I get mail only tangentially related to Zardoz...

After I agreed with Robert Novak about the Repansycan crackup,


Eddie said...
Population control? We already have abortion slaughter in America. What, since I am the youngest of five children, I should have never been born and should have never become the productive, tax paying, law abiding citizen that I am?


Eddie, Eddie, Eddie.

They don't want people like you to live. You're capable of independent thought. They only want sheep who'll bleat when the establishment (Which is just as much Repansycan as it is Democrass, kiddies.) says "Bleat!". Hence their death grip on the government schools and their hatred of the Catholic schools and home schooling.

Sheeple are the future baby. Time to get on all fours and thank Big Babykilling, Big Sodomy, Big Masturbation, and Big Et Al. for the gifts they so graciously bestow.

Hey, girls! Need another reason not to give your boyfriend a Clinton?

Women's are cleaner than men's

Why the oral fixation, Fyodor?

Because
Half Of Teens Over 15 Have Had Oral Sex

More from KPVI in Pocatello.

I went to the KPVI site hoping to confirm the 'net rumor I just started (just this second) that Scott Stevens (No, not that Scott Stevens. This Scott Stevens.) got his meteorological education in Grenada, but all I found was a couple of hopefuls (strictly AA talent) for the title of Hottest TV News Babe.

Above, from left to right, are Tammy Scardino, Brenda Baumgartner, and Sarah Dallof.

BTW, Sarah is expressing her solidarity with Scott's crusade by wearing her hair in a style called The Tinfoil Hat, which is all the rage in Pocatello's better precincts.

Non-crazy TV weatherman from Idaho quits to pursue his non-crazy Yakuza-caused-Katrina-with-Russian-help-in-revenge-for-Hiroshima theory.

Can you spot the weatherman, kiddies?


From the Idaho State Journal in Pocatello comes a story of Yakuza revenge, Russian perfidy and the courageous weatherman who will now dedicate his life to telling everyone who will listen.

So pull your aluminum foil hats tight over your skulls, kiddies, duct tape the windows, and sing really, really, loudly so the chip in your buttocks cannot hear, because Scott Stevens knows the truth is out there.


To the rest of the country, Scott Stevens is the Idaho weatherman who blames the Japanese Mafia for Hurricane Katrina. To folks in Pocatello, he's the face of the weather at KPVI News Channel 6.

The Pocatello native made his final Channel 6 forecast Thursday night, leaving a job he's held for nine years in order to pursue his weather theories on a full-time basis.

"I'm going to miss that broadcast, but I'm not going to miss not getting home until 11 p.m.," Stevens said. "I just don't have the hours of the day to take care of my research and getting those (broadcasts) out and devoting the necessary research to the station."

It was Stevens' decision to leave the TV station, said KPVI general manager Bill Fouch.

"When Scott signed his current contract, he told Brenda and me at the time that it would be his last contract," Fouch said Thursday. "We knew, but the timetable moved up because of all the attention (he's been getting.)"

Instant translation: Thank goodness that crank is leaving. People were starting to pay attention.

Since Katrina, Stevens has been in newspapers across the country where he was quoted in an Associated Press story as saying the Yakuza Mafia used a Russian-made electromagnetic generator to cause Hurricane Katrina in a bid to avenge the atomic bomb attack on Hiroshima. He was a guest on Coast to Coast, a late night radio show that conducts call-in discussions on everything from bizarre weather patterns to alien abductions. On Wednesday, Stevens was interviewed by Fox News firebrand Bill O'Reilly.

Electromagnetic waves can make you see "ghosts". Seriously.

Stevens said he received 30 requests to do radio interviews on Thursday alone.

Fouch said Stevens wanted to leave as quickly as possible because his "plate is full," and he needs to take advantage of the opportunities that exist now.

But his head is so empty.

Stevens said he's received offers that he's not at liberty to discuss.

Here's a Fyodor Exclusive: He's going to be Errol Flynn's stunt double in the boffo box-office blockbuster Captain Blood.

Stevens, 39, who was born in Twin Falls (Wow. That is so close to Twin Peaks. In a spelling bee kind of way. - F.G.) , plans to remain in Pocatello, where his family remains. He said his family wishes him the best in his future endeavors.

It costs him hundreds of dollars each month to run his Web site, weatherwars.info, but he said that's a price he's willing to pay.

"There's a chess game going on in the sky," Stevens said. "It affects each and every one of us. It is the one common thread that binds us all together."

Golly, I thought it was our monkey ancestors. Steven Hawking, call your office.

Although the theories espoused by Stevens - scalar weapons, global dimming - are definitely on the scientific fringe today, there are thousands of Web sites that mention such phenomena.

"The Soviets boasted of their geoengineering capabilities; (They also claimed to be able to grow wheat. - F.G.) these impressive accomplishments must be taken at face value simply because we are observing weather events that simply have never occurred before, never!" Stevens wrote on his Web site. "The evidence of these weapons at work found within the clouds overhead is simply unmistakable. These patterns and odd geometric shapes seen in our skies, each and every day, are clear and present evidence that our weather has been stolen from us, only to be used by those whose designs for humanity are rarely in alignment with that of the common man."

However, Stevens never discussed his weather theories on the air during his time at Channel 6 - an agreement he had with the station management. What the meteorologist chose to do in his off time was his business, said his manager of eight years.

Fouch said he would miss Stevens, whom he described as energetic, easy-going and enthusiastic about the weather, but he is supportive of his decision to pursue his passion.

"His theories are his theories," Fouch said. "But, if you think about it - of all the TV weather people, he continues to be the most accurate. It isn't his theories getting involved with his professional job."

For Stevens, however, the recent attention to his theories has been somewhat of a distraction from work.

"When there has been so much attention, it gets in the way of them doing their jobs and me doing my job," Stevens said.

Find out more:
To learn more about Stevens and his thoughts on manipulated weather, go to www.journalnet.com/articles/2005/03/06/opinion/opinion04.txt to read the story that Journal City Editor Greg McReynolds wrote about Stevens in March.

President Bush: Clinton Weakness Led to 9/11

It's about freakin' time! As well as too little, too late.

Read NewsMax.com, because you won't see this story elsewhere.

President Bush fired back at ex-president Clinton on Thursday, saying the weak U.S. response to terrorist attacks that took place mostly during the Clinton administration encouraged al Qaida to launch the 9/11 attacks.

"The terrorists saw our response to the hostage crisis in Iran, the bombings in the Marine barracks in Lebanon, the first World Trade Center attack, the killing of American soldiers in Somalia, the destruction of two U.S. embassies in Africa and the attack on the USS Cole," Bush noted, after getting an update on the war on terror at the Pentagon.

"The terrorists concluded that we lacked the courage and character to defend ourselves and so they attacked us," the president added, in quotes picked up by United Press International.

Pro Football Picks of the Week.

1) The guys who set the lines are professionals. Their job is to make each game look as attractive as possible to everyone. That way they even out the amount of money bet on each side.
Instant translation: The house wins no matter who wins. That's why people get into the gambling business.

2) I am just a fan. I won't even keep track of these picks week to week if it gets too embarrassing.

3) There is no such thing as "inside information". Especially in the pros.

4) If those idiot touts on tv and in the paper were that good, they wouldn't go public with their genius. They'd sit at Harrah's sports book from open to close and then go out and buy $2,000 an hour hookers who dress like high school girls.

5) Gambling is stupid. You cannot win.

That being said, here are my NFL picks for this week.


Sunday 9/25

Atlanta (+1) at Buffalo
Vick banged up, but Buffalo is not playing well. Pick Buffalo if you must.
FINAL: Falcons 24 Bills 16 - Fyodor loses! (That's why they call it gambling.)


Carolina (-3) at Miami
Up and down Dolphins are up this week. Miami by 7.
FINAL: Miami 27 Carolina 24 - Fyodor wins!


Cincinnati (-3) at Chicago
Somebody knows something about the Bears. I'm taking Cincy.
FINAL: Bengals 24 Bears 7 - Fyodor wins!


Cleveland (+14) at Indianapolis
Take Cleveland and the points. I don't think Indy's offense is on track yet.
FINAL: Colts 13 Browns 6 - Fyodor wins! (Boo-ya!)



Jacksonville (+2.5) at Jets
Leftwich (Him again!) is banged up and doesn't play well on the road even when healthy. Take the J-E-T-S, JETS! JETS! JETS!
FINAL: Jaguars 26 Jets 20 - Fyodor loses! (What was I thinking?)



New Orleans (+3.5) at Minnesota
Logic says Minnesota is better than they're playing. Screw logic and take New Orleans.
FINAL: Vikings 33 Saints 16 - Fyodor loses! (Memo To Self: Don't underestimate logic.)



Oakland (+8) at Philadelphia
Raiders and Eagles are both over rated. Eagles are less so and will cover.
FINAL: Eagles 23 Raiders 20 - Fyodor loses! (Where's the offense, Coach Reid?)


Tampa Bay (-3.5) at Green Bay
Green Bay is bad. (A home dog!) Take the Bucs.
FINAL: Bucs 17 Packers 16 - Fyodor loses! (This one hurts. N.B. Bucs played to the level of their competition.)



Tennessee (+6.5) at St. Louis
Rams have some semblance of an offense, so take them to cover.
FINAL: Rams 31 Titans 27 - Fyodor loses! (That's why they call it gambling.)



Arizona (+6) at Seattle
Here lies the Crappy Game of the Week. I'll go with Seattle, but without enthusiasm.
FINAL: Seahawks 37 Cardinals 12 - Fyodor wins! (All pile on the trainwreck that is the Denny "Babykiller" Green coached Cards!)



Dallas (-6.5) at San Francisco
Boring. Dallas covers just because.
FINAL: Cowboys 34 49ers 31 - Fyodor loses! (Well, you see, it was like this...Oh, never mind.)


New England (+3) at Pittsburgh
Ben's streak comes to an end. New England covers and wins, setting up the Steelers for a big revenge game in the playoffs. (Not exactly an original thought, I know.)
FINAL: Pats 23 Steelers 20 - Fyodor wins! (A joyless gambling victory. Memo To Coach Cowher: Your offense cannot play against decent defenses.)


Giants (+6) at San Diego
Chargers have been killing me. I'm a glutton for punishment. Chargers win by 10+.
FINAL: Chargers 45 Giants 23 - Fyodor wins! (Yes! But beware of over-confidence, kiddies.)


Monday 9/26


Kansas City (+3) at Denver
Jake Plummer comes up small. Take the Chiefs.
FINAL: Broncos 30 Chiefs 10 - Fyodor loses! (Sorry, Jake. You are the greatest QB ever.)

I may start using a classic Fyodor picking system out of the faraway past for next week's games. It's called the "Tagliabue 8 System", and it works like this:

Since the league wants every team to go 8 and 8, simply pick against the teams that were hot last week. In the infernal words of Al Gore, "Everything that should be up is down. Everything that should be down is up."

College Football Picks of the Week.

1) The guys who set the lines are professionals. Their job is to make each game look as attractive as possible to everyone. That way they even out the amount of money bet on each side.
Instant translation: The house wins no matter who wins. That's why people get into the gambling business.

2) I am just a fan. I won't even keep track of these picks week to week if it gets too embarrassing.

3) There is no such thing as "inside information". Especially in the pros.

4) If those idiot touts on tv and in the paper were that good, they wouldn't go public with their genius. They'd sit at Harrah's sports book from open to close and then go out and buy $2,000 an hour hookers who dress like high school girls.

5) Gambling is stupid. You cannot win.

That being said, here are my college picks for this week.


Saturday 9/24

Penn State (-8) at Northwestern
Northwestern is really bad again. PSU has found some offense. Pick PSU.
FINAL: PSU 34 Northwestern 29 - Fyodor loses! (State fans better hope they play Illinois 4 or 5 times this year.)


Purdue (+ 3.5) at Minnesota
Purdue is probably a better team, but take the Gophers at home.
FINAL: Minnesota 42 Purdue 35 - Fyodor wins!


Iowa (+7) at Ohio State
Ohio State wins big. Take the Buckeyes.
FINAL: OSU 31 Iowa 6 - Fyodor wins!


Colorado (+14) at Miami
Miami will start playing like Miami soon. I'll bet this is the week. 'Canes easily cover.
FINAL: Miami 23 Colorado 3 - Fyodor wins!


Boston College (+2.5) at Clemson
Clemson won't be happy after last week's loss to Miami. BC's offense looks bad. Take Clemson.
FINAL: BC 16 Clemson 13 - Fyodor loses! (I don't mind. A good win for the Eagles.)


Georgia Tech (+11.5) at Virginia Tech
Tech is good, but Tech is very good. Go with the Hokies to cover at home.
FINAL : VA Tech 51 GA Tech 7 - Fyodor wins!



Notre Dame (-13.5) at Washington
1) Washington stinks. 2) Irish offense looked good last week. 3) Irish defense looked pathetic. 4) Did I mention the Huskies stink? 5) Irish'll cover.
FINAL: ND 36 Washington 17 - Fyodor wins! (ND will lose to any team with a good passing attack.)


Louisville (-20.5) at South Florida
Louisville has the offense. Pick 'em to cover on the road.
FINAL: South Florida 45 Louisville 14 - Fyodor loses! (Oops. I guess Louisville isn't that good.)



USC (-21) at Oregon
I've been avoiding the Trojans. No more. This is their first "tough" game of the year. Take USC to cover.
FINAL: USC 45 Oregon 13 - Fyodor wins! (They play half a game and still cover. Look out, ASU!)


Michigan (-2.5) at Wisconsin
Take Wisconsin to upset the Wolverines in Madison. (Well, at least to keep it under 2.5. (Hunch #1)
FINAL: Wisconsin 23 Michigan 20 - Fyodor wins! (Barry Alvarez finally comes through for Your Humble Servant. He should retire today.)


Wyoming (+2.5) at Mississippi
Another hunch. (#2) Pick Wyoming.
FINAL: Wyoming 24 Mississippi 14 - Fyodor wins! (Hunches rule!)


New Mexico (+2.5) at Texas El Paso
I've seen both teams play twice. I think UTEP can cover. Therefore, I'm going with New Mexico. Let's see how Contrarianism works.
FINAL: UTEP 21 NM 13 - Fyodor loses! (What was I thinking?)


Georgia (-15.5) at Mississippi State
Battle of the Bulldogs. Mississippi State should (Gambler's cop out #1.)keep it closer than 15.5.
FINAL: Georgia 23 Mississippi St. 10 - Fyodor wins! (Now that's what I call gambling!)


Arizona State (-7) at Oregon State
ASU will cover. Sun Devils by 12 is more likely.
FINAL: ASU 42 Oregon St. 24 - Fyodor wins!

Fyodor goes to the fair with the local peasantry.

In my town, we close Main Street for a week every September and hold the oldest and largest continuously celebrated street fair in the country.

Just like in stories nobody reads anymore, there are games, food, competitions, and rides for the kiddies, kiddies. The weather this year has been fantastic, and that has brought out the crowds in what appears to be record numbers.

The only discordant note? The champion Strangest Looking Gourd looked like some dirt worshipper's worst post- TMI nightmare.

!@##%&@*#! social obligations.

I have just been reminded I will not be able to view the Steelers - Patriots game in HD due to an inescapable engagement.

But I do have good news.

Maybe.

I might be able to sneak off to watch some of it on regular tv.

Another unsolicited endorsement for which Fyodor is not compensated.

There is nothing quite like a watermelon flavored Jolly Rancher hard candy.

Ginsburg the treasonous cow is more ignorant than previously thought...

...and believe me, kiddies, I thought she was awfully ignorant from the get go.

What makes this Supreme flatulence worse? She said it in public. If she lives long enough, I see her being the first SCOTUS justice doing commercials. Dancing across our tv screens in a pair of Depends.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg told an audience Wednesday that she doesn't like the idea of being the only female justice on the Supreme Court. But in choosing to fill one of the two open positions on the court, "any woman will not do," she said.

A ferret in a pants suit could do a better job than you, moron.

There are "some women who might be appointed who would not advance human rights or women's rights," Ginsburg told those gathered at the New York City Bar Association.

The retirement of Ginsburg's colleague Sandra Day O'Connor has fueled speculation about whether President Bush will nominate a woman to her position.

Federal Judge John G. Roberts originally was Bush's nominee for O'Connor's seat but now is facing a Senate vote on the job of chief justice, a position left vacant after the death of William H. Rehnquist.

Ginsburg stressed that the president should appoint a "fine jurist," adding that there are many women who fit that description.

"I have a list of highly qualified women, but the president has not consulted me," she added during a brief interview Wednesday night.

She thinks that's funny.

Ginsburg arrived in New York to attend an annual lecture named in her honor. The lecture's focus is on women and the law.

This year, Mary Robinson, former president of Ireland, delivered it, while Ginsburg participated in a question-and-answer session afterward.

During the session, which was attended by hundreds, Ginsburg defended some of the justices' references to laws in other countries when making decisions, a practice strongly opposed by some U.S. legislators. The justice said using foreign sources does not mean giving them superior status in deciding cases.

Here comes the treasonous part.

"I will take enlightenment wherever I can get it," she said. "I don't want to stop at a national boundary."

You may be the most endarkened female in history, you ACLU commie clown.

May God have mercy on your black, bloody soul. You're goning to need it. Big time.

When reminded that Roberts has indicated he disagrees with the practice of referring to foreign laws, Ginsburg said it appeared he "is a man who does listen and is willing to learn."

If he listens to you, O Queen of Totalitarian Matrons, he's an even bigger fool than I think he is.

Leavander Johnson, Requiescat in pace.

Mr.Johnson lost his last battle yesterday. I don't know much about him. I don't think I ever saw him fight. I just think he should be remembered. (Thanks to ESPN.comfor the heads up.)

Leavander Johnson chased riches and glory in the ring for the better part of 16 years. He had to travel to Italy to become a champion, but finally had a belt around his waist and hope for his boxing future.

It all fell apart in less than an hour inside a hotel arena on the glittering Las Vegas Strip. First, Johnson lost his lightweight title. Then, he lost his life.

The 35-year-old died Thursday at a local hospital, five days after he was rushed from his dressing room at the MGM Grand hotel-casino with bleeding on the brain.

Doctors moved quickly to try to save his life, rushing him into surgery within 40 minutes from the time he began staggering on his way from the ring. But the injury to his brain was so severe that this was one fight Johnson was not going to win.

"If there's any solace to be taken in this, it's that he died doing what he loved," said Lou DiBella, Johnson's promoter. "He died a champion."

Doctors said there was little they could do after Johnson stopped responding to treatment. His surgeon estimated only one in four people with subdural hematomas like Johnson survive.

"We had no further mode to improve his prognosis, so the family very correctly made the decision to withdraw care," Dr. William Smith said. "He passed away very peacefully."

Johnson was making his first defense as a champion when he entered the ring Saturday night to take on Jesus Chavez. He came in with the IBF belt around his waist, and with the newfound confidence that he was a champion boxer.

Johnson had been a pro since 1989, and before that had more than 100 fights as an amateur. But he was a journeyman fighter at best, losing three times in title fights during his career and seemingly on a career path to nowhere.

He had won only three of his last six fights when DiBella managed to get him a fight for the vacant IBF lightweight title. He had to go to Italy and fight a hometown favorite in Stefano Zoff, but he somehow managed to knock him out in the seventh round to win the crown.

"I've never seen anybody so proud or so grateful to achieve his dream," DiBella said.

Amen to that, Brother.

It didn't take long for Chavez to shatter that dream. Johnson was making $150,000 for the fight, his biggest payday ever, but Chavez gave him a beating -- landing more than 400 punches, many to the head.

The fight ended 38 seconds into the 11th round when Chavez landed some two dozen unanswered punches, prompting referee Tony Weeks to halt the fight. A ring doctor examined Johnson, who said he was OK.

"I'm just sad and disappointed," Johnson said.

Johnson left the ring upright, but began having trouble walking on his way to the dressing room. He was quickly put in an ambulance and, by a stroke of luck, a neurosurgeon was at the hospital when he arrived and he was rushed to surgery.

By then, swelling on the outer lining of his brain had forced his brain from one side of his skull to the other. Doctors put him in a medically induced coma but weren't sure he would live through the night.

He had another operation Monday to remove a blood clot, but his kidneys began shutting down and his heart finally stopped working on its own. Family members decided it was time to take him off life support and he died late Thursday afternoon at University Medical Center.

DiBella said Johnson's family members were present when he died. Johnson's father was his trainer and his brother was his manager.

It's one heck of a way to earn a living, boxing is. May God bless and protect the men who chose it.

"There'll be a lot of people who'll take pokes at boxing for this. We can be better for protecting our athletes. But this was not a situation where anyone failed Leavander Johnson," said DiBella, who knew Johnson for more than 10 years. "It was just God's will. It's a sport that's inherently dangerous."

True enough.

Smith said it was not clear whether one punch or an accumulation of punches caused the injury. He said doctors also don't know for sure whether fighters who take a lot of punches during their career are more susceptible to brain damage.

"It's a tough question to answer 100 percent. Certainly, some evidence suggests repeated blows over time will make a person able to resist a major injury less well," Smith said. "His reserves for recovering from this were much less than had he never had taken the blows over time."

Johnson's opponent, meanwhile, said he would contribute a portion of his future purses to a fund for Johnson's four children.

Amen to that, Brother.

"All of my prayers are with Leavander Johnson and his family in this difficult time," Chavez said. "He was a true warrior with a tremendous heart, and every day I will think of him and say a prayer for him. He will never be forgotten."

May God have mercy on all souls.

Hurricanes and the problem of evil.

Pray for those in the path of Hurricane Rita. Pray for those still suffering from the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

Please do not pay attention to those who say God is visiting evil upon us.

As a public service, I present the following article on the problem of evil from The Catholic Encyclopedia. If you want to cheat by skipping to the end and reading what St. Thomas Aquinas has to say on the subject, (His Summa is the Summa for a reason, kiddies.) go right ahead. All you need is right there.

[The Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas, Second and Revised Edition, 1920. Literally translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province. Online Edition Copyright © 2003 by Kevin Knight

Nihil Obstat. F. Innocentius Apap, O.P., S.T.M., Censor. Theol.
Imprimatur. Edus. Canonicus Surmont, Vicarius Generalis. Westmonasterii.

APPROBATIO ORDINIS
Nihil Obstat. F. Raphael Moss, O.P., S.T.L. and F. Leo Moore, O.P., S.T.L.
Imprimatur. F. Beda Jarrett, O.P., S.T.L., A.M., Prior Provincialis Angliæ]

WARNING: This article contains real Philosophy and her sister, Theology. It requires you to posess at least a modicum of intelligence. But more importantly, it requires you to think.

Evil, in a large sense, may be described as the sum of the opposition, which experience shows to exist in the universe, to the desires and needs of individuals; whence arises, among humans beings at least, the sufferings in which life abounds. Thus evil, from the point of view of human welfare, is what ought not to exist. Nevertheless, there is no department of human life in which its presence is not felt; and the discrepancy between what is and what ought to be has always called for explanation in the account which mankind has sought to give of itself and its surroundings. For this purpose it is necessary (1) to define the precise nature of the principle that imparts the character of evil to so great a variety of circumstances, and (2) to ascertain, as far as may be possible, to source from which it arises.

With regard to the nature of evil, it should be observed that evil is of three kinds -- physical, moral, and metaphysical. Physical evil includes all that causes harm to man, whether by bodily injury, by thwarting his natural desires, or by preventing the full development of his powers, either in the order of nature directly, or through the various social conditions under which mankind naturally exists. Physical evils directly due to nature are sickness, accident, death, etc. Poverty, oppression, and some forms of disease are instances of evil arising from imperfect social organization. Mental suffering, such as anxiety, disappointment, and remorse, and the limitation of intelligence which prevents humans beings from attaining to the full comprehension of their environment, are congenital forms of evil each vary in character and degree according to natural disposition and social circumstances.

By moral evil are understood the deviation of human volition from the prescriptions of the moral order and the action which results from that deviation. Such action, when it proceeds solely from ignorance, is not to be classed as moral evil, which is properly restricted to the motions of will towards ends of which the conscience disapproves. The extent of moral evil is not limited to the circumstances of life in the natural order, but includes also the sphere of religion, by which man's welfare is affected in the supernatural order, and the precepts of which, as depending ultimately upon the will of God, are of the strictest possible obligation (see SIN). The obligation to moral action in the natural order is, moreover, generally believed to depend on the motives supplied by religion; and it is at least doubtful whether it is possible for moral obligation to exist at all apart from a supernatural sanction.

Metaphysical evil is the limitation by one another of various component parts of the natural world. Through this mutual limitation natural objects are for the most part prevented from attaining to their full or ideal perfection, whether by the constant pressure of physical condition, or by sudden catastrophes. Thus, animal and vegetable organisms are variously influenced by climate and other natural causes; predatory animals depend for their existence on the destruction of life; nature is subject to storms and convulsions, and its order depends on a system of perpetual decay and renewal due to the interaction of its constituent parts. If animals suffering is excluded, no pain of any kind is caused by the inevitable limitations of nature; and they can only be called evil by analogy, and in a sense quite different from that in which the term is applied to human experience.
Clarke, moreover, has aptly remarked (Correspondence with Leibniz, letter ii) that the apparent disorder of nature is really no disorder, since it is part of a definite scheme, and precisely fulfills the intention of the Creator; it may therefore be counted as a relative perfection rather than an imperfection. It is, in fact, only by a transference to irrational objects of the subjective ideals and aspirations of human intelligence, that the "evil of nature" can be called evil in any sense but a merely analogous one. The nature and degree of pain in lower animals is very obscure, and in the necessary absence of data it is difficult to say weather it should rightly be classed with the merely formal evil which belongs to inanimate objects, or with the suffering of human beings. The latter view was generally held in ancient times, and may perhaps he referred to the anthropomorphic tendency of primitive minds which appears in the doctrine of metempsychosis. Thus it has often been supposed that animal suffering, together with many of the imperfections of inanimate nature, was due to the fall of man, with whose welfare, as the chief part of creation, were bound up the fortunes of the rest (see Theoph. Antioch., Ad Autolyc., II; cf. Gen. iii, and I Cor.ix). The opposite view is taken by St. Thomas (I, Q. xcvi, a. 1,2). Descartes supposed that animals were merely machines, without sensation or consciousness; he was closely followed by Malebranche and Cartesians generally. Leibniz grants sensation to animals, but considers that mere sense-perception, unaccompanied by reflexion, cannot cause either pain or pleasure; in any case he holds the pain and pleasure of animals to be parable in degree to those resulting from reflex action in man (see also Maher, Psychology, Supp't. A:, London, 1903).

It is evident again that all evil is essentially negative and not positive; i.e. it consists not in the acquisition of anything, but in the loss or deprivation of something necessary for perfection. Pain, which is the test or criterion of physical evil, has indeed a positive, though purely subjective existence as a sensation or emotion; but its evil quality lies in its disturbing effector the sufferer. In like manner, the perverse action of the will, upon which moral evil depends, is more than a mere negation of right action, implying as it does the positive element of choice; but the morally evil character of wrong action is constituted not by the element of choice, but by its rejection of what right reason requires. Thus Origen (In Joh., ii, 7) defines evil as stéresis; the Pseudo-Dionysius (De. Div. Nom. iv) as the non-existent; Maimonides (Dux perplex. iii, 10) as "privato boni alicujus"; Albertus Magnus (adopting St. Augustine's phrase) attributes evil to "aliqua causa deficiens" (Summa Theol., I, xi, 4); Schopenhauer, who held pain to be the positive and normal condition of life (pleasure being its partial and temporary absence), nevertheless made it depend upon the failure of human desire to obtain fulfillment--"the wish is in itself pain". Thus it will be seen that evil is not a real entity; it is relative. What is evil in some relations may be good in others; and probably there is no form of existence which is exclusively evil in all relations, Hence it has been thought that evil cannot truly be said to exist at all, and is really nothing but a "lesser good." But this opinion seems to leave out of account the reality of human experience. Though the same cause may give pain to one, and pleasure to another, pain and pleasure, as sensations or ideas, cannot but be mutually exclusive. No one, however, has attempted to deny this very obvious fact; and the opinion in question may perhaps be understood as merely a paradoxical way of stating the relativity of evil.

There is practically a general agreement of authorities as the nature of evil, some allowance being made for varying modes of expression depending on a corresponding variety of philosophical presuppositions. But on the question of the origin of evil there has been, and is a considerable diversity of opinion. The problem is strictly a metaphysical one; i.e. it cannot be solved by a mere experimental analysis of the actual conditions from which evil results. The question, which Schopenhauer has called "the punctum pruriens of metaphysics", is concerned not so much with the various detailed manifestations of evil in nature, as with the hidden and underlying cause which has made these manifestations possible or necessary; and it is at once evident that enquiry in a region so obscure must be attended with great difficulty, and that the conclusions reached must, for the most part be of a provisional and tentative character. No system of philosophy has ever succeeded in escaping from the obscurity in which the subject is involved; but it is not too much to say that the Christian solution offers, on the whole, fewer difficulties, and approaches more nearly to completeness than any other. The question may be stated thus. Admitting that evil consists in a certain relation of man to his environment, or that it arises in the relation of the component parts of the totality of existence to one another, how comes it that though all are alike the results of a universal cosmic process, this universal agency is perpetually at war with itself, contradicting and thwarting its own efforts in the mutual hostility of its progeny? Further, admitting that metaphysical evil in itself may be merely nature's method, involving nothing more than a continual redistribution of the material elements of the universe, human suffering and wrongdoing still and out as essentially opposed to the general scheme of natural development, and are scarcely to be reconciled in thought with any conception of unity or harmony in nature. To what, then, is the evil of human life, physical and moral, to be attributed as its cause? But when the universe is considered as the work of an all-benevolent and all-powerful Creator, a fresh element is added to the problem. If God is all-benevolent, why did He cause or permit suffering? If He is all-Powerful, He can be under no necessity of creating or permitting it; and on the other hand, if He is under any such necessity, He cannot be all-powerful. Again, if God is absolutely good, and also omnipotent, how can He permit the existence of moral evil? We have to enquire, that is to say, how evil has come to exist, and what is its special relation to the Creator of the universe.

The solution of the problem has been attempted by three different methods.

I. It has been contended that existence is fundamentally evil; that evil is the active principle of the universe, and good no more than an illusion, the pursuit of which serves to induce the human race to perpetuate its own existence (see PESSIMISM). This is the fundamental tenet of Buddhism (q.v.), which regards happiness as unattainable, and holds that there is no way of escaping from misery but by ceasing to exist otherwise than in the impersonal state of Nirvana. The origin of suffering, according to Buddha, is "the thirst for being". This was also, among Greek philosophers, the view of Hegesias the Cyrenaic (called peisithánatos, the counsellor of death), who held life to be valueless, and pleasure, the only good, to be unattainable. But the Greek temper was naturally disinclined to a pessimistic view of nature and life; and while popular mythology embodied the darker aspects of existence in such conceptions as those of Fate, the avenging Furies, and the envy (phthónos) of the gods, Greek thinkers, as a rule, held that evil is universally supreme, but can be avoided or overcome by the wise and virtuous.

Pessimism, as a metaphysical system, is the product of modern times. Its chief representatives are Schopenhauer and Von Hartmann, both of whom held the actual universe to be fundamentally evil, and happiness it to be impossible. The origin of the phenomenal universe is attributed by Schopenhauer to a transcendental Will, which he identifies with pure being; and by Hartmann to the unconscious, which includes both the Will and the Idea (Vorstellung) of Schopenhauer. According to both Schopenhauer and Hartmann, suffering has come into existence with self-consciousness, from which it is inseparable.

II. Evil has been attributed to one of two mutually opposed principles, to which respectively the mingled good and evil of the world are due. The relation between the two is variously represented, and ranges from the co-ordination imagined by Zoroastrianism to the mere relative independence of the created will as held by Christian theology. Zoroaster attributed good and evil respectively to two mutually hostile principles (hrízai, or árchai) called Ormuzd (Ahura Mazda) and Ahriman (Angra Mainyu). Each was independent of the other; but eventually the good were to be victorious with Ormuzd, and Ahriman and his evil followers were to be expelled from the world. This mythological dualism passed to the sect of the Manichees, whose founder, Manes, added a third, but subordinate principle, emanating from the source of good (and perhaps corresponding, in some degree, to the Mithras of Zoroastrianism), in the "living spirit", by whom was formed the present material world of mingled good and evil. Manes held that matter was essentially evil, and therefore could not be in direct contact with God. He probably derived the notion from the Gnostic sects, which, though they differed on many points from one another, were generally agreed in following the opinion of Philo, and the neo-Platonist Plotinus, as the evil of matter. They held the world to have been formed by an emanation, the Demiurge, as a kind of intermediary between God and impure matter. Bardesanes, however, and his followers regarded evil as resulting from the misuse of created free will.

The notion that evil is necessarily inherent in matter, independent of the Divine author of good, and in some sense opposed to Him, is common to the above theosophical systems, to many of the purely rational conceptions of Greek philosophy, and to much that has been advanced on this subject in later times, In the Pythagorean idea of a numerical harmony as the constitutive principle of the world, good is represented by unity and evil by multiplicity (Philolaus, Fragm.) Heraclitus set the "strife", which he held to be the essential condition of life, over against the action deity. "God is the author of all that is right and good and just; but men have sometimes chosen good and sometimes evil" (Fragm. 61). Empedocles, again, attributed evil to the principle of hate (neîkos), inherent together with its opposite, love (phília), in the universe. Plato held God to be "free from blame" (anaítios) for the evil of the world; its cause was partly the necessary imperfection of material and created existence, and partly the action of the human will (Timeaus, xlii; cf. Phaedo. lx). With Aristotle, evil is a necessary aspect of the constant changes of matter, and has in itself no real existence (Metaph., ix, 9). The Stoics conceived evil in a somewhat similar manner, as due to necessity; the immanent Divine power harmonizes the evil and good in a changing world. Moral evil proceeds from the folly of mankind, not from the Divine will, and is overruled by it to a good end. In the hymn of Cleanthes to Zeus (Ston. Ecl., 1, p.30) may be perceived an approach to the doctrine of Leibniz, as to the nature of evil and the goodness of the world. "Nothing is done without thee in earth or sea or sky, save what evil men commit by their own folly; so thou hast fitted together all evil and good in one, that there might be one reasonable and everlasting scheme of all things." In the mystical system of Eckhart (d. 1329), evil, sin included, has its place in the evolutionary scheme by which all proceeds from and returns to God, and contributes, both in the moral order and in the physical, to the accomplishment of the Divine purpose. Eckhart's monistic or pantheistic tendencies seem to have obscured for him many of the difficulties of the subject, as has been the case with those by whom the same tendencies have since been carried to an extreme conclusion.

Christian philosophy has, like the Hebrew, uniformly attributed moral and physical evil to the action of created free will. Man has himself brought about the evil from which he suffers by transgressing the law of God, on obedience to which his happiness depended. Evil is in created things under the aspect of mutability, and possibility of defect, not as existing per se : and the errors of mankind, mistaking the true conditions of its own well-being, have been the cause of moral and physical evil (Dion. Areop., De Div. Nom., iv, 31; St. Aug., De Civ. Dei. xii). The evil from which man suffers is, however, the condition of good, for the sake of which it is permitted. Thus, "God judged it better to bring good out of evil than to suffer no evil to exist" (St. Aug., Enchirid., xxvii). Evil contributes to the perfection of the universe, as shadows to the perfection of a picture, or harmony to that of music (De Civ. Dei,xi). Again, the excellence of God's works in nature is insisted on as evidence of the Divine wisdom, power, and goodness, by which no evil can be directly caused. (Greg. Nyss., De. opif. hom.) Thus Boethius asks (De Consol. Phil., I, iv) Who can be the author of good, if God is the author of evil? As darkness is nothing but the absence of light, and is not produced by creation, so evil is merely the defect of goodness. (St. Aug., In Gen. as lit.) St. Basil (Hexaem., Hom. ii) points out the educative purposes served by evil; and St. Augustine, holding evil to be permitted for the punishment of the wicked and the trial of the good, shows that it has, under this aspect, the nature of good, and is pleasing to God, not because of what it is, but because of where it is; i.e. as the penal and just consequence of sin (De Civ. Dei, XI, xii, De Vera Relig. xliv). Lactantius uses similar arguments to oppose the dilemma, as to the omnipotence and goodness of God, which he puts into the mouth of Epicurus (De Ira Dei, xiii). St. Anselm (Monologium) connects evil with the partial manifestation of good by creation; its fullness being in God alone.

The features which stand out in the earlier Christian explanation of evil, as compared with non-Christian dualistic theories are thus

1) the definite attribution to God of absolute omnipotence and goodness, notwithstanding His permission of the existence of evil;
2) the assignment of a moral and retributive cause for suffering in the sin of mankind; and
3) the unhesitating assertion of the beneficence of God's purpose in permitting evil, together with the full admission that He could, had He so chosen, have prevented it (De Civ. Dei, xiv).

How God's permission of the evil which He foreknew and could have prevented is to be reconciled with His goodness, is not fully considered; St. Augustine states the question in forcible terms, but is content by way of answer to follow St. Paul, in his refrence to the unsearchableness of the Divine judgments (Contra Julianum, I, 48).

The same general lines have been followed by most of the modern attempts to account in terms of Theism for the existence of evil. Descartes and Malebranche held that the world is the best possible for the purpose for which it was created, i. e. for the manifestation of the attributes of God. If it had been less fitted as a whole for the attainment of this object. The relation of evil to the will of a perfectly benevolent Creator was elaborately treated by Leibniz, in answer to Bayle, who had insisted on the arguments derived from the existence of evil against that of a good and omnipotent God. Leibniz founded his views mainly on those of St. Augustine and from St. Thomas, and deduced from them his theory of Optimism (q.v.).
According to it, the inverse is the best possible; but metaphysical evil, or perfection, is necessarily involved in the constitution, since it must be finite, and could not have been endowed with the infinite perfection which belongs to God alone. Moral and physical evil are due to the fall of man, but all evil is overruled by God to a good purpose. Moreover, the world with which we are acquainted is only a very small factor in the whole of creation, and it may be supposed that the evil it contains is necessary for the existence of other regions that are unknown to us. Voltaire in "Candide", undertook to throw ridicule at the idea of "best possible world"; and it must be admitted that the theory is open to grave objections. On the one hand, it is scarcely consistent with the belief in the Divine omnipotence; and on the other, it fails to account for the permission (or indirect authorship) of evil by a good God, to which Bayle had specially taken exception. We can not know that this world is the best possible; and if it were, why, since it must include so much that is evil, should a perfectly good God have created it? It may be urged, moreover, that there can be no degree of finite goodness which is not susceptible of increase by omnipotence, without ceasing to fall short of infinite perfection.

Leibniz has been more or less closely followed by many who have since treated the subject from the Christian point of view. These have, for the most part, emphasized the evidence in creation of the wisdom and goodness of its Author, after the manner of the Book of Job, and have been content to leave undiscovered the reason for the creation, by Him, of a universe in which evil is unavoidable. Such was the view of King (Essay on the Origin of Evil, London, 1732), who insisted strongly on the doctrine of the best possible world; of Cudworth, who held that evil, though inseparable from the nature of imperfect beings, is largely a matter of men's own fancy and opinions, rather than the reality of things, and therefore not to be made the ground of accusations against Divine Providence. Derham (Physico-Theology, London, 1712) took occasion from an examination of the excellence of creation to commend an attitude of humility and trust towards the creator of "this elegant, this well contrived, well formed world, in which we find everything necessary for the sustenation, use and pleasure both of man and every other creature here below; as well as some whips, some rods, to scourge us for our sins". Priestly held a doctrine of absolute determinism, and consequently attributed evil solely to the divine will; which, however, he justified by the good ends which evil is providentially made to subserve (Doctrine of Philosophical Necessity, Birmingham, 1782). Clarke, again, called special attention to the evidence of method of design, which bear witness to the benevolence of the Creator, in the midst of apparent moral and physical disorder. Rosmini, closely following Malebranche, pointed out that the question of the possibility of a better world than this has really no meaning; any world created by God must be the best possible in relation to its special purpose, apart from which neither goodness or badness can be predicated of it. Mamiani also supposed that evil be inseparable from the finite, but it tended to disappear as the finite approached its final union with the infinite.

III. The third way of conceiving the place of evil in the general scheme of existence is that of those systems of Monism, by which evil is merely viewed as a mode in which certain aspects of moments of the development of nature are apprehended by human consciousness. In this view there is no distinctive principle to which evil can be assigned, and its origin is one with that of nature as a whole. These systems reject the specific idea of creation; and the idea of God is either rigorously excluded, or identified with an impersonal principle, immanent in the universe, or conceived as a mere abstraction from the methods of nature; which, whether viewed from the standpoint of materialism or that of idealism, is the one ultimate reality. The problem of the origin of evil is thus merged in that of the origin of being. Moral evil, in particular, arises from error, and is to be gradually eliminated, or at least minimized, by improved knowledge of the conditions of human welfare (Meliorism). Of this kind, of the whole, were the doctrines of the Ionic Hylozoists, whose fundamental notion was the essential unity of matter and life; and on the other hand, also, that of the Eleatics, who founded the origin of all things in abstract being. The Atomists Leucippus and Democritus, held what may be called a doctrine of materialistic Monism. This doctrine, however, found its first complete expression in the philosophy of Epicurus, which explicitly rejected the notion of any external influence on nature, whether of "fate", or of Divine power. According to the Epicurean Lucretius (De Rerum Natura, II, line 180) the existence of evil was fatal to the supposition of the creation of the world by God:

Nequaquam nobis divinitus esse creatum Naturam mundi, quæ tanta est prædita culpa.

Giordano Bruno made God the immanent cause of all things, acting by an internal necessity, and producing the relations considered evil by mankind. Hobbes regarded God as merely a corporeal first cause; and applying his theory of civil government to the universe, defended the existence of evil by simple assertion of the absolute power to which it is due--a theory which is little else other than a statement of materialistic Determinism in terms of social relations. Spinoza united spirit and matter in the notion of a single substance, to which he attributed both thought and extension; error and perfection were the necessary consequence of the order of the universe. The Hegelian Monism, which reproduces many of the ideas of Eckhart, and is adopted in its main features by many different systems of recent origin, gives to evil a place in the unfolding of the Idea, in which both the origin and inner reality of the universe are to be found. Evil is the temporary discord between what is and what ought to be. Huxley was content to believe the ultimate causes of things are at present unknown, and may be unknowable. Evil is to be known and combated in the concrete and in detail; but the Agnosticism professed, and named, by Huxley refuses to entertain any question as to transcendental causes, and confines itself to experimental facts. Haeckel advances a dogmatic materialism, in which substance (i. e. matter and force) appears as the eternal and infinite basis of all things. Professor Metchnikoff, on similar principles, places the cause of evil in "disharmonies" which prevail in nature, and which he thinks may perhaps be ultimately removed, for the human race at least, together with pessimistic temper arising from them, by the progress of science. Bourdeau has asserted in express terms the futility of seeking a transcendental or supernatural origin for evil and the necessity of confining the view to natural accessible, and determinable causes (Revue Philosophique, I, 1900).

The recently constructed system, or method, called Pragmatism, has this much in common with Pessimism, that it regards evil as a actually unavoidable part of that human experience which is in point of fact identical with truth and reality. The world is what we make it; evil tends to diminish with the growth of experience, and may finally vanish; though on the other hand, there may always remain the irreducible minimum of evil. The origin of evil is, like the origin of all things, inexplicable; it cannot be fitted into any theory of the design of the universe, simply because no such theory is possible. "We cannot by any possibility comprehend the character of the cosmic mind whose purpose are fully revealed by the strange mixture of good and evil that we find in this actual worlds particulars--the mere word design, by itself has no consequences and explains nothing." (James, Pragmatism, London, 1907. Cf. Schiller, Humanism, London 1907.) Nietzsche holds evil to be purely relative, and its moral aspects at least, a transitory and non-fundamental concept. With him, mankind in the present state, is "the animal not yet properly adapted to his environment". In this mode of thought the individual necessarily counts for very little, as being merely a transient manifestation of the cosmic force; and the social aspects of humanity are those under which its pains and shortcomings are mostly considered, with a view to their amelioration. Hence, the various forms of Socialism: The idea conceived by Nietzsche of a totally new, though as yet undefined, form of social morality, and of the constitution and mutual relations of classes; and the so called ethical and scientific religions inculcating morality as tending to be generally good. The first example of such religion was that of Auguste Comte, who upon the materialistic basis of Positivism, founded the "religion of humanity", and professed to substitute an enthusiasm for humanity as the motive for right action, for the motives of supernatural religion.

In the light of Catholic doctrine, any theory that may be held concerning evil must include certain points bearing on the question that have been authoritatively defined. These points are

1) the omnipotence, omniscience, and absolute goodness of the Creator;
2) the freedom of the will; and
3) that suffering is the penal consequence of wilful disobedience to the law of God.

A complete account may be gathered from the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas, by whom the principles of St. Augustine are systematized, and to some extent supplemented. Evil, according to St. Thomas, is a privation, or the absence of some good which belongs properly to the nature of the creature. (I,Q. xiv, a. 10; Q. xlix, a. 3; Contra Gentiles, III, ix, x). There is therefore no "summum malum", or positive source of evil, corresponding to the "summum bonum", which is God (I, Q. xlix, a. 3; C. G., III, 15; De Malo, I, 1); evil being not "ens reale" but only "ens rationis"--i.e. it exists not as an objective fact, but as a subjective conception; things are evil not in themselves, but by reason of their relation to other things, or persons. All realities (entia) are in themselves good; they produce bad results only incidentally; and consequently the ultimate cause of evil if fundamentally good, as well as the objects in which evil is found (I, Q. xlix; cf. I, Q. v, 3; De Malo, I, 3). Thus the Manichaean dualism has no foundation in reason.

Evil is threefold, viz., "malum naturæ" (metaphysical evil), "culpæ" (moral), and "paenæ" (physical, the retributive consequence of "malum culpæ") (I, Q. xlviii, a. 5, 6; Q. lxiii, a. 9; De Malo, I, 4). Its existence subserves the perfection of the whole; the universe would be less perfect if it contained no evil. Thus fire could not exist without the corruption of what it consumes; the lion must slay the ass in order to live, and if there were no wrong doing, there would be no sphere for patience and justice (I, Q. xlviii, a. 2). God id said (as in Is., xlv) to be the author of evil in the sense that the corruption of material objects in nature is ordained by Him, as a means for carrying out the design of the universe; and on the other hand, the evil which exists as a consequence of the breach of Divine laws is in the same sense due to Divine appointment; the universe would be less perfect if its laws could be broken with impunity. Thus evil, in one aspect, i.e. as counter-balancing the deordination of sin, has the nature of good (II, Q. ii, a. 19). But the evil of sin (culpæ), though permitted by God, is in no sense due to him (I, Q. xlix, a. 2).; its cause is the abuse of free will by angels and men (I-II, Q. lxxiii, a. 6; II-II, Q. x, a. 2; I-II, Q. ix, a. 3). It should be observed that the universal perfection to which evil in some form is necessary, is the perfection of this universe, not of any universe: metaphysical evil, that is to say, and indirectly, moral evil as well, is included in the design of the universe which is partially known to us; but we cannot say without denying the Divine omnipotence, that another equally perfect universe could not be created in which evil would have no place.

St. Thomas also provides explanations of what are now generally considered to be the two main difficulties of the subject, viz., the Divine permission of foreseen moral evil, and the question finally arriving thence, why God choose to create anything at all. First, it is asked why God, foreseeing that his creatures would use the gift of free will for their own injury, did not either abstain from creating them, or in some way safeguard their free will from misuse, or else deny them the gift altogether? St. Thomas replies (C. G., II, xxviii) that God cannot change His mind, since the Divine will is free from the defect of weakness or mutability. Such mutability would, it should be remarked, be a defect in the Divine nature (and therefore impossible), because if God's purpose were made dependent on the foreseen free act of any creature, God would thereby sacrifice His own freedom, and would submit Himself to His creatures, thus abdicating His essential supremacy--a thing which is, of course, utterly inconceivable. Secondly, to the question why God should have chosen to create, when creation was in no way needful for His own perfection, St. Thomas answers that God's object in creating is Himself; He creates in order to manifest his own goodness, power, and wisdom, and is pleased with that reflection or similitude of Himself in which the goodness of creation consists. God's pleasure is the one supremely perfect motive for action, alike in God Himself and in His creatures; not because of any need, or inherent necessity, in the Divine nature (C. G., I, xxviii; II, xxiii), but because God is the source, centre, and object, of all existence. (I, Q. lxv, a. 2; cf. Prov., 26 and Conc. Vat., can. i, v; Const. Dogm., 1.) This is accordingly the sufficient reason for the existence of the universe, and even for the suffering which moral evil has introduced into it. God has not made the world primarily for man's good, but for His own pleasure; good for man lies in conforming himself to the supreme purpose of creation, and evil in departing from it (C.G., III, xvii, cxliv). It may further be understood from St. Thomas, that in the diversity of metaphysical evil, in which the perfection of the universe as a whole is embodied, God may see a certain similitude of His own threefold unity (cf. I, Q. xii); and again, that by permitting moral evil to exist He has provided a sphere for the manifestation of one aspect of His essential justice (cf. I, Q. lxv, a. 2; and I, Q. xxi, a. 1, 3).

It is obviously impossible to suggest a reason why this universe in particular should have been created rather than another; since we are necessarily incapable of forming an idea of any other universe than this. Similarly, we are unable to imagine why God chose to manifest Himself by the way of creation, instead of, or in addition to, the other ways, whatever they may be, by which He has, or may have, attained the same end. We reach here the utmost limit of speculation; and our inability to conceive the ultimate reason for creation (as distinct from its direct motive) is paralleled, at a much earlier stage of the enquire, by the inability of the non-creationist schools of thought to assign any ultimate cause for the existence of the order of nature. It will be observed that St. Thomas's account of evil is a true Theodicy, taking into consideration as it does every factor of the problem, and leaving unsolved only the mystery of creation, before which all schools of thought are equally helpless. It is as impossible to know, in the fullest sense, why this world was made as to know how it was made; but St. Thomas has at least shown that the acts of the Creator admit of complete logical justification, notwithstanding the mystery in which, for human intelligence, they can never wholly cease to be involved. On Catholic principles, the amelioration of moral evil and its consequent suffering can only take place by means of individual reformation, and not so much through increase of knowledge as through stimulation or re-direction of the will. But since all methods of social improvement that have any value must necessarily represent a nearer approach to conformity with Divine laws, they are welcomed and furthered by the Church, as tending, at least indirectly, to accomplish the purpose for which she exists.

Catholic Charities: Helping you help your neighbor in times of need.

As time passes, the memory of this disaster will fade for those of us fortunate enough to live outside the devastated areas, but recovery and restoration will take years.

Please, whatever you do, don't become a cynic. (I know, I know. But I just play one on the computer.) Of course there will be more horror stories like the abuse of the debit cards and that $250-odd billion federal package will produce insane amounts of corruption, but our fellow Americans will be suffering from Katrina for a long time. True charity, (News Flash!: Taxes ARE NOT charity.) like the money you donate to Catholic Relief Services will help the truly needy and will not foster dependency.


News

09/15/2005 — Catholic Charities USA Testifies before Congress on the Critical Housing Needs of Hurricane Katrina Victims
09/14/2005 — Catholic Diocese of Alexandria Welcomes Special Evacuees 09/13/2005 — Florida Dioceses Adopt Mississippi Dioceses to Provide Relief Dealing With Katrina
More news...

Local Agency Recovery Efforts

Catholic Charities agencies from around the affected region and well beyond are actively responding to those in need. Catholic Charities agencies are working to meet the immediate needs of evacuees, as well as planning their long-term recovery efforts. Click here to read a snapshot of some of these efforts.

Catholic Charities agencies from across the country are already working to meet the immediate needs of evacuees that have come into their communities, as well as planning to provide assistance for the long-term needs of the victims. Catholic Charities USA is collecting financial donations to fund these local Catholic Charities agencies’ emergency and long-term disaster recovery efforts. Catholic Charities USA is consistently ranked among the highest and most efficient organizations across the country. Approximately 96 percent of contributions made to the 2005 Hurricane Relief Fund will be used for emergency response and recovery efforts. Learn more about these local efforts.


How you can help:

Unfortunately, Catholic Charities USA is unable to accept contributions of food, clothing, blankets and other relief supplies. Monetary donations will be used to provide for the emergency relief and long-term recovery of Katrina's victims. Catholic Charities USA is consistently ranked among the highest and most efficient organizations across the country. Approximately 96 percent of contributions made to the 2005 Hurricane Relief Fund will be used for emergency response and recovery efforts.


About the Disaster Response Office

Catholic Charities USA, which has been commissioned by the U.S. Catholic Bishops to represent the Catholic community in times of domestic disaster, responds with emergency and long-term assistance as needed. Its Disaster Response Office connects the Church's social service agencies and disaster planning offices across the nation.

Those folks on the Gulf Coast are our neighbors. You know what to do.

First, last, and always, PRAY. Pray for the survivors. Pray for the repose of the souls of those killed by Hurricane Katrina. Pray for the families and friends. Pray for the relief workers, the cops, the firemen, the troops, and the technicians. Pray for the volunteers.

It is time to step up once again, kiddies. "Do unto others", "I was naked and you clothed me", et cetera.

Catholic Relief Services is on the job. The absolute best of crisis charities needs money now.

Mail Checks To:
Catholic Charities USA
Hurricane Katrina
PO Box 25168
Alexandria, VA 22313-9788

Call:(800) 919-9338

Contribute Now Online


Agencies Impacted:
Catholic Charities of Miami
Catholic Charities of New Orleans
Catholic Community Services of Baton Rouge
Catholic Social Services of Houma-Thibodaux
Catholic Social and Community Services of Biloxi, MS
Catholic Charities of Jackson, MS
Catholic Social Services of Mobile, AL

And, as always, give generously to the special collections for hurricance disaster relief in your local parish.

Saint of the Day and daily Mass readings.

Today is the Feast of St. Pio of Pietreclina (Padre Pio), one of the most famous Capuchin Franciscan friars in history. He suffered the stigmata.* He also was slandered at the hands of the unscrupulous. On most days, he would hear ten hours of confessions. Pray for us, St. Pio and all you saints.

Today's reading is Zacharias 2:1-9.
Today's Gospel reading is Luke 9:18-22.

* The sufferings may be considered the essential part of visible stigmata; the substance of this grace consists of pity for Christ, participation in His sufferings, sorrows, and for the same end--the expiation of the sins unceasingly committed in the world. If the sufferings were absent, the wounds would be but an empty symbol, theatrical representation, conducing to pride. If the stigmata really come from God, it would be unworthy of His wisdom to participate in such futility, and to do so by a miracle. (From the "stigmata" link above. Thanks to the Catholic Encyclopedia.)

Everyday links:

The Blessed Virgin Mary

The Rosary

Our Mother of Perpetual Help

Prayers from EWTN

National Coalition of Clergy and Laity (dedicated to action for a genuine Catholic Restoration)

The Catholic Calendar Page for Today

Just in case you are wondering what exactly Catholics believe, here is

The Apostles Creed

I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of Heaven and earth; and in Jesus Christ, His only Son Our Lord, Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried.He descended into Hell; the third day He rose again from the dead; He ascended into Heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of God, the Father almighty; from thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy Catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body and life everlasting. Amen.

Memorare

Remember, O most gracious Virgin Mary, that never was it known that any one who fled to thy protection, implored thy help or sought thy intercession,was left unaided.Inspired with this confidence, I fly unto thee, O Virgin of virgins my Mother; to thee do I come, before thee I stand, sinful and sorrowful; O Mother of the Word Incarnate, despise not my petitions, but in thy clemency hear and answer me. Amen.

St. Joseph, her most chaste spouse, pray for us.

Prayer to Saint Anthony, Martyr of Desire

Dear St. Anthony, you became a Franciscan with the hope of shedding your blood for Christ. In God's plan for you, your thirst for martyrdom was never to be satisfied. St. Anthony, Martyr of Desire, pray that I may become less afraid to stand up and be counted as a follower of the Lord Jesus. Intercede also for my other intentions. (Name them.)

PRAYER TO SAINT MICHAEL THE ARCHANGEL

St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle, be our defense against the wickedness and snares of the devil; may God rebuke him, we humbly pray, and do thou O Prince of the heavenly hosts, by the divine power, thrust into hell Satan and all the evil spirits who prowl about the world seeking the ruin of souls. Amen.

Why do the commies want your kids to fornicate?

ACLU targets abstinence-only programs

My guess is they know the family is the main bulwark against left-fascist power and licentiousness destroys families.

But what do I know? They probably just want to bugger little boys.

Jordan's king reaches out to Jews, hits radical Islam.

Holy crap! First Musharraf, and now this from The Washington Times:

Jordan's King Abdullah II told a gathering of American rabbis yesterday that Jews and Muslims are irrevocably "tied together by culture and history" and that he is willing to take radical measures to combat Muslim extremists.

"We face a common threat: extremist distortions of religion and the wanton acts of violence that derive therefrom," the king said. "Such abominations have already divided us from without for far too long."

Criticizing al Qaeda terrorists Osama bin Laden and Abu Musab Zarqawi for "abuses of our faith," the king, speaking at a heavily guarded lunch meeting at the Ritz-Carlton in Northwest, made clear he wishes to establish himself as the voice of moderate Islam.

He pointed to a July conference he held in Amman, Jordan, for 180 Muslim scholars as a key part of his effort to undermine the far Islamic right. The conference was supported by fatwas -- or legal rulings -- from 17 major Islamic scholars.

"Muslims from every branch of Islam can now assert without doubt or hesitation," he said, "that a fatwa calling for the killing of innocent civilians -- no matter what nationality or religion, Muslim or Jew, Arab or Israeli -- is a basic violation of the most fundamental principles of Islam."

Now, King Abdullah said, it's time to mend fences with the worldwide Jewish community.

"It cannot be denied that the relationship between Jews and Muslims has been very difficult in recent years," said the king, a close U.S. ally who met with Vice President Dick Cheney yesterday and will meet with President Bush today before flying home.

"Nonetheless," the king added, "at this moment in history, we have no choice but to take bold strides towards mutual forgiveness and reconciliation."

His 12-minute speech, laced with quotes from the Old Testament and the Koran, was met with standing ovations from the rabbis, most of whom were from cities along the eastern seaboard.

I gave up the Gaza Strip and all I got was pretty speeches by dead men.

Ok. That was too cynical. But I'm not going to bet the moslem world is swept by reality anytime soon.

Steelers update.

Roethlisberger out for redemption
One blemish is all that stands between Ben Roethlisberger and perfection in his brief Steelers career.

Big Ben shows respect for Brady
"To me, he's the best quarterback in the NFL -- hands down," Roethlisberger said. "People say (Peyton) Manning. Tom Brady is, by far, the best quarterback in the NFL. The things he does, the way he manages a game, manages the offense. It seems like he has a force field around him all the time. It is fun to watch him play."

Notebook: Belichick praises Steelers
+Patriots coach Bill Belichick has a high opinion of the Steelers (2-0). "They're the best team in the league this year," said Belichick. "It's a huge challenge for us to play them anywhere - home, away, at a neutral site." Unlike the Steelers, who've pounded Tennessee and Houston by an aggregate score of 61-14, the Patriots have won by 10 and lost by 10 this season. "I can't remember two more dominating games," Belichick said of the two victories. "It hasn't even been competitive. They really look good, just doing everything - offensively, defensively, special teams."

+Patriots quarterback Tom Brady is not invincible, according to linebacker Joey Porter. "We've fooled him a couple times before, but, you know, he fooled us a couple times, too," Porter said. "So, we'll see who does the fooling this week." Asked if Brady can be rattled, Porter said why not. "Anybody in this league can be rattled," he said. "I don't want to say he's that cool. We rattled him before. And if you want to rattle a guy like that, you have to get after him early and put him in a hole where he has to do something he really doesn't want to do."

+Steelers tailback Willie Parker insists he won't get over-hyped about starting against the Super Bowl champions Sunday. "You have to approach these games the same every time," said Parker, who ranks second in the NFL with 272 yards and a 5.8 yards-per-carry average. "I can't put too much on it."

+Running back Duce Staley, listed as questionable for Sunday's game with the Patriots due to a right knee injury, went through a full practice Wednesday. He's been inactive for the first two games while he conditions and strengthens a knee that required arthroscopic surgery Aug. 8 due to a torn lateral meniscus. Staley's backfield mate, Jerome Bettis, sat out of practice and is listed as doubtful with a calf injury. Special teams ace Sean Morey (hamstring) also missed practice and is questionable. The Steelers list corner Bryant McFadden (calf) as questionable, while corners Chidi Iwuoma, Deshea Townsend and quarterback Ben Roethlisberger (back) are probable. All four practiced yesterday.

+Twelve Patriots missed at least a portion of yesterday's workout with an assortment of ailments, including linebacker Tully Banta-Cain (knee), wideout Andre Davis (foot), corner Randall Gay (ankle), tackle Brandon Gorin (thigh), defensive end Jarvis Green (shoulder), wideout Bethel Johnson (thigh), punter Josh Miller (shoulder), guard Steve Neal (back), corner Tyrone Poole (ankle), safety James Sanders (ankle), corner Chad Scott (shoulder) and corner Duane Starks (thigh). All are listed as questionable.

+Steelers defensive coordinator Dick LeBeau, who's been around the NFL for 46 years as a player and coach, was asked which dynasty among the Patriots, Packers, Steelers, Cowboys and 49ers was the best ever. "I would say it's the London High School Red Raiders in 1951," he said of the Ohio-based school, where he played prior to a standout NFL career in which he had 62 interceptions, seventh all-time. "Undefeated and unscored on. It was a powerhouse."

+Before Robert Kraft purchased the Patriots in '94, they were 19-61 with a .311 winning percentage from '89 to '93. Since then, they are 120-74 with a .619 winning percentage and three Super Bowls.
(Thanks to the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review for the heads up.)