Brutally Honest

Transcending race (UPDATED)

Two items come to our attention today as to the subject matter. 

The first, from Jonah Goldberg:

What if America transcended race, and Barack Obama wasn’t invited?

The question comes to mind as cries of racism grow ever louder from Obama’s supporters.

No one should be surprised. Fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly, liberal Democrats have to accuse their opponents of racism. Indeed, somewhat to their credit, fighting racism - alas, even where it doesn’t exist - is one of the reasons they became liberal Democrats in the first place.

And that’s the great irony of the Obama presidency. It was Obama’s supporters who hinted, teased, promised or prophesied that Obama would help America “transcend race.” But now, it is they who shrink from their own promised land.

After all, it was not Obama’s detractors who immediately fell into the comfortable groove of racial grievance and familiar “narratives” when Henry Louis Gates insisted that a police instructor in racial sensitivity had to be a racist. That was Obama and his choir of heralds.

From day one, Obama’s supporters have tirelessly cultivated the idea that anything inconvenient to the first black president just might be terribly, terribly racist.

A writer for Slate magazine insisted journalists must not call attention to the fact that Obama is “skinny.” Such observations fuel racism by highlighting his physical appearance, and that in turn might suddenly alert racist American voters to the fact that Obama is . . . wait for it . . . black.

Now that he’s president, if you question his tax policies, energy plans or health-care ambitions, you are “hoping he will fail” - and that, with the help of roundabout reasoning, is tantamount to hoping we cannot transcend race.

For instance, actress Janeane Garofalo summed up the tea parties thusly: “This is about hating a black man in the White House. This is racism straight up.”

A more sophisticated version comes from Princeton professor Melissa Harris-Lacewell, who finds racism in complaints that socialized medicine would result in fewer Americans “taking responsibility” for their own health care. “What we know over the past 25 years,” she told NPR, “is that language of personal responsibility is often a code language used against poor and minority communities.”

In Goldberg's piece (do read it all), we see numerous charges of racism that are substantively lacking in the evidence to buttress the claim and instead are clearly nothing more than political ploys.  A redefinition of terms to foster an agenda.

Then there's this:

Celia Padron went on a Hawaiian vacation last year, lured by the prospect of beautiful beaches and friendly people. She, her husband and two teenage daughters enjoyed the black sand beach at Makena State Park on Maui. But a Hawaiian girl accosted her two teenage daughters, saying, "Go back to the mainland" and "Take your white ass off our beaches," says Padron, a pediatric gastroenterologist in New Jersey.

When her husband, 68 at the time, stepped between the girls, three young Hawaiian men slammed him against a vehicle, cutting his ear, and choked and punched him, Padron says. Police officers persuaded the Padrons not to press charges, saying it would be expensive for them to return for court appearances and a Hawaiian judge would side with the Hawaiian assailants, the doctor contends.

"There is no doubt in my mind [the attack] was racially motivated," she adds.

 An isolated incident one might say... but hold the phone:

For example:

• The last day of school has long been unofficially designated "Beat Haole Day," with white students singled out for harassment and violence. (Haole — pronounced how-lee — is slang for a foreigner, usually white, and sometimes is used as a racial slur.)
• A non-Native Hawaiian student who challenged the Hawaiian-preference admission policy at a wealthy private school received a $7 million settlement this year.
• A 12-year-old white girl new to Hawaii from New York City needed 10 surgical staples to close a gash in her head incurred when she was beaten in 2007 by a Native Hawaiian girl who called her a "fucking haole."
• A vocal segment of Native Hawaiians is pushing for independence to end the "prolonged occupation" by the United States and governance by natives.
• Demonstrators shouting racial epithets at whites disrupted a statehood celebration in 2006.

And then there's this:

A Hawaiian Studies professor at the University of Hawaii, Haunani-Kay Trask, is one of the most caustic critics of whites in the islands. In her 1999 book, From A Native Daughter, Trask wrote: "Just as … all exploited peoples are justified in feeling hostile and resentful toward those who exploit them, so we Hawaiians are justified in such feelings toward the haole. This is the legacy of racism, of colonialism."

In a poem titled, "Racist White Woman," Trask wrote: "I could kick/Your face, puncture/Both eyes./You deserve this kind/Of violence./No more vicious/Tongues, obscene/Lies./Just a knife/Slitting your tight/Little heart."

Trask's opposite number is Conklin, the "anti-sovereignty" white activist who has lived on Oahu for 17 years and says he loves Hawaii's culture, spirituality and history, but is labeled a racist by some of his detractors. He wrote a book entitled Hawaiian Apartheid: Racial Separatism and Ethnic Nationalism in the Aloha State.

"Here in Hawaii, there is no compulsion to speak out on racist attacks. There are all these hate crimes and violent things happening to white people and you don't hear sovereignty activists speaking out against it," says Conklin, who manages a massive website on Hawaiian issues. "The violence has been going on for years and it's always been hush-hush."

So in the Goldberg piece, we see an agenda that redefines racism as a means to alienate political opposition.  And in the follow-on piece, we see real racism being minimized, even excused, by the power elite who too are focused on agenda fostering.

Thankfully, there's a President that transcends race, one who comes as a uniter, not a divider, one who has consistently been a unifying force and whose focus on shared values will go along way toward bridging racial divides.

He'll see all this for what it is and expend his energy and resources to make it right.

Umm... just don't hold your breath.

UPDATE: Via SC&A, a related 'toon:

 

How to lose a war... without really trying

Posted here and at The Borg Conspiracy by guest blogger Locutisprime.

Or...... "How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb."

Borrowing just a bit from the classic Stanley Kubric film Dr. Strangelove, I can't help but immediately see some similarities between that film and what we have occurring in America today as it concerns the war on terror. The only difference between Kubric's fiction and the present day reality? We don't have a renegade General Jack Ripper, or an amiable general Buck Turgidson. Or the most likable Group Captain Lionel Mandrake trying to reason his way through it all, while Peter Sellers changes hats and characters at a maddening pace throughout the drama.

Picture if you will, just a smattering of the facts as they have been reported as of today.

White House: 'War on terrorism' is over

It's official. The U.S. is no longer engaged in a "war on terrorism." Neither is it fighting "jihadists" or in a "global war."

"The President does not describe this as a 'war on terrorism,'" said John Brennan, head of the White House homeland security office, who outlined a "new way of seeing" the fight against terrorism.

There you have it. We will now call the war......."the war against Al Qaida." It's a "new way of seeing it!"

Then there was this.....

White House Spokesman Uses Phrase "War On Terror"

Not only does Robert Gibbs (White House Spokesman) use the (now forbidden) term war on terror during this news conference but he attempts to assuage all criticism of the Obama administration's actions and handling of the war over the past seven months, by asserting that the war has undergone "years and years of neglect" and has been sadly"under resourced."

What the hell does that mean? Under funded? Not enough money and material and effort directed toward the war Mr. Gibbs? Well of course that's what it means, but isn't it curious how "now" the democrats want to talk about "under resourced" Afghanistan. After they have spent the last 8 years impeding every bit of war effort and funding in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

They talked a good game when they were campaigning during the 2006 midterms and the 2008 presidential election and beat their chests on how they would have done it. And we heard a lot about how President George Bush took his "eye off the ball" and pursued a war in Iraq when the real game was afoot in Afghanistan. Not to mention how they oh so wished they could turn one or both into another Vietnam for America.

And now... what have we seen the Obama administration do in the seven months since taking control of the White House? First off, we have seen an immediate draw down of personnel and assets in Iraq, which is now leading to increased violence and more American casualties in Iraq. And this is after George Bush took a beating for seven years, but finally won that war. Now Obama is giving it all away just as he promised. Another example of liberals willingly snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

And now... the casualties are mounting daily in Afghanistan and we are told what? That we have "under resourced" the war in Afghanistan? But that we also need to be mindful not to call it a war on terrorism. (Heaven forbid someone utter the phrase a war against Islamic extremism).

And yet there is more...

Afghanistan strategy must change, US commander McChrystal says

Having previously stepped in it by admitting that America was losing the war in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal (Obama's hand picked man) quickly back peddled and denied that he had said that we were losing the war. He then clarified his remarks (retracted his statements) and the administration claimed that the general was simply taken out of context.

But in today's much awaited assessment by General Stanley McChrystal on ("the war against Al Qiada?") in Afghanistan?  This is what we see from the general once again.

U.S. Army General Stanley McChrystal said the situation was "serious" but the 8-year-old war could still be won. He gave no indication as to whether he would ask for more troops but is widely expected to do so in the coming weeks.

So what does that mean? We have lost the war but it is still winnable? Or does it mean that we are about to lose the war, but we can pull it out and save the victory? Or does it mean as the previous commander said right before he was relieved of duty....."we need more troops and more funding and a commitment to victory."

According to Obama's general McCrystal......"The situation in Afghanistan is serious, but success is achievable and demands a revised implementation strategy, commitment and resolve, and increased unity of effort," McChrystal said in a statement announcing his report was done.

The situation is serious, but achievable, but requires what? "A revised implementation strategy, commitment and resolve?" Sound familiar?

Did the dear general just enumerate what most anyone with common sense already knows? That the present strategy (President Obama's strategy) needs serious revision. And in addition to that, if we intend to win this thing? We need some serious resolve and commitment! And a lot more "sourcing!"

Please let me know when you find those elements present in the spinal column of any democrat. And also drop me a line when you see the Pelosi and Reid led congress gearing up to "adequately resource "the war against Al Qaida" or anything else to do with Iraq or Afghanistan or Islamic terrorism.

Then of course there are the bizarre ramblings of Secretary of Defense Robert Gates pontificating on the matter of Afghanistan as he sees it...

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said any recommendation for more forces would have to address his concerns that the foreign military presence in Afghanistan could become too large and be seen by Afghans as a hostile occupying force.

"Clearly, I want to address those issues and we will have to look at the availability of forces, we'll have to look at costs. There are a lot of different things that we'll have to look at," he told reporters.

I literally love to see a mediocre bullsh*t artist attempting to sell shinola to shiites! Well of course a primary driving consideration for Mr. Gates, is that he doesn't want the Afghans to see any potential increase in American troop strength as a hostile occupying force. And of course he will have to look at the costs and a "lot of different things."

I wonder, do any of those things from costs to whatever he thinks the others are? Do they have anything to do with the "under resourcing"  of the war to date? As was referenced earlier today by Robert Gibbs?

Makes you wonder don't it. I know it makes me wonder. I wonder what in hell is going on in these people's minds? Actually, I know what is going on in their minds. (not a lot) but I truly wonder what they think is going on in the rest of ours when they float this bullsh*t.

Are they talking to each other and comparing notes on policy and history and funding and the myriad of things that they are speaking to as it concerns policy and action? Or have they spent the last seven years in a cave somewhere in the Hamptons, simply planning their return to power? Are they totally and completely oblivious to recent history and the actions of their own party and president?

Like I said at the beginning, this is like watching a revised version of Stanley Kubric's classic Dr. Strangelove. Only with different characters playing the lead parts and the script turned askew. Except this time, it isn't a renegade general about to loose Armageddon on the world. It's a renegade president and a less than capable commanding general who is doing his best to stick to the losing script without losing.

And all of this is being done with a supporting cast of real characters that would do Peter Sellers proud!

All we need now? Is the equivalent of Slim Pickens flying a recalled B-52, and preparing to drop his load on an American city in retaliation for being rich capitalist infidels.

Too bad Kubric is dead now. If he were still alive, I believe that I could write him a script for an epic story to rival Dr. Strangelove.

Harry Reid has local media wee-weed up

Sherman Frederick of The Las Vegas Review Journal:

This newspaper traces its roots to before Las Vegas was Las Vegas.

We've seen cattle ranches give way to railroads. We chronicled the construction of Hoover Dam. We reported on the first day of legalized gambling. The first hospital. The first school. The first church. We survived the mob, Howard Hughes, the Great Depression, several recessions, two world wars, dozens of news competitors and any number of two-bit politicians who couldn't stand scrutiny, much less criticism.

We're still here doing what we do for the people of Las Vegas and Nevada. So, let me assure you, if we weathered all of that, we can damn sure outlast the bully threats of Sen. Harry Reid.

On Wednesday, before he addressed a Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce luncheon, Reid joined the chamber's board members for a meet-'n'-greet and a photo. One of the last in line was the Review-Journal's director of advertising, Bob Brown, a hard-working Nevadan who toils every day on behalf of advertisers. He has nothing to do with news coverage or the opinion pages of the Review-Journal.

Yet, as Bob shook hands with our senior U.S. senator in what should have been nothing but a gracious business setting, Reid said: "I hope you go out of business."

Later, in his public speech, Reid said he wanted to let everyone know that he wants the Review-Journal to continue selling advertising because the Las Vegas Sun is delivered inside the Review-Journal.

Such behavior cannot go unchallenged.

You could call Reid's remark ugly and be right. It certainly was boorish. Asinine? That goes without saying.

But to fully capture the magnitude of Reid's remark (and to stop him from doing the same thing to others) it must be called what it was -- a full-on threat perpetrated by a bully who has forgotten that he was elected to office to protect Nevadans, not sound like he's shaking them down.

Let's hope against hope that Harry Reid's stint in the Senate is nearly over.

And this man is hoping the same:

***STATEMENT FROM REPUBLICAN SENATE CANDIDATE DANNY TARKANIAN***

“Todays report that Reid wishes that one of Nevada’s newspapers would go out of business requires a response from those who would wish to replace him.

“Reid’s comment is a shameful statement and another reminder that he has lost complete touch with his role as our representative. Thousands of his constituents work at this newspaper every day. From the senior editors, to the secretaries to the deliverymen, Reid has just wished them out of a job. Reid is obviously callous to the fact that he represents a state experiencing its highest unemployment ever.

“If you noticed I didn’t use the word ‘Senator’ today in my statement. If Reid wishes any one of his constituents the pain and life-changing difficulties of losing their job, then he is not a Senator. He is a disgrace.”

Indeed.

What was the purpose of Ted Kennedy's death-bed letter to the Pope?

AP:

"Most Holy Father I asked President Obama to personally hand deliver this letter to you. As a man of deep faith himself, he understands how important my Roman Catholic faith is to me, and I am so deeply grateful to him. I hope this letter finds you in good health. I pray that you have all of God's blessings as you lead our church and inspire our world during these challenging times. I am writing with deep humility to ask that you pray for me as my own health declines.

"I was diagnosed with brain cancer more than a year ago and although I continue treatment, the disease is taking its toll on me. I am 77 years old and preparing for the next passage of life. I have been blessed to be part of a wonderful family and both of my parents, particularly my mother, kept our Catholic faith at the center of our lives. That gift of faith has sustained and nurtured and provides solace to me in the darkest hours. I know that I have been an imperfect human being, but with the help of my faith I have tried to right my path. I want you to know Your Holiness that in my nearly 50 years of elective office I have done my best to champion the rights of the poor and open doors of economic opportunity. I have worked to welcome the immigrant, to fight discrimination and expand access to health care and education. I have opposed the death penalty and fought to end war.

"Those are the issues that have motivated me and have been the focus of my work as a United States senator. I also want you to know that even though I am ill, I am committed to do everything I can to achieve access to health care for everyone in my country. This has been the political cause of my life. I believe in a conscience protection for Catholics in the health field and I will continue to advocate for it as my colleagues in the Senate and I work to develop an overall national health policy that guarantees health care for everyone. I have always tried to be a faithful Catholic, Your Holiness, and though I have fallen short through human failings, I have never failed to believe and respect the fundamental teachings of my faith. I continue to pray for God's blessings on you and on our church and would be most thankful for your prayers for me."

I guess the entirety of the letter might tell us more but these pieces seem uncomfortably to represent a dying man's wish to justify himself... not before God... but before the Pope...

W&W are also covering it and end their post with this:

It shows Kennedy to have been vastly more naive than I could have guessed.

Fascinating... is Kennedy naive in that he's pleading his case to man and not God... or is he naive to think that in some way this letter might persuade the Pope to publicly back Obama's healt care initiative?  I suspect the latter though in my mind the former is more grievous.

Only God knows. 

Literally.

Impressions --- Not A Sermon

Posted by guest blogger Fr. D.

I was unable to celebrate Mass today because of some surgery earlier this past week and resulting limitations as I recover from that. Consequently, I have not prepared a sermon for this Sunday and have none to post. I took the opportunity, however, "to go see how the other half lives.” I visited two other parishes here in town, parishes that I had never set foot in before. One was the large Episcopal parish downtown, and the second was a large ELCA Lutheran parish. I went incognito – shirt, tie, sport coat, rather than a black clergy shirt. I thought I would share some impressions of those visits for what they are worth.

The Episcopalians
The service was a Rite II Eucharist, led by the Rector, a Priestess, and assisted by the Deaconette, another woman. At the beginning of the service, the procession entered from the left, led by the Verger, Crucifer, Torch Bearers, a server bearing the Gospel Book, and then the clergy, all very nicely vested. Episcopalians are usually very good at ceremonial, and this was no exception to that rule.

The altar was away from the wall for celebration facing toward the people, so the priestess did not go initially to the altar but to her chair where she stood to begin the service with the Collect for Purity. Periodically she would bow, as one would do when facing the altar, but she was now facing out into the congregation. This raises the question: To whom or what is she bowing?

As the service progressed, several rather casually dressed lay men and women came up from the congregation to read the Old Testament lesson, the Psalm, and the New Testament Lesson. For the Gospel lesson, the Deaconette and the Verger came to the center aisle where she proceeded to read the Gospel in a high, thin voice that did not carry at all.

The lessons for the day were these: Song of Solomon 2:8–13, Ps. 45, James 1:17–27, and St. Mark 7:1–23. I had great difficulty hearing the Priestess while she was preaching, so I have no idea what her chosen text was. One thing I did hear quite distinctly was a reference to “Jason and the Argonauts” of Greek mythology. I leave it to you to figure out how that fits in with any of the lessons for the day; I have not been able to make the connection.

After the Nicene Creed and the Prayers of the People, Form IV (quite different from the Prayer for the Whole State of Christ Church that I say every Sunday), we got to the Great Walk–About (Passing of the Peace). I was sitting in the last pew, but the Priestess had spotted me, and she came out to greet me at this point, just as I rather expected she would do – a stranger in their midst. Several people around me also greeted me.

After the Walk–About, the Priestess went to the altar to begin the Canon of the Mass, standing behind the altar with the Deaconette. I was surprised to see that she had not put on the chasuble, but was still wearing only alb and stole. It was a pretty standard celebration of the Mass, except that she did not elevate and genuflect at the words of consecration at all. There was a single elevation only at the end of the Invocation, but again, no genuflection. Communion was served by the Priestess, the Deaconette, and two Chalice Bearers. When Communion was ended, as the Deaconette was cleansing the vessels, just at that moment a bird flew down out of the upper part of the nave. At first I thought it was a bat the way it swooped towards the altar, and that seemed entirely fitting, but it was in fact a bird. Everything came to a halt for the next five minutes while the ushers opened the doors hoping the bird would fly out as it was swooping back and forth around the room. Finally, it came barreling down the center aisle at an altitude of about six feet and flew straight out the back door which they immediately shut so that the Prayer of Thanksgiving could begin.

After the final blessing, the procession came down the center aisle to the back where the clergy dropped off to remain to greet the people leaving the service. About eight people very promptly came up to me, introduced themselves, chatted a couple of minutes and invited me to remain for the coffee hour down stairs. They were very friendly and open. The Priestess again made a point to speak to me and actually talked about more than just “glad to have you here today.” I did not remain for coffee because I had already planned to visit the Lutherans across town away, so I needed to be on my way.

The Lutherans
When I got to the Lutheran Church, it was almost empty but the “praise chorus” was warming up. It was small, consisting of two women and two men singing, a trumpet, and a trap set. The Pastor was also singing with them. One of the singers also played the tambourine at times and soprano sax at other times. I could see right away this was going to be different! After about five minutes, they knocked off, and the pastor came over to speak to me. He explained that this was their “contemporary service,” the more traditional service having been at 8 am. It was also to be a Communion service and he assured me that I was welcome to take Communion. I thanked him but told him that I would not (I had identified myself to him as a priest).

The service began with the praise chorus back in place and no clergy in sight. It opened with a very lively “gathering hymn” called “Shout to the North.” By the time this ended, the Pastor had sort of wandered in, completely without vestments, just business suit and clergy shirt. He led a short mutual confession of sins, but there was no absolution. I got the impression that they don’t do that sort of thing any more. Actually, as I study the words printed in the bulletin more carefully, this is not a confession of sins at all. It is a confession that “we have not led a life worthy of our calling” whatever that means. That probably does not really require an absolution because it is not really sin, just “not worthy of our calling.” This was followed with a rousing rendition of the old Shaker hymn “Simple Gifts.”  Finally, one of the women singers, said something, identified in the bulletin as a “greeting” but stated as a blessing, the sort of thing that traditionally might be said at the end of an absolution. This was followed by a Collect read together and a children’s sermon.

The lessons for the day were Deuteronomy 4:1–9, Ps. 15, James 1:17–27, and apparently there was no need seen to read the Gospel. This was Stewardship Sunday, and the Pastor delivered one of the most magnificently crafted multimedia sermons I have ever seen. It would take weeks of effort to put such together with all sorts of cute stories, music, etc. I was sorely tempted to ask him how long he spent putting it together because I am virtually certain it came from some national office. It even included sponsor ads at certain points – really great sermon material. All designed to pry the money out of people.

This was followed by an almost correct version of the Apostles Creed, but which I mean that the words have only been changed a little bit here and there, just enough that I was tripped up about every other sentence. This led to preparation for general prayer in the form of a bouncy little piece called, “Lord, Listen to Your Children Praying.”

Martin Luther eliminated most of the Canon of the Mass, and what little was left has now been dispensed. Preparation for the Eucharist amounted to the Sursum Corda, the Words of Institution, and the Lord’s Prayer. Don’t blink, or you could miss the whole thing.

There was one very interesting feature of the Communion, something I have never seen anywhere else. Let me quote from the bulletin:

Communion is by either intinction or common cup. First Station: Receive the bread, then dip it in the wine (red) or the grape juice (white) or Second Station: drink from the common cup of wine. Area physicians have raised a concern of an increased level of communicable diseases in the area. Communicants are urged to consider how they will commune in light of this information. We continue to offer both intinction and common cup.

Who knew that the Body and Blood of Christ were potential disease carriers?

After the dismissal, there followed something called “sending music,” in this case, a Kyrie Eleison with a a lively beat and lots of volume. Quite different from the penitential understanding those words have traditionally carried!

As the people filed out, I walked forward to see just how the front of the Church had been re–arranged for the contemporary service. I then returned to get in line to speak to the Pastor at the door where everyone was leaving. In the process, I walked past many of the members of the parish, but very interestingly, everyone of them simply looked away from me and not a single one of them spoke to me. The Pastor assured me that I would be welcome to come back any time, but somehow, I don’t think the membership would back him up on that.

With regard to the contemporary Lutheran service, I can see why people would enjoy that. It was very entertaining, there certainly was no mention of anything as depressing as sin, and even as a stewardship message it was still pretty much all about me. I don’t think I heard Jesus mentioned in that sermon at all. His sacrifice on the Cross does not seem to be a factor in stewardship, but rather stewardship is about my participation, my involvement with an organization and a group of friends. I’ll bet I could find the same thing at the Rotary Club, and just maybe they would speak to me as well.

Before anybody starts to crawl all over me saying that I am being unfair to either the Lutherans or the Episcopalians, let me assure you that I have been a member of both of these Churches. I spent over 20 years in the predecessor Churches of the ELCA, in a number of parishes around the country. These are simply my observations, and you are of course free to think otherwise.

Confessions on Confession

I have a confession to make. 

I confess to plotting with Leslie behind the scenes on jointly putting up a post that deals with the Christian act of Confession. 

As regular readers (especially of late) will know, I'm in the midst of a potential return to Catholicism.  As part of that trek, I've been reading the Catholic Catechism and as part of my confessed plot with Leslie, I now bring you, in part, what the Catechism has to say about Confession:

The confession of sins

1455 The confession (or disclosure) of sins, even from a simply human point of view, frees us and facilitates our reconciliation with others. Through such an admission man looks squarely at the sins he is guilty of, takes responsibility for them, and thereby opens himself again to God and to the communion of the Church in order to make a new future possible.

1456 Confession to a priest is an essential part of the sacrament of Penance: "All mortal sins of which penitents after a diligent self-examination are conscious must be recounted by them in confession, even if they are most secret and have been committed against the last two precepts of the Decalogue; for these sins sometimes wound the soul more grievously and are more dangerous than those which are committed openly."⁵⁴

When Christ's faithful strive to confess all the sins that they can remember, they undoubtedly place all of them before the divine mercy for pardon. But those who fail to do so and knowingly withhold some, place nothing before the divine goodness for remission through the mediation of the priest, "for if the sick person is too ashamed to show his wound to the doctor, the medicine cannot heal what it does not know."⁵⁵

1457 According to the Church's command, "after having attained the age of discretion, each of the faithful is bound by an obligation faithfully to confess serious sins at least once a year."⁵⁶ Anyone who is aware of having committed a mortal sin must not receive Holy Communion, even if he experiences deep contrition, without having first received sacramental absolution, unless he has a grave reason for receiving Communion and there is no possibility of going to confession.⁵⁷ Children must go to the sacrament of Penance before receiving Holy Communion for the first time.⁵⁸

1458 Without being strictly necessary, confession of everyday faults (venial sins) is nevertheless strongly recommended by the Church.⁵⁹ Indeed the regular confession of our venial sins helps us form our conscience, fight against evil tendencies, let ourselves be healed by Christ and progress in the life of the Spirit. By receiving more frequently through this sacrament the gift of the Father's mercy, we are spurred to be merciful as he is merciful:⁶⁰

Whoever confesses his sins . . . is already working with God. God indicts your sins; if you also indict them, you are joined with God. Man and sinner are, so to speak, two realities: when you hear "man" - this is what God has made; when you hear "sinner" - this is what man himself has made. Destroy what you have made, so that God may save what he has made. . . . When you begin to abhor what you have made, it is then that your good works are beginning, since you are accusing yourself of your evil works. The beginning of good works is the confession of evil works. You do the truth and come to the light.⁶¹

Confession is but one part or piece if you will of the Sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation and those interested should read the entire segment of the Catechism to learn more.  I find it all pretty fascinating.

And now for a more Protestant look at the subject matter, I turn you over to Leslie, who as an aside for those who don't know, has her own blog over at Alice the Camel.

___________

Rick’s journey toward Catholicism has had me thinking about my own doctrinal philosophies.  For me to go “home” in that regard, I turn to the Lutheran Confessions as assembled in the Book of Concord, and in this case, the Augsburg Confession written in 1530:

Article XI: Of Confession.

1] Of Confession they [the Reformers - L] teach that Private Absolution ought to be retained in the churches, although in confession 2] an enumeration of all sins is not necessary. For it is impossible according to the Psalm: Who can understand his errors? Ps. 19:12.

? - Confession - Confutation - Defense

Lutherans only have 2 sacraments -- baptism and communion -- classified as such because they were directly instituted by Christ.  As such, confession isn’t a sacrament in the Lutheran church.

I could be wrong about this, but in discussing confession with Catholics I get a sense that there is something of a blissful time, post-confession, that one is all squeaky clean.  The Augsburg Confession’s term “impossible” refers to what I have found to be a pervasive emphasis on God’s role in the redemption of man. Here, Luther explains the third article of the Apostle’s Creed: 

I believe that I cannot by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord, or come to Him; but the Holy Ghost has called me by the Gospel, enlightened me with His gifts, sanctified and kept me in the true faith; even as He calls, gathers, enlightens, and sanctifies the whole Christian Church on earth, and keeps it with Jesus Christ in the one true faith; in which Christian Church He forgives daily and richly all sins to me and all believers, and at the last day will raise up me and all the dead, and will give to me and to all believers in Christ everlasting life. This is most certainly true.

 Compare that with this phrase from the Catholic catechism Rick quoted and you will get a sense of the different approaches:

Whoever confesses his sins . . . is already working with God. God indicts your sins; if you also indict them, you are joined with God

Just some thoughts from me. One thing to keep in mind is that Luther's first choice wasn't starting his own denomination. He was excommunicated. Therefore, Lutheran doctrine isn’t an outright rejection of the all Catholic doctrine.  There are many, many commonalities in the midst of the differences.  In fact, if you click "Confutation" under Article XI,  you'll find the Catholic response to this issue is one of basic agreement.

An oldie but a goodie

An old country preacher had a teenage son, and it was getting time the boy should give some thought to choosing a profession. Like many young men his age, the boy didn't really know what he wanted to do, and he didn't seem too concerned about it. One day, while the boy was away at school, his father decided to try an experiment. He went into the boy's room and placed on his study table four objects.

1. A Bible.

2. A silver dollar.

3. A bottle of whisky.

4. And a Playboy magazine.

"I'll just hide behind the door," the old preacher said to himself. "When he comes home from school today, I'll see which object he picks up.

"If it's the Bible, he's going to be a preacher like me, and what a blessing that would be!

"If he picks up the dollar, he's going to be a business man, and that would be okay, too.

"But if he picks up the bottle, he's going to be a no-good drunken bum, and Lord, what a shame that would be.

"And worst of all if he picks up that magazine he's going to be a skirt-chasing womanizer."

The old man waited anxiously, and soon heard his son's foot-steps as he entered the house whistling and headed for his room.

The boy tossed his books on the bed, and as he turned to leave the room he spotted the objects on the table...

With curiosity in his eye, he walked over to inspect them. Finally, he picked up the Bible and placed it under his arm. He picked up the silver dollar and dropped into his pocket. He uncorked the bottle and took a big drink, while he admired this month's centerfold.

"Lord have mercy," the old preacher disgustedly whispered. "He's gonna run for Congress!"

By way of e-mail from The GAckster.

Obama and Israel

This is telling... and cannot in any way be spun as a good thing:

The number of Israelis who see US President Barack Obama's policies as pro-Israel has fallen to four percent, according to a Smith Research poll taken this week on behalf of The Jerusalem Post.

Fifty-one percent of Jewish Israelis consider Obama's administration more pro-Palestinian than pro-Israel, according to the survey, while 35% consider it neutral and 10% declined to express an opinion. The poll of 500 people representing a statistical model of the Jewish Israeli population had a margin of error of 4.5%.

A much-cited Post poll published on June 19 that put the first figure at 6% had been cited by top officials in both the White House and the Prime Minister's Office as the catalyst for recent American efforts to improve the American-Israeli relationship. But the new poll proves that those efforts have not improved Obama's reputation among Israelis.

...

Obama's popularity among Israelis has been plummeting since a May 17 Post poll on the eve of a meeting between Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Obama at the White House. In that poll, 31% labeled Obama pro-Israel, 14% considered him pro-Palestinian, 40% said he was neutral, and 15% declined to give an opinion.

The May poll found that Israelis' views of Obama's predecessor in the White House, George W. Bush, were nearly the opposite. Some 88% of Israelis considered Bush's administration pro-Israel, 7% said he was neutral and just 2% labeled him pro-Palestinian.

Hope... and change... if you're a radical Muslim.

A teachable moment

Brought to us by Verum Serum:

What kind of man was Ted Kennedy? (UPDATED)

If what is reported here is true, he was truly depraved and sick:

UPDATE: Two separate sources, same story... Ted Kennedy was, in the most traditional of senses, a traitor.

Read Alice the Camel's piece (and be sure to follow the links) and then read Paul Hollrah's post at Red County.

This story needs more air time. Do you part to pass it on.

Ted Kennedy is not who the media is attempting to sell him as.