Monday, June 30, 2003

Woman Biting Blog
Yes, the wife of a twenty something somewhat conservative Catholic is attempting to get cyber savvy and learn the art of blogging. So, if the men of stop writing and sharing their opinions, it would, of course, be my fault. If my more vocal outbursts intimidate the boys, I should, of course, stop writing. But I won't...
I'm coming in late on the conversation about girl alter servers, but it seems to me that our fine Church needs to nurture the devotion to the faith in both genders...I was not Catholic as a child (I converted in college, long before I met my wonderful Catholic husband) so I do not have memories of being left out of the altar serving world. I converted of my own free will to a Church that I knew does not allow women priests. I don't have an axe to grind about this issue--I just don't see how keeping girls and women out of any Godly ministry does the Church good. If there is a young lady who is interested in serving her Church, telling her no sends the message that her service to others is not valued. And that, in these days, is a terrible message to send to a young person, boy or girl. To send that message to a girl because her participating in mass "intimidates" a boy misses the real problem--and that is a boy whose desire to serve the church is overshadowed by insecurity. Amid recent "Girl Power" campaigns to shine light on unfairness to girls (positive), there has been a dearth of aide to young boys. And boys today, with the epidemic of fatherless families, need all of us to build them up as we've built up young girls. Young people, boys and girls, need to be seen as equally important to us, and to the Church.

Thursday, June 26, 2003

It takes a certain amount of chutzpa for Andrew Sullivan to collect over $34,000 from a website made from a free technology (not even the upgraded one you have to pay for), bury the obligatory icon for it at the bottom of the page where nobody can see it, and then bitch that it "Of course, it sucks."

Does the phrase "you get what you pay for" mean anything to Sullivan.
I've asked my wife Kristin to write here occasionally, and hopefully that will start soon.

Will the presence of a female contributor make me less likely to contribute? If so, would that be a case for me excluding women from contributing? You can read the discussion of this as it pertains to alter servers in Amy Welborn's comments. I guess you can tell where I stand.

I especically like this response that said that we shouldn't allow girl altar servers because they're better at it than boys, and this scares boys away. Does it ever enter these people's minds that this might be a clue from the Holy Spirit that girls are perfectly capable of this ministry?

UPDATE: I think I mischaracterized the response above, he was not saying that girls should not serve, only that altar serving should be "gender neutral."
I better shut up before I get myself in trouble.

Tuesday, June 24, 2003

Yes, you read that right.

Kevin Miller runs the follwing quote:

This week, I spoke with a faithful young orthodox priest of my acquaintance, and he said, "I've decided I can't pay attention to the bishops anymore. There's too much work to be done to serve the Lord to worry about those men." I think this is probably the only sane way through this mess, just pretending that this hapless bench of bishops doesn't exist. But think about what that means for Catholics, to recognize that our bishops are so pathetic and irreformable that they are an impediment to faithful Catholic living, and should thus be ignored as much as is possible.

then goes on about how good Catholics can't ignore the bishop's teaching.

But I don't think that's what the priest was saying. I think the priest was saying that he's not going to obsess over every little piece of news about bishops, and focus on his work. Dreher says that's pretty sad, and I think he's going to far, but I don't think either of these men are advocating ignoring the bishops when they teach.

Tuesday, June 17, 2003

This HMS post reminds me of my worst catechetical moment, when I told a group of catechumens that when the Holy Father speaks, "he's not just speaking as Bela Karolyi".

It's even more embarrassing since I can't stand Karolyi's act...
You can find my answer on this Fray thread.

Monday, June 16, 2003

But I can't help feeling that they're the New Jersey Devils of the NBA.
And it's so helpful to unity to tell people with deep concerns about the million unborn children killed every year that they have "rocks for brains" and should let their concerns slide.

Sunday, June 15, 2003

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch has a write-up about Muslim women who choose to cover themselves, and how it's misunderstood and not demeaning. Yes, it's forced upon women at the point of a sword in all countries, but it's really just a voluntary act ther allows the light of these women's wisdom to shine through.

I look forward to similar positive treatment about women's roles in Christian religion. For example, Catholic women who are happy with their ministry and have no desire to be priests, and embrace the Church's reasoning for it.

Hmm, I somehow get tge feeling that won't be forthcoming.

Thursday, June 12, 2003


How do you make peace with people who behave like this?

Well, I'd say not calling them savages would be a start, as would not using a picture to stoke bigotry against them.

But what do I know?

UPDATE: Thinking about it some more, I think it's important to remember that this is a picture after Palestinians were killed by Israelis. It takes a certain type of selective observation to take a picture like this and use it to demonize Palestinians. Why are the savages the people who pull the body parts out of the car rather than those who fired the missile to kill them?

UPDATE 2: Sullivan has apologized for and removed the post. Now if only LGF would apologize...

Wednesday, June 11, 2003

I remember when I was going to college at a DIvision III school, I somehow got roped into being the secretary of our residence hall council (we were the only hall council with a web page!). Our greatest challenge was figuring out how to spend the budget they provided us. One thing we did was hold a free giveaway around the NCAA tournament. We sat at a table in the doorway, and invited the sudents to pick one of the 64 team names out of the hat. The person who pulled the winning team won a gift certificate.

This was fine until we asked a member of the football team to draw a name, and he didn't because NCAA rules forbid gambling on any NCAA sport. So even though he wouldn't have to pay any money, and the prize was non-cash, he couldn't participate. Perhaps he was being overly prudent, perhaps not.

Anyway, if a likely non-scholarship football player at a Division III school knows that taking part in a free raffle for the NCAA tournament brushes up against the rules, I find it very hard to believe that the head coach of one of the most prominent football programs in the country wouldn't know that placing bets amounting in the thousands on the NCAA tournament wasn't kosher.

Tuesday, June 10, 2003

Slate's "summary judgement" rounds up the reviews of the Clinton book, including...

And in the Kansas City Star, John Mark Eberhart issues an unequivocal rave: Clinton "comes off as eminently human," he writes. "She worries about her hair. Her poor vision. Her backside."

It's striking to me that "eminently human" is seen as an "uneqivical rave" for the memoirs of a U.S. Senator rather than damning with faint praise. And it's part of the culture the Clintons helped create.

We don't want our leaders to have bold vision, skill at building consensus, or excellence in execution. No, we want them to be like us, and have the same concerns we do.

And we wonder why we end up with leaders we get.
Andrew Sullivan writes on Canada legalizing gay marriage: "Opponents will have to base their arguments in future on actually tearing existing marriages apart. What a conservative idea!"

That's some new ground in circular reasoning there. If something you oppose comes to pass, then your continued opposition to it will violate your stated principles. Doesn't seem like a winning argument to me.

That's sort of like saying that if restrictions to abortion are passed, than pro-choicers will have to base their arguments on saying that people alive should have been aborted. It may make me feel better, but it's not a convincing argument.
As great as the Devils have been, whenever they win the Stanley Cup, I always think it's because no other team went out and won it.

Though they've shuffled their personnel and coaching, the Devils have been pretty much the same team for about 10 years now -- Brodeur in goal, stifling defense, oppurtunistic offense, and disciplined play. Effective, but unspectacular. They'd win by default.

But if the Avalanche go out and get Rob Blake and Ray Borque, or the Red Wings sign Dominik Hasek and a bunch of veteran snipers, or the Stars get Brett Hull, they'll win the Cup.

That's pretty much what happened this year. No other team put together anything special (the Ducks could only go so far on Guguere) so the Devils won the title. Kind of reminds me of the Canadiens about 10-15 years ago.

Monday, June 09, 2003

I'm familiar with the advertising convention that fathers are portrayed as clueless morons who are saved from their ignorance by their all-knowing wives and children.

Still, is it too much to ask that for Father's Day ads, they not be portrayed this way.

I saw an ad over the weekend for Burlington Coat Factory that made me hit a 9 on the yelling at the TV scale. Your typical clueless dad is standing over the dryer on the cordless phone with his wife pulling out formerly white clothes that he dyed blue by washing them with a blue sock. So, the ad is to buy Dad clothes for Father's Day at the Coat Factory to replace the ones he ruined.

Not out of appreciation for the gift of fatherhood, not as a gift, but to compensate for his cluelessness. Can you imagine a similar ad running for Mother's Day?

Hmmm -- can't imagine why we have a culture where men are reluctant to get married and devote themselves to fatherhood...

Tuesday, June 03, 2003

InstaPundit links to this post from Roger Simon:

But Krugman must get the demon Bush, using any pretext he can, the WMDs in this case. But let’s give Paul his due. Let’s stipulate, even though we have no way of knowing at this point, the presence of these weapons was exaggerated by the administration; I still say—so what? Saddam’s gone. It was worth it. And I ask Krugman this simple question: What if some leader had used a similar ruse to get rid of Hitler in 1940? What would he think of that?

Prediction: We won’t be hearing a Krugman answer to that one any time soon.

and adds "That's a safe one, I think.".

Ah, but I'll answer, despite being no fan of Krugman. Let's say we had used a similar ruse to get rid of Mussolini in 1938, and it was exposed as a ruse. Then we tried to use the same ruse to get rid of Hitler in 1940. Would that then be easier or more difficult?

Credibility is expensive. I suppose the case could be made that Saddam was worth that price. But I don't think it's clear-cut. Expecially if someone worse than Saddam emerges from the woodwork.