Coburn Highlights Billions of Wasteful Spending in Generational Theft Act AKA Senate Stimulus

directly from Senator Tom Coburn's website

February 4, 2009

Mr. President, one of the things the American people have not heard about is everything that is in this bill. I want to spend some time tonight outlining the situation we are in as a nation, the fact that we have never had a bill this large at any time, in any way, shape, or form.

I want to first start out by noting my experience as a physician. The greatest mistake physicians make is when they don't listen to the patient. One of the things we know is, if we don't listen to patients when they are sick, we end up making a lot of mistakes. The other thing we know as physicians is that if we treat just the symptoms of a disease, what we oftentimes do is worsen the disease. I want to use an example of pneumonia. I will relate to this example throughout the time I talk.

If you come to me as a physician and you have a cough, a pain in your chest, a fever, and you are ill, I can make your symptoms go away, but I won't cure the underlying pneumonia you have as a patient. I can give you a cough medicine to suppress your cough. I can give you an antipyretic to control your temperature. I can give you, with that cough medicine, something to control the pain in your chest. I can do all those things. But if I fail to diagnose your real problem, which is pneumonia, all I am doing is covering up the symptoms of the real disease.

I would contend with my colleagues and the American public that the bill we have before us is a bill that covers up the symptoms of the real disease. The real disease we have is the fact that housing and mortgages are in trouble. Everything we do that does not address that disease first, that does not attempt to solve that problem, everything we do that does not address the real disease we have is going to be wasted effort. It is not going to accomplish its purpose. As a matter of fact, there is not an economist out there right now who says if we pass this bill without fixing the mortgage problem, without fixing the housing problem--none of them agree that what we are going to do is going to have a significant impact. There is not one. You can't get one to come and testify unless you fix the real problem.

We as American citizens are on the hook for 31 million mortgages.

We have 31 million we now own--Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--so whatever happens to those mortgages, the American people are going to pay for them. If they are upside down and they get worse or if they go worse underwater, if they get foreclosed upon, the American taxpayers are going to have to pay for them. Now, who is that American taxpayer? It is not us. We are going to be dead and gone when it comes time to pay off the massive amounts of borrowing we are putting forward in this bill. That American taxpayer is our kids and our grandkids. So we dare not make the mistake of treating just symptoms.

My contention is we are way too early with a stimulus bill. We can spend this $1.12 trillion by the time you add in the interest plus the six point some billion dollars we just added on top of it without paying for it. We can pass this bill. But we run the risk of doing exactly what the Japanese did in the 1990s. They passed eight separate stimulus bills, none of which addressed the real underlying disease of the Japanese economy. That is why it is called the ``lost decade'' in Japan. They now have a debt to GDP ratio of 150 percent of their GDP.

So what are we to do? Are we to continue down this path with a bill that is going to spend over $1 trillion or should we be about fixing the real disease, which is the housing and the mortgage problems this country faces?

Now, it is not easy to fix that. I know that. And I am not putting forward a definitive plan tonight to do that, although I think my side of the aisle is going to be offering one in the next few days that will address the real disease: housing and mortgages in this country.

We got here--and it is important to remember how we got here, how we got the ``pneumonia''--we got the ``pneumonia'' because we said we were going to socialize the risk on mortgages so people in this country could buy a home who really could not afford a home, and we were going to put that risk on the rest of the American taxpayers.

Well, that bill has come home. That bill now--besides the cost of actually being responsible for the 31-some million failed mortgages, of which probably 30 or 40 percent we are going to end up owning as American taxpayers; besides that cost, the cost in terms of lost jobs, the cost in terms of true, real pain to American citizens who are having trouble feeding their families, paying their bills, the real cost of that is enormous on our society.

What I want the American people to know is we caused that. We did that. We created Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and then we did not do the regulatory work we should have done. We encouraged them to be irresponsible. We encouraged them to have bonuses, by making more and more and more of the loans and guaranteeing them and packaging them and selling them throughout the world. We did that. The Congress did that. No President did that--not President Clinton, not President Bush, and not President Obama. We did it. So we ought to be about fixing the real problem.

Until we fix this problem, we are going to stay in a recession. We can pass a bill that spends $1.12 trillion, and we are still going to be in a recession because what the economists tell us this year is that home prices are going to decline another 11 to 12 percent, which is going to put millions more Americans and their mortgages in trouble. So we can pass a bill that spends $1.12 trillion or we can say maybe we ought to address the real problem.

It is not going to be long until the Obama administration comes to this body and asks for $500 billion more to solve the problem with bank loans and mortgages. We ought to be doing that first. That is the real disease. There is not anybody in this body who will deny that the real disease is the housing and the mortgage failure in this country.

We are going to spend a week on this legislation. It is going to go to conference. It is going to come back. Most of the stuff we are able to take back is going to be added in conference because the power to do that is there, and it is incumbent on the other side of the aisle that they are going to take care of those who are on their team.

I want to make another point. In this bill we are talking about, we are making a fatal mistake. Let me tell you what that fatal mistake is. We are transferring the irresponsibility we have had over the last 6 years in this Congress--or last 8 years in this Congress--to the States because what we are telling them is: You do not have to be fiscally responsible. You do not have to live within your means because Uncle Sam is going to bail you out. That is what this bill says. We are going to bail them out.

So for the States, such as my State, that were smart enough and wise enough to create a rainy day fund and live within their means, we are going to ask all the taxpayers of all the States that have done that to pay for the exorbitant spending and growth in Government in all the rest of the States.

What is that going to do in the future? What is the signal that sends to the rest of the States? Here is what the signal says. Do not worry about it because if you get in trouble again, the Federal Government is going to bail you out.

Remember when New York City was going bankrupt? What did we do? Did we just pay for everything? Did we just send Federal money? No. We created an environment where they made the changes. We helped them. And I am not opposed to helping the States make the changes to put them back on a fiscal course to live within their means.

The other thing that is bad about this bill is every American family out there today--I do not care what their income is--they are reassessing every day what they need to do in terms of how to get by in the economic situation in which we find ourselves. They are making tough choices. There is not one tough choice in this bill. Let me explain what I mean by that.

President Obama campaigned on the fact that we ought to live within our means; that every program ought to be reviewed; that those that are not effective, those that have waste, those that have high fraud rates, those that are low priority ought to be eliminated. There is not one penny of effort placed in this bill that will get rid of less important Federal programs today.

We know there is at least $300 billion a year that is inefficiently, erroneously, and fraudulently spent by the Federal Government. We ask our children and our grandchildren to choke down $1.1 trillion more of debt when we have not done anything--not one thing--to lessen the waste, fraud, and abuse, the inefficiency, and to make choices on what is more important. What we are saying is everything we are doing now is important, everything we are doing is efficient, everything is working fine, and, by the way, we are going to add another $1.1 trillion.
I have this chart to show how we got in trouble--because we were spending money we did not have on things we do not need. That is how we got in trouble. This chart shows the deficits of the Federal Government from 2004, plus what CBO expects, without interest costs, by the way, as to what is going to happen to us.

We know, last year, under real accounting, accounting for the Social Security money we stole--and that is the only way you can say it; we stole about $160 billion out of the Social Security system--the real deficit, last year, set a record we have never seen. It was $609 billion. That is as of September 30. The estimate of CBO for this year is we are going to have--before we even talk about stimulus, before we do anything on stimulus, and before we account for the interest costs on stimulus--we are going to have a $1.2 trillion deficit.

Now, divide that out by 300 million Americans, and what you see is we are going to have a deficit of about $16,000 per family. For every family in this country, we are going to borrow $16,000 against their kids' future before we do this, before we even approach doing this. It does not get a lot better. Note these numbers: $1.4 trillion, if we add what the CBO expects to come out of this stimulus package, and only one-fourth of it is going to get spent this year.

Now, what do we know about stimulus packages in the past? Here is what we know. Only two times in our history--only two times in our history--have we ever had a stimulus package that was effective. Two times. John Fitzgerald Kennedy created a stimulus package that was effective, and Ronald Reagan, in the early 1980s, created a
stimulus package that was effective. All of the others have been ineffective to fix what was ailing us.

If we do not fix the mortgage problem in this country, and housing, this money will be to no avail other than to shackle our children and our grandchildren for years to come. What does that mean when I say ``shackle''? It means stealing their future. Right now the average American has a 30-percent higher standard of living than the average European and the average Japanese. What we are about to do--and we have been doing--is to guarantee that 30-percent advantage in standard of living is going to go away.

Other people say: Well, you have to fix the finance, you have to fix the credit markets, you have to fix the liquidity markets. You cannot fix the credit markets, you cannot fix the liquidity problems we have by spending money. We have already spent $400 billion of the TARP money, and other than pulling us back from the precipice of an absolute collapse of our financial markets, we still have the credit markets tied up and frozen in this country.

I want to give you an example. I have a farmer friend who has been banking with a bank for 15 years. He has never missed a payment. He has been 100 percent on his payments every time. He has assets far in excess of what his loans are--far in excess--15, 20 times what his loans are. He was told this last week by his bank: We don't want your business anymore.
Now, this is a guy who is a premium credit risk. Why do they not want his business? Because they want the money in the bank rather than to have even a good loan outstanding.
Our credit problems are not getting better. They are getting worse. We have not solved the problem by putting money on the equity side of the balance sheets of the banks. The reason we have not solved the problem is because we have not approached and fixed the real disease, which is the mortgage markets and the mortgages that are underwater and the housing crisis in this country.

I want to spend a moment on another issue. A lot of the rhetoric we have heard in the last 3 or 4 months in this country goes after markets and capitalism. Market forces and capitalism in this country created the greatest country that has ever been or ever will be. When we hear market forces and capitalism criticized as the cause of all of our problems, we need to do a gut check.
Market forces and capitalism didn't cause this problem. Congress caused this problem, by our short-term thinking, by thinking, How do I look good politically, how do I do something that isn't based on markets? That is what Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were all about. We were actually giving loans to people who couldn't afford them. It wasn't market capitalism that got us in trouble, it was short-term, politically expedient thinking that got us in trouble. So the next time you hear somebody attacking the very thing that generated liberty, that very thing that generated freedom, the very thing that generated the greatest standard of living in the world, you ought to ask the question: Is that true? Did market capitalism get us in this trouble?
What got us in this trouble was creating a socialized risk that abandoned the market principles and created a system of loans to people who could not afford the loans.

One of the questions I think we ought to ask--at least the American taxpayer ought to be asking every Member of Congress--is what guarantee do you have that passing this $1.12 trillion spending bill is going to solve the problem? You know what. There is not a guarantee out there. No Member of Congress can tell them that. We are going to treat the symptoms with this bill. We are going to solve some of the short-term problems. We are going to create dependency from the States. We are going to outline and do things we have no business doing. We are going to expand Federal bureaucracies. We are going to raise the baseline to $300 billion that will never go away. That is what we are going to do with this bill. We are going to emphasize and fund the most inefficient bureaucracies in the world, not on the basis of what is the best thing to do but because we will look good and we will help out somebody who needs our help right now.

I am not opposed to us helping people who are unemployed. I am not opposed to giving extra food stamps to people who find themselves, through no fault of their own, in a predicament they can't change, but that is not what this bill does. What this bill does is take a list of policy options that have been on the table for years and funds them in enormous, extravagant amounts, that will have no impact--zero impact--in terms of getting us out of a recession, and will have a 100-percent impact in guaranteeing we are going to lower the standard of living in this country and we are going to steal opportunity from our children.

Let's look at where we are right now as a nation. At the end of this year, we will have an $11.6 trillion debt, probably an $11.8 trillion debt, very close to our total GDP. We have $95 billion in unfunded liabilities we are going to place on the backs of our children and our grandchildren through Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare Part D--things we are going to give people that they have not paid for or we have stolen the money that was there to pay for them, and we are going to transfer that to our children.

Last year, we paid, as Americans, $230 billion in interest. Do you know what it is going to be 2 years from now? It is going to be $450 billion. How many people think the interest rates we are seeing today are going to be stable and the same 5 years from now? All of the economists tell us they are not. As the world looks toward us and we continue to borrow--we have increased our debt by $5 trillion by the time you take what the Federal Reserve has done and what the Treasury has done--how many people think we are going to be able to borrow money for 10 years for 2.6 percent? No economist thinks that. They know it is going to rise 2 or 3 percent. So we are going to go from about 16 percent of our budget for interest payments to about 40 percent of our budget for interest payments. What are we going to do then? The very real important things we need to do--not the superfluous stuff; the important things the Constitution says we should be doing--what are we going to do then? Are we going to borrow more?

What happens when we borrow more? What happens when we borrow more is interest rates go up, inflation goes up, and we have one of two choices: We can file bankruptcy as a nation or we can have hyperinflation and a marked devaluation of the value of the dollar. What does that mean? That means you won't be able to keep up with your payments, you won't be able to buy a home, the cost of any good that is imported in here will rise astronomically. This is Armageddon for us. While we are in this shape, how dare we think we can spend money we don't have now on things we don't need now and get out of a problem that was caused by the very same philosophy: It cannot happen and it will not happen.

Let me outline what we have done so far in terms of this ``economic downturn.'' Last April, we borrowed $160 billion from our grandkids and we gave everybody a tax credit under $75,000 a year or $150,000 for families. We didn't pay for a penny of it. We didn't get rid of one wasteful program. We didn't make one hard choice. What do the economists tell us we did with that? What was the net effect? The net effect was that 12 percent of it had an effect. Twelve percent. Now, crank that up to $1.1 trillion at 12 percent, which is what the estimate is of this bill in terms of what kind of effect it is going to have. We are going to have about $120 billion that is going to have a positive effect, and then we are going to have another $850 billion or $860 billion that is going to have no effect whatsoever except to steal the future from our kids and our grandkids.

We are going in exactly the wrong direction. We ought to be standing on the principles that made this country great. There ought to be a review of every program in the Federal Government that is not effective, that is not efficient, that is wasteful or fraudulent, and we ought to get rid of it right now. We ought to say, Gone, to be able to pay for a real stimulus plan that might, in fact, have some impact.

I would be remiss if I didn't remind everybody that next week we are going to hear from the Obama administration wanting another $500 billion. Outside of this, they are going to want another $500 billion to handle the banking system. Still not fixing the real disease--the pneumonia--we are going to treat the fever or treat the cough, but we are not going to treat the real disease. Until we treat the real disease, this is pure waste. It is worse than pure waste. It is morally reprehensible, because it steals the future of the next two generations.

I am going to wind up here and finish, but I wanted to spend some time to make sure the American people know what is in this bill. I think once they know what is in this bill, they are going to reject it out of hand. Let me read for my colleagues some of the things that are in this bill. The biggest earmark in history is in this bill. There is $2 billion in this bill to build a coal plant with zero emissions. That would be great, maybe, if we had the technology, but the greatest brains in the world sitting at MIT say we don't have the technology yet to do that. Why would we build a $2 billion powerplant we don't have the technology for that we know will come back and ask for another $2 billion and another $2 billion and another $2 billion when we could build a demonstration project that might cost $150 million or $200 million? There is nothing wrong with having coal-fired plants that don't produce pollution; I am not against that. Even the Washington Post said the technology isn't there. It is a boondoggle. Why would we do that?

We eliminated tonight a $246 million payback for the large movie studios in Hollywood.

We are going to spend $88 million to study whether we ought to buy a new ice breaker for the Coast Guard. You know what. The Coast Guard needs a new ice breaker. Why do we need to spend $88 million? They have two ice breakers now that they could retrofit and fix and come up with equivalent to what they needed to and not spend the $1 billion they are going to come back and ask for, for another ice breaker, so why would we spend $88 million doing that?

We are going to spend $448 million to build the Department of Homeland Security a new building. We have $1.3 trillion worth of empty buildings right now, and because it has been blocked in Congress we can't sell them, we can't raze them, we can't do anything, but we are going to spend money on a new building here in Washington. We are going to spend another $248 million for new furniture for that building; a quarter of a billion dollars for new furniture. What about the furniture the Department of Homeland Security has now? These are tough times. Should we be buying new furniture? How about using what we have? That is what a family would do. They would use what they have. They wouldn't go out and spend $248 million on furniture.

How about buying $600 million worth of hybrid vehicles? Do you know what I would say? Right now times are tough; I would rather Americans have new cars than Federal employees have new cars. What is wrong with the cars we have? Dumping $600 million worth of used vehicles on the used vehicle market right now is one of the worst things we could do. Instead, we are going to spend $600 million buying new cars for Federal employees.

There is $400 million in here to prevent STDs. I have a lot of experience on that. I have delivered 4,000 babies. We don't need to spend $400 million on STDs. What we need to do is properly educate about the infection rates and the effectiveness of methods of prevention. That doesn't take a penny more. You can write that on one piece of paper and teach every kid in this country, but we don't need to spend $400 million on it. It is not a priority.

How about $1.4 billion for rural waste disposal programs? That might even be somewhat stimulative. New sewers. That might create jobs.

How about $150 million for a Smithsonian museum? Tell me how that helps get us out of a recession. Tell me how that is a priority. Would the average American think that is a priority that we ought to be mortgaging our kids' future to spend another $150 million at the Smithsonian?

How about $1 billion for the 2010 census? So everybody knows, the census is so poorly managed that the census this year is going to cost twice--in 2010 is going to cost twice what it cost 10 years ago, and we wasted $800 million on a contract because it was no-bid that didn't perform. Nobody got fired, no competitive bidding, and we blew $800 million.
We have $75 million for smoking cessation activities, which probably is a great idea, but we just passed a bill--the SCHIP bill--that we need to get 21 million more Americans smoking to be able to pay for that bill. That doesn't make sense.

How about $200 million for public computer centers at community colleges? Since when is a community college in my State a recipient of Federal largesse? Is that our responsibility? I mean, did we talk with Dell and Hewlett-Packard and say, How do we make you all do better? Is there not a market force that could make that better? Will we actually buy on a true competitive bid? No, because there is nothing that requires competitive bidding in anything in this bill. There is nothing that requires it. It is one of the things President Obama said he was going to mandate at the Federal Government, but there is no competitive bidding in this bill at all.

We have $10 million to inspect canals in urban areas. Well, that will put 10 or 15 people to work. Is that a priority for us right now?

There is $6 billion to turn Federal buildings into green buildings. That is a priority, versus somebody getting a job outside of Washington, a job that actually produces something, that actually increases wealth?

How about $500 million for State and local fire stations? Where do you find in the Constitution us paying for local fire stations within our realm of prerogatives? None of it is competitively bid--not a grant program.

Next is $1.2 billion for youth activities. Who does that employ? What does that mean?

How about $88 million for renovating the public health service building? You know, if we could sell half of the $1.3 trillion worth of properties we have, we could take care of every Federal building requirement and backlog we have.

Then there's $412 million for CDC buildings and property. We spent billions on a new center and headquarters for CDC. Is that a priority? Building another Government building instead of--if we are going to spend $412 million on building buildings, let's build one that will produce something, one that will give us something.

How about $850 million for that most ``efficient'' Amtrak that hasn't made any money since 1976 and continues to have $2 billion or $3 billion a year in subsidies?
Here is one of my favorites: $75 million to construct a new ``security training'' facility for State Department security officers, and we have four other facilities already available to train them. But it is not theirs. They want theirs. By the way, it is going to be in West Virginia. I wonder how that got there. So we are going to build a new training facility that duplicates four others that we already have that could easily do what we need to do. But because we have a stimulus package, we are going to add in oink pork.

How about $200 million in funding for a lease--not buying, but a lease of alternative energy vehicles on military installations? We are going to bail out the States on Medicaid. Total all of the health programs in this, and we are going to transfer $150 billion out of the private sector and we are going to move it to the Federal Government. You talk about backdooring national health care. Henry Waxman has to be smiling big today. He wants a single-payer Government-run health care system. We are going to move another $150 billion to the Federal Government from the private sector.

We are going to eliminate fees on loans from the Small Business Administration. You know what that does? That pushes productive capital to unproductive projects. It is exactly the wrong thing to do.

Then there is $160 million to the Job Corps Program--but not for jobs and not to put more people in the Job Corps but to construct or repair buildings.
We are going to spend $524 million for information technology upgrades that the Appropriations Committee claims will create 388 jobs. If you do the math on that, that is $1.5 million a job. Don't you love the efficiency of Washington thinking?

We are going to create $79 billion in additional money for the States, a ``slush fund,'' to bail out States and provide millions of dollars for education costs. How many of you think that will ever go away? Once the State education programs get $79 billion over 2 years, do you think that will ever go away? The cry and hue of taking our money away--even though it was a stimulus and supposed to be limited, it will never go away. So we will continue putting that forward until our kids have grandkids of their own.

There is about $47 billion for a variety of energy programs that are primarily focused on renewable energy. I am fine with spending that. But we ought to get something for it. There ought to be metrics. There are no metrics. It is pie in the sky, saying we will throw some money at it. Let me conclude by saying we are at a seminal moment in our country. We will either start living within the confines of realism and responsibility or we will blow it and we will create the downfall of the greatest Nation that ever lived. This bill is the start of that downfall. To abandon a market-oriented society and transfer it to a Soviet-style, government-centered, bureaucratic-run and mandated program, that is the thing that will put the stake in the heart of freedom in this country.

I hope the American people know what is in this bill. I am doing everything I can to make sure they know. But more important, I hope somebody is listening who will treat the ``pneumonia'' we are faced with today, which is the housing and mortgage markets. It doesn't matter how much money we spend in this bill. It is doomed to failure unless we fix that problem first. Failing that, we will go down in history as the Congress that undermined the future and vitality of this country. Let it not be so.

Mr. President, I appreciate the indulgence of you and the staff. With that, I yield the floor.

Ravenna and the Roman primacy

How is it that no other bishop but the Roman bishop ever claimed a universal primacy in the Church?


by Daniel S. Hamilton, Homiletic & Pastoral Review

After two decades of modest progress, the Joint International Catholic-Orthodox Theological Commission, meeting in Ravenna, Italy, October 8-14, 2007, issued a study document on ecclesial communion, conciliarity and authority (1) that acknowledged the Roman primacy in the universal Church as a historical fact, but called for an extensive study and clarification of its basis and nature, issues hotly debated for centuries.

My purpose here is to outline the conflicting positions on the basis and nature of the Roman primacy as these issues are presented generally by leaders and scholars of the two Church communions, including Anglicans, and to suggest how these mutually opposed positions may be brought closer together, followed by a personal reflection.

The Catholic position

Some may be surprised to learn that Orthodox leaders and theologians, together with classical Anglicans, do not dispute the historical fact of Rome’s universal primacy from the earliest Christian centuries; but they differ radically with the Catholic Church regarding the basis and nature of this primacy, arguing, in some cases, that because of heresy it has been lost.

The Catholic Church has insisted from time immemorial—and, indeed, has dogmatized this conviction—that our Lord Jesus Christ gave the ministerial leadership of his Church to Peter and intended this office (like the Church itself) to continue permanently and, by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to continue in the leadership or episcopate of the Roman Church, in the city where Peter (with Paul) exercised Church leadership and where both Peter and Paul were martyred, and in which was the capital and center of the Church’s first principal missionary field—namely, the Roman Empire.

This leadership derived from Peter, the chief apostle, was first exercised, then specified and later defined by the Church itself in the course of history, as a leadership of real and final authority to be invoked when needed for the good and, above all, for the unity of all the churches. This authority was spiritual, doctrinal and governmental—and in all cases decisive. Vatican Council I, reaffirmed by Vatican II, described the office as episcopal, ordinary and immediate; namely, that the Roman bishop has the same authority within the whole Church that a diocesan bishop has within his own diocese, that this universal authority inheres in the Roman bishop’s office and that it can be exercised independently (canonically speaking) and personally without need for recourse to any other authority. Inherent also in this office of the Roman bishop is the charism to teach inerrantly under precise conditions specified by the conciliar definition.

The Catholic teaching on the Roman primacy is thus clear, precise, forthright and, for many, overwhelming.(2) It is accompanied by a long list of supportive testimonies from Scripture, the apostolic and post-apostolic Church, the patristic age and subsequent centuries.(3)

The Orthodox and Anglican position

The Orthodox and the Anglicans generally have no dogmatic position on these issues; but they nonetheless have a long tradition of firmly rejecting the Catholic position. They have evaluated the factual and historical Roman primacy as, variously, 1) an office inconsistent with the nature of the Church as a Eucharistic communion of local churches all of which are equally the Church, where primacy on all levels is exercised only in a conciliar context; 2) an office needed in the universal Church and one that was perhaps providentially initiated but that was actually conferred upon the Roman See and its bishop by the other ancient local churches, as witnessed by ecumenical or other councils such as Nicaea (325), Sardica (342), Constantinople I (381) and Chalcedon (451).(4)

This designation of Rome as having the universal primacy came, it is maintained, by reason of Rome’s position at the center of the world in which the Church was then planted and growing—the Roman Empire. The city and its Church also enjoyed the unique heritage of the two apostles Peter and Paul both having ministered there and been martyred there; and, as the centuries followed, it boasted a Church whose authority grew tremendously in the religious and political circumstance of the times and, also, it is said, by arrogating authority to itself within the communion of churches.

Such commentators view the legitimate original Roman primacy of leadership—in the sense of a norm of faith and practice—as having evolved or devolved into a “papalism” or “papal supremacy,” terms and phrases that signify a kind of distortion or wrongful aggrandizement of the original office, which was Peter’s or was conferred on the Roman See by its ancient sister churches. The Roman primacy became, in this perspective, a supreme, monarchical and dictatorial office analogous to an oppressive secular power.

Thus, though universal primacy may have emerged in the Church because of a need for such leadership, the kind of primacy that factually developed rather quickly, asserting its foundation in the indemonstrable claim of the Lord’s gift to Peter, had, in any case, evolved into an objectionable papal supremacy that ever since has become a stone of stumbling for Christians who do not admit it.(5)

A resolution?

How are these conflicting positions to be harmonized? Clearly, the path of resolution will be neither easy nor short. In 1995, however, Pope John Paul II (in Ut Unum Sint)(6) invited the leaders and theologians of all the Christian church communities (a sparse response) to join him in a dialogue as to how the Roman primacy, its essential mission preserved, may best be exercised in our time. This dialogue was not to obscure, however, the basis and nature of this primacy.

All parties to this dialogue would need to commit themselves to a thorough and objective examination of the extant data, beginning with the Scriptures and the very early Church testimonies and those of the Fathers, of the major councils, and of the Eastern and Western Churches’ twenty centuries of mutual relations and doctrinal teaching, distinguishing the various levels of authority in this teaching. A sifting and evaluating of all this material would follow. Joint committees would appropriately pursue these tasks, as well as individual theologians.

True, this task has been done in large measure before. But, today joint committees of scholars are needed to replicate, authenticate and, if need be, correct the work of the past and accomplish new research called for now. Scholars striving equally for objectivity will evaluate evidence differently. Scholarly thoroughness and objectivity will, therefore, not eliminate all differences but will narrow them. Ultimately conclusions from a scientific point of view will need to be drawn in some cases on the basis of the preponderance of evidence and possible alternative interpretations noted.

But scholarship alone—even the most professional and objective—is not enough. Beyond scholarship there is needed prayerful intercession. The Church is not a community of scholars but the Mystical Body of Christ into which we are ingrafted by faith and baptism for the conversion of hearts, the healing of memories and the gift of reconciliation. We must have an intensified dialogue of love and that mutual cooperation which the Church communions have sought with greater or lesser success over these last fifty years. We must seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit for a full reconciliation and we must dearly want it.(7)

How a Catholic looks at the issues

What do Scripture, history, the Church’s teaching office, reason and experience tell us about what Christ wanted and what was needed for his Church? For Catholics this answer is already definitively provided by the Spirit-guided Magisterium of the Church. But even within this framework of truth definitively taught, there is room (as Pope John Paul II told us in Ut Unum Sint) for a dialogue on how the Roman primacy may best serve the universal Church in our time. Could it be, he suggests at least indirectly, that every exercise of the papacy in the past was not a necessary or desirable exercise of that primacy?

The words Jesus spoke to Peter in conferring and then confirming his special leadership position are striking, stunning and unforgettable: the ambit of this leadership—granting “whatsoever you bind or loose”—is equally extraordinary, especially when spoken singly to Peter in the “rock” passage (Matt.16:18ff). Can it be thought that the continuing Church would not need, the more it grew and diversified throughout the Roman Empire and beyond, such a decisive leadership? How is it that no other bishop but the Roman bishop ever claimed a universal primacy in the Church? Is it credible that we have beheld in the continuing Roman primacy the defacement of our Savior’s original gift to Peter as this office has responded to two thousand years of Church growth? Though Antioch and Alexandria anciently, and Constantinople more latterly, were large and influential sees, no one of these sees made any such claim. Only Constantinople, in its glory time, claimed to hold the place “after Rome.”

Testimonies from the early Church (the first through the third centuries), though relatively few, all support the Roman primacy as it was being exercised at the time. No testimonies dispute it.(8) As the Church expanded numerically and geographically, so did the primacy expand in the depth and breadth of its activity, responding to the dynamic inherent in the original gift to Peter and the need for decisive leadership throughout the ecumenical Church.

As with other major doctrines—for example, the christological, Trinitarian and Eucharistic doctrines—the Church needed time to clarify and set the limits of belief. We should expect no differently with the fuller understanding and appreciation of the Roman primacy—its basis and nature—in that trajectory that moves from Clement of Rome’s remonstrance to the Corinthian Church over the deposition of presbyters (A.D. 96) to the actions of Gelasius, Damasus and Leo the Great in the ecumenical Church of their day when at the Council of Chalcedon (A.D. 451) the Fathers exclaimed that Peter was speaking through Leo.

Long before any “patriarchates” existed (late fifth and sixth centuries), before Constantinople had emerged from little Byzantium, been acclaimed as “New Rome” and become rival to “Old Rome,” Rome had enjoyed without question its unique primacy in the universal Church. That leadership was spiritual, doctrinal, administrative, decisive and virtually unopposed. A universal “jurisdiction” can plausibly be traced from Clement of Rome’s remonstrance to the Corinthian Church to the many other interventions in subsequent centuries. The Anglo-Catholic church historian Beresford Kidd concluded in The Roman Primacy to A.D. 461 (p.153) that the developed expression of the primacy had already reached its apogee by the death of Pope Leo the Great in that year.

Whatever was claimed for bishops of Rome or patriarchs after the Constantinian peace, the promise to Peter and his successors and their exercise of this charism already had long been fixed in the life of the Church and acknowledged broadly. That factual primacy may not have entailed the acceptance by all explicitly and at once of the Roman bishop. Some have maintained that Rome had no individual bishop until about A.D. 100, but the positive testimonies predominate. History over-all points to a given primacy that grew by recognition and need, not a fictitious primacy built upon ambition.

Is it credible that other ancient sees conferred the primacy on Rome? Did Antioch, Alexandria or any other ancient see ever claim such a primacy for itself? No cogent ancient testimony establishes such views. No, only the bishop of Rome claimed it and exercised it and was acknowledged to have it. And this primacy has been exercised to this day. Let scholarship bring the evidence of history to light. Then let the dialoguing Church communions reflect upon and discuss how this factual primacy, its basis and nature known, may best be exercised in our time.

We look for the self-heading churches of the Orthodox Communion to consider whether they have now or can achieve without the Roman primacy that unity—beyond faith and sacramental life—in mutual harmony, effective coordination and governance, and united action for mission that surely belongs to that full unity that Christ willed for his Church. Will the Roman primacy by the grace of the Holy Spirit in its renewed exercise for our time bring trust, healing, new evangelistic faith and fervor, and an empowering charism to all the churches everywhere? We think it will.

End notes

(1) “Ecclesiological and Canonical Consequences of the Sacramental Nature of the Church: Ecclesial Communion, Conciliarity and Authority,” available from www.vatican.va.

(2) Definitive Catholic teaching on the Roman primacy is summed up in Schmaus, Michael, Dogma 4: The Church: Its Origins and Structure, New York, Sheed and Ward, 1972, chapters 14-20.

(3) Testimonies in support of the Roman primacy from the East and the West, A.D. 96-454, are gathered together in Documents Illustrating Papal Authority, A.D. 96-454, edited and introduced by E. Giles, London, SPCK, 1952. Testimonies from the Eastern churches to A.D. 900 are presented in The Eastern Churches and the Papacy, S. Herbert Scott, London, Sheed and Ward, 1928.

(4) Representative Orthodox positions on the Roman primacy can be found in The Primacy of Peter, by J. Meyendorff, A. Schmemann, N. Afanassieff, and N. Koulomzine, 2 nd ed., London, Bedminster, The Faith Press and American Orthodox Book Service. A survey of positions held by contemporary Orthodox theologians may be found in “Ravenna and Beyond: The Question of the Roman Papacy and the Orthodox Churches in the Literature 1962-2005,” by Adam A.J. DeVille in One in Christ, Vol. 42, No.1, Summer 2008, pp.75-98. Canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon (451), considered and voted upon by a minority of bishops (ca. 184 out of ca. 600) left in attendance near the council’s end, stated in an obiter dictum that the “Fathers had given the primacy to Rome.” Although the translation of the verb (apodidomi—given or acknowledged as due to) is disputed, it is not clear which Fathers are being referred to, since Nicaea (325) had already acknowledged Rome’s primacy as long in existence. Pope Leo (440-461) in his letters customarily designated Peter and Paul as the Fathers of the Roman Church. And although implored by the council, by the Emperor and by the archbishop of Constantinople to approve canon 28, neither Leo I nor any subsequent bishop of Rome did so, because in confirming Constantinople’s second place after Rome and enlarging that See’s jurisdiction over Roman provinces of Thames, Pontus and Asia it conflicted with the Nicene canons on the rights of Alexandria and Antioch.

(5) Representative Anglican positions are presented in Kidd, B.J., The Roman Primacy to A. D. 461, London, SPCK, 1936; Stone, Darwell, The Christian Church, London, Rivington, 1905; Moss, C.B., The Christian Faith, London, SPCK, 1963; and Hall, Francis J., Authority: Ecclesiastical and Biblical; New York, Longmans Green 1908 (re-published 1968, American Church Union). Some assumptions, evaluations and conclusions of Dr. Kidd are questioned, evaluated and, in part, rejected by his fellow Anglican, Dom Gregory Dix, in his Jurisdiction in the Early Church: Episcopal and Papal, London, The Church Literature Association, (1938) 1975.

(6) Relevant sections are found in The Christian Faith in the Doctrinal Documents of the Catholic Church, 7th and enlarged ed., Rev. J. Dupuis, New York, Alba House, 2001, pp.402-09.

(7) A similar position is advocated by Adam A.J. DeVille, in Ecumenical Trends, Vol. 37, No. 4, April 2008, pp.6/54-7/55.

(8) Bishop Cyprian of Carthage (d. 258) firmly supported the Roman primacy but at times rejected papal decisions with which he did not agree.



Msgr. Daniel S. Hamilton, Ph.D., a former editor of The Long Island Catholic (1975-1985) and chairman of the Rockville Centre Diocesan Ecumenical Commission (1968-1988), is pastor emeritus of Our Lady of Perpetual Help Church, Lindenhurst, New York and consultant to the Anglican Use Society and the Pastoral Provision.


This article appears in the February 2009 issue of HPR.

Media Bias

I usually don't post chain email forwards, because I can't verify their veracity. That said, I'm going to post this.

Difference of 8 years


January 21st
Yesterday: --
Outgoing President George W. Bush quietly boards his helicopter and leaves for Texas , commenting only: "Today is not about me. Today is a historical day for our nation and people."


Eight years ago:
Outgoing President Bill Clinton schedules two separate radio addresses to the nation, and organizes a public farewell speech/ rally in downtown Washington D.C. scheduled to directly conflict with incoming President Bush's inauguration ceremony.

Yesterday:
President Bush leaves office without issuing a single Presidential pardon, only granting a commutation of sentence to two former border patrol agents convicted of shooting a convicted drug smuggler.

He does not grant any type of clemency to Scooter Libby or any other former political aide, ally, or business partner.


Eight years ago yesterday:
President Clinton issues 140 pardons and several commutations of sentence on his final day in office. Included in these are: billionaire financier, convicted tax evader, and leading Democratic campaign contributor Marc Rich; Whitwater scandal figure Susan McDougal; Congressional Post Office Scandal figure and former Democratic Congressman Dan Rostenkowski; convicted bank fraud, sexual assault and child porn perpetrator and former Democratic Congressman Melvin Reynolds; and
convicted drug felon Roger Clinton, the President's half-brother.

Yesterday:
The Bush daughters leave gift baskets in the White House bedrooms for the Obama daughters, containing flowers, candy, stuffed animals, DVD's and CD's, and heartfelt notes of encouragement and advice for the young girls on how to prepare for their new lives in the White House.

Eight years ago Yesterday:
Clinton and Gore staffers rip computer wires and electrical outlets from the White House walls, stuff piles of notebook papers into the White House toilets, systematically remove the letter "W" from every computer key-pad in the entire White House, and damage several thousand dollars worth of furniture in the White House master bedroom.

Eight years
Headlines On This Date 4 Years Ago:
"Republicans spending $42 million on inauguration while troops Die in unarmored Humvees"
"Bush extravagance exceeds any reason during tough economic times"
"Fat cats get their $42 million inauguration party, Ordinary Americans
get the shaft"


Headlines Today:
"Historic Obama Inauguration will cost only $170 million"
"Obama Spends $170 million on inauguration; America Needs A Big Party"
"Everyman Obama shows America how to celebrate"
"Citibank executives contribute $8 million to Obama Inauguration."

On Paul's Letters to Early Bishops

"Scripture Is Read Correctly by Putting Oneself in Dialogue"

VATICAN CITY, JAN. 28, 2009 (Zenit.org).- Here is a translation of the address Benedict XVI gave today in Paul VI Hall at the general audience.

* * *

Dear brothers and sisters:

The final letters of the Pauline collection, about which I would like to speak today, are called the pastoral letters, because they were sent to unique figures among the pastors of the Church: two to Timothy and one to Titus, close collaborators with St. Paul.

In Timothy, the Apostle saw almost an alter ego; in fact he entrusted him with important missions (in Macedonia: cf. Acts 19:22; in Thessalonica: cf. 1 Timothy 3:6-7; in Corinth: cf. 1 Corinthians 4:17; 16:10-11) and afterward he wrote flattering praise of him: "For I have no one comparable to him for genuine interest in whatever concerns you" (Philippians 2:20).

According to the 4th-century Church History of Eusebius of Caesarea, Timothy was later the first bishop of Ephesus (cf. 3,4).

Regarding Titus, he must have also been very beloved by the Apostle, who defined him explicitly as "full of zeal … my companion and collaborator" (2 Corinthians 8:17,23), and even more "my true son in the common faith" (Titus 1:4). He had been entrusted with a couple very delicate missions in the Church of Corinth, the results of which comforted Paul (cf. 2 Corinthians 7:6-7,13; 8:6). Straight away, from what we know, Titus caught up to Paul in Nicopolis of Epirus, in Greece (cf. Titus 3:12) and was later sent by him to Dalmatia (cf. 2 Timothy 4:10). According to the letter directed to him, he ended up being the bishop of Crete (cf. Titus 1:5).

The letters directed to these two pastors occupy an entirely unique spot in the New Testament. It seems to the majority of exegetes today that these letters wouldn't have been written by Paul himself, and that their origin would be in the "Pauline school" and reflected his inheritance to a new generation, perhaps integrating some brief writing or word from the Apostle himself. For example, some words from the Second Letter to Timothy seem so authentic that they could only have come from the heart and lips of the Apostle.

Undoubtedly the ecclesial situation that emerges in these letters is distinct from that of the central years of Paul's life. He now, retrospectively, defines himself as "herald, apostle and teacher" of the pagans in the faith and in the truth (cf. 1 Timothy 2:7; 2 Timothy 1:11); he presents himself as one who has obtained mercy because Jesus Christ -- he writes thus -- "might display all his patience as an example for those who would come to believe in him for everlasting life" (1 Timothy 1:16).

Therefore the essence is that truly in Paul, persecutor converted by the presence of the Risen One, appears the magnanimity of the Lord for our encouragement, to motivate us to hope and have trust in the mercy of the Lord who, despite our littleness, can do great things. Besides the central years of Paul's life, the [letters] imply as well new cultural contexts. In fact, there is allusion to the appearance of teachings considered totally erroneous or false (cf. 1 Timothy 4:1-2; 2 Timothy 3:1-5), such as those who professed that matrimony was not good (cf. 1 Timothy 4:3a).

We see how modern this concern is, because today as well Scripture is sometimes read as an object of historical curiosity and not as the Word of the Holy Spirit, in which we can hear the very voice of the Lord and recognize his presence in history. We could say that, with this brief list of errors in the Letters, an outline is appearing from beforehand of that successive erroneous orientation we know by the name of Gnosticism (cf. 1 Timothy 2:5-6; 2 Timothy 3:6-8).

The author confronts these doctrines with two underlying calls. One consists in a return to a spiritual reading of sacred Scripture (cf. 2 Timothy 3:14-17), that is, a reading that considers it truly as "inspired" and coming from the Holy Spirit, such that with it one can be "instructed for salvation." Scripture is read correctly by putting oneself in dialogue with the Holy Spirit, to take from it light "for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16). In this sense, the letter adds: "so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work" (2 Timothy 3:17).

The other call consists in the reference to the good "deposit" (parathéke): It is a special word from the pastoral letters with which is indicated the tradition of the apostolic faith that must be protected with the help of the Holy Spirit who dwells in us. This so-called deposit should be considered as the sum of apostolic Tradition and as the standard for fidelity to the proclamation of the Gospel. And here we should keep in mind that in the pastoral letters, as in all of the New Testament, the term "Scriptures" explicitly means the Old Testament, because the writings of the New Testament either didn't exist yet or still did not form part of a canon of Scriptures.

Therefore the Tradition of the apostolic proclamation, this "deposit," is the reading key to understand Scripture, the New Testament. In this sense, Scripture and Tradition, Scripture and the apostolic proclamation as key for reading, approach and almost merge to form together "God's solid foundation" (2 Timothy 2:19). The apostolic proclamation, that is, Tradition, is necessary to introduce oneself in the understanding of Scripture and capture in it the voice of Christ. It is necessary in fact to be "holding fast to the true message as taught" (Titus 1:9). At the base of everything is precisely faith in the historical revelation of the goodness of God, who in Jesus Christ has concretely manifested his "love for man," a love that in the original Greek text is meaningfully designated as filanthropía (cf. Titus 3:4; 2 Timothy 1:9-10); God loves humanity.

Taken together, it is clearly seen that the Christian community goes configuring itself in very clear terms, according to an identity that not only stays distant from incongruent interpretations, but above all affirms its own anchor in the essential points of the faith, that here is synonymous with "truth" (1 Timothy 2:4,7; 4:3; 6:5; 2 Timothy 2:15,18,25; 3:7,8; 4:4; Titus 1:1,14).

In the faith, the essential truth of who we are appears, of who is God, and how we should live. And from this truth (the truth of the faith) the Church is defined as "pillar and foundation" (1 Timothy 3:15). In any case, it remains as an open community, of universal reach, that prays for all men of every class and condition so they come to know the truth. "God wants everyone to be saved and to come to knowledge of the truth" because "Jesus has given himself as ransom for all" (1 Timothy 2:4-5).

Thus the sense of universality, though the communities are still small, is strong and determinant for these letters. Moreover this Christian community "slanders no one" and "exercises all graciousness toward everyone" (Titus 3:2). This is a first important component of these letters: the universality of the faith as truth, as the reading key to sacred Scripture, to the Old Testament, and thus it delineates a unity in the proclamation of Scripture and a living faith open to all and witness of the love of God for all.
Another typical component of these letters is a reflection on the ministerial structure of the Church. It is these [letters] that present for the first time the triple subdivision of bishops, presbyters and deacons (cf. 1 Timothy 3:1-13; 4:13; 2 Timothy 1:6; Titus 1:5-9). We can observe in the pastoral letters the joining of two distinct ministerial structures and thus the make-up of the definitive form of ministry in the Church. In the Pauline letters of the central years of his life, Paul speaks of "episcopi" (Philippians 1:1) and of "diaconi": This is the typical structure of the Church that formed in the epoch of the pagan world. The figure of the apostle himself remains, therefore, dominant, and because of this only little by little are the rest of the ministries developed.

If, as I have said, in the Churches formed in the pagan world we have bishops and deacons, and not presbyters, in the Churches formed in the Judeo-Christian world, the presbyters are the dominant structure. At the end in the pastoral letters, the two structures unite: Now appears the "episcopo" (the bishop) (cf. 1 Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:7), always in singular, accompanied by the determinant article "the." And together with the "episcopo" we find the presbyters and deacons. Still now the figure of the apostle is determinant, but the three letters, as I have said, are directed not now to communities, but to people: Timothy and Titus, who on one hand appear as bishops, and on the other, begin to be in the place of the Apostle.

Thus is noted initially the reality that will later be called "apostolic succession." Paul says with a tone of great solemnity to Timothy: "Do not neglect the gift you have, which was conferred on you through the prophetic word with the imposition of hands of the presbyterate" (1 Timothy 4:14). We can say that in these words appears initially also the sacramental character of the ministry. And thus we have the essential of the catholic structure: Scripture and Tradition, Scripture and proclamation, forming a whole; but to this structure that we could call doctrinal, should be added the personal structure, the successors of the apostles, as witnesses of the apostolic proclamation.

It is important finally to indicate that in these letters the Church understands herself in very human terms, in analogies with the house and the family. Particularly in 1 Timothy 3:2-7, very detailed instructions for the episcopo are given, such as: "Therefore, a bishop must be irreproachable, married only once, temperate, self-controlled, decent, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not aggressive, but gentle, not contentious, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, keeping his children under control with perfect dignity; for if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how can he take care of the church of God? … He must also have a good reputation among outsiders."

One should note here above all the important aptitude for teaching (also cf. 1 Timothy 5:17), of which we find echoes as well in other passages (cf. 1 Timothy 6:2c; 2 Timothy 3:10; Titus 2:1) and then a special personal characteristic, that of "paternity." The episcopo in fact is considered as father of the Christian community (cf. also 1 Timothy 3:15). Futhermore the idea of the Church as "house of God" sinks its roots in the Old Testament (cf. Numbers 12:7) and is found reformulated in Hebrews 3:2,6, meanwhile in another place it is read that all Christians are no longer foreigners nor guests, but fellow citizens of the saints and family members in the house of God (cf. Ephesians 2:19).

Let us pray to the Lord and to St. Paul so that also today, as Christians, we can be ever more characterized, in relation with the society in which we live, as members of the "family of God." And let us pray also that the pastors of the Church have more and more paternal sentiments, simultaneously gentle and strong, in the formation of the house of God, of the community, of the Church.

Speaker Nancy Malthus

Pelosi should abstain from social engineering.
from the Wall Street Journal

One of the more curious items in the $825 billion House "stimulus" is $87 billion to help states with Medicaid, specifically including an expansion of family-planning services. The implication is that more people mean less economic growth.

Following a White House meeting with President Obama on Friday, Republican John Boehner, the House Minority Leader, asked how spending millions of dollars on birth control will help stimulate the economy. On Sunday, George Stephanopoulos of ABC's "This Week" repeated the question to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who responded that "family planning services reduce costs."

She added: "The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now, and part of what we do for children's health, education and some of those elements are to help states meet their financial needs. One of those -- one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception -- will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government."

The notion that a larger population will produce a lower standard of living can be traced to the 18th-century economist Thomas Malthus. But during Malthus's own lifetime, his prediction was proved false, as he later acknowledged. Population and living standards rose simultaneously, and have continued to do so.

Ms. Pelosi's remarks ignore the importance of human capital, which is the ultimate resource. Fewer babies would move the U.S. in the demographic direction of Europe and Asia. On the Continent, birth rates already are effectively zero, and economists are predicting labor shortages in the years ahead. In Japan, where the population is aging very fast, workers are now encouraged to go home early to procreate. Japan is projected to lose 21% of its population by 2050.

The age and growth rate of a nation help determine its economic prosperity. A smaller workforce can result in less overall economic output. Without enough younger workers to replace retirees, health and pension costs can become debilitating. And when domestic markets shrink, so does capital investment. Whatever one's views on taxpayer subsidies for contraception, as economic stimulus the idea is loopy.

The Templars: The Mini-Series, The Myths, and the Truth

The Templars: The Mini-Series, The Myths, and the Truth
Sandra Miesel and Carl E. Olson | Ignatius Insight Podcast | January 25, 2009

Carl E. Olson, editor of Ignatius Insight, talks to Sandra Miesel, a medieval historian and co-author of The Da Vinci Hoax and Pied Piper of Atheism, about the NBC mini-series, "The Last Templar".

The mini-series, which airs Sunday, January 25th, and Monday, January 26th, is based on the 2005 novel, The Last Templar, written by Raymond Khoury. The novel was on The New York Times bestseller list for 22 months and sold over four million copies.

The novel is similar in many ways to The Da Vinci Code, including its use of the Templars, its reliance on the "Gnostic gospels," and its claim that ancient documents provide definitive proof that Jesus Christ was not divine. USA Today, for example, writes of the mini-series, "The last time you saw this template, it was called The Da Vinci Code."

The novel, according to its website, is "a thought-provoking exploration of religion in today's world, and of historic fact versus faith, particularly regarding the origins of the Catholic Church. Through the investigation into the Templars' history and their mysterious discovery, and though the interplay between Tess - the agnostic, scientific skeptic - and Reilly, who turned to the Church after his father shot himself when Reilly was just a boy, the book presents a spirited look at the early days of the Church and invites the reader to question matters which most of us take at face value."

Carl and Sandra examine some of historical claims of the novel and discuss the ongoing popularity of the Templar mythology.

To listen to the podcast by Olson and Miesel, click here.

Source: IgnatiusInsight.com

Draft Talk #3 - Senior Bowl live thoughts

Graham Harrel can't play in the NFL. Pat White is an offensive playmaker. If utilized correctly, he can be a unique star in the NFL. Mitch King is a playmaker on defense. BJ Raji didnt show up. Max Unger not as good as I thought. The Sam Houston QB has some potential. Didn't like Deangelo Smith at CB. Langster will make plays but not be consistent enough. Cullen Harper played well. Andre Brown out of NC State can run. So can Rashard Jennings out of liberty. Herman Johnson will have a long career at tackle. Despite the fumble I really like Cedric Peerman. Greg Carr wants to play in the NFL. Robiskie thinks it's owed to him. Not impressive to me. The FB from LSU is going to start next year, probably the first FB off the board. Cushing will bust. Haven't even seen Sintim yet. Maualuga will be great. Finally saw Barden on a nice catch. Peria Jerry playin nice in the 3rd quarter. I dont think Juaquin Iglesias will amount to much. Phil Loadholt did not play well. Got beat by Robert Ayers a lot, just like he got beat up by Trattou (Go Bosco!) in the Nat Champs. Peria Jerry playing really, really well. I hope the Giants dp not draft Loadholt. This guy Corey Sheets can run well, very dangerous in open space. Wow Harrell is just killing his draft chances. Making Colt Brennan look like Joe Montana.Stats would have looked worse if Smith pick sixed him. Mayock says Harrell only had one good throw on the night. Mitch King making plays again! Center Caldwell nothing special. Some heavy legged waist bending there! Barwin showing his versatility. Macho Harris is looking solid. Ramses Barden couldn't hang on. Sherrod Martin will stink at DB. Iglesias is playing better, much better, so I recant what I said earlier. Jerry making plays again. Great pass rusher. Ramses Barden quitting on a route, looked like it could have been a TD. He is not Giants material. Pat White should be MVP. Yup, he is! Great game, Pat! I wish him the utmost success. Unless of course, he lands in the NFC East with a team not from New York.

Draft Talk #2

Copied directly from DraftDaddy.com
(http://www.draftdaddy.com/features/senior_2009.htm)

2009 Senior Bowl

DD Comments live and direct from Mobile, Alabama



*********South Practice Notes Monday Afternoon: by Matt B. (DD) ********

A stiff wind tore across the field at Fairhope, helping the kickers but impacting the quarterbacks' collective accuracy on intermediate and long throws. The low level of quarterback play slightly affected the scouts' ability to properly evaluate the wide outs and defensive backs. Despite this less than ideal situation, several players stood out in practice today:

Southern Miss TE Shawn Nelson was a natural receiver, the most reliable of the South TE today in that aspect of the game. Nelson shows burst, crisp route running and separates from the coverage, without dropping any balls. Interesting side-note, former Carolina Panthers TE Kris Mangum (now a Southern Mississippi assistant coach) was in attendance, and it's apparent he's been sharing the tips of the trade with Nelson.

Liberty RB Rashad Jennings was very impressive today. He excelled in pass blocking, as a one-cut and go tailback, and also looked good running routes out of the backfield. As the weigh-in implied, Jennings is a premium athlete. Although he's a little taller and runs a little more upright than some teams would ideally like for the tailback position, recent rookies have shown that players like Jennings can be successful, even with an unorthodox style.

Wake Forest CB Alphonso Smith showed great awareness and football savvy, recording a pretty pick in 11-on-11s and several passes defended in drills. Smith showed today that his production at Wake was not an accident; he's a legit ball hawk whose stock is on the rise.

Ole Miss DT Peria Jerry was a beast in the pit 1-on-1 drills. His functional strength is simply on another level than the opposition, and one notable bull-rush became a reverse pancake with the offensive lineman flat on his back! Jerry has several pass rush moves, including an effective swim move, but he doesn't really need to get fancy to beat his man. Some reps he knows what he's gonna do, the other guy knows what he's gonna do and it still happens. By practice's end he was drawing double-teams in 11-on-11 drills. In the game, it will be interesting to see if the North's linemen can have better luck than the South's linemen had in trying to contain him.

The Pit battle of the day was between Ole Miss OT Michael Oher and Tennessee DE Robert Ayers. This was a back-and-forth bout, with early rounds going to Ayers and his quick first step. Ayers is a tough, feisty and competitive player, aggressive, showing good hands and a nose for the quarterback. After reps, Ayers would holler and clap, getting emotional and loud.

However, not to be out done, Oher rose to the challenge. He looked at Ayers, said "Ok let's get it [on]!" and ended the session by riding Ayers into the ground for a brutal looking pancake. Oher seemed to find his stride as the practice went on, and his potential is evident. His technique is spotty at times however and he needs to continue to work to bring his game to the point where it's not just physicality which carries him through.

Richmond DE Lawrence Sidbury is a very interesting prospect. He was a terror in pass rush, displaying an instinctual feel and timing in his moves. Sidbury can get around the edge, or he can change direction and break in another direction, leaving his man clutching air. However, Sidbury was washed out in run blocking, and seemed to be on his heels whenever the running back was headed to his side of the field. Obviously there is money to be made as a pass rusher, and Sidbury is clearly a player on the rise for those skills, but to be an every down player he needs to improve his stoutness against the run. As it stands however he's made an impressive leap from Shrine week to Senior week, and he keeps rising.

Florida OT Jason Watkins was a pleasant surprise all day. From his impressive physique at weigh-ins to his explosion off the ball in drills, he is a player teams will be looking at very closely as a possible swing player who can fill in at either tackle spot. In drills, Watkins was running as the right tackle in the first team offense and did an effective job keeping his opposing man from the ball carrier. He can be out-quicked however, and had some trouble with speed rushes in the Pit. It's questionable how many of these paths taken to the QB by opposing rushers are legit however.

San Diego State DB Coye Frances is a blanket in coverage, moves very well and had several passes defended. This practice coupled with his solid weigh in could make Frances a hot property in the coming weeks.

USC WR Patrick Turner displayed soft hands and had a crowd pleasing deep catch from Clemson QB Cullen Harper that got everyone buzzing. Turner is long and lean and can snag tough balls. While he's not going to convince anyone he's a track star, might be finally reaching the huge potential he's been associated with for years and might be a possession option at the next level. As for Harper, he's been the best of a bad group but needs to do a lot more to improve his stock to where it used to be.

Arizona WR Mike Thomas covers a lot of ground and is another player who has been improving his stock after a strong week at the Shrine game. Teams like his versatility, his hands and his return ability. South Carolina WR Kenny McKinley is also a smooth receiver, catching the ball with his hands, rather than trying to trap it against his pads. Timed speed will be paramount in determining both of these players' respective values.

Louisville OC Eric Wood played guard and center, was excellent in pulling, and impressed on lookers with his toughness, grit and coach ability. He's a smart technician who has real potential to start in the league. However, Wood was overwhelmed at the point of attack several times, and could stand to improve his core strength.

Southern California LB Clay Matthews shows signs of being a true football player and takes every opportunity to stick his face in the fan. He worked only at 'backer today and did a better than expected job in coverage.

Finally, although it's tough to judge in shells, LSU FB Quinn Johnson could be this year's LeRon McClain. Give Johnson the ball, he powers through the line and just doesn't go to ground easily.

*********North Practice Notes Monday Afternoon ********
by Scott Wright
President, Draft Countdown.com


The North squad, coached by the Cincinnati Bengals staff, came out in shells (shoulder pads and helmets) today but even though they weren't in full pads there was still plenty of hitting and physical play. It was a sparse crowd, with half of the scouts and coaches watching the South team in Fairhope, but those who did come to Ladd-Peebles Stadium were treated to a number of impressive performances.

The headliner of the day might have been Missouri DT Evander "Ziggy" Hood, who showcased his trademark hustle and tenacity. Hood's motor seemed to run non-stop and he was able to consistently make plays in one-on-one drills, dipping and getting past Alex Mack on more than one occasion.

Oklahoma OT Phil Loadholt had a good day. Loadholt was very physical and absolutely mauled defenders once he got his hands on them, which was to be expected from a guy who weighed in at 6-8 and 343 pounds. However, he also displayed good feet and showed the ability to handle speed rushers. Today at least.

One of the players Loadholt toyed with was Connecticut DE Cody Brown, who did not have a good day. In addition to getting absolutely mauled by Loadholt in drills Brown also received quite a bit of instruction from the coaches. On one hand you don't want to be too critical of Brown because he was going up against a guy who outweighed him by 100 pounds but at the same time those are the types of specimens he will see as a defensive end at the next level. After today something tells me Brown is thinking a move to outside linebacker sounds pretty good.

Boston College DT B.J. Raji had a good day, showing why he is one of the best defensive tackles in this draft. If not the best. Raji was singled out on quite a few coaching points but it was more a case of working with him than a negative thing. Raji was also noticeable quicker than his teammate Ron Brace, even though they are about the same size. Brace looked slow and lethargic.

Sam Houston St. QB Rhett Bomar easily had the best release and most velocity of all the signal callers on the North squad. He throws a real nice ball and it gets out of his hand very quick. His accuracy was relatively average today though.

Of all the wide receivers Penn State's Derrick Williams looked the most impressive today. He got off the line of scrimmage real quick and showed terrific acceleration. He was also quick out of his breaks and got good separation. He just looked like the best receiver out there. Williams did muff a punt and the ensuing scene looked like something straight out of "Football Follies" as he crashed into another player at one point while trying to pick the ball up.

Oklahoma St. TE Brandon Pettigrew really looks the part. I didn't get to see Pettigrew work as a pass catcher much today but as a blocker he was able to extend his arms and easily drive a linebacker out of the player.

Northern Illinois DE Larry English was more physically impressive than I anticipated and he drew praise from coaches for his technique.

I didn't get to see as much of Virginia LB Clint Sintim as I had hoped to today but in coverage drills he looked a little stiff. On the flip-side Oklahoma's Nic Harris looked very smooth and comfortable in ball drills, which was not much of a surprise since he was a safety in college.

I was pleasantly surprised with Iowa DT Mitch King, who always seemed to be around the action and drew a lot of praise from the coaching staff. Alex Mack was able to hold him in check for the most part though.

South Florida OLB Tyrone McKenzie looked real good on one play, reading the play quickly and attacking the ball carrier but then missed the tackle behind the line of scrimmage. I didn't see much of him but I liked what I saw.

Illinois OT Xavier Fulton, showed the ability to easily get out to the second level. Fulton also surprised me when he was able to lock on and control his man.

Virginia RB Cedric Peerman's small hands were a point of concern at the weigh-in and when he bobbled a pass today those worries seemed to be validated.

Purdue RB Kory Sheets had trouble turning the corner and was strung out to the sideline by Ohio St. LB Marcus Freeman. That was probably more of a plus for Freeman than a negative for Sheets though.

There is no question that Connecticut OT William Beatty needs to pack some weight onto his 291 pound frame but he is very smooth and you can certainly see why many have him rated as a late first / early second round possibility.

Texas Tech QB Graham Harrell displayed good accuracy and didn't miss many throws but he didn't stand out when it came to his setup (dropback), release or velocity.

Central Arkansas QB Nathan Brown almost looked out of place and was a distant third when it came to the North quarterbacks. He just doesn't look very big out there and it would be hard to say he was better than average in any regard.

Oklahoma WR Juaquin Iglesias ran good routes and broke down well but he did miss a couple of balls that he should have caught.

Ohio St. WR Brian Robiskie catches the ball well with his hands but didn't look very fast.

Washington St. WR Brandon Gibson looked slow on his routes and didn't accelerate off the line well. He didn't get much separation out of his breaks either.

North Carolina's Brooks Foster was probably the second best receiver after Williams, showing the ability to accelerate and separate. He also showed some craftiness as a route runner on vertical and deep crossing plays.

Cal Poly's Ramses Barden caught the ball well and looked very athletic. He didn't necessarily look real fast but that could be deceptive because of his size.

The most impressive running back today was Oregon's Jeremiah Johnson, who looked noticeably quicker than his counterparts.

All in all there were a number of players who looked good and helped themselves today, most notably Derrick Williams, Ziggy Hood and Rhett Bomar, but there really wasn't an eye-opening, world-beating performance from anyone. The players were still getting comfortable and adjusting to their new surroundings though so that could all change tomorrow. The North may not have as many flashy, high-profile names as their South counterparts but there is plenty of talent and when all is said and done I would not be at all surprised if the North produces just as many first round picks as the South does.

*******Senior Bowl Weigh in Notes*******

North players that may have helped themselves:

Ramses Barden, WR, Cal-Poly: 6'6", 227, 10 5/8 hands, sculpted and jacked.

Connor Barwin, DE/TE, Cincinnati: 6'3", 253 33" arms very well put together with room on frame for more. We will report how he is used in practices today.

Darius Butler, CB, UConn: 5'10", 178 Buff & cut, well built, clearly works hard in the weight room.

Alex Mack, OC, Cal-Berkley: 6'4", 312, 33 1/4 arms, Same height as fellow North teammate Max Unger, taller than expected.

Keenan Lewis, DB, Oregon State: 6'0, 198 a physical specimen.

Jeremiah Johnson, RB, Oregon and Cedric Peerman, RB, Virginia; height in the 5'8" - 5'9" range, but both were in tremendous shape.

Kory Sheets, RB, Purdue: 5'11", 203: To paraphrase site friend Sigmund Bloom from NFL Draft Guys, Sheets has the upper body and calves of a wide reciever but the trunk of a tailback. Interesting hybrid prospect in excellent shape.


North players that may have hurt themselves:

Ron Brace, DL, Boston College: 6'3", 329: Sloppy, overweight looking, but coming in, no one thought he'd win a beauty contest.

Andy Levitre, OL, Oregon State: 6"2", 306 but doughy.

William Beatty, OT, UConn: 6'6", 291 skinny for an NFL OT prospect, needs to add bulk but has the frame to do so easily.




South players that may have helped themselves:

Rashad Jennings, RB, Liberty: 6'1", 234: Didn't look as heavy as he was, extremely low body fat, just jacked.

Brian Cushing, LB, USC: 6'3", 243, Bulky and ripped, as expected.

Several South DBs were taller than expected, will be interesting to see who works in at cornerback at drills, these players include:

Coye Francis, DB San Jose State: 6'0, 179

Michael Hamlin, DB Clemson: 6'2", 207

Domonique Johnson, DB, Jackson State: 6'1", 194

Sherrod Martin, DB, Troy: 6'0", 197

Ellis Lankster, DB, West Virginia: 5'9", 191

Derek Pegues, DB, Miss State: 5'9", 193

Both above defensive backs were extremely cut and strong looking. Will Pegues play cornerback?

South Players that may have hurt themselves:

Tyronne Green, OL, Auburn: 6'1", 305, 10 1/2 hands, big hands are a plus but shorter and sloppier than ideal.

Corvey Irvin, DL, Georgia: 6'3", 296: Unimpressive shape.


DD.comment: As a general note, no quarterback on either team measured at or over 6'3", which was clearly dissapointing to scouts....Another general note, while it is clear that some players pulled out to get healthy, and others pulled out because they are legitimate top tier prospects, certain players, especially certain offensive and defensive linemen, are participating in the game of managing expectations and putting the perception out they are higher graded than they are. This tactic might be proper in a political campaign but in the game of professional football, the trench warriors should want to play. An ideal NFL offensive or defensive lineman should live for days like today when the pit drills seperate the men from the boys. It is my belief that many skipped the game to not be proven boys. And as they are not here to defend that judgement, the assumption will stand, not just for this writer but for many of the decision-makers in attendance.

****
Following players have pulled out of the Senior Bowl:

RB Javon Ringer -- Injured/Recent knee scope

WR Louis Murphy -- Was injured in the National Championship game.

OT Jason Smith -- Thinks his draft stock is so high that he doesn't need to play.

OG Duke Robinson -- Rumor: Hurt in the National Championship game.

OT Eugene Monroe -- Thinks his draft stock is so high that he doesn't need to play.

DE Tyson Jackson -- No specific reason given.

DE Brian Orakpo -- Thinks his draft stock is so high that he doesn't need to play.

DE Michael Johnson -- No specific reason given.

LB James Laurinaitis -- Rumor is he battled nagging injuries all year and needs to time heal?

LB Aaron Curry -- Thinks his draft stock is so high that he doesn't need to play.

DB Malcolm Jenkins -- Thinks his draft stock is so high that he doesn't need to play.

Also, as we predicted months ago, Oklahoma safety Nic Harris has been moved to linebacker by N.F.L. scouts due to speed concerns. Also, while dynamic University of Cincinnati defensive end Connor Barwin, who led the Big East in sacks last year, has steadfastly said he wants to play defense in the N.F.L., some scouts are trying hard to skew him back to tight end, where he had only enjoyed moderate success during his college career.

Cardinal George's Letter to Obama

Great letter - bolding is mine.
We Will Consistently Defend the Fundamental Right to Life

WASHINGTON, D.C., JAN. 18, 2009 (Zenit.org).- Here is the text of the message Cardinal Francis George, archbishop of Chicago and president of the U.S. episcopal conference, sent last week to president-elect Barack Obama, who will take office as the president of the United States on Tuesday.

* * *

Dear Mr. President-elect,

As our nation begins a new year, a new Administration and a new Congress, I write to outline principles and priorities that guide the public policy efforts of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). As President of the Bishops' Conference, I assure you of our prayers, hopes and commitment to make this period of national change a time to advance the common good and defend the life and dignity of all, especially the vulnerable and poor. We continue to seek ways to work constructively with the new Administration and Congress and others of good will to pursue policies which respect the dignity of all human life and bring greater justice to our nation and peace to our world.

As Bishops, we approach public policy as pastors and teachers. Our moral principles have always guided our everyday experience in caring for the hungry and homeless, offering health care and housing, educating children and reaching out to those in need. We lead the largest community of faith in the United States, one that serves every part of our nation and is present in almost every place on earth. From our experience and our tradition, we offer a distinctive, constructive and principled contribution to the national dialogue on how to act together on issues of economic turmoil and suffering, war and violence, moral decency and human dignity.

Our nation now faces economic challenges with potentially tragic human consequences and serious moral dimensions. We will work with the new Administration and Congress to support strong, prudent and effective measures to address the terrible impacts and injustices of the economic crisis. In particular, we will advocate a clear priority for poor families and vulnerable workers in the development and implementation of economic recovery measures, including new investments while strengthening the national safety net. We also support greater accountability and oversight to address irresponsible abuses of the system that contributed to the financial crisis.

The Catholic Bishops of the United States have worked for decades to assure health care for all, insisting that access to decent health care is a basic human right and a requirement of human dignity. We urge comprehensive action to ensure truly universal health care coverage which protects all human life including pre-natal life, and provides access for all, with a special concern for the poor. Any such legislation ought to respect freedom to choose by offering a variety of options and ensuring respect for the moral and religious convictions of patients and providers. Such an approach should seek to restrain costs while sharing them equitably.

On international affairs, we will work with our leaders to seek a responsible transition in an Iraq free of religious persecution. We especially urge early, focused and persistent leadership to bring an end to violent conflict and a just peace in the Holy Land. We will continue to support essential U.S. investments to overcome poverty, hunger and disease through increased and reformed foreign assistance. Continued U.S. leadership in the fight against HIV-AIDS and other diseases in ways that are both effectively and morally appropriate have our enthusiastic backing. Recognizing the complexity of climate change, we wish to be a voice for the poor and vulnerable in our country and around the world who will be the most adversely affected by any dramatic threats to the environment.

We will work with the new Administration and Congress to fix a broken immigration system which harms both our nation and immigrants. Comprehensive reform is needed to deal with the economic and human realities of millions of immigrants in our midst. It must be based on respect for and implementation of the law. Equally it must defend the rights and dignity of all peoples, recognizing that human dignity comes from God and does not depend on where people were born or how they came to our nation. Truly comprehensive immigration reform will include a path to earned citizenship with attention to the fact that international trade and development policies influence economic opportunities in the countries from which immigrants come.

We stand firm in our support for marriage which is a faithful, exclusive, lifelong union of a man and a woman and must remain such in law. In a manner unlike any other relationship, marriage makes a unique and irreplaceable contribution to the common good of society, especially through the procreation and education of children. No other kinds of personal relationships can be justly made equivalent to the commitment of a man and a woman in marriage.

With regard to the education of children, we will continue to support initiatives which provide resources for all parents, especially those of modest means, to choose education which best address the needs of their children.

We welcome continuing commitments to empower faith-based groups as effective partners in overcoming poverty and other threats to human dignity. We will work with the Administration and Congress to strengthen these partnerships in ways that do not encourage government to abandon its responsibilities, and do not require religious groups to abandon their identity and mission.

Most fundamentally, we will work to protect the lives of the most vulnerable and voiceless members of the human family, especially unborn children and those who are disabled or terminally ill. We will consistently defend the fundamental right to life from conception to natural death. Opposed to abortion as the direct killing of innocent human life, we will encourage one and all to seek common ground that will reduce the number of abortions in morally sound ways that affirm the dignity of pregnant women and their unborn children. We will oppose legislative and other measures to expand abortion. We will work to retain essential, widely supported policies which show respect for unborn life, protect the conscience rights of health care providers and other Americans, and prevent government funding and promotion of abortion. The Hyde amendment and other provisions which for many years have prevented federal funding of abortion have a proven record of reducing abortions. Efforts to force Americans to fund abortions with their tax dollars would pose a serious moral challenge and jeopardize the passage of essential health care reform.

This outline of USCCB policies and priorities is not complete. There are many other areas of concern and advocacy for the Church and the USCCB especially: religious freedom and other civil and human rights, news media and communications, and issues of war and peace. For a more detailed description of our concerns please see Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship (USCCB 2008), pages 19-30.

Nonetheless, we offer this outline as an agenda for dialogue and action. We hope to offer a constructive and principled contribution to national discussion over the values and policies that will shape our nation's future. We seek to work together with our nation's leaders to advance the common good of our society, while disagreeing respectfully and civilly where necessary for preserving that same common good.

In closing, I renew our expression of hope and our offer of cooperation as you begin this new period of service to our nation in these challenging times. We promise our prayers for you, that the days ahead will be a time of renewal and progress for our nation and that we can work together to defend human life and dignity and build a nation of greater justice and a world at peace.

Sincerely yours,

Francis Cardinal George, OMI
Archbishop of Chicago
President

Google to Team Up With Vatican

This sounds really cool!!

VATICAN CITY, JAN. 18, 2009 (Zenit.org).- Google, a symbol of the seemingly endless possibilities of the Internet, will team up with the Vatican Television Center and Vatican Radio in a joint venture to give Benedict XVI his own YouTube channel.

According to the Vatican press office, texts and video footage of the Pope's speeches supplied by Vatican radio and television would be posted directly onto the video-sharing Web site.

Details of the initiative will be announced Friday in conjunction with the publication of Benedict XVI's message for the 43rd World Communications Day. Saturday is the feast of St. Francis de Sales, patron of journalists.

The theme for the day, which will be celebrated May 31, is "New Technologies, New Relationships: Promoting a Culture of Respect, Dialogue and Friendship."

Henrique de Castro, Managing Director Media Solutions for Google, will be present at the press conference to announce the initiative between the Internet company and the Vatican.

Also present will be Archbishop Claudio Maria Celli, president of the Pontifical Council for Social Communications, Monsignor Paul Tighe, secretary of the same council, and Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi, director of Vatican Radio, Vatican Television Center and the Vatican press office.