You've probably seen or read the recent news about the three Muslim men who were overheard by Eunice Stone in a restaurant in Georgia making comments like, "Do you think we have enough to bring it down?", "If people thought September 11 was something, wait till September 13", and more.  Eunice alerted police who stopped the car... I'm sure you've heard the story.  If not, you can catch up here.

I remember seeing the story on television and the sister of one of the men on camera angrily criticizing everyone's response to her brother's comments.  At the time I got really angry.  Then I just kind of forgot about it.

Then, I read these latest articles from Ann Coulter and Peggy Noonan.

Coulter writes:

Naturally, therefore, the men and their families accused Americans, especially Southerners, of being ignorant racists.  "Just because of the way we look or the way we choose to live our lives, we're persecuted," said the sister of one.  Demonstrating her own open-mindedness, she explained the entire incident by saying, "Unfortunately, they stopped in a restaurant in Georgia."  No prejudice in that.

And Noonan:

So they're all in a small southern town, at a local chain restaurant, and when the three young Muslim males walk in, the locals--Southerners, Americans, neighbors--look at them.  Maybe hard.  Maybe up and down.  Who are those guys?

And here we might ask: Who are the Southerners? They are likely, being Southerners, Americans who take a rather protective and even loving interest in their country.  They are painfully aware that America had, just one year before, been brutally attacked by groups of people who were young Muslim males.  They left 3,000 dead--innocent people, civilians, young people just starting out.  It grieved a great country.  It grieved them.

...  They sensed the questioning within the gazes, and they thought it would be amusing to show these stupid and uneducated Southern people, these dumb crackers, these yokels, who was boss.  You think we're bad guys? We'll show you bad guys.

Well, being a Southerner myself, let me just say this to those poor members of the "Religion of Peace" that were "victimized" by "racist Southerners" in Georgia:

• Boys, consider yourself lucky. If many folks had overheard what Eunice Stone heard, you may have found yourselves face down in the parking lot being held at gunpoint until the police arrived.  I'm sure your sister would have loved that.  Also, consider what would probably have happened to you if you were overheard saying those things in a cafe in Israel.  Next time you fellas are traveling north or south of the Mason-Dixon line you might want to remember that you're in a country where the citizens are not necessarily all like Berkeley students.  Some of us, realizing that terrorist attacks against this country, whether domestic or abroad, have all been perpretrated by young men of Arab descent (with maybe the exception of McVeigh), and, knowing the "convert or die" doctrine of Islam that has guided your military actions since the seventh century, might not be able to fully appreciate your humor, particularly in these times.  Because, you see, we're kind of in a bad mood right now.  Doing what you did, where you did it, was really stupid.  Especially for three young men who are supposedly educated enough to be in medical school.
• And, yes, unfortunately there are some real rednecks down here in the South and lucky for you none were around that day.  Because if one had actually overheard your conversation, instead of the news of your arrest in Florida and all your ridiculous claims of being misunderstood and victimized, there would very likely be a search going on for three missing young Muslim medical students.

Posted 9/20/2002 by Michael Inman | Link |

If you still think it's okay to be pro-life and vote for a Democrat on any government level:  (italics mine)

From:   To:   Date:    RE:

Chairman Jerry D. Johnson, P.O.Box 694, Frankfort, KY 40602 Phone 502-695-4828 County Executive Committee Members State Central Executive Committee Members July 8,2002 By-Laws

We at HQ have received several inquiries concerning the County Executive Committee members not supporting our Democrat candidates. At the meeting of the State Central Executive Committee on June 29, 2002 this subject was discussed and they wanted me to communicate with the County Committees to make sure that everyone understands the By-Laws. Article 1, sub section H, page 1, of the By-Laws of the Kentucky Democratic Party states Under Responsibility/Dismissal of Party Officers:  "If any Democratic Party Officer fails to support the nominees of the National or Kentucky Democratic Party or disavows allegiance to either, his or her office shall become vacant after a hearing and majority vote of the County Executive Committee members, If the County Executive Committee fails to act within thirty days after being notified of this situation the chair of the State Central Executive Committee has the authority to declare that office or position vacant. Any person who is dismissed from an office or position in the Democratic Party for the above reasons shall be prohibited from holding any office or position within the Party for two years." We have previously sent every Chair of the County Executive Committee's a complete updated set of the By-Laws and had requested that they make a copy for the Executive Committee members. If you have not received a copy, or you have questions, please contact my assistant, Pat Goins. Paid for by the Kentucky Democratic Party - Darryl Tattrie, Assistant Treasurer

Oh, and here's the official Democratic Party position on abortion (taken directly from the Democratic Party National Platform):

The Democratic Party stands behind the right of every woman to choose, consistent with Roe v. Wade, and regardless of ability to pay.  We believe it is a fundamental constitutional liberty that individual Americans - not government - can best take responsibility for making the most difficult and intensely personal decisions regarding reproduction.  This year's Supreme Court rulings show to us all that eliminating a woman's right to choose is only one justice away.  That's why the stakes in this election are as high as ever.

Posted 9/15/2002 by Michael Inman | Link |

They were better behaved than I expected.  The fact that almost all the heckling that took place came from the Democrats in the crowd didn't escape me.  I guess if you can't bear to hear the truth then you have to try to drown it out.  It was funny listening to the democratic politicians reassuring their constituency that it is "possible to be a Democrat and a Christian".  They carefully mention partial birth abortion but not abortion in general.  They mention assault weapons but not the fact that the NRA almost exclusively endorses Republican candidates because we're not talking about just assault weapons.  More observations:

• Ky Republican party chairperson Ellen Williams was great.  Fangs as sharp as Ann Coulter.  Loved it.
• I wish that at least one of the speakers who got up there and talked about being Catholic wouldn't have been such a proud Democrat.  My God, what an embarrassment.
• If I were a priest, in light of the events of the past year, besides being a little better prepared for my opening remarks and convocation, I would have tried real hard up there in front of everyone not to sound like a cross between Wally Cox and Woody Allen.
• I'm sorry I missed Bob Leeper's talk.  A former Democrat-turned-Republican with a solid pro-life voting record, he had the integrity to realize that his personal beliefs were not reconcilable with the party he was a member of and do something about it.  Catholics, take note.

Posted 9/08/2002 by Michael Inman | Link |

We're going to the St. John's Catholic Church annual picnic today.  Great barbecue, the usual booths, and of course, political speaking.  I'm going mainly for the food.  In the past, seeing all these people who would call themselves Catholics walking around with Democratic party candidate endorsements stuck on their shirts just leaves me depressed and mad.  This, and the rowdy redneck heckling that goes on during the speaking (some people just have no class, and organized public picnics as well as county fairs brings them out in droves) makes we just want to avoid that part of the event altogether.

If I had to identify myself by my political voting record I guess I'd have to say I'm a Republican.  Of course, there was that one time I actually pushed the "Crazy Ross" button...  I can only attribute that to what must have been a passing case of delirium.

Now, working where I work, I am by necessity a member of that legalized extortion organization called a Union (If anyone can tell me where all that money goes that comes out of my paycheck under the deduction called "union dues", I'd be much obliged).  Anyway, with my political, religious, and moral convictions being what they are, this has resulted in some "interesting", to say the least, workplace conversations among the more avid union members.  One of the more enthusiastic members of this little club who claims to be a Bible believing Christian and calls himself pro-life rates politicians exclusively by their voting on "labor issues".  Naturally, his endorsements pretty much run right down the democratic party lineup.  He just doesn't seem to get it when I inform him that, although those individual democrats he religiously supports might be "pro-life", the political party they are a member of and support is the party that supports unlimited abortion, same sex marriages, and, by the way, wants to make it illegal for you good old boys to own those shotguns, rifles, and handguns you are so fond of.  It really cracks me up when, during breaks or slow periods at work, I'm sorting through the piles and piles of hunting, shooting, and gun enthusiast magazines the people where I work bring in to read and I realize that they're supporting a political party that would love to completely disarm them.

I know, I know.  "Well, (my politician - insert name here) is pro-life and pro-gun and doesn't support giving any special rights or legal status to people because of their sexual preference."

I'm sorry.  If your guy (or gal) is a democrat, it doesn't matter.  Their party still supports these things.  If you don't believe this, go look it up.  The Ky Democratic Party's official platform, according to the pro-abortion organization NARAL, follows the Democratic National Platform on abortion, contraceptive research, sex-education, etc.

We all know what that is.  And please, don't give me that "the democrats support making abortion more rare, not more difficult, and less dangerous" crap.  You know better.  I know better.  Let's don't pretend.

Personally, I don't give a damn about how a politician votes on "labor issues".  What I care about, and my sole criteria for voting, is how a politician (or his/her party) votes on issues concerning moral and religious values.  I also would like to be able to keep the few guns I do own but that's secondary.  Everything else is irrelevant.  I also don't buy this "I care about being able to support my family that's why I vote the way I do" line.  You are voting on the basis of money...  how much of it you've got and whether this or that politician will get you more of it (why you vote for someone whose party has a proven record of it's fondness for taxing people into oblivion is a mystery).

This doesn't mean I will always vote Republican but it does mean I will never vote for a Democrat.  It doesn't matter a whit what your individual pet politician personally supports.  It's what the party itself supports.

So, it's off to the picnic... and let the fun begin.

Posted 9/07/2002 by Michael Inman | Link |

Go and read this, now.  And never forget.  It's a good thing I'm not king...

Posted 9/05/2002 by Michael Inman | Link |

Based on responses to the below post, just so we're clear:  The picture below is not from a Tridentine Mass.  It's from a LifeTeen Mass, the one where they were bidding the priest (who was being transferred - going to be an Army chaplain) goodbye.  I knew that.  I think I wrote that below.  My concern about going to a Tridentine Mass that he celebrated was that I suspected he might not know how to do it.  I know from personal experience that, not long ago, he was completely unaware of the document Inaestimabile Donum and the liturgical abuses it addressed.  Although I'm not familiar with the Tridentine Missal and probably wouldn't have known otherwise, I was a little leery about attending my first indult Mass with a priest who wasn't even familiar with the rubrics for the Mass he celebrates every day.

Two reasons why I never went to the Tridentine Liturgy at St. Francis de Sales.

1. First, why does someone attend or, if a priest, celebrate a Tridentine Mass?  I think the majority of people who attend those regularly are distressed at the lack of solemnity and abundance of unauthorized innovations and "modifications" made to the Mass in current use.  They also recognize not only an increased sense of the sacred but an inherent superiority in the old Missal due in part to it's rigidity and lack of opportunity for abuse.  Unlike the current Mass, it does not lend itself to exploitation by egotistical priests, music liturgists, et. al..  I believe that priests who usually celebrate the indult Masses in addition to the current Mass tend to also celebrate the current Mass with much reverence and attention to liturgical rubrics (not whip out an accordian during the homily).  Having attended the current Mass (not just LifeTeen) at that parish I couldn't imagine the same priest celebrating a Tridentine Mass.
2. The indult Mass was not offered regularly at this parish.  It was done more or less as a novelty on special occasions.  This reason alone wouldn't have kept me away, but coupled with #1 it was a sure deterrent.

A reader from here in Paducah writes (in part):  "Life Teen Masses are exuberant (not my personal style) but reverent."  Exuberant?  Yes.  Reverent?  Maybe, depending on what you consider "reverent".  I don't think gum chewing in the sanctuary during Mass, choir members dressing like they just came from the campground, hopping around in front of the congregation clapping and "working the crowd", and strolling by within two feet of the tabernacle without even a nod is what I would consider reverent.

Michigan priest Fr. Robert Johansen, after posing a question that has sparked some passionate responses on his weblog, wrote a good discussion about the liturgy.  This is just part of it:

The liturgy is not our personal property: it does not "belong" to me, or to my particular parish, or even my diocese. It is not ours to manipulate or change as we see fit to suit or own particular preferences or perceived needs. I say "perceived" because what we in any given generation or place think we "need" is very often not at all what we truly, objectively need. C.S. Lewis once wrote that particular peoples or generations often get caught up in thinking that they most need the one thing that is most destructive or counterproductive to them. So a generation that thinks The Most Important Thing, or the Thing they Most Need, is a more "down to earth" and less formal social order, when viewed by more objective later generations, is seen in fact to have been in desperate need of more formality and decorum in its social relations, and vice versa, etc.

The liturgy is not ours to manipulate. It is something that is given. It certainly isn't mine. I treat it as a gift, a treasure, a patrimony. And my job is to hand it on to you, whole, entire, and unadulterated. And you have right to receive it that way. I don't wake up in the morning and wonder how I can add my own "personal touch" to the liturgy. By my ordination, I was configured to Christ the Head and Shepherd. I was made an alter Christus. That means what you must see when I celebrate the liturgy is Christ, not Rob Johansen. My biggest concern must be making sure that I don't let I get in the way of Christ. And more priests need to take that to heart.

By extension, then the parish's celebration of the liturgy must be about Christ, not itself. It must try to make sure that its collective ego doesn't get in the way of what is given to us: Christ. The parish is participating in the liturgy which belongs to the whole Church. Sometimes I have gone to a parish and seen it doing something in the liturgy that is at variance with the Church's actual published texts or instructions. And when I ask about that, I am told "that's our custom/tradition here." I must confess that I have always done a slow burn when I hear that. I want to say in response (I have so far managed to keep a civil tongue in my head) "Who the H*ll do you think you are? This isn't a game, this is the re-presentation of the eternal sacrifice of Christ! How dare you muck around with it!" There is no such thing as a custom or tradition that contravenes the Church's actual norms or laws for the liturgy. Liturgical rubrics have the force of Law in the Church. They are not mere guidelines or suggestions.

BTW, at that same Mass as the photo (which took place on the feast of the Pentecost), the choir and some parishioners wore army helmets.

Posted 9/01/2002 by Michael Inman | Link |

Every once in a while, usually on Corpus Christi weekend and maybe some other occasions, a church here in Paducah used to offer a Tridentine Mass.  I don't know if they still do since the priest who was "authorized" to do it has since transferred.  I never went.  This is why.  I think this picture, from the print edition of our diocesan newspaper, was taken during a LifeTeen Mass homily.

The same priest who celebrated the Tridentine Mass also was the "host" of the same parish's LifeTeen Mass.  I would love to attend a Tridentine Mass, but so far the only one available was his and having been to one of those LifeTeen Masses, I was afraid of what I might see.

Posted 8/29/2002 by Michael Inman | Link |

As if the activities of the American Bishops' Conference below wasn't bad enough, I just read that the Bishops' Committee on the Liturgy has issued an order in it's July newsletter that bans kneeling for the reception of Holy Communion.

Although I've been in a church that still had altar rails, I'd never seen them used (except on EWTN).  On rare occasions I might see someone kneel to receive Communion at my own parish.  A few people, including my family, genuflect before receiving.  When people receive their first Holy Communion at our parish, it is typically given by intinction and with the recipient(s) kneeling.  Kneeling during the reception of Communion is such a rare event nowadays anyway it makes me wonder why the American Bishops' Committee on the Liturgy has decided, in no uncertain terms apparently, that this act of adoration and reverence to Our Lord present in the Holy Eucharist is to be an illicit practice and no longer allowed.  Are they trying to eliminate all traces of traditional Catholic practices?  You need only watch people sauntering up in the Communion line at any given Sunday Mass (or read some of the nonsense written by Catholics about Communion) to realize that what the vast majority of Catholics need is for our bishops and priests to teach them a little more reverence when receiving Holy Communion... not less!

Just like all other documents, instructions, etc., that come out of these committees, ONLY unless they are voted on by the entire body of bishops and then approved by Rome will they become binding on any parish in this country.  One can only hope that this will be rejected.  Also, if you've been told at your parish that everything that comes from the Bishops' Conference is binding then you need to read the instruction Apostolos Suos that Pope John Paul II wrote in 1998.

Considering the last year alone I wonder if our bishops have indeed lost their minds... or their faith.  They're certainly helping other Catholics to lose theirs.

Posted 8/27/2002 by Michael Inman | Link |

More from the "I wish I had written that" department:

Unless he takes dramatic action to restore the church to holiness--starting with deposing this legion of bad bishops--his criticism of modern society will ring hollow in the heart of this faithful American Catholic. And that is painful beyond words to say.

Dreher's article has ignited some heated debate on the internet and some excellent writing by faithful Catholics in his defense... like here, here, here, here (be sure and read the comments on that one), or here.  As for me, I agree completely with Rod.

And... as news reports say that the Vatican is likely to reject the "Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People", the woefully inadequate response by the United States Catholic Conference of Bishops to the sexual crisis, they've just released another whopper of a document called "Reflections on Covenant and Mission".  Now, going against two thousand years of Catholic Church teaching, the Bishops' Committee on Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs says that we should not attempt to bring Jewish people into the Catholic Faith.  Of course, they refer to Vatican II in the document.  Vatican II says no such thing nor does it ever imply that Jews have no need of Jesus Christ.  This also flies in the face of the August, 2000 Instruction Dominus Jesus over which the liberals really raised a stink.  A priest on EWTN's web site said this:

It is an embarrassment, lacks any teaching authority, and serves to reveal the thinking of some people who hold powerful positions in the national conference. If a document such as this gains approval, as it currently stands, I will seriously consider the prospect that we are moving into one of the signs of the end times, namely, apostasy.

Posted 8/25/2002 by Michael Inman | Link |

...and while I'm on the subject of Latin.

Memo to my priest:  I know you just blow it off when I ask why we can't have at least a little Latin in our Masses or when I quote Vatican II documents that say Latin was not to have been completely removed from the "vernacular" Mass.  Here is an interesting fact:  Following the server statistics for the St. Henry's, the page that is consistently, week after week, the most viewed page on the site besides the home page is the "Basic Catholic Prayers in Latin and English".  The funny thing is, the navigation menu doesn't even have a link to that page; it's only linked once from the main page and that's it... and it's still the most viewed page on the website.

Doesn't that say anything?

Posted 8/24/2002 by Michael Inman | Link |

More posts like this one and Mr. Esguerra could become one of my fave Catholic blogs (and I'm not just saying that because he liked my Liturgical Guitarist Reformed article).

I love this:

And instead of teaching the faithful the sung Ordinary to fill this musical vacuum - an explicit desire of V2 - the bishops' conferences implicitly allowed 'music' written by the likes of Ray Repp, Carey Landry, the St. Louis Jesuits, et. al., to enter.

In my own parish we have a priest who I consider the most holy, reverent, and orthodox priest in this diocese and we have the most beautiful liturgies I've ever seen.  (I know, I have no right to complain... but) I've asked him several times to consider adding Latin to some of the ordinaries of our Liturgies at St. Henry's, of which presently none is used except during Lent.  I figured, since he likes to use so many Greek and Latin words during his homilies it surely couldn't hurt to use a little at other places in the Mass.  A priest I know at another parish actually told me his offerings increased when he used Latin... and he wasn't kidding!

How we ended up with such a pitiful offering of musical pablum by the so-called "composers" (and I use the term here loosely) of 99.9% of the contemporary Catholic hymns most of us are force fed Mass after Mass is a complete mystery.  Upon reviewing the Vatican II document Musicam Sacram I can only guess that it was again due to the schizophrenic nature of most of the documents that came out of this Council - saying one thing and seeming to contradict itself in the next paragraph - and allowing local bishops to be the "final authority" on just about everything.

Again, in my own parish we use the Adoremus Hymnal.  The Glory and Praise "hymnals" were long ago filed in their rightful place... the dumpster.  When we first started going there I remember several of the older people saying how much they missed those G&P's. It's funny; with the exception of that happenin' LifeTeen bunch, it seems to be the older folks who were most attached to those awful hymnals.  But still, the plague of Haugen's Mass of Creation descends upon us almost every weekend.  I might have liked that Mass setting the first fifty thousand times but nowadays I can't even bring myself to sing it anymore.  I usually just look at the floor and pray for it to be over soon.  When it's not Haugen, it's the St. Louis Jesuits version (found in the G&P Hymnals - if it doesn't ring a bell you'd recognize the melody).  This one we do often during daily or Holy Day Masses when the organist isn't there and our priest starts the responses... why he does the SLJ Mass setting and not the beautiful chanted a capella Latin responses in our Hymnal is a constant source of frustration.  More from Mr. Esguerra:

Perhaps the 'conservative' mindset in some clergy has developed to the point that given the choice between secular-styled music and silence, silence is preferable. I cannot argue against that - silence is more beautiful than some of, say, Rory Cooney's work. Perhaps, too, they don't think it's worth the effort to promote true sacred music and subject themselves to scars possibly inflicted by invincibly ignorant pastoral councils and music ministers. If so, it is sad, and we in the pews should encourage the promotion of sacred music to bolster the efforts of those clergy who desire it, ad majorem Dei gloriam.

He also has some links to some fantastic articles on Catholic music.  Keep 'em coming, Aristotle.

Posted 8/16/2002 by Michael Inman | Link |

August 9, 2002

I've suspected that our local diocesan Ursuline community has been infected with new age liberalism for some time now (in addition to their radical feminism).  Here's what I'm talking about.

Also, Fr. John Huels, the priest who has been running around holding lectures and spreading misinformation about the two-year-old-but-still-not-implemented 2000 General Instruction of the Roman Missal, has been accused of sexual abuse and has "temporarily left his posts as a professor and vice dean of canon law".

Posted 8/09/2002 by Michael Inman | Link |

Reading the paper the other day I noticed an ad for "Guys, Golf, and God".  Brought to you by our local Ursulines, it's billed as a men's "retreat/outing" where golf will reveal "the presence of the great Mystery through its language, action, and engagement" in "an arena that evokes his own holiness".  Well, whether or not the game of golf evokes holiness in man is an exercise in philosophical debate I won't even attempt.  What actually caught my eye was the name of the priest hosting the retreat, a Fr. Richard Gantert from St. Paul's Catholic Church in Memphis.  It brought to my mind a memory of a Mass I attended in Memphis a while back at St. Paul's, the parish of my wife's youth and one her mom, a devout but haplessly misinformed Catholic, still attends.  St. Paul also was where I attended one of my first Masses in the late 80's, an Easter Vigil Mass my future wife brought me to.  That was a different pastor and a much different Mass than the last one I attended there with my daughter and mother-in-law.

But, the priest's own unauthorized additions and subtractions to the liturgy and Eucharistic prayers were not what amazed me that day, heck, I'm used to that around here in my own diocese.  What really freaked me out was when the whole congregation recited illicit innovations to the prayers together.

So... if anyone out there is willing to pay the $115.00 retreat fee ($150.00 includes a room) plus the $26.00 green fee to spend the day playing golf with this guy, please ask him how he got the entire congregation to throw liturgical rubrics out the window and participate in his little inclusive language festival.

Posted 8/09/2002 by Michael Inman | Link |

August 4, 2002

I guess the answer would be Peggy.  You have got to read this.

For some reason I keep getting copies of the "Catholic Family News" in the mail.  It's hard to take seriously a magazine that features ads for books explaining how "the KGB engineered the election of John XXIII", suggesting that our own government was behind the terrorist attack of September 11th in a master plan to "scare" us "into total submission", or an inbound "Planet X" that will pass by and disrupt Earth.