From an old "Voice From the Desert" blog post

I just found one of my writings from 2008, from the Blog Voice From the Desert.   The blog is run by an old liberal heterodox Catholic -  but I like his style anyway even if I disagree with him on most everything else.

It amazes me how something I wrote almost 5 years ago (come this July) still applies to today.  Here it is:

___________

I have been withholding and then diverting my Sunday collections to another charity that serves the poor for over 3 years now (they don’t get my money – the donations are all ‘in-kind’ – things that cannot be traded easily on the open market). I made that decision when the powers that be in my Diocese of Toledo used their influence behind scenes to the ban the movie ‘Twist of Faith’. That was further reinforced when a mere two and half months later the home of a S.N.A.P. activist who had extensive hard-copy files on several local priestly predators was torched in a fire so hot that it consumed not only the house she was renting, but also two others that were next door (of course all her records went up in flames, too).

For more than two years I used to send a copy of my weekly collection envelope to my bishop – just as are reminder that protest remained in effect. I stopped that as I figured the point was made long ago.

I tend to agree with Mark I: it would take a miracle to really have any effect here. The bishops know this too. Most of Catholic laity remain in a state of willful self-delusion with regard to the sexual predators in their midst. Only the victimization of a family member or a very close friend tends to animate anyone in this huge silent majority in to action. Robin’s postings are a case in point.

What I’d like to see each parish in the US do is:

1. Found its own 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation with no connection to the 501 (c)(3) of the local diocese;

2. Stop sending any money to the diocesan chanceries (aka the bishop) – and live with to any consequences (e.g. the calling in of loans or mortgages by the bishop);

3. Support their own clergy from monies collected on Sunday (here I’d prefer that one-way debit cards be issued for their physical needs and a rental car for transportation rather than out-right cash be paid to them);

4. Hire a non-Christian, non-Catholic Church affiliated CPA who is bonded to manage the monies and pay the bills and who will, on demand and with a reasonable administrative fee, provide anyone at anytime with a current financial statement of the parish. Annual audits of course would be a part of this.

5. Remove the pastors, associate pastors and deacons from anything involving money management or the management of parish buildings, lands, clubs, etc . . . Their jobs would solely focus on the administration of the sacraments and providing spiritual succor as is rightly proper to them.

I know this is probably a pipe dream and I am sure there are others who have much better ideas than I have on how to deal with this.

Even though withholding collection may seem like a futile act of defiance, I will continue to do so. I believe that to contribute any monies at this time means I’m likely to be passively participating in persecuting the sexual abuse survivors and to passively assist bishops in hiding the predators they are protecting.

It looks like this will last for the rest of my life, but I’d rather not have to face God Almighty on the day I die knowing what I know and to still have willingly participated in the evil. I’ll give where I can provided I can do so in an ‘in-kind’ fashion. In this way I avoid allowing any part of my monetary donation, which is fungible, to be used to perpetrate the criminal acts of our bishops.

“Ego delustro sic non tu poteris nutu”. 

I disabuse so you can’t snooze.

Cardinal Mahoney - gonna get away with it -- too bad

Been a few days since I was last here. Since then it is becoming increasingly clear that Cardinal Mahoney is gonna get away with it.  That too bad.

A couple of articles I've read since my last post here on the subject:

First this one: 

http://www.themediareport.com/2013/01/28/cardinal-mahony-la-archdiocese-documents/

This is some what of an apologia (a defense) of the Cardinal - with an more massive set of response posts by one Publion - an unabashed apologia.  Pub's response makes itself look like a point-by-point response responsible response and does show-up some inconsistencies by the crowd calling for the Cardinal's head..  I don't have time, or inclination, to rebut. The spin is obvious.

Then there's this is article:

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jan/26/local/la-me-mahony-latinos-20130127

It discusses possible damage to Cardinal Mahoney's legacy among the Hispanic population due the sexual abuse scandal. 

What I found disconcerting about it is that because of Cardinal Mahoney's  deep support for the Hispanic community many in it are willing to overlook what he's done and even defend him.  I came away from that one with a thought that if I were a bishop wanting to protect a sexual predator among my priests - I 'd send him into the Hispanic parishes where the mamacitas are likely to protect El Padrecito against charges of sexual predation coming from their hijos with sharp words, a slap across the face and violent wack on the backside. (Note - something I believe like this been happening in Poland since about 2010 or 2011 when the scandal threatened to explode there. The bishops in that land have lots of  palanca with the layfolk for saving them  from Russian Communism and thus the little Polish matkas have been silencing their children who dare to say anything against Ojciec Jan). 

It's a hard thing to fight against ingrained tribalism - probably almost impossible to do - especially in my Church where the teachings on the  family are foremost (as they should be).  So, we gets it from the crib and there on out the path is set for most.  But virtue can be turned into a vice which is evident from them that live life in a self-induced fog. It's a bear trying to get them to see.

It means that the fight to lift that fog must continue. The "Emperor" is buck naked and I intend to keep on saying so - even to them  who are tired of hearing it - no matter how much they may ignore me.

“Ego delustro sic non tu poteris nutu”. 

I disabuse so you can’t snooze.

Death Comes for the Archbishop?

In 1927 Catholic writer, Willa Cather, wrote a then famous novel entitled Death Comes for the Archbishop.

"It concerns the attempts of a Catholic bishop and a priest to establish a diocese in New Mexico Territory.

The novel was included on Time's 100 Best English-language Novels from 1923 to 2005 [1] and Modern Library's list of the 100 best English-language novels of the 20th century [1], and was chosen by the Western Writers of America to be the 7th-best "Western Novel" of the 20th century. The primary character is a bishop, Jean Marie Latour, who travels with his friend and vicar Joseph Vaillant from Sandusky, Ohio to New Mexico to take charge of the newly established diocese of New Mexico, which has only just become a territory of the United States". (See the Wikipedia Article).

In my Senior year at the Pontifical College Josephinum, as part of a course on American Catholic Church history, I had to read this novel.  I enjoyed it very much, though, I lost my copy of it after I left the seminary for good (Mt. Mary's Seminary in Emmitsburg, Maryland) in October, 1982.

Thirty years later, I clearly remember one chapter.  In it the Archbishop sent a priest to live among and to evangelize a tribe of the Pueblo peoples who lived on top of a plateau.  Shortly after his arrival the man started to heavily imbibe, daily, in the local brew and also began sexual relationships with several of the young maidens and even a few of the adult women who had husbands and children of their own.

For two or three years, either out of some sort of respect for his office or, more likely, pity because, he did not have a woman of his own to meet his need,  the Pueblos put up with him.   However, as I remember, he finally crossed the line when he raped and sodomized a young virgin.

One particular evening, shortly after that happened, the priest was sitting at a table in the dwelling the Pueblos granted him, getting drunk as usual, when two strapping young men walked in;  pulled his chair out; picked him up; carried him to the edge of the plateau; threw him off it (resulting in a fall that killed him) and walked away showing about as much emotion as one would after having taken out the garbage.

I'm sure most who read this will agree that that priest got what he deserved - absolute justice without any mercy. Fast forward  to today.

I think with the revelations which have come with release of the documents in  Los Angeles which clearly show how high ranking Catholic officials, in particular Cardinal Mahoney, enabled the rape and sexual torture of the innocent and the vulnerable, we church-going Catholics have reached a point of decision: either to continue to put with this or do something about it. The question is what to do?

Shall the church-goers continue to avert their eyes in denial or to give a milchtoast response that grants license (based on some misplaced sense of what "forgiveness' is) or go for true accountability of our leaders, the Pope and the Bishops? And how is this to be done with both real justice and real mercy?

Right now the office of the Prosecutor in Los Angeles is reviewing these documents as they come out to try to determine if any charges can be filed against any of the living officials, past or present, of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles for their part in shielding sexual predators  and covering up their behavior at the expense of children and vulnerable adults. Chief in his analysis of the matter will be  to determine whether Cardinal Mahoney can be charged or will the statute of of  limitations allow him, as it has allowed so many high ranked Church officials in the past, to escape the punishment they so richly deserve.

David Clohessy of the Survivors Network of those Abuse by Priests, (S.N.A.P.) answered questions ib this matter recently as quoted on this subject in a local blog in Los Angeles - see here: Will Cardinal Roger Mahony Face Charges  for Sex Abuse Cover Up? SNAP says Yes. for the article).

Basically he believes that the L.A. Prosecutor is a creative man, and just as charges were filed against the infamous gangster, Al Capone, for tax evasion (rather than for murder and conspiracy to commit murder - the crimes for which he deserved punishment) and was ultimately found guilty and imprisoned, so some sort of recent violation of the law by these Church officials will allow charges to be filed against them and for which they can be sent to prison too.

I wish I could be that confident. Given the history of the legal backroom maneuvering exercised by diocesan lawyers throughout the Nation I doubt it will happen. Still I do hope that something is figured out. Justice demands it. I fear dire consequences if not. Why?

Though both the survivors of rape and sexual torture by clergy in the Church and their advocates have shown tremendous restraint over the decades - and especially since this all came out 11 years ago, I don't know if Cardinal Mahoney escapes justice whether that might be too much for someone and the Nation, and especially the American Catholic Church, could be rocked when death comes for the Archbishop.

“Ego delustro sic non tu poteris nutu”. 

I disabuse so you can’t snooze.

Pit bulls - dem dogs still doin' mos' o' dah killin'

The danger of the pit bull is one of my pet (no pun intended) peeves.  

I don't care how nice  and playful the animal may be.  The fact remains that the dog's jaws, by direct breeding design, are the most dangerous out there among dogs. Without even intending it a pit bull or mixed-pit bull can break an arm or leg; crush the skull of an infant and maim or disfigure  a child or an adult for life.  I'd never own  one and if one came into my possession, I'd put it down without hesitation - even it it were a nice  and playful cutie.

Here's some stats for 2012 from DogsBite.org:

2012 statistics Dog Attack Statistics:

38 U.S. fatal dog attacks occurred in 2012.2 Despite being regulated in Military Housing areas and over 600 U.S. cities,  pit bulls contributed to 61% (23)  of these deaths. Pit bulls make up less than 5% of the total U.S. dog population.

Together, pit bulls (23) and rottweilers (3), the second most lethal dog breed, accounted for 68% of all fatal attacks in 2012. In the 8-year period from 2005 to 2012, this combination accounted for 73% (183) of the total recorded deaths (251).

The breakdown between pit bulls and rottweilers is substantial over this 8-year period. From 2005 to 2012, pit bulls killed 151 Americans, about one citizen every 19 days, versus rottweilers, which killed 32, about one citizen every 91 days.

Annual data from 2012 shows that 50% (19) of the victims were adults, 21-years and older, and the other half were children, ages 8-years and younger. Of the total children killed by dogs in 2012, 79% (15) were ages 2-years and younger.

Annual data also shows that males were more often victims, 61% (23), than females. The majority of male victims, 61% (14), were ages 8-years and younger. Of the total female victims, only 33% (5) fell into this same age group.

In 2012, roughly one-third, 32% (12), of all dog bite fatality victims were either visiting or living temporarily with the dog's owner when the fatal attack occurred. Children 8-years and younger accounted for 75% (9) of these deaths.

34% (13) of all fatalities in 2012 involved more than one dog; 13% (5) involved breeding on the dog owner's property either actively or in the recent past, and 5% (2) involved tethered dogs, down from 6% in 2011, 9% in 2010 and 19% in 2009.

In 2012, dogs referred to as a "rescue" accounted for at least 13% (5) attacks that resulted in death. Children suffered the brunt of these attacks with 3 deaths. The adults afflicted, 

2 adult females, were killed by their own pack of "rescued" dogs.5

Dog ownership information for 2012 shows that family dogs comprised 58% (22) of all fatal occurrences; 82% (31) of all incidents occurred on the dog owner's property and 18% (7) resulted in criminal charges, down from 29% in 2011.6

California and North Carolina led fatalities in 2012, each with 4 deaths. 75% of the California deaths occurred in San Diego County. Pit bull-type dogs accounted for 88% (7) of the 8 deaths. New Mexico, Ohio and Texas followed, each with 3 deaths.

And this graph from the same website puts this clearly into perspective:

The stats, and especially the graph, should leave no doubt that the pit bull is the most lethal dog breed in the U.S.A.

This all the more reinforces my nickname for this type of dog: The Walking Gun and  - like the AR-15 Assault Rifle -  should be banned.

“Ego delustro sic non tu poteris nutu”. 

I disabuse so you can’t snooze.

The Sandy Hill Truthers & Total Conservatives

I guess every gun tragedy has to have their "truthers" these days.  The Sandy Hill Truthers started almost immediately. Below is the link to the YouTube Video about it:

Sandy Hill Exposed

What to think?

I like what was written in the Slate's article of the past Thursday:

Don't Blame the Sandy Hook Truthers

The Gun Peoples are so intent on having their arsenals  left alone, they'll say or do anything to get their message out and frighten people into believing it's all a government plot.

Easy to fight. NO! Why? Our old friend confirmation bias is why. As was stated that Slate Article:

"But what’s the point of debunking any of this? The theories don’t spread because they’re credible. They spread in part because of the confirmation bias of worried gun owners".

But it's not just 'worried gun owners" - it's the Conservatives  - especially the TOTAL Conservatives that are worried.

Today's Conservative are bound and bent to keep a worldview intact that's doing a lot of damage.  I'm no "brave-new-worlder' - indeed I oppose almost all of the liberal's social agenda with regard to human beings, - but some things are just too glaringly obvious - ya know "the elephant in the room" - to miss - unless one really wants to.

Total Conservatives insist on seeing a world that really doesn't exist and what's worse - forcing the rest of us into it.

“Ego delustro sic non tu poteris nutu”. 

I disabuse so you can’t snooze.

A true Roman Catholic is neither Conservative nor Liberal

A true Roman Catholic is neither Conservative nor Liberal.  The characteristic, coming out of the commitment and acceptance of Jesus Christ is to be “in the world but not of it”.  This is expressed in being counter-cultural to whatever moment or whatever age a Catholic lives in.

If a Catholic is to be true to his or he beliefs, the commitment, the personal relationship with Jesus Christ,  he or she MUST throw off all elements that identify him or her as being C or L.

Most Catholic pro-lifers have id’d with the Conservative tag in terms of social justice, economics and the social order. However, by being pro-life, they already committed to Christ and carry within their hearts, minds and souls, the ability, to be “in the world not of it” aka truly counter-cultural. They are, most eminently  orthodox in their beliefs with regard to the faith itself. The problem is - they adamantly will not go beyond the counter-cultural elements that makes them pro-life. In terms of social justice, economics and the social order, they tend toward the bourgeois way - whether they have bourgeois wealth or not. When they choose with their wills to abandon the bourgeois way they will be able to go all the way at being "in the world and not of it". 

Liberal Catholics, on the other hand, are naturally anti-bourgeois and practice with vigor the Church's teachings on social justice. However, I believe they will have a harder time trying to be “in the world not of it” than Conservatives because they are not orthodox in terms of their beliefs on the faith. Instead they cherry-pick what they choose to believe which makes them engage in a base heterodoxy which, beyond their “L” proclivities, they must shed first if they are to have any hope at living out a life in Jesus Christ.

“Ego delustro sic non tu poteris nutu”. 

I disabuse so you can’t snooze.

New York Times: Church Leaders Controlled Damage

Just got a read of an article in Today's New York Times. 

The article's title is: Files Show How Los Angeles Church Leaders Controlled Damage.

It can be found here:

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2013/01/21/us/ap-us-california-church-abuse.html?_r=0

The articles details recent documents the contents which the Archdiocese of Los Angles was recently forced to released as part the lawsuit that resulted in the largest settlement to date in the sexual abuse scandal.

The article offers proof positive that Cardinal Mahoney, now in pleasant retirement, deliberately ordered the cover of up the rape and sexual torture of the children.

Cardinal Mahoney, in response to this scathing report according the newspaper, stated: "It remains my daily and fervent prayer that God's grace will flood the heart and soul of each victim, and that their life journey continues forward with ever greater healing," Mahony wrote. "I am sorry."

In contrast to this he wrote, over 12 years ago (10/06/2000) when it was suggested that sexual abuse be openly stated at a Sunday Mass: "We could open up another firestorm — and it takes us years to recover from those,"  "Is there no alternative to public announcements at all the Masses in 15 parishes??? Wow — that really scares the daylights out of me!!"

"It scares the daylights out of me!!"????   He put the Church's reputation and the money ahead of the safety of children and vulnerable.  

HOLY MOLEY!

This in NOT just the Church leadership of  10, 20, 30, 40, 100 years ago. This is NOT something fading into the past. It's also now. The proof of that is what happened in Philadelphia and in Kansas City, MO last year.

I  hold that any faithful Roman Catholics - especially the pro-life activists - who believe this is only "a beads on the knees" situation exclusively and there is no need, therefore,  for deliberate and direct action at holding a bishop accountable are as guilty of the sin of omission and are as liable as Cardinal Mahoney, the Pope and the rest of the hierarchy were and are at failing to protect children and the vulnerable from sexual predators.

Either you do something personally, openly and directly or you are complicit and are engaging in the base vice of tribalism. It's as simple as that. 

You do NOT dare to talk about or march against or protest abortion or act to preserve your religious freedom unless you become willing to do something directly to hold our leaders accountable for protecting sexual predators and covering up sexual abuse in the Church besides pray. 

And I, for one, do not intend to let any of you, my fellow Church-going Catholics, ever forget it!!

“Ego delustro sic non tu poteris nutu”. 

I disabuse so you can’t snooze.

Battles of River Raisin Bicentennial Commemoration

The Star Spangled Banner

I attended the Battles of River Raisin Bicentennial Commemoration this weekend in Monroe, Michigan  (which was formerly known as Frenchtown) and which is just about 20 miles north of where I live in Toledo.

There were actually two battles - all part of the War of 1812. The first occurred on January 18, 1813 (which the U.S. won against a small force of British soldiers and a confederation of 18 native tribes).  The British and tribal forces had occupied Frenchtown and the American force under the command of General James Winchester were able to drive the combined British and tribal confederation out of Frenchtown. The second battle was fought on January 22, 1813, and resulted in a humiliating defeat of the American army by a larger force of British and tribal forces which had arrived on the scene, undetected as a result of the negligence of the American sentries, just before dawn. During that battle in which the American general was captured - and the aftermath on January 23rd, members of the 18 tribes deliberately  killed wounded Americans (most from Kentucky) as they lay helpless on the snow-covered, frozen field or in the homes of Frenchtown citizens where they had been taken. Further, the warriors would not allow the people of Frenchtown (mostly ethnic French people with whom the tribes had no quarrel)  to gather and bury the American dead.  The cry "Remember the Raisin" that resulted served as a rallying cry throughout all the individual United States and its territories. Many men, especially in Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, Indiana, and Illinois, fearing that the 18 tribe confederation with the British army would sweep down from Canada to destroy their homes and drive them out forever, volunteered to fight.  It is thought that the defeat and the deliberate killing of the wounded American soldiers after the second battle of the River Raisin. symbolized by the cry, so galvanized the American effort that the combined forces were ultimately defeated a little less than seven months later in Canada on October 15, 1813 at the Battle of the Thames (River).

I was impressed to see about three hundred reenactors present. Most were portraying either American or British Soldiers and officers. Three or four portrayed a contingent of Native Americans. I listened to preliminary and introductory remarks made by Monroe's mayor and Michigan state legislator and a Major General of the Kentucky National Guard.  Then marched with the reenactors from the Sawyer House (site of the Navarre house where General Winchester was caught sleeping as the counter-attack of the 22nd began) and traced his failed attempt to reach the American line - now the site of the River Raisin Battle Field Park (National Park Service).

Flags Raised

Then I stood at the sites' center and watched the old American 1812 Flag (Star Spangled Banner) raised along with the flags of Michigan and, afterwards,  the the old ensigns of the British Empire followed by wreath layings by the decendents of Frenchtown citizens and members of the Canadian military forces. From there I walked west with the reenactors to the actual battlefield site where the two forces offered three fired volleys in honor the dead of both sides. From there, proceeding across Dixie Highway to a large field south of a sports complex I watched, for about an hour a tactical reenactment of the First Battle of the River Raisin. I walked back to Custer's corner (Monroe St.and Elm where General Custer's equestrian statue is) and after lunching at Subway, I walked six blocks south (half a mile) to the Kentucky Memorial  at Sixth St. and Monroe to attend a service held to honor the fallen Kentuckians where flanking wreaths were laid, three volleys were fired along with taps by members of local post of the American Legion honor guard, and speeches given by the town Mayor, a minister, a colonel of the Michigan National Guard, the same Major General from Kentucky and a Congressional member from Michigan to honor the brave men who died in battle or were killed afterwards in the aftermath by members of the 18 tribes.

A Salute to the Fallen

Quite a lot for a body to take and given, after parking my Fiat near the Custer statue, that I walked wherever I went I was exhausted when it was all over.

I have to admit my feelings about the all of this patriotism on display have become some what jaded. My scooter journeys across Ohio and Indiana in 2011 and 2012 have changed my perspective. Whereas in the past I might probably would have felt goose-bumps as the flags were raised; wreaths laid; volleys fired and taps played; stirring speeches given to remember the brave soldiers who died in defense of their country.  But after actually seeing the site battle of Tippecanoe in Battle Ground, Indiana and fought in early November of 1811 (and in the opinion of some was the actual start of the war) at its bicentennial last year; then revisiting the memorial the Battle of Fallen Timbers (fought in August of 1794); visiting the site of the Battle of the Wabash in 1791 (aka St. Clair's defeat where over 950 American soldiers died against a confederation of native tribes) at Fort Recovery Ohio a force under General Mad Anthony Wayne defeated a force of the same confederation at the Second Battle of the Wabash and the Battle of Fort Recovery; visiting Shawnee Prairie Preserve (site of the first Prophet's town founded by Shawnee leader Tecumseh and his brother Tenskatawah - founded deliberately south of and in defiance of the Greenville Treaty line of 1795 - consequence of the Battle of Fallen Timbers - and later moved to the banks of the Wabash River in Indiana - less than a mile  from where the Battle of Tippecanoe was fought); visiting former President Harrison's grave near the banks of the Ohio River at North Bend Ohio;  riding past the rebuilt Fort Meigs in Perrysburg many times; seeing the site, just a few miles south of Carey, Ohio, where an American Army officer, Colonel Crawford, was burned at the stake by members of the Lenape  (Delaware) Tribe in June of 1782 and finally - visiting the site of a true massacre - where about 90 innocent Christianized Lenape at Gnadenhutten in March of 1782 were slaughtered-  this past August - for which Colonel Crawford was brutally killed in retaliation, I was troubled that no member of the any of the tribes whose ancestors participated in the River Raisin Battles spoke at this commemoration.

Wyandotte Chief

I spoke to the head Ranger of the River Raisin Battlefield park and asked him if any members of the tribes were invited. He told me they were, but only one official member attended: a chief of the Wyandotte Tribe (either Billy Friend or Norman Hildebrand).  I saw him on the porch of the site's building in full tribal dress standing near the podium set up there, but for some reason he was not a listed speaker - I don't know why.  The Ranger, in response to that query, said there was still much hard feelings in the tribes and in Monroe's citizens and even Michigan and further many native peoples did not feel comfortable going to a town  where George Armstrong Custer was being held up as hero of the Indian wars while the peoples who fought him and died trying to save their homes are still being vilified as vicious perpetrators of another misnamed "massacre" which happened on June 25, 1876  One can see that the sentiments of the events on occurring January 22 and 23, 1813 were still present when the white officials who spoke on January 19, 2013 at the event's commencement at the Sawyer house and later at the flag raising at the battlefield site and at the Kentucky Memorial service were still calling it a "massacre".  Even the Kentucky Memorial had that word on it carved in stone. I asked the Ranger about it and he was quite apologetic and said the Rangers of the National Park Service were quietly working hard to try and help to change attitudes on both sides.

He digressed a bit on Custer saying that is quite likely the reason why he may have had such a negative attitude about the tribal peoples was  because during his formative years in Monroe (arriving at age 5 from New Rumely, Ohio were he was born) and likely listened, with a boy's interest, to one-sided war stories told by old soldiers and townspeople who lived through it - leaving out, for example, that the General Harrison when he marched up in force in response to the battles either ordered or allowed the brutal killing of noncombatant native peoples and the destruction of their homes in retaliation.

I hope that things will change. A sign of that is that a Native American Pow-wow  is now held once per year in Monroe. But there is a long way to go. What America did then was nothing short ethnic of cleansing.  People were deprived of their lands by force - actually taken from their homes and - as the Ranger told me -  gathered on reservations (really concentrations camps)- one nearby Dundee, and forced marched to lands across the Mississippi River where most of their descendants  reside today.

But it is sad to see and hear that the trigger word "massacre" was still being used to describe the events happening on January 22 and 23, 1813 and that no member of any of the tribes whose ancestors fought here were able to speak, for whatever reason, at the Bicentennial.

Kentucky Memorial

“Ego delustro sic non tu poteris nutu”. 

I disabuse so you can’t snooze.

Texas to Challenge the Feds?

Caught this last night on the Drudge Report:


http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/01/15/1453061/unconstitutional-texas-bill-would-make-enforcing-federal-gun-laws-a-felony/

Looks like the Texicans may intend to confront the Feds - and over gun laws!

What fools they.  Don't think it'd start a general public uprising, but if they arrest a Federal officer carrying out his/her duty one might find oneself looking u p in the air -at a pack of drones - the van of Federal military response.

“Ego delustro sic non tu poteris nutu”. 

I disabuse so you can’t snooze.

Jeep Liberty Replacement - just another expensive gas guzzler adding to G.W.

Well I see Chrysler Toledo (now owned by Fiat) is touting the new replacement for the Jeep Liberty:

http://www.toledoblade.com/Automotive/2013/01/14/Successor-to-Jeep-Liberty-to-debut-at-New-York-auto-show.html

Too bad . . . and how quickly they forget about 2005, 2008, 2010, 2011.

Mah fella 'Mericans: just buildin' another gas guzzler and adding to Global Warming.

No blinder than the blind who won't see.

Me?  I'll just keep on tooling along in my Fiat 500 and my Piaggio MP3 Scooter.

“Ego delustro sic non tu poteris nutu”. 

I disabuse so you can’t snooze.

A Donation Request From St. Pius X Parish - Turned Down

I went to the 8 AM Mass at St. Pius X Church here Toledo on Sunday, 01/14/13.  Heard an appeal from the pulpit by the priest at the end of Mss to help them pay, via donation, for the $4,000.00 system the parish there needs to put in to make it safer so a "NewTown" type incident didn't happen in the school (or church).

The priest said a fund has been established to install the system and to make sure when making out checks (to "St. Pius X Catholic Church" of course) and to put "school security system" in the memo so it goes to the right place on their ledger. He said any monies received over and above the $4K would go into "special fund" to cover such additional costs in the future.

I'm not a member there, actually since St. Hedwig's closed down I'm not a parish member anywhere - like the Jews exiled by the Romans - I wander with no home. But the priest said he got a donation on Saturday from a man who told him he wasn't a member, but he wanted to help keep the kids safe.

I want to keep kids safe too - it's why I've been an active advocate for over 7 years for victims of sexual abuse in the Catholic Church.  So, I thought about giving money to this cause - just not to the parish. That's because I know money donated to churches is fungible - one can never be sure all of it is going to end up where it's supposed to go. 

And this is especially true with monies being diverted to assist in the defense of sexual predators within the Church.  St. Pius X is under the control of the Oblates of St. Francis De Sales - the very same parish and religious order that engendered the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests. (S.N.A.P.) when one of the order's members seduced and raped the founder of S.NA.P., Barbara Blaine, beginning when she was 12 years old who founded the organization over 20 years ago.  The story is long on the misappropriation of funds to protect perpetrators and intimidate victims by the Oblate Fathers in this matter.  (Indeed a recent "settlement" with OSFDS shows that problem is still there). 

And for that reason I haven't given money to Catholic parishes, in protest, since 2005.

But I considered finding out the contractor's name and then calling up the company and offer to give the donation for the system to them directly. At least there's a better chance the money will go where it's supposed to go (I've done this when St. Hedwig's was open and I accepted the risk that there was deliberate padding of the estimate so that there could be a quiet kick-back to the parish).

However, that "special fund" established for the donation over-flow turned me cold.  There'd be no easy way to find out whether any monies I paid to the contractor might not end up back into the Oblate Fathers' hands after the $4K goal was reached. No donation therefore.

Too bad . . .

“Ego delustro sic non tu poteris nutu”. 

I disabuse so you can’t snooze.

A reflection on the "Virgin Birth" 

written December 2, 2012

Preface note: from a reflection I wrote over a month ago - just a meander back.

For over 4 years I've been praying the the Church's official prayer, the Liturgy of the Hours in Latin, slowly gathering more and more understanding and gaining more and more vocabulary. Today, saying the the mid-afternoon prayer for the Advent I come across this antiphon I've seen every  since 2008:

"María dixit: Qualis est ista salutátio? quia conturbáta est ánima mea, et quia paritúra sum Regem, qui claustrum virginitátis meæ non violábit"

The American version of the Liturgy of the Hours translates it as this: 

"Mary said: My soul is deeply troubled; what can this greeting mean? Am I to give birth to my King and yet remain a virgin for forever?"

BUT here's the literal translation - as I translated it:

"Mary said: What is this salutation? Because it troubles my soul and because I am to give to birth the King who will not break (literally violate) my hymen (literally "the cloister or enclosure of my virginity)."

The salutation is the Angel Gabriel's (Hail, Mary, etc . . .).

But my focus here is the phrase "claustrum virginitátis". literally, the cloister of virginity - or the enclosurure of virginity. However, if looked up in any medical dictionary that the phrase is simply rendered it as "hymen".

The antiphon is an expression of teachings on the Lady's virginty - in the most frank fashion possible.  It means she remained a virgin even before, during and after the birth of Jesus.

And how did his birth take place? Not like most women's.  If one thinks she panted and groaned in the pain of child birth, that's taking one down the road to heresy. Why?

Because Mary was conceived immaculately. That is - she did not have the stain Original Sin. And since she did not have that she also did (and does) not share in the curse of Eve visited on all women: to bear children in pain.

But she did give birth - both the Apostle's Creed and the Nicene Creed  attest to this.  How did she give birth? That remains a mystery- the only witnesses to it were the Blessed Virgin herself (because she personally experienced it) and her most chaste spouse, St. Joseph, foster father of Jesus.  This may sound evasive, but the birth was miraculous.  Some how in some way Jesus' infant's body passed through his mother's and was born - leaving her intact - unopened.   So, much so that if she were examined by a gynecologist he/she would not have found sign of any kind that the Mary's body was the body of of anything but a virgin's.,   

The perpetual virginity is considered to be a key tenant of Catholicism.  All Catholics are required to give the assent of faith to this - NO MATTER WHAT 'COMMON SENSE MAY INDICATE.

That's what Catholics MUST believe to remain Catholic - in much the same way Catholics must believe the bread and wine become His Body and Blood and believe that His body dead for about three days in the tomb could rise from death - rise - restored to life and much more.

And in mentioning the Resurrection, there is a parallel here with His birth. Just as Jesus left his mother's body intact and virginal - unopened - so when He rose He left the tomb intact  - unopened.. Matthew's Resurrection confirms this: an angel came down and opend the tomb breaking its seal. However, when that was done Jesus was already gone - already risen.

His birth in which He did not break the seal of His mother's body and in His Resurrection in which he did break the seal of His tomb show His power over life, death and nature itself.

For those who believe no evidence is needed for those who do not, no evidence will ever suffice.

“Ego delustro sic non tu poteris nutu”. 

I disabuse so you can’t snooze.

Does the Word “Abortion” Appear in the Didache(1)?

(A short exegesis and reflection on the answer)

by Mike Drabik of Toledo, Ohio

January 10, 2013

“ou phoneuseis teknon en pfthora” - “You shall not murder a child in destruction”. (Literal translation from the Didache, Chapter 2:2)

Many pro-lifers believe the word “abortion” itself appears in the Didache and the Catholic Church uses this sentence as proof that the prohibition on abortion goes back to the first century A.D. The Internet has a huge number of message board, Facebook and Twitter postings, blogs and webpages and sites (most of which are by Catholic Christians or Evangelical Christians) all affirming, some with great passion, that the word “abortion” is in that early Church teaching document and then use it to advance a fact that the Church’s pro-life teachings banning abortion are almost 2000 years old and, by this very longevity, abortion as an absolute evil, must be true.  However, I think many pro-lifers, would be surprised (some even shocked) to learn, that the word is NOT there.

The phrase “child destruction” does appear in English laws - and can be rendered “abortion”. However, that phrase in English laws seems more likely to refer to killing a child in the process of being born. That would be like a late-term abortion today.

In Latin, I found in a book published in the last couple of centuries of the 2nd Millennium (18th or 19th) in which the Greek sentence is translated as “non interficies foetum in abortione” which I translate to “you will not kill the fetus in abortion”.  So, in this rather modern Latin translation, the phrase is translated by the author as a prohibition of abortion., But the Greek word for abortion (aublose) never appears in the Greek Didache. So, this Latin translation imposes upon the Greek.

Further, the Catechism of the Catholic Church takes the exact quote from Chapter 2 of the Didache and translates the Greek text exactly the way at author of that Latin text did.  So, in the official Latin version of the CCC it is:  “Non interficies foetum in abortione ” (CCC ¶ 2271). This is translated into English as “You shall not kill the embryo in abortion”.  Maybe “foetum” can be translated as “embryo”, but the standard translation is fetus; so the CCC takes even further liberties - in the English at least.

If that English CCC text was the actual literal Greek from the Didache, translated and transliterated it would be:

• “den skotosei to embpuo apo aublose” 

For comparison the actual transliterated original Greek words of the Didache repeated from above:

• “ou phoneuseis teknon en phthora”.

Not even similar.

The key here is how the Greek work “phthora” is used because this affects how the entire sentence is translated. In both the Latin and English quoted texts above the word is being translated as “abortion” - even though, as was shown, the Greek language has its own word for abortion. Is there another place to look for this word as used by a Greek that might be translated or associated with the word “abortion”? Yes. Where? At first glance this might seem to be within the writings of a Christian leader who lived in the first century - St. Barnabas.

Between  A.D. 80- 120 an epistle was written and attributed to St. Barnabas (co-worker and friend of St. Paul the Apostle)  or to St. Barnabas of Alexandria or another unnamed Christian leader of the Apostolic era.  It is a general exhortation to Christians and explanation of the Christian way of life.  

At 19:5 of the work can be found the word "phthora" used exactly in the same way as used in the Diadche. Here is the quotation:

"ou phoneuseis teknon en phthora"

I think one can see that this sentence is an exact duplicate of the sentence in the Didache. So, really nothing is gained here. St. Barnabas either directly copied and repeated the prohibition from the Didache in his epistle or else this shows that the prohibition was becoming (or had become) a common teaching in the early Church. One must look elsewhere for the use of "phtora". Where might that be? The ancient Hippocratic Oath.

In that venerable document, Hippocrates has the oath-taker, a physician, swear that he will not, while practicing his art, give a woman  pessary “agents” to cause a miscarriage.  A pessary is a suppository which would have been inserted into the vagina to cause a woman to go into labor and ultimately suffer a miscarriage.  In many English translations the words “pessary agent” is translated as “abortifacient. Other translations make the phrase out as “shall not cause a woman to suffer an abortion”.  The word “agent” is translated from the Greek word “phthoria” - the plural of “phthorium”  - the plant juice smeared on the suppository or embedded in it to help to induce a miscarriage.

“Phthora”, and  “phthoria” and “phthorium”, all have the same root. This clearly shows that words could be associated with miscarriages and abortions in ancient times and thus, in context, that it is what the author/authors of the Didache meant by using “phthora”.

Among the Latin speaking peoples, Pliny the Elder, a Roman who lived in the first century A.D., in his famous tome on Natural History (Chapter 14) while discussing wines and vines wrote " . . . cucumis silvester aut scammonia, quod vinum phthorium vocatur, quoniam abortus(2) facit”. This translates to: ". . . wild cucumber or scammony whose vine is called a phthorium, because it will cause miscarriages". Pliny transliterates the Greek word “phthoria” into Latin to describe the destructive drug or potion that causes miscarriages, scammony. 

Scammony is a plant whose juice when taken internally will change into a powerful purgative in the human duodenum  and when ingested in a large dose will cause an extremely violent intestinal reaction. If a  pregnant woman should take a large enough dose internally or by means of a suppository saturated with it and then inserted into her vagina, would cause such violent cramps in her gut  that she would miscarry her unborn child. As this would be brought on, not by accident, but with deliberation, it would be seen a type of an abortion as we moderns understand it - but not as the ancients did.  The point is that the drug or potion, the “phthorium”, then, is NOT the abortion itself.

The Gospel and Epistle writers (especially St. Paul the Apostle) in the Bible’s New Testament (written in Greek) use the word “phthora” But in those cases the word is used to mean - destroy, corrupt, defile, decay or wither.  It is not used nor connected in those senses with the words “miscarriage” or “abortion”. 

The same word also appears as a compound word just a few lines earlier in the Didache. This is “paidophthorhsein” “Paido” mean male child/boy. The connection to “phthora” is evident in the second part: “phthorhsein”. Here it means “corrupt” or “defile” and the whole word means “to corrupt or defile a boy-child”. It is part of a prohibition against adult males having sexual relations with a male child(3).

I think it should be quite clear by now the actual word “abortion” does not appear in the Didache.  Only by inference can that be gotten and that is not enough to translate “phthora” as “abortion” in English and remain faithful to the Greek text.

However, in reflecting on all this, it is clear that the evil of abortion is self-evident.  The use of the word “phthora” in the first century in the Didache does show that the “sensus fidie” (the understanding of the faith) present in each the member of the faithful even then understood that the evil of deliberately causing a miscarriage (ending the life of the unborn) to happen was self-evident and that its practice had to be banned and condemned to truly be able to live out a redeemed life in Christ Jesus who is life itself incarnate. It was part of trying to follow the apostolic exhortation not to be corrupted by the current Age - “kosmos”. 

However, to translate the Greek word “phthora” into English as the word “abortion” is, I think, to mislead the English speaking peoples into believing that the early Church leaders used the actual word in the first century in their teachings when, in fact, they never did(4). 

To do that  I believe arms secularists with arguments that allow them to boldly proclaim or through subtle inference state that Church leaders are really hood-winking people by using a false and misleading translation of that ancient Greek word to advance an anti-abortion agenda - an agenda, they might say, which does not stretch back almost 2000 years but only a century or two at the most and decades at the least - and being therefore nothing more than a modern contrivance that can be dispensed with.

In conclusion, self-evident truths, like the evil of abortion, do NOT need any help to be made apparent. They already are and their very open and honest telling is all that is needed to make them understood. When translating these ancient texts and words about these truths, I believe it is much better to state what’s really there even if that makes it a little more difficult for those who teach to explain the truth.

___________________________________

(1)Didache means Teaching and is a shortened version of the title which is “Didache Kryiou dia tou Dodeka Apostolon tois Ethnean” meaning “The Teaching of the Lord through the Twelve Apostles to the Nations”. It was composed (and added to and edited several times) between A.D. 50 to A.D. 125. 

(2)The Latin word "abortus" which is associated with the Latin word "phthorium" in Pliny's text does NOT mean abortion. The Latin word "abortus" means miscarriage and here, as used by Pliny, it is plural - miscarriages.  The Latin word for abortion, as seen in the Latin sentence quoted above from that late 2nd Millenium book and in the CCC is "abortio". That word in those quotes has the form "abortione" because nouns in the Latin language have endings which change with their placement in a sentence. This is not to say the word "abortus" was never used to mean abortion by the ancients - there are always exceptions. But the primary understanding when they used it was to mean "miscarriage". To translate it as the word "abortion" then is to impose on the word a modern understanding of it - not how they understood it.

(3)Why would translators do it then?  One reason might be to make it simpler for English readers. Another might be to try to forcefully, in English, make a point about the abortion issue. A third might well be to advance an agenda at any cost. There are probably other reasons too.

(4)I’m sure those who know me will see that this word Greek word “paidophthorhsein” touches another interest of mine, but that is beyond the scope of this discussion.  However, I’m thinking about writing about how a contrived understanding of that word’s appearance in the Didache, which I have encountered at gatherings of Church sexual abuse survivors and also have read in works published on the Internet and in hard-copy books by many advocates for survivors of those who were sexually abused by Catholic priests, is being used as by these people as a proof text that shows that the sexual abuse of children was a regularly covered-up practice already occurring in the Church as early as the Apostolic era - the first century A.D.

___________________________________

And how would I translate the Greek sentence? In Latin: “Non interficies parvulum phthorio”. In English:  “You shall not murder a child by means of a destructive potion that induces a miscarriage.” That comes about as close, I think, as one can get to saying “Thou shalt not abort . .” as one can get and remain, I think, faithful to the meaning of the text while not imposing upon it. 

__________________________________

*Note: this is a work in progress which I will amend at will at anytime for any reason - while still keeping this out there for all to read.  I've already edited it several times since I published it. And as I read more from the ancient documents, now so readily available on the Internet - in modern English and Spanish and ancient Latin and Greek, the more I think it'll become clearer that the answer posed in the question in the title of this post is "No". What I'm really seeing here, I think, is the principle of the "Development of Doctrine" in action on the  teaching on abortion - and I'm very comfortable with that even if it pops somebody else's bubble or sheds more light on the subject while I get where I'm goin'. Post if you wish for whatever reason you desire: to object, to agree, to disagree,  to suggest or even just to vent your spleen - no matter which side your're on. 

The process of exegesis and translation is a very subjective thing - often involving much experimentation and revision. So, be aware this ain't no debate and I'll come to my own conclusions, thank you very much. (01/15/12).

__________________________________

Edited my translation today (01/17/13).   Changed " . . . 'causes a miscarriage' to 'induces a miscarriage'. After reading the English translation of  the Greek Physican Soranus's (fl. AD. 98 to  138) 'Gynaecology'. Therein with precision he seems to distinguish between a destrucitve/abortive  (that with and brings on a miscarriage ) and as opposed to that which happens by nature. Need to add this to main  text.

“Ego delustro sic non tu poteris nutu”. 

I disabuse so you can’t snooze.