I love Mexico City. There are so many interesting and classy neighborhoods, with high-end shopping districts to rival any great city in the world. Exquisite restaurants, and polished art galleries are to found there. The feeling that many Americans seem to have that it is somehow a blighted place is just not realistic. Many parts of the D.F. look ten times better than most American cities. It speaks of the intelligence and developed sense- of- life that is found there. The recent action to liberalize marriage laws is entirely consistent with these facts. The Catholic Church there however is quite retrograde, as the Cardinal's comments evince. What a shame because many very enlightened Mexicans are still very fond of their Church.

Norberto Rivera is the Cardinal who helped the Rev. Nicolás Aguilar escape sexual abuse allegations. The Cardinal's opinions of what is "inherently immoral" are of entertainment value, only.

Dana,

That comment was like a sharp arrow hitting a bulls-eye!

Peter

Oh what a delightful thing to see that Natural Law is being supported in Mexico by stalwarts like this Cardinal. We are not doing so badly here at home, either. I have decided to change my objective a bit. We may be losing the culture war, and the judicial battle, but we are going to ratchet things up, and at least make our point shine. I have set my employee Tom to work on this. Some might feel that he is being forced to reach a demented nadir of self loathing. But I call it Divine inspiration. He came up with this marvelous comparison apropos an article by a lesbian in the NCR, as a comparison to so-called gay love and commitment:

"Let’s take for an example a male rapist. As a Christian, Graham should agree with me that we must love the man as a person (”Love the sinner”), but I’d be truly shocked to find out that Graham loves his sin of raping. I’d also be shocked if she says we should simply tolerate this man’s propensity to rape people. Therefore she does not “love” his sin. She, in fact, must hate it, because it is evil. Rape hurts the victim, and the rapist is also guilty of a grave sin. No one wins (even if the rapist thinks he loves raping)."

I know liberals and all those "compassionate" types will consider Tom's rhetoric a very cruel depth towards which a person is forced by an implacable ambitious father, and family that apparently doesn'tt care if he manifests severe psychological disintegration. But I choose to call it inspiration. He is doing a great job for us, and I am going to take him out to Applebee's to thank him for his hard work.

Professor Robert Georgeous,

Projected American Principles, Inc.

Professor Georgeous, is the employer-employee relationship you have with Tom what the average person would consider consensual?

Camille, that is hardly the kind of question a gentleman would answer in public. Or in private for that matter.

Our relationship is of course utterly consistent with Natural Law. More, it is even Aristotelian, the way form gives it to matter.

Dear Wallis Simpson,

Your astute comment made me think of the period in my second year at the Sulpician-run seminary Theological College at the Catholic University of America, when reporters from the National Catholic Reporter arrived to do an investigative story
about Theological College. When they published that story it contained a number of observations, many based on candid comments by seminarians which were embarrassing to the Administration, some of which had to do with sex. The Rector immediately disputed the findings, and the NCR wanted to continue the dispute in some way to prove their original contentions. One afternoon we were roused out of our rooms in an emergency fashion and summoned for a special meeting with the Rector Larry Terrien, whom Michael Sean Winters often referred to as "that big girl". Larry Terrien began a surreal ramble about how damaging the whole thing was, and how being a priest was about protecting the Church and that we had better understand that. There nothing inexplicit about the sacred call to casuistry and mental reservation. To cement his point he made the final point, which is what reminded me of you comment: "They don't have the right to the wrong information; and they don't have the right to the right information either!"

No surprise that with this diplomatic dexterity Mr. Terrien became the head of all the Sulpicians worldwide. Of course the Sulpicians are THE seminary trainers of priests all around the world. So this is why I can say with confidence that I have heard explicitly from the horse's mouth the call to fraudulence and prevarication that priests are to be EXPLICITLY trained in.

On a philosophical note, let it be noted that this is so different from the principled reserve of information to protect virtue. We live in a nasty world in many ways, and sometimes realistically the only way to protect virtue is by not saying things. But that is different from the mere costuming of fraudulence and vice.
I heard it from the Sulpician's mouth!

The reserve of information to protect virtue is rarely principled dear Peter. For the courtesan, the diplomat or the journalist such reserve has a Machiavellian dimension. Secrets are closely guarded to establish trust and a “tight as thieves” sort of spirit. Rarely these secrets are revealed for the pursuit of power. But when this is done it is managed in such a way that the one who's trust is betrayed believes the revelation to be inevitable, and that its being revealed in a particular manner by this particular person will either result in a positive outcome or will result in the least possible harm.

Inexperience or lack of skill, though, sometimes leads to poorly timed or artlessly crafted revelations. Consider how Robert Novak ended Valerie Plame's career with the CIA, for instance. The purpose was to discredit her husband, but instead it discredited the writer and administration.

I adore your naïveté Peter.

Dear Wallis,

Specifically, as to your last sentence: Thanks, I have been working hard to craft it.

Peter.

Yes, I know Peter. I have been watching you from afar.

Dear Wallis,

As long as you don't own a gym! Off to the Super-Max!

Peter

Are you saying that you would not like to tread my mill Peter?

Sorry to be cryptic, but it is important that you did NOT understand my reference!

Cheers!

Peter

Perhaps you would prefer to flex my bow then?

I am much too much a gentleman, and a scholar for that -- and too old in any event! --
but I appreciate the offer!