Al Kresta's Blog, page 324

An Oldie by a Goodie

It is with the saddest heart that I must pass on the following news:

Please join me in remembering a great icon of the entertainment community. The Pillsbury Doughboy died yesterday of a yeast infection and complications from repeated pokes in the belly. He was 71. Doughboy was buried in a lightly greased coffin.

Dozens of celebrities turned out to pay their respects, including Mrs. Butterworth, Hungry Jack, the California Raisins, Betty Crocker, the Hostess Twinkies and Captain Crunch.The grave site was piled high with flours.

Aunt Jemima delivered the eulogy and lovingly described Doughboy as a man who never knew how much he was kneaded. Doughboy rose quickly in show business, but his later life was filled with turnovers. He was not considered a very smart cookie, wasting much of his dough on half-baked schemes.

Despite being a little flaky at times, he still, as a crusty old man, was considered a roll model for millions. Doughboy is survived by his wife, Play Dough; two children John Dough and Jane Dough; plus they had one in the oven. He is also survived by his elderly father Pop Tart.

The funeral was held at 3:50 for about 20 minutes.

Bishop mandates prayer to St. Michael after every Mass

Bishop Thomas John Paprocki has authorized that beginning immediately the Prayer to Saint Michael the Archangel be said at every Mass celebrated in the Diocese of Springfield in Illinois after the dismissal and before the recessional or closing song.

"While Christ's death and resurrection have restored the gifts of heavenly treasures for us, we also have to recognize that the devil, Satan, is real and he will do everything in his power to deflect us from our goal, which is eternal life on high with Christ in his kingdom," said Bishop Paprocki.

"One of Satan's greatest assets in his camouflage, (is) the belief that he doesn't exist," he said. "Disbelief in Satan and the forces of evil leave us unable to resist them. That is why it is good to remember the Prayer to Saint Michael the Archangel. We need to remember that each time we pray we work to defeat our real enemies, not each other, but rather the devil and his evil spirits."

The Prayer to Saint Michael the Archangel was originally composed in Latin and was written by Pope Leo XIII in 1886. Between that time and 1965, it was recited after every Low Mass at Pope Leo's order. However in light of liturgical changes made in the wake of Vatican Council II, the practice was discontinued as normative in the 1960s.

"In recent years, a number of parishes have begun reciting the prayer once more, and many individual Catholics have kept up the practice," Bishop Paprocki said. "Both John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI have urged the faithful to pray it daily, and especially after Mass."

Bishop Paprocki spoke to the priests about using the prayer when he met with them on Tuesday, April 19, before the chrism Mass. Following the chrism Mass, large laminated prayer cards — with words to the Prayer to Saint Michael the Archangel on one side and a letter from Bishop Paprocki on the other — were distributed to delegations from each parish, along with the chrism and holy oils.

Bishop Paprocki asked that the prayer cards be placed in each pew along with other worship aids. The prayer cards were a donation from the Marian Center in Springfield.

Catholic leader fears Islamic takeover in Egypt

A spokesman for Egypt's small Catholic community has appealed to international leaders to support the country's existing military regime, in order to prevent a takeover by Islamic fundamentalists.

Father Rafic Greich, the press officer for the Egyptian Catholic hierarchy, told the AsiaNews service that the situation for all Christians is "very critical" in the wake of widespread sectarian violence in Cairo. Police have closed down the capital, hoping to curb the violence, in which militant Muslims have attacked Coptic Orthodox churches. While no Catholic churches have yet been attacked, all Christians face an unsettled future, as Islamic fundamentalists show their rising power.

The "Arab spring" uprising that led to the overthrow of Hosni Mubarak was primarily a secular movement, Father Greich says, but the leaders of that movement have not made any subsequent impact on the national political scene, while Islamic groups like the Muslim Brotherhood have moved to augment their power.

Release Bin Laden Photos? 2 Opinions

4 reasons to release bin Laden photos
by William Bennett

There are several good reasons to release the photographs of Osama bin Laden's body: First, to end the debate in the world of conspiracy theory, one the administration's countervailing story lines have helped fuel.

As Charles Krauthammer recently said, "The Middle East is a place where conspiracies live. This summer there were shark attacks in the Red Sea. The Egyptian press blamed it on the Israelis. You have to show a picture. That was the whole point of the operation: proof of death. Do it now and don't dither."

Second, for a better sense of closure on the bin Laden file. Michael Rubin has argued, "We must make terrorists understand that if they mess with us, they won't get diplomatic legitimacy; rather, they will simply sign their own death sentences."

Third, because not releasing the photos carves out an exception in our history of documenting major world events. We have shown pictures and video of the death of Saddam Hussein, his sons, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, and also the pictures and video of terrible horror -- from the Holocaust to Cambodia to the beheadings of our own citizens.

As I've argued for showing more scenes and imagery from September 11, 2001, as well as imagery of various horrific attacks against Americans, it would be an odd disposition to be calling exclusively for scenes of our defeat while suppressing proofs of our victories.

But beyond all this, there has been an argument made that releasing the photographs will endanger Americans and our troops abroad, that it will enflame Islamist rage and inspire revenge killings. This is the most serious objection.

But I think it is worth pointing out there is little we do or can do that does not catalyze such rage. What, after all, was our offense on September 10, 2001?

What inspires jihadist attacks against Americans and non-Islamists are speeches by the pope, cartoons, documentaries, nuns walking down the streets of Africa and almost every other exercise of human and civil rights.

The argument that we should not release the photos in the hope that it will calm violence against innocents is to grant jihadists a veto on our public policy, and it is a veto that can never be satisfied, that will never be powerful enough.

We should not defer our rights and liberties and policies to the threats of madmen, nihilists or fascists.

It is, after all, our very existence that troubles our enemies, not the specifics of our actions -- those serve only as an excuse.

To accept this veto would be to hobble everything a free people should stand for, from the exercise of free speech and religious freedom to the right to walk down the street peaceably. We should not defer our rights and liberties and policies to the threats of madmen, nihilists or fascists. It doesn't work anyway.

In the end, the release of the photographs is not bloodlust, it is not spiking the football in a game between equals, it is instruction -- to the world and for ourselves.

William J. Bennett is the Washington fellow of the Claremont Institute. He was U.S. secretary of education from 1985 to 1988 and was director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy under President George H.W. Bush.



Obama's no-win decision on bin Laden photos
by Rick "Ozzie" Nelson

President Barack Obama faced a no-win decision over whether to release photographs of Osama bin Laden's corpse. In the short term, the president was right not to make public the graphic images, because doing so might inflame public opinion in Muslim-majority countries and actually feed support for al Qaeda's agenda.

In the longer term, however, Obama may be forced to release the photos -- with time, conspiracy theories are likely to mount, and the photos may eventually be leaked anyway. And, of course, visual proof of bin Laden's death would serve as a powerful endpoint in this chapter of American history.

There were compelling arguments on both sides of this issue. Releasing the photos would have mitigated skepticism about bin Laden's death, hopefully snuffing out any nascent conspiracy theories about the late al Qaeda leader's fate. For a president who has already been forced to dignify inane and insulting charges about his origins, the chance to avoid another round of absurdity must have been tempting.

Releasing the photos also may have had the less obvious benefit of deterrence if the images had a visceral effect on other terrorists, militants and rogue leaders. It is entirely possible that seeing the photos could lead such individuals truly to understand that their murderous ways place their lives at risk.

Finally, precedence also exists in these matters. Images of Saddam Hussein's brutal and inhumane sons, Qusay and Uday, were released during the Iraq war -- although the bodies were somewhat cleaned up -- as were photos of the terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

On the other hand, there were significant downsides to releasing the photos. For supporters of al Qaeda, images of a bloodied and disfigured bin Laden may have become a cause for additional terrorist attacks. The photos also may have angered Muslims who do not support al Qaeda, potentially making these individuals less inclined to support U.S. counterterrorism objectives.

[image error] The Obama administration's counterterrorism strategy relies on engaging the vast majority of Muslims who do not support extremist violence. Muslim anger at the U.S. would have weakened this strategy.

In the short term, the costs of releasing the photos outweighed the benefits precisely because doing so would have posed unacceptable national security risks to the U.S. Ultimately, the president's job is to keep Americans safe, and right now, this necessitates that the photos be kept under wraps.

In the coming months, though, mounting pressures are likely to test this position. Growing skepticism over bin Laden's fate could force the White House to spend valuable time defending the fact of the al Qaeda leader's death. Al Qaeda sympathizers may come to believe that bin Laden is not truly dead, thus bolstering their conviction in al Qaeda's cause.

One of the chief outcomes of bin Laden's death will be its psychological impact on both al Qaeda's opponents and supporters. Lingering doubts only serve to weaken the resolve of the former group and buoy that of the latter.

In the end, Obama made the right decision given short-term national security priorities. But we should not be surprised to see his decision come under increasing pressure in the next few months.

Rick "Ozzie" Nelson is the director of the Homeland Security and Counterterrorism Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a research organization.

Outrage of the Day

Here is how the AP describes the video below: "Mobs set two churches on fire in western Cairo on Sunday as clashes broke out between Muslims and Christians, killing up to 12 people and injuring more than 200." "Clashes between Muslims and Christians" makes it sound like a scene from "West Side Story" with two sides causing equal amounts of trouble. But there were no Mosques burned in the clashes, only Christian Churches. And there were no Muslims targeted, only Christians.

Cartoon of the Day - Pakistani Intelligence

Today on Kresta - May 9, 2011

Talking about the "things that matter most" on May 9

4:00 – The Invisible World: Understanding Angels, Demons, and the Spiritual Realities That Surround Us
Anthony DeStefano is here to explain the reality of the spiritual dimension that surrounds us. All aspects of the spiritual realm are discussed, including the existence of angels and demons, the whereabouts of loved ones who have passed, and even the presence and activity of God in our lives. The Invisible World demonstrates that nothing is more significant than to be reminded that no one is alone. Anthony joins us.

4:40 – Surge in New England Mass Attendance / Bill Maher Mocks "Catholics Come Home"
The notoriously anti-religious Bill Maher recently featured a three-minute segment on his show, slamming Catholicism, and in particular Catholic priests on Ash Wednesday. Maher specifically edited and perverted one of the highly-effective national commercials produced by the lay-Catholic charitable outreach organization, CatholicsComeHome.org. Meanwhile, during Lent, the Archdiocese of Boston, the Diocese of Manchester and seven other dioceses across the nation partnered Catholics Come Home, to air the multimedia (TV and Internet) evangelization initiative inviting Catholics back to church – and the Bishops say it's working! Tom Peterson , Founder and President of Catholics Come Home, is here.

5:00 – Verily, Verily: The KJV - 400 Years of Influence and Beauty
As historian Tony Lane once noted, without the King James Version of the Bible, it can be speculated that, there would be no Paradise Lost ... no Pilgrim's Progress ... no Negro spirituals ... no Gettysburg Address. And even though today there are more accurate and contemporary translations of the Bible, the KJV reigns supreme in the English-speaking world. It is printed and circulated more widely than any other version. But how did this remarkable work originate? What were the historical circumstances driving its completion? What sorts of errors (many of them outright hysterical) crept into the translation? Why does it still outsell every other English translation? In this 400th Anniversary year of the publication of the KJV, Jon Sweeney offers an informative, inspirational, and light-hearted look into how the world's most popular Bible was created and why it is still important.

5:30 – Small Faith--Great God
In the midst of life's challenges, so often our faith feels small and weak. One of the world's premier Bible teachers, N. T. Wright , is here to remind us that what matters is not so much our faith itself as Who our faith is in. Faith, says Wright, is like a window. The point is not for part of the wall to be made of glass. The point of a window is to allow us to see through it--and let light into the room! Faith allows us to see our situation and our own weakness in light of God who is powerful, holy and loving. Through it all he reminds us, it's not great faith we need: it is faith in a great God.

Can the Pope remove bishops? Yes, but...

By Phil Lawler May 04, 2011

Twice in barely more than a month, Pope Benedict XVI has taken a highly unusual step: removing a bishop from his office. Early in April he ousted Bishop Jean-Claude Makaya Loemba from leadership in the Diocese of Pointe-Noire in the Congo. Last week he removed Bishop William Morris from the Diocese of Toowoomba, Australia.

The Vatican disclosed these moves with only the briefest of formal announcements, offering no details or explanations of the Pope's moves. But the available evidence suggests that Bishop Loemba was removed because of general negligence or incompetence, whereas in the case of Bishop Morris the Holy Father stepped in because of doctrinal and liturgical problems. In each case, we are told, the bishop resisted pressure to resign quietly, forcing the Pope to take decisive action.

To those of us who have been longing for a restoration of ecclesiastical order in the Catholic Church–longing to see bishops held accountable for their leadership, and for the welfare of the Church in their dioceses—these rare papal actions are welcome. We are delighted to see the Holy Father taking action to replace bishops who have proved to be unsuited for their pastoral office.

Yet at the same time—and particularly in the absence of explanations from the Holy See—these two removals raise a few interesting questions:

Question #1: On what grounds did the Pope take action?

Contrary to a widespread popular impression, the Pope is not like the chief executive of a multinational corporation, who can dismiss and replace his subordinates at will. Bishops are not "branch managers" for the universal Church; they have their own authority, which cannot be taken from them without due process—that is, without invoking the terms of the Code of Canon Law.

After the removal of Bishop Loemba, canon-law expert Edward Peters provided a brief primer on the canonical implications of removing a bishop from office. Only the Pope can take action against a bishop, and even the Roman Pontiff can deprive the bishop of office only in response to an ecclesiastical "crime"—a clear offense against a defined provision of canon law. Such canonical proceedings are confidential, so we do not know exactly what offenses were cited.

We do know this much: The Pope has the authority to remove diocesan bishops, but only under rare circumstances and for clear cause. The Pope cannot, and would not, oust a bishop from office simply because he (the Pope) felt that he (the bishop) was not doing a good job. Privation of office requires more serious grounds.

Question #2: If Bishops Loemba and Morris deserved dismissal, what about Bishop X?

Because we do not know exactly why the Pontiff chose to remove these two bishops, we cannot compare their cases with those of other bishops who might arguably be candidates for removal. Still it is only natural to ask questions.

If manifest incompetence is sufficient grounds for removal, why not dishonest administration? If a bishop can be removed for taking public positions at odds with defined doctrines, what about a bishop whose seminary is staffed by dissident theologians, or one in whose diocese liturgical abuse is the rule rather than the exception? Is it not a clear canonical offense when a bishop refuses to take action to defend the rights of the faithful to reverent liturgy and accurate religious instruction? And what about the bishops whose malfeasance led to the eruption of the sex-abuse scandal.

For nearly a decade, loyal Catholics in America have been defending the Holy See by pointing out that the Pope cannot remove diocesan bishops except under the most extraordinary circumstances. Are the circumstances of the Loemba and Morris cases really more extreme than those of the dioceses in which bishops deliberately misled the faithful, sheltered criminals, paid hush money, and signed agreements ceding the autonomy of the Church in order to avoid prosecution?

Question #3: What are the ecumenical implications?

While the Orthodox churches are edging cautiously toward Rome, Orthodox bishops remain suspicious of papal power, and jealous of their own independence. If the Roman Pontiff began removing bishops from office on a more regular basis, would he frighten away the Orthodox bishops who might otherwise be inclined toward reunion?

Or, on the other hand, might the Orthodox bishops most sympathetic to Rome be relieved to see a restoration of clear theological teaching and canonical discipline? Perhaps the best of the Orthodox Church leaders are less worried about the historical offenses (real and imagined) of Roman power than they are about the tendencies toward anarchy in the Roman Church today.

Question #4: Who's next?
One in early April; one in early May. Should we be waiting for another announcement from the Vatican in early June? Should we be praying for it? And is there any reader who doesn't have his own favorite candidate?

Cartoon of the Day

Today on Kresta - May 6, 2011

Talking about the "things that matter most" on May 6

GUEST HOSTS: BRUCE AND KRIS MCGREGOR

4:05 – Open Season on Humans
"This case is not over," said lead attorney Samuel B. Casey about last Friday's 2-1 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., which gave the green light for the destruction of human embryos for research purposes. That action overturns an injunction put in place by a District Court judge last summer. Casey said the case will, in all likelihood, return to the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. He also said the case "is just another step in a lengthy legal battle; unfortunately, for now, it is open hunting season on human embryos." Catholic columnist Mark Armstrong has been investigating this story and is here to explain.

4:22 – Pope sees 'systematic denial' of religious freedom looming
Pope Benedict XVI warned members of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences that religious freedom is coming under a renewed attack, from forces he compared to the totalitarian powers of the twentieth century. The Pope observed that religious freedom was among the rights that underwent a "systematic denial by atheistic regimes of the twentieth century" such as Communism and Nazism. We talk with Matthew Bunson about the Pope's concerns.

4:39 – Ex Corde Ecclesiae Turns 10
This past Tuesday May 3, marked the ten-year anniversary of the U.S. Catholic bishops' implementation of Church law for Catholic colleges and universities. The bishops' requirements, described in the Application of Ex Corde Ecclesiae for the United States, became effective following approval by the Holy See. Patrick Reilly of the Cardinal Newman Society is here to look at how the implementation has progressed over 10 years.

5:05 – "What's Hot in the Catholic Blogosphere?"
We continue our new weekly segment on "What's hot in the Catholic blogosphere." Each week we will bring together 2 of the most popular Catholic bloggers to discuss the topics that have generated the most interest over the past week. Today we have Mark Shea of Catholic and Enjoying It and Jack Smith of the Catholic Key Blog.

5:39 – The Divorce Survival Kit
Catholic author Rose Sweet has written and produced a powerful series featuring divorced Catholic men and women who share their inspiring stories. Unlike any other program, the CDSG includes the counsel of some of the brightest and best in Catholic media. Too many people stay stuck in their pain and don't know how to find their way "home". The CDSG was created to move the divorce or separated Catholic past the pain of divorce so they can find the Love that truly satisfies in the Sacraments. Rose joins us.