Deo Gratias, Indeed!

From Rorate, Solemn Pontifical Mass in St. Peter's Basilica, October 18, 2009:

Rinascimento Sacro has announced that, as the culminating activity of the Second Convention on Summorum Pontificum organized by Giovani e Tradizione, a Solemn Pontifical Mass according to the classical Roman Rite will be celebrated in the Chapel of Eucharistic Adoration in St. Peter's Basilica on Sunday, October 18, 2009 at 10:00 a.m. The Mass will be offered by His Excellency, Archbishop Raymond Leo Burke, Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura. Music will be provided by a mixed choir of Franciscans of the Immaculate.

Deo Gratias!

Brick by brick! I think that it is now only a matter of time before the Holy Father celebrates the Traditional Latin Mass at the high alter in St. Peter's Basilica. At least that's what I'm hoping.

Dirty Pool

I've had a Discover Card for quite a few years. I don't make it a habit to go buying crap willy-nilly, let alone buying something and putting it on my card, so my Discover card doesn't normally see a whole bunch of action. But I do like to have it around, and I find it especially useful when I travel.

And I liked Discover... they always seemed to be ok, or at least as ok as a lender could be expected to be. I even participated in their credit protection service... being the paranoid guy I am and all. That means that each month they got a little money from me. Not a whole bunch, but I'd say certainly enough to cover maintaining my account and still turn a small profit.

So we get this letter from Discover (emphasis mine):

Discover Card periodically reviews the status of all our accounts to make sure they have been active in the last 30 days. If you have not used your Discover Card recently, now is the time to use it for all your purchases to keep your credit line active and avoid potential closure.

Are you kidding me? A threat?? Use their card or potentially have my account canceled?

Ya... that's gonna work.

I call Discover and speak with an account manager, letting her know that I'm going to cancel my account. I'm not one to take out my anger on the phone people... after all, they themselves usually aren't trying to yank my chain. She asks me why and I let her know that I got this threatening letter, and that I'm not one to be told what to do by a service provider and so I'll be taking my business elsewhere.

She tries to explain that it wasn't meant to be a threat, just a reminder of all the wonderful options available through Discover.

Ya... that's a good one.

I'm well aware of Discover's promotional methodologies, as I've been a customer for years. Receiving what was essentially a post card in the mail wasn't a promotion. This was a threat, plain and simple. You would think that a lender would realize that in this financial climate, threats aren't really the best approach to customer retention. Talk about expecting more from your credit card.

Discover can kiss me square in the Southern Fried Chicken.


Note: There was one good thing that came of all this. While writing this rant, I used the word "cancelled" instead of "canceled". Blogger didn't like "cancelled", which I thought was correct, but it does like "canceled", which I can't say I've used before. A quick Google leaves me believing that both may be correct. So now I'm on a mission to see which is more correct. I'll accomplish this after I get everything else on my plate cleared. If you compare the timestamps of my last post and this one, you'll get an idea as to how quickly things are moving around here. *eyeroll*

On the Burner

There are a few things I'd like to post about here in the near future. Since I haven't posted lately, I thought I'd give a rundown of things that (I'm hoping) are to come:

1. I'd like to post about my experience last Sunday when I attended the extraordinary form the Mass. I think I've found a parish here in Phoenix that offers the ordinary form of the Mass in Latin, so I'll visit that this Sunday and blog about my combined experience next week.

2. I'd like to post about a topic mentioned in the discussion of the Death Penalty Repealed In Colorado post... expiation through death. This is definitely one I want to write, but sources are proving hard to come by.

3. I was listening to the Sean Hannity show a while back and he was spouting off about his support for waterboarding. Given the position taken by the last two Popes, I'd like to discuss the consequences of public figures (such as Mr. Hannity) who call themselves "devout Catholics" yet offer views contrary to the teachings of the Church. The discussion would involve whether or not they go as far as to actually violate Church teaching, and the consequences of this. A hindrance here is finding text/audio/visual transcripts of Catholics pushing the limits (I've heard some do it, but I don't have the sources I can link to).

There are a few other ideas simmering... including one of those really long and annoying stories that don't really go anywhere. I'll try to get to them as time allows, but it seems like there's always something gumming up the works.

Too Cool For School

I can't get enough of The Decemberist's new album, "The Hazards of Love". If you haven't checked it out yet, I highly recommend it.

Here's the last track:

Fly In The Soup

Richard Cohen has an interesting op-ed in the Washington Post: A Firefighter's Litmus Test.

The column describes the case of Frank Ricci, a firefighter who was denied a promotion because he was white. It makes for good reading, so I suggest you check it out. Mr. Cohen concludes his article thus:

We should never confuse unfair with illegal. Still it would be nice if every once in a while they coincided. That is especially the case in matters such as this because the justification for affirmative action gets weaker and weaker. Maybe once it was possible to argue that some innocent people had to suffer in the name of progress, but a glance at the White House strongly suggests that things have changed. For most Americans, race has become supremely irrelevant. Everyone knows this. Every poll shows this. Maybe the Supreme Court will recognize this.

...

Ricci is not just a legal case but a man who has been deprived of the pursuit of happiness on account of race. Obama's Supreme Court nominee ought to be able to look the New Haven fireman in the eye and tell him whether he has been treated fairly or not. There's a litmus test for you.

I find this especially interesting because, as President Obama searches for a candidate to replace Judge Souter, I am forced to wonder if there are candidates out there who are instantly being disqualified because of their race. Sure, there are arguments to be made... but at the end of the day, when we look at the ad in the paper, will it read: "Supreme Court Justice needed: white men need not apply"?

Just askin'.

Death Penalty Repealed In Colorado

Until recently, I've not taken a firm stance regarding the legality of the death penalty. I agree with the Church teaching, which states in the Catechism (emphasis mine):

2267 Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."

My dilemma has always been that I could theoretically see being presented with an scenario where yes, I would understand (if not support) someone's execution (given the preconditions set above). But, as I said, this is all theoretical... as I've yet to hear of an actual case where I think execution is the most reasonable solution.

The more I think about it, the more I have to sway against any support for the death penalty. Try as I might, in modern society, I cannot see how this penalty could be reconciled with the protection of the dignity of man. Moreover, I have a problem with someone who is a great sinner being executed and, in a sense, being denied the opportunity to come to repentance; that is a penalty beyond any I'd be willing to give.

And so it brought me great pleasure to be reading over at the American Papist's and see this article from the Durango Herald: House votes to repeal death penalty

From the article (emphasis mine):

The state House of Representatives moved to repeal the death penalty in a dramatic vote that came down to one man's very public crisis of conscience.

Rep. Paul Weissmann knew the vote would be close when he brought up his House Bill 1274, which ends Colorado's death penalty and devotes the financial savings to investigating unsolved murders.

Debate lasted only a few minutes Tuesday, apparently because most of the 65 representatives had made up their minds. All except Ed Vigil.

The freshman Democrat from Fort Garland sat still as the House's electronic board tallied the vote - a 32-32 tie.

Vigil, a former district attorney's investigator, thinks the death penalty is a useful tool. In a 2007 case, Jose Luis Rubi-Nava confessed to killing his girlfriend in Douglas County by dragging her behind his car. The threat of the death penalty secured Rubi-Nava's plea, Vigil said.

"As soon as the death penalty became part of the equation, he pled guilty and got a life sentence," he said.

But Vigil also was thinking about moral appeals he had heard, including from Archbishop Charles Chaput, the senior Roman Catholic clergyman in Colorado.

Vigil bit his lip and ran a hand back through his hair. Other House members stood up and looked his way as a silent minute dragged by. At last, he reached across the desk and pushed the green button for "yes."

I am thankful that we have such a wonderful teacher as Abp. Chaput, and equally thankful that we have men such as Mr. Virgil in public service.

Heresy In Germany

LifeSiteNews reports, "Christ did not die for the sins of the people": Head of German Catholic Bishops' Conference on TV.

From the article (emphasis mine):

According to the chairman of the Catholic bishops' conference of Germany, the death of Jesus Christ was not a redemptive act of God to liberate human beings from the bondage of sin and open the gates of heaven. The Archbishop of Freiburg, Robert Zollitsch, known for his liberal views, publicly denied the fundamental Christian dogma of the sacrificial nature of Christ's death in a recent interview with a German television station.

Zollitsch said that Christ "did not die for the sins of the people as if God had provided a sacrificial offering, like a scapegoat."

Instead, Jesus had offered only "solidarity" with the poor and suffering. Zollitsch said "that is this great perspective, this tremendous solidarity."

The interviewer asked, "You would now no longer describe it in such a way that God gave his own son, because we humans were so sinful? You would no longer describe it like this?"

Monsignor Zollitsch responded, "No."

...

To express concerns:

Congregation for Bishops
Giovanni Battista Re, Cardinal, Prefect
Palazzo della Congregazioni,
00193 Roma,
Piazza Pio XII, 10
Phone: 06.69.88.42.17
Fax: 06.69.88.53.03

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
William Joseph Levada, Cardinal, Prefect
Piazza del S. Uffizio,
11, 00193
Roma, Italy
Phone: 06.69.88.33.57; 06.69.88.34.13
Fax: 06.69.88.34.09

I can really only express my sorrow at seeing this sort of garbage being touted by an archbishop. I pray that Abp. Zollitsch comes to his senses, abandons his modernism and liberalism, and returns to the true teachings of the Church. More than this I pray that the Vatican comes down hard in suppressing this vile heresy, condemning it quickly and publicly, and performing the necessary steps to ensure it spreads no further.