This is something that isn't being reported on much, but I had heard of it. The Chinese are famously interested in making a buck, even if it uses people completely in the process. There are very desperate people in Africa with no hope, and if someone offers them a copper penny, they'll take it.
Please read this link for more info. It's from a British reporter.
As if slavery hadn't already been to Africa and back...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1063198/PETER-HITCHENS-How-China-created-new-slave-empire-Africa.html
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Ponderings on gays
So, this was interesting this morning. I think I should mention, in case it's not obvious to people I know, that I don't have a problem with people who are gay. I treat them like human beings and encourage everyone else to do the same. They are often delightful people to know. However, there is also an agenda that runs over the rights of those who are not gay. Most people don't see it that way, but there is. Like many other groups, gays are divided about that agenda.
Last night we went to the Olive Garden and got a seat in the little bar area, because then we could get going and not wait in line forever. Our waiter made one mean Mai Tai, and it was lovely. He had been a bartender, so he took it upon himself to do our drinks for us. He was also what we call "flamin'", meaning overtly and extremely obviously gay, in both dress and hand waving. :)
He was also a very, very good waiter and we enjoyed him. He says he would love to go into social work with youth and get a master's in Social Work, but right now it's good to make money at the Olive Garden. I have to agree with him, there. I do shudder that Seattle U. is where he wants to go, but it's liberal reputation didn't come from nowhere. If you are a conservative Catholic, don't even think about going there unless you really love a good fight and don't intend to major in anything Catholic. I guess it has a good law school, so it might be good for that.
In any case, I tipped him well, better than usual, because I'm tipping him for the great service we got, not his attitude or general appearance. He was a truly exceptional waiter. And I can separate the two.
I have read in a few places that there are many, many gay folks who would like very much to live nice, normal lives next door to hetero couples, but they are embarrassed by the actions of a few, the kind who love to show off their antics in big parades and make absolute spectacles of themselves. The kind who cannot tolerate people different from themselves when they, in fact, accuse conservatives of the same. That is downright annoying. It is annoying in any of the political touchpoints of today. The attitude that bothers me the most is, "If you think like that, then you aren't enlightened enough to speak to or be treated as an intelligent human being. You are only worth my while if you think like me, because you are "tolerant" if you think just like me."
Does anyone see that that is total irony? It's not even slightly logical. Tolerance does include polite conversations with conservatives, too.
Anyway, here is an article that was published today. In CA, there is a marriage amendment being voted on, making marriage only between men and women. It appears to be failing, but we shall see.
I found this at http://culbreath.wordpress.com/ Thanks, Jeff!
Published: September 26, 2008
“At least five members of the audience walked out”
Bishop Soto stuns national homosexual ministries conference
(Editor’s Note: For the complete text of the bishop’s speech, see related story in today’s edition, “It is sinful.”)
When two Catholics from Southern California learned that Sacramento Coadjutor Bishop Jaime Soto was to be the keynote speaker at the National Association of Catholic Diocesan Lesbian and Gay Ministries conference in Long Beach on Sept. 18, they decided to attend themselves to see and hear the talk in person. They say what they witnessed was a bishop who “courageously but gently” gave a clear presentation of Church teaching on sexuality.
[[Soto092608.jpg]]After California Catholic Daily reported on Bishop Soto’s plans to attend and speak at the conference (“Birds of a feather?” Sept. 15, 2008), many readers expressed disapproval or worry over how to interpret the soon-to-be Bishop of Sacramento’s decision. Bishop Soto will take over the diocese from retiring Bishop William Weigand on Nov. 30. The National Association of Catholic Diocesan Lesbian and Gay Ministries, based in Berkeley, is a network of local ministries that has the reputation of taking, at best, an ambiguous stance on the moral character of homosexuality and homosexual acts.
But there was noting ambiguous about Bishop Soto’s remarks to the group. “Sexual relations between people of the same sex can be alluring for homosexuals, but it deviates from the true meaning of the act and distracts them from the true nature of love to which God has called us all,” Bishop Soto said. “For this reason, it is sinful. Married love is a beautiful, heroic expression of faithful, life-giving, life-creating love. It should not be accommodated and manipulated for those who would believe that they can and have a right to mimic its unique expression."
At least five members of the audience walked out during the bishop’s address. When he finished speaking, there was general silence -- with only a very small number applauding.
The chairman of the conference then announced that the bishop would answer questions at a reception that would be held in another room. That led to widespread expressions of disapproval from members of the audience, who said they wanted to be able to express their responses immediately. It was agreed that those who wanted to speak would line up. The bishop was told twice by the chairman that he was free to leave if he wanted -- or to stay and listen. Bishop Soto stayed and sat quietly listening to every response.
A series of about eight speakers came to the microphone to express their unhappiness with what the bishop had said -- and what they felt he had not said. One woman said, in essence, "We know what the Church says. What we wanted you to talk about is the value of our lived experience as lesbian women and gay men."
Two speakers -- one man and one woman -- thanked the bishop for his address and voiced their agreement with what he had to say.
While the audience members were responding to the bishop’s remarks, a board member of the National Association of Catholic Diocesan Lesbian and Gay Ministries came up to one of the tables in the room and said, "On behalf of the board, I apologize. We had no idea Bishop Soto was going to say what he said."
© California Catholic Daily 2008. All Rights Reserved.
Article URL: http://calcatholic.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?id=cbbf34a9-d1cd-49a4-ab61-4cf77f14e121
And here is the actual speech. It covers more ground than just gays in the Church. I think people need to remember he is not "imposing his views on the rest of us". He is a Catholic leader teaching CATHOLICS at this conference. He was not speaking at the state capitol. A lot of people seem to miss that bishops are there to teach Catholics, not everyone else, but it's for everyone else if they want to listen, too.
Published: September 26, 2008
“It is sinful”
Text of Bishop Jaime Soto’s address to National Association of Catholic Diocesan Lesbian and Gay Ministries
(Editor’s Note: Below is a transcript of Bishop Jaime Soto’s keynote speech to the National Association of Diocesan Gay and Lesbian Ministries meeting in Long Beach on Sept. 18 as published on the web site of the Diocese of Sacramento. See a firsthand account of the speech and audience reaction in today’s edition, “At least five members of the audience walked out.”)
When we meditate on the person of Jesus, we often call to mind the many ways that Jesus cared for people. In all the many instances in the gospel when people come to the Lord Jesus with their needs, he fed them, he healed them, he forgave them, and he saved them. This can oftentimes lead us to the conclusion that Jesus always said “yes.” He always gave people what they wanted. He was an agreeable person.
That is not always the case in the gospel. A couple of weeks ago, we heard in Sunday’s gospel the story of a difficult encounter between Jesus and Simon Peter. In the sixteenth chapter of Matthew chosen for the Twenty-second Sunday of the Year, Jesus begins to lay out for his disciples the pending passion and death that awaits him in Jerusalem. Simon Peter is a little put off by the subject of Jesus’ conversation concerning the suffering that awaits him. He tries to persuade the Lord that this is not a good idea for him or for his followers. What Jesus described was not the cruise for which Simon Peter had signed up. When Simon Peter first responded to the Lord’s invitation to come follow him, this was not on the itinerary.
Jesus says “no” to his friend, Simon Peter, in no uncertain terms, “You are thinking not as God does, but as human beings do.” The words of Jesus to Peter must have shocked Peter. This is not the agreeable guy he had come to know and follow. He probably felt like prophet Jeremiah who in the first reading that same Sunday said quite bluntly, “You duped me, O LORD, and I let myself be duped.”
Jesus says “no” to Peter’s request so that he can say “yes” to Peter and to us with his sacrifice on the cross. Jesus does not give in to the expectations of Peter or the expectations of others. He has firmly planted in his heart the expectations and desires of his Father in heaven. He says “no” to Peter and challenges Peter to take up a greater “yes,” to take up his cross and follow him.
Paul had the same thing in mind when in the Letter to the Romans he says, “Do not conform yourselves to this age.” Paul reminds us that we are not to conform ourselves to the fads and fancies of our society. We are to conform ourselves to Christ.
We can easily give in to the temptation to go along in order to get along. We can easily be duped by the popular ideas and trends that surround us. “Everybody does it” can become reason enough to think it or do it ourselves. Like Peter we can think that what Jesus teaches us is too unrealistic, too unreasonable. Like Peter we can convince ourselves that we know better than the Lord. We may even try to negotiate with Jesus, like Peter does, for easier terms.
We see this especially in the area of sexuality. So much of what we see and hear every day can lead us to a distorted sense of our sexuality. Sexuality has been reduced to a matter of personal preference and personal pleasure without responsibility and with little respect for others. We can lose sight of the profound dignity of the human person who shares in God’s love and creative work through the chaste expression of one’s sexuality proper to one’s calling in life.
We are surrounded by a “contraceptive culture” that has reduced the procreative act to simple recreation absolved of any responsibility.
The deceptive language of “pro-choice” ignores the consequences of the choice for abortion that does violence to the most innocent and leaves traumatic scars on many young women.
What is a particular concern and alarm for us in California as well as others across the country is the bold judicial challenge to the longstanding cultural and moral understanding of marriage as a sacred covenant between a woman and a man. Our own efforts to restore common sense through the ballot initiative, Proposition 8, are portrayed as bigoted and out-of-touch. The irony is that what we propose is most in touch with the nature of families and what is good for the welfare of all.
That we find ourselves at this time, reasserting the basic moral and reasonable understanding of marriage, means that much has changed in the popular perceptions of sexuality and common notions about marriage. While we work to pass Proposition 8 this coming November, it is important to remember why we do this. Like Jesus, in the sixteenth chapter of Matthew that I cited, we are saying a strong “no” to the California courts and to many who support the court’s wrong-headed decision. This “no” is not rooted in bigotry or bias. It is firmly rooted in a greater “yes” to a truer, more authentic appreciation of love’s calling and love’s design for the human heart.
The nature of love has been distorted. Many popular notions have deviated from its true destiny. Love for many has come to mean having sex. If you cannot have sex than you cannot love. This is the message. Even more destructive is the prevailing notion that sex is not an expression of love. Sex is love. This reductio ad absurdam deprives sexuality of its true meaning and robs the human person of the possibility of ever knowing real love.
Sexual intercourse is a beautiful expression of love, but this is so when intercourse is understood as a unique expression intended to share in the creative, faithful love of God. As the Holy Father, Pope Benedict, elaborated in his first encyclical, Deus Caritas Est, “Marriage based on exclusive and definitive love” – between a man and woman – “becomes the icon of the relationship between God and his people and vice versa. God's way of loving becomes the measure of human love.” (DCE, n. 11) Sexual intercourse within the context of the marriage covenant becomes a beautiful icon – a sacrament – of God’s creative, unifying love. When sexual intercourse is taken out of this iconic, sacramental context of the complementary, procreative covenant between a man and a woman it becomes impoverished and it demeans the human person.
Sexual intercourse between a man and a woman in the covenant of Marriage is one expression of love to which the human person can aspire, but we are all called to love. It is part of our human nature to love. We all have a desire to love, but this love can deviate from its true calling when it exalts only in the pleasure of the body. Pope Benedict said in the same encyclical, “The contemporary way of exalting the body is deceptive. Eros, reduced to pure ‘sex,’ has become a commodity, a mere ‘thing’ to be bought and sold, or rather, man himself becomes a commodity. This is hardly man's great ‘yes’ to the body. On the contrary, he now considers his body and his sexuality as the purely material part of himself, to be used and exploited at will.” (DCE, n. 5) This is not our true calling. The human desire to love must lead us to the divine. Looking again to the Holy Father’s encyclical, he says, “True, eros – human desire – tends to rise ‘in ecstasy’ towards the Divine, to lead us beyond ourselves; yet for this very reason it calls for a path of ascent, renunciation, purification and healing.” (DCE, n. 5)
This path is the path of chastity. This is very true in marriage. It is also true in all of human life because it is the nature of all authentic love. We are all called to love. We are all called to be loved. This can only happen when we choose to love in the manner that God has called us to live. Love leads us to ecstasy, not as a moment of intoxication but rather as a journey, “an ongoing exodus out of the closed inward-looking self towards its liberation through self-giving, and thus towards authentic self-discovery and indeed the discovery of God: ‘Whoever seeks to gain his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life will preserve it’ (Lk 17:33).” (DCE n. 6)
Sexuality, then, as part of our human nature only dignifies and liberates us when we begin to love in harmony with God’s love and God’s wisdom for us. Chastity as a virtue is the path that brings us to that harmony with God’s wisdom and love. Chastity moves us beyond one’s desire to what God wills for each one of us. Chastity is love’s journey on the path of “ascent, renunciation, purification and healing.” Chastity is the understanding that it is not all about me or about us. We act always under God’s gaze. Desire tempered and tested by “renunciation, purification, and healing” can lead us to God’s design.
This is true for all of us. It is also true for men and women who are homosexual. We are called to live and love in a manner that brings us into respectful, chaste relationships with one another and an intimate relationship with God. We should be an instrument of God’s love for one another. Let me be clear here. Sexual intercourse, outside of the marriage covenant between a man and a woman, can be alluring and intoxicating but it will not lead to that liberating journey of true self-discovery and an authentic discovery of God. For that reason, it is sinful. Sexual relations between people of the same sex can be alluring for homosexuals but it deviates from the true meaning of the act and distracts them from the true nature of love to which God has called us all. For this reason, it is sinful.
Married love is a beautiful, heroic expression of faithful, life-giving, life-creating love. It should not be accommodated and manipulated for those who would believe that they can and have a right to mimic its unique expression.
Marriage is also not the sole domain of love as some of the politics would seem to imply. Love is lived and celebrated in so many ways that can lead to a wholesome, earnest, and religious life: the deep and chaste love of committed friends, the untiring love of committed religious and clergy, the profound and charitable bonds among the members of a Christian community, enduring, forgiving, and supportive love among family members. Should we dismiss or demean the human and spiritual significance of these lives given in love?
This is a hard message today. It is the still the right message. It will unsettle and disturb many of our brothers and sisters, just as Peter was unsettled and put off by the stern rebuke of his master and good friend, the Lord Jesus. If the story of Peter’s relationship with Jesus had begun and ended there, it would have been a sad tale indeed, but that is not the whole story then nor is it the whole story now. Jesus met Simon Peter on the shore of the Sea of Galilee. He said with great love and fondness, “Come, follow me.” Peter would not only continue to follow the Lord Jesus to Jerusalem. Despite his many failings and foibles, he would eventually choose to love as Jesus loved him. He would die as martyr’s death in Rome, giving himself completely for the one who loved him so dearly.
The teaching of the Church regarding the sacred dignity of human sexuality is not a rebuke but an invitation to love as God loves us. The Church’s firm support of Proposition 8 is not a rebuke against homosexuals but a heartfelt affirmation of the nature of the marriage covenant between a man and a woman. We hope and pray that all people, including our brothers and sisters who are homosexuals, will see the reasonableness of our position and the sincerity of our love for them.
For that reason, we should let the words of St. Paul haunt us and unsettle us: “Do not conform yourself to this age.” In so many ways we can allow ourselves to be duped, fooled, by the fads and trends of this age. It is far better that we allow ourselves to be drawn into the ways and the manners of Jesus. The Lord Jesus challenges us as he challenged his friend, Simon Peter, to not conform to what is fashionable and convenient. He has so much more to offer us. Do not think as others do. Let us think as God does. He shows us the way, the truth, and the life.
Last night we went to the Olive Garden and got a seat in the little bar area, because then we could get going and not wait in line forever. Our waiter made one mean Mai Tai, and it was lovely. He had been a bartender, so he took it upon himself to do our drinks for us. He was also what we call "flamin'", meaning overtly and extremely obviously gay, in both dress and hand waving. :)
He was also a very, very good waiter and we enjoyed him. He says he would love to go into social work with youth and get a master's in Social Work, but right now it's good to make money at the Olive Garden. I have to agree with him, there. I do shudder that Seattle U. is where he wants to go, but it's liberal reputation didn't come from nowhere. If you are a conservative Catholic, don't even think about going there unless you really love a good fight and don't intend to major in anything Catholic. I guess it has a good law school, so it might be good for that.
In any case, I tipped him well, better than usual, because I'm tipping him for the great service we got, not his attitude or general appearance. He was a truly exceptional waiter. And I can separate the two.
I have read in a few places that there are many, many gay folks who would like very much to live nice, normal lives next door to hetero couples, but they are embarrassed by the actions of a few, the kind who love to show off their antics in big parades and make absolute spectacles of themselves. The kind who cannot tolerate people different from themselves when they, in fact, accuse conservatives of the same. That is downright annoying. It is annoying in any of the political touchpoints of today. The attitude that bothers me the most is, "If you think like that, then you aren't enlightened enough to speak to or be treated as an intelligent human being. You are only worth my while if you think like me, because you are "tolerant" if you think just like me."
Does anyone see that that is total irony? It's not even slightly logical. Tolerance does include polite conversations with conservatives, too.
Anyway, here is an article that was published today. In CA, there is a marriage amendment being voted on, making marriage only between men and women. It appears to be failing, but we shall see.
I found this at http://culbreath.wordpress.com/ Thanks, Jeff!
Published: September 26, 2008
“At least five members of the audience walked out”
Bishop Soto stuns national homosexual ministries conference
(Editor’s Note: For the complete text of the bishop’s speech, see related story in today’s edition, “It is sinful.”)
When two Catholics from Southern California learned that Sacramento Coadjutor Bishop Jaime Soto was to be the keynote speaker at the National Association of Catholic Diocesan Lesbian and Gay Ministries conference in Long Beach on Sept. 18, they decided to attend themselves to see and hear the talk in person. They say what they witnessed was a bishop who “courageously but gently” gave a clear presentation of Church teaching on sexuality.
[[Soto092608.jpg]]After California Catholic Daily reported on Bishop Soto’s plans to attend and speak at the conference (“Birds of a feather?” Sept. 15, 2008), many readers expressed disapproval or worry over how to interpret the soon-to-be Bishop of Sacramento’s decision. Bishop Soto will take over the diocese from retiring Bishop William Weigand on Nov. 30. The National Association of Catholic Diocesan Lesbian and Gay Ministries, based in Berkeley, is a network of local ministries that has the reputation of taking, at best, an ambiguous stance on the moral character of homosexuality and homosexual acts.
But there was noting ambiguous about Bishop Soto’s remarks to the group. “Sexual relations between people of the same sex can be alluring for homosexuals, but it deviates from the true meaning of the act and distracts them from the true nature of love to which God has called us all,” Bishop Soto said. “For this reason, it is sinful. Married love is a beautiful, heroic expression of faithful, life-giving, life-creating love. It should not be accommodated and manipulated for those who would believe that they can and have a right to mimic its unique expression."
At least five members of the audience walked out during the bishop’s address. When he finished speaking, there was general silence -- with only a very small number applauding.
The chairman of the conference then announced that the bishop would answer questions at a reception that would be held in another room. That led to widespread expressions of disapproval from members of the audience, who said they wanted to be able to express their responses immediately. It was agreed that those who wanted to speak would line up. The bishop was told twice by the chairman that he was free to leave if he wanted -- or to stay and listen. Bishop Soto stayed and sat quietly listening to every response.
A series of about eight speakers came to the microphone to express their unhappiness with what the bishop had said -- and what they felt he had not said. One woman said, in essence, "We know what the Church says. What we wanted you to talk about is the value of our lived experience as lesbian women and gay men."
Two speakers -- one man and one woman -- thanked the bishop for his address and voiced their agreement with what he had to say.
While the audience members were responding to the bishop’s remarks, a board member of the National Association of Catholic Diocesan Lesbian and Gay Ministries came up to one of the tables in the room and said, "On behalf of the board, I apologize. We had no idea Bishop Soto was going to say what he said."
© California Catholic Daily 2008. All Rights Reserved.
Article URL: http://calcatholic.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?id=cbbf34a9-d1cd-49a4-ab61-4cf77f14e121
And here is the actual speech. It covers more ground than just gays in the Church. I think people need to remember he is not "imposing his views on the rest of us". He is a Catholic leader teaching CATHOLICS at this conference. He was not speaking at the state capitol. A lot of people seem to miss that bishops are there to teach Catholics, not everyone else, but it's for everyone else if they want to listen, too.
Published: September 26, 2008
“It is sinful”
Text of Bishop Jaime Soto’s address to National Association of Catholic Diocesan Lesbian and Gay Ministries
(Editor’s Note: Below is a transcript of Bishop Jaime Soto’s keynote speech to the National Association of Diocesan Gay and Lesbian Ministries meeting in Long Beach on Sept. 18 as published on the web site of the Diocese of Sacramento. See a firsthand account of the speech and audience reaction in today’s edition, “At least five members of the audience walked out.”)
When we meditate on the person of Jesus, we often call to mind the many ways that Jesus cared for people. In all the many instances in the gospel when people come to the Lord Jesus with their needs, he fed them, he healed them, he forgave them, and he saved them. This can oftentimes lead us to the conclusion that Jesus always said “yes.” He always gave people what they wanted. He was an agreeable person.
That is not always the case in the gospel. A couple of weeks ago, we heard in Sunday’s gospel the story of a difficult encounter between Jesus and Simon Peter. In the sixteenth chapter of Matthew chosen for the Twenty-second Sunday of the Year, Jesus begins to lay out for his disciples the pending passion and death that awaits him in Jerusalem. Simon Peter is a little put off by the subject of Jesus’ conversation concerning the suffering that awaits him. He tries to persuade the Lord that this is not a good idea for him or for his followers. What Jesus described was not the cruise for which Simon Peter had signed up. When Simon Peter first responded to the Lord’s invitation to come follow him, this was not on the itinerary.
Jesus says “no” to his friend, Simon Peter, in no uncertain terms, “You are thinking not as God does, but as human beings do.” The words of Jesus to Peter must have shocked Peter. This is not the agreeable guy he had come to know and follow. He probably felt like prophet Jeremiah who in the first reading that same Sunday said quite bluntly, “You duped me, O LORD, and I let myself be duped.”
Jesus says “no” to Peter’s request so that he can say “yes” to Peter and to us with his sacrifice on the cross. Jesus does not give in to the expectations of Peter or the expectations of others. He has firmly planted in his heart the expectations and desires of his Father in heaven. He says “no” to Peter and challenges Peter to take up a greater “yes,” to take up his cross and follow him.
Paul had the same thing in mind when in the Letter to the Romans he says, “Do not conform yourselves to this age.” Paul reminds us that we are not to conform ourselves to the fads and fancies of our society. We are to conform ourselves to Christ.
We can easily give in to the temptation to go along in order to get along. We can easily be duped by the popular ideas and trends that surround us. “Everybody does it” can become reason enough to think it or do it ourselves. Like Peter we can think that what Jesus teaches us is too unrealistic, too unreasonable. Like Peter we can convince ourselves that we know better than the Lord. We may even try to negotiate with Jesus, like Peter does, for easier terms.
We see this especially in the area of sexuality. So much of what we see and hear every day can lead us to a distorted sense of our sexuality. Sexuality has been reduced to a matter of personal preference and personal pleasure without responsibility and with little respect for others. We can lose sight of the profound dignity of the human person who shares in God’s love and creative work through the chaste expression of one’s sexuality proper to one’s calling in life.
We are surrounded by a “contraceptive culture” that has reduced the procreative act to simple recreation absolved of any responsibility.
The deceptive language of “pro-choice” ignores the consequences of the choice for abortion that does violence to the most innocent and leaves traumatic scars on many young women.
What is a particular concern and alarm for us in California as well as others across the country is the bold judicial challenge to the longstanding cultural and moral understanding of marriage as a sacred covenant between a woman and a man. Our own efforts to restore common sense through the ballot initiative, Proposition 8, are portrayed as bigoted and out-of-touch. The irony is that what we propose is most in touch with the nature of families and what is good for the welfare of all.
That we find ourselves at this time, reasserting the basic moral and reasonable understanding of marriage, means that much has changed in the popular perceptions of sexuality and common notions about marriage. While we work to pass Proposition 8 this coming November, it is important to remember why we do this. Like Jesus, in the sixteenth chapter of Matthew that I cited, we are saying a strong “no” to the California courts and to many who support the court’s wrong-headed decision. This “no” is not rooted in bigotry or bias. It is firmly rooted in a greater “yes” to a truer, more authentic appreciation of love’s calling and love’s design for the human heart.
The nature of love has been distorted. Many popular notions have deviated from its true destiny. Love for many has come to mean having sex. If you cannot have sex than you cannot love. This is the message. Even more destructive is the prevailing notion that sex is not an expression of love. Sex is love. This reductio ad absurdam deprives sexuality of its true meaning and robs the human person of the possibility of ever knowing real love.
Sexual intercourse is a beautiful expression of love, but this is so when intercourse is understood as a unique expression intended to share in the creative, faithful love of God. As the Holy Father, Pope Benedict, elaborated in his first encyclical, Deus Caritas Est, “Marriage based on exclusive and definitive love” – between a man and woman – “becomes the icon of the relationship between God and his people and vice versa. God's way of loving becomes the measure of human love.” (DCE, n. 11) Sexual intercourse within the context of the marriage covenant becomes a beautiful icon – a sacrament – of God’s creative, unifying love. When sexual intercourse is taken out of this iconic, sacramental context of the complementary, procreative covenant between a man and a woman it becomes impoverished and it demeans the human person.
Sexual intercourse between a man and a woman in the covenant of Marriage is one expression of love to which the human person can aspire, but we are all called to love. It is part of our human nature to love. We all have a desire to love, but this love can deviate from its true calling when it exalts only in the pleasure of the body. Pope Benedict said in the same encyclical, “The contemporary way of exalting the body is deceptive. Eros, reduced to pure ‘sex,’ has become a commodity, a mere ‘thing’ to be bought and sold, or rather, man himself becomes a commodity. This is hardly man's great ‘yes’ to the body. On the contrary, he now considers his body and his sexuality as the purely material part of himself, to be used and exploited at will.” (DCE, n. 5) This is not our true calling. The human desire to love must lead us to the divine. Looking again to the Holy Father’s encyclical, he says, “True, eros – human desire – tends to rise ‘in ecstasy’ towards the Divine, to lead us beyond ourselves; yet for this very reason it calls for a path of ascent, renunciation, purification and healing.” (DCE, n. 5)
This path is the path of chastity. This is very true in marriage. It is also true in all of human life because it is the nature of all authentic love. We are all called to love. We are all called to be loved. This can only happen when we choose to love in the manner that God has called us to live. Love leads us to ecstasy, not as a moment of intoxication but rather as a journey, “an ongoing exodus out of the closed inward-looking self towards its liberation through self-giving, and thus towards authentic self-discovery and indeed the discovery of God: ‘Whoever seeks to gain his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life will preserve it’ (Lk 17:33).” (DCE n. 6)
Sexuality, then, as part of our human nature only dignifies and liberates us when we begin to love in harmony with God’s love and God’s wisdom for us. Chastity as a virtue is the path that brings us to that harmony with God’s wisdom and love. Chastity moves us beyond one’s desire to what God wills for each one of us. Chastity is love’s journey on the path of “ascent, renunciation, purification and healing.” Chastity is the understanding that it is not all about me or about us. We act always under God’s gaze. Desire tempered and tested by “renunciation, purification, and healing” can lead us to God’s design.
This is true for all of us. It is also true for men and women who are homosexual. We are called to live and love in a manner that brings us into respectful, chaste relationships with one another and an intimate relationship with God. We should be an instrument of God’s love for one another. Let me be clear here. Sexual intercourse, outside of the marriage covenant between a man and a woman, can be alluring and intoxicating but it will not lead to that liberating journey of true self-discovery and an authentic discovery of God. For that reason, it is sinful. Sexual relations between people of the same sex can be alluring for homosexuals but it deviates from the true meaning of the act and distracts them from the true nature of love to which God has called us all. For this reason, it is sinful.
Married love is a beautiful, heroic expression of faithful, life-giving, life-creating love. It should not be accommodated and manipulated for those who would believe that they can and have a right to mimic its unique expression.
Marriage is also not the sole domain of love as some of the politics would seem to imply. Love is lived and celebrated in so many ways that can lead to a wholesome, earnest, and religious life: the deep and chaste love of committed friends, the untiring love of committed religious and clergy, the profound and charitable bonds among the members of a Christian community, enduring, forgiving, and supportive love among family members. Should we dismiss or demean the human and spiritual significance of these lives given in love?
This is a hard message today. It is the still the right message. It will unsettle and disturb many of our brothers and sisters, just as Peter was unsettled and put off by the stern rebuke of his master and good friend, the Lord Jesus. If the story of Peter’s relationship with Jesus had begun and ended there, it would have been a sad tale indeed, but that is not the whole story then nor is it the whole story now. Jesus met Simon Peter on the shore of the Sea of Galilee. He said with great love and fondness, “Come, follow me.” Peter would not only continue to follow the Lord Jesus to Jerusalem. Despite his many failings and foibles, he would eventually choose to love as Jesus loved him. He would die as martyr’s death in Rome, giving himself completely for the one who loved him so dearly.
The teaching of the Church regarding the sacred dignity of human sexuality is not a rebuke but an invitation to love as God loves us. The Church’s firm support of Proposition 8 is not a rebuke against homosexuals but a heartfelt affirmation of the nature of the marriage covenant between a man and a woman. We hope and pray that all people, including our brothers and sisters who are homosexuals, will see the reasonableness of our position and the sincerity of our love for them.
For that reason, we should let the words of St. Paul haunt us and unsettle us: “Do not conform yourself to this age.” In so many ways we can allow ourselves to be duped, fooled, by the fads and trends of this age. It is far better that we allow ourselves to be drawn into the ways and the manners of Jesus. The Lord Jesus challenges us as he challenged his friend, Simon Peter, to not conform to what is fashionable and convenient. He has so much more to offer us. Do not think as others do. Let us think as God does. He shows us the way, the truth, and the life.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
"Bella" actor speaks up
Check it out on YouTube! The video is there. Think he's crazy? Then you should look up what Margaret Sanger wanted to do when she founded Planned Parenthood -- Get rid of the poor and minorities, they are useless anyway.
I don't make this stuff up.
Famous Mexican actor rips Obama over abortion, warns U.S. Latinos
Los Angeles, Sep 24, 2008 / 04:34 pm (CNA).- The movie star Eduardo Verástegui has recorded a special video message to encourage Hispanic voters in the U.S. to put an end to abortion and to expose the radical abortion position of presidential candidate Barack Obama.
Verástegui, who is perhaps best known in the U.S. for his pro-life film "Bella," presents his challenge to Latino voters by calling attention to the fact that most abortion clinics are located in Hispanic neighborhoods and that the Spanish media is saturated with pro-abortion advertising.
“Abortion is not only a lucrative industry; it is also used by people who are racist as a means to eliminate our people, since they consider us to be a threat to democracy in this country,” Verástegui asserts.
After noting that more than 3,000 babies are aborted each day in the U.S. and that 650 of those babies are Hispanic, the actor states that abortion is legal “because there are not enough men and women who raise their voice against abortion.”
“We need to put an end to abortion and political candidates play a very important role in this matter,” he continued, pointing out that Obama supports abortions performed during the last trimester of pregnancy, inhuman partial birth abortion,” and that Obama “wants to finance abortions with the tax dollars you and I pay.”
As a lawmaker, Obama “voted on several occasions against a law to protect babies who survived an abortion and were born alive,” Verástegui states.
“Obama is committed to removing all the pro-life laws that in many states currently offer protection to unborn babies and their mothers. Mr. Obama does not agree that the parents of a 13 year-old girl who is pregnant should be notified before she has an abortion,” the actor underscored.
“Obama is more interested in maintaining the legality of abortion that in the well-being of the babies, children and families of this country. Let us unite and do something to defend life at every stage, from conception to natural death,” he says.
Verástegui's message about Obama is punctuated by clips from the video “The Hard Truth,” which shows graphic images from real abortions. The Mexican actor explains that just as teachers in schools show videos of the Holocaust to expose the truth about the atrocities committed by the Nazis, he too is including the video to show the horror of abortion.
I don't make this stuff up.
Famous Mexican actor rips Obama over abortion, warns U.S. Latinos
Los Angeles, Sep 24, 2008 / 04:34 pm (CNA).- The movie star Eduardo Verástegui has recorded a special video message to encourage Hispanic voters in the U.S. to put an end to abortion and to expose the radical abortion position of presidential candidate Barack Obama.
Verástegui, who is perhaps best known in the U.S. for his pro-life film "Bella," presents his challenge to Latino voters by calling attention to the fact that most abortion clinics are located in Hispanic neighborhoods and that the Spanish media is saturated with pro-abortion advertising.
“Abortion is not only a lucrative industry; it is also used by people who are racist as a means to eliminate our people, since they consider us to be a threat to democracy in this country,” Verástegui asserts.
After noting that more than 3,000 babies are aborted each day in the U.S. and that 650 of those babies are Hispanic, the actor states that abortion is legal “because there are not enough men and women who raise their voice against abortion.”
“We need to put an end to abortion and political candidates play a very important role in this matter,” he continued, pointing out that Obama supports abortions performed during the last trimester of pregnancy, inhuman partial birth abortion,” and that Obama “wants to finance abortions with the tax dollars you and I pay.”
As a lawmaker, Obama “voted on several occasions against a law to protect babies who survived an abortion and were born alive,” Verástegui states.
“Obama is committed to removing all the pro-life laws that in many states currently offer protection to unborn babies and their mothers. Mr. Obama does not agree that the parents of a 13 year-old girl who is pregnant should be notified before she has an abortion,” the actor underscored.
“Obama is more interested in maintaining the legality of abortion that in the well-being of the babies, children and families of this country. Let us unite and do something to defend life at every stage, from conception to natural death,” he says.
Verástegui's message about Obama is punctuated by clips from the video “The Hard Truth,” which shows graphic images from real abortions. The Mexican actor explains that just as teachers in schools show videos of the Holocaust to expose the truth about the atrocities committed by the Nazis, he too is including the video to show the horror of abortion.
Friday, September 26, 2008
Please thank Joel
Hello All,
This was printed recently, and it has come to my attention that because this man stood up for pro-life Catholics in particular, saying that Catholic bashing was ok, but all other bashing was not, he has recieved quite a bashing of his own. He's Episcopalian. I'd like to have as many people thank him as possible.
Thank you, Joel!
Seattle Post-Intelligencer
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/connelly/379962_Joel22.html
Supporters of assisted suicide bait Catholics
Monday, September 22, 2008
Last updated 12:14 a.m. PT
By JOEL CONNELLY
P-I COLUMNIST
IN AN AMERICA where any remark hinting of prejudice can force its maker into endless mea culpas, the mocking of a world religious leader ought to invite political suicide.
But one religion, the Catholic Church, seems to be exempt -- at least by some advocates of Initiative 1000, which would legalize physician-assisted suicide.
Pope Benedict XVI took an anti-euthanasia message to Lourdes last week, saying, "A society unable to accept its suffering members and incapable of helping to share their suffering is a cruel and inhumane society."
"Dignity never abandons the sick person," he declared, adding that people must accept death at "the hour chosen by God."
The communications director for I-1000 promptly sent political bloggers a memo titled "Pope Keeps God on Schedule, Auto-Dial." It read:
"The Pope does not go into detail about God's appointment book, although many doctors note that God is, in fact, kept waiting past the chosen hour (rather like we are kept waiting at the doctor's office) due to medical interventions that artificially extend life (but do not end suffering). Perhaps God is running late."
She was doubtless trying to be snarky. But the note demeans fundamental questions raised in the pope's speech, which will face Washington voters when they fill out their ballots.
The protection of life, by law, is a basic principle of democratic societies. Central to our definition of its value is the prohibition against killing innocent people. What circumstances, if any, merit loosening that prohibition? What does that say to (and about) a society?
While it doesn't carry the full stench of bigotry, I-1000 campaigners are dispensing noxious stuff, at least to a chosen few of the secular faithful.
And the "Catholic card" has been played, astutely, in a way reminiscent of the misdirection plays that Lou Holtz perfected coaching at Notre Dame. The goal: Create confusion as to who has the ball.
The pro-1000 campaign sent out a release last month making a big deal that Catholic dioceses and archdioceses had donated $132,650 in the previous eight days to the Coalition Against Assisted Suicide.
The initiative's amen corner -- at least as represented by two radio stations I listened to -- reported that the Catholic Church was "pouring money" into the anti-I-1000 campaign.
As Franklin D. Roosevelt used to say in his campaigns, let's look at the facts.
The Coalition Against Assisted Suicide had raised $508,952 as of Friday. Of that total, $221,414 had come from Catholic dioceses, parishes, health organizations and the Knights of Columbus. Add $500 from the retired Archbishop of Detroit.
By contrast, just one wealthy donor, former Gov. Booth Gardner, has given $170,000 to the Yes on 1000 Committee.
Oregon Death with Dignity gave $300,000 to seed the pro-1000 campaign. Various Compassion & Choices groups, mainly headquartered in Denver, have donated $265,000.
Other out-of-state donors have included the Hemlock Society and Euthanasia Research.
All told, the Yes on 1000 Committee has raised $1.906 million. It is a Goliath to opponents' David.
"The five out-of-state dioceses and archdioceses who are currently funding the campaign against I-1000 have been plagued with lawsuits and allegations of child abuse," reads the pro-I-1000 release.
The statement is a direct appeal to overt and/or latent anti-Catholicism. The abuse cases are being settled. Money has not been taken from settlements to fight assisted suicide.
In fact, let's turn the argument on its ear.
The Catholic Church supports Washington's largest private health care system. It provides the state's largest private education system. It underwrites our largest private hospice.
Non-Catholic parents send their kids to inner-city parochial grammar schools because they get an education in values. The church provides hospice care to dying patients who cannot pay, or when insurance runs out.
As well, the church has been accused of trying to "force" its values on other people.
Catholics are at most 13 percent of the population in this "unchurched" state.
In the current campaign, said Sister Sharon Park of the Washington State Catholic Conference, "the church is mostly working within the church. Our duty is to educate our people."
Existing state law prohibits assisted suicide. Isn't it accurate, then, to say that Gardner, Compassion & Choices, the Hemlock Society and Euthanasia Research are trying to impose THEIR values on the rest of us?
"Catholic baiting is the anti-Semitism of the liberals," Yale professor Peter Viereck famously opined.
Sadly, there seems to be some truth in the statement. Racism has vanished from the nation's political vocabulary. Sexism is isolated to a few boorish right-wing pundits. Homophobia is clearly on the way out.
Anti-Catholicism survives: It lives despite the church's defense of immigrants, opposition to the death penalty, and giant peace marches that have wound through Seattle streets to St. James Cathedral.
We all have values. It is flat-out wrong to demean the values of a particular faith or exclude them from the public square.
Wasn't the civil rights movement a case of religious values moving and improving a nation?
P-I columnist Joel Connelly can be reached at 206-448-8160 or joelconnelly@seattlepi.com. Follow politics on the P-I's blog at blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics.
© 1998-2008 Seattle Post-Intelligencer
This was printed recently, and it has come to my attention that because this man stood up for pro-life Catholics in particular, saying that Catholic bashing was ok, but all other bashing was not, he has recieved quite a bashing of his own. He's Episcopalian. I'd like to have as many people thank him as possible.
Thank you, Joel!
Seattle Post-Intelligencer
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/connelly/379962_Joel22.html
Supporters of assisted suicide bait Catholics
Monday, September 22, 2008
Last updated 12:14 a.m. PT
By JOEL CONNELLY
P-I COLUMNIST
IN AN AMERICA where any remark hinting of prejudice can force its maker into endless mea culpas, the mocking of a world religious leader ought to invite political suicide.
But one religion, the Catholic Church, seems to be exempt -- at least by some advocates of Initiative 1000, which would legalize physician-assisted suicide.
Pope Benedict XVI took an anti-euthanasia message to Lourdes last week, saying, "A society unable to accept its suffering members and incapable of helping to share their suffering is a cruel and inhumane society."
"Dignity never abandons the sick person," he declared, adding that people must accept death at "the hour chosen by God."
The communications director for I-1000 promptly sent political bloggers a memo titled "Pope Keeps God on Schedule, Auto-Dial." It read:
"The Pope does not go into detail about God's appointment book, although many doctors note that God is, in fact, kept waiting past the chosen hour (rather like we are kept waiting at the doctor's office) due to medical interventions that artificially extend life (but do not end suffering). Perhaps God is running late."
She was doubtless trying to be snarky. But the note demeans fundamental questions raised in the pope's speech, which will face Washington voters when they fill out their ballots.
The protection of life, by law, is a basic principle of democratic societies. Central to our definition of its value is the prohibition against killing innocent people. What circumstances, if any, merit loosening that prohibition? What does that say to (and about) a society?
While it doesn't carry the full stench of bigotry, I-1000 campaigners are dispensing noxious stuff, at least to a chosen few of the secular faithful.
And the "Catholic card" has been played, astutely, in a way reminiscent of the misdirection plays that Lou Holtz perfected coaching at Notre Dame. The goal: Create confusion as to who has the ball.
The pro-1000 campaign sent out a release last month making a big deal that Catholic dioceses and archdioceses had donated $132,650 in the previous eight days to the Coalition Against Assisted Suicide.
The initiative's amen corner -- at least as represented by two radio stations I listened to -- reported that the Catholic Church was "pouring money" into the anti-I-1000 campaign.
As Franklin D. Roosevelt used to say in his campaigns, let's look at the facts.
The Coalition Against Assisted Suicide had raised $508,952 as of Friday. Of that total, $221,414 had come from Catholic dioceses, parishes, health organizations and the Knights of Columbus. Add $500 from the retired Archbishop of Detroit.
By contrast, just one wealthy donor, former Gov. Booth Gardner, has given $170,000 to the Yes on 1000 Committee.
Oregon Death with Dignity gave $300,000 to seed the pro-1000 campaign. Various Compassion & Choices groups, mainly headquartered in Denver, have donated $265,000.
Other out-of-state donors have included the Hemlock Society and Euthanasia Research.
All told, the Yes on 1000 Committee has raised $1.906 million. It is a Goliath to opponents' David.
"The five out-of-state dioceses and archdioceses who are currently funding the campaign against I-1000 have been plagued with lawsuits and allegations of child abuse," reads the pro-I-1000 release.
The statement is a direct appeal to overt and/or latent anti-Catholicism. The abuse cases are being settled. Money has not been taken from settlements to fight assisted suicide.
In fact, let's turn the argument on its ear.
The Catholic Church supports Washington's largest private health care system. It provides the state's largest private education system. It underwrites our largest private hospice.
Non-Catholic parents send their kids to inner-city parochial grammar schools because they get an education in values. The church provides hospice care to dying patients who cannot pay, or when insurance runs out.
As well, the church has been accused of trying to "force" its values on other people.
Catholics are at most 13 percent of the population in this "unchurched" state.
In the current campaign, said Sister Sharon Park of the Washington State Catholic Conference, "the church is mostly working within the church. Our duty is to educate our people."
Existing state law prohibits assisted suicide. Isn't it accurate, then, to say that Gardner, Compassion & Choices, the Hemlock Society and Euthanasia Research are trying to impose THEIR values on the rest of us?
"Catholic baiting is the anti-Semitism of the liberals," Yale professor Peter Viereck famously opined.
Sadly, there seems to be some truth in the statement. Racism has vanished from the nation's political vocabulary. Sexism is isolated to a few boorish right-wing pundits. Homophobia is clearly on the way out.
Anti-Catholicism survives: It lives despite the church's defense of immigrants, opposition to the death penalty, and giant peace marches that have wound through Seattle streets to St. James Cathedral.
We all have values. It is flat-out wrong to demean the values of a particular faith or exclude them from the public square.
Wasn't the civil rights movement a case of religious values moving and improving a nation?
P-I columnist Joel Connelly can be reached at 206-448-8160 or joelconnelly@seattlepi.com. Follow politics on the P-I's blog at blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics.
© 1998-2008 Seattle Post-Intelligencer
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
My friend needs prayers for her cancer
Dear Friends,
The following entry is from my friend Jennifer's Caringbridge website. It is as I had feared, since she's been in stage 3 or 4 cancer since 2002. She got married about two years ago, I think, to a wonderful guy. She lives in Santa Clara or thereabouts. I am very sad to read this, but I hope that prayers may prevail. I am hopeful that her example will inspire others. Jennifer (Wagner) Estes and I went to GU together and lived in the same hall her freshman year.
Prayers!
This is the most difficult journal entry I will have to write thus far. I apologize if it has been a long time since my last entry, but it has been very difficult for me since I started chemo to sit down and concentrate.
I started chemo on 9/16 and completed a total of 4 days. It was extremely difficult as each day passed because I had to get out of bed, shower, get dressed and travel the distance from my house to Stanford and back. These little tasks we take for granted were 10 times more difficult for me due to pain, nausea, etc. I am glad it only lasted 4 days. I went in on Saturday for a white/red cell booster shot.
It will take 7-10 days from my last day of chemo (9/19) to feel better; however, my pain has worsened. We went to see my oncologist this last Monday (9/22) for a long discussion/check-up. What he basically told me was that he does not think the chemo will work as fast as the tumor growth. Having to increase medication to treat symptoms such as pain, nausea, vomiting, etc. is not a good sign. The other components of the biochemo treatment he does not feel my body can withstand.
I point-blank asked my oncologist if I was dying . . . and he said yes. These next 2 weeks will only tell us if another round of chemo is necessary depending on my recovery from their side effects from the first round. He does not think it will work, but stays hopeful, as I do.
I am starting to think about how much time I may have left. That was another question I had for him and he said it could weeks, months, longer - we do not know. So my goal is to rest and feel better and start having some fun while making arrangements. When the time comes, we will have hospice help.
I am sorry to have to tell all of you this news in an impersonal way, but having this relentless discussion is depressing, tiring and time-comsuming because people have so many questions. I don't mind questions, but I want to get the initial news out of the way. If you want to come and visit for a bit, we have some people who have mentioned wanting to come by starting next week (not Tuesday), so call Peter's cell if you want to come by (408-421-3925).
Thanks for your continued support and we love you all ~ Jennifer:)
The following entry is from my friend Jennifer's Caringbridge website. It is as I had feared, since she's been in stage 3 or 4 cancer since 2002. She got married about two years ago, I think, to a wonderful guy. She lives in Santa Clara or thereabouts. I am very sad to read this, but I hope that prayers may prevail. I am hopeful that her example will inspire others. Jennifer (Wagner) Estes and I went to GU together and lived in the same hall her freshman year.
Prayers!
This is the most difficult journal entry I will have to write thus far. I apologize if it has been a long time since my last entry, but it has been very difficult for me since I started chemo to sit down and concentrate.
I started chemo on 9/16 and completed a total of 4 days. It was extremely difficult as each day passed because I had to get out of bed, shower, get dressed and travel the distance from my house to Stanford and back. These little tasks we take for granted were 10 times more difficult for me due to pain, nausea, etc. I am glad it only lasted 4 days. I went in on Saturday for a white/red cell booster shot.
It will take 7-10 days from my last day of chemo (9/19) to feel better; however, my pain has worsened. We went to see my oncologist this last Monday (9/22) for a long discussion/check-up. What he basically told me was that he does not think the chemo will work as fast as the tumor growth. Having to increase medication to treat symptoms such as pain, nausea, vomiting, etc. is not a good sign. The other components of the biochemo treatment he does not feel my body can withstand.
I point-blank asked my oncologist if I was dying . . . and he said yes. These next 2 weeks will only tell us if another round of chemo is necessary depending on my recovery from their side effects from the first round. He does not think it will work, but stays hopeful, as I do.
I am starting to think about how much time I may have left. That was another question I had for him and he said it could weeks, months, longer - we do not know. So my goal is to rest and feel better and start having some fun while making arrangements. When the time comes, we will have hospice help.
I am sorry to have to tell all of you this news in an impersonal way, but having this relentless discussion is depressing, tiring and time-comsuming because people have so many questions. I don't mind questions, but I want to get the initial news out of the way. If you want to come and visit for a bit, we have some people who have mentioned wanting to come by starting next week (not Tuesday), so call Peter's cell if you want to come by (408-421-3925).
Thanks for your continued support and we love you all ~ Jennifer:)
Why a bail out is a little scary
I know that if the Congress doesn't pass the bail out plan, everyone will get mad. And if they do, everyone else will get mad.
Either way, I'd say it's time to dig a root cellar and brush up on your Little House on the Prairie skills.
And invest in gold if you can afford it.
Meanwhile, I think this is a good explanation of what is going on. I'd love to hear other people's takes on the financial crisis, esp. after reading this.
September 24, 2008, 9:00 a.m.
Socialism in the Treasury Chest
Question period.
By Mark Hemingway
If you believe that the best way to handle the current economic crisis is hurling gobsmackingly large amounts of money at it, all to be used at the discretion of the Treasury secretary and the chairman of the Federal Reserve, you may well be an idiot. That’s according to a rule of thumb devised by famed investor Warren Buffett.
Back in July, Brian Carney interviewed Ted Forstmann in the Wall Street Journal. The reason for the interview was that in 1988 Forstmann wrote an uncannily prescient oped for the Journal warning that the junk-bond craze was going to end badly. Well, just a few months ago in July, Forstmann once again took to the pages of the Journal to caution investors that a fiscal conflagration was imminent. “We are in a credit crisis the likes of which I’ve never seen in my lifetime,” Forstmann said. “The credit problems in this country are considerably worse than people have said or know. I didn’t even know subprime mortgages existed and I was worried about the credit crisis.”
Forstmann also helpfully passed on how Buffett broke down the components of the typical boom-to-bust business cycle. “Buffett once told me there are three ‘I’s in every cycle. The ‘innovator,’ that’s the first ‘I.’ After the innovator comes the ‘imitator.’ And after the imitator in the cycle comes the idiot. Which makes way for an innovator again,” he said.
So let’s look at how the current credit crisis has occurred, using Buffett’s rule. Some innovator on Wall Street slices and dices mortgage debt and manages to sell that debt at a handsome profit. Even though that debt consists of a lot of bad paper lumped in with the good, through the magic of derivatives — and other financial products more complicated to understand than programming God’s VCR — they manage to make money off it. Then come the imitators, piling into the market. Only there’s a lot more bad paper to go around than good, so mortgage securities aren’t as valuable as they once were (and they were financially iffy to begin with).
Soon housing prices stagnate — because every idiot knows that’s what happens sooner or later when real-estate prices rise for years on end — which removes the only thing propping up the value of the bad mortgage debt. Credit stops flowing. Mighty investment banks start toppling. (Lehman Brothers had a mere $2.5 billion in bonuses to hand out to their New York staff before they filed Chapter 11.) The coup de grace? Ordinary Americans are being told to cough up somewhere north of $2,300 for every man, woman, and child in the country, or else we’re facing the prospect of $30 trillion in global wealth vanishing overnight. In Buffett’s formulation, if the taxpayer steps in at this crucial point in the cycle — that has to make us the idiots, right?
So what should we do to avert this imminent crisis? Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson estimates bailing out Wall Street will cost some $700 billion, but it might be more — so why don’t we go ahead and hand him a blank check with no strings attached?
To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, the ten scariest words in the English language are “I’m from the Treasury Department and I’m here to help.”
In some respects, calling in a benevolent financial dictator would appear to make things much simpler. Wall Street is a complicated place and math is hard. Paulson and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke would have you believe that it’s perfectly natural that the solution to a large financial crisis is throwing a large amount of money at the problem. They seem to hope that no one will notice that the problem with the bailout isn’t ironing out some of the fiscal particulars: It’s philosophical.
When government seizes control of a critical industry, that’s, uh, what do you call it? Oh, yes, socialism. “The government is telling us that capital and credit markets cannot, for several reasons, solve the current crisis on their own — only the federal government and its massive taxpayer base have the authority and the resources to solve it,” noted financial columnist James Ledbetter. “That is state socialism: the philosophy preached by the founders of the Second International, by the radical wing of the American labor movement, through the formation of the Soviet Union and its satellites, and now by Henry Paulson.”
If you watched Paulson and Bernanke’s testimony to the Senate Banking Committee you were unlikely to be convinced of the purity of Paulson’s motivations. “This is all about the American taxpayer,” Paulson insisted. But when asked about what kind of oversight Paulson would have for the bailout plan — which gives the former Goldman Sachs CEO almost limitless resources to throw at his former colleagues and peers on Wall Street — Paulson stammered that there would be oversight and conflict-of-interest rules but couldn’t give any specifics. Never mind that Paulson might want to explain how he might have even helped create the current situation as CEO of Goldman Sachs. Here’s a question that should have been asked of Paulson, notes financial analyst Barry Ritzholtz: “In 2004, your former firm, Goldman Sachs, along with four other brokers, received a waiver of the net capitalization rules, allowing those firms to dramatically exceed the 12-to-1 leverage rules. How much was this waiver responsible for the current situation?”
While that rather pointed question didn’t get asked, the Wall Street Journal tersely noted of Paulson’s testimony regarding the bailout, “Lawmakers appeared unconvinced until the end.” It’s reassuring that Congress seems skeptical now. But where have the skeptics in Congress been? Or the media, for that matter?
Last summer, Chairman Bernanke said that “fundamental factors — including solid growth in incomes and relatively low mortgage rates — should ultimately support the demand for housing, and at this point, the troubles in the subprime sector seem unlikely to seriously spill over to the broader economy or the financial system.” So what changed between then and now? In retrospect, it sure seems obvious that major financial institutions weren’t properly leveraged; and the housing crisis was unfolding for everyone to see.
We’ve heard what Paulson and Bernanke propose to do in as much detail as they appear prepared to provide, given the urgency of the situation. And throwing their hands up and asking for all the money in the world so they can convene some smart people in a room and fix this at some point in the future just isn’t good enough. Turning the U.S. Treasury into a blank check may lift spirits on Wall Street, but it might also defraud and demoralize Main Street. Doling out large sums to prop up Wall Street may end up being inevitable. But before Paulson, Bernanke, and the federal government do anything, a lot more tough questions need to be asked and answered. Demanding anything less might be considered idiotic.
— Mark Hemingway is an NRO staff reporter.
— Mark Hemingway is a writer in Washington, D.C.
Either way, I'd say it's time to dig a root cellar and brush up on your Little House on the Prairie skills.
And invest in gold if you can afford it.
Meanwhile, I think this is a good explanation of what is going on. I'd love to hear other people's takes on the financial crisis, esp. after reading this.
September 24, 2008, 9:00 a.m.
Socialism in the Treasury Chest
Question period.
By Mark Hemingway
If you believe that the best way to handle the current economic crisis is hurling gobsmackingly large amounts of money at it, all to be used at the discretion of the Treasury secretary and the chairman of the Federal Reserve, you may well be an idiot. That’s according to a rule of thumb devised by famed investor Warren Buffett.
Back in July, Brian Carney interviewed Ted Forstmann in the Wall Street Journal. The reason for the interview was that in 1988 Forstmann wrote an uncannily prescient oped for the Journal warning that the junk-bond craze was going to end badly. Well, just a few months ago in July, Forstmann once again took to the pages of the Journal to caution investors that a fiscal conflagration was imminent. “We are in a credit crisis the likes of which I’ve never seen in my lifetime,” Forstmann said. “The credit problems in this country are considerably worse than people have said or know. I didn’t even know subprime mortgages existed and I was worried about the credit crisis.”
Forstmann also helpfully passed on how Buffett broke down the components of the typical boom-to-bust business cycle. “Buffett once told me there are three ‘I’s in every cycle. The ‘innovator,’ that’s the first ‘I.’ After the innovator comes the ‘imitator.’ And after the imitator in the cycle comes the idiot. Which makes way for an innovator again,” he said.
So let’s look at how the current credit crisis has occurred, using Buffett’s rule. Some innovator on Wall Street slices and dices mortgage debt and manages to sell that debt at a handsome profit. Even though that debt consists of a lot of bad paper lumped in with the good, through the magic of derivatives — and other financial products more complicated to understand than programming God’s VCR — they manage to make money off it. Then come the imitators, piling into the market. Only there’s a lot more bad paper to go around than good, so mortgage securities aren’t as valuable as they once were (and they were financially iffy to begin with).
Soon housing prices stagnate — because every idiot knows that’s what happens sooner or later when real-estate prices rise for years on end — which removes the only thing propping up the value of the bad mortgage debt. Credit stops flowing. Mighty investment banks start toppling. (Lehman Brothers had a mere $2.5 billion in bonuses to hand out to their New York staff before they filed Chapter 11.) The coup de grace? Ordinary Americans are being told to cough up somewhere north of $2,300 for every man, woman, and child in the country, or else we’re facing the prospect of $30 trillion in global wealth vanishing overnight. In Buffett’s formulation, if the taxpayer steps in at this crucial point in the cycle — that has to make us the idiots, right?
So what should we do to avert this imminent crisis? Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson estimates bailing out Wall Street will cost some $700 billion, but it might be more — so why don’t we go ahead and hand him a blank check with no strings attached?
To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, the ten scariest words in the English language are “I’m from the Treasury Department and I’m here to help.”
In some respects, calling in a benevolent financial dictator would appear to make things much simpler. Wall Street is a complicated place and math is hard. Paulson and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke would have you believe that it’s perfectly natural that the solution to a large financial crisis is throwing a large amount of money at the problem. They seem to hope that no one will notice that the problem with the bailout isn’t ironing out some of the fiscal particulars: It’s philosophical.
When government seizes control of a critical industry, that’s, uh, what do you call it? Oh, yes, socialism. “The government is telling us that capital and credit markets cannot, for several reasons, solve the current crisis on their own — only the federal government and its massive taxpayer base have the authority and the resources to solve it,” noted financial columnist James Ledbetter. “That is state socialism: the philosophy preached by the founders of the Second International, by the radical wing of the American labor movement, through the formation of the Soviet Union and its satellites, and now by Henry Paulson.”
If you watched Paulson and Bernanke’s testimony to the Senate Banking Committee you were unlikely to be convinced of the purity of Paulson’s motivations. “This is all about the American taxpayer,” Paulson insisted. But when asked about what kind of oversight Paulson would have for the bailout plan — which gives the former Goldman Sachs CEO almost limitless resources to throw at his former colleagues and peers on Wall Street — Paulson stammered that there would be oversight and conflict-of-interest rules but couldn’t give any specifics. Never mind that Paulson might want to explain how he might have even helped create the current situation as CEO of Goldman Sachs. Here’s a question that should have been asked of Paulson, notes financial analyst Barry Ritzholtz: “In 2004, your former firm, Goldman Sachs, along with four other brokers, received a waiver of the net capitalization rules, allowing those firms to dramatically exceed the 12-to-1 leverage rules. How much was this waiver responsible for the current situation?”
While that rather pointed question didn’t get asked, the Wall Street Journal tersely noted of Paulson’s testimony regarding the bailout, “Lawmakers appeared unconvinced until the end.” It’s reassuring that Congress seems skeptical now. But where have the skeptics in Congress been? Or the media, for that matter?
Last summer, Chairman Bernanke said that “fundamental factors — including solid growth in incomes and relatively low mortgage rates — should ultimately support the demand for housing, and at this point, the troubles in the subprime sector seem unlikely to seriously spill over to the broader economy or the financial system.” So what changed between then and now? In retrospect, it sure seems obvious that major financial institutions weren’t properly leveraged; and the housing crisis was unfolding for everyone to see.
We’ve heard what Paulson and Bernanke propose to do in as much detail as they appear prepared to provide, given the urgency of the situation. And throwing their hands up and asking for all the money in the world so they can convene some smart people in a room and fix this at some point in the future just isn’t good enough. Turning the U.S. Treasury into a blank check may lift spirits on Wall Street, but it might also defraud and demoralize Main Street. Doling out large sums to prop up Wall Street may end up being inevitable. But before Paulson, Bernanke, and the federal government do anything, a lot more tough questions need to be asked and answered. Demanding anything less might be considered idiotic.
— Mark Hemingway is an NRO staff reporter.
— Mark Hemingway is a writer in Washington, D.C.
God's Pharmacy
I kinda liked this one. It was a forward posted on a homeschooling yahoo group, but I personally had not seen it before, so here it is! :)
This is very interesting.
These are best & more powerful when eaten raw. We're such slow learners...
God left us great clues as to what foods help what part of our body!
God's Pharmacy! Amazing!
A sliced Carrot looks like the human eye. The pupil, iris and radiating lines look just like the human eye... and YES, science now shows carrots greatly enhance blood flow to and function of the eyes.
A Tomato has four chambers and is red. The heart has four chambers and is red. All o f the research shows tomatoes are loaded with lycopine and are indeed pure heart and blood food.
Grapes hang in a cluster that has the shape of the heart. Each grape looks like a blood cell and all of the research today shows grapes are also profound heart and blood vitalizing food.
A Walnut looks like a little brain, a left and right hemisphere, upper cerebrums and lower cerebellums. Even the wrinkles or folds on the nut are just like the neo-cortex. We now know walnuts help develop more than three (3) dozen neuron-transmitters for brain function.
Kidney Beans actually heal and help maintain kidney function and yes, they look exactly like the human kidneys.
Celery, Bok Choy, Rhubarb and many more look just like bones. These foods specifically target bone strength. Bones are 23% sodium and these foods are 23% sodium. If you don't have enough sodium in your diet, the body pulls it from the bones, thus making them weak. These foods replenish the skeletal needs of the body.
Avocadoes, Eggplant and Pears target the health and function of the womb and cervix of the female - they look just like these organs. Today's research shows that when a woman eats one avocado a week, it balances hormones, sheds unwanted birth weight, and prevents cervical cancers. And how profound is this? It takes exactly nine (9) months to grow an avocado from blossom to ripened fruit. There are over 14,000 photolytic chemical constituents of nutrition in each one of these foods (modern science has only studied and named about 141 of them).
Figs are full of seeds and hang in twos when they grow. Figs increase the mobility of male sperm and increase the numbers of Sperm as well to overcome male sterility.
Sweet Potatoes look like the pancreas and actually balance the glycemic index of diabetics.
Olives assist the health and function of the ovaries
Oranges, Grapefruits, and other Citrus fruits look just like the mammary glands of the female and actually assist the health of the breasts and the movement of lymph in and out of the breasts.
Onions look like the body's cells. Today's research shows onions help clear waste materials from all of the body cells. They even produce tears which wash the epithelial layers of the eyes. A working companion, Garlic, also helps eliminate waste materials and dangerous free radicals from the body.
This is very interesting.
These are best & more powerful when eaten raw. We're such slow learners...
God left us great clues as to what foods help what part of our body!
God's Pharmacy! Amazing!
A sliced Carrot looks like the human eye. The pupil, iris and radiating lines look just like the human eye... and YES, science now shows carrots greatly enhance blood flow to and function of the eyes.
A Tomato has four chambers and is red. The heart has four chambers and is red. All o f the research shows tomatoes are loaded with lycopine and are indeed pure heart and blood food.
Grapes hang in a cluster that has the shape of the heart. Each grape looks like a blood cell and all of the research today shows grapes are also profound heart and blood vitalizing food.
A Walnut looks like a little brain, a left and right hemisphere, upper cerebrums and lower cerebellums. Even the wrinkles or folds on the nut are just like the neo-cortex. We now know walnuts help develop more than three (3) dozen neuron-transmitters for brain function.
Kidney Beans actually heal and help maintain kidney function and yes, they look exactly like the human kidneys.
Celery, Bok Choy, Rhubarb and many more look just like bones. These foods specifically target bone strength. Bones are 23% sodium and these foods are 23% sodium. If you don't have enough sodium in your diet, the body pulls it from the bones, thus making them weak. These foods replenish the skeletal needs of the body.
Avocadoes, Eggplant and Pears target the health and function of the womb and cervix of the female - they look just like these organs. Today's research shows that when a woman eats one avocado a week, it balances hormones, sheds unwanted birth weight, and prevents cervical cancers. And how profound is this? It takes exactly nine (9) months to grow an avocado from blossom to ripened fruit. There are over 14,000 photolytic chemical constituents of nutrition in each one of these foods (modern science has only studied and named about 141 of them).
Figs are full of seeds and hang in twos when they grow. Figs increase the mobility of male sperm and increase the numbers of Sperm as well to overcome male sterility.
Sweet Potatoes look like the pancreas and actually balance the glycemic index of diabetics.
Olives assist the health and function of the ovaries
Oranges, Grapefruits, and other Citrus fruits look just like the mammary glands of the female and actually assist the health of the breasts and the movement of lymph in and out of the breasts.
Onions look like the body's cells. Today's research shows onions help clear waste materials from all of the body cells. They even produce tears which wash the epithelial layers of the eyes. A working companion, Garlic, also helps eliminate waste materials and dangerous free radicals from the body.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
