Hand kissing, Lying, Guilt, and the Translation Battles

Questions. . . 

1).  What's the deal with kissing a priest's hands? 

As demonstration of respect and reverence for the priesthood some people will kiss a priest's hands rather than give him the more customary handshake.  There is nothing weird or wrong about doing this.  Kissing hands is largely a custom limited to historically Catholics countries like Italy, Poland, Mexico, etc.  When I've celebrated Mass in Hispanic parishes, many of the older parishioners will greet me at the door with a hand kiss.  The first time this happened I was a little surprised!  It is quite humbling.  Priests in the U.S. do not have the mystery surrounding them that they do in other parts of the world.  This is both good and bad.  It's good b/c too often "mystery" can go to the priest's head and he begins to think of himself as the object of reverence.  It's bad b/c the priesthood is not a function but a vocation, not a job/career but an identity.  Losing the mystery of the priesthood tends to reduce the priesthood to just another category of parochial employee.  It seems to me that hand kissing is perfectly acceptable so long as both the Kissed and the Kisser know that it is the priesthood being reverenced and not the priest.  Perhaps the best test of this would be to ask yourself (the Kisser):  would I kiss the hands of a priest I do not respect/like as a person?  If the answer is no, then I would say you should probably refrain. . .of course, kissing his hands may be a way for you to overcome your aversion to him.  But I'm not sure this is the best motivation.  I would hope that a priest who has his hands kissed would receive this sign of reverence humbly and not try to discourage it.  By and large, I think American, Canadian, and western European priests would be uncomfortable with it.  But, properly understood, there's really no reason to be.  I understand that the practice is more common in the eastern churches, but my knowledge of eastern Christians customs is very limited. 

2).  Is it ever OK to lie? 

I get this question a lot.  Most of the time people are wanting to know if it is OK to lie in order to avoid hurting someone's feelings, or spare them some sort of "hard truth."  Aquinas provides the classical Catholic analysis of the question.  He teaches that lying is always a sin.  As a sin, lying is subject to the same moral evaluation that we afford other sins.  Is the object of the act evil?  Is the act itself freely willed?  Is the act intended?  As moral agents we are constantly seeking the Good.  Everything we do we do to achieve this end--goodness.  Frequently, we are mistaken about whether or not a particular act takes us closer to the Good.  Sometimes, we know this act will not get us closer.  In the case of lying, we must know that we are speaking a falsehood (object).  We must be competent to will ourselves to speak the falsehood (i.e. free, not mentally or emotionally incapacitated).  And we must intend to deceive by freely willing to speak the falsehood.  All three conditions must be met in order for there to be a sin committed when speaking a falsehood.  Circumstances can mitigate the degree of culpability (guilt) for the sin.  The classic example is lying to the Nazis about the Jews you have hidden in your basement.  Yes, it is a sin to lie to the Nazis and save the lives of the Jews you have hidden.  Your guilt here is mitigated by duress.  Some would argue that you are not free.  But this is a dangerous interpretation of Aquinas' conditions b/c just about any situation where you want to spare someone hurt could be considered a limit on freedom.  So, lying is never OK.  But there are degrees of culpability in different circumstances. 

3).  In the post below, "Sacrificial service vs. being a doormat," I tried to distinguish the difference between serving others in a truly Christian fashion and simply allowing others to abuse your good will.  Ultimately, this distinction is going to be lived out in the individual conscience of the servant:  am I serving for the greater glory of God, or am I serving for some other, lesser reason?  Commenters noted that women are often culturally conditioned to feel guilty when they fail to serve "as they ought."  Not being a woman, I'll have to assume that this is true.  Guilt serves an important role in our conscience.  Understood in a healthy way, guilt alerts us to possible violations of conscience.  When guilt is imposed from an outside force (culture, spouses, etc.), it limits freedom and becomes coercive.  I can't speak to individual cases without spending a lot of time on the details involved, but generally speaking, our Christian service must be freely given--without any kind of coercion--in order for it to be sacrificial service.  Think of the difference between making a donation and paying a tax.  Who feels good about writing the IRS a check?  Who doesn't feel good about writing a check for a favorite charity?  The difference is the degree of freedom involved.  If you know that you are "serving" out of a sense of imposed guilt, then I would say that you are not serving freely.  Knowing that you are serving out of guilt is the tricky part.  That requires some spiritual direction.  It's not something that I can tease out in general terms.   

4).  What's the big deal with the new English translations of the Mass?  Why the constant delay? 

In my experience, people rarely argue over the Real Issue at Hand.  We tend to choose what I'll call "ciphers," or symbols that allow us to reduce a larger problem into smaller, manageable bits.  At stake in the Liturgy Wars is the soul of the Church.  Who are we?  What are we about?  It's a question of Catholic identity in this postmodern age.  But the problem of Catholic identity is cultural, social, economic, religious, legal, etc.  In other words, it's HUGE.  And as such, largely unmanageable.  So, we pick smaller battles to fight the larger war.  The Translation Battles have to do with what sort of language will use to pray together.  Both sides of the battle know that language shapes attitudes and influences beliefs.  Both sides know that the kind of language we use in prayer together shapes our view of God and our relationship to Him.  Some will go so far as to say that language-use is the only reality we have direct contact with.  Control language-use, control reality.  This is the philosophical base for the P.C. movement, i.e., if we can change how people speak, we can change the reality they live in.  The Translation Battle is really about how will we come to understand ourselves as Catholics in the next few decades.  One side wants us to maintain a "marketplace diction" so as to emphasize your communal nature as a Church.  The point of this language is to bring God down to us and have us share together in His immanent presence.  The other side wants us to use a more "sacred diction" so as to emphasize the transcendence of God beyond His creation and elevate us up to Him.  Both sides have very distinct ideas about what counts as a language of prayer.  The recently approved translations favor the "sacred diction" side of the battle.  This side will point out that the "marketplace diction" of the last 30 years has desacralized the liturgy to the point where Mass is really nothing more than a sort of community picnic to which God is invited but whose presence is not really all that important.  Mass is about us.  The other side argues that the "sacred diction" will alienate Catholics from their everyday experience of God, leaving them in a fog of complicated concepts and tortured syntax.  Faithful translations of Latin prayers introduces a vaguely foreign feel into the English and will make people feel spiritually queasy.  This side fears that "sacred diction" is a way of reimposing an unhealthy distinction between priestly prayer and the ordinary prayer of the people.  It's important here, I think, to understand that these differences are not merely a matter of taste.  The issues are very real and the concerns are legitimate.  Though I favor "sacred diction," there is a danger of the Mass becoming incomprehensible to the average Catholic.  Mass is about God.  But prayer doesn't change God.  It changes us.  And for it to do so, we must be able to understand it.  Sacred language can be clear, beautiful, and transcendent without being unnecessarily complex.  We'll have to wait and see how the new text actually works.  The delay?  Well, Vatican Two mandated that each bishops' conference is responsible for the translations in its major language.  Once a translation is done, it goes to the Vatican for approval.  The Vatican can send it back with requests for corrections.  This is an arduous process requiring years of hard work and negotiation.  As we have seen, it only takes a handful of bishops to gum up the works!  We've been waiting for an approved English translation of the ordination rite for almost 25 years now.  

More later. . .

Delete the emails! More from the climate-hacks

Wow. Now the hacked/leaked emails are demonstrating a "conspiracy" among the global-warming alarmists to suppress evidence, shut-out peer reviewed papers, ignore Freedom of Information Act requests, suppress opposition comments on their websites, and they even celebrate the death of a leading global-warming skeptic!


One of the scientists writes, "...If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn’t being political, it is being selfish." Regardless of the starvation, natural disaster, disease, etc. Wow.


Remember last year when tons of climate data was "lost":


From: Phil Jones To: “Michael E. Mann”

Subject: IPCC & FOI

Date: Thu May 29 11:04:11 2008


Mike,


Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?

Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment - minor family crisis.

Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.

We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!


Cheers


Phil


Wow. Just wow. Governments all over the world have spent billions and billions on this nonsense and it's looking more and more like the whole thing really is nothing more than a giant hoax.

Emails catch climatologists fudging the numbers (UPDATED)

Oops!


Hacked emails show global-warming alarmists in the scientific community "hiding the data."


Inconvenient truths, indeed. . .


Update from the Telegraph (UK):


As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be “the greatest in modern science”. These alleged emails – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory – suggest:


Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.

Sarah Palin for the people and by the people?

Amanda Fortini's post at Salon, "The Annie Oakley of American Politics," concludes with this observation on Sarah Palin:

After all, as the populist governor of a state whose voters respond to plainspoken directness, she suddenly found herself a national figure addressing big-media sophisticates. She was given about seven seconds to learn her role and then, after eight seconds, patronized and mocked. The reasons she performed so poorly are the very reasons her fan base loves her. If, over the next three years, her performance improves as much as it appears to have in just the last year, the conventional rap about her rustic idiocy may come off as mean-spirited and archaic. Her foes might be wise to contemplate the notion that someone of Palin’s background and sensibilities has a right, regardless of her views, to participate in the national debate merely because she speaks (though often unclearly) for many like her. If this possibility can’t be countenanced, then government for the people by the people is an abstract idea we’ve grown too cynical to practice. Sarah Palin endures not because she’s brilliant, smooth or philosophically correct, but because hope in democracy endures, too.

I'm really indifferent to Palin as a politician.  My own rural, southern values resonate with hers, but being president is about more than just having good values.  As the ineptitude of B.O.'s amateurism in the Oval Office is proving all too well, being President is about sound judgment--in personnel decisions and policy-making.

Her appeal as a candidate will ultimately fall on how well she reflects the American voting public as it sees itself.  If there's anyone out there in the GOP or among the Dems who does this better than she does, I don't know who they are.  

Roe v. Wade will defeat ScaryCare?

George Will has an interesting post up: "Unlawful health care reform?"


He suggests that the "right of privacy" invented by the Supreme Court in '60's that allows abortion may come back to bite the supporters of Pelosi-Reid Care:


[. . .]


The court says the constitutional privacy right protects personal "autonomy" regarding "the most intimate and personal choices." The right was enunciated largely at the behest of liberals eager to establish abortion rights. Liberals may think, but the court has never held, that the privacy right protects only doctor-patient transactions pertaining to abortion. David Rivkin and Lee Casey, Justice Department officials under the Reagan and first Bush administrations, ask: If government cannot proscribe or even "unduly burden" -- the court's formulation -- access to abortion, how can government limit other important medical choices?


[. . .]

O.P. friar gets owned

From the combox on my post about B.O. bowing to the Japanese emperor:

"However, with all due respect, I don't think you need to resort to using phrases such as 'pie-hole' to get your point across. You are too much of a gifted and talented writer for that!"

THIS, folks, is how you shame a big-mouthed Dominican into being more polite!

My only (and pathetic) defense?  Politicians make me crazy.  I plea "not guilty by reason of insanity."

Mea culpa.

Translation approved

Good news!

The American bishops voted to approve all five parts of the new Roman Missal translation.

Despite the best parliamentarian efforts of Bishop "Ineffable" Trautman to throw the process off the rails, the translations were overwhelmingly approved.  I think the bishops are sick of the whole interminable process.  They voted to ask the Vatican to finish up translating one part of the missal!

Assuming the translation gets the stamp of approval from Rome, we should be using the new book come Easter 2011.

Sacrifical Service vs. Being a Doormat

How do we distinguish between "serving sacrificially" and "being subservient"?  Or, as one commenter puts it:  what's the difference between rendering sacrificial service and "being a doormat"?

I've only been in ordained ministry for five years, but this question has been asked of me many times. . .and only by women.  It's likely I just need more experience, or maybe the women I've ministered to have been somehow particularly abused by a distorted notion of sacrifice.  Either way, the question is a good one.

First, a few general observations. . .

+ All Christians are called to be servants.  This means, minimally, that we are to be of good use to others, including family, friends, neighbors, and strangers.  The OT prophets were especially emphatic about being hospitable to foreigners.  Why?  They are away from home, away from the day-to-day support they normally have among their own.  In other words, they are critically vulnerable and in the most need of immediate help.

+ Anyone can be a servant.  There is no religious test for being of good use to others.  Atheists are perfectly capable of being of good service, even sacrificially so.  However, Christians are not called to be servants just for the sake of service.  We serve b/c we lay claim to being followers of Christ who served all mankind in his life, death, and resurrection.  We serve for the greater glory of God.  Christian service is what it is precisely b/c it is done in order to give thanks and praise to God. 

+ When we serve others sacrificially, we serve in order to make them and ourselves holy.  If my service is about making me look good in the parish, or to boost my public image before an election, or pad my resume for a tough job search, then the service cannot be sacrificial, even if tremendous good results from my work.  The intention (willed direction) of my work must be to do nothing else but show God's love and mercy to the world.  Any good service we render can be considered sacrificial if it is done for God's greater glory.  This is made plain in the Little Way of St. Therese and Brother Lawrence.  Washing dishes with your all your heart and mind focused on Christ can be a sacrifice. 

+ The danger for Americans is to measure sacrifice in terms of "what is lost" and "what is gained" rather than in the quality of devotion invested in the work.  Bill Smith can write a $25 billion check to a city's food bank and effectively feed millions of people.  Sue Jones can work a Saturday afternoon at the Catholic Charities thrift store and help several families stretch their meager household budget.  Smith "sacrifices" billions of dollars.  Jones "sacrifices" an afternoon.  Most Americans would say that Smith has sacrificed more than Jones.  Not necessarily.  Jones wills that her work bring greater and greater glory to God.  She intents her work as a demonstration of Christ's love and mercy for the least of his.  Smith writes a check b/c its a good tax write-off and it will get his picture in the paper before this year's mayoral election. 

Now, having said all that, here's a very basic distinction between sacrifice and servitude:  any good work done for the greater glory of God alone is sacrificial; work done for any reason other than this is may be servile. 

But how do I discern which is which?

1).  Why am I doing this work?

2).  Is this work good?

3).  Am I perfecting my gifts?

The first question challenges you to consider your reasons for undertaking the work.  Here you have to plumb your heart and mind and honestly assess your motives.  Am I doing this to build a good reputation?  Am I doing this for attention?  Is this work merely a duty that I must perform?  Will others I am a bad person if I don't do it?  Your only reason for giving sacrificial service is to give glory to God.

The second question challenges you to consider the work itself.  Is the object of the work good, meaning is the end goal of the work good.  Recently, a Dominican sister's work at an abortion clinic was made public.  No doubt she feels that her work is good.  But the object--the final end--of her work is to help women abort their children.  There is very little good in this.  Also, when helping others in person it's a good idea to consider the largest possible picture.  While I served in Houston, we were frequently hit up by homeless folks for money at the priory.  Helping the homeless is a paramount Christian concern.  But giving cash to them is not the way to help them.  They see cash donations as a form of help.  But there's no reason for us to see it this way.  Handing a homeless person a few dollars is a cheap and easy way to feel good about one's charity.  It's certainly easier than spending a Saturday at the homeless shelter serving lunch!  Just b/c the person who needs your help thinks that doing X is helpful doesn't make it helpful. 

The third question challenges you to consider whether or not any particular service you might render also serves to perfect your unique gifts.  1 John tells us that when we use our gifts in the service of others, God's love is perfected in us.  When God's love is perfected in us, we go on to serve more and more in and for His glory.  I have no gifts in the area of logistics or planning.  It would be a mistake for me to serve as a coordinator of relief services in a natural disaster.  However, I function very well in a crisis.  When something traumatic happens I become very calm and hyper-focused (a very unusual state for me!). This gift helped me work with psychiatric patients in a hospital setting.  That job was one crisis after another.  

So, serving as a doormat might mean that you are serving out of fear, misguided duty, guilt, or a need to please in order to receive approval.  None of these is sacrificial.  You might be serving someone who has defined "help" as doing what he/she wants you do even if they help they want isn't what they actually need in the long run.  This kind of work might result in some good, but it will not likely be the best you can offer them.  Remember:  sometimes the best medicine hurts.  You might be serving others by trying to make use of gifts you do not have.  There's no grace for you to call on in these cases, no help from your own nature that gives you the means to do and be the best you can do and be. 

If the service you are doing makes you feel like a doormat, makes you think of yourself as being taken advantage of, then follow these thoughts and feelings and stop.  You aren't doing yourself or others much good.  Be open to expanding your gifts but know your limits.  The Church has many members precisely b/c none of us can everything well. 

Hope this helps!

And the crowds were astonished. . .

It's a miracle!

B.O. stimulus dollars "create or save" jobs even in congressional districts that don't exist!

Will wonders ever cease? 

Apparently not.  The MSM is actually doing its job.

Where is our sycamore tree?

St. Elizabeth of Hungary: Readings

Fr. Philip Neri Powell, OP

SS. Domenico e Sisto, Roma

Zacchaeus is traitor to his people. And he's short. He can't help being short, but his traitorous nature is the direct result of sin. As a tax collector for the Roman occupiers and their puppet king, he is charged with squeezing the conquered population of Judea for cash. He's not paid to do this. To earn a living he keeps a percentage of what he collects. So, the more he collects, he more he earns. Ta-collectors were counted among the scum of society along with prostitutes and lepers. Now, we could psychoanalyze Zacchaeus to figure out why he became a tax-collector. As a smaller boy he was bullied. Ostracized. Teased for being short, he grew up angry, swearing vengeance on his childhood oppressors. Fortunately for him, he hears about Jesus and something inside him is set alight with the desire to glimpse this wandering preacher. When Jesus comes through Jericho, he gets his chance. But, alas, he is not only a sinner but a short sinner and he cannot see Jesus over the crowd. Having spent much of his childhood running from bullies, he's quite skilled at climbing trees. So, he climbs a sycamore tree and from its strong branches, he sees Christ. And, more importantly, Christ sees him. Without that tree Zacchaeus might have never found his way to salvation.

The gospel this morning is no doubt a story about a sinner finding Christ. It's one we've heard many times. But this is perhaps the only gospel story where a plant aids in the preaching of the Good News. Zacchaeus finds among the branches of that sycamore a refuge from the throng surrounding Jesus, a perch from which to watch Jesus pass by. Obviously, this is no ordinary tree, right? The sycamore is a species of fig. It has heart-shaped leaves; grows only in rich soil; and produces fruit year-round. The ancient Egyptians called it the “Tree of Life” and used its timber for royal coffins. It was a measure of wealth and prestige. Is it any wonder then that Zacchaeus finds sights his salvation from its branches?

Let's take some literary license here. Thinking of our 21st century world, what serves as our sycamore tree for the short sinner? Where can those of us who are stunted by sin go to climb above the crowd to see Christ? What thrives in the rich soil of the Word? What produces good fruit year-round? What grows among its strong branches a foliage shaped like a God-longing heart? Where can we climb so that Christ sees a sinner above the crowd? Is there a better place for the sinner to be than the Church? Among strength, fruitfulness, holy desire, and the richness of a firm foundation, Zacchaeus, a short traitorous sinner, clearly sees the one he will host in his own home, the one to whom Jesus says, despite the grumbling of the crowd, “Today salvation has come to this house. . .”

We can draw and some have drawn the wrong lesson from this story: Jesus welcomes all sinners, therefore we cannot call a sin a sin. But notice that it is not sufficient for his salvation that Zacchaeus sees Jesus from the sycamore. Christ calls to him, knowing who he is, and invites Zacchaeus to host him. Zacchaeus hears the invitation and immediately knows that all his thieving, all his traitorous behavior is just fine with the Lord. His sin is no longer sinful. Wrong. Zacchaeus repents and vows to do penance by repaying his thefts four times over. Then Jesus announces the redemption of his house. This is the gospel pattern: Christ comes. Christ is seen. He invites the sinner to table. Overwhelmed by this mercy, the sinner repents and does penance. His salvation is made manifest. The task of the Church is to be the sycamore, the refuge for any and all who long to see the Lord from her strong, fruitful branches. From among these heart-shaped leaves, the worst of us can see Christ and hear his call to a new life and the proclamation of our redemption.

Mille Grazie!

A quick Thank You to all the folks who have browsed Ye Ole Wish List lately. . .and sent me books.

The doctoral dissertation prospectus is looming in the very near future. . .like around Feb. 2010.

[Gulp]

It never ends, does it?

Anyway, mille grazie, grazie mille!

Coffee Bowl Browsing

The rise of incivility. . .yea, the blogosphere is partially to blame for this.  The real culprit is the tyranny of political correctness.  Instead of teaching children to be polite, we teach them P.C. nonsense.  Politics governs civil interaction rather than good manners.  I'll be the first to confess that as a recovering left-lib P.C. activist, I am STILL tempted to this sin in this way.  That's a reason, not an excuse.

According to this Japanese expert, both the Left and the Right are dead wrong about B.O.'s bow to the Emperor.  It wasn't obsequious or necessary. . .just dumb and poorly executed.  Oh well.

Editors and readers at amazon.com chose the top books of 2009.  Caution:  the #1 reader pick is a Dan Brown book.  This says many, many sad things about America's readers.

The cowardly director of 2012 refused to depict the destruction of mosques in this blow-'em-up film, freely admitting that he was afraid of a jihadist reaction.  He has no such qualms about destroying Christian monuments however.  Does this bother me?  Not really.  The Church is not found in buildings or monuments.  I'd mourn the loss of St. Peter's for its art and historical significance. . .but the "gates of hell" and all that.   Will I see the movie?  Are you kidding!?  This is The Redneck Movie of the Year!

Since Living-Humans can't win against the enemy in the coming Zombie Apocalypse, the Special Forces have done the next best thing:  recruited Zombies to join our side against the Islamo-facist terrorists in Afghanistan.  Putting Zig Ziegler to work against terror!

Pro-aborts whine about the "interference" of the American bishops in the recent passage of the Stupak amendment to Pelosi's ScaryCare.  They rage against this dire assault on the separation of Church and State and demand that the tax-exempt status of the Church be investigated by the IRS.  Of course, these are principled lefties, so we assume that they want ALL churches  involved in political lobbying investigated.  Well, not so much.  Left-lib Protestant churches who support abortion are just fine.  Figures.

Axelrod hints that B.O. will strike anti-abortion funding language from any health care bill that comes to him.  But we knew this already.

The Pope meets Picasso?  Not quite.  But close enough.  I confess that I like modern art.  There's raw creativity there even if there's little immediate evidence of talent.  Just watch a Youtube video on how to paint an abstract picture for your den and you will come away thinking, "That's art?  I can do that!"  Maybe that's the point?  Anyway, modern art?  Yes.  Modern art in Church?  No way.

And there's this:  an appeal for a return to an authentically Catholic sacred art.

Who will I die for today?

[NB.  This is an attempt at "doctrinal preaching."  Let me know if you think it works.]

33rd Sunday OT: Readings

Fr. Philip Neri Powell, OP

SS. Domenico e Sisto, Roma

Your best friend discovers that you and your spouse have cashed in your vacation savings so that your children can continue in their Catholic school. Your friend notes with admiration, “That's quite a sacrifice!” It's final exams week and you rush to be with your sick mother. Your professor, though sympathetic, says, “Unfortunately, your sacrifice will not help your grade.” You read in the Sunday paper that a well-trained German Shepherd in the local police force “sacrificed its life to save its human partner.” In that same paper, the stories from Iraq and Afghanistan are littered with references with the sacrifice of our soldiers in combat. Each time, the word “sacrifice” rings nobly in your ears, and you note that something has been lost so that something more important might be accomplished. We understand sacrifice in terms of loss and gain, in terms of “giving up mine” so that you might “have yours.” Something ends and something begins. Almost always absent in these descriptions is the sense of the holy, that taste of the transcendent that gives sacrifice a religious flavor, some deference to a time and place other than this one. For Christians, sacrificium, means sacrifice, oblation; an offering to God. The Latin word comes from sacer (holy) and facere (to make). To sacrifice is to make holy. That which is sacrificed is made holy; the one making the sacrifice is made holy. Most importantly for us, the ones for whom the sacrifice is made are made holy. Christ is the High Priest who sacrifices. He is the Victim of this sacrifice. And we are the beneficiaries: “For by one offering he has made perfect forever those who are being consecrated.”

In Hebrews this morning, we read, “Every priest stands daily at his ministry, offering frequently those same sacrifices that can never take away sins.” The author of this letter is writing to the Jews who have come to Christ. He is using images and language that they will immediately understand. Having spent most of their lives in the temple-worship of the Father, offering animal sacrifice for their sins, these converts will know that the author is alluding to the ineffectiveness of those same animal sacrifices in relieving them of their sin. In obedience to the Covenant, they carry out their religious duties and demonstrate a fidelity to God. However, these sacrifices do not and cannot wipe away their sin. Though God may account them holy before Him, they are not, in fact, made holy through in their temple worship. God alone is holy and only He can make what is unholy holy in fact.

To accomplish the sanctification of all creation, God sends His only Son among us as a Man, one like us in every way except sin. The God-Man, Jesus Christ, born of a virgin by the power of the Holy Spirit, is sacrificed on the cross for us. As the incarnate Son, he is already holy. As the priest, he is holy. As the lamb on the altar of the cross is he holy. He offers himself to God as the one, perfect sacrifice for all that need not ever be repeated, that cannot be repeated. We can understand this sacrifice for in any number of ways: substitutionary, existential, exemplary. Christ died for our sins so that we need not die in sin; he died instead of us. Christ experienced the death of sin as a man so that all men might be saved from such a death; his experience reveals the hope of eternal life. Christ on the cross shows us the meaning of love: to die for one's friends; his death is our model for life. Wherever we want to place the emphasis, one element of his sacrifice is clear: our holiness is not our own, but rather a gift from the altar of the cross given freely by our great High Priest. We have only to accept this gift and follow him.

By one perfect offering of himself on the cross, Christ united us again with the Father, and we persevere in the presence of the Holy Spirit, striving against already-vanquished sin to achieve our perfection in the promise of holiness. Our constant failure to perfect his promise of holiness does nothing to revoke the promise. His offer of holiness made from the cross is universal and permanent: for all, forever. No tribe, tongue, nation, people, race, or class is excluded from the invitation. No one is missed out because he was born Man to save all mankind, and nothing broken is left unfixed. No sin, no fault, no vice, no deviance, no crime, nothing torn or damaged among his human creatures is left unhealed. Nothing in the entirety of His creation is left to chaos or disease. Where we find disorder, look for disobedience. Where we find strife, debauchery, disregard for life, anxiety and distress, look for men and women without hope. But as time grows short, look for Christ's return. What has been woven together will unravel when left uncared for and the weaver will return to repair the damage of our carelessness.

We care best of ourselves and one another when we sacrifice, when we “hand over to make holy.” As priests of the New Covenant, we offer oblation to God when we lay our worry, our sickness, our poverty, our arrogance, our sin on his altar and leave ourselves freshly vulnerable to being made again in his image and likeness, to being made over as Christ for others. It is not enough that we sacrifice as priests. If we are follow him, we must the victim of our sacrifice as well. Not my sin only, but yours too. Not your sin only, but mine as well. The Body must sacrifice for the Body, all its members for one another. We are holy together or not at all. This is the danger of being Catholic, of being one Body baptized into the life, death, and resurrection of Christ: we are saved as a Church, bound together by the chains of God's sacraments. “Me and Jesus” is the Devil's lie that makes our faith into a religiousy version of the “Lone Ranger.” We rise or fall as one in the One who made us one by dying on the cross.

Perhaps the question we should ask ourselves upon waking each morning is: “Who will I die for today?”

Coffee Bowl Browsing (Catholic Round-Up Edition)

Here's a bishop who needs some time in a monastery. . .say, about twenty years at hard labor.

Spanish bishops actually doing their jobs!

Catholics and Muslims share a common enemy:  the aggressive secular state

I want an invitation to the ordination of the first Klingon bishop!  Did you know that the moon is officially part of the Diocese of Rome?  True.

Nasty anti-Catholic bigot gets jail time for child rape and kidnapping.

Fr. Robert Barron reviews Michael Moore's latest effort-in-hypocrisy, "Capitalism: A Love Story."

Damien Thompson demonstrates Catholic-Anglican relations with two pictures. 

Dominican friar spanks New Atheists in NYC.  Brutal beating. . .

B.O.'s foreign policy

B.O.'s foreign policy in a picture.

Let's hope he was polite enough to apply some chapstik.

During a press conference, B.O. was asked about the use of the atomic bomb during the war with Japan.  His response was horribly embarrassing.

"If Barack Obama can't stick up for the country he represents when he goes overseas, he should stay home."

The NYT writes:  "It wasn't a bow, exactly. But [the President] came close. He inclined his head and shoulders forward, he pressed his hands together. It lasted no longer than a snapshot, but the image on the South Lawn was indelible: an obsequent President, and the Emperor of Japan."

Of course, the NYT would never write anything critical of the Messiah.  The above was written about Bill Clinton. 

My point here is that B.O. could have said any number of diplomatically vacuous things.  He could have said, "Any war is horrible.  President Truman made the decision he did with the best information he had.  It might not be the decision we would make today, but it ended the war and saved millions of lives."  Is it perfect?  No.  Is it a vigorous defense of the U.S.? Hardly.  But it would have been much less embarrassing than the hemming and hawing that gushed from the Great Orator's pie-hole.

Complementarity of Religion & Science

Opening paragraph of my thesis, "The Complementarity of Religion and Science:  John Polkinghorne's Scientific-Critical Realism":

As individuals committed to truth-seeking enterprises, modern scientists and modern religious believers are best equipped philosophically with a critical realist theory of science and religion. Anglican priest and physicist, John Polkinghorne, proposes that science and religion, properly understood in critical realist terms, are complementary human discourses designed and used to discover, describe, and explain what the world is really like. For science, “the world” is the self-made physical universe of observable entities, natural processes, cosmic forces, and sometimes unobservable objects whose existence is “theoretically necessary.” For religion, “the world” is all of creation, the universe made from nothing; created by God to grow and thrive under His guidance, and to serve as a living sign of His presence among His creatures. A critical realist theory of complementarity succeeds because both the world of the scientist and the world of the believer are open to rational inquiry and subject to critical dissection; that is, these worlds are intelligible. As such, Polkinghorne argues, the successful truth-seeking experiences of scientists and believers are necessarily always, already interpreted experiences. Truth is not the result of an immediate confrontation between the human mind and the really-real. Truth is a relationship between the perceived and the perceiver, where both the object of perception and the one perceiving share in the establishment of an “adequate” though not absolute description of how the world really is. Science, as a truth-seeking enterprise, is a systematically descriptive and explanatory investigation into the physical entities and processes of the world. Religion, also as a truth-seeking enterprise, is a systematic attempt to uncover and understand God's Self-revelation in His creation so that believers might be better able to imitate the love and mercy God has shown to us in our creation.

[N.B.  The worst part of writing this thing:  I am being forced to use the incredibly picky and byzantine Chicago-style manual!  MLA is a thousand times better.  Oh well.]

*Blogger wouldn't accept the footnotes for some reason.

Coffee Bowl Browsing

Ah, those open-minded and tolerant Episcopalians. . .always ready to welcome the dissenter.

Heck, even the Chinese know he's a socialist.

Did you know that "most Catholics" are pro-choice" [sic]?  Funny, neither did they.

What are the "demands of political correctness" that kill rational thinking?

How do we know that the Anglican Apostolic Constitution is a Very Good Thing?  The U.K. uber-leftist "Catholic" rag, The Tablet hates it.  So does the NCR crowd. 

This is what same-sex "marriage" leads to!  What's next?

Sure, it's dangerous. . .but it's air conditioning!  Well worth the risk.

OpenFilm:  original short films. . .everything from experiment to hilarious.

Turns out, Freud is good for something.

Report on Thesis Conference

Had a conference with my thesis director this evening.

Good news:  my line of argument is sound, so no major philosophical problems to work through in the revisions.

Bad news:  (and I knew this already. . .) My writing style at time tends to be too "informal and journalistic."  IOW, sometimes too chatty and not philosophically rigorous enough.  Mostly, this is about using non-philosophical terms to make philosophical points. 

And he didn't like my title.  "Too literary"!  Oh well. 

Scripture & Tradition: Leo XIII

Instead of working on Chapter Three of my thesis, I've been having a good combox discussion on the relationship between tradition and scripture with a Protestant fellow over at Midwest Conservative Journal.

In thinking about my responses, I ran across Providentissimus Deus written by Pope Leo XIII and issued in 1893.

Good stuff.  Check it out.

Five Hard Truths

Msgr. Charles Pope has a post up on his blog titled, "5 Hard Truths That Will Set You Free."

I thought I would provide my own commentary on these five truths.

Truth One:  Life is Hard.  Life can be difficult, true.  But let's think of "hard" here in a slightly different way.  Concrete is hard.  Wood is hard.  Sometimes your head might be hard!  How is life hard in the way that concrete and wood are hard?  We live, move, and have our being in a physical world of objects and processes.  Things move around us.  Real things, hard things.  We have to make instantaneously decisions about how we--also hard things--will navigate these other things.  Failure to properly navigate the things of the world can result in injury or death.  We can't ignore the hardness of the world, but we can give it meaning and purpose beyond being merely hard.  The German poet, R.M. Rilke, urges us to praise the things of this world to the angel.  Why?  ". . .the Things,/which live by perishing, know you are praising them; transient,/they look to us for deliverance: us, the most transient of all. . .Whoever we may be at last."  God gave the world being.  Adam gave the things of the world identity.  He named them.  We cannot make the things of the world softer, less dangerous by simply pretending that they do not matter.  Even as we left up the hard things, to the angel, God reveals Himself to us through them.  That's the sacramental imagination of the Catholic faith.

Truth Two:  Your life is not about you.  Can there be a more basic Christian teaching than this?  If Jesus showed us anything on the cross, he showed us that sacrificing oneself for love of another is the ultimate form of worship.  When Christians sacrifice, we fashion holiness from surrender.  Your life in the aftermath of baptism is one sacrifice after another.  Sometimes we sacrifice superficial happiness for the Real Deal.  Sometimes we sacrifice basic needs to provide for the wants of children or parents or friends.  Though these sacrifices are no doubt difficult, the most telling sacrifice of all is the one we make for the perfect stranger, someone we love simply for no other reason than that God loved him first.  This is what Jesus did on the cross.  He died for generations he never knew or would ever know while he roamed the earth.  Sacrifice is made even more profound when you consider that you are a divine gift to all of us in the time and place when and where you are.  You are Right Here, Right Now so that you might sacrifice for those who are here/now with you.  Imagine the world if we took this seriously!

Truth Three:  You are not in control.  Too often this truth leads to quietism, a laxity contrived to relief oneself of the responsibility to act justly in the face of Fate.  There is no such thing as Fate.  Your choices are not determined before you make them.  Saints are the ones among us who always make the right choice even when those choices mean ridicule and persecution.  Martyrdom is how we express the ultimate truth of surrender:  "I cannot deny the Truth.  That would be a Lie."  Many times this surrender to Truth means death.  Not being in control is frightening.  It is also freeing.  Not in the sense of being relieved from one's duty to justice, but rather in the sense of being free to do one's duty regardless of the consequences.  True, there is a temptation here to behave recklessly, but all virtues are properly exercised with prudence.  Perhaps the best way to think about letting go of control is to grasp onto hope.  No matter how bad it gets, no matter how hard we are opposed, we know that God's promises to us have already been fulfilled in Christ Jesus.  That's hope.  We play this game knowing that we have already won.

Truth Four:  You are not that important.  When cell phones first came on the market back in the mid-90's, it was an all too common sight to see people bouncing about with phones stuck to their heads.  We were supposed to believe that they were Terribly Important People b/c they couldn't risk being too far from a phone.  Maybe they were important is some secular sense, but in the Great Plan--no, not so much.  Measuring importance by one's overall impact on history is a truly worldly way to plumb the depths of one's ego.  It's the emo adolescent who whinges and cries when he/she realizes that the world will be just fine without them.  This is either a moment of clarity or a moment of confusion.  If the moment proves to be confusing, it's usually b/c pride has taught them to believe that the world centers itself on their every whim.  If the moment proves to be clarifying, it's b/c humility has taught them to believe that the world needs their gifts and love of others will help them perfect those gifts.  To believe that we are indispensable is a delusion bred in contempt for the gifts of others.  Yes, we need you.  But you--none of us--is so essential that the world ceases to turn simply b/c you are no longer with us.  This is a hard lesson to learn for an animal created to survive.

Truth Five:  You are going to die.  Death is what makes this life possible; knowing that death awaits us all adds weight to everything we do. Imagine if we never died.  How moved would we be to accomplish the little things of life much less the big things? How much energy would we invest in being just, faithful, loving?  The Greek gods were immortal and the imaginations of the ancient poets lamented their existence b/c they were capricious in their eternal boredom.   With no end in sight, no goal to reach, they meddled in human affairs; languished in their never-ending disputes; and grew more and more corrupt b/c there were no lasting consequences to their bad behavior.  How do you punish a god?  A Christian should give God thanks that she will die one day! Not b/c our lives here on earth are so horrible, but b/c the life we will share with God is so wondrous.  If there's a truth that makes it plain the truth of the other four truths, it is that we will all die one day.  Deo gratis!  We will die to live forever, knowing our Lord face-to-face.

Coffe Bowl Browsing

Feet, meet fire. RNC Cigna health insurance covers abortion.  Steele says the problem will be fixed.  Let's make sure that he does.

Conflating mainstream Islam with jihadist extremism. . .this is as dumb and dangerous as excusing Hasan's murderous rampage with lefty-postmodern psychobabble.

Chavez turns to ancient Rome for his lesson in governing a starving populace:  when the Great Unwashed start to get restless from lack of public services, give them gladiators in the arena!

B.O.'s Olympian cyber tribute to Himself in Berlin:  "In the world of a narcissist, everything is always about him."  Apparently, B.O.'s ego can time-travel.  I bet he'd like to go back to Jan. 20, 2009.

More pro-aborts who seem to think that priestly ordination removes a man's citizenship. 

U.S. bishop whopping a Kennedy's rear-end. . .and in public too!  Who knew.

Introduction to The Hiddenness of God:  this is what I'm thinking about researching for my Ph.D.   Since the problems here raise all kinds of epistemological questions , my philosophy of science background will help immensely.

Who would use dead flies to create art?  Germans, of course!

St Albert the Great would have loved one of these!

Not jewelry FOR Barbie. . .jewelry FROM Barbie

After this, the child was sold to a circus and now spends his days stretching the midget costumes.

Ninja Obama!  Too bad there's not one of him slashing the budget and whopping Pelosi in a sword fight.

Now this is one serious Diet Coke lover. . .

How a glass of wine with friends inevitably leads to suicide. 

P.S.  I am going to comment on the Anglican Apostolic Constitution. . .probably over the weekend.  Most of it is dry canon law stuff, but there are a few interesting pieces.

Free at last! Free at last!

Deo gratis!

Mama Becky was discharged from the hospital Tuesday afternoon.

She reports, "I thought I would feel 100% when I got back home.  I don't.  Any little activity tires me out."  

She's going back to work on Monday.

Oh, no dishes in the sink, "Your father won't even make coffee!"

:-)

Coffee Bowl Browsing

It's back. . .

Oh no.  Hasan was nuts.  But P.C. brainwashing trumps common sense. . .again.

There's a distinction to be made between "multiculturalism" and "multicultism."  The former is descriptive; the latter is prescriptive. . .and deadly to the American Experiment.

Not a new concept:  Christian prisons.  We call them monasteries.  Think about it.

E.T. phone Jesus?  Yup, why not? 

Will there be neighborhoods in the Global Village?  Yes, whether the globalists like it or not.

The Wall and the Cross:  how wood beat concrete in Berlin.

Chapter Two & Mama Becky

YEAAA!!!

Chapter two has been sent.  Our internet service was down for about 13 hrs. yesterday. 

A "guasto esterno" knocked it out, so I was late.  Only the second time I've ever turned anything in late.  I'm a procrastinator ready for the Olympics of Procrastination, but I really hate turning things in late.

Anyway, mille grazie for your prayers and encouragement.  I could not have finished without you!

Mama Becky Update:  Talked to her last night and she's doing quite well.  They will keep her in the hospital until Thursday.  She still has a bad cough, but the swine flu seems to have gone.  She wants to get back home ASAP.  She suspects that my dad may have left a dirty dish in the sink.  Horror.

It wasn't PTSD...it was terrorism

Heh.  The CIA knew for months that Major Hasan was trying to contact Islamist terrorists groups before he killed 13 servicemen at Ft. Hood.

Guess that puts the lie to the left-lib media meme that he snapped b/c he suffered so as a victim of anti-Muslim prejudice and harassment in the military.

Let's watch the Talking Heads on CNN and MSNBC spin this little revelation!

Pelosi boils a frog

Some of you have asked me to comment on the passage of PelosiCare (or, as I like to call it "ScaryCare") over the weekend.

Like most of the Dems voting on the bill, I haven't read it.  Don't need to.  The absolute bottom-line for me is that there are some things government cannot do and should not be allowed to do.  Manage health-care is one of those things.

Regulating insurance companies so that basic fairness and liberties are protected is something the gov't can and should do.  I don't pretend to be a policy wonk, but it seems to me that many of our health-care problems can be solved with minimal regulation.

As for the politics of the thing. . .well, I'm wondering how Pelosi and the Gang can call this bill a win.  It was passed with five votes.  She had to allow an explicit ban on abortion-funding, thus committing a sacrilege against the Political God of the Dems.  The Senate will not pass anything like the monster she cobbled together from her interest groups.  The gov't-run option is DOA in the Senate even if they manage to revive her Frankenstein in some prettier form.  The Dems are going to lose their super-majority in the Senate in 2010.

So, what exactly did any of this accomplish?  The only thing that makes sense to me is the How to Boil a Frog analogy.  Put a frog in a pan of cold water.  Slowly turn up the heat.  Before he realizes he's boiling, it's too late to jump.  PelosiCare is another notch on the socialist burner.  Get us used to the heat and we move the marker for what counts as boiling.

If the goal of the Dems is to create a permanent Democrat majority by creating a permanent class of citizens who are totally dependent on the state. . .well, gov't run health care will certainly move them in that direction.  It's pretty much what we have already with federal gov't workers:  permanent votes for the Dems.  What self-interested federal worker is going to vote for a candidate who runs on a platform of cutting gov't spending?  If my job, my health, my car, my bank account, and my newspaper all depend on gov't handouts, then you can be damned sure I'm voting for the guy who promises more gov't spending!

This guy has a good take on whole thing.

The Devil Lives. . .even without his Wall

The Berlin Wall may be nothing but chunks of souvenirs now, but the soul-killing ideology that created it lives on.  Of course, Christians know this all too well.  We call it "the Devil." 

from the Daily Mail:  

For many communist fellow travellers, the scales fell from their eyes when the Hungarian uprising was crushed in 1956. Others, over the years, lost faith not just in communism but in its less radical sister, socialism, as their core tenet of 'equality' proved itself in a myriad different ways to be the enemy of freedom and justice, with market forces appearing to carry the torch of liberty instead. [I have come to believe that you can have Equality or Freedom but not both. . .if "equality" is understood as "equality in result" rather than "equality of opportunity"].

But as communism slowly crumbled, those on the far-Left who remained hostile towards western civilisation found another way to realise their goal of bringing it down.  [And insofar as they remain hostile to western civilization, they remain hostile to Christianity.  As Pope Benedict has said many times--there is a direct, intractable connection between the Christian faith and Greek philosophical culture.]

This was what might be called 'cultural Marxism'. It was based on the understanding that what holds a society together are the pillars of its culture: the structures and institutions of education, family, law, media and religion. Transform the principles that these embody and you can thus destroy the society they have shaped.  [This is basically what I was taught in grad school.  In turn, I taught it to my students and graded their work on the degree to which they were willing to support a leftist cultural revolution.  We dressed it in liberal democratic terms, but what we pushed and pushed and pushed was cultural Marxism.  The family is a particularly vile institution to the leftist b/c the family is the most immediate threat to the power of the state.]

[. . .]

[Antonio] Gramsci [Italian Marxist philosopher] understood that the working class would never rise up to seize the levers of 'production, distribution and exchange' as communism had prophesied. Economics was not the path to revolution. [No, it's not.  Humans beings were created to perfect their natures against the model of the Word Incarnate.  We are not here merely to survive but proposer!  Leftists consistently prop up gov't programs that help people survive.  Not a bad thing in itself, of course, but how often do these programs trap people in mere survival?  One of Aquinas' many insights was that even the Virtuous Pagan can embrace the Good in the context of striving for perfection by living a virtuous life.  You don't need Christ to be a good person. . .but you do need him to be a Perfected Person.]

He believed instead that society could be overthrown if the values underpinning it could be turned into their antithesis: if its core principles were replaced by those of groups who were considered to be outsiders or who actively transgressed the moral codes of that society.  [Thus B.O.'s appointment of Bizarre Czars with radical backgrounds.  It's all about diversity and tokenism and never about competence or talent.]

So he advocated a 'long march through the institutions' to capture the citadels of the culture and turn them into a collective fifth column, undermining from within and turning all the core values of society upside-down and inside-out.  [A perfect description of the academic professoriate! And why you should be sending your kids to colleges like the University of Dallas.]

Read the whole thing.

B.O. is "profoundly uncomfortable" with the military

POW!  Right in the kisser!  This military wife socks our Ditherer-in-Chief right in the nose.  Someone, please, put her in Congress. . .

Tell me something: in a moment of national tragedy is it really too much to expect the President of the United States to forego the "shout outs"? Is it too much ask that he learn the difference between the Medal of Freedom and the Congressional Medal of Honor? What we require from our leaders at times like this is not much, really. No one expects them to actually care. What we want is precisely the kind of thing that comes so effortlessly to Barack Obama: honeyed words and a reassuring show of compassion from a man who thinks that quality is the most important attribute a Supreme Court judge can possess. A public acknowledgment that something grave has happened. But for some reason, asking the Commander in Chief of our armed forces to give even the appearance of empathy was a bridge too far.

[. . .]

Obama doesn't "get" the military because with every step they take, whether it's on prosthetic legs or the steely sinews of a combat hardened Marine, their strength and independence give the lie to his defeatest rhetoric. All those unbowed shoulders, unbeaten spirits and uplifted heads make him profoundly uncomfortable.

As well they should. Americans don't need to be rescued by the government. We have each other.

Read the whole article.  

UPDATE on Mama Becky

Talked to her twice yesterday.  She's still in isolation, but they moved her into a "step-down" room.

She said, "I feel really good!"   So, looks like the worst may be behind her. 

Thank you--again and again--for your prayers, messages of support, and offers to visit her.  I think she's a little surprised at quickly and overwhelmingly Catholics were willing to come to the aid of her Baptist soul!

God bless, Fr. Philip

P.S.  I missed yesterday's deadline for Chapter Two of the thesis.  I'm a terrible procrastinator, but I don't miss deadlines.  It goes out today if I have to sit here midnight. 

P.P.S.  Some readers are a bit confused. . .one of my faithful readers is "MightyMom."  In the combox I often address her as "Mom."  MM is about 10 years my junior, so she isn't Mama Becky.  MM is a hard-working R.N., mother of three, and wife of another faithful reader, Subvet.

Thanks for the prayers (UPDATE)

I am very grateful for the outpouring of prayers for Mama Becky!

Please add me to your list. . .

Along with thesis-writing anxieties, I am revisiting old "issues" and contemplating old choices.

Ah, memory!  Wasn't it St. Augustine who noted that memory is a blessing and a curse?

We can leave behind who we were. . .but who we were never leaves us, uh?

UPDATE @ 4.08pm:   Just got off the phone with my mom. . .she's been moved to an isolation unit.  The docs suspect swine flu.  She's in very good spirits, complaining about the lack of a decent shower. 

Book arrival...

C.C., Studies in Scientific Realism finally arrived!  Mille grazie. . .

My apologies for the post. . .I've managed to lose your email address.   The shipping invoice doesn't have a return address. . .so this is the only way I have to say Thank You! 

How fortuitous as well. . .Chapter Three of the thesis is on scientific critical realism.  

Fr. Philip

Thesis Update

Got the Introduction and Chapter One sent in ahead of schedule.  (Not happy with the results)

Chapter Two is due Sunday.

Chapters Three-Five are due Dec. 8th.

Pray for Mama Becky, please! (UPDATED)

URGENT Prayer Request!

Just got off the phone with Mama Becky.

She's been hospitalized in Memphis with pneumonia and bronchitis.  She's on 100% O2 and IV anti-biotics.

Despite all of this she's in good spirits.  Says the nurses are friendly and the food ain't bad!

:-)

UPDATE:  Just talked to Pop. . .Mom is doing well. . .fussing about having to wear an O2 mask.  Will likely stay in the hospital over the weekend.  

Writing Philosophy-ese is BORING!

I am having some difficulty adjusting my writing style to fit the expectations of philosophical discourse.

For example, this morning I composed the following sentence:  "Truth is neither found naked among the things of the world nor is it made a la Frankenstein's monster in the laboratory of words."

Translated into Philosophy-ese:  "Truth is neither a property of the real nor an artifact of language."

AAARRRGGGGHHHHHHH!

(Clarification:  I don't mean that philosophy is intellectually boring. . .I just mean that it is no fun to write. . .)

Sinsinawa Dominican Statement on Sr. Quinn

Public Statement of the Sinsinawa Dominican Congregation

11/2/09

Several months ago, the leadership of the Sinsinawa Dominicans was informed that Sister Donna Quinn, OP, acted as a volunteer escort at a Chicago area clinic that among other procedures, performs abortions. After investigating the allegation, Congregation leaders have informed Sr. Donna that her actions are in violation of her profession as a Dominican religious. They regret that her actions have created controversy and resulted in public scandal. They are working with Sr. Donna to resolve the matter appropriately.

Congregation leaders offer the following statement on behalf of members of the Congregation. We as Sinsinawa Dominican women are called to proclaim the Gospel through the ministry of preaching and teaching to participate in the building of a holy and just society. As Dominican religious, we fully support the teaching of the Catholic Church regarding the dignity and value of every human life from conception to natural death. We believe that abortion is an act of violence that destroys the life of the unborn. We do not engage in activity that witnesses to support of abortion.

Very happy to see this statement from the Sinsinawas.  I have to admit that I am also very surprised to see it.  Please note that this statement, though clearly supportive of the Church's pro-life teaching, does not indicate what, if anything, will be done to discourage Quinn's public support of abortion.  Frankly, anytime you hear a Catholic religious use the word "process" or "resolution," you can bet that you're looking at years and years of back and forth yammering. 

Now that the Sinsinawa's have publicly declared themselves to be pro-life, maybe we can persuade them to adopt a Corporate Stance opposing abortion!  

Nuns, Space Lizards, Episcopal Klansmen, & UnGood Thoughts

Yet another reason why nations should avoid entangling themselves in Nanny State Social Engineering Experiments.

Sr. Donna Quinn has been slapped on the wrist.  She takes this parting shot:  "I take this opportunity to urge those demonstrating against women who are patients at the Hinsdale Clinic, whom I have seen emotionally as well as physically threaten women, to cease those activities," she said. "I would never have had to serve as a peacekeeper had not they created a war against women."  Sister, there would be nothing to protest had the women you support not declared war on their unborn children and condemned them to death through abortion.

This is very likely where B.O.'s and the Dem's "hate crime" legislation is taking us.  (h/t: Shea)

More 19th C. Klu-Klux-Klanish/Know-Nothing anti-Catholicism from the Enlightened Brights of the Episcopal Church. . .this time it's one their "bishops."

On the new sci-fi show, V. . ."The news media swoons in admiration [of the new leader] --one simpering anchorman even shouts at a reporter who asks a tough question: 'Why don't you show some respect?!' The public is likewise smitten, except for a few nut cases who circulate batty rumors on the Internet about the leader's origins and intentions. The leader, undismayed, offers assurances that are soothing, if also just a tiny bit condescending: 'Embracing change is never easy.'  So, does that sound like anyone you know? Oh, wait -- did I mention the leader is secretly a totalitarian space lizard who's come here to eat us?"
 

Book arrivals, etc.

Quick Wish List notes. . .

D.A. from Maryland. . .all seven of the books you shipped have arrived.  I gave them to Fr. Itza of the Angelicum library this morning.  Mille grazie!  A Thank You note will go out this weekend.

D.S. from N. Carolina. . .the book you sent some six months ago arrived safely!  One of my German brothers saw it and "borrowed" it almost immediately. . .don't worry:  I know where he lives.  Thank you for the addition!

P.P. from FL. . .I rec'd your gift while I was still in TX, however, the shipping invoice was shipped with my other books to Rome before I left Houston. . .just now getting it again.  Mille grazie. . .and a Thank You note headed your way.

Some of you may have noticed that my WISH LIST selections have shifted slightly from Philosophy of Science to Philosophy of Religion and philosophical theology.   As I move into Ph.D. work, my research must become more and more specialized.   Though I have not yet selected a specific topic, it will be something having to do with the controversy of using/abusing science in the defense of pluralistic theologies of religion (i.e., use/abuse of science in theology to promote heresy).

Pray for me!  Tough week. . .

Excuses instead of peace

St. Martin de Porres, OP: Readings

Fr. Philip Neri Powell, OP

SS. Domenico e Sisto, Roma

Peace is boring. Deadly dull. Where's that sense of moving forward? Getting places? Accomplishing goals? Peace is all about sitting still. Being calm. Silence and solitude. You can get moldy sitting still. You can also get run over by those moving and shaking around you. Besides, peacefulness is really just mental laziness, right? Being at peace just means choosing not to deal with reality; refusing to see things as they are. Who can be at peace living in this world of economic collapse, political upheaval, spiritual desolation? Peace is a luxury for those who can afford a retreat house on the mountaintop. Down here in the valley with the real people in the real world, we have real problems that humming sweet tunes about peace ain't gonna solve! So take your peace out back under the tree and tell it to the nuts and the squirrels! The rest of us have work to do— we have new fields, a new wives, new oxen, and, sorry, but you are just going to have to excuse us. We can't make the feast. We're busy. But you guys have a great time, OK?

Were those who excused themselves from the feast lying about their duties? Why would they lie to get out of attending a feast? Could it be that even a short time at rest, or even a tiny little moment of peace is too much for the frantic soul, the soul in perpetual panic over Things To Do? They made their choice. New land, new wife, new oxen. . .all come first. They all come before the Banquet of the Lord. Peace will come later. Peace is the product of hard work. Much turmoil. Peace is what gets settled after the fight. And all of that may be true...about this world's peace. This world's peace seems to be nothing more than the absence of violence. Some find their peace in dialogue. Diplomacy and negotiation. Concessions and treaties. These folks tend not to make it to the feast because they have new wives, new lands, new oxen. However, all those called to the feast later on—the lame, the blind, the unclean, the homeless—none of these guests have much to worry with other than what they do not have. When they make it to the table as invited guests, they might pray, “O LORD, my heart is not proud, nor are my eyes haughty; I do not busy myself with great things, nor with things too sublime for me.”

We must find our peace, and our place at the table, doing the little things of the Lord: holding on to what it is good; loving one another; staying fervent in faith; rejoicing in hope; enduring affliction; preserving in prayer—doing all those little things that not only bring us the peace of the Lord but also stand as witnesses against the truly soul-killing frenzies of being busybusybusy, too busy to accept an invitation to join the Lord at his table for the feast of Heaven. It's true: later always comes; but where will you be and who will you be when Later finds you. “Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep.” Then, you can announce at the feasting table, “I have found my peace in you, O Lord!”