In Veritate Ambulare

An Admission

2007-09-23T10:20:00.000-06:00

It has come to my attention that law school tends to consume one's time to prodigious degrees. This little corner of the blogosphere was already rather anemic, and I simply don't have anything like the time to do anything with it anymore. For the sake of not pretending, it's best to go ahead and admit that. I'll be leaving the archives online, but I do not expect to be posting in the foreseeable future. Thanks to all our readers. I'll leave everyone with just one little request -- say a little prayer for Charlie Weiss and the football team, they need it.

K of C Convention

2007-08-09T21:46:00.001-06:00

I am just returned from volunteering at the 125th Knights of Columbus Supreme Convention. I'll try and get some details up here over the next several days -- St. Blog's seems to be awefully quiet on the largest gathering of hierarchy in the Western hemisphere. I said "Your Excellency" more times Monday and Tuesday than in the rest of my life put together (and even got in one "Your Eminence"). While I'm at it I'll see if I can't finish cleaning up our color scheme changes and post the rest of my contraception talk.

Update: Rocco seems to have some coverage, focusing primarily on Cdl. Bertone's comings and goings. At least he speaks kindly of the Order. I'll have some tidbits that he doesn't bother to mention, along with some first-hand bits that he just doesn't know.

Whoops!

2007-07-25T20:52:00.000-06:00

It seems that I have neglected to change the tags for our images -- they were hosted on my old school server, which seems to have just recently been flushed. We'll get things back up and running here shortly.

Calendrical Thoughts

2007-07-10T22:17:00.000-06:00

I will refrain, at least at the moment, from babbling about the Motu Proprio. Those who know better and speak better than I on such things are relatively easy to find. Huzzah, three cheers, Deo gratias, indeed. To break my long hiatus, I have, as Monty Python would say, something completely different.

Recently, my parents were in Nashville and had the singular misfortune of attending Mass at Holy Family in Brentwood. (I'm afraid the the tie-dye quilt over the sanctuary, twig crucifix, stadium seating, and do-it-yourself-share-your-faith-journey rite of acceptance combined to force this parish onto my black list after the last visit.) In the homily, Father apparently opined that the liturgical calendar does not make any sense to people in the southern hemisphere, since its cycle of death and rebirth does not coincide with the seasonal cycle of death and rebirth. i.e., Easter isn't in the Spring, thus, Christianity must somehow make much less sense. The inevitable result, then, as the number and percentage of Catholics living in the Southern hemisphere grows, is that the liturgical calendar will have to be revised so that feasts match up with seasons there.

This would make perfect sense -- if Catholicism -- or even mere Christianity for that matter -- were an animistic faith in which observances derived nature and meaning from the weather or the the seasons. Christmas may have been established on a day that facilitated its replacement of the winter solstice as a high holy day among the Germanic tribes. But this does not mean that Christmas derives any of its integral meaning from that association. The same is even more true of Easter, which, unlike some other feasts, is actually a calendrical anniversary, albeit on a different calendar. The meaningful calendrical relationship for Easter is that with Passover -- not (primarily) that with spring. The Church has been successfully spreading the Gospel in the Southern hemisphere for two millennia. The absence of a fully inculturated liturgical calendar hasn't seemed to stop her yet. Sure, the Petrine authority could erect an Australian Rite and publish a Missale Austrinus so that the poor people below the equator could have Easter during their spring. But this seems to cut against catholicity. Was there really nothing to say about the ninth chapter of Luke's gospel?

Into Great Silence review

2007-05-21T10:25:00.000-06:00

Like Mr. Fitzpatrick, I saw Into Great Silence this weekend. It wasn't exactly what I expected, though I would recommend it to anyone interested in a visually beautiful glimpse of the monastic life.

A detailed review can be found here. I'd agree with most of what Mr. Fitzpatrick says, adding that the film can get a little tedious at points. I can only take so many minutes of pondering the same scenic view of the snow-covered monastery. The good bits more than make up for any shortcomings, however. Favorite scenes included an afternoon of some of the younger brothers frolicking in the snow and a very sweet interview with an elderly brother about being joyful in the face of death because it means going home.

All in all, Into Great Silence is a stunningly beautiful film, and I would recommend seeing it if it is playing near you. I think it has the potential to do a lot of good for vocations. There was a group of very arty, film-student-types in front of me in the theatre, and afterwards, their general consensus was "well, that was interesting. Their life looks really cool." If it can get that sort of response from guys with spiky hair and eyebrow piercings, just imagine what it could do for someone on the verge of discerning a vocation.

Prayer Request

2007-05-13T16:25:00.000-06:00

Your prayers for Paul's mom would be much appreciated.

Contraception, Part II

2007-04-22T21:51:00.000-06:00

Part I
Our look at the moral theology of contraception continues.

Therefore, if we accept that sex is the necessary physical element of this divinely ordained self-giving reflection of God by man, we can begin to draw some concrete and logical conclusions about it.

I) Sex is not self-centered; it is not, and cannot ever be, about me. It has to be about my spouse, about my act of giving of myself.

II) Sex is not about pleasure. It is pleasurable, and it was created as such by God, but that is one of its qualities, not its purpose. Pleasure is inward-looking, self-centered – the same things we just established sex isn’t. God has attached pleasure to things that are good and necessary for us to do: eating, sleeping, having sex, etc. But God attached that pleasure to these things because He intended life to be joyful and to encourage us to do them because they were good; they aren’t good because they are pleasurable. We’re supposed to derive pleasure from sex, and that’s not precluded by this point or its giving nature. But we do need to remember that sex, like any other human action, has pleasure as a quality, not a purpose.

III) Sex is appropriate only in the context of a permanent relationship: marriage. Because it is a reflection of God’s eternal – and therefore very permanent – self-giving love, it would be entirely inappropriate, and entirely inaccurate, for us to attempt to reflect that love in any kind of transitory or impermanent fashion. As a temporal being, I can’t match God’s perpetual and eternal love: but I can bind myself to the utmost of my capacity, I can have permanence in my love, even if I can’t have perpetuity.

IV) Sex is appropriate only in instances in which its mutually self-giving quality is fully expressed – God’s love has no reservations, holds nothing back, and has no barriers. Therefore, our loving imitation of that love shouldn’t either.

So that’s brought us quite definitively to sex itself. So let’s start into this section by asking, “what, exactly, is sex?” We might think we know the answer, but it’s actually worth looking at. The soul’s side to sex has been outlined above – marriage has a sacramental, spiritual side, of course. The physical side, for our purposes, requires a very precise and slightly graphic definition: the deposition, through the conjugal act, of seminal fluid in the “appropriate receptacle” of a woman.

So right away we can eliminate things like in vitro as not actual sex: no conjugal act.

Also, we can exclude from being sex all non-coital acts: no deposition and no conjugal act, either. As a note, nobody’s outlawing foreplay, but these sorts of activities aren’t sex, and should not be used to take the place of the sexual act itself. There’s a reason it’s called “foreplay.”

Third, and this is the one that will surprise people, we have to exclude anything involving condoms: this can’t be real sex. It has a conjugal act, but there’s no deposition. It renders the sexual act impotent, thus frustrating its very purpose and nullifying it. Thus, we lump condomistic sex with non-coital sexual acts in the category that some have termed “psuedo-sex.”

So let’s backtrack for a second now: we know what sex is, but what is it for? We’ve discussed the theological importance of sex, and we’ll need to bear that in mind, but sex has practical purposes as well, which can be summarized as “babies and bonding” – sex is for reproduction, and sex is for married persons to share and express their bond of love. You need to have these two elements, the procreative and the unitive, to have rightly-ordered sex. You might technically have a full sexual act while frustrating one of these elements (rape and contraception are the two standard respective examples), but it won’t be good sex. What you have then is more akin to Bullemia, where someone forcibly extirpates the nourishing quality of eating while maintaining some of the other qualities in its nature.So we have a seamless garment, in which the these unitive and procreative natures are interwoven. And together, they form what is really just the opposite side of the self-giving-image-of-God nature of sex. These are just two ways of describing the same reality, and they both entail the same things and they have the same prerequisites.

Contraception, Part I

2007-04-21T15:35:00.000-06:00

Several weeks ago, I gave a presentation to our John Cardinal Newman Community on the Church's teachings on contraception. I'll present it here in a series of posts over the following days.

This talk is ostensibly about contraception, but there’s a good deal of ground we’ll have to cover before we get there – what I’m going to say about contraception is really a conclusion, which won’t make any sense unless we have first established the correct set of premises. To talk about contraception, you obviously have to talk first about sex. But to talk about sex, you first have to talk about man, and to talk intelligently about man, you have first to talk about God. So, let’s start with God.

What do we know about God? We know a variety of things about God, but I’d like to focus on one of His overarching and unifying qualities: God is love, Deus caritatis est. This well established principle was, of course, the topic of Benedict XVI’s first encyclical, which came out last year.

We can see how this works in practice by considering the Holy Trinity: The Father creates the universe and sustains it out of love, and His instrument in that loving act is His word, the Son, the consubstantial and eternal Logos. The Son, in turn, gives Himself entirely to the Father in love, dying on the cross as the perfect sacrifice of perfect love. The love between the Father and the Son is so great that it manifests itself as a third person, the Holy Spirit

God proceeds, as Genesis tells us, to make man in His own image – and not just in the image of the Father, but in the image of the entire Godhead: “let us make man in Our image.” And although it is primarily in our souls that we possess this image of God – which makes sense, since God is a spiritual, and not a corporeal being, the Incarnation withstanding – God creates us body AND soul.

Therefore, just as God exists fully in the self-giving act of love, so too is man made to give of himself in love, and in so doing he most fully realizes his status as being a reflection of God’s image.

Man has as his final cause God – union with God is our purpose, our end. We have been created to be united in love with something outside ourselves. We have, then, what John Paul II referred to as a “spousal nature,” by which we will most fully realize our purpose by being united with God following the resurrection.

But man can’t enjoy bodily or even spiritual union with God here on earth – this has been rendered impossible by the fall. We have a connection with God through the sacraments, but not this spousal union.

Therefore, God, in His love and wisdom, created man in such a way that he can partially fulfill his call to give of self, partially fulfill his spousal nature, within the confines of our earthly existence.

For this reason, God created man “male and female” and gave them marriage to unite them spousally, and sexuality, the bodily component of that union.

Thus, man most fully reflects God’s image when a man and a woman are united in the marital embrace – they share a union in both body and soul that mirrors the union among God’s persons: they share a spiritual bond by virtue of the sacrament of which they have partaken, and they share a physical bond by virtue of the realities of man’s physical nature. Because we are a union of body and soul – not merely a haphazard jumble of the two, and not merely animated bodies, but a real union – we could not in this life most completely reflect God’s image without the union and giving of one of these aspects. God the Father gives perfect love without corporeal existence, but this is because He transcends it while giving completely of Himself. We have bodies, and so if we attempted to give of ourselves entirely without doing so bodily, we could not – we would be withholding something that we have. Thus, both body and soul are required to be called upon in marriage, because we have both to give.

Furthermore, because people so united are giving entirely of self – as God gives entirely of Himself – in love, they are drawn close to God: by choosing and partaking in love, they grow in their imitation of the perfect love, God Himself. Thus, marriage has in reality a triangular quality: the two spouses united with each other, and each united with God. This is why Archbishop Fulton Sheen entitled his book on marriage Three to Get Married. The whole affair is about more than just husband and wife: it’s about God. It also reinforces the manner in which marriage is a reflection of the Trinity by making the relationship triune.

Answered Prayers

2007-04-20T11:41:00.000-06:00

The Bettanellis have received some wonderful news. Thanks be to God.

Let us remember, while thanking God for Melanie's health, to lift up in prayer all those without good diagnoses.

PBA Ban Upheld

2007-04-18T14:19:00.000-06:00

But I wish Anthony Kennedy's clerks would proofread better. Bad proofing produces ambiguity, and ambiguity leads to bad law. Take this sentence from the majority opinion:

"The Act excludes most D&Es in which the fetus is re-moved in pieces, not intact."

Now, both Kennedy's opinion and the Syllabus devoted quite a bit of time prior to this discussing how the law in question does not prohibit dismemberment Dilation and Evacuation abortions. But here, he indicates that it prohibits some of them. Why does it say that, you ask? Because of the lack of a comma after "D&Es." If there were a comma there, it would be saying that the Act excludes most D&Es because most D&Es involve the removal of the fetus in pieces. As it reads now, it says that the Act prohibits most of those D&Es that involve removing the fetus in pieces. The presence or absence of the comma changes whether or not the prepositional phrase "in which . . ." is a restrictive (without the comma, written meaning) or descriptive (with the comma, likely the intended meaning) -- and as we can see, thus changes the meaning of the entire sentence. Being a sentence buried deep within an opinion and making a point well established elsewhere, this is pretty harmless. But if we're letting this sort of mistake slip here, how sloppy are we going to be in situations where it really matters?

All that aside, it's an enormously welcome opinion. Kudos to the Court.

Congrats, Alice!

2007-04-17T20:45:00.000-06:00

Congratulations to our dear blog-friend, Alice Gunther, who won three very well deserved titles in this year's Homeschool Blog Awards. Alice's Cottage Blessings was voted Best Crafts, Plans, & Projects Blog, Best Homeschool Encourager Blog, and Live-What-You-Believe Homeschool Blog.

Beyond being an encourager to homeschooling families, Alice encourages everyone with whom she comes into contact. She's been an incredible source of inspiration to me, both in my aspirations to raise a family and in my practice of our Faith. She is a shining example of Catholic womanhood, and the internet, and my life, is better for her presence. The voters in these Homeschool Blog Awards categories chose well.

Congratulations, Alice, and thanks for all you do.

Subways

2007-04-16T20:06:00.000-06:00

I spent several days at the end of last week traveling in the Chicago area -- from Columbus to Midway, then around town on the CTA, hence to South Bend, and then back again. Coming from a part of the country in which public transportation is, to the extent it exists at all, primarily a source for jokes about public services, such adventures are always, well, adventurous.

One of the most interesting things about them is that they provide opportunities to ride around very large cities. Large cities, and especially public transportation through large cities, are fascinating case studies in humanity. The array of building ranging from brand new to refurbished to falling down around one's ears, the shuffle of myriad people going this way and that, the various possessions that people find reason to prop up in apartment or office windows, almost everywhere you look you find something that contains a story about history or society. That's not to say that large cities are necessarily superior to their alternatives; indeed, I prefer open spaces and am firmly convinced that one can learn just as much, and live far more happily, in them than in a big city. But the metropolis has a story to tell. Much like a museum, it's full of information, but you wouldn't want to stay there once they turned out the lights.

You can tell the people who live in the city from the people who have come to visit. Those accustomed to the routine sit on the L and stare at the ground, or read, or fidget. They're tired, bored, and know how all of this works. They'll tell you where this train goes, but only if you ask. And they might not get it right. But the visitor peers out the window, hoping to learn what all the other passengers have already forgotten, as shop fronts and neighborhoods go clicking by. Who was Forrester? What did he do in that building with his name over the door? Do the architects who work in those drafting rooms now even know? If one had time and ability to get off the train and nose around, maybe one could find out. But I haven't time, and nobody else remembers even to care.

One of the particularly fascinating aspects of very large cities is the enormous number of churches. Even more excitingly, the traveler can infer that in a place like Chicago, a significant portion of them will be Catholic, and not merely the tv-dinner Protestant edifices that are stacked top to bottom in every Southern city and town. Of course, from the Metro you can only see the belfry, roof, or steeple of most of them -- sometimes one gets a glimpse of more, but not often. One inevitably finds oneself engrossed in an unwinnable game of guessing to whom each belongs. Baroque twin towers with bronze domes: surely Catholic; enormous pyramidal shingled steeple, vaguely German air: probably mainline Protestant, perhaps Prussian immigrant-built; chintzy imitation Baroque facade, no statues: American Protestant knock-off of real architecture; blocky cruciform structure with large dome over the central crossing: a long shot, but I called it for the Orthodox; Florentine-style belfry: again, surely Catholic; brown spires somewhat reminiscent of Sagrada Familia: Catholic.

Of course, without the accompanying foot tour, and never being close enough to read a sign, one is never able to verify one's score. The game ends, as does the little journey through the city, with a collection of new questions, but very few answers.

Fr. Hardon

2007-04-10T18:24:00.000-06:00

The Curt Jester passes along a report that the first steps have been taken in the cause of canonization of Fr. John Hardon, SJ. Observant readers will recognize the name from the article I linked in my last post.

The good father's With Us Today: on the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist is one of the most heartfelt books I've read on the subject (and this is no small number, given that reading books on the Eucharist has been my only academic work this semester). As I said in my notes on the work, Fr. Hardon's love for our Eucharistic Lord is obvious. He's quite inspiring.

More information on the cause can be found here.

A Recommendation and a Reflection

2007-04-07T11:11:00.000-06:00

My ongoing research project has me in "All Eucharist, all the time" mode (not a bad thing, by any stretch), so I give you this article by Fr. John Hardon, SJ for your Easter reading.

I've been trying to think up some profound post upon the first anniversary of my reception into the Church, but I really can't come up with anything. That's not to say that this hasn't been quite the profound year for me, spiritually speaking, but I just haven't any words to describe what's happened. It doesn't feel like it's been only a year, really. Being Catholic is as natural to me as breathing now. I haven't been "in" very long, certainly, but in a lot of ways I can hardly remember what life was like before. Particularly, I've no idea how I managed to live without the graces He grants through His Presence in the Blessed Sacrament. How does anyone?

Please join me in praying for Amy, a dear friend of ours here at IVA, for Jennifer F., and for all other candidates and catechumens coming into the fullness of the Truth tonight. May they feel as blessed by God and as welcomed by His family, the Church, as I do, and may their faith only grow in steadfastness and in fervor as they continue their journey heavenward.

Bleg

2007-04-01T13:06:00.000-06:00

If you know of a good translation of Christoper Rasperger's 200 interpretations of "This is My Body," I would be much obliged if you'd let me know where to find it. I've not been able to come up with one, and my Latin is far too rusty to create my own. The text can be found here.

Blessed Holy Week, everyone!

Fr. DeFedirico

2007-03-29T15:12:00.000-06:00

I received word today from the Memphis Knights of Columbus that one of our retired priests, Fr. Gabe DeFedirico, was taken to the ICU today and that there was difficulty reviving him. Fr. Gabe was a fiery little Italian-American man from Philadelphia, who always managed to combine great humor with astounding candor. He came across as gruff very often, yet also ran the diocese's pre-marital counseling. He had an amusing nickname for every conceivable wrong way of receiving Holy Communion (such as the "Trick-or-Treat," in which the communicant stuck out his hands and opened his mouth, leaving the minister guessing how he desired to receive), and a startling blunt manner of articulating the presence of evil in the world: he would list the litany of excuses for something or other, and then say, "No. Such and such is EVIL." At the same time, he displayed a disarmingly simple love of our Lord and the Blessed Sacrament, and could present homilies as memorable for their unadorned and straightforward caring as easily as he could present ones relying on humor or sheer bluntness. He never wanted for an anecdote, having accumulated a truly copious array in his interesting life, and he was quite adept at integrating these into the instructional facets of his ministry. He once observed that until he was an adult, he thought that his parents had never argued; only then did he realize that they did it all in Italian, so as to spare their American children.

In perhaps the most memorable of his homilies I ever heard, he told of his time as a prison chaplain. Every week, he would bring the Blessed Sacrament to a Catholic inmate. One week, the prisoner in the neighboring cell, an old man, leaned up against his bars and said, "Father, please give me what you bring to him." He replied, "I'm sorry, but I can only give it to someoen who believes that it's the Body of Christ." "I do believe!" responded the inmate. Fr. DeFedirico told that he gave Holy Communion to the man, and ended with this observation: "When I went back next week, the man was dead."

That's a simple tale, and one frought with potentially spurious relationships. But it's one that I've spent the last eight years thinking about.

Just in: Parents raise children; hot water needed to make coffee

2007-03-19T18:02:00.000-06:00

I can count on one hand the number of times I have read something intelligent in the pages of the Memphis Commercial Appeal (syndicated columns, comics, and the sports page excluded). But apparently they've published this surprisingly intelligent article on pre-K programs.

Now, pre-K and Headstart programs sound really great at first -- everyone supports kids learning, and everybody can support giving disadvantaged children some sort of assistance. And then you think about it a little harder. These three- and four-year-old children who are going to school and spending all this time with teachers aren't spending time with whom? Oh, with their parents.

Why exactly does the government want to take children away from their parents? Maybe it's because the primary error of the modern state is that it seeks to be all things; it can spend your money better than you, it can manage your healthcare better than you, it can get the crab grass out of your yard, and it can even raise your children. When you expand programs such as this beyond the level of charity for the desperately needy, you cease to help people, and begin robbing them. You rob them of their childhood, which should be spent in the warmth and care of their parents' house -- even, or perhaps especially, if those parents will teach them things inimical to the values, official or de facto, of the state or society. You rob parents of their rightful labor -- we hear lots about right to work, but what about the right to do the most fundamental work, the work that God willed man do "from the beginning"? The familial labor of love was the single labor inherent in man's nature and required of him prior to the Fall. To paraphrase George Bailey, the government isn't selling, the government's buying.

What's even more troubling is that Catholic schools have jumped on the bandwagon. They likely aren't consciously motivated by the same insidious statism that drives public programs, but that doesn't make the end result any better. Maybe they think they're providing a top-quality program; maybe they think they're making themselves better able to compete in the non-existent academic marketplace. They quite certainly are using their pre-K programs as gold mines by preferencing pre-K students for real school admissions, forcing parishioners to enroll their children as a practical matter even if they disapprove of the concept. And with parochial schools willingly constricting class sizes and enrollments, to the point of turning away paying students, Protestant and Catholic, in the name of some God-forsaken accreditation or perhaps just shameless pandering to Those Who Know About Such Things. Given that even in places where Catholic populations are growing parochial school teachers are just as likely not to be Catholic as to be, and almost guaranteed to be incapable of giving real instruction in the Faith, homeschooling looks better all the time.

Second Amendment News

2007-03-09T13:43:00.000-06:00

In what could be a landmark case, the Federal Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia threw out DC's longstanding handgun ban, overturning a District Court ruling from last year. The District has long maintained that the Second Amendment applies only to organized militias, a line of reasoning rejected both by the Court of Appeals and by the tradition of American constitutionalism. The decision is overdue and highly welcome.

What boggles my mind, however, is this comment from the dissent (itself taken from an earlier case, Seegers v. Ashcroft): "the District of Columbia is not a state within the meaning of the Second Amendment and therefore the Second Amendment’s reach does not extend to it."

This statement ignores several key facts. Most importantly, it assumes that the Court has incorporated the Second Amendment through the application of the 14th Amendment, so as to apply its provisions to the states. The Court has never done this, but has rather held on several occasions that the Second Amendment's protection of the right to bear arms is NOT covered by the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection. (Of course, one could argue, as an even more fundamental point, that the entire incorporation doctrine itself is bunk -- but that's another discussion). So, saying that the Second Amendment doesn't apply to the District of Columbia because it's not a state is pointless -- the Second Amendment wouldn't apply to the District even if it were a state.

In fact, the status of the District of Columbia as Federal territory, and its NOT being a state, is what causes the Second Amendment to apply there. The Bill of Rights, along with the rest of the Constitution, binds first and foremost the Federal government. Congress lacks the authority to prohibit the bearing of arms. Yet the District of Columbia's administration, which Congress created and vested with powers, believes that it can. From where has it received such power? Congressus non supplet quod Congressus non habet (to adapt a phrase).

The case is Parker, et al v. District of Columbia.

Pray

2007-03-08T22:28:00.000-06:00

If you're reading this, you probably already know about Dom and Melanie and the blow they were dealt this week. I just wanted to add a gentle reminder from our little corner of the Catholic blogosphere to storm heaven with prayers for the Bettinellis. They're asking particularly that we ask for the intercession of Bl. Teresa of Calcutta.

Chimpanzees?

2007-03-08T20:10:00.000-06:00

I've been doing some research for a big paper here recently, and it's led me to dig through law reviews. In general, I've always thought that law reviews were reserved for serious legal scholarship. Not anymore. At least, not if you go to Golden Gate University School of Law, in whose Winter 2007 Law Review appeared an article entitled "The Entitlement of Chimpanzees to the Common Law Writs of Habeus Corpus and De Homine Replegiando," in which the author argues "that individual chimpanzees are entitled to use that common law writ [of Habeus Corpus] to bring their claims to bodily liberty before common law courts."

Now, tell you what -- you find me a chimpanzee that can bring ANY claim, of bodily liberty or otherwise, or do anything that even remotely begins to resemble using the common law, and not only will I eat my hat, I'll agree with this fellow.

Pets aren't people, folks.

Dodgeball

2007-03-07T23:19:00.000-06:00

I found this picture in a Facebook* group called "Catholics for Clerics in Cassocks," and simply had to share. I hope the individual who posted it, whoever he may be, doesn't mind. I think, in many ways, it sums up Catholicism: Tradition, a good time, and (at least after Father wings someone with that ball) a little well-deserved suffering. The caption didn't say where the picture was taken, but judging from the other pictures with it, I think the priests are members of the FSSP or ICRSP, and might be in St. Louis -- there were a lot of pictures of His Excellency, Archbishop Burke.

For those readers who aren't college students, Facebook is something like an online interactive address book on steroids -- you can upload pictures and information to let friends know what you're up to, and there are "groups" people can make and join for . . . well, mainly just for the sake of doing so.

I can't get no satisfaction

2007-03-04T23:31:00.000-06:00

The National Registry of Gregorian Scholas gives a little clue as to why good ecclesiastical music is so hard to come by in the mid-south.

(ht NLM)

A Word from Pope Leo XIII

2007-02-24T12:06:00.000-06:00

"According to the Fathers of the Church, the Eucharist must be thought of as a certain continuation and extension of the Incarnation. Through it, the substance of the incarnate Word is linked with individual men and women, and, in an admirable manner, the supreme sacrifice of Calvary is renewed, as was foretold by the prophet Malachi, 'In every place a clean oblation is sacrificed and offered to my Name.' This miracle, the very greatest of its kind, is accompanied by innumerable miracles, for here all the laws of nature are suspended. The whole substance of bread and wine is converted into the Body and Blood of Christ; the appearances of bread and wine, subjects of no reality, are sustained by divine power."

--Leo XIII, Mirae Caritatis, 1902

Housekeeping

2007-02-22T21:35:00.000-06:00

Blogger finally forced me to convert to the new version today. Fortunately everything transferred it seems. Since we didn't lose anything, upgrading is good because now we have blogger tags instead of having to use the old technorati ones (which I hadn't been able to use since about September because my computer crashed and I lost the links to the site for creating them). I'll fiddle with the sidebar here soon so you can access both the old and the new thematic archives.

Germans like the pope

2007-02-22T21:19:00.000-06:00

The Germans seem to like them their Pope. The German periodical Spiegal has published a very interesting article discussing why Benedict, whose election was met with wailing and gnashing of teeth in so many quarters, is actually making inroads in efforts to reawaken the faith in Europe.

Ashes

2007-02-21T15:31:00.000-06:00

I look with interest and puzzlement at the rise, in recent years, in popularity of Lent and Ash Wednesday among Proestants. On the one hand, it's enheartening to see Protestants regaining, after 500 years, a sense of the efficacy of physical works. On the other, it's all too often seems to turn into nothing more than another example of misplaced value and half-baked silliness.

What, example, does Lent mean for a Protestant? A time of repentence? But Protestantism still hasn't any place for it -- my faith saves me, or God's predestined will saves me. Whether or not I repent of my sins (if, in fact, I have actually committed any, properly understood) is entirely beside the point. Am I supposed to more strongly feel the pointless, unefficacious, and unassuagable guilt that Protestantism has been marketing since 1517?

OWU's Chaplain Office distributed an email to the Newman mailing list this morning advertising their Ash Wednesday Ecumenical Service, which would "integrate the sacred traditions of Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant Christians." Now, since the Orthodox don't observe Ash Wednesday, and since Protestants haven't a "sacred tradition" really of any sort (much less of Lent and Ash Wednesday), what on earth does this mean? (I mean, there's the fact that we have a word, heresy, for the "integrating of sacred traditions," but that's a bit beside the point.)It certainly doesn't mean the Chaplain is Catholic. The Newman leadership apparently received a very concerned email from someone in the Chaplain's office worried that Catholic students wouldn't come to this ecumenical service to "get their ashes."

Here's a clue, people: I didn't go to Mass this morning to "get my ashes." I went to Mass to get the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of my God and Savior. The ashes are just a reminder of something I've already got.

On a completely unrelated note, where did "Repent and believe in the Good News" come from? I miss "Remember, man, that thou art dust, and to dust thou shalt return."

Catholicism Right to Left: Latin Reflections on the Eastern Rite

2007-02-18T14:23:00.000-06:00

or, "What Happens When Two Roman Catholics and an Orthodox Walk into a Byzantine Church"

I took a field trip today. Two friends, one a fellow Latin-Rite Catholic and one Lebanese Orthodox, and I trekked down US 23 to St. John Chrysostom Byzantine Catholic Church in Columbus for Mass. It was, in short, an interesting experience – I shall endeavor to relate it to you. (Disclaimer: with a few exceptions that should be readily evident, the details of this account are confined to this particular church, and are not intended as judgments on the entirety of the Byzantine or other Rite)

We ran a little late, duing to our having to borrow a car from a friend who is not a morning person on weekends. Comparing the Order of the Liturgy to the time Mass was scheduled to start and the time we got there, it is difficult to say how much we missed – these things do not seem to match up. Either it started earlier than it was supposed to, or they left things out, or the first chunk went VERY fast. We got settled in, I think, right before the Prokemen, prior to the Epistle. The Byzantine Rite, like the Latin Rite prior to the post-concilar reforms, do not read from the Old Testament during most liturgies. The first thing that struck us was that the church was surprisingly small, disappointingly wanting in exterior architecture, and astonishingly beautiful on the inside. Had the church been Latin, it would have been exceedingly ugly almost without fail – the stained glass was rather hideous, and the floor plan (a short but very wide nave bisected by a center aisle where what I would call an ambo stood together with a small table of uncertain use holding an icon) would have made traditional Latin ecclesiastical decoration very difficult. Rather, the iconostasis and the paintings on the walls of the sanctuary (to the extent these were visible through and over the iconostasis), together with less extensive paintings applied to and hung on the other walls and ceiling, leant beauty to the church interior.

Of course, even beginning to talk about the Divine Liturgy (the Eastern term for the Eucharistic sacrifice) has linguistic problems: we call this celebration "the Mass," from the age-old pronouncement at its conclusion: "Ita missa est," "it is ended." That development, a kind of etymological litotes, is only possible of course when you’re using Latin. So I will say "the Mass" or "the liturgy" and mean that celebration and sacrifice that we in the West know as the Mass, and those in the East as the Divine Liturgy.

The differences in expressive culture between East and West shone forth both first and most strongly. The entire Mass was sung – a much longed-for situation for many in the Latin Rite. However, problems arose. Most notable, from our perspective, came the fact that Byzantine hymnody has very little in common with Latin hymnody – not only were the words and notes different from what we were accustomed to, but the entire sound was as well (just look at Byzantine neums sometime – they look more like Arabic than western notes). Having been raised in a certain ecclesiastical musical culture (even one that suffers from severe maladies), you acquire a feel for how things are supposed to sound, and can anticipate tonal changes – certain words go with certain sounds. Move outside that musical culture, however, and everything you think you know about how things sound becomes not only worthless, but a hindrance. This problem of unfamiliarity was compounded by the lack of a full choir, the absence of any instrumentation (the organ is a Western invention and has never been introduced liturgically in the East), and the fact that the notes being sung by the cantors rarely corresponded to the notes printed in the missalette.

The lack of strong musical leadership, the complex (but inherently beautiful) quality of the music, and the very protracted nature of many of the responses (especially the Thrice Holy Hymn, a sort of Sanctus cum Gloria that is sung three times in a row, and which like a Gloria or a Responsorial Psalm tends to lose people as it proceeds) gave the whole affair a vaguely atonal and chaotic air that is not, I feel, a universal element of the Rite.

Structurally, the liturgy is made up largely of a series of litanies with hymns, processions, and readings interspersed. The proper includes prayers said by the congregation, the Tropars, Kondaks, and Prokemen, the last being a sort of antiphon for the Epistle. We managed to miss the handout that had the ones for this week on them, so I can’t tell you what they are like. The liturgy seemed to have less structural demarcation than the Latin Rite. That is, it was not as abundantly clear at most times where in the Mass one was, and the beginning and end of the liturgy had many elements in common. Most notably, the liturgy includes a litany of peace, a litany of supplication, a litany of the offertory, and a litany of intercession, all of which include very similar (not identical, and not indistinguishable, but very similar) prayers. The exception to this generalization about demarcations involved the iconostasis – when, after the elevation, the priest closed the doors to the iconostasis (and some folks think Communion Rails are excluding!) and drew its curtains (something our Orthodox companion said he had never seen done in his mostly immigrant Cleveland parish), one could tell that something different was happening here. Remember, of course, that the Eastern Churches maintain that the consecration occurs at the epiclesis, the invocation of the Holy Spirit following the elevation. However, at St. John’s the forcefulness of even this separation was mitigated by the absence of kneelers; not only did we stand during the Canon, we stood (some sat) after receiving Communion.

The absence of kneelers was one in a series of unfortunate elements that diminished, in this instance, the potential of the liturgy. The first, of which the no kneelers is a part, was the lack of clear liturgical poise on the part of many present: not being able to kneel (the pews were too close together to make "rebellious" kneeling practical) left the congregation somewhat off center. And while the priest himself carried out his carefully choreographed movements with full care and attention, the servers and altar attendants (there were many, several of which of an unsure designation) displayed a notable lack of poise. For most of the liturgy they remained completely concealed behind the iconostasis, but they came out and stood somewhat lackadaisically in front of it during the Communion of the People (with the exception of the two assisting the priest), and watched, with their hands at their side, as everyone else filed past. Is the folding of hands not part of the Eastern tradition of liturgical posture?

The second difficulty was that the entire affair seemed terribly rushed. I’ve always been a little apologetic of priests who can speed-pray, but priest, servers, cantor, and congregation seemed determined to get through this whole affair as efficiently as possible. As a sole example, the Great Entrance, in which the priest, holding the chalice and diskos (more or less a paten), with crucifers and tapiers and company, processes out of the sanctuary and around the church (not unlike the Holy Thursday procession to the altar of repose), was performed at a brisk trot somewhat unbecoming its nature. Our Orthodox companion, for whom the liturgy was more familiar, remarked that it ended much more quickly than he expected.

Finally, Father himself didn’t help. We’re all used to a quick announcement or two immediately preceding the final blessing. We forgive these at times because they are normally very brief, very concise, and the final blessing itself is very brief – besides, because Mass concludes with Father processing out of the church, he can’t very well tell us these things after it’s all over. Well, the same thing happened today, except the transition (which in the Latin Rite tends to be somewhat smooth – you come back from Communion, pray, there’s some silence hopefully, it takes a few minutes to get everything purified on the altar, people sit down, THEN we have an announcement and a blessing) was astoundingly abrupt from Communion to announcements, and the announcements themselves were very long and involved. The concluding Rite, for its part, was likewise long and involved (although we were somewhat relieved when it came, not truly believing that the Mass could have ended with as little fanfare as had preceded the announcements). In it, however the Byzantine Rite does seem to have a cure for the leaving-after-Communion infection among Catholics: people don’t spill out of their pews and go their one ways, they dismiss by row, process to the front and venerate a crucifix, and THEN leave. I don’t know that my fellow Roman Catholic had been to enough Good Friday celebrations to avoid being a little weirded out by this.

Of course, under the heading of unusual and different, there is Holy Communion itself. A word to the wise: do not attempt to swallow leavened Eucharistic species in the same fashion you swallow it when unleavened. I had done some reading before we went and knew that the Byzantine Rite used leavened bread and intinction (via a really cool spoon), and our Orthodox companion was used to the same from his tradition, but our other Catholic friend was taken completely off guard and it was fortunate, especially for her, that we sat in the back and got to get a good look at what was being done before we received. And despite reading up ahead of time, I nearly killed myself trying to swallow without any chewing.

In terms of a general opinion on the liturgy and Rite, it’s hard to give one. I don’t know that I got a very representative sample, for starters. What we saw was definitely recognizable as the Mass – there was not any doubt that we were partaking in the Eucharistic sacrifice. However, it was very difficult to try and pray and be mindful of Christ’s presence while attempting to adapt on one’s feet to an entirely different liturgical tradition. Thus, for us as Latin-Rite Catholics the Byzantine Mass was not, and probably could not be without much effort, as spiritually nourishing as it is for the Byzantines themselves. That’s not a normative judgment, of course: it cuts both ways. Crossing oneself "backwards" was not nearly as difficult as I imagined it would be (I tried to at least do this so as not to look quite as out of place), and the habit of crossing at every mention of the Holy Name to be a worthwhile tradition, one that probably would have many efficacious advantages if it could be recovered in practice in the Latin Rite.

The truth of the matter is that these people and their faith are exactly what their history suggests they are: a people of mixed traditions, living in a shadowy place in between two worlds. Nobody knows they exist: neither my Catholic nor my Orthodox friend knew anything of the existence or history of any of the Eastern Rite Catholics. Long viewed with suspicion by Rome and regarded as blood traitors by Constantinople, their life has not been a pleasant one. The fact that their tiny congregation is housed in an architecturally lacking building in a less-than-wonderful part of Columbus only seems to reinforce their unfortunate status. Were the schism to heal, they would find themselves reunited with their cultural brethren and be greatly amplified. Until then, however, I think we should try to ameliorate their lot somehow, for they do a great service to the Church. They prove that Catholicism is catholic, that the ways of the faith can be expressed by men in ways befitting their own history and ways of thinking, even while retaining the inherent qualities shared everywhere. They maintain beautiful prayers and an inspiring and liturgically expressed devotion to the Blessed Virgin (I’ve always like the term Theotokos). Myself, as an American of Irish-Italian-Danish heritage have no reason to become Byzantine. I am Western, and I read Latin alphabets and tie up my thoughts about the world, man, and God with the workings and heritage of Western Europe. But for the millions of men and women whose history and culture gravitates towards Constantinople, Alexandria, or Kiev, we have the Eastern Rites. How do you write "Deo gratias" in Old Slavonic?

Bl. Pius IX

2007-02-07T01:07:00.000-06:00

Is amazing.

Today is also his feast.

More later.

Fun with Comrade Stalin

2007-01-29T17:31:00.000-06:00

The opening of the Soviet archives and the memoirs of former Soviet agents reveal a world of fascinating information about the real nature of the USSR. Take, for example, the fact that the lies that have been spread for 40 years about Pius XII appear to have been manufactured by the KGB.

St. Thomas Aquinas

2007-01-28T22:33:00.000-06:00

Today would have been the feast of St. Thomas Aquinas, had he not been bumped by the Fourth Sunday in Ordinary time. Thanks to New Advent, the Summa is all online, as is its sizable biography of the Angelic Doctor.

''Transubstantiation''

2007-01-27T10:19:00.000-06:00

Man's body was ordained to tell
The tale of this sweet miracle.
For bread and wine, and all his food,
Are turned to Flesh, are turned to Blood;
And all men, at their common feasts,
Are transubstantiating priests.

Christ, as in Cana's miracle,
Generous, his creatures would excel,
So gave to men ordained the power
With his own Flesh and Blood to dower
The altar Bread, the altar Wine--
O daring plagiary divine!

The walk awarely mid the corn
That will as human flesh be worn--
'Tis holy ground that thou dost tread.
And be indeed a worshipper,
Discerning in our daily bread
The Eucharist's biographer.
--Francis Thompson.
File Under: Eucharist

Conversion of St. Paul

2007-01-25T17:03:00.000-06:00

Here's our post, taken from Saint of the Day, for last year's feast of the Conversion of St. Paul

One of the things that always sticks in my mind about this feast is the commentary Fr. Milton Guthrie, for whom my grandmother served as housekeeper for many years, made on the event's popular and artistic conceptions. In a very matter of fact way, he would always comment that it was highly unlikely that Saul had been riding a horse as usually depicted but, rather, that if he had been riding anything, it would have been a donkey.

In some ways, then, there seems to be something even more Catholic, more redeemed, about donkeys than tradition already accepts. The ass finds itself, not only the most absurd and denigrated of all creatures, the most unappreciated and solely utilitarian of beasts of burden, but also the transportation of men such as Saul: petty bureaucrats, tax collectors, the mules of ancient government and society. But just as Saul is approached by God, converted, and redeemed, so too is the donkey. The divine faunal joke is called upon for service, and renders it humbly -- the noble servant has emerged out of a formerly derided creation. His is the story of providence in which all men of faith seek to partake.

Requiescat in Pacem

2007-01-22T20:10:00.000-06:00

January 22nd, 1973 - Present

She turned you into a newt?

2007-01-17T23:10:00.000-06:00

"Well, I got better."

At least, that's what the villager in Monty Python claimed. But unlike most people who recover from some condition, the villager continued to obsess over it, telling the local lord, "She turned me into newt!" In some ways, this villager is much like the average apostate Catholic.

Consider those people you know who are converts to Catholicism. Think of how they self-identify when describing their religious beliefs and what their attitudes towards such identity are in general. Now, mentally compare these same attitudes and identities with those of people you know who have left the Catholic faith. If my experience and that of people I know are indicative, these two groups of people are vastly different. Catholic converts tend to identify themselves just as "Catholic," and offer details about their former beliefs only when asked/when relevant or perhaps as a symptom of giving too much information in general. Catholic apostates, on the other hand, have to let you know that they've left the Church. They obsess over and revel in being "ex-" or "recovering" Catholics. Almost invariably they combine such self-identification with almost uncontrollably vitriolic detestation of the faith.

I find this phenomenon truly fascinating, and indicative of the truth of Catholicism. The glue that holds the Church together is, as Christ foretold, indissoluble. It can be corrupted, however, torn from its original use -- the apostate attempts to sink the bark of Peter by pulling the caulk from between the timbers, yet only mires himself. Apostasy is like a tar baby, in which the individual traps himself in the goo of an otherwise efficacious sealant. The apostate cannot rub out the marks that have been seared into his soul, and he cannot sever the bonds that tie him to the Church -- all he can do is chafe and vent.

As I believe Chesterton said somewhere, men are never ambivalent about the truth. One loves the truth, or one can hate the truth, but one never simply abandons it and walks away blithely.

Book Recommendation

2007-01-10T17:55:00.000-06:00

Anyone who has ever wandered into my room knows that I have a thing for books. And while I have more than my share of the kind that you have to read over a series of days and weeks, the short and easy type is good at times too. I recently finished one of these, written by one of the most prolific and insightful lay Catholic authors still alive, Peter Kreeft: Between Heaven and Hell.

Kreeft has an entire series of books like this, short works written in screenplay-type dialogue involving a very limited number of conversants. A good many of them revolve around the adventures of a reanimated Socrates. These include The Unaborted Socrates, Socrates Meets Jesus, Socrates Meets Marx, Socrates Meets Sartre, and Socrates Meets Machiavelli.

All of these can be read in an afternoon (two if you want to take a lot of breaks), are amazingly insightful, and delightfully witty. If you're looking for a lot of apologetic bang for your minute, check these out.

Feast of the Holy Innocents

2006-12-28T19:06:00.000-06:00

Matthew 2:13-18

Now when they had departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, "Rise, take the Child and His mother, and flee to Egypt, and remain there till I tell you: for Herod is about to search for the Child, to destroy Him." And he rose and took the Child and His mother by night, and departed to Egypt, and remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet, "Out of Egypt have I called My Son."

Then Herod, when he saw that he had been tricked by the wise men, was in a furious rage, and he sent and killed all the male children in Bethlehem and in all that region who were two years old or under, according to the time which he had ascertained from the wise men. Then was fulfilled what was spoken by the prophet Jeremiah:

"A voice was heard in Ramah, wailing and loud lamentation:
Rachel weeping for her children;
she refused to be consoled because they were no more."

''God Is That Than Which No Greater Can Be Thought''

2006-12-11T20:47:00.000-06:00

St. Anselm is featured on the History of Ancient and Medieval Philosophy exam I'll take tomorrow morning, and he is also my special patron for 2007, courtesy of the very dear Moneybags at A Catholic Life.

St. Anselm also sort of makes my brain hurt (see the title of this post for an idea why), so this should make for a fun year. I'm looking forward to getting to know him better in 2007.

Go here to learn more about St. Anselm of Canterbury.

If you see it in the Sun, it's true

2006-12-10T21:13:00.000-06:00

Nobody sees Santa Claus, but that is no sign that there is no Santa Claus. The most real things in the world are those that neither children nor men can see. Did you ever see fairies dancing on the lawn? Of course not, but that’s no proof that they are not there. Nobody can conceive or imagine all the wonders there are unseen and unseeable in the world.

Around this time every year, we can always expect a host of old conflicts to be drug out of the closet, like so many rusty crossbows with which to fling moldering bolts across the expanses of cyberspace, newspapers, and dinner tables. When to open Christmas presents? Whose family to visit when? Colored or just white lights? And most contentiously, does Santa Claus exist? I attended this afternoon the Central Ohio Symphony Orchestra’s annual Christmas concert, and something occurred to me that relates, unfortunately, to the last of these discussions. I remembered something that the bustle and inanity of college had caused me to forget.

I believe in Santa Claus.

Many people give good St. Nicholas short shrift. The calumnies piled upon his head seem to mount higher every year, and they grow so as to take on every nature of character. Childish, materialistic, deceitful, unnecessary, burdensome, foolish, dangerously secular, on and on. But Santa Claus, as we here in the United States have come to know the aged courier of Christmas cheer and gifts, is none of these things. I cannot speak for the sensibilities and beliefs of all peoples, but as a Catholic, I know that Santa Claus is a friend to myself and my traditions.

How, you ask, is Santa Claus my friend? No, I have not met him, at least not face to face; not yet. But we count many our friends with whom we have not conversed in person, be it ever or merely for many years. Take the saints as prime examples. I can know that Santa Claus is my friend because I can see the effects of the work he does. I see the Salvation Army ringers and their red pots filled with change. I see the delight and innocence on the faces of small children. I see the glistening lights, the jolly decorations, and the smartly wrapped packages – all surely human goods simply by virtue of their heartening aesthetic value if for no other purpose whatsoever. I see the trays and trays of cookies baked for his consumption, and the delight of all those among whom the “extras” are shared. I see the generosity of parents who can teach their children that gratitude should be directed not merely at certain individuals, but also to God, because good things are given to us in ways that we do not fully comprehend and from sources that we cannot fully identify.

But, objects the clausoclast*, children should be taught these things anyways; gratitude and enjoyment and generosity and happiness should not be dependent on silly and contrived human institutions; if we need traditions like these to understand Christmas, we don’t really understand Christmas.

I find such criticisms baffling. Man has never been capable of merely conjuring out of nothingness platonic virtues and divine graces. All of history, all of society, and most especially all of the Church’s history has been the story of man constructing ways in which to perpetuate and teach the truths that he knows to be true. And it has never been the case that man can do so using exclusively prescriptions revealed by God. The Protestant fears society, fears the natural proclivities of the people to tell their stories and live their lives and find happiness, because he has dabbled in Manichaeism and hates the flesh. He remembers that the spontaneous and organic celebrations of the masses were always the heart and delight of the Church’s popular piety, and he cannot abide anything similar. The Protestant, then, rejects institutions and traditions that are inadequately dour or not explicitly scriptural as pagan and impermissible. The Catholic, however, has a fuller memory, and recalls that the great institutions of Western society, the rites and rituals with which he has praised God for two millennia, are not in large part direct revelation, but are rather human creations, developed out of the timeless rites of ancient men and redeemed by their adoption by the Church and the infusion of the Holy Spirit. He recalls that the world and the Sabbath alike were created for man, not man for the world and the Sabbath. God has always permitted us to raise up institutions and customs with which to praise Him and pass on our knowledge, and He has blessed us greatly through them.

Santa Claus, or La Befana, or Pere Noel, or in whatever outfit you may find him anywhere around the globe, is no more inimical to the Catholic life than incense or chasubles or triptychs. He is one of the many mental and cultural tools to which we have recourse in our desperate attempt to preserve the mystery, happiness, and ethereal wonder of humanity’s existence. He would be a boon to mankind if he were never to bring another gift, as long as he could continue to bring to our hearts and minds a message of happiness and truth. Is he a replacement for the Christ child? No, nor would he ever accept such a title. Rather, he serves as one of the many messengers that Christ has sent out into the world to bring the message of His love, redemption, and mystery to mankind. The North Pole is really squarely in the world of fairyland, that Chestertonian realm in the twilight between human imagination and human understanding where we can most clearly glimpse the mysteries of God's mind.

Then there is the last, hopeless attempt: Santa Claus is lying. No, Santa Claus is not lying. A lie is intentionally to tell, to a person who has a right to know the information he seeks, a direct falsehood. As Francis Church argued 109 years ago, and as I continue to argue today, maintaining the existence of Santa Claus is not a falsehood, but is rather a metaphysical, not a purely ontological, assertion. Furthermore, the child to whom the existence of Santa Claus is proclaimed is not deprived of any knowledge he has any right to possess. Children do not need to know all things: a child does not need to know where babies come from, nor what certain words mean, nor what the human body looks like after being subjected to severe trauma or fire, nor etc. Children have a right, in fact, to be protected from such knowledge, because the time for their learning it has not yet come. They must learn joy before they learn to temper it with sorrow. You say that Santa Claus leaves avarice in his wake? No, sin leaves avarice in its wake, and you cannot assuage the power of sin by attempting to cast down the edifices that society has erected to insulate itself from sin’s power.

Do I exaggerate? No, I think not. Is there a Santa Claus? Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus.

*Yes, I made this word up.

Mary as Mother-in-Law

2006-12-09T17:15:00.000-06:00

I’ve had an idea knocking around in my head for a long time, and I just haven’t gotten around to developing it fully enough to warrant a full post. Then I meant to get it up yesterday (it being a Marian feast day and all), but that didn’t happen either. The following is, then, my not-quite-fully-developed musings on Our Lady as a mother-in-law.

Mary is often spoken of as our mother, and this is an apt and beautiful description. I posit, though, that an equally apt (and beautiful, at least if your experiences are like mine) description, if you can momentarily set aside the other, is of Mary as our mother-in-law. The initial argument goes like this: the Church is the bride of Christ. Mary is the mother of Christ. The Bridegroom’s mother is the bride’s mother-in-law. By substitution, Mary is our mother-in-law.

Some people might be tempted to get up in arms over this, what with the general opinion of “mothers-in-law” in our society being quite low. I think, however, that this analogy is a very useful tool for explaining/defending devotion to the Blessed Virgin.

As a way of illustrating*, let me talk about myself, Paul, and his mom: If I want to know something about Paul, I can certainly spend time with and talk to him or read the things he’s written to me. This is, obviously, the best way to build our relationship. But why limit myself to only that way, even if it is the best, if there are other good ways? Paul’s mom, by virtue of being his mother, knows things about him that he might not ever think to tell me or I might not even think to ask. She has a bond with him that I’m not able fully to understand (and likely won't be until I have children of my own). By spending time with and cultivating a relationship with her, I can strengthen my relationship with her son. He’s also pleased when she and I get along well. He loves us both, so he wants us to be friends. Finally, if ever there were something that I really wanted or needed him to do and I needed help in asking him for it, whose help could be better to enlist? He can’t possibly say no to both of us.

What would make one think that it could be any different with Jesus and His mother? Wouldn’t He be just as pleased for the Christian—whom He takes as His bride—to love and honor His mother as Paul is? Of course He is. Doesn’t He feel as compelled to do as she asks Him? From the Wedding at Cana, we know that He does.

It seems obvious that any person’s mother is the first to love him. Just like my future mother-in-law was the first to love Paul, Mary was the first person to love the Incarnate God. One must recognize that her mother-in-law has much to teach her about loving her husband, and in the same way, we must see that Mary has much to teach us about loving Jesus.

*Bear in mind, this is meant only to be an illustration—a picture to help us grasp larger and deeper ideas. I don’t want anyone to think I’m equating Paul and his mom with Our Lord and the Blessed Virgin, or anything like that.

Housewives You Won't See on Network Television

2006-12-09T13:14:00.000-06:00

Being a stay-at-home mom is a good thing, to be sure, but whatever happened to emphasizing a woman's role as wife? Mrs. Alexandra of Homeliving Helper has a beautiful reflection on the subject here.

H/t to Elizabeth Foss.

Happy Feast of the Immaculate Conception

2006-12-07T23:10:00.000-06:00

1st Sunday of Advent

2006-12-03T08:21:00.000-06:00

“Beware that your hearts do not become drowsy from carousing and drunkenness and the anxieties of daily life, and that day catch you by surprise like a trap. For that day will assault everyone who lives on the face of the earth. Be vigilant at all times and pray that you have the strength to escape the tribulations that are imminent and to stand before the Son of Man.”
--Luke 21:34-36

H/t to the Curt Jester for the wreath.
File Under: Catholic_Stuff

Blindness and the Pecuniary Obligations of Charity

2006-11-29T18:12:00.000-06:00

CNN doesn't seem to have it on their website, nor does Drudge, but I heard a rumor today from an ordinarily credible source that a 9th Circuit District judge ruled today that U.S. money is unconstitutional. No, it hasn't a thing to do with God -- Robert what's his name sat this one out.

It was because it's all the same size.

Apparently, a blind man brought a Federal suit (14th Amendment, I suppose . . . talk about the king of all unintended consequences) claiming that the absence of holes, raised type, or size differences in American paper currency constitutes a violation of his right to . . . well, do something (I would imagine the issue was framed as one of deprivations of rights without due process -- because there's a right to be able to identify things by touch. I guess.)

There's two sides to this -- on the one hand there's the risibly specious legal argument, that the Mint has to make money that every person can use and identify regardless of disability (what about people without arms or hands? They can't very well use the bills either -- should we have walking or self-spending money?). On a purely practical level, this is not an insurmountable problem -- hasn't someone told this guy about The Sand Lot? If you recall, James Earl Jones's blind character in the movie talks about how he folds bills different ways to keep them straight.

On another side, however, is there any sort of non-legal obligation on the part of the government to produce blind-friendly money? I look at this question in a number of ways. On the one hand, we have coins. Granted, the dollar coins continue to be a huge flop (although they're going to do a thing similar to the state quarters with every president -- even Benjamin Harrison), but they exist and can be gotten ahold of. They can quite obviously be distinguished by touch. On the other hand, I look less at the government's responsibility to provide friendly money and more to the responsibility of honesty and charity that individuals in society bear. if I'm a bank teller or a cashier, I have a serious responsibility not to cheat blind people. The degree to which that responsibility binds me is far greater than any similar responsibility the government may possess to make non-ocularly identifiable money.

I mean, to a degree I feel bad for this guy; society is capable of making it so that people can cope with blindness. But in some ways, I feel worse for the judge in this case: nobody should have to live with being that stupid.

You must bee kidding

2006-11-28T14:19:00.000-06:00

Drug dogs I can handle. Minesweeping dolphins, I can handle. But bomb-sniffing bees? Are you joking? Ok, I'm not arguing the capacity of the bee to smell gunpowder or C4. That's great. But seriously -- how many people can look at a bee and tell whether or not it's sticking its proboscis out? At some point science runs up against the wall of basic common sense.

Funny thing, that

2006-11-28T14:13:00.000-06:00

It's a bit funny to see a sector of society that is held in an unusually tight deathgrip by adherents of the cult of progress continually pick back up the ideas they jettisoned years ago. You could point to a variety of examples, but I have the education system specifically in mind. First it was uniforms: "we have discovered,through cutting-edge research, that children will behave better when not dressed like hooligans." It's like the little cut-out man from the Guinness commercials: "not drinking 6 beers at one time? Brilliant!"

Now, it's single-sex education. High schoolers might learn better without the distractions of the opposite sex? Brilliant! Of course, this is something we've known for centuries. But hey, what do we know? We're just silly Catholics.

What? A post? Inconceivable!

2006-11-27T18:15:00.000-06:00

So, it's been a month of Sundays since we've put anything of any substance up here. Summer was not conducive to blogging, and I got too wrapped up in stuff after coming back to take time for it. I figured "hey, pretty much nobody reads this anyways. What's the point?" Well, I realized the point the other day.

The point of keeping this blog was never to be some indispensable source of information. I just don't know enough, nor do I have the juicy sources of secret knowledge to do that. The point was to have something pushing me to think about the faith daily, and to synthesize that in some format that had to meet the minimum standard of being publicly presentable. Sure, maybe it's a little lame to need some sort of impetus to keep plugged in to God -- but don't we all need that impetus in some form or another? I'm rather a bookish person; I need to spend time thinking seriously about things in order for them to stay part of my mental agenda and outlook. It's just the way I am.

I came to college and found that I didn't particularly care for the "real" world here. I could have thrown my hands in the air and become a statistic -- instead, I decided to make it clear that I wasn't like my average peers by tapping into those aspects of my personality that are not welcome on campus: I'm Catholic, conservative, and Southern. Now my father accuses me (half seriously) of being a quasi-Lefebvrist (not true), and I hold political convictions that would scare small children. But none of that really means anything if I can't manifest my faith in a meaningful way my personal life. For some reason, at this point in my life, this blog helped me do that, even if only in my private mental organization. It's obviously not a long-term fix; graduation, marriage, and the like will alter life a lot. But I liked keeping this blog, and I found it beneficial compared to the past semester of not doing anything with it.

In short, you'll start to see things here again.

Yay, Belloc

2006-10-11T11:48:00.000-06:00

First, an apology for IVA going quiet here recently. Paul is busy with law school application stuff, and I'm just generally a slacker. If anyone is reading this and has been checking in on us in the last couple of months, we apologize for any disappointment or inconvenience.

And now, a poem that I find quite apropriate for today:

Pelagius lived at Kardanoel
And taught a doctrine there
How, whether you went to heaven or to hell
It was your own affair.
It had nothing to do with the Church, my boy,
But was your own affair.

No, he didn't believe
In Adam and Eve
He put no faith therein!
His doubts began
With the Fall of Man
And he laughed at Original Sin.
With my row-ti-tow
Ti-oodly-ow
He laughed at original sin.

Then came the bishop of old Auxerre
Germanus was his name
He tore great handfuls out of his hair
And he called Pelagius shame.
And with his stout Episcopal staff
So thoroughly whacked and banged
The heretics all, both short and tall --
They rather had been hanged.

Oh he whacked them hard, and he banged them long
Upon each and all occasions
Till they bellowed in chorus, loud and strong
Their orthodox persuasions.
With my row-ti-tow
Ti-oodly-ow
Their orthodox persuasions.

Now the faith is old and the Devil bold
Exceedingly bold indeed.
And the masses of doubt that are floating about
Would smother a mortal creed.
But we that sit in a sturdy youth
And still can drink strong ale
Let us put it away to infallible truth
That always shall prevail.

And thank the Lord
For the temporal sword
And howling heretics too.
And all good things
Our Christendom brings
But especially barley brew!
With my row-ti-tow
Ti-oodly-ow
Especially barley brew!
--Hilaire Belloc, "The Pelagian Drinking Song"

File Under: Catholic_Stuff

Today

2006-09-18T21:25:00.000-06:00

Happy feast of St. Joseph of Cupertino to you all, and happy birthday to my co-blogger, fiance, and best friend.
File Under: Miscellany

Happy Birthday, Mom

2006-09-08T12:32:00.000-06:00

File Under: Saints

The problem

2006-08-30T18:13:00.000-06:00

with Rad-Trads is that they have a disturbing tendency take a real problem (in this case, the sad, sad state of the modern university and the disastrous demise of femininity) and draw from it a dizzying array of unrelated and largely inane conclusions that are so outrageous that they effectively destroy whatever good might have been gained by their original observation of the problem itself.

Exercises such as this one are primarily acts of violence against the syllogism. The conclusion, "Women should not be educated" simply does not follow from the precept "women have a specific nature, with which they are endowed by God and that our society does not value." Nor is the conclusion that women were created solely for procreative means hold water: Adam does not say "here is a creature by whom I may populate the earth"; he says "here is a help like unto myself." The idea that marriage and the proper relation between the sexes lacks an intellectual component runs contrary to the practices of the Church as demonstrated by the lives of the saints -- see especially St. Thomas More, who insisted upon the education of his wives and daughters, not that they might wield masculine authority, but that he might not be bored to death in their company. A wife who lacks the capability to engage her husband in stimulating conversation will find herself, by necessity, neglected.

Our society's views on women, education, and the way in which the former is to be given the latter are extraordinarily distorted. But to deny categorically the appropriateness of higher education to all women as a matter of natural law goes too far.

File Under: Loonies, Catholic_Stuff

''The Central Battle''

2006-08-30T08:35:00.000-06:00

"To love without fear of losing---or in spite of fear of losing--that seems to be the central battle of life on this Earth. Don't you think?"

Yes.

Jennifer at Perfect Work is among the most inspirational--and insightful--people of whom I have ever heard. I know that sounds really gushy, but I can't help it. Her strength of faith and her trust in Our Lord, even in the face of mind-blowing adversity, just plain amaze me.

Jennifer is newly pregnant with her seventh child, having not gotten a chance to meet the first six face-to-face in this life. She wrote the line at the top of this post here, remarking on her decision to love and celebrate the tiny person within her, regardless of whether this pregnancy results in a live birth (further discussions of which decision can be found in the four posts previous to the one linked).

Go and read. (As a matter of fact, you'd do well to work your way through her archives. There's loads of good stuff there, on a variety of topics.) And do pray for Jennifer, Jim, and their baby.

File Under: Miscellany

Indeed

2006-08-28T18:40:00.000-06:00

How about some prayers of the faithful for Charlie's intentions? At least between now and December.

File Under: Catholic_Stuff

A Word from Pope St. Leo I

2006-08-26T13:09:00.000-06:00

From his Sermons, ante AD 461.

When the Lord says: "Unless you shall have eaten the flesh of the Son of Man and shall have drunk His blood, you shall not have life in you," you ought to so communicate at the Sacred Table that you have no doubt whatever of the truth of the Body and Blood of Christ. For that which is taken in the mouth is what is believed in faith; and in vain do those respond, "Amen," who argue against that which is received.

File Under: Eucharist

Bioethicists get in line

2006-08-17T10:53:00.000-06:00

To die, that is. The BBC reports that English bioethicists, who have been advocating an "obligation to die" for the elderly and disabled in order to relieve the strain on relatives and medical infrastructure caused by caring for such persons, have now applied their logic to themselves.

"It's already an established principle in our community that human life lacks any inherent value, so this decision doesn't really present any ethical dillema," said British feminist Jenni Murray, in regards to killing herself. Murray fears that the 20th century's liberation of women may be endangered by parents who refuse to die, "trapping" their emancipated daughters in the role of caregiver. The insensitivity of such parents apalls her -- thus she regards them as having an obligation to commit suicide and free their children yet again.

However, when Murray looked around her, she saw an analogous situation in society as a whole. "Society is trapped, really, in the same way I was with my mother -- they're stuck with all of us bioethicists and euthanasia advocates, and they have to tolerate our noise on tv, radio, and the internet every day. And there's no equivolent of Depends for liberals' mouths. It's really gotten to the point where it's imprisoning and oppressive to society as a whole. Given the circumstances, in which all these liberated women find themselves trapped by a media market full of people like us, there isn't really any other conscionable option but suicide for people such as myself. We owe it to the people around us."

Baroness Mary Warnock, Britain's leading bioethicist, agrees with Murray. “I am not ashamed to say some lives are more worth living than others,” she remarked. "And given the burdens that the bioethicist community places upon society, it is clear that our lives simply are not worth living any more."

Yes, this is satire, or at least an attempt thereat -- these people didn't say most of the things here; for the real story, go here.
H/T Whapping

File Under: Loonies

A Word from Theodore of Mopsuestia

2006-08-12T14:43:00.000-06:00

From his Commentary on Matthew.

[Christ] did not say, "This is the symbol of My Body, and this, of My Blood," but, "This is My Body and My Blood," teaching us not to look upon the nature of what is set before us, but that it is transformed by means of the Eucharistic action into Flesh and Blood.

(Yeah, yeah. Theodore was anathemized by Rabulas of Edessa, and St. Cyril of Alexandria called him a "Father of the Nestorian Blasphemy." That has little bearing on the fact that he employs some very nice phrasing here to lay the smack down on folks who would say that the Eucharist is "just a symbol.")

File Under: Eucharist

A Word from St. John Chrysostom

2006-07-30T14:57:00.000-06:00

From his Homilies on the Gospel of Matthew, AD 370.

Let us therefore in all respects put our faith in God and contradict Him in nothing, even if what is said seems to be contrary to our reasonings and to what we see. Let His word be of superior authority to reason and sight. This too be our practice in respect to the Mysteries, not looking only upon what is laid out before us, but taking heed also of His words. For His word cannot deceive; but our senses are easily cheated. His word has never failed; our senses err most of the time.

When the word says, "This is My Body," be convinced of it and believe it, and look at it with the eyes of the mind. For Christ did not give us something tangible, but even in the tangible things all is intellectual. So too with Baptism: the gift is bestowed through what is a tangible thing, water; but what is accomplished is intellectually perceived: the rebirth and the renewal. If you were incorporeal He would have given you those incorporeal gifts naked; but since the soul is intertwined with the body, He hands over to you in tangible things that which is perceived intellectually. How many now say, "I wish I could see His shape, His appearance, His garments, His sandals." Only look! You see Him! You touch Him! You eat Him!

File Under: Eucharist

A Word from St. Clement of Alexandria

2006-07-29T16:51:00.000-06:00

From the Paidagogos, or The Instructor of Children, ante AD 202.

"The Blood of the Lord, indeed, is twofold. There is His corporeal Blood, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and His spiritual Blood, that with which we are anointed. That is to say, to drink the Blood of Jesus is to share in His immortality. The strength of the Word is the Spirit, just as the blood is the strength of the body. Similarly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. The one, the Watered Wine, nourishes in faith, while the other, the Spirit, leads us on to immortality. The union of both, however, of the drink and of the Word, is called the Eucharist, a praiseworthy and excellent gift. Those who partake of it in faith are sanctified in body and in soul. By the will of the Father, the divine mixture, man, is mystically united to the Spirit and to the Word."

File Under: Eucharist

A Word from St. Cyprian of Carthage

2006-07-15T14:03:00.000-06:00

From the Letter of Cyprian to a Certain Magnus, AD 255.

"Even the very Sacrifices of the Lord bespeak a Christian unanimity bound to itself by a firm and inseparable charity. When the Lord calls bread made from the union of many granules His Body, He points out our people, whom He was betokening as made one; and when He calls wine, which is pressed from many grapes and clusters and reduced to a whole, His Blood, again He signifies our flock, joined together by the blending of a multitude into one."

File Under: Eucharist

Whether it is true that marriage is not a gamble

2006-07-11T09:00:00.000-06:00

One might notice the invokation of Bl. Ambrose Sansedoni below. He is, among other things, the patron of engaged couples, and thus, for the past two weeks, of the staff here at IVA. In response to recent events, a Protestant relative of the bride-elect remarked that "[marriage] is a gamble." Intrigued -- and unconvinced -- by this assertion, we asked St. Thomas Aquinas for some help on the question.

Whether it is true that marriage is not a gamble?

Objection 1: It would seem that marriage is a gamble, being as it is a part of life, and since, as the poet says, "every hand's a winner and every hand's a loser, and the best that you can hope for is to die in your sleep."

Objection 2: It would also seem that marriage is a gamble because its outcome relies upon contigincies that are difficult to predict and often impossible to control.

Objection 3: It would seem that marriage is a gamble because it requires that a man expend exorbitant sums of money with a very slight chance of return.

On the contrary, it would seem that marriage is not a gamble, for, as the philosopher says, marriage is a duel to the death. As a duel is, by its nature, a contention, then marriage cannot be a gamble as it is contrary to its nature.

I answer that marriage cannot be a gamble, since the outcome of a gamble relies upon chance, and is thus primarily outside the control of those who engage in it. Marriage, as such, is itself and in its course consists of human actions, that is, those derived from the will (see Secundae Partis, 1). Although one cannot, at the time of taking one's vows, foresee with certainty all events, mere unforeseeability cannot be sufficient to regard a thing as a gamble, lest let the meanings of words grow unmanagebly large. Rather, marriage, as the union of two rational beings, depends upon its course for the willful actions of its members. Thus, husband and wife maintain control over the course of their marriage through recourse to their will. Thus, marriage cannot be a gamble because its outcome can be controlled.

Reply to Objection 1. As has been shown, the poet's assertion regarding cards cannot be fully applied to the lives of rational beings.

Reply to Objection 2. The "outcome" of marriage cannot be in doubt, as our Lord has promised all necessary graces to spouses who seek them. Failings, then, can be ascribed only to the participants, and not made a quality of marriage itself.

Reply to Objection 3. It seems, rather, that this quality makes marriage a transaction, for the man expends wealth and gains a wife, and the associated goods and services, in return. He does not seek to recoup his monetary expenditure in kind, as he would in a gamble.

File Under: Miscellany

A Word from Saint Ephraim

2006-07-04T20:14:00.000-06:00

"Our Lord Jesus took in His hands what in the beginning was only bread; and He blessed it, and signed it, and made it holy in the name of the Father and in the name of the Spirit; and He broke it and in His gracious kindness He distributed it to all His disciples one by one. He called the bread His living Body, and did Himself fill it with Himself and the Spirit.

"And extending His hand, He gave them the Bread which His right hand had made holy: 'Take, all of you eat of this, which My word has made holy. Do not now regard as bread that which I have given you; but take, eat this Bread, and do not scatter the crumbs; for what I have called My Body, that it is indeed. One particle from its crumbs is able to sanctify thousands and thousands, and it is sufficient to afford life to those who eat of it. Take, eat, entertaining no doubt of faith, because this is My Body, and whoever eats it in belief eats it in Fire and Spirit. But if any doubter eat of it, for him it will be only bread. And whoever eats in belief the Bread made holy in My name, if he be pure, he will be preserved in his purity; and if he be a sinner, he will be forgiven.'

"But if anyone despise it or reject it or treat it with ignominy, it may be taken as a certainty that he treats with ignominy the Son, who called it and actually made it to be His Body."

Expect more posts like this. I've just begun a two-year research project on the Real Presense. Right now I'm reading William A. Jurgens's phenomenal anthology, The Faith of the Early Fathers.

File Under: Eucharist

Bl. Ambrose Sansedoni of Siena...

2006-06-25T12:42:00.000-06:00

pray for us.File Under: Saints

Three Cheers for Latvia

2006-06-23T16:39:00.000-06:00

For standing up to the EU-nazis and refusing to toe the line on the virtues of homosexuality. Why the Europeans have turned a sensible trade union and cooperative diplomatic institution into a force for anti-Christian tyranny, I don't know. The EU's mouthpiece has coverage here, which borders on bizarre. It's the anti-Semitic charges that get me. What on earth has refusing to give most-favored-group status to homosexuals got to do with hating Jews? I'd say that sounds fishy, but someone would probably call me an anti-Semite.

File Under: politics

St. Thomas More

2006-06-22T11:57:00.000-06:00

Today is the feast of St. Thomas More, Chancellor of England, jurist, writer, and martyr. Go learn about him.

File Under: Saints

What kind of cross am I?

2006-06-16T11:48:00.000-06:00

You are the Cross of St. Benedict: This cross is inscribed with several prayers for holiness and peace including, -May the holy cross be my light! May the dragon never be my guide- and -Begone Satan! Never tempt me with your vanities! What you offer me is evil. Drink the poison yourself! What kind of cross are you?

(ht: Moneybags)

Incidentally, the cross of St. Benedict is the common crucifix of choice for exorcists.

File Under: Catholic_Stuff

Wow

2006-06-11T19:00:00.000-06:00

I knew there was a reason I liked Alabama (besides the trees, weather, and people): "Appeals court allows child to sue over botched abortion." That's HUGE. Absolutely huge, because it recognizes that at least in some cases, the unborn have lawful existence and legal standing as human beings and citizens. I'm not surprised that PP had "no comment."

h/t Vita Mea

File Under: Law

St. Joseph of Cupertino

2006-06-11T17:45:00.000-06:00

Today is not the feast of St. Joseph of Cupertino, but we're writing about him anyways. Why? Because we have a deal. As you might know if you have an interest in such things, the LSAT is Monday. St. Joseph is the patron of test takers, and all the prayers for such things that I found involve a quid pro quo: St. Joseph helps you on your exam, you "promise to make [him] known and cause [him] to be invoked." So, I'm telling all y'all about good ol' St. Joseph of Cupertino.

Joseph was born on June 17th, 1603 to the family of a poor carpenter. His father died before the boy's birth, and the large debts he left forced St. Joseph's mother out of their house -- she gave birth in a stable. Sickness afflicted his childhood, and he was despised by friends and family alike for his inability to accomplish the simplest tasks or comprehend the most basic commands. Starting when he was eight, he had a series of ecstatic visions, during which he would stare blankly. This caused even more calumny to fall upon him, and he was mocked as "Bocca Aperta," or "gaping fool."

At the age of 17 he applied to the Franciscans, who refused him on account of his ignorance. He gained admittance to the Capuchins as a lay brother, but his ineptitude made him unfit and unbearable. Finding him incapable of undertaking any task without disaster, the order took his habit and expelled him. Returning home, his family abused him as a good-for-nothing. Refusing to lose hope, St. Joseph applied to the Franciscan monastery near Cupertino, whose superior, impressed by the boy's piety, took him on as a stable hand.

St. Joseph's good cheer, humility, and willingness to serve further impressed the superior, who decided to admit him to the order in the hope that he might be ordained. This, however, seemed hopeless, as St. Joseph could not manage to learn enough to comment on any passage of scripture save one: the cry of the woman to Our Lord, "Beatus venter qui Te portavit" ("Blessed be the womb that bore Thee"). When the Bishop came to give the examination for the diaconate, he opened the Bible at chance, and his eyes fell upon this very verse -- St. Joseph expounded upon it well, and passed. The next year, when the time came for the priestly ordination examinations, all the candidates were well-prepared, except St. Joseph. The Bishop called upon several in turn, and these gave exceptional responses. Inferring that they had been excellently prepared and were all of this caliber, he passed all of the candidates without asking the rest, including St. Joseph, any question.

St. Joseph's priestly ministry was disturbed, however, by ecstasies and visions, which multiplied at this time of his life. Anything that related to God or holy things might prompt such an ecstasy, in which the saint often floated; during one vision St. Joseph flew into a tree and remained kneeling on a limb for half an hour. All manner of efforts to draw him out of this state failed -- blows, pinching, even burning with candles had no effect on him. Only the voice of his superior would return him to full consciousness.

As word of his levitations and ecstasies -- as well as of his personal holiness -- spread, crowds came to the monastery to see him, causing disruptions. Thus, St. Joseph was for over thirty years prohibited to say Mass in public, walk in procession, or go to choir. Instead, he was bundled from one house to another, and was even brought, by "evil-minded and envious men," before the Inquisition. He spent the last six years of his life at Osimo, where he died at the age of 60 on September 18th, 1663.

He is the patron of air plane pilots, air crews, astronauts, paratroopers, and test-takers. His feast day is September 18th.

A reflection on his life
New Advent on St. Joseph of Cupertino

File Under: Saints

When was the last time

2006-05-28T00:01:00.000-06:00

You sang a hymn by the Venerable Bede at Mass? I did, and it was pretty sweet.

File Under: The_Liturgy

IVA's Favorite Things About The Da Vinci Code

2006-05-23T20:03:00.000-06:00

Wow. We went this weekend to see the Load of -- I mean, Da Vinci Code. We paid for Over the Hedge, since I'm almost positive that it says somewhere in Canon Law that it's not wrong to screw Dan Brown. First off, I thought the movie was supposed to be a thriller; nobody told me it was actually a comedy. Between bad lines, bad acting, bad almost-everything-else, and the absurdities (I mean, honestly -- an albino assasin monk? what about that isn't hilarious?) I laughed for most of the movie. But here are our favorite things.

Bad Latin -- nothing says "I have no clue what I'm doing" like not conjugating sum properly.
Uh, did you mean "Gallileo"? Newton was never targeted by the Holy Office, and his works were never placed on the Index. For starters, he lived in a Protestant country without a hiearchy, and so was in no position to be "persecuted" by the Church. He got in a kerfuffle or two with James II over policy at the English universities, but that's the closest "Catholic oppression" came to him. The only work of Newtonian theory that did make the Index was Francesco Algarotti’s Newtonianism for Ladies, marked for its anticlerical philosophy and smutty content, not its astronomy. Newton's work actually encouraged the dropping of the prohibition against Copernicism.
Alexander Pope was a) Catholic and b) did not "preside" nor eulagize at Newton's funeral.
Ian McKellan's Real Ultimate Cripple Ninja Action. In the library, he goes from "I need these canes to stand up, I am so decrepid" to "watch me leap across the room and knock you senseless with my canes" instantaneously.
Tom Hanks' gastrointestinal difficulties. He spent the entire movie looking like he was in acute stomach pain. He signs books and looks uncomfortable; looks at messages scrawled on priceless paintings and looks uncomfortable; he solves a mystery and hugs the "heroine" and looks uncomfortable; he goes back to the Louvre and kneels on that glass thing and looks even more uncomfortable. The food on the set must have been really bad.
"I need a library -- fast!" Wow. All your bad lines are belong to Ron Howard.
"A bishop of my order." Everyone in the movie calls His Grace What's His Name "a bishop" of Opus Dei. Opus Dei only has ONE bishop -- it's a world-wide diocese (more or less), with just a single bishop just like any other diocese. Also, his piping and buttons didn't seem to match his zuchetto (they gave every indication of being red, not purple.)
Coherence. I just love the way everything in the movie made sense, was explained, and fit together. Like the Fibonacci sequence: they say "it's a fibonacci," then "it doesn't make any sense because it's out of order," "but it's still a sequence and we can somehow use it to open this vault." Or the fact that nobody ever says why Curator Guy draws a pentagram on himself. Or the way the Priory of Sion had kept all its records secret in the basement of some well-known church just by hanging a "private" sign in front of the stairway.
The fact that St. Mary Magdalene's relics are, and have been for at least 700 years, kept in the French church of La Sainte-Baume. One of her teeth is in the Met -- it used to belong to JP Morgan.
Bad Templar history. The movie insinuates is that the Templar treasure was still being kept in Jerusalem at the time of the dissolution -- but the Holy Land had been lost entirely in 1303 with the loss of the island of Ruad off the Syrian coast. Also, the chronology of the trial and suppression is completely wrong. The Templars were not all arrested at once. The actions against them were begun by Philip IV of France, who issued a warrent for the arrest of their members in France on September 14, 1307. James of Molay, the Grand Master of the Order, had come to France on business (bringing with him the Order's treasury) shortly before. The trials and exeuctions spanned the next seven years, with around 120 members being executed over a period of months towards the end. The Pope, for his part, issued two bulls on the matter: Vox in excelso [22 March 1312], suppressing the Templar, and Ad providam [2 May 1312], giving the Templar's property to the Hospitallers. None of it went to the papacy, although roughly half of it wound up in the hands of laymen (rulers who misappropriated it or lawyers who adjudicated disputes over it). There was no Friday the 13th massacre -- James and the other chief officers were executed on 15 March 1314, suggesting some sinister connection with Julius Caesar more than with St. Mary Magdalene -- and many of the brethren, especially outside of France, either melted into the local villages, were acquitted of the charges brought against them, or simply served jail terms. Also, there is no record, either in the Templar's own documents or academic commentary on them, of any Templar search for secret relics or treasures. They were financed by a variety of highly ordinary economic activities (tax farming, banking, etc) and highly lucrative privileges in Europe, not by Indiana Jones-type adventures. Besides, National Treasure already established that the Templar became the Masons, and didn't say anything about a Priory of Sion.
"That's what they want us to believe." Please. You cross a line by saying that from odd conspiracy theorist to foaming-at-the-mouth lunatic. They developed valium for the kind of person who says that. But then again, that's probably just what the doctors (and the Church, the government, the Cubans, and the space aliens all want you to believe).
Tom Hanks' hallucinations. I don't know whose idea it was to portray the fact that the character has a photographic memory as a communal shroom trip, but it was a bad one.
Silas. Is that a black habit? Why is a Benedictine running around, shooting people or no -- aren't you supposed to be cloistered, chief? Also, where in that simple, pocketless single garment you wear do you keep firearms and cell phones? And something tells me that car violates your vow of poverty.
Languages. It's just so believable when characters shift seamlessly and without provocation from one language to the next. It's one thing to have everyone speak English and just pretend they're not. It's another to have subtitles and then, whoops, just forget for whole swathes.
The rose -- it's obviously only a symbol of the Holy Grail, and not, say, a jillion other things in Western history, such as the house of Plantagenant. So a tiny wooden box with a rose on it obviously contains a Gnostic artifact, not Margaret of Anjou's ear rings.
Being accosted by a large scary guy in the movie theater. We laughed a good deal, and despite the protestations of my lovely companion, I did not observe the world's best theater etiquette during the film. But immediately following the movie, a couple sitting in the row in front of us accosted us, the woman making some rather incoherent inquiries about why we laughed and saying that coming to a movie and laughing wasn't the best way to "impact people" (as if we were meteors) if we were Christians. Her very large male companion was less enigmatic -- he expressed his desire to "break [our] asses" and wanted to know if we were Baptist or Church of Christ. Whether they were expressing moral indignation at our reaction to the film or were simply perturbed at having their theater experience disturbed was not very clear. Given the man's stated desire to supplament his aggravated assault with battery, we did not ask for clarification. But we did decide that it was the only time we had ever been physically threated in a movie theater.

All in all, I wasn't too terribly shocked. I had heard all the "Jesus was married" shtick going in, and the rest was old hat. So you say Christ wasn't God. Well, that's an old heresy. You say that "human is divine" -- that's a slightly more absurd, but even older paganism. You call the Church the greatest oppressor in history and rattle off a list of fictitious charges about how Catholicism is the Only Bad Thing in the world. Well, that's an old heresy too. Could we at least get something new? Say the Pope is a martian, or that Jesus was a camel, or that God really said that we should all hop on our left foot and the Church has supressed the true path to happiness by not letting us know this. Be original. The stock heresies are so dull. But that is to be expected. As Chesterton reminds us, orthodoxy is the great adventure. That is why there will be Catholics long after all the records of Dan Brown's existence have turned to dust.

File Under: Art/Media, Catholic_Stuff

Dr. Peters

2006-05-19T14:32:00.000-06:00

on the unusual case of Fr. Marcial Maciel Degollado and the CDF.

Oops

2006-05-17T15:50:00.000-06:00

Uhm, I apologize for pulling somewhat of a Cnytr and just up and vanishing like that. I had exams, papers, and turmoil at school, followed by the move back home. Home is just as stressful as school, but in different ways, and there is something about a house full of small children that just doesn't spark witty theological insight, or even simple pious meditation. Hopefully we can be back to having some content now.

Remember, if you're planning weekend activities, you need to make room for a few hours to go see Over the Hedge and help Dreamworks stick it to Dan Brown (the reports seeping out, by the way, is that DVC is catastrophically bad -- this may be the first time I've ever rooted against a movie).

Third Rock from the Son

2006-05-17T15:40:00.000-06:00

One of the chief underpinnings of the Catholic way of understanding life is the fact that stuff both matters and is inherently related to other stuff -- relevance and interconnectivity. The things we think, say, and do, as well as the things we use, all matter. Also, our actions can never be consequence free: good works allow us to accrue grace and nourish our souls, while sin pollutes the sinner and those surrounding him (cf, the Garden of Eden). Because we're all members of the same human race created by God, we share bonds that are deeply impacted by our actions.

Like many truths, this one is occassionally reflected in some aspect of popular culture by people who haven't articulated the theological precept at work. In this case, the unwitting exemplar is the Joe Diffie song "Third Rock from the Sun." If you know country music, you'll recognize it as a catchy tune that was highly popular about 10 years ago. But even if you detest country music, you should take it as a prime example of the necessity of finding God -- and the wonders of Truth -- in even the most mundane (or, if you prefer, distasteful) things in life.

File Under: Catholic_Stuff

On the Silent Planet

2006-05-06T22:34:00.000-06:00

Chad has moved (again). Find him now at onthesilentplanet.com!

Real posts should resume after finals end next week (to the extent that real posts will be possible when Paul and I are both back at home, working and dealing with familial whatsits). Stick with us. Eventually, we'll make it worth your time.

A Post!

2006-04-28T15:49:00.000-06:00

Sorry for the relative silence around these parts recently. I'm sure everyone understands the craziness wrought by the end of the semester. Papers, tests, and prep for finals have been taking up all our time.

I'd appreciate it if our readers would pray for a special intention of ours. Thanks much.

Why can't we elect this man

2006-04-25T23:02:00.000-06:00

.... to anything? I would sign up for an Alan Keyes campaign in a heartbeat. I wouldn't care if it were County Dogcatcher he was running for. Why? This is why. You can't even pretend you'd ever thought of that. I hadn't, and I actually think about those sorts of things.

File Under: Law, Catholic_Stuff

Scrupulous, much?

2006-04-22T23:27:00.000-06:00

So, I tend to be a little rigorously minded regarding norms for the reception of the Eucharist (as demonstrated by my citing a non-existant rule below). But your rad-traddiest member of the SSPX is nothing compared to the Coptic Orthodox:

Sexual relations between married couples should not take place either on the eve of Communion, as well as on the day of receiving the sacrament. . . .
Before Communion, it is important not to brush your teeth or gargle water, in case water may accidentally be swallowed. St. Severus Bin Moqafaa says, “Many gargle their mouth by water then partake in the Communion and this is wrong. The mystery of God’s words to His servant Moses about the Passover lamb, who was an example of the Body of Christ, was to be eaten with bitterness, meaning bitterness of the mouth.”
Women should not partake of the Holy Communion when they are menstruating. After a woman gives birth, she is not to partake of the Holy Communion until after forty days, if she delivered a boy, and eighty days if she delivered a girl. Hence, the first time she receives Holy Communion, after child birth, is on the day of her child’s baptism after the priest prays for her the woman’s absolution.

It is not preferable for a person to walk barefoot, or for a man to shave, directly after Communion. This is to avoid any wound occurring which may bleed. If, however, bleeding does occur unintentionally, the blood must be wiped with a piece of cloth or cotton, then burned in fire.

Seems like you'd run out of handkerchiefs pretty quick.

St. Pio X, oro pro nobis

File Under: The_Liturgy

Where have all the men gone?

2006-04-22T13:20:00.000-06:00

From catechesis, that is. I know that teaching is ordinarily a woman's job, and I'm ok with that. But could we have some men providing instruction in, and examples of, Catholic living for our children? How about a compromise: I'll settle for orthodox women, instead of middle-aged clueless hags, as catechists.

I just came from a "retreat" for first Communicants (really just a practice), and I spent most of it shaking my head. Lesson One: you don't give second graders choices, you tell them to do something. So that means, when you tell them to fold their hands when processing, tell them to do it in a particular way, not just "in a prayerful position." Heck, I'm not sure I know what that sort of liturgese is supposed to mean.

Lesson Two: don't place sacred vessels on the ground, even if they contain unconsecrated species. I don't know why this needs explaining.

Lesson Three: Nothing that goes on in a Sacrament or in the Mass is done because "people want to see you" or so that you can "look nice." You fold your hands and walk slowly and act in a reverent manner because YOU'RE IN CHURCH and because you're about to receive THE BODY, BLOOD, SOUL, AND DIVINITY OF THE INCARNATE SON OF GOD. For the love of everything sacred, something has to be done to counteract the urge to make our liturgy a self-absorbed celebration of how pretty we all look and how special we all are. Of all the things that are important in the Mass, you and I are not very high on the list.

Lesson Four: What sort of example does it set for a gaggle of small children if you, as a teacher and an adult, take off your shoes and wander around the church barefoot? What on earth makes you think that this is an appropriate thing to do in any sense of the word? What on earth makes you think that this is a good thing to portray to children as "ok"?

Lesson Five: The USCCB (uhm, well, somebody) should send every Catholic adult in this country a book of basic Catholic vocabulary. That thing the priest stands at is an altar, not a table. Therefore, the thing that covers it is an altar cloth, not a table cloth. Holy cards, rosaries, and the like are sacramentals, not items.

Lesson Six: Learn the norms that govern what you're teaching. If you don't, you'll tell little children things that are wrong. For instance, don't tell children to chew the Sacred Host. Why? Because doing so is not permitted. Don't tell the children they can just touch the Precious Blood to their lips. Why? Because you actually have to swallow it in order to receive.

Lesson Seven: Keep your modernism to yourself. We had a little girl from an orthodox, traditional family who was bullied by her teachers into not wanting to receive on the tongue because "we'd really like it if you received in the hand." Give me a cotton-picking break.

If you're orthodox and informed and not teaching catechesis, why? Go to your parish, right now, and sign up. There's a clueless heterodox ninny there who needs replacing.

File Under: The_Liturgy

Why?

2006-04-21T20:08:00.000-06:00

Because there is nothing that is random enough not to attract the attention of someone, somewhere who will be willing to collect information on it and make a webpage. (Also, I think the Marine Corps amphibious glider bit is really cool -- I had never heard of that project before.)

File Under: History

Texas

2006-04-21T15:11:00.000-06:00

Can Texas divide its state statutes up into titles, chapters, and sections like a normal state? Noooo, of course not -- it has to be like "a whole other country."

File Under: Law

Demographics

2006-04-20T20:26:00.000-06:00

I've been digging around in old demographic statistics for a paper, and I found some interesting numbers.

In 1920, there were 15,721,815 Catholics in the United States (out of a total population of almost 42 million). The second-largest religious group was Methodist Episcopal, with just over 3.7 million adherants. (I think the fact that the largest protestant group in the nation was a division of a splinter group that broke from another splinter group tells you something about protestantism.)

We had 14,489 churches worth $374,206,895 ($209,216,745 more than the 2nd rank Episcopaleons). Unfortunately, we also had $68,590159 worth of debt on them, although about 8,000 parishes showed no debt ($51,974,964 more than the 2nd rank Methodist Episcopals). That was in addition to 8,976 rectories worth a total of $61,338,287 ($26,586,730 more than the 2nd rank Methodist Episcopals). Total expenditures for 1920 (with about 1,000 parishes not reporting) were $72,358, 136.

File Under: History, Catholic_Stuff

One Year

2006-04-19T18:24:00.000-06:00

Many happy returns, Holy Father.

File Under: The_Pope

These are some of my . . .

2006-04-19T17:53:00.000-06:00

favorite non-ecumenical things:

The Pope
The Mass
Irish independence

Where did they dreg up this Ahern fellow? Not to mention Fr. Iggy. I mean, come on, maybe "Iggy" is short for something and sounds respectable in Gaelic, but when you're intentionally profaning the Blessed Sacrament, having us observe that your name is screwy is the least of your problems.

File Under: The_Liturgy

Some Thoughts

2006-04-17T17:47:00.000-06:00

On not kneeling.

Several of the members of the leadership committee for our John Cardinal Newman Community here at OWU went to Rome over Spring Break with our chaplain, and together they decided while there that there was no good reason for them not to kneel during the consecration at the semiweekly Mass held on campus. There are no kneelers in the room where the Mass is celebrated, but honestly folks, a little wood floor never killed anyone. So, last week for Palm Sunday, following the Sanctus, Father said "now we're going to kneel." And some folks got upset, because they liked the "laid back feel" of campus Mass, and thought that kneeling did something to that (this is why I don't go to Mass held on campus if I can at all help it). Then other people among the leadership, some of whom had flak over the kneeling directed at them, complained that they hadn't been consulted in the decision, as if this were some blasted congregationalist church. (If you want a vote in what happens, go be a Baptist.) They insisted on having a "discussion." Discussions tend to tick me off. As such, I "discussed" at some length at the rest of the leadership in an email, more or less reproduced below.

Some thoughts I didn't add in the email: The 70s are over. If you miss them so badly that you can't kneel for the consecration, go be an Episcopaleon or find yourself someplace like that St. Joan of Arc in Minesotta (or wherever that circus is). Also, the Jansenyst in me thinks that we shouldn't go so far out of our way to keep the people who only come to campus Mass in the pews -- uh, chairs. We only have Mass on campus every other week -- if they're not going to Mass in between, they probably shouldn't be coming and receiving when it's on campus (I mentioned this at the meeting today and was told "not to judge," whatever that means in this context).

My other thoughts, replete with document references:

The GIRM Sec. 42 par. 1 calls for the observations of "the traditional practices of the Roman rite." The organic tradition of the Roman rite that has been passed down by the Church and that we have received is to revere and adore the Blessed Sacrament by kneeling at the consecration. That's simple enough.

The exhortation to perform the sacred liturgy with an eye "what serves the common spiritual good of the People of God, rather than private inclination or arbitrary choice" seems to make the current situation more ambiguous. If the implementation of a worthy pious observance alienates certain members of the community from the sacred liturgy, does the good of the reverential act outweigh the unintended evil of the ill will that those persons have, as a result, chosen to direct towards the community, Fr. Dave, the Church, or whomever? Does this rubric require that the sacred liturgy be performed in a manner that "makes everyone happy"? At the very least, does it require that we take extraordinary steps to secure the presence of as many people as possible at the Mass, even if doing so requires action that runs contrary to the liturgical texts and the celebrant's interpretation of what they necessitate in his situation? Is it truly serving the "common spiritual good of the People of God" to permit and encourage, by our own willful actions, certain persons to acquire and sustain a perception of the Mass not in conformity with the tradition of the Church; to maintain such a strong preference for that flawed perception that they would absent themselves from the Mass and the Sacraments rather than assist at the Mass when said otherwise; and to have such a hardness of heart towards our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament that the act of kneeling before Him is categorically repugnant to them?

Do we really serve their spiritual good by continuing a practice that encourages such error? Or is to refrain from praiseworthy change for fear of their displeasure permitting the sacred liturgy to conform to "private inclination" and "arbitrary choice"? It seems evident that the latter is the case, and that the duty to serve the common spiritual good of the People of God requires that our actions as a de facto apostolate on this campus, especially in the provision of the Holy Mass, require that we conduct ourselves in a manner that encourages those around us to come to a fuller, truer, and richer understanding of and love for God, His Church, and especially His presence in the Sacrament of the Altar. The Church has, since the time of Christ, firmly understood that our actions shape our perceptions, and that our perceptions shape our beliefs. That is why we have always acted with all possible reverence towards the Blessed Sacrament. It would seem that any licit act, especially any habitual and authoritatively encouraged act, that encourages increased reverence for the Blessed Sacrament, should be embraced and adopted, for it is in these actions that the roots of faith are nourished in the human mind.

Sec. 43 par. 3 of the GIRM appears to have been translated poorly. It SAYS that conditional circumstances may permit standing between the Sanctus and the Great Amen, but that only episcopal dispensation may permit congregations to refrain from kneeling following the Agnus Dei. Given the examples it cites for circumstances that permit standing in the first case, however, it seems unlikely that it was intended to exclude this part of the Mass from the previous provision. This oddity does not appear to be present in the Latin (available here), which appears (my latin is not very good) to call for kneeling except where there is a "valid cause" such as "large numbers" or other "rational impediment." The final sentence dealing with the Agnus Dei is, in fact, a USCCB adaptation not present in the Latin original. So we may, I would imagine, disregard ICEL's inability to communicate effectively in the English language as mere oversight.

That said, does this language require us, in our locale in the smoker, to kneel? Sec. 43 par. 3 says "when prevented on occasion." The words "on occasion" were added by the USCCB, and act as a limiting device. Their addition, by specifying that the refraining from kneeling should be occasional -- and therefore situational -- implies that it should not be viewed as a habitual and desirable state of affairs. The words were likely added because many parishes in parts of the United States have in recent years viewed kneeling as a completely unnecessary act and have not taken steps to make accommodations for kneeling.

The Bishop's Conference wants us to know that we should be kneeling, and that we are dispensed in the case of an unusual occurrence. None of the examples listed (health, space, and numbers), indicate a permanent state of affairs. Notice that "the unsuitability of the environment" or "discomfort" are not among the reasons. Rather, the examples, which should inform one's interpretation of the point they illustrate because they represent the primary situations envisioned by the writers as well as the nature of the problem the provision seeks to solve, all point to temporary situations that come about due to the interaction of the qualities of the sanctuary and the congregation on that particular occasion. The use of a permanent quality of the building (such as the mere lack of kneelers) as justification for applying the exceptions of Sec. 43 par. 3 represents exceedingly poor exegesis, for it makes an appeal by way of analogy in a case where the two examples (no kneelers vs. too many people came) are inherently not analogous. The USCCB is most definitely aware that the Mass is celebrated at times in places without kneelers. Had they desired to make this a categorical exemption, they were perfectly free to include it, or at least an analogous situation, as such. As it is, they declined to do so, and we must read the document in light of that silence.

Chapter 4 of the GIRM reinforces the point that kneeling and genuflection are the appropriate and preferred acts of reverence towards the Blessed Sacrament, and that bowing is more properly reserved as an act, by the laity, of reverence for the Holy Name.

From Sec. 48 of Sacrosanctum Concilium, the words "[the faithful] should learn also to offer themselves [in the context of the Mass]" seemed to me to speak to the current discussion most directly. What is the act of kneeling? It is an offering of ourselves, a sign of supplication and reverence, in which we acknowledge our own inadequacy before God and implore His aid, here through His most wondrous Sacrament. It can, at times, be uncomfortable, but here too it is an offering of ourselves, for we are called to offer our sufferings, to unite them, as fully as possible, with those of Christ, for the propitiation of our sins and the glory of God. As the Mass is our participation in the perfect propitiation of Christ, it is only fitting that we should there offer our actions and our sufferings, those we endure throughout life and the minuscule inconvenience of kneeling.

Authorities Cited:
GIRM Chapter II (see Sec. 42-43)
GIRM Chapter IV (see Sec. 274-275)
Sacrosanctum Concilium (See sec. 48)

File Under: The_Liturgy

Sweet!

2006-04-17T15:40:00.000-06:00

The picture at left makes me happy. This Reuters shot, taken by Tony Gentile, is of our Papa celebrating the Easter Vigil at St. Peter's on Saturday. In the background is a statue of my patroness, St. Helena.

File Under: The_Pope, Saints

Dr. Peters

2006-04-17T14:11:00.000-06:00

On new norms for quantifying defection from the Church.

File Under: Catholic_Stuff

I'm Home

2006-04-16T16:55:00.000-06:00

What a blessing last night was, in all sorts of ways. The weather was absolutely beautiful, and the yard work several of us did around the church last week made a lovely backdrop for the Service of Light (even though it was still daylight at that point). Those dearest to me all made the trek up here to soybean country (with the exception of my Granddaddy, who is an accountant and understandably could not take yesterday off--St. Matthew, pray for him!).

We were blessed to have a baptism (a surprise to me--I'd heard earlier that there weren't going to be any this year). Jennifer is a high school student here in Martin. I had never seen a baptism in the Church before, so it was especially exciting. The Renewal of Baptismal Promises was really amazing (being that I am a girl, I reserve the right to cry upon feeling pretty much any emotion at all. I invoked this right for the first of several times last night as I reaffirmed both my rejection of sin and my belief in that which is mentioned in the Apostles' Creed).

The Rite of Reception was a remarkably powerful moment for me. Cry #2 came when I said, "I believe and profess all that the holy Catholic Church believes, teaches, and proclaims to be revealed by God." Stout words, those, but so very true. Immediately following this rite, of course, was that of Confirmation.

My Confirmation was a little bit...off. I wasn't really upset by the mistake, though (which, I'll have to say, kind of surprises me). The Holy Spirit knows my name, even if Fr. Joe doesn't, quite. Between my sponsor trying (repeatedly but unsuccessfully) to give Father my Confirmation name and a favorite professor (who was an altar server) grinning at me over the mispronunciation of my given name, I was more than mildly distracted. In spite of my distraction, though, by God's grace I was indelibly sealed to the Holy Spirit. Wow.

And then came my first Holy Communion. Receiving the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Our Lord was so intensely joyful that it was almost surreal. I don't know how to begin to describe it. Truly Awesome. I expected waterworks, and I did cry a little bit, but the physical manifestation of my reaction to eating the Flesh of the Son of Man was primarily a great trembling that came after I got back to my spot on the kneeler. It was sort of weird, because I couldn't keep from shaking and that's an odd sensation, but it was nice, in a way. It was like even whatever subconscious mechanism was making me tremble like that recognized that Something very Real and very Powerful had just happened.

After the Mass ended, there was a nice reception (with cake!!) in the social hall, where lots of people I don't know (and some I do) told me congratulations and welcome. The well-wishes from other folks (even those who I've never actually seen before, here in the blogworld) have been really overwhelming. Yay for the Church being a family.

Thanks again to everyone who was praying for me as I crossed the Tiber. It's been a long, sometimes difficult, trip, and you've all been a very real help.

It's good to be home.
File Under: RCIA

Happy Birthday, Papa!

2006-04-16T14:44:00.000-06:00

H/t to American Papist for the image.
File Under: The_Pope

He Is Risen

2006-04-15T21:49:00.000-06:00

Wow. There aren't words for what happened tonight. I'll try to collect and tell y'all about it at some point soon.
Many thanks to Moneybags for the above image, and many thanks also to everyone who prayed for me.

Happy Easter!
File Under: RCIA

Hours to go

2006-04-15T10:36:00.000-06:00

Happy Holy Saturday to everyone!

Posting will continue to be light for the rest of the weekend. Folks (most of my family, Paul, and his family) should begin to arrive here in Martin shortly. Easter Vigil for our parish is at 7 CST. I'm beginning to get pretty nervous. Prayers are appreciated.

St. Helena, pray for me.

File Under: Miscellany

Good Friday

2006-04-14T19:46:00.000-06:00

File Under: Catholic_Stuff

Holy Thursday

2006-04-13T10:39:00.000-06:00

Pope Benedict's reflection on the Triduum.

And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke: and gave to his disciples, and said: Take ye, and eat. This is my body.

And taking the chalice, he gave thanks, and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this. For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.

And I say to you, I will not drink from henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I shall drink it with you new in the kingdom of my Father. (Matthew 26:25-29)

And when supper was done, (the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon, to betray him,) knowing that the Father had given him all things into his hands, and that he came from God, and goeth to God; he riseth from supper, and layeth aside his garments, and having taken a towel, girded himself. After that, he putteth water into a basin, and began to wash the feet of the disciples, and to wipe them with the towel wherewith he was girded.

He cometh therefore to Simon Peter. And Peter saith to him: Lord, dost thou wash my feet? Jesus answered, and said to him: What I do thou knowest not now; but thou shalt know hereafter. Peter saith to him: Thou shalt never wash my feet. Jesus answered him: If I wash thee not, thou shalt have no part with me. Simon Peter saith to him: Lord, not only my feet, but also my hands and my head. Jesus saith to him: He that is washed, needeth not but to wash his feet, but is clean wholly. And you are clean, but not all. For he knew who he was that would betray him; therefore he said: You are not all clean.

Then after he had washed their feet, and taken his garments, being set down again, he said to them: Know you what I have done to you? You call me Master, and Lord; and you say well, for so I am. If then I being your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; you also ought to wash one another's feet. For I have given you an example, that as I have done to you, so you do also.

Amen, amen I say to you: The servant is not greater than his lord; neither is the apostle greater than he that sent him. If you know these things, you shall be blessed if you do them. (John 13:2-17)

File Under: Catholic_Stuff, The_Liturgy

Spy Wednesday

2006-04-12T13:38:00.000-06:00

Then were gathered together the chief priests and ancients of the people into the court of the high priest, who was called Caiphas: And they consulted together, that by subtilty they might apprehend Jesus, and put him to death. But they said: Not on the festival day, lest perhaps there should be a tumult among the people.

And when Jesus was in Bethania, in the house of Simon the leper, there came to him a woman having an alabaster box of precious ointment, and poured it on his head as he was at table. And the disciples seeing it, had indignation, saying: To what purpose is this waste? For this might have been sold for much, and given to the poor.

And Jesus knowing it, said to them: Why do you trouble this woman? for she hath wrought a good work upon me. For the poor you have always with you: but me you have not always.
For she in pouring this ointment upon my body, hath done it for my burial. Amen I say to you, wheresoever this gospel shall be preached in the whole world, that also which she hath done, shall be told for a memory of her.

Then went one of the twelve, who was called Judas Iscariot, to the chief priests, And said to them: What will you give me, and I will deliver him unto you? But they appointed him thirty pieces of silver. And from thenceforth he sought opportunity to betray him.

(Matthew 26:3-16)

File Under: Catholic_Stuff

ND

2006-04-12T13:32:00.000-06:00

The Whapsters with tips and info on writing to Notre Dame about the recent . . . whatever that was.

File Under: Catholic_Stuff

Nice

2006-04-11T20:53:00.000-06:00

but not exactly a flabella.

File Under: The_Pope

Chrism Mass

2006-04-11T19:53:00.000-06:00

I had the opportunity to attend my first Chrism Mass this evening. It was rather spectacular. The Columbus cathedral is beautiful: gothic with stunning stained glass, an impressive baldechino, and an even more impressive canopied cathedra. The only unimpressive part was the ambo -- it was made of clear plastic and what appeared to be the remnants of the communion rail, which itself gave every appearance of having been a 50s or 60s replacement, as it was of oddly cut marble that matched nothing else in the entire church. The choir was seated in the apse, and the screens placed behind them looked as if they might have been stalls at one point -- there is a loft, but it is undergoing renovation in preparation for the construction of an enormous new organ.

The Mass itself was beautiful. The choir sang Virginia and Palestrina, but insisted on keeping those to themselves and demonstrating that they could sing harmonies (which they did quite well). Bishop Campbell's homily was excellent and the rite of the blessing of the oils was beautiful, as was the renewal of the priests' vows. The oils, rather amusingly, were carried forth in containers that looked exactly like the large spigoted metal coffee pots you see at catering events. There's actually an odd logic to that, come to think of it . . . The readings, of course, were from Isaiah, about the one annointed by the Lord, and from Revelation about the power and priesthood of Christ, and from Luke where Christ reads the passage from Isaiah in the synogogue. The second reading was in Spanish, although I saw all of four hispanics, all the same family, in the whole church (talk about things that need desperately to be suppressed: bilingual masses; if you can't settle on one language, use Latin, because otherwise you accrue no benefit from using the vernacular(s)). Because almost every priest in the diocese was there, there were plenty of (ordinary) Eucharistic ministers, which was a unique and welcome change. And they had spare chalices prepared for when the Precious Blood ran out, which struck me as a wonderful bit of forethought and planning. The recessional hymn was "O God Our Help in Ages Past," a very nice hymn I haven't heard in a very long time.

I'm sure there is something else of note I could say about the Mass, but I can't think of what it would be at the moment. Tomorrow: Spy Wednesday!

File Under: The_Liturgy

Take Note

2006-04-08T22:37:00.000-06:00

St. Blog's favorite mollecular biologist, Chad, of Cacoethes Scribendi fame, has decided to strike out on his own. Normally you don't find me selling scientists, since the level at which science and I stop understanding one another is, with the exception of some biology, rather low (stop understanding in a "what in tarnation are you talking about" sense, not an ID vs. Evolution flamewar sense, although some scientists invite that kind of stuff -- cf, ice floes and Jesus).

But we need people like Chad to write about this stuff, because there are a lot of important things happening in the world of science, and most of us can't tell a hydrogenase from golgi body. And besides, Chad's a good writer and he links here. So go read On the Silent Planet (at least, go read it next week when he comes back from his Lenten hiatus).

File Under: Miscellany

St. John Baptiste de la Salle

2006-04-07T18:04:00.000-06:00

Today is the feast of St. John Baptiste de la Salle, priest and religious founder.

St. John was born at Rheims on April 30, 1651, and died on this date in 1719. Eschewing the traditional family profession of law, he decided to enter the Church's service, and received the tonsure in 1662. His uncle was canon of Rheims, and he resigned this post in favor of young John in 1667. In seminary he attracted the attention and friendship of Nicolas Roland, himself a canon of Rheims, theologian, and religious founder. He was ordained in 1678, and dedicated himself assiduously to the Mass and the sacraments.

In the years following his ordination, St. John Baptiste de la Salle was occupied in the work of executing his friend Nicolas's will. Nicolas and founded a religious community of women for the education of young girls: the Sisters of the Child Jesus. He entrusted them to St. John Baptiste de la Salle, who dedicated much effort to their work and to the opening of several free schools in the late 1670s.

He spent large quantities of time visiting the teachers each day, and also worked to encourage them and aid them in their own studies. Since the schools were free, the conditions they afforded to the instructors were poor, and St. John Baptiste de la Salle used his sizeable resources as a canon and head of a wealthy family (John Baptiste was the eldest child and his parents had died while he was in seminary) to provide room and board to those unable to do so themselves.

St. John Baptiste de la Salle resigned his canonry in 1683, and subsequently divested himself of his fortune, using it to distribute bread to the poor during a famine at that time. This he did after considerable prayerful consideration and the advice of one of his closest advisers. Henceforth, his undertakings would depend upon Providence. Seeing the deficiencies of a purely secular approach to operating free educational institutions, he sought to organize his group of teachers into a religious society. They took the name of the Institute of the Brothers of the Christian Schools. A rule was drawn, and the novices took the vows of obedience, chastity, and poverty, as well as a fourth vow to dedicate themselves to the teaching of the poor. The brothers were not ordained, and the rule specified that no priest should join the order. This final determination followed the sudden illness and death, while at seminary, of the order's most brilliant and promising member, who St. John Baptiste de la Salle intended to succeed him as superior.

However, in 1692, when the first vows were professed, the order had been so weakened by death and desertion that only two brothers took them. The 1690s were a time of hard work and consolidation, but the early years of the 1700s were very difficult, as St. John Baptiste de la Salle struggled with Jansenists, as well as with the French hierarchy, who viewed his un-clerical religious institute as suspect. The founding of schools for the poor was also accompanied by the founding of a school for the brothers themselves to facilitate their teaching and compensate for their not attending seminary. Schools were also opened for Irish and English exiles, "troublesome" boys, and schools for prospective artisans.

In 1716 he convoked a general chapter that elected a new superior general. St. John Baptiste de la Salle feared the order being too dependent on him, and sought the election of a new superior to solidify the Brothers' work. From thence forth he lived as a simple brother, dedicated himself to teaching pupils and novices.

St. John Baptiste de la Salle combined practical innovation with a dedication to cultivating the spiritual life of students. He popularized the practice of dividing schools into grades and emphasized the necessity of giving instruction in the vernacular language (primary education consisting primarily of Latin at the time -- a knowledge of little use to the poor students in the Brothers' schools). He also recognized the importance of reminding students of the presence of God in our lives -- thus, each class is begun with prayer, each prayer with the exhortation, "Let us remember that we are in the holy presence of God." Each prayer is concluded with the request, "Live, Jesus, in our hearts forever."

Today the Christian Brothers have schools on 6 continents (including my high school). St. John Baptiste de la Salle was declared the patron of teachers in 1950. No, that's not St. John Baptiste de la Salle at the right, that's Br. Joel.

St. John Baptiste de la Salle, pray for us.
Live, Jesus, in our hearts, forever.

File Under: Saints

Daily Trivia

2006-04-06T12:57:00.000-06:00

Q: How many Biblical authors are there whose writings are found in the New Testament? (According to the Bible, that is, not some "Biblical Scholar" with a hang up over ice floes.)

A: Eight: Matthew, Mark, Luke (gospel and Acts), John (gospel, letters, and Revelation), Paul, James, Peter, and Jude

File Under: Trivia

Hit him again!

2006-04-05T19:33:00.000-06:00

The St. Thomas More Law Center is set to beat the stew out of San Francisco and take the city's lunch money in Federal Court. How about the revocation of the municipal charter as a remedy? Sigh - unfortunately the answer is no. I think this may be the first time I've ever lamented federalism . . . And really, how cool is the St. Thomas More Law Center? That one's easy: VERY.

File Under: Catholic_Stuff, Law

Wow

2006-04-04T17:06:00.000-06:00

Let's get back to Tennessee, Jed. Indeed. Nothing is right in California.

File Under: Loonies

Of Note

2006-04-04T15:58:00.000-06:00

You know, the English love democracy so much. They love it so much that they plant spies in Irish political parties, one of whom appears to have died violently.

My favorite part of the article is this sentence: "Protestants at the time accused the IRA of plotting a potential resumption of its violent campaign to oust Northern Ireland from the United Kingdom."

To oust Northern Ireland? Where are they going to put it once it's been driven out of its current location? An AP writer needs to get a dictionary to go along with that thesaurus.

File Under: miscellany