That 80% of random people on the street would sign John Stossel's petition to have di-hydrogen monoxide banned was a brilliant illustration of the scientific illiteracy that defines too much of government policy today.  It's of a piece with the ignorance displayed by a majority of the Supreme Court in Commonwealth of Massachusetts et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency on April 2, 2007, when the court decided that carbon dioxide was an air pollutant.  They might as well have called oxygen an air pollutant, because too much oxygen in the air would damage the lungs and make fires rage out of control.  Then, while they're at it, they could declare Nitrogen an air pollutant because Nitrogen is a major component of the deadly explosive, TNT, responsible for killing or maiming millions of people.  That would leave only trace inert gases and actual pollutants to deal with.  Might as well make the entire atmosphere the perview of the EPA to regulate as it sees fit.

In a rare public statement about such matters, Fr. Thomas Brudage, JLC, the judicial vicar for the Archdiocese of Milwaukee from 1995-2003, has written an article about his involvement in the child sexual abuse case of Fr. Lawrence Murphy that has gotten such attention in the world press, recently.  See "Setting the record straight in the case of abusive Milwaukee priest Father Lawrence Murphy." The guy doesn't pull any punches.

Before proceeding, it is important to point out the scourge that child sexual abuse has been — not only for the church but for society as well. Few actions can distort a child’s life more than sexual abuse. It is a form of emotional and spiritual homicide and it starts a trajectory toward a skewed sense of sexuality. When committed by a person in authority, it creates a distrust of almost anyone, anywhere.

As a volunteer prison chaplain in Alaska, I have found a corollary between those who have been incarcerated for child sexual abuse and the priests who have committed such grievous actions. They tend to be very smart and manipulative. They tend to be well liked and charming. They tend to have one aim in life — to satisfy their hunger. Most are highly narcissistic and do not see the harm that they have caused. They view the children they have abused not as people but as objects. They rarely show remorse and moreover, sometimes portray themselves as the victims. They are, in short, dangerous people and should never be trusted again. Most will recommit their crimes if given a chance.

My thanks to the Suburban Banshee for the link to this article.

Members of the Women's Ordination Conference demonstrated outside of the Vatican embassy in Washington, D.C., on March 25th (the Solemnity of the Annunciation, no less) to announce the World Day of Prayer for Women's Ordination.  See "Women's ordination advocates bring message to Vatican embassy." LarryD of the Acts of the Apostasy blog saw fit to excoriate the demonstrators and the WOC. See "Overlooked UnHoly Day." Personally, it escapes me why anyone would get all hot and bothered about twenty Kool-Aid drinkers, er, excuse me, enlightened progressive (a term which, technically, is not an oxymoron) priestess advocates (the National Catholic Reporter was nice enough to take a group shot; now these ladies have something to show their grandchildren, if they ever have any) who show up to demonstrate (perhaps even to protest) in the nation's capital city.

A recent "Hot Topic" on Catholic Answers Forums reads "When do humans get their souls?"  With all due respect to Fr. Serpa, I think his answer leaves something to be desired.  I therefore submitted the following for their consideration.  (Unfortunately, their primitive text editor gave me no option to enter a paragraph symbol, ¶, so I did the best I could with the raw html: ¶)

Dr. Edward Feser, Associate Professor of Philosophy at Pasadena City College, has a posting on the Stupak defection that delves into philosophical objections to the new health-care law.  (See "Stupak's enablers?")  You guessed it, he focuses on the massive violation to the principle of subsidiarity.  He even goes into substantial length covering the Catholic Church's position on this principle and its application.  Bravo, Ed.

BarkOff claims to have a device that puts out an ultrasonic wave that dogs can hear, and that causes them to quit barking.  What do you do if all the dogs in the neighborhood start barking at the same time?  Have you ever observed dogs in groups?  When one barks, the others start barking, too.

It's kind of like what happens among partisans.  When one raises a ruckus, their comrades reecho the strain. When the noise reaches a certain decibel level, it becomes impossible to think, much less carry on an intelligent conversation. Is this intentional?  Given the predilection of once-proud media to return to the scene of their tabloid crimes (cf Proverbs 26:11), I'm personally coming to the conclusion that the answer is a resounding "Yes."

Delay is preferable to error.

Letter to George Washington (16 May 1792) [See WikiQuote.]

Check out the Mary's Anawim blog.

CNN's GPS moderator, Fareed Zakaria, asks "Do you think that religion is more of a force for good or evil in today's world?"  Here is my response:

Religion is not monolithic, like science.  Your question, therefore, is much too broad.  Furthermore, it is almost beside the point, since the real question is whether people use religion more for good or for evil in today's world.  Even that question is not easy to answer.  I would point out, however, that most religion is seldom faithfully practiced by its ostensible adherents.  For example, as G.K. Chesterton once said, "Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and not tried."

When we realize this, and when we realize that the real purposes of religion are frequently perverted in our world, we can probably answer "Yes" to the reformulated question, but this is hardly the fault of religion.  People pervert the use of all kinds of things, even science.  As to whether religion itself is to blame, I believe the answer is a resounding "No."

See "More Palm Sunday." Very clever, Jeff.