My dear pal Robbo is currently in the process of converting to Roman Catholicism. He's long been frustrated with the Episcopalian Church's new, pc friendly line, that's light on condemning sin, is heavy on being a one-stop shop for everything new agey, and hence has decided to swim the Tiber. I wonder if he's still going to want to go through with it after reading this:

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - Thou shall not pollute the Earth. Thou shall beware genetic manipulation. Modern times bring with them modern sins. So the Vatican has told the faithful that they should be aware of "new" sins such as causing environmental blight.

The guidance came at the weekend when Archbishop Gianfranco Girotti, the Vatican's number two man in the sometimes murky area of sins and penance, spoke of modern evils.

Asked what he believed were today's "new sins," he told the Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano that the greatest danger zone for the modern soul was the largely uncharted world of bioethics.

"(Within bioethics) there are areas where we absolutely must denounce some violations of the fundamental rights of human nature through experiments and genetic manipulation whose outcome is difficult to predict and control," he said.

The Vatican opposes stem cell research that involves destruction of embryos and has warned against the prospect of human cloning.

Girotti, in an interview headlined "New Forms of Social Sin," also listed "ecological" offences as modern evils.

In recent months, Pope Benedict has made several strong appeals for the protection of the environment, saying issues such as climate change had become gravely important for the entire human race.

Under Benedict and his predecessor John Paul, the Vatican has become progressively "green."

It has installed photovoltaic cells on buildings to produce electricity and hosted a scientific conference to discuss the ramifications of global warming and climate change, widely blamed on human use of fossil fuels.{...}

See it's one thing for Pope Benny to scatter solar panels across the various roofs of Vatican City; it's entirely another to make littering a sin. What's missing here is guidance from the dear red beanied one about whether creating environmental damage is a venial sin or is of the mortal variety. See, most Catholics are familiar with the fact that genetic manipulation---i.e. stem cell research---is absolutely verboten. This is absolutely nothing new in the scheme of things. But environmental damage? Could you, conceivably, be on the hook if your garbage contractor dumps the waste in an illegal fashion? What about if your city's water treatment plant screws up and lets loose raw sewage into pristine streams? As a Catholic, I know that I'm not supposed to even invest in a biotech firm that fiddles about with stem cell research. Am I supposed to follow the same line in choosing our garbage contractor, or otherwise I might be scheduled for some time roasting on a spit in hell? It's a bit murky if you ask me. And it might cause Robbo to think twice.

He's got a little over a week to decide. {insert wiggling of eyebrows here}

UPDATE: Steve-o and I are thinking along the same wavelength.

spoooooky

Posted by: Kathy at 08:42 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 542 words, total size 4 kb.

I often joked that when it comes to tithing, the Catholic Church is no different than the mafia: they want their percentage off the top and they want it now. And that's about the extent of my joking capabilities when it comes to the finances of the Catholic Church. Because you have to have knowledge to make a joke about something. An uninformed joke isn't funny. A Catholic might know about what's being done in their parish, but when the money starts going up the ladder, well, you just don't have a clue as to where it goes or how it's spent. Nor is it supposed to be any of your business.

So it was with great curiosity that I read this article in Forbes, (Registration required) because not only does it get down to the nitty gritty of the money matters, it also highlights how this is yet another extension of the heterodoxy v. orthodoxy battle that is taking place within the Church currently.

{...}What would a turnaround artist do with an $8.6 billion (sales) organization with 133,000 employees, falling market share and a mountain of multimillion-dollar lawsuits?

You can't break it up into pieces or sell off the whole shebang. This, after all, is the American Roman Catholic Church. But Geoffrey T. Boisi, a veteran Wall Streeter and devout Catholic, has an answer: Rationalize the assets and look for a better return, just as you would in any business. First, says Boisi, 58, "we're recommending a rigorous analysis of how all parishes and dioceses in this country are being managed. The laity is now offering up its expertise to help the Church through a very difficult time." But ultimately, he concedes, "we have to face the realities that some parishes will have to go. Some schools will need to be shut down. There is no other way."

A pitched battle is shaping up between reformers and traditionalists within the U.S. Catholic Church. On the one side are businesspeople like Boisi and former baseball commissioner Fay Vincent. They have few if any disagreements with the Pope on matters of dogma. But they are openly defiant of the Church authorities on matters of money. The rebels argue that better financial management by an informed laity is the only way to reinvigorate the fallen-away faithful. "How could anyone in Rome argue it wouldn't be better if the Church were run more efficiently?" asks Vincent.

On the other side of the aisle are powerful organizations like Opus Dei, which has a direct line to the Vatican, and large donors like Domino's Pizza founder Thomas Monaghan. They see any change as a direct threat to the long-established order of things. "You don't need modern management techniques," says William Donohue, president of the Catholic League. "You need a return to orthodoxy." This is a struggle over authority and money--and the outcome will change forever the lives of the 65 million Catholics in the U.S.

No one denies the American Church is in trouble. Over the past four decades regular attendance at Mass has collapsed from 75% of those who professed to be Catholic to 40% today. Nearly one in five churches doesn't have a resident priest. In those that do, parishioners are increasingly likely to hear Mass said in thickly accented English by a prelate from Nigeria or the Philippines. Many parishioners are still furious about the sex-abuse scandals--as well as the coverups and sizable payouts that followed--comparing their impact to the shock of Sept. 11. "Once that blew up, Catholics realized just how little say they had in their churches, and they were incensed about it," says Robert Beloin, the Catholic chaplain of Yale University.{...}

Forget about the laity having any say about Church teachings, certain orthodox Catholics wouldn't want the laity to help with the money problems, even when it's apparent that the Church could use some financial guidance because they've got income troubles, big time.

They have expressed their rage with their pocketbooks. On a household basis, Catholics, who are now just as well-educated and upwardly mobile as Protestants, donate less than half as much to their parishes: $550 a year, compared with $1,300 for the typical Protestant. Since the pedophilia cases broke in 2002, annual giving at the parish level has inched up an average 4.6% a year to an estimated $6 billion. But bishops have been hit much harder. In Boston, giving to the archdiocese dropped 43% from $14 million in 2002 to $8 million in 2003. The Spokane, Wash. archdiocese, saddled with a reported $77 million in sex-abuse settlement claims, saw donations to its annual appeal plunge from $1.9 million in 2002 to $45,000 a year later. In the Diocese of Rockville Centre, N.Y., the bishop's take fell 28% to $7.3 million after a 2003 grand jury report found the diocese protected abusive priests by shuffling them from parish to parish. {...}

So, one would think that the fact a bunch of Catholic big wigs who know how to run businesses want to help the Church with this problem would be a Godsend, right? Nope.

{...}He has drawn an impressive following. Among his acolytes: William P. Frank, senior partner at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom; Frederick Gluck, former managing director of McKinsey & Co.; Thomas J. Healey, onetime partner at Goldman Sachs and Assistant Treasury Secretary in the Reagan Administration; Jonathan O'Herron, partner at Lazard Frères; Gerard Roche, chairman of Heidrick & Struggles International; and Richard Syron, chief executive of Freddie Mac.

What do these guys want? A reorganization of how the American Church is run, from requiring annual reports and five-year strategic plans in each parish to SWAT teams of lay accountants, lawyers, psychologists and consultants to deal with crises and other management problems. Among the goals:

• Establish better recruitment and training of the nation's 31,000 lay ministers--80% of whom are women--as well as annual performance reviews.
• Encourage more lay involvement in parish finance committees, whose decisions would carry weight with priests and bishops.
• Streamline dioceses, which control parishes, even if it means closing redundant churches, seminaries and schools.
• Cut costs by, for example, buying Bibles, paper towels, candles and clerical garments in bulk.
• Introduce "best-practices" programs, like those of the Chicago archdiocese, to achieve accountability in the other dioceses.

There's really nothing revolutionary there. All these guys are saying is that there is benefit to running the Church like a business. You have a lot of money coming in, and even more of that money in some dioceses is going out---the books are unbalanced and here are some ways you could straighten this problem out. But just the fact these guys are speaking up, well, that's troublesome for some of the more orthodox members of the Church. These men have been labeled as "liberals and dissenters." They're actually anything but, but you'd never know that to listen to the orthodox members whine:

{...}For an organization as hierarchical as the Church, run by a man who is (according to doctrine since 1870) infallible, the talk about "customers" borders on heresy. "The Church is not a business, and Catholics in the pews shouldn't be considered customers," insists Denis Coleman, onetime chairman of Covenant House and a former director at Bear Stearns. He says he's not against transparency. But, "if you follow Boisi's logic, then Catholics ultimately can choose who becomes a cardinal--or even the Pope." Other powerful conservative Catholics are lining up on Coleman's side. Among them is Father C. John McCloskey, a former stockbroker for Merrill Lynch who is a leading cleric in Opus Dei, and Bishop Fabian W. Bruskewitz of Lincoln, Neb. The call for reform, they fear, is really a Trojan horse to subvert the authority of the Church. "If Boisi and his group are anything like Voice of the Faithful,"says a prominent member of Opus Dei, referring to a group calling for more financial disclosure and lay involvement in running the Church, "that would be a sign of their intent for a putsch, a takeover." Voice of the Faithful, whose motto is "Keep the faith, change the Church," denies that characterization.{...}

Now, I put that quote in bold print for a reason. The "prominent member of Opus Dei" used the word "If". As in "If Boisi and his group are anything like..." then this "prominent member" goes on to compare this group to another "liberal" group, well of course they're intent on a "putsch." (Which is a nice word choice, eh? I think we've all heard that one before and it's generally a term associated with Adolf Hitler.) But that "If" is very curious, isn't it? If these guys are anything like this group, well, of course they're intent on taking over. Like, duh. Yet the use of the word "if" signals that this prominent member doesn't know that they're like the Voice of the Faithful. The "prominent member" is just assuming they are because they're not toeing the orthodoxy line.

Do you think that if I said to a member of Opus Dei, "Well, geez. From what I've heard you guys sacrifice goats under the full moon. So you should be locked up because you're a bunch of nuts!" they wouldn't have a problem with that? That they wouldn't call me "uninformed" and "uneducated" about what their mission and their practices are? Of course they would. And they'd have every right to do so. But apparently prominent members of Opus Dei are willing to vilify those who would disagree with them simply by comparing them to their enemies. Which is baloney. I'm sure your mother told you that to "assume" is to make an "ass" out of "u" and "me." I know mine did. It doesn't seem as if that message filters down from the Opus Dei moms, though, does it?

There is so little faith going on in this organization designed to promote faith it's just baffling.

Posted by: Kathy at 01:42 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1660 words, total size 10 kb.

I can't believe I'm writing this, but God Bless E.J. Dionne!

"I worry that Pope Benedict sees liberal Catholics primarily as products of the worst excesses of the '60s and not as people who are genuinely grateful for the Catholic tradition and the Church's efforts since Pope John to interpret it anew for our times. Many of us know that modernity urgently needs criticism and agree with the new Pope on the importance of asserting that truth exists. We remain Catholic precisely because we think that the Church's emphasis on the sacramental and the communal provides a corrective to a culture that overemphasizes the material and lifts up the narrowest forms of individualism.

But we also think that not all that is new is bad. Our Church was soft on slavery. It was terribly slow to embrace democracy. It still does not seem to understand that the desire of women for power in the Church reflects legitimate--and, yes, Christian--claims to justice, not weird ideological enthusiasms. Those who say that change in the Church is simply capitulation to a flawed culture must explain whether they really think the Church would be better off if it had not come to oppose slavery, endorse democracy, and resist anti-Semitism and other forms of religious intolerance."

Yep. Yep. And more Yeps until I can't say "Yep" any longer because I've lost my voice.

I wish I could read the entire article, but as I have no subscription to The New Republic, I cannot. (If anyone out there would like to share for this one special occasion, send me an email.) Of course, I'm sure that more than a few of you will automatically dismiss Dionne's words because they're found on Sully's site. Because he's been caterwauling over the past couple of days about how betrayed he feels at the election of Pope Benedict and you find said caterwauling either a. funny b. pathetic or c. heretical. But please do realize that for every conservative who's lauded the election of Pope Benedict, that there are a few of us conservatives out here who aren't so pleased. Sully is our lightning rod, for better or worse, and he's been taking the hits for us. Well, no longer. No matter what excuse you find to dismiss his writings over the past few days, you should know there are a few of us who---gasp!---actually agree with what he's written. We've just been keeping quiet because we don't feel like being called heretics or apostates. Neither do we want to be accused of not really being conservatives because, as the conventional wisdom of the blogosphere has been proclaiming over the past couple of days, if this pope doesn't do it for you, well, you must be a liberal. He's pissing off all the right people, he must be great!

Well, pardon my French, but fuck off.

I have really had it over the past couple of days with what's been spewed from Catholics and non-Catholics alike. Take it or leave it. What'd you expect? An Episcopalian Pope? You disagree with the Pope? How dare you! You're obviously not for doctrinal truth but instead are guilty of egotism! You're a moral relativist! You think you know better than the Church! You heretic! Your conscience is nothing compared to the Church Approved Truth (TM). We don't want your kind here! I can access the Vatican website, I've read the documents. Furthermore, since I can cut and paste from these documents to suit my arguments, I'm now a theologian of the first order. I am more than justified in lecturing you on the requirements of the Faith and I say you're not worthy! And so on and so forth. I have never felt so personally attacked even though the attacks weren't directed at me personally. These attacks were directed at "my kind," as if to suggest that since Pope Benedict wasn't what I had hoped and prayed for as the leader of my church, I am suddenly in league with the kind of Catholic who advocates a carefully orchestrated attack on St. Peter's Basilica to rip all the art off the walls because the proceeds could be better used to feed the poor. I'm in league with those who believe that Liberation Theology really, honestly and truly, is the way to go. I'm in league with those who believe the Church should approve on-demand abortion and euthanasia.

To put it bluntly, you people should get bent.

Would you like to know the main reason I wish we had a different pope? There are many things I would like to see changed within the Church, but I know won't happen. That's fine for me. Those are issues that should be raised every now and again, because that's what should happen. Thought is a good thing, otherwise God would have made us sheep. But there is one issue that I believe must be changed immediately. It believe a change in this bit of doctrine is crucial for the survival of the Church. My problem with Pope Benny is that he has already written and declared that this one issue will not be addressed during his papacy. He believes that the Church should never address it. This one issue that Pope Benny and I disagree about is the role of women in the Church. And it's not a personal issue for me in that I want female priests because sexual equality is the standard of western society. I want women to be priests so that people are not dependent upon the availablity of a man to receive the sacraments.

Did you get that? This isn't about me being an "egotist." This isn't about my being "morally relativist." This is about the much ballyhooed shortage of priests that still---ahem---exists even if we do have a new pope. This is about the practical ramifications of this shortage of priests.

To explain, I went to a Catholic all-girls high school. This high school was run by the order of the Servants of Mary. We had a convent attached to said high school, and by the time I attended the school, the convent was not a thriving place, but rather a nursing home for aged nuns. Most of these nuns were, obviously, pre-Vatican II nuns and they were cared for, mostly, by younger nuns and a small nursing staff of one person. These older nuns felt the need to take the sacraments daily. For that to happen, you needed a priest who was willing to drive to the convent to deliver them.

Normally, this wasn't a problem. There was a small cadre of priests who came to the convent regularly, but when one dropped out, and another could not take their place it was a daunting task to find a priest who could come to the convent to say mass. Or listen to confessions. Or, in a few rare cases, deliver the Annointing of the Sick. All of these sacraments must be delivered by priests, and if there are none to be found because they're all off on retreat, or at a conference, or they have other duties to attend to, who suffers then, I ask you people who are so interested in banging the sacramental drum? Why, it's the nuns. In this example, they're the ones who were consistenly asked to take one for the Catholic team.

Ever seen a nun panic because she's called every priest she knows and no one's available to come out to the convent to say mass? I have. It's not a pretty thing. Nuns are supposed to be steady, stable creatures. When a nun freaks out, well, let's just say that it's shocking. This particular nun knew how important it was to the older nuns to be able to take the sacraments daily. She knew how crucial they felt the sacraments were to their faith. And she was going to have to let these women down because there was nothing she could do about it. There were no priests to be found. Nor could she deliver them. She was a nun. A priest was needed. It didn't matter that she'd taken the same vows of poverty, chastity and obedience when she devoted herself to the Church. It didn't matter that she was an Ecumenical Minister of the Eucharist and could deliver the Body and Blood of Christ during Mass. She didn't have a penis, hence she couldn't deliver the sacraments to women who so desperately wanted and needed them.

The "doctrinal truth" of the priesthood only being reserved for men doesn't really cut it in this situation, does it?

But there are plenty who say it would be "radical" to have women priests. That this violates a tradition that was established by Christ himself when he "chose" male apostles. Never mind that Mary and Mary Magdalene were just as devoted to Him as the apostles were. It's not relevant to the discussion. Surprisingly enough, though, despite their sexual defects, they were there, on the day he was crucified, walking up to Golgotha with him, weeping at the foot of the cross, never once abandoning Him as He suffered through a slow and painful death. These women didn't run and hide and deny their Savior like the Apostles did because they weren't too chickenshit to admit they knew, loved, and followed The Man. But they don't count. Never mind that they were the ones who found someone to bury their Lord and Savior to follow the demands of their faith when all the apostles were hiding. They don't count. Never mind that they were the ones who found the tomb was empty three days after Jesus' crucifixion, something the apostles were too chicken to do. It's completely coincidental that they were the finders of this fact because they were just there to pray. They don't count. Women didn't count.

And they still don't count. All Catholic women---lay or clerical---are to follow the lessons of the Virgin. We're supposed to submit, like she did, to the demands of our faith, because we're the better sex. We give life. We're more compassionate. We keep the men from killing one another. And even if you're a nun and aren't allowed to give life, you're supposed to model your life after the Virgin anyway, because you have the same biology that she did; you're just modeling your life after different qualities she possessed. This shared biology makes a nun capable of serving our Lord, but not capable enough to deliver sacraments and preach the Gospels. For that you have to be a man.

Now, think of all the priests you've ever known. I'm sure some were fantastic. Ive known a few of those, too. Some, however, probably were really bad at their jobs. I've known boozer priests, one of whom once took my confession on a Saturday afternoon and breathed liquor fumes on me from the other side of the screen. I knew a priest once who, in direct contradiction to his vow of poverty, drove a Jaguar and had a marked taste for the finer things in life. He married one of my brothers and when offered a glass of wine or a beer at this brother's rehearsal dinner, snorted loudly and condescendingly at the choices presented and then chewed me out for not having any scotch on hand, wondering aloud if my parents were just being cheap or if they honestly didn't know that's what he drank. I've known priests who weren't exactly comfortable delivering a homily, so they skipped it altogether. I've known priests who let their deacon do all the heavy lifting at mass. I've known priests who had no issues betting on Notre Dame games, or who cut mass short because they wanted to watch a football game. The priest who married the husband and myself is one of the most gossipy creatures God ever created, and still, even though I haven't seen him in going on ten years, talks about me behind my back, and has no hesitations about asking my family if we're divorced...yet. But, you say, priests are human. They're allowed their faults. Well, ok. I'll buy that. But, how, exactly, with all these flaws in mind, are they more qualified to preach the Gospels and to deliver the sacraments than a woman?

Why is that, exactly?

Give me one good reason why priests should always and forever be male, knowing full well that I will not accept Church Dogma or the reason "that it's always been this way," as a good reason. The Church has no issues moving away from dogmatic teachings and you all know it. Mass only used to be said in Latin. The Church moved away from that. The Church actively advocated anti-Semitism. The Church moved away from that. The Church used to think slavery was fine and dandy. The Church moved away from that. The Church used to sell plenary indulgences, guaranteeing that if you donated a large sum of money to the Church, you could buy your way out of hell. The Church moved away from that. The Church used to preach that a mother's life was expendable, whereas the life of her child was not. The Church moved away from that. The Church used to wage wars in the name of Christianity and the defense of the Papal States. Now the Church believes there are very few moral wars. The Church found the excuses for these moves in Church Dogma. The same dogma that tells us we cannot have women priests.

Please realize that the Church can do anything it wants to do and it can find an excuse in two thousand years worth of teachings to justify their actions. "Doctrinal Truth" is subjective, in other words. Hence, dogma as the only reason you can hand forth justifying that women cannot be priests isn't going to cut it for me. It's just not. Times have changed. It does not mean the world is going to end or that the Church will end if they decide to allow women to become priests. It simply means that the world has changed and that the Church has recognized that fact. Women priests could, conceivably, solve a lot of practical, everyday problems within the Church, the first and foremost being that they would be allowed to deliver the sacraments to people who wanted to receive them. How that could be seen as a bad thing, I don't know, but I'm sure somebody is just dying to tell me.

Posted by: Kathy at 05:30 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 2433 words, total size 14 kb.

I kid you not: Pope Benny has been given an email address.

If you would like to email His Holiness you can shoot one off to him at

Make sure you tell him the Cake Eater sent you!

UPDATE: Please don't email/comment to tell me I'm just setting him up for spam by not spelling out the "at," etc. It makes sense to me that the "God's Rottweiler" already knows all about protecting stuff and has informed the priestly hackers in the Vatican's server room about what needs to be done in this respect. If not, well, he'll just have to deal with penis and breast enhancement spams like the rest of us.

Posted by: Kathy at 02:11 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 120 words, total size 1 kb.

Sheer and utter disappointment.

I suppose it was only natural to have the Shadow Pope move into the job, but still... I had high hopes we'd finally get a pope who wanted to move the Church forward, and not back.

If you want a better handle on Pope Benedict XVI's teachings, go here . The Vatican server might be a little bogged down right now, so be patient.

If you thought John Paul II was conservative, you ain't seen nothing. The new Pope is positively reactionary.

I am just so disappointed.

For a different take go and read Doug, who's "pleasantly stunned."

UPDATE: The Llamas have a good roundup of links.

UPDATE II: Swiftee asks in the comments what I was hoping would happen.

Go here and be shocked at my radicalism!

Posted by: Kathy at 12:37 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 134 words, total size 1 kb.

Tee-bloody-hee.

Posted by: Kathy at 03:14 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 3 words, total size 1 kb.

So, the conclave starts today.

Curiously enough, if it had started a few days earlier, the Cake Eater Chronicles would have had its very own cub reporter. My sister ML, who celebrates her fiftieth birthday today, is on a celebratory trip to Italy as I write this. (Yep. Fifteen years separate us on the timeline that is our family. There's less of an age span between her kids and myself. Wacky Catholics!) If they'd started the conclave on Saturday, well, let's just say that I would have shot that girl over to Vatican City faster than you can lick a stamp. Even if she was jetlagged as all hell.

The Cake Eater Chronicles: There's absolutely no limit to the amount of discomfort I'll put my siblings through to entertain and inform you, my devoted Cake Eater readers.

Heh.

Alas, however, she and her fellow travelers have left Rome for the more enjoyable evirons of Tuscany. (Grrrr.) Too bad, so sad and all that jazz. I'm sure she's thankful I never even bothered to ask.

Anyway, I digress, as usual. The reason for this post was to show all you heretics the way to the latest odds. Paddypower, an Irish online betting house, has set up popebetting.com They'll be updating the odds regularly.

Enjoy!

Posted by: Kathy at 12:04 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 217 words, total size 1 kb.

No matter which way you slice it, allowing Cardinal Law to say mass as part of the Novemdiales is just wrong.

It just is.

Posted by: Kathy at 05:43 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 26 words, total size 1 kb.

So, what did you all think about all the black lace worn on Friday at John Paul II's funeral?

We have Queen Paola from Belgium.

There's Laura Bush.

And there's your brand spankin' new Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice.

Vatican II decreed that women did not have to cover their heads at mass---any mass, including the Pope's funeral---anymore. This is well-known by Catholics worldwide. This act forever freed women from trying to pin a scrap of lace onto their heads before they hurried into church.

So, what I want to know is which member of the Vatican protocol office told all these women---more than a few of them non-Catholics, who wouldn't know better---they should cover their heads?

Bear with me here. While I can understand wearing a hat or covering your head is a sign of respect in some faiths, it is not necessary in Catholicism, or even for a visit to the Holy See. It's not a tradition. It's not a custom that needs to be observed.

What the hell is going on here?

Do you honestly think that Laura Bush called up Bernadette Chirac and asked, "What are you wearing to the funeral tomorrow?" There was just too much black lace going on at that funeral for it to be a spontaneous thing. That Condi---the chief U.S. diplomat---wore a mantilla, too, signals to me there's a wee bit more going on here.

Condi is the Secretary of State of the United States. If she went to Saudi Arabia, she would be instructed to cover her head to honor local custom. It would be the same if she were in Iran, where it's the law that all women, no matter what their faith is, should cover their heads. That's protocol. That's following the "when in Rome," line so that the natives aren't offended. Why, as the chief diplomat, was she instructed for her visit to the Holy See that she needed to wear a mantilla to the Pope's funeral? Why is this a matter of protocol?

I know it's the Pope's funeral and all, but there were plenty of women who didn't have their heads covered. Several women sitting with the delegations were bare headed. The woman who read the first reading didn't have her head covered. She wasn't banned from the lectern because her unseemly hair was showing. It was out there, flowing in the breeze, and no one shot her dirty looks. Yet, the black lace certainly was flowing when it came to the diplomatic delegations, wasn't it?

Why is that, do you think? Pope John Paul II was definitely a stickler for the rules, but not even he demanded that women start covering their heads again. He never declared this particular aspect of Vatican II to be something that was in need of correction. So, why is it that someone thought it was necessary to inform women that they should cover their heads? Hmmmm?

And moreover, what precisely does it mean? That the Church wanted to put out a more conservative image and what better way to do that than to get all the powerful females to show this off, like they were strolling down the red carpet at the Oscars? This bothers me greatly. It shouldn't, I know. But a pope who'd been pope for twenty-six years dies, there are huge rumors swirling about who will be his successor and what direction he'll take the church in and we get mantillas at the pope's funeral?

Hmmmm. What point are they trying to make?

Posted by: Kathy at 01:38 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 592 words, total size 4 kb.

I am sitting here, writing this, listening to Bach's Unaccompanied Cello Concertos. I suppose I should be listening to this instead, but I've never really thought of it as "death" music. I know. Oliver Stone ruined that adagio for you, but conveniently, as I've never seen Platoon, I have nothing to fear in this department.

Bach works well for what I'm about to write, and this particular piece of Bach's prolific catalogue works even better than some overwrought, organ grinding, gut churning fugue ever would.

Bear with me while I explain.

I was listening to our local classical station in the days after 9/11 and one of the DJ's announced out of the blue that they were going to play all of Bach's Unaccompanied Cello Concertos. This is a goodly bit of music, about an hour long, and as MPR usually just plays a movement here or an overture there, this was an unusual move. The DJ then gave their reasoning: at Ground Zero apparently there was a lone cellist playing this exact piece for the workers, as they searched for bodies. The DJ said that this lone cellist was a music teacher; that they were unable to help with the search efforts and yet they wanted to help, so they brought their cello and a chair down to Ground Zero and started playing.

From there on in I've associated this piece with the heartbreak of that tragedy, but also with the thought that someone, in their best Little Drummer Boy fashion, brought what they had and offered it up to make life better for someone else. That act touched me tremendously. It is in this spirit that I have pulled the Bach up on the WinAmp, have placed the headphones over my ears and have immersed myself in the gentle caressing of the cello strings to offer what I can for my church. So that I can, in my best Little Drummer Boy fashion, try and make life easier for others.

If such a thing is possible. more...

Posted by: Kathy at 12:31 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 2489 words, total size 14 kb.

{ Note: this is going to the first of two posts about John Paul II. This one will be my thoughts about him and his passing. The second will encompass his legacy and my hopes for the future.}

John Paul II was elected when I was seven years old. He has, quite literally, been Pope for most of my conscious life. I don't remember the popes who came before him and it's something of a shock to think that there will actually someone coming after him. It's so odd that he's died. One would have thought he was so strong that he could have actually defied mortality and lived forever. more...

Posted by: Kathy at 03:59 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 1466 words, total size 8 kb.

Why do athiests (people who believe there is no God) and agnostics (people who don't believe in organized religion) always feel the need to go round and round about religious matters? If they don't believe in God, or organized religion, why are these people so bloody interested in matters of faith? Could someone explain this one to me, because I'm not getting it.

I ask this knowing full well I'm going to get an earful from the husband---The resident Cake Eater agnostic---later on.

Over the years I've noticed that some athiests and agnostics---the husband included---are as pious in their disbelief as are the most faithful members of any religion. They choose to prostelytize about reason and logic instead of a God. What I would like to know is why do these athiests and agnostics keep harping on about religion and God when they don't believe in any of it? Why does it interest them so? Because, I have to tell you, it smacks of overcompensation, like they have to continually justify their decision not to believe in God.

I have faith. I fully realize that some people don't. That's fine with me. I may be Catholic, but I don't follow the Church line on this one, meaning I don't think people who don't believe are automatically going to hell because the Church said so. Faith, or the lack thereof, is an individual thing. The way I see it, you've got to square all of this for yourself. That's no easy thing, hence I don't judge. I find it sad that some people don't believe, and I do worry about the husband's soul, but I have faith in God to sort it out in the end. I don't have an issue with athiests defending their reasoning, either. If someone attacks you, stick up for yourself, because you're likely to learn something about yourself in the process. I've learned a whole lot about the concept of faith in defending mine from the husband's rhetorical attacks. That's not entirely a bad thing. But for the general discussions on faith, would you athiests and agnostics please---and I ask this as politely as I can---butt the fuck out? It's none of your business anymore. You've declared you don't believe in any of it, yet, for some strange reason, you want a place in the discussion? Well, no. You don't get one.

In case you're wondering, this is the post ---by the usually Uber-sensible Dean Esmay---that set me off.

{hat tip: Robbo}

UPDATE: Dean has some more things to say. That make a great deal of sense.

Posted by: Kathy at 03:24 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 439 words, total size 3 kb.

1 As an athiest, I am not sure if I should post a comment here because on one hand you are aking a question of athiests (assuming it is not rhetorical), and on the other you have told us to "Butt the fuck out" (no help with interpretation needed here!). Oh well, I'll give it a shot anyway. I cannot answer for others, but I can tell you that as an athiest I always feel that the people who know me are trying to change my mind. I find this insulting, especially when it is done with an air of superiority and with the premise that I am just misguided and they are obviously right. I guess that I have studied the bible and religion as a defense mechanism. It is very effective too because in a discussion of facts, I can now back every theist I know into "Well, I'll just pray for you". Lots of inconsistencies in the bible to work with. I also join discussion groups with other athiests because I enjoy the discussion about philosophical questions you must address if you say there is not a god (meaning of life type stuff). What I don't enjoy is the thiest bashing that always seems to creep into the dicsussion. Just a few thoughts, sorry if they are not welcome here.

Posted by: Spurius Furius at March 26, 2005 07:41 PM (Kp8o9)

2 I'm an atheist, but I don't preselytize and I don't lecture about atheism or the evils of religion. What I do, however, is hold open dialogue with people of faith. I am open-minded and willing to listen--and also inhesitant to point out when those in some faiths attacks the faith of others. As for why do it: first and foremost, because more than 90% of the population professes some religious faith. We are involved in a war which directly involves religious faith. It would thus seem that such discussions should be had, wouldn't you?

Posted by: Dean Esmay at March 26, 2005 10:26 PM (ciwrC)

3 Spurius: But I asked you to butt the fuck out politely. Doesn't that count for something? Of course your thoughts are welcome here. I'm the one to blame if I gave off mixed messages. I had a hard time writing this post and I undoubtedly screwed a few things up in the meantime. I apologize. Thank you for taking the time to answer. I appreciate it. Dean: Thanks for stopping by. I take your points, yet I read your post as one big long educational message to us Christians about what Jews really think of us and you, the athiest, chose to act as the neutral mediator between religions. I didn't take it in reference to the war, and although your points about 9/11 were valid, forgive me if I missed that they were the central tenet of your post. It just didn't come across that way, and that's why I reacted the way I did.

Posted by: Kathy at March 26, 2005 10:53 PM (Tosbv)

4 I actually thought Dean's post was interesting, but did have a couple of unintended flaws. Perhaps the most obvious is one of unintended consequence. Suggesting that Jews are hiding secrets from Christians and secretly loathe them is probably not a message Dean's Jewish friends would consider helpful. Then again, a point Dean doesn't seem to appreciate, is that Christians aren't terribly bent out of shape when learning non-Christians disagree with them about the meaning of things in the Bible. That stuff is far more heated when Christians disagree with other Christians.

Posted by: Doug at March 27, 2005 09:37 AM (7P5xE)

5 I generally enjoyed Dean's post, but I had another thought about it: he states that in 9/11 many Jews were concerned that "Americans would blame them" for what happened. Some Americans did blame them: but for the most part, they weren't Christians: they were people on the Left who are at odds with any sort of faith. Seemed to undermine his point....

Posted by: Pious Agnostic at March 27, 2005 10:26 AM (5sURJ)

6 Yanking the tiger's tail again, love? "If they don't believe in God, or organized religion, why are these people so bloody interested in matters of faith? Could someone explain this one to me, because I'm not getting it." Once again (we've had this discussion before, dear readers), you are presuming that my disdain of organized religion precludes me from having ANY faith whatsoever. My faith - and this is the basic premise of being an agnostic for me - has nothing to do with the Catholics, the Jewish People, Islam or the Presbyterians. My faith, or spirituality, is as important to me as yours is to you. Am I not allowed to participate in the discussion? Apparently not, because once again you presume that the word "faith" can ONLY be used to refer to faith in Jesus Christ as proscribed by Mother Church. To you and the entirety of the Catholic Church: get over yourselves. You have no lock on use of the word "faith". Faith describes confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. The person, idea or thing in question here is whether or not there is something greater than ourselves. "...are as pious in their disbelief as are the most faithful members of any religion. They choose to prostelytize about reason and logic instead of a God." Once again, you seem to misunderstand the concept that agnostics can believe in a god that is not by your definition "the" God. Atheists may argue logically and reasonably against the concept of god, but agnostics will argue that reason and logic have led us to the conclusion that God is not an old man with a white beard who lives in the clouds and will only love us if we do what the men in the funny hats protecting the pedophiles tell us to do. "What I would like to know is why do these athiests and agnostics keep harping on about religion and God when they don't believe in any of it? Why does it interest them so? Because, I have to tell you, it smacks of overcompensation, like they have to continually justify their decision not to believe in God." Two things here: 1. Why? Because we're CONSTANTLY BEING PUT IN THE POSITION TO DEFEND OURSELVES IF WE DON'T HAPPEN TO KOW-TOW TO WHATEVER NONSENSE IS BEING SPOUTED "IN THE NAME OF JESUS" THIS WEEK! If we, as people who don't fall in line, weren't constantly attacked as being "part of the problem", you wouldn't hear a peep out of us. Frankly, we believe those of you who are still worshiping the invisible on the words of the village holy man aren't ready for the discussion. 2. "..don't believe in any of it" For crying out loud! Third time I'm going to tell you in this piece - just because we don't belive YOUR version of it, does not mean we don't believe that there is something in the universe greater than ourselves. Our spiritual fulfillment is just as important to us as yours is to you, but we don't need the paid intermediary to get there. If you're going to open this can of worms again, you had better learn to slow down when you make these posts, and realise that of the world population of over six billion, the Catholics are, even in the developed world, a minority. Stop arguing from the assumption that there is only "one true faith", because you see evidence every day that that is not the case. We, those whose minds are not clouded by the promises of people claiming to speak for god, are here waiting for YOU to see the light. There is more to your spirituality than some friggin priest who doesn't think you can possibly be his equal because you don't have a dick can give you. Find it for yourself.

Posted by: MRN aka "The Husband" at March 27, 2005 10:36 AM (Tosbv)

7 Heh. Do you see, my devoted Cake Eater Readers, what it's like being married to the husband? Usually we have this discussion from midnight to three a.m., so it's rather nice to have some daylight shone on the discussion. Oh, I do love him so. (And, yes, I really do mean that.) I have very few problems with your argument, my dear. The fact that you conveniently skipped over the portion where I said it was all right to defend yourself, and yet blasted me anyway for it is the least of them. The only serious problem I have with your argument is this: Frankly, we believe those of you who are still worshiping the invisible on the words of the village holy man aren't ready for the discussion. So, if we're not worthy of taking part in the discussion, why do you bother gracing us with your presence in discussions about religions? Hmmmm? If you're really so above and beyond it, why do you bother? If, for you, it's really comparable to a person with a PhD in microbiology taking part in a third-grade science class discussion on tadpoles, why do you waste your time with it? Isn't it beneath you?

Posted by: Kathy at March 27, 2005 11:27 AM (Tosbv)

8 Because, and this goes to your original question of why we make any noise at all, if we don't speak up for those who have differing beliefs, who will? Case in point (to finally acknowledge the elephant in the corner we've been ignoring): the Terry Schiavo case. Is this a question of religion? or is a question of the law? I already know you believe it to be a question of law. As such, it has been adjudicated many times over by many different courts even going so far as to have the rules bent repeatedly so that it can be heard again and again. The decision, every time, has been clear. Yet there is vociferous dissent from a specific faction that has made political hay and much news by keeping this issue alive. It is the christian right that is forcing this issue to the front and in the process attempting to force their singular viewpoint of an acceptable outcome upon us all. Please don't get onto the discussion of that case, it was only an example to show that if there is no voiced dissent to the very loud christian right, the system would become unbalanced. We speak up because if we don't we lose our right to. Second point: be careful - very careful - of commenting on what another blogger does or does not have a "right" to post about. I've got a nice bucket of smooth river stones you can consider as you stand in your glass blogger house. Love you, babe. Happy Easter. Did you get the sweet potatoes in the oven yet?

Posted by: MRN aka "The Husband" at March 27, 2005 11:44 AM (Tosbv)

9 The sweet potatoes are in the oven.

Posted by: Kathy at March 27, 2005 11:55 AM (Tosbv)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Fausta was quoted by the New York Sun today. Go over and read all about it.

Way to go, girl!

UPDATE: Bill at INDC Journal, also mentioned in the article, damns Fausta with faint praise:

"And someone beat my commenter to the Paris Hilton analogy!"

C'mon, Bill. Get with the program and give credit where credit is due. Her name's right up there in the article. You can't hardly miss it. While I consider them to be above average, INDC Journal's commenters aren't the only people in the world who can come up with witty ripostes.

You can find the Bad Hair Blog right here.

Posted by: Kathy at 11:38 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 113 words, total size 1 kb.