From Chuck Colson:

“We’re very disappointed in our track record so far. We’ll try to do better.” Those repentant words are from CBS Television’s President Nina Tassler. And, no, she wasn’t apologizing to shareholders for a bad quarter.

According to LifeSiteNews, Tassler apologized at the Television Critics Association a few weeks ago for receiving a “Failing” grade in the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (or GLAAD) in its annual Network Responsibility Index.

Every year GLAAD tracks the way lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transsexuals (LGBTs) are portrayed on prime time television.

“GLAAD analysts,” the Index says, “noted whether the LGBT depictions were minor or major, as well as the orien­tation/gender identity and the race/ethnicity of the charac­ters depicted.” They also counted, “any significant discussion of issues pertain­ing to LGBT lives.”

They found that out of eleven hundred hours of original prime time programming on CBS only 7% were “LGBT-inclusive.”

Only seven percent! In GLAAD’s version of real life, most people are homosexual, so these numbers are deliberately inverted by the squeamish, homophobic, conservative Hollywood establishment.

Victory (which is apparently measured by comparison with the social decline in ancient Rome) for GLAAD cannot come fast enough:

A Catholic university in New Jersey has scheduled a course on same-sex marriage for the fall semester, despite a plea from the local archbishop to reconsider the course offering.

Seton Hall’s class schedule for the fall includes “The Politics of Gay Marriage,” to be taught by W. King Mott, who has told students that he has received no indication that the course should not be offered.

For homosexual activists, nothing is sacred but their own agenda.

From the 1945 Marian Missal:

Devotion to the Immaculate Heart of the Blessed Virgin Mary always flourished in the Church, but its first official approval did not come till the beginning of the 19th century when Pope Pius VI approved, for certain religious organizations, a Feast for the Most Pure Heart of Mary. The devotion was approved for the universal Church when Pope Pius XII dedicated all mankind to the Heart of Mary in December, 1942, following this by the institution of the new Feast of the Immaculate Heart of the B. V. M.

The Collect reads as follows:

That’s what’s left in the 1962 Missal. The 1945 Marian Missal is richer, continuing after the above with a prayer for the Octave of the Assumption, and another for the intercession of the saints. These read  as follows (just English here, for brevity):

Let us pray. Forgive, we beseech Thee, O Lord, the sins of Thy servants, that we, who by our own deeds are unable to please Thee, may be saved by the intercession of the Mother of Thy Son, our Lord, Who with Thee liveth and reigneth in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God,
Forever and ever.
R. Amen.

Let us pray. Defend us, we beseech Thee, O Lord, from all dangers of mind and body: and through the intercession of the blessed and glorious Mary, ever Virgin, mother of God, of St Joseph, of Thy holy apostles, Peter and Paul, and of all the saints, in Thy loving-kindness grant us safety and peace; that, all adversities and errors being overcome, Thy Church may serve Thee in security and freedom. Through our Lord Jesus Christ, Thy Son, Who liveth and reigneth with Thee in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God,
Forever and ever.
R. Amen.

The redoubtable Fr. Z answers this question for the nth time, and the first commenter pointed to an entry in the Adoremus Bulletin which directly referenced a letter by the CDW regarding this matter.

Really, I’m posting this as much for my own quick reference as for the reader’s edification. You don’t see this happening at Traditional churches, where the faithful tend to be better catechized and observe Traditional fasts.

St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church was destroyed on 9/11. For nine years, they’ve been trying to get a permit to rebuild, and Fr. Constantine J. Simones Waterford is righteously angry. Why would he be angry, you ask?

A permit has already been issued to build a 13-story Islamic community center near Ground Zero, that’s why. Muslims killed 3,000 Americans September 11, 2001, right across the street from where the Islamic center is to be built.

Last Friday, President Obama addressed this issue, and here’s what he said:

But let me be clear: as a citizen, and as President, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country. That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable. The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country, and will not be treated differently by their government, is essential to who we are. The writ of our Founders must endure.

Are “people of all faiths” being treated equally here? How come the mosque gets fast-tracked, and the Orthodox church (which has been there since 1916) gets the red tape?

The Lexington Herald-Leader actually gave column inches to Janice Sevre-Duszynska, who pretends to be a Catholic womanpriest: Uncle Di responds:

The title encapsulates her demand: “Don’t equate women priests with pedophiles.”

Actually I agree with her (or at least with that short statement of her argument– which, I confess, is all that I read). There are very distinct differences between pedophiles and female Catholic priests. Offhand I can think of two:

1. Nobody ever writes a newspaper column identifying himself as a pedophile.
2. Pedophiles exist.

Catholic Culture’s Phil Lawler, whom I do respect, argues in defense of the Novus Ordo:

[...] it is absolutely critical to note that the mind of the Church or even of the Pope himself cannot be determined by looking at the writings of a future pope before he became pope. A cardinal’s election as pope does not in any way validate his earlier remarks, none of which were protected in the least by the grace of his later office. To assert that the mind of the Church is known from the work of Joseph Ratzinger in, say, 1990, is no wiser than saying it can be known by his common theological opponent, Walter Kasper.

What’s the point in all this, Mr. Lawler? That the Novus Ordo is valid, that it occupies equal ground with the Mass of Pius V, what?

The Holy Father is a “Traditionalist” only in appearances. Those “appearances” are manifest mainly in his support for the Mass of All Ages. Not many people reckon the Novus Ordo to be invalid, but many of us do see it as lacking certain critical things, particularly an emphasis on the Sacrifice Itself. In the Novus Ordo, the propitiatory nature of the Sacrifice has been replaced by the “paschal mystery” and has become a mere re-enactment of the Lord’s Supper.

Refute that, Mr. Lawler.

He writes:

My advice to those who seriously dislike the Novus Ordo is this: Admit your personal preference for the Extraordinary Form if you like; true Catholics should not criticize you for it, even if they prefer the Ordinary Form. Combat abuses of the Novus Ordo where you can; the Church will thank you for that. But do not denigrate the rite itself, as if it is something unworthy or profane, and never imply that the billion Catholics who use and have come to love it are somehow inferior in their Faith.

“Do not denigrate the rite itself”? The rite itself is hollow, sir, and the Church (definition, please) will not likely “thank” us for expressing shock at liturgical abuses; they never have. We get the same response when we express our longing for the Traditional Mass: bugger off. More gentle replies include the admonition to “let it go.”

Do you consider abuses of what the Holy Father refers to as the Ordinary Form of Mass and expressed desires for the Traditional Mass to be somehow equally repugnant?

That bit about the “billion Catholics who use and have come to love it are somehow inferior in their Faith” is interesting. Can you name a time prior to the 1960s when there was an actual movement among Catholics to legalize abortion or permit homosexual marriage? Are our beliefs represented today in Congress the way they were five and more decades ago?

A persuasive argument can (and has been, by many people) be mounted that the Novus Ordo has in fact produced people “inferior in their Faith,” Mr. Lawler.  The entire Liturgy has been watered down to an extent that it would not be offensive to Protestants, and as a “career Catholic” you know this.

If it must be spelled out for you, start here; it should be sufficiently “mainstream”:

There, they’ll really have time for contemplative prayer, Louisiana’s Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors apparently reasons. Can’t stand the competition, guys?

Can anyone offer a persuasive argument that coffins are not overpriced? The monks at St. Joseph Abbey offer caskets that are about $250 cheaper than anyone else, and that’s without mass production facilities.

Louisiana law states that only funeral homes may offer caskets for sale, and they also must have embalming equipment on the premises. The Board is using that law to shut St. Joseph Abbey down.

The fact that there’s a lobby for embalmers and funeral directors says it all.

It should be noted that this law was enacted in 2008, a year after the monks began offering their caskets to the public. See Act 799.

Write to Governor Jindal, and tell him to put an end to this nonsense! He is a Catholic convert (from Hindu parents) who stands athwart the issues for which we grieve: stem cell research, abortion, pervert marriage, and so forth. Remind him of his faith, and hold his conservative feet to the fire!

Said President Obama about the Muslim observance of Ramadan:

These rituals remind us of the principles that we hold in common, and Islam’s role in advancing justice, progress, tolerance, and the dignity of all human beings.

Let’s parse this logically, shall we?

• Sharia Law is Islamic Law.
• Islamic Law is rooted in the Qur’an and Muhammed’s Sunnah, as well as the Hadith.
• Among other things, Islamic Law permits a man to beat his wife at will without explanation, and tax non-Muslims for being non-Muslim.
• Therefore, Islam is progressive and tolerant?

Check, please!

What a sad little man he’s become in his twilight. Brilliant even when utterly sodden (and perhaps by aid thereof), the only thing he’s sorrowful of is that he might not live long enough to read the Pope’s obituary.

His reconciliation with his estranged (former atheist, now Anglican) brother raised my hopes just a bit, though not unreasonably: Now that they were back on speaking terms, I thought perhaps his brother might at least get him to lighten up a bit. Besides the cancer, what’s eating Chris Hitchens, anyway, I wondered. What did any person of faith ever do to him?

Now he heaves this latest, desperate splosh of gravelly gin-and-tonic vomit on the sidewalk of the world:

Will I really not live long enough … to read — if not indeed write — the obituaries of elderly criminals like Henry Kissinger and Joseph Ratzinger?

Witness a man ravaged by cancer, shaking his fist at God and shrieking that he will not go gently. He will rage, rage against that light, no matter whom he offends, especially God. Hitchens won’t even entertain any doubt, won’t slide into so much as agnosticism. For him, the jury resumed early in his youth, and returned a verdict of guilty for everyone who believes.

Really, it smacks of sublimation, considering his background, which is awash in intrigue (for those so intrigued). But I’m sure Hitchens’ latest invective will bother faithful Catholics worldwide more than it’ll upset the Holy Father, who will likely pray for him.

Hitch will need it.

Since Memento, I’ve been a fan of Chris Nolan because he makes movies that don’t insult the viewer’s intelligence. He respects his audience, and like a person who smiles frequently and always seems cheerful, it’s hard not to be somewhat taken by that. With Inception, my impression of his skill and talent is only elevated.

Just one problem, though. It’s been a whole day since I watched it, and I’m a bit disturbed by the fact that, in the end, we’re cheering for the bad guys. Without spoiling it for those who haven’t yet seen the film: it’s a caper involving half a dozen protagonists. The “crime” would qualify as, at the very least, a severe invasion of privacy.

What they do, although there’s no law against it (for the very concept is science fiction), would undoubtedly be regarded as inherently wrong by any person of rational mind. Leo DiCaprio, the lead, begins as a high-tech thief and then wanders into a gray area where thievery gives way to manipulation. He hires several other specialists to assist him in this endeavor. By the end of the film, the clock is ticking, and the viewer finds himself hoping they’ll make it out just in the nick of time.

We do this because Mr. Nolan is a master storyteller who populates his work with interesting characters we end up caring about. We don’t see them as “bad” people. A bit shady, perhaps, but not unlikeable, and Nolan places them in precarious situations from which we want to see them extricate themselves safely.

This, Mr. Nolan does skilfully. There’s nothing good about what these characters are doing, but we’re so busy being fascinated with how they get where they’re going that we don’t even think much about why they’re doing it.

Inception is confident, mature storytelling, but it suffers from the same moral ambiguity The Matrix inspired 12 years ago: we’re supporting the wrong people. This proves Mr. Nolan’s brilliance as a filmmaker, especially when one accounts for the fact that his manipulation is not purely emotional, but intellectual.

It should be noted, however, that both dishonesty and torture are prominent features in all of his films, and these recurrent themes are always “end vs. means” justified. As long as you can see that, settle in for some amazing entertainment from one of the best English suspense directors since Hitchcock.