NO, I'M NOT MAKING THIS UP

This has got be the highlight of my week.  I, and you, get a lot of stuff over the Internet that makes us shake our heads and wonder whether or not is is true.  Somehow we just know that some creative genius sat down and made it up.  Just in the past couple or three days I got a list of church announcement boo-boos.  This very morning when I picked up the church bulletin.  You've seen those things, so I won't bore you.  Instead, This is what I saw--
I will say this, I am not a habitual reader of the bulletin.  It never really contains anything that I want to see, unless it is the announcement for an event that I personally have been working on for a year.  You get my point.  Anyway, I picked up the bulletin and began to read it in pure Hebrew style, from right to left, back to front for you who are inveterate left to right readers.  
Yup, right there in the Catholic Church was this blaring ad for a wedding chapel that offers 24 hour service for the eloping couple to seal the deed while escaping to Canada or Mexico or thereabouts while the parents are hypnotized by the Sunday afternoon football foolishness.  Ya gotta admit, this is a great one!
After the Mass when I caught up to the Priest Moderator of Temporalities and Service Commissions and showed it to him, he acted amused as he took it in and made the remark that this is the result of a regional effort to solicit advertising and that this ad must have been submitted to the publishing company (Paluch) directly by the salesperson without checking out (or caring about) the copy.  I told him as he was fixing to walk away that he had better call Paluch and get it taken down.
Well, I guess that now I am committed to picking up the bulletin next Sunday too.  Maybe I ought to renew my State of California "marrying Sam" license.  I could then take out an ad in the parish bulletins of Southern California's churches.  Might be a chance for some added income.

HERE IT IS IN ALL IT'S UNEXPURGATED, RIPPED-FROM-ITS-ROOTS GLORY

CALIPHATE -- WE HAVE ONE OF THOSE & WE'RE PROUD OF IT

I gotta tell ya, life is really strange.  I look around and I try to see what other human beings know after all the time we have been in existence.  I have to say that I am not impressed.  The President of Egypt has me thinking these days about this stuff.  Then there's a guy on television who is spouting venom and laying out a conspiracy that he dreamed when he found out that the "world powers" had decided not to bomb Babylon.  Where is that, these days?  Is it Tehran or is it Baghdad?  And what does it matter than one people has a caliphate and another doesn't?  I mean, there are different sizes of caliphate, right?  I can think of one or two situations that could resemble caliphates and no one seems to be jumping up and down about them.  And who is the pretender to the throne of this imaginary caliphate?  Isn't Osama on dialysis or something?  So there is a decision not to bomb Babylon.  Big deal.  There was a decision not to bomb Rome too.  There was a decision to spare Paris and perhaps other points of interest that I can;t remember off the top of my head.  Those decisions really ruined our world, didn't they?
The other thing is this Mubarak in Cairo.  Now there's a pinhead if ever one existed.  Imagine the president of a country that has been civilized for about 10,000 years, and he can't figure out that he should just take the money and run?  Haven't there been enough uprisings in Egypt over the time of its civilization when the Pharaohs and others of their ilk got the message and left?  How invincible can one man's ignorance get?  I confess, I just don't get it.  Power has got to be the greatest intoxicant in existence.  How many "news cycles" is it going to take to convince this potentate that his Cialis has run out?  There's not an intravenous dose that could save anything at this time.  10,000 years of civilization; one silly, intoxicated dictator and he hangs on to his jewels to prove his testosterone level is still in charge?
Then, finally I get emails all the time from Catholics who predict the end of the world as we know it at the hands of the Jihadist Moslems.  It seems that every word that is printed by the Moslems is sent around the world in the effort to instill fear or perhaps even jingoism in Christians so that a new Crusade can be born.
Anyone who reads the Bible should know that the Hebrews (Jews) have been blessed by YWH for tens of centuries; Christians have been blessed by the same God for twenty centuries and there are Divine Covenants to back it up.  Why don't I get emails telling me that?  Why should I fear this Mohammed?  Why should I slink into my corner and worry about his Allah?  I refuse and I will continue to refuse.  I will side with the remnant.  I will remember that the "gates of hell will not prevail", not matter how insidious they become.  Remember, the Moslems have not been around as long as we have.  Why did it take them until six hundred years after God's Mission here on earth to assert themselves?  I think it is because they are not truly from the Divine God but from the warped mind of Mohammed.
So, Christians, where are you going to derive your strength?  To the Well of the Divine Covenants or to the Well of Fear instilled by the sword?  I have chosen.  Now it is your turn.

IMPROPER POLITICAL DISCOURSE, YES, THAT MEANS EVERYONE

The shooting spree that took place this week in Arizona has awakened in me a deep conviction that I have had since my teen years when I was in a Roman Catholic seminary in formation for the priesthood.  It was there that I heard for the first time the proposition that the behavior of the priest must be above reproach to the degree  that even the “weakest” among the members of the faithful would not be induced into immoral or even, unbecoming behavior.    This rule of clerical behavior was given to us based on the admonition of St. Paul to the Corinthians, in his first letter to them, chapter 8.

In more general terms and as a definition of what I mean by “scandal of the weak”  I put before you you the following definition:                                  

SCANDAL OF THE WEAK:

Disedifying morally weak persons by permissible conduct. Circumstances determine the duty in charity to avoid giving scandal to the weak. The existence of such a duty is clear from the teaching of St. Paul, who would not eat meat that had been offered to idols lest he scandalize the weaker brethren. He warned the early Christians not to rationalize their conduct but to follow his example, lest "by sinning in this way against our brothers and injuring their weak consciences, it would be Christ against whom you sinned" (I Corinthians 8:12). This obligation in charity is such that one may licitly refrain from fulfilling even a grave positive precept that is not necessary for salvation in order to prevent serious scandal to the weak. Behind the obligation is the mandate of selfless love that seeks not only to help another in obvious need but also by self-restraint to protect another from spiritual harm.

(All items in this dictionary are from Fr. John Hardon's Modern Catholic Dictionary, © Eternal Life. Used with permission.  Taken from Catholic Culture.org)

For those of you who do not believe in the Bible as a whole; those who don’t believe in the Christian part of the Bible, I offer this generally accepted, verifiable analogy of fact.

In an epidemic, or a pandemic, it is the weak (the very young and the old) who suffer most and who generally die first.  Those who are more likely to withstand the ravages of the illness do all they can to protect those who are most susceptible to be damaged.  In fact, in such cases behavior that is perfectly legal will in many cases not be exhibited in order to maintain peace and tranquility in the afflicted community.  I once lived in a community that was being ravaged by El Tor (a kind of cholera).  Everyone was warned to boil all water, even water that was not destined for drinking or for the kitchen.  Some of the people had access to bottled water from the Coca Cola trucks, but they would boil that water too so that even (especially, I might say) the less initiated into the ways of the world would not be shocked and perhaps induced to not boil all the water that they had to use.

I submit to you then that the same type of behavior should be practiced by us all when we speak in the public arena.  It is clear to me that some will not agree.  I have already heard some say that they are sure that this event in Arizona will be “demagogued” (sic) by some.  The perpetrator of this act is a lunatic who has taken to understanding political speech in his own way.  This understanding that he gave to what he heard and read was away from the metaphorical meaning that was in the mind of the speakers and/or writers.  The people who uttered or wrote these words are therefore not culpable for the actions of the attacker.  

I am sure that we are going to hear this line of reasoning aplenty as the days go by.  

This is the thinking of people who equate their moral life with the exercise of their civil law rights.  The freedom of speech is really a wonderful thing.  But any defined freedom, even this one, is not infinite in its reach.  It is never permitted to use a freedom to do evil or to induce others into doing evil.  The level of violent political speech, both on the literal side and the metaphorical side has escalated in the past twenty-four months.  There can be no denial of that fact.  The examples abound.  It is time that we recognize that we have to tone it down because it is not morally correct.  It is an abuse of the freedom of speech.

I say this because it does indeed induce the “weak” into acting immorally.  The purveyors of such speech cannot hide behind the fact that they have the freedom to say what they want.  In fact, they do not have that freedom when it becomes clear that the mode of speech that they employ  is dangerous for the common welfare.  No one is free to inundate the weak with speech that can influence them and cause them to act in a nefarious way. Those who persist in using speech with violent pictures cannot exculpate themselves from the effects of what they have put out into the community atmosphere under the guise of freedom of speech.  

It is not morally correct to hide behind the notion that the vast majority of the population understands what is being said, in metaphor and in literal meaning.   It is not always permissible to use the words that are deemed to be the most powerful for the moment.  Morality is not a democratic concept.  If what is done or said is dangerous for one person, even if not for the many, it must be withheld from those who would be adversely impacted by it for the welfare of the community.  

I have said my piece.  I am convinced that I am right, even though there will be those who will disagree.  It matters not.  I will bring this conviction of mine all the way to the grave. Whether I go today or tomorrow or next year.  Stop your foolishness, already!

SOLD DOWN THE RIVER

Ten years ago Republicans passed a law that they knew had an expiration date of December 31, 2010.  Now they cried, spilled tears and threatened economic damage on jobless citizens and instead of letting the law expire, the president of the United States "cut a deal" and paid the ransom.  That's what he does best, "cave."
Now we are being bombarded with waves of disingenuous rhetoric telling us how good this whole thing has turned out to be.  I am not sold.  Here's what I want to propose.
Because Washington cannot ever either tell the truth nor live the truth,  propose that every law passed should  have a ten year term.  After a while, say over fifty or more years, law makers would spend all their time looking at the laws that they considered to be impossible to let expire.  Then all they would have to do is to argue a bit over how to "tweak" them, vote them up or down and move on.  This is really not such a bad idea because after about 75 years or so, there would not be any new laws to pass, since all the laws being argued would be past constructs.  
The lobbyists would then have nothing to do because they would all know what is expiring and what is going to be either dead or alive, depending on the mood.  
Frankly, if I were president, I would have let them talk all they wanted and then just write "no" on it if they voted to keep it alive.  My only question is, "How hard can it be to enforce the law?  Just do it, damn it!

OBAMA'S A WIMP

LOOKIN' PRETTY JUST HANGIN' THERE

I didn't want to vote for this guy because he caved in to George Bush and the big telecoms on the wiretapping flap.  You know, "we can snoop on our citizens with impunity."  Surely you remember that!  When B.O. did that I swore then, that I would not vote for him.  Sadly, after that, the campaign got longer and McCain got more and more senile and nastier and nastier so I started to have second thoughts.
One of my second thoughts was, "five years in a Vietnamese war prison surely has not trained this guy for public service.  He sure is not ready to do this job."  Then he proved me right, he took Sarah Palin as a running mate.  So, after eight years of a president who can't even speak the English language, who only wants to play war rather than govern, I decided to vote for B.O.
Yup, I can smell it from here.  Health care?  A total disaster.  Compromise after compromise until it got whittled down to next to nothing without a whimper.  Don't Ask, Don't Tell?  Huh?  What's that?  Guantanamo?  Did I hear you say something about that?  Is that in the northern hemisphere somewhere?  Jobs?  What's the problem?  I got one?  Taxes on the rich?  "Read my lips"...yeah we're reading..."well, we can talk about that."  Bullshit!
We can't talk about that, and here's why.   Ten years ago the Republicans knew that  the sun would set on this one on this date certain, 12/31/2010.  They did it anyway.  They gambled. Teach them to be accountable for their actions.  Let the sun set on it and on them too.  Never mind all the fancy talk about 700 billion dollars' debt over ten years.  Talk about, "you knew the consequences of what you did when you did it.  Now jam your consequences and bring them to hell with you."  What's so hard about that?
Talking about consequences.  One of the consequences of being president is that your hair gets grey fast.  Check yourself out in the mirror tomorrow, sir. You can't compromise that.  One other consequence of your compromising habit is that you have only two more years left in office.  You can't compromise that either.  You want to keep your job?  Start playing hockey and stop playing that girls' game of basketball that you love so much.  All we've had for two years is "jukin' 'n jivin around in our shorts and tanktops."  It's time to strap on the pads and and start cracking some bones against the boards.
Yeah, O.B., you're close to done in my book.  Unless Sarah is running against you in 2012, I'm voting for the other side 'cause you ain't showed me nothin'.
After tonite, yer done, hot dog.  You just compromised yourself outta my life.

MISSIONARIES AND LANGUAGE

Not too long ago I got the news that from now on the priest missionaries from a certain missionary religious community who come from the Philippines to work in parishes that are heavily dominated by Spanish speaking faithful will have to learn the Spanish language.  It's about time.  After all they have been entrusted to at least one Southern California parish that I know of  for 20 years now and they are still assigning priests there who know no Spanish at the beginning and leave after years with no ability to minister in Spanish.  The three who are assigned there now have been told that they have to learn it.  The pastor promised two years ago that after one year he would be up to speed in the language.  NOT!  He's too busy rearranging the furniture and stretching out his hand for ever more money to spend time learning a language  that is essential to doing a good job in the parish.

I shake my head at the way the decision was announced.  Like it was good news.  Like, Hey, there is something you have to know.  From now on priests who will come here will have to learn Spanish.  Of course this was communicated through an interpreter.  Now let me get this straight.  It's good news that it took 20 years for someone to make a decision to force missionaries to learn the dominant language of the mission?  It's good news that all the bozos between year one and year twenty didn't have enough zeal and courage to take it upon themselves to learn how to communicate the Good News in the dominant language?  It's good news that it took a community law to achieve this?  Didn't anyone remember that Peter had to learn Latin if not before, at least after, he moved to Rome?  Didn't anyone remember that the missionaries who founded the seminaries in the Philippines learned the local languages?  Why did it take a decree to make it happen here?  Is it that there isn't enough missionary zeal in the hearts and souls of these priests?  

Sorry boys.  I'm far from impressed.  When you arrived here almost three years ago I told you that your missionary group was not doing a very good job in the parish, and this not just by my standards.  It hasn't gotten any better, maybe even deteriorated a bit.  Deteriorated to the point where the executives have to force you to learn the language that you promised to learn, but didn't.

I have but one question more:  Now, are you going to learn English too?

MIDNIGHT, DECEMBER 31, 2010, BYE, BYE, TAX BREAK

I'M SO GLAD THAT I'M NOT A POLITICIAN

I am so glad that I am not a politician.  Somehow I couldn't get used to having to wash two faces, shave two beards, have four cataracts, 64 teeth, two runny noses and so many other things.  I am not going to start by saying, "If I were a politician I would say this,or I would do that.  I know what I would do because I know what I have done along the course of my life.  I have made myself accountable to the factual truths of life.  It's a lot easier to live that way.  You do something right, you rejoice.  You do something wrong, you fix it, apologize, make restitution and move on.  

As a country we are now confronted with a reality that is so simple and clear-cut that it turns my brain to mush when I hear discussions about what to do about it.  Here it is in all its simplicity.

Ten years ago congress passed a tax law under circumstances that made it mandatory for the law to sunset ten years later.  Ten years have almost passed.  The tenth year of the law's life will be complete at midnight of December 31, 2010.  That is a fact.

This is also a fact.  Passing a law under these conditions was a gamble.  The gamble was not that the law would escape the sunset.  It was that the sitting congress at the time of sunset would renew the law.  

Another fact that we know is that the present President of the country says that the country cannot carry the debt burden that renewing the law would create.

This is where I say, "No problem."  Let the animal die a painless death.  When the losers of the gamble cry, don't engage them.  Give them a handkerchief for their tears and move on.  When they throw your handkerchief back at you in anger, don't engage them.  Pick up your hanky and move on to the next thing.  Either the president is convinced of the correctness of his position on the matter or not.  As far as I am concerned, this situation is easy to resolve.  The law is on the president' s side.  Use it and let the tears of the other side irrigate your garden. 

I swear, I don't know why the democrats, the president at their head still continue to court conversation about the matter.  To what end?  Shut up and let it die.  

Mr. President, let it go.  If they vote and it passes, so what?  When it hits your desk, burn it in the veto stove.  Somebody, somewhere has got to have only one face about the stuff that goes on in Washington.  

Oh yeah, and two cojones swollen with the testosterone it takes to face reality and to get things done and may the devil take the hindmost.