Julian Assange and his "admirable" backers

The Telegraph reports that the folk who stood bail for alleged sex pest Julian Assange have been ordered to stump up £93,500. It seems the judge has treated them rather leniently by reducing the amount they each have to pay and by giving them a month to come up with the money.

The bit that really caught my eye was this:

 Howard Riddle, Chief Magistrate, told Westminster Magistrates’ Court on Monday: “I say immediately that I have real respect for the way that the sureties have conducted themselves in difficult circumstances.
“In declining to publicly (or as far as I know privately) urge Mr Assange to surrender himself they have acted against self-interest.
“They have acted on their beliefs and principles throughout. In what is sometimes considered to be a selfish age, that is admirable.”

So a judicial officer thinks that it's "admirable" to back someone who has broken his bail conditions? I wonder if Howard Riddle would have been so lenient if it had been a common drunk or petty thief who had skipped bail. Somehow I doubt it.

Making the sign of the cross

Here's a snippet of the transcription of a fascinating talk given by Dom Cassian Folsom, prior of the Benedictine Monastry of San Benedetto and well known liturgical scholar:

... I had occasion to talk with a young Greek layman, who pointed out to me that Catholics make the sign of the cross backwards. That's not the most ecumenical way to put it! But there's something behind what he said. You know how the Byzantine tradition makes the sign of the cross: with the thumb, forefinger and middle finger held together and the last two fingers held together against the palm.
The three fingers symbolize the Trinity, and the two fingers symbolized the double nature of Christ: divine and human. Making the sign of the cross then, becomes a mini-catechesis, a self-reminder of the most basic mysteries of our faith.
But the way of holding your fingers is not the only difference. The eastern tradition makes the sign of the cross from right to left, whereas we make it from left to right. Why?
It's interesting to note that in the 13th century, Pope Innocent III (contemporary with St. Francis of Assisi) instructed the faithful on the meaning of the sign of the cross in these words: "The sign of the cross is made with three fingers, because the signing is done together with the invocation of the Trinity. This is how it is done: from above to below, and from the right to the left, because Christ descended from the heavens to the earth, and from the Jews (right) he passed to the Gentiles (left)."
Note that Pope Innocent is describing what the custom was in the West. In the 13th century the East and the West still made the sign of the cross in the same way. The pope goes on to say: "Others, however, make the sign of the cross from the left to the right, because from misery (left) we must cross over to glory (right), just as Christ crossed over from death to life, and from Hades to Paradise. [Some priests] do it this way so that they and the people will be signing themselves in the same way. You can easily verify this - picture the priest facing the people for the blessing - when we make the sign of the cross over the people, it is from left to right."
So the people, imitating the blessing of the priest, began to sign themselves from left to right. Be that as it may, centuries have gone by since then, and we in the West make the sign of the cross from left to right, with the palm open.

The whole, very interesting transcript is here

Hitler's Pope

I've long thought that the myth of Hitler's pope is one of the great slanders of our time. The lies of a few about Venerable Pius XII have encouraged every rag tag Catholic baiter to adopt the "cause" and accusePapa Pacelli of being, at best an anti-Semite, and at worst an active collaborator with Hitler.

The Telegraph today has an article about recently released documents that show the high regard in which Pius XII was held by many Jews:

“While in nearly all the countries of Europe we were persecuted, imprisoned and threatened with death because we belong to the Jewish people and profess the Jewish faith, Your Holiness not only sent notable and generous gifts to our camp through the apostolic nuncio...but also showed your fatherly interest in our physical and spiritual well-being,” they wrote in German.

“(You) intrepidly raised your universally venerated voice against our enemies – still so powerful at that time – to openly support our rights to human dignity.

“When in 1942 we were under the threat of deportation to Poland, Your Holiness extended your fatherly hand to protect us and prevented the deportation of the Jews imprisoned in Italy, thereby saving us from almost certain death.”

Unfortunately, of course, it doesn't matter what is or isn't released because the secularist liars and bigots will continue to peddle their calumny.

You can read the whole article here

Fulton J Sheen

'Nuff said!

A Thread for Weaving Joy

"A Thread for Weaving Joy" is the title of a talk given earlier this week by Philadelphia Archbishop Charles Chaput O.F.M. Cap. to some participants in the March for Life pro-life rally.

Imagine a bishop standing up and expounding Catholic teaching. Imagine a bishop talking about what is required to be a Catholic. The cheek of it!

Catholic public officials who take God seriously cannot support laws that attack human dignity without lying to themselves, misleading others and abusing the faith of their fellow Catholics.  God will demand an accounting.  Catholic doctors who take God seriously cannot do procedures, prescribe drugs or support health policies that attack the sanctity of unborn children or the elderly; or that undermine the dignity of human sexuality and the family.  God will demand an accounting.  And Catholic citizens who take God seriously cannot claim to love their Church, and then ignore her counsel on vital public issues that shape our nation’s life.  God will demand an accounting.

and then there is this:

Evil talks about tolerance only when it’s weak.  When it gains the upper hand, its vanity always requires the destruction of the good and the innocent, because the example of good and innocent lives is an ongoing witness against it.  So it always has been.  So it always will be.

While the speech is was delivered to an American audince, the points the Archbishop makes are equally valid on this side of the Atlantic.

Read the whole thing here.