Intravenous Caffeine

Totally Unfair and Completely Unbalanced

“Argle-Bargle?” I think somebody needs a time-out…

A parody of Scalia's dissent in the DOMA decision--and now your quote from BLAZING SADDLES.


Justice Antonin Scalia has been known for use of “original intent” arguments in his decisions on the Supreme Court. Recently, he thrilled linguistic historians by his stunning use of the term “Argle-Bargle” in his dissent while discussing the merits of the opposing decision in the DOMA case. We asked Justice Scalia how he always seemed confident that he knew the intent of the Founders, even on issues that had not even arisen in 1787.

“Why, that’s simple. I use a OUIJA Board.”

“Justice Scalia–you, a Catholic, using a Ouija Board? Isn’t that rather paradoxical?”

“Why not at all, even the Pope comes to me for advice. Well, he did, until this Latino guy–imagine, the Catholic Church looking out for the poor and disadvantaged … it’s un-Christian!”

“But still–I’d always heard that use of oracles was rather heterodox.”

“Well, it might be,” Scalia allowed, “if I actually believed in it. But I usually push the planchet around to the answer I want anyway, so it doesn’t count.”

“Are you the only sitting justice who uses a method like this?”

“The only one who uses a Ouija Board. Justice Thomas doesn’t have to–he’s the re-incarnation of an 18th century Capuchin monk.”

“Is that why he’s always so quiet on the bench?”

“Yup,” said Nino. “Vow of silence. He’ll be a great wife now that we have to get gay-married.”

[] [Digg] [Facebook] [Mixx] [Reddit] [StumbleUpon] [Technorati] [Twitter] [Buzz] [Email]

Black Smoke, White Smoke

On the other hand, perhaps it was a good idea not getting the Vienna Boys' Choir to perform for the conclave...

The Vienna Boys' Choir was rather thrilled at the exclusion

With the retirement of Pope Benedict, following the example of the Emperor Diocletian and going off to tend a vegetable garden, the Catholic Church is at a crossroads again–namely, how to look like they’re dealing with the problem of priestly and episcopal pederasty while selecting in the conclave of the College of Cardinals a colleague who tacitly condoned the problem by doing nothing about it. One thing for certain–he will be from the conservative wing of the Church in order to complete the return of Catholicism to the 19th century after Vatican II dragged it, protesting and screaming, into the 20th century. Ahhh, decisions, decisions. God forbid we have another Pope like John XXIII who’d actually done things like save Jews in the Holocaust, visit a prison on the 2nd day of his Papacy, and had a predilection for sneaking out of the Vatican to talk to people and find out what they thought.

Father Roncalli (John’s real name) was no saint–and won’t be if the Church has anything to say about it. But he was probably the closest pope to one in the last few centuries. His stance to pederasty was pretty clear–and at the same time muddled. On the one hand, he expressly taught that those seminarians who showed a tendency to homosexuality and pederasty were to be barred from ordination. That was back in 1961 and the world’s attitude about homosexuality has been thoroughly revised. Given the misunderstanding of the time, the connection between the two is understandable since the greater bulk of priestly crimes of this type have been with boys rather than girls.

On the other hand, there is a document from 1962 issued under Pope John’s seal that instructs that the investigation of cases involving “‘worst crime’, described as an obscene act perpetrated by a cleric with ‘youths of either sex or with brute animals (bestiality)’” to be dealt with in absolute secrecy. While the penalties for priests involve suspension from celebration of the sacraments through defrocking, (which are not mentioned in the news article but can be found in the linked pdf) nonetheless, there you have the paradox in a nutshell. The horrible nature of the crime is admitted, yet the door is opened to the cover-ups that have exploded in the last 20 years.

My bet is that if John XXIII knew how his instructions would be used to justify the cover-ups, he would have made sure that the cover-up of crimes was dealt with with equal severity. At least, one hopes.

PS: I hate Daylight Saving Time.

[] [Digg] [Facebook] [Mixx] [Reddit] [StumbleUpon] [Technorati] [Twitter] [Buzz] [Email]

What did the Pope’s Nose and when did he nose it?

Pope Benedict has nothing to say about the abuse that occurred under his brother's watch.

Sergeant Schultzinger...

Whenever a coverup starts getting uncovered, the big question that always arises is about the boy at the top. OK Girl at the top too, corruption is an equal opportunity employer. The question is, “What did they know and when did they know it?” In other words, were they involved in the coverup, or were they just clueless schmucks. Warren G. Harding was a clueless schmuck. He let his people organize Teapot Dome AND let them talk him into appointing just the right people to look the other way without any idea that these guys were not just great guys to have a poker game with. Richard Nixon, on the other hand, knew a lot about the Watergate break-in from the moment the “plumbers” were arrested and they were arrested doing a job that he’d authorized in principle.

So we come to the Church and its seemingly endless abuse scandal. Seemingly endless because although the cases of abuse are all relatively recent, there’s no way of knowing just how far back this abuse had been part of the Church under-culture. Certainly Catholic schools always had the reputation of “beating kids into shape,” but before the 20th C, it was generally accepted as a given that some kids needed “molding” in that manner and that all kids stood to need a whuppin’ now and then just to remind them of their place. But we’ve pretty much abandoned that in Western society for some time now. And the abuse we’re talking about is not just physical punishment, but sexual abuse as well.

Anyway, for the last few years it seems that every time you turn around, another country has uncovered physical and sexual abuse carried out by priests, nuns, brothers, teachers, etc.. And finally it has hit Germany, where the Pope Benedict was a bishop and later cardinal and where his brother Georg Raztinger directed a choir for a good 20 years, and guess what? Allegations of abuse has rizz! Not about Georg, who seems to have done nothing untoward except slap the boys around a bit, but who, of course, had no idea that any sexual abuse was going on by his subordinates.

And naturally, brother Joseph, now Pope B, had no idea of it either, nor of abuse going on in his diocese, even though he’d issued a directive to treat these cases with “confidentiality.” I guess confidentiality includes not telling your boss something smells under the woodwork. Right now, Irish bookmakers have sliced the odds against his early retirement.

Now, the rather conservative Cardinal Schönborn has suggested that in light of these scandals, perhaps it’s time to examine the celibacy rule. The Vatican says no, nothing to do with it. While I normally hate to agree with the Vatican, it’s undoubtedly true that priests aren’t abusing children because they can’t get any in a normal fashion. A molester is a predator who tries to get into a position of trust and power IN ORDER to abuse it. There are probably as many abusers outside the Church as in–it’s the hypocrisy of the ones inside of it that makes this such a scandal.

However, the Cardinal is right in a more roundabout way. Right now, no one with normal sexual urges wants to become a priest. That cuts out a big swath of your non-insane employment pool. The eastern churches have married priests, the Roman church only adopted celibacy as a requirement in their holier-than-thou Middle Ages. And they knocked that requirement off for eastern and Anglican churches that re-established communion with Rome.

But if it does happen, it ain’t gonna happen soon. And I don’t think that Joe Ratzinger will resign either–if he weathered the Hitler Youth problem, the scandal has gotta get closer to home than a bunch of maybes.

[] [Digg] [Facebook] [Mixx] [Reddit] [StumbleUpon] [Technorati] [Twitter] [Buzz] [Email]


Pope Benedict announces the shocking pre-decease canonization of Barack Obama!

Let's all put our hands together for the new saint!

(SNN) ROME– In an incredible followup to this morning’s announcement of Barack Obama’s Nobel Prize, Pope Benedict conferred canonization upon him as well. “Today, Divine Wisdom allows us to gather around his altar with praise and thanksgiving for the grace granted to us in the canonization of President Barack Obama,” said the pontiff. The pope addressed the unusual circumstances of this elevation: “While Barack Obama has not yet performed the requisite three miracles, he has offered the world hope after the idiocy of his predecessor. He has furthermore shown so much promise that we cannot believe but that an abundance of miracles will flow.” While saints usually come from within the Catholic faith, the Pope said, “The consecration of someone who may have once been a Muslim and even now is only a Protestant heretic is a sign of the ecumenism that the Church is supposed to show.” Pope Benedict continued, “The canonization of one who isn’t dead yet demonstrates the commitment of the Church to modernization in its abandonment of mortuist prejudice.” The announcement was met with cries of “Possumus! Possumus!” Yes, we can in the ancient language of Rome.
The White House was unavailable for comment.

[] [Digg] [Facebook] [Mixx] [Reddit] [StumbleUpon] [Technorati] [Twitter] [Buzz] [Email]

© 2009-2018 Gregory Uchrin, Intravenous Caffeine All Rights Reserved -- Copyright notice by Blog Copyright