The publication of two articles is timely given my query the other day?

So is it fair to say that the modern notion of tolerance revels in acceptance of many forms of personal behavior but rejects most aims to simply state what behaviors are and are not acceptable under any philosophical or religious system? ... The second question I have is, given our free speech rights in this country, can we get where Canada is today?(source)

The first from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel discusses recent judicial decisions in the United States NOT Canada: Your beliefs are going to be called “hatred”

Now we see what happens when this newly redefined right to have strangers regard one’s relationship as particular and intimate crashes into the reality that most of the world’s religions regard such intimacy between two women or two men as wrong in one way or another – as “fundamentally disordered,” as the Catholics put it.

What happens is that judges sweep the religious views aside.

Not that courts are outlawing the mere belief that gay sex is a sin, at least not yet. But as Marc D. Stern of the American Jewish Congress writes in Tuesday's L.A. Times, allowing mere belief or not actually forcing clergy to perform gay “marriages” is an awfully narrow view of religious liberty.

The practical effect is that religions are increasingly stopped from behaving as if they believed that homosexual relationships were wrong. Believers can believe; they just can’t let that belief govern their actions if it in any way impairs what is a new right to have one’s homosexual relationship affirmed by the implicit social approval that comes with marriage. Under this new calculus, so much as merely declining to shoot pictures for pay amounts to an unacceptable “hatred.”

Of course a restaurant can deny service to patrons for any of a number of reasons ... just don't let one of those reasons be religious belief. In Correctly Squelched ** they state:

In short, political correctness is being used as a form of fundamentalism, and fundamentalisms, especially "warring" fundamentalisms as manifested in the battles between religious fundamentalists and neo-atheist fundamentalists such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens, are a grave danger to democracy. They vastly widen the divides between us, creating an unbridgeable "us" and "them" when what we need is a "we".

...

The issue that sparked the "Ryerson controversy", legalising same-sex marriage, is an example of what "pure" moral relativism and intense tolerance, as modified by political correctness, mean in practice.

While I abhor discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation (Full Circle: rightfully I might add) and agree that same-sex marriage could be a powerful message of the wrongs of that, I oppose same-sex marriage because of its impact on children’s rights. In choosing between adults and children, I believe we should give priority to children. I argue that children need and have a right to both a mother and a father, preferably their own biological parents, unless the "best interests" of a particular child require otherwise, as in many adoptions. Marriage limited to the union of a man and a woman establishes that right; same-sex marriage eliminates that right for all children (which is why I oppose the redefinition of marriage), but support civil unions (which do not have that impact).

The Ryerson protestors sought to "deal" with me by labelling me. I was described as guilty of a hate crime; the new Ernst Zundel (who, like him, should be deported – they were grateful that I came from Australia and could be sent back there); a neo-Nazi; and a member of the Klu Klux Klan. My views had no place in the university, they claimed. This approach eliminated the need to deal with the substance of my arguments. It sent a very powerful warning to all those who might happen to share my views.

** -- I highly recommend a regular reading of MercatorNet. Their purpose as stated on their site is as follows: "We place the person at the centre of media debates about popular culture, the family, sexuality, bioethics, religion and law. ... But the arguments advanced in MercatorNet are based on universally accepted moral principles, common sense and evidence, not faith. We're proud to have enemies and we attack them repeatedly by confronting them with evidence. Here they are: moral relativism, scientism, crass commercialism, utilitarianism, materialism -- in short, any ism which reduces persons to ciphers and treats them as soulless machines. We delight in dissecting media cliches."

As I mentioned in the previous post, I was fascinated with Thomas Byles not just because he was a Catholic priest and apparently demonstrated tremendous courage as the ship went down but also because he was a convert. A letter to Fr. Byles (his name was Roussel before he took Thomas as a name) from his brother William who converted before he did is shown below. I wanted to present in its entirety:

Dear Roussel,

Thanks for your letter. I have ordered last weeks Church Times but it has not yet arrived...

I do not remember exactly what I said the other day, but I do not think you yet know the full extent of my difficulty.

My difficulty is something like this.--Our Lord taught 1900 yrs. ago in a country known as Palestine, for about the space of three years. After that time He ascended into Heaven, but before doing that He made provision for the teaching of posterity the words which He had spoken. A great many of these words have since been written down by Evangelists under the guidance of the Holy Ghost. That this is not sufficient of itself we see by the fact that whereas one man who receives the Holy Scripture as the inspired Word of God professes to find from that Scripture one thing, another man professes to find quite another thing, and yet both alike profess to find it after prayer, and under the guidance of the Holy Ghost. Take for instance the question of the Real Presence in the Most Blessed Sacrament of the Altar. Here, O'Bardsy, Vicar of St. Peter's, Bdfd., tells his congregation that in the Holy Eucharist they do not really & truly receive the Body and Blood of our Lord, whilst in the neighboring parish of St. Mary Magdalene's, Wm. Redhead, the Vicar, tells his congregation that in the Holy Eucharist they do really and truly receive the Body and the Blood of our Lord. Now both of these men profess to have found their respective doctrines from the same source, and under the same guidance. But it is perfectly obvious that one of them must be in the wrong. Which of them is it?

Now as I have said, our Lord did make provision for the teaching of His people after he was gone. He did establish a Church which should teach the world that which is contained in Holy Scripture, & should be able to decide, if necessary, what was the meaning of any disputed passage, and should be able to solve any doubts and difficulties of any of its members. Now this was a great work for Him to give to His Church, but He also made it able to do it. He did send it the promised Comforter whom he promised would remain with it always (St. John XIV. 16). And again, when He sent them out to preach, He promised that He Himself would be with them...

This Church then must be at the present time in existence & always have existed since the time when Our Lord founded it.

Nextly -- How are we to recognize it? We are told - By their fruits ye shall know them.

So I next try to find out what would the characteristics of such a Church be?

The first thing I find is that whatever it teaches must be absolutely true. The Holy Ghost dwells within it. Our Lord Himself abides with it -- therefore whatever it teaches is true, for if not it must be untrue, and God cannot back up what is not true, for if He did He would cease to be God. It must then be Infallible.

If then it is infallible it must be one, for ... It cannot be divided -- "A house that is divided against itself cannot stand." It must be absolutely uniform on all matters of Doctrine (F[athe]r['s] objection about Card. Newman's ..... does not touch this for it was not a matter of doctrine, but merely a policy).

It must be Catholic and Apostolic.

Now let me look at the different views on the Catholic Church held by those who call themselves Catholics.

The Anglicans maintain that the Church consists of different "branches". The "English Church" is one, the "Roman Church" another, and the "Eastern Churches" others. Now they admit that all these "branches" differ amongst each other on certain points of doctrine. For instance, on the question of Transubstantiation, or on the question of Purgatory & Indulgences. Are they then one? Yet no Anglican dares to say that his branch alone is Catholic, and others are heretical. Again, why does not the whole Church speak, and say which is right? Our Lord is still with it, for He promised to be with it always. The Holy Ghost still dwells in it, and animates it. Can the Church ever cease to teach whilst there are still doubts & difficulties to overcome?

Now the "Roman" view on the other hand, says that the Church must be one. But in order to secure it being one, Our Lord provided it with a visible Head, without which, the Roman Catholics claim there can be no true unity. Those who do not recognize this one Head are outside the Church, just as much as a branch cut off from a tree is no longer a part of the tree. Now when I look at this view I do find that the Church, according to the Roman view of it, has always been one, for it has always looked to the Pope for guidance, & has accepted as true what has been taught by the Pope. The Church, according to this view of it, must be one for the Pope cannot at some time make two directly opposite statements, nor, the Roman Catholics claim, can he at different times teach different doctrines, for he speaks only as the mouthpiece (so to speak) of the Church, and therefore at the bidding of the Holy Ghost who is the life & soul of the Church.

The Doctrine on infallibility of the Pope follows from the Doctrine on the Infallibility of the Church, once the Roman Catholic view of the Church is accepted. There can be no doubt, I think, that a Church bearing the characteristics which the Roman Catholics claim belong to the Church, has existed from the time of the Apostles themselves. And that this Church has always called itself the Catholic Church (& always did acknowledge the English Church to be part of it, until the English Church at the Reformation denied the Supremacy of the Pope.) And we know well enough that it does exist, and that it is in a flourishing condition at the present time.

It seems to me that Anglo-Catholics (so-called) profess that they teach what has been taught by the whole Church, but that each man is to use his own private judgement as to what has been taught by the Church.

Roman Catholics (so-called), on the other hand, look to their bishops to know what is the Church's teaching, and the Bishops to the Pope. So that according to the Roman Catholic view, a man has only to use his private judgment when he declares himself to be a Catholic or no.

Thus I find two views. -- If one be true, the Church is a disunited body. If the other is true, the Church is a United body. Which am I to accept?

The direct arguments as to the Supremacy of the Bp. of Rome, which have especially appealed to me, I think, I gave pretty fully in my last letter.

As to whether St. Peter was even Bp. of Rome seems to me to be sufficiently answered by the fact that it was never questioned until three or four centuries ago. There are other arguments -- perhaps better ones -- which I have not time to go into now.

With much love
Believe me,
Yr. very loving brother
Wm. Byles

(source)

The Angelus Online summarizes what we know as follows:

Dissatisfied with the theological shortcomings of his Congregationalist upbringing, he converted to the Church of England. He soon became dissatisfied with Anglicanism, and wrote his brother William: "The fact is I find myself unable to recognize the Anglican position. I do not, however, feel myself anymore satisfied with the Roman position. I have given up going to Anglican communion, and have postponed my ordination as a deacon."

William had already converted to Catholicism, and the two brothers had a lively religious correspondence. Roussel converted in 1894, an event of which The Tablet wrote:

Probably no one on earth knows all he went through-all the prayers he offered, all the works of mortification which he practiced….About Trinity Sunday arrived a letter which seemed to breathe a note of despair that he was ever going to get the grace he was looking for, but on Corpus Christi the last letter came. Two days, before, whilst making his meditation, the fog had cleared away.

There had been a short visit to the Jesuits at St. Aloysius and he was to be received into Holy Mother Church and to make his first Communion on the feast day of Corpus Christi, surely an appropriate festival for one who had been led perhaps more by his devotion to the Eucharist than by anything else to the altar where alone the Eucharist has its dwelling.(source)

I am always fascinated with correspondence from this time frame. There is something we have lost with the informality of email, Facebook and blogs. The effort required to communicate more formally is very appealing to me. It strikes as more genuine just in noting the effort required to only to write but to make the effort with regards to spelling and grammar. Today our short quips seem like effortless minor maintenance. Whether our efforts are so genuine in our technical world is hard to tell. Nobody knows when you have rewritten paragraphs. Maybe you just scrolled out five paragraphs in a matter of seconds and clicked send. With written correspondence, you know the effort of love put into it. Anyone who has written a lengthy letter knows that sometimes you have to rewrite it, especially if you want to get things right and make sure your meaning is understood. That is an act of love. I am not saying that doesn't happen in email. It happens a lot I am sure, but there is always the evidence of words erased and letters thrown in the trash bin.

I guess in some ways I prefer the analog equivalent to its digital counterpart.

My children spent several days last week fascinated by the Titanic. During the process I learned of a few of the priests on board, specifically a Fr. Thomas Byles. I think everyone should take a moment to read about this priest ...

Fr. Thomas Byles of the Titanic

He interested me because he was a convert and a fan of St. Thomas Aquinas and obviously his courage was incredible. From the link above:

Of the very few passengers willing to brave the cold, Father Byles had been reciting the Breviarium Romanum, fully dressed in his priestly garb, while walking back and forth on the upper deck at the moment the Titanic struck the iceberg.14 He acted bravely in his capacity as a spiritual leader of men. Descending to the third class and calming the people, Father Byles gave them his priestly blessing and began to hear confessions; after which, he began the recitation of the Rosary. He then led the third class passengers up to the boat deck and helped load the lifeboats. He gave words of consolation and encouragement to the woman and children as they got into the boats. As the danger became even more apparent, he went about hearing more confessions and giving absolution. By all accounts, Father Byles was twice offered a seat in a lifeboat but refused. After the last lifeboat was gone, he went to the after end of the boat deck and led the recitation of the Rosary for a large group kneeling around him of those who were not able to find room in the boats. Father Byles also exhorted the people to prepare to meet God. As 2:20 a.m. approached, and the stern rose higher and higher out of the sea, Father Byles led the more than one hundred people kneeling before him in the Act of Contrition and gave them general absolution.

In the face of great tragedy Fr. Byles is an encouragement to all of us to keep our eyes on the eternal. As one of the letters stated about him, it might do us well to seek his intercession.

HMS has been discussing this and since I am doing a talk on marriage in a month and half I figured I would post it here even if only for reference ...

Its easy for me, a married guy who never lived with anyone other than my spouse, to jump up on a box and rail against the evils of cohabitation. Those who cohabit could charge that I do not understand having never made that choice. I can easily respond that not living with my spouse before I got married has worked. Statistically speaking the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of those who do not live together before they get married. Still, people insist they are better than all those other couples living together. As I got more serious about my relationship with Christ I became increasingly shocked by it. There was a time in my life that I could have made this mistake but by the grace of God I did not. I was fortunate to see it for what it was worth prior to getting married. My wife and I attended an Engaged Encounter. The fruits of people living together were there for all of us to see -- and be very afraid of.

"I'll call you a liar if you say that you are not sleeping together before you get married"
"After all, you wouldn't buy a car without a test drive, I don't see why getting married is any different"
"We would be living together but my future father-in-law threatened to kill me if that happened"
"The everyday difficulties of life require us to live in sin"
and the gem of the evening.
"We are all sinning and know it but we know Jesus is going to forgive us anyway so what is the point"(source)

This points out some of the attitudes that the HMS cited article Living Together Dangerously also reveals. It further outlines several statistical and anecdotal findings regarding this now modern day norm.

Typically in cohabitation the two individuals are more concerned on obtaining satisfaction from the other person, they write. In marriage, by contrast, spouses tend to focus more on giving satisfaction to the other person.

One major problem with cohabitation, the book explains, is that the two partners often start living together for very different motives. While many women look upon it as a stepping-stone to marriage, men often look at it for convenience, and not as a firm commitment.

Unfair

Furthermore, the authors cite studies showing that typically cohabitation is not a fifty-fifty division of expenses and burdens. Women tend to contribute more, both in terms of money and in domestic work.

So much for liberating women from the slavery of marriage. This is further compounded by the modern mindset of many men who say "I will never get married because a wife poses a risk to half of my financial assets".

We have our capitalistic mindsets that like to reduce everything to "100% satisfied or your money back". We have our objectification of persons who become assets like a house or a car. Men and women become a means to the end of satisfying our appetites. With those mindsets its all about attaining the next best accessory. Its all about building up the individual.

But that's not how marriage works ...

In the citation above, I bolded what we want ... In marriage, its all about everybody else. You decrease or it doesn't work. "He must increase; I must decrease." (John 3:30) -- Ephesians 5, for men, is the pinnacle of understanding this. Most directly "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the church and handed himself over for her" (Ephesians 5:25). Think about what Christ did for the Church. Marriage -- lasting marriage -- is about sacrifice.

You can read more details on this study at the Rutgers website.

Transalpine Redemptorists regularized

Our community now truly rejoices in undisputed and peaceful posession of Communion with the Holy See because our priests are now in canonical good standing.

Good news indeed!

Judge: Disruptive autistic teen can be barred from church

Adam's mother, Carol Race, of Eagle Bend, said today that she found Robertson's ruling "very shocking."

"What does a judge have to say or not say about what is acceptable in a chjurch service?" she added. "That comes down from the Vatican."

Okay ... then why did you take this to court in the first place?

Race said she is exploring whether to continue challenging the restraining order, either through the courts or within the church hierarchy.

Speaking on behalf of the parish this afternoon, Jane Marrin, director of pastoral planning for the St. Cloud Diocese, said that St. Joseph "is involved in mediation with the family, and it's the parish's hope that we can come to a mutually acceptable solution. That has been the goal all along for the parish, and the judge's ruling doesn't rule out."

The Church has courts for this

I Corinthians VI - How can any one of you with a case against another dare to bring it to the unjust for judgment instead of to the holy ones? Do you not know that the holy ones will judge the world? If the world is to be judged by you, are you unqualified for the lowest law courts? Do you not know that we will judge angels? Then why not everyday matters? If, therefore, you have courts for everyday matters, do you seat as judges people of no standing in the church? I say this to shame you. Can it be that there is not one among you wise enough to be able to settle a case between brothers?

I have to admit that the specifics of this case escape me. It seems this child is very unruly however something must be done to ensure he and his family have access to the sacraments. I think she should pursue action within the Church hierarchy. That said, if the Church rules against her then the state interfering would be a GROSS offense to freedom of religion.

If anyone has more insight on this story I would like to hear it.

This storm was very turbulent. The darkest part was showing some signs of rotation. This storm was not warned although it appeared on the way home to have downed a pine tree on the Interstate within minutes of me taking this picture. The tree did hit a car and broke some glass. It appeared nobody was hurt.

For a quick summary ...

Still .. watch it.

So is it fair to say that the modern notion of tolerance revels in acceptance of many forms of personal behavior but rejects most aims to simply state what behaviors are and are not acceptable under any philosophical or religious system?

I mean, look at Canada. To ACT on homosexual urges is acceptable. To challenge the assertion that those actions are OK is a hate crime. In essence criticism, however valid or ill founded is becoming illegal in Canada. Now lets turn to the United States ...

The second question I have is, given our free speech rights in this country, can we get where Canada is today?

OK, I have decided that the major party candidates are not pulling their weight for me. So I realized that the perfect candidate for me is Sam the Eagle. He is all about morally upstanding behavior and America. Well, hes mostly about America.

What better candidate could there be? No rhetoric. Just whats best for America ... a moral America.

Bobby Jindal's approval rating is set to take a sharp dive this month ... Louisiana citizens are VERY angry that the legislature voted themselves a massive 2x+ pay raise.

Gov. Bobby Jindal admitted Tuesday that he blundered in allowing legislators to pass a bill that would more than double their base pay.

“I’ve learned my lesson,” he said during a news conference outside the Governor’s Mansion.

However, Jindal said he still plans to allow the pay raise to become law.

Uh oh

Jindal vowed during the gubernatorial campaign last year to “prohibit legislators from giving themselves pay raises that take effect before the subsequent election.” (source)

He is being called "gutless" by many locals now and despite the fact that he is 3 years away from an election this one is going to stick in voters minds.

Honestly, the pay raise doesn't bug me but it REALLY matters to the majority of voters -- this based on the outrage I have seen both on the Internet and refused to listen to on talk radio for the past few days. The legislators were making something like $16k and now its like $35k (yeah yeah, I know -- they are almost all lawyers making fat cash). Its telling voters you are going to stop this very thing from happening and then letting it happen.

Louisiana politicians are MASTERS of cut-throat politics and Jindal is in a pickle. Go back on your promise to voters or make the entire legislature mad and risk an entire term of ineffective gridlock. Sounds to me like he is banking on voters forgetting this in 3 years and choosing instead to appease the legislators in return for better working relations going forward.

I think this mistake will cost him. Ask George Bush Sr. whether or not voters forgot "read my lips, NO NEW TAXES".

We'll see. Legislators upped the ante. Your bid Mr. Jindal.

Woo hoo! ... my severe weather page proved useful for me. I am under a severe thunderstorm warning.

Here is the summary from my weather page


Here is the radar loop from Wunderground


Here is the warning text

611  
WUUS54 KLIX 261918  
SVRLIX  
LAC033-063-262015-  
/O.NEW.KLIX.SV.W.0162.080626T1918Z-080626T2015Z/  
 
BULLETIN - EAS ACTIVATION REQUESTED  
SEVERE THUNDERSTORM WARNING  
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE NEW ORLEANS LA  
218 PM CDT THU JUN 26 2008  
 
THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE IN NEW ORLEANS HAS ISSUED A  
 
* SEVERE THUNDERSTORM WARNING FOR...  
SOUTHEASTERN EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH IN SOUTHEAST LOUISIANA...  
THIS INCLUDES THE CITIES OF...OAK HILLS PLACE...BATON ROUGE...  
WEST CENTRAL LIVINGSTON PARISH IN SOUTHEAST LOUISIANA...  
THIS INCLUDES THE CITY OF DENHAM SPRINGS...  
 
* UNTIL 315 PM CDT  
 
* AT 215 PM CDT...NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE DOPPLER RADAR INDICATED A  
SEVERE THUNDERSTORM CAPABLE OF PRODUCING PENNY SIZE HAIL...AND  
DAMAGING WINDS IN EXCESS OF 60 MPH. THIS STORM WAS LOCATED NEAR  
WESTMINSTER...OR NEAR OAK HILLS PLACE...AND MOVING NORTH AT 8 MPH.  
 
* THE SEVERE THUNDERSTORM WILL BE NEAR...  
DENHAM SPRINGS BY 255 PM CDT...  
GREENWELL SPRING AND WATSON BY 315 PM CDT...  
 
THIS IS A DANGEROUS STORM. IF YOU ARE IN ITS PATH...PREPARE  
IMMEDIATELY FOR DAMAGING WINDS...DESTRUCTIVE HAIL...AND DEADLY CLOUD  
TO GROUND LIGHTNING. PEOPLE OUTSIDE SHOULD MOVE TO A SHELTER...  
PREFERABLY INSIDE A STRONG BUILDING BUT AWAY FROM WINDOWS.  
 
LAT...LON 3059 9114 3061 9091 3035 9092 3035 9095  
3035 9096 3035 9099 3035 9100 3034 9113  
TIME...MOT...LOC 1918Z 187DEG 7KT 3042 9102  
 

There have been a couple of important SCOTUS rulings in the past two days ..

Heller, on the 2nd Ammendment

Scalia’s majority opinion is one of the worst judicial ass whippings I have ever had the pleasure of reading.

Death Penalty for child rapists

The Court’s opinion today in Kennedy v. Louisiana, as in Roper v. Simmons, is a constitutional abomination. ... It is nothing less than rule by judicial fiat.

At some point, the American people are going to have to decide whether they wish to be ruled by nine (and in many cases five) unelected philosopher kings, or whether they would rather have the most contentious issues of public policy we face as a people hashed out in the legislative arena (as was envisioned by our founders/framers).

I have a lot on marriage to congeal, write and practice presenting before August. I also have the entire gamut of Theology of the Body talks given by JP2 to read :). That is 129 homilies to read for those who aren't familiar with TOB. I will try to post short essays here on topics I plan to cover.

First one has to do with Matt 18:3, Psalm 127 -- grace, gift and the Sacrament of Marriage and its primary purpose.

My talk is going to be listed as follows (the italicized part was removed for space on the page, the bold --roughly-- is what remains) ...

What does the Church want from my marriage?

Marriage is often times depicted in negative terms that leave you feeling a little constrained about what marriage is. Many a young couple finds themselves disillusioned by the secular denigrations(ed) of their state as bondage -- a deterrent to the pursuits of wealth and happiness. Pope Benedict XVI says "We've heard so much about what is not allowed that now it's time to say: we have a positive idea to offer, that man and woman are made for each other, that the scale of sexuality, eros, agape, indicates the level of love and it's in this way that marriage develops, first of all, as a joyful and blessing-filled encounter between a man and a woman, and then the family, that guarantees continuity among generations and through which generations are reconciled to each other and even cultures can meet." -- As a popular 20th century apologist once remarked "marriage is, undoubtedly, the ordinary means of salvation for the ordinary run of men." Come find out why this avenue of grace changes not only the lives of spouses and children but of entire cultures for generations to come.

Anyway, you have to realize that this talk, as a lot of God things happen, is writing itself around me. Pray that God gives me the grace to continue listening to Him on what it should be.

Breaking the bonds of communion

Formal arrangements have yet to be made, but it now appears that the critical decisions have already been taken for a dissolution of the Anglican Communion. Every 10 years, all the world's Anglican bishops meet at the seat of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Lambeth Palace. They are scheduled to meet this summer, but already some 250 have decided not to attend, boycotting because of the failure of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, to discipline American and Canadian Anglicans for blessing same-sex unions and ordaining actively homosexual clergy.

Many of those who are not attending Lambeth are in Jerusalem this week for an alternative meeting, to discuss how they see the way forward. The parallel meetings are a clear manifestation that the bonds of communion have broken down. The Archbishop of Canterbury is not in Jerusalem, and is not welcome there. The breach appears irreparable and therefore the Anglican Communion's days as a global community centred in Canterbury are numbered.

The see of Canterbury is one of the Christian world's most venerable, being occupied throughout her history by great saints such as Saint Augustine of Canterbury and Saint Thomas Becket. There will be other archbishops after Dr. Williams, but it seems likely now that none will preside over a global communion.

As a former member of the Anglican church I have to say that this is sad indeed. I have always been impressed by the vibrancy of the African church and that includes the Catholic Church in Africa. I have always enjoyed, as this author put it an "affection for the Anglican sensibility". Standing in Westminster Cathedral reading the list of Catholic bishops in England through the good and bad times was a humbling return for me. I am somewhat of an Anglophile at heart but I am also Catholic. I would love very much for the Anglican Use to become a full fledged rite of the Catholic Church and not just a temporary rite that dissolves into the Novus Ordo. That is a mere fancy of mine and I have no real reason otherwise except that there are things I miss about my old church. I loved that the Anglican church, for all its woes, held fast -- at least -- to the beauty of its liturgy. That's true, at least where the nearly doctrinally Catholic Anglo-Catholics were and even with the often doctrinally ambivalent wealthy aficionados of traditional architecture and music. Even our more middle class low-church setting had a traditional layout, stained glass and creaky old wooden pews. I loved it.

I thought it odd to leave what I loved in Anglicanism behind in America only, since converting, to see it best done in Catholic Churches in London. But as the author of this article states "sensibilities are not doctrines, and it cannot be the case that members of the same communion can hold directly contradictory views on matters of grave importance". Some of us head to Rome. Physically moving to London might solve my "sensibility" problem but what cross will I pick up on the way? Its a cross almost every convert from the Episcopal church in America has to deal with when swimming the Tiber. From classic historical churches to the sharp dentist office feel of modern day "worship spaces" .... The externals are lacking but the essentials; there -- fully.

I am working on something that will figure out the nearest DECENT sized city for a particular lat/long pair.

I have a somewhat hobbled prototype working here
http://www.earlychurchfathers.org/fullc ... p;long=-91
Now I am pleased with how fast this works on the web site. From my computer at home the queries seem to take 2-3 seconds. Up here it runs REALLY fast.

The problem seems to be the direction functionality is a little wrong ... Can some math genius help me out here? I am using a formula I found on the internet. It seems to be wrong sometimes (not often but enough to irritate me).

function get_direction ($lat1,$lon1,$lat2,$lon2)
{
   $diff_long = abs($lon2-$lon1);
   $rval = atan2(sin($diff_long)*cos($lat2),
              cos($lat1)*sin($lat2)-
                 sin($lat1)*cos($lat2)*cos($diff_long)
           );
   $pi = 3.141596;
   return (360+$rval*(180/$pi)) % 360;           
}

An example run which demonstrates my method is as follows (using geotest.php?lat=31&long=-91):

base city **Capell,MS,39631**
zip from base city **centreville,ms**
city from zip **31.089620,-91.068438

from: 31.089620,-91.068438 to: 31,-91
bearing **145**
heading **SE**
distance **7.39**
7 SE CENTREVILLE, MS

A lot of times I get a garbage city name. This is particularly true in large cities where I get a neighborhood. I WANT the actual city and the proximity to the center of that city. My solution was to use the returned zip code and get the postal service ZIP city and calculate my distance and bearing from the center of the ZIP city. It gives good results when the bearing calculation is correct.

If someone is bored and can see my error, I would appreciate it.

Oh, you can take a string like
from: 31.089620,-91.068438 to: 31,-91
and plug it into the Google Maps search box and it works

That is why I conveniently return that ....

George W Bush meets Pope amid claims he might convert to Catholicism

And the speculation continues ... there is very little here that hasn't been covered by earlier press (see this post). Makes me wish I could read Italian so I could read some of the assuredly more interesting press.

What would the fallout be? How would liberal Catholics react? Conservative evangelicals? It would be interesting indeed.

Added another feed. This time for storm reports ... Very simple ... The options are the same as the SPC web site. I recommend referring to them by content type as listed below

content= torn,hail,wind ONLY
frame = yesterday,last3hours,today or a date in the following format YYMMDD_rpts

http://earlychurchfathers.org/fullcircl ... 80611_rpts
http://earlychurchfathers.org/fullcircl ... =yesterday
http://earlychurchfathers.org/fullcircl ... last3hours

See Storm Reports on the right ... They list activity in the last three hours ONLY.

In a effort to get my brain thinking about things it should be thinking about I am going to post a short summary of what I intend to cover at my talk.

First, what is the purpose of marriage? According to Catholic teaching, its primary purpose is having and raising children. -- These days, for some reason, this is a very controversial assertion -- The secondary purposes are the mutual growth (help) of the spouses and the "morally regulated satisfaction of the sex urge" (concupiscence).

Second, what is the clear natural order of marriage and sex in terms of the assertion above. What constitutes offenses to that natural order? -- Discuss in terms of the creation narratives. The original intent, as opposed to the allowances in the law. (i.e. the OT part)

Third, why does the Church consider it a Sacrament? (i.e. the NT part) ... I find that this is one of the most critical defenses for Catholics and its not a Bible zinger easy defense. Very important to explain the Ephesians 5 narrative regarding Christ and the Church. Relate even further to imaging the Trinity.

Thats it ... that is what I plan to cover and I expect it to take 90 minutes to 2 hours.

Relay For Life Is Coming To Immaculate Conception June 13/14, 2008

Those touched by cancer know the dark times this disease can bring. But even amid the darkness, lights of hope and comfort shine. Please join the American Cancer Society Relay For Life survivors ceremony and share your strength with others who are facing the journey through cancer. Your involvement can change a life.

For those living in the Baton Rouge area mark your calendars.

Inflatable pool ring duty. I just suffered through three of these.

Austin Powers - "Nerd Alert!"

As a result of this coding I did the following ...

1. Created RSS feeds for Severe Weather Warnings, Tornado Warnings and Flash Flood warnings (ideally) ... It is a very streamlined feed. It indicates the place, when it expires and offers a link to the College of DuPage severe weather pages. I am essentially scraping the NWS active warnings pages.

http://earlychurchfathers.org/fullcircl ... ontent=SVR
http://earlychurchfathers.org/fullcircl ... ontent=TOR
http://earlychurchfathers.org/fullcircl ... ontent=FFW

Technically it will do others but those wont link to the College of DuPage stuff. I can add the warning text in the near future. I have it stored in a variable. I am just not using it. I wanted streamlined. Initially the title was really long like

SEVERE THUNDERSTORM WARNING FOR (list of locations) UNTIL (date and time) ...

Well, I found out there is a 100 character limit on titles. Thats a bummer but the text you get is enough although it lists only the FIRST location in the warning. There is an option to list the warning multiple times for each location.

2. I added the RSS feeds to my sidebar so I could know when warnings are ongoing. That resulted in another problem. The code I was using to create my sidebar caches the RSS data for ONE HOUR. Thats kind of problematic with storm warnings. FYI, DO NOT USE THE WARNINGS ON MY SIDEBAR FOR MAKING DECISIONS. HEAD TO THE NWS WEB SITE.

3. Anyway, to solve the problem, I downloaded the code (Feed2JS) that I was using and made a slight modification so it would cache for 60 seconds instead of 3600 seconds. I tested that with my Facebook status up at the top and it worked like a charm. So ...

You may also notice that I added the current conditions for the city I live in. I am a little irritated at the lag time (seems 40 minutes is common) but it is good enough for now.

Well, boring to you yes ... but I had fun!

UPDATE: I added some interesting CSS code and created SOME output for the warning text, specifically for TORNADO WARNINGs.

I added blocks that come out looking like this (the tbody is added by the Feed2JS processing ....

<table><tbody><tr>
<td class="tortst"><p class="warntext">TEST</p></td>
<td class="radind"><p class="warntext">RADAR INDICATED</p></td>
</tr></tbody></table>

"tortst" is an example of a class that I can use to specify the images I want to display when certain items are encountered in the text. Right now I have four classes and a fifth class for the warning text.

tortst = Test
radind = Radar Indicated
torrep = Tornado Reported
tor911 = Tornado Emergency

Also, the text is there in case someone else wants to format it their own way. Here is how I am formatting it:

p.warntext{
font-size: 0px;
padding: 12px 12px 12px 12px;
}
td.tortst { display:none; }
td.tor911
{
background-image: url('http://www.earlychurchfathers.org/fullcircle/images/tor911.JPG');
background-repeat: no-repeat; background-position:center; padding: 2px 2px 2px 2px;
}
td.radind
{
background-image: url('http://www.earlychurchfathers.org/fullcircle/images/radarind.JPG');
background-repeat: no-repeat; background-position:center; padding: 2px 2px 2px 2px;
}
td.torrep
{
background-image: url('http://www.earlychurchfathers.org/fullcircle/images/torgnd.JPG');
background-repeat: no-repeat; background-position:center; padding: 2px 2px 2px 2px;
}

The odd 12px padding for the "warntext" class was to resolve the problem of me wanting only to see the background image instead of the text. 0px + a 12px padding all around gives me a 24x24 box regardless of the text. The test block is always passed back. It is helpful in debugging especially when warnings are sparse.

Obviously the goal of all of this is to summarize warnings to make it easier for me to decide which ones to focus on if I am following them on radar.

When they are active they look like this:

I cannot believe it took me until now to find this blog ...

Catholic Beer Review

Parkersburg Tornado Rated EF5

Keep those who have suffered loss in your prayers. If you want to do something to help, you can contact a local Catholic Church who is raising money to assist the victims.

St. Patrick's Catholic Church in Iowa City is collecting monetary donations, Wal-Mart or Target gift cards and canned goods to give to the St. Patrick's Catholic Church of Parkersburg

421 S. Linn St., P.O. Box 2776
Iowa City, IA 52244

or call 319-337-2856

This parish knows loss. After all their beloved church was destroyed by a tornado on Holy Thursday evening, 2006.

I read recently that polygyny is in accordance with natural law. It seems the basis for this assertion is St. Thomas Aquinas (Summa Contra Gentiles III. 124.1). In researching the answer I came to a rather spirited discussion amongst university students on the topic. That discussion began with the following article: The horror of polygamy and the persistence of chauvinistic theories in Catholic academia

I cannot let pass without comment the discussion I heard took place the other day at a certain graduate theology institute, which shall remain nameless. Adult students were (without blushing) explaining to a group of fellow students, including several women, that whereas polygamy (one man having several wives) is permissible according to natural law, polyandry (one woman having several husbands) is forbidden.

The relevant response that points me to Thomas Aquinas is Polygamy in natural law:

But there is a weak case to be made for polygyny in natural law, which goes as follows: It is critical for a child's self-identity to know who his parents are. Therefore, the practice of polyandry is unthinkable as "man naturally desires to know his offspring, and this knowledge would be completely destroyed if there were several males for one female. Therefore, that one female is for one male is a consequence of natural instinct." (Summa Contra Gentiles III. 124.1) In the practice of polyandry there is no certainty of family relations as the woman has sexual relations with numerous men. Simply put, according to Thomas, polygyny does not directly conflict with natural law because in it the child knows who his parents are.

In fact, I think weak is overstating the matter. I think what Aquinas actually wrote defends that polygyny IS NOT in accordance with natural law. I will reproduce the entire article here and bold the relevant areas.

THAT MATRIMONY SHOULD BE BETWEEN ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN

[1] It seems, too, that we should consider bow it is inborn in the minds of all animals accustomed to sexual reproduction to allow no promiscuity; hence, fights occur among animals over the matter of sexual reproduction. And, in fact, among all animals there is one common reason, for every animal desires to enjoy freely the pleasure of the sexual act, as he also does the pleasure of food; but this liberty is restricted by the fact that several males may have access to one female, or the converse. The same situation obtains in the freedom of enjoying food, for one animal is obstructed if the food which he desires to eat is taken over by another animal. And so, animals fight over food and sexual relations in the same way. But among men there is a special reason, for, as we said, man naturally desires to know his offspring, and this knowledge would be completely destroyed if there were several males for one female. Therefore, that one female is for one male is a consequence of natural instinct.

[2] But a difference should be noted on this point. As far as the view that one woman should not have sexual relations with several men is concerned, both the aforementioned reasons apply. But, in regard to the conclusion that one man should not have relations with several females, the second argument does not work, since certainty as to offspring is not precluded if one male has relations with several women. But the first reason works against this practice, for, just as the freedom of associating with a woman at will is taken away from the husband, when the woman has another husband, so, too, the same freedom is taken away from a woman when her husband has several wives. Therefore, since certainty as to offspring is the principal good which is sought in matrimony, no law or human custom has permitted one woman to be a wife for several husbands. This was even deemed unfitting among the ancient Romans, of whom Maximus Valerius reports that they believed that the conjugal bond should not be broken even on account of sterility.

[3] Again, in every species of animal in which the father has some concern for offspring, one male has only one female; this is the case with all birds that feed their young together, for one male would not be able to offer enough assistance to bring up the offspring of several females. But in the case of animals among whom there is no concern on the part of the males for their offspring, the male has promiscuous relations with several females and the female with plural males. This is so among dogs, chickens, and the like. But since, of all animals, the male in the human species has the greatest concern for offspring, it is obviously natural for man that one male should have but one wife, and conversely.

[4] Besides, friendship consists in an equality. So, if it is not lawful for the wife to have several husbands, since this is contrary to certainty as to offspring, it would not be lawful, on the other hand, for a man to have several wives, for the friendship of wife for husband would not be free, but somewhat servile. And this argument is corroborated by experience, for among husbands having plural wives the wives have a status like that of servants.

[5] Furthermore, strong friendship is not possible in regard to many people, as is evident from the Philosopher in Ethics VIII [5]. Therefore, if a wife has but one husband, but the husband has several wives, the friendship will not be equal on both sides. So, the friendship will not be free, but servile in some way.

[6] Moreover, as we said, matrimony among humans should be ordered so as to be in keeping with good moral customs. Now, it is contrary to good behavior for one man to have several wives, for the result of this is discord in domestic society, as is evident from experience. So, it is not fitting for one man to have several wives.

[7] Hence it is said: “They shall be two in one flesh” (Gen. 7.: 24).

[8] By this, the custom of those having several wives is set aside, and also the opinion of Plato who maintained that wives should be common. And in the Christian period he was followed by Nicolaus, one of the seven deacons.

Thomas gives further treatment to the question in Summa Theologica - Question 65. Plurality of wives

Now marriage has for its principal end the begetting and rearing of children, and this end is competent to man according to his generic nature, wherefore it is common to other animals (Ethic. viii, 12), and thus it is that the "offspring" is assigned as a marriage good. But for its secondary end, as the Philosopher says (Ethic. viii, 12), it has, among men alone, the community of works that are a necessity of life, as stated above (Question 41, Article 1). And in reference to this they owe one another "fidelity" which is one of the goods of marriage. Furthermore it has another end, as regards marriage between believers, namely the signification of Christ and the Church: and thus the "sacrament" is said to be a marriage good. Wherefore the first end corresponds to the marriage of man inasmuch as he is an animal: the second, inasmuch as he is a man; the third, inasmuch as he is a believer. Accordingly plurality of wives neither wholly destroys nor in any way hinders the first end of marriage, since one man is sufficient to get children of several wives, and to rear the children born of them. But though it does not wholly destroy the second end, it hinders it considerably for there cannot easily be peace in a family where several wives are joined to one husband, since one husband cannot suffice to satisfy the requisitions of several wives, and again because the sharing of several in one occupation is a cause of strife: thus "potters quarrel with one another" [Aristotle, Rhet. ii, 4, and in like manner the several wives of one husband. The third end, it removes altogether, because as Christ is one, so also is the Church one. It is therefore evident from what has been said that plurality of wives is in a way against the law of nature, and in a way not against it.

Even in the face of a perfect argument that polygyny does not violate natural law, it still violates the moral law of the Church and Divine Revelation.