A few things this evening

A UK couple named their baby after the Holy Father.

Kevin and Amanda Lonergan, whose son was born on Easter Sunday, called him Benedict after Pope Benedict XVI.

Kevin, who works for Lancashire-based charity, Galloway's Society for the Blind, wrote to the Vatican about the role of Catholicism in his work and explained that his new baby son was named after the Pope. To mum and dad's surprise, the Pope, with whom baby Benedict shares a birthday, wrote back.

"The letter says the Holy Family is pleased to learn of the arrival of baby Benedict and assured us of his prayers," Kevin told the Lancashire Evening Post.

That's a nice idea, I agree. My one thought is that since Benedict was born on the feast of St. Joseph and was himself named Joseph, why didn't they just name their kid Joseph?

According to a website, The Los Angeles Times has nothing better to do than document clerical abuse cases all around the nation.

In the front section of today's Los Angeles Times (Tuesday, September 5, 2006) is an article, "Sex Charges Shadow a Local Curiosity in Texas: Five monks at the Christ of the Hills Monastery are accused of abusing boys. Police also say the church's famous crying icon was 'a scam'" by Times staffer Lianne Hart. The piece is accompanied by three color photos and a small map of Texas (to illustrate the location of the story, Blanco, Texas (population 1505)).
[...]

"Christ of the Hills," "Monastery," "Father," "urban mission," "monks," "Virgin Mary" ... Another example of abuse in the Catholic Church, right? At first glance, it would appear so. But it isn't. Buried more than halfway through the article is the fact that the monastery was affiliated with the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, and they cut ties with the monks seven years ago. Why are these facts practically hidden in the article? Deception, anyone?

If that wasn't so pathetic, it would almost be funny. The entire piece has lots of quotes from other LA Times articles and lots of links.