Kos trying to claim that Palin's fifth child, who has down syndrome, is actually Palin's daughter's child. Give the story some time to sort itself out, I'd say.

Also, a particularly glaring example of bias from MSNBC:

From the very first moment that John McCain's selection of Sarah Palin for his Republican running mate was announced, the MSNBC news network was engaged in a deliberate attempt to smear the Alaska governor, according to Fox News host Bill O'Reilly.

During Friday night's edition of "The O'Reilly Factor," the Fox anchor displayed MSNBC's "breaking news" graphic, which ran the message, "How many houses does Palin add to the Republican ticket?" (see picture here.)

And the feminist bloggers? "Crap."

Classy.

Meanwhile: $10 Million Woman: Palin a Hit with GOP Donors

Franciscan monks attacked "clockwork orange-style"

Where did this come from?

Italians have been left shocked by a ferocious assault on Franciscan monks by hooded thugs at a monastery in the foothills of the Alps, which has been compared to incidents seen in the film 'A Clockwork Orange'.

Father Sergio Baldin, 48, the guardian of the San Colombano Belmonte monastery near Turin, and three elderly monks from the Franciscan order of Friars Minor, were having their evening meal when they were attacked by three hooded men who gagged and bound them before punching, kicking and beating them with clubs.

... Cardinal Severino Poletto, the Archbishop of Turin, who visited the victims in hospital, said the attack was "beyond comprehension". The only possible explanation was that the assailants had been "either drugged or possessed, or both", he said. (UK Times)

Just evil.

Steve Skojec, who gets the hat tip for this story, adds:

I think it would be good to keep both the intentions of the victims and the conversion of the attackers in our prayers. It might also be worthwhile to enlist the aid of another Franciscan, St. Anthony of Padua, in finding the assailants and bringing them to justice.

Amen.

Catholic Nun invited to DNC doubts crucifixion story in talk

Quoted in full because Ryan Sayre Patrico doesn't waste words:

The Democrats didn’t invite Archbishop Charles Chaput to their convention in Denver this year, for understandable reasons. Instead, they invited Sr. Helen Prejean C.S.J. to speak at their interfaith gathering. If they were trying to avoid controversy and shore up support from religious party members, however, they were in for a disappointment:

COLORADO CONVENTION CENTER — Following the hot topic of abortion, Sister Helen Prejean tackled another: calling for abolition of the death penalty to raucous applause at the DNC’s interfaith gathering.

She received nothing but a stony silence, however, when she questioned the basis of the biblical crucifixion story as a “projection of our violent society.”

“Is this a God?” Prejeans asked about the belief that God allowed his son, Jesus, to be sacrificed for the sins of humanity. “Or is this an ogre?”

Just a little bit too left of left, I guess.

Outrageous: "Condom ringtone launched in India"

Yet another desensitizing initiative contrary to human dignity undertaken by condom-promoters:

A cellphone ringtone that chants "condom, condom!" has been launched in India to promote safe sex and tackle the growing HIV/AIDS epidemic.

The "condom a cappella" has been designed to break down Indians' reluctance to discuss condom use and to make wearing a condom more acceptable.

Organisers of the campaign, funded by the foundation set up by Microsoft mogul Bill Gates and his wife Melinda, hope the ringtone will become a craze among young Indians.

About 2.5 million people live with HIV in India, said the BBC World Service Trust, the charity behind the ringtone, which was released this month....

... "Ringtones have become such personal statements that a specially created condom ringtone seemed just the right way of combining a practical message with a fun approach," said Radharani Mitra, creative director of the BBC World Service Trust.

"The idea is to tackle the inhibitions and taboos that can be associated with condoms." (AFP)

Frankly, if I were a young guy living in India without Catholic morals, and I heard some girl's cell phone start ringing next to me with the words "condom, condom" ...

Well, call me naive, but how exactly is this supposed to reduce instances of STD-infection?!

CA court ruling: Doctors must inseminate lesbian couples

The doctors were even willing to instruct the couple how to "self-inseminate" after fertility drug treatment, but that was not enough:

California's high court on Monday barred doctors from withholding medical care to gays and lesbians based on religious beliefs, ruling that state law prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination extends to the medical profession.

Justice Joyce Kennard wrote in the unanimous ruling that two Christian fertility doctors who refused to artificially inseminate a lesbian have neither a free speech right nor a religious exemption from the state's law, which "imposes on business establishments certain anti-discrimination obligations."

In the lawsuit that led to the ruling, Guadalupe Benitez, 36, of Oceanside said that the doctors treated her with fertility drugs and instructed her how to inseminate herself at home but told her their beliefs prevented them from assisting her further.

The case drew the attention of religious organizations, medical groups and gay civil rights organizations.

The American Civil Rights Union supported the Christian doctors, siding with the Islamic Medical Association of North America, the Christian Medical & Dental Associations and anti-abortion groups.

The California Medical Association reversed its early support of the Christian doctors after receiving a barrage of criticism from the gay rights community, joining health care provider Kaiser Foundation Health Plan to oppose the Christian doctors. (AP)

It saddens me to see that these Christian doctors did not receive at least equal support from the Christian community, although obviously I am not trying to assign blame in this matter because I only heard of it myself after the decision was handed down, and this apparently has been in litigation for some time. It's hard to be an ethical doctor these days.

And I wonder how homosexual men could be discriminated against in this instance ...? Do I want to?

update: CNA picks up on the story here.

Ph/t: AmP reader "J."

Video: Obama lies by calling pro-lifers ... liars

Obama's evidently has made the decision to dig in his heals about his voting record on the Illinois Born Alive Infants Protection Act and the federal Born Alive bill. Here's the gist of the situation:

Obama claims the two bills are different. His campaign has long claimed the two bills are different. And watch what he had to say the most recent time he was asked about them:

Trouble is, the public-record documents reveal, without a doubt, that Obama is wrong: the two documents are the same (CNA provides more backstory).

And obviously, National Right to Life doesn't like being called a liar, so its Director has asked Obama to claim that his Born Alive votes are "forgeries" (or admit his error, I guess).

Now, because the objective evidence is squarely against Obama, only laziness or intentional-story-burying in the media can kill this embarrassing (and revealing) state of affairs.

The early word from the presses (tracked by Jill Stanek) seems to suggest that Obama's campaign is in a scramble to nip this situation in the bud by adding an additional level of legislative confusion - a point that Obama makes no reference to in his taped interview:

Indeed, Mr. Obama appeared to misstate his position in the CBN interview on Saturday when he said the federal version he supported "was not the bill that was presented at the state level."

His campaign yesterday acknowledged that he had voted against an identical bill in the state Senate, and a spokesman, Hari Sevugan, said the senator and other lawmakers had concerns that even as worded, the legislation could have undermined existing Illinois abortion law. Those concerns did not exist for the federal bill, because there is no federal abortion law. (NY Sun)

And well they should be scrambling: Obama's cavalier/confident attitude about this situation is completely backfiring. All you need to do is re-watch this video clip and realize that he is, in fact, lying, and the enormous stupidity of his decision to try to stare down the NRL claims becomes evident, as Deal hudson points out.

Even worse for him: he is now on video stating, with complete surety, his position. His is the kind of categorical denial that unnecessarily required him to place his reputation and voting record on the line in an unqualified way. Therefore, either he is right, and the situation goes away, or he is wrong (actually the case), and he must now either admit to lying about these claims, or being ignorant of his own voting record while claiming to know his position inside and out, and - to top it all off - explain why he would go after NRL and others asking these (legitimated) questions by calling them liars.

I really don't see a way for him to survive a serious blow to his credibility ... except one thing:

Media silence.

And so the question remains: will Obama get away with calling NRL "liars," about something they in fact have correctly claimed, in no small part because he is relying on the media to not pursue the story further?

NYT talks about Oakland's cathedral & sexual abuse garden

The almost-completed Oakland cathedral, which by the way, currently looks like this...

... also includes a small garden devoted to the victims of sexual abuse (concept photo):

... and this is exactly the sort of story the New York Times loves talking about: for one thing, it allows them to continue discussing the clergy sexual abuse scandal, in addition to painting those who oppose this garden as reactionary.

Fact is, this is just a stupid and very-poorly executed idea, on several levels.

(And it's not like we can hope for a natural disaster to free us of this aesthetic effrontery - it's rated to withstand a 1000 year earthquake. Well, I guess we can always pray for a miracle.)

... and before the comment box starts humming, let me make very clear that what I think is primarily wrong with this idea is the solution of setting up a meaningless zen garden to heal the hurts caused by sexual abuse. Abstract landscaping is not how Catholics heal spiritual and psychological trauma.

Ph/t: AmP reader James.

"Activists to Benedict: Please raise animals from the dead"

Animal rights activists have made this sort of request before, but this time Carl Olson embraced it as an opportunity to have a bit of rhetorical fun:

Sure, you might try to argue that I'm misreading or misrepresenting this news story, but if you carefully read between the lines, you'll see that animal rights activists are hoping that Pope Benedict XVI might be able to bring some animals back from the dead:

Rome - Italian animal rights activists have appealed to Pope Benedict XVI to help "save the ermine" by asking him in a letter to refrain from wearing clothing trimmed with the animal's fur.

Since the ermine on the Pope's hats and robes are dead (or so I assume), I can only conclude that when the activists ask the Holy Father to "save the ermine," they are expecting a miracle. An ermine resurrection, if you will. After all, it's difficult to save animals from death once they are already dead; it would require that they come back to life, then be saved from death. I dare say my patron saint, St. Thomas Aquinas, would be hard pressed to fault my crystalline logic in this matter.

Okay, I mostly had to quote him because I respected him so much for using "ermine resurrection" in a grammatically-and-semantically-correct sentence. And he even kept his clothes on.

Offbeat: Fake "bishop" operating in Dallas

Fake priests, I've heard about. But fake bishops?!

The Roman Catholic Diocese of Dallas is warning worshippers to beware of a fake bishop who charges for holy services that priests do for free.

Bishop Kevin Farrell, in a statement Monday, said he's been contacted by the Archbishop of Acapulco, Mexico, about a man named Martin Davila Gandara operating in the Dallas area.

Farrell says the man is not a bishop or associated with the Roman Catholic church.

Some of the services, such as baptisms, allegedly were offered in places like motels for fees of $100 to $200. (ABC Local 13)

Newsflash: bishops don't normally conduct sacraments in motels.

In all seriousness, this is most probably someone preying upon unsuspecting immigrant Latinos, which is even more reprehensible considering the typical financial status of such individuals.

Video: Japan's "Catholic" Wedding Trend

Yikes!

Revealing quote: "So-called 'Catholic' weddings now make up 60% of all weddings in Japan, yet the population is only 1% Christian."

Who's performing these so-called "Catholic weddings"? Non-Catholic profiteers.

Video: ALL takes on "Catholics" for Choice, others

Described:

This week, we take on "Catholics" for Choice and 62 other oddities who seem to think that somehow, sexual deviancy and abortion are compatible with Christianity. Anyone who has ever taken a cursory glance through the Bible can clearly see that they are not. And yet, these fringe groups had the audacity to take out a half page open letter to the Pope in Italy's most prominany newspaper, calling on him to reverse 2000 years of Church teaching. Clearly, the Pope isn't about to rewrite Jesus' teachings, so the obvious impetus behind this underhanded move isn't to get the Pope to change the moral teachings of the Church, but to generate public justification for these anti-Christian beliefs.

Video:



I think it's imperative to take the offensive against "Catholics" for Choice and similar pro-abortion fronts.

Israel paper publishes Obama's private note placed in Western Wall

An outrageous stunt:

Daily newspaper Maariv published the contents of the note to G-d which Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama placed in the Kotel Thursday. The paper claims a yeshiva student took the note out of the crack in the Kotel which Obama placed it in, as is done traditionally in the belief that G-d will receive the writer's wishes.

... Notes to the Kotel are considered extremely personal and never, in recent memory, has one been published against the wishes of the person who placed it.

The LA Times has a scan of the text:

It reads: "Lord - Protect my family and me. Forgive me my sins, and help me guard against pride and despair [edited]. Give me the wisdom to do what is right and just. And make me an instrument of your will."

I have to say, if the note is genuine - it's a good note.

The surprivising Rabbi is very angry, and understandably so:

The rabbi who supervises Jerusalem's Western Wall [Wikipedia entry] condemned the removal of a prayer note purportedly written by Sen. Barack Obama, saying the action was "sacrilegious."

The U.S. presidential candidate visited the holy site early Thursday and placed a note in the cracks of the wall -- a custom of visitors.

The note was subsequently removed from the wall, according to the Israeli newspaper, Ma'ariv, which printed what it said were the contents of the prayer.
Ma'ariv said a seminary student gave the note to the newspaper.

Obama's senior strategist Robert Gibbs told CNN, "We haven't confirmed nor denied" that the note is from the Illinois senator.

"This sacrilegious action deserves sharp condemnation and represents a desecration of the holy site," said Rabbi Shmuel Rabinowitz, who supervises the Western Wall, in a statement.

He said notes are supposed to be removed twice a year, on the eve of Jewish New Year and Passover, and placed in a repository under supervision "to keep them hidden from human eyes."

"Notes which are placed in the Western Wall are between the person and his Maker; Heaven forbid that one should read them or use them in any way," Rabinowitz said.

CNN's Sasha Johnson, who was a part of a pool of journalists who accompanied Obama to the wall, said when reporters asked Obama what he wrote, he declined to share the contents of his prayer. (CNN)

If only the same respect were widely given to the seal of confession as is being shown to the Western Wall.

Report: Sacred Heart statue beheaded in Madrid?

If it did, it happened right after the announcement made by Pope Benedict that the next World Youth Day would be held in Madrid, Spain. Rorate Caeli has more. [Ph/t: Matthew.]

The ugly side of Feminist blogging

Regular readers know that I occasionally read some of the more popular "feminist" blogs, to see what the other side is saying. Sometimes they make good points or valid observations.

Other times, however, you realize what a gulf separates you. For instance, when a regular contributor starts offering her personal "feminist porn" picks, and begins her post with the following disclaimer:

Warning: May not be safe for work…unless you are like me and work at Planned Parenthood. :)

Doesn't that just speak volumes?

Needless to say, I knew there was nothing to be gleaned from the rest of that post. I had learned my lesson.