Month: July 2004

A Step In The Right Direction

The Collaboration of Men and Women represents a step forward in the Catholic discussion of gender relations, but only a step.

The document takes issue with the common feminist critique of “patriarchy” and “male-domination” which suggests that “women, in order to be themselves, must make themselves the adversaries of men.” It also takes issue with the fact that “In order to avoid the domination of one sex or the other, their differences tend to be denied, viewed as mere effects of historical and cultural conditioning. In this perspective, physical difference, termed sex, is minimized, while the purely cultural element, termed gender, is emphasized to the maximum and held to be primary. . . . This theory of the human person, intended to promote prospects for equality of women through liberation from biological determinism, has in reality inspired ideologies which, for example, call into question the family, in its natural two-parent structure of mother and father, and make homosexuality and heterosexuality virtually equivalent, in a new model of polymorphous sexuality.”

It is good that the Vatican is taking issue with these destructive threads in contemporary culture. The sexes need to get along harmoniously, not be pitted against each other, and we need to recognize the differences between them and that these differences are in part innate rather than simply cultural or a matter of personal selection. Men and women both can better flourish if they honor the gifts that God gave them rather than trying to downplay, deny, or resist these gifts. They also flourish better through recognizing and honoring the gifts that God gave the other gender.

The document does not offer a sustained critique of the above-mentioned aspects of feminism on their own terms. Instead, it turns to Scripture for an extended discussion of the theme of gender in Scripture and then seeks to apply these insights to the modern world (with the obligatory references to promoting world peace).

What the document says about the genders is correct, but it does not offer sustained argument for the positions it takes–at least not the kind of argument that many feminists are likely to find persuasive. The document appeals more to the biblical vision of womanhood than to natural law considerations. The latter could serve as common ground (or at least potential common ground) with those attracted to feminism but likely to dismiss scriptural considerations as the product of a past culture. Natural law considerations are not absent from the document, but they are not its focus.

The document has a very restricted scope. It is not a full-orbed articulation of the meaning of manhood and womanhood and how the sexes should relate. Indeed, there is virtually nothing said in the document about the biblical or natural meaning of manhood. The document speaks much of “feminine values” and their importance in society and the Church, but there is no parallel discussion of “masculine values” or their importance.

It also passes over some questions that may be most on the mind of people reading it. Though it states that women should be present in the workforce but also should have the freedom to be full-time mothers without suffering social sigma as a result, it does not address how we should view the headship passages in the New Testament.

These kinds of questions are ones that have to be dealt with as part of developing a comprehensive view of the sexes and how they should relate. Consequently, while the document takes a step in the right direction by rejecting some of the most harmful aspects of contemporary feminism, the document’s limited focus means that there are still many more steps to take.

Some Pre-Analysis Grousing

Okay, I’ve read the new document and it is not, as advertised, a fire-breathing denunciation of feminism. How does The Guardian get away with so grossly mislabelling stories (“Pope warns feminists” as a headline when the pope didn’t write the document and it isn’t addressed to feminists, or “Bishops told to take hard line on issue of gender”–sheesh!).

In the same vein, Kurt Barrigan notes:

A short item on the new document appears in today’s Daily Telegraph under the headline “Pope Attacks Feminism.” The word feminism does not appear anywhere in the 7000 word letter and the word feminist appears only once (in criticizing “a certain type of feminist rhetoric”). Far from being an attack on feminism, the letter is an outline of the Christian understanding of our identity as men and women. I hope that this wider purpose of the letter is not obscured by eye-catching headlines.

The document, as usual, has a ponderously long title that badly needs to go on a diet before it develops vascular disease:

LETTER TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ON THE COLLABORATION OF MEN AND WOMEN IN THE CHURCH AND IN THE WORLD

Now, just how are we supposed to refer to that?

“Letter to the Bishops”? No, there’s been about a bazillion of those.

“Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church”? No, that’s getting too long, and virtually all of the aforesaid letters to bishops were written to Catholic bishops, so that doesn’t decrease the number appreciably.

“Letter on Collaboration”? No, there was already one of those a few years ago (in that case, about the collaboration of the laity and priests).

Note to anyone in Rome who might hypothetically be reading this: I know that y’all used to have emperors with overgrown names like Tiberius Claudius Drusus Nero Germanicus, but people didn’t call them that very often. When people wanted to talk about Tiberius Claudius Drusus Nero Germanicus, they called him Claudius. People need to have concise ways to refer to things, so when you write letters, could you throw us a bone, here? Maybe a couple three words in Latin from the beginning of the document or something? Pretty please? With sugar on it?

Also, if you’re taking requests at the moment, could you maybe, possibly not recapitulate the entire biblical history of every theme you mention? By all means do talk about the biblical basis for Catholic teaching. If there’s a passage in the Bible that clearly supports a particular teaching, definitely note it. But if not, could you–y’know–tighten it up a bit?

I appreciate the desire to show that the teaching of Scripture is organically connected, but laboriously noting all of the connections starts to read like the lyrics of Dem Bones (“The foot bone’s connected to the ankle bone, the ankle bone’s connected to the shin bone, the shin bone’s connected to the knee bone: Now hear the word of the Lord!”). This kind of connection-noting bogs down the document, so fewer people will read it, and fewer people will be helped by it.

Sorry if I’m a little out of sorts at the moment, but I’m sleep-deprived. Given the time difference between Rome and San Diego, y’all released this thing in the middle of the night my time (and on a Saturday–when nobody is paying attention to the media–and on the last day of July–just before the Vatican shuts down for the traditional August vacation, so you won’t be around to answer questions; curious timing, guys!), so when I woke up too early this morning, I found I could’t get back to sleep because I was curious about what the document said.

Okay, enough grousing.

Analysis next.

I don't watch political conventions . . .

. . . for the same reason that the press doesn’t cover them that much. In the words of Neil Cavuto,

They wonder why no one covers these conventions. It’s not because they’re pre-scripted. It’s because the script they have is so d*** dull!

There, I said it. [Source]

Well, every so often there’s an unscripted moment. [Language warning!]

I don’t watch political conventions . . .

. . . for the same reason that the press doesn’t cover them that much. In the words of Neil Cavuto,

They wonder why no one covers these conventions. It’s not because they’re pre-scripted. It’s because the script they have is so d*** dull!

There, I said it. [Source]

Well, every so often there’s an unscripted moment. [Language warning!]

Operations Note

I’ve noticed the last few days that the blog has been responding sluggishly on its public side (i.e., when I visit it and load a page). After investigating it, it seems that the holdup has been in the calls it is making to other pages (e.g., to truthlaidbare.com’s eco-system or amazon.com). For some reason those sites aren’t responding as promptly as they usually do, and that’s slowing down how fast my blog loads.

I don’t like that, so I’ve temporarily turned off the eco-system and Amazon links. The site seems to be responding faster now. I’ll leave them turned off for a few days to let the other sites get back up to speed and then try putting them back up again. Thought I’d mention it, though, in case looking at the adorable little rodent image was one of your favorite things to do on the blog or you had been planning to buy one of the recommended books but hadn’t gotten around to it yet. They’ll be back. 🙂

The Passion in Malaysia

Someone sent me this link describing the reception Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ has had in Malaysia.

It’s not what you might think.

Malaysia is a (largely) Muslim country, which means it ought to permit or prohibit the film the same way other Muslim countries have, right?

Since the most Muslim countries–those in the Middle East–allowed the film, Malaysia should, too, right?

Wrong.

The Middle Eastern countries are focused by their hate for Israel, and since there was an absurdly disproportionate Jewish outcry against the film before it was even released, Middle Eastern Muslim countries are more favorably disposed toward it than one would expect. Though traditional Muslim mores forbid the depiction of any prophet (including Jesus), they were willing to show it in perceived defiance of the Jewish people.

Malaysia is farther East, and isn’t subject to the same passions. Malaysian Muslims still oppose Israel, but not with the same intensity. There also are other, local factors that affect the situation. Though Malaysia is mostly Muslim, it’s not by much. Just over 50% of Malaysians are Muslim, so they have to get along with a whole lot of non-Muslims.

In 1969 the country was convulsed by race/ethnic riots that were principally divided along religious lines. As a result, the whole country was powerfully motivated to avoid a recurrence of such riots, and there are constant efforts to make sure that the races (religions) live together “in harmony.”

One prominent minority is the Christians (10% of the population). They need to be kept satisfied–at least to the point of not rioting–and to do that Muslim film censor clerics can be motivated to approve the release of The Passion–the biggest Christian film ever. But they don’t want to release it to the general population lest Muslims convert or–more likely–Muslims riot against it.

Thus the film gets shown in Malaysia, but only (in theory) to Christians.

Father Attempts To Grab Levitating Son

levitatingboyDAILY PLANET (METROPOLIS) — A West Virginia father attempted to grab his levitating, twenty-month old son on Wednesday. The boy, identified only as Jack, suddenly sprang from the floor and became unstuck from the law of gravity.

“This happens all the time,” his father, John, explained. “Especially when he is getting up from a sitting position. Sometimes he hops up too quickly and just keeps going up.”

Kelly, the boy’s mother, explained the need for fast action when an event like this happens. “It’s important to grab him quick,” she said. “We never know how high up he’ll go, as he hasn’t learned to fully control his powers yet. He may bump his head on the ceiling–which could hurt the ceiling–or, if he’s out-of-doors when it happens, he might interfere with local air traffic.”

The boy is improving his levitation skills, claims his father. “He used to only be able to go up and down, but now he’s able to go forward and back. It’s still a kind of slow, jerky process that makes him look a bit like a giant, wobbly bumblebee bobbing around, but he manages. Lately, he’s been levitating around the perimeter of whatever room he’s in, stretching out his little hands to the wall to steady himself.”

The boy also has other special abilities. “He can make microwave popcorn by himself,” his mother reports. “No, I don’t mean that he knows how to use the microwave yet. He just kind of looks at the bag real hard and it starts popping on its own. He loves to do that. He giggles and claps his hands.”

Raising such a boy has presented its challenges. “It’s made it hard to get him all his childhood innoculations. We can get him the oral ones no problem, but it’s pretty hard to give him a shot. You have to angle the syringe just right or the needle breaks off when you try,” his father notes.

“And he’s really hard on shoes,” his mother adds. “Really, really hard.”

Both parents adamantly deny rumors that they found their child in a Kansas corn field on a night marked by unusual UFO activity.

“That wasn’t a UFO,” his father says. “It was just a meteor that made that crater.”

Head Coverings At Mass

The question of whether women still have to wear head coverings at Mass and, if not, how this can be documented, periodically comes up, so I thought I would deal with it here.

Under prior canon law, women were required to wear some form of head covering at Mass. Here is the relevant canon from the 1917 Code of Canon Law:

Canon 1262

§1. It is desirable that, consistent with ancient discipline, women be separated from men in church.

§2. Men, in a church or outside a church, while they are assisting at sacred rites, shall be bare-headed, unless the approved mores of the people or peculiar circumstances of things determine otherwise; women, however, shall have a covered head and be modestly dressed, especially when they approach the table of the Lord.

The Code of Canon Law is a document that for the most part does not deal with liturgical law (see canon 2 of both the old and the new codes). As a result, whenever the Code does say something of a liturgical nature (like canon 1262), there tends to be an echo of it in the Church’s liturgical books. This means that, when the liturgy was integrally reordered following Vatican II, the head covering requirement may have lapsed at that time since it was not repeated in the new liturgical documents. The promulgation of the new liturgical law may have overridden the liturgical provisions of the 1917 Code, just as many provisions of the Code were being overridden in the years leading up to the promulgation of the 1983 Code. While this is a possibility, I have not been able to verify it.

Nevertheless, it is certain that the legal obligation ceased with the release of the 1983 Code of Canon Law. The reason is that the new Code expressly abrogated the old Code, stating:

Canon 6

§1. When this Code takes force, the following are abrogated:

1° the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917;

The legal requirement made by canon 1262 of the 1917 Code thus lapsed with the abrogation of the 1917 Code itself. For the head covering rule to still be in force, it would have to have a different legal basis. However, the revised liturgical documents do not contain it, and neither does the 1983 Code. In fact, the new Code has no canon that parallels the old Code’s canon 1262 (meaning that at Mass men and women no longer need to sit apart, men no longer need to remove their hats as a matter of law, and women no longer need to wear them).

Some recently have tried arguing a different legal basis for the head covering rule by appealing to custom. Canon law does provide for the possibility of customs obtaining force of law, but for this to happen several requirements must be met, as you can see from the following canons:

Can. 23 Only that custom introduced by a community of the faithful and approved by the legislator according to the norm of the following canons has the force of law.

Can. 25 No custom obtains the force of law unless it has been observed with the intention of introducing a law by a community capable at least of receiving law.

Can. 26 Unless the competent legislator has specifically approved it, a custom contrary to the canon law now in force or one beyond canonical law obtains the force of law only if it has been legitimately observed for thirty continuous and complete years. Only a centenary or immemorial custom, however, can prevail against a canonical law which contains a clause prohibiting future customs.

The argument that is made appears to be that the mandatory wearing of head coverings by women is an immemorial custom and thus obtains force of law per canon 26. The problem with this line of argument is that it involves a category mistake. Though we might colloquially speak of the "custom" of women wearing head coverings, this matter did not belong in the legal category of custom prior to its abrogation. It was not a matter of custom but a matter of law. The 1917 Code expressly dealt with the subject, so it was not a custom but a law that women wear head coverings in Church. That law was then abrogated.

One cannot appeal to the fact that, when a law was in force, people observed the law and say that this resulted in a custom that has force of law even after the law dealing with the matter is abrogated. If one could say this then it would be impossible to abrogate any long-standing law–or at least any long-standing law that people generally complied with–because mere law keeping would create a binding custom that would outlive the law.

This means that, following the abrogation of the head covering law, the faithful of the Latin church (the community supposedly still affected by the head covering rule) would have to introduce the practice as a matter of custom, intending it to gain force of law (per canon 25), following which the legislator of the Latin church (the pope) would either have to specifically approve the custom or it would have to be observed for a thirty year period.

Those things have not happened. The faithful of the Latin church did not introduce head coverings after the abrogation of the law regarding them. In fact, even when the subject was a matter of law, it was widely disregarded–so much so that the disregard is probably the reason the law was abrogated. The Latin faithful certainly did not introduce a head covering custom with the intent to bind themselves to observe it, so the requirement of canon 25 is not met. Further, the pope has not specifically approved this non-existant custom, nor has it been observed for a thirty years period, so the requirements of canon 26 are not met.

Also, canon 28 provides that: "Without prejudice to the prescript of can. 5, a contrary custom or law revokes a custom which is contrary to or beyond the law." Since the matter of women’s head coverings at Mass is not dealt with in present canon or liturgical law, a custom involving it would be beyond the law and hence would be revoked by a contrary custom, which is what we in fact have had in the Latin church for the past thirty years.

The argument from custom thus does not provide a basis for a continuing legal obligation for women to wear head coverings at Mass.

Mystery Creature Stalks Maryland

mysterycreatureKnow what this critter is?

Neither, it seems, does anyone else at present.

Yes, one of “nature’s special creatures” is now stalking the byways–and eating from the garbage cans–of Maryland.

Fortunately, the critter seems to be non-threatening (thus far) and is reported to get along well with cats.

Excerpts from the story:

More than a month after the first sighting, the creature has become a neighborhood regular and showing up often.

Kim Carlsen: “It comes to our house. It’s been up in the woods for a while and it comes up through the bottom of our yard and eats our cat food.”

Despite the fact it’s lurking in these woods and no one knows when or where it will come out, no one here seems afraid of it.

Jacob Wroe: “I don’t know, it doesn’t look like it’s going to harm anybody.”

Even the other neighborhood animals like Bullwinkle the dog next door seem okay with the beast.

Kim Carlsen: “It’s not afraid of the cats and the cats seem to get along with it fine.”

The beast is not shy, and visits most often under bright sun. While no one here knows what it is, they do have a name for it — the hyote, a combination of a hyena and a coyote.

In a boon to cryptozoologists, the hyote has been caught on film repeatedly, and in the story above there is a link to a good number of pictures.

Hopefully animal experts will be able to use these to determine what the creature is. If not, it might be captured and viciously identified.