I cannot imagine the White House is pleased with this:

PRESS RELEASE
October 14th, 2009

For Immediate Release

Contact: Arnold Schoen at arnoldschoen@yahoo.com
For more info: www.nambla.org

Guilt By Association, Twice Removed

The rightwing media elements are at it again trying to discredit the current administration. One of the most recent attacks has been aimed at Kevin Jennings, the Safe Schools Czar nominee. Since it is no longer sufficient to smear someone merely by raising the specter of his homosexuality, they seek to portray him as a “pedophile” (or at least a “pedophile” sympathizer) because he praised and acknowledged inspiration from Harry Hay – who several times came to NAMBLA’s defense.

Harry was not a member of NAMBLA, but he spoke at quite a few NAMBLA events, and was vocal not merely against “banning” it from anything, but about demonstrating his understanding that man/boy love is as much as part of the homosexual heritage of Western civilization as any other form of male homosexuality. He spoke openly and lovingly of the relationships he himself initiated with older men when he was a youth struggling to understand himself and his feelings.

NAMBLA is often falsely portrayed in the media as an organization of “child molesters” in part because we have consistently and adamantly opposed age-of-consent laws. Of course, the media never seems to follow up with any questions about why we oppose them. We see age-of-consent laws operating in our society in much the same way as burquas function in fundamentalist Islamic societies – ostensibly to protect a group but ultimately to oppress it. We reject the notion that sexual love is so horrible that (in our case) men and boys must be kept firmly apart by the most dire methods.

At heart what we are talking about is the right to individual gay self-determination at whatever age. And if that means a 13-year-old boy wanting physical relations with a 29 or 92 year old man it is the boy’s choice, not a therapist’s or cop’s.
(more…)

The only team that really matters

That’s Ray Van Neste of Union University holding a Luther-o-Latern. Ray’s a terrific guy who teaches at a university that includes some of my favorite people including Micah Watson, Justin Bernard, C. Ben Mitchell, Greg Thornbury, and its president David Dockery.

(Originally published on the Return to Rome blog)

On this Reformation Day, I bring to your attention one of my favorite essays, penned by the president of Ignatius Press, Mark Brumley. Entitled, “Why Only Catholicism Can Make Protestantism Work: Louis Bouyer on the Reformation,” Brumley writes:

Interpreting the Reformation is complicated business. But like many complicated things, it can be simplified sufficiently well that even non-experts can get the gist of it. Here’s what seems a fairly accurate but simplified summary of the issue: The break between Catholics and Protestants was either a tragic necessity (to use Jaroslav Pelikan’s expression) or it was tragic because unnecessary.

Many Protestants see the Catholic/Protestant split as a tragic necessity, although the staunchly anti-Catholic kind of Protestant often sees nothing tragic about it. Or if he does, the tragedy is that there ever was such a thing as the Roman Catholic Church that the Reformers had to separate from. His motto is “Come out from among them” and five centuries of Christian disunity has done nothing to cool his anti-Roman fervor.

Yet for most Protestants, even for most conservative Protestants, this is not so. They believe God “raised up” Luther and the other Reformers to restore the Gospel in its purity. They regret that this required a break with Roman Catholics (hence the tragedy) but fidelity to Christ, on their view, demanded it (hence the necessity).

Catholics agree with their more agreeable Protestant brethren that the sixteenth century division among Christians was tragic. But most Catholics who think about it also see it as unnecessary. At least unnecessary in the sense that what Catholics might regard as genuine issues raised by the Reformers could, on the Catholic view, have been addressed without the tragedy of dividing Christendom.

Yet we can go further than decrying the Reformation as unnecessary. In his ground-breaking work, The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism, Louis Bouyer argued that the Catholic Church herself is necessary for the full flowering of the Reformation principles. In other words, you need Catholicism to make Protestantism work — for Protestantism’s principles fully to develop. Thus, the Reformation was not only unnecessary; it was impossible. What the Reformers sought, argues Bouyer, could not be achieved without the Catholic Church.

You can read the whole thing here.

(Originally posted on the Return to Rome blog)

Today, October 31, is Reformation Day, a day on which many Protestants commemorate Martin Luther’s nailing of his 95 Theses to the door of the Wittenberg Cathedral on October 31, 1517. Writes Catholic philosopher Peter Kreeft, “The Protestant Reformation began when a Catholic monk rediscovered a Catholic doctrine in a Catholic book. The monk, of course, was Luther; the doctrine was justification by faith; and the book was the Bible.”

In 2005, Baker Book House published Is The Reformation Over?: An Evangelical Assessment of Contemporary Roman Catholicism, authored by the eminent historian Mark A. Noll and journalist Carolyn Nystrom. It was one of the many works that I read on my journey back to the Catholic Church. As I write in chapter 5 of Return to Rome:

Although this led me to read other sources including the 1999 Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification by the Lutheran World Federation and the Catholic Church, I also read several reviews of the Noll/Nystrom book, one of which was written by Carl R. Trueman, Professor of Historical Theology and Church History at Westminster Theological Seminary. I single out this review because of its concluding paragraph, which rocked me to the core:
(more…)

31 October is Reformation Day.

The Cash for Clunkers program cost approximately $24,000 per vehicle, according to an Edmunds.com analysis.   Edmunds used the sensible approach of asking not how many cars were sold, but how many were sold that would not have been sold otherwise (based on the sales volume of models not eligible for the program in the same period).

Twenty-four grand apiece in order to send a bunch of perfectly functional vehicles to the shredder.  Might be nice to have those available when you’re unemployed and can no longer afford the Lexus.  Why not just send those who apply a new MINI Cooper?  It would be cheaper.

A year and a half ago at this site, I posted this in tribute to Dave Treen, who died this morning at 81. This morning I made three more posts at the American Spectator blog. Southern conservatives should say a prayer this morning in memory of and thanks to Treen. He put himself on the line again and again, often rather quixotically, to help build a Republican Party, dedicated to conservative ideals, in a South where almost nobody was a Republican and where conservative Dems were often either racist or corrupt or both. Of such people, too often unheralded, is history changed for the better. May he rest in God’s good grace and peace.

(HT: K-Lo and NRO)

According to Kathryn Lopez at NRO this is “from the president’s chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts. She goes on to blog:

Scott Johnson goes to town, in response.

Rocco Landesman, the NEA chairman, said, in part:

This is the first president that actually writes his own books since Teddy Roosevelt and arguably the first to write them really well since Lincoln. If you accept the premise, and I do, that the United States is the most powerful country in the world, then Barack Obama is the most powerful writer since Julius Caesar. That has to be good for American artists.

More from Landesman here. Commentary from NRO writers here and here.

(more…)

Alexander Hamilton commences his discussion of the deficiencies of confederacy with Federalist 15.  Publius has alluded to this throughout the first 14 papers, but now he undertakes a concerted effort to demonstrate the insufficiency of the confederate form of government.  This particular essay is even more polemical than is usual for Hamilton.  So convinced is he that the confederacy falls short of meeting the needs of the Nation, he asserts that it is beyond debate.

In pursuance of the plan which I have laid down for the discussion of the subject, the point next in order to be examined is the insufficiency of the present Confederation to the preservation of the Union. It may perhaps be asked what need there is of reasoning or proof to illustrate a position which is not either controverted or doubted, to which the understandings and feelings of all classes of men assent, and which in substance is admitted by the opponents as well as by the friends of the new Constitution. It must in truth be acknowledged that, however these may differ in other respects, they in general appear to harmonize in this sentiment, at least, that there are material imperfections in our national system, and that something is necessary to be done to rescue us from impending anarchy. The facts that support this opinion are no longer objects of speculation. They have forced themselves upon the sensibility of the people at large, and have at length extorted from those, whose mistaken policy has had the principal share in precipitating the extremity at which we are arrived, a reluctant confession of the reality of those defects in the scheme of our federal government, which have been long pointed out and regretted by the intelligent friends of the Union. (more…)

Excellent piece from Letters in Bottles on Woodford Reserve, one of the tastier bourbons to hit the market in recent years.  A sample (of the post rather than the bourbon, alas):

The Woodford Reserve brand is less than 20 years old, but the distillery where it is made has been in business since 1812. The original founder was Elijah Pepper and his son Oscar made their bourbon famous. Senator Henry Clay took a barrel of it to Washington each year to “lubricate the wheels of government” and Senator Daniel Webster kept a bottle of it in his closet at the capitol.

Lubricating the wheels of government with bourbon…ah, for the great days of the Republic.  Beats the hell out of a beer summit.

The NY-23 race continues to heat up, and some polls suggest that Doug Hoffman is in the lead (though this particular poll might be taken with a grain of salt).  Nevertheless, Newt Gingrich is sticking to his guns, blasting what he calls the “purge” mentality and also criticizing outsiders for sticking their nose in a local New York election.  Yes, Newt Gingrich, born and raised in Pennsylvania, who later became a Congressman from Georgia, is deriding outsiders for getting involved in an upstate New York election.  Wrap your head around that one.

As for the purge remarks, Phil Klein is right on the money.

The problem is that Gingrich is making a valid point in general, but one that doesn’t apply in this specific instance. There’s no doubt that if you want to build a majority, you have to be willing to accept less conservative candidates in certain regions where a conservative has no chance of winning. As many problems as I have with Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, I concede that it’s unrealistic to believe that we could get a genuine conservative Senator elected in Maine, which Obama won by 17 points. In the case of Giuliani, you were dealing with a city that hadn’t elected a Republican who remained a Republican in over 50 years. He was conservative on economic issues, and uniquely suited to deal with the most pressing problem facing the city — rampant crime. The only option was to support him, or allow David Dinkins to have another disastrous term as mayor.

But the New York Congressional race is entirely different. Scozzafava isn’t just a social liberal — she’s an economic liberal, too. She supports card check legislation that would allow labor unions to expand their ranks through intimidation. She called the cops on a conservative journalist who was asking her questions about her position on taxes. And there’s actually a conservative in the race who has a realistic chance of winning.

This particular district is a fairly solid Republican one, despite Obama’s getting 52% of the vote in 2008.  Had Doug Hoffman been the GOP nominee, the race wouldn’t even be a contest as he’d probably outpoll Owens by a decent margin.

Another thing to keep in mind is that there was no primary.  Local Republican voters did not get the opportunity to select their candidate, so it’s time for people like Newt to get off their soapboxes about non locals interfering in the matter.

But getting back to the RINO issue, this was touched on in the comments to this American Catholic post by Donald McClarey.  Eric Brown – a self-described DINO – asks about the -INO labels:

But why should we have such rigid political orthodoxy?

I’m not saying that a party should not have agreement on a fundamental vision and philosophy, or principles, which is necessary for unity. But if there is not room for disagreement on means to the same end, there is very little room for intellectual freedom and creativity that actually allows for constructive criticism from within the party and viable and practical solutions to problems we face as a society.

If anything, we benefit from Democratic Senators like Ben Nelson who is opposed to the public option, who is opposed to the “opt out” compromise, and who most certainly will not vote for a health care reform bill with abortion in it. He is being attacked as a “fake” Democrat. I can’t see how such dissent is a bad thing — maybe because I’m pro-life?

Perhaps, I am misunderstanding one’s definition of a “RINO” or “DINO.” Is it someone who is so antithetical to the whole platform that they belong in the other party? Can someone be pro-choice and completely conservative on everything else and not be a “RINO”?

I’ll expand a bit on what I said to Eric in the comments section.  I actually don’t particularly care for the RINO label, though I have used it from time to time.  Political parties are distinct from ideological movements, so as such there is no “Republican” approach to issues in the same way that there is a conservative or liberal approach.  It is true that the Republican Party tends to be conservative in orientation, but it isn’t necessarily a conservative party.  Sure parties, as Donald writes in his post, should stand for something.  But there is room – as Klein writes – for slight variations in opinion.  Political parties are not religions, and there is no need to enforce some rigid orthodoxy.  I may not particularly care for  moderates like Collins and Snowe, but I can appreciate that they might be the best opportunity for Republican victory in states like Maine.  And while they’re both fairly left-of-center, they do ally themselves with the rest of the party on enough issues that they are not completely useless.

In the case of Scozzafava, however, she is in no meaningful sense of the term a Republican.  She is opposed to the party’s platform on BOTH economic and social issues, and has garnered the support of groups like ACORN and Planned Parenthood.  She is, it seems, to the left of the Democratic Party’s nominee.  Forget the NRA endorsement – opposition to gun rights is a complete non starter in this district.  She is one of the few people for whom the term RINO is a completely apt description.  That, plus what was mentioned above about the makeup of this district, and it’s clear that conservatives and Republicans really only have one option in this race.  Sorry Newt.  You might right in the abstract, but you’re wrong on this particular matter.

Oh, what could have been…

It’s no secret that the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy and the American Catholic bishops were pals. Friends, even. Hung out together, drank together, as friends do. Give each other awards. And they had a deal.

“I knew Ted Kennedy. Ted Kennedy was a friend
of mine. Congressman, you’re no Ted Kennedy.”

The late Edward M. Kennedy’s son, the mostly undistinguished congressman Patrick J. Kennedy (D-RI), gets an earful from the Bishop of Providence:

(PROVIDENCE, R.I.) -The Most Rev. Thomas J. Tobin, Bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Providence, today issued the following statement in response to a Cybercast News Service article that reported: Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-R.I) told CNSNews.com that the Catholic Church is doing nothing but fanning “the flames of dissent and discord” by taking the position that it will oppose the health-care reform bill under consideration in Congress unless it is amended to explicitly prohibit funding of abortion.

“Congressman Patrick Kennedy’s statement about the Catholic Church’s position on health care reform is irresponsible and ignorant of the facts. But the Congressman is correct in stating that ‘he can’t understand.’ He got that part right.

Congressman Kennedy continues to be a disappointment to the Catholic Church and to the citizens of the State of Rhode Island. I believe the Congressman owes us an apology for his irresponsible comments. It is my fervent hope and prayer that he will find a way to provide more effective and morally responsible leadership for our state.”

Wow. “Irresponsible.” “Ignorant.” Catholic bishops never would dissed Teddy that way.

And Teddy Kennedy never would have attacked such reliable Democratic Party allies as the US Catholic bishops either—the deal was that the American bishops looked the other way whenever Teddy screwed up, and never opposed him politically.

That was the game, the unwritten agreement. The deal.

You know, opposed him politically over that issue—abortion—the inconvenient Catholic truth on “choice,” inconvenient for Catholics, for Catholic Democrats, and especially for Democrat Catholic bishops.

“Congressman Kennedy continues to be a disappointment to the Catholic Church.”

…said Bishop Tobin. Wow.

Of Ted Kennedy the man, what should we say? His personal life was certainly a disappointment before man and before God, before his family and before his constituents, and more disappointing than most. But being disappointing is true of all of us, even if to a lesser degree. We shall not judge.

But not only in death, but in life, Ted Kennedy was lionized not just by men, but worse, by the men of his church—and worst, by his bishops—that his politics in service of the poor somehow made up for it all, and as if that issue could be outweighed.

I can’t say I’d be strong enough to resist politics if the tide turned—and Ted Kennedy pulled a 180 from “pro-life” to “pro-choice” in a Boston minute [see Southern Appeal's Alberto Hurtado on "Teddy Who Was Once for Life" for the gory details].

But let’s think just a moment on what America 2009 would be like if the Lion of the Senate, the Lion of the Democratic Party, the Lion of Martha’s Vineyard, had put up just a fraction of his political clout against abortion, as the late Henry Hyde did.

What if there were a “Kennedy Amendment?”

Rep. Henry Hyde was no lion, just some guy in congress. He lived with little fanfare, and died with even less fanfare.

He’s remembered for nothing except one thing— theHyde Amendment stands as one of the few obstacles to the US Government being in the abortion business. It can’t finance abortions. The law is still on the books, for now.

Patrick Kennedy wants the Hyde Amendment gone, of course: erased, sent to the dustbin of history. And I expect that Congressman Kennedy will get his wish in the coming years, unfortunately.

Nothing lasts forever in politics, but what a different country this would be today if there had been a Kennedy Amendment…

Me, I might be a Democrat today, as I’m mushy [or "crunchy"] on a lot of the other issues. And the United States of America would be the standard-bearer in defense of the unborn, in defense of the gift of life all across the world.

Instead of what our country is, a big fat zero, let’s face it.

Patrick Kennedy accuses the Catholic Church of fanning “the flames of dissent and discord.” Ha. I hope you’re right, Congressman, I hope you’re godamm right, and it’s about goddam time the Church did fan the flames of dissent and discord. What’s a church for, anyway? To be an arm of the government?

We can only hope that this flap marks the end of 50+ years of the unholy alliance between the Kennedy family and the bishops of the American Catholic Church, and that “friendship” is over, and the “deal” is off.

See, after all these years of mythmaking about Jack, Bobby and Teddy, their real legacy could have been the “Kennedy Amendment,” in defense of the most defenseless of all, the unborn, and of human life itself.

That’s the Kennedy family’s greatest tragedy of all.

In November 2004 the board of the Dover Area School District of Pennsylvania formulated and promulgated a policy that required Dover High School ninth grade biology teachers to read in class a series of brief paragraphs:

The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin’s Theory of Evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part.

Because Darwin’s Theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.

Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People, is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves.

With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the Origins of Life to individual students and their families. As a Standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on Standards-based assessments.

The policy never took effect. Soon after the school board’s action, several parents of Dover school children, assisted by attorneys from the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, brought suit against the school district. These citizens argued that the policy violated the establishment clause of the Constitution’s First Amendment. Federal Districtt Court Judge E. Jones, III, agreed, and ruled in their favor.

(more…)

The propensity of embryonic stem cells to produce cancerous tumors after implantation is often swept under the rug. New research discussed at Science Daily suggests there are benefits to potential therapies derived from adult stem cells (the excerpt below did not use “adult” and “embryonic” labels for whatever reason so I added them):

Results showed that immature (undifferentiated) [embryonic] stem cells are more likely to form tumors than mature ones [i.e. adult stem cells]. The transplantation of “safe” [adult] cells into mice with spinal cord injuries resulted in the formation of new neurons, while “unsafe” [embryonic] cells sped recovery for a short period but ultimately formed tumors.

Proponents of embryonic stem cells tout the totipotency of ESCs as the decisive factor that renders ESCs of superior therapeutic value. Perhaps the mere pluripotency of ASCs will in fact allow be what ultimately allows workable therapies to be developed from stem cells.

(Originally posted at Underdog Soldier)

The Rebels’ offense decided to show up today and roasted themselves some Hawgs, beating Arkansas 30-17.

Congratulations to Alabama on a big win over SEC rivals Tennessee. The Vols played a good game and have no reason to hang their heads. I still hate them.

Recent debates over Democratic health care proposals have tended to focus on whether or not an eventual bill would include a “public option,” i.e. a government run health insurance plan. Many conservatives see a public option as a back door to single payer, and many progressives agree. Yet the experience of Maine’s public option (as well as reflections on the relative efficiencies of government-run businesses in general) lead me to believe that this isn’t at all likely. Don’t get me wrong, I think the public option is a bad idea. But compared to many of the other provisions in the Democratic plan, it is fairly minor.

For this reason, I’ve found conservative strategy on the health care bill to be somewhat disappointing. As University of Chicago Economics Professor Richard Thaler argued, Republicans should have “let the Democrats have [a public option] but ask for concessions on tort reform in return.” Alternatively, conservatives should have focused their fire on other elements of the health care bill, and tried to get them stripped from the bill rather than the public option. Instead, Obama is likely to get most everything he wants in his health care bill except for the public option (something he’s said wasn’t essential anyway). That means that when the bill results in skyrocketing costs, Obama can shift the blame onto Republicans for opposing the public option, since “obviously” insurers wouldn’t be able to raise premiums if they had a strong public option to compete with. If that happens, then stopping the public option now may turn out to be a pyrrhic victory for conservatives.

Living in UT country, I really appreciate this fella’s opinion…even if it’s coming from a Bama man.

Madison’s second contribution to the Federalist Papers is a second significant addition to the world of political theory.  In it, he expands upon a point made in the tenth paper, and that’s the distinction between a republic and a democracy.  It’s a distinction that we in the modern era fail to fully appreciate.  Madison’s main theme is that a republic is the right type of government for an extended territory.

Madison begins by laying down some definitions. (more…)

Goldy the Gopher (ferocious mascot for U of Minnesota) decided to mock a Penn State player who was praying before kickoff. The player refused to shake Goldy’s hand afterward.

Penn State won 20-0.

(Originally posted at Underdog Soldier)

Just a reminder that I will be speaking at the Value of Human Life Conference, sponsored by the Institute of Bioethics at Franciscan University in Steubenville, Ohio. It will be held on the Franciscan University campus on October 23-25, 2009. For more information, go here. The three other keynote speakers at the conference are John Keown (Georgetown University), Gerard Bradley (University of Notre Dame Law School), and Patrick Lee (Institute of Bioethics, Franciscan University). You can find the entire conference schedule here.

During my time in Steubenville, I will also be taping an episode of the EWTN television program, Franciscan University Presents. I will be discussing my book, Defending Life: A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice (Cambridge University Press, 2007). When I find out the date of the broadcast, I will post it on this blog.

Last weekend I had the privilege to address the 18th annual Marian Conference in Boyne Falls, Michigan. Among the other speakers was my high school classmate, the Most Reverend Alexander K. Sample, Catholic Bishop of Marquette, Michigan. It was such a joy to visit with Bishop Sample, who I had not seen in over 30 years. We are members of the 1978 graduating class of Bishop Gorman High School in Las Vegas, Nevada. Enclosed in this blog entry are photos of us at the conference. In one of them is Bishop Sample’s mother, Mrs. Joyce Dory Sample. The photos were taken by Joshua Mercer, the gentleman who directed the conference, and performed exceptionally in that capacity. (For more information on the conference as well as the Marian Center, which is run by Josh and his lovely wife, Lori, see the website mariancenter.org.)

(Originally posted on Return to Rome blog)

Elizabeth Beckwith on Dennis Miller Show (10.19.2009)

I will be a guest on tomorrow’s Deep in Scripture radio program, hosted by Marcus Grodi. The passages of Scripture we will discuss is one that has a profound influence on my life, I Peter 3:14-17 (RSV):

But even if you do suffer for righteousness’ sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled, but in your hearts reverence Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence; and keep your conscience clear, so that, when you are abused, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame. For it is better to suffer for doing right, if that should be God’s will, than for doing wrong.

You can listen to the program at 9 pm EDT on October 21. It is broadcast on EWTN radio and its affiliates, a list of which you can find here.

Alexander Hamilton continues his discussion of the commercial advantages of a Federal Union in the next two Federalist Papers.  The 12th essay is concerned with the advantage that a consolidated Union will provide in terms of revenue collection.  In so doing, Hamilton elaborates on a recurrent theme of the essays, namely that a division of the states into separate confederacies will lead to various inefficiencies and will undercut America’s promise as an emerging financial powerhouse.

He begins with an observation that makes it seem as though Hamilton had been busy reading his Wealth of Nations. (more…)

Several years ago when Gene Robinson was ordained as a Bishop of the Episcopal Church, I predicted that his ordination (and what it represents in terms of the Episcopal Church’s abandonment of the historic teachings of the Church and the clear mandates of Scripture and the attendant dismissal of the theology of the existence of sin and the need for redemption) would eventually lead to a significant number of Anglicans crossing the Tiber.  I also opined that this migration would in turn have a profound and positive impact on the Catholic Church in America.  Looks like the Pope has just built a bridge to speed that process along. 

Pope Benedict XVI has created a new church structure for Anglicans who want to join the Catholic Church, responding to the disillusionment of some Anglicans over the ordination of women and the election of openly gay bishops.

The new provision will allow Anglicans to join the Catholic Church while maintaining their Anglican identity and many of their liturgical traditions

I am not sure what this may mean for me and my family but it is definitely good news (unless of course you are the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church, an Episcopal Bishop who has traded his/her integrity for thirty pieces of silver either in terms of money and prestige or simply the affirmations of the current culture [which is to say the majority of the Bishops] or a member of the staff of the national church).

Just discovered a new blog at First Things, Evangel. Some of my favorite people are blogging there, including John Mark Reynolds, Russell Moore, Justin Taylor, and my former student Hunter Baker (who recently published the outstanding book, The End of Secularism). I was, however, surprised to find that rabid anti-Catholic blogger Frank Turk is among the cadre of Evangel’s bloggers. Soon after I became Catholic, Mr. Turk opined that my return to Catholicism at age 46 was as hollow as when I became a Protestant as a teenager. Read it here.

I had no idea that Mr. Turk was so gifted in the clairvoyant arts, able to not only jump the space-time continuum to observe my teenage years but to pierce the veil of cognitive and spiritual privacy in order to extract from my soul the reflections, contemplations, and judgments that were instrumental in my journey back to Catholicism. Given his unusual interest in comic book aesthetics, perhaps he possesses powers not unlike the mutants that populate the imaginary world to which he seems so drawn (pardon the pun). Or perhaps he is just ill-mannered and presumptuous.

(Originally posted on Return to Rome blog)