Coffee Cup Browsing (All the Bowls were Dirty Edition)

Yup: "Obama's rhetorical audacity breeds cynicism, because utopianism always comes up short. Obama has many victories ahead of him, but his cause is already lost."

 

B.O.'s differential approval rating is -21%.   As predicted, he's as unpopular as GWB in the last months of his second term. . .all by Christmas.

 

GOP has eight point Congressional polling lead over Dems. . .but they don't deserve it. 

 

For Legal Fan Boys and Girls:  Reid's ObamaCare super-majority trick to prevent repeal is unconstitutional.  Why?  Congress rules by simply majority, therefore, one Congress cannot legally prevent a future Congress from following constitutional requirements.

 

Michael O'Brien on America's Twilight culture:  "Even though modern man denies the authority of moral conscience, he cannot escape it. He is created in the image and likeness of God, and deep within the natural law of his being the truth continues to speak to him, even as he adamantly denies the existence of God (in the case of atheists) or minimizes divine authority (in the case of nominally religious people, the practical atheists). In order to live with the inner fragmentation, which is the inevitable effect of violated conscience, he is driven to relieve his pain through three diverse ways. . ." Read them here.

How historical ignorance perpetuates the "Hitler's Pope" myth about Pope Pius XII.  Publishers caught altering innocuous pic to make an ideological point.

More discussion of the doctored photos here.

Is the Blessed Mother appearing in Cairo?  Whether she is or isn't doesn't change the Church's teaching on her proper place in God's plan of salvation.  IOW, no one's salvation is endangered by believing or disbelieving the truth of this phenomena.

Dem congressional districts get lion's share of stimulus money.  Please don't suggest that B.O. used tax-payers' money to buy votes for his party!  That would be wrong. . .

Redneck Movie of the Year!  Includes Rambo-esque Priest, Apocalyptic Vampires, Vague Avenging Priestess, and a Wasteland.  All it needs now to be the Redneck Movie of the Decade is a troupe of Zombies, an Emo Werewolf, a Mad Nazi Scientists, and at least three Elf-like Warriors.  Oh, and a dragon of some sort. . .

Women in S. Korea are given extra-wide parking spaces.  No comment from me on this development.  However, I will provide a link to a video that argues for the justice of the provision.  

Real answers to exam questions from. . .ummmmm. . .not the brightest of the Lord's little angels.

Now all they need is some cole slaw, hush puppies, and beer!

Coffee Bowl Browsing

Obamacare turns health-care into a public utility. . .um, that's probably unconstitutional.

Dispensing with democracy in the name of "global justice"

Anticipating a rebellion against Democrats in 2010, Reid changes Senate rules to require a supermajority to repeal Obamacare. 

My kinda flowchart:  where to eat?

Pic from the coming Zombie Apocalypse: Legume Edition

Wrong, wrong, wrong. . .so, so wrong.

One for SuperMom:  these are not the hooligans you are looking for.

Dear Abby letters:  the good, the bad, and the painfully true.

A very strange video that explains synesthesia.

Pantheism: intellectually lazy & pelvic-obsessed

Ross Douthat mediates on the American love-affair with pantheism:

[. . .]

Today there are other forces that expand pantheism’s American appeal. We pine for what we’ve left behind, and divinizing the natural world is an obvious way to express unease about our hyper-technological society. The threat of global warming, meanwhile, has lent the cult of Nature qualities that every successful religion needs — a crusading spirit, a rigorous set of ‘thou shalt nots,” and a piping-hot apocalypse.

At the same time, pantheism opens a path to numinous experience for people uncomfortable with the literal-mindedness of the monotheistic religions — with their miracle-working deities and holy books, their virgin births and resurrected bodies. As the Polish philosopher Leszek Kolakowski noted, attributing divinity to the natural world helps “bring God closer to human experience,” while “depriving him of recognizable personal traits.” For anyone who pines for transcendence but recoils at the idea of a demanding Almighty who interferes in human affairs, this is an ideal combination.

[. . .]

Pantheism offers a different sort of solution [to the problem of evil]: a downward exit, an abandonment of our tragic self-consciousness, a re-merger with the natural world our ancestors half-escaped millennia ago.

But except as dust and ashes, Nature cannot take us back.

Pantheism (All-is-God) is a cheap dorm room spirituality deeply pondered by sophomore philosophers after one too many hits on the bong.  Quoting scientism's prima donna, Richard Dawkins, "pantheism is a sexed-up atheism."  As Douthat notes, for R.D., this is a compliment. 

Why is pantheism "cheap"?  The idea that the universe is God is cheaply purchased because it requires the believer to believe nothing more than exactly what he wants to believe; that is, the idea of pantheism is intellectually, spiritually, and religiously priced so that the believer has to spend as little as possible to be its proud owner.  Intellectually, pantheism dismisses the problem of evil by simply dissolving the difference and distinction between Good and Evil.  Spiritually, it eliminates our search for the transcendent divine by declaring all spiritual connections to be immanent in nature.  Religiously, and this is its real attraction to most, pantheism's only ethical/moral restrictions are "Reduce, reuse, recycle."  

Once evil is conquered by semantic fiat; and the transcendent is naturalized; and human morality is forever linked to the demands of environmentalism, all those pesky problems of traditional theism can be safely ignored.  We no longer have to worry about questions of truth, right/wrong, human rights endowed by a Creator, the search for perfection in God, etc.  In fact, probably the most appealing aspect of pantheism is the notion that we are perfect just as we are. . .well, except that we are constantly harangued by the Gaia priesthood to observe the Law of Carbon Reduction.

Politically, pantheism is attractive because it allows our ruling class to ignore annoying concepts like the sacredness of human life, the sacramental nature of our vows to one another, the unique place of the family in human culture, and the Really Bothersome Notion of Individual Freedom in the Pursuit of Happiness.  Once these theistic concepts are dissolved into the morass of pantheistic naturalism, we can safely abort our children, abandon our commitments in marriage, engineer fake family structures with divorce and SSM, and impose socialist communitarianism.  All of which, of course, transfer political power to the State and enrich our Betters.

Pantheism has everything the intellectually lazy, pelvic-obsessed American loves:  bumper sticker spirituality, no-guilt morality, and cafeteria religion.  That these are paid for with the loss of individual initiative and personal freedom is not at all a worry. . .Big Government has our best interest at heart.

Ummmmm. . .anyone see my phone booth?

This pretty much sums up my week. . .

What am I discerning? (UPDATED 2.0)

Several faithful HancAquam readers have written to ask if I am discerning whether or not to continue blogging. . .

No, that's not what I am discerning.  HancAquam will continue on. . .

I'm discerning questions around the future of my ministry here in Rome.  I will not be teaching in the spring as I had hoped.  In fact, there will be no teaching for me here until (and if) I finish the Ph.D.  That could be two years or more. 

I came to Rome with the distinct impression that I would be able to teach as a junior member of the faculty with the license only.  Once here I discovered that the Vatican had signed the Bologna Accords (yet another power-grab by the E.U. statists to create a federalized Europe) and now pontifical universities can only allow as teaching faculty those with Ph.D.'s in their respective fields.  So, now I have to get the Ph.D.

Recently, I learned that I wouldn't even be able to teach as a "graduate assistant" w/o the doctorate.  None of the license exams can be taken until the French translation exam is passed.  And there's almost no chance that I will pass that in Jan.  So, all my rushing to complete the license this semester has been in vain.  Well, not entirely. . .at least the thesis is more or less done.

My discernment question is:  are my gifts being used here?  At U.D. I was able to teach in the two fields in which I have competence--English and theology.  I celebrated Mass four or five times a week, preaching at all of them.  I heard confessions and did a lot of spiritual direction.  In other words, I was a priest who also happened to teach at a Catholic university.  My gifts were being used. . .sometimes to the stretching point!  But here?  Not so much.  It's not clear to me why anyone needs to be a priest to do what I am doing here now.

Don't get me wrong. . .I love the time I have to read and write, and learning is one of my passions.  Truly, it is a luxury.  But I joined the Dominicans to be a preacher not a professor. . .or maybe a preacher who is also a professor.  Had I wanted to spend my life as an academic I could have done so w/o becoming a priest or a Dominican.

The other issue is the need the Order has for Dominican professors in our international centers of study, especially in philosophy.  We are drowning in theologians and canon lawyers!  But Dominican philosophers are as hard to find as my skills in foreign languages and math.

On top of all this navel-gazing, I rec'd three other bits of unsettling news yesterday . None of which I can share.  All of which are hitting me with an odd combination of vocation-questioning power.

Anyway, please pray for me.  None of this is meant to be final. . .just thinking and praying and ruminating out loud.  I'll do what is needed of me. . .but I'm searching for a way to understand it all.

UPDATE:  A commenter below notes--quite rightly--that two years isn't all that long to wait to teach.  I say "quite rightly" for a normal grad student.  Though bad choices, bad luck, circumstance, accident, and sheer force of will, I've spend most of my adult life as a student:

1982-86 (BA)

1986-88 (MA)

1988-94 (ABD on PhD)

1994-99 (psych hospital staff)

1999-00 (OP novice)

2000 (PhD finished)

2000-05 (seminary: MDiv)

2005-08 (at U.D.)

2008-pres (working on PhL)

Let's do the math:  Started college at 18 y.o. I'm 45 y.o. now.  I've spent 19 yrs of those 27 years between 1982 and now as a student.  Can I get an AMEN on "I've been a student too long!"  :-)  And, yes, I know. . .good Dominicans are life-long students.  But there's a big difference btw being an enrolled student and Being a Student.  I could take my father's advice:  "Shut up and enjoy it.  They could make you go to work!"  HA!

UPDATE 2.0:  Something else just occurred to me. . .if you are a professional (doctor, lawyer, teacher, banker, etc.) imagine spending ALL of your time with other doctors, lawyers, teacher,s bankers, etc.  I mean, ALL of your time.  You live with them.  Eat with them.  Go to church with them.  All of your mundane, daily tasks are done in the midst of them.  Perhaps I am just longing to be around everyday Catholics. . .

Hmmmm. . .I suddenly feel very normal. . .

 "Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, 

and begin to slit throats"

- H.L.Mencken, US editor (1880-1956)

Slow blogging

Mea culpa!

Slow blogging for the next week. . .I have some things to "sort out" (as the Brits say).

Pray for discernment, please.

Odd priorities

Thesis Report

The meeting with my thesis director went well last night.  He suggested a few minor changes. . .mostly just to clarify terms and make sharper distinctions.  No major revisions will be necessary!

I am writing the concluding chapter (10-15 pgs.), cleaning up the hundreds of typos, expanding the footnotes, and starting on the dreaded bibliography.

Most of the friars will be headed out for the Christmas break in the morning, so the place will be very quiet. . .nearly abandoned, in fact, for about a month.

Plenty of time to go deeper into Seclusion Mode and start studying for comps, writing exam questions, and learning French.  Ugh. 

Clergy should never be political

Nawwwww. . .priests should never be political, never call politicians on their human rights abuses, never say a word against genocide, torture, abortion, totalitarianism, racial and religious persecution.

This guy, for instance, should have just kept his big mouth shut.  Just better for everyone. . .no, really.

Transubstantiation and the Real Presence?

Question. . .

1).  Can you explain transubstantiation and the Real Presence?

I'll try. . .

Transubstantiation is a philosophical concept the Church uses to explain the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.  Trans means change and substance means what a thing is fundamentally.  So, we hold that by the prayer and action of the priest, bread and wine are changed into the substance of the Body and Blood of Christ.  As an explanation of the Real Presence transubstantiation is not dogmatic.*  The Real Presence that results from the process we call transubstantiation is dogmatic.

The term "transubstantiation" comes out of an Aristotelian metaphysics introduced to Catholic theology by Thomas Aquinas.  The term predates Thomas in theological use, but he made it popular by teasing out all its philosophical and theological implications.  For example, he is able to explain how the substance of bread and wine are changed (what they are) but remain true in their accidents (how they are perceived by the senses).

Probably the most common confusion among Catholics is the use of the word "substance."  Even a very quick review of the history of this term will demonstrate that it has had a long and extraordinarily complex history.  In modern English, we use the term to mean "stuff" or "materiality."  Think of "substance abuse" or "an unidentified substance was found at the crime scene." This is not its meaning in metaphysics.  In transubstantiation, "substance" refers to the basic nature of the bread and wine/Body and Blood, i.e. what a thing is most fundamentally.  What bread and wine are most fundamentally is changed into what Christ's Body and Blood are most fundamentally.

When we teach the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, we mean that Christ is substantially present under the appearance of bread and wine.  Typically, we use the phrase "sacramentally present."  In an effort to defend the Real Presence, some have said that "Real Presence" means "physically present," i.e. present in such a way that the consecrated elements can be chemically analyzed to produce DNA or blood type.  Rather than being a defense of the Real Presence, this is actually a capitulation to material science.  How?  By defining the "really Real" as material.  There are things in Catholic theology that are real yet not materially verifiable:  God, angels, souls, etc.  We do not have to surrender the Real to material science in order to understand reality.**It is far greater and more complex than the sum total of the physical objects and processes in nature.

The CCC 1374 teaches:  In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist "the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained." "This presence is called 'real' - by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be 'real' too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present."  [The two quotes are from Thomas and Pope Paul VI, respectively.]

Christ is present in the Eucharist "in the fullest sense."  To restrict his presence to the merely physical is to deny the fullest of his true presence.  No doubt my sharp commenters will point out that Pope Paul VI goes on to write with regard to the sacred species:  ". . .beneath which Christ is present whole and entire in His physical 'reality,' corporeally present. . ."  Very true.  What is often left out of the quotation is the final phrase that defines what he means by "corporeally present."  The rest of the sentence is ". . .although not in the manner in which bodies are in a place" (MF 46). Here the Holy Father is paraphrasing Thomas' teaching found in the Summa (III.76.5).

So, what does it mean for Christ to be corporeally present but not in the way that bodies occupy a place?  Thomas writes in the Summa (III.76.1, ad 3):  As has been already stated after the consecration of the bread into the body of Christ, or of the wine into His blood, the accidents of both remain. From which it is evident that the dimensions of the bread or wine are not changed into the dimensions of the body of Christ, but substance into substance. And so the substance of Christ's body or blood is under this sacrament by the power of the sacrament, but not the dimensions of Christ's body and blood.  IOW, Christ physical presence is located within the spatial dimensions of the sacred species.  Imagine your pastor praying the consecration prayer over the paten and chalice at Mass. . .BOOM!. . .now he has a full grown Jesus standing on his altar!  This is not what "corporeally present" means.   REMEMBER:  "Real" is not limited to "material stuff."

We have to avoid two extremes in thinking about the Real Presence.  First, we must reject the materialist/physicalist notion that the sacred species can be chemically analyzed to discover human genetic material.  This is a failed defense against science that actually adopts the premises of the attackers.  Belief based on evidence is not faith.  Second, we must reject the "mere symbol" school of thought that reduces Christ's presence to being merely symbolic.  As always, the Church takes the middle way:  Christ is sacramentally present as a sign (not just a symbol) of God's real presence among us.  Signs both point to and make present that which they signify.

* The Council of Trent teaches that the process of achieving the Real Presence of Christ is "suitably and properly called Transubstantiation" (XIII.4).  IOW, if you don't like transubstantiation as an explanation for how the Real Presence is achieved, you have to come up with something else that entirely preserves the dogmatic elements of the Real Presence.  There are other ways to explain the Real Presence, but they tend to fall short of the ideal.  Also, it is important to note: the Church has never dogmatically taught a philosophical doctrine.
  
** "The presence of Christ's true body and blood in this sacrament cannot be detected by sense, nor understanding, but by faith alone, which rests upon Divine authority" (Summa III.75.1).

Catholic environmentalism is pro-life

"Saving the planet" is NOT about rescuing Mother Gaia from the evils of capitalist industrialization.  We serve the greater dignity of the human person by being good stewards of creation.   Those of us who refuse to be bullied by the Panic Industry of Climate Alarmism are not anti-environment.  It is entirely possible to be fervently against pollution, waste, etc. without following the Alarmist Lemmings off the cap and tax cliff. 

Excerpts from Pope Benedict XVI's World Peace Day message:

Hence I readily encourage efforts to promote a greater sense of ecological responsibility which, as I indicated in my Encyclical Caritas in Veritate, would safeguard an authentic “human ecology” and thus forcefully reaffirm the inviolability of human life at every stage and in every condition, the dignity of the person and the unique mission of the family, where one is trained in love of neighbour and respect for nature.  There is a need to safeguard the human patrimony of society. This patrimony of values originates in and is part of the natural moral law, which is the foundation of respect for the human person and creation.

[. . .]

If the Church’s magisterium expresses grave misgivings about notions of the environment inspired by ecocentrism and biocentrism, it is because such notions eliminate the difference of identity and worth between the human person and other living things. In the name of a supposedly egalitarian vision of the “dignity” of all living creatures, such notions end up abolishing the distinctiveness and superior role of human beings. They also open the way to a new pantheism tinged with neo-paganism, which would see the source of man’s salvation in nature alone, understood in purely naturalistic terms. The Church, for her part, is concerned that the question be approached in a balanced way, with respect for the “grammar” which the Creator has inscribed in his handiwork by giving man the role of a steward and administrator with responsibility over creation, a role which man must certainly not abuse, but also one which he may not abdicate. In the same way, the opposite position, which would absolutize technology and human power, results in a grave assault not only on nature, but also on human dignity itself.

New Catholic Heritage blog

New blog to check out:  St Conleth's Catholic Heritage Association.

And Fr. Gerald Mendoza, OP (a novitate classmate of mine) has rebooted his blog:  In Spiritu et Veritate.

Non serviam!

3rd Week Advent (T): Readings

Fr. Philip Neri Powell, OP

SS. Domenico e Sisto, Roma

In the great Christian epic poem, Paradise Lost, John Milton portrays the fall of God's angel, Satan, using four simple words: “I will not serve!” Confronted by the Archangel Michael, the rebellious Satan is ordered to submit to the will of the Father and conform to his angelic nature—to be a servant of the Almighty. Satan is poisoned by pride and a lust for power, famously declaring, “Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heav'n.” He justifies his rebellion against heaven's King by appealing to the injustice of God's rule, describing his Creator as “our grand foe [. . .] Sole reigning holds the Tyranny of Heav'n.” Adding rank hypocrisy to his list of sins, Satan establishes himself as the sole tyrant of Pandemonium (Hell), thus demonstrating that he is willing to serve after all, so long as it is his own will that he serves and no other. “Non serviam—I will not serve!” is the rallying cry for generations of those who know better, do better, feel better, and think better than He Who created them. The difference between the rebellious angel and rebellious man is that the man or woman who refuses God's service can repent and embrace the goodness of their Creator's beatific plan. Advent is a time for us to examine our willingness to serve, to be working servants of God for one another.

Jesus sets before the chief priests and elders a question about two brothers. The first refuses to serve his father but changes his mind and does as he is ordered. The second readily agrees to serve but never does. The question Jesus asks is: which one of the two did his father's will? In the end, both agreed to serve, but only the first brother actually served. The priests and elders correctly answer that the first brother, despite his initial refusal, does his father's will. Rather than praising the priests and elders for their wisdom, Jesus condemns them for their disobedience to John the Baptist. He says, “Yet even when you saw [prostitutes and tax collectors believe and repent], you did not later change your minds and believe him.” Like the fallen angels before them, the priests and elders said, “Non serviam—I will not serve.” Their stubborn refusal to believe John's message—despite the faithful witness of the worst sinners—leaves them abandoned on the wreck of sin and last in line to enter the Kingdom, if they enter at all.

It is important that we are clear about exactly what it is that Jesus is condemning. More than their disbelief, Jesus is condemning the priests and elders for ignoring the evidence of God's mercy in the repentance of the worst sinners among them. It's not that the priests and elders disbelieve; it's that they disbelieve even after they have been shown direct evidence of God's power to transform disobedient lives. In his question about the two brothers, Jesus is careful to show that the first brother refuses to serve at first but later changes his mind and faithfully serves. The second brother easily agrees to serve but does not follow his brother's example and change his mind about actually serving. It is not enough that we say we will do the Father's will. That's easy. We must follow through and actually serve, really do the work given to us. Heart, mind, hands must all serve together to do His will. Any one of these—heart, mind, hands—can say, “I will not serve” and all three are sent to the back of the line that waits to enter the Kingdom.

While waiting for the coming of the Lord among us at Christmas, we are given the chance to change our minds about serving the Father's will. We cannot deceive ourselves as Satan did and believe that b/c we will not serve God we do not serve anyone at all. Refusing to serve God is nothing more than serving one's own will. That's not the freedom that brings us to Christ. Satan preaches that God's tyranny in heaven is slavery. But pride, especially the pride of “Non serviam,” is a self-imposed slavery—a slave wrapping himself in the chains of rebellion. Watch the prostitutes and tax collectors. They are free in the service of their Father's will.

On becoming a hermeneut. . .not a hermit!

Some very observant HancAquam readers have noticed and commented upon recent changes in the WISH LIST.

Once stocked with a healthy selection of philosophy of science books, the List is now populated by tomes on divine revelation, epistemology, and hermeneutics.

Have I abandoned philosophy of science for theology?  No.

Writing the thesis has revealed to me a number of deficiencies not only in self-discipline but also in my general understanding of science.  My thesis subject, the Rev'd Dr. John Polkinghorne, an Anglican priest and quantum physicist, frequently uses examples from his scientific specialty to illustrate philosophical and theological insights.

So long as he remains mostly on the side of theology, I can follow his argument.  However, when he lapses into the arcane  yet beautiful world of mathematics and quantum theory, I am lost. . .completely lost.  The only way I could be any more lost would be if he were writing in Tang Dynasty Chinese. . .with his left hand.

A license thesis is a fairly straightforward review of the literature and critical evaluation of the chosen topic.  Seventy-pages.  A dissertation, however, is a 250-300 page project that exhibits competency in the relevant literature and makes an original contribution to the field.  If I have trouble subtracting 39 from 46 w/o a calculator, I have no business trying to contribute anything original to the field of philosophy of science.

I would feel confident teaching the basic concepts and methods of the philosophy of science to undergrads, but conducting a graduate seminar would be a test of my intellectual limits and a test of my students' patience.

So, I am not abandoning philosophy of science; rather, I am shifting my focus to philosophical theology, more specifically, to those questions raised by the epistemology of divine revelation.  The most exciting questions (to me anyway) in this field involve explorations of divine hiddenness and how philosophers can help theologians navigate the rocky seas between faith and reason in the development of doctrine.  Imagine for a moment delving into the philosophical assumptions of the "Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation" (Dei verbum) promulgated by Vatican Two!  I know, right?

This is where philosophical hermeneutics comes in. . .and my training in literary theory and poetry.  Hermeneutics is the art and science of interpretation.  The general field of hermeneutics is as old as poetry itself.  Think of Aristotle's Poetics.  The early Church Fathers spent a great deal of time thinking and writing about how to interpret scripture (Origen, Augustine).  After the Nicene Council in 325 A.D., theologians and philosophers argued about how to interpret the creed, etc.  Philosophical hermeneutics is a more recent development (mostly Germans:  Scheliermacher, Dilthy, Gadamer).  Rather than prescribing fixed interpretative models for finding and extracting meaning from texts, P.H. pulls interpreters back from the reading process and challenges them to think about themselves as readers in philosophical terms.  For lack of a better term, P.H. is about meta-interpretation:  what are your assumptions about texts, readers, meaning, language, communication, etc.?

A shaky analogy:  as philosophy of science is to scientists, philosophical hermeneutics is to philosophers/theologians.  I wonder if theologians and philosophers are any friendlier to P.H. than scientists are to philosophy of science. . .

Bottom-line:  without abandoning philosophy of science, I am expanding my interests to include philosophical hermeneutics and at the same time narrowing my focus to religious epistemology.

Now, time for more coffee!  This post burned up all my stored caffeine. . .

How do you wait for a revelation?

3rd Sunday of Advent (Gaudete Sunday): Readings

Fr. Philip Neri Powell, OP

SS. Domenico e Sisto, Roma

Three words come to mind on Gaudete Sunday: joy, expectation, revelation. Since Advent is a penitential season we could easily add penance to the list. But like Laudete Sunday during Lent, Gaudete Sunday breaks the fast of the season, giving us a peek at the coming revelation of the incarnation. These “times off” were likely much more welcomed in ages past. Fasting and abstinence were a bit more severe and a Sunday spent partying a week before Christmas and Easter served to relieve the burden of penance, giving faithful souls a boost for the final week of soaking in the mortality of the flesh. Nowadays, we jump from Thanksgiving straight to Christmas without much of anything in between. This is an old complaint among us Advent Nazis, one that falls on ears deafened by hypnotizing muzaked carols and the cha-ching of the cash register. Try as we might, those of us who push Advent as its own season usually fail in our mission, managing only to foist upon Christmas-happy Catholics modest concessions in displaying seasonal symbols and the occasional scheduling of a communal penance service. I'm told again and again, “Stop being Father Grinch, Father!” With great pastoral sensitivity and an ear to the popular mood, I usually just release an exasperated sigh and do my best to preach that without a sense of expectation, waiting is useless to our growth in holiness; without a sense of the hidden, revelation has nothing to reveal; and without a little holy fear, joy is just a mood-stabilizer for the bubble-headed. Gaudete Sunday, properly understood, is more than a peek at the holiday to come; it is a expectant-peek into the unveiling of our joy in Christ.

We re-joice. We en-joy. We can be joy-ful. We can take delight in; be gladden by; we can relish, appreciate, and even savor. We can be satiated and satisfied. Where do we find joy, discover what gladdens us? And why? Why do find joy in this but not that? Why aren't we gladden by all that God has made? Why isn't everyone joyful? St. Thomas gives us an important (if somewhat dry) insight: “[. . .] joy is caused by love, either through the presence of the thing loved, or because the proper good of the thing loved existed and endures in it [. . .] Hence joy is not a virtue distinct from charity, but an act, or effect, of charity”(ST II-II 28.1, 4). Joy is an effect of love. Love causes joy. Where there is no love, there can be no joy. This may sound simple enough, but how often have you heard joy explicitly linked to the virtue of charity, the good habit of loving for the sake of love alone? Don't we usually think of rejoicing, of being joyful, as a temporary emotional spike in an otherwise hum-drum existence? We move along the day in a comfortable flat-line until something happens to us that lifts our spirit, bumps the happy meter up a peg or two. Then the line goes flat again, waiting for the next spike, for the next jump to excite the bored soul.

If love is the food and drink of the Body, then Christian joy can not be a temporary condition, an momentary infection easily defeated by the chores of survival. As beings made in the image and likeness of Love Himself, our very existence—forget our acts; forget our thoughts and attitudes—just-being-here is evidence of love's sustaining power. It is the holy will of a loving God that we Are, just that we live, move, and have our being in Him. From this gift alone we can nourish and harvest a formidable holiness! If God is love and love causes joy; and if we are made in the image and likeness of God who is love; then we are love embodied. We were made to cause joy. But because we too often seek the raw counsel of mere survival—forgetting love and strangling joy;—because we run after things that cannot love us; because we work ourselves bloody toward the low horizon of worldly achievements; because of disobedience and sin, we require a push toward, a tug from Love Himself. One name for this tug, this divine seduction is The Incarnation.

Just as we wait for the Easter resurrection during Lent, we wait for the incarnation during Advent. On Easter morning, the tomb is emptied of our crucified Lord and he ascends to the Father. On Christmas morning, the Son is emptied of his divinity, and he descends to become a servant, a man like us. Before the tomb is emptied, before the Son is emptied, we wait a season with penitential hearts. We do not set aside our joy to mourn; rather, because we are joyful, our failure to always be the cause of joy in others is made all too apparent. The contrast and conflict between who we were made to be and who we have become is sharpened by penitential mourning, by regret and repentance, giving us the chance to see and hear that the perfection of our joy is coming among us—the Incarnation. He emptied himself to become our sin so that our joy might be complete.

What are we waiting for during Advent? A revelation, an unveiling. We expect his arrival in the flesh because we know that he loves us. Our penitential waiting seasons our rejoicing, salts our anticipation, adding to the food and drink of the Body the fullness of both our confessed failures and the assurance of His forgiveness. But if we do not wait; if we fail to seek out what is hidden; if we will not love one for another; then, we cannot expect a joyful revelation. We can expect Santa Claus and Christmas hams and brightly wrapped presents. But we cannot expect to see and hear the birth of our Lord among us. If, after the long season of Lent, we expect the tomb to be empty on Easter morning, then we must expect the Son to be emptied on Christmas day. Without the coming of Christ, Christ never arrives.

Advent is set aside for us to mourn our failures to love. Gaudete Sunday is set aside so that we are reminded of creation's coming Joy. We have one more week to wait. What is it that you are waiting for? More importantly, who are you waiting for and how are you waiting?

Religion of Peace

Apparently, they don't teach logic in Islamic universities. . .


H/T:  GetReligion

Homily is percolating. . .

There's a Gaudete Sunday homily in the works. . .

I was up at 3.30am with a bad case of acid reflux.  Worked for a while.  Went to Mauds (Lauds + Mass).  Crashed again.

Got up.  Read what I had written in the wee hours and deleted it.  Now, I'm starting over.

Also, the Blackwell Anthology of Modern Philosophy arrived.  No shipping invoice, no return address.  So, thanks to the generous soul who sent it to the Angelicum library!

Cardboard cut-out of an empty suit?

Another OUCH for B.O. . .

The Norwegians are a little miffed that The One skipped out on most of the Nobel Peace Prize parties, including the charity fundraiser for Save the Children.

Not to be left without His Presence, the organizers propped up a cardboard cut-out of their prize winner instead.

Wow. . .didn't take them long to get the measure of the man, did it?

2+2 is NOT 4. . .unless The Party says it is. (UPDATED)

Mathematician discovers that the laws of physics, the truths of math, and the non-existence of God are all determined by a majority vote of tenured faculty of the relevant academic departments.

And here we thought "2 + 2 = 4" was settled math. 

My 5th grade math teacher, Ms Baker owes me an apology!  And a better grade!!

This sort of nonsense is what happens when otherwise intelligent people drink the postmodernist Kool-aid of anti-realism.  In my days working in a psych hospital, we called this "delusional hallucinations of grandeur brought on by narcissistic psychosis."

UPDATE:  You can read about the violence done to the pursuit of scientific truth by PoMo theory in Fashionable Nonsense:  Postmodern Intellectuals' Abuse of Science.

The book recounts the following:  "In 1996, an article entitled 'Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity' was published in the cultural studies journal Social Text. Packed with recherché quotations from 'postmodern' literary theorists and sociologists of science, and bristling with imposing theorems of mathematical physics, the article addressed the cultural and political implications of the theory of quantum gravity. Later, to the embarrassment of the editors, the author revealed that the essay was a hoax, interweaving absurd pronouncements from eminent intellectuals about mathematics and physics with laudatory--but fatuous--prose."

Coffee Bowl Browsing

Q: Why has B.O. dropped 20 points in the polls?  A:  He's not the Messiah we are looking for.

In fact, 44% of Americans say that they would rather have GWB back in the White House.  Ouch!

B.O. supports Catholic Just War Theory in Nobel speech:  “We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth: we will not eradicate violent conflicts in our lifetimes [. . .] There will be times when nations — acting individually or in concert — will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.”

B.O. is right to argue for eschatological hope: "But we do not have to think that human nature is perfect for us to still believe that the human condition can be perfected. We do not have to live in an idealized world to still reach for those ideals that will make it a better place."  But he is wrong to think that government and politicians offer us this perfection.  Remember:  Adam and Eve's sin was their acceptance of the serpent's idea that they could become gods without God.

 

Why are most journals Democrats?  Thoughts from a engineering prof.

Did you know that the BVM supports a woman's right to choose an abortion?  No?  Well, Sr. Donna Quinn, OP says she does!

Fr. Z. offer rubrical advice on what to do a gunman starts shooting during Mass.

Perfect example of my weird sense of humor:  Big Foot Caught on Tape!

Read examples of the new English translation of the Roman Missal. . .

Video proof that Math is of the Devil. . .I knew it all along.

A list of Catholic novels from Fr. Coulter.

Document from the Pontifical Council on Culture, "Where is your God?"

Coffee Bowl Browsing (Video Edition)

I'm working on getting the Holy Father to decree infallibly the following:  "I solemnly declare, and all Catholics must faithfully hold to be true, that any phrase which contains a noun, singular or collective, and is followed by the word 'Monkey' is hilarious."  One example, "Trunk Monkey."

Another hilarious commercial. . .he must not be reading the NYT.

A lesson for Catholics on the dangers of making hasty judgments.

New from Bombay Electronics. . .The Arranged Marriage Remote Controller!

B.O.'s new Defense Department strategy:  Eco-friendly Warrior Monks. . .with flowers.

Mini black hole?  New Santa Claus tech?  Angels dancing?  Alien warning?  You decide.

QUICK!  Get an abortion before that thing turns into a baby!

Politically Correct medicine:  "cancer" is now called "happy spots"

After this someone needs to be on his knees thanking Jesus. . .

Don't be fooled!  They use this nefarious gift to get food, clothing, and a college education.

This is what philosophy does to me. . .except the whole feel good part.

The Beast

The Beast has been sent to my director. . .I have about ten pages to go to reach a conclusion.  My plan for the last chapter doesn't really make any sense given the first sixty pages. 

Anyway. . .time for a bath!

Thanks for the prayers. . .I needed them. . .bad.

I.C. reposts. . .

This is really lazy. . .a repost of three reposts!  Shame. . .

Most Dangerous Announcement (2005)

Mary's YES is Our Mission (2006)

Mary: Deathless Mother, Church (2007)

Am I a closet libertarian?!

Another break from The Thesis. . .

I found this piece by Doctor Zero, "The First Sign of Corruption," to be strangely warming.  As an American living in Europe and watching his country from abroad, I am becoming more and more libertarian in my political views.  This may or may not be a good thing.  Stay tuned.

Concluding paragraph:

The mythic ideal of Cincinnatus, the selfless citizen-legislator who reluctantly leaves his farm to serve the Republic, is incompatible with the combination of endless incumbency and gigantic amounts of government power. We are foolish to place our trust in a system that requires an impossible level of virtue from politicians to function as designed. A limited government can better protect the economic health of its citizens by policing corruption from the private sector, under the direction of term-limited representatives who will never become worth the risk of buying off. The larger government becomes, the more its arrogant ruling class believe themselves worthy of royal treatment… and the more justified they feel about lying to the public for their own good. That is why the climate change elite gathered in Copenhagen this week is outraged that anyone would dare question their right to save a foolish world from itself, by lying through its teeth in a bid to seize power.

Constitutionally mandated term limits, anyone?  Anyone?

Thanks! And keep praying, please...

Just a quick post to thank you all for your prayers. . .

My gloom (purely self-imposed) about the thesis was quickly lifted when I checked the WISH LIST and noticed that generous souls had been busy browsing and buying!  As always, I am grateful.

I owe a few folks Thank You notes. . .I may wait until after Christmas to send them.  I don't trust Poste Italiane as a matter of course, but I really don't trust them during the holidays. 

Mille Grazie, Fr. Philip, OP

P.S.  Closer to early morning in the U.S., I will repost an old homily for the Immaculate Conception.

Devil's Dictionary to Copenhagen (Straight-Long Cut, please)

My brain is mush. . .no, that's not right. . .even mush as a certain kind of gooey consistency that can be molded to a container.

Anyway, I'm breaking for the night and doing a little Water-Bottle Browsing. 

To tempt you further into morose delectation over ClimateGate, I give you A Skeptic's Guide to Copenhagen:  A Devil's Dictionary to Understanding the ABC's of Climate Change.

A few of my fav entries (in alphabetical order, of course):

D is for deniers. A mere notch above Holocaust deniers, these are the people who refuse to accept that climate change is largely man-induced. Heretics, they'd be burned at the stake if that were not such a bad thing for the ozone layer. 

E is for environmentalism, which the philosopher Harvey Mansfield has defined as “school prayer for liberals,” ecoterrorists (who believe that all life, except yours, is sacred, and who tend to have names like "Swampy"). . .

(This is my Fav fav) J is for Phil Jones, Cassandra in chief of global warming at East Anglia, long a foreteller of imminent catastrophe (superstorms, famines, polar bear extinction). Jones was little-known in America, where NASA's James Hansen is the Gandalf of the Hobbits marching to defeat the Greenhouse Mordor and return the Middle-earth to trembling Springtime. (Hansen, it should be noted, has compared coal trains to death-camp trains.)  A classic Greek reference AND a Lord of the Rings reference in one entry.  That's talent.

In other news, Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead.   (If you have to click the link to get this, then you are probably too young to read.)

Fr. Philip the Preacher VS. Fr. Philip the Philosopher

Me mumbling to myself about writing this thesis:

"It's like training a pony for the circus and then sticking him in petting zoo."*

:-)

It'll be over soon. . .well, this part will be over soon anyway.

Keep praying, please!

*Just so we're clear. . .I mean here that my wild & crazy training in literary studies did not prepare me for the tame & meticulous work of philosophy.

The Real 2nd Sun of Advent 2007 Homily

[OK. . .this is my homily from 2nd Sun of Advent 2007. . .the repost below this repost is my homily for the Monday after 2nd Sun of Advent. . .OY!]

2nd Sunday Advent (A): Isa 11.1-10; Rom 15.4-9; Matt 3.1-12

Fr. Philip N. Powell, OP

St Paul Hospital and Church of the Incarnation

We are told again and again during Advent that we must wait. Sit still. Anticipate. Be watchful. Alert. Just…wait. And hope. Expect and hope. Soon now, very soon. Keep hoping, keep hoping, keep hoping. Fortunately, we are assured by Paul in his letter to the Romans that “by endurance and by the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.” Endurance, indeed. What is it that we are waiting for? For whom do we wait? And why must we endure? Wait a minute, why do we need encouragement to endure!? That doesn’t sound all that attractive! Don’t we encourage one another in grief or sorrow or when some devastating event has crushed all hope? Strengthen my heart to last, O Lord. Strengthen my heart to suffer well until the coming of your Son! And may I with him produce good fruit. Again, who is it that we wait for?

We wait for: Jesus the Just Judge, eyes radiant with his Father’s mercy; Christ the King, right hand lifted high in blessing; Jesus the transfigured sacrifice of Mt Tabor, sign of the Father’s promise of resurrection; Jesus the entombed, wrapped in burial clothe and laid to rest in his grave; Christ the broken man of the cross, lifted off by Joseph and washed for burial; Jesus, “the King of the Jews,” nailed hands and feet to the cross, admitting to heaven the crucified but repentant thief; Christ the scorned, the beaten, the one betrayed in the garden; Jesus the revolutionary criminal, arrested and abandoned by his friends; Christ the Bread of Life, the Cup of Salvation, given for us at Passover; Jesus the teacher, who teaches only truth; Christ the preacher, who preaches repentance and mercy; Jesus the healer, who draws out the faith of the sick, the crippled, the unclean and makes them whole; Christ at the wedding feast, the Son of Mary, changing water to wine, the first sign of his ministry to come; Jesus the baptized, raising from the Jordan at the hands of John; Christ the beloved son, the one to whom we must listen; Jesus the student in the temple, learning the Law and its fulfillment; Christ the misplaced boy, teaching his elders in the synagogue. Jesus, the God-child asleep in his bed of straw; Christ the newborn, receiving the reverend Magi; Jesus, the Spirit of God who overshadowed his Mother and ours to be born a man like us; Christ the Word at Creation, Wisdom at his Father’s side, prophet of reconciliation, instrument of both division and peace; we wait for the coming of the shoot from Jesse’s branch, Christ Jesus, Lord, Emmanuel, God-with-Us, I AM. We wait for the consummation of the world and the coming again of Christ the Just Judge!

And here you thought you were waiting for Santa Claus and your favorite Christmas ham! NO! Absolutely not…

Listen again to Isaiah: “The spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him: a spirit of wisdom and understanding, a spirit of counsel and of strength, a spirit of knowledge and of fear of the Lord.” He will judge with justice and “decide aright” for the poor. He will strike down the ruthless and slay the wicked. His coming will subvert the natural order of creation: wolf and lamb, leopard and sheep, lion and calf—all will “browse together” as guests at his table. The Child will lead the bear and cow to friendship and the lion will eat hay like the ox. His coming will be a sign for all the nations, and “the Gentiles shall seek [him] out, for his dwelling shall be glorious!” Paul, our witness, teaches us, “…that Christ became the minister of [the Jews] to show God’s truthfulness, to confirm the promises of the patriarchs, so that the Gentiles [the rest of us] might glorify God for his mercy.” We are not waiting on egg nog, ugly sweaters, gift cards to Cracker Barrel, battery-operated dolls with glam outfits, new cars, fake furs, or Britney Spears’ last CD. Our gospel acclamation says it all: “Prepare the way of the Lord, make straight his paths: all flesh shall see the salvation of God!”

It is too quick and easy to say that Advent is a season of preparation. For us, the ones who wait for the Thief to come at any moment, for us, being prepared is a way of life, right? I mean, sitting on edge, vibrating with adrenaline fueled tension, just waiting to spring into holiness, to snap into charitable action the second the heavenly trumpet blares and the first cumulus nimbus parts! Being ready is what we do. Trumpet. Cloud. Jesus. BAM! We on it and set to go. But, ummmm, just one small question: who are we waiting on again? We’ve heard King and Judge, Child and Lamb, Servant and Master, Emmanuel and I AM. By the way, what or who does an “I AM” looks like? Anyway, so we are sitting here, standing here, praying here, praising here, just being here, waiting in joyful hope for the coming of the Lord, but are we sure what it means “to make straight the path of the Lord”? And, for that matter, are we real clear on what “all flesh shall see the salvation of God” means?

Naw, I don’t think so. John the Baptist understood his mission perfectly. Leaping in his mother’s womb when a pregnant Mary visited his mom, John knew instantly what his prophetic responsibility would be: to announce the coming of the Lord to all flesh, all nations. And so, John preached in the deserts of Judea, saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand!” When confronted by Pharisees and Sadducees—latecomers to the Lord’s party trying to get baptized —John said to them, “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? Produce good fruit as evidence of your repentance.” Ahhhhh ha! John the Baptist and his prophetic mission is exactly what Advent is all about. Not wreaths and violet vestments and hanging out ‘til Santa brings me my stuff. Advent is about getting ready for the return of our Lord and the end of everything as we know it. Thus, “Prepare the way of the Lord, make straight his paths…” Are you situated right now, settled right now and ready for Lord of your redemption to return? Or, are you wiggling around with the vipers, coming lately to the feast and hoping to sneak in the back door?

Our basic Advent question is: can you produce good fruit as evidence of your repentance? Let’s hope so. John warns, “Even now the ax lies at the root of the trees.” Is this meant to scare us? Frighten us like children into a last-second fit of self-flagellation and groveling for mercy? The picture John paints for us isn’t all that comforting. John says that though he himself baptizes you with water “for repentance,” the Lord, “will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.” Wheat goes in the barn. Chaff goes in the fire. Who it is we are waiting on? We’re not waiting on Jesus the Social Worker. Jesus the Hippie Priest. Jesus the Babydoll of God. We’re not waiting on a pacified, commercialized, suburbanized, plastic Messiah. Our Blessed Mother did not give birth to a Group Facilitator or a Dialog Specialist or a Conflict Mediator. Our Father did not preserve the Virgin Mary from all stain of Original Sin so that she might bring into this world some guy to teach us to be nice to one another, to show us how to just get along. As much as we would love to believe that Christ will return and pat us on the head for our C- efforts, his Coming Again is about one thing and one thing only: the consummation of human history, the end of everything as we know it. So, let’s ask that Advent question one more time: can you produce good fruit as evidence of your repentance?

Truly, we must resist the temptation to domesticate our Lord. To whittle him down to a toy or sugarcoat him into a holiday candy. We are not playing a game. We are not feeling the warm-fuzzy of rum nog. The Good News of Advent is that he is coming again. This is the Good News of Christmas, the New Year, Lent, Easter, Pentecost, Ordinary Time, and every solemnity we celebrate in between and among the feast days of the saints. Our need to repent, to turn from sin and to love as God loves, is a daily, hourly need, a nothing-special-about-this-season need. If you are ready, stay ready. If you are not ready, get ready. Why? Because if you have ears to hear, listen: there is a voice crying out in the desert, “Repent! For the kingdom of heaven is at hand!”

Let astonishment seize you. . .(2nd Sun of Advent 2007)

[NB.  This is a repost.  I am running up against a deadline for my thesis, so blogging will be very light until Wed, Dec 9th.] 

[NB.  This is not the homily for 2nd Sun of Advent but the Monday after 2nd Advent Sun.] 

2nd Week Advent (M): Isa 35.1-10 and Luke 5.17-26

Fr. Philip Neri Powell, OP

St Albert the Great Priory

In his 1944 existentialist play, No Exit, French philosopher, Jean-Paul Sartre declared, “Hell is other people.” On one of the last episodes of Angel, the main character, Angel, a vampire with a soul turned private detective, the one who dated Buffy on her show, acquires a magical ring that allows him to travel to Hell where he intends to confront Satan himself. In a not-so-Dantesque device, he rides a service elevator straight down to Hell itself. After a lengthy ride down, the doors open, our hero is poised to do battle with every kind of vile demon imaginable. Instead, when the doors open we see the exact same street scene we saw when our hero got in the elevator. Apparently, Hell is wherever you are and the demons we battle do not always live in That Special Place. One more: that wonderful Twilight Zone episode with Anthony Burgess.* Burgess plays an impatient, bespectacled misanthrope librarian who just wants to be left alone to read his books. War breaks out and he survives the destruction of mankind. He rejoices b/c, as the last man on Earth, he now has all the time he needs to read. While celebrating on the steps of the New York Public Library, he fall and breaks his only pair of glasses. Perhaps Hell is no other people.

Jesus teaches his disciples that there is a connection to be made between sin and sickness. He heals the paralyzed man by forgiving him his sins. This causes the persnickety Pharisees to fall all over themselves accusing him of blasphemy for daring to presume that he can forgive anyone’s sin. The point of the scene is to show us Christ’s healing power and to reinforce his claim that he is the Messiah. That’s evident. But what we might overlook is the small detail that makes this scene truly instructive. The paralyzed man is carried by his friends to the house where Jesus is teaching. Because they cannot reach him through the crowd, they climb over the crowd to the roof of the house and lower the man through the ceiling on a stretcher. The man’s friends lower him to rest directly in front of Christ as he preaches. Luke writes, “When Jesus saw their faith, he said [to the man] ‘As for you, your sins are forgiven.’” Did you catch that?

The genius of our faith is the bizarre religious notion we borrow from our Jewish ancestors that we are saved as a body and not as individuals—as a nation, a people, a tribe and not as Me Alone. We are in-corp-orated—that is, embodied—into the Body of Christ through baptism. We live out our spiritual lives by attending to the regularly celebrated public sacraments of the Church. Jesus heals the paralyzed man not because the man is particularly pious or holy or because he is a great benefactor of Jesus’ ministry. Jesus heals the man of his sin and sickness because of the faith of his friends! Their trust in God, their hope in the healing power of truth and mercy, their love of their friend moves Jesus to act.

Quite literally, the man’s friends “make straight the path of the Lord” and they walk that path straight to Jesus, carrying their paralyzed friend. So that the Pharisees might know that he is who he says he is, our Lord, says to the man, “I say to you, rise, pick up your stretcher, and go home.” And he does, thus letting us all, all flesh, all nations see the salvation of God. Sartre would have seen these men and their love for him as Hell. Angel would have walked into that house and observed a mundane image of the devil’s lair. Our librarian friend with the broken glasses would regret his impatience and long for someone to read to him. In their isolation and despair, these men would find their “definitive self-exclusion from the presence of God.”

We cannot come to Christ alone. We cannot baptize ourselves. Forgive our own sins. Nor can we bear witness to God’s healing power if we stand alone. Therefore, let astonishment seize you and glorify God to all flesh, all nations. Though you have seen incredible things up til now, you ain’t seen nothing yet.

*As a Nitpicky Reader points out, the actor's name is Burgess Meredith.  Get a job, Subvet!  :-)

Desecrating the Host: another try

OK. . .let's try this again:

A young man comes into my office and tells me that last Sunday he stole a host at Mass and intends to flush it down the toilet.  He will make video of the event and put it on Youtube.

I ask him why he wants to do this.  He reels off all the usual anti-Catholic junk about oppression of women, same-sex marriage, blahblahblah, and proudly proclaims himself to be an atheist.

Rather than trying to persuade him that he is mistaken about God and the Church, I simply ask him if he understands that Catholics will see his stunt as an act of desecration. He says yes, that's why he is doing it.  I ask him what he hopes to gain with the stunt.  He wants to draw attention to the Church's medieval oppression blahblahblah.  By flushing the host he claims he will symbolically flush the Church along with it.

I listen patiently and ask, "Do you believe that the host is the Body of Christ?"  He says, "Of course not.  That's not rational thinking."  I explain the Church's understanding of the Eucharist and why it is important to us that the host be revered and not desecrated.  He just giggles and shakes his head.

He leaves my office and proceeds to carry out his promise to flush the host and post the video on Youtube.

Now, what is the best public response that Catholics can make to this act?

Keep in mind:

He is seeking attention for his anti-Catholic whinings.

He doesn't believe that God exists.

He doesn't care that Catholics believe that the host is the Body of Christ.

He doesn't care that Catholics will be insulted/offended; in fact, he hopes we are.

This is not an argument about whether or not the host is still the Sacrament given his intentions.

My contention in the post below is that the sacramental status of the host is irrelevant to how we will respond publicly b/c Jesus can take care of himself.  God doesn't need us to defend Him.* My suggestion that the bishops' conference issue a statement about the host no longer being the Sacrament b/c of the guy's evil intent clouded the issue.  I should have known that the comments would focus on the issue of "when is the host Jesus and when isn't it."  That was my dumb mistake.

The desecrator doesn't believe the host is Jesus, and he is going to flush it precisely because we believe it is. He is counting on us to rise up in indignation to defend the Sacrament by loudly denouncing him. We can't stop the desecration b/c it has already occurred.  All we can do is choose how we will react publicly.

Here's my point:  if we do what he expects us to do (emails, petitions, demands for the video to be removed, etc.), he wins.  He gets what he wants.  More views on his Youtube account.  Angry, sputtering Catholics sending links over the internet.  Primo PR for his kiddie tantrum.  And how many (rightly) indignant and well-meaning Catholics are going to confirm the worst prejudices of anti-Catholic freaks by saying or writing something theologically dubious about the Eucharist?  I've been told by more than one non-believing friend that Catholics have assured him that a host put under chemical analysis will yield human DNA!  In fact, I was told once by a student that the Precious Blood can be blood-typed, but we dare not do it b/c it would test God.

Best approach:  shrug it off; ignore the whole thing; pray fervently for the descerator;  ask your pastor to celebrate a Mass of reparation, and let God defend Himself against atheist-wackos. 

*Defending our statements about how we as human beings understand God is a different thing entirely.

Desecrating the Eucharist: how Catholics should respond (UPDATED)

Question:  How should Catholics react/respond to Youtube vids of atheists and other anti-religious types desecrating the Blessed Sacrament?  

Two reactions seem to me to be perfectly reasonable. . .

First, a private reaction:  horror and then prayer for the individual who does such a thing.

Second, a public reaction:  ignore it.  Even better, a declaration from the bishops' conference stating that the Sacrament is no longer the Sacrament the instant someone intents to desecrate the species. [see note below]*

To understand the force of the second reaction you have to understand the adolescent attention-seeking mindset of the person who would abuse the sacred species to make anti-Catholic propaganda.

Traditionally, the point of desecration is to offer offense to the god(s) of the enemy.  It's a terror tactic used to demoralize a conquered people.  Essentially, destroying a temple or pulling down an idol is a way for the victor to say, "See!  Your god(s) have abandoned you.  We won because your god(s) is weak!"  Conquerors may not have worshiped the enemy's god(s), but they probably believed that this god(s) really existed.  Defeating the nation dedicated to the  offended god(s) proved the deity too weak to defend his/her people.  Such a god(s) deserves no worship.  

But the crybabies who desecrate the Eucharist do not believe in the Christian god.  They do not believe that the bread and wine are the Body and Blood of Christ.  In their own minds, they are not offering offense to Christ b/c they do not believe that Christ is who he says he is.  The point of desecrating the Eucharist is offend Catholics.  More importantly, the act of desecration is specifically designed to provoke Catholics into angry, indignant reactions that prove we are religious fanatics willing to defend bizarre Dark Age superstitions.

I would argue that the instant anyone steals the sacred species for the purpose of desecration the sacrament is no longer the Body and Blood of Christ.  If some idiot wants to nail a piece of bread to the wall or flush it down the toilet and post a video of the event on the internet, then more power to him.  I'm not offended b/c I don't believe that the host is the Body of Christ.

If the Holy Spirit can effect the transformation of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ through the agency of human intention and prayer, then there is no reason to believe that the Holy Spirit is powerless to revoke the effects of the transformation and leave the species perfectly ordinary in the face of human disbelief and the intention to desecrate.

Christ freely and willingly died for us on the cross 2,000 years ago.  He endured torture, humiliation, abandonment, and death so that we might be reconciled with the Father through his sufferings.  He has already suffered far worse than being peed on by some undergrad atheist looking for his 15-minutes of internet fame.  By telling the attention-seeking crybaby that we are not offended by his desecration, we deflate his self-importance; undercut the anti-Catholic propaganda power of his silly gesture; attract attention to the faith; and come out of the whole thing looking like adults patiently indulging a child in the midst of a public temper-tantrum.

Email campaigns, signing petitions, calling for new laws, filing lawsuits--all of these give the offender exactly what he wants and only encourages others to imitate him. 

So, the next time one of these bozos make the news with a desecration stunt, simply respond, "Um, dude, that host stopped being the Body of Christ the second you stole it with the intent to desecrate.  Why should anyone be offended that you are playing with a piece of bread on Youtube?"

[NB.  My purpose in this post is not to put forward a theology of the Eucharist but rather to address how faithful Catholics should respond to acts of public desecration.  Given that Christ doesn't need our protection--he can take care of himself--and that the purpose of the desecration is publicity for the Bozo Desecrator, the best Catholic response is to deny said Bozo the satisfaction of seeing us insulted.  One way to deny him the attention he craves is to tell him that the Sacrament is no longer the Sacrament b/c he stole it with evil intent.  Now, is this true?  Does it matter?  If Christ doesn't need our protection (and he doesn't); and Bozo doesn't believe in God (and he doesn't); and the point is to insult Catholics (and it is), then I don't think it matters whether or not the Sacrament is still the Sacrament.  However, if the Holy Spirit wills it, Bozo's desecration could be used as a means of grace for Bozo's conversion.  Say, it nails the Host to a wall and it starts bleeding!  Now there's a great conversion story.  PLEASE HEAR ME:  I am not saying it's OK to desecrate the Sacrament.  All I am asking here is:  what do we say to Bozo to take the wind out of his attention-seeking PR stunt?  Is desecration insulting to Catholics?  Of course!  But do we want to react in a way that encourages or discourages any future desecrations?  Let's be careful not to attribute our insult to God.  We are perfectly right to feel insulted.  But we do not speak for God.]

*This sentence (and the whole idea of the host reverting to bread b/c of evil intent) has turned out to be a distraction from the issue at hand.  It was meant more as a thought experiment, not serious sacramental theology.  Please see the post directly above this one, "Desecrating the host:  another try" for clarification.  

Feminism: men's secret plan to escape responsibility

Matt Patterson of PJTV will have to be drummed out of the "No Girls Club" for posting this piece, "Men, the Gender Wars are Over--We won."

In this expose of the male mastermind plan to free husbands, boyfriends, and men in general from the burdens of familial responsibility, Patterson lays out the basics of the conspiracy that the Club code-named, "Feminism":

Men, “Operation Feminist Movement” has worked, and more swiftly and completely than many of you thought possible. Mere decades ago, we spent endless hours and countless dollars before marriage courting and wooing; after marriage, we shouldered the entire financial burden for our families.

Now, after marriage, women can be expected to pay for half of everything, which is to the good, because video games are expensive. But, as more and more of you are discovering, why bother with marriage at all anymore? You can stay up all night, hang with your buds all the time, secure in the knowledge that on any given night you can be sure to find a willing woman, a woman who has likely been taught, conditioned even (by other women!) to expect nothing from you in return — and that this is a good thing.

Patterson, no doubt you will hearing from the Club Membership Committee.  Prepare to forfeit your de-coder ring and beer stein!

Read the whole thing.

Misc Questions

Quick Quick/Quick Answers. . .

1).  What?  No comment yet on the Anglican Constitution?

Ummmmm. . .no.  I've read it and the many commentaries available on-line.  I don't really have anything to add to the discussion except:  "WELCOME HOME!!!"

2).  The sexual abuse report from Ireland was released a few days ago?  Thoughts?

My thoughts/feelings/ideas on Christian clergy who sexually abuse children are not publishable.  Let's just say all three involve public whipping posts and small islands with lots of rocks that need to be moved. . .repeatedly. . .for years.

3).  Thesis update?  How's it coming along?

Thesis?!  What thesis?!  Nobody told me I had to write a thesis!  Seriously, the first rough draft is due Dec. 8th.  It will be done on time. . .unless I get sick or something (sneeze-cough-wheeze).

4).  Did you watch the President's speech on Afghanistan?

No, I've watched one B.O. speech.  Therefore, I have seen them all.  But I've read that he's sending 30,000 more troops and giving them 18 mos. to build a lot of exits out of the country.

5).  Did you see the bit about the San Francisco archdiocese having to fork over $14 million in taxes for transferring their own property to themselves?

Yea.  Expect more of this sort of thing.  The tax assessor is punishing the archdiocese for opposing same-sex "marriage."  I'm no tax lawyer (the Lord is good!), but my guess is that the decision will be overturned on judicial appeal.

6).  Spirit Daily has a thing up about pets in the afterlife?  What says the Dominican friar?

This Dominican friar says, "No."

7).  Do you know what the ITC [International Theological Commission] is studying this time around?

I don't.  My guess:  Dominican friar, Fr. Charles Morerod, is the secretary-general of the commission and his theological expertise is in theology of religions and ecumenicism.  So, maybe they are considering a question like, "How many Dominicans does it take to put a carton of milk back in the 'fridge?"  Answer:  we don't know b/c it's never been tried.

Now, off to bed. . .errrmmm. . .I mean, back to work!