Silly: Forbes ranks Pope Benedict 11th most powerful person

Ranked directly ahead of Italian Prime Minister (and full-time buffoon) Silvio Berlusconi and right behind richest-man-in-the-world Bill Gates, Forbes profiles Pope Benedict:

"Spiritual leader is highest earthly authority for 1 billion souls, or about one-sixth of planet's population; runs Catholic Church, world's oldest, largest multinational. A staunch traditionalist, unbending on reproductive matters, yet conservatism comforting to many."

Actually, the pope is the highest human spiritual authority for Catholics on this earth (not counting Jesus, duh).

Well, if the pope had a hard time impressing Stalin (who famously asked, "how many divisions does the pope have?"), it's no surprise that Forbes can't even place the pope in the top 10.

Spooky: This Halloween, Protestants celebrate "Reformation Day"

As we prepare for the Holloween season (which seems to become a bigger and bigger deal in the United States each year, and that probably isn't a healthy sign), let's see what our Protestant brothers and sisters are planning.

PCANews at the Christian Broadcasting Network website has come up with a way to overcome the satanic/occult aspects of Halloween - a Reformation Day party! They explain it:

October 31 celebrates the day that the Reformation in Europe began with Martin Luther posting his 95 theses on the Wittenburg church door, leading to a firestorm response in Germany. Why not use this occasion for a celebration of our Reformed heritage. And yes, this can be fun for the kids too!

[Here is what Reformation day involves:]

Why not have a celebration at church where all get dressed up as characters from the Reformation (I've dressed up as John Calvin, Martin Luther, a peasant, and even John Tetzel (the salesman of those infamous indulgences)? When I couldn't get a 16th century idea then I dressed as a Bible character. You can transform the fellowship hall into Wittenburg, Germany or Geneva. Here is an opportunity to go over the great "solas" of the Reformation: by Scripture alone, by grace alone, by Christ alone, by faith alone, and to God be the glory alone. Have people explain them. Show a video of one of the reformers. Draw murals of Reformation events.

Here are some other things our church has done over the years: Medieval line dancing (a lot like Scottish line dancing), Medieval relay races (put the indulgences in the bottle), bobbing for apples, German cover dish dinner, acting out your character (don't tell anyone who you are, but act it out -- the ideas are limited only by time and background).

It's ironic that protestants are choosing Holloween to celebrate the Reformation, considering that many Catholic families celebrate All Souls Day by dressing as Catholic saints. Of course - protestants probably won't be up for a good old-fashioned cult of the saints party like we are.

Then again, if protestants can play "put the indulgences in the bottle" to get in touch with their historical roots, and baptists can have bonfires burning Catholic bibles and books on spirituality by Catholic saints, maybe Catholics could celebrate Reformation Day by starting bonfires and burning figurines of heretics to get in touch with our historical roots? ;-)

(... I'm totally kidding of course. Well ... mostly.)

Video: Mickey Rourke thanks God and Catholic faith for 'second chance'

CNA provides the video and a background story:



Rourke recently won a Golden Globe Award for "The Wrestler" and was an Oscar favorite.

40% of US Births were out-of-wedlock in 2007

The stats:

The birth rate rose slightly for women of all ages, and births to unwed mothers reached an all-time high of about 40 percent, continuing a trend begun years ago. More than three-quarters of these women were 20 or older.

... Meanwhile, U.S. abortions have been dropping to their lowest levels in decades, according to other reports. Some have attributed the abortion decline to better use of contraceptives, but other experts have wondered if the rise in births might indicate a failure in proper use of contraceptives. Some earlier studies have shown declining availability of abortions.

... Cesarean section deliveries continue to rise, now accounting for almost a third of all births. Health officials say that rate is much higher than is medically necessary.

"It's the tiniest of baby booms," said Morgan in agreement. "This is not an earthquake; it's a slight tremor." (AP)

And remember - the United States looks a lot different in 2009 than it did in 2007.

Nude Virgin Mary cover prompts Playboy apology

As if we didn't have enough reasons to despise the publication:

A nude model resembling the Virgin Mary on the cover of the Mexican edition of Playboy magazine, published only days before a major Mexican festival dedicated to the mother of Jesus, prompted the company's U.S. headquarters on Friday to apologize.

The magazine, which hit newsstands on Dec. 1 as ceremonies began leading to Friday's pilgrimage to the Mexico City shrine of the Virgin of Guadalupe, showed a model wearing nothing but a white cloth over her head and breasts.

She is standing in front of a stained glass window with the cover line, "We Love You, Maria" in Spanish. (Reuters)

Actually, the line reads "Te Adoramus, Maria." That has a slightly different flavor to it.

And the apology is completely unacceptable:

While Playboy Mexico never meant for the cover or images to offend anyone, we recognize that it has created offense, and we as well as Playboy Mexico offer our sincerest apologies," the statement said.

Raul Sayrols, publisher of Playboy Mexico, said in a statement, "The image is not and never was intended to portray the Virgin of Guadalupe or any other religious figure. The intent was to reflect a Renaissance-like mood on the cover."

Oh come on. I've seen the cover, and it's obviously trying to be provocative by alluding to the Virgin Mary. The trouble is, there's no point calling for a boycott here because no Catholic should ever buy Playboy in the first place.

I mean, it's not like Playboy has any moral integrity to squander.

Some doubts about Doubt

"Meryl Streep had doubts about 'Doubt'", reports CNN.

Article highlights:

• "Doubt" stars Meryl Streep, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Amy Adams, Viola Davis
• Film is based on a Tony Award- and Pulitzer Prize-winning play by the same name
• It examines what happens when a nun suspects a priest of abusing a student

I doubt I'm going to see it. Here's the trailer.

"Couples staying together because of poor economy"

Aw, shucks:

Running into your ex is almost always awkward and stressful. David Snyder and Nancy Partridge deal with it nearly every day.

The Denver couple divorced after six years of marriage but have been forced to live together for months because they can't sell their place or afford to set up separate households in this slumping economy.

Snyder gets the master bedroom, while Partridge gets a smaller one. Snyder watches TV on one end of the house, Partridge on the other. The two split the grocery bill and kitchen duties. Sometimes they eat dinner together, sometimes apart. There are awkward silences, or worse.

"We've had tremendous arguments over things like who gets to park in the garage, but at this point, it's kind of settling down into a routine," said Partridge, 45, who works in public relations. (AP)

"Settling down into a routine"? I hope they realize that this newfound ability to resolve conflcits could have disastrously favorable effects on their marriage ... okay, so it's probably too late, but I'm just sayin'.

"Student Claims She Was Humiliated By Teacher Over Rosary"

And not because someone thought the rosary was a "gang symbol":

An eighth-grader at a northwest side charter school said she was humiliated by one of her teachers over her religious expression.

Kelsey, a 13-year-old at the School of Science and Technology's Discovery campus, said one of her teachers humiliated her in front of her classmates while repeatedly questioning her religious beliefs because she wore a Catholic rosary.

"She told me to take it off, and I told her no," Kelsey said. "So she took me to the principal's office and he took it away from me, and told me to get it at the end of the day."

Kelsey said she continued to wear the rosary to school only to have the unidentified teacher question her religious beliefs. (Local KSAT has video)

Yes, the DNC changed their abortion platform - they made it worse.

One doesn't have to go far in the current abortion debates to find people using the Democratic National Committee's "new language" on the topic of choice as a justification for claiming that the DNC is pro-life "in its totality" or something along those lines.

Well, I decided to read the DNC's platform and confirmed that, yes, they have new language ...

... and it's worse than what they had before.

Even John Kerry's "moderated 2004 platform included a plank stating that the party sought to keep abortion legal, but make it "rare", a formulation of the Pres. Bill Clinton era." (source)

The word "rare" has been eliminated from the 2008 platform, and its place, these chilling words added:

"The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe V. Wade and a woman's right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right."

Richard Land correctly notes that "These words taken together are about as inclusive an assertion of an absolute right to abortion as the English language is capable of mustering."

He also points out "No wonder that NARAL Pro-Choice America rhapsodized that the new platform language reaffirmed “in the strongest of terms” the “Democratic Party’s solid commitment to a woman’s right to choose.”

(Radical feminists are happy, too: "I'm personally really excited to see them mention the ability to pay, since the Hyde Amendment has been such a huge barrier for low-income women and women of color. This is more progressive than I might have expected.")

Simply put: you can't be more pro-abortion than the language of the DNC official platform.

"But wait!" people will reply, "... what about the subsequent language claiming that health care and education will help reduce the need for abortions?"

Sure, that is in there, too. But that's not the argument that gets thrown around: what people actually claim is that the DNC's new platform is more "moderate" on abortion, even "more pro-life." But in fact, if words mean anything, the DNC has actually "accomplished the impossible: they have moved to the left on abortion", in the words of Naomi Riley.

Nor can I be assuaged by the DNC proposal to reduce abortions through better "health care" and "education".

For by education the DNC means concretely their vision of "sex education", which often is reduced to instruction in "safe sex" practices which promote attitudes conducive to more, not less, unwanted pregnancies, and simultaneously the distribution of condoms and other contraceptives, which are inherently offensive to Catholic sensibilities and against Catholic teaching.

Furthermore, these "education" initiatives frequently resist letting women receive the type of education that includes, for instance, ultrasounds of their growing infants (see picture above).

My question, then: how exactly has "lack of education" been a constitutive cause of abortions in America? And how possibly could their proposed "educational initiatives" significantly reduce them?

Finally, the argument that the DNC is more against abortion than ever before because they wish to reduce the economic occasions for abortion is also a red herring in my opinion. To paraphrase Richard Garnett, we must not settle "merely for trying to put in a better economic position those who hold the fate of the defenseless in their hands."

My question, then: is not the actual intention of the DNC to make all abortions simply chosen, instead of chosen in a pressured way? How will removing one source of pressure eliminate the many pressures (most of which are non-economic) that help drive women to abortion?

Thus, by removing even the concession of desiring to make abortions "rare", the DNC has once-again presumed upon the support of moderates and actively sought to court the vote of radicals who will never allow the practice of abortion (and related horrors) to be exterminated.

Now if you've read this far, I'm going to reward you with a gutsy claim: I think it's exactly this attitude evidenced by those who try to endlessly defend the DNC's liberal abortion agenda who have allowed the DNC to backtrack on their previous concessions (= comparatively-moderate positions).

Imagine the DNC is a large ocean liner. One one side, a strong tugboat is trying as hard as it can to push the DNC towards unequivocal and ossified support for abortion rights. On the other side is a tired, rusted tugboat barely resisting the opposite force, and trying to convince itself that it's winning the fight until it has almost run aground.

Sadly, the strong tugboat represents the pro-abortion forces in the democratic party, and the tired, rusted tugboat represents the pro-life forces.

C'mon little tugboat, try pushing for a change.

"Palin primary qualification is she hasn't had an abortion"

So says South Carolina Democratic chairwoman Carol Fowler, who seems to think this a bad thing.

"Better sterile than sorry": vasectomies in America

Lifewire has the story. I found it useful mostly for the statistics. Some snips:

• Health agency: One in six men over age 35 had a vasectomy by 2006

"In a 2007 Pew Research Center telephone survey of 2,000 U.S. men and women, only 41 percent said children are "very important to a successful marriage." In 1990, that figure was 65 percent."

McClure says he spends most of his time "putting vasectomies back together," performing more than 2,000 reversals since 1975.

"Over the last several years, it appears that more males under the age of 25 who've never had children and who had a vasectomy are coming in [for a reversal] because they've found a new partner and they want to have children," says McClure.

Photo: Italian museum defies pope over crucified frog exhibit

Reuters:

An Italian museum on Thursday defied Pope Benedict and refused to remove a modern art sculpture portraying a crucified green frog holding a beer mug and an egg that the Vatican had condemned as blasphemous.

The board of the Museion museum in the northern city of Bolzano decided by a majority vote that the frog was a work of art and would stay in place for the remainder of an exhibition.

The wooden sculpture by the late German artist Martin Kippenberger depicts a frog about 1 metre 30 cm (4 feet) high nailed to brown cross and holding a beer mug in one outstretched hand and an egg in another.

Called "Zuerst die Fuesse," (Feet First), it wears a green loin cloth and is nailed through the hands and the feet in the manner of Jesus Christ. Its green tongue hangs out of its mouth.

The claim that Pope Benedict has personally taken an interest in and spoken out about this exhibit raised my eyebrows. This claim originates from Franz Pahl, who has already been hospitalized over the exhibit after he went on a hunger strike to protest it:

Franz Pahl, a regional government official who has led a campaign to remove the work, told the Italian news agency ANSA Aug. 27 that he had received a letter of support from the Vatican Secretariat of State expressing the pope's sentiments.

According to Pahl, the letter said the pope believes the sculpture "has wounded the religious sentiment of the many people who see in the cross the symbol of God's love and our salvation."

A Vatican source confirmed that a letter was sent, but did not confirm the contents. (CNS)

So it's not entirely proven that Pope Benedict himself has spoken against the exhibit, which will eventually visit Los Angeles and New York. Can anyone remember if Pope Benedict has publicly (or has been proven to have spoken privately) about an offensive art exhibit before?

As for the museum/artist's defense:

Museum officials have defended the work, saying it was intended as a self-portrait showing the torment faced by the artist. The sculpture was made in 1990, and the artist, who was said to consider the frog his alter ego, created other variations on the same theme.

What are your thoughts?

Noted: California Voters Oppose Ban on Gay 'Marriage'

Things aren't looking good for the upcoming November referendum:

A majority of California voters oppose a ballot initiative to ban gay "marriage," though they are evenly split on the practice itself, according to a poll released Wednesday.

The ballot question essentially will ask voters to prohibit the practice of same-sex "marriage," which was approved this year by the California Supreme Court.

... A majority of likely voters, 54 percent, oppose ending gay "marriage," compared with 40 percent who support it, the poll said. The result is similar to the findings of a Field Poll in July, which found that 51 percent of likely California voters opposed ending gay "marriage," while 42 percent said they supported it. (AP)

It's hard to give people reasons to vote for something they don't think directly effects their lives.

Picture: Hallmark rolls out gay marriage cards

Well so much for buying Hallmark:

Most states don't recognize gay marriage -- but now Hallmark does.

The nation's largest greeting card company is rolling out same-sex wedding cards -- featuring two tuxedos, overlapping hearts or intertwined flowers, with best wishes inside. "Two hearts. One promise," one says.

...The language inside the cards is neutral, with no mention of wedding or marriage, making them also suitable for a commitment ceremony. Hallmark says the move is a response to consumer demand, not any political pressure.

...Hallmark started offering "coming out" cards last year, and the four designs of same-sex marriage cards are being gradually released this summer and will be widely available by next year. No sales figures were available yet. (AP)

"Massachusetts House repeals law restricting same-sex marriages to residents"

The homosexual lobby moves quickly:

In what marriage advocates called “part of a cynical strategy to inflict same-sex marriage on the unwilling citizens of other states,” the Massachusetts House on Tuesday voted by a margin of 119 to 36 to repeal a 1913 law that blocked marriage licenses from being granted to same-sex couples from out-of-state.

The Senate approved the repeal earlier in July, meaning the measure now requires one more procedural vote in each chamber of the legislature before it is sent to Governor Deval Patrick, who has said he will sign the measure.

Massachusetts became the first state to permit homosexual marriage in 2004, but then-Governor Mitt Romney ordered town and city clerks to follow a 1913 law that prohibits couples from marrying if the unions would be illegal in their home states.

At the time, Romney argued that repealing the law would turn the state into the “Las Vegas of gay marriage.”

The Catholic Action League denounced the House vote in a Tuesday statement, calling it “part of a cynical strategy to inflict same-sex marriage on the unwilling citizens of other states without the consent of the electorate.” (CNA)

And Catholics helped:

Doyle also lamented Catholic politicians’ involvement in passing the law.

“Today, a majority of Catholics in the Massachusetts House of Representatives voted again in favor of homosexual marriage. There is a growing sense of outrage among faithful Catholics over the conduct of nominally Catholic politicians who repudiate fundamental Catholic moral teachings about the sanctity of human life and the integrity of traditional marriage. There is also a growing sense of urgency that this scandal must be brought to an end.”

Learning no lessons from the "pregnancy pact"

I've refrained from talking much about this "pregnancy pact" that allegedly took place in Gloucester, Massachusettes. I'll skip the details - basically it involves teen girls intentionally getting pregnant.

The reactions to and conclusions being drawn from the situation, however, are sometimes unbelievably short-sighted. Just read this first line from the Associated Press:

The high school where the principal claimed girls formed a pact to get pregnant is one of the few in Massachusetts with a day care center, leading some to wonder whether that sent a message that teen motherhood is OK.

Whatever the causes of this outbreak of teen pregnancies were, I'm pretty sure the prospect of having easy access to day-care for their newborns wasn't the tipping point.

Video & Commentary: "Brideshead Reinterpreted"?

Evelyn Waugh's catholic novel Brideshead Revisited is one of my favorites. It was made into an excellent (11+ hour!) movie by Granada Films in 1982.

Awhile back I found out that the story was being retold in a theatrical release. A friend of mine put it best when he said the new telling reminded him more of a fan fiction movie with the original characters, than a dramatization of the actual storyline.

Josh Walsh of the Independent agrees with that assesment, and gives us the dissapointing details:

First, Sebastian and Julia appear to be conducting an incestuous relationship that becomes a ménage a trois with Charles. Second, Julia shows up, under a parasol, in the Venice scenes. Third, Lady Marchmain seems concerned only with marrying off her daughter to the cluelessly non-Catholic Rex. Fourth, there's a wildly misconceived strand of sexual intrigue, most fatuously when Lord Marchmain leans back on a sofa with one arm around a coquettish Julia and the other around a pouting Sebastian and twinkles at Charles with the words: "What a lot of temptation..." Fifth, the religious theme is hinted at only by a dropped crucifix. Sixth, Sebastian shouts: "You never wanted me – you used me to get to my sister!" (In the book, by the time Charles and Julia get it together at sea, Sebastian has vanished into alcoholism and a monastery in Morocco.)

All this is shocking for Waugh purists. The message board on the IMDb website is a-twitter with denunciations by Waugh fans. "Andrew Davies needs a reality check," reads one. "And a slap in the face like he's given to Evelyn Waugh by turning his masterpiece into a cheap romantic farce."

For the strong of stomach, here is the movie's theatrical trailer:



Really, Emma Thompson should know better than to involve herself in such a travesty.

Ph/t: Carl Olson at Ignatius Scoop.

Outrageous: Jesuit U. pays $85,000 to have rapper Ludacris perform on Friday

How do you normally spend your Fridays in Lent?

Fasting? Penance? Maybe a rosary or two?

Well, if you work at a Jesuit institution by the name of Fairfield University, you pay a rapper $85k to give a blowout concert:

On Friday, February 15, the annual Fairfield University Student Association (FUSA) concert will feature Ludacris, the Grammy Award-winning, platinum-selling performer who is at the top of his game these days in the world of rap music. Chris 'Ludacris' Bridges will perform at Alumni Hall on the Fairfield campus as part of his national tour, according to FUSA. [Source: Fairfield University's Press Release]

As CNS notes, Fairfield U. has managed to find and invite someone even the mainstream finds offensive:

In 2002, following criticism by Fox News Channel host Bill O’Reilly, Pepsi dropped Ludacris from its advertisements with an apology noting that “not all [artists] are compatible with our brands and what consumers have come to expect from us.” In 2006, talk show host Oprah Winfrey joined in the criticism of Ludacris for rap lyrics that “marginalize women.”

“If Ludacris is not compatible with Pepsi’s values and corporate image, why is he performing at a Catholic university?” Reilly asked. CNS has called upon Father von Arx to immediately cancel the production.

More drivel from the Fairfield U. press release, which presents Ludacris in his own words. Check it:

The Illinois native tells fans on his web site that he has evolved into a "more three-dimensional storyteller" on "Release Therapy." "Maturity is a beautiful thing. Going into the studio to make 'Release Therapy,' I felt like a wiser, more intelligent person. That was part of the vibe I wanted to bring across on the record, a more personal side that many have not seen. I know this is my fifth album, but I feel as though this is the first time I've ever exposed this much of myself. Like the film Crash, people can either love me or hate me, but they'll always respect me."

Sure, what's not to respect about a man who markets his music with album covers like this?

The name of this album is "Chicken-n-beer", which features track 13: "Hoes in my Room." Just a sample. I wonder if I should be relieved or concerned that he has since become more "three-dimensional in his storytelling"?

LifeSiteNews has coverage here, and calls on local Archbishop Lori of Bridgeport to do something. LSN has also provided contact information both for the Archbishop's office and Fairfield University.

I'm struggling to find the perfect adjective to describe all this.... oh yeah, this is the one:

Ludicrous.

("Meriting derisive laughter or scorn as absurdly inept, false, or foolish." - MW)

Typically biased reporting on religious life demographics issued by the BBC

The BBC hasn't learned any new tricks:

Newly published statistics showed that the number of men and women belonging to religious orders fell by 10% to just under a million between 2005 and 2006.

During the pontificate of the late Pope John Paul II, the number of Catholic nuns worldwide declined by a quarter.

Is it me, or is the second paragraph somehow trying to claim a causal connection between the decline in religious life and John Paul II's conservative reign? If anything, he probably prevented those numbers from falling lower. What we are seeing now and what obtained during his pontificate is the long-term fallout of the 60's and 70's.

The figures were published next to a report of Pope Benedict XVI's meeting with nuns, monks and priests from many countries gathered in St Peter's Basilica in Rome last weekend.

The BBC's David Willey in the Italian capital says the accelerating downward trend must have caused concern to the Pope.

I'm sure this news was no surprise to the pope. I'm sure the reporter knew that such statistics have been around for a good while now, but hey, it must have been a slow news day, right? Of course this is cause for concern, but where is mention of the other significant causes of hope? Oh right, it's not that slow of a news day.

And, just in case we forgot the BBC's pet theory that "JP2 = no nuns", the article ends:

The number of Catholic nuns worldwide declined by about a quarter during the reign of Pope John Paul, and this further drop shows that new recruits are failing to replace those nuns who die, or decide to abandon their vows, he adds.

Got it.

update: well, riddle me this:

Vatican corrects figures showing steep drop in religious orders

Between 2005 and 2006, L'Osservatore Romano reported, the number of male and female religious in the world dropped by nearly 95,000. The entire religious population now stands at just over 945,000.

However, on the day after those figures were published in the Vatican newspaper, the Vatican press office corrected the record. Father Ciro Benedettini, the deputy director of the press office, said that the accurate figures showed a decline of just 7,230 over that one-year period.

Thus although the world's religious population did decrease between 2005 and 2006, the decline was less than 1% of the total-- rather than nearly 10%. - CWN

Commenters below take note - less than 1%, not 10%. Who ran the first set of numbers, I wonder?

What really angers the Roman Catholic Church hierarchy

Amid news that, in preparation for Brazil's Carnival celebrations, the government will be handing out millions of free condoms, Reuters indulges in some editorializing:

Recife city also plans to distribute morning-after contraceptive pills -- a move that has angered the Roman Catholic Church hierarchy.

The church opposes Brazil's much lauded anti-AIDS campaign on the grounds that it promotes contraception.

Wait a minute. How exactly does the morning-after pill prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS? That's right, it does not. Therefore, the distrubtion of morning-after pills can in no way be taken as being part of an "anti-AIDS campaign."

Furthermore, the church does not oppose anti-AIDS campaigns "on the grounds that it promotes contraception." This is a woefully inadequate account of the Church's position. The quotation from Bp. Duarte sheds some light on the situation:

"... while the church was not against people having fun in Carnival, the morning-after pill and condom campaign "will only serve to diminish inhibitions and encourage orgiastic behavior."

... and that's just a start. After all, the President of Brazil (whom the article notes, is known as a"gregarious character" who "enjoys a drink") has been on the radio asking people to not go overboard, and "His dour warning appeared to be partly prompted by a rise in deaths and accidents from drunken driving during the Christmas holidays."

So, to review: when the President tells people to behave more responsibly while simultaneously distributes condoms, it's a wonderful government innitiative. When a Catholic Bishop speaks out and notes how giving people the means towards a bad end does not help the situation, he's out to lunch.

It's going to be a long Lent.

CNS on "incredible shrinking field of Catholic presidential candidates"

A fascinating story by Nancy Frazier O'Brien:

The incredible shrinking field of Catholic presidential candidates

Whatever happened to the crowd of Catholics vying for the presidential nomination in 2008? Less than a year ago, nearly a dozen Catholics -- Republicans and Democrats -- had either declared as candidates for president, started an exploratory committee or been widely mentioned as likely candidates.

...

Although many Catholic presidential candidates have come and gone over the years, Shaffer said you'd have to look back several election cycles to find someone who might have had the right qualities to succeed.

"To see a Catholic candidate who could have run with the right attributes -- charisma, message, speaking ability -- you have to go back to Mario Cuomo," the former New York governor who flirted with the idea of a run for the presidency in the 1980s and 1990s but never declared himself a candidate.

(psst! you hearing this, Bobby Jindal?)

Liberals decry government TV ad promoting teen abstinence

The latest TV public service message produced by 4parents.gov tries to support parents in talking to their kids about sex, and about "waiting 'till marriage" to have it.

I've been reading through the criticisms this ad has been receiving on such liberal blogs as Think Progress (not the most uplifting material, mind you, and often very vulgar).

It's amazing how hopping mad they get about the idea of the government promoting abstinence. (And also: what exactly is so wrong with telling parents to talk to their kids about sex?)

Their first general motif is "no one can be expected to make it to marriage without having sex, therefore the only option is to give them prophylactics." In the same sentence as criticizing "fundamentalists Christians", they themselves operate on a fundamentally false a priori.

Their second claim is that a recent federal report (large PDF file) concluded that current abstinence programs have had no effect on rates of sexual activity. From this report they have decided that all abstinence programs are futile, thanks to their enlightened humanism.

Actually, what the report demonstrates is that the current abstinence programs, trying to operate within a deluge of opposed mass media, lack of parental involvement, and virulent advocacy from groups like Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and the like ... are not working.

Reading through the report's Conclusion, there's plenty facts in it that the liberal blogs fail to mention. For instance, abstinence programs do not - as some have claimed - increase the chances of contracting an STD (p. 83). Neither is it accurate to say that there have been no gains in promoting abstinence. Instead, the report claims these gains are not statistically significant.

There are also gains in correct knowledge about STDs and the myths surrounding birth control (many teens apparently have been led to believe that birth control pills prevents STDs - it doesn't. And they accuse us of spreading misinformation).

The liberal blogs also, conveniently, fail to mention that final summary paragraph of the report:

This evaluation highlights the challenge faced by programs aiming to reduce adolescent sexual activity. Nationally, about half of all high school youth report having had sex, and more than one in five students report having had four or more sexual partners by the time they complete high school. One-quarter of sexually active adolescents nationwide have an STD, and many STDs are lifelong viral infections with no cure. Findings from this study speak to the continued need for rigorous research on how to combat the high rate of teen sexual activity and its negative consequences.

Given this situation, the liberals' answer is ... more condoms?! My, that's facing facts honestly.

Granted, I'm not trying to endorse abstinence programs as they are currently taught. I know very little about the situation. I do know, however, that addressing the cause of a problem (sexual promiscuity) is better than addressing the symptoms of a problem (teen pregnancy and rampant STDs), so - in theory - abstinence, simply from an abstract point of view, would seem better suited to addressing the probem.

Of course, at the same time, abstinence cut-off from an adequate understanding of human sexuality, marriage, family, anthropology and theology is a very weak construct. No wonder it's failing.

"Sperm donor, 72, to father his own grandchild"

The UK Daily Mail:

A man of 72 is to donate sperm to try to father his own 'grandchild'.

He has been cleared to provide the sperm to his daughter-in-law to allow her to become a mother.

Any baby born will be its grandfather's genetic child and a halfbrother or half-sister to the man it takes to be its father.

The case - believed to be the first of its kind in the UK - raises ethical questions about how well the child will cope with such unusual family circumstances.

How did the the Women's Clinic go about analyzing the morality of this decision?

Peter Bowen-Simpkins, codirector of the London Women's Clinic which is carrying out the procedure, said the couple and the grandfather had undergone extensive counselling.

"[She said]: ... advancements in fertility treatment have overcome a lot of taboos in science which means that people are prepared to consider all sorts of options."

"Obviously, the wife's mother-inlaw also had to be included in all of the conversations but she has no objections.

"Society has also changed its perceptions of what is and what is not acceptable."

Ah yes, society might not any longer find this kind of thing unacceptable. Full steam ahead!

And little by litte, that tune sung by Ray Stevens, "I'm my own Grandpa" becomes a little bit more feasible.

"Holy See hosting conference on formation and evolution of galaxies" - CNA

CNA reports:

The Vatican Astronomical Observatory is hosting an international conference on the formation and evolution of the galaxies, with more than 210 scientists participating from 26 countries, including Germany, France, Italy, the United States, Australia, Canada, Holland and Japan.

The conference, which began October 1 and ends October 5, will center on those galaxies in which the part that is in the form of a disc predominates. In addition there will be discussions about large conglomerates made up of stars, interstellar dust and gases.

Too cool. I just love it. How the reporters will be scratching their heads. I can see it now: "Church .... science?! Astronomy .... Church?!". Try fitting this story into your pre-conceived categories.

NYT on the challenges facing modern girls

I found this an interesting read: a New York Times piece entitled "For Girls, It’s Be Yourself, and Be Perfect, Too."

The article describes the insane number of activities college-bound kids (and apparently girls especially) are taking on in order to pad their resumes, get into the "right" school, and find fulfillment in the world's terms. Competition is fierce, it seems, and is getting worse every year, with no real end in sight.

Short take: these girls are being stretched way past their limits. And that's not even reading between the lines - they admit it themselves.

Especially note the (NYT-style) mention of spirituality, "anorexia of the soul" and related problems. Even the author is aware of these dangers.

In other words, if these girls, who are overachieving in the fields that supposedly yield human fulfillment, are still unhappy, what does that say about the standards for success in today's world?

There, I just went and asked the question the article so deftly avoids. Just the facts, Max.