MORE LLAMA CHRISTMAS OFFICE PARTY - ARCHIVE DIVISION
Now that we've all had a couple rounds of spiked punch, let's get out the vid of one of our Llama parties from a few years back before we got all respectable n' stuff. (That's Steve-O with the glasses):
1 Re: Band Aid. If it were so easy we would have done it already. Maybe they should pipe the tune into the Chinese...
Never the less, I like the tune and have it for a wish that we could make peace in the world.
As for the other videos. Uch, really you Llamas... What a terrible collection of sad and sorry videos.
Posted by: Babs at December 20, 2007 04:29 PM (iZZlp)
2
Just to elaborate; I would be more than happy to "feed the world" if that was what I was actually doing. It seems that "feed the world" schemes now a days means keeping dictatorial thugs in power to rape their contries of every dollar while the rest of the world sends powdered milk. When this will end, with blue helmets buying sex for food and all the other atrocities that go along with this scheme is anyone's guess but, I will no longer contribute to it.
Posted by: Babs at December 20, 2007 04:33 PM (iZZlp)
I demand an immediate pledge from each of the presidential candidates that they will make a 'Murican Public Toilet Map a top priority for their first 100 days.
1
My wife won't watch it with me anymore because every time the annoying little drummer urchin runs through airport security at the end, I keep yelling "Shoot him! Shoot him!"
Posted by: The Abbot at December 21, 2007 01:29 PM (b1/bF)
Gary, I'll see you your Paul McCartney and raise you the Waitresses:
This is a homemade video version---for some reason the real video isn't on youtube.
Yips! from Gary:
Nope, there ain't no video version by the band itself. Trust me, I looked.
This gal does a decent job though.
1
She's pretty in that "girl-who-sits-next-to-you-in-math-class-who-you-don't-really-think-much-about-but-when-you-do-finally-notice-her-and-decide-to-ask-her-out-you-discover-she's-already-started-dating-someone-far-more-popular-than-you-and-you-realize-for-the-hundredth-time-you're-an-idiot" kind of way.
If you know what I mean.
Posted by: The Abbot at December 21, 2007 01:24 PM (b1/bF)
Yeah, the chorus is pretty dang monotonous, but this one always brings back nice memories - not the least of which was Paul McCartney at his zenith, before he was dragged through the press with a messy divorce.
This is actually what comes to mind when I think of a Kos Kid or a poster at DemocraticUngerground.
Yips! from Robbo: I swear that this guy is a dead ringer for my long-lost Uncle Dave. Yikes.
Light posting for the rest of the day, I think. The bug I've been fighting off for some time finally caught up with me during the office party yesterday afternoon, so now I'm home with a ringing head, cranky attitude and achy joints.
As I sometimes do when feeling ill on cold, damp days, I plan to put on a fresh pot of coffee, grab some extra blankets and curl up in front of Lawrence of Arabia. Mmmmmm.....sand and sun....mmmmmm.......
Gary? Chai-Rista? Your play.
UPDATE: Ah, that's teh stuff. It's a curious thing about these old Omar Sharif blockbusters: 90 seconds into the first round of "Lara's Theme" from Dr. Zhivago and I'm frantically reaching for the scissors in order to puncture my own eardrums. But I never get sick of the theme from Lawrence in all its permutations. I suppose this is because I've always been a sucker for musick reminiscent of the Turk, the Tatar, Pharoah or far Araby.
This is easily one of the most horrifying articles I've read in a looooong time:
At another point, a few years later, I did have an abortion. I was a single mother, working and pursuing a path to ordination in the Episcopal Church. The potential father was not someone I would have married; he would have been no better a candidate for fatherhood than my daughter's absent father. The timing was wrong, the man was wrong, and I easily, though not happily, made the decision to terminate the pregnancy.
I have not the slightest regret about either of these decisions, nor the slightest guilt. I felt sorrow and loss at the time of my abortion, but less so than when I'd miscarried some years earlier. Both of my choices, I believe, were right for me and my circumstances: morally correct in their context, practical, and fruitful in their outcomes.
That is, both choices were choices for life: in the first instance, I chose for the life of the unborn child; in the second, I chose for my own vocational life, my economic stability, and my mental and emotional health and wholeness.
Shortly after my ordination to the priesthood, I was asked to speak at the National Abortion Federation's annual meeting, on a Clergy Panel, with the theme of "Abortion as a Moral Choice." I wondered skeptically who would attend such a panel, but to my surprise, the room was packed with people - abortion providers and other clinic workers. Our audience was so eager and grateful to hear their work affirmed, to hear religious authorities assuring them that God was on their side! I understood that I had a responsibility, indeed, a call, as a pro-choice religious professional, to speak out and to advocate publicly for women's reproductive rights and health, and I have tried to be faithful to that call.
To talk theologically about women's right to choose is to talk about justice, equality, health and wholeness, and respect for the full humanity and autonomy of every woman. Typically, as moral theologians, we discuss the value of potential life (the fetus) as against the value of lived life - the mature and relational life of a woman deciding her capacity to continue or terminate a pregnancy. And we believe that, in general, the value of that actual life outweighs the value of the potential.
I like to talk, as well, in terms of gift and of calling. I believe that all life is a gift - not only potential life, but life developing and ripening with its many challenges, complications, joys and sorrows. When we face difficult reproductive choices we balance many gifts, many goods, and to fail to recognize the gifts of our accomplished lives is to fail to recognize God's ongoing blessing. I believe as well that God calls us all to particular vocations, and our decisions about whether and when to bear children are part of that larger pattern of our lives' sacred meanings.
Ponder that for just a minute. This "priest"*** is not even arguing that employing abortion-as-birth-control (which is what she did) is a sometimes necessary evil. She's arguing that it's a positive moral good. In other words, act as irresponsibly as you want, destroy whoever or whatever you need to in order to duck the consequences and God will back you up!
Christ have mercy.
(***Insert your own "Quis custodiet?" jokes here. I don't see this exclusively as an Episcopal Church problem, but rayther more an example of unrepentant Boomer hedonism, which is not confined to the ranks of TEC.)
Via Stand Firm and the Bovina Bloviator.
DOCTRINAL YIPS from Steve-O: Yes, it's getting hot and heavy in the comments section, a battle of converts between pissed off former Anglicans now Catholics versus pissed off former Catholics now Anglican. Yessir, entertainment that previously you'd have to be tapping into the home security video cameras at Vince McMahon's house to be able to enjoy. It's inspired me to post this, perhaps the greatest ode to the season of joy ever made. God bless you all:
1
I saw it, too. How much moral blindness was needed for this line:
"That is, both choices were choices for life: in the first instance, I chose for the life of the unborn child; in the second, I chose for my own vocational life, my economic stability, and my mental and emotional health and wholeness."
So I guess it is OK for me to cause someone's death if it advances my career, helps me financially, or makes me feel good. Good to know! I'll file that away as my Get Out of Hell Free Card should I ever have to knock some inconvenient person off.
So remind me again, why was it that God was so offended by the priests of Ba'al? It seems to me that they could have made these exact same arguments. I don't doubt that they sincerely believed that throwing babies into the furnace would help the crop cycle, and given the real poverty of ancient times, surely their economic and well-being argument was much stronger than that of the current day priestess.
Posted by: The Abbot at December 19, 2007 10:36 AM (b1/bF)
2
women should make the choice - a month or more before an abortion becomes an option.
Posted by: Marvin at December 19, 2007 11:09 AM (oxb1t)
3
If this guy wasn't husband or father material, why the heck was she sleeping with him, obviously without protection (or with failed protection)? A perfect example of abortion as birth control. Sad, really.
4
"I don't see this exclusively as an Episcopal Church problem, but rayther more an example of unrepentant Boomer hedonism, which is not confined to the ranks of TEC"
On one level this is true. But I must take serious issue with you..
This is a priest who has admitted to the murder of her own child. Murder. A priest who has murdered an innocent for the sake of her "vocation".
That is a blasphemous statement. It is a sin against the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit leads priests through the process of discerning their vocations.
When does the Holy Spirit tell someone, anyone, to murder?
More than that, you can bet just by the law of averages, she's not the only female priest who has done this. This is why the Episcopal church health insurances provides for abortions for both their female priests and the wives of the male priests.
Abortion as birth control has been going on among the priesthood in the Episcopal Church since Roe v. Wade.
And no one in the highest levels of the Episcopate has stopped it. (Presiding Bishop -Archbishop of Canterbury)
As a contrast, do we recall how up in arms the world (rightfully) was over Catholic priests molesting children? Molesting, not murdering.
The American Catholic Church was warned by the Vatican in the early '60's to not let homosexuals into the priesthood. The American Church did not listen. They let them in. Since the '60's, the entire American Church, and the victims, have paid the price of that disobedience.
Thankfully, since the scandal errupted, the Catholic Church has worked very hard to prevent any future abuse.
Posted by: Mrs. Peperium at December 19, 2007 01:40 PM (k81nl)
5
It must be noted that the majority of victims in the Catholic Church scandal were post-pubescent (sp?)...
Pedophiles go after pre-pubescent children.
Gays go after post-pubescent (sp?) boys.
Posted by: Mrs. Peperium at December 19, 2007 01:47 PM (k81nl)
6
I'm wondering when all this changed. I've been looking at Lambethconference dot org.
Lambeth 1930: "The Conference further records its abhorrence of the sinful practice of abortion."
Lambeth 1978: "2. The need for programmes at diocesan level, involving both men and women . . . (c) to emphasise the sacredness of all human life, the moral issues inherent in clinical abortion, and the possible implications of genetic engineering."
I don't see anything in Lambeth specifically allowing abortion, though in a mere 48 years, it went from being 100% sinful to being something needing a diocesan program to deal with moral issues when the abortion was done clinically -- which suggests that there is consderable waffling going on. The 1978 wording isn't exactly a model of clarity if the church is opposed to it.
But still -- no endorsement. If the rule wasn't changed, it still holds, right?
The issue of women's ordination aside, would our priestess be able to write her article in 1930 without being excommunicated? I seriously doubt it. And if so, what's changed about abortion itself? The anesthetic being used in the procedure (and in the conscience of the paticipant), perhaps, but certainly not the instruments or the subjects. A scalpel is still a scalpel, a life is still a life.
In the span of one human lifetime, it has gone from being an abhorrent, sinful thing to being a line item in the health care benefits.
Not to hammer my Episcopal friends, but while Rome may wax inconsistent on things like meat on Fridays, but it's still got a functioning institutional memory.
Posted by: The Abbot at December 19, 2007 02:29 PM (b1/bF)
7
Oh Abbott... let's hammer away..it's Christmas...Jesus was a carpenter...
Ok, look up NOEL - National Organization of Episcopalians For Life -used to be out of Sewickly PA...see why they are no longer in the Episcopal Church...
Couldn't get a vote at one of the General Conventions (out of commitee -not floor vote) on abortion being a bad thing...or wording like that...
Posted by: Mrs. Peperium at December 19, 2007 03:11 PM (vmWRj)
8
Mrs. P: Well, that's what He asked Abraham to do to Issac.
Somewhere, Nathaniel Hawthorne is rolling in his grave.
Posted by: Steve the LLamabutcher at December 19, 2007 03:31 PM (c/Lzh)
9
In fairness to God, he did substitute a ram . . .
As for NOEL, I did find an article on it on Virtue online which the spam filter won't let me link. Thanks.
Posted by: The Abbot at December 19, 2007 04:49 PM (b1/bF)
10
I used to be an Episcopalian. Then I became a Presbyterian so the family could all go to church together. Presbyterianity didn't work for me spiritually, and I thought about going back to the Episcopal Church. Instead I became a Catholic. The article above is a good illustration of why I couldn't return to my roots.
Posted by: gail at December 19, 2007 06:15 PM (szQR4)
11
I do so love it when people walk into my traps...
(Abbot, some technical assistance may be required as the old bean is a bit rusty on some terms...)
Yes, yes, and a resounding yes. God did ask Abraham to kill Issac. And Abraham consented and walked Issac up the mountain with all of the intention in the world to kill his grown son...
Then God provided a before unseen ram in the thicket for the blood sacrafice he required...
God was testing Abraham's obedience to Him...To His word...
The big but is God did not allow Abraham to kill his son for the blood sacrifice...God knew He was going to provide His own as the blood sacrifice.
This priest to claim she made a blood sacrifice of her unborn child for the sake of her vocation has acted as if she were God. In her demented, evi,l and incredibly stupid mind, she believes she, like God, killed her child, for the furthering of the Gospel...
A complete ass at best. Evil queen at worst.
Abbot, which is the heresy that believes we are in some way divine?
That's the heresy she's wrapped up in.
Posted by: Mrs. Peperium at December 19, 2007 06:20 PM (BEbmn)
Posted by: Mrs. Peperium at December 19, 2007 06:22 PM (BEbmn)
13
Stoo-pid me! Totally forgot one of the most important facts. Abraham came way before Moses. Meaning Abraham came way before God's commandment : Thou Shalt Not Kill.
Had Abraham known of this commandment, he would have had quite a struggle when God told him to sacrifice Issac. There may have even been a shouting match between the two.
The Rev. Fowler (got to love God's humor there) came way, way after Moses and Thou Shalt Not Kill.
Though as the Episcopal/Anglican Church will openly say, that commandment does not apply to abortion or euthanasia.
Posted by: Mrs. Peperium at December 19, 2007 07:51 PM (3gC+a)
14
Mrs. P--Respectfully, you said it would never happen, but it did. Abraham was commanded to kill his son. The fact that it was a test doesn't dilute that it did happen, and that if Abraham knew it was a test and that he would have an out, then it loses all meaning as a test of faith to begin with. Which is beside the point for this poor, sad, and I believe misguided woman, but that's the essence and extreme craziness of grace: we are commanded to forgive and to love no matter what as we are ourselves forgiven, not to spite and condescend. What words can be written before our feet in the sand? That's the sheer lunacy of the concept of grace that turned away people then as well as now.
As to the accounts of the sexual predator scandals that plagued the Roman Church in America in the 1990s, you don't really have anything in there about the heterosexual priests who abused young women (not as common an incidence as the other combination, but which happened alarmingly enough), not to mention to me the real essence of the scandal: the bishops (such as the "honorable" Daniel P. Reilly, retired Archbishop of Worcester, former Bishop of Norwich, who knowingly moved a pedophile into my old parish the year after I stopped being an altar boy) who looked the other way or refused to act in the face of incontrovertable evidence and yet are somehow not serving time in jail. They are moral monsters in many ways worse than the sad woman in the article because what she did to the body and soul of one, they abetted being done to the souls and faith and bodies of countless other children.
The more that emerges about this it's pretty clear that it was not a one generational thing, but rather something only discovered now. And comb through rules of the Episcopal church, do, for the Canons of the Roman Church on many issues are also free of such hypocrisy? How many bastards have been created through annulment of marriages? They are both human institutions, and so are subject to error, corruption, and hubris.
The concept of forgiveness does not exclude accountability to the civil authorities: just as "Cardinal" Law and Bishop Reilly should be in jail, they also deserve mercy, forgiveness, and compassion for the crimes they committed, which is a very difficult thing for one of their former targets to do, yet it is something we are commanded to do nonetheless if we hope to be forgiven ourselves.
We must love, not hate, no matter how hard or irrational.
Churches are human things, and so they sometimes break our hearts, sometimes in a way so awful that makes it impossible to stay, and if we are lucky the Spirit can guide us to a place where we can find a place of quiet to worship God and find forgiveness and healing. When this happens it is important then to not hold onto bitterness, anger, and sorrow at where we have left behind, because these are horrible emotions that poison the gifts of the spirit, whether these gifts be emotional or rational.
Posted by: Steve the LLamabutcher at December 19, 2007 08:08 PM (c/Lzh)
15
When my wife and were were engaged, the Episcopal priest who married us spelled out the teaching (in his view) was "...you will not procreate children you cannot feed, cloth, or educate, or becomes wards of the State. That's the closest the Episcopal Church comes to Planned Parenthood".
Apparently the subject of the above article felt otherwise...
Steve is right, we are commanded to forgive. But a necessary element is contrition.
Posted by: kmr at December 19, 2007 08:49 PM (3i2Pe)
You are spot on. We must pray for Rev. Fowler. I will say a Rosary for her, as I can think of no devotion in my arsenal of prayer more appropriate for opening a person's heart to the value of one's own child than the intercession of the one of whom Simeon said that a sword would pierce her heart when the world rejected him. I will ask that She pray to her son for mercy, who is a far better intercessor than I could ever be.
But I will pray for her, too.
But where I draw the line is where she wears the collar. She is a sinner, like all of us. But she does not regard her sin -- which the church has explicitly regarded as a sin since at least the writing of the Didache in the late first century/early second century (and has upheld as such for nearly two millenia, including the first four hundred years of the Anglican church) -- as a sin. She is, in fact, teaching others that her sin is not a sin. She is not filled with remorse, in fact her own words are "I have not the slightest regret about either of these decisions, nor the slightest guilt." Her own words are the testimony she will face.
She is preaching something contrary to the faith revealed to the apostles, and promulgated by those who learned at their very feet. What is her scriptural basis for doing this? What church father does she cite who speaks favorably of abortion? Which of the first seven ecumenical councils which the Anglican church recognizes sanctions her act? What is her argument against the teachings of her own church council, promulgated as recently as 1930? SHE OFFERS NONE.
It is one thing to say "I have sinned." It is another to say "I have no sin, and what the Church teaches as sin is no sin, as it is at variance with my own will." The collar she wears around her neck is her oath of servitude and obedience to Christ and his church, and yet she says "Non serviam."
She is not the first to say these words.
I do not condemn her, I do not judge her. I do not have the authority, as I did not descend into hell and bring forth the keys of death itself.
But if I do not rebuke her words, I sanction them, and the Church instructs me that I must offer fraternal correction. I also pity her enough that I will not be silent. If she does not recognize her sin, confess it, and ask for forgiveness from Him who has that authority, she will face testimony far worse than any impolite words of mine. Murder is a sin which cries to heaven for justice, and Christ's mercy certainly extends far enough to hear the voice of the child whose life she extinguished because she found him or her inconvenient. If she does not appeal to Him as savior, she will face him as judge.
I do not know the state of her soul. But I know that what she is teaching His sheep is wrong, and though she is not of my own sect, she is still a Christian, regarded by her own church as a priest, and therefore presumed worthy by those to whom she preaches of being listened to, until she starts saying things that clearly contravene the age-old teachings of the church.
And as for the abuse of children by priests in the Catholic church, though I am ashamed by the priests and am ashamed by the response of the bishops who did not look first to their sheep and who were complicit in hiding the crimes of the shepherds, at least I can say that the church still recognizes that the acts were sinful, and does not try to advance a doctrine teaching that pederasty is a Christian virtue.
That's the difference.
Posted by: The Abbot at December 19, 2007 09:04 PM (QBuXz)
I'm thinking the closest to that heresy (humans are actually divine) is Pelagianism, which believes we are perfectible on our own; that Christ led by example, but that his sacrifice was not redemptive, per se. He was a teacher, not a savior. It tends to go hand in hand with Gnosticism (if we become illuminated through learning, we can become divine), and is at heart, ultimately, a kind of animism.
Pelagianism is certainly a rife heresy in our time, across all sects of Christianity, even though it was definitively refuted in the 4th century. No one in theology class studies St. Paul or St. Augustine, who used to be loved by Protestant theologians until this century (now, of course, they are hopelessly patriarchal).
In fairness to the Pelagians, I don't think that even they would embrace what she is preaching. They didn't embrace selfishness as a divine virtue.
Posted by: The Abbot at December 19, 2007 09:21 PM (QBuXz)
18
And the sins of Cardinal Law and his ilk....? The families destroyed, faith shattered, doubt spread, hearts broken, for lies and protection of privilege and to hide cowardice? These are somehow in line with the teachings of doctrine? I hope not. Because if the Church really did believe what they did was wrong, they would not let the good Cardinal and those who knew and did nothing hide from the civil authorities. A Church worthy of the name universal would not hide criminals in its midst behind the silent privileges of a purple sash or red hat, while spinning sophistries worthy of a Pharisee calling out the doctrinal flaws of others.
If the Church truly believed it was sinful, if they realized the scandal was the actions of the bishops and cardinals and not the public revalation of these things, they would not continue to hide and obstruct, and wait for Law and his ilk to die. A prevent defense (while maliciously slandering the accusers) is good litigation strategy but lousy as a spiritual strategy.
Posted by: Steve the LLamabutcher at December 19, 2007 09:44 PM (c/Lzh)
19
Dan---You will be relieved to know I checked your comment and indeed St. Paul and Augustine are still well represented in the curriculum at least at Virginia Theological and Sewannee.
Posted by: Steve the LLamabutcher at December 19, 2007 09:52 PM (c/Lzh)
"And as for the abuse of children by priests in the Catholic church, though I am ashamed by the priests and am ashamed by the response of the bishops who did not look first to their sheep and who were complicit in hiding the crimes of the shepherds, at least I can say that the church still recognizes that the acts were sinful, and does not try to advance a doctrine teaching that pederasty is a Christian virtue.
That's the difference."
I think that the Church has made some progress in the last few years in cleaning out the bishops and priests responsible.
Not nearly enough -- and not nearly harsh enough for my tastes, which admittedly run toward the Dominican.
I would excommunicate every last one and refuse them burial in hallowed ground.
Their example has cost many souls who are embittered by the shameful example they have set, and so have deprived themselves of the teaching, which remains as true as it always has, and of the sacraments, which are as effective as they've always been. I may never trust a priest or a bishop personally as a person again.
But neither am I a Donatist.
Posted by: The Abbot at December 19, 2007 10:18 PM (QBuXz)
21
Steve-o, I am of two minds here. Two minds on how to answer this. I wish we were face to face because then I would know how to.
I make no excuses for the priest scandal. Frankly, you must talk to someone who has been a Catholic longer than me for answers on Cardinal Law etal. Basil or Father M.... They won't hold back.
All i can say is that since the priest scandal has happened, I have had to undergo an FBI background check as well as sexual abuse training to qualify to be a lunchroom mom at our children's Catholic school. If I did not submit to those conditions, I was not allowed to wipe the tables clean...that is a pretty good zero-tolerance policy.
As far as the Rev. Fowler, I honestly believe you are being too nice to her. She is not worthy of forgiveness because of the simple fact she has not asked for it. She believes she has done nothing wrong.
Posted by: Mrs. Peperium at December 19, 2007 10:21 PM (hDM6c)
22
As for St. Paul and Augustine, I'm glad to hear they're still being taught. I didn't mean that statement to come off as harsh as it seems in writing.
I just wish more people would listen to them.
Posted by: The Abbot at December 19, 2007 10:26 PM (QBuXz)
23
Steve,
How many bastards have been created through annulment of marriages, You asked. Zero. Bastardy is a civil, not ecclesiastical effect. An annulment is simply a declaration that a sacramental component is missing. The Church is not stating that the marriage never existed rather that it was not fully sacramental.
A far higher instance of sexual abuse occurs in the home. Steve, if you are a parent the chances are far higher that you as a father are far more likely to abuse than me as a priest. Further, abuse is far more likely to be hidden in the home.
Posted by: Father M. at December 19, 2007 10:55 PM (d/RyS)
Posted by: Steve the LLamabutcher at December 19, 2007 11:09 PM (c/Lzh)
25
Father M.---That is correct. And my employer wouldn't offer me diplomatic immunity to hide from prosecution if I ranked high enough, nor move me to another family for a fresh start, either.
Posted by: Steve the LLamabutcher at December 19, 2007 11:19 PM (c/Lzh)
26
I am in awe of the quality of discourse concerning the most exposive domestic issue of our time. All of you should be on the Sunday morning talk shows.
Posted by: LMC at December 20, 2007 01:27 AM (CkoYa)
27
"And my employer wouldn't offer me diplomatic immunity to hide from prosecution if I ranked high enough, nor move me to another family for a fresh start, either."
A little touchy on old Cardina Law and the Vatican, aren't we? Hmmmn....where to begin...ah yes..
So, Steve-O, here's a question for you, if Father M and I went to the Vatican today and brought Cardinal Law back to the US in to have the book thrown at him, would you then say the Catholic Church is ok?
Is having him prosectuted by civil authorities what it would take to make the teachings of the Church the Truth in your eyes?
Or is Cardinal Law and all that he represents to you a convenience? A convenience that allows you to keep your distance from the Church?
Posted by: Mrs. Peperium at December 20, 2007 06:47 AM (EketJ)
Posted by: The Abbot at December 20, 2007 07:40 AM (QBuXz)
29
I don't mean to take this down a couple of dozen notches intellectually or theologically, but I'm just a simple country boy. How's this: all churches, since they are run by humans, are flawed. All have made big mistakes, and even aided and abetted heinous crimes. Over the span of history, none have clean hands.
So now what? Follow your heart, and work to improve whatever church you're in.
I'm a lifelong Catholic, and a former alter boy like Steve-O who also managed to miss all the hullabaloo. I'm easily as angry as he is regarding the management of that situation, and I personally like The Abbot's approach. I'm not yet in a sufficiently Christian mindset to forgive, for the simple reason that (as Mrs. P said above) the Church hasn't asked for it yet.
With these warts, I've decided to stay in the fold and work from within. Steve hasn't. He's also got really bad taste in music, as his Hall and Oates clip shows. That's OK.
Steve, Merry Christmas. You heathen swine. (That's a joke, people).
Posted by: tdp at December 20, 2007 08:53 AM (7CsBg)
30
The spam filter ate a long comment of mine; which unfortunately I do not have time at the moment to reconstruct. Here's the short version.
I agree with much of what you say, TDP, but I would add a caveat, which is that Christ's church on Earth is not entirely, or merely, a human institution. Christ made certain promises to St. Peter and to the apostles which transform it into something not merely human, but into something which is also holy. If I believe those promises, I can believe that the sacraments are holy, the doctrine is true, and the Scripture may be trusted -- not because of the flawed people who administer or teach them, but because of He who makes the promise. It is the promise I trust, not the man in the robes, who might well personally be a criminal.
This is why I referred to the Donatists earlier. They believed that a priest's merits influenced his ability to administer the sacraments. Their error is one we are all tempted to fall into when we see the sins of the men in robes. But as we say each Sunday, "look not on our sins but on the faith or your Church." That Church will prevail, though every last priest be a sinner. How could it be otherwise? We are each of us like the crucified thieves on Calvary. Unlike Christ, we all deserve the penalty. Our choice is ultimately a simple one -- we can believe him or we can mock him. Abusers of children and murderers of children choose to mock him, and when He says they face something worse than having a millstone put around their neck, I take Him at His word. When he says that the gates of hell will not prevail against his Church, I also believe Him. Though every man on Earth fail Him, up to and including St. Peter -- thrice apostate, thrice forgiven -- I still believe Him.
This makes the Church unlike every other flawed institution of men. This makes his Church something different.
Posted by: The Abbot at December 20, 2007 12:13 PM (b1/bF)
31
Kinda late to the party, but I thought I'd ask the obvious question. If she wasn't crazy about this guy, why did she bang him?? Had she not banged him, she wouldn't have gotten pregnant.
Eh, what do I know. I'm neither Catholic or Anglican.
Posted by: nuthin2seehere at December 22, 2007 03:47 AM (blNMI)
With just over two weeks to go until Iowa, Mike Huckabee's lead is starting to recede.
On the Republican side, among (833) likely voters, here are the numbers: Huckabee 28, Romney 25, Thompson 10, McCain 9, Paul 6, Giuliani 6. Among (41 highly likely voters, Romney leads with 28%, then Huckabee 25, Thompson 11, McCain 7, Paul 6, Giuliani 5, Tancredo 4.
Looks like the shark is being prepared for the big jump.
1
I've been wondering; if Romney gets the nomination, who his VP would be. McCain, Giuliani, and Thompson all see themselves as "senior" to him in terms of their time in public service, so they'd likely all refuse.
Duncan Hunter or Huckabee seem to be Romney's best choices. Is Huckabee hurting himself in terms of his VP marketability in attacking Romney? Because if McCain, Giuliani, or Thompson get the nomination, I'd have to think that Romney would be on their list as a VP alternative ahead of Huckabee. So while attacking Romney is a tactical advantage in Iowa for Huck, it seems to me to be a strategic disadvantage in that it locks him out of the ticket if he is too strident.
Or maybe it is a way of setting himself up as an alternative to Romney as Giuliani's VP choice? I think if he beats Romney, that may be where he ends up, should Giuliani emerge. I think McCain and Thompson would pick Romney as their VP ahead of Huck.
I think if Huck is the nominee, he goes down to defeat in the general. I could live with him as VP if needed to secure the south with Giuliani or Romney as the top of the ticket. But if McCain or Thompson are the nominee, I think the VP slot is Mitt's.
Posted by: The Abbot at December 19, 2007 11:01 AM (b1/bF)
2
Since 1980, when when Reagan chose GHW Bush to be his running mate, I only can recall one instance where a Presidential Nominee chose a running mate who was an also-ran in that same year - Kerry/Edwards.
As a general rule, the nominee doesn't typically choose his VP from the list of competitors for that year's nomination. There's often too many pull quotes from the primary process that can be used against them in the General.
I'd be very surprised if this year the eventual nominee chose one of the other candidates.
Posted by: Gary at December 19, 2007 11:12 AM (PLHs9)
. . . or maybe Jack Bauer. Jack Bauer wouldn't have a running mate because he knows that they have a bad habit of invoking the 25th Amendment when the going gets tough.
Posted by: The Abbot at December 19, 2007 01:49 PM (b1/bF)
Never let it be said that Pelosi hasn't accomplished anything as speaker
Surely bold leadership like this warrants an entire book by Stephen Skowronek:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi may have left her progressive instincts at the barn door when she drove a starch-, sugar- and fat-bloated bill that all but left out organic farmers through the House last summer, but when it comes to food for Congress, it's out with high-fructose corn syrup and in with uncaged hens and hormone-free milk.
Under Pelosi's signature "Green the Capitol" initiative, the House cafeterias will get a full-blown makeover Monday to the very latest in organic and locally grown cuisine under a new contract with Restaurant Associates, caterer to the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.
The vast House food service operation that feeds the belly of the beast - more than 2.5 million meals a year for members, staff, tourists, lobbyists, lawyers, journalists and other highly regarded species that inhabit the Capitol - is switching to locally grown, organic, seasonal and generally healthy food. It will be served in compostable sugar cane and corn starch containers instead of petroleum-based plastics. Even the knives and forks will be biodegradable.
The Senate, the last place in America to abandon elevator operators and smoking in the hallways, is sticking to its fried okra and Styrofoam.
Danny Weiss, chief of staff to Martinez Democrat George Miller, has been working in the House for roughly 20 years and eats at his desk nearly every day. He said it's about time.
"When I first got here, you could get greasy food anywhere you wanted," Weiss said. "You could have a grilled cheese sandwich and the Senate bean soup, and that would last you for a couple of days."
As it happens, fellow San Franciscan and Democrat Dianne Feinstein, as chair of the Rules Committee, oversees the Senate food service. It remains entirely owned and operated by the Senate. That's because the upper chamber demurred from the privatization frenzy that gripped the House when Republicans seized control a dozen years ago, only to be replaced by Green Team Pelosi in November 2006.
Feinstein wanted the Senate to join the new food service contract, but the rest of the Democratic caucus vetoed the idea. "I'm for doing it," Feinstein said, after noting that like many trapped in the Capitol's culinary desert, she finds herself eating a lot of food she shouldn't eat. "The Senate doesn't want to do it."
Feinstein's chief concern is that the Senate food service is running a $1.2 million deficit, while the House operation, even before its organic makeover, operates in the black. But other Democrats, sources said, wanted nothing to do with contracting out of any kind, however healthy, even if the Senate could keep all its current employees.
A big part of the problem, many believe, is that the 20-year-old Senate menus are unappetizing and therefore don't sell, although efforts are under way to improve things. Nearly everyone marvels at the fact that sushi has cracked the barrier and taken its place alongside traditional fried-chicken "tenders," those nicely processed bite-sized bits of soggy antibiotic-laden poultry long a staple of late-night filibusters.
Natalie Ravitz, communications director for Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., said her svelte figure is deceptive. "It's the glow of stress," Ravitz said.
Few seem to mourn the end of the distinctly Southern-style cuisine of mashed potatoes and buttered beans that still lingers in the House's Longworth cafeteria.
"I appreciate that, being a Southern boy," said Louisianan Christian Bourge, House leadership reporter for Congress Daily, a Capitol Hill publication. "But that kind of stuff will clog up your heart pretty fast."
Working on the Hill often resembles living on the Hill, where the frantic pace and long hours leave one at the mercy of breakfast, lunch and dinner in the Capitol cafeterias. Few restaurants are nearby, and the most popular one recently had at least one cockroach running along the counter just as the hamburger melt and fries were being served.
Bourge, whose two deadlines a day seldom allow him to venture outside, said he sometimes is left feeding on scrapple, which he describes as a local version of Spam, concocted somewhere in Maryland from unidentifiable meat parts and then fried.
A spokeswoman for Restaurant Associates said some House favorites will continue to uphold the Southern tradition, such as Miss Janie's Fried Chicken in the Members' Dining Room, and the House bean soup, known in the Senate as the Senate bean soup.
"No, it's the House bean soup," corrected Rep. Mike Thompson, D-St. Helena.
Thompson, who grows organic olives and sauvignon blanc grapes in Lake County, welcomes the changes, though he said he seldom finds time to eat anything. He has eaten the hot dogs for sale in the House cloakroom, and the occasional peanut butter and jelly sandwich. And of course, in meetings with the speaker, there is the ever-present Ghirardelli chocolate.
Aides confirmed a big increase in chocolate consumption since Pelosi assumed the speakership.
Under the new food contract, seafood will be chosen under the guidelines established by the Monterey Bay Aquarium's Seafood Watch Program, which divides fish species into the categories "best," "good alternatives" and "avoid," depending on whether fish stocks are depleted or farmed in environmentally irresponsible ways.
It's all part of the new trend toward local and organic foods that began in the Bay Area and has now entered the institutional catering business.
"We had what we termed a crisis of flavor on the plate," said Maisie Greenawalt, spokeswoman for Restaurant Associates sister company Bon Appetit. The problem, she said, is that conventional food often tastes bad because it is grown for its ability to travel long distances and endure for vast stretches of time and still maintain the appearance of edibility. That plus the widespread use of antibiotics and hormones in livestock and sodium and corn-based starches and sugars in industrial foods, and it's a wonder everyone's not dead.
As any C-SPAN viewer knows, the obesity epidemic has struck with a vengeance in the Capitol. And with Senate passage of the farm bill last week, Congress has ensured that the United States will retain its status as Junk Food Nation for five more years. But the House now has its chance to escape.
Perry Plumart, deputy director of the Green the Capitol project, and a former aide to Pelosi and East Bay Rep. Pete Stark, is overseeing the changes. Plumart is known as a meat and potatoes man, but has embraced the new ethos with gusto.
"It is shocking that the future of our diets has been turned over to him," Weiss said of Plumart's new role. "But he is an environmentalist at heart."
Plumart did not deny that he likes meat and potatoes, but insists that even for his own home, he buys "free-range hogs from a farmer out by Bull Run. I buy half a hog from him, and it feeds in his organic vegetable garden." Asked if potatoes are a vegetable, Plumart replied, "They're a tuber. And I eat salad. With plenty of dressing."
In a film version of "The Hobbit" there are four known returning characters - Bilbo Baggins, Gandalf (the Grey), Gollum and Elrond. Sir Ian McKellan, Andy Serkis and Hugo Weaving could easily reprise their roles from "The Lord of the Rings". Bilbo is questionable and might need to be re-cast with an actor younger than Ian Holm (though not necessarily). Having Holm would be ideal and I understand that their are digital options that could make him appear a bit younger than he did at the beginning of "The Fellowship of the Ring". Similar enhancements were made to Sir Anthony Hopkins as Hannibal Lector in the movie "Red Dragon" to remove wrinkles and crow's feet in close-ups. The prequel took place ten years prior to the events of "The Silence of the Lambs".
As to the rest of the story, you definitely have thirteen Dwarves (most notably Thorin Oakenshield), Thranduil the King of the Wood Elves of Mirkwood, Beorn and Bard the Bowman.
In addition, you could have Galadriel and Saruman appear in scenes that took place during the story but were not written as part of the text. Additional appearances could include Radagast (as a member of the White Council), Legolas (as he is Thranduil's son), Gimli (in the Battle of the Five Armies) and Arwen (at Rivendell). Flashbacks could require appearances by Thror (Thorin's father) and famous Elves of Gondolin (a flashback that details the history of the Elvish blades, Glamdring and Orcrist). Perhaps, even the story of Celebrimbor and the forging of the Rings of Power could be weaved in.
So there is a lot of potential as far as additional scenes and characters that aren't necessarily part of "The Hobbit" as written but perfectly in line with additional material written by Tolkien and since published in other volumes.
And there's two schools of thought on this - 1) that the additional material enriches the story for those not familiar with "Unfinished Tales" or "The Silmarillion" and 2) that the extra padding simply bloats the simple story and needlessly stretches it out over two films. We'll have to wait and see.
As to the production itself, I could imagine that one of Jackson's assistant directors (or two) on "The Lord of the Rings" could be his choice(s) to direct rather than a more famous name like Sam Raimi. Someone with the experience of the last set of films could do well with Jackson as Exec Producer. Add that to the return of the Weta Workshop organization and most of the technical people who did the trilogy and Jackson's absence behind the camera might not even be noticed.
All in all I'm hopeful, but cautiously so.
1
As an aside, I'd love to see The Silmarillion as a multi-part series. That's maybe three or more films right there, from Creation myth/Theft of the Silmarils/Curse of Mandos (film 1) to the wars against Morgoth (film II) to Beren and Luthien/Earendil the Mariner (film III) and heck, the fall of Numenor as a DVD extra.
I really don't see the Hobbit as two films. I see at as one three hour film, done properly. It's not any bigger than Harry Potter in terms of plot complexity, though it's certainly bigger in geographic scale -- Shire, wilderness, mountains, goblin lair, Mirkwood, Lake Town, Erebor -- though CGI works wonders. My fear is you give Jackson two films and he'll start inventing stuff like he did in the Two Towers. We'll have Legolas surfboarding behind the barrels and Galadriel snuffing Orcs with numbchucks in Dol Guldur before he's through.
I'd also go with someone other than Holm as Bilbo due to age. There's got to be some forty-something British actors of relatively small size who could do the job; we just haven't seen them yet.
I think all the Dwarves become unwieldy pretty quickly, too. How do you cast it? Actual stature-challenged guys (like Time Bandits) or do you just digitize a bunch of regular sized actors down to Hobbit scale? How do we differentiate between Oin and Gloin and Bifur and Bofur? The lack of women is also a problem -- we may see Barb the Bowwoman, or Beorn may end up as some sort of Xena figure.
I don't know. It makes me nervous.
As the voice of Smaug, though? Rickman.
Posted by: The Abbot at December 18, 2007 04:14 PM (b1/bF)
2
Filming the dwarves may not be as bad as that. Turn it around: assuming they stick fairly close to the book, how many characters who are not 'little people' share screen time with characters who are? By my quick mental tally, for between 1/3 and 1/2 of The Hobbit, every 'onscreen' character is either a hobbit or a dwarf, and for another third, the only Big Person included is Gandalf. It would be easier to apply some SFX tricks that enlarge Gandalf than to try to shrink the thirteen dwarves and one hobbit.
Posted by: wolfwalker at December 19, 2007 06:40 AM (/fAOR)
3
I am of two minds about this. Where Jackson LOTR movies did well they did real well. (Where is the Horse and Rider? Almost any scene involving the Rohirrim) So my hopes for the scenes on and about the Lonely Mountain are high. His deft handling of the Balrog makes me confident in his handling of Smaug, James Nesbitt would be great.
I would rather have a fleshier back story to include Galadriel and such so as to keep characters as they should be with no Bardeena shooting her mighty bow at Smaug.
Posted by: Taleena at December 19, 2007 07:24 PM (ZdruO)
The Kobayashi Maru Scenario - Office Party Edition
Your office party is about to kick off with loud, pounding musick, horrid punch and "creative" food. Your presence there is required. You've already got a headache. You now discover you only have three aspirin left.
The bridge is yours. What will you do, Lieutenant?
UPDATE:Voice of Scotty: "It's nooo use! Weeh're dead in space!"
Taylor Marshall relays an extremely silly suggestion by Franco Zeffirelli that the Holy Father needs to work on his image, making himself over to appear more fluffycuddly happy.
Bah.
I happened to meet with my RCIA guide the other day to discuss how things were going with the ol' swim across the Tiber. One of the things I mentioned was how I didn't think I would have been able to take the plunge had these been the stifling old "shut up and do what the Priest says" days of my mother's yoot or the post-Vatican II era of feel-good liturgy, but that the advent of what I called enlightened orthodoxy under JPII and now BXVI made for perfect timing for me.
Judging from what I read about other conservative Anglicans, I'm not the only one who feels this way.
UPDATE: Change "enlightened" to "transparent" maybe. What I'm trying to get across is my continual, perhaps unfounded, surprise at just how much the Church wants me not just to follow its teachings, but to understand exactly why I'm doing so. "Here," they say,"Here's the Bible. Here's the Catechism. Here's the Compendium to the Catechism. All heavily cross-annotated. Here are the Church Fathers. Here's the complete Vatican Archives. Go. Read."
1
I actually have a small collection of pre-Vatican II catechisms and apologetics books, and they are all very much into helping the reader understand the faith.
When I read, say, Flannery O'Connor, Frank Sheed, Dorothy DAy, etc...other great 20th century pre-V2 Catholics, I absolutely do not get a "Don't think = just accept" vibe.
I wasn't there, of course. But I'm just sayin.
Posted by: Mark at December 18, 2007 02:43 PM (8hLzR)
Posted by: rbj at December 18, 2007 02:46 PM (UgG6+)
3
Not sure if you've seen Clerus dot org yet (curse you spamfilter for refusing the link) but among other things, it has the Bible, cross-referenced with some of the Fathers and the Catechism. And you can download it and use it offline. That site alone, which is a mere fragment of the writing the Church has produced, is bigger than the entire written corpus of some religions.
The beauty I see in the Catholic church is its sheer depth. I don't think there is a bottom to it -- at least not one I'll reach in my lifetime.
I have, for the last year, investigated to see what the Church has for morning and evening prayers. I found a few, and then dug deeper. Then I hit upon a small version of the Office. Then I hit upon the whole system of the Liturgy of the Hours. I am overwhelmed by the scope of it and have not even begun to get into the older Breviary system, not to mention all the specific Propers for all the different orders. You dig, expecting to find a few shards of pottery and you then find you've unearthed Troy.
And the digging changes you. You come to the Church and you say "teach me" and by God, it will teach you. It will bring big, ancient volumes off the shelf and teach you.
This is just one aspect of the faith. I have not even begun to get into serious Biblical exegesis, the documents of the church councils, or the broader theological systems. I fear if I crack open Aquinas's Summa I may fall in and never be seen again.
Posted by: The Abbot at December 18, 2007 03:43 PM (b1/bF)
4
Robert, my experience parallels yours. Upon first meeting with the priest to discuss my taking the swim, he gave me a list of authors to read (Newman, Chesterton & Knox, among others), told me to buy and dive into the Catechism and gave me another list of helpful websites, e.g. the Vatican’s, the Catholic Pages, and, for a little fun, the Shrine of the Holy Whapping (one of my favorites). He recommend (but did not require) the RCIA classes in his parish. I am attending them and they are demanding and stimulating. My priest also made it clear I could not be received into the Holy Catholic Church if only saw her as a lifeboat for the drowning Episcopalian; I had to embrace her fully and freely.
I thus get a chuckle whenever chucklehead Episcopalian innovators tout that church as one where "you don't have to leave your brain at the door." The richness of intellect to be found in Holy Mother Church is nearly overwhelming and swamps the shallowness found in the Episcopal Church. Compare the writings of Ms. Schori's with the Pope’s for a painfully obvious example.
"'In the land of Jackson where the shadows lie.' What does that mean, I wonder?"
After a much-publicized spat, Peter Jackson has made nice with New Line Cinema and is going to do The Hobbit after all:
NEW YORK - Peter Jackson and New Line Cinema have reached agreement to make J.R.R. Tolkien's "The Hobbit," a planned prequel to the blockbuster trilogy "The Lord of the Rings."
Jackson, who directed the "Rings" trilogy, will serve as executive producer for "The Hobbit." A director for the prequel films has yet to be named.
Relations between Jackson and New Line had soured after "Rings," despite a collective worldwide box office gross of nearly $3 billion — an enormous success. The two sides nevertheless were able to reconcile, with Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios (MGM) splitting "The Hobbit" 50/50, spokemen for both studios said Tuesday.
"I'm very pleased that we've been able to put our differences behind us, so that we may begin a new chapter with our old friends at New Line," Jackson said in a statement. "We are delighted to continue our journey through Middle Earth."
One immediate problem for any film version of The Hobbit expecting to make it in the box office? There are no female characters in the book. I shudder to think what Jackson & Co. might do in order to overcome this.
And whatever happens, they seem set to milk it for all it's worth, producing not one but two movies:
Two "Hobbit" films are scheduled to be shot simultaneously, similar to how the three "Lord of the Rings" films were made. Production is set to begin in 2009 with a released planned for 2010, with the sequel scheduled for a 2011 release.
How is this going to work, exactly? Will the book be divided up, with one movie title "There" and the other "And Back Again"? Are we going to get another CGI-fest of teh White Council driving the Necromancer out of Dol Guldor? Or is Jackson planning to go all George Lucas on us and churn out a pre-prequel about the younger days of Anikan Smeagol?
Regular readers will know already how much I frothed at the liberties Jackson took with LOTR. Even without the benefit of Galadriel's mirror, I'm foreseeing that it's going to be even worse this time around.
Resident "Tolkien Geek" Yips! from Gary:
I saw this coming. It's been slowly winding its way toward an official reconciliation between Jackson and New Line (especially when the litigation began moving in Jackson's favor).
The two movie thing is annoying. For the life of me I can't imagine where the natural "break" is.
But I think you hit it when you mentioned a White Council scene. I'm sure there will be stuff like that added to the story. In fact, go back to "Unfinished Tales" and flip through "The Quest for Erebor" and you'll find lots of stuff that can be used in flashback (adding to the begining would be a disaster, IMO).
When Hollywood does "prequel" they tend to go a little overboard.
Jackson will be unavailable to direct but he'll no doubt be the wordsmith behind the script (with Fran Walsh and Phillipa Boyens, of course). I don't have as many complaints with their translation from book to script as they are as mindful of the fans as you could as for.
As for females, expect to see Arwen at Rivendell and Galadriel as well. Perhaps a prominent woman's role among the residents of Laketown? And of course, old Lobelia may well show up at the end when Bilbo comes home to an auction of Bag End.
If Sir Ian McKellan returns as Gandalf, I'm on board. My biggest concern, however, is Bilbo. I would think Ian Holm is too old to portray a younger Bilbo (though with make-up I suppose it's possible). So who do you cast? That's a tough one.
Yips! back from Robbo: Well, how 'bout Ewan McGregor? If he can riff Alec Guiness, I'm sure he can riff Ian Holm. And I know at least one person who would his casting would guaran-damn-tee to plump for the tix, the DVDs, the posters, the undies........
1
Libertas is reporting that Sam Raimi is going to direct. Not so sure I think that's a good idea, but I'm all that familiar with his work. I'm guessing they will break the story at Bilbo's escape from the orcs in the Misty Mountains.
As far as female characters, they can make the three trolls females - I would suggest using the names Hillary, Barbara and Nancy, but that's just me...
2
And then there will be a final sequel: The Scouring of the Shire.
Don't know if there's enough action for a movie version of The Silmarillion.
Posted by: rbj at December 18, 2007 02:48 PM (UgG6+)
3
I'm betting they turn one of the dwarves into a female.
Posted by: John at December 18, 2007 03:03 PM (ct7Ey)
4
No female characters? What about the indomitiable Lobelia Sackville-Baggins? Canonically known to swing a mean umbrella (she actually did stand up to the Men who took over the Shire under Sharkey, unlike the invented-for-the-films version of Arwen rescuing Frodo), she's a genuine Hobbit action heroine!
Posted by: Fuinseoig at December 18, 2007 03:32 PM (A6yeg)
highly likely voters, Romney leads with 28%, then Huckabee 25, Thompson 11, McCain 7, Paul 6, Giuliani 5, Tancredo 4.
