Ugh

Lots of people more eloquent than myself will deal with the social, moral, and societal import of this. But apart from the decline of Western Society, there's another thing at work here: subdivision covenants. The homeowners' association goes about saying things like that because the people who live in the subdivision (including the Samonas) are stupid enough to buy a house with all sorts of restrictions on its title. How this works (approximately) is the developer buys a big chunk of land and builds a bunch of houses on the land, and subdivides the lot so he can sell each house separately. Then he writes a contract that says something along the lines of "you agree that you don't really own this house all the way, because a 'homeowner's association' can establish rules about what your property has to look like, and enforce them on you." That's incorporated into the house title sort of like the easement that the city has in your front yard (they can take x feet of your front yard if they ever want to do something like widen the street) -- it's a limitation on your rights to use the property that you agree to when you buy the house.

Why people agree to things like that is something I have never understood, and likely never will. The whole point of buying a house is that can do whatever you want with it as long as you aren't actually hurting the people around you. Some folks around the corner from my house decided the thing their yard really needed was a 40,000 pound statue of the Buddha. It's kind of bizarre, but hey, it's their house after all.

File Under: Law, Loonies, Tennessee

A very random demographic thought

This post over at the Curt Jester has caused me to have a thought (a dangerous thing, watch out). Most reasonably sized American cities today contain at least half a dozen Catholic churches, but really only a smattering of Catholics (especially practicing ones). I can't speak for areas with high densities of immigrant-descended Catholics like Boston or Chicago, but the Catholic populations in many of these cities are very spread out -- they live here and there, in this suburb or that that suburb, with neighbors of all types, far away from other Catholics. Even in large cities with traditional ethnic neighborhoods, such as St. Louis, populations are fare more difuse now than in the past.

Well, so what? you ask.

This: it seems that part (not all) of the shortage of priests is fueled by the necessity for having lots of parishes spread out over a large geographic area and serving a relatively small congregation. People don't want to drive all the way across town to go to church, so as cities grow we have to build more and more churches to serve Catholics spreading themselves farther and farther out. For the most part, their numbers are not so great so that they could not be condensed, numerically speaking, into just a few sizeable parishes. But they would all have to live close enough to the church to go to it, which would mean living within close proximity of each other -- all in the same neighborhood. I'm sure there are lots of reasons to oppose urban sprawl, but this might be the most compelling reason yet ... provided I'm not completely off my rocker.

File Under: Catholic_Stuff

The defense of any of the cardinal virtues has today all the exhileration of a vice

Whoa boy, ain't that the truth, Mr. Chesterton. Transport oneself to a college campus and the rush from robbing a bank might be less than that from actually doing something in public against the culture of death. I present here a situation, not for the sake of bragging, but rather for consideration -- what do we regard as appropriate responses to situations of moral distress? The student minions of Planned Parenthood were set up at a table at lunch today, inviting people to sign form letters to their Senators promoting Roe and the continued enshrinement of infanticide as the lynch pin of our legal and political discourse. I (after gathering the gumption necessary for an act for which I am assured both no aid and antipathy) walked over to the table, picked up the stack of letters, flipped through them, said "I have some friends who would be interested in these [a true statement -- I have some misguided friends] -- this ought to be enough [I didn't say for what, mind you], thanks [common courtesy]." I then walked off with the papers and ran all of them through a shredder. I was later tracked down by one of the girls who had been working the table, and who I sort of vaguely know. She insisted that my actions were "childish," amounted to a vulgar term for bovine manuer, and were something for which she did not "have time."

Now, before you go a) agreeing with her, or b) directing the same sorts of comments towards me with which Mr. McMorrin was bombarded when he engaged in a minor act of arson, allow me to say a word or two. First off, you have a situation in which someone is both engaging in an immoral activity and encouraging others to do so as well -- roughly speaking, aiding and abetting the culture of death. Individuals have a responsibility to prevent or stop morally reprehensible activities if they are able to do so through appropriate means. That is, it would not have been acceptable to burn the building down or kill the people working the table in order to stop them. I maintain that absconding with and destroying a pile of paper is the most efficacious way to stymie such activity. The paper is of no moral worth in and of itself, nor could it properly be defined as the property of the students at the table, since a) the letters had likely come from PP and b) they were in their possession temporarily for the purpose of being sent elsewhere -- like a couch on someone's curb.

I find the charge of acting "childish" the most interesting. And here I am going to say something unusual: I think it is both accurate and praiseworthy, when properly considered. We use the term as a criticism, but when it comes to moral matters, who should we seek to imitate, the child, who has a fundamental and straight-forward view of right and wrong, or the sophisticated and "nuanced" adult, who is personally opposed to abortion but thinks it should still be legal? Children do not always grasp the repurcussions and intricacies of some moral problems, but most issues are not that complex -- ordinarily a child can offer a very straightforward solution to a question that befuddles older thinkers more concerned with extraneous matters. Children follow through a blind and loving faith. Adults create intricate systems for killing children, destroying societies, and convincing themselves that nothing they do is ever wrong.

Perhaps it is a mistake to post this. Perhaps it was a mistake to shred half a ream of Planned Parenthood form letters. But honestly, I am tired of being walked on by people like this, tired of the garbage that goes on around me and the double standards of academic righteousness. I can steal an American flag, desecrate, and burn it, and be hailed as an innovative thinker and a defender of everything Good and True. But all I have to do is think that people ought not to do things that will result in the damnation of them and their associates, and suddenly I'm a theocrat. Whatever-it-is-these-people-believe-in forbid that I actually do something that actively interferes with them doing it. That's for the birds.

File Under: Loonies, Politics, Catholic_Stuff

Gianna Jessen

This article from the London Times regarding babies surviving abortion has been making the rounds. Everything I could say about the subject has already been said (Rhymes With Right has some great commentary).

I wanted to mention Gianna Jessen, who appears at the end of the Times article. Her story is unspeakably amazing. Not only did she survive the attempt on her very young life, but she now RUNS IN MARATHONS. Excuse me? I'd wager that most of our readers haven't survived murder attempts and, say, don't have cerebral palsy and still wouldn't be able to do that (I know this is true of me, anyway). She did the Music City Marathon last year (there was a great article on her in The Tennessean a while back--I'd link it, but the paper's website is evil and makes you pay to read the archives), and the Times bit says she's preparing for another one over there.

I find her name particularly fascinating. According to this account, Gianna's biological mother named her. Something tells me the 17-year-old Tina didn't know anything about St. Gianna Beretta Molla (who wouldn't even be venerated for another 14 years after Gianna Jessen was born), but I'm pretty sure St. Gianna must have known about her and her baby.

File Under: Miscellany, Art/Media

Gospel Birthday Meme

No one tagged us for this meme, but I've seen it a couple of places and thought it was a neat idea. Since Fr. Tharp tagged himself, I figured I could, too.

The idea is to find your birthday verse in all four Gospels. My birthday verse (found by plugging the number of your month of birth into the chapter slot and day into verse) is 10:11.

• Matthew 10:11- "Whatever town or village you enter, look for a worthy person in it, and stay there until you leave."
• Mark 10:11- "He said to them, 'Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her.'"
• Luke 10:11- "'The dust of your town that clings to our feet, even that we shake off against you.' Yet know this: the kingdom of God is at hand."
• John 10:11- "I am the good shepherd. A good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep."

Paul's is 9:18.

• Matthew 9:18- "While he was saying these things to them, an official came forward, knelt down before him, and said, 'My daughter has just died. But come, lay your hand on her, and she will live.'"
• Mark 9:18- "Wherever it seizes him, it throws him down; he foams at the mouth, grinds his teeth, and becomes rigid. I asked your disciples to drive it out, but they were unable to do so."
• Luke 9:18- "Once when Jesus was praying in solitude, and the disciples were with him, he asked them, 'Who do the crowds say that I am?'"
• John 9:18- "Now the Jews did not believe that he had been blind and gained his sight until they summoned the parents of the one who had gained his sight."

An interesting little exercise. I decline to comment whether these say anything about us...

File Under: Miscellany

Ancient Words and the Presbyterians

This morning I had the...um...opportunity to attend my family's Presbyterian church for the second week in a row. Always a joy. Right. At any rate, one of the songs they sang this morning struck me as more than a little odd to hear from such a community. I give you Lynn DeShazo's "Ancient Words" (lyrics from here--perhaps not identical to what was sung at CPC, but close enough):

Holy words, long preserved
for our walk in this world.
They resound with God's own heart;
Oh let the ancient words impart.

Words of life, words of hope,
give us strength; help us cope.
In this world where'er we roam,
ancient words will guide us home.

Holy words, long preserved
for our walk in this world.
They resound with God's own heart;
Oh let the ancient words impart.

We have come with open hearts;
Oh let the ancient words impart;
Oh let the ancient words impart.

After this song, things got really weird, with a recitation (well, a reading from the Jumbotron) of the Nicene Creed. They've done the Apostles' Creed there before (deleting the line about Jesus descending into Hell and changing [C/c]atholic to universal), but this is the first time I can remember hearing the Nicene Creed there. They used an unfamiliar translation--unfortunately, I can't remember exactly where their version differed from the one I know (that being the one we say during Mass), but there were 5 or 6 times when folks around me looked at me funny for saying something they weren't saying.

Two things stuck out to me. First, they said "I believe" instead of "we believe." I thought this was pretty telling of the lack of real community. I know tons of people at CPC, but I don't feel connected (and didn't, even when I went there every week and didn't think I'd ever become Catholic). I can go to Mass at a church I've never been inside before and feel a bond with the rest of the congregation. I also noticed that Presbyterians have trouble pronouncing the word "apostolic." I may or may not have giggled a bit.

The whole thing served to underscore for me how tenuous a position the protestant must hold. "Well, we really like this old stuff, but it's not in the Bible, as such. Oh well. We'll use it, even though last week we had the "Sola Scriptura" banner up. Maybe nobody will remember." Lucky for us, Jesus left us a Church against which the gates of Hell--and self-contradiction--shall not prevail.

File Under: Catholic_Stuff

When I'm yelling, lots of people will know

I love this guy. The bad part is that he probably has several inches and at least 50 pounds on me, and, well, his inclination to do things like that probably isn't as much of an impediment to his continued existence as my similar inclination is.

File Under: Miscellany

Happy Thanksgiving plus 1

I hope everyone had an excellent Thanksgiving (especially those of you on this side of the Atlantic. For our non-American and expatriot friends, I wish a happy November 24th as well, of course). The affair at my grandmother's house was relatively small this year -- only 17 people could make it this year. Our household meal was supposed to be tonight, but our oven decided otherwise -- so we have an apple struedel that appears to be fine, a fudge pie that looks very unusual because the ditzy neighbor kept taking it out of her oven (yes, she said we could borrow it), and a 22 pound turkey that is currently in the oven at my grandmother's and will not be ready for dinner tonight. So I guess we'll have that tomorrow. . .

File Under: Miscellany

Sacred Vessels, Part 3: Chalice

Part 2: Pyx
Part 1: Ciborium

Ok, so it's been waaay too long since I have posted in this series. I apologize. But here is part three, on perhaps the most readily recognized of the sacred vessels. In fact, the chalice is not merely the most easily recognized and named vessel, it has often been used, both visually and literarily, to stand for the Eucharistic sacrament in its entirety, and especially the Precious Blood.

The chalice is also the oldest sacred vessel - Christ did not use a ciborium at the Last Supper, but he did indeed use a chalice, the Holy Grail. Not only is the chalice the original sacred vessel, but it has possessed an amazing continuity of form -- the historical variation in design is not significantly greater than that between chalices found in the various churches of a given city. Like just about everything else in the world, the rules covering chalices were simplified by reforms following Vatican II. Also, the use and definition were stretched by the inclusion of the Precious Blood in the communion of the faithful, and the necessitated use of many simpler vessels for this purpose.

The earliest Christians, due to the persecuted nature of the faith and the pecuniary uncertainties of their stations, relied for the most part on far simpler vessels for the mass than would become customary (and in fact obligatory) later. Records indicate that glass was widely used for chalices, and that precious and base metals, wood, ivory, and even clay were also in use. However, St. Augustine's account of gold and silver chalices excavated (ie, which were already very old in the 4th century) near Cirta, as well as the writings of St. John Chrysostom
indicate an early development of preference for the use of precious metals when possible.

More modern chalices tend to have stems (like the one seen above), but earlier chalices seemingly were more bowl-like, with handes and a base connected to the cup by a knop. The chalices used in older times for the communion of the faithful were larger, and more likely to be fitted with handles than those used solely by the priest. The handles, of course, provided more security against drops and spills, given that it was, as the Catholic Encyclopedia says, "a more barberous age." As an extra safeguard against such accidents, the use of a straw or reed for the people to receive through was widely adopted. Apparently the practice is (was?) preserved in the solemn papal high mass, in which the chalice is taken to the pope on his throne and he receives through a golden pipe. Having never been to any papal mass, I can't say whether this practice actually survives to the present day or not, seeing as there is no longer such a thing has a "solemn papal high mass." The practice is still permitted, however (see here, #103).

During the Middle Ages a series of councils promulgated formal restrictions on the production and use of chalices, forbidding wood. Also banned since then (and this answered a question I had after reading Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum) is horn, since it is formed with blood. Brass and copper were prohibited because they rust, but pewter was allowed for the poor because it does not. The same document that restricted deteriorating metals proscribed the use of glass vessels for the first time. Throughout the later medieval and into the renaissance period, chalices grew taller, slimmer, and acquired a more elongated stem. The decline in the distribution of the Precious Blood seems to have gone hand in hand with this development, as the sleeker and less stable cups were more fit for use by the priest alone.

Chalices for many years were permitted to be made only of gold, silver, or (when rendered necessary by poverty) pewter. The inside of the cup was to be gilt in the last two cases. Rules promulgated after Vatican II allow more latitude in material, but the requirement for gilding the inside of a non-golden vessel remains. Glass and earthenware are still explicitly prohibited, although hardwoods are not, provided they are "prized in the region" and possess "artistic merit. " Flagons, bowls, and other irregularly shaped vessels are prohibited. Note that the prohibition against glass and irregular containers does not apply to the cruet or bottle in which the unconsecrated wine is brought forth during the presentation of the gifts, as it never contains the consecrated Precious Blood. (That is, the unconsecrated wine should all be poured into chalices and the previous container removed prior to the consecration -- "fracturing," or pouring of the Precious Blood from one container to another, is not permitted). A chalice must be consecrated (and not merely blessed) by a bishop using sacred chrism. The regilding of the cup used to require the vessel's reconsecration, but this is no longer the case. A broken or damaged chalice, however, loses its consecration.

The Precious Blood is ordinarily not reserved -- the norms require that the priest consume all remaining after communion. However, it can be reserved for very specific purposes and for very short periods of time (like the medicine dropper viaticum example Fr. Fox discussed). This is a change from ancient custom, when the sacred blood apparently was reserved in large quantities within specially consecrated amphorae. St. Ambrose mentions this practice.

File Under: Sacred_Vessels

Benedict '05

Time is conducting a thoroughly unscientific poll. Because it's internet based and unscientific, it's perfectly all right for me to say, in big capital letters

GO VOTE FOR THE POPE! NOW!

Honestly, her mediocreness, JK Rowling, currently has 43% (although we are talking about people who tend to read Time, so what do you expect?) We get a new pope, a super-cool German pope, for the first time in 25 years, and they want to make a moderately-talented Scot author who's been around for years person of the year?

There's a billion Catholics on this here earth -- let's prove it.

(ht: Ragemonkey)

File Under: The_Pope, Art/Media

Confiteor Meme

Der Tommissar tagged me with this, so I reckon I have to do it. I don't think there's a given number of things you have to confess, so I'll just go until I run out of things to say.

• I confess ignoring my politics professor completely, and instead staring at the historical map of Europe that hangs behind her in the classroom thinking, for whole class periods at a time, things like "if the Germans had invaded the Netherlands, would the Schlieffen plan have actually worked?"
• I confess having been the type of child who said "that didn't hurt" when getting switched.
• I confess having to pull out a dictionary to write or read almost anything in Latin, even simple sentences.
• I confess not being able to tell a story effectively to save my life. I have attempted to recount some of the funniest stories I have ever heard. And failed miserably.
• I confess being an incorrigible grammar pedant -- the sort who goes nuts when people don't put a comma before the conjunction in a list. This condition is aggravated by dating a person who is one as well, and working a job that requires it.
• I confess once having had to show my driver's license to prove that I'm from the South because I haven't an iota of regional accent (really quite the opposite sadly).
• I confess being that guy who comments on and over-analyzes everything in a movie, and thus is always getting told "it's a MOVIE!!"
• I confess having successfully hidden a hole in the wall of my room behind a map for about 5 years, until I moved to college and my brother knocked the map down.
• I confess having said things that are so politically incorrect that they render others speechless and sometimes even cause them to abruptly and awkwardly end conversations.
• I confess having once effectively destroyed Windows by installing Norton antivirus incorrectly and having to salvage my system from a DOS prompt.
• I confess actually having been slightly afraid when Layla told me "if you ever have more books than will fit in one room on floor to ceiling shelves, I will leave you." Not because I think she's serious, but because I already have more books than any one sane person has any reasonable excuse for having.
• I confess having busted up a guiness run several months ago, when I was not yet 21, by virtue of our being in a state where they card everyone in the group. I was "that guy."

Let's see, now I have to find people who haven't gotten this yet. I tag Jason, Kevin, Lauren (when she gets her computer fixed), Moneybags, and Patrick. Y'all are it.

File Under: Miscellany

More Stuff About End of Life Decisions

This appears to be an excellent collection of resources dealing with Church teaching on end of life decisions. The other night I had one of those really random thoughts that snowballs itself into an entire scenario. The crux of the thought was "will a 911 operator call a priest?" If you have an auto accident in a place you're not familiar with, and you have no clue how to get in contact with a nearby priest (or really any concept of how far away one might be), will you have any way to secure the sacraments for a badly injured companion?

That got me thinking about this post that Holy Whapping linked to back around Halloween, which provides interesting information for anyone considering making more planned decisions about their eventual incapacitation. Fr. Fox is right when he says the hospital will not call a priest -- Federal (and oftentimes state) privacy laws prevent hospitals from notifying people who are not next of kin that a person is hospitilized, even if asked. The laws aren't directly intended to preclude ministry to the sick and dying, but they have that effect regardless. Also, nurses and doctors are not going to care about the eternal fate of the sick or dying person in their care. If their red tape says that such and such a tube can't be taken out, then they aren't going to remove it temporarily to allow you to receive viaticum. Relatives are normally too stressed out and too deferential to doctors to insist on these sorts of things. So they probably aren't going to happen.

Unless . . . you have left legally-drawn notarized documents (a "living will") containing explicit instructions to be followed in the case that you are hospitilized and unconscious or near death. Hospitals are, in ordinary circumstances, required to follow these living wills unless they contain provisions that are grossly contradictory to medical ethics (or what passes for those nowadays). A lot of people have living wills drawn in order to ensure they won't be kept on life support or feeding tubes. The respirator question is one that a Catholic can decide as he sees fit (obviously it is not moral to withdraw feeding tubes). But Fr. Fox's dillema points to other things that a Catholic should have put in a living will -- in fact, they provide good reasons a Catholic should have a living will in general. If you're a Catholic attorney who writes wills and other such documents, or if you're just a Catholic who has or will be getting such documents for himself, I suggest you look into having provisions for these things inserted in a living will.

1) Require that a hospital to which you are admitted with a life-threatening condition notify a Catholic priest immediately. You can waive your right to be protected by the privacy laws (like when you sign that "my parents can see my grades" form in college) -- this does that, and the hospital should be required to comply (your attorney should know how to make it so they do).

2) Request that if you are facing imminent death and have your mouth and/or esophogus restricted by tubes, that the tubes be removed for the provision of viaticum. Speaking personally, I would much rather receive the Blessed Sacrament one last time than have a few more minutes of (probably unconscious) physical life. After all, they can always try and put it back. If a patient isn't facing directly imminent death or is on a feeding tube, request that the Precious Blood be administered through the feeding tube (although check with a priest before you put that in -- I don't know if that's allowed, but if it is it would be an excellent way to do it). That way you reduce the trauma associated with removing and reinserting the tube.

I'm sure there are other such provisions that should be put in a living will to ensure that your relatives and doctors properly allow for the care of your soul as well as your body, but I'm not thinking of them at the moment.

File Under: Doctrine, Law

Things I Learned This Weekend

1. Never propose to a woman on a bus (n.b. - I didn't learn this from personal experience, but from the excellent movie Walk the Line.)
2. If you ever find yourself unwillingly subjected to a Presbyterian minister, doodling images of the Sacred Heart and Blessed Sacrament is an excellent way to ignore him.
3. Just because the sign at an airport gate says the plane outside is going someplace, doesn't mean it really is (in other words, if an airline changes a flight's gate, don't think they'll bother to tell you -- I almost went to Chicago).
4. Chanting the Eucharistic prayer and consecration is different from imitating Bob Dylan and having instrumental accompaniment when saying them.
5. Regarding #4, the chant sounds a lot better.
6. Fleaflickers are only good when Catholics throw them.
7. It's a lot easier to write something intelligent in a relatively quiet dorm room than in my house -- which is the antithesis of quiet.
8. It's good to be home, regardless.

File Under: Tennessee, Catholic_Stuff, The_Liturgy

To Our Lady

I thought I would leave everyone with a nice little something before I set off for my travels. I don't know where this prayer came from originally, but it's on a prayer card my dad got when he was little. I've always thought it was an amazing and touching example of child-like faith. It asks questions to which we know the answers, but it's always good to remember that even though we know them, we should not cease to wonder at them as well.

Lovely Lady dressed in blue -
Teach me how to pray!
God was just your little boy,
Tell me what to say!
Did you lift Him up, sometimes,
Gently on your knee?
Did you sing to Him the way,
Mother does to me?
Did you hold His hand at night?
Did you ever try
Telling stories of the world?
O! And did He cry?
Do you really think He cares
If I tell Him things -
Little things that happen? And
Do the Angels' wings
Make a noise? And can He hear
Me if I speak low?
Does He understand me now?
Tell me - for you know.

Lovely Lady dressed in blues,
Teach me how to pray!
God was just your little Boy,
And you know the way.

File Under: Catholic_Stuff

Happy Weekend

As Paul said yesterday, there probably won't be any posts until Sunday night or Monday, as we'll both be in Nashville for the weekend. Try not to miss us too much.

In our absence, everyone should be sure go over to The American Inquisition and join with AI in the Novena to the Venerable Servant of God, Queen Isabel I of Castile the Catholic. (It started yesterday, but that doesn't make it too late to join in!)

Root for the Purple Wave (and pray that Paul and I don't get frostbite at the game) tomorrow night, as the Brothers take on their cross-town rivals, Memphis University School (boo! hiss!), in the Div. II AAA State Championship. St. John Baptiste de la Salle and Our Lady of Victory, pray for us.

Everybody have a lovely weekend!

File Under: Miscellany

Status Report

Blogging will probably be light from now through the weekend. There's a paper due tomorrow, and then tomorrow afternoon I'm off to warmer and greener and more Southern places for Thanksgiving break. I'll post next week while I'm at home (and have the over-due next installment in our sacred vessels series), but I'll be spending this weekend with my lovely co-blogger and won't be around the computer much. With raging torture debates at Mark Shea, a "pound the anti-Catholic law student" festival at SA and Confirm Them, and the ordinary goings-on everywhere else, I am sure most of you will be able to survive without my pithy comments for a day or two.

File Under: Miscellany

If you had read the bulletin

You would have known that there was no mass this morning, instead of trapsing across town in whatever ungodly temperature it was at 8:00 this morning. Geez.

File Under: Miscellany

God is Great

For those in need of something happy to help you get over my last post (I certainly was), I submit this story. This family belongs to Paul's home parish.

How delightful it is to see the Lord at work and a family willing to let Him.

File Under: Miscellany

One Woman's Child

This article in the Washington Post has been posted several places. It's been a long time since I've read something so chilling.

The "reasoning" Miss Eftimiades employs in justifying her abortion is particularly upsetting. The doctors said her baby boy, whom she'd planned to name John, would be born with Downs' Syndrome. She and her boyfriend (naturally not her husband, but that's a rant for another day) "believe" that raising a disabled child is "a painful journey [that is] better not taken." I haven't the words to say how much the thought of this grieves my heart. She spends several lines droning about how faithfully she took her prenatal vitamins before she got the results of the amniocentesis. As one whose highest ambition is to be a mother, I simply cannot understand how someone could nurture the life within her until she got news that made her decide continuing to do so would be too "painful." Those who delude themselves into thinking unborn children are not people are terrible, to be sure, but this woman is a monster of an outrageously greater magnitude.

Her line of thinking (if you can call it that) is astonishing. She writes, "As for that baby that will never be, I will remember him always." I beg your pardon? How exactly are you going to remember something that will never be? If he never existed, how did you toss around ideas of what to name him? Why did you request special tea in your effort to care for him?

I simply don't have the energy to address in full Miss Eftimiades's mother's advice to lie that she'd miscarried. A couple very dear to us here at IVA lost a baby very recently, and that this woman would even think of representing herself as being in their situation is among the most heartbreaking and infuriating things I've ever heard.

Holy Innocents and Our Lady of Sorrows, pray for us.

File Under: Miscellany, Art/Media

Albertus Magnus

Today is the feast day of St. Albert the Great. He was an amazing scholar, theologian, and man of holiness, but he is sometimes best remembered today by the comment he made regarding his pupil, St. Thomas Aquinas: "you call him a dumb ox, but I tell you that the dumb ox will bellow so loudly that his bellowing will fill the whole world." Go to newadvent and read about St. Albert, while I go read Rousseau for class ...

File Under: Saints

The Church IS that old time rock and roll

This was one of the lessons given today at our Newman meeting. I'm sometimes wary of student the presentations at the Monday meetings, especially if they are going to involve sound ("oh no, she's going to subject us to something 'moving,'" one thinks), but this one was both very amusing and very true. The talk was on what's special about Catholicism and why we should take joy in belonging to the Church. To illustrate the point, the speaker used 5 pop tunes that had lyrics that could be made (perhaps "forced" is a better word) to apply to the Church -- such as Bob Segar's "Old Time Rock and Roll," from which she talked about our rich history and Tradition. It was all rather Chestertonian, although she could have gotten a little deeper into the "ours is a happy God" deal more explicitly. But really, Catholicism is amazing, it is special, it is exciting and different and joyous. How many things are still exciting after 2000 years? Not many. And it's always been the same thing, in those things that really define us, matters of faith and morals. The mass has always been the mass -- from the upper room to Tridentine to Novus Ordo, it's always been Christ's body and blood, soul and divinity. Lots of folks claim to faithfully carry on the tradition of the Apostles, but St. Tarcisius didn't die for a symbol. And he wasn't Methodist.

Aquinas might have said that "newer rites of grace prevail," but that was 800 years ago, and his "newer rites" were already 1200 years old then. So, today's music ain't got the same salt, I like that old time [Gregorian Chant].

File Under: Catholic_Stuff

On End-of-Life Decisions

For our dear Moneybags.

As many of our readers probably remember, a large part of the Terri Schindler-Schiavo [requiescat in pace] controversy (in conversation and armchair punditry, though not in the legal/political battle) centered around whether she was being cared for by "extraordinary means." The Catechism of the Catholic Church says the following under the heading of Euthanasia (CCC 2276-2279) [note particularly the 4th paragraph]:

Those whose lives are diminished or weakened deserve special respect. Sick or handicapped persons should be helped to lead lives as normal as possible.

Whatever its motives and means, direct euthanasia consists in putting an end to the lives of handicapped, sick, or dying persons. It is morally unacceptable.

Thus an act or omission which, of itself or by intention, causes death in order to eliminate suffering constitutes a murder gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person and to the respect due to the living God, his Creator. The error of judgment into which one can fall in good faith does not change the nature of this murderous act, which must always be forbidden and excluded.

Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate; it is the refusal of "over-zealous" treatment. Here one does not will to cause death; one's inability to impede it is merely accepted. The decisions should be made by the patient if he is competent and able or, if not, by those legally entitled to act for the patient, whose reasonable will and legitimate interests must always be respected.

Even if death is thought imminent, the ordinary care owed to a sick person cannot be legitimately interrupted. The use of painkillers to alleviate the sufferings of the dying, even at the risk of shortening their days, can be morally in conformity with human dignity if death is not willed as either an end or a means, but only foreseen and tolerated as inevitable. Palliative care is a special form of disinterested charity. As such it should be encouraged.

The most useful definition of extraordinary means that I've heard is any function that the body would normally perform involuntarily. Respirators, dialysis machines, machines that make the heart keep beating (I'm sure these have a specific name, but it escapes me), and the like are extraordinary. Feeding tubes would not be considered extraordinary, because the body does not ingest nutrients involuntarily. Therefore, one could licitly remove a person's respirator, but not his feeding tube.

Of note on this topic is also the last bit of CCC 2280, from the section on Suicide: "We are stewards, not owners, of the life God has entrusted to us. It is not ours to dispose of."

I was under the erroneous impression, until Fr. Joe enlightened me yesterday, that the Church frowned on organ donation and other such post-mortem procedures. She does not. CCC 2301 says:

Autopsies can be morally permitted for legal inquests or scientific research. The free gift of organs after death is legitimate and can be meritorious.

The Church permits cremation, provided that it des not demonstrate a denial of faith in the resurrection of the body.

It should be obvious that the reason for donating one's body for research or one's organs to living persons should be altruistic (note "the free gift" in the above). Sam shouldn't sell his Great Aunt Trudy to the local medical school so he can go buy a new TV. Fr. Joe also pointed out in our class that once the research community has finished using the body (at UT Med in Memphis, this is 3 months after the person's death), it should be given a proper burial.

The old prohibition against cremation stemmed from the practice by those who wished to persecute the faithful of cremating the bodies of Christians as a way of sticking it to that wacky "resurrection" idea. Hence, we have a caveat in the allowance of cremation that forbids choosing cremation as a means of rebellion against Church teaching. The Code of Canon Law says, "The Church earnestly recommends that the pious custom of burying the bodies of the deceased be observed; nevertheless, the Church does not prohibit cremation unless it was chosen for reasons contrary to Christian doctrine" (Can. 1176 §3). Fr. Joe told us that cremation should really only be chosen when there is a clear reason for it, giving the example of an area with very limited space for the cemetery. He also said that it was not until the mid-1990s that cremains were allowed to be brought into churches for funeral masses, which I found interesting.

Of course, in thinking about cremation, one must remember that cremains are not to be "scattered" (except in the case of deceased members of the Navy, whose ashes may licitly be buried at sea). The cremains should be treated with the same degree of respect as a non-cremated body.

We are required to treat human bodies with honor and reverence because they serve a holy function. As St. Paul wrote to the Corinthians, "Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? For you have been purchased at a price. Therefore glorify God in your body" (1 Cor. 6:19-20).

File Under: Doctrine

Why Some Christian Houses of Worship Are

A friend of mine, who is quite bright, although possessed of eccelesiastical views somewhat at variance to my own, blogs here. He has embarked upon the task of examining church architecture from a Protestant point of view, and in doing so has started off by addressing the nature of what goes on inside a church building. I hope I will not set his organization all cattiwhompus by engaging some of the points he makes. Unlike some of the folks who I have commented on in this space, Evan is not attempting to make a statement of Catholic orthodoxy and failing, he is talking about an entirely and admittedly different perspective on Christian life. But it still presents the opportunity for interesting discussion.

He starts off by lamenting the use of "worship service" and its varients to describe what Christians go to on Sundays. He's engaging in a very Chestertonian endeavor here ("I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."), and I largely agree with him. As do, I think, the rest of us. Catholics have never called what we go to on Sunday just "worship," because this is indeed an overly-narrow view of what we do. Not simply because our regular lives are meant to give glory to God, but also because the mass itself is more than simply worship (although it is undeniably that as well). He has, in many ways, stumbled across an exciting new truth, one that the Church has preserved for the past 2000 years.

Of course, having reached very similar conclusions, this doesn't mean we see deriving from them similar corrolaries. He ties, somewhat incorrectly, I think, the use of worship as a descriptor of church services with the sacerdotal and sacramental practices of Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and the Mosaic law. If we accept that all of our actions, prayer, work, and play, can and ought to give glory to God, then sacerdotalism must have other purposes than merely leading worship. After all, the Israelites praised God in their homes and in their workplaces -- their lives glorified the Creator just as Christian lives do. What they did at the Temple was not merely worship, it was something more, something more substantial and something more special. The covenant they enjoyed with God required that they offer burnt offerings to the Lord, and that they do so in Jerusalem (after the temple was built to house the ark) through the acts of the priests. But the giving of sacrifices was not simply an act of worship, it was a quasi-sacramental* act of consecration to the Lord.

In the same way, the mass is a sacrifice, and is said by a priest not because we need a priest to engage in the simple act of worship, per se, but because we need a priest to engage in the sacramental acts called for by the new covenant. The new covenant did remove the need to offer sacrifices in the Temple, just as it removed the requirements to follow the dietary laws, but while the specific practice was made obselete, it does not follow that everything that might resemble it in some way was also made obselete. If the obselecence of the old covenant were that complete, it would not be fitting to preserve the Old Testament in the canon, and Christ's utterance that He had come "not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it" would be false.

In the same way, the mass is not a mimickry or a re-do of Levitical Temple worship, it is its replacement. For in Christ we have the perfect sacrifice, the sacrifice that cleanses and sanctifies as no Levitical burnt offering could, for it is the Son of God that is lifted up, His flesh that is offered for the life of the world. Thus, the table of the mass IS an altar, and the man who leads the congregation IS a priest, and it is fitting that he should be set apart in his appearance. This is only fitting, because he carries out the divine command to celebrate the mass, he discharges a duty that Christ Himself entrusted to him. And in so doing, he, along with the gathered people and in fact the entire communion of saints participates (not recreates) in that one, single, and perfect sacrifice. A new order HAS been inaugurated, but it is a new order defined by Christ's presence in the most holy sacrament of the altar. To the extent that the Church worships in an extraordinary fashion in the physical building of a church, it is because there is something extraordinary there to worship: Christ, present body and blood, soul and divinity on the altar, in the monstrance, or in the tabernacle.

Anyone can imagine a God that is omnipresent -- God was so to the Jews, and the imperfect understandings that many non-Christians have of Him holds that He is so. How thoroughly disappointing is a merely omnipresent God! How dull and like all other creeds it is. How disenhearting to know that Christ became incarnate and suffered and died for our sakes only to leave us afterwards with nothing more than a book of wisdom and the ever-present reality that He already possessed! But in the Eucharist how spectacular and unique becomes our God! Here we have not only the perfect synergy of all the unusual elements of "popery" but that which makes Christ truly spectacular and His sacrifice truly joyous. For in the Eucharist God becomes present to us physically, so that all generations may partake of the Last Supper and all men come to receive Our Lord's divinity person in His sacrament. For thus we have been commanded to do. For this purpose did Christ establish a Church, holy, Catholic, and apostolic. For this reason did he set at its head St. Peter , and commission the disciples to "do this in memory of me." For far from being a repudiation of sacerdotalism, just as the gospels are far from being a true repudiation of the Old Testament, Christ's commission was the institution of a new priesthood, a perfect (in a theological, not a human sense) priesthood to perform the sacrament of the perfect sacrifice.

So yes, far too many Protestants call their ministers "priests" and their tables "altars." But these are misnomers not because they misrepesent an optimum state in which they exist, but because they have retained the physical and lexigraphic vestiges of an optimum state from which they have departed. They have thrown out the oatmeal and are left just with an empty can bearing a picture of a man in a funny black hat. If you have a system in which its various elements do not exist in harmony, it is likely the case that either the nomenclature or the actions have outpaced the other -- one has been distorted and the other remained as it was. These communities have elements that fail to make sense because they have retained words that no longer bear any relationship to what they actually do. They have the words associated with Our Lord's sacrament, but where is Our Lord Himself?


-------------
*I say "quasi-sacramental" because I do not think that, in a correct understanding of a sacrament, that the offerings were precisely such. But I am not an expert in Levitical acts.

File Under: The_Liturgy

Catechumen's Corner

a semi-regular feature wherein Layla recounts What She Learned in RCIA
Previous Installment

October had 5 Sundays, so it has been longer than usual since my last class. In that time, my sponsor has worked with me a lot (albeit unintentionally (or so he says)) on my whole attitude about the class. He's given me several lessons on proper humility that I'd do well to apply to all aspects of my life lots more faithfully than I am wont.

Today's class focused on the Church's teachings on Death. We were supposed to watch a video on the topic, but the VCR decided otherwise.

We discussed when and what sort of life support measures/devices are required or permissible. Fr. Joe also talked about cremation and the rules pertaining thereto. He brought up cadaver donations to medical schools or other research organizations. This was very interesting, as I was not aware of what CCC 2301 acutally said on the subject. Yay for learning stuff.

Sts. Charles Borromeo and Robert Bellarmine, pray for us.

File Under: RCIA

42 Straight

Notre Dame victories over Navy. Good game, Midshipmen, we know you come through when it really counts, off the football field.

File Under: Miscellany

Roll Tide!

Tonight at 7:00 PM Central Time, the Christian Brothers High School Purple Wave will take on Brentwood Academy in the semifinals of the Tennessee Division II football playoffs. The Brothers beat BA two weeks ago in the last regular season game, 20-8. We've lost only one game, and that to perenial state powerhouse MBA who has already been eliminated from the playoffs. So, the Wave's state championship hopes are looking excellent this year. To help them along, I present the CBHS fight song (to the tune of the Texas A&M war hymn, only with a little faster tempo):

Hullaballoo, kaneck kaneck
Hullaballo, kaneck kaneck
Roll on Christian Brothers Purple Wave
Rally around with all your might, rah rah rah
Drive on Purple Gold to victory
We are the men who show the fight fight fight fight
That loyal brothers spirit thrills us all
And makes us yell and yell and yell
So let's join together for the Purple Wave
We're gonna beat you al to
Chicobarick, Chicobarick
Smash em, Crash em, Roll tide Roll!
Brothers!
(who?)
Brothers!
(what?)
Brothers!

St. John Baptiste de la Salle, pray for us
Our Lady Queen of Victory, pray for us
Live, Jesus, in our hearts, forever

Update: CBHS:19, BA: 17!

File Under: Tennessee

Happy Veterans' Day

For all of those in the U.S. (or who are expatriate Americans), happy veterans' day. Today is the 87th anniversary of the signing of the armistice that ended World War I. Until the Second World War, the observance was known as Armistice Day and commemorated veterans of the Great War. Now, however, it has been expanded to take into consideration all those who have served our country militarily in time of need. So if you haven't done so, take some time today to remember that you only get to do things like read blogs because men fought and died to preserve our way of life. Freedom isn't free.

St. Michael the Archangel, pray for those who have recourse to thee

File Under: Miscellany

I've a better

"It's a place where pilgrims can touch the experience - they can touch the Bible."

Now, no offense to people going to the Holy Land -- I would love to go someday myself. But if it's just a matter of touching the Bible, we can do Pat Robertson and the Israelis one better:

(ht: Veritas Nunquam Perit)

File Under: Loonies, Catholic_Stuff

Pope St. Leo the Great

This is a really spectacular week for feasts: the Lateran Basillica yesterday, St. Leo today, and St. Martin of Tours tomorrow.

St. Leo reigned as pope from 440-461. The period of his papacy was one of unrest, widespread heresy, and the military and political deterioration of the empire. Yet Leo was able not only to preserve the Church, but greatly strengthen it as well. He fought Pelagianism, Manichaeism, and Priscillianism. He also defended Church teachings about the nature of Christ and the Trinity against the errors of some in the Eastern parts of the Church. He secured the primacy of the See of Peter during this time of disturbance, and greatly augmented the organization and stability of the Church, especially in Gaul, which theretofore had been somewhat of an ecclesiastical backwater beset by episcopal disputes. He restored a number of Roman churches, including St. Peter's. He also wrote widely and with great lucidity; 96 homilies and 143 letters penned by him have survived. Most famously, he confronted Attila the Hun at Mincio in 452 and warned the Scourge of God not to come to Rome, lest he die. Attila turned away from the city, but ventured back towards Rome the next year, at which point he was assassinated by one of his concubines.

Leo died on this date in 461, and was interred in the vestabule of St. Peter's. In 688 his remains were moved to the interior of the basillica itself, and now lie beneath an altar dedicated to him. Benedict XIV named him a Doctor of the Church in 1754.

New Advent on Leo the Great
American Inquisition on Leo the Great

File Under: Saints

Things I Learned Today

1. The Chicago Manual of Style makes a whole lot of noise when dropped down a 5 story stair well.
2. Ye gods and little fishies! Who thought that was a good idea?!
3. If there is intelligent life elsewhere than earth, will this cause them to stay far away, or destroy us?

File Under: Miscellany

Semper Fi!

Happy 230th Birthday, United States Marine Corps!

Saint Barbara, please pray for them.

File Under: Miscellany

Dedication of St. John Lateran

Today is the feast of the dedication of St. John Lateran. This Roman basillica is actually the cathedral of Rome, the Pope's home church, and as such, the parish to which the entire universal Church belongs. Thus today is a universal feast, just as the dedication of any church is a feast within its parish boundaries. St. John Lateran, named after the wealthy Lateran family that financially supported its original construction, has the full formal name of the Patriarchal Basilica of the Most Holy Savior and Saint John the Baptist at the Lateran.

Prior to the Avignon period, the Lateran palaces were the Pope's primary residence, and held the position that the Vatican does today. It fell into disrepair during the exile due to neglect and earthquake, and subsequent popes took up residence in a series of other palaces, the ultimate of which was, of course, the Vatican. Sixtus V had the old ruins pulled down and erected the current church (a smaller structure) in the 1580s. The church was added on to, improved, and embellished several times, with major alterations in 1650, 1735, and the 1880s.

Today the Palaces adjoining the Basillica contain both the Vicariate's administrative and governing offices as well as the Museum of Catacomb Inscriptions and Christian Antiquities established by Pius IX. The Palace was the site of the treaties that bear its name between His Holiness and the various usurping authorities. The high altar of the Basillica itself houses the remains of the wooden altar used by St. Peter in his celebrations of the mass as pope.

Some other pictures.

File Under: The_Pope, Catholic_Stuff

Griswold Delenda Est

The Alito confirmation will once again have us discussing precedents, decisions, and things Supreme Court and legal. A lot of attention focuses on Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that forcibly legalized abortion everywhere within the United States. However, while abortion remains a highly controversial topic, Roe is predicated entirely on a previous case, Griswold v. Connecticut, dealing with something we today regard as far more mundane: artificial contraception.

Griswold created the "privacy" language that so many judicial conservatives detest in Roe. It declared that the Constitution, in addition to its explicit provisions, embodied other rights that "emanated" from it and were found in the "penumbras" of the text. In the words of former law professor, "I have many times taken the Constitution into a dark room, and have never on any occassion seen any penumbra, or anything else for that matter, emanating from it."

In short, the emanations and penumbra language of Griswold, which "found" (read: "invented") in the Constitution a completely nonexistent right to privacy, are the basis for the social and legal madness that we are afflicted with today. Griswold gave us Roe. It gave us Lawrence, which gave us the fiasco in Massachussets. And just as importantly, it pushed an already beseiged Catholic teaching, that the purpose of human sexuality is inherently and inextricably tied up in the procreative nature of the act, to the far outer fringes of society. Catholics should go beyond opposing Roe and voice their disapproval with Griswold not simply because the language there, when taken to its logical conclusions, necessitates Roe, but because this case itself has its own moral abominations. There is very significant statistical evidence that demonstrates the damage that widespread contraception has done to our society's moral fabric. Griswold isn't solely responsible for this -- but it serves to insulate the trend from reversal.

People like to disregard the Church's teachings on contraception because they find it inconvenient. Because they find it inconvenient, they don't bother to educate themselves as to why it is important -- and you can bet that nobody is going to bother to disabuse them of the notion that it is not. There are lots of people out there, even as within such close reach as the rest of the Catholic blogosphere, who write far more effectively on the Church's teaching on "pelvic issues," and why these teachings are integral to our Catholic understandings of the person and human relationships with each other and with God. So, if you're interested, and especially if you're a Catholic who doesn't understand or who disregards the Church's contraception teachings, I encourage you to poke around the Catholic blogosphere at places such as Mark Shea and The Shrine of the Holy Whapping, as well as to take a look at John Paul II's encyclical Evangelium Vitae.

As for myself, I say Griswold delenda est!

File Under: Doctrine, Law

IVA vs. the Jehovah's Witness, Round 2

Amazingly and inexplicably, our JW commentator returned to clarify his polymic. This was very thoughtful of him, and it is only fitting to reciprocate by responding effectively to his comments. We should forgive our commentator's language skills, although perhaps not the social services in the Philippines.

first, am not saying that you are a catholic apostate. w[h]at i am saying is the catholic, is itself an apostate religion, teaching differently from what the true christians thought us as recorded in the bible.

This is a very interesting, and not a very new, assertion. Let's look at it. Who were these "true Christians" who taught us and whose thoughts are recorded in the Bible? I'm honestly not sure what being a "true Christian" in the eyes of a JW entails, but the context of the comment seems to indicate that it requires having been an apostle (or Christ). So, would that include St. Peter, the first pope, to whom Christ granted supreme ecclesiastical authority on earth (including the power to grant this authority to others through the apostolic succession and the sacrament of ordination)? Or would this include the fathers of the Church who preached and handed down to us such "radical" and "apostate" notions as the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin, the Immaculate Conception, and the sacrificial nature of the Blessed Sacrament? Would that be the same Christ who said "This is my body, which shall be given up for you -- do this in memory of me" and "He who does not eat of the flesh of the Son of Man shall not have life within him"?

If the Church is itself apostate, how then can it alone, of all Christian (or quasi-Christian) denominations, trace its roots to Christ Himself and His followers? Every Protestant denomination, every odd sect, all who are not members of the Catholic Church must accept that a particular individual at some point decided for himself that he knew better than God's appointed servants and departed from the Tradition of the Church. Nowhere in Catholicism do you find an individual, or even a council, saying "the way that people have been doing things since the time of Christ was wrong, and even though God spoke to the apostles and doesn't speak to me, I/we will change it." In order to be apostate, there has to be a preexisting institution for you to leave. No such organization exists in relationship to the Church.

Furthermore, who wrote and compiled the Bible? Uhm, well, the Church did. The Canon is only the Canon because the Church said it is. WIthout the Church and its authority, the Bible could be anything -- you could have St. Matthew in there, but you could also have "Bob's Account of What This Jesus Guy Did, Maybe." So to say that the Church is unbiblical is really quite funny, since it requires once again that the Church violate the boundaries of something to which it is an antecedent and a creator. As for what the Bible actually does say in regards to Catholicism, I'll direct all of our interested readers to Scripture Catholic.

secondly, i can't say that you go to hell instead, no because hell is not a fiery place as you knew. it is a cemetery, jesus was there for three days so as lazaruz.

Ahh, now we get some rather interesting theological differences. This requires actually knowing a thing or two about Jehovah's Witnesses. Apparently, they do not believe in an eternal system of rewards and punishments in the same fashion as the rest of us. They maintain that the soul dies with the body at death, and as a consequence use the word hell to refer rather mundanely to the physical ground in which the corpse is interred. On the last day, God will supposedly re-create all those who have died (since you stopped being at the time of death this seems to be the necessity), and the evil will go...somewhere unhappy that, well, isn't hell. The righteous at that time will have a new earthly paradise and wear flannel shirts.

This is the sort of idea that is so silly we weren't even taught how to combat it when growing up. I could go there, but it would only involve me rambling more, which is generally an undesirable thing. But Scripture Catholic has a whole page on Hell that includes both Bible passages and the writings of "true Christians."

I'll leave commentaries on whether or not Jehovah's Witnesses themselves are actually Christian (there's that whole Trinity thing they don't believe in) for another time. Maybe we'll get another visit from our Pacific friend that will occassion that.

File Under: Loonies

Shocking Commentary, from me

So, by now we've all heard at some length about the country-wide rioting ("race riots"? "religion riots"? "ethnic minority riots"?) taking place in France. Many people have responded with something that is roughly equivolent to "eh, serves 'em right." A few people are shocked. The BBC is taciturn and vague, lest it offend its own potential car-burning minorities. I'm going to go out on a splendidly outlandish limb and make the declaration that I think this is a good thing.

What? scream the people -- "you're even more outlandish than we had imagined!" Perhaps, but allow me to explain. Yes, property being destroyed and (now) people dying are undeniably bad things. But which is worse? A bunch of dinky European cars being reduced to slag, or the continued rot of Western Europe as its population dies off and is first held hostage, and then supplanted, by the uncontrolled influx of Muslim immigrants? I'm going to say, and I think I have both implicit and explicit support on this point throughout the conservative and Catholic blogospheres, that the latter is undeniably the worse event. In fact, it's a truly horrifying prospect. Europe desparately needs to be rescued by itself. It needs to be taken out back and have its head dunked repeatedly into the horse trough, and then have strong coffee and tobasco forced down its throat until it sobers up and realizes that it is doing very, very bad things to itself. It needs to remember the immense worth of its Christian heritage and find a way to make the Church the unifying factor in its future in a way that its current arch-secularism can never be. Things that help it along the road to recovery in this regard are good things. And it's almost inevitable that a reversal in attitudes and culture as significant as the one required to help Europe back to its cultural feet will be painful and involve things getting burned and blown up.

So I hope the riots spread. I hope they get really bad. I hope a whole lot of expensive, important stuff goes up in smoke, and I hope the Mohammeden mob demonstrates a willingness to harm people, although of course I do not wish death or ill on anyone. I hope this ordeal causes political turmoil in France and soul-searching throughout Western Europe. I hope that the situation deteriorates to such an extent, and more firmly becomes associated with the presence of large numbers of unassimilated Mohammeden immigrants, that the governments of Western Europe begin to snap out of their current stupor. I hope this very unfortunate series of events, which show so well the true nature of both Mohammeden hostility to the West and the helplesness of the current European political system, is the start of a reawakening in Europe. I hope the European leaders take long, deep looks at themselves, their nations, their policies, and their souls, and consider who they are really helping. I hope we all remember Lepanto, Vienna, and Las Navas de Tolosa (Christian victories), but also and perhaps more importantly Constantinople, Manzikert, and Nicopolis (Christian defeats).

St. Joan of Arc, defender of France, pray for us
St. James the Moor Slayer, pray for us.

File Under: Politics, Catholic_Stuff

How Cool

The Religious Commitments of Judicial Nominees: Appropriate Questioning and Acceptable Answers -- looks like it should be a really neat talk. Reason #45,602 that I wish I went to Notre Dame. What's really bizarre is that's pretty much exactly what I'm considering for my honors thesis for next year, right down to the example of Judge Bailey. I emailed the guy and asked if I could get a transcript ... I wonder if he'll give me one. If you're at ND, you should go and write down what everyone says in case there isn't an official transcript. Then you can give it to me and I'll reward you with .... well, with something.

File Under: Law, Politics, Catholic_Stuff

An insult!

I've have liberals and the like call me a lot of nasty names in my day, and I relish in most of them ("fascist" and "closed-minded" are my favorites, I think, not because I really am a fascist, but because the people who say them know so little about what they're actually saying, and the "close-minded" one is an opportunity to quote Chesterton). However, today I've received a new insult: "apostate."

While I am excited about my first ecclesiastical hate-comment, I am very puzzled, and wish the commenter had left a more in-depth tirade. For starters, he left the comment on Layla's Alabama post. Perhaps the person associates the SEC with false theological teachings. But then again, he got to the site by googling "Jehovah Witnesses" and "Philippines." And he spelt Catholic with a lowercase c. So perhaps he is a JW. But then you think he would have simply told me that I was going to hell for not being a Jehovah's Witness, instead of accusing me of being a Catholic apostate. Of course, were he actually Catholic, I am not sure how he would accuse us of apostasy ... perhaps you could accuse us (inaccurately, I would argue) of rad-traddery or some other crime against modernity, but apostasy? How does he know if I go to church or not? So, anonymous Fillipino apostate-charging commenter, do please come back and flesh out your accusation, that we may fisk you more thoroughly.

File Under: Loonies

This is why you have to go to law school to get a JD

Mark Shea splutters in angst over Alito's voting record, and more specifically over the analysis of that record by people who don't know an injunction from a discovery motion. I think he is over reacting. I am just as eager to see the judicial abomination that is Roe thrown out as he and other Catholics are. However, I am not deeply troubled by Alito's .250 batting average on the matter for two important reasons. #1 (less importantly): I don't pay attention to what talking heads at east coast papers say, because they aren't paid to think or know the law, they're paid to sell newspapers, which requires attracting people who think even less and know even less about the law than they do. #2 (the important one): look at the cases that Alito heard, and you'll see that he is probably the sort of jurist we DO want, and neither an Anthony Kennedy (blood traitor) nor a Harriet Miers (clueless leader).

The Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit is not the Supreme Court. The lower courts are bound, in a very definitive way, by Supreme Court precedent, as stupid as that often is. The cases in which Alito upheld abortion or struck down restrictions were those in which there were very clear cut controlling precedents that had been handed down previously by the higher court. He was obligated by the nature of his position to decide the way he did -- it was what the law required. In Casey, though, the case in which there was no SCOTUS precedent, he voted the way we would "want" or "expect" him to -- he upheld the Pennsylvania restrictions because there was no precedent that addressed them.

So now consider this in light of his proposed appointment to the Supreme Court. If you're looking at his previous decisions and saying "I see a lot of restraint here, a lot of deference to precedent, a gentle hand towards overturning things," that's to be expected, because Alito understood the purpose of his position on the Court of Appeals. Those courts are meant to have a softer and more deferential touch than the Supreme Court, and are bound by precedents in a way in which the Supreme Court emphatically is not. The Supreme Court is "right" because it is final, it is not final because it is right. It can throw its own garbage precedents (cf Plessy, Scott) out the window whenever it wants. The Circuit court is of course not "right" in and of itself, nor is it even final. It therefore lacks the authority and scope in its decisions that the Supreme Court possesses, and one should expect a careful and judicious member of that bench to reflect this fact in his decisions.

To paraphrase Montgomery, "Confirm. I say confirm."

File Under: Law, Politics

My life is now complete

I give you Vicipaedia Latina.

Thanks to Zadok, there is officially no chance that I'll finish my philosophy study guide today.

File Under: Miscellany

Guy Fawkes Day

Today we mourn the failure of the"Gunpowder Plot," which would have restored the Church in England and saved that otherwise noble country from its ignominious Protestant fate. While his methods were perhaps not those that people today look favorably upon, it can be well argued that Guy Fawkes and his co-conspirators intended to act against people who were highly culpable in all manner of injustice, represented an illegitimate government, and served a king with no binding authority.

Ever since Henry VIII's narcissistic religious adventures in the 1530's, Britain had groaned under the weight of religious tyranny, and the once proud heritage and culture of the Church there had been largely reduced to ash as churches were stripped of their ornaments, monasteries razed, ecclesial property forfeited to the crown, and countless faithful Catholics martyred. Having suffered under this yoke for 70 years (with only the tumultuous reign of Mary I as a reprieve), English Catholics at the turn of the 17th century sought to do something about their nation's problem.

To that end, Robert Catesby, Guy Fawkes, Hugh Owen, and others rented a room underneath the House of Lords in 1605. They then filled the room, over the course of several months, with 2.5 tons of gunpowder. The plan was to detonate the room during the opening session of Parliament, killing James I, the royal family, and the peers in one swoop. However, conspirators are not always the brightest people, and one of them wrote a letter to Lord Monteagle, a Catholic peer, advising him not to attend the opening session of Parliament. Suspicious, Lord Monteagle gave the letter to the secretary of state, which prompted a search of the catacombs underneath Westminster. There they found Guy Fawkes, crouching like a ninja in the cellar full of gunpowder, fuse in hand. He was captured, tortured, and along with several of his fellow conspirators, hanged, drawn, and quartered. Parliament proceeded, James I lived, and the Stuarts bungled their way into revolution, regicide, and eventual usurpation.

So, today, while the rest of the world mocks this man and burns him in effigy, setting off fireworks to celebrate the inglorious malaise that Britain has become, let's take a moment to remember -- and thank -- those throughout history, from Guy Fawkes to Bonnie Prince Charles to Cardinal Newman, who have sought to rescue the English from their own theological stupidity.

File Under: Catholic_Stuff

Maintenance

Please pardon any irregularities or difficulties you may encounter in viewing our site for the next bit here. We're engaging in some maintenance to enhance functionality and appearance in firefox, and are having to update and correct as we go. We should be back to normal (well, I don't know about "normal" -- we'll be back to usual) in a few hours. Thanks.

File Under: Miscellany

Saint o' the Day

Today is the feast day of St. Charles Borromeo, Archbishop, defender of the Faith, and Papal Secretary. His life is too complex (and too cool) to condense into a blog blurb, so go read about him at the Catholic Encyclopedia.

File Under: Saints

Litany of the Sacred Heart

Today is a First Friday, and, as such, is a day dedicated to the Sacred Heart. This observance dates to St. Mary Margaret Alacoque's visions of the Sacred Heart in the 17th century, in which, among other things, Christ made the well-known 12 Promises to those who keep the observance. It is customary to have Eucharistic adoration that culminates (or sometimes begins) with a benediction service on this day. For some reason, no church up here does it, and I miss the tradition greatly. Regardless, I'm posting here the Litany of the Sacred Heart (a prayer used as part of that benediction) in honor of the day. Because I am not the Cnytr, I'm just posting in English -- no Latin, sorry.

Lord, have mercy.
Christ, have mercy.
Lord, have mercy.
Christ, graciously hear us.
God, the Father of Heaven, have mercy on us.
God, the Son, Redeemer of the World, have mercy on us.
God, the Holy Ghost, have mercy on us.
Holy Trinity, one God, have mercy on us.
Heart of Jesus, Son of the Eternal Father, have mercy on us.
Heart of Jesus, formed in the womb of the Virgin Mother by the Holy Ghost, have mercy on us.
Heart of Jesus, united substantially with the word of God, have mercy on us.
Heart of Jesus, of infinite majesty, have mercy on us.
Heart of Jesus, holy temple of God, have mercy on us.
Heart of Jesus, tabernacle of the Most High, have mercy on us.
Heart of Jesus, house of God and gate of heaven, have mercy on us.
Heart of Jesus, glowing furnace of charity, have mercy on us.
Heart of Jesus, vessel of justice and love, have mercy on us.
Heart of Jesus, full of goodness and love, have mercy on us.
Heart of Jesus, abyss of all virtues, have mercy on us.
Heart of Jesus, most worthy of all praise, have mercy on us.
Heart of Jesus, king and center of all hearts, have mercy on us.
Heart of Jesus, in whom are all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge, have mercy on us.
Heart of Jesus, in whom dwelleth all the fullness of the Divinity, have mercy on us.
Heart of Jesus, in whom the Father is well pleased, have mercy on us.
Heart of Jesus, of whose fullness we have all received, have mercy on us.
Heart of Jesus, desire of the everlasting hills, have mercy on us.
Heart of Jesus, patient and rich in mercy, have mercy on us.
Heart of Jesus, rich to all who invoke Thee, have mercy on us.
Heart of Jesus, fount of life and holiness, have mercy on us.
Heart of Jesus, propitiation for our sins, have mercy on us.
Heart of Jesus, saturated with revilings, have mercy on us.
Heart of Jesus, crushed for our iniquities, have mercy on us.
Heart of Jesus, made obedient unto death, have mercy on us.
Heart of Jesus, pierced with a lance, have mercy on us.
Heart of Jesus, source of all consolation, have mercy on us.
Heart of Jesus, our life and resurrection, have mercy on us.
Heart of Jesus, our peace and reconciliation, have mercy on us.
Heart of Jesus, victim for our sins, have mercy on us.
Heart of Jesus, salvation of those who hope in Thee, have mercy on us.
Heart of Jesus, hope of those who die in Thee, have mercy on us.
Heart of Jesus, delight of all saints, have mercy on us.

V: Lamb of God, who takest away the sins of the world
R: spare us, O Lord.
V: Lamb of God, who takest away the sins of the world
R: graciously hear us, O Lord
V:Lamb of God who takest away the sins of the world
R: have mercy on us.
V: Jesus, meek and humble of Heart
R: Make our hearts like Your own.

Let us pray
Almighty and everlasting God, look upon the Heart of Thy well-beloved Son and upon the acts of praise and satisfaction which He renders unto Thee in the name of sinners; and do Thou, in Thy great goodness, grant pardon to them who seek Thy mercy, in the name of the same Thy Son, Jesus Christ, who liveth and reigneth with Thee, world without end.

File Under: Catholic_Stuff

St. Martin de Porres

Today is the feast day of St. Martin de Porres, who, for the edification of any disgruntled readers, is a happy saint. St. Martin was born in Lima, Peru in 1579, the illegitimate son of a Spanish nobleman and a black slave. At the age of 11 he went to work as a servant for the Dominicans. He later joined the Dominicans as a religious brother and spent the rest of his life in the friary in Lima. Although he most desired to be sent abroad for work in the order's evangelization efforts, and thereby gain the crown of martyrdom, he was not selected for such work. Instead, he stayed in Lima, working as a housekeeper, barber, farmer, almoner (the member of the religious community who begged alms from the wealthy in the city for the support of the order's work with the poor) and infirmarian. He worked with great humility even in these simple tasks and performed many miraculous cures in the friary's hospital.

He established an orphanage and children's hospital for the poor of Lima's slums. He also established a veterinarian hospital and cared for the stray and sick animals that roamed the streets. He demonstrated remarkable care for all those who sought aid, whether it was medical, spiritual, or financial.

He possessed a great devotion to the Blessed Sacrament and a wonderous spiritual faith. He was blessed, because of his great faith and devotion, with ecstasies and the gift of bilocationn. He reportedly was seen by and comforted, the poor and oppressed in many parts of the world, although he never left Lima. Members of his friary testified that he passed through locked doors in order to care for those quarentined with fever. He died, of fever oddly enough, 1639. Clement XIII venerated him in 1763, Gregory XVI beatified him in 1836, and he was canonized by John XXIII in 1962. He is depicted with a broom and animals.

File Under: Saints

Good for us

Pope praises large families. See, I knew there was a reason Catholics have lots of kids -- His Holiness wants us to! As I pointed out to my painfully Darwinian biology professer yesterday: the reason there are so many Italian Catholics in the US is because we all have a whole buncha kids. So for everybody out there raising, working on, or intending to raise a large family (especially a Catholic one), kudos!

File Under: Catholic_Stuff, The_Pope

Ten Questions for ''Bible Christians''

DeoOmnisGloria passes along a fantastic list of questions to get one's wheels turning about Sola Scriptura.

I'd be interested in hearing any responses from JBut or any other adherents of that school of thought. I'm going to pose these to the friendly neighborhood Presbyterian campus minister, and I'll update with his reaction.

(Hat tip to Dappled Things.)
File Under: Doctrine

Levity

Someone whom I hold very dear commented to me that this place is overly cynical and scornful. I hadn't gotten that impression, but she did, and others are usually better judges of one's mood and such than one is of oneself.

So, lest folks think us too negative and critical, I submit The Llama Song.

File Under: Miscellany

On Purgatory

In AP English my senior year of high school, we read C.S. Lewis's The Great Divorce. As she was explaining (I use the term loosely) the meaning of the book, the teacher commented that Lewis had based it on his "unorthodox" belief in Purgatory. Yay for Presbyterian school, right?

At any rate, I give you Lewis's own discussion of why he believed in Purgatory, in honor of Mrs. Eaves and as a help for anyone who has ever scrambled for clear and concise words with which to explain or defend the doctrine.

(Hat tip to A Conservative Blog for Peace, by way of Dappled Things.)

File Under: Doctrine

Wile E. Coyote, GENIUS

That about describes most of the people who make a living commenting on Amercain culture and social institutions. They look at G-rated movies, think their might be too much adult humor and violence in them, and then make amazingly profound statements like "But 30 or 40 years ago, there were a lot of things falling on heads and dropping off cliffs." Even if that sentence didn't cause pain because of its deformed structure, it's a fairly good reflection of how stupid some people can be. The problem with movies today isn't that they contain more violence or more adult humor, per se, but that the content that goes into them is not written, all too often, by people who know anything about what is really suitable for children and care less. So maybe lots of the board members of the MPAA are parents -- today, that doesn't mean anything, except that perhaps they have screwed up kids. Because we're eviscerated our societal sense of objective right and wrong, and therapied out of existence the norms of child-rearing that worked pretty darn well for about 10,000 years, we're left without any moral compass, so to speak, to guide what we, as producers and as consumers, should expose children to. That's how you get Victoria's Secret going from a legitimate business engaging in legitimate activities to a peddler of soft-core porn goodies. That's how you get parents who are scared to death that their children might see a depiction of a firearm in a movie (oh, the horror!), yet children's movies marketed on godlessness and sex and body humor gross a jillion dollars every year.

It's not that there are things in movies that are pop culture references (there's a whole lot of stuff in Bugs Bunny that doesn't make a whole lot of sense if you don't know anything about 1940's America) or that are over children's heads, movies have always had such material (cf, a scene from one of the old -- and very family-friendly -- Thin Man movies. Myrna Loy: "Nick, pick me out a dress" William Powell: [takes a neglige that could not have been worn on screen out of the closet] "Here, this one is my favorite" Myrna Loy: "Why, Nickie, that's a nightgown, not a dress!" William Powell: "Well, it's still my favorite"). It's that we're making such references more and more accessible to children, and making the things they address more and more inappropriate. "Adult" issues as a broad category include, as an old Calvin and Hobbes cartoon points out, things like getting dressed up and going to work. It's a matter of degrees and of type, of drawing the line between those things that our faith (for those who still have any) and our common sense (for those fewer who still have any) tell us will harm children, and everything that might be "adult" in some way or another. Right now a lot of us are like Chicken Little (I didn't know they were making a movie -- how very unfortunate), running around crying that the sky is falling, and too often ignoring the very real problems that ARE present.

(full cnn article here)

File Under: Art/Media