David Ancell / Friday, March 19, 2004 / Comments(0)
My blog was just recently noticed in the last place I ever expected. The local Memphis paper, The Commercial Appeal, received a brief mention of my blog by Jon W. Sparks of the C.A. Eye column (often the only part of the paper I read). I have no idea what on earth would interest the man in my blog, but I was pretty darn excited to see myself mentioned. I was so surprised that, on the first mention of it by my coworkers, I actually denied that I was in there until someone showed me the article complete with my blog address (though it had a typo in it).
If you don’t mind the free registration requirement, here’s the article.
Category: Posts imported from Danger! Falling Brainwaves, Uncategorized
David Ancell / Wednesday, March 17, 2004 / Comments(0)
Here is an interesting article suggesting why young women wear sexually provocative clothing. Whether or not this is a correct assessment is not something that I can be sure of. The paragraph on sexual harassment is quite revealing. I remember the sexual harassment information that was presented to me at a training session. It basically said that if someone is uncomfortable with you and says you are sexually harassing them, then you did it.
Category: Posts imported from Danger! Falling Brainwaves, Uncategorized
David Ancell / Sunday, March 14, 2004 / Comments(0)
Well, actually, I’m just trying to help Earl publicize the new location of Times Against Humanity. It looks great, especially with the new banner.
Category: Posts imported from Danger! Falling Brainwaves, Uncategorized
David Ancell / Saturday, March 13, 2004 / Comments(0)
This will probably get me in trouble, but go here and scroll down to One priest’s reflection on “The Passion of the Christ”. This post is not meant to cast Fr. Val as a professional offendee. Do not take it as such. I will argue against the points made in his article.
My reading of the article suggest two points of contention with the movie:
1. Mel Gibson chose scenes that appear in only one of the Gospel that make the Jews look bad. Namely, he chose to represent Pilate as having scourged Jesus in order to save him. Despite the fact that it appears in only one Gospel, who is to say that this isn’t the way it happened? Regardless of the actual historical events, it is well known that Pilate was very uneasy about the execution of Jesus. Some sick minds have interpreted it to hold the Jews responsible for the crucifixion. However, we can’t spend our lives worrying about what sick minds will do because they will do something wrong because they have sick minds. Most Christians are well aware that we are responsible for the crucifixion and went into the movie with that mindset.
2. Fr. Val mentions a scene of the cross being formed in the Jewish temple. I didn’t see this, but it is perfectly appropriate. Jesus Christ’s Passion and Death are the perfect sacrifice offered to atone for our sins. What went on in the Jewish Temple — sacrifice to atone for sins. It is for this reason that viewing the crafting of the cross in the Temple is not “as inflammatory as some false assertion that the ovens of the Dachau concentration camp were fabricated in the underground of Rome’s St. Peter’s Basilica, under the supervision of Pope Pius XII!” The murder of the Jews was not atonement for our sins but the work of a very evil man.
Did anyone notice that the line “his blood be on us and our children” was left out of the movie? This was deliberately done because the line has often been used as a rationalization of anti-Semitism. Gibson was quite sensitive to these concerns. If any group of people looked like a band of jerks, it was the Romans. However, I hear very few people suggesting that the film may stir up anti-Romanism. Better yet, since I am a Roman Catholic, maybe the film will stir up hatred against me.
Category: Posts imported from Danger! Falling Brainwaves, Uncategorized
David Ancell / Saturday, March 13, 2004 / Comments(0)
Michelle writes about all the dialogue that The Passion is supposed to harm according to professional offendees (and then refutes it with a quote). However, it really might harm inter-species dialogue. I mean, there’s a scene where Jesus hurt an animal. Don’t you remember the poor snake during the Agony in the Garden. Besides, PETA will be up in arms about that scene any day now.
I thought that response up and wrote it in just a few minutes. Likewise, The Passion has become a great way to get yourself in the spotlight without having any journalistic talent or even an intelligent thought to convey. You can just complain that it is too violent or hurt dialogue or offends the professional offendees, and you can get printed.
Category: Posts imported from Danger! Falling Brainwaves, Uncategorized
David Ancell / Saturday, March 13, 2004 / Comments(0)
The House of Representatives approved legislation last Wednesday that would prevent people from suing fast-food restaurants because they are fat. Surprisingly, there are some reps who are actually arguing against this law. Here is a memorable quote:
“With all the challenges facing this country and with the limited schedule set by the Republicans this year, is this the best bill to consider?” asked Representative Jim McGovern, Democrat of Massachusetts. “Under the Republican leadership, this House has become a place where trivial issues are debated passionately and serious ones not at all.”
Oh yeah, well who is doing the debate? This is friggin’ common sense. Can’t you see the strange precedent that these lawsuits can set? People might start suing casinos because they are addicted to gambling. People could start suing credit card companies for offering them too much credit. Maybe someone will sue Dell and Gateway because they have become an electroholic.
There shouldn’t even be a debate on this one. We shouldn’t expect the court system to protect people from their own stupidity, and we surely shouldn’t reward people for it with monetary damages. If you consumed Big Macs, sausage biscuits, and Whoppers on a regular basis, what did you expect? The fact that they are claiming their burgers to be 100% beef doesn’t give you grounds for a lawsuit.
Category: Posts imported from Danger! Falling Brainwaves, Uncategorized
David Ancell / Saturday, March 13, 2004 / Comments(0)
Do you remember the Planned Non-Parenthood poster contest celebrating choice? Well, now NARAL Pro-“Choice” America is having their own contest for a supposed March for Women’s Lives. How low can you go? How about this poster that says “March for options your grandmother didn’t have.” Excuse me, but, if your grandmother had those “options,” there is a distinct possibility that you would not be living. I think that these posters are more appropriate, but they didn’t make the finals.
What kind of choice are they supporting? Down at the bottom of the previously linked-to page is a link to this page under Pregnant? Need Help?. There’s the language included about the medical profession helping you “decide what is best for you.” Then, the contact numbers are to Planned Parenthood and the National Abortion Federation. I wonder what “choice” they will help a woman make.
The original link was found on and stolen shamelessly from Jeanetta.
Category: Posts imported from Danger! Falling Brainwaves, Uncategorized
David Ancell / Friday, March 12, 2004 / Comments(0)
In case you hadn’t discovered, I was happy to learn that Fr. Benedict Groeschel is now able to speak again and is now writing his own updates on his condition. I hope to see him make a full recovery. He has come a long way. Please continue to pray for him. I will.
Category: Posts imported from Danger! Falling Brainwaves, Uncategorized
David Ancell / Wednesday, March 10, 2004 / Comments(0)
A reader commented on my post, based on a Word of Encouragement from Catholic Exchange, that Christianity is not altruism. He asked me what part of altruism, as displayed on his site, Jesus would disagree with. Well, there is plenty there.
Jesus plainly stated that he is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. According to the FAQ on the altruism web site, that alone would disqualify one from altruism. Further, Christians do not serve without hope of reward. We serve the Lord in hopes of obtaining life everlasting in his kingdom.
The object of our faith is not a way of life, though there is a way of life involved. The object is a person. That person is the Holy Trinity who is one God in three divine persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. God has revealed himself to us that way, and anything that contradicts such revelation is therefore incorrect. The life we lead is the life he has commanded us to lead. We desire that the teaching of Christ, the Gospel, be preached to all people for their salvation as the name of Jesus Christ is the only name by which we can be saved. Even if those who call God other names are saved, it is still through Jesus Christ that they are saved.
Now, in today’s relativistic culture, claims to the absolute truth may sound arrogant. However, suppose that they are actually true? Would not we then have a duty to proclaim them as such? Jesus demonstrated the truth of his claim by dying on the cross for us and then rising from the dead on his own power three days later. Either he rose from the dead, or he didn’t. He couldn’t have risen from the dead but yet not have risen from the dead at the same time. Given that eleven of the twelve apostles died proclaiming this resurrection, we have to assume that either they really saw him alive, or they all died for something that they knew was just a lie about a dead man. The latter is utterly absurd.
Category: Posts imported from Danger! Falling Brainwaves, Uncategorized
David Ancell / Sunday, March 07, 2004 / Comments(0)
By now, you have read plenty of things about the John Jay College of Criminal Justice’s report on the abuse scandal. You have probably also heard earlier statements claiming to have “turned the corner” on the scandal. Honestly, I don’t know what turn the corner means.
However, even if the sex abuse scandal could be relegated to the history books, the real scandal would not be over with. Does anyone remember the Final Communique of the meeting of the American cardinals with Rome in April 2002. In it, there are these lines:
) Given the doctrinal issues underlying the deplorable behavior in question, certain lines of response have been proposed:
a) the Pastors of the Church need clearly to promote the correct moral teaching of the Church and publicly to reprimand individuals who spread dissent and groups which advance ambiguous approaches to pastoral care;
b) a new and serious Apostolic Visitation of seminaries and other institutes of formation must be made without delay, with particular emphasis on the need for fidelity to the Church’s teaching, especially in the area of morality, and the need for a deeper study of the criteria of suitability of candidates to the priesthood.
Where are the plans for promotion of proper teaching in the Church? We just had a committee report discussing the poor quality of high school catechetical texts which basically said that six years went by since the last report without much action being taken. How about the enforcement of Ex Corde Ecclesiae? Are theology professors who are not seeking the mandatum being publicly reprimanded for their dissident teaching? Nope.
However, we can’t absolve ourselves either. If we go to or send kids to a “Catholic” school without determining whether or not they are making efforts to teach what the Church teaches, we are guilty. We are supporting them in their adultery against the faith. We need to boycott these people. If there are lame religious education classes offered on a smaller scale, we might consider going to set the record straight by arguing with the bad teaching.
Until the scandal of dissent is solved, we cannot say that the scandal in the Church is history. However, we can affect this. We can start with our nearest Catholic neighbor, our local parish, our local Catholic school. We must do this for the glory of God and the salvation of souls.
Category: Posts imported from Danger! Falling Brainwaves, Uncategorized
