Ross Douthat has a good editorial in the New York Times discussing the irony and the differences between siblings Teddy and Eunice Kennedy, who died within 13 days of each other. Douthat's observation about each Kennedy's effect on people with Down syndrome is particularly striking. Some excerpts:

What the siblings shared - in addition to the grace, rare among Kennedys, of a ripe old age and a peaceful death - was a passionate liberalism and an abiding Roman Catholic faith. These two commitments were intertwined: Ted Kennedy's tireless efforts on issues like health care, education and immigration were explicitly rooted in Catholic social teaching, and so was his sister's lifelong labor on behalf of the physically and mentally impaired.

What separated them was abortion.
...........

For abortion opponents, cruel ironies abounded in this sibling disagreement. Because of Eunice Shriver's work with the developmentally disabled, a group of Americans who had once been marginalized and hidden away - or lobotomized, like her sister Rosemary - was ushered closer to full participation in ordinary human life. But because of laws that her brother unstintingly supported, that same group was ushered out again: the abortion rate for fetuses diagnosed with Down syndrome, for instance, is estimated to be as high as 90 percent.

In 1992, Eunice participated in the last significant effort to push the Democratic Party away from abortion on demand, petitioning her party's convention to consider "a new understanding" of the issue, "one that does not pit mother against child," but instead seeks "policies that responsibly protect and advance the interest of mothers and their children, both before and after birth." That same summer, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Supreme Court upheld a near-absolute right to terminate a pregnancy - a decision made possible by her brother's demagogic assault on Robert Bork five years earlier, which helped doom Bork's nomination to the court.

Fr. Michael Orsi has an interesting article on Teddy Kennedy's death and funeral. I think Fr. Orsi is right to conclude that probably the best course of action with Kennedy was "a subdued funeral service" and a message that "the Mass is being celebrated to beg God's mercy for the deceased." That is not what happened from the clips of the funeral that I watched: the Obama eulogy; the Prayers of the Faithful, which consisted of inane, meaningless language cribbed from Kennedy's own speeches over the years (including last year's Democratic convention); and the homily. The whole tone of the event was one of celebration of Kennedy's life as a Democratic politician, not one of prayer for the repose of his soul.

UPDATE: I turned off the comments to this post. I wanted the comments to stay on the topic of the article and not the character of the author, which is a discussion I have no desire to moderate.

Normally at this time of year, I would post the Notre Dame football schedule and gear up for one of the great traditional pasttimes of Catholics in America. Instead, I am a bit disenchanted and don't have the taste for supporting the university. On the other hand, this should be no surprise. Obamagate at ND is the natural result of (1) The Land o' Lakes Statement of 1967 and, more significantly and at the root, (2) a failure of religiosum obsequium to the Church's Magisterium as expressed in the Creeds of the Church, the declarations of the Councils, the statements of the Fathers and the teachings of the Doctors. The actions of Fr. Jenkins and the indifference of the Board is typical "Kennedy-Catholicism" as opposed to Roman Catholicism. That being said, there is still hope:

St. Augustine's Press has just published Professor Rice's latest: What Happened to Notre Dame?. From the St. Augustine's website:

Christ, who is God, is the author of the divine law and the natural law.The book presents reasons why an acknowledged interpreter of these laws is necessary, and why that interpreter has to be the Pope exercising the Magisterium, or teaching authority of the Church. And it shows why it is so important that we have such a moral interpreter for all citizens and not just for Catholics. The alternative is what Pope Benedict XVI calls the “dictatorship of relativism,” which the book analyzes. Even for those who do not share the Catholic faith, our reason leads us to conclude that the natural law is the only moral code that makes entire sense and points to the conclusion that the Vicar of Christ is uniquely suited to give authoritative interpretation to that
law.

In the final chapter Rice shows why great good can come out of Notre Dame’s blunder in rendering its highest honors to such an implacable foe. Notre Dame got itself into such a mess because it attempted to be Catholic without the Church andended up defying the Church and disgracing itself. But good can result from the lesson here that roll-your-own morality is no more tenable than roll-your-own Catholicism.

Indispensible FUMARE-approved reading. Reserve your copy today!

Yesterday, I posted a suggestion to do some small act of penance for the crimes committed by people in the name of the Blessed Mother. I made no reference as to whether it was about Ave Maria, Notre Dame, or other ones like Madonna blaspheming the Blessed Mother on the feast of the Assumption.

Incidentally, besides being the feast of the Queen of Poland, it was also the 70th anniversary of WWII, and Germany's attack on Poland. (No coincidence that they did it on that day).

Some people thought I was only talking about Notre Dame, and I got to wondering for a moment about the people who have violently defended everything Ave Maria for the past 7 years. Where are they for Notre Dame? If those people who have hurled so much invective and spite at FUMARE for its analysis and coverage of things at Ave Maria meant what they said, they'd have been equally disgusted with FUMARE's commentary about Notre Dame. Instead, they jumped on board and threw rocks at the ND admin.

All of the same arguments apply to Notre Dame as they do for Ave Maria. So why was it OK to talk about the Notre Dame scandal, but it's not OK to talk about Ave Maria's?

Is it because Monaghan backs the RNC? Is it because the only moral issue is Pro Life?

Or, is it because the Vagina Monologues is somehow less excusable than lying or alleged fraud? What is it with you people that you blindly defend the AM administration, but won't do the same for a priest at Notre Dame?

And why was it OK for Ave people to talk about Notre Dame, but any talk about the Ave people is immediately jumped on as calumny, hate, etc?

When I grew up, I heard "what's good for the goose, is good for the gander." It's true, though, because any other way is insanity, or as PBXVI says, dictatorship of relativism. Sometimes I wish he'd have just used Richard Hoggart's moniker of 1997, the Tyranny of Relativism. But then when I think of the force with which many Ave grads have been hit, and the nasty hatred that is pummeled out of the blind defenders over the years, I realize that they are tyrannical dictators.

Why the double standard?

Here's a little fun bit of trivia for your day. Who wrote the following?

While the deep concern of a woman bearing an unwanted child merits consideration and sympathy, it is my personal feeling that the legalization of abortion on demand is not in accordance with the value which our civilization places on human life. Wanted or unwanted, I believe that human life, even at its earliest stages, has certain rights which must be recognized — the right to be born, the right to love, the right to grow old. .....

But once life has begun, no matter at what stage of growth, it is my belief that termination should not be decided merely by desire. .....

When history looks back to this era it should recognize this generation as one which cared about human beings enough to halt the practice of war, to provide a decent living for every family, and to fulfill its responsibility to its children from the very moment of conception.

The answer is here.

Once you've learned who said it, check out this reflection on what might have been.

I seriously mean a suggestion only, but being that today is Wednesday, that is the day set aside to pay particular mind to the four last things, and considering that Our Lady at Fatima had asked for the faithful to offer acts of reparation, I ask that you consider offering to Our Lady some little act of penance today as a consolation to her for the crimes committed in her name. Perhaps it will win some joy to her to have her good name repaired in that way. For the non-catholics who read the blog offer the work to Our Lord and ask him to show you His Mother's care as He entrusted us to her from the cross.

UPDATE: I was outed by Buttercup as to what would possibly make me think of such a thing today. For everyone else, however, here is the rest of the story, but pay attention to the many times she was wounded and what happened:

The origin of this miraculous image in Czestochowa, Poland is unknown for absolute certainty, but according to tradition the painting was a portrait of Our Lady done by St. John sometime after the Crucifixion of Our Lord and remained in the Holy Land until discovered by St. Helena of the Cross in the fourth century. The painting was taken to Constantinople, where St. Helena's son, the Emperor Constantine, erected a church for its enthronement. This image was revered by the people of the city.

During the siege by the Saracens, the invaders became frightened when the people carried the picture in a procession around the city; the infidels fled. Later, the image was threatened with burning by an evil emperor, who had a wife, Irene, who saved it and hid it from harm. The image was in that city for 500 years, until it became part of some dowries, eventually being taken to Russia to a region that later became Poland.

After the portrait became the possession of the Polish prince, St. Ladislaus in the 15th century, it was installed in his castle. Tartar invaders besieged the castle and an enemy arrow pierced Our Lady's image, inflicting a scar. Interestingly, repeated attempts to fix the image, artistically have all failed.

Tradition says that St. Ladislaus determined to save the image from repeated invasions, so he went to his birthplace, Opala, stopping for rest in Czestochowa; the image was brought nearby to Jasna Gora ["bright hill"] and placed in a small wooden church named for the Assumption. The following morning, after the picture was carefully placed in the wagon, the horses refused to move. St. Ladislaus understood this to be a sign from Heaven that the image should stay in Czestochowa; thus he replaced the painting in the Church of the Assumption, August 26, 1382, a day still observed as the Feast Day of the painting. The Saint wished to have the holiest of men guard the painting, so he assigned the church and the monastery to the Pauline Fathers, who have devoutly protected the image for the last six hundred years.

Having survived two attacks upon it, Our Lady's image was next imperiled by the Hussites, followers of the heretic priest, John Hus from Prague. The Hussites did not accept papal authority as coming from Christ and taught that mortal sin deprived an office holder of his position, among other heresies. Hus had been influenced by John Wyclif and became infected with his errors. Hus was tried and condemned at Constance in 1415. The Hussites successfully stormed the Pauline monastery in 1430, plundering the sanctuary. Among the items stolen was the image. After putting it in their wagon, the Hussites went a little ways but then the horses refused to go any further. Recalling the former incident that was so similar, the heretics threw the portrait down to the ground, which shattered the image into three pieces. One of the plunderers drew his sword and slashed the image twice, causing two deep gashes; while attempting a third gash, he was overcome with a writhing agony and died.

The two slashes on the cheek of the Blessed Virgin, together with the one on the throat, not readily visible in our copy, have always reappeared after artistic attempts to fix them. [...]

Today, the Polish people continue to honor their beloved portrait of the Madonna and Child, especially on August 26, the day reserved by St. Ladislaus.[...]

see the source and more details here.

Fort Wayne-South Bend Bishop John D'Arcy has a good article in America about the Obama at Notre Dame controversy.

UPDATE: In the comments, Sister Barada posts an excerpt of Bishop D'Arcy's article which deserves more consideration:

In the midst of the crisis at Notre Dame, the board of trustees came to campus in April for their long-scheduled spring meeting. They said nothing. When the meeting was completed, they made no statement and gave no advice. In an age when transparency is urged as a way of life on and off campus, they chose not to enter the conversation going on all around them and shaking the university to its roots. We learned nothing about their discussions.

I firmly believe that the board of trustees must take up its responsibility afresh, with appropriate study and prayer. They also must understand the seriousness of the present moment. This requires spiritual and intellectual formation on the part of the men and women of industry, business and technology who make up the majority of the board. Financial generosity is no longer sufficient for membership on the boards of great universities, if indeed it ever was. The responsibility of university boards is great, and decisions must not be made by a few. Like bishops, they are asked to leave politics and ambition at the door, and make serious decisions before God. In the case of Notre Dame, they owe it to the Congregation of Holy Cross, which has turned this magnificent place over to a predominately lay board; they owe it to the students who have not yet come; they owe it to the intrepid missionary priest, Edward Sorin, C.S.C., and the Holy Cross religious who built this magnificent place out of the wilderness. They owe it to Mary, the Mother of God, who has always been honored here. Let us pray that they will take this responsibility with greater seriousness and in a truly Catholic spirit.

Thomas Woods has written a critique of the new social encyclical that has an important point regarding the huge omission from the document - the issue of monetary policy.

In addition to some of its more unfortunate statements, Caritas in Veritate is also a gigantic missed opportunity. There are legitimate moral concerns to be raised about the structure of the world’s monetary systems, but Benedict XVI does not discuss them.

If those moral concerns interest you, I suggest Jörg Guido Hülsmann’s brilliant work The Ethics of Money Production, or my The Church and the Market. (The former title was greeted with great enthusiasm in The Wanderer by Paul Likoudis, a good man whom I would classify as a third-way distributist of some sort, so its appeal extends well beyond the usual Misesian circles.) Hülsmann shows that within Catholic tradition there is ample testimony to the wickedness of monetary debasement, fractional-reserve banking, and numerous other institutional commonplaces we hardly give a second thought. As Hülsmann argues, there is no moral or economic case for the monetary system under which we are forced to live—a system that has never been introduced voluntarily but has always been enforced by violence, with the police empowered to suppress alternatives. The insidious nature of the government’s monopoly on money becomes even clearer when a currency degenerates into hyperinflation, all known examples of which have occurred under monopoly fiat-money systems. Short of a completely state-run system, it is as far from a free market as one can imagine.

The system we have now involves a government-privileged central bank with a monopoly on the creation of legal-tender money, charged with watching over a cartel of ostensibly private but also state-privileged commercial banks. Its debasement of money makes it very difficult for people to save for the future without having to become speculators of one kind or another. A hard-money system, on the other hand, permitted the average person to save for the future simply by accumulating precious-metal coins, which, back in the days when they served as money, held or increased their value over time. Who today would save for the future by piling up Federal Reserve Notes? Society’s most vulnerable now must enter the stock market or take other kinds of risks just to hold on to their wealth. Is this not a moral issue?

Well, you have an opportunity to bring this important issue into the light by adding your part to the Book Bomb by pre-ordering a copy of End the Fed.

Right now, this book is number 12 on the best seller's list and climbing fast. Making this book a best seller will bring this issue into the MSM, in addition to the legislation that now has a majority of supporters, to Audit the Federal Reserve.

No matter what your feelings are toward Ron Paul, the issue of the Federal Reserve is very serious and it is the principle enabler of our wars, nanny state and now facist government.



Get your copy!

I know that Fr. Fessio's dismissal from AMU is old news, but I came across a few interesting items about the story.

First, this Naples News article.

Ave Maria University's board of trustees discussed firing the university's theologian, the Rev. Joseph Fessio, at its June meeting but took no formal vote on the matter, the board’s chairman said Wednesday.

The university announced Monday that it had "ended its formal relationship" with Fessio and that the decision was "made by the leadership of the university and supported by its Board of Trustees."

Chairman Michael Timmis would not say Wednesday whether the entire board agreed at the June meeting. He said the decision to fire Fessio was not something that required a board vote. Timmis would not cite a reason for Fessio's firing.

"Personally, as I read the scriptures, good people can disagree," Timmis said.

That's a weird quote about the Bible by Timmis. What episode or verse can he possibly be referring to? And sure, good people can disagree about what flavor of ice cream is better with neither one being wrong.... but sometimes when two "good people" disagree, one person is wrong and one person is right. It seems that often moral equivalency or agnosticism is invoked in debates about Ave Maria, because on both sides there are "good people" (code words for "orthodox, church-going Catholics") and therefore there is a reluctance to make judgments about whether a particular action is good or bad. Also, based on Timmis's comments, it seems like there wasn't a Board decision and vote on firing Fessio, but that Monaghan himself (or his "Executive Committee") made the decision unilaterally. This is similar to what happened with Safranek at the law school, so it's to be expected.

The trustees have three regular meetings per year, usually in Naples but occasionally in Washington, D.C., spokesman Rob Falls said. He said special meetings are sometimes called to address pressing issues.

Falls said Wednesday that the university would have no further comment on Fessio's firing.

He said the university considers it a "personnel matter" and that its policy is to "respect the dignity of individuals."

That is a bothersome quote by Falls. He is invoking the "this is a confidential personnel matter" excuse heard so often during the law school professor terminations. What makes it really frustrating is the fact that Fessio himself (like the law professors a few years) was not given a full explanation of the reason for his firing. How is it respectful of the "dignity of the individual" to fire the individual without a full and fair explanation?

The second interesting item is a Youtube video posted by AMU's Student Government Association President about the Fessio firing. Check it out here. It is admirable to see the student president give such a thoughtful, professional, and eloquent statement about the controversy. Kudos to him for his prudent diplomacy on a difficult topic and for his commitment to AMU. But the statement seems marked with the same moral agnosticism that I mentioned above. He is sad Fessio is gone, but there is no mention about whether the decision to remove him was a good action or not. He says the school is "not perfect" and never will be perfect because it is a human institution, but he is silent about what is not perfect about the school and how the imperfection can be improved. His vision and spirit are admirable, but I wonder about his naivete. (He reminds me of myself and of so many people I knew a few years ago.) He says that AMU will live on and prosper, that it "transcends" any one man or group of men, including Monaghan himself. I guess he hasn't heard the story of the now-defunct Ave Maria College.

NBC News in Naples reporting:

Law school students scrubbing toilets to gain perspective

It's great to see new Ave Maria School of Law students learning the true value of their law degrees!

Piotr and Ivan have been pressuring me for some time to correct a position I've oft stated that Russian Cossacks were only a little above gypsies in the order of contempt for which one should have for them. I had the impressions passed along of them cooperating with the Red Army and being instrumental in the subduing of the Russian people by Stalin.

On that last point, however, I have been gravely mistaken, having finally capitulated that Stalin had made concerted efforts to permanently rid Russia of the cossacks. I had always chocked that up to a broken clock being right twice a day. I didn't look at it from the angle that they represented a social collective that would not cooperate with the party line, but rather, represented a threat to Stalin's violently imposed homogeneity of opinion among the commoners. Moreover, I only recently came to believe the historical accounts of certain non-negligible numbers of cossacks who fought on the white army to stop the bolsheviks.

Granted, the position of the Stalinists to vigorously pursue the decossackization of Russia as being motivated by their independent judgment and adherence to the faith carried the most weight. They may have been mistaken who helped the red army, but I can almost express a solidarity of spirit with that historical account of them, which more closely matches the stories of old about them.

Sort of like in our era, and particular to us, I saw people who I admire mistaken about Monagahan back in 2002, 3, 4, 5, up to the ridding of Rice, but they caught on. Maybe the cossacks were like that -- having had problems with Nicolas II, and suspending judgment, they thought the bolsheviks meant what they said. Many people in the AMSoL saga have been frozen by the rhetoric of the kool aid side, too, having to wait to see.

Thus, I remove and recant of any prior anathema I may have uttered on the cossacks. My decision is in no way influenced by Piotr's sister. I still reserve, however, my opinion that, as with the gypsies, one ought to hide the women, the booze, and one's money when cossacks arrive.

AveWatch has a short post on the Dobranski resignation. What is my reaction? Finally.

The "official announcement" distributed by Ave Maria School of Law is particularly interesting. It is one of most glowing Tom-and-Bernie-cheerleading programs I've ever read. Here are some excerpts:

Ave Maria School of Law Founding Dean and President Steps Down
Bernard Dobranski Resigns as Dean and President, but to Continue Active Role in
Law Schools Strategic Planning and Development

NAPLES, Fla. – (August 21, 2009) – Eleven years ago, Bernard Dobranski received a once-in-a-lifetime phone call. Thomas S. Monaghan, founder of Domino's Pizza and former owner of the Detroit Tigers, was contemplating starting a new law school in Michigan, and he wanted Dobranski to be the dean and president. Since accepting that position a decade ago, Dobranski has led the school through an incredible evolution. From a conceptual plan to a fully accredited law school, Dobranski has been at the forefront of Ave Maria School of Law's (AMSL) growth and development.

Today, AMSL Chairman of the Board, Thomas S. Monaghan, announced that Dobranski, who has been on medical leave for more than a year, has stepped down as the dean and president of the Law School.

"Both personally, and as chairman of the board, I am greatly appreciative for all Bernie has done for Ave Maria School of Law," Monaghan said. "His leadership, vision, perseverance and steadfast dedication to Catholic legal education have been unparalleled. It is with much esteem that the board of governors accepts his resignation."

I wonder: whenever the statement says "board of governors" should we just substitute the word "Monaghan"? Was there actually a Board of Governors meeting?

Reflecting on his time as dean and president, Dobranski noted the fundamental characteristics of the Law School, and how important they have been to him.

"For nearly 40 years I have committed my professional life to legal education," Dobranski said. ?And, throughout the last 10-plus years, Ave Maria School of Law has not only been my job, but it has been my passion. Educating a new generation of lawyers, and providing them an atmosphere to learn the finest professional skills, balanced with a deep commitment to faith and morality, has been a driving force in my life.

"After much prayer and reflection, I have decided to resign my positions as dean and president. My dedication and loyalty to Ave Maria School of Law are unwavering, but I feel that due to some current personal health matters and the need to continue ongoing physical therapy, it would be best if my service to the Law School took on a new form.

"My family, colleagues, friends and each student who has come through Ave Maria have been part of my support system, without which I could not have accomplished all that I have."

Hhhmm, is he including Safranek and company in this group?

Though no longer holding the titles of dean and president, Dobranski will remain active and engaged at AMSL. The Law School's Board of Governors has named him Dean Emeritus and appointed him to a seat on the Board. Dobranski will also continue as a full member of the faculty, and will be actively involved in the school's strategic planning and development efforts. One of his initial projects will be to explore the establishment of a special center that will reflect the unique mission of the Law School.

This is the most interesting part of the whole statement. What is "Dean Emeritus"? Dobranski has a seat on the Board of Governors? Is that a permanent seat or one subject to term limits? If Dobranski is a member of the faculty, will he teach? Or will he just be counted as a faculty member for the sake of padding the number of faculty members who won't vote "no confidence" in Monaghan? Will Dobranski continue to receive his $300K+ salary from his personal employment contract with Monaghan in contrast to the rest of the faculty who have employment contracts with the law school? And what is this special center? Perhaps some think tank based in Washington DC from which Dobranski can rub elbows with political bigwigs?

Since that initial phone call in 1998, Dobranski knew that AMSL was going to be something very unique in the field of legal education. Before a single student application was even taken, he was hard at work developing the direction and mission for the school. Monaghan had assured him that AMSL would be distinct in its mission, providing both a first-rate legal education and rooted firmly in the rich moral tradition of the Church.

"Bernie was the ideal person to start and lead the Law School," Monaghan said. "Before the announcement about AMSL was made, he had already committed to help lead an institution that would be academically rigorous, would compete with the best law schools in the country and would be infused with Catholic tradition and teachings."

Dobranski was the one who "started" and who "developed the direction and mission" of the law school? Nothing to see here, folks, just a little rewriting history, please move along!

Under Dobranski's leadership, the Law School has achieved many milestones.

In September 2000, AMSL opened its doors for the first time and began its inaugural academic year. With Dobranski's direction, the Law School immediately began taking incredible strides in growth and accreditation. Full accreditation by the American Bar Association (ABA) is the most critical designation a law school can receive. Not only did AMSL receive full accreditation in 2005, but it did so in the shortest time frame possible. This truly was a remarkable accomplishment for a new law school.

.... Until St. Thomas Law did it in just as fast a time AND debuted in the Third Tier. I get the feeling that AMSL is going to ride the "shortest time possible for ABA accreditation" credential for as long as it can. At what time does that credential become stale?

Dobranski's leadership and direction were invaluable to AMSL and allowed others to learn from his example. In April 2008, Dobranski took a medical leave of absence and Associate Dean and Professor Eugene R. Milhizer was appointed as the acting dean. Milhizer remembers that he felt better able to undertake his new responsibilities having watched Dobranski for so many years.

"Bernie's leadership qualities are founded on his faith and vast experience," Milhizer said. "Watching Bernie interact with students, faculty, staff, board members and members of the community has provided me with a great example of how to lead confidently, while still taking the time to listen to every person I encounter."

Heh, heh. "Bernie's leadership qualities." Heh, heh. I hope Milhizer hasn't learned the Dobranski method of ignoring faculty, students, and alumni.

At its meeting where the Law School's Board of Governors accepted Dobranski's resignation, it set into motion a formal search process for a new dean and president. In the interim, Milhizer was appointed acting president, in addition to his current duties as acting dean, which he has held since April 2008.

Any speculation on who would take the position of Ave Maria Law dean? What are the odds that Milhizer will be named dean and president 12 months from now after the "formal search process"?

I am appalled by the propaganda out there that tries to show that Dobranski resigned. FUMARE, source of all that Monaghan calls evil (or terrorist -- remember this?), took his little pet hostage and demanded his resignation. Get your facts straight people!

And stop talking about funding being the reason the law school isn't on campus. They couldn't put the law school on campus because of FUMARE.

So far the search teams have scoured every bathroom for an adequate replacement but we may just be stuck with what we've got for now.

UPDATE: I know all of you are waiting with bated breath for the results of the search committee's hunt for a new dean, but look, we at FUMARE (i.e. one of "those blogs" for which AMSOL is quick to blame its maladies) already have our pick in mind. We have demanded that the search committee be formed merely as a public gesture of due diligence in these days of heightened scrutiny. Mono-a-mono, between you and FUMARE, I'll tell you who it's gonna be. shhh! you can't tell anyone, but it's gonna be Milhizer. Keep that under your hat or else FUMARE might change its mind and make it be someone else.

UPDATE 2: And for those of you who read the comments, you might have noticed that the composition of the faculty these days is a function of FUMARE power at its finest. FUMARE hires and fires adjuncts, even before you knew they were adjuncts.

UPDATE 3: I'd like to point out to you dollar-chums that you tried telling Collumcile his post about the dean's resignation was immoral. I don't see any of you whiners apologizing to him for the nasty crap you stuffed in his comment box when he posted it.

UPDATE 4: Several corroborating emails received on the tip line indicate that earlier this year, in May, and in response to the suggestion that the U.S.News law school ranking disaster is FUMARE's bidding (told you), Dean Milhizer (sub nomen appellare FUMARE), wrote a two page report of achievements the law school made in the previous academic year that should, instead of the FUMARE-ruined law school rank, be reported. In the spirit of accommodating our appointee, we list some of those accomplishments here, penned by Milhizer himself to the alumni board:

• [...]
• Hosted a successful commencement.
• [...]
• Received Princeton Review student-based rankings showing Ave Maria tied with University of Chicago as the number 1 ranked law school teaching faculty in the country.
• [...]
• Hosted a ribbon cutting ceremony at the Vineyards campus (with over 100 attendees and favorable press coverage).
• [...]
• Hosted three successful Conversation With Speaker Series in Naples (first two had about 250 attendees, the third with Ted Olson over 500 attendees).
• [...]
• Secured a commencement speaker who reflects the centrality of our mission and the
• integration of faith and reason.

I'll add that the list above were the "tangible accomplishments." The intangibles included building a stronger sense of community.

See... I told you Milhizer is the man.

More to follow.

The resignation of Dobranski was effective for over a year. But most likely for public relations purposes, he remained as titular Dean.

Well no more.

Surprised?

Oh no, especially in lieu of the recent discussions about swimsuit poses, the following package of photos was sent to me to demonstrate that a vile bastion of lewd and indecent picture exchange is occurring in the erstwhile tomato fields.

I only post these here, and much smaller than they appear in the circulated prints, only so that people will believe when I say it is disgusting to see such filth circulating.

UPDATE: here's some text from the e-mail sending these to the FUMARE tip line:

Mr. M had walked over to our dorm and was hanging out and making us feel like he was one of us and a normal guy. He even played ping pong. Later that evening a bunch of us got an email from him with the subject line "most sensual pics 3v3r." These are the attachments.

I really hesitated whether to include this one, but I couldn't believe they'd be into these too:

I've had a post here or there about the health care "reform" topic, but I wanted to see if anyone would recognize something that I saw early on. I said it was an insurance company bailout to help the bankrupt big health companies, like the Hartford, MetLife, and the others who are functionally bankrupt.

But the idea of compulsory, "private option" insurance was already tried. It even had a state funded floor where people who earn less than 3 times the Federal poverty line get state-funded insurance, even dental coverage.

All the features of the national program. Sure, a little different in some minor points, but essentially the same.

In 2006, Republican Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney did it. George Bush praised it (even check out the NPR picture to the right from when Romney announced the fascist health care program). What's scarier is that the Heritage Foundation did, too.

What were they thinking? Oh, I forgot, they can't do any wrong. FOXNews said so.

But wait, all the features they gripe about today, such as a tax penalty for those who are determined to be able to afford health insurance, but didn't buy it, exist in Massachusetts. The Republicans did it.

And Mitt Romney is the likely candidate??? Keep a hand on your wallet because he can take your cash just as fast as Obama.

I guess the point of my posting this, is 1) the Republicans and Obama seem to be alike in many ways; 2) we aren't safe just because the Republicans are in office; and, 3) we have an objective model of this omnibus-type health care reform.

In Mass, they already have Canada like ER conditions, long lines, ridiculous appointment gaps, and a budget shortfall. It's great. Thanks RNC for letting us see that the socialized health system doesn't work. It doesn't work in Mass, it won't work in the U.S.

Where are the FOX fanboys like the wallbanger, O'pithy, and the golfer these days on this topic? Why won't they call out Romney sheer and utter disregard of sense to install a financiers dream? Why is it right for Romney and wrong for Obama?

That's all I want really, is for people to recognize that Obama isn't a progressive - he's a financiers dream team man. In fact, I think it's fair to say that some features of the Obama proposition make more sense than what Romney did.

Given the heat on this debate, I'm wondering what the Catholic position should be in this. I'm not talking about what the Bishops' position should be, or the Peace and Justice office, but rather, based on the principles given to us by the Church's teaching engaged with the current facts and circumstances of our time in the minds of educated lay Catholics, what would be "our" solution to the healthcare crisis?

Here is an excellent debate on Healthcare Reform (part 1).

Marielena's third installment is up here.

This video is in need of a witty caption.

Remember the Danish Mohammed cartoon controversy? Yale University Press is publishing a book about these Danish cartoons which depict Mohammed - but in a stunning display of cowardice, Yale is not including the cartoons in the book. In fact, any depiction of Mohammed is being censored from the book, including depictions from Dore and Dali. NRO has good commentary on this story here, here, and here. What is particularly interesting is that the very thesis of the book written by an author sympathetic to Islam (that the Muslim violence in reaction to the cartoons was not a cultural misunderstanding but localized political conflict) is undermined by the fact that the author and publisher are afraid to publish the pictures.

So, as a matter of principle, I'm going to reprint the cartoons right here.

A religious order accused of heinous crimes and investigated by a temporal authority and is found to have conducted its affairs with duplicity, "hav[ing] had two doctrines, one concealed and reserved for the Masters . . . the other public . . . Thus they deceived the adversaries whom they sought to supplant."

The Pope reluctant to do anything, actually sticks up for the order. Eventually describes the cause of reluctance:

"Because it did not seem likely nor credible that men of such religion who were believed often to shed their blood and frequently expose their persons to the peril of death for Christ's name, and who showed such great and many signs of devotion both in divine offices as well as in fasts, as in other devotional observances, should be so forgetful of their salvation as to do these things, we were unwilling . . . to give ear to this kind of insinuation ... (hujusmodi insinuacioni ac delacioni ipsorum ... aurem noluimus inclinare)." (Edith Starr Miller, Occult Theocracy. Hawthorne, CA; The Christian Book Club of America, 1933, p.51, citing Michelet, Proces des Templiers).

On papal questioning, they admitted under oath that the charges were true. The Pope, however, still refused to take action against the whole Order merely because the Master {founder, prelate, superior} and Brethren {the higher ups} around him had gravely sinned" (Webster, Secret Societies, 54). Instead, he decided to hold a papal commission.

The Knights Templars, as it turned out, had been masters of deception, experts in duplicity, appearing to serve Christ on the surface while actually having nothing to do with religious practice in substance.

Sounds an awful lot like things happening today. Do the people who have difficulty seeing the problems with the Legion of Christ suffer perhaps from the same reluctance of Pope Clement V? Or, is it that they think Holy Church hasn't had her share of frauds throughout her years? Do they think putting a crucifix on the logo makes it automatically safe from error and duplicity?

Read Marielena's second installment here. Some devastating stuff--which we've seen before--from former AMU professor, Dr. Levering.

I had to chuckle when I heard the White House's claim that the outrage expressed by citizens at town hall meetings over Obama's health care plan is "manufactured."

Let's see. Legitimate criticism being dismissed as manufactured outrage? Concerned members of the public labeled as a mob manipulated by a disgruntled minority? A lack of transparency concerning the specific language of the health care bill? Sounds like someone I know. I wonder, has President Obama read Pizza Tiger?

I got a couple emails from alumni board members soliciting questions and concerns. I was at a loss, so I thought I'd make this thread for you to post them directly in the comments. They meet tonight so get posting!

Among other things, I was wondering what happened to the annual report on law school rank and the beat answer I got was that Dean Milhizer was uncomfortable with the dissemination of the lettter in the format presented, which has been standard for years. I may have that wrong, but apparently between the move and the bad rank, people are testy about that letter.