“Ordinations” of women as “priests”

Amy Welborn has a great post about some supposed ordinations of women as Catholic priests on the rivers of Pittsburgh today (July 31st).

First, from a page by the Diocese of Pittsburgh (a great diocese, Archbishop Wuerl now in Washington. DC did a great job there):

Isn’t denial of the sacraments and excommunication extreme? The church doesn’t excommunicate those clergy who abused minors. And politicians who vote in favor of legal abortion are not denied Communion.
Those who present themselves for Communion are expected to be in communion with the church. People can be “not in communion” in several ways. Those who have committed mortal sin and are not in the state of grace are out of communion and should not present themselves until they are reconciled through the sacrament of reconciliation. Those who deny a core tenet of the faith either by publicly espousing something contrary to the faith, such as the denial of the divinity of Christ, or by a public action that repudiates the laws, teachings or morals of the church are also not in communion.

There are certain actions that by their public nature, by their immediate threat to the unity of the church, by their explicit undermining of the sacraments and by their conscious break with the apostolic authority of the church derived from Christ result in removing oneself from the community of the faithful. In regard to this ceremony, engaging in a public — and highly publicized — abuse of the sacrament of holy orders that threatens church unity, and to take such action knowingly and willingly in defiance of the apostolic authority of the church, does place oneself outside the church.

However, even in these cases, the goal of the church is reconciliation. Announcing that there are those who have removed themselves from the community of the faithful is not a punishment but a call to conversion.

This, of course, also explains why pro-abortion Catholic politicians should be denied Communion: they have placed themselves outside the communion of the Catholic Church by their own freely chosen actions, just as these women have chosen to by engaging in a mockery of a sacrament.

Welborn herself writes:

If you wish to be ordained and to practice Christian ministry as an ordained person, there is no lack of denominations in which to do that, with all of the titles, regalia and pomp – perhaps even more, if you’re going to be High Church Anglican – that you’ll find in the Roman Catholic Church.

So…why stay? Why the determination to be Roman Catholic priests?

Perhaps they’ll say that there is something marginally more “true” about Christianity, or even Catholic Christianity – that it has more direct historical ties to the apostles or something.

The problem is that if that’s the point on which their choice lies, they run into a problem when we try to establish conclusions.

If The Catholic Church is the Christian church “closest” to Christ…wouldn’t one conclude that this closeness is embodied in it? That its closeness is not just a matter of apostolic succession (a concept I’m doubting they care that much about either), but in what the successors of the apostles, you know…do and say?

More after the break…

Continue reading

Gibson

Here’s, I think, the best summary I’ve seen yet about Mel Gibson “interesting” night:

Alcohol brought out the worst in Gibson, evidently. And that news, let me tell you, brought out the worst in many e-mailers this weekend.

At least Gibson had the excuse of being drunk. What excuse do his detractors have?

The Read-My-Lips Commission

Freshman House Republican Patrick McHenry of North Carolina introduced legislation last week to create a federal commission to reform government entitlement programs. But the McHenry bill has a catch that may cause budget experts on the left to start hyperventilating: It explicitly rules out any tax increases as part of the solution.

Mr. McHenry’s approach directly conflicts with legislation proposed by Rep. Frank Wolf, a 13-term Republican from Virginia. Mr. Wolf specifically authorizes his own proposed bipartisan commission to consider revenue increases as part of any grand plan to avert the pending multi-trillion-dollar train wreck.

In his State of the Union message in January, President Bush called for the creation of such a commission, but left unanswered the issue of whether taxes should be “on the table.” Most Democrats — especially the economic guru of the party, former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin — say they will participate only if taxes are part of the solution. Mr. Rubin says he would want to start by canceling some or all of the Bush investment tax cuts. But to many Republicans, the idea of a bipartisan budget commission that leaves new taxes as an option is an all-too-familiar trap. Recall the Andrews Air Force Base “budget summit” of 1990 that led Mr. Bush’s father to break his “no new taxes” pledge and lose his presidency as a consequence. Newt Gingrich, who remembers that debacle as if it were yesterday, tells me: “Bipartisan budget commissions have always been a disaster for Republicans. Democrats always want to talk about only one thing: higher taxes.”

Mr. McHenry says that conservatives in the House have “no interest” in a commission that fails to rule out new taxes. “The problem with entitlements is runaway spending, so the commission I propose keeps the focus on that,” he says.

A new study by Laurence Kotlikoff of Boston University calculates that if entitlement spending is not curtailed, the only way future taxpayers could accommodate all the promised Medicare and Social Security spending would be to see their “lifetime marginal net tax rates” (a measure of the tax disincentive to work) rise to between 55% and 80%. This would reverse all the gains in tax cutting starting with the Reagan tax cuts of 1981. “Taxes as a share of GDP would have to rise from 20% to perhaps 35% of GDP,” says economist Larry Hunter of the Institute for Policy Innovation. “That would be economically crippling.”

So the McHenry approach makes the most sense both from an economic standpoint and from the standpoint of averting the mayhem and carnage of the 1990 budget summit. Big government advocates in Washington have long argued for the need for a tax increase consensus. Buying into that idea is the fastest way for Republicans to lose their majorities in Congress.

Source (subscription required)

So, basically, the Democrats will only agree to look at reining in runaway spending if they are allowed to reach even further into our pockets? Is their ever an opportunity they won’t take to spend more of our money? If I were the GOP, I’d be trumpeting this all over the place between now and the elections. “Republicans want to look at controlling runaway spending that could bankrupt our nation, but the Democrats refuse to even discuss the issue unless they get to raise your taxes.”

Quote-a-palooza

“Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.” —George Washington

“In every person who comes near you look for what is good and strong; honor that; try to imitate it, and your faults will drop off like dead leaves when their time comes.” —John Ruskin

“The attitude of the state and culture toward the value of human life is in constant flux. Like the Dow Jones Industrial Averages, it is up one day and down the next. Some want to use embryonic stem cells for research into all sorts of afflictions and diseases, though no clinical tests have proved they are effective and stem cells from placentas and other sources, which cause no harm to human life, are available. Life in the womb—indeed life emerging from the womb—may be destroyed at any time and for any reason. There is pressure at the other end of life to euthanize the elderly and handicapped when they become ‘burdensome’ to family members or ‘too costly’ to the state.” —Cal Thomas

“Only the morally obtuse—or perverse—cannot recognize the difference between a terrorist group that targets civilian population centers with anti-personnel weapons designed to maximize civilian casualties and a democracy that seeks to prevent terrorism by employing smart bombs designed to minimize civilian casualties. [UN Secretary General Kofi] Annan knows better than to suggest a moral equivalence. He is fully aware of the tactic employed by terrorists of launching their rockets from, and hiding behind, civilian shields, so as to make democracies have to kill some civilians to get at the terrorists… [E]ven worse than the one-sided condemnations that ignore Hezbollah and Hamas are the numerous statements that perversely suggest moral equivalence. The UN peacekeepers on the Lebanese border have turned out to be collaborators with Hezbollah, videotaping the Hezbollah kidnapping of three Israeli soldiers in 2000 and then refusing to release the video—which could have helped in the rescue—on the grounds that it might compromise their ‘neutrality.’ This is a real test for the UN. If it cannot—or will not—distinguish between terrorists who target civilians and a democracy that seeks to stop the terrorism while minimizing civilian casualties, it has become part of the problem, rather than part of the solution.” —Alan Dershowitz

“Nations crumble from within when the citizenry asks of government those things which the citizenry might better provide for itself… [I] hope we have once again reminded people that man is not free unless government is limited. There’s a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: As government expands, liberty contracts.” —Ronald Reagan

“[T]he government spending rate…has grown by more than $800 billion—nearly 50%—during the Bush administration. Excluding war and homeland security expenditures, it has grown about 7% a year, and virtually nothing has been done to stem it. A veto or two by the president would help, and so would some spine in the Republican House and Senate. A recent National Taxpayers Union Foundation study found that in 2005 the average Republican House member voted to increase discretionary spending by $168 billion, close to the average Democrat’s $178 billion. Republicans senators’ votes averaged $183 billion in new spending; Democratic senators $217 billion. Compare these numbers to the golden days of the Gingrich leadership: In 1997 the average House member voted to reduce spending by $6 billion while the average senator’s increase was only $4 billion. So there is still economic work to be done in the White House and Congress. But President Bush’s tax reductions have been the most successful economic growth and opportunity work of any president in a quarter of a century. To paraphrase JFK, tax rate reduction is indeed a rising tide that lifts all individuals to greater opportunity.” —former Delaware Governor Pete du Pont

“I believe the Left has been wrong on virtually every great moral issue in the last 30 years. During that period, it was wrong on the Cold War—it devoted far more energy to fighting anti-communism than to fighting communism. It was wrong for attacking Israel for its destruction of Saddam Hussein’s nuclear reactor. It was wrong on welfare. It was wrong in its demanding less morally and intellectually from black Americans than from all other Americans. It was wrong in advocating bilingual education for children of immigrants. It was wrong in generally holding American society rather than violent criminals responsible for violent crime. It was wrong in imposing its view on abortion on America through the courts rather than through the democratic process… It was wrong in identifying ‘flag waving’ with fascism. It was wrong in supporting the teachers’ unions rather than students and educational reform. It was wrong in allying itself with trial lawyers and blocking tort reform. It was wrong in blocking the military from recruiting on campuses and teaching a generation of young Americans that ‘war is not the answer’ when war is at times the one moral answer… In just about every instance, one could say that the Left was foolish, the Left was naive, the Left was wrong, even that the Left was dangerous.” —Dennis Prager

Some of These Are Quite A Turnoff

Some of These Are Quite A Turnoff

1. If they used the “mercy rule” in Major League Baseball, all games broadcast by Tim McCarver would end after five innings.

3. I’m surprised ESPN is not promoting “Monday Night Football” a little bit more.

5. Someone has to explain to me how “walk-off homer” improves on “game-ending homer.”

6. When I go to a dinner party, I tell people I have a desk job on an oil rig before I tell them I have a TV job on a poker show.

7. In the remake of “A Clockwork Orange,” they would torture the protagonist this time by making him listen to sports talk radio.

8. In the summer of 1980, I told a date that CNN, ESPN and MTV had “no chance of survival.” That’s why I don’t date much.

20. Chris Berman has now said “New York Football Giants” a U.S.-record 38,231 times.

22. I tried to TiVo something on Fox Soccer Channel and TiVo sent me a “Dear John” letter.

Phils Trade Abreu, Lidle

ESPN.com – MLB – Phillies send Abreu, Lidle to Yankees

I don’t like the trade. When you get right down to it, all we’re doing is dumping Abreu’s salary. We’re trading the 4th best right fielder in the majors (see here and scroll down)and getting low-level minor leaguers in return. In addition, we’re trading our 2nd best starter in Cory Lidle. (It’s sad he’s our 2nd best, though.) I support that, but giving up two major leaguers and all we’re getting in return is some low-level players who may never plan out.

This is a salary dump, plain and simple. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise. This does little to prepare the Phillies to contend in the future.