Cardinal Sean O'Malley on Women's Ordination

Here.  He makes a good point about how it would save money.

Reposted:

Cardinal Sean O’Malley told reporters earlier today that his recent interview with 60 Minutes was difficult because he did not have time to fully delve into how insane his opinion was on the matter of women’s ordination.

“I hope that one take-away from my 60 Minutes interview will be that cardinals, bishops and priests are human, and that we love the Church, and that we say really stupid things sometimes,” said the cardinal. “If you watch the interview, for example, what I’m pretty much saying is that if I were founding a church, that I’d love to have women priests, but that, unfortunately, Jesus Christ beat me to it, and now we have to deal with the consequences of something different. It’s difficult to explain your opinion in just a 20-minute spot. You could only imagine the crap I’d say if I had the full 60 minutes. I would’ve said that if I were founding the world, I’d love to give men the ability to get pregnant.”

The cardinal went on to say that by ordaining women, not only would it be spiritually beneficial to the Church, but financially as well, going on to cite numerous statistics proving that, on average, women make less than men.

“It’s just a fact, so don’t get all angry. I’m just saying that the Church could use some extra funds right now and if you can get people to minister for ten or twenty percent less…I mean, why not? Unfortunately, I didn’t have time to really go into detail.”

Baptists Might Be Alright

From the book I mentioned in the previous post, I was amused by the following:

Busy as were Shukhov's hands, the frost nipped his fingers through the shabby mittens.  And it was piercing his left boot too.  His stamped his foot.  Thud, thud.  By now he needn't stoop to the wall, but he still had to bend his aching back for each block and each stoop of mortar.  "Hey, boys!" he pestered the men handling the blocks. "You'd better put them on the wall for me.  Heave 'em up here."  The captain would gladly have obliged but lacked the strength.  He wasn't used to the work.  But Alyosha [the Baptist] said, "All right, Ivan Denisovich.  Show me where to put them." You could count on Alyosha.  Did whatever was asked of him.  If everybody in the world was like that, Shukhov would have done likewise.  If a man asks for help, why not help him?  Those Baptists had something there.

A Book I Just Finished

It's about a single day in the life of a gulag prisoner in the Soviet era--just like the title suggests. Simple and short.  I enjoyed it.  What makes it powerful is Solzhenitsyn's way of making the utterly ordinary into the sublime and almost supernatural.  I have never before experienced the emotions associated with realizing the worth of a tiny crust of bread.

 

Now Playing

A Traditional Calvinist Christmas

An old crony of mine made this a few years ago and I just found out about it.  Kinda funny.  And to the elect, have a Merry Christmas indeed!

WARNING: Don't watch if you don't wanna think a little.

Cosby is Guilty

Does anyone disagree?  Is there any reasonable doubt that he didn't?  What else better explains so many women of different backgrounds coming out with similar stories?  Surely they aren't all lying because of some of Cosby's political views, (otherwise, why don't we see this same sort of thing happening to the likes of Rush Limbaugh?).  Surely they aren't all lying for the money.  Surely they aren't all lying just because they don't like him because he once disrespected them in some way.  Maybe the explanation is a combination of some of all of the above plus other explanations not listed.  That's possible.  But it seems more likely to me that the simpler explanation is right: they are basically telling the truth; he drugged women and then had sexual relations with some of them.  There are too many specific details to the stories.  And if he didn't do what they alleged, why wouldn't he just flat-out deny the claims, at least those which aren't involved in past lawsuits?  He could say: "With respect to past litigants, I cannot comment.  But I will comment on all the other ludicrous accusations: they are all utterly false.  Libel recourse from my lawyers will swiftly follow."

That's too bad.  It's obviously horrible for the women involved.  That goes without saying.  But I liked the guy I knew as a comedian, a lot (and so did my family including my kids).  It's hard to imagine.  Well, it's sort of not--not if one believes in depravity and has read Plato's Ring of Gyges.

Of course everyone can be forgiven, but first comes confession, apology, and (where need be) penance.

Now Playing

Tried but I just can't
Keep up with the Media Slant.
I watch the spastic dance
They're doin' the Media Slant.

 

They must be members of some dark fraternal club.
They hold their meetings while I'm soaking in the tub.

Rousseau and Stalin must be cheering in their graves.
I hear their rhetoric in everything they say.

 

 

"Hussein" by the Blue Scholars:

 

Yo.
This ain't the hope or the change you imagined

Pope Confirms: Cats Still Go to Hell

You gotta love this Pope.

Race Relations Under Obama

Before Obama was elected, I predicted that if he were elected, in spite of his rhetoric, race-relations would turn out to be worse or at least appear to be so.   Turns out I was right.

Why did I make that prediction?  Because now that America has chosen to elect a black president (how racist can America be electing for itself a black president??), leftists who makes a living on race baiting and infusing racism into EVERYTHING, will have to go to new and extraordinary lengths to "find" racism and racial problems in America.  They will have to double down on their hunt to "find" racism where no one thought to look before.  They will have to dig deeper.

So it's no surprise at all that people think that racial problems are worse, when it turns out there is racism even where there isn't.

Never Support a Law You're Not Willing to Kill For to Enforce

That's a bit hyperbolic but not by much. Nonetheless it's a helpful maxim.

Do you want to tax truck drivers for a fund to pay for any windshields they break from rocks they kick up?  Would you rather have a tax for this than have insurance or law suits?

OK.  And if a truck driver doesn't pay, shall we take him to jail?  And if he resists arrest, shall we use force?  And if responds in kind, shall we use lethal force?

[Aside: For our purposes we're ignoring other relevant questions such as (a) why should someone who chooses not to drive a car be financially impacted by a tax to pay for YOUR windshield (b) why should we think it's efficient to create more bureaucracy to regulate and enforce windshield replacements?]

Read on:
On the opening day of law school, I always counsel my first-year students never to support a law they are not willing to kill to enforce. Usually they greet this advice with something between skepticism and puzzlement, until I remind them that the police go armed to enforce the will of the state, and if you resist, they might kill you.

Biblical God vs. Perfect Being Theology

A nice discussion between a perfect being theologian/philosopher and a presuppositionalist (of sorts) going on here.

Repeal Hate Crime Laws (but not South Park)

I'll get to South Park in a bit, but I first want to note that I think this is the second time on this blog where I find myself in agreement with Bill Maher and Andrew Sulliven.  Kinda scary but, oh well.  Even a blind nut finds a squirrel once in a while.

Nat Hentoff gets it exactly right; hate crime laws are thought crime laws:

He is also right that such laws arguably violate the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause.  How are Americans equally protected under the law when certain groups (race, gender, religion, etc.) are given special protection and others aren't?

National Pubic Radio and the Tit of the State

As I'm listening to an NPR news report about a documentary (surprise) fighting "racism and homophobia" this MavPhil post is timely.  (Oh, no.  Frank Deford is now coming on to preach talk about some lefty issue sports.)

I reproduce below the words of the Maverick Philosopher:

"Black Lives Matter"

Yes they do.  But who doesn't think that?  Answer: Ugly racists.  For to think that black lives do not matter is to think that blacks do not have value.  But of course they do as do all humans. All humans have equal moral worth.  Skin color matters not a whit.  And human rights supervene on human worth.  Ergo, blacks and whites have the same human rights. 

Saying "Black Lives Matter" in the context of the Eric Garner case is to imply that people who think blacks have no value--i.e. racists--were in some meaningful way responsible for his death.  But is there evidence that, for example, the cops involved were racist and thought that blacks don't matter?  Was the black, female sergeant in charge a self-hating racist?  Should she be relieved of duty?  I have yet to see evidence that she or anyone else was a racist.

"Black Lives Matter" is an example of the leftist strategy of taking a seemingly innocent statement ("Who could object to 'Black Lives Mattering'? Who could object to "Social Justice?") and employing it as a bludgeon to advance a political end.  A hallmark of leftist rhetoric is the use of terminology that either (a) cannot fail to demand assent, (b) cannot fail to demand outright repulsion, or (c) euphemistically obscures controversial issues.  In this case, it is a combination of (a) and (c).

"Are you saying that black lives don't matter!?"  Of COURSE NOT.  "White Lives Matter."  An innocent statement...but not when said at a Klan rally!

Leftists inject race into everything.  But note that it is one thing to argue that certain policies should be changed that disproportionately hurt the black community; it is another thing to argue that a police officer committed homicide; it is quite another to argue that racism and racists are behind those policies and someone's death.

I Love This Dinosaur

Bullies: A Conversation Amongst a 4 and 6-Year-Old

Four-year old: "Dad, bullies can't have friends."

Six-year-old: "Na-uh!  A bully can have friends."

"No, bullies can't have friends."

"Yes they can!  A bully can become nice!"

"A nice bully isn't a bully!"

The Left's Disregard for Truth

Heard about Lena Dunham?  I hadn't.  Apparently she's an actress (HBO, etc.) and leftist activist.  She wrote a book wherein she claims that she was raped by a prominent Republican named "Barry" while in college at Oberlin (in Ohio--my wife and I went to a Shakespearean play there when in college).  I know a guy who once taught there--it is a bastion of leftist indoctrination.

Well, journalist John Nolte has been investigating the matter.  After all, if Barry is still out there, he's likely to rape again.  If Barry is not out there, then a man named Barry who used to go to the school and is now being regarded with suspicion will be exonerated.

Turns out that there's just no evidence that Barry--as described by Dunham--exists (if we can trust Nolte which seems plausible).  Read the whole thing, but in case you don't, I'll provide below what I take to be an excellent example of the left's disregard for truth in favor or their narrative.  What follows is truly amazing (but not at all surprising).

Setup: Nolte wants to go to the radio station on campus, since "Barry" allegedly hosted a show called Real Talk with Jimbo (according to Dunham's book).  He asks to check the archive to search for any evidence that there was such a show.

The conversation that ensues when put in contact with the station manager is telling: