Life Under the Big Top

Summorum Pontificum Instruction News

2011-02-17T10:08:00.007-07:00

Fairly urgent updates via Rorate regarding possible threats to Summorum Pontificum:

  - Let us defend Summorum Pontificum against the Trojan Horse

  - The Instruction - I

Father Z offers some advice here:

  - An initial comment concerning the Instruction about Summorum Pontificum

I'm still quite ill, so fasting is not an option for me at this point, but I will be offering my prayers for the Holy Father. Please join me, as this is simply too important for us to ignore.

2.18.11, Update: There is an online petition you can sign: Appeal for the Preservation of the Integrity of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum

2.18.11, Update: Father Z has posted (with comments) a Q&A with SSPX Bp. Fellay. It is worth a read: SSPX Bp. Fellay about Summorum Pontificum

New Year Resolution, 2011

2010-12-31T15:10:00.004-07:00

Every year I make resolutions and I usually let them go by the wayside in short order. This year I'll try for more practical ones that will be easier for me to remain faithful to.

Primary among these will be, on the first of each month, to begin praying a novena to St. Thérèse of Lisieux (which would then, of course, conclude on the ninth day). I invite all to join me.

The novena consists of a daily prayer, a prayer for the specific day, one Our Father, one Hail Mary, one Glory Be, and finally an Act of Oblation.

Daily Prayer:

O Glorious Teresa of the Infant Jesus, through whose unshakable confidence God was so glorified, obtain for me that same filial trust and love which animated thy innocent heart and soul. Grant that I may practice self-abnegation, patience and confidence, and that my confidence may be a fountain of blessings which God pours out upon me. As confidence was for thee the key to the greatest treasures of God, so it may induce me to throw myself into my Savior's arms and say with David: "In Thee, O my God, I put my trust, let me not be confounded." Amen.

Act of Oblation of St. Teresa of the Infant Jesus:

My Lord and my God! O Most Blessed Trinity! I desire to love Thee and to make Thee loved by mankind. Since Thou has loved me so much as to give me Thy only begotten Son for my Savior and my Spouse [NB: I omit the part in italics - LF], the infinite treasures of His merits are mine. These merits I offer to Thee with joy, beseeching Thee to behold me only as in the Face of Jesus, and in His Sacred Heart burning with love. Moreover, I offer Thee all the merits of the saints - in heaven and on earth - together with their acts of love, and those of the holy Angels. Lastly, I offer Thee, O Blessed Trinity, the love and merits of the Blessed Virgin, my dearest Mother. To her I entrust this oblation, begging her to present it to Thee. Amen.

Holy Child Jesus, have mercy on us. Our Lady of Victories, pray for us. Saint Teresa of the Infant Jesus, pray for us. Little Flower of Jesus, pray for us.

First Day

O Almighty God and Creator of all things, Who to banish from human hearts lukewarmness in Thy service and inflame souls in divine love, hast enriched the soul of Thy Little Flower with such unshaken faith that she desired most ardently to give her life for Thee: I beseech Thee, by the merits of the lively faith of Saint Teresa of the Infant Jesus, to infuse into my soul such an ardent faith that I may firmly believe all the truths taught by the Holy Catholic Church, and practice all the virtues until death. Amen.

Second Day

O Almighty God, Who art admirable in Thy Saints, grant me the gift of hope with which Saint Teresa of the Infant Jesus was endowed, that I may believe firmly Thy words, "Whatsoever you shall ask in My Name, it shall be given to you," and as Saint Teresa abandoned all vanities of the world and consecrated herself to Thee with unshaken faith and confidence, may I also despise all that the world appreciates, and seek Thee alone Who art my love and my all. Amen.

Third Day

O My Jesus, grant that I may love Thee as much as Saint Teresa, Thy Little Flower, loved Thee, and that I may say with her, "O my Jesus, I beg Thee only for Thy love without limits and without bounds. Grant, O my Jesus, that for love of Thee I may be a martyr. I wish to love Thee as Thou hast never been loved." And Thou, O little Saint, succor and assist me that I may never show myself ungrateful to Him Who loved me so much. Amen.

Fourth Day

O My God and my Lord, Thou givest me what is best for me, and as Thy Little Flower consecrated herself to Thee as a sacrificial victim to endure for love of Thee all sufferings and pains, so also may I accept whatever hardships and contradictions Thou has destined for my sanctification with perfect submission and even with cheerful mind, that I may be able to say as Thy cherished spouse, "O Jesus, I am a victim of Thy love." Amen.

Fifth Day

My Lord, Innocence itself, Thou hast endured all manner of opprobrious treatment for love of me. Give me the grace of humility, of self-abnegation, and patience that I may imitate Thy spouse, Saint Teresa of the Infant Jesus, and say with all my heart, O my despised Jesus, grant me the merits of Thy humility and patience to bear in tranquil spirit all the sufferings of this life, and then to enjoy Thy company with Thy spouse, the Little Flower. Amen.

Sixth Day

O My sweet Jesus, give me the charity and simplicity of Saint Teresa of the Infant Jesus, whose mission in heaven is to make others love the good God as she loved Him, to teach souls her little way. Give me such longings that I may not rest until my heart loves God with all my strength, until I arrive at the spiritual childhood of the Little Flower of Jesus. Amen.

Seventh Day

O My dear Jesus, give me grace to practice little virtues. It is sometimes difficult, but I trust in Thy goodness and love for little souls. I am too little and weak to climb the steep ladder of perfection, but I know that as much as I hope I shall obtain from Thee. I join then Thy Little Flower and implore Thee with her to make me one of the many little, humble victims, worthy of Thy love. Amen.

Eighth Day

O My God and my love, give me on this earth the same mission Thou gavest to Thy Little Flower in heaven, of passing life in doing good to my neighbor. O Jesus, help me to console little souls and encourage them to love Thee; let them love Thee as much as Thy Immaculate Mother, Thy foster-father St. Joseph, Thy holy angels and Thy cherished Little Teresa loved Thee. Allow me to pray with her: "Let Thy divine glance rest upon a vast number of little souls, worthy victims of Thy love." Amen.

Ninth Day

O My dear Lord, grant me as much filial veneration and love for Thy faithful foster-father and Thy most holy and immaculate Mother, as Saint Teresa of the Infant Jesus cherished in her simple and child-like heart. And thou, O my little Saint, address thyself to my great protector and father St. Joseph, and my most holy Mother Mary, and entreat them to obtain for me the grace of dying in the arms of Jesus and uttering thy own words: "O, I love Him... My God... I love Thee." Amen.

Prudence

2010-09-15T18:35:00.069-07:00

Sparse notes on Prudence. I'll flesh this out as time goes on.

If you happen to know of any works that I've missed (and I'm sure there are tons), please comment and I'll try to find some good links.

Brief blurb (not really the point, but to serve as an intro...)
The Four Cardinal Virtues: Prudence, Justice, Temperance, and Fortitude.

And on to the meat:

Unknown Artist

* 1175 - 1200, Prudence

Medium: Gilt bronze
Items: Large serpent
Dress: Robe
Hair: Covered
Posture: Sitting
Setting: No setting; seated, but seat not part of sculpture
Figures: Prudence, serpent
Notes:
- None

Giotto Di Bondone,

* ca 1306, The Seven Virtues- Prudence

Medium: Painting
Items: Book, Mirror (reflection not shown, pointed at self)
Dress: Robe
Hair: Wrapped, up
Posture: Standing, profile
Setting: Alone at a lecturn/pedetal/desk... forget the name
Figures: Prudence
Notes:
- Part of a series: The Seven Virtues

Andrea Pisano

* 1337 - 1341, Prudence with two heads, one young and one old, accompanied by a serpent and a mirror

Medium: Sculpture (Relief)
Items: Mirror, serpent
Dress: Dress and drapery
Hair: Tied
Posture: Seated, looking down to mirror in right hand, holding serpent in left; second face looking up and away.
Setting: No setting per se; panel has no background, and seat is not visible.
Figures: Prudence
Notes:
- None

Piero del Pollaiolo (or Antonio??)

* ca 1470, Prudence.

Medium: Oil on panel
Items: Serpent, Mirror (self reflection in profile)
Dress: Dress, Drapery
Hair: Braided, "mid"
Posture: Sitting, facing forward, vision away
Setting: Sitting on a throne in an alcove; much detail in few objects
Figures: Prudence
Notes:
- Part of a series; not the Four Cardinal, but of Seven Virtues
- Purposefully distorted due to its intended position (was to be placed high above viewer)

Giovanni Bellini

* 1490-1504, Prudence

Medium: Oil on panel
Items: Mirror (reflection of artist?)
Dress: Nude
Hair: Straight, behind, long (to legs)
Posture: Standing, profile body face straight and down
Setting: Standing on a pedestal, before a wooden screen, near windows
Figures: Prudence, One robed cherub with trumpet, one nude cherub with trumpet, one robed cherub with drum
Notes:
- Part of a series of panels representing virtues and sins

Giulio Campi

* 1496-1500, Prudence and Justice

Medium: Painting
Items: Large serpent
Dress: Sheer flowing dress
Hair: Braided, up
Posture: Standing, holding serpent overhead, weight on rear leg, looking down and to side
Setting: On pedestal, before wall
Figures: Prudence, serpent (large enough to get figure reference)
Notes:
- Next panel has Justice, not really part of same composition

Pietro Perugino

* ca 1497, Prudence and Justice with Six Antique Wisemen

Medium: Fresco
Items: Staff (with mirrors atop?? Not sure what they are, but would be consistent)
Dress: Dress with drapery
Hair: Princess Leia
Posture: Sitting, holding staff with one hand, pointing with other, looking down and away
Setting: Sitting on clouds, besides Justice, above six wise men. Four cherubs hold two signs, above clouds, on either side of Prudence & Justice
Figures: Prudence, Justice, Four nude cherubs, six wise men
Notes:
- Not sure what the signs say; can't find image I can read

Antonio Pollaiuolo

* 2nd half 15th century, Draped woman, seated, holding in his hand snakes: Prudence

Medium: Pen and brown ink
Items: Serpent
Dress: Robes
Hair: Hard to discern, but it appears as if it may be veiled
Posture: Siting
Setting: No setting; seat not visible
Figures: Prudence
Notes:
- Head is hardly visible

Workshop of Raffaelo Sanzio (Raphael)

* 2nd half of 15th century, 1st quarter of 16th century, Prudence

Medium: Red pencil
Items: Mirror, serpent
Dress: Dress, drapery, ornate necklace
Hair: Shoulder length, down; large helmet with plume
Posture: Seated, looking down to mirror
Setting: No real setting; no background, seat not visible
Figures: Prudence
Notes:
- None

Raffaelo Sanzio da Urbino (Raphael)

* 1511, The Cardinal and Theological Virtues

Medium: Fresco
Items: Mirror
Dress: Dress and drapery
Hair: Back braided to shoulders, top held by scarf
Posture: Seated, torso and legs pointed forward/side, head in profile looking at mirror
Setting: Positioned over two platforms (for lack of a better term); bottom level has Fortitude on left along with two cherubs (one seated and looking towards the background, and the other climbing over Fortitude to reach a branch), and Temperance on the right with a seated cherub looking away. Prudence sits on the second level, between Fortitude and Temperance. One cherub stands behind her, facing her, holding a torch, while another stands before her, helping her hold the mirror. Background is a sky with scant clouds.
Figures:
Notes:
- The Cardinal Virtues are represented as women, while the Theological Virtues are represented as cherubs.
- Prudence is wearing a strange emblem on her breast; a distorted face with what appears to be wings.

Baldassare Peruzzi

* c 1518-1520,An Allegory of Prudence

Medium: Brown ink and brown wash, heightened with white, squared for transfer on pink tinted paper
Items: Compass?, branch
Dress: Dress
Hair: Covered by helmet
Posture: Seated
Setting: Seated between two figures; to her left is a young woman, and to her right is an older; Prudence's young face is looking to her left, while her older face is looking right. Behind Prudence is a tree (of wisdom?).
Figures: Prudence, young woman, old woman, swan (with young woman), cat (with old woman)
Notes:
- All figures are labeled, but writing is illegible.
- There is an object on the floor, with illegible label, that I cannot discern

Albrecht Durer

* 4th quarter of 15th century ; 1st half of 16th century, Prudence

Medium: Pen and black ink
Items: Mirror (reflection of self)
Dress: Dress, drapery
Hair: Down and shoulder length; only a small amount due to two faces taking up real estate
Posture: Standing, holding mirror out with left hand and looking into it, seems to be holding necklace in right
Setting: No real setting; light flora at feet of Prudence
Figures: Prudence, dragon
Notes:
- Inspiration is not "the virtues" (proper), but rather is from the tarot

* 1522, The Great Triumphal Chariot of Maximilian I

Medium: Woodcut
Items: None
Dress: Dress
Hair: Braided, up
Posture: Standing on pedestal
Setting: Large ornate chariot with many figures, each to illustrate attributes of Alexander
Figures: Justice, Temperance, Fortitude, Prudence, Security, Confidence, Gravity, Perseverance and Reason
Notes:
- None

Grien Hans Baldung

* 1529, Prudence

Medium: Oil on pine panel
Items: Mirror, serpent, deer
Dress: Nude, save for translucent veil over one arm and lower bits
Hair: Long, down back
Posture: Standing, holding mirror in one hand, looking over at reflection
Setting: In forest, on mountain (implied), overlooking buildings in the valley. Prudence stands on serpent, and deer (a buck and doe) stand behind her.
Figures: Prudence, serpent
Notes:
- Very interesting that Prudence is stepping on the serpent.

Nicolo dell'Abbate

* ?, Prudence

Medium: Pen and brown ink, black chalk, brown wash, on beige paper
Items: Ball (orbis terrarum?)
Dress: Robed
Hair: Covered by robe (heavy robe)
Posture: Figure standing, positioned straight ahead, with one leg on ball. Face #1 is looking down towards ball; Face #2 on back of head looking up.
Setting: Standing in archway (an actual arch, not a door arch)
Figures: Prudence
Notes:
- The half of the arch corresponding to Face #1 is highly decorated, whereas the half of the arch corresponding to Face #2 has no decoration

Aenea Vico, Girolamo Francesco Maria Mazzola (Parmigianino) (inspired)

* c 1543, Prudence

Medium: Etching on paper
Items: Mirror (self reflection)
Dress: Dress
Hair: Up
Posture: Seated, holding up mirror in both arms, looking down into mirror
Setting: Sitting in a chair in a room. There is an open window from where we can see mountains and clouds outside.
Figures: Prudence
Notes:
- There are two other objects in the room. One appears to be a desk of some sort, and I cannot ID a small object on the floor.

Polidoro Caldara

* 1st half 16th century, Two Allegories: Prudence and Moderation

Medium: Brown ink on paper
Items: Mirror, serpent
Dress: Nude except for drapery on one arm, which goes behind and back through legs to cover one thigh
Hair: Braided, up, with strands coming down on side
Posture: Standing as if walking forward
Setting: Moderation and Prudence stand before two stone arches (which have minor bits of overgrowth). Ground is rocky. Moderation (naturally) is covered up (as opposed to a mostly nude Prudence).
Figures: Prudence, Moderation
Notes:
- None

Nicolò Vicentino (attributed)

* mid-16th century, Prudence

Medium: Chiaroscuro woodcut printed in black, gray and ocher
Items: Mirror, jug
Dress: Drapery over one shoulder, covering torso and legs, leaving other shoulder and breast exposed
Hair: Up in front/middle, down in back
Posture: Seated, holding hand in one hand, looking at mirror in profile. Holding back of hair in other hand.
Setting: No real setting. Prudence sits upon a raised platform, with a jug on lowest level
Figures: Prudence
Notes:
- Handle on jug may represent serpent?

Frans Floris

* 1550-1570, Prudence

Medium: Brown ink on blue paper
Items: Sword, flower
Dress: Bodice, drapery
Hair: Braided, up
Posture: Seated, holding sword against body with one hand, smelling flower held in other
Setting: Sitting before trees (seat no visible), with hills visible in the background. Clouds in sky, flora on ground and trees. Around closest tree to Prudence is a large serpent facing her.
Figures: Prudence, serpent
Notes:
- None

Pieter Brueghel the Elder

* c. 1559, Prudence from The World of Seven Virtues

Medium: Engraving
Items: Mirror, sieve, casket
Dress: Dress
Hair: Up
Posture: Standing
Setting: Busy city setting. Figures each represent some aspect of prudential life. In the background is the sea, with a boat, and a distant part of the city visible beyond. The sky is clouded.
Figures: Prudence, many city dwellers at work
Notes:
  - Part of the "The World of Seven Virtues" series
  - "If you wish to be prudent, think always of the future and keep everything in the forefront of your mind"
  - From the site (attributed to H. Arthur Klein): "Prudence stands on, under, and next to objects symbolizing various kinds of such desirable wisdom: On her head she carries a sieve or colander; in her hand she holds a mirror; against her shoulder leans a long slender coffin. Each of these objects suggests a different aspect of prudence: the sieve or colander – the sifting out of good from evil, rejecting the bad, retaining that which makes for a life of virtue; the coffin – the inevitable death that awaits all men, in awareness of which they should live each day prudently; the mirror – self-knowledge."

Germain Pilon

* c 1561 - 1570, Prudence

Medium: Sculpture
Items: Mirror
Dress: Dress
Hair: Brushed back, held in place with scarf, loose down back
Posture: Seated, holding a mirror up in one hand, but it is pointed behind her as if to look behind. Her gaze is not towards the mirror (but in same general direction).
Setting: No real setting
Figures: Prudence
Notes:
- None

Agnolo Bronzino

* 1564, Allegory of Happiness

Medium: Painting
Items: Globe
Dress: Dress with drapery covering lower half
Hair: Mostly covered in scarf; Janus head covers back of head
Posture: Sitting facing forward, turning to side (towards Happiness), holding globe in lap. Seat not visible.
Setting: Group of figures surrounding central figure of Happiness, with those opposing her at her feet. The background displays hills and mountains, with a blue sky.
Figures: Happiness, Prudence, Justice, 3 (4?) Angels/Cherubs, 4 contorted figures, 1 covered figure
Notes:
- None

Abraham Bloemaert (attributed)

* 1564 - 1651, Young woman standing, holding a serpent and a mirror-Prudence

Medium: Red pencil, brown ink and gray wash on paper
Items: Mirror, serpent
Dress: Dress, drapery
Hair: Up, curls down on side
Posture: Standing, holding serpent high in one hand and mirror low in the other, looking down at mirror.
Setting: Standing before a panel, which has a relief of a woman's face in the upper corner. Stepping off a small step.
Figures: Prudence
Notes:
- None.

François Anguier

* 1564 - 1593, Monument funéraire du coeur d'Henri Ier d'Orléans, duc de Longueville

Medium: Sculpture
Items: Mirror, serpent
Dress: Dress
Hair: Braided, up
Posture: Seated, holding serpent up in one arm, mirror down in the other, looking down toward the mirror
Setting: No real setting, but part of larger sculpture; standing before a funeral monolith
Figures: Prudence, Fortitude, Justice, and Temperance
Notes:
- None

Tiziano Vecelli (Titian)

* 1565-1570, The Allegory of Prudence

Medium: Oil on canvas
Items: N/A
Dress: N/A
Hair: N/A
Posture: N/A
Setting: N/A
Figures: Two levels: Old man, mid-aged man, young man on top; wolf, lion, dog on bottom (all heads, no bodies... all heads situated looking left, center, and right)
Notes:
- Unique in that it doesn't anthropomorphize Prudence

Alessandro Allori

* c 1580, Fortitude, Prudence and Vigilance

Medium: Pen and ink, wash, white heightening, over black chalk, partially squared in black chalk, on paper washed buff
Items: Mirror, serpent
Dress: Dress, breasts and one leg uncovered; short cape?
Hair: Short, down; scarf/ribbon?
Posture: Sitting on bull?, oriented forward, holding serpent in one hand and mirror in the other, looking down at mirror
Setting: Flanked by Fortitude and Vigilance, with two cherubs sitting on a wreath above. No background per se.
Figures: Prudence, Fortitude, Vigilance, two cherubs
Notes:
- There are tiny faces throughout, for instance, at the feet of Prudence and in the wreath

* c 1567 - 1570, Allegory of Prudence

Medium: Painting
Items: Mirror, serpent, globe
Dress: Nude, except for drapery covering lower region
Hair: Up
Posture: Seated on globe
Setting: No real setting: simply Prudence on a globe.
Figures: Prudence
Notes:
- None

Antonio Tempesta

* 1590, Minerva in a Chariot Driven by Prudence and Charity

Medium: Etching
Items: Mirror, serpent
Dress: Dress
Hair: Up in a bun, with flowing scarf behind
Posture: Seated on horse, serpent in one hand, mirror in the other, looking down at mirror
Setting: Prudence and Charity are on elegant horses, Minerva is in the chariot holding a spear and rod, along with an angel blowing a trumpet. No real background; figures are all on rocky/hilly terrain.
Figures: Prudence, Charity, Minerva, and angel
Notes:
- Minerva is the Roman version of Pallas

Bartholomaeus Spranger

* 1599-1600, Allegory of Justice and Prudence

Medium: Oil on canvas
Items: Quill, serpent/ring??
Dress: Dress, breasts exposed
Hair: Up (braided?), braid down in back
Posture: Seated, one leg crossed, holding quill in one hand, ring/serpent in other, looking upwards
Setting: Prudence is seated, facing forward, to the left of Justice, who is seated oriented away, turned to face forward, holding a sword in one hand and a balance in the other. In the background, there is a window partially covered by a curtain on one side, and bound by a pillar on the other. The pillar is widely covered by a curtain. Outside, the sky is cloudy and darkening.
Figures: Prudence, Justice
Notes:
- Interesting that Prudence does not have her usual items (I do not think she has a serpent)

Giacomo Della Porta

* 1534-1549, Monument to Paul III.

Medium: Sculpture
Items: Mirror, book (reflection of self)
Dress: Drapery covering bottom half
Hair: Covered by drapery
Posture: Reclining/laying, holding book in resting arm, looking at self in mirror with supporting arm, head down and away.
Setting: Together with Justice, both reclining below seated Paul III
Figures: Prudence, Justice, Paul III
Notes:
- Here, Prudence is an adult male (rare)

Jacob Matham

* 1597, Prudence

Medium: Engraving
Items: Mirror (reflection of self), two serpents
Dress: Dress, shoulders exposed
Hair: Short, sparse due to two faces
Posture: Sitting, oriented away. Holding two serpents in one hand, holding mirror up in other. Young face is looking down(ish) and away, towards mirror (reflection is visible), and old face is looking up in the opposite direction.
Setting: Outdoors. Sitting on a hill(?) next to a group of stones (a wall?), surrounded by flora. Can see a valley below, where we can see a house, some trees and hills.
Figures: Prudence
Notes:
- None

Léonard Limosin (followimg) ; Lucas Van Leyden (inspired)

* 16th century, Prudence

Medium: Polychrome, heightened with gold on copper. Cons-translucent enamel. (Original: engraving)
Items: Mirror, compass
Dress: Nude, save for drapery around one arm and covering lower bits
Hair: Up, wrapped in scarf
Posture: Seated, holding mirror in one hand, compass in the other; looking at mirror
Setting: Prudence is sitting on a couch in a room, with one foot resting on an ottoman. There is a curtain in the background, along with another mirror. A cherub flies above Prudence holding a crown.
Figures: Prudence, cherub
Notes:
- Can't tell if cherub is generic cherub or is supposed to represent something in particular

School of Giorgio Vasari ; Unknown

* 16th century, The Bliss of Meekness, the Gift of Intelligence and the Virtue of Prudence

Medium: Red pencil on paper
Items: Saucer?, Bottle, Jug
Dress: Dress, one breast exposed
Hair: Up
Posture: Seated on cloud, holding saucer? above head pouring wine down, holding bottle in other hand pouring into jug
Setting: Meekness and Prudence are flanking central figure of Intelligence, accompanied by two angels blowing horns. No background is shown.
Figures: Intelligence, Meekness, Prudence, two angels
Notes:
- None

School Primaticcio ; School Of Fontainebleau

* 16th century, Justice and Prudence in two circular cartouches

Medium: Black chalk, brown wash
Items: Serpent, Mirror
Dress: Dress, possible additional drapery
Hair: Up
Posture: Indeterminate; upper torso only shown
Setting: No setting; Prudence holds serpent in one hand and mirror in other
Figures: Prudence
Notes:
- In a two panel illustration; first panel displays Justice, and Prudence is in the second. Assorted unidentified figures surround the panels.

Michel Colombe

* 16th century, Prudence - Tomb of Francis II of Brittany and his Wife Marguerite de Foix

Medium: Sculpture
Items: Mirror, compass
Dress: Dress, drapery covering head
Hair: Down, mostly covered by drapery and Janus head
Posture: Standing
Setting: N/A
Figures: Prudence
Notes:
- None

Marco Marchetti (Marco da Faenza)

* Late 16th Century, Prudence

Medium: Pen and brown ink and brown wash over red chalk on laid paper mounted to a heavier sheet
Items: Mirror, serpent
Dress: Dress
Hair: Up
Posture: Sitting, oriented towards rear, looking over shoulder towards viewer; holding serpent in one hand, mirror in the other
Setting: Sitting on what appears to me a group of rocks; maybe hills in the background? No other features in the background.
Figures: Prudence
Notes:
- None

Jan I Snellinck

* End of 16th/Beginning of 17th century, Prudence

Medium: Brown ink, indigo wash, on blue paper
Items: Serpent, bird?
Dress: Dress
Hair: Up
Posture: Standing (walking)
Setting: Walking Prudence holding bird? up in one hand, serpent down in other; bushes in immediate background, and a hill further behind. Clouds are in sky.
Figures: Prudence
Notes:
- None

Barthélemy Prieur

* 2nd half of 16th century, 1st quarter of 17th century, Prudence

Medium: Sculpture
Items: Mirror, serpent
Dress: Dress
Hair: Up, braided
Posture: Standing, weight on one leg; opposite (hand holding serpent) arm raised, bent at elbow back to shoulder; arm with hand holding mirror has elbow "resting" on hip, bent so mirror allows Prudence to look behind.
Setting: None
Figures: Prudence
Notes:
- None

Martin Fréminet

* 2nd half of 16th century, 1st quarter of 17th century, The Four Cardinal Virtues

Medium: Sculpture
Items: ?
Dress: ?
Hair: ?
Posture: ?
Setting: ?
Figures: Prudence, Temperance, Fortitude, Justice
Notes:
- Need better image, cannot determine details. The four figures are standing around an obelisk, but Prudence is not clearly visible.

Carracci School

* 4th quarter 16th century , 1st quarter 17th century, Two children between Justice and Prudence

Medium: Brown ink, brown wash, and black chalk
Items: Mirror, Rod with winged tip and serpent wrapped around it (see notes)
Dress: Dress
Hair: Up in front and sides, down in back
Posture: Seated, oriented towards children (who are central to the image), the mirror is held in one hand (down), and the rod in the other is raised to the children
Setting: In a field. Prudence and Justice are on either side of two children. They are all seated on the ground. Flora is behind Prudence and Justice, and further behind the children we see hills. No clouds are visible in the sky. One child is putting a wreath atop the other.
Figures: Prudence, Justice, two children.
Notes:
- The staff held by Prudence is curious. It appears to be a combination of the Rod of Asclepius (except that this rod has wings), and the Caduceus (except that this rod has only one serpent)

Hendrick Goltzius

* 16th century - 17th century, Prudence

Medium: Brown ink, brown wash
Items: Two entwined serpents
Dress: Dress
Hair: Up
Posture: Standing, serpents in one hand raised upwards towards self
Setting: None
Figures: Prudence
Notes:
- None

Peter Paul Rubens

* ca 1622-1625, The Happiness of the Regency.

Medium: Oil on canvas
Items: Serpent, golden chain with medallion? (perhaps coins?), wreath?
Dress: Dress, one shoulder and breast exposed
Hair: Up, crown
Posture: Bending over to give items (wreath? coins?) to children (cherubs?) below with one hand; serpent wrapped around same hand
Setting: Elaborate setting. Central figure is Justice (representing Marie de Medici?), surrounded by "supporting cast" on all sides, except below and to the right, which is reserved for the "miserable figures". Much of the background is indecipherable: we see some of Justice's throne, and to the right appears to be a wall?, and a carved arch covered with flora to the left. The sky is blue with indecipherable clouds.
Figures: Too many to name
Notes:
- Part of Rubens' Medici cycle
- Prudence plays a small role here

* c 1622 - 1625, The Consignment of the Regency.

Medium: Oil on canvas
Items: None
Dress: Dress with shoulders and decolletage exposed, drapery around waist and below
Hair: Braided into single braid down back
Posture: Standing, looking back towards Louis, Marie, and dauphin
Setting: Inside large ornate building, with arches leading outside in center of image. Louis, Marie and dauphin are central figures, with all other figures looking towards them, with the exception of the rightmost figure (Henrietta Maria?), who is looking towards the viewer. Outside we see a hill, trees, and a cloudy sky.
Figures: Louis, Marie, dauphin, Prudence, female figure (Henrietta Maria?), three soldiers
Notes:
- Part of Rubens' Medici cycle
- Prudence plays a small role here

c 1622 - 1625, Louis XIII Comes of Age.

Medium: Oil on canvas
Items: None
Dress: Dress, one shoulder and breast exposed
Hair: Down, windblown
Posture: Standing, adjusting sail with one arm over head
Setting: Elaborate. Multiple figures on an ornate boat. Water is dark with light waves, while sky is dark and cloudy overhead, blue in the distance. Figures also appear in the clouds.
Figures: Too many to mention
Notes:
- Part of Rubens' Medici cycle
- Prudence plays a small role here

Anthony van Dyck

* 1633-1634, Venetia, Lady Digby

Medium: Oil on canvas
Items: Serpent, doves
Dress: Dress, drapery
Hair: Mid-length on sides, perhaps down in back
Posture: Seated on rock, adjacent to larger rock with two doves atop; one hand is holding one dove, and other hand is on lap holding serpent
Setting: Outdoors. Prudence steps on profane Love while two-faced Deceit cowers below her. Three cherubs fly above, lowering a wreath on her head. The background has hills, trees, and assorted flora; the sky is blue with gray/white clouds.
Figures: Prudence, profane Love, Deceit, three cherubs
Notes:
- None

Simon Vouet

* ca 1645, Allegory of Prudence

Medium: Oil on canvas
Items: Serpent, mirror (reflection of self)
Dress: Dress, one shoulder and upper half of breast exposed; drapery as shawl
Hair: Up on top and sides, down in back
Posture: Seated on a cloud throne, with one hand holding the serpent, and the other situated towards the mirror (held by another figure). Gaze is toward the mirror.
Setting: Outdoors: Prudence is seated on a cloud throne, which is set on the ground. She is surrounded by figures, including Time at her feet and three female figures to her right (one holding the mirror). Three cherubs sit atop the cloud throne, and one is crowning her with a wreath. There are trees in the background, and further beyond we see a cloudy sky.
Figures: Prudence, Time, three female figures, three cherubs
Notes:
- Female figures dressed similarly to Prudence

* 2nd quarter of 17th Century, Prudence, Peace And Abundance, Amen

Medium: Oil on canvas
Items: Dagger/rod?
Dress: Dress, wrapped in drapery
Hair: Long, down; covered by helmet
Posture: Seated, facing Peace and Abundance, holding dagger/rod in one hand (inclined towards shoulder)
Setting: Outdoors; Prudence is seated on an elaborate throne, set atop a platform. Two elaborate columns are visible heading into the background. The sky in the background is blue with white clouds. There are three cherubs in the scene, one below Prudence and two flying above, one dropping a wreath on Peace.
Figures: Prudence, Peace, Abundance, three cherubs
Notes:
- None

Jacques Callot

* 1st half 17th century, A woman standing, facing right: Allegory of Prudence

Medium: Drawing
Items: Mirror, serpent?
Dress: Dress, drapery around waist
Hair: Up
Posture: Standing, body in profile, face looking forward. One hand holding up large mirror, other hand tucked in drapery. Serpent around neck?
Setting: None
Figures: Prudence
Notes:
- None

* 1st half 17th century, A woman standing, facing left: Allegory of Prudence

Medium: Drawing
Items: Mirror
Dress: Dress
Hair: Up
Posture: Standing in profile, looking to side. Holding large mirror with one hand; other hand is across midriff
Setting: None
Figures: Prudence
Notes:
- None

Michel Dorigny

* Mid-17th century, La Force Et La Prudence

Medium: Oil on canvas
Items: Serpent, mirror, column
Dress: Dress and drapery
Hair: Bun?
Posture: Flying, holding serpent in one extended arm, supporting column in other
Setting: Prudence, Fortitude and a cherub are flying above a group of clouds, with blue sky above them. Prudence is above Fortitude, and the cherub (holding the mirror) is at Prudence's feet.
Figures: Prudence, Fortitude, cherub
Notes:
- None

Jacques Sarrazin ; Henri Perlan (Exécutant)

* Mid-17th century, La Prudence

Medium: Bronze sculpture
Items: Rod, serpent (Rod of Asclepius?), shield
Dress: Dress
Hair: Up, in helmet
Posture: Seated, holding rod in one hand, with serpent around arm and rod; the other hand is holding up the shield, which is resting on the ground.
Setting: Prudence is seated on an eagle. To the shield-side is a cherub, holding an indecipherable object up to her.
Figures: Prudence, cherub, eagle
Notes:
- None

Giovanni Francesco Romanelli

* c. 1657, Prudence and Foresight

Medium: Watercolor over black and red chalks on cream antique laid paper
Items: Serpent, mirror
Dress: Dress, drapery around waist and legs
Hair: Up, bun
Posture: Seated on ground, with one arm down holding the serpent, and the other arm up towards the mirror
Setting: Prudence and Foresight are both seated on the floor, facing one another. Foresight is holding the mirror up so that Prudence may look into it. The background contains an arch, the opening covered by curtains. The curtains are open slightly, but beyond them is indecipherable.
Figures: Prudence, Foresight
Notes:
- None

Luca Giordano

* c 1670, Allegory

Medium: Oil on canvas
Items:
Dress:
Hair:
Posture:
Setting:
Figures:
Notes:
- May not be Prudence at all -- fill in details later

* Early 1680's, Allegory of Prudence.

Medium: Oil
Items: Rod of Asclepius?, deer
Dress: Dress, drapery
Hair: Covered by helmet
Posture: Seated on deer, holding rod in one hand
Setting: Outdoors. Prudence rides deer, with Order and Reason to her left, and Fraud and Ignorance to her right. Abundance, Grace and Well-Being fly above. Three cherubs roam the scene. Trees and rocks are in the immediate background, and hills are in the distant background. The sky is dark and cloudy.
Figures: Prudence, Order, Reason, Abundance, Grace, Well-Being, Fraud, Ignorance, three cherubs
Notes:
- None

Unknown

* End of 17th century, La Prudence

Medium: Brown wash , Black chalk
Items: Serpent, Mirror (self-reflection)
Dress: Dress
Hair: Down, shoulder length
Posture: Standing, holding mirror up in one hand, looking at self; serpent in other hand
Setting: No real background, only dark shadows
Figures: Prudence
Notes:
- None

Claude Deruet

* 2nd quarter of 17th century, Earth

Medium:
Items:
Dress:
Hair:
Posture:
Setting:
Figures:
Notes:
- Need better image to see details.
- Prudence, along with various other Virtues, is in the sky, as a reflection of the Virtue of the royal family. Prudence plays a very small role in this complex work.

Giovanni Francesco Romanelli

* 17th century, Wisdom and Prudence

Medium: Black chalk, brown ink, brown wash
Items: Serpent, mirror
Dress: Dress, one shoulder and breast exposed; drapery around opposite arm
Hair: Up in braids
Posture: Seated, in profile, holding serpent and mirror in same hand
Setting: Seated in clouds, facing Wisdom; two (three?) cherubs, one for Wisdom and another next to Prudence. Background is composed of clouds.
Figures: Prudence, Wisdom, two (three?) cherubs
Notes:
- Noteworthy that serpent and mirror are held in the same hand

Unknown

* 17th century, Allegorical Figures: Prudence and Charity

Medium: Black int, brown wash
Items: Mirror (self-reflection), bird
Dress: Dress and drapery
Hair: Down
Posture: Standing, holding mirror up in one hand, holding bird up in the other hand. Looking into mirror.
Setting: Prudence is standing on a platform, under an ornate arch. To her right is Charity with two cherubs; to her left is a group of cherubs (?)
Figures: Prudence, Charity, various cherubs
Notes:
- Hard to tell what is going on with the cherubs to the left of Prudence

School of Salvator Rosa

* 17th century, Fortitude, Justice, Temperance and Prudence

Medium: Brown ink on paper
Items: Mirror
Dress: Dress
Hair: Up, in a bun, headscarf in front
Posture: Seated, with mirror held up in one hand, looking the opposite direction (towards other Virtues)
Setting: Four Virtues seated together, cannot discern seats (rocks? clouds?); no real background
Figures: Prudence, Fortitude, Justice, Temperence
Notes:
- None

Jacques Belly ; Francesco Primaticcio (Inspired)

* 17th century, La Prudence

Medium: Black chalk on paper
Items: Mirror (no reflection)
Dress: Dress and drapery
Hair: Up
Posture: Seated, balancing mirror on knee with one hand, holding cherub in other arm. Looking into mirror.
Setting: Prudence is seated, although the seat is not shown. Two cherubs surround her, with another figure off to the side (cannot discern who/what it is or what it is doing). No background.
Figures: Prudence, two cherubs, one unknown figure
Notes:
- None

Unknown

* 4th quarter 17th century, Allegory of Fortitude, and Allegory of Prudence, and another allegory

Medium: Pen, gray ink
Items: Book, quill
Dress: Dress
Hair: Up in first sketch; down in second and third
Posture: Seated
Setting: Prudence is seated with a book resting on one leg, with book-side arm supporting head; opposite hand is resting on non-book leg, holding quill. Cherubs in clouds are in the first and third sketch.
Figures: Prudence
Notes:
- Three sketches of same scene

Unknown

* 4th quarter 17th century, Woman holding a serpent and looked in a mirror: Prudence

Medium: Red pencil
Items: Mirror (self-reflection), serpent, compass
Dress: Dress
Hair: Up
Posture: Reclined
Setting: Prudence is reclining on one arm, which is holding the serpent. Her free arm is holding the compass. Time is behind Prudence, holding up a mirror; Prudence looks into it over her shoulder.
Figures: Prudence, Time
Notes:
- None

Gregorio De Ferrari

* 17th century ; 18th century, Episode of Roman history with Justice and Prudence

Medium: Brown ink, gray ink, black chalk, gray wash, ocher wash, on gray paper
Items: None
Dress: Dress and drapery
Hair: Up
Posture: Seated
Setting: Justice and Prudence are seated in the foreground before an elaborate scene. The two Virtues are not interacting with the scene, and do not have their usual identifying items.
Figures: Justice, Prudence, various others
Notes:
- None

Giovanni Battista Gaulli (Baciccio)

* 2nd Half 17th Century , 1st Quarter 18th Century, Four Virtues standing: Temperance, Justice, Prudence and Religion

Medium: Brown ink, brown wash, gray wash, black chalk
Items: Mirror, serpent
Dress: Dress and drapery
Hair: Tied into tail behind
Posture: Standing, holding mirror up in one hand, looking into mirror; holding serpent in other hand
Setting: None
Figures: Prudence
Notes:
- Four Virtues are presented as individuals, with no interaction

Benedetto Luti (copy of) ; unknown

* 2nd half of 17th century, 1st quarter of 18th century, Modesty between Piety and Prudence

Medium: Red pencil
Items: Mirror, arrow, serpent, deer
Dress: Dress, drapery covering legs
Hair: Down, covered by helmet
Posture: Seated, holding mirror in one hand, serpent wrapped around arrow in other. Looking backwards towards Modesty, who is standing behind her.
Setting: Modesty is standing between Piety and Prudence, both seated. Deer is standing behind Prudence, facing forward. There are rocks in the immediate background, and clouds in the distance.
Figures: Modesty, Piety, Prudence.
Notes:
- None

Sir James Thornhill

* ca 1716, Time, Prudence and Vigilance

Medium: Oil on canvas
Items: Mirror, rod, serpent, deer
Dress: Drapery below breasts
Hair: Up
Posture: Seated, holding mirror up in one hand, holding rod (which the serpent is wrapped around) in other. Prudence is looking into the mirror.
Setting: Set amongst the clouds, there are several allegorical figures doing their own thing. Prudence is seated on a cloud, holding a mirror in one hand and a rod (with the serpent wrapped around it) in the other. Below her, resting on a cloud, is a deer.
Figures: Prudence, various others
Notes:
- None

* ca 1718, Allegorical Figures: Clemency, Prudence and Justice with Pallas, Heroic Poetry, Liberty, Discretion, History and Mercury.

Medium: Oil on wood panel
Items: Spear
Dress: Dress with both shoulders and breasts exposed, drapery over one shoulder and wrapped around
Hair: Up
Posture: Seated on a cloud, in profile, holding spear in one hand
Setting: Elaborate allegorical scene, Prudence is just one of many figures.
Figures: Several
Notes:
- None.

* ?, Prudence.

Medium: Painting
Items: Mirror
Dress: Nude, drapery behind
Hair: Short
Posture: Inclined on a cloud, holding mirror up in one hand, looking into it.
Setting: Set in the sky, with some clouds and blue sky in the background
Figures: Prudence, portrayed as a cherub
Notes:
- None

* ?, Design for a Ceiling: The Four Cardinal Virtues.

Medium: Ink??
Items: Mirror, sword, serpent
Dress: Tunic, "kilt", drapery
Hair: Covered by helmet
Posture: Seated on cloud, holding large mirror up with one hand, holding sword with serpent wrapped around it in other
Setting: In a circle with other Virtues, all seated on clouds. In the background is the blue sky.
Figures: The Four Cardinal Virtues
Notes:
- Prudence is male

* 1725-1727, Allegorical Group: The Four Cardinal Virtues.

Medium: Paint
Items: Mirror, spear
Dress: Dress and drapery
Hair: Hidden by helmet
Posture: Seated, leaning forward. Holding mirror up with one hand, spear in the other
Setting: Set in the clouds, with Justice as the central figure and the three other Virtues around her, along with two cherubs. In the background are white clouds, and further behind is a white-cloud swept blue sky.
Figures: Justice, Prudence, Temperance, Fortitude, two cherubs
Notes:
- None

Workshop of Giovanni Battista Tiepolo

* 1740s, Prudence

Medium: Fresco, transferred to canvas
Items: Mirror, serpent
Dress: Dress and drapery
Hair: Down
Posture: Standing, holding mirror in one arm; the serpent is wrapped about the opposite forearm, behind her, extending below her, allowing her to stand on it.
Setting: No setting
Figures: Prudence
Notes:
- Another instance of Prudence stepping on the serpent

Giovanni Battista Tiepolo

* 1750, The Glorification of the Barbaro Family

Medium: Painting on canvas
Items: Serpent
Dress: Dress with one shoulder exposed
Hair: Up, wreathed
Posture: Seated on cloud, body positioned and looking away; one arm, with serpent wrapped around it, is raised.
Setting: The Barbaro family is on a high platform?, surrounded by Virtues and cherubs perched on clouds. In the background there are mountain tops, clouds, and blue sky. There is a cloud column in the background, with cherubs perched.
Figures: Various
Notes:
- None

François Boucher

* 2nd quarter 18th century, Prudence

Medium: Oil on canvas
Items: Mirror, serpent, spear?
Dress: Dress, drapery
Hair: Down
Posture: Seated, holding serpent and mirror in same hand; spear? in other
Setting: Prudence is seated amongst the clouds. A cherub pulls on the spear? in Prudence's hand. In the background are more clouds, extending into the distance.
Figures: Prudence, cherub
Notes:
- None

Jean Robert Ango

* 3rd quarter of the 18th century, Allégorie de la Prudence

Medium: Black chalk
Items: Mirror, serpent
Dress: Dress, drapery
Hair: Up
Posture: Seated, holding mirror up in one hand, looking into it; serpent held on lap with other hand.
Setting: None
Figures: Prudence
Notes:
- None

Thomas Jarvis

* 1778-85, Antechapel - Great Window

Medium: Painted window
Items: Mirror
Dress: Dress
Hair: Up
Posture: Standing, holding mirror up in one hand, looking in profile into mirror
Setting: Background is clouds; not necessarily given the impression of Prudence standing amongst the clouds, but rather two different scenes - Prudence, and clouds.
Figures: Prudence
Notes:
- Image only shows half of Prudence (one arm and upper torso). Do not know what is happening with the rest of the image.

Angelika Kauffmann

* c 1780, Beauty directed by Prudence, wreathed by Perfection

Medium: Painting
Items: Mirror
Dress: Dress and drapery
Hair: Up, braided, head scarf
Posture: Seated, propping mirror on one leg with one hand, other arm around Beauty
Setting: Beauty is the central figure, held by Prudence on one side, and wreathed by Perfection on other. The figures are on rocks, and the background has mountains and trees. The sky is cloudy, dark around the left and right borders. There are some items in the foreground below Perfection that I cannot discern.
Figures: Beauty, Prudence, Perfection
Notes:
- None

Fils La Gardette

* 4th quarter 18th century, M. le Marquis de Lafayette, Lafayette receives hands of prudence crown of immortality

Medium: Ink, wash
Items: Crown
Dress: Drapery/dress over lower half; nude torso
Hair: Down
Posture: Standing, head in profile facing central figure Lafayette. One arm is raised, crowning him; other arm is down, holding his hand?
Setting: There are several other unidentified figures about. The setting seems to be on rocks, with mountains in the background; there is a temple atop a mountain to the right. There are clouds in the sky.
Figures: Lafayette, Prudence, several other figures
Notes:
- None

Edme Bouchardon

* 18th century, Prudence with three naked children; Inspired by Raphael

Medium: Red pencil
Items: Mirror, Janus head
Dress: Dress
Hair: Up, only partially visible due to Janus head
Posture: Seated; holding mirror up in one hand, looking in profile into mirror
Setting: Sitting on square, undecorated seat, which rests on some sort of platform (with one foot hanging over the platform). Cherub helps hold up mirror. No background.
Figures: Prudence, cherub
Notes:
- None

* 18th century, Prudence

Medium: Red pencil
Items: Mirror, serpent
Dress: Dress, drapery
Hair: Up
Posture: Seated, holding mirror up in one hand, looking into mirror; holding serpent in the other hand.
Setting: None
Figures: Prudence
Notes:
- None

Nicola Maria Rossi

* 18th century, La Justice, la Force, la Prudence et une autre figure allégorique

Medium: Brown ink, brown wash, black charcoal
Items: Mirror, spear, serpent, deer
Dress: Up
Hair: Dress
Posture: Stepping forward to her right; left arm holding up mirror, looking left into mirror; holding spear with serpent wrapped around it in right hand.
Setting: Justice is central figure, seated upon a throne. To her right is Fortitude, and to her left are Temperance?, followed by Prudence. Laying at the feet of Prudence is a deer. The Virtues are surrounded by arches, and in the background we can see trees. The sky above is cloudy.
Figures: Justice, Fortitude, Temperance?, Prudence
Notes:
- None

Anicet Charles Gabriel Lemonnier

* 2nd Half 18th century ; 1st quarter 19th century, Allégorie de la Prudence

Medium: Black charcoal
Items: Mirror, serpent
Dress: Dress
Hair: Up
Posture: Seated; holding mirror up in one hand, looking into mirror; other hand holds serpent
Setting: None
Figures: Prudence
Notes:
- None

* 2nd Half 18th century ; 1st quarter 19th century, Allégorie de la Prudence

Medium: Black charcoal
Items: Mirror, serpent
Dress: Dress
Hair: Up
Posture: Seated; holding mirror up in one hand, looking into mirror; other hand holds serpent
Setting: None
Figures: Prudence
Notes:
- None

Jean-Baptiste Isabey

* 4th quarter 18th century ; 1st half 19th century, Attributes of Wisdom and Prudence

Medium: Brown ink, brown wash
Items: Mirror, serpent
Dress: N/A
Hair: N/A
Posture: N/A
Setting: N/A
Figures: N/A
Notes:
- Not an actual image of Prudence, but of her "attributes", that is, her typical items. Here we have a mirror with a serpent wrapped around the handle.

Louis-Simon Boizot

* 1806 - 1808, The Four Cardinal Virtues

Medium: Sculpture
Items: Mirror, serpent
Dress: Dress, drapery
Hair: Up
Posture: Standing, holding serpent in one hand
Setting: The four Virtues are around one pillar. Prudence is holding a serpent by the head in one hand, with the serpent's body wrapped around an obelisk of some sort.
Figures: The Four Cardinal Virtues
Notes:
- None

Michel Martin Drolling

* 1823, Prudence

Medium: Oil on canvas
Items: Quill, serpent
Dress: Nude
Hair: Up
Posture: Seated (reclining) on clouds, positioned so that back is visible; holding quill with serpent wrapped around it in one hand. Other arm is propped on cloud, which may be holding her drapery.
Setting: Set atop clouds. Blue sky dominates most of background, with a few clouds low to the horizon.
Figures: Prudence
Notes:
- I really like the positioning of the legs in this one.

Antoine François Gerard

* 1st quarter 19th century, Prudence

Medium: Plaster
Items: Mirror, serpent
Dress: Dress, drapery
Hair: Up
Posture: Standing, facing away (rear view); holding snake up in one hand. In profile, looking away from mirror
Setting: Mirror is "mounted" behind Prudence. No background.
Figures: Prudence
Notes:
- None

Jean-Baptiste Mauzaisse

* 1826-1827, The Divine Wisdom giving laws to kings and legislators, surrounded by the Fair and Prudence

Medium: Painting on ceiling
Items: Mirror, owl?
Dress: Dress
Hair: Largely covered by helmet
Posture: Seated, with mirror held in one hand, resting on same arm.
Setting: Elaborate setting. Here Prudence is used as a complementary figure to support Wisdom.
Figures: Several
Notes:
- I don't know if the owl belongs to Prudence, or it happens to be near her. I can't remember her being associated to an owl anywhere else (I've seen an eagle, and maybe a dove, but not an owl)

Jean-Jacques Elshoecht

* 1841, Prudence

Medium: Relief in oak
Items: Torch
Dress: Nude torso, dress blow hips
Hair: Up
Posture: Standing, holding torch low in one hand, dress up (behind) in other hand. Looking in profile at sphynx to her right.
Setting: Before an arch. There is a sphynx to her right, sitting atop a column. There is a smaller column before the sphynx's column, which has "Consilium ante rem" written upon it. There is a cherub standing beside Prudence.
Figures: Prudence, sphynx, cherub
Notes:
- First use of sphynx I've seen with Prudence, if it is indeed a sphynx
- "Consilium ante rem" would mean "think before you act"?

Eloi Firmin Feron

* 2nd quarter of the 19th century, Prudence

Medium: Monochrome
Items: Mirror?
Dress: Dress, drapery
Hair: Largely covered by scarf
Posture: Seated, holding mirror up in both hands?, looking into mirror?
Setting: Layered; the image of Prudence is simply Prudence sitting with mirror?, no background. This image is framed in an elaborate frame, flanked on either side by a cherub and a lion? (all meant to be part of the frame). The frame image also has a background, which is meant to be a mantle? with ornate decorative carvings above, and different figurative scenes below.
Figures: For our purposes, Prudence
Notes:
- None

Jean-Auguste Barre

* 1858 - 1860, Prudence

Medium: Bronze sculpture
Items: Serpent
Dress: Dress, with one shoulder and breast exposed
Hair: Down
Posture: Standing, leaning on column with serpent wrapped around it
Setting: The Four Cardinal Virtues are each displayed around a obelisk?
Figures: The Four Cardinal Virtues
Notes:
- None

Unknown

* 19th century, Allegory of Prudence and Allegory of the Faith

Medium: Gray ink, brown wash, red pencil
Items: Mirror (reflection of face, but position is confusing)
Dress: Dress
Hair: Up
Posture: Standing, holding mirror low in one hand
Setting: None
Figures: Prudence
Notes:
- Very cartoonish. Prudence may be an old woman?

Unknown

* 19th century, Christ Allegory of Prudence

Medium: Gray ink, gray wash
Items: Mirror, serpent
Dress: Dress, drapery
Hair: Up, largely covered by hood
Posture: Standing on platform, holding mirror up in one hand, serpent low in the other
Setting: None
Figures: Prudence
Notes:
- There is an image of Christ next to Prudence, but I do not think the two images are necessarily meant to be considered as one piece

Achille Benouville

* 19th century, Survey after an ancient statue of Athena

Medium: Graphite, paper
Items: Ball (orbis terrarum?)
Dress: Dress and drapery
Hair: Up, and braided down
Posture: Standing on a platform; one hand holding orb up, other holding braid which hangs over one shoulder
Setting: None
Figures: Prudence
Notes:
- The only reason to believe this figure is Prudence is because the site's author has stated that the platform identifies the figure as Prudence; however, I can't make out the writing so I wouldn't have known otherwise

Images I've not found yet:
- I know that in St. Peter's Basilica, in the Alexander VII monument, there is a statue of Prudence by Cartari, but I've not been able to find a photo that clearly displays her (the photos I've found are usually all from the same angle, and she happens to be behind another figure).
- Sir Joshua Reynolds has a Prudence which is used as a basis for the Prudential logo, but I can't find an actual image of his work (only references to it).
- Unknown artist, Integrity and Prudence over Vice

Beck Underground

2010-04-15T07:21:00.000-07:00

Have a mellow pair for you today, because it is that kind of Thursday morning.

First up, Velvet Underground's "Countess from Hong Kong".

Next, we have Beck's "Beautiful Way".

Yep. Dig it.

Another Triple

2010-03-21T22:04:00.003-07:00

Start with The Futureheads - Hounds of Love

Then go to Alphabeat - Fascination

And end up with Dunprooofin’ – Alphaboot

I Wish... I Could... I Could've Been

2010-02-22T23:08:00.002-07:00

This has been out for a while now, but I hadn't heard it until today. I can't quite put my finger on why, but I really dig this song.

The artist is "The Rodeo" (aka Dorothée), and the song is "I Could".

This song in a way reminds me of Nick Drake's "One Of These Things First"...

which always reminds me of Pearl Jam's "Wishlist".

Yep. That's alright by me.

Lent 2010

2010-02-18T07:42:00.000-07:00

Starting to get scarce around here again, so I thought I'd just post a quick one to make sure I keep updating semi-regularly, even if it is with nothing grand.

The Lenten season is back again. Yesterday was Ash Wednesday... a day of fasting and abstinence. I usually do a full fast; i.e., I don't eat all day. By the end of the day, I was really hungry. It took me about half an hour to get to sleep last night because I couldn't stop thinking about the food I was going to have today. Sure it is a small thing, especially when considering that I was uncomfortable for a day when there are those who daily live with much worse, but it is a small sacrifice that I can offer up.

I've been thinking of what else I could do this season, and I've decided that every day I will pray the Chaplet of Divine Mercy. I've been praying the Rosary daily for about a month now, and I'm hoping that if I get used to also saying the Chaplet during this season, I may end up making it a permanent part of my daily prayer life.

For the sake of His sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world.

Have a good Lent all. I'll talk to you soon.

It's Not Me, It's You

2010-01-22T07:42:00.000-07:00

I used to argue that it wasn't that I didn't get it, it was that I didn't like it.

Then I gave it some more thought... could it really be possible for me to dislike so much? Maybe I really didn't get it.

But now I know that I was right all along. I get it. I just don't like it.

Haiti

2010-01-13T08:32:00.000-07:00

My thoughts and prayers are with the people of Haiti.

O, Perdurable Shame

2010-01-08T16:59:00.000-07:00

This report came out last November: Report by Commission of Investigation into Catholic Archdiocese of Dublin.

From the report:

1.8 The Commission received information about complaints, suspicions or knowledge of child sexual abuse in respect of 172 named priests and 11 unnamed priests. (Some or all of the 11 unnamed priests may, of course, be included in the 172 named priests.) After a preliminary examination, the Commission concluded that 102 of these priests were within remit.

1.9 It is important in the Commission's view not to equate the number of complaints with the actual instances of child sexual abuse. While a significant number of the priests against whom allegations were made admitted child sexual abuse, some denied it. Of those investigated by the Commission, one priest admitted to sexually abusing over 100 children, while another accepted that he had abused on a fortnightly basis during the currency of his ministry which lasted for over 25 years. The total number of documented complaints recorded against those two priests is just over 70. In another case, there is only one complaint but the priest has admitted to abusing at least six other children.

1.10 The Commission examined complaints in respect of over 320 children against the 46 priests in the representative sample. Substantially more of the complaints relate to boys - the ratio is 2.3 boys to 1 girl.

1.11 Of the 46 priests examined, 11 pleaded guilty to or were convicted in the criminal courts of sexual assaults on children.

I had planned on writing a bit on this, but upon review of what I've written, it seemed inappropriate. From my perspective, I can't help but feel that the local Church has failed the victims and the universal Church. I also can't help but feel that the universal Church failed the local. From my reading of Chapter 4, it seems that had the established rules and procedures been made clear and properly followed, much of this could have been prevented. This is where my commentary focused, but I can't find the phrasing to say what I want to say without it sounding like I'm trying to whitewash the horrendous events. So I ask that if you read the report, you pay careful attention to Chapter 4, and I'll say no more.

This article came out earlier this week: The Crisis of Juvenile Prison Rape: A New Report.

From the article (emphasis mine):

Reporters in Texas, in 2007, discovered that more than 750 juvenile detainees across the state had alleged sexual abuse by staff over the previous six years. That number, however, was generally thought to under-represent the true extent of such abuse, because most children were too afraid to report it: staff commonly instructed their favorite inmates to beat up kids who complained. Even when the kids did file complaints, they knew it wouldn’t do them much good. Staff covered for each other, grievance processes were sabotaged and evidence was frequently destroyed. Officials in Austin ignored what they heard, and in the very rare instances when staff were fired and their cases referred to local prosecutors, those prosecutors usually refused to act. Not one employee of the Texas Youth Commission during that six-year period was sent to prison for raping the children in his or her care.

Until now, when such stories have made it into the press, officials have been able to contend that they reflected anomalous failings of a particular facility or system. But a report released this morning by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) should change that. Mandated by the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 (PREA), and easily the largest and most authoritative study of the problem ever conducted, it makes clear that sexual abuse in juvenile detention is a national crisis.

This is a difficult problem to measure, since some inmates make false claims, and some, fearing retaliation even when promised anonymity, choose not to report abuse. Overall, most experts believe that the numbers such studies produce are usually too low. But 12.1 percent of kids taking the BJS survey across the country said they’d been sexually abused at their current facility during the preceding year. That’s approximately 3,220 out of the 26,550 who were eligible to take it.

The survey, however, was given only at large facilities that held youth that have been tried for some offense for at least ninety days. That’s more restrictive than it may sound. In total, according to the most recent data, there are nearly 93,000 kids in juvenile detention on any given day. Although we can’t assume that 12.1 percent of the larger number were sexually abused—many kids not covered by the survey are held for short periods of time, or in small facilities where rates of abuse are somewhat lower—we can say confidently that the BJS’s 3,320 figure represents only a small fraction of the juveniles sexually abused in detention every year.

I would guess that there would be those who say that this would be expected in such places. I would also guess that there would be those who say that this is additional incentive to not find oneself there. But regardless of what these children did, and let's remind ourselves that they are children, they certainly do not deserve this. These are children left in the government's care, and the government has failed them. And if indeed the government is of, by, and for the people, what can we say of our own failings?

I've been asked in the past how I can remain a member of a Church that has allowed the rampant abuse of children, and it seems that those who ask aren't really interested in hearing my response. I wonder if now I'll be asked how I could support a government with similar failings.

2010

2010-01-01T14:18:00.003-07:00

I wake up this morning and look at the clock. 11 o'clock.

We went out last night to celebrate the New Year's arrival. Actually, the plan was to go out for just a bit and then head back and spend the rest of the night at the home base. We had bought enough alcohol to make for a happy celebration, and since I only have a couple when I'm out (no drunk driving for us, thank you), I had wanted to return home and get my drink on. But we had a pretty good time and before we knew it, midnight had come. We wound up getting home shortly after two, and I got to sleep shortly after three.

I woke up this morning at 11.

For you non-Catholics out there (who actually still come by here), January 1st is a Holy Day of Obligation for us. I myself am an afternoon/evening Mass kind of guy, and on New Year's Day that is especially true. So I go online and try to find an evening Mass to go to (being 11 o'clock, an afternoon Mass would be cutting it close). I failed, however, to remember a sort of gag that the clergy seems to play on parishioners... on this day, evening Masses are very rare. Every parish in town seemed to have an 8 am Mass, but I couldn't find anything after 1 pm. In fact, I only was able to find two 12pm Masses. One was 45 minutes away, and the other was at a parish I told myself I would never go to again.

Why wouldn't I go there again? A few years ago I wound up attending Mass there on the 4th of July. In the middle of Mass, they stopped to say the Pledge of Allegiance. That really doesn't fly with me, so I left with the intention of never returning.

But now I was left with either being very late (because I hadn't even started getting ready, and that would take a few minutes) or going somewhere I had dubious feelings towards. Putting those feelings aside, I got ready and went.

I wound up attending a bilingual Mass, which I'm really not fond of. I'm fine with a Mass in either English or Spanish, but I just don't like the mix-and-match approach of the bilingual Mass. It just seems too cutesy, as we sing verse one in one language and switch to another for the next verse. I'm all for inclusion, but if we had Mass in Latin we'd avoid the need for cleverness altogether. Just sayin'.

The point of this all? Don't really have one. I just want to start blogging more this year, and what better way than to start by blogging during the first spare moment I have this year?

Deo Gratias, Indeed!

2009-07-23T22:17:00.003-07:00

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

2009-06-19T15:04:00.002-07:00

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

2009-05-11T15:28:00.000-07:00

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

2009-05-06T07:24:00.001-07:00

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

2009-05-05T08:13:00.003-07:00

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

2009-04-23T23:04:00.000-07:00

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

2009-04-22T15:52:00.004-07:00

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.

Via Crucis, 2009

2009-04-11T06:11:00.000-07:00

From Vatican Radio, Address of his holiness Benedict XVI at the end of the Way of the Cross at the Colosseum:

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

At the end of his dramatic Passion narrative, the Evangelist Saint Mark tells us: "The centurion, who stood facing him, saw that he thus breathed his last, and said: ‘Truly this man was the Son of God!’" (Mk 15:39). We cannot fail to be surprised by the profession of faith of this Roman soldier, who had been present throughout the various phases of the Crucifixion. When the darkness of night was falling on that Friday so unlike any other in history, when the sacrifice of the Cross was already consummated and the bystanders were making haste to celebrate the Jewish Passover in the usual way, these few words, wrung from the lips of a nameless commander in the Roman army, resounded through the silence that surrounded that most singular death. This Roman army officer, having witnessed the execution of one of countless condemned prisoners, was able to recognize in this crucified man the Son of God, who had perished in the most humiliating abandonment. His shameful end ought to have marked the definitive triumph of hatred and death over love and life. But it was not so! Hanging from the Cross on Golgotha was a man who was already dead, but that man was acknowledged to be the "Son of God" by the centurion, "on seeing that he thus breathed his last", as the Evangelist specifies.

We are reminded of this soldier’s profession of faith every time we listen anew to Saint Mark’s Passion account. This evening, like the centurion, we pause to gaze on the lifeless face of the Crucified One at the conclusion of this traditional Via Crucis which, through radio and television coverage, has brought many people together from every part of the world. We have re-lived the tragic event of a man unique in the history of all times, who changed the world not by killing others but by letting himself be killed as he hung from a cross. This man, seemingly one of us, who while he was being killed forgave his executioners, is the "Son of God", who, as the Apostle Paul reminds us, "did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant … he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross" (Phil 2:7-8).

The anguish of the Passion of the Lord Jesus cannot fail to move to pity even the most hardened hearts, as it constitutes the climax of the revelation of God’s love for each of us. Saint John observes: "God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have eternal life" (Jn 3:16). It is for love of us that Christ dies on the cross! Throughout the course of the millennia, a great multitude of men and women have been drawn deeply into this mystery and they have followed him, making in their turn, like him and with his help, a gift to others of their own lives. They are the saints and the martyrs, many of whom remain unknown to us. Even in our own time, how many people, in the silence of their daily lives, unite their sufferings with those of the Crucified One and become apostles of a true spiritual and social renewal! What would man be without Christ? Saint Augustine observes: “You would still be in a state of wretchedness, had He not shown you mercy. You would not have returned to life, had He not shared your death. You would have passed away had He not come to your aid. You would be lost, had He not come” (Discourse 185:1). So why not welcome him into our lives?

Let us pause this evening to contemplate his disfigured face: it is the face of the Man of sorrows, who took upon himself the burden of all our mortal anguish. His face is reflected in that of every person who is humiliated and offended, sick and suffering, alone, abandoned and despised. Pouring out his blood, he has rescued us from the slavery of death, he has broken the solitude of our tears, he has entered into our every grief and our every anxiety.

Brothers and Sisters! As the Cross rises up on Golgotha, the eyes of our faith are already turned towards the dawning of the new Day, and we begin to taste the joy and splendour of Easter. "If we have died with Christ", writes Saint Paul, "we believe that we shall also live with Him" (Rom 6:8). In this certainty, let us continue our journey. Tomorrow, on Holy Saturday, we will watch and pray together with Mary, the Sorrowful Virgin, preparing ourselves in this way to celebrate the wonder of the Lord’s resurrection at the solemn Easter Vigil.

I wish all of you, even now, a Happy Easter in the light of the Risen Lord!

Greedo Shot First

2009-04-08T08:22:00.000-07:00

And the hits just keep on coming:

John Holdren told The Associated Press in his first interview since being confirmed last month that the idea of geoengineering the climate is being discussed. One such extreme option includes shooting pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun's rays. Holdren said such an experimental measure would only be used as a last resort.

Waitaminnit... I thought we were s'posed to wait to scorch the sky until after the main AI spawned a race of intelligent machines. Did someone not read the script?

A Plethora Of Piñatas

2009-03-08T13:12:00.004-07:00

I'm excited. Geeking out, to be precise.

It started with this article, Wolfram Alpha — it’s like plugging into an electronic brain:

Scientist Stephen Wolfram has built a new engine, called Wolfram Alpha, that apparently can compute answers to factual questions more powerfully than Google.

Wolfram has just posted about the effort, which has taken years of working in stealth, and involves more than a hundred workers. He explains the basics of how his "computational knowledge engine" works: You ask it factual questions (such as "How many protons are in a hydrogen atom?") and it computes answers for you.

Many details about the engine, scheduled to launch in May, have yet to be released. However, Wolfram has shown the engine to search engine expert Nova Spivack. In a long post, Spivack calls the effort "almost absurdly ambitious" but concludes that it works, and claims that the engine has the potential to touch our lives as deeply as Google.

From Wolfram's blog:

Fifty years ago, when computers were young, people assumed that they’d quickly be able to handle all these kinds of things.

And that one would be able to ask a computer any factual question, and have it compute the answer.

But it didn’t work out that way. Computers have been able to do many remarkable and unexpected things. But not that.

I’d always thought, though, that eventually it should be possible. And a few years ago, I realized that I was finally in a position to try to do it.

...

It’s certainly the most complex project I’ve ever undertaken. Involving far more kinds of expertise—and more moving parts—than I’ve ever had to assemble before.

And—like Mathematica, or NKS—the project will never be finished.

But I’m happy to say that we’ve almost reached the point where we feel we can expose the first part of it.

It’s going to be a website: www.wolframalpha.com. With one simple input field that gives access to a huge system, with trillions of pieces of curated data and millions of lines of algorithms.

We’re all working very hard right now to get Wolfram|Alpha ready to go live.

I think it’s going to be pretty exciting. A new paradigm for using computers and the web.

That almost gets us to what people thought computers would be able to do 50 years ago!

And finally the peice by Nova Spivack, Wolfram Alpha is Coming -- and It Could be as Important as Google:

In a nutshell, Wolfram and his team have built what he calls a "computational knowledge engine" for the Web. OK, so what does that really mean? Basically it means that you can ask it factual questions and it computes answers for you.

It doesn't simply return documents that (might) contain the answers, like Google does, and it isn't just a giant database of knowledge, like the Wikipedia. It doesn't simply parse natural language and then use that to retrieve documents, like Powerset, for example.

Instead, Wolfram Alpha actually computes the answers to a wide range of questions -- like questions that have factual answers such as "What country is Timbuktu in?" or "How many protons are in a hydrogen atom?" or "What is the average rainfall in Seattle this month?," "What is the 300th digit of Pi?," "where is the ISS?" or "When was GOOG worth more than $300?"

Think about that for a minute. It computes the answers. Wolfram Alpha doesn't simply contain huge amounts of manually entered pairs of questions and answers, nor does it search for answers in a database of facts. Instead, it understands and then computes answers to certain kinds of questions.

...

Wolfram Alpha is like plugging into a vast electronic brain. It provides extremely impressive and thorough answers to a wide range of questions asked in many different ways, and it computes answers, it doesn't merely look them up in a big database.

In this respect it is vastly smarter than (and different from) Google. Google simply retrieves documents based on keyword searches. Google doesn't understand the question or the answer, and doesn't compute answers based on models of various fields of human knowledge.

But as intelligent as it seems, Wolfram Alpha is not HAL 9000, and it wasn't intended to be. It doesn't have a sense of self or opinions or feelings. It's not artificial intelligence in the sense of being a simulation of a human mind. Instead, it is a system that has been engineered to provide really rich knowledge about human knowledge -- it's a very powerful calculator that doesn't just work for math problems -- it works for many other kinds of questions that have unambiguous (computable) answers.

There is no risk of Wolfram Alpha becoming too smart, or taking over the world. It's good at answering factual questions; it's a computing machine, a tool -- not a mind.

One of the most surprising aspects of this project is that Wolfram has been able to keep it secret for so long. I say this because it is a monumental effort (and achievement) and almost absurdly ambitious. The project involves more than a hundred people working in stealth to create a vast system of reusable, computable knowledge, from terabytes of raw data, statistics, algorithms, data feeds, and expertise. But he appears to have done it, and kept it quiet for a long time while it was being developed.

Did I mention that I was geeking out?

What Are You, An Idiot?

2009-03-03T01:01:00.003-07:00

So I'm watching TV and I see a commercial for a product called Crestor that is supposed to reduce the plaque in your arteries. This drug is brought to you by the good folks at AstraZeneca.

I did a quick Google and found out that AstraZeneca has, on a few occasions, partnered with Proctor & Gamble on various drugs (nonprescription, from what I've seen).

Now, Proctor & Gamble own Crest... the toothpaste. You know, the stuff that gets rid of plaque.

So I ask... is it a coincidence that both Crest and Crestor get rid of plaque? I think not.

Someone please be kind enough to look into this and get back to me. I'm a bit concerned that there's something going on here.

The Other Half

2009-02-18T07:30:00.000-07:00

I was watching American Idol last night (yeah, I watch it... shaddap), and during one of the performances, I got to thinking about how some songs only work from certain perspectives, and if you tweak the perspective, something that is really cool could turn into something that's kinda assholish.

In this case, I was watching one of the girls sing Aretha Franklin's "A Natural Woman". A very popular song, and it's a very good song. My thoughts were kicked off by the line, "before the day I met you, life was so unkind". It was the "I met you" part that did it, really; and the word "you" that is the true culprit. The "you" implies that she's singing to someone. Let's call this someone Joe. So here's Aretha, singing this song to Joe... "Before the day I met you (Joe), life was so unkind".

What if Joe turned around and sang this song back to Aretha? Same song... her sentiment, but from his perspective. It would go something like this:

Looking out on the morning rain
You used to feel so uninspired
And when you knew you had to face another day
Lord, it made you feel so tired
Before the day you met me, your life was so unkind
But I'm the key to your peace of mind

Cause I make you feel, I make you feel, I make you feel
Like a natural woman

Something tells me that this version of the song wouldn't climb very high on the charts. Just the same, I would get a huge laugh if someone recorded this version.

This Is Just Too Funny

2009-02-17T08:07:00.000-07:00

I'd Be The Worst Pope Ever

2009-02-07T16:20:00.004-07:00

There's a saying that not a lot of folks want to become priests but that everyone wants to be pope. After the events of this last month, I think it'd be safe to say that I'm not qualified for that job. (Ok, ok... it was clear long before this... the whole "huge sinner" thing kinda threw a kink in those plans)

Its no secret that I've not been a fan of the SSPX. If you've been following this blog, you may have found me taking subtle (and some not so subtle) digs at them over the years. The truth is, I agree with them on a good number of their positions. There are also a handful of positions where I can understand the SSPX position, and I find myself out of my depth with respect to the critical points of the discussion (and most of these "critical points" seem to be the most contested part of the debate). However, the place where I draw the line is disobedience. My own observations have been that there has been a persistent, obstinate and arrogant defiance on the part of the SSPX against the Holy See, and that just doesn't fly 'round these parts.

That said, I was on the fence when I first heard rumors that the Holy Father was going to rescind the excommunications of the four SSPX bishops. My opinion of the SSPX as being obstinate and arrogant made me doubtful that full and true reconciliation would come, since this would be dependent on positive moves by the SSPX (and to be fair, by Rome as well). But I have a tremendous amount of respect for the discernment of the Holy Father, and so I took a "wait and see" attitude when the excommunications were finally lifted.

When discussing these excommunications, it is important to understand why they occurred and why they were lifted. That conversation is a long one and quite beyond the scope of what I want to discuss here, but we can hit some highlights.

First, Rorate has the text of the original 1988 Decree (emphasis mine):

DECREE OF THE CONGREGATION FOR BISHOPS

Monsignor Marcel Lefebvre, Archbishop-Bishop Emeritus of Tulle, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning of 17 June last and the repeated appeals to desist from his intention, has performed a schismatical act by the episcopal consecration of four priests, without pontifical mandate and contrary to the will of the Supreme Pontiff, and has therefore incurred the penalty envisaged by Canon 1364, paragraph 1, and canon 1382 of the Code of Canon Law.

Having taken account of all the juridical effects, I declare that the above-mentioned Monsignor Marcel Lefebvre, and Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta have incurred ipso facto excommunication latae sententiae reserved to the Apostolic See.

Moreover, I declare that Monsignor Antonio de Castro Mayer, Bishop emeritus of Campos, since he took part directly in the liturgical celebration as co-consecrator and adhered publicly to the schismatical act, has incurred excommunication latae sententiae as envisaged by canon 1364, paragraph 1.

The priests and faithful are warned not to support the schism of Monsignor Lefebvre, otherwise they shall incur ipso facto the very grave penalty of excommunication.

From the Office of the Congregation for Bishops, 1 July 1988.

Cardinal Bernardin Gantin
Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops

Next, we can look at the text of the January 2009 decree, also from Rorate (emphasis mine):

CONGREGATIO PRO EPISCOPIS

By way of a letter of December 15, 2008 addressed to His Eminence Cardinal Dario Castrillón Hoyos, President of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, Mons. Bernard Fellay, also in the name of the other three Bishops consecrated on June 30, 1988, requested anew the removal of the latae sententiae excommunication formally declared with the Decree of the Prefect of this Congregation on July 1, 1988. In the aforementioned letter, Mons. Fellay affirms, among other things: "We are always firmly determined in our will to remain Catholic and to place all our efforts at the service of the Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ, which is the Roman Catholic Church. We accept its teachings with filial disposition. We believe firmly in the Primacy of Peter and in its prerogatives, and for this the current situation makes us suffer so much."

...

Based on the faculties expressly granted to me by the Holy Father Benedict XVI, in virtue of the present Decree, I remit from Bishops Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson, and Alfonso de Galarreta the censure of latae sententiae excommunication declared by this Congregation on July 1, 1988, while I declare deprived of any juridical effect, from the present date, the Decree emanated at that time.

Rome, from the Congregation for Bishops, January 21, 2009.

Card. Giovanni Battista Re
Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops

The facts are important:

a) The excommunications occurred as a consequence of the four bishops being ordained "without pontifical mandate and contrary to the will of the Supreme Pontiff" (at the time, Pope John Paul II).

b) Both sides have wanted reconciliation, but there have been obstacles (e.g., debates over some of the teachings of the Second Vatican Council)

c) The lifting of the excommunications was an act of mercy by Pope Benedict XVI. Father Z has posted a translation of a Wednesday audience given by the Pope:

...I decided, a few days ago, to grant the remission of the excommunication in which the four bishops ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988, without pontifical mandate, had incurred. I fulfilled this act of fatherly mercy because those prelates repeatedly manifested to me their deep suffering for the situation in which they found themselves. I hope that this gesture of mine will be followed by the solicitous effort by them to accomplish the ulterior steps necessary to accomplish full communion with the Church, thus testifying true fidelity and true recognition of the Magisterium and of the authority of the Pope and of the Second Vatican Council.

d) The remission of the excommunications was a first step in the process of the SSPX coming into full communion with the Church, but alone it is not sufficient to grant the SSPX full canonical recognition within the Church. As the Secretariate of State noted (again, via Rorate) (emphasis mine):

The removal of the excommunication released the four Bishops from an extremely grave canonical censure, but has not changed the juridical position of the Fraternity of Saint Pius X, which, at the current moment, does not enjoy any canonical recognition by the Catholic Church. Not even the four Bishops, though released from the excommunication, have a canonical function in the Church and they do not exercise licitly a ministry in it.

Father Z discusses this in more detail (I'll summarize, but you should check out his article for a detailed explanation):

...
VERY LITTLE HAS CHANGED JURIDICALLY except in the status of those four bishops.
...
Q: Is the SSPX now legitimate?
Not in a juridical sense, no. ...

Q: Are the chapels of the SSPX okay now?
Not in a juridical, legal sense, no. ...

Q: Is it okay for the SSPX bishops to ordain now?
No. ...

Q: Are the priests of the SSPX in good standing now?
Not yet they aren’t. ...

That is... as things stood, the SSPX bishops were excommunicated and were not permitted to function as bishops. As things now stand, the SSPX bishops are no longer excommunicated, but are still not permitted to function as bishops.

(There are a whole bunch of subtle things going on here, and some are quite frankly out of my depth. For instance, I understand that the consecration of these men was valid, even though they were done against the will of Pope JPII. My understanding is that their functioning as bishops compounded their "state of sin"; that is, they had no authority to perform as bishops, and by doing so, they dug themselves deeper. My understanding is that they are still today behaving as bishops, even though they are not allowed and have no real authority to do so... and I'm really unsure of what repercussions this has.)

What has followed the lifting of the excommunications has been a mess on one hand, and (hopefully) a blessing on another.

I. The Mess

The mess comes from all sorts of angles.

The most publicized aspect comes in the form of Bishop Williamson being a Holocaust denier. Here's an interview that he gave shortly before the excommunications were lifted:

Shortly after the excommunications were lifted, folks couldn't speak out against the Pope quickly enough. From Reuters :Elie Wiesel attacks pope over Holocaust bishop

Pope Benedict has given credence to "the most vulgar aspect of anti-Semitism" by rehabilitating a Holocaust-denying bishop, said Elie Wiesel, the death camp survivor, author and Nobel Peace Prize winner.

...

"One thing is clear. This move by the pope surely will not help us fight anti-Semitism. Quite the opposite," he said.

We also had: Israel's chief rabbinate severs ties with Vatican:

Israel's chief rabbinate severed ties with the Vatican on Wednesday to protest a papal decision to reinstate a bishop who publicly denied 6 million Jews were killed during the Holocaust. The Jewish state's highest religious authority sent a letter to the Holy See expressing "sorrow and pain" at the papal decision.

Note the language, "reinstate a bishop", and compare that to what the Secretariat of State said, "The removal of the excommunication released the four Bishops from an extremely grave canonical censure, but has not changed the juridical position of the Fraternity of Saint Pius X, which, at the current moment, does not enjoy any canonical recognition by the Catholic Church".

Here, I think, is the main problem in the non-Catholic understanding of events (and even amongst some Catholics). The lifting of Bp. Williamson's excommunication is seen as the reinstatement of his as a bishop with full rights within the Church... it is seen as an open-armed embrace of the man. We've seen that this is far from the case.

What I find surprising is the sentiment Reuters attributed to Wiesel... that the "rehabilitating" of "a Holocaust-denying bishop" is a bad thing. Now, I may be missing something, but shouldn't dialog, education, and rehabilitation be goals in this situation?

Criticism of the Pope was not reserved for non-Catholics. As Reuters reports: Top cardinal says Vatican botched Holocaust affair:

The cardinal in charge of relations with Jews has acknowledged that the Vatican handled the rehabilitation of a Holocaust-denying bishop very badly and complained that Pope Benedict did not consult him.

"There wasn't enough talking with each other in the Vatican and there are no longer checks to see where problems could arise," said Cardinal Walter Kasper in a blunt interview with Vatican Radio's German programme, broadcast on Monday night.

...

"This and other controversies point to a fatal systemic flaw in the Benedict papacy that is destroying his effectiveness as pope: He does not consult experts who might challenge his views and inclinations," said Father Tom Reese, senior fellow at the Woodstock Theological Centre at Georgetown University.

I'll tread carefully here. If Cardinal Kasper meant that from a public relations perspective, then I would understand his statements. It very well may be that had there been more widespread communication of the lifting of the excommunications, Bp. Williamson's beliefs may have been known well ahead of time and much of the hoopla could have been curtailed, or at least addressed in advance. If His Eminence is saying that a little head's-up would have been appreciated, then I can certainly understand.

However, if His Eminence by stating that "There wasn't enough talking with each other in the Vatican" is expressing the same sentiment as Fr. Reese when he said, "This and other controversies point to a fatal systemic flaw in the Benedict papacy that is destroying his effectiveness as pope: He does not consult experts who might challenge his views and inclinations", then I would have to question their true intent. Do they question the Holy Father's intent to further discussion with the SSPX? Or is it his act of mercy they have a problem with? Are they suggesting that mercy should not be extended because of a publicity problem? More on this in a bit.

As the criticism mounted, there were some (in the media and otherwise) who started making an oddball connection: since the Pope was embracing a Holocaust denier, he must be anti-Semetic. He is German after all. And he was in the "Hitler Youth" too. Dun-dun-duunnn.

The Holy Father tried to put people's hearts at rest. As Zenit reports, Benedict XVI Expresses Solidarity With Jews:

Benedict XVI expressed solidarity with Jews and strongly condemned the use of concentration camps during World War II in his response to the uproar caused by lifting the excommunication of a holocaust-denying bishop.

...

"Today the Pontiff acknowledged the horror of the Holocaust, and especially the death camps such as Auschwitz, which he said "carried out the brutal massacre of millions of Jews, innocent victims of a blind racial and religious hate."

The Pope expressed his "hope that the memory of the Shoah moves humanity to reflect on the unpredictable power of evil when it conquers the human heart," and that the Holocaust "be for everyone a warning against forgetting, against negating or reductionism, because violence committed against even one human being is violence against all."

"No man is an island," Benedict XVI continued, referring to the English Poet John Donne (1571-1631).

"May the Shoah teach especially, as much the old generations as the new ones, that only the tiring path of listening and dialogue, of love and pardon, leads peoples, cultures and religions of the world to the desired encounter of fraternity and peace in the world," he said. "May violence never again humiliate the dignity of man!"

What was the response? Ansa reports, Israeli Jews welcome pope's words (emphasis mine):

The director general of the Chief Rabbinate, Oded Wiener, later told ANSA that the pope's words were "a great step forwards in resolving this question". "His statements were very important for us and for the whole world," he added.

...

In regard to the decision to lift the excommunications, Wiener told ANSA that the Rabbinate "has no desire, cannot and has no interest" in interfering in church affairs.

However, he added, the case of Bishop Williamson had taken on additional meaning in the wake of a new surge in anti-Semitism and a growing number of deniers "especially in Germany.

Lifting Williamson's excommunication within a week of his reiterating his views on the Shoah and the marking of International Holocaust Remembrance Day, Wiener explained, "demonstrated a lack of sensitivity which had repercussions throughout the Jewish world". The Society of St Pius X was created in 1970 by late dissident French Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre who broke with Rome over the changes made at the Second Vatican Council, the ground-breaking meeting of all the world's Catholic bishops in the early 1960s. Among the changes the group opposed was the decision to celebrate Mass in local languages rather than Latin and state that Jews today should not be blamed for the death of Christ.

This is curious. On the one hand, "the Rabbinate 'has no desire, cannot and has no interest' in interfering in church affairs", but on the other hand, they have a definite interest in Church activities and will protest those things they do not like. On the one hand, they claim that the Church "demonstrated a lack of sensitivity which had repercussions throughout the Jewish world", but on the other hand, they do not seem to consider the reasons behind the lifting of the excommunication. The worst was assumed (by many agencies and individuals) and that is the story they ran with.

Rabbi Irwin Kula has a better way of phrasing things (via Newsweek), Jewish Reaction to Pope Disproportionate:

...
How is it that the view of some cranky bishop who has no power evokes calls of a crisis in Catholic - Jewish relations despite the revolutionary changes in Church teachings regarding Jews since Vatican II?

...

How about cutting a Pope, who we know along with the previous Pope is probably amongst the most historically sensitive Popes to the issues of anti-Semitism, Holocaust, and the relationship to Judaism and Jews, a little slack given how he is trying to heal his own community.
...

And isn't it possible that bringing Richard Williamson back inside the Church may actually influence him to see how wrong he is on this issue given how clear the Church is regarding the Holocaust and its commitment to Catholic -Jewish relations? After all the Pope himself said, "I hope my gesture is followed by the hoped-for commitment on their part to take the further steps necessary to realize full communion with the Church, thus witnessing true fidelity, and true recognition of the magisterium and the authority of the pope and of the Second Vatican Council." There is no way to read this other than to conclude that to be fully reinstated in the Catholic Church, all those who have passed the first test must now clear the big hurdle: either accept what the Catholic Church teaches or remain on the sidelines. And what the Church teaches, among other things, is the necessity of respecting Jews.

As I mentioned, the Bp. Williamson debacle is only one aspect of the mess over the lifting of the excommunications. Another aspect is the liberal Catholics just not getting it.

Consider, RCWP call on Pope to lift Excommunications:

Roman Catholic Womenpriests call on Pope Benedict to lift the decree of automatic excommunication issued on May 29, 2008 against all in our movement as a gesture of reconciliation and justice toward women in the church. As is well known, the Congregation for Bishops, instructed by the Pope, removed the excommunication of four traditionist bishops on Jan. 21, 2009. Therefore, Roman Catholic Womenpriests call on the Pope to lift the decree of excommunication against us. ...

Ok, its easy for me to get off track quickly here, just because I can rant and rave on this for days. But let's spot something key, shall we? Abp. Lefebvre consecrated four bishops contrary to the will of the Pope. The consecration of the four priests (a possible act) was valid, but their ministry was not licit, and the consecration incurred a latae sententiae excommunication. The ordination of women is an impossible act, and so it never occured; but the imitation of the act of ordination incurred a latae sententiae excommunication. The excommunicated bishops, with the lifting of their excommunications, remained bishops (granted, their ministry is still not licit, but they nonetheless remain bishops). Should the excommunication of these women ever be lifted, they would be lay Catholics... not because their ordination would have been "stripped" of them, but because it never took place to begin with. But they just don't get it... you can't become a priest just because you want to become a priest, and someone can't ordain you a priest just because they want to ordain you a priest.

But more distressing than these far-out groups are the comments of more prominent voices. For instance, consider what NPR has reported on Hans Kung:

Kung says Pope Benedict is gradually sapping the essential substance out of the reforms of the Second Vatican Council.

"He has an idea of the liturgy which is more similar to the liturgy of the Middle Ages, of the anti-Reformation time. He tries to interpret the council not forward, for having a popular liturgy, with new elements. He uses Vatican II just as a text to go backwards," Kung says.

...

And many faithful believe the church of Benedict cares more about Christian unity with conservatives than seeking dialogue with progressive Catholics and other religions.

How often have we seen the "essential substance" of Vatican II cited in modernist abuses of the liturgy? The Holy Father interprets the letter of Vatican II in light of the Tradition of the Church, and supports her evolution with respect to this Tradition.

And as for the claim that the Pope "cares more about Christian unity with conservatives than seeking dialogue with progressive Catholics and other religions", I say,... GOOD!

It boggles my mind that dialog with "other religions" could possibly be placed above bringing errant Catholics back into the fold. Don't get me wrong... this dialog is essential. But how can this compare to bringing souls back to the Church? In this case, I just don't get it.

As for the "progressive" Catholics... yes, I agree it is important to dialog with them as well. It is my opinion that much (not all) of what is wrong with the Church can be placed squarely on modernists shoulders. Dialog is imparative if we wish to stop the many liturgical abuses going on, such as...

The modernists are crying "dialog with us too!" Consider the January 28 Statement by the Permanent Council of Bishops of France (via Rorate):

...the lifting of the excommunication is not a pardon. It is the starting point on a long road that will require a precise dialogue. In any case, the Second Vatican Council will not be negotiable. No ecclesial group can serve as a substitute for the magisterium.

How do you think the modernists would respond to such a statement: dialog is possible, but that orthodoxy is required on their part? Would they so easily say, "yes, you are right"? How did the SSPX respond?

II. The Hope

As I said from the outset, I've not been a fan of the SSPX. I had very low hopes for timely full reconciliation between them and the Holy See. My opinion has always been that the SSPX were lost in arrogance and would have too hard a time finding their way back.

After the excommunications were lifted, I began seeing confirmation of this opinion, especially when I saw the SSPX media brochure about the lifting of the excommunications, which indicated that the excommunications were not valid to begin with: "the accusations of excommunication were illegitimate and thereby always null and void". (Dr. Ed Peters has a nice rebuttal to these claims: Why the original SSPX excommunications were valid)

But then I started seeing things that gave me hope.

Not only did the District Superior for Germany of the SSPX speak out against Bp. Williamson, but Bp. Fellay censured Bp. Williamson:

It must remain clear that those comments do not reflect in any way the attitude of our community. That is why I have forbidden Bishop Williamson to issue any public opinion on any political or historical matter until further notice.

Then, the big pieces started falling into place. Rorate translates an interview with Bp. Fellay from Monde & Vie (emphasis Rorate's):

In this development, this movement, some have held that you departed too late. Do you believe today that others, especially inside the Fraternity of Saint Pius X, may hold that you are departing too soon?

I cannot rule out everything, but, in case there are separations, they will be extremely minimal.

Do you believe that your situation will be first settled at a practical level?

Up to now, our roadmap has been to clarify first the doctrinal problems - even if it does not mean settling everything, but obtaining a sufficient clarification - or we risk doing things incompletely. Or it may end up badly.

This was followed by a Rorate translation of an interview with Cardinal Castrillón in Corriere della Sera:

"[Card. Castrillón:] Full communion will come. In our discussions, Bishop Fellay recognized the Second Vatican Council, he recognized it theologically. Only a few difficulties remain...[sic]"

What the heck was this post about?

I kinda lost track there for a while. I was going to talk about how I'd be the worst Pope ever. Let's recount the events and see where I'd fall short:

a) I wouldn't have lifted the excommunications. Pope Benedict did, and now the SSPX is very close to returning to full communion with Rome. If things were run my way, charity would not have been shown and both sides would be worse off; as things are now, the SSPX will return home and the Church will be stronger for it. I've indicated how my opinion of the SSPX was that they had shown a great deal of arrogance, and in retrospect, perhaps the log in my own eye caused me to unjustly generalize, particularly in regards to Bp. Fellay, to whom I feel I owe an apology.

b) I would've told all those complaining about the lifting of the excommunications to kiss off. I would've said, "can you give me a theological reason to not do it?", and when they couldn't, I would've rubbed their faces in it. The Holy Father has been gentle with his critics, both within and outside the Church, and he is slowly guiding them to reason (well, some of them, anyway).

Back in April 08, I wrote of the Mass in Washington D.C. during the Pope's visit:

I have no idea what the organizers of the Mass were thinking. Did they forget that this was Holy Mass, and not a multi-cultural musical jamboree? This Mass was an affront to Benedict's/Cdl. Ratizinger's teachings regarding the Liturgy. Did they forget that the Pope was going to be in attendance? I would find it impossible to believe that the Pope's teachings regarding Liturgical music were unfamiliar to those in charge, so I have to wonder... did they simply disregard the Pope's words and think it was no big deal, or was this a deliberate slight?
...
One thing is for sure... the Pope is now well aware of the state of the Liturgy in many of American parishes. After all, if this was the best effort they could manage for the Supreme Pontiff, what could be expected from a weekly Mass for the lay people? *sigh*

On the one hand, I'm glad he was able to see this, since I'm hoping that now he will address it.

Its taken me a bit, and I had to step back to see it: the issue of Summorum Pontificum, along with the reconciliation with SSPX, are all leading to something bigger. The Pope is showing the way back to tradition. Were it up to me, I'd have legislated the Church to death. But the Pope, by liberating and exhalting tradition, is restoring the Church.

Even if I weren't such a sinner, I wouldn't have the capacity to be Pope. Thankfully, this isn't even an issue, and all I really need is the capacity to follow the Holy Father where he may lead.

That Kind Of Day

2009-02-06T07:15:00.001-07:00

Ever just feel like you need to listen to some Bach?

Here's the third movement of Brandenburg Concerto No. 5... quite possibly my favorite piece of music ever.

Have a good day folks.

In Order To Form A More Perfect Union

2009-02-04T22:38:00.003-07:00

... and carry the one...

Yep, the numbers check out.

Showing Love...

2009-01-30T00:21:00.002-07:00

... to Olivia Munn.

Mmmmm.... Munn eating pie....

Metropolitan Kirill

2009-01-27T23:02:00.003-07:00

Metropolitan Kirill of Smolensk and Kaliningrad has been elected patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church.

My prayers go with him and his Church, that they may grow closer to returning to communion with Rome.

One Small Step

2009-01-24T11:11:00.003-07:00

The Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI has lifted the excommunications of Bishops Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson, and Alfonso de Galarreta of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X (FSSPX/SSPX).

This is just the first step of many required for the regularization of SSPX into Holy Mother Church. While I do not believe that this will be achieved very quickly (and I hope I'm wrong), I do believe that the current Pope is the best hope to push this forward.

Rorate Cæli has posted translations of the Decree of the Congregation for Bishops, as well as statements issued by the Superior General of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X.

Feel The Change

2009-01-23T17:28:00.002-07:00

Observer: But the child could've grown to be a wonderful person...

Apologist: Yes, but we've changed that.

Job done, Mr. President.

Into The Blue Again

2009-01-20T16:51:00.002-07:00

Congratulations to President Obama. To paraphrase John Wayne... I didn't support the guy, but he's my president, and I hope he does a good job.

I had the inauguration on in the background and one thing really caught my attention. After Joe Biden was sworn in, Anthony McGill, Gabriela Montero, Yo-Yo Ma and Itzhak Perlmen performed. What did they perform? A piece by John Williams.

Now, I like John Williams. Really I do. If I want a lost ark raided, or my stars warred, then he's the one I'll call (granted, if I want my beatles juiced, I'll call Danny Elfman... but you get where I'm going). But if I'm going to gather this kind of talent... I'm thinking I might want to set the bar a little higher.

UPDATE (1/23/09): Obama Inauguration Music Was Pre-Recorded

Whether you loved or hated the classical music played at President Barack Obama's inauguration, what you heard was a recording made two days earlier unless you were sitting within earshot of the celebrated performers.

Cellist Yo-Yo Ma, violinist Itzhak Perlman, pianist Gabriella Montero and clarinetist Anthony McGill made the decision a day before Tuesday's inauguration after a sound check to use a previously recorded audio tape for the broadcast of the ceremonies.

We here Under the Big Top have an exclusive follow-up. It turns out that the music was actually recorded by four young Chinese girls who were deemed to be too ugly to perform for a national audience. When the girls were informed of the decision to replace them, they complained, "You can't replace us just because you think we're ugly!" To which the administration replied, "Yes We Can!"

Life During Wartime

2009-01-17T19:51:00.003-07:00

Mark Shea has a wonderful way of putting things:

I keep having this vision of two bands of political protesters marching down the street toward one another. One is a crowd of right wing Christians cheering for the war in Gaza and yelling slogans against Palestinian propaganda featuring photos of dead kids. The other is a group of pro-abortion women cheering for Roe and Obama and shouting slogans against the Christian Right.

They meet in the middle of downtown. Tensions run high, but representatives of each group step out and face each other. They decide to tell their stories to one another.

The first group talks about how Palestinian photos of dead and massively wounded children angers them as emotional manipulation and pro-Palestinian agitprop. They complain about how terrible they feel at their portrayal as callous toward the suffering of civilians when all they want to do is make sure Israelis are safe.

The pro-abort woman softens visibly and a tear of compassion rolls down her cheek. "I know what you mean!" she says. "I feel exactly the same way about all those awful aborted baby pictures! All I've ever wanted to do is keep vulnerable women safe! I don't want to kill babies! I just want to care for hurting and frightened women!"

The leaders of both groups embrace and sob. They never saw each other as human beings before! After conferring, they decide to combine their forces and march off to the Catholic Cathedral to voice their support for "Western Values" against the forces of backwardness represented by the woman-hating, anti-semitic Catholic Church headed by the Nazi Pope who hates Israel and oppresses women.

Crisis Averted

2009-01-13T07:27:00.001-07:00

It all started with soup.

It was a pork and lentil soup, specifically. It also had onions, garlic, ginger, lemon juice, california chiles and mexican grey squash. But it was the pork that got me thinking.

Then I made tacos.

They were pork tacos, served on fried tortillas with a new mexico chile sauce. So yum.

But the whole thing just seemed wrong. Until Wikipedia straightened me out.

The dilemma was this: I was preparing my soup going through the usual steps... cut and season the pork, prepare the veggies, etc. The "season the pork" step involved me rubbing the pork down with some garlic powder, some onion powder, some oregano, some black pepper and some salt. Some kosher salt.

At first I got a chuckle out of it. I call out to Karen, "Heh, I'm putting kosher salt on pork. That's just got to be wrong."

After a while, I wasn't quite sure how funny it really was. Sure, I'm not Jewish, but there still was something that stuck in my craw. By the time I was ready to make my tacos, I felt a little crunchy about putting kosher salt on my pork.

So I did some digging into the subject... trying to figure out where such a thing stood in the great line of cosmic offenses. After all, cooks use kosher salt all the time for seasoning. I can't have been the first person to wonder if this was inappropriate.

As luck would have it, Wikipedia describes how the name "kosher salt" is a bit misleading, and that in the U.K. it is known as "koshering salt". That is, salt used in the process of koshering, but not necessarily having undergone a process itself to become kosher (turns out most salts are kosher). That makes a huge difference.

So now I'm seasoning everything from chops to loins to shoulders without a care in the world.

Crisis averted.

The Pope's Christmas Homily, 2008

2008-12-24T23:25:00.003-07:00

From Vatican Radio:

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

“Who is like the Lord our God, who is seated on high, who looks far down upon the heavens and the earth?” This is what Israel sings in one of the Psalms (113 [112], 5ff.), praising God’s grandeur as well as his loving closeness to humanity. God dwells on high, yet he stoops down to us… God is infinitely great, and far, far above us. This is our first experience of him. The distance seems infinite. The Creator of the universe, the one who guides all things, is very far from us: or so he seems at the beginning. But then comes the surprising realization: The One who has no equal, who “is seated on high”, looks down upon us. He stoops down. He sees us, and he sees me. God’s looking down is much more than simply seeing from above. God’s looking is active. The fact that he sees me, that he looks at me, transforms me and the world around me. The Psalm tells us this in the following verse: “He raises the poor from the dust…” In looking down, he raises me up, he takes me gently by the hand and helps me – me! – to rise from depths towards the heights. “God stoops down”. This is a prophetic word. That night in Bethlehem, it took on a completely new meaning. God’s stooping down became real in a way previously inconceivable. He stoops down – he himself comes down as a child to the lowly stable, the symbol of all humanity’s neediness and forsakenness. God truly comes down. He becomes a child and puts himself in the state of complete dependence typical of a newborn child. The Creator who holds all things in his hands, on whom we all depend, makes himself small and in need of human love. God is in the stable. In the Old Testament the Temple was considered almost as God’s footstool; the sacred ark was the place in which he was mysteriously present in the midst of men and women. Above the temple, hidden, stood the cloud of God’s glory. Now it stands above the stable. God is in the cloud of the poverty of a homeless child: an impenetrable cloud, and yet – a cloud of glory! How, indeed, could his love for humanity, his solicitude for us, have appeared greater and more pure? The cloud of hiddenness, the cloud of the poverty of a child totally in need of love, is at the same time the cloud of glory. For nothing can be more sublime, nothing greater than the love which thus stoops down, descends, becomes dependent. The glory of the true God becomes visible when the eyes of our hearts are opened before the stable of Bethlehem.

Saint Luke’s account of the Christmas story, which we have just heard in the Gospel, tells us that God first raised the veil of his hiddenness to people of very lowly status, people who were looked down upon by society at large – to shepherds looking after their flocks in the fields around Bethlehem. Luke tells us that they were “keeping watch”. This phrase reminds us of a central theme of Jesus’s message, which insistently bids us to keep watch, even to the Agony in the Garden – the command to stay awake, to recognize the Lord’s coming, and to be prepared. Here too the expression seems to imply more than simply being physically awake during the night hour. The shepherds were truly “watchful” people, with a lively sense of God and of his closeness. They were waiting for God, and were not resigned to his apparent remoteness from their everyday lives. To a watchful heart, the news of great joy can be proclaimed: for you this night the Saviour is born. Only a watchful heart is able to believe the message. Only a watchful heart can instil the courage to set out to find God in the form of a baby in a stable. Let us ask the Lord to help us, too, to become a “watchful” people.

Saint Luke tells us, moreover, that the shepherds themselves were “surrounded” by the glory of God, by the cloud of light. They found themselves caught up in the glory that shone around them. Enveloped by the holy cloud, they heard the angels’ song of praise: “Glory to God in the highest heavens and peace on earth to people of his good will”. And who are these people of his good will if not the poor, the watchful, the expectant, those who hope in God’s goodness and seek him, looking to him from afar?

The Fathers of the Church offer a remarkable commentary on the song that the angels sang to greet the Redeemer. Until that moment – the Fathers say – the angels had known God in the grandeur of the universe, in the reason and the beauty of the cosmos that come from him and are a reflection of him. They had heard, so to speak, creation’s silent song of praise and had transformed it into celestial music. But now something new had happened, something that astounded them. The One of whom the universe speaks, the God who sustains all things and bears them in his hands – he himself had entered into human history, he had become someone who acts and suffers within history. From the joyful amazement that this unimaginable event called forth, from God’s new and further way of making himself known – say the Fathers – a new song was born, one verse of which the Christmas Gospel has preserved for us: “Glory to God in the highest heavens and peace to his people on earth”. We might say that, following the structure of Hebrew poetry, the two halves of this double verse say essentially the same thing, but from a different perspective. God’s glory is in the highest heavens, but his high state is now found in the stable – what was lowly has now become sublime. God’s glory is on the earth, it is the glory of humility and love. And even more: the glory of God is peace. Wherever he is, there is peace. He is present wherever human beings do not attempt, apart from him, and even violently, to turn earth into heaven. He is with those of watchful hearts; with the humble and those who meet him at the level of his own “height”, the height of humility and love. To these people he gives his peace, so that through them, peace can enter this world.

The medieval theologian William of Saint Thierry once said that God – from the time of Adam – saw that his grandeur provoked resistance in man, that we felt limited in our own being and threatened in our freedom. Therefore God chose a new way. He became a child. He made himself dependent and weak, in need of our love. Now – this God who has become a child says to us – you can no longer fear me, you can only love me.

With these thoughts, we draw near this night to the child of Bethlehem – to the God who for our sake chose to become a child. In every child we see something of the Child of Bethlehem. Every child asks for our love. This night, then, let us think especially of those children who are denied the love of their parents. Let us think of those street children who do not have the blessing of a family home, of those children who are brutally exploited as soldiers and made instruments of violence, instead of messengers of reconciliation and peace. Let us think of those children who are victims of the industry of pornography and every other appalling form of abuse, and thus are traumatized in the depths of their soul. The Child of Bethlehem summons us once again to do everything in our power to put an end to the suffering of these children; to do everything possible to make the light of Bethlehem touch the heart of every man and woman. Only through the conversion of hearts, only through a change in the depths of our hearts can the cause of all this evil be overcome, only thus can the power of the evil one be defeated. Only if people change will the world change; and in order to change, people need the light that comes from God, the light which so unexpectedly entered into our night.

And speaking of the Child of Bethlehem, let us think also of the place named Bethlehem, of the land in which Jesus lived, and which he loved so deeply. And let us pray that peace will be established there, that hatred and violence will cease. Let us pray for mutual understanding, that hearts will be opened, so that borders can be opened. Let us pray that peace will descend there, the peace of which the angels sang that night.

In Psalm 96 [95], Israel, and the Church, praises God’s grandeur manifested in creation. All creatures are called to join in this song of praise, and so the Psalm also contains the invitation: “Let all the trees of the wood sing for joy before the Lord, for he comes” (v. 12ff.). The Church reads this Psalm as a prophecy and also as a task. The coming of God to Bethlehem took place in silence. Only the shepherds keeping watch were, for a moment, surrounded by the light-filled radiance of his presence and could listen to something of that new song, born of the wonder and joy of the angels at God’s coming. This silent coming of God’s glory continues throughout the centuries. Wherever there is faith, wherever his word is proclaimed and heard, there God gathers people together and gives himself to them in his Body; he makes them his Body. God “comes”. And in this way our hearts are awakened. The new song of the angels becomes the song of all those who, throughout the centuries, sing ever anew of God’s coming as a child – and rejoice deep in their hearts. And the trees of the wood go out to him and exult. The tree in Saint Peter’s Square speaks of him, it wants to reflect his splendour and to say: Yes, he has come, and the trees of the wood acclaim him. The trees in the cities and in our homes should be something more than a festive custom: they point to the One who is the reason for our joy – the God who for our sake became a child. In the end, this song of praise, at the deepest level, speaks of him who is the very tree of new-found life. Through faith in him we receive life. In the Sacrament of the Eucharist he gives himself to us – he gives us a life that reaches into eternity. At this hour we join in creation’s song of praise, and our praise is at the same time a prayer: Yes, Lord, help us to see something of the splendour of your glory. And grant peace on earth. Make us men and women of your peace. Amen.

Dignitas Personae

2008-12-12T16:30:00.000-07:00

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has released a new document today: Dignitas Personae (link to the USCCB's translation).

I'll take some time and read it over the next few days. I'm going to be out of town for a week or so, so if I have any comments, I'll make them when I get back.

JIMP

2008-12-10T17:27:00.001-07:00

Ok, this was just too funny.

CDWDS

2008-12-09T15:21:00.000-07:00

From Vatican News...

His Eminence Cardinal Arinze has retired from his position as Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, and His Eminence Cardinal Antonio Cañizares Llovera has been named his successor.

The little I know of Cardinal Cañizares has me optimistic that he is the right man for the job at this time.

I wish Cardinal Arinze the best and offer heartfelt thanks for a job well done.

Alexy II

2008-12-06T14:45:00.000-07:00

The Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church has passed away.

My prayers are with him and with the Russian Orthodox Church.

Makes You Cry - And I Did

2008-11-21T18:22:00.000-07:00

We here Under the Big Top love us some Sarah Palin. More so now that she's given us a pre-Thanksgiving gift.

I'm thankful that she did an interview in front of turkeys getting slaughtered. Why? Take a minute to read the comments to the video. Even better... go and see what readers over at The Huffington Post commented - there's much more outrage there.

Oh! how people are lamenting the fate of the poor turkeys! How disgusting that we have to witness these poor birds slaughtered. How vile Ms. Palin is for nonchalantly giving an interview as this happens in the background.

This is simply disgusting.

At least for the next week or so... until Thanksgiving... when we, as a nation, will sit down to shove as much turkey down our gullets as possible. After all, they are tasty little suckers.

If you're going to eat an animal, have enough respect for it to acknowledge how it came to land on your plate. And if you think the animals are being mistreated, have the honesty to admit that you're probably contributing to the problem.

Get Thee To A Nunnery

2008-11-12T16:38:00.005-07:00

I'm about the get all preachy... Catholic style. So if you don't want to hear it, you may want to skip this one.

Where to begin...

Let's try this. Today in the Washington Post, we find: Bishops Call Obama-Supported Abortion Rights Bill a Threat to Catholic Church.

From the article ([My Comments] and [My Emphasis]),

The nation's Catholic bishops Tuesday approved a statement declaring that if the Democratic-controlled Congress and the incoming Obama administration enact proposed abortion rights legislation, they would see it as an attack on the church.
...
The annual meeting of 220 bishops comes a week after the election of a Democratic ticket that supports abortion rights and includes Vice President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr., who is Catholic. [Comment removed: I had thought that Biden's bishop had told him not to receive communion, but apparently this isn't the case]
...
Although the church's leadership remains committed to outlawing abortion, the feelings are less adamant among many lay Catholics.

An August poll by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life found that almost one-half of U.S. Catholics think that abortion should be legal in all or nearly all cases.

This attitude seems reflected in the last election. Consider the exit poll results as reported by BeliefNet (post-update numbers):

Catholic / Attend Weekly
   Obama: 47%
   McCain: 53%

Catholic / Don't Attend Weekly
   Obama: 61%
   McCain: 37%

If these polls are accurate, then not only do "almost one-half of U.S. Catholics think that abortion should be legal in all or nearly all cases", but almost one-half of Catholics who attend church weekly are willing to vote in such a way that this becomes the law of the land (and the numbers only increased for those Catholics who do not attend weekly). In other words, not only do many Catholics think that "abortion should be legal in all or nearly all cases", but many are acting to see this legal statute brought to fruition.

Let's put a pin in that. We'll return to it in a minute.

Before we continue, we need to pull out some machinery.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Article 5: The Fifth Commandment, we have (citations removed):

2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.
...
2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:
...
2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae," "by the very commission of the offense," and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law. The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.

In his encyclical Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul VI wrote,

Therefore We base Our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children.

In the encyclical Evangelium Vitae, Pope John Paul II wrote,

The acceptance of abortion in the popular mind, in behaviour and even in law itself, is a telling sign of an extremely dangerous crisis of the moral sense, which is becoming more and more incapable of distinguishing between good and evil, even when the fundamental right to life is at stake. Given such a grave situation, we need now more than ever to have the courage to look the truth in the eye and to call things by their proper name, without yielding to convenient compromises or to the temptation of self-deception. In this regard the reproach of the Prophet is extremely straightforward: "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness" (Is 5:20). Especially in the case of abortion there is a widespread use of ambiguous terminology, such as "interruption of pregnancy", which tends to hide abortion's true nature and to attenuate its seriousness in public opinion. Perhaps this linguistic phenomenon is itself a symptom of an uneasiness of conscience. But no word has the power to change the reality of things: procured abortion is the deliberate and direct killing, by whatever means it is carried out, of a human being in the initial phase of his or her existence, extending from conception to birth.

And today, Cardinal Francis George, president of the USCCB, issued a statement that included the following:

On this issue, the legal protection of the unborn, the bishops are of one mind with Catholics and others of good will. They are also pastors who have listened to women whose lives have been diminished because they believed they had no choice but to abort a baby. Abortion is a medical procedure that kills, and the psychological and spiritual consequences are written in the sorrow and depression of many women and men. The bishops are single-minded because they are, first of all, single-hearted.

This sets up an unfortunate dichotomy: on one side, you have the Church teaching the contrariness of abortion to moral law; on the other, you have almost one-half of Catholics believing that "abortion should be legal in all or nearly all cases".

There is one more piece that I'd like to add before I continue.

From the USCCB's document, Happy Are Those Who Are Called to His Supper: On Preparing to Receive Christ Worthily in the Eucharist:

If a Catholic in his or her personal or professional life were knowingly and obstinately to reject the defined doctrines of the Church, or knowingly and obstinately to repudiate her definitive teaching on moral issues, however, he or she would seriously diminish his or her communion with the Church. Reception of Holy Communion in such a situation would not accord with the nature of the Eucharistic celebration, so that he or she should refrain.

The Catechism clearly states: "Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable." That is, this is a definitive moral teaching. Yet nearly one-half of Catholics think that "abortion should be legal in all or nearly all cases".

I fall under the "attend weekly" category. And every week, I see the majority of those in attendance (nearly all, in fact) line up to receive the Eucharist. The question is: if nearly one-half of Catholics think that "abortion should be legal in all or nearly all cases", which places them in the "knowingly and obstinately to reject the defined doctrines of the Church, or knowingly and obstinately to repudiate her definitive teaching on moral issues" side of the fence, by what rationale do they participate in the Eucharistic celebration?

The fact is plain to see: one cannot be pro-choice and remain a Catholic in good standing with the Church. And, if one is not in good standing with the Church, one should not receive communion. It is that simple.

This is not an arbitrary rule, nor is a divisive tactic meant to manipulate the will of the faithful. Catholics believe that the Church is the authority on faith and morals, a mission given to her by Christ. As stated in Luke 10:16, "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me." And this is not specific to abortion. This applies to all those who suffer the stain of mortal sin. As the Catechism states (citations removed) ([My Comments]):

1384 The Lord addresses an invitation to us, urging us to receive him in the sacrament of the Eucharist: "Truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you."

1385 To respond to this invitation we must prepare ourselves for so great and so holy a moment. St. Paul urges us to examine our conscience: "Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself."[1 Cor 11:27-29] Anyone conscious of a grave sin must receive the sacrament of Reconciliation before coming to communion.

There was much talk during the last two elections of whether bishops should deny pro-choice Catholic politicians communion. Regarding this point, Cardinal Arinze has something poignant (if humorous) to say:

This issue shouldn't ever get to the point that bishops would need to do this. Pro-choice Catholic politicians, just like all other pro-choice Catholics, just like any Catholic conscious of a grave sin, should govern their own actions and should not be in the communion line to begin with.

Earlier I wrote, "In other words, not only do many Catholics think that 'abortion should be legal in all or nearly all cases', but many are acting to see this legal statute brought to fruition." I was purposefully vague by using the term "many"; I was vague because there are those who voted for the pro-choice candidate, but did so with the belief that other issues outweighed the abortion issue, or that the abortion issue would be alleviated as other social issues are addressed.

Archbishop Chaput addressed this in his article, 10 points for Catholic citizens to remember:

7. But how do we make good political choices when so many different issues are so important and complex? The first principle of Christian social thought is: Don’t deliberately kill the innocent, and don’t collude in allowing somebody else to do it. The right to life is the foundation of every other human right. The reason the abortion issue is so foundational is not because Catholics love little babies — although we certainly do — but because revoking the personhood of unborn children makes every other definition of personhood and human rights politically contingent.

8. So can a Catholic in good conscience support a "pro-choice" candidate? The answer is: I can’t and I won’t. But I do know some serious Catholics — people whom I admire — who will. I think their reasoning is mistaken. But at the very least they do sincerely struggle with the abortion issue, and it causes them real pain. And even more importantly: They don’t keep quiet about it; they don’t give up their efforts to end permissive abortion; they keep lobbying their party and their elected representatives to change their pro-abortion views and protect the unborn. Catholics can support "pro-choice" candidates if they support them despite — not because of — their "pro-choice" views. But they also need a compelling proportionate reason to justify it.

Now that the election is over, and the pro-choice candidate has won, we can only pray that those Catholics who supported him will indeed not keep quiet about the abortion issue. We can only pray that they keep lobbying their party and their elected representatives to change their pro-abortion views and protect the unborn.

But this responsibility does not only fall upon those Catholics who voted for the pro-choice candidate. There is much work for all of us. As Cardinal Rigali and Bishop Murphy wrote,

Providing support for pregnant women so they choose to have their babies is a necessary but not sufficient response to abortion. Similarly, reversal of Roe is a necessary but not sufficient condition for restoring an order of justice in our society’s treatment of defenseless human life. ... Both approaches to opposing abortion are essential.

But this "providing support for pregnant women" is only one aspect of the work that falls to us... to all of us. As St. Augustine wrote,

What is the meaning of be your hands active? Let them give, do good works, so be your hands engaged. Break your bread to the hungry, and bring the poor and houseless into your house; if you see the naked, clothe him. Do all you can, do it with the means you can command, do it cheerfully, and so put up your prayer with confidence. It will have two wings, a double alms. What is a double alms? Forgive, and you shall be forgiven. Give, and it shall be given unto you. The one alms is that which is done from the heart, when you forgive your brother his sin. The other alms is that which is done out of your substance, when you deal bread to the poor. Offer both, lest without either wing your prayer remain motionless.

May the Lord remind me to keep my hands active.

Shaddap, Will Ya?

2008-11-07T07:12:00.002-07:00

I ran across this on Drudge: Oxford compiles list of top ten irritating phrases.

Here are the phrases they've decided to include in their top 10:

1 - At the end of the day

2 - Fairly unique

3 - I personally

4 - At this moment in time

5 - With all due respect

6 - Absolutely

7 - It's a nightmare

8 - Shouldn't of

9 - 24/7

10 - It's not rocket science

I personally absolutely agree with these. At the end of the day its obvious which phrases are irritating, with all due respect to those who disagree. I commend the folks at Oxford for coming up with this fairly unique list.

At this moment in time, I'd like to take a minute to reflect on the decision to post this. I'm thinking that perhaps I shouldn't of, since it may result in a 24/7 nightmare.

Irritating people is not rocket science, after all.

Believe the Hype

2008-11-05T07:27:00.002-07:00

Can we raise taxes?

Yes we can.

Can we send the economy deeper into the tank?

Yes we can.

Can we elect the scariest person possible into office?

Yes we can.

That, my friends, is hope you can believe in.

Cardinal Rigali and Bishop Murphy

2008-10-21T15:48:00.003-07:00

Cardinal Justin Rigali and Bishop William Murphy have issued a joint statement:

In Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship (2007), the Catholic bishops of the United States urged Catholic voters to form their consciences in accord with the Church’s moral teaching. We emphasized that: “Both opposing evil and doing good are essential obligations” (No. 24). Unfortunately, there seem to be efforts and voter education materials designed to persuade Catholics that they need only choose one approach: either opposing evil or doing good. This is not an authentically Catholic approach.

...

The Catholic community is second to no one in providing and advocating for support for women and families facing problems during pregnancy. Catholic hospitals, charitable institutions, and thousands of pregnancy aid centers, provide life-saving care and compassionate alternatives to the violence of abortion. We have advocated for universal health care coverage, generous family leave policies, increases in the minimum wage, humane welfare policies for women who are pregnant or caring for young children, expanded funding for WIC and other nutrition programs, and a federal children’s health insurance program that includes coverage for unborn children and their mothers. Because some women still feel pressured by economic hardship and lack of support to resort to abortion, our task in this regard is far from over.

These efforts, however, are not an adequate or complete response to the injustice of Roe v. Wade for several important reasons. First, the Court’s decision in Roe denied an entire class of innocent human beings the most fundamental human right, the right to life. In fact, the act of killing these fellow human beings was transformed from a crime into a “right,” turning the structure of human rights on its head. Roe v. Wade is a clear case of an “intrinsically unjust law” we are morally obliged to oppose (see Evangelium vitae, nos. 71-73). Reversing it is not a mere political tactic, but a moral imperative for Catholics and others who respect human life.

...

Providing support for pregnant women so they choose to have their babies is a necessary but not sufficient response to abortion. Similarly, reversal of Roe is a necessary but not sufficient condition for restoring an order of justice in our society’s treatment of defenseless human life. This act by itself would not automatically grant legal protection to the unborn. It would remove an enormous obstacle to such protection, so the people of the United States and their elected representatives in every state could engage in a genuine discussion of how to save unborn children and their mothers from the tragedy of abortion. Both approaches to opposing abortion are essential. By protecting the child’s life to the maximum degree possible, improving life-affirming support for pregnant women, and changing the attitudes and prejudices imposed on many women to make them see abortion as an acceptable or necessary solution, we will truly help build a culture of life.

Sheesh

2008-09-29T19:50:00.001-07:00

Ran across this video via Breitbart.

I'm not so much interested in Pelosi's main theme, so lets fast forward to about 3:21. Then you'll know what I'm upset about.

Here's the bit:

"... more scary was the statement, or statements, of Chairman Bernake, because Chairman Bernake is probably one of the foremost authorities in America on the subject of the Great Depression. I don't know what was so great about the Depression, but that's the name they give it."

Really, Nancy? You "don't know what was so great about the Depression"? Really?

Do you happen to know what's so great about a dictionary?

She's probably the type that listened to this and came away saying, "yeah... what is so civil about war, anyway?!?"

It makes me feel good knowing that the Speaker of the House went to the Axl Rose Academy of History, Philosophical Thought and Other Good Stuff.

Sheesh.

Can't Get There From Here

2008-09-22T07:12:00.006-07:00

It was a slow day Saturday... slow because not a whole lot was going on, and slow because I didn't really feel like doing anything.

So I'm flipping thru the channels and I come across Comedy Central. They're about to show Harold And Kumar Go To White Castle. I love this movie, but I wasn't particularly interested in watching because it was early in the day... which meant that the good parts would be censored for daytime TV. But nothing else sounded appealing, so I wound up watching.

A few jokes went by and, as expected, daytime TV censorship was in full effect. Then, something happened that I can't quite wrap my head around. The scene was when Harold and Kumar go to visit Rosenberg and Goldstein, who are watching The Gift, waiting for the scene where Katie Holmes shows her boobs. Normally, the dialog goes:

Rosenberg: Katie Holmes is a nice, respectable, wholesome girl... and I'm gonna see her boobs.

Goldstein: The things I would eat out of her ass! You have no idea!

The Comedy Central censors, however, found Goldstein's comment to be too risque, so they changed it. Here's what they changed it to:

Goldstein: The things I would [blank] out of her ass! You have no idea!

That's the statement they found to be least offensive for the daytime TV audience. An ambiguous doing of something to things out of Katie Holmes' ass. I don't quite get how that's less offensive. What's worse, I can't think of an edit that would make it any better. They could've gone with

The things I would eat out of her [blank]!

but that's not any better. Or they could've gone with

The [blank] I would eat out of her ass!

but that's a whole lot worse.

While I don't think I would ever make it as a TV censor, I would love to have a go at being a pollster who conducts studies to determine what the nation finds most offensive.

Me: Excuse me, ma'am... would you rather hear about an ambiguous action performed on the items in someone's ass, or would you prefer to hear about the eating of ambiguous items out of someone's ass?

Ahh... someone out there is livin' the dream.

Orissa

2008-08-30T02:33:00.006-07:00

I had planned on making a return this weekend, posting a funny-to-me-but-tedious-to-you note. But today I've read things that have shocked me so that I've been left speechless, and I cannot bring myself to be lighthearted.

The first article I read was: Indian priest describes mob ordeal 'like being tortured for Christ'

However, the Hindu mobs overheard the priest speaking on his cell phone, broke into the room and dragged him and the nun outside.
...

"There they tore my shirt and started pulling off the clothes of the nun. When I protested, they beat me hard with iron rods. Later, they took the sister inside (and) raped her while they went on kicking and teasing me, forcing (me) to say vulgar words," said the priest who has cuts, bruises and swollen tissue all over his body and stitches on his face.

"Later both of us, half-naked, were taken to the street, and they ordered me to have sex with the nun in public, saying nuns and priests do it. As I refused, they went on beating me and dragged us to the nearby government office. Sadly, a dozen policemen were watching all this," he said.

This led me to digging into what's going on in Orissa, and this led me to Orissa Burning (thanks to Amy Welbourn's blog), which tracks the ordeal.

I offer my prayers for peace, for the souls of those who have died, and for the souls of those who have lost their minds.

I'll keep an eye on this and report important events here. We'll return to normal programming when the world returns to normal programming.

R.I.P. Danny Federici

2008-04-18T07:10:00.000-07:00

Just read about this. From Bruce's site:

DANNY FEDERICI

"Danny and I worked together for 40 years - he was the most wonderfully fluid keyboard player and a pure natural musician. I loved him very much...we grew up together."
—Bruce Springsteen

Danny Federici, for 40 years the E Street Band's organist and keyboard player, died this afternoon, April 17, 2008 at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York City after a three year battle with melanoma.

The Federici family and the E Street family request that, in lieu of flowers, donations be made to the Danny Federici Melanoma Fund. A web site for the Fund is being established and we'll post its link when it is on line.

Bruce Springsteen's concerts scheduled for Friday in Ft. Lauderdale and Saturday in Orlando performance are being postponed. Replacement dates will be announced shortly.

.
I'm floored. I had even heard that Danny was planning on rejoining the group in a couple of months. My condolences to all his friends and family.

The Pope and the Mass in D.C.

2008-04-17T18:50:00.000-07:00

Wow.

What more could I say?

A few days ago, I had a thought that it would be kinda cool if the Pope snuck away from the cameras and crowd this Sunday and attended Mass in a "normal" parish, just so that he could get a first hand glimpse into the state of the Liturgy here in the States. I was sure that, while he was here, every service he attended would've been put in the hands of the most capable and orthodox organizers, and so I was sure that he wouldn't get a real sense of the liberalization of the Liturgy many of us experience each Sunday.

But then, I watched this morning's Mass in Washington.

And... wow.

Honestly. Wow.

I have no idea what the organizers of the Mass were thinking. Did they forget that this was Holy Mass, and not a multi-cultural musical jamboree? This Mass was an affront to Benedict's/Cdl. Ratizinger's teachings regarding the Liturgy. Did they forget that the Pope was going to be in attendance? I would find it impossible to believe that the Pope's teachings regarding Liturgical music were unfamiliar to those in charge, so I have to wonder... did they simply disregard the Pope's words and think it was no big deal, or was this a deliberate slight?

Now, I'm going to complain about this, but I may be wrong (so if someone knows something that I don't, please correct me). Did y'all notice that the Angus Dei consisted of consecutive "Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi, miserere nobis" supplications? They didn't end with "dona nobis pacem". Does anyone know if that's licit? The GIRM states:

83 ... The supplication Agnus Dei, is, as a rule, sung by the choir or cantor with the congregation responding; or it is, at least, recited aloud. This invocation accompanies the fraction and, for this reason, may be repeated as many times as necessary until the rite has reached its conclusion, the last time ending with the words dona nobis pacem (grant us peace).

I really really hope that I'm worrying about nothing, but it sounds to me like someone messed up. Grrrrrrr!!!

One thing is for sure... the Pope is now well aware of the state of the Liturgy in many of American parishes. After all, if this was the best effort they could manage for the Supreme Pontiff, what could be expected from a weekly Mass for the lay people? *sigh*

On the one hand, I'm glad he was able to see this, since I'm hoping that now he will address it. On the other hand, I'm ashamed that he was "treated" to this Mass, and I feel offended on his behalf (and on behalf of all Catholics, really). I really hope that we don't see a repeat of this in NYC on Sunday.

I pray that the Holy Father addresses this soon.

Oh, and don't even get me started on this.

That said, the Pope's homily was wonderful, as expected. Fr. Z has a discussion of it here.

Tuesday Evening Roundup, Oremus pro conversione Judæorum Edition

2008-04-15T18:21:00.006-07:00

I mentioned a while back that I wanted to discuss the Good Friday prayer for the Jews issue, but I was waiting for Cdl. Bertone's statement. Well, here it is.

I was initially disappointed with the statement, because it seemed specifically to address the concerns of the Jewish community, but not so much of the Catholic faithful. My disappointment faded quickly though, as I focused on the statement:

The Holy See wishes to reassure that the new formulation of the Prayer, which modifies certain expressions of the 1962 Missal, in no way intends to indicate a change in the Catholic Church's regard for the Jews which has evolved from the basis of the Second Vatican Council, particularly the Declaration Nostra Aetate.

That is, Cdl. Bertone didn't need to address Catholics because Nostra Aetate already did.

Circumstances being what they were, I didn't get around to discussing this in a timely fashion. Luckily, there are plenty of folks who really wrestled this one to the ground. Christopher at Against the Grain did a particularly good job. Check out his article: Pope Benedict, The Jews and the "Good Friday Prayer".

Cdl. Walter Kasper had a few things to say about the issue, and Against the Grain has a good article discussing his response: Kasper's attack on dual covenant theology: how Vatican II teaches prayer for Jewish conversion

The Big Question

2008-04-11T07:13:00.000-07:00

Had Paul Simon written "The Boxer" in 2008, would he have called it "The Mixed Martial Artist"?

Let Not Your Hearts Be Troubled

2008-04-08T01:16:00.007-07:00

The Lord says, "Let not your hearts be troubled, neither let them be afraid" (Jn 14:27). It is not fear that presently occupies me; it is the trouble, the sorrow, the grief that resides in my heart.

Simply put, Karen and I have lost a child. We went to the emergency room the Saturday before Easter, and early Easter morning we were told that Karen had been pregnant, but that the pregnancy was ectopic, caused complications (which I won't go into here), and was consequentially lost.

It sounds straightforward enough. Reflecting back on it, it is almost as if there was nothing lost. We learned about the loss at the same time we learned of the pregnancy, so in terms of the timeline, it was a wash. One may say that it wasn't really a loss, because we didn't know of the pregnancy to begin with. Some might not even consider it the loss of a child at all; it was merely an unfortunate physical reaction that stopped a biological process, but had nothing to do with a real child.

But that's not how I see it. It was a loss. We lost a child. And I'm having a very hard time bouncing back from it.

I acknowledge that things could be much worse. We could've known of the pregnancy ahead of time, gotten excited, and then been very disappointed when things went awry. We could've had the child and then lost it. Karen could've suffered significant physical injury. There are plenty of things that could've made it worse. But knowing that doesn't seem to make what actually happened any easier to deal with.

Theologically, I subscribe to the belief that my child has been received in heaven. Because my child is in the divine presence, he/she occupies a position that I should strive for, not one that I should mourn. This, however, somehow doesn't seem to lighten the weight in my heart. I can't help but feel sad that this world has been denied him/her. Or, perhaps, I'm just sad that I've been denied the company of my child. Theologically, I believe that, should it be my fortune, I will spend eternity in heaven with my child, and thus these few years I have left on earth are of little consequence in the grand scheme of things. But again, this does little to soothe the pain of knowing that I will not have the opportunity to raise my child, and see him/her grow into an adult and live a fruitful life.

Our Father who art in heaven,
Hallowed be thy name.
Thy kingdom come.
Thy will be done,

Thy will be done.

Thy will be done,
On Earth as it is in Heaven.

I thank the Lord for the gift that was my child. I thank the Lord for the child that awaits me, that when I arrive in heaven, I will have someone expecting me. I thank the Lord for my child.

I thank the Lord for the pain I feel, for without it, I might forget my child and live my life without the love I feel for him/her. I pray to my God that He remind me of this pain the rest of my days, that I may never forget my child. I pray that I keep my child in my heart the rest of my days.

I ask that Mary, Mother of us all, keep my child until the day comes where we may be together. I ask St. John the Baptist to show my child affection.I ask St. Augustine to show my child affection. I ask St. Francis to show my child affection. I ask St. Thomas Aquinas to show my child affection. I ask St. Juan Diego to show my child affection. I ask St. Teresa of Avila to show my child affection. I ask my little sister, St. Thérèse of Lisieux, to show my little love her affection.I ask all the Angels and Saints to hold my little child dear.

I ask my child to pray for his/her father, who is weak and sinful. That one day, we may be together.

I ask my Lord God to keep my love close.

I ask the Lord to accept my prayers, and I offer my suffering to him,

Pater noster, qui es in caelis, sanctificetur nomen tuum. Adveniat regnum tuum. Fiat voluntas tua, sicut in caelo et in terra. Panem nostrum quotidianum da nobis hodie, et dimitte nobis debita nostra sicut et nos dimittimus debitoribus nostris. Et ne nos inducas in tentationem, sed libera nos a malo.

Amen.

Though my heart is troubled, I ask that He accept my prayers for those in a similar situation who, due to their loss, turn away from the love He offers. I pray for all those who suffer.

Amen.

Maybe Not

2008-03-21T14:40:00.001-07:00

I've been mulling over a post for Easter... centered on the recently reported "new" seven deadly sins for the modern world, and how this relates to the nature of sin and the call for reconcilliation with God. But then I ran across Mark Shea's article, Saved by Christ, Not by Rules, and I've concluded that he's pretty much stated everything I wanted to say in a more elegant (and more brief) manner. So there went that plan.

My next post will probably be about the recent change in the Prayer for the Jews in the Tridentine rite, but only if the reports of a forthcoming statement from Cardinal Bertone turn out to be true.

And... Exhale

2008-03-10T17:50:00.000-07:00

*whew*

I've been putting off posting lately.

I'd like to post about politics... after all, we've been seeing some fantastic events this primary season... but I make it a rule here under the Big Top to not post about specific US elections until after they're over. So while I have plenty to say, I'm keeping my fool mouth shut.

I'm also trying to take a break from posting about religion. I've been doing that a lot lately, and since I want to post a big one for Easter, I'm trying to find a different topic. And that includes not posting about the inane ramblings of the irreligious, because when I run across things like this, believe me when I say that it is hard for me to stave off my ranting.

But, I've run across something that cuts across them both, and I think that I can dance around both without actually emphasizing either.

I'll start by saying that in this post, I'll be trying to take an offensive posture against those I have a certain philosophical disagreement with, as opposed to a supportive posture towards someone I have a political agreement with. That said, please don't confuse my stance, and know that I in no way mean to endorse anyone's politics, and if I take a tone that implies that I do, it is entirely accidental and possibly not reflective of my actual opinions (which I won't share).

Let's start here: McCain Rejects Anti-Catholic Views (7 March, 2008).

From the article:

Republican presidential candidate John McCain on Friday repudiated any views of a prominent televangelist who endorsed him last month "if they are anti-Catholic or offensive to Catholics."

McCain has come under fire since televangelist John Hagee endorsed him on Feb. 27, but until Friday his response had been tepid. The Arizona senator merely said he doesn't agree with everyone who endorses him. He said Friday he had been hearing from Catholics who find Hagee's comments offensive.

Hagee, leader of a San Antonio megachurch, has referred to the Roman Catholic Church as "the great whore" and called it a "false cult system" and "the apostate church" — "apostate" means someone who has forsaken his religion.

...

"I sent two of my children to Catholic school. I categorically reject and repudiate any statement that was made that was anti-Catholic, both in intent and nature. I categorically reject it, and I repudiate it," McCain said.

"And we can't have that in this campaign," McCain said. "We're trying to unite the country. We're uniting the country, not dividing it."

He was responding to one critic in particular, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat, who raised the issue in a Thursday conference call with reporters.

John Hagee endorses McCain, and apparently, some Catholics had a problem with this due to various statements Hagee has made against the Catholic Church. Among these disturbed Catholics is Ms. Nancy Pelosi.

Let's move on to this: Pelosi Blasts McCain Over Anti-Catholic Pastor. (6 March, 2008)

From the article:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the most prominent Catholic serving in the U.S. government, called on Sen. John McCain to reject the endorsement of Texas televangelist John Hagee, who has labeled the Catholic church "the great whore," a "false cult system," and linked it to Hitler's Nazi movement.

"That behavior is outside the circle of civilized debate in our democracy," Pelosi said during a Thursday conference call. "I certainly think John McCain should reject his endorsement and I'm sure it won't be long before he does."

McCain has come under heavy fire from Catholic groups across the political spectrum for appearing with Hagee last week and declaring he was "proud" of the endorsement. Subsequently, McCain told reporters that Hagee's backing "does not mean that I embrace everything that he stands for and believes," but added, "I am very proud of the Pastor John Hagee's spiritual leadership to thousands of people." [See video of Hagee speaking about Catholicism here.]

But several Catholic groups insist that McCain should specifically condemn Hagee's "hate speech" about Catholicism. Bill Donohue, president of the conservative Catholic League, charged in a statement that McCain "has shown horrendous judgment in buddying up to this bigot and spin doctor."

This leads us to Bill Donohue, and this release from the Catholic League: McCain’s Next Move. (6 March, 2008)

From the article:

Catholic League president Bill Donohue issued the following remarks today regarding Sen. John McCain’s ties to Pastor John Hagee:

“Now that he has secured the Republican nomination for president, and has received the endorsement of President Bush, McCain will now embark on a series of fundraising events. When he meets with Catholics, he is going to be asked about his ties to Hagee. He should also be asked whether he approves of comments like this: ‘A Godless theology of hate that no one dared try to stop for a thousand years produced a harvest of hate.’

“That quote is proudly cited by David Brog in his recent book, Standing with Israel. Both Brog and Hagee clearly identify the Roman Catholic Church as spawning a ‘theology of hate.’

“This is nothing if not hate speech. There are so many good evangelical leaders in this country—Dr. James Dobson, Dr. Richard Land, Tony Perkins, Gary Bauer, Dr. Al Mohler, Chuck Colson—and none has ever insulted Catholicism. To be sure, they have expressed theological differences, and that is to be expected; that is all fine and good. But they have never sought to denigrate Catholicism. That’s what makes this situation so outrageous. Of all the great evangelical leaders, the one McCain cites as ‘the staunchest leader of our Christian evangelical movement’ just happens to be a Catholic basher.

And now my observations.

From a purely political perspective, it makes sense for Mr. McCain to seek Mr. Hagee's endorsement, as it will influence a sizable voting bloc. I would further argue that Mr. Donohue and Ms. Pelosi would have a point in criticizing this endorsement if Mr. Hagee is indeed, in Mr. Donohue's words, a "bigot", behaving in a way that, as Ms. Pelosi describes, "is outside the circle of civilized debate in our democracy". The question is, are they correct in their accusations against Mr. Hagee?

Let's suppose that Mr. Hagee indeed holds the opinions that the Catholic Church is "the great whore", a "false cult system", and "the apostate church" (everything I've heard leads me to think he does believe this, but let's just assume it to avoid argument). Does holding these beliefs make him an anti-Catholic bigot?

Let's ask this question instead... suppose I believe that Mr. Hagee is a heretic, and that many of his teachings lead to the ruination of lives and the damnation of souls. Does holding this position make me an anti-Evangelical bigot?

Is there no place for religious disagreement? Can I not think that someone's religious interpretation, or even personal philosophy, is inherently flawed? Must my vocal disagreement with someone's belief, especially if it is their most closely held belief, be classified as hate speech? Can I not hold a theological or philosophical debate and call a spade a spade?

Wouldn't Mr. Donohue's time be better spent if, instead of criticizing John McCain or protesting a chocolate Jesus, he focused his efforts on spreading the teachings of the Church? Why is it that the Catholic League did not focus their attention on Mr. Hagee's heresies until they entered the political arena? Regarding Ms. Pelosi, it seems to me that her public disregard towards Church teachings is every bit as scandalous as Mr. Hagee's statements. Moreover, when Hagee speaks, you know his position is against the Church; but when "the most prominent Catholic serving in the U.S. government" acts contrary to Church teaching, the repercussions could be much more subtle, yet equally damaging.

Piggy In The Middle

2008-02-15T16:22:00.000-07:00

So I was watching Lost last night, and Sawyer was talking about shooting Ben's toes off. He referred to them as "piggies", which was (of course) a reference to the old nursery rhyme about the little piggies. For whatever reason, I ran through the rhyme in my head. Actually, I don't really know if it's technically a rhyme. Maybe a poem? I don't know what its classified as, and I'm too lazy to look.

Anyway, it goes like this:

This little piggy went to market,
This little piggy stayed home,
This little piggy had roast beef,
This little piggy had none,
And this little piggy went, "Wee wee wee", all the way home.

Lost got me thinking about the piggies.

I can see a need to go to the market. Piggy #1 obviously needed something, and so he went to go buy it.

Before he went, he probably asked Piggy #2 if he wanted to tag along. Piggy #2 probably said, "nah", and so he stayed home. I can get that. He probably told Piggy #1 that he didn't want to go, but I'm sure that if he needed something, Piggy #1 would be nice enough to pick it up, given that he was already heading in that direction. Piggy #1 doesn't seem like a jerk.

As Piggy #1 walked out the door, Piggy #3 probably called out, "hey, get me some roast beef while you're out." When Piggy #1 got back, Piggy #3 probably went straight to eating. You know, being a pig and all.

Now, I'm not quite sure what the deal is with Piggy #5. He was obviously out somewhere, and he felt the need to come home. Maybe Piggy #3 called him home to have some roast beef. I actually have no clue if the "wee wee wee" is a good sign or bad. Was be being chased and calling for help? Was it a song he was singing? Was it just the natural noise for him to make, being a pig and all? I just don't know.

But what gets me is Piggy #4. How come he didn't have any roast beef? Was he offered some? Was there anything else in the house for him to have for lunch? If not, did anyone tell him Piggy #1 was going to the market?

It wasn't until last night that the plight of Piggy #4 got to me. Poor little guy. He was probably just sitting there when Piggy #1 got home, showering everyone with goodies from the market.

And what did Piggy #4 get? He got none, that's what he got.

None.

Squat.

Diddly.

Bumpkis.

Poor little piggy.

Respect My Authoritah!

2008-02-14T15:40:00.002-07:00

Here's a great story: Female Referee Removed From Officiating Boys' Basketball Game by Religious School.

Kansas activities officials are investigating a religious school's refusal to let a female referee call a boys' high school basketball game.

The Kansas State High School Activities Association said referees reported that Michelle Campbell was preparing to officiate at St. Mary's Academy near Topeka on Feb. 2 when a school official insisted that Campbell could not call the game.

The reason given, according to the referees: Campbell, as a woman, could not be put in a position of authority over boys because of the academy's beliefs.

...

The Activities Association said it is considering whether to take action against the private religious school. St. Mary's Academy, about 25 miles northwest of Topeka, is owned and operated by the Society of St. Pius X, which follows older Roman Catholic laws. The society's world leader, the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, was excommunicated by Pope John Paul II in the late 1980s.

Gary Musselman, the association's executive director, said the organization will not make a decision until it confirms whether St. Mary's Academy has a policy of not allowing female referees to work boys basketball games.

If that is indeed the school's written policy, Musselman said, the association could decide to remove St. Mary's Academy from the list of approved schools and take away its ability to compete against the association's more than 300 member schools.

*cough*

I can't say I'm ever suprised when I hear that the SSPX has a problem with some sort of authority or another. It seems to fit in with their gimmick.

Mr. Musselman should be made aware that should the Activities Association choose to, shall we say, "excommunicate" (*cough*) the SSPX from the association, that they'll probably not only dig in their heels, but they'll probably declare all subsequent basketball games to be invalid. Then they'll talk about the material the basketballs were made of back in 1962, not taking the entire history of basketball into consideration. And they'll probably wrap themselves in some sort of propagandist "basketball purity" garb and accuse the Activities Association of being the one's who are actually in schism.

Oh sure, Mr. Musselman, you'll try to charitably guide them back into the association, but they'll want nothing to do with it. You'll appeal to the rules of the game, which they'll ignore. You'll appeal to the rich tradition of basketball, but still get nowhere. All your attempts will bear little fruit, and against all reason you'll be told that you're the one in the wrong. In fact... *grumble*

Ummm... sorry about that folks. I get a little passionate when it comes to basketball. ;)

R.I.P. Roy Scheider

2008-02-11T07:02:00.000-07:00

He'll be missed.

We're Going To Need A Bigger Boat

2008-01-29T00:24:00.000-07:00

Grab a cup of coffee, this'll be a long one.

I was hanging around over at Newsvine a while back when I ran across this article: The Polar Bear Threat to Organized Religion.

No, this won't be a post about Pullman or The Golden Compass. I haven't watched the movie and I haven't read any of his books, so I'm not inclined to discuss either's content. Others have spouted on endlessly about the response to the movie, so I'm not inclined to discuss that either.

What I do want to discuss is a particular sentiment expressed in the article mentioned above that I think generalizes well to the way a large group of people think. It's phrased in terms of the movie, but I'll bold the part that is germane to the more abstract conversation I want to have today:

The danger to Christians in the movie version of The Golden Compass (and, I hear, even more so in the books on which it is based) is not that Pullman has created a mythology so powerful that it may replace Christianity's hold on our lives and imaginations. Nor is it (as some claim) that the theme of the story will confuse kids about good and evil. The threat that the story presents is that it is compelling enough and subtle enough to get its message in past the conscious thought processes, back into the place where really good stories go in our minds to be referenced and revisited over time. It is an effective mythology, in that sense, but not one with a grand enough scope to supplant more extensive ones. The myth of this story aims to convey one, precise message, and the message is that institutionalized authority wants to cut you off from your soul. The Golden Compass does not seek to replace Christian notions of good and evil, it simply lays the groundwork for individuals to realize the need to make that call for themselves.

Individualism vs. institutionalized authority. Now that, my friends, is a juicy topic.

The issue isn't so much individualism vs. institutionalized authority, but rather irrational individualism vs. institutionalized authority. By "irrational individualism", I refer to the practice of placing individualism above rational argument when deciding which opinions to hold. For instance, there is a difference between saying that I wish to look a certain way because I want to cheese off "the man", and saying that I choose to believe that the moon is made out of Cheerios because I don't want to go along with what "scientists" tell me I should believe. Clearly there are times when others should influence both my behavior and perception, and at these times, individualism for the sake of individualism isn't a positive.

The question then becomes whether this sentiment (that "Christian notions of good and evil" should not be made by authoritative institutions but rather that individuals "need to make that call for themselves") is an example of "irrational individualism". We'll devote the rest of our time today discussing this question. I'll divide the conversation into two parts: the first part will address the position that the Bible itself is the "authoritative institution" that wants to "cut you off from your soul", and the second will address the position that the Church is this institution. (Note: I'll limit the discussion to Christianity... the scope would simply be too great otherwise.)

Part I: The Authoritative Bible

We'll start by defining three possibilities regarding the contents/origin of the Bible:

A. The Bible is the inerrant word of God
B. The Bible was the word of God but has been corrupted by man
C. The Bible is strictly the work of man

Regarding the first position, I will make the assumption that those holding this perspective do not, on the whole, see the Bible as an "authoritative institution" of questionable authority. I'll assume that those who believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God may not particularly like everything contained within its pages, but are willing to yield to the authority of God based simply on his being God. That is, I will make the assumption that folks holding this view should be discussed in Part II, not here.

For the purpose of this conversation, we'll treat the remaining two positions as equivalent. For these positions, the key to the argument lies in the idea that the Bible (in part or on the whole) attributes man-written content to an author of higher authority; given the dubious authority of the actual authors, the content is inherently questionable. The logical consequence of this is that while the Bible may be used as a guide, each person is ultimately responsible for building his own moral code.

The question before us is, is this position an example of "irrational individualism"?

I would argue that taken by itself, it is not. However, when proselytized, it quickly runs the risk of becoming so.

If we had a person with no previous exposure or opinion regarding religion, it is reasonable to believe that this person would have a hard time buying into the "the Bible is the inerrant word of God" position; disbelief could not be considered an "irrational" position. It is not uncommon for a believer in the Bible to have a change of opinion regarding the role God played in producing the Bible. We abound in examples of an individual, employing reason, rejecting the authority of the authors of the Bible and, employing reason, questioning the content found within.

I'll point out the obvious and say that the reasoning employed for justifying a particular belief is not always the most logical or factual. Also, the degree of proof required to hold a certain belief varies between individuals. I think most of us agree that this is ok. People are free to believe whatever they want to, just as others are free to disagree.

The problem, as I've stated, comes when a belief is proselytized.

When someone tries to convince another to adopt a particular belief, I would argue that a certain responsibility is accepted to provide accurate information to support this new belief. This is especially true where an existing belief is trying to be changed or abandoned.

Here's my point: many people will believe whatever fool idea you put into their head. Knowing this, influencing others to adopt new beliefs without providing them with (or pointing them to) sufficient accurate information to make a knowledgeable decision borders on immorality.

Consider: one of the arguments I frequently hear for rejecting the Bible's authority is that the Bible has been changed to meet political ends. If one wishes to believe this, that's fine with me. However, when this is used as a statement to persuade others for abandoning their belief in the Bible, more is required. What changes, specifically, are being referred to? If there were indeed changes made, we should be able to say "in year X the Bible said this, but in year Y it said this". But those who use this argument are seldom in a position to supply this information, and in my experience, those who can provide this information do so by essentially using the Catholic argument against the use of Protestant Bibles.

Is there a rational argument to persuade a believer in the Bible to abandon his beliefs in the authority of the Bible? Perhaps. I'm currently reading a book that, through archaeological and historical evidence, is bombarding the foundation I've used to build my own beliefs upon. What happens if I decide to change my beliefs? What happens if I find answers to all the challenges I'm currently reading and my belief is strengthened? Either way, the decision will be an informed one based on as accurate facts as could be found, not based on someone repeating propaganda in order to push their agenda on me. Individualism, with regards to this issue, means next to nothing; someone using an argument based on individualism to convince me to change my opinion on this matter is someone attempting to dupe me, not to inform me.

What of the statement quoted above, that "The Golden Compass does not seek to replace Christian notions of good and evil, it simply lays the groundwork for individuals to realize they need to make that call for themselves." Would books such as these qualify as examples of irrational individualism? For the sake of this argument, we must consider the motive. Is the goal to call into question the validity of the Bible? If so, is this done through the discussion of facts, or through the regurgitation of propaganda with no factual support? If it is the latter, then there is good reason for folks to be concerned about such books. Or is the goal instead to call into question the authority of religious leaders? This makes a good segway into the next part of our discussion.

Part II: The Authoritative Institutional Church

We'll begin as last time, by defining various positions regarding views towards the Church:

A. That Churches are man-made organizations meant to influence their members
B. That Churches are formed by God with authority lying within the congregation
C. That a single Church was formed by God with authority lying within the clergy

We note that the first position implies a disbelief in the Bible. Given that the Bible speaks extensively of a "Church", for the construct to be considered man-made, the authority of the Bible must be considered to be questionable. The chips fall quickly from here: if the Bible isn't authoritative in its defining of the "Church", then certainly all other teachings may be called into question. It follows that any institution using this book as one of its foundations is questionable. Again, holding this view isn't irrational, but there is a risk when the belief is proselytized.

The second position applies to those Christians who believe that the Bible alone is sufficient and authoritative in defining faith and morality, and that individuals are capable of understanding and interpreting the Bible to retrieve the truth as revealed by God. This group of Christians view the Church as a group of individuals, some of which are perhaps teachers of the faith. The role of teacher is respected, but is not recognized to have any sort of formal authority; a teacher is wise but ultimately fallible. That is, while a teacher may be respected, his interpretation may always be questioned, because he has no inherent authority beyond that which is given to all Christians.

Notice the similarities with the referenced article's sentiment, that "Christian notions of good and evil" should not be made by authoritative institutions but rather that individuals "need to make that call for themselves". The only difference here is the addition of the belief in the authority of the Bible. Here it is the notion of the "authoritative Church" that is viewed with untrusting eyes, and individual interpretation of the authoritative Bible given highest praise.

Our question remains: is this position an example of irrational individualism? That is, would we be placing individualism above rational argument by accepting this position?

Let's point out that since this group considers the Bible to be authoritative, a "rational belief" is a belief that is rational in Biblical terms. By the same token, if a belief is Biblically irrational, it must be considered to be an irrational belief.

For this group, we may modify our question and instead ask, is this position Biblical?

Let's begin by looking at The Acts Of The Apostles, where we read:

Acts 8:27-31

27... And behold, an Ethiopian, a eunuch, a minister of Canda'ce the queen of the Ethiopians, in charge of all her treasure, had come to Jerusalem to worship 28and was returning; seated in his chariot, he was reading the prophet Isaiah. 29And the Spirit said to Philip, "Go up and join this chariot." 30So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and asked, "Do you understand what you are reading?" 31And he said, "How can I, unless some one guides me?"

Here we're told of an Ethiopian Jew returning from a pilgramage to Jerusalem; he is a minister and treasurer to the Ethiopian queen, so it is clear that he is not only religious but also educated. If this educated Ethiopian Jew recognized the need for guidance when reading Scripture, why then would another Jew (or Christian) not need similar guidance? Could it be that he was educated, but not educated enough? Is there a level of Biblical knowledge achievable when guidance will no longer be needed, when we can get by with "making the call for ourselves"? Consider what we find in 2 Peter:

2 Peter 3:15-16,

15... So as our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.

There are a few items of interest to point out here. First, we see an explicit statement that the letters of Paul are difficult to understand. Second, that twisting the content of Paul's letters and other Scriptures may result in one's destruction. Third, the ignorant and unstable may have a "twisted" understanding of the contents of Paul's letters and other Scriptures. Note that this doesn't single out the immoral, deceitful, or otherwise evil; it does, however, specifically mention the ignorant. This brings the Ethiopian Jew to mind: educated as he may have been, he recognized the risk of misinterpretation and the need for guidance. If understanding of Scripture may be twisted through ignorance, how can one replace ignorance without guidance? Are not those who are "making the call for themselves" risking the destruction mentioned in 2 Peter?

But is it necessarily the teachers of the institutionalized Church that one should look to for guidance? Do these teachers have any real authority beyond that which is given to each Christian? Consider Paul's First Letter To The Corinthians:

1 Cor 12:28,

28And God has appointed in the Church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, then healers, helpers, administrators, speakers in various kinds of tongues.

That is, we have Biblical evidence of God appointing teachers to the Church. In Paul's letters to Timothy and Titus we see how Paul discusses the need for teachers, specifically Bishops, to be sound in doctrine. Consider:

1 Titus 1:9,

9he must hold firm to the sure word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to confute those who contradict it.

There are a few things to point out here. First, the bishop is "to give instruction", that is, to provide the guidance the Ethiopian Jew mentioned in Acts 8:31. Second, the bishop must also "confute those who contradict" doctrine. Again, there is no mention of contradiction for evil intention; surely the "twisting" mentioned in 2 Peter is equally to be confuted. Third, it is not the bishop's own interpretation that is encouraged, but rather the bishop must hold to the "word as taught". This is an important point. The phrase "word as taught" implies that there were teachers, that is, those who provided guidance to the bishop. The bishop is in turn meant to provide guidance to others, according to that teaching he received. Consider how this is complimented with what Paul writes in The Second Letter To The Thessalonians:

2 Thess 2:15,

15So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

Here Paul is more explicit: both written and oral traditions are important for sound doctrine. That is, doctrine is not solely comprised of written Scripture; consequently, even if one is familiar with Scripture, one's doctrinal knowledge may yet be deficient. It is only when oral and written traditions are held, as taught by the teachers of the Church, that sound doctrine may be achieved. Thus when we recall 2 Peter referring to "the ignorant", the ignorance referred to does not simply mean ignorance of Scripture, but also ignorance of Tradition, that lens used to interpret Scripture. This helps us better understand the Ethiopian Jew's dilemma: without someone to guide him in the reading of Scripture and the of understanding of Tradition, he will not truly be able to understand.

Placing sole authority in the Bible as interpreted by man is simply not Biblical. In The First Letter To Timothy, Paul indicates exactly where the truth of the faith is deposited:

1 Tim 3:14-15,

14I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these instructions to you so that, 15if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and bullwark of the truth.

It is not the Bible that is the "pillar and bullwark of the truth", nor is it an individual's interpretation of Scripture; Paul is quite clear, this "pillar and bullwark" is the Church.

So what then do we make of the position that holds that the Bible is authoritative and personal interpretation of its contents is ideal? If the Bible is authoritative, and if it warns of the dangers of misinterpretation, and if it provides a means for proper guidance, one must conclude that this level of individualism is indeed irrational.

This leaves us with our last position, "That a single Church was formed by God with authority lying within the clergy". Our conversation above illustrates how if the Bible is considered to be authoritative, an authoritative Church must be logically accepted as well. Given an authoritative Church, what could be made of the sentiment in question? That is, given this scenario, what do we make of the sentiment that "Christian notions of good and evil" should not be made by authoritative institutions (in this case, the Church) but rather that individuals "need to make that call for themselves"?

We see an immediate problem: how could we both recognize the authority of the Church yet at the same time believe that it "wants to cut you off from your soul"? The irrationality of this position is clear.

That said, there is a related question we may have interest in discussing: does belief in an authoritative Chuch relieve the individual of the responsibility of knowing how to distinguish between good and evil?

The gist of the original view was that no one institution could possibly serve as a universal guide of right and wrong, and therefore individuals should be responsible for making that decision for themselves. If one instead believes that there is an institution that could act as a universal guide concerning morality, does this necessarily mean that one is free to blindly yield decisions regarding morality to religious leaders? This leads to an interesting (and important) question: what does obedience to the authority of the Church require?

Earlier I wrote, "those who believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God may not particularly like everything contained within its pages, but are willing to yield to the authority of God based simply on his being God". This not only applies to the Bible (Tanakh and Christian Bible), but to several other books as well (by various religions). For instance, some people, yielding to the authority of who they understand God to be, accept restrictions in diets, dress, sexual activity, etc.; these restrictions, perceived as being directed by God, are unquestionable and obedience is required (contrary behavior being deemed "sinful"). If one believes in an authoritative Church, do the mandates of Church leaders become equally unquestionable?

Again, I'm limiting the discussion to Christianity, so I'll only address the question from this perspective.

Consider the following passage from The Letter Of Paul To The Galatians:

Gal 1:6-10,

6I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and turning to a different gospel- 7not that there is another gospel, but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed. 9As we have said before, so now I say again. If any one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed.
10Am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still pleasing men, I should not be a servant of Christ.

Now, consider the following passage from The Gospel According To Matthew:

Matt 23:1-6,

1Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples, 2"The scribes and Pharisees sit on Moses' seat; 3so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice. 4They bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with their finger. 5They do all their deeds to be seen by men; for they make their phylacteries broad and their fringes long, 6and they love the place of honor at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues, 7 and salutations in the marketplaces, and being called rabbi by men.

These two passages address three very important issues; the first addresses heresy and apostacy, and the second addresses hypocrasy. I'm being very specific when I say that the second addresses hypocrasy, as opposed to addressing sinful behavior; it is entirely possible to be a sinner and not be a hypocrite. Let's be clear about this difference: in the first passage, there is a warning against those who teach false doctrine, whether that doctrine be a false interpretation or a "new gospel"; the second passage warns against those who teach properly but who behave contrary to their teaching. I would argue that the consequence of each is logical: when the teaching is consistent with the authoritative teaching of the Church, the teacher is to be admonished for his behavior; when the teaching is inconsistent with the authoritative teaching of the Church, the teacher and the teaching is to be anathematized.

What remains consistent is the need for the faithful to be capable of distinguishing between the two.

Consider: I, being religious, have been questioned about the actions of clergy who have acted immorally. The question is, do these clergymen serve as examples of faithful "seeking the favor of men, or of God"? And what is my responsibility to differentiate between the authoritative teaching of the Church and the false teaching of preoccupied men?

The answer, largely, is provided in three passages we've already visited while addressing the last point. Consider the passages we've cited from 2 Thessalonians, 1 Titus, and 2 Peter:

2 Thess 2:15,

15So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

1 Titus 1:9,

9he must hold firm to the sure word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to confute those who contradict it.

2 Peter 3:15-16,

15... So as our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.

What can we glean from these passages? From the first, we establish the importance of Church teachings. From the second, we establish the need for proper understanding, teaching and defence of Church doctrine. From the third, we learn of the dire consequences of twisting doctrine. Specifically, we learn of how the "ignorant and unstable twist [doctrine] to their own destruction". If this is so, it behooves the faithful to ensure that those who hold teaching positions are faithful to traditions held by the Church. Recall that it is the Church, not the individual, that is the "pillar and bullwark of the truth" (1 Tim 3:15). It is the Church, not the individual, that guides the faithful. If an individual teacher abandons the teachings of the Church, the faithful may inadvertantly be returned to a state of being "ignorant and unstable"; therefore it is imparative that the faithful seek the guidance of the universal Church, not just the guidance of a single teacher; the faithful should, in fact, be able to recognize when individual teachers stray from the teachings of the universal Church. As such, while the faithful may be guided in aspects of morality (as opposed to needing to "make that call for themselves"), the faithful must strive to not be "ignorant and unstable".

----

The goal should not be to trivialize individualism, but we should question the merits of individualism for its own sake. We must be wary of clinging to beliefs in the presence of convincing evidence to the contrary. This means being open to evaluating other perspectives. While this may to lead one to question one's existing beliefs, this should not be avoided or feared, for it is through exploration and study that understanding grows. We should not be afraid to follow where the evidence leads. What we should be careful of is accepting evidence without scrutinizing it, of replacing one unstable foundation with another, and we should question the motives of those who ask us to do so.

In the passage cited at the start, the author endorsed the idea that "institutionalized authority wants to cut you off from your soul". We may ask, is this statement too generic to be meaningful? Could it not be possible that some forms of institutionalized authority "want to cut you off from your soul", while others, whether they have truth on their side or not, honestly feel they have your best interests at heart? Or if not your interests, then the will of that which they understand to be divine? Is it not better to follow the popular mantra and "question authority" than it is to take for granted that all institutionalized authority is malevolent by nature? If evidence is not provided, should we not question motives to ensure that we're not being sold propoganda?

After all, there's more than one way to "cut you off from your soul".

Have A Merry Christmas!

2007-12-24T11:07:00.001-07:00

I'd like to wish everyone a Merry Christmas! I hope y'all have a great one :)

Sweet Sassy Molassy

2007-12-21T15:09:00.000-07:00

I've been mulling this one over for a while now.

I've wanted to make an open-faced salmon sandwich. I had a three requirements:

a. I wanted it to taste good
b. I wanted it to look good
c. I wanted it to have visible "layers"

So as I've said, I've been mulling this one over for a while, and last night I took my first stab. I've got to say, I'm extremely pleased with what I've come up with. It needs some minor tweaking, but I think I'm quickly closing in on something I can add to my arsenal.

It all starts with the salmon, since I wanted to make this a salmon sandwich. I seasoned the salmon with salt, pepper, onion powder and garlic powder. Then I gave it a light coating of dijon mustard. Then I sprinkled some dill over it, and hit it with some lemon juice. That went into the oven for baking.

The bread selection is something I think can be played around with. I tried to use ciabatta.

For my first attempt, I cut a ciabatta "roll" in half (I dunno if they are actually considered rolls since they are pretty flat) and used that as the base of my sandwich (remember, we're making an open-faced sammy, so one roll yielded two sammies). I then spread olive oil all over one side. I put that under the broiler for toasting on the olive-oil side (serve toasted side up).

This approach worked ok, as it gave a great taste, but the crust (on the bottom) was difficult to cut through.

For my second attempt, I allocated one roll per sandwich. Rather than cut the roll down the middle, I cut the crust off the top and bottom of the roll. This did three things... first, it left me with a crustless base (except for a ring around the sides). Second, it gave me a thicker base. And third, it caused me to cut myself because I wasn't watching what I was doing (dum-dum). After a bit of swearing, I hit both sides of the base with olive oil and toasted one side. I then cut my base into bite size pieces and built my sandwich on top of this.

This approach tasted just as good, but it became harder to eat because of the lack of a steady foundation. Things just started roaming all over the place. And when that happens, I don't even know if it technically qualifies as a sandwich anymore. I think next time I'll take the second approach but not cut it into pieces.

One more thing that I added that takes a bit of preparation: I took some red onion, cut it into small (not tiny) pieces, which then got marinated in a lemon/lime mix (one or the other would suffice, but I felt like mixing it up). If you have the time, I'd start this marinade an hour before you expect to build your sammy, to really get the citrus juice infused in the onions.

At this point I'm ready for sandwich assembly. I took my sandwich base and spread a nice and thick layer of cream cheese on the toasted side. I then took my onions and placed a good amount of them as the next layer. Then I chopped up some fresh basil and added that on top of the onions. Then some tomatoes followed, which I gave a pinch of salt to make their flavor pop. On top of this went the salmon. Next, I added some alfalfa sprouts (oh yeah). Finally, a splash of the same juice I used to marinade the onions (it has a strong citrusy-oniony flavor). And then, my friends, I was off to the races.

I was very pleased with everything about this sandwich. And, it met all three of my requirements. I liked the play between the dijon and cream cheese, and between the dill and the basil. It all worked well, and by taking a layered approach, it looked very nice.

At this point, the only question I have is the one regarding the type of bread to use. I think I have it figured out... no crust ciabatta with olive oil applied to both sides, but I have to have a test run without pre-cutting it into small pieces. I may want to experiment with other breads, but there are some pretty strong flavors going on and I don't have an immediate candidate that I want to try.

New CDF Document Released

2007-12-21T08:45:00.000-07:00

From the Vatican... The Congregation For The Doctrine Of The Faith has released a new document, Doctrinal Note On Some Aspects Of Evangelization.

It appears as if the physical document has been bouncing around for a few weeks, as I've seen various commentaries to it. However, I hate relying on commentaries without having access to an actual document, so I waited until it was released to the public before I posted about it here. That said, Thomas Peters lists some of the summaries, which you should check out after reading the actual document.

Remember This One?

2007-12-20T08:47:00.000-07:00

I ran across this on YouTube, and since it brought back fond memories, I thought I'd share :)

The Dot and the Line: A Romance in Lower Mathematics:

Biblia Clerus

2007-12-12T18:08:00.000-07:00

The Vatican has put together a nifty site that allows you to read various Bible commentaries.

There's not a whole lot of documentation associated to it, so I'm not sure how complete it is. At first glimpse it looks pretty cool, although they could've used better website designers ;) For instance, the site let's you browse two English versions of the Bible, but it doesn't seem to provide an easy way to change the "default" version (it uses the NAB as default, which I'm not too crazy about, but I'm happy that they offer the RSV as well, which I tend to prefer).

Check it out here: Biblia Clerus

Hopeful Message

2007-11-30T13:28:00.000-07:00

The Pope has released his new encyclical, Spe Salvi, regarding Christian hope. I've not had a chance to read it yet, so if I decide to comment on it, it'll be a few days from now. I would encourage everyone, especially Catholics, to give it a read.

Since we're talking about religion, and Catholicism specifically, I'll take the opportunity to make a few observations about this article: Poll finds more Americans believe in devil than Darwin.

The article cites a recent Harris poll, which can be found here: The Religious and Other Beliefs of Americans.

Here are some the numbers the Reuter's article mentions:

All Adults
	Believe In
God	82%
The Devil	62%
Darwin’s theory of evolution	42%

I find the break-down by religion much more interesting:

By Religion
	Catholic	Protestant	Born-Again Christian
God	92%	95%	97%
Heaven	90%	90%	97%
Jesus Is God Or The Son Of God	89%	91%	96%
Hell	75%	78%	92%
The Virgin birth (Jesus born of Mary)	72%	79%	89%
Darwin’s theory of evolution	43%	30%	16%

According to this poll, only 42% of American Catholics believe in evolution. I find this interesting given that the Vatican has made it abundantly clear that belief in evolution is a matter of science, not of faith, and therefore Catholics are free to believe (or disbelieve) in evolution based strictly on its scientific merits. This means that of those 58% that either do not believe in evolution or are unsure, this disbelief stems from either a disagreement with the science, or from some other source. I have to believe that amongst these "other sources" we would have to count Intelligent Design propaganda, which is really a shame.

We should also observe that while the poll reports that only 42% of American Catholics believe in evolution, only 89% believe that Jesus is God (or the Son of God), and a shockingly low 72% believe in the Virgin Birth. Given that the perpetual virginity of Mary is a dogma of the Church, and in fact one of the often cited differences between Catholicism and the various Protestant denominations, I have to wonder not only about the scientific knowledge of the average American Catholic, but general catechises as well.

This becomes more clear with this data:

Which Books Represent The Word Of God
	Catholic	Protestant	Atheist/Agnostic	Born-Again Christians
The Old Testament (texts used in the Christian religion)	55%	75%	5%	88%
The New Testament (texts used in the Christian religion)	54%	73%	6%	86%

So while only 42% of American Catholics believe in evolution, only roughly 55% believe that the either the Old or New Testament is the Word of God.

This is a sad view of the state of American Catholicism.

Which makes the dissemination of the Pope's new encyclical all the more important.

They Mostly Come At Night... Mostly

2007-10-17T18:29:00.000-07:00

Tip of the sombrero to the Fall of Humanity, which linked to two very interesting stories.

First, we have Bush-Clinton fatigue. From the article:

Forty percent of Americans have never lived when there wasn’t a Bush or a Clinton in the White House. Anyone got a problem with that?
...
And now, if Hillary Clinton were to be elected and re-elected, the nation could go 28 years in a row with the same two families governing the country.

Add the elder Bush’s terms as vice president, and that would be 36 years straight with a Bush or Clinton in the White House.

Next, we have Cheney and Obama are distant cousins: Mrs. Cheney.

From the article:

There's no sign of a family reunion planned, but U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney and Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama are distant cousins.

So here's the deal... if Hillary wins, the Bush-Clinton era continues. Think that'll be a coincidence? Just remember that Bush the Elder and Billy have become best friends. Coincidence? I think not.

Now, if Barack wins, then we get an prolonging of the Bush-Cheney era. Don't think that Barack and Dick share values? Then someone please explain to me why the Obama campaign has changed it's slogan to "Vote for Barack or we'll shoot you in the face!"

Let's face it... if either of these candidates wins, then we're in for a world of hurt.

To avoid accusations of bias, I'll also point out some shenanigans going on with the Republicans.

Consider: John McCain appeared in the movie Wedding Crashers. Who else was in Wedding Crashers? That's right... Owen Wilson. Now, Owen Wilson was also in Armageddon... with Bruce Willis. Bruce Willis was married to Demi Moore, and she was in A Few Good Men... with KEVIN BACON! That's only 4 degrees of separation people!

Dun dun dun!!!

Cap...

2007-10-12T08:58:00.000-07:00

... is back.

And I feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

Desecration

2007-10-07T22:52:00.000-07:00

Found on Yahoo! News (via Drudge), Intruders seriously damage a renowned work by Monet at Paris' Orsay Museum.

From the article:

Intruders entered the Orsay Museum early Sunday and punched a hole in a renowned work by Impressionist painter Claude Monet, "Le Pont d'Argenteuil," the French Culture Minister said.

Fucking savages. I hope they catch these bastards and punch a hole through them. Now that would be justice. Fuck those fucking fuckers.

Burma

2007-10-01T23:31:00.000-07:00

Please read this article from Read/WriteWeb: Lone Remaining Burmese Blogger Uses Lightweight Messaging Service to Broadcast to the World.

From the article:

The story of the monk-led protests in Myanmar, or Burma, and subsequent police crack-down is a widely reported one - but the story is not over yet. Bloggers have been particularly important as the events unfold, posting news accounts and photos to the internet from a country that very few outside reporters have access to. At least one blogger remains active in the country, posting to a lightweight messaging service with an embeddable widget for output; those entries appear live here on the left.

There are links in this article to blogs posting news I haven't seen elsewhere. Please take some time to read this article and check out the links.

Sickened

2007-10-01T09:07:00.000-07:00

Found this via Drudge: Burma: Thousands dead in massacre of the monks dumped in the jungle

From the article:

Thousands of protesters are dead and the bodies of hundreds of executed monks have been dumped in the jungle, a former intelligence officer for Burma's ruling junta has revealed.

The most senior official to defect so far, Hla Win, said: "Many more people have been killed in recent days than you've heard about. The bodies can be counted in several thousand."

...

Reports from exiles along the frontier confirmed that hundreds of monks had simply "disappeared" as 20,000 troops swarmed around Rangoon yesterday to prevent further demonstrations by religious groups and civilians.

Word reaching dissidents hiding out on the border suggested that as well as executions, some 2,000 monks are being held in the notorious Insein Prison or in university rooms which have been turned into cells.

There were reports that many were savagely beaten at a sports ground on the outskirts of Rangoon, where they were heard crying for help.

Others who had failed to escape disguised as civilians were locked in their bloodstained temples.

There, troops abandoned religious beliefs, propped their rifles against statues of Buddha and began cooking meals on stoves set up in shrines.

In stark contrast, the streets of Rangoon and Mandalay - centres of the attempted saffron revolution last week - were virtually deserted.

I have no comment. What could I possibly have to say about this that has any meaning at all?

Just The Facts, Ma'am

2007-09-24T19:43:00.000-07:00

This little tidbit from Time, Was John Paul II Euthanized?, has been getting a bunch of press lately.

From the article:

In a provocative article, an Italian medical professor argues that Pope John Paul II didn't just simply slip away as his weakness and illness overtook him in April 2005. Intensive care specialist Dr. Lina Pavanelli has concluded that the ailing Pope's April 2 death was caused by what the Catholic Church itself would consider euthanasia. She bases this conclusion on her medical expertise and her own observations of the ailing pontiff on television, as well as press reports and a subsequent book by John Paul's personal physician.

...

The issue of euthanasia and the Church heated up in Italy last year after a man named Piergiorgio Welby, who'd been on life support for nine years from the effects of muscular dystrophy, asked for the right to die. Eventually, the life support was suspended and he died. But when his wife, a practicing Catholic, asked for a funeral in Church, the Vatican refused. Pavanelli says that this episode prompted her to revisit John Paul's death.

In a Big Top exclusive, we've learned that Time has decided to follow up their investigation of John Paul II with informative reports on the following unbiased articles:

- According to the Liberal Catholics of America Reader, two weeks before his death, John Paul II said "Women priests? Sounds like a great idea"

- According to the Orthodox News and Review, a week before his death, John Paul II was heard saying "Primary, first amongst equals... whatever"

- According to Calvinist Today Magazine, when John Paul II last received the Eucharist, he said "maybe it is just a cookie"

- According to the Anglican Weekly, John Paul II's last words were "God save the Queen!"

Gotta love that the stories in Time never push an agenda.

And Away We Go...

2007-09-11T00:12:00.000-07:00

Now that the Cardinals have gotten their first loss out of the way, can we please stop all the talk about how this season will be "their season"? Please?

The Cards suck. They always have, and they always will. Whatever talent we get... whatever talent we ever get... will never help our plight. We'll just bring them down to our level. That sucky, aint-ever-gonna-have-a-winning-season level.

Please people, the Cardinals suck and all you're predictions aren't going to help a lick. So stop it. It's just annoying.

The Depravin'

2007-08-31T13:10:00.000-07:00

I disboarded, my eyes bleary, and walked my body, weak and weary,
Over to the men's room after a long flight from Baltimore,
In a stall I started crapping, and suddenly there came a rapping
And on my foot I felt a tapping, tapping from the bathroom floor.
"Tis a traveller," I pondered, "standing at my bathroom door -
He needs to poop and nothing more."

How distinctly I recall, it was Summer, approaching Fall,
And the lighting placed above the stall cast many shadows 'cross the floor.
Patiently I sat a thinking, cursing that I went a drinking,
And then my spirit started sinking - sinking from the night before;
From the rare and radiant ass I made of myself the night before -
This I'll mention nevermore.

And I felt my eyes grow wider: What came 'neath the stall divider
Chilled me, filled me with unworldly terrors never felt before;
I jumped back, quickly retreating from a hand that was entreating
For an unrequested meeting, no doubt with my chamber door.
Some late night raucous meeting in my chamber door,
Which is "exit only"... nothing more.

Presently my soul grew stronger; hesitating then no longer,
"Sir," said I, "I must decline, so your forgiveness I implore;
But the fact is I was crapping, and I don't go in for any lapping,
Kissing, groping, gentle slapping, or rolling on the bathroom floor."
Then I thought about what's happened and the hand down by the floor,
And I called out, "Senator?".

Then I heard a noisy clang as the next door stall opened with a bang
And I heard the occupant bolt, run outside the restroom's door.
All this while it was seeming t'was a nightmare I was dreaming,
It made me mad, and I'm still steaming, 'bout that hand across the floor;
They should make all stall dividers go all the way down to the floor.
I'll drop a deuce in nothing more!

Going, Going, Gone-zales

2007-08-27T17:53:00.000-07:00

Alberto Gonzales has resigned his position as Attorney General.

We here Under The Big Top sent an investigative reporter to do some further digging. Here is the unconfirmed transcript:

Big Top Reporter: So Mr. Gonzales, why did you select September 17th to resign?

Alberto Gonzales: I'm afraid I don't recall that.

BTR: Wait, what? Didn't you just submit your resignation?

AG: I'm afraid I don't have those records in front of me. Are you sure my office is responsible for this?

BTR: Ummm, what?

AG: Do you have any cookies? I like cookies...

Passing the Buck

2007-08-24T08:53:00.000-07:00

Don't blame my diet... I must've caught a case of "fatass" on the bus.

Liquor In The Front

2007-08-20T20:20:00.000-07:00

I was driving home from the Albertson's yesterday when I saw it.

I've been doing my shopping at Albertson's lately because they're running a promotion that for every $10 that you spend there, you get a stamp; if you collect enough stamps, you get to trade them in for wonderful prizes. Well, actually, you get pots and pans.

I don't really need pots and pans, but the stamps remind me of the Green Stamps that stores used to give out when I was a kid. At that time, you really did get to select from a wide variety of prizes. Not so much these days. But, in the spirit of nostalgia, I now do most of my shopping at Albertsons. Then I come home and put my stamps on my little stampbook, and I feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

Karen, of course, just rolls her eyes at me, because I end up spending way more on groceries than I normally would. This is because whenever I go to the store, I try to spend in increments of $10. If I happen to be short, then I get something else to bump it up to the next stamp; but nothing so expensive that I have to do a second bump due to being in that "too close to not bump it up" range.

My fascination with stamps is partially due to the Green Stamps we got when I was a kid, and partially due to my fondness of collecting things. When I was a kid, I collected basketball cards. When I got older, I collected comics. When I got older, I collected trading cards. I don't currently collect anything, and so I get a little antsy every once in a while. I'm thinking about going back to comics, because I had the most fun during that period of collecting, and I can justify it now by saying that I'll pass my collection down to my kids when they come of age. How cool would that be, if your dad gave you the complete collection of the X-Men or the Fantastic Four? Of course, I wouldn't give my comics to my kids... I'd just let them read them. Supervised. In a controlled, sanitized environment. Don't want those little bastards to get their grubby little hands on my mint comics and ruin them. Grrr.

But this story isn't about stamps, comics, or collecting. It's about what I saw on my way home from the Albertsons.

What I saw was a local shop having a "going out of business" sale.

I'm usually sad when I see a local business fold, but on this particular occasion, I felt myself do a small jump for joy. It was a liquor store going out of business, and they had slashed their prices to get rid of their inventory so they could get the hell out of Dodge.

Booze on the cheap? Are you kidding me??? I'm there!

So I run home, drop off my groceries, and head back out to the liquor store. When I get there, the place is packed. A line is formed outside the door, and in no time I come to learn that everything is reduced by 80%, but patrons were allowed to purchase only two items at a time. I note that after people made their purchases, they would put their bottles in their cars and then return to the queue. This seemed to be a reasonable way to spend the afternoon, so this is exactly what I did. And I wound up coming away with some pretty sweet deals.

I did, however, make one critical mistake that cost me $100.

At 8 o'clock, the owner announced that it was closing time, and that the next two customers would get the last two bottles in the place for free. As luck would have it, I was next in line, and this guy, Chuck, was behind me. Since I was next in line, I was given the opportunity to choose the bottle I wanted. My choice was between a bottle of 1998 Moet & Chandon Dom Perignon Champagne and a bottle of 18 year old Glenlivet scotch. From my time in line, I had learned that Chuck preferred liquor to wine. I'm impartial, and so I decided to be a good guy and let him have the scotch. This left me with the champagne, and while I'm not really a champagne drinker, Karen enjoys drinking it, so it would all work out in the end.

So, the shop owner gave Chuck his bottle of scotch, and Chuck bolted out the door with his free hooch in hand. Then the owner gave me my bottle of champagne. Then he asked me for $100.

"Waitaminnit, you said that I would get this bottle for free. Chuck got his bottle for free... whyfor are you gonna charge me $100?"

And the shop owner said, "you mean you haven't learned this lesson yet?"

And then it dawned on me. I knew what he was talking about, and I paid the $100.

After all, it's true: free Dom isn't free.

Thank you. Thank you very much.

Ghost Of A Chance

2007-08-19T14:03:00.000-07:00

Suppose that one night a group of friends of mine are going down some windy mountain back road, heading towards an abandoned hotel that one of them has just inherited from some newly deceased, distant, rich relative. Also suppose that as they take one particularly sharp turn, they run down a girl crossing the road, and rather than call the authorities, they decide to bury her in the woods. Suppose that the ghost of this girl hunts my friends down and kills them, one by one, as they work to renovate the aforementioned hotel.

Next suppose that I, due to work commitments, &c., was unable to go with my friends, but was going down a few days later. Finally, suppose that days after arriving at the haunted hotel, I was killed in some grisly manner or another by the embittered ghost of the run-down girl.

If that happened to me, I would want my ghost to come back so that I could haunt the ghost that killed me.

Why is it that in horror movies we see these ghosts running around killing people, but these dead people never turn into ghosts themselves and seek revenge against the ghosts that killed them? I'll tell you, if some ghost kills me for something that I had nothing to do with, I'm going to be pissed off, and I am going to want revenge.

I don't know if there's anything I'd be able to do about it, being a ghost haunting another ghost and all, but at least I could be annoying. I could float around, three feet behind the ghost that killed me, clucking like a chicken for days on end. I could wait until my enemy ghost is at ease and pop in, pass ghost wind, then pop out. At the very least I could wait until someone else shows up at the hotel, and when the jerk-head ghost tries to kill them, I can pop in and give the living hints to prolong their lives, thereby irritating the ghost that killed me. I'd pop in and say to the human, "don't open that door... evil ghost is behind it and is waiting to kill you". And then the ghost would be sitting there for hours like an idiot, waiting for the human to walk in, but they never would. And they'd be like, "aw, man... I never should've killed Luis, he's such an asshole". And I'll be all like, "that's right, sucka, now you gotta suck it".

Let that serve as a word of warning to all of you out there. If you happen to die some unfortunate death and come back as a ghost to wreak havoc on all of humanity, you don't want any of this. I'll jack up any mofo ghost that messes with me.

A Fistful of Pesos

2007-08-14T19:40:00.000-07:00

I know, it's been a while since I last posted. I've taken this time to do some inner reflection... examining my life and asking the big questions. You know what I mean? Like, where am I going? Where have I been? Am I truly happy with my life?

Ok, that's all crap. I've not really had a whole bunch to say lately, and so rather than bore you with bullshit, I've just decided to keep my fool mouth shut. But the time has come, as the walrus said, to talk of many things.

Actually, just one thing today. But boy does this one have me pissed off.

Don't know if you've seen, but Taco Bell has a new promotional item out. The Grande Quesadilla.

"Hey Luis, before you begin... haven't you always said that Taco Bell isn't really Mexican food, but rather 'Mexican influenced', and therefore any criticism of them should reflect this?"

Yes, I have said this. And shut up, I haven't said anything yet so I don't see why you feel the need to interrupt me so early on in my rant.

As I was saying, before I so rudely interrupted myself... Taco Bell has a new promotional item. A so-called Grande Quesadilla. Advertised as "a more filling quesadilla", it consists of (to paraphrase) a blend of three cheeses, grilled carne asada steak or marinated all-white-meat chicken, and thick, warm panadero bread.

There are two things about this that annoy the hell out of me.

First, the use of "panadero bread". Those of you who speak Spanish should know right away why this irritates me. Those of you who don't are fixin' to find out.

The Spanish word for "bread" is "pan". The word "panadero" means "baker". So when they say they are using "panadero bread", they are saying that they are using "baker's bread". Now, I'm not going to go into the existential debate of whether one who bakes bread is necessarily considered a baker, but c'mon now. Baker's bread? Are they next going to try to sell me rancher's beef or farmer's vegetables? Could they not think of a better thing to call this than baker's bread?

But that's only my minor complaint. The second thing is what really annoys me.

Since when can someone make a quesadilla without using tortillas? Don't we already have a name for the result of putting various items between two pieces of bread (whether or not the bread was baked by a baker)? Seems to me we already have a name for this, and it isn't quesadilla.

The savvy observer may note that the "Grande Quesadilla" isn't just a bunch of stuff between two pieces of bread. The bread is then grilled in such a way so that the cheese inside is melted. Very true, but IT'S STILL A FREEKIN' SANDWICH!!

Since when do we call a freekin' grilled cheese a quesadilla? Does the steak or chicken make a difference? Well, let me think... does it make a difference when we add ham to a grilled cheese? Do we call it a ham quesadilla? No, we call it a freekin' grilled ham and cheese sandwich.

*grumble*

Sorry... little irritates me more than when something is called something it isn't.

We will now resume normal programming.

One, Holy and Apostolic

2007-07-10T19:47:00.000-07:00

The Congregation For The Doctrine Of The Faith has published a new document today. Before you believe any of hype, check out the document for yourself: Responses To Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects Of The Doctrine On The Church.

It actually says almost nothing new, and nothing surprising. Unfortunately, I've seen some horrendous reporting regarding the contents, and as a result, I've seen some very negative reactions to the document from some non-Catholics. But to be fair, I've also seen some negative reactions to the document from non-Catholics who've actually read the document ;)

Wedding Pictures

2007-07-10T08:51:00.000-07:00

Hey folks,

For those interested, pictures of Karen's and my wedding can be found here (slideshow).

What The Hell?!?!

2007-07-09T19:30:00.000-07:00

Two "Hell" related stories that caught my attention today:

We found the first while browsing over at The Fall Of Humanity. Here's the article: Catholic school opens gates to Hell boy.

From the article:

The Hell family says it may tell a Catholic school in Australia where to go after it objected to enrolling their son because of his name.

Officials said the boy had been offered a place at the St. Peter the Apostle school in the southern city of Melbourne after discussions between the principal, the parish priest and the family over his name.

But Alex Hell said he would rather send 5-year-old Max elsewhere because the school balked at taking the boy over his family name.

"We are the victims of our name," Hell said Monday.

Hell said he and his wife approached St. Peter the Apostle school about enrolling Max because the boy was being bullied at his current school because of his name, the Herald Sun newspaper reported on its Web site.

The Catholic school supported a plan to enroll Max using his mother's maiden name, Wembridge, but then withdrew its invitation when the parents changed their minds about the name, Hell said. The school backed down and offered Max a place only when Hell took the issue to the media, he said.

...

Hell said he had Austrian heritage and that the name means "bright."

How utterly disappointing. Both the school's principal and the parish priest should have acted with greater charity, especially since "the boy was being bullied at his current school because of his name". Very disappointing indeed.

---

The second story comes from ABC: A Question Of Hell: One Minister Questions Its Existence.

From the article:

Recent years have provided plenty of church scandals, but an unlikely one has occurred in the Bible belt. A prominent Tulsa, Okla., minister was scandalized not by sex or embezzlement, but by his belief in hell.

When Carlton Pearson began wondering if modern believers still need a medieval pit of fire, it cost him his congregation.

...

But through the years, as he as he studied the ancient Greek and Hebrew scriptures, Pearson developed a crisis of faith.

"I couldn't reconcile a God whose mercy endures forever and this torture chamber that's customized for unbelievers," he said. "You can't be happy. And how can you really love a god who's torturing your grandmother?"

The more he studied, the more he saw the Bible not as the literal word of God, but a book by men about God, with primitive men prone to mistranslations, political agendas and human emotions.

I find it curious how the folks at ABC frame this as, "When Carlton Pearson began wondering if modern believers still need a medieval pit of fire, it cost him his congregation".

Compare this to the article we presented a few days ago, "I am both Muslim and Christian", which describes an Episcopalian priest declaring herself to be both a Christian and a Muslim. The basic facts in that discussion are the same as the ones in this one: you have a church leader who believes something contradicting their professed faith, or, to put it more bluntly, you have a heretical leader. In the case of Rev. Redding, she believes in the tenets of Islam; in the case of Carlton Pearson, he believes that the Bible is nothing but "a book by men about God".

(I won't address Pearson by a title since none is given in the article and I don't want to presume; however, I do want to emphasize that no disrespect is intended)

The question remains the same: why would a heretical church leader expect to retain his office?

While I understand that the folks at ABC framed the discussion the way they did to promote their special on Hell, I just am a little soured that they played this angle when there's a much more interesting angle to go after (IMO, at least).

Summorum Pontificum

2007-07-07T12:18:00.000-07:00

The rumors were true, and the Pope has issued the Motu Propio: Summorum Pontificum, on the Roman liturgy prior to the reform of 1970 (that's the link to the official Latin text; here's a link to the unofficial English translation). The Pope has also sent along an accompanying letter of explanation, describing the hows, whys and whats of the Motu Propio (that one's official and in English).

From the text of Summorum Pontificum:

Having pondered at length the pressing requests of these faithful to our predecessor John Paul II, having also heard the fathers of the consistory of cardinals held March 23, 2006, having pondered all things, invoked the Holy Spirit and placed our confidence in the help of God, by this present apostolic letter we decree the following.

Art. 1. The Roman Missal promulgated by Paul VI is to be regarded as the ordinary expression of the law of prayer ("lex orandi") of the Catholic Church of Latin rite, while the Roman Missal promulgated by St. Pius V and published again by Blessed John XXIII as the extraordinary expression of the law of prayer ("lex orandi") and on account of its venerable and ancient use let it enjoy due honor. These two expressions of the law of prayer ("lex orandi") of the church in no way lead to a division in the law of prayer ("lex orandi") of the church, for they are two uses of the one Roman rite.

Hence it is licit to celebrate the sacrifice of the Mass in accordance with the typical edition of the Roman Missal promulgated by Blessed John XXIII in 1962 and never abrogated, as the extraordinary form of the liturgy of the church. The conditions laid down by the previous documents "Quattuor abhinc annos" and "Ecclesia Dei" for the use of this missal are replaced by what follows: ...

And from the letter:

There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture. What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church’s faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place. Needless to say, in order to experience full communion, the priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books. The total exclusion of the new rite would not in fact be consistent with the recognition of its value and holiness.

Now that it's official, I'll be very curious to see how this plays out on the local level (how many priests are there who are qualified to celebrate the Mass using the 1962 Missal?). I'll also be curious to see what the non-Catholic reaction will be, and especially how the motu propio will be portrayed in the media.

I have high hopes that Summorum Pontificum will have a very positive effect, and I hope that Catholics read the Pope's words carefully and not create controversy where none should exist.

Exploring Belief: Apology

2007-07-06T08:55:00.000-07:00

I had previously said that I was going to start this "Exploring Belief" thread and to keep it running for as long as possible, and I was going to start with an examination of the Catholic doctrine of Purgatory. Well, I've decided against it, for a couple of different reasons. But before I get into them, I want to apologize to those folks who were interested for not continuing the series.

The primary reason that I've decided against continuing this thread is that I've already covered this topic. Long ago, I kept a separate blog for theology-related discussions (the site I kept it on shut down and rather than create it anew, I just started having those discussions here). The last topic discussed before the "shut down" was a long discussion of the Jehova's Witness concept of "sleep state" during death. This discussion was to take place in four parts: the first would describe the JW belief, the second would discuss the Catholic understanding of he afterlife (a discussion of Heaven/Purgatory/Hell), the third would discuss the ancient Jewish notions of the afterlife, and the final one would discuss how the JW view could not be reached via a "logical conclusion". We got as far as the third item on the list.

As I prepared my discussion here, I went back to that work and started scavenging material from my more complete Heaven/Purgatory/Hell treatment for this Purgatory-specific discussion. That left me with a bad taste in my mouth because I'd prefer to present new content, even if this other stuff isn't available anymore. Also, I kept finding myself distracted by the discussion of Jewish beliefs, which I happen to find absolutely fascinating, and since I've managed to fill in a bunch of blanks since that conversation ended, I got way off topic even in my note taking. So rather than rehash old work (and find myself distracted by unfinished work), I've decided to stop it altogether.

That explains why I stopped the Purgatory discussion, but I've also decided to stop the "Exploring Belief" thread altogether. And to be honest, I shouldn't have started it to begin with, because I've already started a theology-related thread that I really want to conclude, and I don't need another thread to distract me (goodness knows ADD-boy has enough trouble staying with the program).

If you'll recall, back in September I reviewed Kelly's book Satan: A Biography. I mentioned that I wanted to tackle some of the topics raised in this book in future conversations, and I've been busy preparing to do just this. While it will be a while before any of these actually kick off, here's a preview of the conversations I want to have:

First, a discussion regarding the books Kelly uses as "scripture", and in particular, how the Book of Jubilees and the Book of Enoch fit in with the Jewish scripture. This is where I am now, which has led me to do a bunch of reading on the formation of scripture, the history of Judaism, etc. All very fascinating stuff, not only from a historical perspective, but also from a religious one: the more I study, the more my faith is challenged (which I consider to be a good thing). This is where I've been spending my time since September, and I expect to be here a while longer.

The second discussion I'd like to have would be an analysis of the treatment of Satan in the Bible. This is where I think Kelly went majorly askew, and I'd really like to explore this.

Third, I'd like to talk about the historic treatment of Satan in the Catholic Church. This may take a while because it will involve reading through old Church documents, some of which may not be translated. And as you know, I can't read Greek or Hebrew, and my Latin is shaky, so this discussion will come along with its own set of challenges. Finally, I'd like to wind up the topic with a conversation of the depiction of Satan in art.

All of this will take a while to sort out (read months instead of weeks, maybe years instead of months), especially given my proclivity to shoot off on tangents. But I do hope that you'll forgive me for dropping the "Exploring Belief" thread. In my infinite amounts of free-time, I'd love to post the old "theology blog" discussions somewhere off of my main page (which also has been long neglected). But we'll see how that goes. In the meanwhile, I'll address short topics as they come up in day-to-day life. I think that's reasonable.

Itsy-Bitsy Spider

2007-07-02T16:36:00.000-07:00

07.07.07

2007-06-29T08:45:00.000-07:00

That's the new date given for the Pope's motu propio (on the Tridentine Mass) to be published. According to widespread reports, it's already been discussed with certain bishops.

For now, I'll stick to my previous pessimism. (Pessimism about the media, not the motu propio, which I'm very much in favor of)

Dog Won't Hunt

2007-06-23T11:34:00.001-07:00

I ran across this via Digg: 10 Ways to Avoid Speeding Tickets.

Here's a summary:
  1. Drive within 5-10 mph of surrounding traffic
  2. Try to stay in the middle of the pack
  3. Find a "rabbit."
  4. Do not change lanes frequently, tailgate or otherwise drive aggressively.
  5. Avoid the fast lane
  6. Watch for cut-outs and modulate your speed accordingly
  7. Don't speed when you are the only car on the road
  8. If it's ok legally, get a radar detector
  9. If possible, drive a nondescript vehicle
  10. Be aware that appearances count

Conspicuously missing from this list? Howabout this one: "don't drive faster than the speed limit allows".

Don't get me wrong... I'm not saying that I don't push the speed limit from time to time. But isn't it a bit odd that AOL would have a "here's how you break the law and not get caught" article? Yadda yadda "free speech"... yadda yadda "victimless crime". It just seems kinda wrong to me.

I like my lawbreakers to keep quiet about their activities. Call me old fashioned that way.

No Dog In This Hunt

2007-06-20T08:53:00.000-07:00

Here's a fascinating article, "I am both Muslim and Christian". I won't comment, but I will pose a few questions.

Here's how the article starts (emphasis mine):

Shortly after noon on Fridays, the Rev. Ann Holmes Redding ties on a black headscarf, preparing to pray with her Muslim group on First Hill.

On Sunday mornings, Redding puts on the white collar of an Episcopal priest.

She does both, she says, because she's Christian and Muslim.

Redding, who until recently was director of faith formation at St. Mark's Episcopal Cathedral, has been a priest for more than 20 years. Now she's ready to tell people that, for the last 15 months, she's also been a Muslim — drawn to the faith after an introduction to Islamic prayers left her profoundly moved.

Here's where a bunch of my questions come in:

Redding's views, even before she embraced Islam, were more interpretive than literal.

She believes the Trinity is an idea about God and cannot be taken literally.

She does not believe Jesus and God are the same, but rather that God is more than Jesus.

She believes Jesus is the son of God insofar as all humans are the children of God, and that Jesus is divine, just as all humans are divine — because God dwells in all humans.

What makes Jesus unique, she believes, is that out of all humans, he most embodied being filled with God and identifying completely with God's will.

She does believe that Jesus died on the cross and was resurrected, and acknowledges those beliefs conflict with the teachings of the Quran. "That's something I'll find a challenge the rest of my life," she said.

She considers Jesus her savior. At times of despair, because she knows Jesus suffered and overcame suffering, "he has connected me with God," she said.

That's not to say she couldn't develop as deep a relationship with Mohammed. "I'm still getting to know him," she said.

My first question is, how do the rank-and-file Episcopalians feel about Rev. Redding's views?

Here's the motivation behind the question: I am somewhat ignorant about the current climate in the Episcopal Church, but I do know quite a bit about the Anglican Church, of which they are a Province. From my studies I've found the Anglican Church to have and try to adhere a fairly well-defined set of dogmas (as opposed to other denominations that may be more liberal with their tenets). So, if the rank-and-file Episcopalian is like his Anglican brother, he would have a degree of concern for the adherence of orthodox Episcopalian dogma. Given that one of the roles of a priest is that of teacher, how do they feel knowing that one of their teachers doesn't believe in certain Church dogmas?

My second question is, how does Rev. Redding approach her teaching role as priest?

Given Rev. Redding's views, I wonder how she will approach those situations when she's wearing her "teaching hat" and she's asked questions that either fall in her "muddy waters" (such as the death of Jesus) or to which she's in conflict with Episcopalian dogma (such as the divinity of Jesus). It seems that there will come a time where she may have to choose between her role as an Episcopalian teacher and her personal views; a time when she would have to choose between teaching a dogma which she may not agree with (and thus not be true to her beliefs) and teaching her perspective (and thus not be true to her role as an Episcopalian teacher). One possible solution is for Rev. Redding to give "both sides of the story", so that she may be true to both. But if the audience is an Episcopal audience, and if this audience is interested (in some degree or another) to orthodoxy, is this still not a violation of her role as Episcopalian teacher?

Let's go back to the article:

Redding's situation is highly unusual. Officials at the national Episcopal Church headquarters said they are not aware of any other instance in which a priest has also been a believer in another faith. They said it's up to the local bishop to decide whether such a priest could continue in that role.

Redding's bishop, the Rt. Rev. Vincent Warner, says he accepts Redding as an Episcopal priest and a Muslim, and that he finds the interfaith possibilities exciting. Her announcement, first made through a story in her diocese's newspaper, hasn't caused much controversy yet, he said.

This raises my third question: is it common for the Episcopal Church to allow local bishops to make this type of decision? It seems like there should be some underlying rule regarding heresy that would be applicable here, and if not, it seems odd that it would be left to a local bishop to decide. (Note: I don't mean to use the word "heresy" as a derogatory term, but simply to mean an inadherence to orthodoxy.)

My fourth question would concern Rt. Rev. Warner and what measures he would take to prevent the spread of heretical teachings.

I want to emphasize that I mean no disrespect to anyone... I find the topic of religion fascinating, and this particular case raises some very interesting issues. Of course I'm of the opinion that Rev. Redding is free to believe what she wishes, but given her role as an Episcopalian priest (and therefore, teacher), the dichotomy of her beliefs begs certain questions. These aren't meant to challenge her beliefs, but rather to inquire about her role as a teacher of dogmas. Ultimately, it's all academic for me, as I have no dog in this particular hunt.

Quality Workmanship

2007-06-15T19:21:00.000-07:00

So it's Friday, and that means beers after work. So I go to Albertson's and get a 12 pack of Newcastles. I don't know if you've seen 12 packs of Newcastle's lately, but they have these little built in cardboard strappy things that act as a handle. We'll, I've always been afraid of what would happen if one snapped and I dropped my 12 pack.

It happened today.

Luckily, I can report that my 12 pack fell to the floor, a few bottles spilled out, but there were no breakers. I had to shovel them back into the remains of the "carton", but the beers were just fine.

I don't know if it was carton construction or beer bottle toughness, but dropping a Newcastle 12 pack in the parking lot did not spoil a night of casual drinking.

Kudos to the folks at Newcastle.

His Argument With The Pope

2007-06-15T08:14:00.000-07:00

Ran across this interesting article by Sandro Magister (from www.chiesa), A Rabbi Debates with the Pope, regarding Rabbi Dr. Jacob Neusner's "A Rabbi Talks with Jesus" and Pope Benedict XVI's response in "Jesus of Nazareth". Included in this article is Neusner's article, "My argument with the pope". From this article:

In "A Rabbi Talks with Jesus" I undertook to take seriously the claim of Jesus to fulfill the Torah and weigh that claim in the balance against the teachings of other rabbis – a colloquium of sages of the Torah. I explain in a very straightforward and unapologetic way why, if I had been in the Land of Israel in the first century and present at the Sermon on the Mount, I would not have joined the circle of Jesus's disciples. I would have dissented, I hope courteously, I am sure with solid reason and argument and fact.

If I heard what he said in the Sermon on the Mount, for good and substantive reasons I would not have become one of his disciples. That is difficult for people to imagine, since it is hard to think of words more deeply etched into our civilization and its deepest affirmations than the teachings of the Sermon on the Mount and other pronouncements of Jesus. But, then, it also is hard to imagine hearing those words for the first time, as something surprising and demanding, not as mere clichs of culture. That is precisely what I propose to do in my conversation with Jesus: listen and argue. To hear religious teachings as if for the first time and to respond to them in surprise and wonder – that is the reward of religious disputation in our own day.

I wrote the book to shed some light on why, while Christians believe in Jesus Christ and the good news of his rule in the kingdom of Heaven, Jews believe in the Torah of Moses and form on earth and in their own flesh God's kingdom of priests and the holy people. And that belief requires faithful Jews to enter a dissent from the teachings of Jesus, on the grounds that those teachings at important points contradict the Torah.

...

But now His Holiness has taken a step further and has answered my critique in a creative exercise of exegesis and theology. In his "Jesus of Nazareth" the Judeo-Christian disputation enters a new age. We are able to meet one another in a forthright exercise of reason and criticism. The challenges of Sinai bring us together for the renewal of a 2,000 year old tradition of religious debate in the service of God's truth.

I was planning on reading the Pope's book, but now it seems that I may get more out of it if I read "A Rabbi Talks with Jesus" first.

However, these will have to wait... I just got my copy of The Canon Debate delivered last night, and by the looks of it, it'll take me a while to chew my way thru it. Not to mention that Harry Potter is out next month, and Spook Country comes out in August. This is turning out to be a pretty good year for reading :)

The Problem With Programming

2007-06-14T08:52:00.000-07:00

Check out this interview with Bjarne Stroustrup, who after all these years, continues to be the man.

From the article:

I think the real problem is that "we" (that is, we software developers) are in a permanent state of emergency, grasping at straws to get our work done. We perform many minor miracles through trial and error, excessive use of brute force, and lots and lots of testing, but--so often--it's not enough.

Excuse me while I geek out.

Big Top Movie Review: 11 June, 2007

2007-06-11T19:49:00.000-07:00

Title: Little Children
Genre: Drama
Year: 2006
Viewed Via: DVD

Review:
I hadn't heard of this movie before I picked it up at the video store, but I'm pretty glad I did. There are two main storylines in the film, the first being about the relationships of two married couples, and the second being about a man just out of prison living in "normal society". I enjoyed it tremendously the first time, but I can't help but feel like there's more I can get out of it with another viewing.

Rating:
The stories were solid, as was the acting... but I have to say that for me, Jackie Earle Haley (the ex-convict) stole the show.

This film gets rated... Joe.

Title: La Tigre e la Neve (The Tiger and the Snow)
Genre: Comedy/Drama/Romance
Year: 2005
Viewed Via: DVD

Review:
The latest offering from Roberto Benigni, "The Tiger and the Show" is an absolutely wonderful film. Mostly set in war torn Iraq, Benigni manages to use these settings to tell a warm, heartfelt love story. Definitely worth a look if you're a Benigni fan, and even if you're not.

Rating:
I liked it almost as much as I liked "Life is Beautiful".

This film gets rated... Joe.

Title: El Laberinto del Fauno (Pan's Labyrinth)
Genre: Drama / Fantasy
Year: 2006
Viewed Via: DVD

Review:
Set in Franco's Spain, this is the story of a young girl and her family. I won't say much more than that, because I really can't do it justice. This film is just too good to miss, so if you haven't seen it, go rent it now.

Rating:
I can't say I've seen a better movie released lately.

This film gets rated... Mr. Blonde.

Title: 13 Tzameti
Genre: Drama / Thriller
Year: 2005
Viewed Via: DVD

Review:
A great film about a man who stumbles across an opportunity to make some money and finds himself in a very bad situation. I think it's the kind of film where the less you know going in, the better off you are. It's a pretty dark film and not at all for everyone, especially if you can't handle violence on film.

Rating:
I liked it. It was simple and straightforward, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.

This film gets rated... Mr. Pink.

(See the General Guide for a description of the ratings.)

Center Ring Attraction

2007-06-05T17:28:00.000-07:00

Clowns are supposed to pile out of cars, not maintain them.

I owe my Jeep an apology :)

$!@&!!!!

2007-06-05T08:44:00.000-07:00

My car broke down again
You know I'll never win
Car broke down again
Duct tape is the only thing
That keeps it together

Overseasoned And Undercooked

2007-06-04T00:07:00.000-07:00

I'd send it back.

If It Were A Steak, I'd Eat It

2007-06-01T20:08:00.000-07:00

It's been a while since my last post. This one will bring you up to speed about what's been going on, in as much detail as I can stomach divulging and I think you can stomach reading.

The last couple of days have found me recalling thoughts I had long ago regarding the arts, particularly, regarding standards of substance and technique. Specifically, when judging whether a particular piece of art is "good", could one use as a criteria that "good" art could be transferred across mediums and retain its "goodness".

For instance, suppose you have a photograph. If you take its content, intent and style into consideration, and apply those traits (or appropriate versions of those traits) to a painting, in essence getting an "artistically equivalent" piece in the new medium, could you argue that if one is "good", then the other must be as well (and vice-verse)?

I think one could make a reasonable argument for this, assuming that each medium is treated with appropriate respect (of course, the level of that respect may be more or less depending on the intent of the artist). This led to some interesting questions in my head regarding art... "would the piece be 'good' if it had been made as an 'equivalent' painting?", "would the piece be 'good' if it had been made as an 'equivalent' sculpture?", "would the piece be 'good' if it had been made as an 'equivalent' culinary dish?"...

This last question has persisted in my head. If you consider the intent, subject and presentation of a given piece of art, and apply all these to a culinary dish to create a "culinary equivalent", could you judge the "goodness" of the original piece by the "goodness" of the culinary equivalent? Think of an arbitrary piece of art... if it had a corresponding dish, would you eat it?

I've taken this and generalized it to more than just art, basically expanding on the expression "hard to swallow". No, this isn't just fatty always thinking about food. It's just a way to look at things (not necessarily a good way mind you, but a way). If an action were a sandwich, what kind of sandwich would it be and would you eat it?

I never said this was going to be a deep discussion... just catching you up with what's been going on.

So last week we got a note from our home association.

We moved into this house about two years ago. It wasn't new, it was previously owned. And the people who owned this house, unbeknownst to us when we bought it, were big do-it-yourselfers. And they sucked at home improvement. Oh, they sucked hard. All of the problems we've had in our home have all stemmed from their half-assing something. Yes, I'm bitter about it, but no, I'm not letting it ruin my day.

So last week we got a note from our home association. The back of our house borders a street, and so my back wall is visible from the street. Our wall is equivalent to every other wall in the joint... cookie-cutter type stuff that you get with home associations. At least it's supposed to be. It turns out that our do-it-yourselfers had a hand at this wall and used a different color brick in some places. Your more observant types would have seen this straight away... I've been here for a couple of years and it took a note from the home association for me to notice. But the home association took notice. It took them a few years, but they took notice. And it became my job to fix it. Or else pay a fine. Grrr.

I have some extra bricks lying around (it seemed strange to me that I had extra bricks, but I never associated them to being left-overs left behind by our do-it-yourselfers), so we grabbed one and trucked it down to Home Depot, where the paint guy plugged it into his machine (yes, I'm sticking with the verb "plug") and got a color match. He made up a bucket of paint, made some manual adjustments, and sent us off with a bucket of pretty-damned-close-to-matching paint. I painted the wall, and now it's up to the home association to make the next move. I think we did a good job. If it were a chicken leg, I'd eat it.

I've fallen way behind on my blogging. I have most of the next "Exploring Faith" post written, it just needs some editing. I know I said that before, but I haven't gotten around to it. Things have been sorta hectic as of late and the blog has been put on the back burner. Now that things have settled, I can start having fun here again.

If you follow this blog you know I've decided to renew the "Movie Review" thread, but I'm having trouble deciding which movies to review. It's been a while since my last post, and I've watched about a thousand movies since then. So I think I'll try to do a couple in rapid-fire succession next week, just to catch up on all the good films and garbage that I've seen (leaving the non-noteworthy ones by the wayside).

I guess I should say something about the wedding. I've been hesitant to, but I said that I would and I don't want to disappoint. So here it is in a nutshell: I got married. Heh.

There were a whole bunch of things that went disastrously wrong on the wedding day. In fact, some things went so wrong that I'd rather put the wedding day out of my head because my feelings are still hurt. I really don't want to go into details about what went bad, but let's just say that if I seemed happy on that day, it was due to a conscious effort to hide my true feelings. Luckily, none of the bad things involved Karen and I as a couple (i.e., we didn't have a fight or anything like that).

That said, some things went very right. Karen and I got married, and that was the point of the day. So while there were some disappointing aspects, none of them really matter in the long run, and I consider myself blest for Karen having agreed to marry me. ("Bist du mir nun ganz ergeben?", "Nun, bin ich dir ganz ergeben!"). So I'm choosing to put the bad things out of my head and not dwell on them, and focus on the good. Actually, as is typical for me, I don't want to dwell on the past at all and just look to the future. We've got babies to make, dammit! Hehe. I will do some looking back from time to time, particularly when I post a wedding page with the pictures of the ceremony and reception, but that'll have to wait until the photographer is ready.

I'll leave you with this, in case you didn't identify the quote:

Now, if that were a steak, I'd eat it!

Luis n' Karen Get Married: Home Stretch Edition

2007-05-15T20:07:00.000-07:00

Ok, so I failed miserably at keeping y'all up to date on the wedding plans. I'll have to do a post-mortem edition (for lack of a better term), because the wedding is this Saturday and there are a ton of things left to do, so there's no way I'm going to be able to do any posting this week. (Actually, I have most of the next "Exploring Faith" post already written... but it needs final editing, so I don't know if it's going out this week or next)

Enough of this lollygagging... I have work to do.

Far Too Tired

2007-05-08T21:55:00.000-07:00

From the New York Times (found via Drudge): Prenatal Test Puts Down Syndrome in Hard Focus

Until this year, only pregnant women 35 and older were routinely tested to see if their fetuses had the extra chromosome that causes Down syndrome. As a result many couples were given the diagnosis only at birth. But under a new recommendation from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, doctors have begun to offer a new, safer screening procedure to all pregnant women, regardless of age.

About 90 percent of pregnant women who are given a Down syndrome diagnosis have chosen to have an abortion.

I'm tired, far too tired, of hearing about abortions. I don't even have the strength to rant. Please insert your own derisive "this life isn't as valuable as that one so let's kill it" comment.