Prayer and politics

A reader sends the following (which I've secured authorization to publish) about: (1) a decision about prayer in church, and (2) a thought about our political future. Judging it to be of general interest to our readers, I offer it for your consideration.

Prayer:

The decision is that I have returned to the proper way of folding hands during the Mass: palm on palm, thumbs crossed. This is the way I learned it in grade school. Half the faithful, even then, had sloughed off to a fingers intertwined and dangling at roughly groin level stance -- especially the men. But a couple weeks ago I watched the redoubtable Peter Leonard, stalwart altar boy at my Sunday mass at St Luke's Mission of Mercy (horribly NO in most respects, mercifully traditionalist in others), with his palms glued together, fingertips brushing his chin, and I wondered, what the hell excuse can I have not to do as much? So I have been imitating my 11 year old mentor ever since. It has not rubbed off on my 12 year old and eight year old wards as yet (resolute groin-protectors, both), but, aside from the fact that it is simply the right thing to do, I see two potential benefits:

(1) It is not a completely comfortable position to maintain while standing. A certain amount of attention and perseverance is required to maintain it. It is thus a tiny little occasion for redemptive suffering, and also helps keep the mind from wandering to things like Mrs Bielman's behind and the upcoming Bills game.

(2) It provides a clearly Catholic gesture of solidarity, the kind contemporary hey-look-at-me performance Catholics are so fond of. It thus obviates the need for faux-Catholic orans posturing, handholding, and other heterodox diddling.

Politics:

The thought is that 2009 is going to be a hellish year no matter who the new president is. Many of us will be out of work. Old folks will be wondering where their money went. Mission doors will be straining to close behind the last butt inside.

Pro-lifers have made their beds with republicans, with results that can, charitably, be termed "mixed." The usual corruptions of power infest the republican party no less than the democrat, and prolifers have not been up front in facing that fact. The result now -- evident IMO since 2006 -- is that the grand pro-life scheme for packing the Supreme Court is about to unravel. I would guess that within a year of Obama's inauguration, Justice Stevens will put himself out to pasture, followed, very possibly, by the ailing Justice Ginsberg -- and it will be as if Roberts and Alito never existed.

The lives of American Catholics are about to start sucking real bad, and the leadership of The Man Without Qualities, flanked by Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and a pleased-as-punch mainstream media, will likely make it worse. But that's what's going to happen -- and you can blame an awful lot of it on:

(1) the almost unbelievable corruption, venality and hypocrisy of the republican party, a party of corporate lap dogs, statutory rapists, and public restroom romeos

(2) the fecklessness of pro-life leaders in general, American Catholic bishops in particular

Yeh, yeh, I know, what about the democrats? Excellent point, which I myself have made on many occasions. But we've been blaming them for years, usually with great success, and are we better off as a result?

[Hat tip to the author]