Fr. Robert Barron nails "2012" as anti-religious, specifically anti-Catholic and "boring."
23 November 2009
23 year "coma"
After being in "coma" for 23 years, Rom Huben was discovered to be conscious but immobile. New technology allowed doctors to ferret out his true condition.
I can't begin to imagine what this must have been like. Twenty-three years of immobility! No way to communicate. Perhaps the only thing worse would be undergoing surgery while still conscious, or being buried alive.
Pray for him, please.
Christians gettin' buck*
More than 150 prominent Christian leaders signed the Manhattan Declaration this last Friday, including many big name Catholic bishops. Reading through the document, all I can say is: "BOOM!" A large caliber shell has been fired across the bow of B.O.'s pro-abortion/anti-family agenda.
What I find most appealing is that the language of the document is not USCCB bureaucrat-ese. It's plain, hard-ball You Shall Not Pass words of defiance.
What I find most appealing is that the language of the document is not USCCB bureaucrat-ese. It's plain, hard-ball You Shall Not Pass words of defiance.
Excerpts from the declaration include:
"We are Christians who have joined together across historic lines of ecclesial differences to affirm our right -- and, more importantly, to embrace our obligation -- to speak and act in defense of these truths. We pledge to each other, and to our fellow believers, that no power on earth, be it cultural or political, will intimidate us into silence or acquiescence."
"We are Christians who have joined together across historic lines of ecclesial differences to affirm our right -- and, more importantly, to embrace our obligation -- to speak and act in defense of these truths. We pledge to each other, and to our fellow believers, that no power on earth, be it cultural or political, will intimidate us into silence or acquiescence."
"We recognize the duty to comply with laws whether we happen to like them or not, unless the laws are gravely unjust or require those subject to them to do something unjust or otherwise immoral."
"…We will not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia or any other anti-life act; nor will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriage or the equivalent or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality and immorality and marriage and the family."
You can read the whole thing here. My only criticism: too long. Most people won't take the time to read it. But the excerpts above are typical.
Expect the following words and phrases to be used by the Left to characterize this document: "not helpful," "divisive," "separation of Church and State," "tax-exempt status," "narrow," "closed-minded hierarchy," "closes dialogue," "outside the mainstream," "failure to move forward," and other assorted euphemisms used in the rhetoric of anti-Christian bigotry by our Cultural & Intellectual Betters.
"…We will not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia or any other anti-life act; nor will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriage or the equivalent or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality and immorality and marriage and the family."
You can read the whole thing here. My only criticism: too long. Most people won't take the time to read it. But the excerpts above are typical.
Expect the following words and phrases to be used by the Left to characterize this document: "not helpful," "divisive," "separation of Church and State," "tax-exempt status," "narrow," "closed-minded hierarchy," "closes dialogue," "outside the mainstream," "failure to move forward," and other assorted euphemisms used in the rhetoric of anti-Christian bigotry by our Cultural & Intellectual Betters.
Maybe we should agitate the signers to allow regular Christian folks sign it too.
* "Gettin' buck" is slang for "preparing to fight." I may be showing my age here. This was popular not too long ago. There's probably a more recent slang-term, but it serves well enough.
Million Catholic March! (not quite a million...)
The future of the Catholic Church in the U.S.!
Eucharistic procession of the National Catholic Youth Conference in Kansas City.
(h/t: Whispers)
Hacker Jargon
The recent hack (or was it a whistleblower?) of the Climate Research Center in the U.K. has not only exposed some of the naughty inner-political workings of the Global-Warming Alarmists, but it has also once again drawn attention to hacker subculture.
I don't know much about this subculture--other than the romanticized movie depictions--but I admire it for its tenacity and innovation. As a counter-narrative to the dominant-narrative of computer programming, hacker culture keeps the Big Guys on their innovating toes. At the same time, hacker culture is dependent on the B.G.'s as a source of fodder and fun. Without Microsoft, the hacker would be placed in the very awkward position of being The Man. And a new hacker culture would form as its counter-narrative.
As an old English teacher, I am fascinated by the way hackers have adapted the language to suit their creative needs. Of course, their innovations threaten standard usage, but standard usage is a lot like manners--what's appropriate and say and do at table with one's family is probably not said or done at table with strangers. Grammar, spelling, pronunciation, etc. like table manners depends heavily on circumstance and the contemporary goal of speaking and writing.
I don't know much about this subculture--other than the romanticized movie depictions--but I admire it for its tenacity and innovation. As a counter-narrative to the dominant-narrative of computer programming, hacker culture keeps the Big Guys on their innovating toes. At the same time, hacker culture is dependent on the B.G.'s as a source of fodder and fun. Without Microsoft, the hacker would be placed in the very awkward position of being The Man. And a new hacker culture would form as its counter-narrative.
As an old English teacher, I am fascinated by the way hackers have adapted the language to suit their creative needs. Of course, their innovations threaten standard usage, but standard usage is a lot like manners--what's appropriate and say and do at table with one's family is probably not said or done at table with strangers. Grammar, spelling, pronunciation, etc. like table manners depends heavily on circumstance and the contemporary goal of speaking and writing.
Anyway, I think hacker jargon/culture gives us an amazing insight into both the dominant narrative of the internet world and its grimy underside. Check it out.
22 November 2009
Should we give to the CCHD?
Catholics in the U.S. will be asked this morning to donate to the Catholic Campaign for Human Development. In the last few years the CCHD has been criticized for giving money to groups that support a variety of "social justice" causes that conflict with Catholic teaching. The bishops have assured Catholics that these groups have been de-funded.
Here's the difficult thing. Community organizing groups often funnel grant money to secondary and tertiary groups that are not immediately known to the granting institution. CCHD may give $50,000 to "Save Our Neighborhood," who grants $20,000 to the "Park Project," who then grants $10,000 to the local abortion clinic for improvements to its security fence. Maybe some in the CCHD know about this, many don't. It's hard to track the money. Layers of groups with complex bureaucracies and innocent-sounding names, claiming to do worthwhile things can easily hide their activities from the original granter. I used to write grants for one of the largest public universities in the South. You wouldn't believe the layers of waste that the money has to filter through!
Now, should you give to the CCHD? Here's what Archbishop Chaput has to say:
People, first of all, should be prudent. They shouldn’t just jump to rash conclusions. I have seen some blogs that are excessive in their judgment of the issue and are harsh in what they say.
Some of the members of the CCHD staff who have allocated funds from the collection have made mistakes, and I think the Campaign itself admits that.
Whether these mistakes are frequent enough for people to be as upset as they are is a matter of the facts: They have to look what the facts are, not just jump to conclusions. People shouldn’t believe everything they read or be upset with the kind of intensity that I’ve seen, because I think that intensity leads to blindness.
I think that people can contribute to the collection without worrying that they are supporting causes that conflict with Church teaching.
At the same time, Jesus tells us that our treasure should be where our heart is. If people don’t like the decisions of the Campaign staff and their allocations, one of the ways they can show their displeasure is by withholding funds from their diocesan collections. It’s unfortunate that mistakes have been made, and I think the staff has to be more cautious and more critical in its judgment.
There are many ways of responding to the situation. We bishops serve ourselves and the collection well if we are honest about mistakes, try not to make them again, and move on appropriately.
Fair enough. So, give if you are called to it. . .but at the same time hold the CCHD accountable to Church teaching.
Here's the difficult thing. Community organizing groups often funnel grant money to secondary and tertiary groups that are not immediately known to the granting institution. CCHD may give $50,000 to "Save Our Neighborhood," who grants $20,000 to the "Park Project," who then grants $10,000 to the local abortion clinic for improvements to its security fence. Maybe some in the CCHD know about this, many don't. It's hard to track the money. Layers of groups with complex bureaucracies and innocent-sounding names, claiming to do worthwhile things can easily hide their activities from the original granter. I used to write grants for one of the largest public universities in the South. You wouldn't believe the layers of waste that the money has to filter through!
Now, should you give to the CCHD? Here's what Archbishop Chaput has to say:
People, first of all, should be prudent. They shouldn’t just jump to rash conclusions. I have seen some blogs that are excessive in their judgment of the issue and are harsh in what they say.
Some of the members of the CCHD staff who have allocated funds from the collection have made mistakes, and I think the Campaign itself admits that.
Whether these mistakes are frequent enough for people to be as upset as they are is a matter of the facts: They have to look what the facts are, not just jump to conclusions. People shouldn’t believe everything they read or be upset with the kind of intensity that I’ve seen, because I think that intensity leads to blindness.
I think that people can contribute to the collection without worrying that they are supporting causes that conflict with Church teaching.
At the same time, Jesus tells us that our treasure should be where our heart is. If people don’t like the decisions of the Campaign staff and their allocations, one of the ways they can show their displeasure is by withholding funds from their diocesan collections. It’s unfortunate that mistakes have been made, and I think the staff has to be more cautious and more critical in its judgment.
There are many ways of responding to the situation. We bishops serve ourselves and the collection well if we are honest about mistakes, try not to make them again, and move on appropriately.
Fair enough. So, give if you are called to it. . .but at the same time hold the CCHD accountable to Church teaching.
21 November 2009
Not a hoax but a global fraud
Some HancAquam readers have objected to my use of the word "hoax" to describe the recently hacked and published emails of the global-warming alarmists in the U.K.
Strictly speaking, a hoax is perpetrated when the hoaxers know that they are playing a trick on someone. The GWA seem to really believe their theory that the earth is heating up and that we are causing this warming by our misuse of our natural resources.
OK. "Hoax" is not the right word. I was using it in the more general sense of "fooling someone." What's revealed in the emails is systematic fraud, a concerted effort on the part of the GWA to manipulate, hide, and destroy data that falsify their predetermined conclusions. This is not science but politics. In some ways this is far worse than a mere hoax. Billions of taxpayers dollars/pounds/euros have been spent to combat this illusionary threat. Whole industries have been created with investment capital to address our destruction of the atmosphere. It is being suggested that these scientists and their more popular preachers be charged under RICO for conspiracy to defraud. Discovery on that case would be interesting!
True-believers in conspiracy theories (not the legal kind but the sort of kookie kind) have argued that global-warming hysteria is really about bringing the globe under a single government. This was easily dismissed as Chicken Little squawking. However, the newly elected president of the E.U., Herman von Rompuy, recently said in a speech to the E.U. parliament that he sees the Copenhagen Treat as just one move toward "global governance." Maybe the Chicken Littles aren't so chicken or little after all.
Though it goes without saying, I'll say it anyway: the hackers need to be found, arrested, and prosecuted. They have done the world a great favor. Unfortunately, they did it in an illegal manner.
Strictly speaking, a hoax is perpetrated when the hoaxers know that they are playing a trick on someone. The GWA seem to really believe their theory that the earth is heating up and that we are causing this warming by our misuse of our natural resources.
OK. "Hoax" is not the right word. I was using it in the more general sense of "fooling someone." What's revealed in the emails is systematic fraud, a concerted effort on the part of the GWA to manipulate, hide, and destroy data that falsify their predetermined conclusions. This is not science but politics. In some ways this is far worse than a mere hoax. Billions of taxpayers dollars/pounds/euros have been spent to combat this illusionary threat. Whole industries have been created with investment capital to address our destruction of the atmosphere. It is being suggested that these scientists and their more popular preachers be charged under RICO for conspiracy to defraud. Discovery on that case would be interesting!
True-believers in conspiracy theories (not the legal kind but the sort of kookie kind) have argued that global-warming hysteria is really about bringing the globe under a single government. This was easily dismissed as Chicken Little squawking. However, the newly elected president of the E.U., Herman von Rompuy, recently said in a speech to the E.U. parliament that he sees the Copenhagen Treat as just one move toward "global governance." Maybe the Chicken Littles aren't so chicken or little after all.
Though it goes without saying, I'll say it anyway: the hackers need to be found, arrested, and prosecuted. They have done the world a great favor. Unfortunately, they did it in an illegal manner.
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. . .
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”
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?
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.
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.
20 November 2009
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.
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.
19 November 2009
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?
[. . .]
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?
[. . .]
18 November 2009
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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)